/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10063541
Fly him up to a height at which the curvature is plainly visible and drop him from said height.

>>10063541
Become a flat earther yourself since you're an NPC anyways since you got a gf

>>10063541

Convince her to fly around the whole world with you, from continent to continent. Make a whole round and have her sit by the window. Thats some real empirical proof right there

>>10063541
Dump her ass before you have to pay child support for some mouth breathing anti sci turds the rest of your life.

>>10063562
Nice job outing yourself as an incel. I'm so sorry anon!

>>10063541
just establish your intellectual dominance over her and tell her "fucking listen to me bitch, it's not flat"

>>10063541
Turn the tables.

>the earth is flat
>you can't know that!

>>10063574
thats a bit gay
also she would say how would we know where we are going

>>10063716
It just ends up with something "it isnt flat but it isnt round

>>10063541
Get a map of the entire earth (2D) and a knife.
Tell her to hold up the map in front of her. Be cutesy with it telling her to hold it so that home is over her heart.
Take the knife and firmly press it through "home" as deep into her as you can.

>>10063768
will do

>>10063541
Dump her. How could you stand to waste time and money on a person that retarded?

>>10063541
Gravity doesn't exist mate it's just a convenient model

>>10063579
Seriously this. If she truly is that stupid and stubborn, incapable of questioning her own beliefs and incapable of accepting that she may be wrong about something, you don't want to share too much with her (for the sake of your own interest).

Dump her, there are smart pretty women out there. I married one, she wasted her potential studying biology but I managed to get her to work in big pharma instead of rescuing wild birds. Get yourself an intelligent gf, it's worth it.

>>10063789
>>10063793
The worst thing is she's smart aside her beliefs, good school and all. Its not that serious with us so its all good for now

Just compare flight times for commercial flights. Pick a few points on the Earth and use a little geometry with the flight times representing distance to determine the shape of the Earth. You can use any online flight planner

>>10063541
>he cant even prove the curvature of the earth using flight patterns and non-Euclidean geometry.

>>10063541
Foucault Pendulum

>>10063809
Not really. And neither are you probably.
That's why you like her.

>>10063793
>get a smart woman

this.

Believe me, it never ends with a stupid gf. Astrology, flat earth, AGW denial, anything, it will snowball leading to atrocities, I guarantee it. Being illogical means you can't construct a stable foundation for your personality, for thought, for action.

>>10063541
Good bait, flat-Earther!

>>10063541
launch that bitch into fucking space ASAP

>>10064237
It's an infinite plane.

>>10064205
Detecting rotation of the electromagnetic stars, earth is stationary. Foucault pendulums use a magnetic tip.

>>10064350
They don't, or at least they don't need to, but I agree there's too much to argue there.

>>10064494
>They don't, or at least they don't need to
All of the ones shown in museums do.
>I agree there's too much to argue there
There's also the Allais effect showing the sun and moon affect it.

>>10063809
Has she read Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of scientific revolutions"? If not, get her a copy.

If her brain is not malleable enough to accept the possiblity of changing and improving her paradigms and beliefs systems, she's not as smart as you think she is.

She may have wits, she may be astute, she may have a good memory... but her reasoning patterns are either: a) defective; b) immature

You definitely don't want to have kids with her, lest you risk entering serious arguments that will become dealbreakers when she goes into "flatearther mode" with the children's raising.

Your story is something that most that are over 35 have seen in some friend's life already.

>>10064513
In museums the magnetism is to have a central force to fight damping, but if you allow whatever damping the Foucault pendulum still works.

>>10063541

>>10063541
>How do i convince her the earth is not flat?
this >>10064585

>>10064583
So you can demonstrate Coriolis force with a tire swing?

Hydrostatic equilibrium. The weight of half of a flat earth would crush rocks against the other half and get closer and push the middle up and down perpendicular the the surface. This would go on until the weight of the middle budge would be equal to the flat halves.

>>10063541
>How do i convince her the earth is not flat?
By giving >her whatever arguments convinced you.

>>10063541
>coming to /sci/ for legit advice
>>>/r/eddit

>>10064513
>Allais effect
That's never been conclusively proven, but of course flat earth retards treat it as scientific gospel

Show her Felix Baumgartner's stratosphere skyjump.

Cruzeiro do Sul (a constelation) can be seen from the whole South hemisphere at the same time

>>10063541
If she is not flat, it does not matter if she thinks the earth is.

>>10063541
She might be trolling you but you're too much of sperg to get it.
Basically what >>10063606 said or keep playing the game.

>>10064324
Your model does not explain the phenomenon.

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret. The modern wave of flat earth believers is entirely a meme. Literally. But just like Slenderman some people took the meme too seriously.

proof:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2004-01-01%202018-10-11&geo=US&q=flat%20earth

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/flat-earth-theory

>>10064970
>little secret
How to tell if your friends are NPCs or not. Make up some sarcastic bullshit about flat earth and check if they seem to take you seriously or not.

NPCs have a hard time with irony.

>>10064654
Can you keep a tire swing going for a few hours? You can make a Foucalt's Pendulum with a wooden bob, though, if you have a large space.

Just say "the earth is like your ass", insecurity goes over ignominious dogma

>>10063541
Earths tilt 23.4 degrees. 90-23.4 = 66.6
Earth speed through space 66,666 MPH
Curvature of Earth in 1 mi squared is 0.666 feet

Maybe your girlfriends instinct is right

>>10063579
This.

>>10065352
>Earth's obliquity oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees
>b-but it is 23.4 now!

>>10063541
If you have a large enough lake nearby you can try that. You can't see the opposite shore. You can even have some fun with this to try to calculate Earth's radius.

I'm sure someone determined enough will come up with a reason for the lake 'bulging' however.

say that earth is a cube and copy all of her arguments exchanging "flat" for "cube"

Can someone please eplain to me what flat-earthers think is going on at the edge of earth?

Why hasn't any flat-earther taken an expedition to the edge?

>>10065419
they will claim that its a infinite plane or some bullshit, most of them are trolls anyway

>>10063541
>girlfriend
>flatearther
I'm still working on how a guy can say this is one and the same person.

>>10063541
You're both retarded, the Earth is hollow

>>10065419
they say the guberment will shoot them if they try
not a single one of them has tried or looked anything up, they just parrot each other

>>10063541
>How do i convince her the earth is not flat?
You can't. Flat-Earthism is a position based on faith rather than logic.

>>10065555
This is true but many hollow earthers have tried and all died

>>10064324
Fixed that for you a long time ago.

>>10063768
"It's for the best, honey..."

>>10063541
Does she present solid evidence you can't readily refute?
Is she cute?
If one or both of these is true, you might just have to meet her half way, and admit that the Earth is really hollow. Which would make you correct, but it would also serve as a bonding experience because both of you could mutually realize just how little you know.

I don't know what the hell this place is. I haven't done meaningful testing of anything in years. I've never tried to travel straight and see if I come back roughly where I started with some way to detect warp points or massive distortion of space. Etc. It really could be flat. I could have lived in a domed city my whole life being told there was nothing else!

>>10063541
Ask her how satellites work

>>10063541
Why the earth is moving then? Why the earth is flat ? Why the sun is orbiting around the earth if there is no gravity? Checkmate flatearthers

>>10063579

fourth post best post.

unless she want to learn and understand, I foresee only troubles in the long run.

>>10066015
The problem with FlatEarthers is that they'll readily agree there are things they don't understand, they just won't accept the Heliocentric model because they think it makes less sense.
The problem is that they just can't grasp how beautifully it answers all the anomalies we see above us day and night in one simple fucking swoop, while they have to make unique explanations for each thing that contradict each other.

>>10066074
op here
yeah it just goes that way, says we shape physics around the round globe so it all goes that way

>>10064969
Yes it does brainlet.

>>10064980
A non-mechanical/magnetic Foucault pendulum can swing for a few hours?

