Okay, I definitely argue pro Round Earth, but honestly, I can't
prove it. I can't even say I
know it for myself. But I want to look at this as objectively as possible, so this is what I propose:
One, lets say, you are talking to someone who honestly can't say either way, and is looking into the discussion. We have two sides being debated here, there could be other theories we have no need to touch upon. We give the layman two distinct options:
Round Earth:- Maps apparently show locations of places and land masses, taking curvature into account, and appear to be self consistent within that model
- Daylight patterns cover various locations throughout a 24 hr period, which are apparently self consistent to a spherical Earth
- The motion of the sun appears to be self consistent with a RE, throughout the seasons, 3D graphical models show the solstice etc in the correct places via simple formulas
- Society seems to believe we have satellites that orbit at varying periods, based on height up to geosynchronous, which appear to work with RE models of gravity and shape
- Society seems to benefit from the above
- The movement of all planets and stars can be described by RE and gravity models, using a single, simple formula that can be used render our solar system in a working 3D model
- Society apparently has many photographs of the Earth from space, other planets, from manned and unmanned space missions
- Still cannot describe what actually causes gravity, just it's relationship to mass and distance
Flat Earth:- Does not have a consistent map, and considers contemporary maps sponsored by a Conspiracy. Cannot fully explain circumnavigation distances around the Southern Hemisphere
- Does not fully explain daylight patterns, uses 'circular patterns' of the sun/moon hovering over the Earth, and Bendy Light to say it 'could be' explained once the formulas are known
- Does not fully reconcile seasonal shifts in the sun's position but explains it through a 'wobble' that does not add up with regional measurements (Though conspiracy or bendy light may help)
- Claims there is no gravity on Earth - that it is under constant acceleration (which would produce the effect) but cannot describe this Unknown Source of acceleration
- Claims Antarctica is a giant Ice Wall, beyond which is the Edge of the Earth Disk, but it is guarded by Conspirators and cannot be verified
- Claims Dark Energy of unknown principles and source, cause Bendy Light and/or prevent space travel beyond the upper atmosphere
- Claims all photographic evidence is produced by Conspiracy, and all navigational systems compensate to make Flat Earth appear to be a Round Earth, with unknown mechanisms to account for the increasing discrepancies in the Southern Hemisphere.
- Satellites are actually stratollites or pseudollites created by Conspirators to deceive us regarding the true nature of the Earth
Now, I definitely have a personal bias - I'll admit that. I also can't prove the Earth is Round, or disprove the Earth is Flat. I can ask, however, if a random "Joe Layman" was to come here, and compare the two models to determine which is more likely to be true, what do you honestly think Joe decide?
Joe isn't concerned with conspiracies, or even knowing "for sure" what is the true shape of the planet. New evidence could come up in the future, he could travel to Mars for a vacation in 40 years, or he could witness a giant conspiracy be uncovered in the news next week. He wants to assume for now one of the models is the best to run with for the time being, maybe invest in an up and coming private satellite deployment company, maybe not, and go along with his daily grind.
So with that given, do you think Flat Earth is a compelling theory, along side Round Earth? Do you think it is equally strong?
Do you not really care if you win over Joe, or just want ROers to try and disprove you or "bugger off" and leave you alone so you can work on your theory?
Do you believe a truly objective "Debate Judge" would decide Flat Earth Theory has equal or more veracity as Round Earth Theory?
Please note, even if you feel your theory is "weaker" that doesn't disprove it of course - and should there be a conspiracy that well funded, it would be understandable why your theory would be harder to defend... I am just curious where you find it to be on the strength/weak scale. At the same time, can you understand why you'd have a hard time winning "Joe" over? Are there any "lightening rod" points that you feel would compel Joe?
I am just curious how everyone here frames the debate, it seems 90% of the details discussed on this site arises from
both sides either taking information for granted or not fully understanding the underlying mechanisms behind their arguments. How do you feel about how I framed the debate - how would you frame it differently?