/sci/ - Science & Math

Sure, just use airline flight times to model the shape of the Earth.

Sure, try looking at the sky

A guy did an experiment at the end of the flat earth documentary. Look it up.

yeah i put a rope around my neck and tied the other end to a bridge and jumped off
this proved flat is earth because i was reborn

The Netflix one I mean.

>step one:get some sort of streaming equipment
>step two:attach it to a really good balloon
>step three:let the balloon float upwards outside while streaming what the equipment sees
There you go

>>11272231
go to the edge and fall off?

>>11272336
streaming equipment ha fisheye lens, try again

>>11272231
yes. way back in ancient Greece

>>11272231
Use two sticks like Erathostenes did.

>>11272281
Still works on a rotating flat earth.

>>11272350
Can be calculated and corrected for.

https://youtu.be/IOlVtC-1q8I

The earth is flat but only by memes of abstraction. How can these tards not figure that out? What I mean is that the Earth is flat as a model, but the map is not the territory. It only APPEARS to be flat. When you build a house you don't take account for the curvature of the earth and it's useful model in those terms. We have satellites that orbit the earth. You can track the movement of the sun. Even Pajeets have built and launched spacecraft. Everything else in the solar system is round. I can't believe I took this bait.

>>11272231
>Has anyone developed an easy DIY experiment to disprove the flat earth theorem?
I mean fucking Eratosthenes proved it in the bronze age using two sticks, shadows, and middle school geometry to not only prove the world is round, but estimate it's size respectably close to the actual dimensions.

>>11272231

Look at a mountain at sunset on a cloudy day. You'll see the shadow of the mountain being cast on the clouds above it. This is the proof that the Earth is round, not flat.

On the flat-Earth model, the sun never sets and therefor, the mentioned mountain can never cast a shadow on the clouds above it.

Pic related, it is at sunrise instead of sunset but the same idea applies to it aswell.

>>11272231
Befriend Elon Musk, orbit the Earth.

>>11272784
My old apartment was eye level with a big mountain in the middle of the town with a westward view and I used to have sunsets like this all the time in the summer.
Pictures don't do it justice. The clouds are lit up and glowing with this violet red light that looks that made everything in the shadows this dark blue.

>>11272784
False, the sun is just a refracted projection in the atmosphere, therefore the light can be below the clouds despite the source of the light being above on a flat earth.

>>11272231
*sigh*... Try this.
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 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, but will appear to increase its speed as it approaches. When 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 gains the drift to the right and magically disappears.

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 a straight line on the sky, because in this geometry you (not a distant pole) are on the same plane as the circle it traces.

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.

>>11272986
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.

Yeah OP, look at the Sun setting or rising. Or a ship crossing the horizon.

>>11272231
sunsets

>>11272271
Stars are sonoluminescence. Firmanent holds back the waters above. Continents float on the waters below, primary water.

Prove me wrong.

>>11273210
You'd need to provide some evidence that you were right first.

>>11273272
You too.

>>11273180

I dont get how the plain old and simple "ship going below the horizon" can be anything else but utterly convincing. These people must be trolling, surely, just taking the piss for the shits and giggles, pretending to be retarded. If not, then considering plenty of people in 3rd world countries are smart enough to know the Earth is not flat, they should be executed for being an embarrassment to society and as an improvement to the gene pool.

>>11272730
>Still works on a rotating flat earth.
Nope. Not the way it works on a an approximately spheroidal object.

>>11272231
Stand next a very tall building
Watch the sun set
Take elevator to the top
Watch sun set again

Or: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqAOsI2Ekf0

>>11273638
What would be the difference?

>>11272231
aa stick and a piece of paper

>>11272231
>theorem

>>11273789
>What would be the difference?
Shit wouldn't equalize at the equator

>>11272281
lmfao. It's ironic you post that as evidence of a spinning earth because the foucault pendulum is blatant proof of quite the opposite.
If the Earth was moving, you would expect the foucault pendulum to take one SOLAR DAY to complete a rotation. Instead, the foucault pendulum takes one SIDEREAL DAY to complete a rotation. This indicates the foucault pendulum is tethered to the rotation of the celestial sphere on a stationary earth.

>>11273817
I didn't mean flat earth rotating around the axis perpendicular to it in its center. It could rotate around some arbitrary axis.
But yeah, you could figure out the line on which it equalizes and find out its a great circle.

>>11272754
Part of the meme is that shit like satellites (some of which can be seen with the naked eye) are controlled by big Globe (the vested interest looking to sell you round earth propaganda)

>>11272231
>disprove
That's not how burden of proof works.

>>11272231
try shooting a gun at 1500 yards without correcting for the curvature of the earth with your fire solution

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 with some interestingly challenging responses), the occasional literal Bible interpreters (they sanctimoniously promote blind faith), 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. By responding, you've taken the bait.

They don't care whether the Earth is flat or round. The game is all about the luls in getting you to spend time responding. They will provoke you with insults and the classic, "If you don't respond, you prove me right." If you reference web-based information (that they would have looked up, had they interest) they will accuse you of being a shill for a conspiracy. Either way, they will post more silly nonsense as well.

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

>>11272920
light in your pic always goes down, so if mountains are below sun, shadows will never be cast above them. flat earth deconfirmed

Seriously, the last real argument for flat Earth is that some areas in Antarctica are forbidden to enter. It a shame that they don't let people in, and this fuels conspiracy theories.

>>11274220
You can literally book a vacation there, anon.
https://www.adventure-life.com/antarctica
I mean, the next argument from the loonies is that such trips is only a psychedelic trick to fool the sheeple, but at that point you know you can just give up

>>11272920
Kek...
>Atmopheric contents are unknown
>prodeeds to define layers of different elements

>until independent tests
Ignoring stratospheric balloons flown by amateurs to take photos from high up.
Routine Poker flats rocket launches by UAF ignored.

>Space agencies are not reliable
>but we can use their data until it no longer suits
Prepping for more jibber-jabber

>Suns height still unknown
That's new.

It's nice that you want to play make-believe, but there are other forums where you'd be more welcome. Or at all.

>>11272784
>On the flat-Earth model, the sun never sets

Depends which model the flattards like this week. There are flat models with the sun orbiting below the disk.

They do not work, but that's OK because the models with the sun always above the disk also do not work -- they just fail in different ways.

>>11272920
>Sun height is still unknown.

On their model, is is more correctly "undefined." Sightings to the sun produce lines that point in different directions when plotted from a flat Earth.

The Sun must be presumed to be in some state of quantum uncertainty until observed, I suppose.

PS: Same for the moon.

We are living on many flat earths that combine to form a sphere
WAKE UP SHEEPLE

>>11272231
Make a photo...

>>11273312
YouTube moron Ranty Flatearth actually went out and videoed ships sailing over the horizon, and proved curvature by showing them disappearing from the bottom up, and NOT, as he had claimed would happen, coming back into view when he zoomed in.

So he discounted his own experiment. He handwaved the results away.

Pic related.

>>11273823
Why would it be keyed to a solar day rather than a sidereal day? Please explain with minimum handwaving.

>>11272231
>DIY experiment to disprove the flat earth theorem?
They did and it involves taking 20mg of olanzapine daily.

Consider

Possibility #1: The Earth is flat. Every governmental body in the world, spending extreme quantities of untold resources, works to try and convince the population that the earth is flat. They further spend resources to convince literally every scientist and long distance traveler to say the earth is flat. They do this with near flawless perfection, with the only observable flaws being that some people don't believe it.

Possibility #2: The Earth is spherical. Most everyone agrees on this including governmental bodies, scientists, long distance travelers, etc. A minority of people don't believe it. This minority continues to believe in an alternative partly because their government doesn't give a fuck about what they think, so long as they pay their taxes.

>>11275034
Based 2.5d-earther

>>11272231
Proof of gravity through a Cavendish experiment?

>>11275034
>not living on the inside of a hollow earth
reptilian disinfo agents fucks off

>>11274210
The point is the refracted projection of the sun's light can be below the top of the mountain to create the shadow.

Even in the globe model, the sun during sunset (and sunrise) is a purely refracted projection. It's called delayed sunset/advanced sunrise.

>>11274325
>Ignoring stratospheric balloons flown by amateurs to take photos from high up.
We're working on collecting our own.
>>Space agencies are not reliable
>>but we can use their data until it no longer suits
>Prepping for more jibber-jabber
Why would a flat earther trust space agencies?
>>Suns height still unknown
>That's new.
Flat earth doesn't claim to know what the sun even is - it's actually completely irrelevant to proving the shape of the earth unless we can physically go there.
>It's nice that you want to play make-believe, but there are other forums where you'd be more welcome. Or at all.
I'm doing real science, the globe belongs in /x/.

>>11275026
It is unknown what the sun, or any light in the sky, actually is. Proving a flat earth should not involve the lights in the sky, it should directly involve the physical surface of the earth.

Unfortunately for the globe, all the "evidence" is based on the assumptive observations of things in the sky, rather than directly and empirically measuring the physical surface of the earth.

/FFwRXKq

I literally always fucking let myself get dragged into these threads and it's only halfway through some dank well thought out response that I stop and think about what I'm doing

>>11272920
>False, the sun is just a refracted projection in the atmosphere

Uh-huh. Where’s your data?

>>11273210
>Makes claims
>Pretends he doesn’t have a burden of proof

Troll.

>>11274220
> Seriously, the last real argument for flat Earth is that some areas in Antarctica are forbidden to enter

You’re not forbidden from entering any part of Antarctica. You can go there if you want, and can fly over it as long as you file your flight plans.

>>11275149
>Possibility #1: The Earth is flat. Every governmental body in the world, spending extreme quantities of untold resources, works to try and convince the population that the earth is flat. They further spend resources to convince literally every scientist and long distance traveler to say the earth is flat. They do this with near flawless perfection, with the only observable flaws being that some people don't believe it.
I don't get it? Was your possibility supposed to be the government spending untold resources to convince the population/scientists that the earth is a sphere, when it's actually flat? If so, it wouldn't take that many resources - the main priority is restricting public/scientific access to space and controlling early years education.

The globe is considered something that has long been worked out, and is something we are taught at an early age as a fact, which makes it extremely difficult to question later in life. If a scientist did question it, the globe has enough mathematical modelling and assumptive observations backing it up that scientists won't need much convincing of it. Let's also not forget the social ramifications of questioning something that is supposed to be a given, good luck having a career in science.
>Possibility #2: The Earth is spherical. Most everyone agrees on this including governmental bodies, scientists, long distance travelers, etc. A minority of people don't believe it. This minority continues to believe in an alternative partly because their government doesn't give a fuck about what they think, so long as they pay their taxes.
The government does give a fuck though, that's where you're wrong. NASA astronauts have been in many videos trying to convince viewers that the earth definitely isn't flat, using extremely weak arguments. Why waste time doing that? Youtube add the flat earth wikipedia article (which claims FE is false) underneath every flat earth video. The government forced this.

>>11275268
>It is unknown what the sun, or any light in the sky, actually is.

Wrong.

> Proving a flat earth should not involve the lights in the sky

There is no reason that flat earth could not be proven or disproven by making observations of the sky.
You are creating arbitrary restrictions because you know that observations of the sky prove earth isn’t flat.

>>11275328
if they cared it would have been illegal to call the earth flat years ago

>>11275328
>Youtube add the flat earth wikipedia article (which claims FE is false) underneath every flat earth video.

Thank God. Really, they should ban all flat earthers.

>>11275320
Data isn't required, the atmosphere is a fluid medium with a density gradient - light outside of this medium will be refracted and appear in positions the source light is not.

If you disagree with this, then you also disagree with the globe model, where the refracted projection of the sun is taken into account during sunset/rise. It's called delayed sunset/advanced sunrise.

>>11275346
>Data isn't required

Hidden.

>>11275336
>Wrong.
Nope - your model makes assumptions about what they are based on observation alone. That's not real, natural science.
>>11275336
>There is no reason that flat earth could not be proven or disproven by making observations of the sky.
>You are creating arbitrary restrictions because you know that observations of the sky prove earth isn’t flat.
A flat earth simply cannot have the same lights (which you call stars/planets etc) in the sky as the globe model has. The flat earth is not compatible with the globe universe and therefore does not use it. If flat earth uses the lights in the sky to prove the shape of the earth, then it implies flat earth knows what the lights in the sky are. It doesn't, therefore it's not scientific to use them.

