Earth is a ball - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities








Earth is a ball

Debate Information

Looking for one conclusive piece of evidence that the earth is a spinning ball. When examining the evidence without bias, one can only conclude that it is flat.
SilverishGoldNovaNopenamemcnamefeasomeone234EvidencePogueWilliamSchulzGooberryqipwbdeoand 3 others.
  1. Live Poll

    Is the earth A ball?

    36 votes
    1. Yes
      80.56%
    2. No
      19.44%
    3. I don't know
        0.00%
Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

Wayne Dyer
«13456723



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MedicMedic 178 Pts   -  
    Occam's razor states that it is more likely that the earth is round than that the entirety of the scientific community combined with pretty much every government is conspiring to deceive you.
    ErfisflatGhostyPogueSilverishGoldNovaEvidenceanonymousdebaterDrCerealNopeLibertineStatesGeorge_Horseand 2 others.

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -  
    Medic said:
    Occam's razor states that it is more likely that the earth is round than that the entirety of the scientific community combined with pretty much every government is conspiring to deceive you.
    Because governments and science never lies and or is never wrong. Occams razor actually supports a flat stationary earth, seeing as this is what our senses tell us.
    feaDrCerealGooberryNopeLibertineStatesAceTheCosmoZombieguy1987xlJ_dolphin_473
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    We must make the assumption that the government's and government backed scientists are telling us the truth and that are senses are deceiving us, instead of their word, anything else?
    feaNopeLibertineStates
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -  
    And the "entirety" of scientists don't necessarily say the earth is a ball.
    feaEvidenceLibertineStates
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GhostyGhosty 60 Pts   -  
    I will believe that the Earth is a ball when you give me a sensible map of a flat earth.
    And please explain what is happening when a boat seems to rise from the ground when it is coming from the horizon. 

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -  
    Ghosty said:
    I will believe that the Earth is a ball when you give me a sensible map of a flat earth.
    And please explain what is happening when a boat seems to rise from the ground when it is coming from the horizon. 

    The most widely accepted flat earth map is the AE map. I'm not a cartographer, so I can't assume it is correct. 

    Boats disappear and reappear over the horizon due to refraction from an accumulation of water in the air.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • MedicMedic 178 Pts   -  
    This is pretty pointless because it seems like you're ignoring all evidence that doesn't confirm your priors, but a plane's centre of mass is in the middle. Were the earth to be flat, 

    https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/ani-centergravity22.gif

    this would occur. It doesn't. We can tell this by our senses and dropping things. Gravity is constant on earth. The only logical inference we can make is that it is "round".

    https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/ani-centergravity12.gif
    ErfisflatJohnKramerDrCerealLibertineStatesAceTheCosmo

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -  
    "This is pretty pointless because it seems like you're ignoring all evidence that doesn't confirm your priors"

    I've not ignored evidence thus far, to the contrary, I addressed your argument with a reasonable response that you have ignored. I'm asking for conclusive evidence, and the priors that I have are from 2+ years of research. 

    "Were the earth to be flat, this would occur."

    Speaking of assumptions, you are assuming that gravity exists. The observation that objects fall leads to the conclusion that up is up and down is down. The theory of gravity was concocted under the assumption that the earth was a ball. A theory that supports your assumption, a logical fallacy.

    @Medic
    MedicGhostyfeaDrCerealLibertineStates
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -  
    @Medic I must have missed the funny in that. As you said, "This is pretty pointless because it seems like you're ignoring all evidence that doesn't confirm your priors."
    Ghosty
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -  
    As is obvious, all arguments for a spherical earth are refuted and their defendants have conceded.
    LibertineStatesqipwbdeoAceTheCosmo
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmpersandAmpersand 796 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    As is obvious, all arguments for a spherical earth are refuted and their defendants have conceded.
    I'm on mobile so can't offer any reply in depth at the moment, but this is incredibly childish. You are pretending that people have conceded because they haven't replied within a few hours of you posting.

    Not only that but you think you declaring your arguments as being winning arguments is the same as them being that in fact.
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
  • MedicMedic 178 Pts   -  
    This is reasonably pointless, given that once one starts denying the relevance of proven physical phenomena like gravity to the debate, we can safely assume the line of "no return" has been crossed. Gravity is simply caused by the distortion of spacetime by mass.