>>10065405
23.4 is the median you lil' bitch

>>10065638
South is the southern celestial pole(s) you cretin, not the entire ring.

>>10065854
If there's a dome it's really fucking big because I've done a lot of driving

>>10066307
Hand-waving and saying "magnets" does not explain anything, troll.

>>10065591
This is mostly correct, but note that people are converted to new faiths all the time. The question is, how to do this with Flatists?

>>10066980
The fixed points in the sky determines south brainlet. Parallax also needs to be taken into account, the north/south stars will follow you travelling east/west.

Gyro-compasses are often used in submarines as a consistent, internal method for finding North.

They use the Earth's rotation to generate a Torque, which pushes the axis of the gyroscope North. This does not use magnetism, only the motion of the Earth, needless to say this would not work on a Flat Earth

>>10067036
here's one

>>10067036
It's not the earth rotating, it's the submarine rotating east/west around north, the gyro-compass remains fixed in its direction. That's why the illustrations in your pic use a flat model, you can't get away from the truth.

>>10063541
Why do stars rotate clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere(centered on the north pole) and counterclockwise in the Southern Hemisphere(centered on the south pole)?

You literally cannot answer this question without assuming Earth is a globe. No amount of Flat Earth mind fuckery can explain it, since there is only one pole on a single sided spinning disk.

>>10063541
Go for a vacation in the arctic.
Walk her up to the nearest cliff.
Tell her that she was right. Then promptly shove her off while saying, "No-one must ever know!"

>>10067082
this

>>10067082
Prove the lights in the sky that Australians see are the same set of stars that people in South America see. Prove there are two celestial poles and not 3.

there's also the problem of the Moon

how come everyone on Earth always sees the same face of the Moon at the same time? If the Moon was only a couple thousand miles away, different people from different angles should see different faces of the Moon

>>10067091
>implying lights in the sky rotating means it must be the earth that is rotating

>>10067095
>there's also the problem of the Moon
>how come everyone on Earth always sees the same face of the Moon at the same time?

It's tidally locked.

>>10067088
The Perfect Crime

>>10067099
but if the Moon were actually really low above the Earth, different people in different places should be seeing it at different angles

>>10067098
notice how there's 2 centers of rotation

>>10067113
>implying that's caused by a spherical earth rotating

>>10067094
3 poles of rotation requires a shape with more than 3 dimensions. Try to draw what such a shape would look like. Go ahead, i will wait.

>>10067109
You're arguing from the presupposition that you know what the moon is in terms of its shape and material make-up. There is evidence to suggest it's not even a solid thing.

>>10067125
Try and explain how it would even work on a flat Earth. Its impossible.

>>10067132
the only way you can pretzel out of this is if you make your theory so complicated that sphere-earth is the simpler theory

>>10066321
South is the direction away from north, so at any point around the disc the southern celestial pole must be south of you.
So the southern celestial pole must be everywhere around the disc.

>>10067130
Nope, imagine an infinite plane earth, with an infinite plane sky, with infinite stars, rotating flatly above like ceiling fans, each one rotates in the opposite direction to the one opposite.

Perspective makes them look like they are not rotating perpendicular to the flat plane, as pic related demonstrates.

Still waiting for proof that Australians are seeing the same set of southern stars as those in South America etc.

>>10067094
>Prove the lights in the sky that Australians see are the same set of stars that people in South America see.
You can sail or fly from South America to Australia keeping the southern celestial pole to your left or right (south of you) and it will always be there.

>>10067134
See
>>10067145
>>10064324

>>10067136
Not sure how lights in the sky like the moon can be used as proof of the shape of the earth. You can't even prove the moon is spherical due to it only facing one "side". If the moon isn't a sphere your model is destroyed already.

>>10067145
Also, on >>10064324, going south from Durban would mean you pass north of Cape Town, which is clearly bullshit. So now you need three celestial south poles.
But you still have problems, because going south from Auckland would mean going west of New Plymouth instead of east, so you need another southern celestial pole.
But now you have more problems because New Zealand and Australia are geographically close enough that if there were two celestial south poles that close, you'd be able to see both from both countries, so now you're absolutely fucked.

You cannot make multiple southern celestial poles match reality on that kind of map.

>>10067145
If the stars were spinning around 3 separate axes in “opposite” directions there would be some place on Earth where there are stars observably moving in opposite directions past eachother. Like simultaneously moving “upstream” and “downstream” in the sky.

At most, you can only have the stars rotating around 2 poles to be consistent with current, easily visible, observations from Earth. Even if you claim this to be the case, you can prove this wrong by observing the stars at different lattitudes of the same Hemisphere. If it were the sky rotating around 2 poles, there would be some latitude where the stars do not follow a perfect circle, or where the two spinning “star circles” overlap(which would show as stars crosing paths with other stars over time). Instead, we see perfect circles, or partial arcs of perfect circles, across the entire planet, with no crossing star paths. There are no exceptions or evidence contrary to this observational rule, and its not possible unless the Earth that we are standing on is a rotating sphere. Like i said, no amount of flat Earth fuckery can be completely consistent with the observed paths of the stars. You may get close, but there is always some detail that doesnt work. Checkmate flat Earthers.

>>10067140
If you're in the "southern" hemisplane, would you use the southern celestial pole to direct you south, or would you try and use the northern celestial pole which you can't even see, and then go opposite to it?

>>10067151
See
>>10067169

>>10067158
>You can't even prove the moon is spherical due to it only facing one "side".
Well, for one thing is oscillates, so while we only see one side of it we see slight rotations of it through the period of oscillation (I think it takes years because they usually use full moon photos to animate it and that would only produce about 14 or so frames per year).

But even then, if you just look at it with a telescope you can see features that make it pretty clear it's not just a flat disc. You've got bloody ridges and craters making shadows.

>>10067166
Don't forget about parallax, the southern celestial pole will follow you moving west/east.

Still waiting for proof of Australians seeing the same set of southern stars.

>>10067169
What's this then? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI

>>10067179
Why is the entire full moon lit up evenly, when a spherical moon would be brightest in the center and the least bright around the "edges"?

>>10067170
You would use the southern celestial pole to show you where south (and thus north) is.
So if you traveled in a straight line opposite to the direction of the southern celestial pole, the northern celestial pole would appear in front of you as you cross the equator.

Now I see the argument you are making, but the argument I was using was the argument FlatEarthers use anyway, so you're making conflict with FlatEarth theory just to get out of a problem.

Their argument is that compasses point north and south is just opposite that. Now you can't just define south as being the direction of the closest southern celestial south pole in the southern hemisphere and that in the southern hemisphere compasses just point towards it, because then heading "north" from many places in the southern hemisphere won't lead you to the northern hemisphere.

>>10067192
>Why is the entire full moon lit up evenly, when a spherical moon would be brightest in the center and the least bright around the "edges"?
Because the sun is so fucking far from us that the light rays are hitting it pretty evenly. Also, it lacks a surface reflective enough to create the kind of hotspot reflection we see on Earth.

>>10067184
>Don't forget about parallax, the southern celestial pole will follow you moving west/east.
You clearly don't understand parallax.

>>10067193
North and South celestial poles must work the same, only focusing on the north celestial pole and claiming that any direction opposite to it as being south is misleading because north/south are equal opposites, and the one you are nearer to will be the one guiding you.

The reason I think there are two "south" celestial poles is because there are no direct flights over the south pole from Aus/NZ to SA etc, not even a direct flight from Aus/NZ to the south pole, commercial or private. Nor cruises. There is no proof of only one souther celestial pole which the sphere model requires.

>>10067195
>Because the sun is so fucking far from us that the light rays are hitting it pretty evenly. Also, it lacks a surface reflective enough to create the kind of hotspot reflection we see on Earth.
The light on the sides of the moon should be being reflected away from the eyes if it's a sphere. Also, the sun's light during a sunset doesn't cover the whole horizon, and gets narrower and narrower as it sets. How is that possible with a sun so far away?
>You clearly don't understand parallax.
No u

>>10067145
There is no way the paths of stars would create circles around the pole in a flat earth universe. The paths would be ellipses.