>>11275337
They're not that stupid - that would be an extremely suspicious move and against freedom of speech.

>>11275365
> A flat earth simply cannot have the same lights (which you call stars/planets etc) in the sky as the globe model has

A flat earth can’t have the same “lights” as the real world.

>>11275340
>Thank God. Really, they should ban all flat earthers.
I just don't get this attitude at all from globers. It seems like you're threatened by flat earth, but why, if it's just a bunch of moronic schizos believing something stupid?

The globe can only move from strength to strength if it's real. The money and power is on your side. Flat earth will be well and truly destroyed once commercial space travel takes off.

Why does youtube and NASA feel the need to convince people the earth is a globe on the internet, when they can just let commercial space travel do the talking.

>>11275350
wat

>>11275375
its illegal to distribute bomb making materials

>>11275398
>if it's just a bunch of moronic schizos believing something stupid?

Moronic schizos ought to be prevented from spreading their stupid ideas.

>>11275383
>A flat earth can’t have the same “lights” as the real world.
You have a model of what the lights are, a model doesn't prove it is the "real world". If the moon landings were real, then you have excellent evidence that the assumptive observations/measurements of the light that we call the moon were accurate, and is a win for the globe model.

Obviously, there's lots of controversy about the supposed moon landings, but you will be extremely compelled to believe they were real, because if they weren't, then the globe cannot claim to know what the moon is either as it hasn't been directly accessed.

>>11275435
>You have a model of what the lights are

We know what the lights are because they’ve been observed and measured.

> If the moon landings were real, then you have excellent evidence that the assumptive observations/measurements of the light that we call the moon were accurate

Landing on the moon isn’t necessary to know what it is.

> Obviously, there's lots of controversy about the supposed moon landings

No there isn’t.

> because if they weren't, then the globe cannot claim to know what the moon is either as it hasn't been directly accessed.

Don’t need to land on the moon to know what it is.

>>11275417
You trolling? Hardly the same thing. What would you think if the government made calling the earth flat illegal?

>>11275420
>Moronic schizos ought to be prevented from spreading their stupid ideas.
Don't you think the best way to do that, in terms of flat earth, is by the proliferation of commercial space travel?

>>11275443
>We know what the lights are because they’ve been observed and measured.
So the observations and measurements, and the interpretations of these, are 100% correct? No assumptions or mathematical trickery involved at all? And when you say "we", are you including yourself?
>Landing on the moon isn’t necessary to know what it is.
It is for natural science - far less assumptions are involved when you have direct, physical access to something.
>No there isn’t.
You don't think there's lots of controversy about the moon landings? What makes you say that? Pic related was taken on the moon, by the way.
>Don’t need to land on the moon to know what it is.
Why's that?

>>11275326
>You’re not forbidden from entering any part of Antarctica
Proof?

>>11275510
Not him, do you have any proof that you are forbidden from entering Antarctica? I've heard the claim many times but no one has ever provided any evidence to back it up.

>>11275522
Not all of Antarctica is forbidden, just most of it. The public can access a certain amount of land past the coast opposite South America, where you can meet the penguins and do some sightseeing, but it's extremely restricted, you can't just go exploring by yourself.

The Antarctic Treaty is the overarching method that restricts not only the public, but countries, from accessing most of Antarctica, under the guise of wanting to keep Antarctica pristine and uncontaminated by humans. This is why the public are very limited in what they can bring to Antarctica let alone very limited in where they can go.

I thought Antarctica being a "protected" area was common knowledge?

Video explaining how fish-eye distortion works and how to account for it: https://youtu.be/cHhDhYeYf2Q

Compilation of high altitude balloon footage from various different sources, analysed at the point where distortion is eliminated as explained in the previous video: https://youtu.be/dV99TJ9KlJQ

Simple repeatable experiment that allows one to photograph the curve of the horizon from a cliff overlooking the sea, take note of the straight-edges remaining straight when the image is compressed horizontally, indicating that lens distortion is not the cause of the curvature: https://youtu.be/tOCodgq1oM8

Experiment performed by many people from all around the world at various latitudes on the equinox to measure the sun's angle relative to the observer and map these results onto both a flat and globe model: https://youtu.be/J9w4KtHxZ68

3-D representation of this experiment using data obtained from timeanddate.com: https://youtu.be/7nzEhDX-xzg

Notice how in both instances, the angles don't line up on the flat model indicating the sun is in multiple places at once, while all angles on the globe model point towards the same distant sun as to be expected.

>>11275563
And right on cue, the pseudo-science copypasta gets posted. Almost like you're getting paid to do it.

Your second video deceptively takes screenshots of videos where fish eye distortion of the horizon is still occurring. Not only must the horizon be perfectly centred across the frame, but the camera itself must be perfectly level perpendicular to the earth's surface directly below. The video takes screenshots when this isn't the case. Very pathetic - why would globecucks need to resort to such dirty tactics if the earth isn't flat?

Your third video claims to be capturing the curvature of the horizon from an altitude of 575ft, but there are multiple problems with it, but the main one is the things on the end of the table are not level. Pic related. This means the camera won't be level either, causing distortion. Again, a pathetic "experiment".

>>11275510
There are fucking businesses who make money outfitting your private expeditions if you want to go.

You have to get a permit, largely based on making sure you are not suicidally rushing in wothout proper gear, and are able to follow environmental rules (largely consisting of Do Not Leave Your Shit All Over the Fucking Place) And no, making you get a permit is not even close to forbidding you to enter -- ant more than requiring you to have a license is forbidding you to drive.

Some Aussie dude is down there right now, having just kite-skied to the pole of inaccessibility (point furthest from any ocean) and is, iirc, heading for the south pole. You can Google up other expeditions if you are interested.

Here's a link to one of the companies that outfits you and helps you get your permit lined up, https://antarctic-logistics.com/destination/expeditions/ You can Google others if you are interested.

>>11275565
>Experiment performed by many people from all around the world at various latitudes on the equinox to measure the sun's angle relative to the observer and map these results onto both a flat and globe model
Meaningless - you're trying to use the globe model of the sun (a physical ball emitting light) in a flat model of the earth. It is not known what the sun is, it is irrelevant, all that matters is the earth's surface itself. There's a reason you have to point at the sky rather than the earth's surface. You could at least try some laser experiments, don't be scared.
>Notice how in both instances, the angles don't line up on the flat model indicating the sun is in multiple places at once, while all angles on the globe model point towards the same distant sun as to be expected.
How awkward, since in your very own globe model, the sun, as observed from earth, has to be local too, since it is a refracted projection in the atmosphere.

>>11275545
You are not limited in where you can go. The limitation is that it costs out the ass to trek around down there and not die.

>>11275718
So I think we can safely say that there is no easy DIY experiment that you can do that will not be rejected for bogus reasons by a loudly REEEEEEing flerfer with hands a-waving.

>>11275718
>Not only must the horizon be perfectly centred across the frame, but the camera itself must be perfectly level perpendicular to the earth's surface directly below
No, it mustn't.
>pic
Ah yes, the miniscule angle that straight edge is off by would definitely cause it to remain perfectly straight in >>11275565 while the ocean magically bends, you've figured it all out.

>>11275718
>must the horizon be perfectly centred across the frame, but the camera itself must be perfectly level perpendicular to the earth's surface directly below
The horizon doesn't rise to eye level.

>>11275731
In your link, it states:
>All proposed Antarctic activities must undergo an environmental impact assessment and all visitors to Antarctica are required to have authority from a relevant government. ALE holds a multi-year Initial Environmental Evaluation assessed by the US Environmental Protection Agency and a Waste Management Permit issued by the NSF Office of Polar Programs. Many expeditions will be covered by our authorities and permits, but they don’t cover every circumstance. Should your expedition require its own permit, ALE has extensive expertise navigating the Antarctic Treaty System and can assist with permit applications.
Sounds like a lot of bureaucracy you have to go through. I never said we are forbidden to access Antarctica, just that we are forbidden to access most of it. This "permit" bureaucracy is a way to control people's access and routes they can take.
>Some Aussie dude is down there right now, having just kite-skied to the pole of inaccessibility (point furthest from any ocean) and is, iirc, heading for the south pole. You can Google up other expeditions if you are interested.
Can you show me an expedition of Antarctica that began on the side opposite South America, and then crossed the prime meridian, ending up on the side of Antarctica opposite Australia/NZ?

>>11275735
>Can you show me an expedition of Antarctica that began on the side opposite South America, and then crossed the prime meridian, ending up on the side of Antarctica opposite Australia/NZ?
Can you show me an expedition of Antarctica that began on the side opposite South America, and then crossed the prime meridian, ending up on the side of Antarctica opposite Australia/NZ?

>>11275734
>Meaningless
No, it's actual observations made by people.
>It is not known what the sun is
It's irrelevant what the sun "is". What's relevant is the fact that the globe model can predict where it will be in the sky consistently, while the flat model can't do this and leads to there being multiple suns at different locations for some reason.
>since in your very own globe model, the sun, as observed from earth, has to be local too
No it doesn't.
>it is a refracted projection in the atmosphere
"Atmospheric refraction of the light from a star is zero in thezenith, less than 1 (onearc-minute) at 45° apparentaltitude, and still only 5.3 at 10° altitude;"
Try again, troll.

>>11275741
Explain how my rejections are bogus then? Oh wait, you can't.

Reminder that flat earthers are not genuine in their beliefs, do not argue in good faith and are not worth your time.

>>11272350
>streaming equipment ha fisheye lens
Then change the lens to whatever you want dimwit.

>>11275757
>No, it mustn't.
Oh really, and why's that?
>>11275757
>Ah yes, the miniscule angle that straight edge is off by would definitely cause it to remain perfectly straight in >>11275565 while the ocean magically bends, you've figured it all out.
Sorry kid, it's a very amateur "experiment". There's nothing proving the camera wasn't zoomed in to take the photo, nothing proving the photo was cropped before hand, nothing proving how the "compression" of the image in photoshop was done, it was weirdly edited during that part. I want real science please.

>>11275759
>The horizon doesn't rise to eye level.
What's the surface of the flat floor in pic related doing? Same thing happens to the surface of the earth at high altitude, doesn't it? Difference is, you claim the earth's surface rising up is due to its curvature, but that's bullshit since the same thing happens in a long, flat corridor.

Flat Earthers sort of fascinate me. Here we have a modern society capable of building computers, space flight and great engineering feats, and yet these guys continue to insist on a flat earth. Despite all the simple tests any simpleton can perform to demonstrate the earth's curvature. Their selective ability to ignore concrete evidence contrary to their belief is simply astonishing. Its absolute and completely uniform right across the board with every single last one of them, regardless of their age, background and nationality. You meet one and you have met them all, with respect to their flat earth belief. The thing that fascinates me is the fact these guys can use modern technology, can use a computer, are literate and many appear to hold steady jobs. In other words they can be otherwise fully functional members of modern society. Now I can understand people with irrational religious beliefs, as spirituality for the most part is based on faith, rather than hard evidence. I can even understand Moon hoaxers, since despite the mountain of evidence there does exist a tiny window of doubt, but only because an ordinary individual can not physically replicate a moon landing. But Flat Earthers? No, they are in a special category all of their own. They are on the same level of delusional as someone who insists they are Napoleon Bonaparte. Absolutely nothing to the contrary will convince them otherwise. Yet otherwise they appear to do all sort of tasks which require rational thought and appear to have normal human cognitive functions. It's very mysterious. For the meantime I can only conclude, in the absence of any other competing theory, that they are insane. Very specifically insane in just this one particular area. Otherwise they are just fine.

>>11275779

yeah, thats what I thought, that they are just trolls, but no, many of them do sincerely think the earth is flat.

But yeah, I do feel for the people who fall into the trap of wasting time arguing with them. Trying to gently correct a fallacy but not realizing that the other person is insane.

>>11275766
>No, it's actual observations made by people.
So what? These observations are based on an assumption of what being observed i.e. a physical ball of gases called the sun.
>It's irrelevant what the sun "is". What's relevant is the fact that the globe model can predict where it will be in the sky consistently, while the flat model can't do this and leads to there being multiple suns at different locations for some reason.
You don't seem to understand that being able to predict where the sun will be doesn't prove the shape of the earth. If the earth was a globe, but the sun's position couldn't be predicted based on a globe model, that doesn't disprove the earth being a globe. It just disproves the model of the sun. The same is true for a flat earth.
>No it doesn't.
The sun is a refracted projection of the atmosphere on the globe model, therefore it is actually local, hence why we see crepuscular rays.
>>11275766
>"Atmospheric refraction of the light from a star is zero in thezenith, less than 1 (onearc-minute) at 45° apparentaltitude, and still only 5.3 at 10° altitude;"
>Try again, troll.
How can atmospheric refraction be zero in the "zenith", when the light still has to go through different densities and temperatures of atmosphere? And how long is the "zenith", since in the globe model the earth is constantly moving in multiple directions, are the suns and other stars? I'm afraid the sun and stars you see are always local refracted projections.

