/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9461995
There is no scientific benefits
There is no scientific basis
Delete this shit

>>9462017
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_cannot_claim_the_earth_is_not_flat

>>9462017
Then why does it have such presence in the public sphere?

>>9462034
>public sphere
>sphere
Reeeee, be gone, sphere shill

>>9461995
>What is the scientific basis for this theory
There is none. Even backyard observations and basic grasp of geometry is enough to rule out any model of a flat Earth.

>why has it gained so much traction over the last few years.
Because many people find holding contrary beliefs empowering.
Being able to say "I am one of the few who know the truth about the world" is an incredibly attractive idea, and cognitive dissonance is an easy price to pay.

>Is it all a meme that people think is funny to push or are people actually this fucking retarded?
Both.

>>9461995
In everyday life, I'd say the Flat Earthers are just stupid. Or "if it's not in the Bible, it can't be so."
On /sci/ I'd guess that most simply like being controversial or starting wars.

The Wikipedia link has some good advice. Unfortunately, the internet makes it possible for anyone with a professional looking website to appear knowledgeable and informed. It's a problem currently without a solution. It extends beyond pseudoscience and threatens Western democracy.

You obviously recognize that the people who believe that crap are "fucking retarded". Totally divorced from reality. But you've asked a legitimate question -- as a sociological issue.
Interesting to see an Alderson disc again after so many years. I've occasionally wondered if it has an in-the-plane instability, like the Ringworld.

>>9461995
>the scientific benefits a flat Earth could possibly have
Confirming unfalsifiable conspiracy mumbo jumbo.

>>9462135
>There is none. Even backyard observations and basic grasp of geometry is enough to rule out any model of a flat Earth.

Yeah, it's so obvious when I look at the sky and do some rad geometry that the earth is spinning at 1000mph while orbiting the sun at 66,600mph and the sun is orbiting the galaxy at over 500,000mph. I can also work out the earth is tilted 26.4 degrees and that it's an oblate spheroid. Also the earth's orbit around the sun is actually an eliptical, it's not a perfect circle, and it also wobbles a bit at the axis. Oh and the moon is actually tidally locked so it only ever shows one "side" of itself and it's just a coincidence that the sun and moon are almost exactly the same size in the sky and meet perfectly during eclipses despite their large differences in size and distance.

Occam's razor in full effect. I wholeheartedly believe all of this and I think anyone who questions it is a blithering moron who should damn well listen to people who know what they're talking about.

>>9462868
ancient Greeks figured out the circumference of the Earth with a stick
Can't have a circumference on a flat Earth
Checkmate atheists

>>9462877

Totally agree, those Greeks knew what the fuck they were doing. Sticks in the ground. Genius.

>>9462884
The shadow of the stick you dingdong

>>9462868
Yeah, it is just a coincidence that the Sun and Moon have (almost) the same angular size.
You're aware neither orbit is perfectly circular so apparent sizes vary? When the Sun is near and the Moon is far, we only get an annular eclipse.

We're living at a rare moment in history! Which is wasted on Flat Earthers.
The Moon is receding a few centimeters per year and pretty soon (just a couple hundred million years) there won't be any more total eclipses!

So what, does the water just fall off the edge? Is there an infinite amount of water on the Earth’s surface in this scenario? Why isn’t this harnessed for energy? What lies at the “end” of the Earth in these theories?

>>9463025
I think they're still working out the details of that.
Image is my favorite retort to the retards. None can deny the logic!

>>9462904

Same shadow effect would happen on a flat, stationary plane with a sun "orbiting" us.

>>9462916
>You're aware neither orbit is perfectly circular so apparent sizes vary? When the Sun is near and the Moon is far, we only get an annular eclipse.

Of course I am, it wouldn't be the heliocentric model without convoluted explanations (excuses).

>The Moon is receding a few centimeters per year and pretty soon (just a couple hundred million years) there won't be any more total eclipses!

Yet more sci-fi.

>>9463025

Allow free exploration of Antarctica and we can attempt to find out.

The scientific basis is considering delta a genuine natural physical state which simply wasn't just a thing in the preuniversal pseudotimespan what makes it possible at all whose assignment relies of personal belief

Welcome to the prehistoric age

>>9463075
>Same shadow effect would happen on a flat, stationary plane with a sun "orbiting" us.
No it wouldn't.

>>9463107

Oh, okay.

>>9461995
Flat earth means human perspective the earth looks flat to us because we are grounded and the idea we are on a sphere where everything is magically stuck to the surface sounded absolutely retarded to ancient people.

>>9463091

>>9461995
The benefit is that all of science is null and void. That is the only outcome of arguing for some conspiracy that includes that vast majority of scientists, every university, and every government on the planet.

And obviously undoing thousands of years of scientific advancements is only a benefit from the view of these retarded flat earthers

>>9463154

if gravity is real then why does smoke go up instead of down?

>>9463123
For more "ground level" evidence all you need is a time lapse of the south pole and it's 24 hours of sunlight which is impossible on a flat earth.

>>9463212
Smoke doesn't go up.
The ground, the buildings, and you are all accelerating downwards at 9.82 meters/second-squared.
Smoke doesn't go down as well because it's part of the Conspiracy to drive you mad!
So far, the Plan seems to be working perfectly.

>>9463220
We are talking about people who conveniently dont believe in the south pole....

>>9463247
Weird because people live there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v2uF5CF6Tg

>>9461995
>are people actually this fucking retarded?
Oh, I'm sure people are actually this fucking retarded, but no, the whole flat-earth thing is bait.

>>9463212
Its density is low.

>>9463328
I certainly hope this is an ongoing joke that everyone is in on and people aren’t exerting time or effort to substantiate their claims of a flat Earth. I’ve seen too much to the contrary however. If it was a joke, it stopped being funny and started being stupid with how much people claim to believe it.

>>9463328
There are people who believe the earf is 7 thousand years old. There are people who believe that the clothes you wear effect the performance of your favorite sports team on TV. There are people who gamble their money away because "someone has to win which means I can win".

>>9463373
Exactly, there are plenty of people stupid enough to believe the Earth is flat, but the origins of the flat Earth meme are based on trolling, not stupidity.

>>9463388
Where did it originate?

>>9463405
>Where did it originate?
I honestly don't know, but I've heard claims it started as a debating exercise.
The idea was, "I'm so good at debating, I could argue that the world is flat".

>>9463299

That video has been debunked, although you've posted an edited version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42EqtxhwJ20

>>9463405
Samuel Rowbotham in 1800s
Samuel Shenton in 1950s
and Daniel Shenton (no relation) in 2004

>>9463431
>That video has been debunked
So they edited it to have a nice loop? Wow you really showed them. Must be fake.

