/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8747377

Prove it.

>>8747380
>pic related

>>8747383

Looks 2D to me.

>>8747377
>every planet we see through a telescope is round
>ours isn't for some reason

wow really activated my almonds

>>8747380
sunlight illuminates the bottom of clouds after the sun is beyond the horizon

this isn't possible on flat disk earth
therefore the earth is not flat

you didn't ask me to prove the earth was spherical

>>8747410
> Thinks we're on a "wandering" star

>>8747377
Is this reverse shit posting?

>>8747412
please explain your batshit insane conspiracy theory in great detail for me so I can have a good laugh

>>8747410
Illuminati

>>8747419
what about the reptilians? are they involved?

>>8747415
In ancient times, astronomers noted how certain lights moved across the sky, as opposed to the "fixed stars", which maintained a constant relative position in the sky.[11] Ancient Greeks called these lights πλάνητες ἀστέρες (planētes asteres, "wandering stars") or simply πλανῆται (planētai, "wanderers"),[12] from which today's word "planet" was derived.[13][14][15]

Earth isn't a planet, as it doesn't wander through the sky.

Bouyancy laws prove a flat Earth.

Gravity does not exist. Formulae for it are incomplete in a "round world" scenario. Removing gravity, then calculating for a flat Earth makes perfect sense.

>>8747536
>>8747546
Finally, somebody gets it.

the earth is actually a 1dimensional vibrating string

>>8747536
>All definitions from ancient greek are relevant today

>>8747377
but apparently it is not round either.

This thread is really low-level bait.
Must be a kid thinking this is how one trolls.

>>8747377
For anyone wondering, OP's image is by artist Aydin Büyüktas using image stitching software.

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/10/folding-landscape-photos-will-mess-brain/

>>8747546
>>8747619
>>Indubitably!

HOW can a round Earth be real if bouyancy exists?

There is ONLY bouyancy in a flat Earth. Gravity is false and once you start to do equations for it, you figure out real quick that it's just a piece of disinformation.

Flat Earth is the only thing that makes mathmatical sense. Bouyancy is the only force that accounts for it. Gravity arguments only come from Big Aerospace-funded shills.

>>8748336
Can you show me your equations? Have you actually even taken physics 101?

>>8748371
Just type up the actual equation for gravity (compensating for a round world) and tell me that makes sense. The physics community is struggling to fill the gaps in these equations.

Now, substitute gravity for bouyancy and change your round world to a flat one. See how everything makes sense? It all fits together, like a puzzle. Bouyancy can be used in a flat Earth equation to account for everything. Even stars and planets.

>>8747546
how the fuck do bouyancy laws prove a flat earth

if that was true every fucking middle school science class would have kids flipping out about bouyancy not making any sense and people would be coming up with flat earth on their own all the time.

>>8748375
I see, so you haven't even taken physics 101, you just watched a bunch of youtube videos...

>>8748336
How does bouyancy not work with a round earth? it works just fine with a round earth

>>8747731
but you are assuming that you are on one of those wanderers without """reliable""" observations.
If you throw out pics of round earth and all the math that shows orbits, just saying we are round because others are round is fallacious

>>8748381
It's being covered up by the Big Aerospace lobby. They profit from sheep like you believing in a round Earth.

Bouyancy is the only thing that makes sense, and it only makes sense on a flat Earth. Gravity doesn't make sense in a "round" world. In flat world equations, the term doesn't even make sense. EVERYTHING can be explained by bouyancy.

>>8748384
>>8748386

Bouyancy DOES work with a round Earth. Gravity doesn't.

But here's a simple experiment to prove what I'm saying. Take a styrofoam cup and put it in your bathtub. See how it floats? This WOULD NOT happen in a round world.

>>8748394
>Take a styrofoam cup and put it in your bathtub. See how it floats? This WOULD NOT happen in a round world.
What would happen in a round, world? Would the cup fly out into space or something?

>>8748394
Yes, in your mind what would hypothetically happen in a spherical planet?

>>8748401
It would sink. This is why gravity is simply disinfo on a scale of the whole "round world" conspiracy.

Bouyancy accounts for the action of the cup floating, but only on a flat Earth.

>>8748412
Why would it sink? What is the relationship between the planet's roundness and the cup sinking?

>>8748410
See
>>8748412

>>8748394
wot.

why wouldn't it float in a round world? You think it would sink because lel gravity? Gravity is putting the weight of the cup down on it while bouyancy will be putting the weight of the water it displaces up. Since the water is heavier, it holds the cup up. This is the same on a flat world (with some way of still having gravity) or a round one.

>>8748412
>It would sink.
You realize that the styrofoam floats because it is less dense than the water? The cup (or whatever is floating) sinks just enough to displace its weight, thus it cannot sink any further.

Gravity pulls the buoyant object down as far as it can.

>>8748418
>>8748421
Just do the equation. It doesn't make sense that it would float if the world is round.

Think about it like this: if you shine a bright light on a stone, where does the shadow go? Gravity can't even begin to account for something as simple as that.

>>8748432
Exactly. But If gravity was real, the cup would just sink right to the bottom. Thankfully we don't live in a topsy turvy "round" world.

Bouyancy accounts for every physical property of the cup.

>>8748434
If you shine a bright light on a stone...the shadow is directly in line with the light. How does this relate to buoyancy or gravity?

It does make sense the cup floats regardless of the world being flat or round, the water is displaced just the same and is just as dense on both a flat and round world. The equation says that the cup floats either way.

>>8748449
The shadow is ALWAYS straight, opposite of the light source. In a round world, it would bend every which way. Sometimes even be in two places at once.

The cup problem I just don't think you're understanding. Cups only float because of bouyancy. The gov't and NASA has been suppressing this knowledge for years. This is why TRUE bouyancy isn't taught in school. It's substituted with a watered down version, and then "gravity" is taught. But that one is a LIE

>>8748465
you aren't very convincing

>>8748488
Neither are you. Parroting disinfo about gravity is the reason the round Earth LIE will be exposed. It all falls apart too easily.

>>8748465
So, why do you think a shadow would bend randomly on a round planet?

Jesus Christ...

>>8748524
Because of Rounders insistence on applying gravity to everything. Bouyancy is the only thing that explains a straight shadow.

>>8748465
Bait

>>8748531
Here, just take this (you) and leave us rounders alone.

>>8748465
I never trusted the gov't or NASA myself, but I wasn't ever a brainlet so I never needed to.

I figured out buoyancy for myself, and its real, and has nothing to do with light. What they teach in school is actually okay, not watered down at all. Its literally the weight of the object, thats all it is. I don't even know how you'd water that down other than just saying "things float".

The light will bend exactly the same regardless of whats around it. The 'world' being round has absolutely no effect on this. Maybe thats why you think buoyancy says the cup would sink, you don't understand it.

Heres a simple reminder that you can follow yourself, you don't have to trust me or anyone else, you can check the logic yourself and please reply with any error I may have made:

Cup is in world

Cup is dropped on top of water

As cup enters the water, the water where the cup is going moves aside, obviously they can't both be in the same place at once.

The water moved aside has to go somewhere, it could try to go out from the cup, but that just pushes more water aside until you get to the wall, it doesn't work, doesn't make sense.

So that water instead trys to stay as is. How successful it is depends on the weight of the cup

if the cup is styrofoam, it is not very heavy, and so the water is able to mostly stay in place.

if the cup is iron however, it may sink, because the force of gravity pushing down on it is stronger than the weight of the water.

Notice that the shape of the world never even mattered. This is true with any sort of gravity be it the type described by physics or some arbitrary value in a discrete direction on a plane.

>>8748603
Your scenario would ONLY work in a flat world. There's no other way for it to happen.

>>8748611
It works absolutely no different depending on if its a flat world or a round world or a donut world or a fucking dog world ffs

>>8748624
Donut worlds are false, made to make flat Earth look silly.

Just try putting a styrofoam cup in water. If it floats, we are on a flat Earth. How hard is this to figure out? Plug all the variables you want into a bouyancy equation, it will ALWAYS work out. Know why? Because the Earth IS NOT ROUND.

>>8748627
But how does that have to do with the world shape?

Buoyancy works the same in a flat or round world.

the bouyancy equation doesn't even take into account gravity by default because it has nothing to do with gravity. Gravity just ends up being the force down.

>>8748627
lol

>>8748635
You know why it doesn't take gravity into account? Because gravity is NOT real. It never was. Gravity is the wool that is being pulled over your eyes. All forces in nature and the heavens can be explained by bouyancy.

Things just wouldn't work on a round world. For lots of reasons. For one, there wouldn't even be any water to float a cup on. "Plate tectonics" or whatever they are calling it nowadays would have evaporated water long ago.

>>8748505
you're the only one parroting disinfo

you just say that things cant float on a round earth while giving no evidence for this

>>8748676
Bouyancy.

>>8748693
that explains nothing

my physics textbook gives a much better argument for the existence of a round earth, gravity, and how boyancy works in the first page than you have in all of your posts

>>8748722
>muh textbook

Paid for by NASA hm?

>>8748722
Typical rounder. Once your arguments fall flat and you see that I'm right about bouyancy and gravity, you revert to "my t-textbook says so!"

>>8747380

no u

>>8748389

This is funny. Thanks for the laughs.

>>8748652
well it DOES take gravity in to account sort of, gravity is the force down. Its the same on a flat or round earth. If you're claiming gravity doesn't exist then what holds the cup down in the first place?

>flat earther with perfect grammar
Troll/10

>>8748882
pretty sure they didn't spell buoyancy right once

>>8748887
Yeah but I think that word is pretty commonly misspelled because of the u before o thing

>>8748860
The bouyancy formula explains everything. Gravity is a chunk of that equation that "scientists" have taken and warped to discredit Flat Earth.

>>8748882
>>8748887
>>8748894
It can be spelled out either way. Bouyancy looks more natural to me, and it's what the Ancients wrote when they were computing a Flat Earth.

>>8748904
how does buoyancy explain why a styrofoam cup doesn't float in the air?

>>8748927
The cup isn't bouyant enough to float in air. This is why a flat world makes sense. If the world was round, the cup would jump between floating in the air, then sinking in the water.

>>8748935

>people are this stupid

>>8748935
>"If gravity exists then it would do the opposite of what it does."

>>8748336
>Gravity arguments only come from Big Aerospace-funded shills.

Sir Isaac Newton was funded by Big Aerospace.

>>8748959
"Gravity" would work in essence, if everything was as "scientists" say. But on a round Earth, all formulae and maths would go right out of the window.

Every mathmatical formula ASSUMES a flat Earth. It wouldn't work otherwise.

>>8748434
>Just do the equation.

Show me the equation and I'll give it a go.

>It doesn't make sense that it would float if the world is round. Think about it like this: if you shine a bright light on a stone, where does the shadow go? Gravity can't even begin to account for something as simple as that

Oh, I see now, never mind...

>>8748975
Just think about it.