>>10067208
>The reason I think there are two "south" celestial poles is because there are no direct flights over the south pole from Aus/NZ to SA etc, not even a direct flight from Aus/NZ to the south pole, commercial or private. Nor cruises.
That's a stupid fucking leap and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I have already explained how many problems just two southern celestial poles makes to reality, and there are still more problems. You've forgotten completely about Pacific Islands. Fiji is almost directly north of New Zealand, but with the stupid two southern celestial pole you go west of New Zealand.
The Cook Islands and French Polynesia are north east of New Zealand. Again, under that model going south would take you west of New Zealand.
It's so bad that even from the fucking Pitcairn Islands going south would take you west of New Zealand.
And you can see the southern celestial pole from all those islands and they're all inhabited.

You leap to some fucked up explanation that makes no sense in observable reality because there are no flights that go across the south pole when it isn't even the shortest route to anywhere, except like Perth to the bottom of South America (which I am sure would be a really profitable route).

>>10067223
Like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=15&v=uexZbunD7Jg

>>10067218
>The light on the sides of the moon should be being reflected away from the eyes if it's a sphere.
And it is. Your brainlet assumption is that you can see the sides of the moon.

>Also, the sun's light during a sunset doesn't cover the whole horizon, and gets narrower and narrower as it sets.
What?

>>10067208
>I think
*chuckle*

>>10067223
How'd you come to that conclusion?

All of you are wrong

In 1884, meridian time personnel met in Washington to change Earth time. First words said was that only 1 day could be used on Earth to not change the 1 day marshmallow. So they applied the 1 day and ignored the other 3 days.

The marshmallow time was wrong then and it proved wrong today. This a major lie has so much boring feed from it's wrong. No man on Earth has no belly-button, it proves every believer on Earth a liar.

SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY

TIME CUBE

WITHIN SINGLE ROTATION.

4 CORNER DAYS PROVES 1

DAY 1 GOD IS TAUGHT EVIL.

IGNORANCE OF TIMECUBE4

SIMPLE MATH IS RETARDATION

AND EVIL EDUCATION DAMNATION.

CUBELESS AMERICANS DESERVE -

AND SHALL BE CELEBRATED.

******************************************************************************
I am a Knower of 4 corner
simultaneous 24 hour Days
that occur within a single
4 corner rotation of Earth.

***********************************************************************

Till You KNOW 4 Simultaneous Days
Rotate In Same 24 Hours Of Earth
You Don't Deserve To Live On Earth

Americans are actually RETARDED from Religious Academia taught ONEism -upon an Earth of opposite poles, covered by Mama Hole and Papa Pole pulsating opposite burritoes.

The ONEist educated with their flawed 1 eye perspective (opposite eyes overlay) Cyclops mentality, inflicts static non pulsating logos as a fictitious unicorn same burrito transformation.

**********************************

It Is The Absolute Verifiable Truth & Proven Fact
That Your Belly-Button Signature Ties
To Viviparous Mama.

(excerpt dictated but not read from: http://timecube.2enp.com/))

>>10067224
>New Zealand
>Fiji
Neither of these are real. Maoris are all crisis actors.

>>10067236
Watch:
>>10067229

>>10067238
I'm fucking from New Zealand, you fuckunt.

>>10067238
>australia fucks with the flat earth model so its not real!
>new zealand fucks with the flat earth model so its not real!
Now you don't even need a second southern celestial pole.

>>10067247
No, you've just been conditioned to think that. You're from New Brunswick or possibly the Lakes District.

>>10067224
Planes don't travel in straight lines, they use things like the "great circle route" which is a mathematical trick that uses a flat earth but pretends it is curvature of the earth. You are straw manning hard.

Also, a flight from Australia/NZ to the south pole would be very profitable because loads of people would get on it to prove the globe. There have been flights set up in the past that claimed to fly this route but turned out to be scams and stole everyone's money. There's a massive opportunity to make this flight happen and it never does.

>>10067235
Prove it wrong.

>>10067241
I don't subscribe to the retarded dome model for the very reason it doesn't explain the movements of the lights in the sky.

>>10067230
93 million miles away light, lighting up the whole horizon evenly?

>>10067260
>Planes don't travel in straight lines, they use things like the "great circle route" which is a mathematical trick that uses a flat earth but pretends it is curvature of the earth
Which just adds MORE problems because now a lot of routes become a lot longer than the direct distance between the destinations, like the route from Sydney direct to Capetown, because it has to avoid going over land that would give away the secret and now the planes are going twice as far and twice as fast, breaking the sound barrier without anyone inside noticing.

>Also, a flight from Australia/NZ to the south pole would be very profitable because loads of people would get on it to prove the globe.
For about a day. Then the first Flat Earthers to take it will deny it and warn everyone else not to go on it and you'll be left with empty planes because hardly anyone wants to go to the south pole on a regular basis.

>>10067269
Looks perfectly right for the sun being millions of miles away and the Earth having a fucking atmosphere.

>>10067187
Exactly what the title of the video is. Any slight deviations you see from perfect circle are due to the field of view of the camera, and the fact that you are taking a 3d image and displaying it on a 2d screen. If you want to see this effect taken to an extreme, see
>>10067091
>its a paneramic shot so dont be like “muh not perfect circles” because that is exactly how paneramas work

>>10067263
How can anyone prove a fiction wrong?
Your premise is a manufacture of your whim. I can tell you of a great green sea monster with four heads in the southern pacific, and you could say I was lying and if I told you to prove me wrong, we'd be even with the nonsense.
You're a troll, that's all.
Here's your "(You)". Enjoy.

Here's the deal: there are three types of Flat Earthers who regularly post to 4Chan: the rare prankster intellectuals who challenge your knowledge and debate skills (they will call your errors), the occasional literal Bible interpreters (they tend towards sanctimony), and far and away the most proliferate: the juvenile-level troller (they routinely claim you're stupid, yet respond with exasperatingly flawed memes and blather).

None of them provide any evidence of phenomena that *require* a flat Earth model to explain, but rather place the onus on you to prove the round Earth (again, and again, and again, ...) while belligerantly disavowing or ignoring any science or proofs put forward. They will post memes that ostensibly 'prove' some flaw in the round Earth model, but containing geometry, maths, logic, and facts so absurdly wrong that you are compelled to display your superior intelligence and knowledge. You will never experience gratitude for your efforts to educate. By responding, you've taken bait.

They don't care whether the Earth is flat or round. Your posts are met with insulting responses or more made-up nonsense, because the game is all about the lulz from getting you to spend time responding. They will provoke you with the classic, "If you don't respond, you prove me right." If you reference web-based information (that they could have looked up, had they interest) they will accuse you of being a shill for a conspiracy.

It is simply impossible to keep pace with their barrage of flaws, and the anonymous mask of 4Chan removes culpability and enables the prankster. Arguing is akin to painting over mud - you just end up with a dirty brush.

tell her if she is a flat earther she is flat chested

>>10067274
>Which just adds MORE problems because now a lot of routes become a lot longer than the direct distance between the destinations, like the route from Sydney direct to Capetown, because it has to avoid going over land that would give away the secret and now the planes are going twice as far and twice as fast, breaking the sound barrier without anyone inside noticing.
What land?
>For about a day. Then the first Flat Earthers to take it will deny it and warn everyone else not to go on it and you'll be left with empty planes because hardly anyone wants to go to the south pole on a regular basis.
Seriously? The strongest argument the spinning globe has is the two celestial poles, and yet you cannot prove it with a simple plane flight? It's 2018, there isn't one? A private one? You don't find that a little suspicious?

>>10067281
Yes but sun's light should be lighting the atmosphere up evenly brainlet.

