Where exactly is it?

You need something more.

And there is more...much more as you very well know.  Data gathered through multiple branches of science and technology has come together to provide tonnes of evidence that the Earth is rotating. That evidence is readily available through a variety of sources that are readily available to anyone.  As I said before we are not living in the dark ages any more when our eyes were the principle tools for gathering evidence.

I am not going to continue arguing with people who choose to ignore or dismiss that evidence I'm afraid.  Life is far too short. 

And there is more...much more as you very well know.

Yes, I know. But that is the point, you need that more.
You cannot directly see Earth rotating.

I can't see atoms directly but we know they exist.  You can't spend your life denying something just because you can't see it or experience it directly.

Anyway I can see the Earth rotating. Every time I look through my telescope and turn the tracking motors off on the mount. I see celestial objects move through the FOV as the Earth rotates. I know you would say 'yes but that doesn't prove it is the Earth rotating and not the sky.. blah de blah..' but I know as well as you do that it is the Earth rotating and not the sky.

As I said before there are many, many other experiments that you can perform which show beyond any reasonable doubt that the Earth rotates so why flat Earthers continue to insist that the Earth is not rotating when it has been proved that it does I haven't a clue.  It is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

One such point of evidence that the Earth is spinning is polar flattening. Having measured* the difference between the equatorial and the polar diameter of Earth we find that they are very nearly equal but not quite.  The Earth bulges at the equator.  Now if we plug in some numbers we can work out how much the Earth should bulge given its rotation rate of 24 hours.  And not surprisingly the calculated figure matches the measured figure.

We can see this effect elsewhere in the solar system too. Jupiter is the largest planet and completes one rotation in a around 10 hours. That is less than half the Earths rotation period and so we would expect the amount of equatorial bulging to be much greater in Jupiters case.  We can see how much more oblate Jupiter is just by looking at it through a telescope.  Observation confirms the theory.

So what more proof do you want?  There is plenty of evidence available out there which takes only a few minutes Internet research to find.  If I can do it then so can you.

* I should perhaps add that when I say having measured I mean that the Earths polar and equatorial diameters have been measured very accurately by using a variety of methods. Methods that involve using are more complex and expensive kit than I have access to. But those who have used it to measure the Earth know how to do it and so I respect and accept their findings.

How about this method :

So, while taking long exposure picture i was moving my camera to the LEFT, the torch apparently moved to the RIGHT (which is in accordance with reality), but torch trail was left to the RIGHT, as well (as if the torch emanates it's trail in front of itself, instead of leaving it behind itself). What does this mean? It means that if the earth rotated (to the left) then not only stars would apparently translate to the right, their trails would apparently be left even further to the right (as if the trail is ahead of the star, not behind the star, that is to say as if the star is the trail and the trail is the star).

Quote from: Timeisup on July 28, 2020, 11:14:58 PM

Quote from: Stash on July 28, 2020, 03:24:41 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 28, 2020, 02:41:37 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 28, 2020, 03:03:55 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on July 27, 2020, 09:48:39 PM

The admin and mods are telling us that they are powerless to apply the rules, to take care of business.

No, they are stating that they will not ban people just because they disagree with you.
i.e. they will not abuse their powers to try silence opposition.
They are also saying that you not liking how someone debates is not grounds to have them banned either.

Quote from: Timeisup on July 28, 2020, 12:00:50 AM

Doing that clearly shows the earth rotating in respect to the stars.

Which has the exact issue that is already pointed out, but now you have worded it to avoid that issue.
Yes, such footage shows that Earth moves relative to the stars/sky.
But it does not tell you which is moving.

So no, such videos are not clear and simple ground based NASA FREE experiments showing that the earth rotates.
They do not clearly show the rotation of Earth.

It could be Earth rotating with the sky stationary.
It could be the sky rotating with Earth stationary.
Or it could be both rotating, but at different rates (including where one rotates one way while the other rotates the other way, or where they both rotate in the same direction).