>>11272730
>calculated and corrected for
code word for more jewish trickery

>>11275047
CGI

>>11275822

Another interesting phenomena shown by flat earthers is to ignore the simple and conclusive proof while trying to bog down their opponent in ever increasingly technical details. I believe their reward centers are not stimulated by any thought of convincing their opponent but rather in embroiling them in an endless debate. The longer the argument goes on, the more nebulous the discussion becomes, the more their reward centers light up. At this stage they could be debating the number of angels on a pin head.

>>11275779
I've never made that retarded argument in your pic.
>flat earthers are not genuine in their beliefs
What a strange thing to say, very scientific though. People believe all sorts of crazy shit (like the globe), but if you think flat earth is crazy, why do you doubt people believing it?

>>11275839

Another interesting angle of the flat Earther their cognitive "slipperiness", at which they excel. Again demonstrating the strange contradiction between their obvious talent to shift focus whenever it suits them, which requires at least some mental ability and the patently untrue belief that they hold. A similar ability is found in many criminals, particularly those who enrage in fraud or scams. Importantly, however, flat earthers usually exhibit very law abiding tendencies.

>>11275802
Not only can I function as a normal member of society, I can also use paragraphs. As a globalist, you're letting your side down by typing blocks of text like that, it makes you look a bit insane.
>Here we have a modern society capable of building computers, space flight and great engineering feats, and yet these guys continue to insist on a flat earth
Computers and engineering feats have nothing to do with the shape of the earth, however we don't question their existence as we have direct access to them. "Space flight" on the other hand we don't, and we've seen of it isn't convincing. If the earth is a globe, we have no problem accepting this, but it must be robustly backed up with real, natural science.
>Despite all the simple tests any simpleton can perform to demonstrate the earth's curvature. Their selective ability to ignore concrete evidence contrary to their belief is simply astonishing
We are completely aware of the "tests/experiments" that supposedly "prove curvature", the fact is they don't prove it at all. The problem with globers is that they don't critically analyse these "tests/experiments", they just assume they're infallible and anyone who rejects them is an idiot. That's not how science works.
>But Flat Earthers? No, they are in a special category all of their own. They are on the same level of delusional as someone who insists they are Napoleon Bonaparte. Absolutely nothing to the contrary will convince them otherwise.
Every flat earther once believed the globe model - we know the globe model inside out, we know more about the globe model than most globers do. Globers, however, don't know very much about the flat earth, they are simply unwilling to honestly research it because their ego doesn't allow them to.

>>11275854
Otherwise they do tend to be rather shy creatures. Once it becomes apparent that you are not interested in debating them but instead psycho-analyzing them, their reward centers start to shut down. They become quiet. Continued probing, even requests to further explain their beliefs, starts to make them feel uncomfortable, for they are now aware they are being studied, much as if they were some bacterium being scrutinized by a biologist under a microscope. This then is an effective way to get them to fuck off. For a while at least. They have been known to sneak back in when they think you have gone.

>>11275870
Oh goody! He's back!

Now tell me, have you ever had any difficulty with the law? Also, did you have a strong relationship with your father? If you wouldn't mind confirming, you are white, middle class, male and aged between 18 and 40, correct?

>>11275838
>Another interesting phenomena shown by flat earthers is to ignore the simple and conclusive proof
Can you tell me what the sun and stars are on a flat earth?
>trying to bog down their opponent in ever increasingly technical details
They're very simple questions actually - but even if they weren't, a globalist should have no problem with "technical details".
>I believe their reward centers are not stimulated by any thought of convincing their opponent but rather in embroiling them in an endless debate. The longer the argument goes on, the more nebulous the discussion becomes, the more their reward centers light up. At this stage they could be debating the number of angels on a pin head
This is a science board, if you can't answer the questions then just say, you don't need to come up with some jibberish psychological analysis in place of science.

>>11275870

Hey, everything you said is just totally cool. I would admit to being a heretical glober in desperate need of the truth. Now, some of my glober friends tell me that watching a ship slowly vanishing over the horizon is conclusive proof that the Earth is curved. Crazy huh? Obviously it fell off the edge, just gravity is very weak there so it falls slowly. But please help me. How can I refute their damned lies in this instance?

>>11275899

Also, sorry, I forgot to ask, did you have any pets when you were growing up? Like cats and dogs. Did you like them or did they make you angry?

>>11275854
It's interesting how you give flat earthers a psychological analysis, but not one for globe believers? In the name of fairness, can you do that?

>>11275879
Never had difficulty with the law. I had a strong relationship with my father growing up, but this has weakened now I'm independent.
>you are white, middle class, male and aged between 18 and 40, correct?
All correct, except more working class than middle class.

>>11275907

Forgive me, you are quite right, I should be fair. in the interests of science I should conduct a full investigation into the sanity of globers.

Globers. Sane.

Now, about that ship vanishing over the horizon. I await eagerly your wisdom on how I can prove those damned globers wrong and expose their filthy lies. May God have mercy upon their souls. Wait, you believe in God too, right?

>>11275899
>watching a ship slowly vanishing over the horizon is conclusive proof that the Earth is curved
Oh really, you think that's a scientific view too? Is there nothing else that can make a ship disappear bottom up other than curvature? A true scientist would find out. Webm related, what's causing the ship to disappear bottom up?

>>11275925

Yes, yes, it really does make you wonder what trickery the globers pull in order to conceal the reality of the flat earth. How do they do it? Perhaps mirrors?

>>11275920
>Forgive me, you are quite right, I should be fair. in the interests of science I should conduct a full investigation into the sanity of globers.
>Globers. Sane.
Are you sure globers are sane? I'm pretty sure most people in insane asylums also believe the earth is a globe. Most serial killers probably believe the earth is a globe too. Even Bill Nye believes the earth is a globe - the globe side is full of undesirables.

>>11275925

Clearly the ship is falling off the edge of the world. I just hope the shipping company had insurance.

>>11275931

An unforgivable error on my part. I stand corrected. Here are my updated findings which take into account the new data that you have so kindly provided.

Globers. Mostly sane.

>>11275929
Globers aren't pulling any trickery, they're just making an assumptive observation of a ship in the distance.

"It appears to be disappearing bottom up, therefore it must be due to curvature."

Wrong. It's merely an optical illusion caused by the dense band of atmosphere directly above the water, which is also evaporating. It creates a mirroring effect on the bottom of the boat which encapsulates more and more of the boat as the boat gets smaller into the distance due to perspective.

If this is wrong, explain how.

>>11275934
Globers are so funny! If you want to avoid answering the question seriously, just answer with an original joke!

>>11275934
Don't worry, they're self-insured.

>>11275938
As as sane person yourself, could you explain where earth's moon came from? I'm insane you see, I don't know what the moon is or how it came to be! I need someone sane like you to explain.

>>11275903
Yes I, or the family rather, had pets. Yes I liked them, and cried when they passed.

>>11275259
>I'm doing real science
Yeah - a social experiment on collecting (You)s from the most retarded posts you can conjure up.

>>11274190

>>11275939
>It creates a mirroring effect on the bottom of the boat which encapsulates more and more of the boat as the boat gets smaller into the distance due to perspective.
If it was just the boat appearing to get smaller, it would also shrink significantly in the horizontal. In that webm, the ship does not noticeably shrink horizontally. It goes over the horizon.

>>11275975
If you think the earth is a spinning and orbiting globe flying aimlessy through an infinite vacuum of space, then I admire your child-like imagination. Making up fantasy realities like that and pretending to exist in them is fun and cool! I used to do it when I was a kid too. Great times!

But unfortunately when you grow up, you have to let go of these fantasies and deal directly with reality as much as possible. Fortunately though, reality is also really fun and cool, and just as mysterious! Our flat earth reality is even better than the globe fantasy in fact!

fun fact, you cannot actually prove that the earth is round, the mathematics works for an inside out concave work, or a flat world, or any other type of imaginable shape. it's a question of translating observable phenomena into variables for some model you invent.

we accept the round earth model purely based on simplicity and ease of explanation to children. it's just as likely we are in a giant cylinder and the gravitational force we feel is nothing more than centrifugal acceleration.

>>11276003
Thank you for that complete nonsense fluff post of pointless, useless insults.

>>11276005
Actually,
>>11272986
>>11272988

>>11275993
>In that webm, the ship does not noticeably shrink horizontally
Oh really, explain pic related then?

>>11273823
>If the Earth was moving, you would expect the foucault pendulum to take one SOLAR DAY to complete a rotation.
funniest thing i've read all year

>>11276006
Insults? What insults? I said I admire your child-like imagination, having a strong imagination like you have is a sign of intelligence.

>>11276005
>it's just as likely we are in a giant cylinder and the gravitational force we feel is nothing more than centrifugal acceleration.
Not true. If you throw a ball or shoot a projectile straight "up" in a rotating cylinder, you have an initial x-component of velocity from the rotation. As the projectile goes up, it appear to curve in the direction tangent to the cylinder's location at the time of launch, and will hit the ground again ahead of the launch site due to its course taking a shortcut via the radius of the cylinder. Gravity imparts no such sideways component.
You're just stupid.

>>11276010
Okay.... proportionally. It isn't shrinking horizontally at a rate that keeps pace with rate of vertical disappearance.

>>11276013
That's what's called a left-handed compliment.
It's also called passive-aggressive.

>>11276007
I still haven't heard a response to
>>11272986
>>11272988

>>11276014
anon.... the atmosphere inside the cylinder rotates too... this is embarrass.

>>11276026
I imagine it would be embarrassing.
Atmosphere is irrelevant. It could be a vacuum.

>>11276020
>It isn't shrinking horizontally at a rate that keeps pace with rate of vertical disappearance
Well why would it? Shrinking isn't the same as disappearing.

Do you seriously think the ship is disappearing behind curvature?

>>11276024
What is the sun on a flat earth?

>>11276032
Much more seriously than you think the Earth is flat.
So.. are you going to answer
>>11272986 (You)
>>11272988 (You)

>>11276033
Ask a flat-Earther. They'll make up whatever they need for the context.

>>11276022
I thought I was being very complimentary. I'm just trying to impart some wisdom onto you because you remind me of myself when I was younger. I used to fantasise about the globe too.

>>11276038
No, you're just being condescending because you think it's funny. It's juvenile. It complements the juvenile postings of your 'science.'

>>11276038
You're still not answering
>>11272986
>>11272988

>>11276036
More like you're making up what the sun is for your context. You're using a globe sun but just making it smaller and closer on a flat earth - you need to scrap that. The reason you do it is to create a straw man model that you can easily refute.

I don't think you're even doing this deliberately, it's just a natural thing because you are unable to take yourself out of the globe cosmology and universe.

>>11276039
>No, you're just being condescending because you think it's funny. It's juvenile.
Just giving you a test of your own medicine. Not sure if you're aware, but being a flat earther on /sci/, or in most places, will expose you to a constant flurry of condescension and juvenile comments.

>>11276047
>The reason you do it is to create a straw man model that you can easily refute
Wrong - this has been the flat earth argument for the Sun for years. If you are making up something new, you're going to have to point me to a flat earth web site that claims it's wildly unknown.
You're making stuff up because you're trolling. I just want to make sure you understand that you're not as clever at hiding your humor as well as you think.

>>11276050
Deservedly.
>>11274190

>>11276047
>>11276050
And you're STILL not addressing
>>11272986
>>11272988

>>11276054
>Wrong - this has been the flat earth argument for the Sun for years
There is no official "flat earth model" - any claims about what the lights in the sky are and how they work are purely assumptive and not scientific. All that matters is proving the flatness of earth itself, by using earth's actual surface - no model of a flat earth is required to prove this.
>If you are making up something new, you're going to have to point me to a flat earth web site that claims it's wildly unknown.
It's just logic - the lights in the sky are not the earth, if the earth is flat, then there's no reason to believe the lights are anything like what the globe model believes them to be, therefore trying to model them onto a flat earth without knowing what they are is pointless.
>You're making stuff up because you're trolling. I just want to make sure you understand that you're not as clever at hiding your humor as well as you think
Uh huh. Do you understand how a flat earth is completely incompatible with the globe cosmology and universe (and big bang)? If so, what are the lights in the sky on a flat earth?