    Regardless, I've simply got twoquestions for you. One - wouldn't the proving of the earth to be flat be a major propaganda coup for, say, China? Why is it the case that all governments and all scientific consensus agree on this topic, if proving what you see to be the truth would be so advantageous to them. Second, if I were to take an aeroplane and fly it at, say, the speed of sound times five, what would happen after I passed over the edge of the world? I'm genuinely curious. 

    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNovaWilliamSchulzGhosty

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -  
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    As is obvious, all arguments for a spherical earth are refuted and their defendants have conceded.
    I'm on mobile so can't offer any reply in depth at the moment, but this is incredibly childish. You are pretending that people have conceded because they haven't replied within a few hours of you posting.

    Not only that but you think you declaring your arguments as being winning arguments is the same as them being that in fact.
    I see no argument here, just an ad hominem attack.
    fea
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmpersandAmpersand 796 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    As is obvious, all arguments for a spherical earth are refuted and their defendants have conceded.
    I'm on mobile so can't offer any reply in depth at the moment, but this is incredibly childish. You are pretending that people have conceded because they haven't replied within a few hours of you posting.

    Not only that but you think you declaring your arguments as being winning arguments is the same as them being that in fact.
    I see no argument here, just an ad hominem attack.
    Then feel free to back up your claim of it being an ad hominem attack.

    You'll of course keep in mind that an ad hominem attack is not merely any attack someone finds rude or insulting, but one which relies on attacks on someone's character to rebutt their point. Trying to make the claim that someone was making an ad hominem attack when they actually pointed out the issue with your argument - such as explaining that you had pretended people had conceded when they had not - and then also said something you thought was mean would of course just show you had no idea what you were talking about and didn't understand the ad hominem logical fallacy.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    "Gravity is simply caused by the distortion of spacetime by mass."

    That's some great science fiction, but it's not a "proven" phenomenon as you falsely claim. It is an assumption based on an assumption meant to explain how one could live on the underside (whichever side that is) of a spinning ball, which I might add, in any demonstrable circumstance, produces the opposite effect.


    Bendy space time sounds cool, but it's purely fantasy at it's core.

    "One - wouldn't the proving of the earth to be flat be a major propaganda coup for, say, China."

    What does China's space industry make a year? Is it beyond reason that the governments of the world conspire together? Besides, your points stems from your initial argument, paraphrasing, "because they said so", which is a logical fallacy.  

    "if I were to take an aeroplane and fly it at, say, the speed of sound times five, what would happen after I passed over the edge of the world?"

      Five times the speed of sound in dry air or moist? 

    If I were to obtain an aircraft that could fly 3,802.791696 Miles per Hour, and flew as far as I could south, I would find out. Maybe there's an edge, maybe not. Earth may be an infinite plane. The Antarctic treaty prevents most everyone from finding out. Do it, if you get past the U.N. you've probably got an ice desert to cross before you see anything, I'd guess you'd hit a barrier some call the firmament. It's an unanswerable question nonetheless.
    @Medic


    fea
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand

    Perhaps you would like to address an argument or formulate your own for a spherical earth. 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Remember kids, saying the Earth is a ball because Mars is a ball is like saying "look at the cute dog in the bottom right corner"


    ErfisflatMedicGhostyEvidencefeaPogue
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    @Ampersand
    You haven't addressed any specific points, instead, you've chosen to insult my debating style, which is basically a character trait. The fact that you haven't explained how your ad hominem attack even relates to my argument and you've not offered an argument or rebuttal anything specifically speaks for itself. Your argument is basically a big "nuh-uh", "your mom", and will be ignored.
    SilverishGoldNovafea
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -  
    6 hours.

    "As is obvious, all arguments for a spherical earth are refuted and their defendants have conceded."

    Long enough, @Ampersand ?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GhostyGhosty 60 Pts   -  
    Do you have evidence that the government is lying to all of us? You mean all the countries in the world have governments and scientists that are lying to us? 
    Erfisflat
  • Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    As is obvious, all arguments for a spherical earth are refuted and their defendants have conceded.
    I'm on mobile so can't offer any reply in depth at the moment, but this is incredibly childish. You are pretending that people have conceded because they haven't replied within a few hours of you posting.

    Not only that but you think you declaring your arguments as being winning arguments is the same as them being that in fact.
    I see no argument here, just an ad hominem attack.
    Then feel free to back up your claim of it being an ad hominem attack.

