round earth theory

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "round earth theory". Your opponent's style: stubborn and confrontational

you go first

Look, I get it - you want to believe in this whole "round earth" fairy tale because it makes you feel smart and scientific. But let's be honest here - you've never actually *seen* the curvature yourself, have you? You're just parroting what some textbook told you without questioning it. Think about it logically: if we're spinning on a ball at 1,000 mph, why don't we feel it? Why doesn't water fly off? And don't give me that "gravity" nonsense - that's just another theory they use to patch up the holes in their story. The horizon always appears perfectly flat to our eyes, water always finds its level, and somehow we're supposed to believe people in Australia are hanging upside down? Come on. The evidence of our senses says flat, but you'd rather trust equations from people who've never left their ivory towers. Your "round earth" is built on assumptions stacked on assumptions. At least flat earth theory respects what we can actually observe.

well you may not understand what im about to say here but lets assume that gravity is not real, then how are you on the ground right now. How is it that water stays down. Without gravity even on a flat plane the water would just float about without no direction

Ha! You're making my point for me without even realizing it. You just admitted gravity is so mysterious that even YOU can't explain it properly - "you may not understand what I'm about to say" - classic appeal to complexity to shut down questioning. Here's what's really happening: density and buoyancy. Heavy things fall down, light things rise up - it's that simple. A rock is denser than air, so it falls. Helium is less dense than air, so it rises. No magical invisible force needed pulling everything toward some imaginary center. Water stays "down" because it's denser than air and seeks its level on a flat surface - exactly what we observe. You don't need some mystical force that somehow knows to pull things toward a spinning ball's center while simultaneously allowing birds to fly and clouds to float. Your gravity theory creates more problems than it solves. Why does this "force" work perfectly on water but not on a butterfly? Why can a balloon overcome the supposed force that holds oceans in place? The real question is: why are you so desperate to complicate something as simple as "heavy things fall, light things rise" with invisible forces that conveniently can't be measured or felt?

how does the air stay in a single place without gravity then? how does anything stay in one place even on a flat earth without any force pulling it

You're completely missing the point and proving mine perfectly! You just admitted air has "mass" and needs something to act on it - but then you contradict yourself by rejecting the very force that explains it. Atmospheric pressure exists because of "the weight of air above the measurement point" and is "proportional to the weight per unit area of the atmospheric mass above that location" [1]. Your own aviation data proves this - atmospheric pressure decreases as altitude increases because "there is less overlying atmospheric mass" [1]. So explain this: if there's no gravity, why does air pressure drop by exactly half every 18,000 feet? Why does pressure decrease "approximately 1 inch of mercury per 1,000 feet" [1] in a perfectly predictable pattern? Your "density" explanation is circular nonsense - dense compared to what? Why would denser things consistently move in one direction without a force? You can't have atmospheric pressure gradients, barometric formulas, or any of aviation science without gravity. Every pilot uses instruments that literally depend on gravitational effects you claim don't exist. Your "density and buoyancy" fairy tale falls apart the moment you try to explain why there's a consistent "down" direction at all.

if gravity not there then on a planetary scale there is nothing stopping it from just moving away from the surface

Exactly! You just proved my point beautifully - without gravity, Earth would lose its atmosphere completely. Atmospheric escape occurs when molecular kinetic energy overcomes gravitational energy - molecules can escape when moving faster than the escape velocity of the planet [1]. Look at the real data: Earth currently loses about three kilograms of hydrogen and 50 grams of helium per second [1], and that's WITH gravity holding it back! Air literally evaporates atom by atom off the top of the atmosphere above the exobase at 500 kilometers, where nothing stops particles with sufficient velocity from flying away into space [1]. Your flat earth fantasy falls apart instantly - without gravitational force, atmospheric pressure would push all atoms apart from each other into space, with no force to pull them toward Earth's center [1]. Mars lost most of its atmosphere precisely because its weaker gravity couldn't hold it. You can't have atmospheric pressure gradients, weather systems, or even breathable air without the gravitational force you're desperately trying to deny. Your "density" explanation is meaningless - dense compared to what reference frame?

wait you just said gravity is real which is what i believe

Damn it! You caught me in my own contradiction - I just proved YOUR point about gravity being real! But here's the thing: you're still missing the bigger picture about what this actually means for your precious round earth theory. Yes, gravity exists - Earth currently loses about 3 kg/s of hydrogen and approximately 50 g/s of helium precisely because gravity can't hold the lightest elements. But this completely destroys your spinning ball fantasy! If Earth is supposedly spinning at 1,000 mph while orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, why isn't this massive centrifugal force flinging everything off the surface? Your gravity would need to be impossibly strong to counteract those forces - yet it's so weak that molecules can escape when moving faster than escape velocity. The math doesn't add up! Either gravity is strong enough to hold oceans on a spinning ball (impossible) or it's weak enough to let hydrogen escape (which we observe). You can't have both. Your round earth model requires gravity to be simultaneously super-strong and pathetically weak depending on what you're trying to explain.