>>9463440

Shhh, no tears, only dreams now

>>9461995
Modelling any space as an n manifold in other words locally flat or locally Euclidean let's you do some math.

>>9463247
>people who conveniently dont believe in the south pole....
Literally reptilian disinfo to hide the entrance to the hollow earth, which unlike a flat earth, is 100% not at all bullshit.

>>9463220
Oh, that’s all? Just need to travel to the South Pole.

How do I verify for myself the earth is not flat?

>>9463678
You take a flight going over the South Pole.

>>9463702
What does it evidence?

>>9463678
Go to the north pole and see if there's a gravitational point charge asymptote.

>>9463678
On a flat Earth, the Moon would need to travel in circles above the Earth to create Moonrise and Moonset. This would mean distance between an observer and the Moon would change massively hour-by-hour
Go outside during a full moon. By holding a ruler at arms length, you can use it to measure the apparent size of the Moon. If you make several measurements over the course of the night, you'll see that the Moon doesn't change in size. As the Moon isn't changing in diameter, the observer-moon distance isn't varying significantly over the course of a day.
Therefore the Earth isn't flat.

>>9463718
Whether or not the Earth is a sphere since the same land masses will reappear.

>>9462868
>Occam's razor in full effect.
Look at the Geocentric model of the solar system and then the Heliocentric model.

Then apply Occam's razor.

>>9463075
in two different places at the same time?
Look up shit you try to debate you retard.
This is thousands of years old

>>9463678
Look at the night sky.

The night sky confused ancient civilizations but once we put the Sun at the center of our solar system everything became much simpler.

>>9463075
>Allow free exploration of Antarctica and we can attempt to find out.
Go on one of the tours to the south pole.
Take your own compass and any other navigation equipment you want so you can assure yourself the guides aren't pulling the wool over your eyes.

For a shade under $64k you can verify it for yourself. What are you waiting for?

If the Earth isn't flat, how do satellites remain in the sky without falling to ground?

>>9464349
by the power of pure rape
someone's raping someone right now, keeping the satellites in orbit

>>9464327

Don't wanna a guided tour at rip off prices thanks. No one (supposedly) owns Antarctica so free exploration should be a right.

>>9464349

Ask planes, drones and weather balloons.

>>9464547
>No one (supposedly) owns Antarctica so free exploration should be a right.
Sure, but only if you'll accept no one coming to help you if you get into trouble.

>>9464561

Neither do people who climb Mount Everest who freeze to death.

>>9464564
And Everest is far less remote than Antarctica.

Let that sink in a little. Everest is in a populated country and people freeze to death trying to climb it on their own. Antarctica is a frozen wasteland basically devoid of life aside from the edges and under ice sheets.

If you're that desperate then buy your boat and go there. There's no wall of patrol boats preventing you from reaching Antarctica. Or are you expecting people to take you there for free so you can explore?

>>9464578

But it's their right to attempt it. It'd be easier to survive in Antarctica than it would climbing Everest, far less physically stressful.

You cannot freely explore Antarctica, there is a treaty preventing this. If it was possible, we'd see evidence of it happening all the time. Instead we get silly tours and sponsored expeditions that barely go into Antarctica at all.

>>9464594
>It'd be easier to survive in Antarctica than it would climbing Everest, far less physically stressful.
Holy mind numbingly optimistic there.

>>9464594
You can try reading the treaty yourself instead of claiming that you read it.

>>9463123
It can happen if you agree to two assumptions:
The sun is a lot smaller than the radius of this hypothetical flat earth.
The sun is very close to the earth.

>>9464594
You know, Inuits and Eskimos already have a difficult as fuck time living in their arctic hellhole. What makes you think that it's going to be easier especially when it's far from human civilization and the only food source are penguins and seals?

>>9464601

Antarctica would be easy to explore with the right transport and clothes.

>>9464620

I have read it. Wanna know who really owns Antarctica? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_the_British_Antarctic_Territory

>>9464636
Inuits and eskimos

>>9464623

Yes, which is what we observe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN8yhUzqLCA

>>9464636
It's just a sector that isn't even more than half of the entire antarctic

>>9464620
From what I gather, I see two restrictions:
(1) There are 72 protected areas that require permits. (Can't let the plebs disturb the shoggoths.)
(2) Countries have to notify other countries of any expeditions, so as to make clear that these aren't military operations (which are forbidden). Therefore, in turn, countries require notification from their own citizens of any planned visits. Tourist operators presumably have standing notifications.

>>9464642

Which proves what? Humans can live and breed in cold climates without 21st century advancements?

>>9464630
You gotta remember that seals and penguins only exist on the exterior of Antarctica.

On the interior there is nothing. Nothing at all.

>>9464636
>Antarctica would be easy to explore with the right transport and clothes.
And if you have the money required to fund that yourself you should have no problem getting your permission to make the trek.

Not to mention you are basically contradicting yourself. You admit yourself you need to be properly equipped to explore Antarctica. So its not easy.

>>9464636
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Antarctic_Territory
Nice.

>>9464649
>(1) There are 72 protected areas that require permits. (Can't let the plebs disturb the shoggoths.)
Presumably areas scientific experiments are taking place or planned to take place, also wildlife habitats.

Can't have the plebs blundering into years of research and ruining it.

>>9464644
>flat earther thinks retarded video makes him win despite lack of any explanation or context
typical

>>9464651
Their living conditions are harsh. I used them as an example to refute your retarded optimism about the ease of exploring antarctica. Those guys are close to civilization and some food. At least the arctic has relatively more life than the antarctic.

>>9464652


>>9464657

The Queen owns the majority of countries that have claimed parts of Antarctica, so yes Britain does own it really. They've named a part of it after her: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_Land

>And if you have the money required to fund that yourself you should have no problem getting your permission to make the trek.

You have to be under military supervision at all times and you cannot go where you wish which is odd considering there apparently isn't a government that can dictate such things.

>>9464657
Does this make all of the Argentines born in Antarctica, British Subjects?

>>9464663

The sun is clearly not 93 million miles away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aA0yfQkfqw

>>9464666

We've been able to explore it before, but after Admiral Byrd's expeditions where he said there was more land, no more free exploration has been allowed since.

>>9464678
>Queen Elizabeth Land is portion of mainland Antarctica named by the government of the United Kingdom and claimed as part of the British Antarctic Territory
Oh, so it only a portion of that tiny slice.

>You have to be under military supervision at all times
That's bullshit and you know it.

Also, as a typical American you have no idea how the royalty works at all. While she has power on paper it's really just lip service.

>>9464695
Without even listening to the audio I can bet he is arguing that "the sun is reducing in size as you would expect from it getting further away from you". Of course, there is also the possibility that as the sun was obscured by clouds and then the horizon that the reduction in light resulted in less flaring, but to prove that for sure he would have to use a sun rated filter in order to observe the true disc of the sun on camera.

>>9464087
This is the main problem. People explaining why the earth is not flat lack imagination. They always start with some unnecessary requirement of flat earth physics, like how the moon must travel this way, and it doesn’t so the earth is not flat. If the flat earth has a dome over it, instead of your proposal, then your method would delude you into thinking the earth was not flat.

>>9464733

As mentioned, she owns all Commonwealth counties that have claimed parts of Antarctica.

>That's bullshit and you know it.

Prove that Antarctica is some free and open place that you can explore without permission or strict rules.

>the sun was obscured by clouds and then the horizon that the reduction in light resulted in less flaring

There were no clouds in the way obscuring the light.

Why do you think a solar filter shows the "true" size of the sun? All they do is filter out 99% of light.

>>9464748
>Prove that Antarctica is some free and open place that you can explore without permission or strict rules.
That I can't prove, but you made a claim that you would be under military supervision at all times, which is bullshit.

>There were no clouds in the way obscuring the light.
There is a line of cloud just before the sunset that obscures almost the entirety of the sun just before it sets behind the horizon. The sun was miraculously several times the width of that line of cloud immediately before being almost completely obscured though.

>Why do you think a solar filter shows the "true" size of the sun? All they do is filter out 99% of light.
No shit, because the sun is REALLY BRIGHT.
Just like if someone shines a torch at your face the source of light looks much larger than the torch, the same is true with the sun.
If you have a sufficient filter in front of your eyes, though, you will see the true size of the torch.

>>9464748
If you aim a camera at a light source, there's going to be glare that looks bigger than the bulb itself

>>9464760

It's pretty obvious that Antarctica is heavily protected and you would not be able explore without supervision.

The sun clearly gets bigger and smaller, you can try to blame clouds as much as you want but the evidence is as clear as day.

What is the true size of a torch light?

>>9464767

Is the bulb the "true" size of the light?

>>9464782
>What is the true size of a torch light?
The size of the torch.
>Is the bulb the "true" size of the light?
Yes.

If you argue no then you're basically arguing that the sun may not be getting further away, so be careful.

>>9464782
>It's pretty obvious that Antarctica is heavily protected and you would not be able explore without supervision.
That's not obvious at all. In fact, you've pointed to nothing that even suggests that.
You're just assuming it because it's required for your ridiculous conspiracy theory.

>The sun clearly gets bigger and smaller
No it does not. You can actually measure it's apparent size.

>>9464782
What are you really measuring? The sun itself or the diameter of the glare that it produces?

>>9464782
The sun's apparent size is roughly a pea held at arm's length. You can take a pea, hold it at arms length from the camera and zoom in and out all you want and the sun will never grow larger than the size of the pea.

The pea appears bigger and smaller in camera... Does that mean it is physically growing or shrinking?

>>9464795

The torch light is the size of the torch? So a flame of a candle is the size of the candle?

>>9464822
Read about Jarle Andhoy sailing to Antarctica, his ship and shipmates were killed and he's been arrested numerous times for sailing there https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87uGhHeXScw

>>9464831
>>9464834

As the sun get closer, the glare enlarges, and the sun gets further away, the glare decreases.

>>9464875
There's a difference between permision and supervision.

>>9464875
>his ship and shipmates were killed
No.

>Jarle Andhoy's been arrested numerous times
From wikipedia:

>In January 2012, the New Zealand Customs Service mounted a search for the sailing yacht Nilaya, after the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs notified the Antarctic Treaty parties that it suspected that Andhoy and Massie would again sail to Antarctica illegally. Andhoy had told the Norwegian Ministry of his plans but had not obtained the required permits from Norway. According to the authorities, Andhoy had also entered New Zealand illegally on his way southwards because he had not declared his previous deportation from Canada. It was also illegal to leave New Zealand waters as he did without customs clearance. Also on board were Samuel Massie, a Russian, an Argentine and an unknown New Zealand "stowaway". It left Auckland New Zealand on 23 January 2012; New Zealand Customs attempted a search.
>The New Zealander turned out to be Busby Noble, an undocumented Maori man in his fifties who claimed to be on board by accident, and who later performed a "karakia" or prayer for the men lost on the 2011 Berserk voyage. The Nilaya successfully reached the area where Berserk was lost, but after a fruitless search, Andhoy set course for Argentina to avoid consequences in New Zealand.
>After sustaining minor damage the vessel headed back into Antarctic territory to seek help with repairs, and fuel. In Chilean waters, the Nilaya was then detained by the Chilean Navy because she gave a false name when contacted by radio. Chilean authorities were also aware that a "stowaway" New Zealand citizen lacked a passport, and it was unclear if he was there of his own free will. The crew presented the vessel as being both Russian and Norwegian flagged, and she was flying a pirate flag when she was detained.

Yeah, I can't see how he possibly could have been arrested for something like that.

>>9464875
The glare stays the same size on the lens, but the lens magnifies the flare on the sensor. You can obscure the sun with a pea at arms length to completely remove the glare, or you can put on a sufficient solar filter (solar eclipse glasses will work, just hold them far enough away to cover the entire camera lens) to also complete remove the glare. The glare is simply a visual artifact of the camera, it changes when the camera lens is moved (zoomed).

>>9461995
I hate this shit. Come up with some bullshit impossible idea, get it named after you + a Wikipedia page just because you're some big shot professor.

>>9464923
>You can obscure the sun with a pea at arms length to completely remove the glare, or you can put on a sufficient solar filter (solar eclipse glasses will work, just hold them far enough away to cover the entire camera lens) to also complete remove the glare.
You could do all that if you really want, but it'd be easier to make a cardboard pinhole camera and photograph the image.

>>9464941
Sure, but make sure anon knows the image will be flipped.

>>9464977
It's an image of the sun. How much difference does that make?

>>9464986
If he doesn't take into account the flip then he will see the sun terminate into a flat line from the top down instead of from the bottom up as it sets. He will see it set "up" in the flipped image.

>>9464917


Shouldn't need a permit to go to Antarctica because no one owns it, simple as that.

>>9464923

Show evidence of a sunrise through a solar filter, where the sun doesn't change size throughout its journey.

>>9465044
>show evidence of a sunrise through a solar filter, where the sun doesn't change size throughout its journey
Literally every sunrise anybody has ever seen, anon.

https://youtu.be/cGvJqzUgWDI
First result I found.

You have yet to show one where the sun changes in size, btw.

>>9465044
>Shouldn't need a permit to go to Antarctica
Too bad.

>no one owns it, simple as that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_Antarctica

>Show evidence of a sunrise through a solar filter, where the sun doesn't change size throughout its journey.
You need some cardboard and a ruler. Do it yourself.

Can’t we just send a solar powered drone to Antarctica and check it out?

>>9461995
Ppl are fucking dumb and internet was a mistake.

>>9465215
No dude, it’s too cold. The drone will freeze to death. Don’t worry about Antarctica.

>>9465307
Well I’m not in Antarctica but maybe the drone could have defrosters powered by solar or wind?

>>9465068

Need direct line of site, you can still see it getting bigger though.

>>9461995
It is flat
Youre gonna get deleted

>>9464547
Whats stopping you from sailing a boat to Antartica right now?

>>9462868
You can deduce the earth is spherical by looking at ships on the horizon. This was one of the 3 arguments put forth by Aristotle as to why the earth wasn't flat.

>>9461995
>>9466069

Here the trig chart for you.
Measure places.

https://youtu.be/6Myf7oH0n9g

>>9466194
>>9466069

>>9466182
https://youtu.be/ql_TTguKxnE

>>9465044
>Shouldn't need a permit to go to Antarctica
You dont need a permit to get there, just to not get in trouble when you come back.

Nothing is stopping you from going there

what causes sundogs?

>>9466218
Listen to this anon op
Do it
Use this map
It s was good enough to fight a world war

I m going to go North and see what s in the middle.

>>9466327
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025121/1907-01-11/ed-1/seq-2/

>>9466327

>>9466343

>>9466346

>>9466348

>>9466341

Op if you have to pilot an aircraft on your trip you should take this...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=NASA+1207

>>9465351
>you can still see it getting bigger though.
What a bold faced lie. It does not change in size at all.

You could have argued many things, like it was really zoomed in so the distance it covered in the course of the video was tiny meaning it didn't have the time needed to change in apparent size, but instead you just burst out a complete falsehood.

>>9466453
https://youtu.be/JalSUkondr8

>>9466343
Why do you think that all of the longer routes are curves?

>>9466365
Look up the word "model".

>>9466459
That calculation is horribly confused.

>>9466365
I can also make physical models that neglect air resistance for the sake of simplicity. That doesn't make it reflect reality, though.

>>9466510
You can say Earth is a sphere
That doesn't reflect reality though

>>9466199

>>9466510
>>9466572

>>9466574
Anon, you are entirely bait and it is too obviously. You don't even have the attention span to completely read or understand the internet crap you continuously post. And you keep posting shit hoping it will make an argument for you because you don't understand anything enough to form an argument yourself or to even counter any rebuttal against your pic spam.

Here is an elevation map of Kansas. It is about 700 feet above sea level on the east side and 4000 feet above sea level on the west side. Now before you retardedly respond, this completely removes curvature from the elevation is from sea level, which is an approximation of the average radius of the Earth. Aka, the reference for the heights isn't someone standing in one end of Kansas looking at the other, but someone standing at the center of the Earth and subtracting the radius of the Earth from their measurements.

So on actual Earth, if you looked out across Kansas from the low end towards the high end, the other end of Kansas would be hidden below the horizon because of the curvature even though the high end of Kansas is 3500 feet above you. If you walked across the entire state from east to west, you would be climbing up a gental slope even though from the perspective of an observer who remains on the east end of the state to watch you, you would appear to be walking down a curve of a sloping hill, dropping more quickly below the horizon as you got further away.

Now let's compare on a flat Earth. If you were at the east end of the state and looked west, you would be able to clearly see the tallest peak just above 4000 feet above you, and if you looked perfectly level towards west, then you would see the horizon as being ever so slightly above eye level. If you watched your buddy walk west, you would see him all the way until he summits the peak.

>>9466069
>>9466199
>>9466213
>>9466327
>>9466341
>>9466343
>>9466346
>>9466348
>>9466351
>>9466360
>>9466365
>>9466574

if you keep doing this you're going to get banned just like on /x/ and /pol/

>>9466815
maps arent reality, you can project coordinates onto any shape. Go outside and observe. Research how an astrolabe works

>>9466642
>If you walked across the entire state from east to west, you would be climbing up a gental slope

http://www.usu.edu/geo/geomorph/kansas.html

>>9466574
>>9466199

>>9466958
>>9466574
>>9466199

400 miles=20 miles of missing curve

http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/ks_geography.htm

>>9466978
>>9466958
>>9466574
>>9466199
That s the height of the tallest building in the world stacked on top of itself 38 times

>>9466958
>>9466978
>>9466993
You completely misunderstand what you are looking for.

Pic related, on the left we have what you think we would have. A flat earther with a clear line of sight all the way to the other side of Kansas if they had a good enough telescope and the day was clear.
On the right, we have what we ACTUALLY get, which is the line of sight of the far side of Kansas cock blocked by the flat chested Kansas thanks to the curvature of the Earth. The reason you don't see the curvature included into the elevation map, is because the elevation shows the difference from sea level, and sea level approximates the curvature of a smooth, level surface.

>>9462032
>.m.

>>9466978
Wow. You are actually retarded.

Elevation is measured relative to sea level. Sea level is not flat.

There is no missing curve. It is the curve.

Do flat Earthers really believe this retarded shit because they don't understand the meanings of the words used to describe the nature of the Earth. That is far off the deep end of the autistic spectrum.

>>9466213
>using cherry picked images and angles

>>9467022
>>9467048
>>9467084
Post scientific evidence that is observable and repeatable that proves a body of water is convex

70% of Earth s surface is water
Any anon near a ocean can observe, measure, calculate how much curvature they should be observing.

Ad hominem won t change that.


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Are+bodies+of+water+convex

>>9466993
>>9466978
>>9466958
>>9466574
>>9466213
>>9466199

>>9467092

>>9467092
Not ad hominem. Nobody says you are wrong because you are retarded, they say you are wrong AND retarded. They also clearly explain why you are wrong. The very picture you posted shows evidence of curvature.

The sun setting out over water is evidence of curvature, ships appearing to sink as they pass the horizon is evidence of curvature. You have yet to provide any evidence that large bodies of water are not convex.

>>9467092
>>9467103
https://youtu.be/FER0tnEFzLc

>>9467120
https://youtu.be/ql_TTguKxnE

>>9467127

>>9467092
>>9467103
>>9467127
>>9467129

>>9467127
>>9467129
Oh look, youtube links and you say absolutely nothing about how they support your claim. Curvature is visible in both videos.

>>9467127
>>9467129
>>9467140
https://youtu.be/hIHPi2rVVOw

>>9467154

>>9467140
The read line drawn on the ocean is not the x-axis, it is the red circle in pic related. Green line in pic related is x-axis, and it is not visible in the pic because the field of view is too narrow.

Again, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

>>9467158
It clearly states the assumptions the calculator makes.
>the earth is a convex sphere of radius 6371 kilometres
>light travels in straight lines

Both are approximations of reality and over such great distances would introduce significant error. The first assumption is fine because the rough terrain between the two points happens to contain a lot terrain near sea level. But the second assumption is where we get plenty of error. Light does not travel in a straight line in atmosphere. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

>>9467179
The refracted light calculations were present in both observations and measurements and don t explain the discrepancy.

>>9467197
>refracted light calculations were present
Wrong. The first one clearly states it assumes light travels in straight lines.

>>9467161
The dimensions and calculations of those dimensions don t match observable reality.

Anyone can go outside or use aerial photography to confirm this for themselves. >>9466069


>>9467158
>>9467154
>>9467140
>>9467129
>>9467127
>>9467103
>>9467092
>>9466993
>>9466978
>>9466958
>>9466574
>>9466199

>>9467202
The refracted light numbers are part of the calculator.

>>9467210
I was referencing this post.
>>9467158

Secondly "standard refraction" is just a crude approximation. The real value depends on the thermal gradient in the atmosphere.

\thread

If the Earth is apparently accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2 then why do we detect variations in acceleration due to gravity throughout Earth?

>>9467226
I ve been waiting for theses images to be posted.
I recommend any interested anon look into them. They ve been debunked and there are plenty of pictures of those transmission towers to compare the images and videos too.
It dosen t refute the math or prove it s incorrect.

Hence the logically fallacies and ad hominem.

Anon is already curious and applying to aerial photography and is ready to go outside and measure the curvature of where he lives for the first time.

I guess you can see the curvature near the ground and it disappears in all aerial photography and outdoor observations.

>>9466069
>>9466199

>>9467210
>>9467206
>>9467158
>>9467154
>>9467140
>>9467129
>>9467127
>>9467103
>>9467092
>>9466993
>>9466978
>>9466958
>>9466574
>>9466213
>>9466199
>>9466069

>>9467315
You forgot to post your citation.

https://youtu.be/tDBH0kGHa2w

>>9467391
https://youtu.be/5WtSTPodQ60

>>9467391
>>9467393
https://youtu.be/0jHsq36_NTU

>>9467393
REEEEEE YOU RETARD THE CONSTELLATIONS DO CHANGE, BUT NOT WITHIN THOUSANDS OF YEARS BUT MILLIONS AS SPACE IS VERY FUCKING BIG REEEEEEEE

>>9467393

But anon, Polaris does change parallax over hundreds of years

>>9467393
Also, that bottom-left graphic is bullshit. That's not how the solar system travels through the Milky Way

>>9467435
Polaris is 500 lightyears away. It doesn't change parallax. That would mean a significant change in distance.

What changes is the orientation of the Earth's axis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_nutation
The cycle is about 26,000 years and that's short enough to be noticeable over historical time.

>>9467430
>>9467435
>>9467441
The observations are able to be tested and repeated?

What kind of equipment were the measurements made with?

You forgot to cite anything again.
Anon is going to notice. He might even even buy a Nikon p900 and start making his own observations.

>>9467400
>>9467393
>>9467391
>>9467381
>>9467210
>>9467206
>>9467206
>>9467158
>>9467154
>>9467140
>>9467129
>>9467127
>>9467103
>>9467092
>>9466993
>>9466978
>>9466958
>>9466574
>>9466213
>>9466199
>>9466069

>>9467459
How can Anon independently confirm this observation and measurement?

https://youtu.be/ReEEdBqKan8

>>9467472
>>9467400
>>9467393
>>9467391
>>9467381

>>9467496

>>9467472
>>9467496
>>9467499

>>9467472
>>9467496
>>9467499
>>9467508
https://youtu.be/OmcwW-8CC6E

>>9467499

What's with all the retarded spam?

>>9467568

>>9466199
>>9466213
>>9466574
>>9466978
>>9466993
>>9467092
>>9467103
>>9467127
>>9467129
>>9467140
>>9467154
>>9467158
>>9467206
>>9467210
>>9467381
>>9467391
>>9467393
>>9467400
>>9467472
>>9467496
>>9467519

>>9467534
bats cannot see with their eyes you stupid fuckwad, they use sonars to see. batman IS going to be blind but he's going to see using clicks with his mouth or something like that

>>9467709
didn't make it all the way through the graphic. its OK. You probably believe any science cult thing in rotation.

>>9467496
You write down your observations, have kids, teach them to write down their observations and to teach their own kids to do the same, then you die and a few generations later the kids start noticing their observations don't match yours from way back in the day

>Great great grand daddy said the world was flat but these observations just don't make any sense! The flat earth must wobble because the north celestial pole processes! There is also a south celestial pole but great great grand daddy said that's not important

>>9468190
because there is a celestial dome doesnt mean we are on a sphere

>>9467691
you will deny this proves anything

>>9468190
That's what's happening to Anon now.
They told him it was sphere of certain dimensions, and when he measured it he got different results.
>>9466199

>>9467519

>>9467496

>>9468273
As I stated previously I encourage anon to examine those images and their creator.

https://youtu.be/PqFN-_xwyF8

>>9468288
the fundemental thesis of the video is that it's the sideways curve of the lines that produce the apparent curve in the video. however, the mere fact that the same curve can be seen from BOTH SIDES of the lines easily disproves this notion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojMctpxCon8&t=85s

i'd like everybody to watch closely as he completely ignores my argument and continues to believe what he previously did.

>>9468284
>>9468279
Anon is going to investigate everything and come to his own conclusions
https://youtu.be/abLKzCaenvE

>>9468306

See >>9468288

>>9468321
Here a one of the creators stills.

Anon is already using the curvature equation on aerial photography and seeing it dosen t match up to what he s been taught.

He ll go outside and start measuring the area where he lives soon

>>9468311
>use a bad telescope
>get bad pictures

the p900 is an incredible camera but for planetary observing you NEED a big aperture. Here are some REAL pictures i took myself with a proper telescope.

also, how in the fucking world could you just somehow gloss over the post you're replying to??? it explains that the images in the video are literally just out of focus. how dumb can you be? holy shit.

>>9468288its all about perspective, this video debunks curved water. You dont know the height and position each tower in relation to the observor. Its an optical illusion. Power lines pic proves nothing. use an altimeter and a laser and measure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBhDFO4NMrw

>>9468288
>>9468336
>>9468321

extremely obvious same fagging

>>9468306
I ll save you the trouble of posting the video creators side view and do it for you.

>>9468288

>>9468321
you literally just told me to see the post i fucking replied to. are you senile or something? i clearly proved that the entire thesis of the video is false via extremely simple observation, but you just tell me to "look at it again"

please. it's hard to imagine being so retarded. honest to god, what is it like? do you just forget things randomly, as you are doing here in this thread?

>>9468321
>>9468341

I think i'm dealing with an ACTUAL retard here. like, i use hyperbole fairly often but i genuinely am beginning to think that you are actually retarded in some way. you just responded to the same post twice with what amounts to basically the same reply, completely forgetting that he just blew your argument out of the water.

>>9468288
>Perfectly flat table
>in someone's living room
HAHAHAHAHAAHHHAHAHAH

>>9468361
it's actually hilarious. do they not realize that the table is literally more curved than the ocean? these people have zero concept of scale.

>>9468333
Nice trips
You can see Jupiter's moons with binoculars.
That s how far away? More than 500 million km?

Someone should post how the distance and size of these celestial bodies waseasured and how we can do the same to confirm the results.

As well as the Moon.
https://youtu.be/6Myf7oH0n9g

>>9468333
so photoshopped pics, stitched pics, no live feeds from the moon, no unedited video of reaching and entering the iss, people who were supposed to be dead from the Challenger crash still alive, oblate spheroid, ameature proof that cant be debunked, gravity THEORY, and high altitude balloon footage, post your single best proof of a globe earth

>saturn just looks like a light shaped like an eye with a good telescope and no photoshop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzIdmqL6OhA

moon and stars are celestial BEINGS, the masculine (sun) and feminine (moon), dont beleive nasa lies

>>9468383
What the hell am I reading?

Is this /sci/ or /x/?

>>9468391
science is /X/, explain how plocebos work

>>9468383
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say sure, the earth is flat and the things in the sky are "celestial beings", why are we able to see the ISS if it passes over us?

>>9468400
>How does telling the thing that controls all functions and feelings of the body that something will happen, make something happen?

Hmm, I don't know anon. But is it really the surprising that the brain is able to control the thing it was made to control.

>>9468401
nasa told you this is the iss and you beleive them, could be high alt balloons nasa lauches year round or something else in the sky that has a constant trajectory

>>9468414
What I don't get about flat-earthers is that your model of the universe is ugly, makes no mathematical sense and literally has so many ass-pull explanations for what we see.

You're on /sci/, surely you must agree that a model which is mathematically elegant and not requiring "new magical forces we've never seen or experienced but must exist because reasons"

Probably not. Since if you're a flat-earther, you probably can't do math.

>>9468357
It s not a response
I m keeping things linked together for anon
Now that has has the equation and trig chart he can use aerial photography, identifiable land marks and online mapping tools to determine distances, and measure what the curvature should be if Earth is sphere and compare it his observations
>>9466199

>>9468254

>>9468425
a magical force like gravity, u know the only real "satellite" pics you see come from inside the atmosphere
post proof than, calling me an idiot proves its round reeeeeeeeee

>>9468288
>>9468364
There's a fucking seam in the table where it bends.

>>9468437
>muh gravity

At least gravity still has defined rules.

Since you're the one proposing this new universal model, maybe you should be the one coming up with explanations for the movements of both the sun, moon, stars and planets. Good luck, since you'll probably realise that actually, the earth is a globe revolving around the sun... Just like the did fucking years ago

>>9468425

See >>9466069
>>9466958
>>9466574
>>9466978
>>9466993
>>9467127
>>9467129
>>9467158
>>9467691
>>9468274
>>9467154

>>9468442
you are really reaching here, post definitive real world proof its round

>>9468458
post definitive real world proof that table is flat

>>9468437
I like the old timey satellites best
https://youtu.be/oM5fKcU5ClI

>>9468450
You're not giving me a new model, these are all just images saying "hurr durr look this doesn't work". I'm asking for a model which does work.

You can't say the earth is flat without a solid explanation of the celestial behaviours that we see.

Until you flat-earthers have one, you need to shut the fuck up with your stupid trash talk.

>MUH TABLES
>MUH GOOGLE EARTH
>MUH CONSPIRACY

Better yet, get a picture of the wall or the edge or these new continents that exist apparently.

>We can't bcuz da gov stop us

If the earth was flat, think about how large the area which we know as Antarctica would actually be... You expect me to believe that it's all guarded or something?

>>9468472
theres lots of models online about how it works, i know how the model you beleive in works dont be ignorant, find the real world discrepancies in your model and figure out why they exist.

this is one example but there are probably better, look for it, i cant do your research for you. Dont use nasa sources they are proven liars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic8VlU8Bwpg

>>9468497
The issue is when I've looked into these "discrepancies" they've always had some flaw in their logic.

Maybe more interestingly, why is this so important to you anon? Let's be honest, the shape of earth doesn't affect anyone directly... That's one of the reasons it's hard to prove.

So why does it matter so much to you?

>>9468472
Post the 50 year old satellite images of Antarctica for us and we ll see what we can do.

It won t prove that a body of water such as the ocean is convex or explain the problems with Earth a missing curvature.

>>9468511
Sorry anon, I'm about to go to sleep.

Like I said, you're proposing a new model. So propose it. How can we not see the sun all the time? Is it a lamp?

>>9468506
the truth matters, plus the money they steal to make up bullshit

>>9468377
https://youtu.be/U9wDxktPx4k

>>9468521
Man I don't know why I'm even replying anymore, you can't find stupid or the conspiracy mindset.

In my opinion if this is making up a large amount of your life, detach it from being public since you'll ruin any credibility you have.

>>9468520
We should measure it
Has NASA ever measured it?

https://youtu.be/a7iSgzZQatE

>>9468520
This. The round model works and provides us with equations that allow us to predict events with extreme accuracy. If you want a flat model to dominate, all you have to do is present one that provides better predictions. Then it will be primary model used in science. However, such a model would always be more complex than the round model, because the Earth actually is round. Complexity doesn't matter much outside of computer simulations, however, so it doesn't matter how wrong the model is as long as it is accurate and precise

>>9468555
You can't be this stupid, you must be trolling. Lame that I even replied to this...
Bye anon

>>9468555
http://www.planetary.org/explore/space-topics/space-missions/missions-to-study-the-sun.html

Yes, NASA, and many other organizations, have measured the sun, in more ways than your simple mind can understand without revisiting high school.

>>9468555
>trusting timeanddate.com

>>9468575
That link doesn't go to a measurement of the distance or size of the Sun.

Post NASA s Sun measurement videos please

https://youtu.be/rPHckG3o6NQ

>>9468582
Post NASA Sun measurement videos please

https://youtu.be/4Xo7fLgTbnQ

>>9468458
we already did. you just seem to be intentionally ignoring the proof that we DID post.

>>9468466
what the fuck is your obsession with the balloon satellite? just because they inflated a sphere in space does not make it a balloon, and it doesn't mean that it's floating on it's own. do you even know what an orbit is or how it works?

>>9468631
I must have missed it.
It s not in >>9468575

Post NASA sun measurement videos please

https://youtu.be/Jrr5FFMduEI

>>9468618
>>9468599
>>9468555
>>9466459

>>9468599
The link provides plenty of mission names that you can go look up on your own time to read about the instruments used and what information they yielded.

And the size and distance of the Sun from Earth was well understood long before NASA ever existed. http://www.astronomyforbeginners.com/astronomy/howknow.php here is a link that explains some of the techniques used to measure the size and distance before spacecraft ever existed.

>>9468383

yet again you didn't even refute my point. you just deflected. you admit defeat.

so you're calling the pictures that i personally took myself, with my own camera, and my own telescope fake?

dude. do you realize how crazy you sound by just calling fake (with zero evidence in your favor) on everything that proves you wrong?

>>9468431
lucky for you i already did that.

it all checks out in favor of the round earth.

>>9468458
deflection. you didn't even refute his point.

>>9468497
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg

this definitively disproves the posited model.

>>9468333
>>9468647never said these were fake pictures, i was refering to pics nasa puts out, those lights in the sky do exist noone is disputing that

>>9468526
the calculations in this video are horribly confused. and you seem to be confused too. you realize that he is depending on a fundamentally wrong model of the solar system to """"""""""""measure"""""""""""" the size of the moon?

>>9468662
>calling them lights in the sky when they're clearly spheres with their own orbiting bodies.

>>9468644
The video(s) don t exist
You could have just said so

https://youtu.be/Az06qvKG5gs
>>9468643
>>9468618
>>9468599
>>9468555
>>9466459

>>9468643
>I must have missed it.

yes, you did. you seem to be straight up forgetting every single time you have been clearly proven wrong by direct evidence.

>>9468677
You forgot to reference the post

The information wasn t in that link
Thanks for your input anyway
>>9468669

>>9468639
What post never did I state any of that?

https://youtu.be/hBUXLmLzxxg

>>9468696
>being so stupendously lazy that you not only outright forget you've already been completely disprove, but in addition you tell your opponent that unless they reference all the posts that disprove you then it doesen't count.

>>9468599
>Rounds degrees to zero decimal places, expects to get correct distances.
>ignores time difference
>ignores latitude difference
Wow I don't even know what to say here.

>>9468618
>Flat earth math isn't useful

>>9468643
>>9468669
>Thinks ground-speed is .... ?space-speed?

Holy shit flattards are fucking morons.

>>9468710
>What post never did I state any of that?
you were clearly leading up to it as this is the same schpeil you give in every thread.

>>9468669
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfmGPsLvAQ0
Here is a video of some organizations, not NASA, who used the technique described in the link here >>9468644 to measure the distance of the sun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUQAIldqPww here is a video explaining how parallax is used to measure distances. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWMh61yutjU and another video explaining how we figured out distances.

Sorry, I didn't realize you couldn't read and absolutely needed someone reading the info for you instead.

>>9468696
>forgot to reference the post
Literally every post in the thread that wasn't made by you. Except that bat shit.. know what? even the bat shit

>Alderson disk meme
There is absolutely nothing keeping the star from physically interacting with the inner edge of the ring.

>>9468711
>>9468730
>>9468725
>>9468714
>>9468730

>not NASA

Got it
You can t disprove the Sun/moon measurements I posted.

>>9468758
Sun/moon measurements were known LONG BEFORE nasa ever existed, and NASA is not the only organization with the ability to make these measurements. Why the fuck do you think NASA is the only one with the correct answer here? They don't have to measure the fucking distance to the sun because it would be a waste of tax payer money as the distance is already precisely known. We want them to find the stuff we don't know, like if there is life on Mars. You can repeat the parallax techniques yourself, assuming you can make some friends you trust, and confirm the measurements

>>9468758
Why should I? They're from a source I don't trust, thus I'm free to dismiss them.

>>9468758
>you need NASA videos to prove I'm wrong

>the earth is flat, NASA is fake, We have never been to the moon or space

Like you would be satisfied if NASA happened to have a video where they go over basic math and science for stupid people like you.

Oh wait here you go, A video for children is just your speed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqI67fkdiL8

>>9468715
If you say so
Feel free to link the post numbers I ve made you re refering to

https://youtu.be/N-vUkZHnjGI

>>9468770
You could just post information instead of ad hominem

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/Distance_Moon.html

>>9468788
There lots of information
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/Diameter_Moon.html

Easy to find and post
Some things seem to be missing though

>>9468788
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/Moon_ABCs_Fact_Sheet.html

>>9468806

https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/Gallery/LunarReconnaissanceOrbiter.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpbOY-pXSys
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/lro-farside.html

>>9468806
https://youtu.be/BK-uatwOOeA

>>9468770
I would like a NASA video on Photoshop.

>>9468816
You should contact the Russians

>>9468788
Nobody is saying you are wrong because you are stupid, they are saying you are stupid because you are wrong. Not ad hominem

>>9468829
I m okay with that
I can always look up at the stars to feel better about it
https://youtu.be/OmcwW-8CC6E

>>9468840
You also need to learn to explain how the links you post support the argument you are trying to make. All the link spam and image spam in hopes that someone arguing against you will take something from your link or image and form a coherent rebuttal to their own claims out of it is retarded.

Use the links as supporting evidence to your claims, not as your claim itself. That is just plagiarizing

>>9468840
>>9468828
>>9468822
>>9468811
>>9468810
>>9468806
>>9468797
>>9468788
>>9468772

i'm not letting you get away with deflecting and changing the topic to distract from the fact that you were shown a clear example of earth's curvature and were never able to adequately refute it.

>>9468828
do you somehow think that this is proof of photoshop?

what kind of utterly retarded image editing software would include your cursor in the final image?

>>9468828
Notice how the image source is The Verge and not some .ru site. The Verge fucked up in leaving their cursor.

>>9468772
Wtf was your point in this balloon post? Use your words ffs, all you did was post some information about a particular space mission without making any claim how it supports or rebuts your position. You do understand that from the position of everyone else in this thread, this mission appears as evidence of a round earth and not a flat one, right?

>>9468788
This one clearly states that atmospheric refraction is to blame for the optical illusion of the moon appearing in front of the image.. Which means the stated distance to the moon (roughly a quarter million miles) is not refuted by this image in any way? Again supporting a round earth, not a flat one. You must also admit this satellite is real if you accept that the moon appears in front of the Earth in the image.

>>9468797
Again, this image supports the stated diameter of the moon. The trig is simple. You must also accept that the satellite taking this picture is real if you are trying to use this image to support a flat earth even though it clearly supports a round earth.

>>9468806
>>9468810
You made zero claims of any kind here. It almost appears as though you are conceding a round earth as both of these clearly support round earth and you didn't make any statements refuting them

>>9468893
http://lmgtfy.com/?t=i&q=Russia+most+detailed+verge

Zoom in

>>9468882
I get now
The curvature is visible at ground level and disappears as you go higher in elevation...

>>9468940

litterally what the fuck dude. i am convinced you are a retard at this point.

here's my post:

"do you somehow think that this is proof of photoshop?"

i clearly state here that i saw your image, and understand it's purpose. in order to understand that it was even talking about Photoshop, i would have had to see the picture, and the "hand tool".

additionally, i make specific reference to the hand tool my asking "what kind of utterly retarded image editing software would include your cursor in the final image?"

and what is your response? what the fuck is your response after i clearly state that i saw the hand tool and that it doesn't even prove it was photo shopped, because Photoshop doesn't fucking export your cursor with the rest of the image???

"maybe he didn't see the hand tool"

this reminds me of a video i saw a while ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui9OcT2_v70

arguing with you is literally comparable to arguing with the weird looking dude in the video. i'm not using hyperbole. i'm not exaggerating. you have demonstrated that you lack even the most basic understanding of argumentative continuity and have so far been completely unable to understand even the simplest arguments i made. you have literally zero reading comprehension. you don't seem to be able to understand what any of my posts were even talking about, and you did not even address them in any way besides posting unrelated content in reply.

>>9468961

>>9468961

are you joking? did it actually take that long for it to click for you?

if you're not joking, you're almost there, buddy. gold star for you.

at ground level forward backward curvature is visible, and side to side curvature is not visible. when you're reeeaaalllly high up, forward backward curvature isn't as visible, but side to side curvature is more visible. go you get it now?

>>9468932
>>>9468810 (You)
>You made zero claims of any kind here. It almost appears as though you are conceding a round earth as both of these clearly support round earth and you didn't make any statements refuting them

the astrolabe was used for thousands of years to navigate, tell time, altitude, predict sunrise sunset, eclipses, etc. Its horizon line is flat, with a celestial sphere. It still works. Its what captain james cook used to explore the world and chart all the unknown part for england.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiUgBeb2vtk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-P2Et-755E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tif2fmoV4o

>>9468961
Yes, the visible curvature gets further away as your elevation increases. It is it is only detectable at the horizon.

>>9468998
https://youtu.be/o-P2Et-755E

>>9463091
kek

>>9468991
>>9469007
Yeah got it
It s a cylinder
Curves on one axis only as shown in the photos you posted
In one place on Earth (there s the small flat curved bridge by the same author)
Pictures and videos don t look like published pictures of the area before Flat Earth was an issue

It s not like I can go outside and measure where I live.

>>9463161
I'm an astrophysicist and this is fucking hilarious

>>9468932
They fixed their mistake some time ago.

>>9469018
>Title says astrolabe proves flat earth.
>random guy says astrolabe only works on flat earth and then doesn't explain why
QED I guess.

>>9469041
>Pictures and videos don t look like published pictures of the area before Flat Earth was an issue.
What? Show some old pictures and some new pictures and how they don't look the same.

>>9468998
>>9469018
Astrolabes work fine on a round Earth. I have no idea why you assume otherwise.

>>9469052

>>9469041
>Curves on one axis only as shown in the photos you posted
Congratulations, you don't understand perspective.
What a surprise.

>>9469060

>>9464547
this is so pathetic, there is no one stopping you. Get in a boat and go. Just don't come back

>>9468840
https://youtu.be/OmcwW-8CC6E

>>9464594
>you cannot freely explore Antarctica, there is a treaty preventing this.
provide source

>>9462135
yeah and anyone that has been a surveyor deals witb the issue everyday.you can put a stick in the ground at 1000 yards and see that it disappears on the horizon a certain degree.keep going thousand yards at a time and add up the degrees.or be aristotle and look at tbe stars and or lunar cycles.pythagoras would be disturbed at todays idiocy.

>>9469052
Those sites aren't The Verge... The verge is a retarded news organization, not a space agency

>>9469076

>>9464782
>Is the bulb the "true" size of the light
how fucking retarded are you?

>>9464695
also, flight from ISRAEL. Confirmed controlled opposition

>>9469083
>>9469060
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/12/russian-satellites-121-megapixel-image.html?m=1#.Wm6HrBkXbqA

>>9469102
whys it so red

>>9469080
https://youtu.be/ssWDiAZY9Hs

>>9469111
Red is a sexy color

>>9469085
>>9469076
https://youtu.be/PQYx_17JHTY

>>9468288
>"""flat""" table

>>9469076
>>9469187
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupillary_response

>>9469187

https://youtu.be/vHoNaqlL6fo

>>9468962
>anon realizes flattards are actually retarded

>>9469152
Stop posting this stupid ass image. It is also wrong, height above the surface would be seen perpendicular to the Earth (an extension of the radius of that point on Earth) and so the height should always point towards the center. Yet in this dumb image that 542 mile height line points no where near the center.

>>9469187
>>9469213
Use some fucking words. What are you hoping this pictures or videos argue for you? Because all I see when I look at these posts are some retard who doesn't know wtf he is talking about

I wonder where the rest of metal structure from soundly s Lake Pontratrain transmission tower photos and videos go when compared to the stock images?

>>9469289
I guess no one noticed but me

>>9469289
The structures are actually a hologram and look different from different angles.

>>9469289
>>9469291
I guess metabunk didn't notice half of each tower isn t there either

thread theme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb10p__Y7BE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JmMpiPuDXA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bXnuE9lEoM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWpnxkt0O7M

Half of each tower is missing and no one noticed

>>9469349
>>9469330
>>9469291
>>9469289

Can't tell if serious or on way too many levels of irony.

>>9469367
They're all one dimensional and no one noticed
I told em there was real pictures of those towers