    You'll of course keep in mind that an ad hominem attack is not merely any attack someone finds rude or insulting, but one which relies on attacks on someone's character to rebutt their point. Trying to make the claim that someone was making an ad hominem attack when they actually pointed out the issue with your argument - such as explaining that you had pretended people had conceded when they had not - and then also said something you thought was mean would of course just show you had no idea what you were talking about and didn't understand the ad hominem logical fallacy.
    You attacked Erfisflat's debate style rather than his arguments.
    fea
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • MedicMedic 178 Pts   -  
    Right. I'm about to expend far too much effort on this. @Erfisflat

    You seem to have a misunderstanding of the starting point of science. It's conclusively not that we start from an understanding that the evidence of our senses is always correct. We start, as Socrates said, from the fact that "The only thing I know is that I know nothing."

    So let's,together, perform some science. It's not an edifice made by boffins in a laboratory, it's easy and simple.

    So starting from nothing, we can peform one simple observation. You put a brick on a table, the brick stays on the table. You can come back in a week, the brick will still be on the table. It will not have moved. Therefore, we need to explain this. Hypothesis: things that are at rest stay at rest. Testing: We can put lots of other things in lots of other places, and they will stay put. Conclusion: the hypothesis adequately explains the phenomenon.

    Now, we pick up this brick, and we drop it. It falls to the floor. This is now inconsistent with our ab initio science. Therefore, we must amend the hypothesis. Things that are at rest will remain at rest as long as they're on a table or the ground or some form of support. If they're in the air, something must be moving them - remember, we've proven that things at rest stay at rest unless a force acts upon them. Conclusion: a force is acting upon the brick as we drop it. We could call this force "splunge" or "nicknackynoo" but we choose to call it gravity.

    You see how we get from nothing to gravity existing without any reference to the earth being either flat or round? I doesn't matter at this stage.

    Now, we need to work out where this force is acting upon the object. Observation: If you drop, say, a hammer the hammer falls toward the heavier end. Hypothesis: therefore, this force, which we call gravity, acts unequally upon objects. Furthermore, the heaviest bit of the hammer falls faster (it must, because it "turns" toward the heavy end). Conclusion: This force, which we call gravity, acts more toward the heavy bits of things than the light bits of things.

    Now, we want to work out where the force acts in things that aren't obvious, like humans. Observation: in order to balance anything, one must put the balancing point where there are equal amounts of mass each side. Hypothesis: therefore, this force, which we call gravity, acts through the "centre" of the mass. The place in the object where there are equal amounts of mass on all sides. Conclusion: Therefore, in things like humans, the centre of mass is roughly in the middle. 

    Furthermore, we know that gravity acts through the centre of mass, which means that the force goes through a thing's centre of mass to another thing's centre of mass.

    With these tools, which we worked out by simple experiment, we now attack the observation. Observation: humans do not fall off the earth. Hypothesis: therefore, the earth is flat. Testing: If the earth is flat, the center of mass would be in the middle. We can test this by trying to balance a round plane. We furthermore know that the force we call gravity acts through the centre of a thing's mass toward a centre of a big thing's mass.

    Expected observation to prove this hypothesis: therefore, things fall at different rates and different directions because they are different angles to the centre of the earth's mass and different distances away from it. We do not observe this. Testing: we can fly all over the known world, and drop bricks and hammers and books. We find that they fall at exactly the same rate. Conclusion 1: This hypothesis is inconsistent with facts. Conclusion 2: The Earth's gravitational field is constant.

    There is exactly one shape that explains this conclusion. The answer to the question that we pose - "Why don't humans fall off the world" is answered by science ab initio through simple experiments step by step is that - "The Earth is round. Gravity acts through humans's centres of gravity toward the centre of the world. The gravitational field is constant therefore the earth is round."

    I've also never satisfactorily recieved an answer to the question - "Why on Earth would anyone tell us that the Earth is round if it isn't?"