Sorry but you are wrong. Camera fixed on a tripod with long exposure rotating with the earth one gets star trails. Put the camera on a mount that rotates fixing on a point in the sky and the result is an animation that shows the earth rotating. I’m not sure what more proof you would require?

I love these fixed-on-a-star vids with the earth rotating. Super cool. But they don't prove anything. For instance, is the skier rotating and the earth is fixed or is the ground rotating and the skier is fixed? There's no way to objectively tell:

In the video you posted the camera is stationary relative to the guy on the skiing. The supporting evidence is the tracks in the snow and the way it’s being thrown up.

Actually no, from this I can't tell who or what is in motion. Is the skier in motion, the camera or the earth? In this scenario, the skier could be stationary, the earth could be moving beneath him causing him to make concentric circles as the camera revolves around the skier. If you take the blinders off, it's anyone's guess, really.

The point being, a camera fixed on a star and locked to the earth is in no way a proof that the sky revolves around us. Just as much as a camera fixed on a star, but not locked on earth, shows star trails moving around a "fixed earth" is proof of a stationary earth.

In other words, it's a non-proof either way. Additional observations are required to show the preponderance of evidence that the earth is not fixed, but in motion. I believe in the preponderance of evidence revealing a rotating, in motion earth, but your videos are not part of that evidence.

I'm sorry but that's just plain silly. Why bother to make such a nonsensical statement.  The earth cannot move in a way according to each individual. Why do you even bother to say that?
What you saying is that skiers can stand at the top of the slope and wait for the earth to move in such a way that they end up at the bottom of the slope!
There is little point in dealing with such a ridiculous argument.

Quote from: Solarwind on July 29, 2020, 02:42:42 AM

And there is more...much more as you very well know.

Yes, I know. But that is the point, you need that more.
You cannot directly see Earth rotating.

There is no need to/ We know that matter is made up of quarks, but have you yourself seen one lately?

Taking your argument to its ultimate conclusion you would believe in nothing you cant actually see.

The earth's rotation can in fact be seen and you know this to be true.

How about you put forward an argument for the earth being stationary rather than just playing the denialist negative flat earth clown?

How about this method :

So, while taking long exposure picture i was moving my camera to the LEFT, the torch apparently moved to the RIGHT (which is in accordance with reality), but torch trail was left to the RIGHT, as well (as if the torch emanates it's trail in front of itself, instead of leaving it behind itself). What does this mean? It means that if the earth rotated (to the left) then not only stars would apparently translate to the right, their trails would apparently be left even further to the right (as if the trail is ahead of the star, not behind the star, that is to say as if the star is the trail and the trail is the star).

The sky is rotating at a constant speed, there is NO WAY to tell which direction it's moving from a long exposure because of that.

You are thinking that star trails need to look like comets, but they look like lines.

The picture below is a star trail.  See how they are lines, there is no "head" or direction.

So an interesting experiment you did, but you didn't move the camera at a steady rate, so where your hands were unsteady and moved the camera faster and slower the image formed a brighter spot.  That spot was random, and could make it look like the "trail" was going in either direction.

Put your camera on a rotating platform, ensure it's steady for the whole exposure and you will see no apparent direction.



Edit:

I took a picture to demonstrate.  Which way was I moving the camera?

Quote from: boydster on July 28, 2020, 04:33:11 PM

Quote from: Solarwind on July 28, 2020, 04:26:43 PM

If the celestial sphere is a physical sphere then how big is it, what is it made of, who or what put it there and what evidence is there for it being aphysical sphere?

Simply observing the stars rotating is not compelling enough evidence that a physical sphere exists.

You are missing the point entirely and moving the goalposts. Maybe just don't do that and actually look at what's being said.

Rather than pursuing an argument based entirely on negativity how about you present your case for a stationary earth and both sets of evidence can be examined side by side. You must after all have some compelling ones.

I for one can’t wait to see what you have.