>>11276066
>There is no official "flat earth model"
This is a dodge.
> - any claims about what the lights in the sky are and how they work are purely assumptive and not scientific.
Hallelujah! You got that right.
>All that matters is proving the flatness of earth itself, by using earth's actual surface - no model of a flat earth is required to prove this.
There is no such thing as a proof of a flat earth. Copypasta on that in the next post.
>It's just logic
There is NO logic in a flat Earth 'model'. Nothing.

>Uh huh. Do you understand how a flat earth is completely incompatible with the globe cosmology and universe (and big bang)?
Yes, I do. It's incompatible with all sorts of geometry, reasoning, logic, maths, and observations.
>If so, what are the lights in the sky on a flat earth?
Ask a flat Earther. They have no answers. Can't give any. It's all make-believe.

>>11276080
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, yielding a scale of about 1:41,822,951.

At that scale the tippy-top of the 828-meter Burj Khalifa 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? It'd be .00029 m or 0.29 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.

Auguste Piccard floated to 23 km in 1932 and said the horizon through his porthole appeared flat. On our scale would be about 0.55 mm. He is also said to be the first person to see the curvature of the Earth.
bertrandpiccard.com/family-tradition-auguste-piccard

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? Protip - you don't. You know the result is negative and you're falsely using that as 'proof' of no curvature. You're deceptive.

>>11276084
What it comes down to is this:
The only blather claimed as 'evidence' ever presented by flat-Earthers comes in the form of very narrow, specific instances of apparent conflicts in memes they create that purposely (or astonishingly ignorantly) misrepresent the facts behind them. There is not one shred of evidence that argues for a flat Earth that cannot be explained better in a spherical Earth model and matches and meshes with other evidence. Every single meme from flat-Earthers is flawed, who will not concede even if they recognize the truth.
Flat-Earthers are absolute liars/trolls, and/or complete idiots who have no idea how to think critically or apply physics/optics to what they see. Everything they say relies on convincing others ironically that *they're* gullible or stupid. If you believe them, you are.
That's the story. That's flat Earth in a nutshell.

>>11276055
Is the pic in >>11274190 using a globe universe/cosmology?

No wonder you think flat earthers are either trolls or retarded if you think we believe such a model.

Globers need to stop conflating elements of their globe model with a flat earth. Your brain needs empty itself of everything you believe about the globe, cosmology, universe, etc. You need to start from the very beginning, philosophically, about what you, yourself, knows to be true about your direct, physical reality, and what is assumptive.

>>11276086
>Is the pic in >>11274190 (You) using a globe universe/cosmology?
No... using observation. You're not following at all. You're just blathering hurr-durr.

>>11276080
>This is a dodge.
Do you need a model of a mountain to prove its shape? You do not need a "model" to prove the shape of something.
>Hallelujah! You got that right.
So what sun are you using on a flat earth to debunk it?
>There is no such thing as a proof of a flat earth. Copypasta on that in the next post.
So you don't think it's possible to empirically measure the earth's actual surface to prove flatness or curvature? Using a laser for example? Why is there no empirical measurements of earth's curvature?
>There is NO logic in a flat Earth 'model'. Nothing.
That's intellectually dishonest, and you're deliberately ignoring my argument.
>Yes, I do. It's incompatible with all sorts of geometry, reasoning, logic, maths, and observations.
Uh huh. But the geometry, reasoning, maths and observations are all based in the globe model, so yes they're incompatible. That doesn't stop the earth being flat, just makes your model wrong.
>Ask a flat Earther. They have no answers. Can't give any. It's all make-believe.
You're the one who keeps using the lights in the sky on a flat earth - if the lights in the sky can't work on a flat earth, then what are the lights in the sky you're using?

>>11276085
So laser tests prove a globe?

>>11276098
>No... using observation
Observation of what?

>>11275779
that really isnt just flat earthers who special plead though, virtually anyone with a shallow ontological understanding will pretty much only know something to the extent that someone else told them something to be true so their foundation of explaining is almost the same

>>11276108
>You do not need a "model" to prove the shape of something.
Yeah, you kinda do. It can be a theoretical model, but you have to be able to describe what you're talking about.

>So what sun are you using on a flat earth to debunk it?
There seems to be a variance between 3 and 6 thousand miles above the surface. I point that out in one of the posts you refuse to address
>>11272988

>Why is there no empirical measurements of earth's curvature?
How do you propose to use a line-of-sight device to look over a horizon? You've already demonstrated you won't accept a ship's disappearance as proof, and that uses line-of-sight. And if the Earth is flat, why can't you see mountains from just about anywhere? Yet if you're far enough offshore, you won't see land and the disappearance follows geometry provided by navigation over a curved surface. And you're putting an artificial limit on how to prove curvature while COMPLETELY ignoring
>>11272986 and
>>11272988

>That's intellectually dishonest, and you're deliberately ignoring my argument.
You haven't GOT an argument (while ignoring the above - black kettle). Nothing. At best, you're showing a quaint misinterpretation of observation or ray tracing.

>just makes your model wrong.
No, it WOULD make your model wrong... if you HAD one.

>what are the lights in the sky you're using?
Why are you even asking that? Do you really think I'd answer differently than the what the current model of the universe is? Are you even AWARE of what that is?

So what ARE the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars in the sky in YOUR make believe? Why do stars appear to rotate around a southern celestial pole when you're south of the equator? In your universe, how do you calculate where planets are going to be among the stellar background at any given time/date?

You've got nothing but vague hand-waving because your understanding of the universe is so limited, you that your 'arguments' are clever stumpers and there aren't answers. Wrong on both.

>>11276113
Gee... you posted a picture of a laser beam.
No context. No premise. No conclusion. No explanation.

>>11276118
The sky rotating around a pole in the south, seen by all observers south of the equator, its angle above the due-southern horizon the same number of degrees as the observer is south of the equator.
Sheesh. Do you really need to be spoon-fed, or is this more laughs at making the guy type?
Here - pic related: same story, different telling

>>11275545
>Not all of Antarctica is forbidden, just most of it.

No part of Antarctica is forbidden.

> The Antarctic Treaty is the overarching method that restricts not only the public, but countries, from accessing most of Antarctica

No one is restricted from accessing Antarctica by the Antarctic Treaty. Nowhere is that claimed in any part of it. You’re making shit up.

>>11275486
>So the observations and measurements, and the interpretations of these, are 100% correct?

To the extent their composition is known, yes.

> It is for natural science

Wrong.

> You don't think there's lots of controversy about the moon landings?

There isn’t. Retards who think they didn’t happen are an irrelevant minority that receives constant mockery.

> Pic related was taken on the moon, by the way.

Wrong. It was taken at a mock-up of the Moon’s surface used for training purposes.

> Why's that?

We can make a large number of observations of the Moon from Earth’s surface. It’s a big rock.

>>11275790
>What's the surface of the flat floor in pic related doing?

Not rising to eye level, since our eyes are a few feet above the floor, meaning the floor will NEVER be at eye level unless it’s sloping upwards.

>>11276132
>Yeah, you kinda do. It can be a theoretical model, but you have to be able to describe what you're talking about.
You do not need a "working model" of something to prove the shape of something - these are separate things. You can prove the shape of a mountain, without needing a model of the mountain which explains many other things.
>There seems to be a variance between 3 and 6 thousand miles above the surface. I point that out in one of the posts you refuse to address
What exactly is this sun that's above the surface of the flat earth? What is this sun made of? It can't just be a small and close version of the globe sun, because you're conflating models.
>How do you propose to use a line-of-sight device to look over a horizon? You've already demonstrated you won't accept a ship's disappearance as proof, and that uses line-of-sight. And if the Earth is flat, why can't you see mountains from just about anywhere? Yet if you're far enough offshore, you won't see land and the disappearance follows geometry provided by navigation over a curved surface. And you're putting an artificial limit on how to prove curvature
How about empirical measurements, like laser tests? And are you really asking why we can't see mountains from almost anywhere? You clearly haven't done any research about flat earth otherwise you wouldn't be asking such basic questions. But I'll answer, the two main reasons are perspective (things get smaller and smaller the further away they are), and the medium we look through (atmosphere), which acts like a kind of curtain for light.
>So what ARE the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars in the sky in YOUR make believe? Why do stars appear to rotate around a southern celestial pole when you're south of the equator? In your universe, how do you calculate where planets are going to be among the stellar background at any given time/date?
Again, I don't know what they are - we don't need to know what they are to measure the earth's surface.

>>11276133
Here's a laser test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOAQHT_GWp0

>>11276135
>The sky rotating around a pole in the south
The sky? In your image it uses the word "stars". Can you explain what the stars are in the context of a flat earth please?

>>11276158
>And are you really asking why we can't see mountains from almost anywhere?

Mountains ought to be visible from any point on the nonexistent flat pizza Earth in the radio wave spectrum. Are they?

> things get smaller and smaller the further away they are

No matter how much a distant object shrinks, it can be viewed with enough magnification. You should make a YouTube video in which you use stronger and stronger levels of telescope magnification to bring something that ought to be occluded by the Earth into view.

>>11276147
>No part of Antarctica is forbidden.
Can you show me an expedition of Antarctica that began on the side opposite South America, and then crossed the prime meridian, ending up on the side of Antarctica opposite Australia/NZ?
>No one is restricted from accessing Antarctica by the Antarctic Treaty. Nowhere is that claimed in any part of it. You’re making shit up.
Oh okay, I guess you'll have no problems going to Antarctica unannounced, and then freely explore it.

>>11276150
>To the extent their composition is known, yes.
The point is that their "composition" is assumed, not known.
>Wrong.
Nice argument. Having direct, physical access to an object is essential for good natural science, observation alone is not good enough. Prove me wrong.
>There isn’t. Retards who think they didn’t happen are an irrelevant minority that receives constant mockery.
I think you'd be surprised by the amount of people who don't believe the moon landings. But they're all retards, of course. Strong argument.
>Wrong. It was taken at a mock-up of the Moon’s surface used for training purposes.
Looks like the moon to me, therefore it was taken on the moon. Get over it.
>We can make a large number of observations of the Moon from Earth’s surface. It’s a big rock.
Observing it doesn't prove it's a big rock - that's an assumption - it could still be correct, but it's not enough to prove it.

>>11276155
>Not rising to eye level, since our eyes are a few feet above the floor, meaning the floor will NEVER be at eye level unless it’s sloping upwards.
Why is the floor rising at all? And why is the ceiling going downwards?

If that corridor went on into infinity, would the ceiling and the floor merge into a horizon line level with your eyes?

>>11276166
>Can you show me an expedition of Antarctica that began on the side opposite South America, and then crossed the prime meridian, ending up on the side of Antarctica opposite Australia/NZ?

That’s so retarded that I am now convinced you are joking. The side opposite South America IS
“” the side of Antarctica opposite Australia/NZ”. If you started “on the side opposite South America” and then went to the “ side of Antarctica opposite Australia/NZ”, you would have just turned around and went back the way you came.
A. Did you improperly word what you intended to say?
B. Are you trolling?
C. Are you retarded?

> Oh okay, I guess you'll have no problems going to Antarctica unannounced, and then freely explore it.

I can’t go to Zimbabwe or Oman whenever the hell I want either, dumbass.

>>11276176
>The point is that their "composition" is assumed, not known.

It is known, not assumed.

> Having direct, physical access to an object is essential for good natural science, observation alone is not good enough.

Science is observation. You are confused.

> I think you'd be surprised by the amount of people who don't believe the moon landings. But they're all retards, of course.

Yep!

> Looks like the moon to me, therefore it was taken on the moon.

Doesn’t follow.

> Observing it doesn't prove it's a big rock - that's an assumption -

No it isn’t. The composition of the Moon can be determined from Earth via spectroscopy.