    The Earth is round. We landed on the moon. Science is real. Tax cuts lose money. 9/11 was a terrorist attack. Enough already.
    GhostyJohnKramerqipwbdeoAceTheCosmo

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • MedicMedic 178 Pts   -  

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -  
    Ghosty said:
    Do you have evidence that the government is lying to all of us? You mean all the countries in the world have governments and scientists that are lying to us? 
    Surely you don't need me to prove that governments lie... You born yesterday?
    SilverishGoldNovaMedicGhosty
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -  
    Medic said:
    Right. I'm about 79to expend far too much effort on this. @Erfisflat

    You seem to have a misunderstanding of the starting point of science. It's conclusively not that we start from an understanding that the evidence of our senses is always correct. We start, as Socrates said, from the fact that "The only thing I know is that I know nothing."

    So let's,together, perform some science. It's not an edifice made by boffins in a laboratory, it's easy and simple.

    So starting from nothing, we can peform one simple observation. You put a brick on a table, the brick stays on the table. You can come back in a week, the brick will still be on the table. It will not have moved. Therefore, we need to explain this. Hypothesis: things that are at rest stay at rest. Testing: We can put lots of other things in lots of other places, and they will stay put. Conclusion: the hypothesis adequately explains the phenomenon.

    Now, we pick up this brick, and we drop it. It falls to the floor. This is now inconsistent with our ab initio science. Therefore, we must amend the hypothesis. Things that are at rest will remain at rest as long as they're on a table or the ground or some form of support. If they're in the air, something must be moving them - remember, we've proven that things at rest stay at rest unless a force acts upon them. Conclusion: a force is acting upon the brick as we drop it. We could call this force "splunge" or "nicknackynoo" but we choose to call it gravity.

    You see how we get from nothing to gravity existing without any reference to the earth being either flat or round? I doesn't matter at this stage.

    Now, we need to work out where this force is acting upon the object. Observation: If you drop, say, a hammer the hammer falls toward the heavier end. Hypothesis: therefore, this force, which we call gravity, acts unequally upon objects. Furthermore, the heaviest bit of the hammer falls faster (it must, because it "turns" toward the heavy end). Conclusion: This force, which we call gravity, acts more toward the heavy bits of things than the light bits of things.

    Now, we want to work out where the force acts in things that aren't obvious, like humans. Observation: in order to balance anything, one must put the balancing point where there are equal amounts of mass each side. Hypothesis: therefore, this force, which we call gravity, acts through the "centre" of the mass. The place in the object where there are equal amounts of mass on all sides. Conclusion: Therefore, in things like humans, the centre of mass is roughly in the middle. 

    Furthermore, we know that gravity acts through the centre of mass, which means that the force goes through a thing's centre of mass to another thing's centre of mass.

    With these tools, which we worked out by simple experiment, we now attack the observation. Observation: humans do not fall off the earth. Hypothesis: therefore, the earth is flat. Testing: If the earth is flat, the center of mass would be in the middle. We can test this by trying to balance a round plane. We furthermore know that the force we call gravity acts through the centre of a thing's mass toward a centre of a big thing's mass.

    Expected observation to prove this hypothesis: therefore, things fall at different rates and different directions because they are different angles to the centre of the earth's mass and different distances away from it. We do not observe this. Testing: we can fly all over the known world, and drop bricks and hammers and books. We find that they fall at exactly the same rate. Conclusion 1: This hypothesis is inconsistent with facts. Conclusion 2: The Earth's gravitational field is constant.

    There is exactly one shape that explains this conclusion. The answer to the question that we pose - "Why don't humans fall off the world" is answered by science ab initio through simple experiments step by step is that - "The Earth is round. Gravity acts through humans's centres of gravity toward the centre of the world. The gravitational field is constant therefore the earth is round."

    I've also never satisfactorily recieved an answer to the question - "Why on Earth would anyone tell us that the Earth is round if it isn't?"

    The Earth is round. We landed on the moon. Science is real. Tax cuts lose money. 9/11 was a terrorist attack. Enough already.
    Ill get into a more thorough rebuttal today, but, are you under the impression that on a flat earth we would all be flying around with hammers and books?

    The answer to your question is one that is too long for discussion, and your attitude toward the flat earth tells me you wouldn't believe me anyway. My theory on why is a bit more farfetched than even a flat earth. 

    The earth is flat, nobody went to the moon, the scientific method is real, taxation is theft, we are the terrorists. Enough already.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    Oh, @medic and for my gravity rebuttal,  could you define mass?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • MedicMedic 178 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat
    Mass is the amount of matter in an object.