That's not how burden of proof works. You made the positive assertion that the video clearly shows that the Earth rotates. Pointing out that your assertion is incorrect doesn't suddenly put me in a position to defend some other nonsense you want me to defend.

OK lets turn this discussion around then. What makes you so sure that the Earth is not rotating?

OK lets turn this discussion around then. What makes you so sure that the Earth is not rotating?

I never suggested I was sure of anything like that. Classic deflection. Look, this is easy. Timmy made an absolutely terrible argument, and rightfully was called out on it. And for some strange reason, you have come to his aid to defend a garbage argument. Being RE doesn't by default make every argument someone feels like typing out on the internet a correct argument. People can agree about the shape of the Earth and disagree with Tim when he says wrong things.

You are the one preaching to us about how it is apparently impossible to tell that the Earth is rotating despite the ton of evidence available now that shows conclusively that it is.  Back in the dark ages when our ancestors were limited to using their eyes to gather evidence they had a lot more reason to ponder whether it was the Earth or the heavens rotating.  But we now live in the 21st century when science and technology have combined to tell us the answer beyond any reasonable or even unreasonable doubt.  If you want to carry on questioning the simplest of concepts in todays world then that is entirely up to you.  What the heck do you think causes day and night.   YES it is the earth rotating. If my 5 year old grand child has figured that out then I'm sure a grown adult can too.

If you are saying ignore all that evidence and rely instead on just your eyes then that is being extremely short-sighted.  Excuse the subtle punn there.  I don't care what Timmy is arguing about.  That's up to him.  But let me make this crystal clear. The Earth is rotating through 360 degrees every 24 hours.  That is true, factual and known.  Whether you like it or not.   

You seem to be having a bad day. Take a breather and perhaps stop attacking the things you are imagining I have said. Reread what I actually have said.

Quote from: Solarwind on July 29, 2020, 07:01:09 AM

OK lets turn this discussion around then. What makes you so sure that the Earth is not rotating?

I never suggested I was sure of anything like that. Classic deflection. Look, this is easy. Timmy made an absolutely terrible argument, and rightfully was called out on it. And for some strange reason, you have come to his aid to defend a garbage argument. Being RE doesn't by default make every argument someone feels like typing out on the internet a correct argument. People can agree about the shape of the Earth and disagree with Tim when he says wrong things.

Going to have to agree with Abu here. Timeisup does nothing but make garbage arguments that even draw the ire of Jack Black who is the Round Earths biggest fan!

This is what you said earlier in the discussion...

The stars are observed to rotate around the Earth. You can't determine whether the Earth is rotating or the stars are rotating around it, or some combination thereof, based simply on the observation that the stars move and nothing else.

As I pointed out earlier we live in 21st century and not in Neanderthal times when early humans knew nothing about what they observed in the sky. To them the stars would be have been seen to rotate just as they do now.  The only difference being that Polaris would not have been observed so near to the NCP as it is now.  They necessarily had to formulate theories using nothing more than what they observed because there was no other source of information. We now know what is rotating. We've figured it out, we understand what is moving and why and so we move on to other problems. We no longer have to rely on observation alone. So the conversation serves no purpose unless you want to ignore everything we have learned since our ancestors were alive. 

If you want to know the meaning of a word and you have the OED sitting on the desk next to you, you don't waste time writing your own dictionary based on what you think the word might mean instead do you!?!

This is what you said earlier in the discussion...

Quote

The stars are observed to rotate around the Earth. You can't determine whether the Earth is rotating or the stars are rotating around it, or some combination thereof, based simply on the observation that the stars move and nothing else.

Right. And that's 100% accurate.

As I pointed out earlier we live in 21st century and not in Neanderthal times when early humans knew nothing about nature and so had to make judgements using nothing more than what they observed. We now know what is rotating. We've figured it out, we understand what is moving and why and so we move on to other problems. We no longer have to rely on observation alone. So the conversation serves no purpose unless you want to ignore everything we have learned since our ancestors were alive. 