If the Earth was flat and the Sun moved in a great circle around the N pole, you would see a difference from reality in motion most marked at times of rise and set. Place yourself on the equator during the equinox. At rise, the Sun would appear somehow and from north of the equator (left), with slow movement towards you (foreshortened) and southward (right, as it follows its circular path). Its horizontal motion diminishes over the course of the morning as its direction loses an X-component. As it reaches overhead (Noon) it would be moving most quickly and almost straight east-west. After Noon it would appear to slow down and begin its drift right (north), and farther along it loses the vertical movement (yet never set) while gaining the drift to the right and magically disappearing.

That of course, is not what we see at the equator during an equinox. The Sun rises due east, transits straight up, and sets due west all at a constant angular speed all along its path, which is apparently straight up, over, and down, because in this geometry you (not a distant pole) are at the center of a circle it appears to trace.

Continuing south during an equinox, a flat-Earther would still see the Sun appear from the NE, approach but curve left to due north at Noon, then continue left and away to the NW, fading away. In reality, the Sun still rises in the E, moves up and left to north at Noon, and then set again in the W. This motion (also traced by the stars at night) clearly shows there is an axis of rotation that rises up from the southern horizon and extending up and away south to a south celestial pole on the sky. A Sun (and stars) moving around a disk cannot behave like it is revolving around two poles (north and south) simultaneously.

>>10067316
Furthermore, a close-proximity Sun would increase in brightness from invisible at "rise" to its brightest at Noon and back again to invisible at "set" in the course of one day. Light intensity varies by the square of the distance from the source. This means the intensity of the light from the Sun (and Moon, and stars) would continuously vary all day, and most radically just before and after Noon. Again we see differently, the Sun remains more or less constant in brightness during the day, with a good accounting (and weather-dependent) for its dimming when near the horizon due to atmospheric opacity.

Lastly, if it were a "close" Sun and Moon passing overhead, there would be an obvious change in the apparent sizes of the objects as they approach, pass overhead, and head off again. Again, this is not what we see. The Sun and Moon stay the same angular size throughout their pass. You can experiment and prove this yourself by taking photos of them during rise, then again five or six hours later when they are at their highest, and maybe again as they set, just for added data. Measure their sizes in the photos. They're the same.

And if you really want to gild the lily, get in communication with someone a thousand miles away. Use an astrolabe (you can make a crude-but-good-enough one using a school-grade protractor) to measure the altitude of the Sun (or Moon) simultaneously. You can easily triangulate the height of the object, and your result will show it's near infinity (you both have close to the same angle, due to the crudeness of the instrument). But if it were 6,000 miles up, you'd be able to reasonably measure the 10° different viewing angle, or nearly 30° if they were the 3,000 miles often quoted.

>>10067285
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CyG2zc8HkU

>>10067294
Prove Australia is on the other side of Antarctica opposite South America.

>>10067309
>What land?
Oh, so now there's no land on your flat earth model, this just keeps getting better.
>Seriously? The strongest argument the spinning globe has is the two celestial poles, and yet you cannot prove it with a simple plane flight? It's 2018, there isn't one? A private one? You don't find that a little suspicious?
Yes. There's a small vocal community that questions the globe model, no one else gives a fuck. So no company is going to bother to go through the procedures of setting up flights to or across the south pole.
Allegedly there are some charter services that'll do that kind of route, but that's for you to organize, not for other people to organize and you to hitch a ride on.

>>10067310
Atmosphere scatters light. This is easily observable in your every day life. If you are in a cave and you look out you can see the sky because the sky is reflecting (scattering) light into the cave.
Of course, when you are looking at the source you have the most direct lines of light coming into your eyes but all you would have to do is go up and look down and you'd see that it is evenly illuminated.

>>10067326
Why should I fall for your ruse to waste time and effort doing that, only to have you make up some more shit?
Give me some proof that the Earth is flat. So far, I have not heard one shred of evidence of a phenomenon that requires a flat earth paradigm to explain. Not one. Every flat earth argument relies on taking a minuscule piece of fact and either flat-out ('scuse the pun) lying about the fact, or making up some absurd nonsense to claim it's wrong, and here's the kicker: concluding that the earth is therefore flat. But it could be a cube, torus, inverted, any of a number of geometries given the fE lie is somehow correct, but not that the earth is necessarily flat.

Give me a proof the Earth is flat.

>>10067326
Give me some actual proof it isn't.
I don't care about your hypotheses. Some actual proof.

>>10067326
Look at a globe. There it is.
Now prove to me the globe is wrong.

>>10067316
No brainlet, the sun will behave the same on a flat, stationary earth, you just replace the retarded movements of the earth and apply it to the sun.

>>10067318

>>10067344
That is a typically lame, silly, worthless dodge that we can expect from a flat-Earther.

>>10067346
What are you trying to say/prove here?

>>10067338
>Oh, so now there's no land on your flat earth model, this just keeps getting better.
You said Sydney to Cape Town, what land has to be hidden compared to the route on a globe?
>Yes. There's a small vocal community that questions the globe model, no one else gives a fuck. So no company is going to bother to go through the procedures of setting up flights to or across the south pole.
There's more than enough to make it very profitable, look how emotional you're getting, you clearly care about it.
>Allegedly there are some charter services that'll do that kind of route
Prove it.
>Of course, when you are looking at the source you have the most direct lines of light coming into your eyes but all you would have to do is go up and look down and you'd see that it is evenly illuminated.
I thought the sun was way bigger than the earth therefore lights up the whole thing evenly in one go? Now you're trying to make it sound like it's local.

>>10067339
>Give me a proof the Earth is flat.
No measurable curvature.

>>10067344
>No brainlet, the sun will behave the same on a flat, stationary earth
Which is why all people observe the Sun rise due east and set due west on the equinoxes even though that makes no sense under any of the flat earth models.
You state it works the same because it has to be the same, but what you lack is an explanation of how it can be the same and actually work.

>>10067341
No flights to the south pole from Australia/NZ, ever.

>>10067361
>No measurable curvature.
What are you using to measure?

I have a globe. They're easy to come by. This one's .305m in diameter (about a foot).

The Earth is 12,756,000m in diameter.

That's a scale of about 1:41,822,951.

So that means if I'm at the top of the 828 meter Burj Khalifa, that building would jut out of my globe .00002 m or 0.02 mm = a fiftieth of a millimeter, something like a flake of silt. The texture of the globe material would obstruct any view of curvature.

How about in an airplane at 12,000 m? I'd be .00029 m or .29 mm = one third of a millimeter above the globe - something like a grain of salt. *Maybe* I could see a bit of curve, but I doubt it.

The ISS orbits at about 395,000 m. That would put it about .00944 m or 9.44 mm above my globe, about the length of a coffee bean. Yes, you should be able to see curvature from there (protip - they do).

What makes you think you should be able to see curvature?

>>10067364
Why would there be?

>>10067342
Mass can't exist in physical reality, therefore neither can gravity. Universe is an infinite plane, as is the earth.

>>10067351
The earth spins like a gyro?

>>10067371
I'll bet you thought that was clever.

>>10067309
>yet you cannot prove it with a simple plane flight?

Just worth mentioning that there are commercial flights to the actual Soith Pole now. Save up your bucks, if you want to see for yourself. It ain't cheap, but hundreds go every year.

https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole

>>10067356
Brightness/size increases decreases as it gets closer/further away, contradicting your claims that it doesn't change.

>>10067372
The sandwich or the platter?

>>10067375
Your lack of understanding of how a camera works does not constitute a flaw in the theory.

>>10067375
It's not getting further/closer - its light is passing through thicker/thinner amounts of atmosphere.

>>10067371

>>10067375
>rightness/size increases decreases

>>10067318
>with a good accounting (and weather-dependent) for its dimming when near the horizon due to atmospheric opacity.

>>10067363
Do you understand how a local sun behaves on a flat earth?

>>10067391
Yes. Do you?

>>10067367
>What makes you think you should be able to see curvature?
I said measure. Kansas is flatter than a pancake. Where's the curviest state?

>>10067358
>You said Sydney to Cape Town, what land has to be hidden compared to the route on a globe?
Australia itself, Papua New Guinea (I've actually flown over that, pretty distinct), Thailand, China, Nepal, bit of India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tanzania and a few other African countries.

>There's more than enough to make it very profitable
No. There literally is not. And I don't give a shit about flying to the south pole because there's no benefit to me above going anywhere else in the planet.

>Prove it.
If I could have proven it I wouldn't have used the word "allegedly".

>I thought the sun was way bigger than the earth therefore lights up the whole thing evenly in one go? Now you're trying to make it sound like it's local.
You're trying to make it sound like we claim the Sun fills the entire sky.
No, I'm not trying to make it sound like it's local. It's just that when you are looking directly at the source more light is coming into your eyes, because when you're not looking at the source what you're seeing is reflections.

>>10067361
Geodesic surveying literally measures the curvature of the Earth.

>>10067395
>Kansas is flatter than a pancake.
You're being intensely stupid here. If you're insisting on using land as a measure of flatness, your best option is a salt flat. Even Kansas has enough local relief as to need accounting.

>>10067364
Well, there was this one flight...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_New_Zealand_Flight_901

>>10067370
People are willing to take flights from Australia to Chile, to then go to Antarctica/South Pole. People are also willing to take cruises to South America and then to Antarctica. Why not just fly there directly? Doesn't have to be every day, but none at all? Ever? That's very fishy.

>>10067373
Tell me how it's not.

>>10067395
By "flat" you hopefully mean all parts equidistant from the center of the Earth.
If you meant literally like a geometric plane, you have learning issues that are going to be very difficult to correct.

>>10067375
>hurr durr cameras

>>10067374
Oh brainlet, I'm talking about flights from Australia/NZ. Not Chile.

>>10067391
>Do you understand how a local sun behaves on a flat earth?
However you decide it works in any given argument.

>>10067379
What? Does the earth spin like a gyro, yes or no?

>>10067381
>>10067382
So the sun remains the same size/brightness during the day, but it's also going through different densities of air, therefore its size is constantly changing.

The sun stays the same size or not?

>>10067383
If I'm "hand waving", what are you doing? You don't even have a counter argument.

>>10067403
Yes, there are people willing. And do so. Scientists and the occasional reporter are also 'willing' to go to the Amundsen-Scott station there. So yea, there are flights. But you make it sound like there should be scheduled commercial flights for tourists, and that because there aren't it doesn't exist. And that's when I ask you, why would they have such flights? What would they do when they get there? They'd see a lot of snow and ice, it'd be cold, there are no tourist facilities.... it's a stupid idea that you're bringing up because you're being cute.

https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/support/southp.jsp

>>10067385
Surely its size will change constantly due to constantly going through different density of atmosphere, therefore your argument fails.

>>10063541
If everything is flat then why is the fucking sun always pointing at you.

>>10067417
The Sun stays the pretty much same size. The exception is when it gets very near the horizon and it appears to flatten a bit. To change the size of the Sun on a clear day requires a (lot* of atmosphere, so it has to be very low, like just a few degrees at most.

>>10067393
Yes. Do you understand how perspective works? If so, please explain how perspective would affect a local sun getting further away.

>>10067422
No, it really doesn't change size.
I mentioned in there that you can experiment with this by taking pictures of the Sun or Moon at different times of the day/night. You don't have to take my word for it. Do it yourself. This is n't a difficult experiment.

>>10067410
>I'm talking about flights from Australia/NZ
I thought those countries didn't exist.

>>10067417
>So the sun remains the same size/brightness during the day, but it's also going through different densities of air, therefore its size is constantly changing.
Pretty much, because when you're more than like 20 degrees from horizontal the effective thickness changes in very small amounts per degree. But as you get closer to horizontal it increases MUCH faster until, if it was an infinite plane, it would be infinitely thick.

>>10067426
Well, I don't know what you mean by a "local Sun going away". If you mean one that's supposedly 3k miles away, its angular size would noticeably alter as it moved across an obersver's sky.

>>10067422
>Surely its size will change constantly due to constantly going through different density of atmosphere, therefore your argument fails.
Lol, no. Only the brightness changes, sweetie. You can even use your camera to check that by seeing what settings it picks on auto mode through the day.

>>10063541
>How do i convince her the earth is not flat?
messed around on a flat earth forum (one of the 2 main ones) for years. how do you change a flat earther's beliefs? you DON'T.

>>10067397
>Australia itself, Papua New Guinea (I've actually flown over that, pretty distinct), Thailand, China, Nepal, bit of India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tanzania and a few other African countries.
Can you explain what the "great circle route" is?
>No. There literally is not. And I don't give a shit about flying to the south pole because there's no benefit to me above going anywhere else in the planet.
Not talking about faggots like you. A flight proving the globe would be very popular. If it was possible, it would have happened by now.
>No, I'm not trying to make it sound like it's local. It's just that when you are looking directly at the source more light is coming into your eyes, because when you're not looking at the source what you're seeing is reflections.
That sounds like a local light source. The sun's light shouldn't converge if its light rays are parallel.
>Geodesic surveying literally measures the curvature of the Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNICy7RoaY

>>10067402
Yep, never went to the south pole but seemed like a warning that exploring Antarctica like that is not welcomed.

>>10067407
> center of the Earth
Doesn't exist.

>>10067452
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH573B1bkHI

Too many people everywhere.

>>10067408
Move the light closer and further away coward.

>>10067454
Riiiight. I see you chose Door # Dumb.

>>10067413
Didn't think you did.

>>10063541
Take her out onto a flat sea, attach a 15cm high buoy to a 2km rope and throw it off the back, then take the boat 2km away and ask her if she can see the top of the bouy. Then take her to the top of the mast and ask her again.

You could also give her a stick and take one yourself showing her they're the same length. Get her to put her stick in the ground and ask her to video call you when you want to. Drive east for some way, then video call her and ask her to measure the length of the shadow on her stick, and you do the same.

You could even go on a road trip with her without using a map or compass, just take a little spike coming out of a flat wooden surface that you can mark on the direction and length of Shadows, and be sure to make it float in a bowl of water so you know its base is facing earth's centre of gravity.

If she's not smart enough to see she's wrong then, just dump her.

>>10067419
It doesn't have to be tourism brainlet, any flight for whatever reason will do. There are ZERO.

>>10067424
>The Sun stays the pretty much same size.
"Pretty much" is not the same as "it does". If the dense atmosphere affects its size, then any amount of atmosphere will affect its size.

>>10067429
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55lAZjzY0ik

>>10067432
>I thought those countries didn't exist.
Dome faggots think that.
>if it was an infinite plane, it would be infinitely thick.
That doesn't mean the sun is infinitely far away...

>>10067325
Are you trying to prove my point? Because thats what you are doing.

>>10067434
See
>>10067479

>>10067437
See
>>10067479

>>10067474
You must be suffering from some sort of attention/comprehension deficit disorder. Did you not understand that there's an entire research station at the pole, and that people get to and from there by plane?
And to spell out the obvious for you, if there were enough people that wanted to go there, there'd *be* commercial flights. It's apparently not commercially profitable.

>>10067477
You''re right - it changes in theory.
But it won't be enough for you to detect that change on any photos you take. And that's what I mean by "Pretty much". It does, but you won't notice.
Quit trying to be clever. It's not working.

>>10067451
>Can you explain what the "great circle route" is?
I dunno, something you made up. I guess it is going around the outside of the disc extending the range far beyond what the planes can cover with the amount of fuel they have and in the time they do it. But that's all hand wavey stuff for you.

>A flight proving the globe would be very popular. If it was possible, it would have happened by now.
No, it literally wouldn't be. You wouldn't be able to convince any FlatEarthers who took the flight that they actually were at the south pole or crossed it.
Your denial complex is that high.

>That sounds like a local light source. The sun's light shouldn't converge if its light rays are parallel.
They're not exactly parallel. You have to remember that most light sources (especially things like flames) put out light in all directions. So most of the light the Sun produces isn't reaching Earth at all, we only see a tiny sliver. When you observe that you see light from all points across the sliver.
Also your pupil is wider than a photon.

>>10067459
But then the penlight would change actual size, something the Sun has never been observed in doing.

>>10067457
Funny how no one actually owns Antarctica officially, yet there are still rules.

>>10067460
Centers don't exist in physical reality dingbat

>>10067493
FLIGHTS FROM AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND YOU GLOBE RUNT.

>>10067500
>But it won't be enough for you to detect that change on any photos you take
How scientific...

>>10067479
The Sun turns into a potato when it sets!
RESEARCH THE FLAT EARTH!

>>10067510
>Funny how no one actually owns Antarctica officially, yet there are still rules.
Funny how no one actually owns anything officially, yet there are still rules.

>>10067515
No direct flights from New Zealand to Dallas, so I guess Dallas doesn't exist.
Prove me wrong.

>>10067488
Oh dear. Enjoy spinning on a gyro earth you weirdo.

>>10067489
So, that's the size change as I said, it happens right near the horizon.
Now let's look at a flat Earth, where the Sun is 3000 miles above the surface. It subtends about half a degree, meaning it's about 26 miles in diameter.

You kind of have to help me out here, but I'm guessing (and to make it easy for the next step) it "sets" when it has moved about 4,000? miles from Noon. That means it is now 5000 miles away (3-4-5 right triangle).

So the angular size of the Sun will be the inverse sin of 26/5000 = about .3 degrees, or 60% of the Noon Sun.

That's a noticeable change even to the naked eye. And gods' sakes, don't blind yourself. This works on the Moon, too. Do it on a Full Moon night.

Now I have no idea fi the Sun is really *just* 5000 miles away for say, Brazilians when it "sets." I would expect the changes in distances to be more extreme the farther south you go.

Get it?

>>10067489
>>10067491
You see, your problem here is that distortion in one dimension is pretty easy to explain with the atmosphere.
However, if the source was moving away from you it should reduce in size in both dimensions.

So, yes, that video debunks FlatEarth.

>>10067512
Sure Pal. I tell for instance, you're not centered.

>>10067518
It is. It's called error bars, and you have to account for it. There comes a place when decimal points are meaningless. Cutting a 2x4 to make a doghouse - do you really need a micrometer to measure the final lengths of the rafters?
I know - you're just being cute. Ha ha.

>>10067507
>I dunno, something you made up. I guess it is going around the outside of the disc extending the range far beyond what the planes can cover with the amount of fuel they have and in the time they do it. But that's all hand wavey stuff for you.
Does the "great circle route" treat a spherical earth like a flat circle? Yes, yes it does.
>No, it literally wouldn't be. You wouldn't be able to convince any FlatEarthers who took the flight that they actually were at the south pole or crossed it.
>Your denial complex is that high.
So that's the excuse? You don't need this flight to exist because people will just deny it? Pathetic.
>They're not exactly parallel. You have to remember that most light sources (especially things like flames) put out light in all directions. So most of the light the Sun produces isn't reaching Earth at all, we only see a tiny sliver. When you observe that you see light from all points across the sliver.
>Also your pupil is wider than a photon.
The earth rotates in the sun's light, the sun lights up the circumference of the earth evenly, yet the light does not disappear evenly. You are now claiming that we do not observe the sun's light in its entirety, therefore it does not light up the entire horizon evenly as it sets. Bizarre.
>But then the penlight would change actual size, something the Sun has never been observed in doing.
What's the actual size of the pen light?

>>10067520
The sun's size remains the same even though it actually doesn't! RESEARCH THE GLOBE!

>>10067523
Funny how Antarctica doesn't have a government but it is one the strictest places on earth.

>>10067527
NICE STRAW MAN, THAT'S ALL YOU'VE GOT.

>>10067562
"Funny" in what way? Don't imply. That's passive-aggressive. Use your words. Please explain what you want us to conclude. I don't suffer from the same paranoia and delusions you do.

>>10067553
>Does the "great circle route" treat a spherical earth like a flat circle? Yes, yes it does.
Just looked it up and no, it doesn't. It treats a spherical earth like a sphere.
>So that's the excuse? You don't need this flight to exist because people will just deny it? Pathetic.
I have no need for the flight to exist and neither do any airlines because they won't make profit off it.
There is a company doing the flights you want, just not from WHERE you want. That's not my or their problem, it's just your problem.
>The earth rotates in the sun's light, the sun lights up the circumference of the earth evenly, yet the light does not disappear evenly.
Because that's just a matter of your perspective.
>What's the actual size of the pen light?
The area the penlight itself takes up in the frame, not the area of the frame that's white.

>>10067556
>The sun's size remains the same even though it actually doesn't!
Horizontally it stays the same, vertically it compresses because as it approaches the horizon we are actually seeing different portions of it through different amounts of different layers of the atmosphere.
This is something we can expect on a globe Earth, and something that will vary depending on atmospheric conditions on each day you observe it, but it is not something that can be explained on a flat model where the Sun is moving away from you. The horizontal width of the Sun must change as well as it moves away and it does not.

>>10067565
That's your exact argument.

>>10067541
>So, that's the size change as I said, it happens right near the horizon.
Size change should happen constantly in a globe or flat model due to air density. Claiming it stays the same size most of the time is misleading, even though it may look like that to the naked eye. This will happen on both models.
>Now I have no idea fi the Sun is really *just* 5000 miles away for say, Brazilians when it "sets." I would expect the changes in distances to be more extreme the farther south you go.
Depends on the season, the sun circles back and forth over the equator, it's not the fucking earth spinning like a gyro, which is a pathetic ad-hoc explanation.

>>10067542
It's doing both at the same time.

>>10067543
A center is a mathematical abstraction, it has no size, therefore cannot exist in physical reality. Snap out of it.

>>10067546
The sun doesn't remain the same size but you want to pretend it does. Fraud.

>>10067597
>It's doing both at the same time
He shows right here in the video with with fucking text overlays that it hasn't changed size in the horizontal dimension.
It's not doing both at the same time. It is definitively displayed in the video.

>>10067568
Why is Antarctica so heavily protected by the very countries that have no issue destroying environments? Is preserving the land really the goal?

>>10067617
Yes. Very similar reasons to why certain areas of countries are heavily protected.
For example, there are various islands around New Zealand that you're basically not allowed to visit because they are sanctuaries. They've been cleared of various pests like rats, stoats and so on so that we can raise populations of native endangered birds there. Any old Joe turning up on his boat could reintroduce rats or another pest.

Why do you think we have border control in countries?

>>10067588
>Just looked it up and no, it doesn't. It treats a spherical earth like a sphere.
What do you call this?
>It lies in a plane that intersects the sphere's centre
That's a flat circle you brainlet!
>There is a company doing the flights you want, just not from WHERE you want. That's not my or their problem, it's just your problem.
That is your problem, and the globe's problem. Been waiting years for this simple flight to be made, doesn't need to be commercial. NOTHING. And there never will be because it ain't a fucking globe.
>Because that's just a matter of your perspective.
Oh so now perspective does play a role? Trying to have your cake and eat it too.
>The area the penlight itself takes up in the frame, not the area of the frame that's white.
There isn't a size.
>Horizontally it stays the same
No it doesn't.
>The horizontal width of the Sun must change as well as it moves away and it does not.
Yes it does brainlet, along with the light on the horizon etc. It's local.

>>10067593
Australia to the South Pole. NOW.

>>10067631
Flattards can only be poor because anyone else would just book a flight.

>>10067594
>Size change should happen constantly in a globe or flat model due to air density. Claiming it stays the same size most of the time is misleading, even though it may look like that to the naked eye.
This is one of those "you can't win" scenarios. If I mention size changes, folks take photos, measure, and say it doesn't change. Since they son't see the change, this is practical, not misleading.

>>Now I have no idea fi the Sun is really *just* 5000 miles away for say, Brazilians when it "sets." I would expect the changes in distances to be more extreme the farther south you go.
>Depends on the season, the sun circles back and forth over the equator,
Exaclty. I was very conservative in my guess. It's probably much more radical and the size changes would be far more obvious on a flat Earth. Since the changes are not apparent, the distance idea is just wrong.

> it's not the fucking earth spinning like a gyro, which is a pathetic ad-hoc explanation.
Sorry you feel that way, but reality does not take a back seat to your lack of understanding and perception.

>>10067631
>>It lies in a plane that intersects the sphere's centre
>That's a flat circle you brainlet!
No. A sphere is not a circle. Most importantly it has a third dimension which is what is being referenced here.
>That is your problem, and the globe's problem. Been waiting years for this simple flight to be made, doesn't need to be commercial. NOTHING. And there never will be because it ain't a fucking globe.
I guess you should look back in history then because it has been done.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/byrd-flies-over-south-pole
>Oh so now perspective does play a role?
Perspective plays a role in every observation. You have to be aware what role perspective has though.
>There isn't a size.
There is no spoon.
>No it doesn't.
>Yes it does brainlet, along with the light on the horizon etc. It's local.
See >>10067613
The maker of the video himself demonstrates that it hasn't changed horizontal size. Who are you to argue with him?

>>10067613
That proves it's not setting behind the earth you brainlet. It disappears behind thick atmosphere bottom up, not behind earth's curvature.

>>10067626
New Zealand has a government. Antarctica does not.

>>10067648
If the flight was possible globalists would jump at the chance to book it. Alas, NOTHING.

>>10067669
>This is one of those "you can't win" scenarios. If I mention size changes, folks take photos, measure, and say it doesn't change. Since they son't see the change, this is practical, not misleading.
Photos of a bright light in the sky is proof of its size? What about pic related? Not possible with a 93 million miles away sun.
>Exaclty. I was very conservative in my guess. It's probably much more radical and the size changes would be far more obvious on a flat Earth. Since the changes are not apparent, the distance idea is just wrong.
He says ignoring >>10067346
>Sorry you feel that way, but reality does not take a back seat to your lack of understanding and perception.
You think you're living on a spherical gyro, incredible.

>>10067391
>>10067393

I bet nobody can explain how the sun behaves on a flat Earth, when they look at how it really behaves.

>>10067698
>Photos of a bright light in the sky is proof of its size? What about pic related? Not possible with a 93 million miles away sun.
Good gods, you're stupid. Or truly a troll.
We're done.

>>10067673
>No. A sphere is not a circle. Most importantly it has a third dimension which is what is being referenced here.
It lies in a plane you dishonest coward. Do you know what a plane is?
>>10067673
>I guess you should look back in history then because it has been done.
>https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/byrd-flies-over-south-pole
History is science now? Australia to the south pole. NOW.
>Perspective plays a role in every observation. You have to be aware what role perspective has though.
What role is that brainlet?
>There is no spoon.
Light doesn't have a size.
>The maker of the video himself demonstrates that it hasn't changed horizontal size. Who are you to argue with him?
It proves the sun disappears behind atmosphere. Yet the sun's light remains on the horizon for a bit, getting dimmer and dimmer, proving it is moving further away, not setting behind the earth.

>>10067397
>No. There literally is not. And I don't give a shit about flying to the south pole because there's no benefit to me above going anywhere else in the planet.

But, if you wanted to, you could.

https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole

>>10067298
>They don't care whether the Earth is flat or round. Your posts are met with insulting responses or more made-up nonsense, because the game is all about the lulz from getting you to spend time responding.

>>10067706
>doesn't understand the sun's relationship with the moon
>doesn't understand that Antarctica does not have 24 hour daylight, it can have 24 hour sun light which is not the same. Antarctica is at the highest altitude of any land of known earth, with extremely clean, clear, light air that allows light to pass through it much more easily than anywhere else. This means the sun will be visible for 24 hours, but it will be low on the horizon with dark sky. It is not daylight and never will be.

>>10067410
Where you get on the plane does not effect where you get off, and look around and watch how the sun behaves -- in a way that is totally inconsistent with the flat model.

But if it makes a difference to you, you can start in NZ, fly to Chile, and then change planes and go to the muthafuckin South Pole, bitch. It would just cost a bit more.

>>10067718
>24 hour daylight, it can have 24 hour sun light which is not the same.

>>10067708
Is that 93 million miles away? Good God you're stupid. Or truly a troll. We're done.

>>10067416
I think that you touch children at night. I think that if you mash strawberries up like apricots they taste much more like peaches than bananas do. I think that for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows. I think that logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad. I think that mares eat oats, and does eat oats, and little lambs eat ivy. I think that you may be figuring out that I have no intention of taking your idiot trolling seriously. I think that Tom Selleck's mustache should be bronzed and put on display in the rotunda of the US Capitol. I think that Moot secretly wrote all the jokes in the Deadpool movies...

>>10067720
>you can start in NZ, fly to Chile, and then change planes and go to the muthafuckin South Pole, bitch
Pathetic. Direct flight from NZ to the South Pole. NOW.

>>10067718
>Antarctica is at the highest altitude of any land of known earth
Except for Nepal, with Mt. Everest.
And Ecuador, with the peak farthest from the center of the Earth.
And how high is the highest peak in Antarctica?
16,050 feet. So then there's Denali at 20k feet.

Basically Anon, you're a liar.

>>10067721
It's called the midnight sun you uneducated mutation.

>>10067731
It's still daylight, you misguided autist.

>>10067418

>>10067419
>So yea, there are flights. But you make it sound like there should be scheduled commercial flights for tourists, and that because there aren't it doesn't exist. And that's when I ask you, why would they have such flights? What would they do when they get there? They'd see a lot of snow and ice, it'd be cold, there are no tourist facilities.... it's a stupid idea that you're bringing up because you're being cute.


>>10067474


Guys, Google.

https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole

>>10067429
Do the moon -- most cameras are going to overexpose the shit out of the sun, making it appear larger until it gets near the horizon.

But the moon won;t mess up your exposure -- plus you are less likely yo fry your retinas.

>>10067726
Gyro earth weirdo is triggered. Yes, you should be embarrassed for believing the earth spins like a gyro, but you need deal with it with more maturity.

>>10067737
$50k? Cheap.
Add “Glamping in Antarctica” to Your Travel Bucket List - $72,000
http://thepointsguy.com/2016/09/glamping-in-antarctica-travel-bucket-list/

>>10067470
1: Take her to Dubai.
2: Do tacky tourist shit
3: Arrange with the folks that run the Burj Khalifa to set up the following fun experience.
4: Stand at the base and watch the sunset.
5: Dash to express elevator, and head for the top.
6: Watch sunset again.
7: ?????
8: PROFIT!

Protip: It will cost you out the ass to set this up, Those guys at the Burj LOOOOOOOVE money.

>>10067730
>Antarctica is the highest continent on Earth: average elevation is 8,200ft (2500m).
Try again.

>>10067742
And you wont' even get to the pole for that $72k!

>>10067733
Oh well dusk might as well be daylight as well cretin.

>>10067744
>average elevation>>10067746

That is *not* in your original post.

>>10067737
Pathetic. I want Australia/NZ direct to the South Pole. NOW.

>>10067515
Out of curiosity, what is the significance of where the plane takes off?

>>10067339
So... have we seen any incontrovertible proof yet the Earth is flat?
There's been a lot of pedantic maneuvering around semantics, but salient points have not yet been made.
Or?

>>10063541
dump her. easy. less work. you will lose nothing. worry not annon there are more cute butts for you to find else where, who do not belie this crap.

>>10067734
Wave bye bye to the globe.

>>10063541
Dude, dump her. Look at the flat earth responses here. Basically troll bait and "I say so" with a couple of tard memes to distract. Very Trump.

Likewise, you wont' convince her. Either she has a brain or not. Stop wasting time.

>>10067747
Quiet brainlet, mountains != land.

>>10067765
In your special dictionary.

>>10067758
Hello?

>>10067132
>There is evidence to suggest it's not even a solid thing.

Post it.

>>10067755
If a plane can fly direct to the south pole from Australia/NZ in under 10 hours, then this is pretty much proof of the globe with 2 celestial poles.

If no such flight is possible, then there is no proof that Australia/NZ are on the other side of Antarctica, nor proof that Antarctica is an ice cap.

>>10067776
>I'm authoring it now. Just you wait...

>>10067773
Quiet brainlet, you know nothing about Antarctica nor the earth you live on.

>>10067689
https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole

I can copy this into the thread all day, troll-bro.

>>10067783

>>10067298
>Your posts are met with insulting responses or more made-up nonsense, because the game is all about the lulz from getting you to spend time responding.

>>10067718

>>10067729
Nope.

But if you want to go to the South Pole, you now know how to do it. You also now know there are scheduled flights and you can book a ticket.

>>10067687
No. At the end you clearly see it disappear behind the horizon, the biggest problem is that there is reflection off the water towards the end.

>>10067711
>It lies in a plane you dishonest coward. Do you know what a plane is?
I know exactly what a plane is. Here, I have demonstrated what is being said in picture form. Please excuse my poor ability to draw straight on a soft ball and line up my shot perfectly with the intersection plane but the line in yellow is the plane that is intersecting the center of the sphere.
>History is science now?
>its never been done
>fuck history

>What role is that brainlet?
When you are looking towards the source of light you will invariably get more reflections of light from that source reflected into your eyes.
>Light doesn't have a size.
Objects have a size and that is important. The Sun isn't light, it produces light.
>It proves the sun disappears behind atmosphere. Yet the sun's light remains on the horizon for a bit, getting dimmer and dimmer, proving it is moving further away, not setting behind the earth.
That's another assumption you are making which still doesn't solve the problem that the horizontal width of the Sun should still be decreasing as it moves away. You cannot avoid that problem. You must solve it.

>>10067741
Soursop and lemon drop and folding paper posies.

>>10067731
It's called midnight sun because it's 00:00 hours but the sun is still above the horizon.
Not because it is dark but the sun is still there. God you're retarded.

>>10067778
How does a flight from Chile not prove this also?

>>10067776

>>10067786
And you're only proving me right by doing so.

>>10067790
Prove it.

>>10067791
Direct flight to south pole from Australia/NZ under 10 hours = I will accept the globe

>>10067846
>there is a dot that could be anything
>the moon is transparent!

>>10067854
So basically what you're saying is that the lack of a flight isn't proof the Earth is flat because it could possibly be a thing, it just isn't there to prove the Earth is a globe.

>>10067794
>No. At the end you clearly see it disappear behind the horizon, the biggest problem is that there is reflection off the water towards the end.
The horizon != land - it is a band of thick atmosphere above the surface of the water. You can see it distorting before disappearing, that is what hides the sun.
>I know exactly what a plane is. Here, I have demonstrated what is being said in picture form. Please excuse my poor ability to draw straight on a soft ball and line up my shot perfectly with the intersection plane but the line in yellow is the plane that is intersecting the center of the sphere.
The earth is a plane - that's why it works.
>History is science now?
>its never been done
>fuck history
Show scientific evidence.
>When you are looking towards the source of light you will invariably get more reflections of light from that source reflected into your eyes.
Are the light rays parallel to your eyes with your absurd 93 million miles away sun?
>Objects have a size and that is important. The Sun isn't light, it produces light.
It's the positive electric anode. The moon is the cathode. Get a clue.
>That's another assumption you are making which still doesn't solve the problem that the horizontal width of the Sun should still be decreasing as it moves away. You cannot avoid that problem. You must solve it.
It does get smaller. A sunset through a solar filter from a plane at 35,000ft will prove this.

>>10067795
Your spells won't work on me.

>>10067798
IT'S NOT DAYLIGHT FUCKSTICK

>>10067802
Because we already know you can fly to the South Pole from Chile. The point is to prove that Australia/NZ are on the other side of Antarctica which validates the globe. A flat earth can't have Australia/NZ opposite the (same) South Pole, nor have Antarctica as an ice cap in similar size to the arctic.

For some reason such a flight seems impossible to book.

Don't focus on ANYTHING except the dome. Flat earthers believe that Earth is covered with a glass dome.

Ask her how did the dome get there. It damn sure couldn't be a natural formation. If she says God made it, then ask her what else can we find in nature that God made that isn't natural.

The dome is 100% sure way to debunk discredit flatearthers.

>>10067868
>So basically what you're saying is that the lack of a flight isn't proof the Earth is flat because it could possibly be a thing, it just isn't there to prove the Earth is a globe.
Yes, but at the same time, if it was possible it would have happened already.

>>10067907
Why don't you fly over it and prove it yourself

>>10067884
>The horizon != land - it is a band of thick atmosphere above the surface of the water.
Okay so now you are redefining what a horizon is.
>The earth is a plane - that's why it works.
No. You clearly don't understand the words at all. You just see the word "plane" and think it must mean the Earth is a plane.
>Show scientific evidence.
Well shit, I don't have scientific evidence that flight took place.
>Are the light rays parallel to your eyes with your absurd 93 million miles away sun?
What does this even mean? I mean, for starters my eyes are offset so if I look at any point lines drawn along my vision are going to converge.
>It's the positive electric anode. The moon is the cathode. Get a clue.
Another claim with no basis. I don't see any lightning going between the Sun and the Moon.
>It does get smaller. A sunset through a solar filter from a plane at 35,000ft will prove this.
>It doesn't from 3,500ft but it certainly will from 35,000ft. Believe me!
No, it won't.

>>10067891
Those are just fucking terms. Midnight isn't even the middle of the night for most of the fucking year. Daylight is daylight because the Sun is up.

>>10067907
Ah, right, I see where you are coming from.
Part of the problem I am seeing is that the Chilean airport they use is closer to the South Pole than anything in Australia/New Zealand, so they use Chile for things like rescue missions to the South Pole itself, while New Zealand services places like McMurdo station.

Of course, there is the South Pole Traverse, which is going from McMurdo Station to the South Pole (same station you fly to from Chile) but I guess that doesn't count because you need to fly (even though this would mean going by land (ice) the entire half circumference of your pizza dish).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole_Traverse

>>10067931
You make it sound so easy.

>>10067298
>Here's the deal: there are three types of Flat Earthers who regularly post to 4Chan: the rare prankster intellectuals who challenge your knowledge and debate skills (they will call your errors), the occasional literal Bible interpreters (they tend towards sanctimony), and far and away the most proliferate: the juvenile-level troller (they routinely claim you're stupid, yet respond with exasperatingly flawed memes and blather).
I used to believed that too. But seeing more into flat earth things and its people I'm sure that alot of them are really genue conspiracytards who believe this nonsense and other stupid shit

>>10063541
>I just discovered my girlfriend is a flatearther.
Girls just do this kind of stuff. If it wasn't flat-earth it would be acupuncture/energy healing/horoscopes/personality tests etc. They can't help it so you should just try to ignore it. It's like having a friend with a lisp

>>10063541
Question
Is she atractive and you not?

>>10063541
Accept that your girlfriend is a dumb bitch
There's no point in arguing with the stupid cunt, her mind's already made up!

>>10063541
Don't bother.

>>10063541
>How do i convince her the earth is not flat?
well how did you convince yourself?

>>10063588
>>>back

>>10063541
Make her do earthchan cosplay and call her flat, she will argue she's not.

>>10065419
That's how America was discovered, it was just slightly over the edge.