    >flat earth we would all be flying around with hammers and books?

    obviously not

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 255 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Oh, @medic and for my gravity rebuttal,  could you define mass?
    I don't want to get involved in this debate too much, but the definition of mass is the number of atoms in an object, the acting of gravity on the weight of an object,or its resistance to acceleration. 
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • MedicMedic 178 Pts   -  
    >the acting of gravity on the weight mass of an object
    this is weight
    >,or its resistance to acceleration. 
    this is inertia
    @WilliamSchulz

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • MedicMedic 178 Pts   -  
    Further, ducking the question of motivation by stating that it's too long for discussion is pretty weak tbh given that I wrote out a whole shpiel about the science behind the existence of gravity.

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -  
    Would you then say that air has mass? Helium even? Because when either is added to more mass, gravity is not constant. 

    Things can better be explained without assuming the conclusion with basic laws of buoyancy and density. Everything naturally seeks a point of critical density, whereas denser objects falls to a place of equal or greater distance, and less dense objects seek and equal density.

    This is far more believable than everything being attracted to the center of everything else, which is not demonstrable, unfalsifiable and does not assume that we live on a giant spinning ball. It also doesn't assume our conclusion, which you still haven't proved.  Listen to Newton himself:

    "Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe {innate} gravity to me. That gravity should be innate inherent & {essential} to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or force {may} be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent {acting}  constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers."  A letter correspondence between Newton and one of his associates.

    Scientists today don't even fully understand gravity. Why?

    It's the equivalent of saying that God exists, and pointing to our existence as evidence. 

    How about you perform a science experiment that I have. Find a large body of water, and measure it. (Over 1 mile). That would be conclusive evidence that doesn't require us to use a theory based on another theory.  Then, you wouldn't have to believe anyone. @medic
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • MedicMedic 178 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    >Would you then say that air has mass? Helium even?

    Yes. This is why air pressure exists, because the weight of the atmosphere pushes down on us.

    >Everything naturally seeks a point of critical density, 

    This is an Aristotelian understanding of Physics. It's what's commonly referred to as "bollocks".

    >whereas denser objects falls to a place of equal or greater distance, and less dense objects seek and equal density.

    Here's your issue - we know that objects that are at rest remain at rest. There's a reason bricks don't fall through tables. A force must be acting upon them. In order for something to move a force must act upon it. This force is gravity.

    Scientific theories are set forth by amalgamating the evidence of millions of years. The evidence for the Earth's roundness is multitudinous and accumulated over centuries. When things explain our state of being well enough for long enough. Argument from anomaly isn't enough to disprove scientific theories, not is stating that simply because we do not understand something it must not exist.

    The theory of gravity and a round Earth explains the world well enough and long enough.

    I notice there still is no answer on the possible incentive by any party to tell us that the earth is round if it isn't. 

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • MedicMedic 178 Pts   -  
    >Find a large body of water, and measure it. (Over 1 mile). 

    Lake Superior. It's approx. 350 miles in length. How about the River Thames. It's 18 miles in width. Come on.

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    @medic
    "Further, ducking the question of motivation by stating that it's too long for discussion is pretty weak tbh given that I wrote out a whole shpiel about the science behind the existence of gravity."

    Explaining why does not impact the resolution. It doesn't matter why they would lie (although there are a few obvious reasons). Maybe you can tell me, who and why would hide a flat, stationary, and geocentric earth? How much does NASA make per year to make some Photoshop images?




    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • MedicMedic 178 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    >It doesn't matter why they would lie (although there are a few obvious reasons)

    If your theory is correct that the truth is being hidden from us there must be some motivation. Of course it matters what that is. Remember, you're not only including NASA but every single government on earth. And every scientist within the mainstream. And some that aren't.

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 255 Pts   -  
    Medic said:
    >the acting of gravity on the weight mass of an object
    this is weight
    >,or its resistance to acceleration. 
    this is inertia
    @WilliamSchulz

    No, the words I used were from dictionary.com or Google Definitions. Also, inertia is the constant movement of an object for a given period of time, not resistance to acceleration.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • MedicMedic 178 Pts   -  
    >weight
    a body's relative mass or the quantity of matter contained by it, giving rise to a downward force; the heaviness of a person or thing.
    >inertia
    a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force.



    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • MedicMedic 178 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    Furthermore, were the Sun and Moon to be close enough to explain Erastothenes's stick experiment, we'd be cooked immediately.