>>11276165
>Mountains ought to be visible from any point on the nonexistent flat pizza Earth in the radio wave spectrum. Are they?
What are you talking about? Anyway, radio waves aren't propagating "through" a vacuum, there's this thing called an atmosphere which limits propagation.
>No matter how much a distant object shrinks, it can be viewed with enough magnification. You should make a YouTube video in which you use stronger and stronger levels of telescope magnification to bring something that ought to be occluded by the Earth into view.
Again, there's this thing called an atmosphere - you can't zoom through atmosphere just like you can't zoom through fog.

>>11276184
>Why is the floor rising at all? And why is the ceiling going downwards?

Vanishing point. The lines converge at an infinite distance, meaning they don’t actually ever converge.

> If that corridor went on into infinity, would the ceiling and the floor merge into a horizon line level with your eyes?

No, because vanishing points are abstractions at which lines converge at an infinite distance, meaning they never actually converge. You are using terms like “perspective” of which you have no knowledge.

>>11276186
>That’s so retarded that I am now convinced you are joking. The side opposite South America IS
>“” the side of Antarctica opposite Australia/NZ”. If you started “on the side opposite South America” and then went to the “ side of Antarctica opposite Australia/NZ”, you would have just turned around and went back the way you came.
>A. Did you improperly word what you intended to say?
>B. Are you trolling?
>C. Are you retarded?
You're ignoring the part about the prime meridian. Pic related, show me an expedition from any part of the start side to any part of the end side that crosses the prime meridian line which divides Antarctica into the two sides I mentioned.
>I can’t go to Zimbabwe or Oman whenever the hell I want either, dumbass.
Yeah but no one even owns Antarctica, apparently...

>>11276191
>What are you talking about?

Holy fuck you’re stupid.
The Earth’s atmosphere does eventually absorb visible photons, but it does not obscure most radio photons, meaning you should be able to see Mount Everest from Kansas in the radio spectrum.

Can you?

> Again, there's this thing called an atmosphere - you can't zoom through atmosphere just like you can't zoom through fog.

Doesn’t matter. Use radio photons.

>>11276200
>You're ignoring the part about the prime meridian.

Because it makes no sense to cross the prime meridian and then arrive at the place you originated from unless you walked across the entire planet.

> show me an expedition from any part of the start side to any part of the end side that crosses the prime meridian line which divides Antarctica into the two sides I mentioned.

Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition. Done.
You are aware that the prime meridian is a human abstraction, so your criteria have no significance, yes?

> Yeah but no one even owns Antarctica, apparently...

Yep. And?

>>11276189
>It is known, not assumed.
Then you're following a dogmatic religion, not science.
>Science is observation. You are confused.
Observation is part of science, of course, but there's much more to it than that. I said observation ALONE is not science.
>Yep!
How scientific. I don't believe everyone who believes the moon landings are retards, they just want to believe them, it's an emotional belief rather than a purely rational one.
>Doesn’t follow.
Correct - therefore any photo that looks like it was taken on the moon cannot be proof it was taken on the moon.
>No it isn’t. The composition of the Moon can be determined from Earth via spectroscopy.
It can only be assumed via spectroscopy - unless it's impossible for spectroscopy to be wrong?

>>11276195
>Vanishing point. The lines converge at an infinite distance, meaning they don’t actually ever converge.
Vanishing point of convergence? What's causing this convergence? Surely it's curvature?
>No, because vanishing points are abstractions at which lines converge at an infinite distance, meaning they never actually converge. You are using terms like “perspective” of which you have no knowledge.
Would these converging lines turn into a horizon line at a certain distance to our eyes, on a flat surface? Even if they don't ever actually converge, our eyes wouldn't be able to separate them? You seem like an expert on "perspective", I've only studied it for a few years so I need your perspective on it, no pun intended.

>>11276207
>Then you're following a dogmatic religion, not science.

Nope.

> Observation is part of science, of course, but there's much more to it than that.

Science is strictly empirical, and relies exclusively on observation. Bringing the Moon’s stones here would be useful for learning more about it, but isn’t ultimately necessary to know it is a big rock.

> How scientific.

Thank you.

> I don't believe everyone who believes the moon landings are retards

No one cares.

> Correct - therefore any photo that looks like it was taken on the moon cannot be proof it was taken on the moon.

Okay. And?

> It can only be assumed via spectroscopy

Wrong. It can be known through spectroscopy, and spectroscopy is one of the methods used on materials in one’s physical possession to determine its composition.

>>11276211
>Vanishing point of convergence? What's causing this convergence? Surely it's curvature?

Vanishing points have nothing to do with curvature.

> Would these converging lines turn into a horizon line at a certain distance to our eyes, on a flat surface?

No. A flat surface would have actual horizon aside from the physical edge of the surface. If the surface were infinite, which is impossible, you could observe as far as you desired with significant magnification.

> Even if they don't ever actually converge, our eyes wouldn't be able to separate them?

Use magnification and you can “separate” all you like.

> I've only studied it for a few years

You’ve studied nothing. You’re a schizo.

>>11276201
>Holy fuck you’re stupid.
>The Earth’s atmosphere does eventually absorb visible photons, but it does not obscure most radio photons, meaning you should be able to see Mount Everest from Kansas in the radio spectrum.
See it on what exactly?
>Doesn’t matter. Use radio photons.
"Radio photons" can zoom like optical telescope?

>>11276218
>See it on what exactly?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_telescope

Please stop shitting up the Internet

>flat earth thread
>almost 200 replies
There's no hope for humanity.

>>11276203
>Because it makes no sense to cross the prime meridian and then arrive at the place you originated from unless you walked across the entire planet.
What are you talking about? Did you see the pic? Find me an expedition that crosses the south pole as shown in the picture, or something as close as possible.
>Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition. Done.
Can you provide an image of this route please? Where does it start and end?
>Yep. And?
If no one owns it, why do you need permission to go there?

>>11276212
>Nope.
Yep - you're claiming to know what the lights in the sky are as you have faith in what the "scientists" say. You don't actually know yourself.
>Science is strictly empirical, and relies exclusively on observation. Bringing the Moon’s stones here would be useful for learning more about it, but isn’t ultimately necessary to know it is a big rock.
Don't you understand that observation, which uses the sense of sight, can be tricked? Science also requires experimentation, and repeated experimentation, which observation alone cannot achieve.
>No one cares.
Emotional.
>Okay. And?
The videos/photos of the moon landings are not scientific evidence.
>Wrong. It can be known through spectroscopy, and spectroscopy is one of the methods used on materials in one’s physical possession to determine its composition.
The lights in the sky are not in our physical possession, therefore spectroscopy can only assume what they're made of. Spectroscopy can easily be programmed to measure whatever you want it to, just so it fits the model. I'd love to know what it would detect if you waved a multi-coloured LED in front of it.

>>11276216
>Vanishing points have nothing to do with curvature.
I'll ask again, what's causing the "vanishing point"? This is like trying to get blood out of a stone.
>No. A flat surface would have actual horizon aside from the physical edge of the surface. If the surface were infinite, which is impossible, you could observe as far as you desired with significant magnification.
So what's the difference between "perspective" and "vanishing point"? I'll give you a clue, the "vanishing point" is a part of perspective. Why can't perspective create an apparent horizon?
>If the surface were infinite, which is impossible, you could observe as far as you desired with significant magnification.
Is it impossible to have an infinite flat earth? Your model has an infinite universe. Again, you're forgetting that there's atmosphere, magnification can't get through this.
>Use magnification and you can “separate” all you like.
But surely due to how perspective works, there'll always be a horizon line when you use magnification?
>You’ve studied nothing. You’re a schizo.
Agreed - I bow down to your expertise in "vanishing points" and perspective.

>>11276224
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_telescope
>Please stop shitting up the Internet
Yeah sorry phonefag, that doesn't answer my question. Would Mt Everest appear on a screen if you pointed a radio telescope in the right direction from Kansas? Have you got a radio telescope to test this?

>>11276230
Flat earth is real science - go stick your quantum dark matter quark spacetime woo up your pretentious wormhole.

>>11276261

No, all you are doing is constantly shifting burden of proof onto anyone who disagrees. Along with all the special pleading you have offered zilch evidence or reasoning for your flat earth model.

Discussion with you is not without benefit, for many people easily fall into traps you set and should learn from the experience, but as I am sure you are aware that does not make a case for a flat earth, which I am suspect you really dont believe. You could equally be arguing about Capital cities.
You: "The capital city of France is London"
>>No its not, its Paris
You: Prove it! Have you ever been there? Do you speak French? Those photos could be fake. Eye witness accounts is not proof. Why should you believe anything in a book? Prove your teachers were not lying.

Etc Etc Ect... Ad infinitum. All the while dodging any request to prove your conjecture that the capital of France is London.

If you are trying to make a deeper philosophical point concerning the nature of proof and truth, all well and good. You could equally argue that 1 + 1 does not equal 2 in such a manner. Retracing the steps of ancient philosophers is a worthy intellectual task. Or if you are merely trying to teach some Anons how to avoid being drawn into arguments based on special pleading, then that's just as good.

>>11276255
A sdr
>not a completely holeless theory so far but what has greater mass potential and how can you demonstrate this

>>11276286
>Along with all the special pleading you have offered zilch evidence or reasoning for your flat earth model.
I posted a laser test here that got conveniently ignored: >>11276159
>Discussion with you is not without benefit, for many people easily fall into traps you set and should learn from the experience, but as I am sure you are aware that does not make a case for a flat earth, which I am suspect you really dont believe.
I'm not setting up any traps - globe disciples trap themselves because they haven't studied enough about the globe or flat earth. I genuinely reject the globe model, no trolling. A flat, or plane, earth has the most scientific evidence backing it.
>You could equally be arguing about Capital cities.
>You: "The capital city of France is London"
>>>No its not, its Paris
>You: Prove it! Have you ever been there? Do you speak French? Those photos could be fake. Eye witness accounts is not proof. Why should you believe anything in a book? Prove your teachers were not lying.
False, I wouldn't argue about something that can be confirmed easily by the world's population, or by oneself - you can easily go to Paris. I wouldn't question the earth's shape if space was easily accessible to the world's population either - fact is, it's not, and hasn't been since the supposed moon landings.
>If you are trying to make a deeper philosophical point concerning the nature of proof and truth, all well and good. You could equally argue that 1 + 1 does not equal 2 in such a manner. Retracing the steps of ancient philosophers is a worthy intellectual task. Or if you are merely trying to teach some Anons how to avoid being drawn into arguments based on special pleading, then that's just as good.
Part of flat earth is about the philosophical nature of proof - it is a reminder about what science actually is and what it is about, because modern "science" has turned into a shell of its former self as it's tried to separate itself from philosophy.

>>11275944

Why do you think he is joking? Prove its not falling off the edge, or are you scared of the truth?

>>11276302
>A sdr
This is just getting more and more complicated - what would Mt Everest look like on it?

reading here is very challenging to my scientific mind,
but i find it to be the wrong tool for the job.
it's the holding of a decent conversation, making sure every point of discussion is crystal clear and polished with as much honesty and integrity before moving on to the next one, which is the needed tool at this job.
science cannot debate scientifically before honesty and compassion have been established.
which leaves me first in danger, if i keep using my scientific arguments in such a baseless way of communication, i am vulnerable, while i spin my head scientifically, by the dishonesty.
second, i see a much more interesting way of turning this conversion on it's tail, i will become the "the flat earther", but with honesty and integrity. I will agree with the poster and ask him to explain what they do believe, how there model is useful , what starts are .
I think making them explain the model will cause a very emotional response, which i hope, i'll be able to support them in compassionately. the strong emotional response will come from their foundations cracking underneath them.

>>11276315
Heh, good one glober! Hmm, maybe it is falling off the edge, but surely the ocean would be falling off too? Yet, the ocean is still there, so is it being contained? Sorry, I might be getting a bit too technical for you here.

>>11276343

It's you who is the glober! The earth is flat, has edges, and ships fall off the edge if they sail too far from land. The water probably falls off the side and turns into clouds which float up and rain, thus replenishing the water. Admittedly no one has ever seen this without falling off the side, so I guess we will never know for sure.

>>11276337
Poetic.

>>11276312
You are a disgrace to great man like Maxwell, Faraday , Kelvin. man of science and experiment .
fuck of with those teenage monkeys doing "science".
in good company, you would have been laughed at
in better company , you would have been punched in the face

>>11276354
i am talking about the laser yt video

>>11276347
Again, this might be too technical for you, but hopefully you can follow some of it.

Antarctica is the highest "continent" on earth, and it is Antarctica that keeps the oceans contained around the flat earth (Antarctica encircles all of the countries). This means you can't fall off the earth by sailing because Antarctica is in the way.

>>11276343
i can't believe i am here responding, in semi rage.
you are a clueless ignorant disrespectful bastard.
>>getting a bit too technical for you
you are a snake, twisting words, and not comprehending the rigor and intelligence of humans walking this earth before you.
using tech, they gave you with the sweat of their brow. I wish god will land on you some lessons of gratitude.

>>11276354
Okay you pretentious crybaby, what was wrong with the test?

Remember, science doesn't care about your feelings.

>>11276361
Can you see Antarctica? Have you been there? What evidence is there for Antarctica? None. You are just making stuff up. Its very disrespectful to the many sailors who sailed over the edge of the world and were never seen again.

>>11276362
The great scientists of the past would be on my side, you emotional wreck.

>>11276362

You seem like a man of reason and science. Please tell this heretic that the flat earth has an edge which you can fall off. He seems to think it stretches out forever.

Never did I believe that our beloved flat earth would be subjected to such heresy. It really makes one hanker for the return of the Spanish Inquisition.

>>11276364
Great point - there's no evidence for Antarctica, and the public can't visit some of it.

>>11275784
>and why's that?
You tell me, you're the one who said it must be in the first place without any explanation or evidence.
>it's a very amateur "experiment"
Anything less "amateur" and you'd be crying that it wasn't repeatable and the data was falsified. Do the experiment yourself if you don't believe the results, it's easy.
>There's nothing proving the camera wasn't zoomed in to take the photo, nothing proving the photo was cropped before hand,
Neither of these things would cause the straight edge to remain straight while the water curved.
>nothing proving how the "compression" of the image in photoshop was done
Actually yes, there is. He literally shows the entire process in this video and you can take a screengrab of the unedited photo and do the compression yourself if you don't trust it.
https://youtu.be/5YNcPDo96wM

>>11275790
Learn what eye level means and try again.

>>11276371
>Please tell this heretic that the flat earth has an edge which you can fall off
Fall off into what? Some retarded "infinite universe"?

>>11276363
unfortunately, you are wrong here.
science cannot disengage itself from our political and religious life. its, i think, a pretty straight forward case. we are humans. science is successful lately at bringing honesty to the front of our experience of nature.
religion and politics are in decline in regard to honesty.

anyhow, people like you make me fear.
fear that we again are loosing.
fear that i know what great and honest science looks like,
and your example is a childish imitation.
fear that you are not alone, and there is a bunch of you people.

i pray for god, to open your eyes on our sacred books of science. real people, experimenting and discovering.
at least our language took part in their honor: Ampere, Volt, Ohm, Watt, Farad, Henry, siemens, Coulomb, Joule...

flat earth - i am out.

>>11276369
hey snake snake...
please, who do you mean by "great scientists"? and what have you read by them, friend?

Thank you Brother, I feel vindicated and welcome you back into the fold of the One True Flat Earth. Together we should go forth rooting out heresy where ever we find it, burning at the stake any who have succumbed to the belief of Antarctica. I have brought along a spare cassock for you.

>>11275822
>These observations are based on an assumption of what being observed
What assumption is being made when they measure the position of a round light in the sky?
>being able to predict where the sun will be doesn't prove the shape of the earth.
It lends massive credence to the globe model when using it you can predict when and where the sun will be in the sky for any given date and time. Show me a flat earth model which can do this with accuracy down to the second of time and degree of elevation.
>The sun is a refracted projection of the atmosphere on the globe model
You don't understand what that means. The only thing refraction does to the sun is to make it appear a few arcseconds across from where it actually is.
>hence why we see crepuscular rays
Crepuscular rays are parallel.

>>11275822
>How can atmospheric refraction be zero in the "zenith", when the light still has to go through different densities and temperatures of atmosphere
Because it's straight above you, retard. Why does the laser in pic related not come out of the block at an angle despite glass's high refractive index?
>different densities and temperatures of atmosphere? And how long is the "zenith"
Now you're just asking questions to waste time. Look up what the word "zenith" means in relation to celestial bodies.

>>11276389

You will notice that no matter high you go, you still can not see Antarctica.

>>11275839
>People believe all sorts of crazy shit (like the globe), but if you think flat earth is crazy

Reminder that flat earthers have:
• No working model, or map
• No way to determine proper distances, or directions between two point on the earth not sharing the same longitude
• No explanation for how the sun and the moon circle the earth, or how the sun migrates from the tropic of Capricorn to the tropic of Cancer and back over the year
• No idea why the ancient Greeks such as Pythagoras, Aristotle, Eratosthenes and Aristarchus believed the earth was a sphere
• No idea what P and S shockwaves detected by seismology equipment tells us about the internal structure of the earth, and the shape and dimensions of the surface of the earth
• No idea what powers the sun and the stars
• No idea of the distance to the stars.
• Clueless as to why almost all stars don't appear to change position in the sky from opposite sides of earth's orbit around the sun when the phenomena of parallax says they should, and why we can only use the parallax method for measuring the distance of stars that are closest to the earth. Luckily, Polaris is one that we can determine the distance to using parallax, because it is also a Cepheid variable star, which allows the distance to be measured to much more distant stars where the parallax method not longer works.
• No idea of the distance from the earth to the planets, or even much about them at all
• No idea why binary stars obey Newton's law of gravitation
• No explanation as to why we can only see 59% of the total surface area of the moon when, from a flat earth perspective we should be able to see most of it, including the dark side of the moon
• No idea why the moon appears upside down in the southern hemisphere compared to how it looks in the northern hemisphere, and why the phases of the moon are on opposite sides of the Moon, and why it looks circular from all vantage points on the earth
• No idea why sunspots rotate in the opposite direction in the southern and northern hemispheres, or even what sun spots are.

>>11276405

Please note the absence of sea ice in the photo, which could be construed as evidence of Antarctica. In the absence of sea ice we can only conclude that Antarctica does not exist. QED.

We are doing God's work here, OP. Keeping the righteous to the path and expunging all heresy.

• No believable explanation for how GPS is implemented across the world.
• No explanation as to why aircraft carry ring laser gyros onboard capable of detecting the rotation of the earth.
• No idea how it is possible to develop gravitational maps of the earth's surface, or why anyone would want one, or how they could be used.
• No explanation for how eclipses work, especially lunar eclipses, or how to predict them correctly.
• No idea why the Humber bridge, the Verrazzano Narrows bridge are built to account for the earth's curvature.
• No idea why CERN, LIGO and the Stanford linear accelerator vacuum rings and arms are constructed to take account of the earth's curvature.
• No idea why physicists working on LIGO, the gravity wave detector, were awarded Nobel prizes in physics.
• No idea why geodetic surveyors keep claiming the earth is an oblate spheroid.
• No idea why Google Earth does not publish its underlying flat earth model that allows it to project the earth as a globe.
• No explanation as to why the sun rises due east for everyone on the earth on the equinox.
• No idea why an observer on the equator during an equinox does not see the sun set at an angle 19° above the horizon.
• No idea why there should be a discernible horizon that looks like the edge of the ocean viewed from a beach. The horizon should really be a blur as the farther we look out across the flat earth, the more light is scattered and the more particles in the atmosphere obscuring the view.
• No idea how it is possible to see the sun set twice simply by changing your height above the earth (quickly by just a few tens of metres).
• No reasonable explanation as to how Polaris can be used in conjunction with a sextant in the northern hemisphere to determine latitude.
• No explanation as to why the Artic and Antarctic experience months of days and nights at differ times of the year.

• No explanation why bright little objects called satellites by some are regularly visible in the night sky following a predicted path across the sky
• No explanation for how tides work.
• No explanation how (most times) boats disappear over the horizon when they should be visible on a flat earth.
• No explanation as to why the horizon does not rise to eye level.
• No credible explanation why helium balloons fitted with non-fish eye cameras often detect the curvature of the earth.
• No credible explanation for the existence of the "Downward" force called gravity.
• No explanation that does not implicitly make use of the theory of gravity for the atmospheric pressure gradient from high to low pressure with altitude, especially if we live in a dome.
• No idea why (almost without exception) hurricanes and typhoons rotate in opposite directions in northern and southern hemispheres respectively.
• No explanation for the Coriolis effect observable in controlled experiments such as those conducted by Ascher H. Shapiro in the 1960s.
• No explanation as to why the northern celestial pole rotates counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere, and the southern celestial pole rotates clockwise in the southern hemisphere.
• No idea what Antarctica even looks like, and where the South Pole is physically located.
• No idea why Venus has phases. Bye bye Geocentric system.
• No idea why planets, e.g. Mars, exhibit retrograde motion. Hello Heliocentric system.
• No idea why the planets and their moons in the solar system appear to be obeying Newton's laws of planetary motion.
• No explanation whatsoever why Stellar Aberration occurs.
• No idea why clouds are illuminated from the bottom at sun set.
• Can't explain how a commercial aircraft can fly from Perth to Sydney in only 4 hours 10 mins across the flat earth, as to achieve this, it would need to fly faster than an F18 on afterburner all the way.

• No idea why the CO2 atmosphere of Mars appears to "Cling" to the exterior of its spherical spinning surface without the need for physical containment. This phenomenon is observable on others planets too.
• No idea why the sun and the moon don't change in angular size from rising to setting by a factor of 2 to 3 since they are local to the earth, and no idea why the sun according to the inverse law of radiation is not 4 to 9 times brighter at midday than at sunset and sunrise when viewed from Australia.
• No credible reason why millions of people (mostly scientists, engineers and technicians ) over decades would lie to keep the globe earth alive, and why nations and commercial enterprises, accountable to the voters and shareholders respectively, would spend (waste) $2 trillion a year , each and every year to maintain the globe lie.
• No idea how it is possible to measure the value of G, the universal gravitational constant and in so doing, verify the theory of gravity.
• No scientific papers publish in the last 100 years supporting the flat earth.

Now the globe earth and the heliocentric model have answers that are consistent with each other to all of the above that the flat earth can't explain, but the globe earth is wrong and the flat earth is correct , even although the flat earth model is almost useless at explaining anything?

>>11276441
>• No idea what Antarctica even looks like, and where the South Pole is physically located.

HERESY! HERESY! Antarctica does not exist!

BURN THE HERETIC! BURN HIM I SAY!

>>11276436
>>11276439
>>11276441
>>11276444

cheers mate

I am thinking why not
>get a boat and swim it towards antarctica until you are able to see it
>take note of some landmark
>TWO OPTIONS (at least):
>antarctica is an island you can boat around and if so, simply trail the edge of it going around it in your boat until you reach the landmark again
>antarctica turns out to encircle us all and you would not be able to circle it in the same fashion
sure it would be a total bitch and maybe months and I bet the conditions in those oceans are shit
but are you going to argue that a successful tour means you actually happened to circle the rest of the continents rather than antarctica?

>>11276384
>You tell me, you're the one who said it must be in the first place without any explanation or evidence.
If you watch a video of fish eye camera on a weather balloon, the only time the horizon line will appear flat is when the camera is level and centred, which will cause the horizon line to be exactly in the middle of the frame, where there's no fish eye distortion.
>Anything less "amateur" and you'd be crying that it wasn't repeatable and the data was falsified. Do the experiment yourself if you don't believe the results, it's easy.
Do a laser test.
>Neither of these things would cause the straight edge to remain straight while the water curved.
So where was the barrel distortion in the photo?
>Actually yes, there is. He literally shows the entire process in this video and you can take a screengrab of the unedited photo and do the compression yourself if you don't trust it.
The curvature is lopsided in every photo, and the amount of curvature changes in every photo - even globers claim this isn't lateral curvature of the earth because it's not high enough. Sorry, do some real science and use a laser.

>>11276389
Nice camera trick, notice how the coloured liquid gets lower and lower in the frame.

>>11276394
Again, you drama queen, what is wrong with the laser test?

>>11272231

>>11276507
>>11272231

>>11276398
The natural scientists who changed the world, rather than the mathemagicians of today who haven't achieved anything.

>>11276511
snakey, i was waiting your return.
twisting and twisting....
holding up every one to the standard of supplying answers except yourself.
is it the time to use your words against you?
nah ... i'll skip that one.

natural scientist: gimme names.
mathemagicians: gimme names.
oh and by the way, which books did you read, brother?