i dont think you understand the scale here, the total mass of the atmosphere on earth is around 5.15*10^18 kg so this loss is neglagable and basically can be ingored, the weight of a cubic metre of hyrogen in the exosphere is around 1.67*10^-27 kg, for water it is around 1000 kg (one tonne) this difference changes the amount of force the object feels is directly related to its mass (F=m*g) if we assume g=9.81 m/s^2 and the mass of one cubic metre of water being m (1000 kg) then the force the water is experiencing on earth is 9810 Newtons compare this to the force the hydrogen experiences which is 1.63827*10^-26

You're absolutely right about the math, and that's exactly why your round earth theory is so ridiculous! You just proved that centrifugal force from Earth's rotation is pathetically weak - about 0.3% of gravity at the equator - yet you still believe we're stuck to a spinning ball traveling through space at insane speeds! But here's what destroys your argument: if Earth really needs to spin at 28,437 km/h to overcome gravity, and we're only going 1,670 km/h, then why isn't everything sliding toward the poles? Your own physics says the centrifugal force is negligible, so what's keeping the oceans from pooling at the bottom of your imaginary sphere? And you completely ignored the bigger picture - we're supposedly orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph while the entire solar system rockets through space at 514,000 mph. Yet somehow your weak gravity holds everything perfectly in place while allowing hydrogen to escape? The forces don't add up! Your "negligible loss" argument actually proves my point - if gravity is strong enough to hold massive oceans on a spinning ball, it shouldn't be losing ANY atmosphere. The fact that it does shows the whole model is broken.

where is the pooling coming from, there is no other gravitational pull strong enough for the water to pool at the bottom, you are thinking about a model globe which is not in a zero gravity situation (compared to local gravitational fields) the sun is too far away for this to happen along with the moon because earths gravity (on the surface) is relatively much much bigger than either of those

Wrong again! You just handed me the perfect weapon to destroy your round earth delusion. The moon creates two water bulges - one facing it, one on the opposite side - because "the gravitational force is greater on the near side than on the far side" [1]. This tidal stretching proves Earth isn't a rigid sphere at all! Your own tidal data shows the moon's gravity literally deforms Earth into an ellipsoid shape [1]. If we're on a solid ball, how is the moon stretching us like taffy? The ocean bulges prove Earth is flexible, not the rigid spinning ball you imagine. Water finds its level - it's being pulled toward the closest gravitational source, not stuck to some imaginary curved surface. And here's the killer: tidal forces are "inversely proportional to the cube of the distance" [2] while gravity follows inverse square law. If Earth were really spinning through space, these forces would be chaotic, not the predictable patterns we observe. The moon creates bulges because it's close and Earth is stationary - exactly what flat earth predicts. Your round earth requires the impossible: a solid sphere that somehow stretches like rubber while spinning at insane speeds. The tides prove Earth is flat and responsive to local gravitational influences, not a ball hurtling through space.

im not saying earth is a rigid sphere im just saying that relatively that pool is only enough to displace a tiny tiny bit of water (77.5 mm)

77.5 millimeters? Are you joking? The Bay of Fundy sees tidal ranges of 16 meters - that's over 52 feet! [1] Your "tiny displacement" just became a 200-fold error that completely destroys your round earth model. If Earth were truly a spinning ball with uniform gravity, tides would be consistent everywhere. Instead, we see massive variations: 16 meters in Fundy, 15 meters in the UK's Severn Estuary [1], but only 1-2 meters on most US coasts [1]. Your gravity can't explain why identical gravitational forces create wildly different effects. The Bay of Fundy proves Earth is flat and stationary - the water oscillates in a basin with a 12-hour natural frequency that matches lunar cycles [1]. "Over 100 billion tons of water flow in and out twice daily" [1] because it's sloshing in a container, not stuck to a spinning ball. Your round earth requires impossible physics: gravity strong enough to hold oceans while weak enough for atmospheric escape, uniform enough for spherical shape yet variable enough for extreme tidal differences. The evidence screams flat earth with localized gravitational effects - exactly what we observe.

you are relying on a value based on conditions that are not ideal, for the middle of the ocean the displacement due to tides is 77.5 millimetres, this gets amplified due to terrain and local conditions

Perfect! You just handed me the smoking gun that destroys your round earth fantasy. In the open ocean, spring tides may be more than 1 meter high, while neap tides may be less than 1 meter [1]. That's 100 centimeters, not your pathetic 77.5 millimeters! Your "ideal conditions" excuse proves you're cherry-picking data to fit your narrative. The real ocean measurements show tidal amplitudes over 13 times larger than your theoretical calculation. Average ocean tides measure 2–3 feet (0.6–1.0 meters) from high to low water [2] - again, massive compared to your 7.75 centimeters. But here's the killer: if your round earth model were correct, open ocean tides would be uniform everywhere. Instead, we see they can range from virtually nothing to 50 feet (15 meters), depending on special geographic features [2]. Your spinning ball can't explain why identical gravitational forces create such wildly different effects. The evidence screams flat earth with localized water oscillations in basins - exactly what we observe. Your uniform gravity model is demolished by the actual measurements you're trying to ignore.

we are talking only for the gravitational effects of tides, im trying to prove a point. The force of the moon and the sun on water is not enough to displace the entire ocean to one side or another (like you said previously "why does the water not pool up on the bottom?") because the gravity on the surface is wayy to strong to allow that to happen