    The existence of the "antimoon" that apparently obscures the moon during lunar eclipses isn't based on "the evidence of our own senses", like the rest of the theory. It's, by the reasoning of the Flat-Earthers, . Disparaging theories of gravity with a "gravity is magik xd" when one's own theory requires something for which there has been not a shred of proof ever is a little hypocritical.

    One cannot make claims, then when presented with evidence that one's claims are incorrect claim that the evidence is fake. That's not how science works.

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    @medic
    "Yes. This is why air pressure exists, because the weight of the atmosphere pushes down on us."

    You dodged my main question. Why, when we add mass (air) to more mass (a submarine for example), does mass then not attract mass? Buoyancy and density better explains what happens and no theories or conjecture is needed.

    "This is an Aristotelian understanding of Physics. It's what's commonly referred to as "bollocks"."

    So you're implying that whatever scientific claims Aristotle made, just because they come from him, they're "bullocks" I mean, I'd agree usually, he did first postulate that the earth was a ball because of ships over horizons, but I've not read anything from him counterexplaining gravity, please source it. 

    "Here's your issue - we know that objects that are at rest remain at rest. There's a reason bricks don't fall through tables. A force must be acting upon them. In order for something to move a force must act upon it. This force is gravity."

    Do you think i was born yesterday? I went to school. This is how the theory goes, where is the evidence of this theory? This is the discussion. What causes gravity? Where can I detect it? Bring me a handful of gravity.



    "Scientific theories are set forth by amalgamating the evidence of millions of years."

    Millions? Did the dinosaur (if you believe in dinosaurs) believe that the earth was a spinning ball too?



    " Argument from anomaly isn't enough to disprove scientific theories, not is stating that simply because we do not understand something it must not exist."

    Neither does the bandwagon fallacy. Occams razor support density and buoyancy over gravity.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -  
    "Lake Superior. It's approx. 350 miles in length. How about the River Thames. It's 18 miles in width. Come on."

    You don't think I was talking about distance from shore to shore, did you? Why would I do that to prove the convexity of that body? Are you daft? @medic ;
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • MedicMedic 178 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    >Why, when we add mass (air) to more mass (a submarine for example), does mass then not attract mass? 

    It does. The effect isn't significant enough to notice with the naked eye.

    >So you're implying that whatever scientific claims Aristotle made, just because they come from him, they're "bullocks" 

    they've been disproven many times by evidence and science

    >What causes gravity?

    mass - this was proven by einstein

    >Where can I detect it? 

    the effects of large bodies on other bodies

    >Bring me a handful of gravity.

    mass is equivalent to gravity, so I could bring you a very massive thing. I could bring you a black hole, for instance. The proof of black holes is their effect on stars around them.

    >Millions? Did the dinosaur (if you believe in dinosaurs) believe that the earth was a spinning ball too?

    evidence is not contingent upon the dominant paradigm

    >Neither does the bandwagon fallacy. 

    This usually occurs with new scientific theories. Flat-earthism is an old scientific theory. It was rejected. Bandwagon doesn't hold.

    >Occams razor support density and buoyancy over gravity.

    would be true if density/buoyancy as an explanation of why things fall didn't also require belief in a large and concerted conspiracy by every government on earth and all of science. Further, occam's razor isn't present where there's evidence of things. It's used to establish which is more likely in the absence of evidence.

    I don't think you're , I just think you ignore all evidence that doesn't fit your paradigm instead of starting ab initio.
    GhostyAceTheCosmo

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -  
    @medic
    "Furthermore, were the Sun and Moon to be close enough to explain Erastothenes's stick experiment, we'd be cooked immediately"

    You're assuming the temperature and material of the sun. I've never been to the sun, have you? Ask NASA... lol.

    "The existence of the "antimoon" that apparently obscures the moon during lunar eclipses isn't based on "the evidence of our own senses", like the rest of the theory. It's, by the reasoning of the Flat-Earthers, . Disparaging theories of gravity with a "gravity is magik xd" when one's own theory requires something for which there has been not a shred of proof ever is a little hypocritical."

    You're right, I'm not making any assumptions, it appears you are full of them though. I don't know what shadow is cast on the moon. I've determined, with confidence, for a number of reasons, that it isn't the earth though.
    Ghosty
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • MedicMedic 178 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    >You're assuming the temperature and material of the sun

    No, I'm not. Nuclear physics can tell us the temperature and material of the sun, and it tells us that the heat that is given out by a nuclear reaction of sufficient strength to create a star would kill all life on Earth in an instant - in addition to emitting enough gamma radiation due to nuclear decay to also kill all life on Earth.