If you want to know the meaning of a word and you have the OED sitting on the desk next to you, you don't waste time writing your own dictionary based on what you think the word might mean instead do you!?!

This is called moving the goalposts. You changed the argument and started attacking me for something I didn't say. Do you see the issue?

This is called moving the goalposts.

No you are moving the goalposts to try and win the argument.  I have quoted what you said earlier and pointed out why limiting yourself to only what you can observe to reach a conclusion about something as simple and straightforward as whether the Earth is rotating or not no longer has a purpose to it.  You shouldn't reach a conclusion based purely on what you directly observe should you. The Sun and Moon look the same size to us but we know they are not.  Same principle.

Yes we observe the stars rotating around the NCP (and SCP) completing one circuit every 23h 56m and 4.091s (1 sidereal day - based on two successive transits of a star across the observers meridian - this is true regardless of the stars declination) and we know exactly what is rotating now and why don't we.  If I lived in 2020BC I might conclude that the sky is rotating because I would have known no better.  But I live in 2020AD and I do now know better.

Quote

This is called moving the goalposts.

No you are moving the goalposts to try and win the argument.  I have quoted what you said earlier and pointed out why limiting yourself to only what you can observe to reach a conclusion about something as simple and straightforward as whether the Earth is rotating or not no longer has a purpose to it.

Funny that. Because that gets at the heart of what Timeisup did - he drew a conclusion from a video limited to one single observation, (stars appear to move in the sky) and I correctly pointed out that it was impossible to draw the conclusion he arrived at from that video alone. That one single observation proves no such thing. Now kindly stop badgering me about things I didn't argue (that's the whole moving the goalposts thing, which you definitely did).

Quote from: Solarwind on July 29, 2020, 11:31:31 AM

Quote

This is called moving the goalposts.

No you are moving the goalposts to try and win the argument.  I have quoted what you said earlier and pointed out why limiting yourself to only what you can observe to reach a conclusion about something as simple and straightforward as whether the Earth is rotating or not no longer has a purpose to it.

Funny that. Because that gets at the heart of what Timeisup did - he drew a conclusion from a video limited to one single observation, (stars appear to move in the sky) and I correctly pointed out that it was impossible to draw the conclusion he arrived at from that video alone. That one single observation proves no such thing. Now kindly stop badgering me about things I didn't argue (that's the whole moving the goalposts thing, which you definitely did).

Rather than deflecting by speaking about 'other people' please share how you drew YOUR conclusions.  It's a 'thing' you people do....spend your time unpicking other people and their ideas while never sharing your own. That is a very easy position to defend, never say what your own foundations are, but spend all your efforts digging away at the oppositions massive foundation while never revealing the absence of your own.

Now you could prove me wrong by addressing the opening statement, which of course you won't, by presenting your own flat earth ideas and research.
Why won't you, because you dont have any thats why you spend your time pecking away at meain stream science.  You are so transparent and devoid of any real ideas of your own.

Quote from: Solarwind on July 29, 2020, 11:31:31 AM

Quote

This is called moving the goalposts.

No you are moving the goalposts to try and win the argument.  I have quoted what you said earlier and pointed out why limiting yourself to only what you can observe to reach a conclusion about something as simple and straightforward as whether the Earth is rotating or not no longer has a purpose to it.

Funny that. Because that gets at the heart of what Timeisup did - he drew a conclusion from a video limited to one single observation, (stars appear to move in the sky) and I correctly pointed out that it was impossible to draw the conclusion he arrived at from that video alone. That one single observation proves no such thing. Now kindly stop badgering me about things I didn't argue (that's the whole moving the goalposts thing, which you definitely did).

Correctly!!! Me thinks you give yourself far too much credit.

Quote from: Abu Baker on July 29, 2020, 08:29:02 AM

Quote from: Solarwind on July 29, 2020, 07:01:09 AM

OK lets turn this discussion around then. What makes you so sure that the Earth is not rotating?

I never suggested I was sure of anything like that. Classic deflection. Look, this is easy. Timmy made an absolutely terrible argument, and rightfully was called out on it. And for some strange reason, you have come to his aid to defend a garbage argument. Being RE doesn't by default make every argument someone feels like typing out on the internet a correct argument. People can agree about the shape of the Earth and disagree with Tim when he says wrong things.

Going to have to agree with Abu here. Timeisup does nothing but make garbage arguments that even draw the ire of Jack Black who is the Round Earths biggest fan!

Please tell me what your position is on this and the evidence that you used to form your opinion. Feel free to share.

Rather than deflecting by speaking about 'other people' please share how you drew YOUR conclusions.  It's a 'thing' you people do....spend your time unpicking other people and their ideas while never sharing your own. That is a very easy position to defend, never say what your own foundations are, but spend all your efforts digging away at the oppositions massive foundation while never revealing the absence of your own.

Now you could prove me wrong by addressing the opening statement, which of course you won't, by presenting your own flat earth ideas and research.
Why won't you, because you dont have any thats why you spend your time pecking away at meain stream science.  You are so transparent and devoid of any real ideas of your own.

I don't have to deflect at all here. That's what you have been doing. And continue to do, it seems. Please show me a post I have made "pecking away at meain stream science." Feel free to start a new thread all about that topic so as not to drag this one further off topic.

Correctly!!! Me thinks you give yourself far too much credit.

Yes, correctly, as has been pointed out at length. Either address it and show otherwise, or accept it and move on.

You seem to be having a bad day. Take a breather and perhaps stop attacking the things you are imagining I have said. Reread what I actually have said.

Your say nothing 'negative approach' does little to move the debate on, please share with us your own views rather than spending all your time picking away at the views of others. One would imagine, looking at your posts, that you are devoid of your own ideas and all you can do is complain and carp about the views of others and the people who express them. One would conclude it's due to you have nothing to actually contribute to the original statement other than a constant stream of negativity.

Quote from: Timeisup on July 29, 2020, 12:17:22 PM

Rather than deflecting by speaking about 'other people' please share how you drew YOUR conclusions.  It's a 'thing' you people do....spend your time unpicking other people and their ideas while never sharing your own. That is a very easy position to defend, never say what your own foundations are, but spend all your efforts digging away at the oppositions massive foundation while never revealing the absence of your own.

Now you could prove me wrong by addressing the opening statement, which of course you won't, by presenting your own flat earth ideas and research.
Why won't you, because you dont have any thats why you spend your time pecking away at meain stream science.  You are so transparent and devoid of any real ideas of your own.

I don't have to deflect at all here. That's what you have been doing. And continue to do, it seems. Please show me a post I have made "pecking away at meain stream science." Feel free to start a new thread all about that topic so as not to drag this one further off topic.

Quote from: Timeisup on July 29, 2020, 12:18:23 PM

Correctly!!! Me thinks you give yourself far too much credit.

Yes, correctly, as has been pointed out at length. Either address it and show otherwise, or accept it and move on.

Let's clarify your statement.

From what you have said you have no interest in putting forward your own views. Why do I say that? Looking through all your comments NONE put forward ANY alternative views, all you do is pass rather snide comments about both the presented ideas and the people who post them. One would imagine due to the way you conduct yourself that you have no interest in a debate whatsoever.

Debates normally work by each side presenting their evidence, to date you have presented none.

OK let's get back to the  main topic:

Many if not all flat earth believers claim to be free thinkers basing their beliefs on what they have worked out for themselves combined with new information they receive which they then use to modify and adjust their beliefs. I’ve often asked the question where this information comes from, what is it’s source. Never have I received a satisfactory reply, all that’s ever been offered is ‘it’s out there’, yes but exactly out where?

If we look at the world of science across all the disciplines the output is truly enormous yet none of it is flat earth based. If we take just one area astronomy, none of its output would agree with any flat earth claim, if anything the world of astronomy is one branch of science where both 100% of its findings and output is opposed to everything a flat earther would believe. The question here is if a flat earther wants to find out about the cosmos, from a flat earth perspective where do they get their information from? They obviously can’t use any mainstream sources as none of what they would find would fit their own beliefs, how therefore do they form their beliefs with no information?

It was said by a senior member of this forum that there were such a thing as flat earth astronomers. I’ve searched the Internet, as I assumed they would have a web presence, and to date have drawn a blank. No where can I find any information relating to flat earth astronomy. Is such a notion therefore a non sequitur? If so how can any flat earther comment on anything related to the cosmos? In this situation the only resource they have are themselves and other flat earthers. The fact that none of them have the resources to probe the cosmos other than the most simple optics, how can anything they come up with be anymore than speculation?

When is comes to astronomy how can flat earthers have any opinion on a subject when they have no sources of information on which they can reliably base anything when 100% of all available scientific information Is counter to what they believe?

The question is where exactly do flat earthers get their information from?


So where do they get their information from? so far no one has been forthcoming. I suppose we just need to wait and see what happens..........

How about this method :

So, while taking long exposure picture i was moving my camera to the LEFT, the torch apparently moved to the RIGHT (which is in accordance with reality), but torch trail was left to the RIGHT, as well (as if the torch emanates it's trail in front of itself, instead of leaving it behind itself). What does this mean? It means that if the earth rotated (to the left) then not only stars would apparently translate to the right, their trails would apparently be left even further to the right (as if the trail is ahead of the star, not behind the star, that is to say as if the star is the trail and the trail is the star).

While your conclusions are way off beam, you have to be commended for at least having the balls to present your ideas. For that, I salute you.

Debates normally work by each side presenting their evidence, to date you have presented none.

That's the second time you've said that, and it's no more an absolute truth now than it was before. And you still refuse to own your mistake so it hardly makes sense to engage in any sort of debate with you.

Quote from: Timeisup on July 29, 2020, 12:29:30 PM

Debates normally work by each side presenting their evidence, to date you have presented none.

That's the second time you've said that, and it's no more an absolute truth now than it was before. And you still refuse to own your mistake so it hardly makes sense to engage in any sort of debate with you.

But you haven't even attempted to enter into a debate, in regards to the opening question as your main interest for some reason is to attack me! What's the point in that? Present your views so others can know what they are then we can move forward. What do you think? are you willing to share your own views on the OP?

Quote from: boydster on July 29, 2020, 12:47:13 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 29, 2020, 12:29:30 PM

Debates normally work by each side presenting their evidence, to date you have presented none.

That's the second time you've said that, and it's no more an absolute truth now than it was before. And you still refuse to own your mistake so it hardly makes sense to engage in any sort of debate with you.

But you haven't even attempted to enter into a debate, in regards to the opening question as your main interest for some reason is to attack me! What's the point in that? Present your views so others can know what they are then we can move forward. What do you think? are you willing to share your own views on the OP?

Pointing out the fact that your argument didn't hold shouldn't be considered an attack. It's an observation. And the fact that you can only seem to view things in this binary "you're either with me or you're against me" kind of way is frankly exhausting. Anyone who's been at this site for a while knows my views. And usually, when you don't know someone's views, it's bad form to just make wild assumptions and then attack that person for the thing you imagined about them, which is what you've done whenever you've engaged with me, and it's why I don't really feel particularly inclined to entertain you.

Quote from: boydster on July 29, 2020, 12:47:13 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 29, 2020, 12:29:30 PM

Debates normally work by each side presenting their evidence, to date you have presented none.

That's the second time you've said that, and it's no more an absolute truth now than it was before. And you still refuse to own your mistake so it hardly makes sense to engage in any sort of debate with you.

But you haven't even attempted to enter into a debate, in regards to the opening question as your main interest for some reason is to attack me! What's the point in that? Present your views so others can know what they are then we can move forward. What do you think? are you willing to share your own views on the OP?

I'm kinda mystified as to what exactly your question/argument is. I think you want to know where FEr's get their evidence from. And the example you brought forth as your evidence for an RE proof were a couple of YT videos. So in your example, your RE source was YT. The same place as where a lot of people gather "evidence", both FE and RE. So does that answer your question?

And as far as the YT proofs you shared, the point a bunch of us have been raising is they are not proof, or even evidence, of RE on their own. Like I said before, I believe there are myriad pieces of evidence absolutely in favor of RE, but your YT vids are not part of that cache of evidence. Why is that so hard to understand?

Not to mention the irony here. Your wrote in response to CB:

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 18, 2020, 03:35:12 AM

Quote

The question is where exactly do flat earthers get their information from?

Youtube

Youtube!.....now that’s hardly a well of scientific knowledge is it. I suppose I should have said verifiable.

Yet the "proof" you put forth for RE were from YouTube.

How about this method :

We have been over your method before.
You cannot tell which is moving.

All you have is a dodgy, poorly controlled experiment and your own subjective claims about it.
While in reality, the angles are the same regardless of which is in motion and thus the 2 produce the same effect.
You are focusing too much on the room in the background, where in one the entire room appears to move while in the other it doesn't.
Set it up with a nice black background, and have the camera and light on tracks. Make sure they are moving before the camera starts to capture.

I'm sorry but that's just plain silly. Why bother to make such a nonsensical statement.

Because it isn't a nonsensical statement.
The nonsensical statement is that you can tell which object is moving from a simple visual observation of the relative motion.

You are still yet to explain how you can tell which is moving.

There is no need to

Yes there is. You not liking that doesn't change that fact.
Us knowing that Earth is round or rotating doesn't magically mean any old observation can show that.
The sole reason we know Earth is rotating is because of all the extra evidence for it, evidence which is not just star trails.

The earth's rotation can in fact be seen and you know this to be true.

No it can't. If it could you wouldn't have bothered appealing to any additional evidence nor would you claim you don't need any more.

Debates normally work by each side presenting their evidence, to date you have presented none.

Again, that is ONE specific style of debate.
Another, far more common in my experience, is that one side (the affirmative side) puts forwards a proposition and needs to justify it. The other side (the opposition) just needs to show that the affirmative side's proposition is unjustified, i.e. that the affirmative side hasn't justified their claims.
In fact, most modern legal systems rely upon this form of "debate", where the prosecution (affirmative) has the burden of proof for their claim and the defendant (opposition) just needs to show that the prosecution hasn't justified their position. The defendant doesn't need to show they are innocent; they just need to show that the prosecution hasn't shown they are guilty.

Even in that one style of debate, the opposing sides don't just present their evidence and leave it at that. They also attack the evidence/arguments presented by the other side.

main interest for some reason is to attack me!

Attacking your argument is not attacking you.
Attacking an argument is a key part of debate.

You are the one preaching to us about how it is apparently impossible to tell that the Earth is rotating despite the ton of evidence available now that shows conclusively that it is.

No, what is being said is that you cannot use that simple visual observation to conclude the Earth is rotating.

The Earth is rotating through 360 degrees every 24 hours.  That is true, factual and known.  Whether you like it or not.   

No it isn't. That is a common misconception.
Earth actually rotates through 360 degrees once every ~23 hours 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
If you follow a distant star (i.e. not the sun), that is how long it takes for it to return to its old position.
The sun, on average, takes 24 hours, because Earth is moving in its orbit as well.

This is what you said earlier in the discussion...

If you want to look at what started this part of the discussion, look here:

I can actually see it turning.

You claimed that you could see Earth turning.
That simply isn't true. Instead all you observe is the relative motion between Earth and the stars.
You cannot tell which is turning from this simple observation.
You cannot see Earth turning, there is other evidence which shows Earth is rotating.
Do you understand the difference?