>>11276405
>What assumption is being made when they measure the position of a round light in the sky?
That it is a physical, spherical thing in an infinite vacuum of space.
>It lends massive credence to the globe model when using it you can predict when and where the sun will be in the sky for any given date and time. Show me a flat earth model which can do this with accuracy down to the second of time and degree of elevation.
It does not prove the shape of the earth - predicting where the sun is on a flat model doesn't prove the earth is flat either.
>You don't understand what that means. The only thing refraction does to the sun is to make it appear a few arcseconds across from where it actually is.
What about sunset/sunrise? We see how the sun's light interacts locally with earth and the atmosphere, we see its crepuscular rays and it also affects the tides. The moon also affects the tides, and interacts locally, especially with the clouds, a full moon always makes a hole in the clouds so it appears again, I've witnessed this many times. Yet in your retarded model, the sun is not local, and the moon kinda is, despite both of their very obvious local effects on earth.
>Crepuscular rays are parallel.
That's like saying squares are circles - a complete rejection of reality.

>>11276494
>the only time the horizon line will appear flat is when the camera is level and centred, which will cause the horizon line to be exactly in the middle of the frame, where there's no fish eye distortion
The forty minute long video compilation of literal weather balloon footage says otherwise.
>Do a laser test
Pic related.
>So where was the barrel distortion in the photo
Away from the center of frame and not very apparent considering a fish eye lens was not used.
>The curvature is lopsided in every photo
Irrelevant.
>the amount of curvature changes in every photo
Different focal lengths, horizontal compression and crops will achieve different levels of curvature. It's not about the AMOUNT of curvature, it's that there IS curvature on the water while there isn't on the straight edge.
>even globers claim this isn't lateral curvature of the earth because it's not high enough
Who claims that?

>>11276501
>notice how the coloured liquid gets lower and lower in the frame.
Irrelevant. As long as the two liquid levels are aligned, the camera is at eye level and pointed directly parallel to the surface below.
Here's another demonstration if you're too stupid to understand the liquid experiment.

>>11276412
>Because it's straight above you, retard
So what? It's still going through a dynamically moving fluid medium known as the atmosphere. They're talking bullshit.
>Why does the laser in pic related not come out of the block at an angle despite glass's high refractive index?
It is coming out at a slightly different angle - but this is not a valid comparison.
>Now you're just asking questions to waste time. Look up what the word "zenith" means in relation to celestial bodies.
I know what it means - it's a retarded concept in your model.

>>11276543
>That it is a physical, spherical thing in an infinite vacuum of space
When was that assumption made?
>It does not prove the shape of the earth
Nothing "proves" anything. There is only evidence and overwhelming evidence.
>predicting where the sun is on a flat model
Can't be done. Show me a flat earth model which can be used to predict the exact position of the sun in the sky for any given location on earth at any given date and time down to the second which works for thousands of years into the past and future.
>What about sunset/sunrise?
I already gave you the angular values of how much the sun is shifted due to refraction close to the horizon. (It's far less than the angular diameter of the sun itself)
>a full moon always makes a hole in the clouds so it appears again, I've witnessed this many times
I don't believe you.
>a complete rejection of reality.
See vid related, it seems you don't understand perspective
https://youtu.be/jhDpvfnVD3Y

>>11276568
>So what
Shifting of light due to refraction when the light is passing straight through a material (not at an angle) i.e. at the zenith is absolutely miniscule.
>It is coming out at a slightly different angle
It's not being held perfectly straight on. If it were, it would not be at an angle.
>this is not a valid comparison
It's not meant to compare anything, it's meant to give you an understanding on how refraction and angles work.
>I know what it means
So why did you ask how "long" it was?

>>11272231
What is the endgame of a flatearther? Say NASA issues a press release to the effect of "Yes, Earth is flat". Obviously our sattelites will continue to orbit, and life will carry on. Then what, for the flat earther?

>>11276415
False, I wasn't ridiculing the opponent's argument at that point, just calling the globe earth crazy which is an opinion - it was not part of my actual argument.

>>11276535
>>11276511
and if we already on the way there.
can you please tell our respected audience, which was your last solved equations?
i am asking, cause equations and math are the way we measure nature today.
if you are not using equations, please spread your great ways to us, comrade.

as a side note i'll state, that most if not all of philosophizing ended up in mathematical rigor and then useful tools. and i just don't get to catch that vibe from you about this flat earth thingy. you are very into rhetoric with the other side. maybe join up with your own group, rhetor a bit and then some math , and then some tools ? what ya say? might be useful, right?

>>11276535
>natural scientist: gimme names.
Stephen Hawking
Bill Nye
>mathemagicians: gimme names.
Nikola Tesla
Alexander Graham Bell
>oh and by the way, which books did you read, brother?
Books about what?

are you sure this
>>11276609
is your answer to this
>>11276511
?

>>11275925
>Webm related, what's causing the ship to disappear bottom up?
Curvature.

>grab telescope
>look at nearby planets/moons
>moon is round
>mars is round
>venus is round
>jupiter is round
>earth is [_____]

what does flat earth theory say about this?
occam's razor would say our planet should be the same shape as literally every other planet out there.


>>11276574
>What is the endgame of a flatearther?
see pic #3 We're in the end game right now. The whole point is an endless argument that gets bigger and bigger till it's all encompassing and nobody talk about anything else without a flatearther jumping in and derailing it. These threads use to be immediately deleted, now they get 250 bumps. They've successfully taken a non-issue and made it bigger than real life.

Congrats on being the useful idiots.

>>11276312
>I posted a laser test here that got conveniently ignored:
There you go, jumping to conclusions. I went to bed.
That was hardly an experiment. They shot a beam of light across a bay. Lots of hand-waving about being level, using a level that good to maybe a couple of degrees. The way that 'experiment' should be done is to measure two or preferably more points along the beam so you can see if there is a change in height and more importantly (requiring three or more points) a *rate* of change of height. If it's not level yes, the beam will go up or down. But with two or more points you can then tell if it's a straight line or not.

But you're not interested in facts. I get that, troll.

>>11275149
Why are you like this

>>11276817
>>11276312
P.S.- You're still 'conveniently' not addressing
>>11272986 and
>>11272988
Why does that not bother you, yet it seems if I don't answer you straightaway you think that means something?

>What is the endgame of a flatearther?

It's easy money. It's storytelling. Make stuff up and get YouTube hits. Throw a conference. Sell trinkets and literature.

>>11276780
i see your point, but not the conclusion.
if i may i'll give my own, hopefully keeping us both in honor and not causing a ruckus.

you picture gives us the intent. that we are dealing with a trainee of the project or some similiar one. it is inappropriate and should be deleted.

another point of you is that we are dealing we a soul not versed properly in any of the sciences and it got itself caught in the web of words, which scientist use, and only from the high fame the scientist get lately it strongly wants to participate, though through its own filters.
this we should not delete. but appreciate the opportunity to educate. but please be cautious, along with the slow scientific education, which will definitely progress slowly, the education of compassion and humility will be much more important. defusing the current soul's situation is our job as i see it at the moment. it's partly scientific as i said, but mostly compassionate.
this thread is a good practice thread for us. to start unpacking the tendencies of unscientific mind.

>>11272986
>>11272988
>if your accept this quest, you'll see that I'm right or wrong, therefore I'm right
I think it's fair to assume you've never done any of those things yourself. Rather, you find google and people like yourself to be sufficient for knowledge.
Also
>*sigh*...
What a faggot.

>>11272986
>>11272988
>if you accept this quest, you'll see that I'm right or wrong, therefore I'm right
I think it's fair to assume you've never done any of those things yourself. Rather, you find google and people like yourself to be sufficient for knowledge.
Also
>*sigh*...
What a faggot.

>>11276780
>>>11276574
>>What is the endgame of a flatearther?
It's easy money. It's storytelling. Make stuff up and get YouTube hits. Throw a conference. Sell trinkets and literature. It's just entertainment. The flat earther simply has to quash a conscience (if they have one) and have the gift of gab. Become a professional liar and selectively ignore the arguments that go counter to the theme. It's a great second income (maybe a career for some?).

>>11276858
>I think it's fair to assume you've never done any of those things yourself.
No, it isn't fair. That's my text. Copypasta because you assholes show up and pollute here a lot, but this is from me.

>>11272231
Theres a documentary about flat earthers where they use some form of laser and a $20k gyro and prove the globe earth but they ignore the results

>>11276858
You know, I've answered all of your crap. You're not being fair avoiding my challenge. OP wanted
>>11272231
>an easy DIY experiment to disprove the flat earth theorem
and I provided that, and you won't address that.
You're unfair, a troll, a liar, a cheat.

>>11276864
The only possible negation is the claim that you have indeed done those things yourself. Have you?
>>11276867
A conditional therefore consequent is a fallacy, not an "answer," idiot.

if the earth really is curved then why are jews on 4channel trying so hard to convince me that it is curved?

>>11276872
>the claim that you have indeed done those things yourself. Have you?
I've done the photography of the Moon rising etc. The intent was to prove that the Moon does not in fact appear larger at the horizon (a common misperception that seems to be ingrained in our psyche or something) back in the film days.
And even if I *hadn't* done that, it doesn't negate the exercise. I have every confidence it will work. You're the guy who needs convincing, and I've offered hypothesis, an experiment, and a means. You offer only blather. And did YOU doi the laser experiment yourself? Of course not. Double-standard.

>A conditional therefore consequent is a fallacy, not an "answer," idiot.
Pot, kettle, black. Flim-flam.

>>11275149
>their government doesn't give a fuck about what they think, so long as they pay their taxes.

This is every government dude

>>11276892
It's your claim that "I would find" certain results. Your fallacy is thinking this claim justifies you in claiming further that the earth is indeed not flat. If your intention wasn't to offer helpful advice, or to expect anyone to actually to do things like "place yourself on the equator," then you should redact the claim altogether, as well as any claim citing that claim, i.e. everything you've said.

>>11276906
You're looking for excuses to not do something.
The 'placing at equator' was meant to simplify things.
Nice dodge.
No actually, not.

>>11276912
I'll keep this simple for your puny mind: Your fallacy is conditional therefore consequent, i.e. "(p->q)->q"

>>11276920
You're truly hiding.
Find an error in my posts. An actual error. Argue why the described geometries and actions would not turn out that way. Explain why they actually do, in real life.
Your skill at lying and dodging is impressive, but it is not transparent.

>>11276932
>shifting the burden of proof: the post
You might find it surprising to consider the possibility that you have and are indeed committing the fallacies in your """thinking""" and I'm not dodging.

Flat -Earthers to oblate spheroidists:
"You're stupid, so your explanations are wrong."

Oblate spheroidists to flat-Earthers:
"Your explanations are wrong, therefore you're stupid."

>>11276932
>shifting the burden of proof: the post
You might find it surprising to consider the possibility that you have and are indeed committing these fallacies in your """thinking""" and I'm not dodging.

>>11276942
Nope. I've explained "whys" and "hows" all over here. You're just disregarding. You've had nothing of substance to say. You are a troll.

>>11276948

>>11274190
>They don't care whether the Earth is flat or round. The game is all about the luls in getting you to spend time responding.

>>11276951
Have you considered the possibility? No? Go away.

>>11276959
>Have you considered the possibility? No? Go away.
Have you?
No. Go away.

>>11276961
lol possibility of what? Have you considered the possibility that you have and are indeed committing these fallacies in your """thinking""" and I'm not dodging?

>>11276966
You're avoiding the issue entirely.
Am I wrong in those posts - are they fallacies? No. I know what's in them, I know how to explain every aspect of them. I also can explain why and how every flat earth shitpost is a shitpost. You can't. All you can do is hope that if you say there's a fallacy, your can detract form the issue at hand.

>>11275324
>I can't refute it.
Okay.

>>11276978

>>11274190
They will provoke you with insults and the classic, "If you don't respond, you prove me right."

>>11276970
I tire of repeating myself.
To state an if-then statement, and then to conclude based on this statement that the 'then' is true, is a fallacy.
Is this what you did?
Yes.
So that's one fallacy.
Then you go on to whine that I've not divulged any affirmative argumebts to negate this what has already been unveiled a fallacy, because you think it's sufficient to assert ad nauseam that it is not a fallacy. This is shifting of burden of proof.
Is this what you did?
Yes.
So that's two fallacies.

Now you will proceed to haphazardly read this reply, search for red-flag keywords like a good goy NPC, and disagree with not only one but everything I've said.
It shouldn't have been relevant, but I'm not even a flat-earther. I just find your lack of sound reasoning skills dangerous. Imagine all the idiots you've convinced that your conclusions, like of the world not being flat, are sound?

>>11276970
I tire of repeating myself.
To state an if-then statement, and then to conclude based on this statement that the 'then' is true, is a fallacy.
Is this what you did?
Yes.
So that's one fallacy.
Then you go on to whine that I've not divulged any affirmative arguments to negate this what has already been unveiled a fallacy, because you think it's sufficient to assert ad nauseam that it is not a fallacy. This is shifting of burden of proof.
Is this what you did?
Yes.
So that's two fallacies.

Now you will proceed to haphazardly read this reply, search for red-flag keywords like a good goy NPC, and disagree with not only one but everything I've said.
It shouldn't have been relevant, but I'm not even a flat-earther. I just find your lack of sound reasoning skills dangerous. Imagine all the idiots you've convinced that your conclusions, like of the world not being flat, are sound?

>>11277020
i am with you, mate
but for dear god, take some responsibility for your own actions and feelings
i think you are in the wrong mind set, thats why u get all frustrated with him. like you assume he is part of the greater scientific community, honestly looking for the truth, came here to cooperate with you, so we can grow together.

unfortunately this is not the case. he has no rigor no humility. acknowledge that. he his hurt.
can you really get angry at a child? he doesn't mean harm.

well... unless, he his just troll, then my friend you got nailed today

>>11277026
Okay, I'm dumb.
Teach me. One thing at a time, please.
Show me what the if-then statement was.

>>11277041
i was replaying to >>11277026
some how the post changed number

>>11276981
The only reason you find it "provocative" is you have an emotional attachment (due to familiarity, conditioning, and what have you) to a way of thinking which is illogical. It's actually very simple.
-If someone makes a statement regarding the way of things, the burden of proof, providing evidence to make his case and so forth, is on him. This is obvious.
-If someone responds however by saying "that's false", this itself is a claim, and the burden of proof moves up the chain so to speak, it becomes a shared matter. Both are now making claims about reality which they cannot prove.
-So ultimately you can say "I don't know, but I don't think that's correct" and it's fine. But you cannot state it's false because it is not true. That doesn't make sense.

>But you can't prove a negative!
Of course you can. For example, I'm pretty broke. I do not have money, it's not there. I can prove it. I can look everywhere systematically for money and have, within that search space, it become apparent that money is not there. In some cases you can use a theoretical framework to prove that given some other parameters, or relative to some starting state, a certain thing (likely) cannot be true.

You can't get around this without invoking something more solipsistic, or something which states memory and the senses are untrustable.

That's just the way it is. I'm not a flat earther but I will tend to troll globe earthers and anyone else who claims they know things they do not know, or makes claims they cannot back up. "That's not true" is one such claim, and you shall be held to account.

>285 replies
>63 posters
Have fun arguing with yourself retard.

>>11277061
Thank you for taking the time to spell it out.
I think I understand.
Yes, I'm extremely familiar with the geometries involved, and was focusing on that. I am not sure how to reword the texts to convey the information I intended to impart, but recognize there are problems with it.
As for backing up, for instance 'placing yourself at the equator' and no having actually been to the equator, there is still a knowledge of how the geometries should look.
So if I get this right, I have to word this as conjecture, simply because I haven't witnessed it firsthand? What's the point of 'understanding' then?

>>11277093
nice... i also appreciated the post you replied to

>>11272231
There has never been, isn't, and never will be a functional flat earth model that is self-consistent and makes predictions. If you show the flaws in one "model", they'll just make another equally flawed one.

I am disappointed by the lack of faith in the ONE TRUE FLAT EARTH, where ships sail over the edge, just like GOD INTENDED!

The amount of heresy here is...disturbing. Crazy wild and unsubstantiated talk about Antarctica, laser beams and geometry. May GOD have mercy upon your heretical souls, for surely you shall all burn in Hell.

>>11276892
>The intent was to prove that the Moon does not in fact appear larger at the horizon (a common misperception that seems to be ingrained in our psyche or something) back in the film days.

Next time you get a chance, try this.

Observe the moon rising and how it appears huge close to the horizon.

Turn your back on the moon, bend over, and look back between your legs with your head upside down.

Observe the moon now appears normal sized.

It's a perceptual glitch.

Now, take an aspirin tablet and hold it at arm's length, and note that it just about perfectly covers the moon near the horizon.

Wait an hour, for the moon to get higher, and try again.

Notice that the size of the moon, measured by comparison to the aspirin tablet, has not changed

Be amazed at how cool shit is.

>>11277093
If I may impose upon your time to evaluate the first half...
If the Earth was flat and the Sun moved in great circles around the N pole, an observer on the equator during the equinox should see the Sun appear from north of the equator (left), with low radial movement and a large southward (right) drift, as it follows its circular path. Its horizontal motion should diminish over the course of the morning as it 'rounds the bend,' in exchange for an increase in radial speed as it approaches. When overhead (Noon) it should be moving most quickly and almost straight east to west. After Noon it should appear to slow down and begin to drift right (north), and gain the drift to the right while losing radial motion. It should not set, but seem to approach the horizon and disappear.

That is not what is reported 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 a straight line on the sky, because in this geometry the observer (not a distant pole) are on the same plane as the circle it traces. North of the Equator on an equinox, we still see the Sun rise due E and set due W, and move with constant angular velocity.

From S of the equator during an equinox, a flat-Earther should still see the Sun appear from the NE, approach but curve left to a position due north at local Noon, then continue left and away to the NW, fading into oblivion. On a globe Earth, the Sun should rise due E, move up and left to north at Noon, and then set again due W. The motion shown by star-trail photography clearly shows there is an axis of rotation pinpointing a south celestial pole at an angle directly above the southern horizon equal to the absolute value of observer's latitude. On a flat Earth, a sky rotating around two poles simultaneously needs to be explained.

I don't understand what flat advocates get so worked up over the "The horixon always rises to eye level no matter how high you go" argument.

First off, it doesn't

Secondly, though, it would not be expected to rise to eye level on a globe OR on a flat disk.

So what you have is advocates for flat Earth making up a false argument that also disproves their own theory.

Odd behavior.

>>11277283

Ikr. But it gets worse, much worse. Some of them believe that flat earth is surrounded by a thing called "Antarctica", which is absolute nonsense considering we have genuine photos showing NO SEA ICE, and those photos that do show sea ice are obviously faked. As any good GOD-fearing believer of the ONE TRUE FLAT EARTH knows, Flat Earth has an edge over which ships fall. Some say there are sea monsters lurking beneath the edge, waiting to devour the ships which plummet over, but we have yet to determine the accuracy of this claim.

>>11275763
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Trans-Antarctic_Expedition

>>11276859
ah, didn't think of the marketing aspects. Alex Jones and etc. Good point; goshdarn I learned something on 4chan.

>>11272231

Every experiment on earth only proves that a particular local area is more bumpy, not that the whole Earth is round.

>>11277440
>Commonwealth
I wouldn't trust a Jewish organization.

>>11277456
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-colorado-flat-earth-20180115-story.html

>>11277440

HERESY HERESY! BURN THE HERETICS!

The Earth is flat, because I had a fren who started digging a hole. He dug down deep and soon I heard, OH NO! AAAAAAAAHHHH!!! and him falling.
He dug though the Earth and I never saw him again.
I put a piece of plywood over the hole.

>>11277591
Had a pupper almost do that once. We were near the bottom of Death Valley, guess the Earth is thinnest there cos he didn't take long before he stuck his arm into the Great Below. Spooked him so bad he hasn't dug a hole since :(

>>11277603
Good thing he didn't fall through though, that's where ghosts live.

>>11275827
everything you see on your computer, phone, and camera is CGI

>>11276878
>if the earth really is curved then why are jews on 4channel trying so hard to convince me that it is curved?

>>11276780
>>11276780
>occam's razor would say our planet should be the same shape as literally every other planet out there.

>>11278570
If flat earthers think the earth is a disc, why wouldn't they expect the edge to look curved from high altitudes?

Explain globeys

>>11276261
No, it's a lame trolling practice ground.

>>11278570
All of those shots except for the last shot were taken with a wide angle lens.

>>11278644
The hottest recorded temperatures are in death valley california. That is not on the equator. Oops.
What is the source of the heat map anyways?

>>11273823
uh, why? what does the sun have to do with the earth's rotation around its own axis?

>>11278644
things outside the tropics have more seasons than "wet" and "dry"
winter in the northern hemisphere is not caused by earth being farther away from the sun like you thought in 4th grade
it's caused by shorter days and longer nights, meaning less sun(the shortest day and longest night is called the winter solstice)
while all that is happening in the northern hemisphere the southern hemisphere is experiencing summer
the winter solstice for the northern hemisphere is the summer solstice for the southern hemisphere

>>11278702
map's from https://earth.nullschool.net/

>>11278753
it's actually more prominently caused by the sunlight coming in at lower angles than the total number of daylight hours

>>11278575
No shit it's an illustration, do you think they sent another probe out specifically to take nice looking photos of the orbiter?

>>11276162
stars in flat earth model are light holograms made by nasa

>>11279172
how long has nasa been around then

>>11276574
they don't have an endgame, they just want to feel in control of something

>>11279265
There's also the ego boost of being the holder of proscribed/secret knowledge, and the feeling of rebellion/sense of purpose gained by spreading it.

>>11279328
that's what i meant

>>11279261
nasa is an ancient organization that controls the universe. its older than continents for sure, could be even older, older than earth itself

>>11272231
if it goes against intuition it's likely wrong, gravity is just a theory there is no proof. no way to harness gravity. it literally sounds like fairy-tail magic. if gravity exists so does the ability to wave a magic wand and turn people to frogs.

>>11279347
>if it goes against intuition it's likely wrong
My intuition is that the Earth is round. Checkmate, atheist!

>>11279393
you are brainwashed to believe that (not in a bad way it is just the general consensus). it is not intuition right? of course you would believe the land you walk on is flat intuitively for sure. it is crazy to believe that we live on a floating sphere in the universe.

>>11279347
>if it goes against intuition it's likely wrong
intuition is actually the biggest problem when dealing with any question that isn't confined to human scales

our intuition only works in our everyday lives, we have neither the instinct nor the experience to make it work in any other context

>>11279424
i do not believe that we need to understand unituitive things, as this is why it is unituitive. it is like teaching a lion how to use cutlery for when it eats a steak.

>>11279421
Nope, I got this intuition from looking at the Moon. Nice assumption, though!

>>11279421
>Intuition is always right
>>My intuition is different from yours
>Nuh-uh! Your intuition is wrong!

Just admit it, you don't mean that intuition is always correct, you mean that *your* intuition is always correct.

>>11279467
and the moon appears flat in the sky. you have been told that the moon is spherical, and you can apply it to the Earth, but that is not intuition. you have learnt this.

>>11279471
how would you possibly come up with the idea that the Earth is spherical with no research? I'm sure your brain is that huge that in 2000 BC you would have believed that the Earth was spherical then also. considering before research everybody had this idea, this is the human intuition. you believe what you believe through teaching.

>>11279481
If the moon were flat, we wouldn't notice it wobbling, nor would we see shadows or eclipses the way we do.

>>11279490
you have researched the moon's wobbling and eclipses to come to this conclusion, which a human with no tools can not do.

>>11279486
>how would you possibly come up with the idea that the Earth is spherical with no research
Observation. Intuitions can change with new experiences. I know this has never happened for you since you outright reject evidence you don't already agree with, but the rest of us find it rather common for intuitions to change over time.

>>11279494
>humans can't see the Moon without telescopes!
>humans can't remember things without computers!

>>11279496
that's called learning, not intuition.

>>11279439
yeah, or teaching a human child how to use a fork for that matter, totally useless

>>11279502
i'd like to see you observe the moon wobbling without a telescope

>>11279347
>no way to harness gravity
it's not like there are literally power plants in rivers which are doing exactly that

>Angle laser one degree above the ground
>Basic trigonometry using tan(1 degree) indicates that every kilometre the light travels on the ground, it travels 17.45506492 metres vertically
>So if we measure the height of the light ten kilometres away it should be 174.55 metres above ground because the Earth is flat
>It's not
>It's slightly higher
OP DESTROYED

>>11279541
Not a flatbrainer but laser experiments are nearly always flawed because they never take beam divergence into account

>>11279592
>beam divergence
m8