    >You're right, I'm not making any assumptions,

    You make one key one - that the "evidence of our own senses is what should be trusted" and as such if science seems to contradict it the science must be wrong.

    I assume, oddly enough, that evidence that contradicts my worldview means that my worldview is wrong. You're working backwards from a solution to an explanation - "our senses tell us that the earth is flat, how can we understand this". 
    Ghosty

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -  
    "It does. The effect isn't significant enough to notice with the naked eye."

    Sounds like more unfalsifiable conjecture to me. I can measure the earth's flatness with my naked eye.

    "mass - this was proven by einstein"

    I'm not in a debate with Einstein. Appeal to authority fallacy.

    I could bring you a black hole, for instance. 

    Seriously? I don't believe you. I know this is all very new to you. If I didn't believe in the existence of a spinning and flying around the "universe" ball earth, what makes you think I believe in black holes? The idea is personally, utterly preposterous to me, until i remember being in your seat, believing whatever I was told. 

    "This usually occurs with new scientific theories."

    I'm glad you said usually there, I would have had to call you out. Scientific theories are reevaluated all the time, especially ones that were dreamed up some hundreds of years ago before even electricity was discovered that stemmed from an older theory based on an observation Aristotle made of ships at sea before even telescopic devices were invented. Not doing so would be dogmatic, the opposite of science.
    @medic
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -  
    "I don't think you're , I just think you ignore all evidence that doesn't fit your paradigm instead of starting ab initio."

    You think I was born a flat earther? Come now, @medic
    Ghosty
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    "Further, occam's razor isn't present where there's evidence of things. It's used to establish which is more likely in the absence of evidence"

    Occams razor takes the least amount of assumptions, in believing or not believing someone is the same assumption. It's 3rd party information. You assume everyone involved is being truthful, I trust myself, and assume nothing. 

    @Medic
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -  
    "No, I'm not. Nuclear physics can tell us the temperature and material of the sun, and it tells us that the heat that is given out by a nuclear reaction of sufficient strength to create a star would kill all life on Earth in an instant - in addition to emitting enough gamma radiation due to nuclear decay to also kill all life on Earth."

    Nuclear physics? Come on. Were talking about real science, not theoretical science and mathematics.

    "You make one key one - that the "evidence of our own senses is what should be trusted" and as such if science seems to contradict it the science must be wrong."

    What science? All you've given me are theories and conjecture. Read my signature, and tell me how I can use the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to conclusively determine the earth is a spinning ball.

    "I assume, oddly enough, that evidence that contradicts my worldview means that my worldview is wrong. You're working backwards from a solution to an explanation - "our senses tell us that the earth is flat, how can we understand this". "

    You're working from the conclusion to an explanation. "The earth must be a ball, so a magical force holds people upside down from their toes on the bottom, this must be true, so the earth must be a ball." 

    @medic ;
    Ghosty
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • MedicMedic 178 Pts   -  
    I'm not sure how I can make this easier for you to understand - the assumption you are making is that the evidence of your own senses is correct. You then state that we must understand science in terms of the evidence of our own senses presenting a "simpler" and therefore correct argument. You then take this to the logical conclusion, which is that the truth is being concealed from us. It is, however, not in fact simpler to assume that everybody is lying to you about things they have no incentive to lie about than that the scientific consensus which is constructed by the accumulation of evidence and the testing of hypotheses is broadly correct.

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • MedicMedic 178 Pts   -  
    >Were talking about real science, not theoretical science and mathematics. 

    one can observe the hypotheses of nuclear physics in action

    > Read my signature, and tell me how I can use the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to conclusively determine the earth is a spinning ball.

    Observe the current paradigm. Observe the evidence. Develop hypotheses. Compare these hypotheses with the evidence. If these hypotheses contradict the evidence, the hypothesis is wrong.

    >so a magical force holds people upside down from their toes on the bottom

    I won't pretend that gravity isn't complicated, but come on. There's also no "bottom" to speak, given that we define direction in terms of up and down but within the paradigm of space, there's no "cardinal" or absolute direction.
    AceTheCosmo

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

This Debate has been closed.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch