/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9602327
>Is the reason why we cannot see the Earth's curvature from ground level due to the immense size of the planet?
Have you ever been somewhere really flat, like the sea, and things eventually just disappear into the horizon? That's the curvature of the Earth. It's the same reason why you can see further by being higher; more of the Earth's curvature falls in your field of view.

>>9602335
I mean, how come you don't literally see the horizon curve? But I never been to some place really flat so I don't think I could say I witnessed that.

I would really like to make Minecraft look like Earth, but we don't see the world like this exactly so I am wondering if this is due to the size of the sphere and if I wanted to simulate Earth curvature if the sphere has to be larger.

>>9602327
Very interesting video.
You're right. We're not tall enough.
From the ISS though, at about 250 miles up, the curvature shows clearly. That's still not high enough to see more than a limited part of a hemisphere.

I checked that the image in a NASA photo and not CGI.

More examples at;
>https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/Detective_Work.html

>>9602370
This video says that if you took an average Minecraft survival world and tried to make it spherical it would be at least the size of an A5 white dwarf. What would the curvature look like if the players were standing on its surface?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF54VfcEW-c

Yeah, a lot of games will give you a planet that's much smaller than a real planet would be, for gameplay reasons. Something like Planetary Annihilation has pretty small planets that you can easily see the curvature of, even from ground level.

Try Space Engine if you want some software that generates actual planet-sized planets, and then you can see the effect yourself. Pick one, fly toward it and descend to the surface, you will see how the horizon becomes flatter and flatter as you lose altitude. Eventually, the curvature is totally unnoticeable due to the size of the planet and your proximity to it.

Pic related.

>>9602366
>I would really like to make Minecraft look like Earth, but we don't see the world like this exactly so I am wondering if this is due to the size of the sphere and if I wanted to simulate Earth curvature if the sphere has to be larger.

If you want Minecraft to look like Earth it needs to be the size of Earth. That would require a radius of 6,371 kilometers, or 6,371,000 blocks.

>>9602382
According to this >>9602375, Minecraft would be the size of a white dwarf so wouldn't we have to shrink a Minecraft world down?

>>9602390
Yes, a Minecraft world would need to be smaller to have the size of the Earth. With Earth-sized curvature, a flat sea that went to the horizon would require a draw distance of 294 chunks.

>>9602375
Never having played Minecraft I cannot answer your question.
However, wouldn't the required radius depend on the height of the player? Or the character or avatar or whatever they're called.

I decided to check out this Minetest thing and the higher you go the less gravity you encounter so my next question is: How come we still experience gravity pulling us down if we were to get to airline levels?

Is this also relevant to the size of the Earth?

Is there a mathematical formula that I could use to determine size of planets for world building purposes?

>>9602327
How did he make the torus look like a sphere?

>>9602378
I made some screenshots to illustrate.
This planet is about 1.2 times the diameter of Earth, so it's a close enough comparison.

Here we are on a beach at sea level, horizon looking pretty flat.

>>9602427
Getting higher off the ground, the curve starts to become visible.

>>9602431
And even further up, it's very obvious. The altitude here is about 360km. The real ISS orbit floats around this altitude, which is why it's easy for them to see the curve of the Earth and record images/video of it. (In fact the Earth's curve would be even more noticeable at this altitude than this, because it's smaller than our virtual planet here)

>>9602419
Gravity varies as the inverse square of the distance to the center of the planet.
The Earth is about 4000 miles in radius.
An airliner at 30,000 feet is therefore about 6 miles further from the center.
(4000/4006)^ 2 = 0.997
You've lost 3/10ths of one percent of your weight. If you weigh 150 lbs, the loss is about 7 ounces.
Even at orbital heights, the loss is trivial. Astronauts are weightless because they AND their vehicle are falling together. Because of their horizontal speed, the Earth curves away just as fast as they descend. They never hit but fall permanently 'around' the Earth.

>>9602419
What do you need to know?
Gravity?
Escape velocity?
Distance to the horizon?

>>9602419
>Is there a mathematical formula that I could use to determine size of planets for world building purposes?

Could you elaborate on this? You want to determine the size of a fictional planet, but based on what information?

If you want it to be Earth-like, then you can just google Earth's measurements.

>>9602370
>the iss exists

>>9602589
>look up on the world wide web what time itll pas over
>go outside at that time
>look up with binoculars
You might be retarded

>>9602378
All I really want someday is a Minecraft game with realistic biomes, realistic world, resources that deplete, and a spherical world. Would creating an Earth sized world in a video game be possible?

>>9602933
So you're looking for something that isn't fun?

>>9602453
If you want to know what Earth (or any other known world) LOOKS like from any altitude, download Celestia. It's free.

>>9602599
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJZ9sqvH9dY

>>9603730
Kill yourself.

>>9602327
Get a hold of a globe. They're easy to come by. I have one that's .305m in diameter (about a foot).

The Earth is 12,756,000m in diameter. So my globe is scaled at about 1:41,822,951.

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

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

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

So that planets in the game are small, or the view is exaggerated. Remember: it's a game. They need to keep your interest, so interesting things need to happen quickly. That's all.

Or play Kerbal Space Program. That's relatively realistic.

>>9602933
go outside and role play like that primitive technology guy

>>9605007
> primitive technology guy
Who?

>>9602327

>>9605020
There's a channel on YouTube called "Primitive Technology". It's a guy building stone tools and pottery in a forest.

>>9605377
That honestly sounds sort of interesting. I wonder if he has ever thought about starting a new society from scratch. It sounds like a great way to escape the realities of feminism taking over.

>>9605377
>>9605438
So I looked this guy and up not sure why, but this is peeking my interest.

In the comments of this video he says that he bought the land so does he actually live here?

https://youtu.be/qQTVuRrZO8w

>>9605443
Why do I want to suck this man's dick when I am a male-to-female tranny who would most likely die in the wild?

>>9605448
Women tend to like men who can provide and survive for themselves since it means that it allows for them to care for their women. You of feminine mind most likely find this quality in a man appealing and therefore are willing to trade blowjobs for security. Having a penis means that your own asset you have to offer is your mouth.

>>9605443
That is nothing. He literally builds a house.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P73REgj-3UE

If more homeless people had this kind of smarts they would construct cities.

>>9605448
>>9605455
What's going on here?

>>9605476
Some tranny's non-existent pussy is wet.

>>9605438
>>9605443
>>9605458
Make sure you turn captions on.

>>9605631
What? He doesn't talk in these videos?

>>9602335
then how do telescopes work when you zoom in. Does the telescope bend the ecurvature.

>>9602370
where are the stars

it's fucking fake everytime

>>9602444
wtf no that is a cartoon. the horizon is always up to eye level

>>9606238
No he doesn't talk. If you enjoy figuring stuff out you can watch without captions and read the description after if you feel you missed why he did anything. But he leaves a ton of context in the video itself so watching it without can be kinda like solving a puzzle. I quite enjoy his videos.

>>9606312
>where are the stars

The exposure is too low.

>>9602327
Draw a circle or a curve on a piece of paper. Then look at the paper from edge on, even though you can see the entire circle, its appearance approaches a straight line the closer to edge on you get. But as you back away and get above the circle, the curvature becomes clearly defined. Because you are so close to the surface, and the horizon curves away from you equally, and incredibly gradually, in all directions, the curvature resembles a flat line. You have to get further away to see the Earth's curvature, or find a planet with tighter curvature.

On smaller bodies, local terrain will almost always obscure the curvature.

>>9607181
>impying "people" like him know or care about what exposure is when building that "argument"

>>9606312
Sir, I think you forgot to take your medication this morning.

>>9602335
>inb4 "but u cand see foreber"

>>9607185
Can this be done on a globe (I mean a literal globe)?

I thank you for this information. My answer was addressed above since I really wanted to know why I could always see a curvature in video game worlds even if the planet is large (see: Universim) and then it hit me that the size of the planet is the most logical reason for why we on the surface of Earth cannot see the curvature whenever we walk down the sidewalk.

It was because video game planets are much more smaller than Earth.

So I had my question and suspicion confirmed regardless of how babbyish it was.

Would the units in Universim see their world flat though? I would assume so because they are so small while the camera always remains at a distance. Is this correct?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2sSyDBuV_k

>>9602378
I really want to play this game, but I am kind of a retard when it comes to constructing or engineering things like this in games.

>>9607656
The planet in that video still looks relatively small in comparison to the size of the units. They would probably see plenty of curvature.

It can't really be feasibly done on a literal globe. If your globe was 1 meter in diameter, then mount everest would be roughly .66mm in height. About 2/3 of a mm, on a globe larger than most I have ever seen. A person compared to your average globe would be absolutely tiny.

>>9607929
The only video game that managed to accurately capture the size of the Earth would be Space Engineers?

Do you have to know a lot about space vessels in order to start out or is this less overwhelming unlike Kerbal Space Program?

>>9608046
Space engineers has some pretty small planets too.. Large for the game for sure, but still small relative to Earth. The space travel in space engineers is far less realistic than kerbal space program, so you don't need to know a whole lot about actual physics to be able to move around in space engineers. You don't have to balance thrust, or worry about center of mass, etc.

Elite: Dangerous has some pretty large landable bodies.. It has actual sized planets, etc, but you can only bring your ship close to or land on the smaller ones.. These are still far bigger than I have seen in most other space games though. Once you get on a little rover driving at 10 m/s even the smallest landable moons seem astronomically huge. Elite: Dangerous also has some gas giants and stars that are true-to-life huge but you fly around so fast in your ship you can't really grasp how big they really are.

>>9608046
Space Engineers isn't in the slightest realistic. The game someone has been showing in here, Space Engine, is a different game.

Kerbal Space Program has a simple patched-conics model of orbital mechanics, smaller but denser worlds, and simple rocket engines that use magic fuel that doesn't evaporate. There are, however, mods for KSP that add n-body gravity, the actual solar system in full scale and realistic engines and fuels.

>>9608085
I miss read his post. I installed Space Engineers for nothing.

>>9608046
there are mods for ksp that have earth in full size

>>9602378
I cannot zoom into known planets like Mars and Earth?

>>9602327
Earth is flat.

>>9606312

>>9606310
No, lenses are magic and spheres are zionist propoganda

semi on-topic:
I've written a program to generate a spherical game world by subdividing an icosahedron
Each vertex contains a vector of data - let's just say it's 1-length and represents temperature
I want to do something like a convolution with this mesh - so if I set the "kernel" up to be the equivalent of a Gaussian blur, I could initially have one "hot" vertex & the rest "cold", then run it a bunch of times and watch the temperature even out over time
I'm too much of a brainlet to implement this though :( I can do a quick-and-dirty blur by looking at the neighbour vertices in the mesh but this is unsatisfactory - no guarantee that the edges are the same length
I feel like the "kernel" should be three dimensional with the dimensions representing rotations around three axes
Obviously it won't line up perfectly like an actual convolution on a matrix, so some interpolation will be required, but that's not too hard
Has anyone done this? Do I need to learn quaternions?

>>9602327

I just had another thought. If you were to stand on the dwarf planet of Pluto then would you be able to see its curvature from the surface and if the answer is no, then what is the smallest possible celestial body that you could see it's curvature?

>>9604999
>Or play Kerbal Space Program. That's relatively realistic.
The celestial bodies in KSP are drastically smaller than IRL. The Jupiter analogue, Jool, is the size of Earth for example.

>>9610200
Mods can give you a full scale real solar system, and even someone is working on n-body orbital mechanics for full on Lagrange points and stuff like that

>>9602370
>That's still not high enough to see more than a limited part of a hemisphere.
Thats one of the reasons space freaks me out. i cannot fathom the scale.

I just imagine if i was looking down at the earth from the iss that i would feel like im falling in to it. Its just so big and there is literally nothing else around

>>9610206
>Mods can give you a full scale real solar system,
True

>even someone is working on n-body orbital mechanics for full on Lagrange points and stuff like that
I might need to reinstall once that comes out desu

>>9608760
Nice focus.

>>9606312
>In videogames why do curved planets have a a curved horizon?
>*Shows you space engine, a videogame*
>No that's a video game! It can't be relevant to my argument
/sci/, here we have a flat earther in it's natural environment. Notice how it reacts violently to any information contrary to its inane belief system. Truly fascinating...

>this is an unironical thread

whoa what a time to be alive

>>9610943
I propose we gas all of them.

>>9602327
Metabunk proved you can see the curvature from the ground

>>9611324
...but that s a hoax. The Earth is flat.

https://youtu.be/6Myf7oH0n9g

>>9603725
>ponyshit

all flat earthers have not understood the concept of focal length and perspective distortion.

fyi each of your eyes sees more like a small focal length (fisheye) your brain does the magic and with information of both eyes gives you bigger focal length. but its only perceived!

I state that you will find no photos from earths horizon shot with 17mm that have a perfectly straight horizon. but the difference will be small!

most of flat earthers also have no feeling of how gigantic our planet really is...

>>9611358
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2LpbcIV4mI

>>9611423
I'm not watching this, let alone give it a view and neither should you.

>>9611423
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaLTUABJDlc

How do flat earthers explain satellites? I took a 30 second exposure of the night sky with my DSLR and a satellite passed through the frame.
Afterwards I fired up Stellarium and went back to the same time the picture was taken and there was one satellite that was in the same region as the picture. I compared the satellites trail in my image to the one in Stellarium and it was a perfect match.

>>9611981
Here's a wider view.

>>9611333
>>9611325
>>9611324
>>9611423
>>9611801
>>9611981
>>9611994
The Earth is a sphere. Your evidence is shit. Go to college and get educated. Stop voting for celebrities who run for public office. These are telltale signs of autism.

>>9612529
>The Earth is a sphere
The accepted curve is 8(miles squared)
or
8in.(distance in miles^2)

Which means to take the square root of the distance traveled in miles and then multiply that figure by eight inches.

So for example, if you traveled one mile, the formula would look something like this;

8(1×1) = 8 Inches of total curvature

And for the first ten miles traveled of curvature in inches…

8(1×1) = 8 Inches of total curvature
8(2×2) = 32 Inches of total curvature
8(3×3) = 72 Inches of total curvature
8(4×4) = 128 Inches of total curvature
8(5×5) = 200 Inches of total curvature
8(6×6) = 288 Inches of total curvature
8(7×7) = 392 Inches of total curvature
8(8×8) = 512 Inches of total curvature
8(9×9) = 648 Inches of total curvature
8(10×10) = 800 Inches of total curvature

Yet we can't measure any curvature AT ALL!! FROM ANY DISTANCE!!!

>>9612669
Not this fucking guy again

>>9612715
How is the midnight sun possible? How would the southern hemisphere have any light?

Because of the tilt right?
How is the equator the hottest spot if theres a tilt?

>>9612717

You have answers for all of that on google or you can go ask in your local astronomical center.

>>9612717
Your spacial reasoning skills suck holy shit

go kill yourself now!

can't believe we are breathing the same air.

that picture has DISTORTED PERSPECTIVE if you measure from it you are retarded to the max

>>9606312
>where are the stars
It's fucking daytime, why would there be stars?

>>9611981

Satellites are just lights that move in the sky, you have no better an idea what they are than anyone else. No, they're not machines that are in a gravitational orbit around the the earth, that's sci-fi retardation (satellites began in science fiction magazines, look it up).

>>9613318
>Satellites aren't real because a book mentioned them.

>>9613318
can anyone find a real pic of a satellite? One thats NOT CGI??

>>9613879
>all fake

>>9613879
I wonder what you call a "real pic," given your ilk's propensity to label all imagery that goes against your trolling as fake. But I'll bite for now.

Satellites move very fast, are typically not very bright, and are very tiny. So you need a largish telescope to image the beasties, and you need orbital elements that can be programmed into your telescope's guidance system to track them for the duration of the exposure. That's pretty specialized and expensive equipment, given most amateur astronomer want to see stars, and professional want to get grants. Protip: grants are not awarded to people who take ground-based images of satellites to satisfy the obstinate cravings of lunatics.

Not to say it doesn't happen. There are two common instances: the inadvertent streak of an interloping satellite photobombing an otherwise wonderful astrophoto that took hours to set up, and the ISS, which is very bright indeed. So bright, it is easily visible to the naked eye from any brightly-lit city's downtown. Tracking is still needed, but it's a common target because the results are easier than with a much dimmer object.

Now, you *could* Google or DuckDuckGo or Yahoo search for such images, but I'm quite sure you have no interest in actually seeing 'real' images, you just want to get a (You). So here you go, and have a good wank at being acknowledged.

>>9615119

You actually think the ISS is real with people in it travelling 17,000mph - damn they got you good.

You have the naivety of a 10 year old. You've replaced Santa with the ISS.

>>9615159
http://www.issdetector.com/
Literally go outside with a modern cellphone and an app and you can find and see the ISS yourself.

>>9615219

Kek, you actually think people are in that?

>>9615159
>>9615225
FYI: "you're all gullible sheep!!" isn't actually a convincing argument.

>>9615225
>It's not a satellite with people it's a satellite without people.
Explain how satellites work on a flat earth tard.

>>9613318
>If I dont know what it is, no-one knows what it is!
Unfortunately for you, you aren't actually the gatekeeper of all human knowledge. Its entirely possible for people who aren't you to know things you dont know, its called "not being a retard".

>>9613879
>can anyone find a real pic of a satellite?
Done.

>>9615227

Just think about the logistics of the ISS for a minute. 17,000mph, and people have supposedly docked with it many times without any accidents. It's nonsense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJZ9sqvH9dY

>>9615228

Weather balloons, high altitude planes, drones etc.

>>9615271

You've been into space?

>>9615310
>17,000mph, and people have supposedly docked with it many times without any accidents.
Do you not understand what relative velocity is?
Spacecraft generally spend days approaching and matching velocity with the ISS - the actual docking is done at fractions of a meter per second.

>Weather balloons
Too slow, and don't travel on fixed paths.

>high altitude planes, drones etc
Require fuel.

>>9615310
>>9615281
>>9615225
>>9615159
>>9613883
>>9613879
>>9613318
>>9612717
>>9612669
>>9611423
>>9611333
>>9611325
>>9611324

usually another person's stupidity is a mountain that can be tackled. there's places to grab onto, and begin fixing their misconceptions and errors in reasoning.

your absolute and monumental retardation is monolithic. it's a sheer fucking cliff with no footholds at all. not even the wisest man on the planet could deduce the manner in which you have come to your profoundly ignorant, misconceived ideas of things. you do not use any kind of reasoning that even vaguely resembles that of a normal person. such as with the whole satelite baloon thing from a while back. it seems first off that you were unable to grasp the concept of an orbit, which then led to you concluding that because the US government inflated a sphere in space, WHILE in orbit (and since by technicality it could be called a balloon) that therefore it must have been floating instead of orbiting, and thus all satellites are balloons. even in the face of direct examples that disprove the fundamental thesis of what you believe, you find some vague reason that they might "feel" wrong and thus proceed to convince yourself that the example is invalid. i actually feel extremely bad for you. it's like reasoning at all is nearly impossible for you. what's worse is that you will avoid having to confront your idiocy by calling me a shill, perhaps thinking to yourself "the fact that he's so dismissive and calling me an idiot means that i'm right!". no, you're just extremely stupid. What i'm about to say is not hyperbole: you are literally the stupidest person i have ever seen in my entire life, bar people so retarded that they cannot speak. the extent of your stupidity goes far beyond anything i have ever witnessed before, or will likely ever witness in the future. please just accept that you are hilariously wrong, as a person who cannot smell would just accept that he stinks.

>>9615326
>Spacecraft generally spend days approaching and matching velocity with the ISS - the actual docking is done at fractions of a meter per second.

Sure kid. Where's the amateur footage of that fantasy taking place?

>Too slow, and don't travel on fixed paths.

Weather balloons are what you'd call a geostationary satellite. However, things like GPS and satellite TV can be done via land based communication networks. You never see satellite dishes on houses pointed straight up do you?

>Require fuel.

Who knows what they run on. To think they're flying around a gravitational orbit is a belief, it's not scientific.

>>9615334

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

>>9610197
>what is the smallest possible celestial body that you could see it's curvature?
Why don't you just ask that part of the question, then look up whether Pluto is smaller than that?

Even better, work it out for yourself. Here's a hint: SR-71 pilots say they can see the curvature from 70,000 feet. Then use ratios.

>>9611358
That answers another question, too: Why was she pretty at the bar, but ugly in the morning?

>>9615334
>your absolute and monumental retardation is monolithic.
Welcome to the world of trolling. fE is nothing but.

>>9616376
Some are trolls yes, but some really earnestly believe this stuff. And since they have rejected higher order learning/any sort of critical thinking (jewish mindtricks of course) they will never escape from their own foolishness. It would be sad if these individuals had not purposefully and willingly done this to themselves.

I think a key related factor is the rejection of all authority. Science is a conspiracy, here watch this youtube video that proves it and by the way noone is allowed to lie or be manipulative on youtube.

>>9615334
holy shit, absolutely destroyed

>>9616430
>Some are trolls yes, but some really earnestly believe this stuff
no they don't, at least those who post here or are ever likely to see rebuttals don't. it's all about your ego, which makes you insist that you are correcting some record here while you are merely being trolled. get over it.

>>9615334
please just accept that you are hilariously wrong, as a person who cannot smell would just accept that he stinks.

>>9604999
That comparison terrifies me more than any visualization of the universe ever has.
Thanks for making me feel smaller than ever.

>>9607656
Yeah consider like, No Man's Sky, you can circumnavigate those planets on foot in a few hours.

How has this thread continue to thrive? Are there seriously retards here that buy into the whole flat Earth bullshit conspiracy theory?

>>9616929
Yes. A good portion of them follow it because they feel as if it is them and a few others against the world that is somehow hellbent on destroying them and their way of life. It's a very animalistic reaction.

>>9617089
Us globebros need to stick together (like gravity).

>>9617089
Have we considered on gassing them? I know of a few ways to make it work.

>>9602327
Yes, it is due to the size of the planet. The curvature is there, but it is overwhelmed by the surface features. People don't think of just how big the earth is compared to how much of it they can see at any one time when on the surface. It is only through indirect observation that the Greeks figured out the earth was a huge sphere 2500 years ago, and not till high altitude air and space travel that we got high enough to actually override the surface irregularity and see it for real.

>>9611325
>90,000 feet
Less than 20 miles. Still so low, not even close to something like ISS. Earth is 7,900 miles across, it is MASSIVE you have to try and understand.

>>9616573
>there is no such thing as a retard
>retards don't have access to the internet
i wish i was as naive as you. if you want to be redpilled on retardation go to /x/, /b/, /pol/ most subreddits on reddit, youtube, tumblr... you get the idea

>>9616653
I'm not sure what to say to that Anon. It wasn't meant to terrify. It simply is what it is.
When I give star tours at camp sites, a very common response is the bit about being 'so small.' I don't recall anyone being frightened though - it's typically wonder and awe.

>>9616653
Have you consulted with a licensed councilor to address your paranoia of being so small?

>>9611981

>some satellites might travel in low earth orbit
>some might not, such as satelloons, often considered geostationary satellites which most iridium type services are based on.

>ISS, loe satellites travel in concentric circles over a flat earth map. not some wavy path over a globe earth.

ever been overseas on an international flight? notice how there is little to no service available? satellites?

>95% of communications are land based

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvP5VK96KTk

>>9618102
I tried putting a coffee bean on a foot high globe to see where exactly the ISS flies.
I never thought it was that close to earth compared to its total size ;_;

>>9602327

that is a fisheye brother, notice how even the rope is distorted? its always fisheye. correction software for these lenses shows flat always, there is no observable curvature. that is the caveat these days. every new "space" image is another attempt at indoctrination. even astronauts are passing the hot potato, no one wants to be the one to say it.

there is no photo of earth from space. composites are not photos.

25,000miles (circumference of earth)/360 = 69.4miles per arc degree.

tell me when you see this? vanishing point is what we perceive as the horizon but with telescopes and cameras like the P900, people have shown that we can see further than our perceived vanishing point (with the right atmospheric conditions). where there should be a curve obstructing your view.

>>9618210
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtU_mdL2vBM

>b-but it's fake
faked CGI live video 24/7 for years
right

>>9618210


Weather balloon fisheye lens accidentally proves flat earth

https://youtu.be/c1zF6rXLjxc

>>9618273
I have a fundamental problem with our space agencies KNOWINGLY faking pictures of earth if theres nothing to hide.

>>9618210
>>9618273
>>9618277

The fact that people are KNOWINGLY using fisheye lens and spending tons on CGI to procure an artificial curve on the earth speaks volumes.

If the earth has the correct curvature we're told, why give flat earthers any ammo by using a fisheye lens or cgi replica AT ALL??

The easiest way to end this argument is to have a REAL UNEDITED pic of earth!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bns4R5ZsVUw

>>9618273
>Fisheye corrects at...
What makes you think that? You can't dismiss images as fisheye when the increase curvature and accept them when the reduce it. If you want to make claims about the effect of distortion you actually have to justify them.

>>9618279
>The fact that people are KNOWINGLY using fisheye lens
There's nothing wrong with using fisheye lenses. They're a useful tool for taking very wide images, such as photographing the Earth from low altitudes.

>If the earth has the correct curvature we're told, why give flat earthers any ammo by using a fisheye lens or cgi replica AT ALL??
Because they don't care about you. Organisations like NASA are generally very clear about where images they release come from. Why would they worry about whether a small group of conspiracy theorists could misinterpret them?

>The easiest way to end this argument is to have a REAL UNEDITED pic of earth!
If you're willing to blindly dismiss every image you see as fake, why are you surprised you believe all the images you've seen are fake?

>>9618386
>What makes you think that?

see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bns4R5ZsVUw

>>9618386
>why are you surprised you believe all the images you've seen are fake?

Gopro footage, sun distance seen 4:15

https://youtu.be/WwimocU0IIc?t=256


Pay attention to the lack of curvature shown had extreme height, also see the small and local hotspot below the sun.

IF the sun is 93million miles away and GIGANTIC, why is this hotspot so SMALL???

>>9618386
>There's nothing wrong with using fisheye lenses. They're a useful tool

When used correctly, a wide angle lens can allow larger image landscapes. When you use it incorrectly, it can create distortion -- which has been used to create an artificial curvature

see>>9618394
>>9618279
>>9618277
>>9618273

>>9618394
>see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bns4R5ZsVUw
At no point does that video justify the claim that the fisheye distortion "corrects" at those times.

>>9618398
>Gopro footage, sun distance seen 4:15
>IF the sun is 93million miles away and GIGANTIC, why is this hotspot so SMALL???
What the fuck? Do you not understand how reflections work?

>Pay attention to the lack of curvature shown had extreme height
Without knowing the field of view of the camera, there's no way to know how much curvature we should expect to see.

>>9618402
>When you use it incorrectly, it can create distortion
There's no way to use a wide-angle lens without creating some distortion. The distortion usually isn't an issue.

if the earth is flat then explain why Australia is so fucking deformed and wrong in your map.

The map shows that Australia is wider than it is tall, but in real life the distance between the north and south coasts is roughly the same as the distance between the east and west coasts.

>>9618430
>Australia is so fucking deformed and wrong in your map.

Maps have been wrong for a while friend

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

>>9618410
>At no point does that video justify the claim that the fisheye distortion "corrects" at those times.

you just gave yourself away

>>9618439
>>9618430
Try that link again

Mercater projection has been totally wrong for centuries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVX-PrBRtTY&t=5s

>>9618462
>you just gave yourself away
Gave what away? You're still not making any sense.
Where is the justification for your claim that the distortion "corrects" at those particular times?

>>9618466
>Mercater projection has been totally wrong for centuries
It's not wrong, it's a model.

>>9618462
>>9618474

>Where is the justification for your claim that the distortion "corrects" at those particular times?

see image

see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bns4R5ZsVUw

>>9618474
>It's not wrong, it's a model

Maps are either wrong or right. You dont get a free pass when its called a "model", wtf autism am I dealing with right now?

>>9612669
not you again, for the love of christ. i've chased you of of /pol/ and /x/ twice.
>he thinks he should be able to measure that the earth dips 800 inches ten miles away from himself
So that's 20-odd metres, at a distance of 1600-odd metres. That would mean that the ground that far away, in your field of view, is about 0.72 degrees below the horizon. all this assuming you're flat against the floor, of course
>>9612717
this is how

>>9615347
>there has to be amateur footage or i don't believe it
you are the most retarded human being on this planet. Hitler may have been right to try eugenics

>>9618545
>So that's 20-odd metres, at a distance of 1600-odd metres. That would mean that the ground that far away, in your field of view, is about 0.72 degrees below the horizon. all this assuming you're flat against the floor, of course

Your guy at metabunk has the info here, see pic

>>9618506
>see image
I give up. I don't think you actually understand what I'm asking for, and I don't know how to explain it any more clearly.

>>9615347
Not this dumb shit again.

>Weather balloons are what you'd call a geostationary satellite.
Weather balloons aren't stationary, they move with the wind.

>However, things like GPS and satellite TV can be done via land based communication networks
Only in places where those networks actually exist. GPS will still keep working fine if you're standing in the middle of a desert, long after you pass out of range of every terrestrial network.

>You never see satellite dishes on houses pointed straight up do you?
Yes you do: near the equator.

>>9618574
>Weather balloons aren't stationary, they move with the wind.

Ever heard of a tethered balloon brainlet?

>Only in places where those networks actually exist. GPS will still keep working fine if you're standing in the middle of a desert, long after you pass out of range of every terrestrial network.

Oh really? So why does GPS not work over the Atlantic ocean?

>Yes you do: near the equator.

Oh what, so satellites only orbit around the equator? Nonsense.

>>9618466
I'm talking about real life dude. Your map is horribly wrong and inaccurate in a stunningly obvious way, and saying a different flat earth map is also wrong does nothing at all! The globe is the accurate map.

The globe matches the dimensions of Australia nearly perfectly. If I'm going to chart a flight around the world, it would be utterly insane of me to use your shitty flat earth map. A globe map is the only kind of map where you can get the accuracy required to chart a flight across the world.

Look at your shitty map again. In order to fly from cape south africa to sydney australia, you'd have to fly over FUCKING INDIA. In real life they don't fly anywhere close to India. They fly in a straight line over the ocean. If you're on that flight, you won't even see land for 3/4s of it.

>>9602327
I tried to recreate the earth and a human in 3d on my pc

I used 128 bit numbers (regular pc's only use 64bit) to define the position of every polygon (the pieces that make up everything in a game including balls and anything in 3d)

And I ended up needing even bigger numbers. The earth is just too darn huge

>>9619464
Sounds like you suck at making games/software. Oh and like you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>9619060
>The globe is the accurate map.

Have we decided to gas the Flat Earther retards yet?

>>9619576
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/first-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-surface
Shit it's a google search

>>9602327
No the reason you cannot see earth''s curvature is because the earth is flat. This was proven by christians long ago, what the fuck get some education.

>>9619012
Just out of curiosity, not the person arguing with you. What material would you use to tether a balloon that's high up enough to be supposedly a substitute for a satellite? What material is light enough to be lifted by a sheer difference in density like what lifts a balloon over that kind of distance, without even counting the equipment it's carrying with it, while still possessing enough tensile strength to not break supporting its own weight? I'm talking gps here, not terrestrial ground communication relays. Shit that works way away from civilization. Is there just secretly a network of relatively low altitude balloons that give the earth nearly total gps coverage, spread out every 50 miles or so and anchored to the ground? How is this more believable than an orbiting network of satellites that only need to be thrown up there once and then only need small speed corrections from there to account for what miniscule drag is up there since orbiting is basically falling in a circle? Are there balloons anchored above the oceans? Help me understand this shit.

>>9618209
Its long axis though, right? Laying the bean on its groove will allow it to sit there, but it won't reach quite as high up as holding like a football for a punt.

>>9619576
All you can do is keep posting your pathetic attempts to discredit the accuracy of the globe earth when there are huge goatse asshole gaping problems with the flat earth.

If the globe earth is more accurate practically speaking, then it doesn't matter what the actual true shape of the earth really is. You go with it until something even more accurate comes along. It's called science bitch.

>>9619012
>Oh really? So why does GPS not work over the Atlantic ocean?
Where does this garbage come from?

>>9619657
> This was proven by christians long ago, what the fuck get some education.
Citation needed. Christians are not a credible source. Please return once you have a proper citation. T.hanks.

>>9602327
Kerbal Space Program offers your answer in game form.

Even better the runway is a perfectly flat object that is placed on a perfect sphere. Starting at the far end when you take your breaks off you start to roll. That's because you are slightly elevated and the Kerbals have somehow made frictionless wheels.

>>9619871
>Where does this garbage come from?
It's called "bait." You took it.
I know - it's really hard not to bite on the really stupid stuff. And so trollers will always end up with some laughs.

>>9619657
>earth is flat. This was proven by christians

Speak for your own peculiar sect. There some oddballs that take a few allegorical descriptions of geographic extents then translated into English as hinting at a round nature, and have warped that into a disk instead of a globe.

It has nothing to do with "Christian."

It really isn't possible to argue successfully with a flat-Earther for three reasons:
1) They are not interested in the truth (virtually all are juvenile-level trolling, but some are delusional or choose to accept an oddly literal interpretation of some select Bible passages).
2) They make stuff up as they go along, keeping the stuff that sticks.
3) Most importantly, they don't offer any proof that requires a flat Earth paradigm to explain. There is literally no theory to argue.

The whole movement nefariously places the onus on you to prove the round Earth. Their singular tactic is to disavow any science or proofs put forward. If you use information that is readily available (and they could have looked up), you're called a 'shill' and your argument is dismissed without reason. Through proliferate offerings of demonstrably flawed posits, they "win" by eroding your patience. It is simply impossible to keep up with having to explain the fallacies in the barrage of assaults on even elementary principles of geometry, math, science, and logic. Trolls will respond with insults and offer no further explanations relevant to the argument, with the conventional goal of inciting responses and collecting "(You)s" while chuckling in self satisfaction from their solitary confines.

Arguing is akin to painting over mud - you just end up with a dirty brush.

>>9620260
>They are not interested in the truth

I really don't get this "the earth look flat" thing.

I stand on just a hill, about 350 meters high, with unobstructed views overlooking the ocean, complete water from one edge of my vision to the other, and it looks obviously curved to me. Granted it is a very slight curve, but curved none the less.

I can get people might question my own visual judgement of the horison, but I live near a port. I can watch ships sail out and with a good pair of binoculars, see them slowly disappear over the horizon, still seeing their upper structures while their lower structures are clearly beneath the horizon. This could not happen if the Earth was flat. It would be impossible!

Honestly, what is so difficult to understand about this? Are these flat earthers just mentally deficient or just trying to troll?

>>9619012
>Oh really? So why does GPS not work over the Atlantic ocean?
I bet you tried your cellphone and it didn't work because it uses A-GPS.
If you at least used an app that showed you the satellite positions your phone was receiving data from you would have seen you were picking up satellites but your phone just couldn't resolve the position.
It's also possible if you waited longer it would have worked, as without A-GPS your device has to receive the almanacs from the satellites and this takes a few minutes.

>>9618466
LMAO WHO CARES ANYMORE ?! You're on the net go to the 3d world map or use google earth for christ sakes

>>9620260
I don't even believe the earth is flat and I still got a bingo. What do I win?

>>9619576
>>9619636
lmao flathead ass kicked in 1980

>>9620260
you globers fall down because yer heavier than air, gravity schmavity
rockets hit the dome see utbue

>>9602327
when yer ass is flat thus the earth is too, get off it

>>9620260
explains this dome strike then u ass

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5gPJ_jfrTU

>>9620437

It's CGI.

>>9620441
pwned

>>9619012
>Oh what, so satellites only orbit around the equator? Nonsense.
Actually, most geostationary satellites (which would be the ones dishes are pointed at because they don't move in the sky) are on equatorial orbits.

However, I think you are making a mistaken assumption of how the dishes work. That thing on the arm is the receiver and the incoming transmissions are shaped towards it by the dish. Seeing it is usually mounted on an angle pointing towards center of the dish that means what the dish is pointing at is at an upwards angle away from the center of the dish.

You can get more information about dishes from this video
https://youtu.be/aeah3fFYlnA?t=230

>>9620306
The reason those assumptions are made are because later chapters cover the effect each of those have on aircraft handling.
Go find a PDF of the ASA textbook and an hero immediately after reading it.

>>9620437
thats a stage separation you dumbass

>2018
>people still falling into flat earther trolls
>iamverysmart because I know 6th grade geometry

I'm going to buy a telescope, climb the everest and jack off to every girl of Pancake Earth

The Earth is flat. It's the genuine truth.

>>9618279

l like this kerbal simulation where they send neil degrasse to space :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p33NtCtIjrM&t=2s

typical indocrinated ball behaviour. curious lad asks an open minded questions and the globe jesuits attack the zetetics.

globe earth was a 3rd or 4th Crusade psy-op. screen cap this.

>>9621029
except flat earthers are never open minded. anybody with even the slightest experience with flat earthers knows that they are the most close minded individuals on the planet.

>>9621405
>except flat earthers are never open minded. anybody with even the slightest experience with flat earthers knows that they are the most close minded individuals on the planet.

I didn't grow up thinking the earth was FLAT, I was conditioned to believe it was round, just like the rest of the herd. If you do a little bit of research, you'll find out there ENDLESS problems with the heliocentric model!

>>9621959
>babies first composites
How cute.

I think anyone who tries to argue against flat earth with any celestial phenomenon is also a moron. You can debunk flat earth based on phenomena observable on a first hand basis and if we'll ever get through to these people we're going to have to keep things as basic as possible.

>>9620431
which row?

>>9622054
B1: Goes without saying
I2: Seems plausible (Moon landing could be a fake)
N3: I'd always advocate proving something to yourself over deferring to authority or accepting it blindly
G4: Seems plausible depending on the model
O5: I'm kind of a douchebag, what can I say?

>>9622048
Celestial phenomenons are observable on a first hand basis.

Take the Moon, for instance. From Moon rise to Moon set its size does not change in any significant perceivable way as it rises from the horizon, reaches peak and then sinks below the horizon.
This is an impossible observation for a small, near object moving toward and away from the observer. There is a reason why the "proof" videos they use are only of the Sun, it's so bright it washes out the sensor until its reducing light at sunset reveals the true disk of the sun.

>>9622072
too complicated for your average flatfag. Just explain the glaring flaws with their conception of perspective.

Whoops, here’s Neil Degrasse in space.

https://youtu.be/x8jnpppFXyc

>>9622511
>implying flat earth isn't a psyop

speaking of simulations.

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

>>9622521
>>9622511

>relying on CGI to prove reality

>>9622531
if a simulation of the flat earth more intuitively represents how perspective works on a flat earth while being completely different from our own daily experience, then I'd say its a closed case.

Also, why can't you just keep this garbola on /x/?

>>9622521
when rockets hit the dome this disproves your whole video

>>9622531
and their loud spooky music so ya can't concentrate

>>9622521

>this arrow thingy gives me cred
>that is a shitty simulation

One or two things I dont agree with but here’s a good start. It takes a polymath to understand reality.

https://youtu.be/UQPB9WegKgo

>>9622547
How can rockets hit the dome if the Sun and Moon are inside the dome and more than 3000 km away from the flat Earth?

The rockets would have to go past the Sun.

>they're outside the dome!
But the stars are on the dome. That would mean the stars would pass in front of the Moon, and that doesn't happen.

>>9622539

A flat earth sim resembles what we can observe. The globe earth sim resembles nothing we can see.

>>9622547

Flat earther here, rockets dont hit no dome. What you see is a gyroscopic brake on a stage separation on an amateur rocket. This one need ls to be let go.

And people, focus on whats observable and repeatable not some religious bs.

>>9622048

Such as?

>>9622583
Except when we look up.

>Be 4
>Be Anonymous
>Wonder Fuckking OBV Shit
>Go into 4chan
>Ask Retarded Questions
>Yes it is because of the fucking Size.
>And Yes you can see the Curve. Ever looked at sea, and noticed how you cant always see to the other side. Yeah thats why.

>>9621959
Sitting in front of the Internet all day isn't research, anon.

Maybe try some astronomical observations.

>>9622621

Polaris proves flat earth. No wobble bud

https://youtu.be/S2subVaRUfk

>>9622583
>globe earth sim

If we could have that in the thread by this afternoon, that would be great.

>>9622697
This

>>9622577
>The rockets would have to go past the Sun.

see>>9618398

Gopro footage, sun distance seen 4:15

https://youtu.be/WwimocU0IIc?t=256

>>9619820

The same material that they use to hold up blimps. These are big weather balloons we're talking about, here's a video of NASA launching one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2zFoQ5MfOc

Here's a video of a satellite crashing in Brazil - what's that on the end of it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHBxxnuXTJ4

There aren't balloons all over the place, particularly over the oceans and that's why GPS doesn't work for planes over the Atlantic ocean. It's much, much easier (and cheaper) to launch a balloon rather than a rocket into "space" where it has to orbit perfectly with the rotation of the earth to remain geostationary, or if it's orbiting must withstand the extreme temperatures and avoid space debris etc.It's complete fantasy that started out in sci-fi.

>>9619871

Look it up brainlet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9KilIIC8ck

>>9622727
>There aren't balloons all over the place, particularly over the oceans and that's why GPS doesn't work for planes over the Atlantic ocean.
What the fuck are you talking about, GPS works perfectly fine over the ocean. That's how modern ships navigate too.

>>9622760

Look at the post above you brainlet. Ships use things like buoys to help navigate, planes are too high up.

>>9622763
Except they don't. There's no buoys out that far, and even if they were there's no way to keep them in position enough to act as a GPS system. You cant anchor in the mudsle of the ocean. You'd need some kind of remote positioning system to keep them in the right place (sound familiar?) and a mechanism to move under their own power.

>>9622697
>Polaris proves flat earth.
No it doesn't.
And your video does nothing but (poorly) appeal to intuition. There's no actual calculation of how much retaliative motion would be needed to produce viable apparent motion. It's just a guy shouting a lot of numbers one after the other, without actually understand the subject.

>>9622709
>Gopro footage, sun distance seen 4:15
That's a reflection. Reflections aren't the size of the thing thing they're reflecting - that's why you can see the Moon reflected in a puddle when the moon is much bigger than the puddle. Most people figure this kind of thing out at about the same time they learn how to read and write.

>>9622727
>GPS doesn't work for planes over the Atlantic ocean
It does. I don't know where this bullshit comes from.

>>9622728
>My understanding of aviation is just as terrible as my understanding of space.
Well that's a fucking surprise.

>>9622702
http://stellarium.org/

It's free and open source, so you can even check the source code for evil globalist simulation distorting code.

>>9622781
It comes from them confusing the plane's GPS reception with the inability of air traffic control to track the plane over the ocean.

>>9622771

The ocean floor is filled with internet cables brainlet, it's not a stretch to think they can transmit data from them to land based triangulation stations.

Satellites are a complete fantasy otherwise planes would be able to connect to them over the Atlantic as well as ships.

>>9622783
woah champ, I don't think you're ready for astronomy. How about a globe earth sim that does what the flat earth sim did?

>>9622790
>How about a globe earth sim that does what the flat earth sim did?
Why would anyone want an astronomical simulator that gets even basic things wrong?

>>9622788
They're very far from "littered" with cables and any signal that could get through kilometers of water could be picked up by anyone on shore. No one has ever observed such a signal.

>>9622788
>Satellites are a complete fantasy otherwise planes would be able to connect to them over the Atlantic
But they can and do. A number of the aircraft health monitoring systems use data transmitted by satellites. The in-flight wifi on some newer planes uses a satellite internet connection too.

>>9622793
Also, the antennas required to pick up ELF are far bigger than the GPS units on boats.

>>9622787

Kek, don't you see the problem there? If a plane can receive GPS then they should also be trackable.

>>9622792
I meant show us a globe earth simulator that shows how every day life would appear on a globe earth with the proportions put forward by "globalists".

>>9622788
>Satellites are a complete fantasy
Please explain how you can get precise geolocation in a mediterranean, non-urban area or at the top of a mountain with a device that only has a GPS antenna and that can't work if it doesn't have clear view of the sky.

>>9622809
Stellarium, you dipshit. It accurately shows the sky from every point of a globe Earth at any point in time. What exactly is missing?

>>9622804
Not at all. Just because you can receive a signal doesn't mean you have a broadcast system capable of sending a signal back. Some planes do, many dont.

The Earth is a globe, you tardigrads. Sail without electronic instruments and you shall see. Find your coordinates in a chart using nothing but a sextant and a landmark of known height like a lighthouse, cliff, antenna, etc. It works even beyond the horizon, which would be impossible in a flat Earth.

Checkmate.

>>9622793

Do you know how the internet works? How do you think submarines are able to communicate? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_communications_cable

>>9622817
> you have a broadcast system capable of sending a signal back

That's how GPS works brainlet...

>>9622835
It's not. GPS units are receive only.

>>9622833
Only ELF waves can get through seawater from the sea floor to the surface and commercial GPS units do not have antennas capable of picking up ELF.

>>9622825
>Sail
That reminds me, long distance sailing used to be dangerous and difficult as fuck because of the longtitude problem. Basically celestial navigation allowed for accurate determination of latitudinal position, but not longitudinal. In the end this was solved with the invention of the marine chronometer allowing accurate timekeeping at sea.

I guess in the flat Earth model this wouldn't have been a problem, but irl it was.

t. watchmaker

>>9622842

ELF signals are converted to GPS.

>>9622815
the ground, dummy

>>9622697
>Eric Dubay
I love how this new-age vegan life-energy yoga woo-woo dipshit is North American (judging by the accent), who lives in Thailand, but never bothered to just look up at the night sky at the two places to perform this experiment in pic.

Though now it seems he removed living in Thailand from his Youtube profile, so someone probably already called that retard out.

>>9622869
What the fuck are you even talking about? The lack of a shiny 3D globe in your simulation? Are you this much of a child that you need handholding this much? It's an astronomical simulator not a videogame.

>>9622863
How?

>>9622881
>its an astronomical simulator

Yes, we've established that's the problem. We need a "globe earth walking sim" so flattards can see it behaves exactly like the real earth. They are far too stupid to understand object permanence andperspective, let alone astronomy

>>9622891
Universe Sandbox perhaps?

Anyway I'd say a "globe earth walking sim" is pointless as you can explore and observe round Earth phenomenon irl, but then again most of these clowns never leave their basement.

Also what about all the autistic HAM radio guys around the world? You think with all the experiments like radio direction finding, distance measuring, not to mention Moon-bouncing they would have catched on by now if the Earth was flat.

>>9622891
pointless, nothing will convince them anyway

I think flat earth gained traction because dumb normies constantly need some village idiot to feel superior to. Flat Earthers seemed like the easiest target, leading to more exposure, leading to more and more crackpots joining up, leading to the growing of the movement to the level where we are now, where even MSM is talking about these retards.
>LOOK CLETUS DEY BELIEVEZ EARTH IZ FLAT HYUK HYUK HYUK DEY SO DUM
Okay, we get it.

>yfw the desperation of the lowest common denominator to feel like they're in on some big secret and know some truth that us "sheep" simply don't understand has driven them to this flat-earth shit

None of you fuckers actually believe this stupid shit at your core. You are literally just arguing for the sake of argument, believing for the sake of belief, out of some pathetic desire to be one of the special, chosen few who understand how the world really is.

You think you're the new JFK or 9/11 truthers, but you're actually the new breed of fedora tipping atheists. It's not about being right, it's about feeling right.

Drink bleach and wash it down with lead.

>>9622863
They have to be received first, which is not possible.

>>9602327
> we cannot see the Earth's curvature from ground level
This is not true. Why do you think people have known the earth is a spheroid for thousands of years before spaceflight?

>>9622863
>>9623039
Let's not forget that ELF has insanely low data rate, said to be only a few characters per minute.

>>9622763
Nigger, I've flown over the atlantic ocean and my GPS worked perfectly fine

>>9622697
>Polaris proves flat earth. No wobble bud

>>9622709
It's not above the Sun.

>why so small?
Because it's a reflection of the Sun, which looks smaller than the flared out Sun in the middle of the image.

>>9623046
It was due to the shadow the earth cast on the moon that ancient people knew the earth was round.

>>9623145
wobble is like 24,000 years u dummy for one revo

>>9622918
>I think flat earth gained traction because
Because the information given to the public by the msm and tv programs is so often wrong, weak, partial, hyped, fudged, doctored, massaged, propped for corpo profits, propped for tax grabs, .. etc - that "the flat earth" is actually and "factually" more correct than most the "non-fiction" crap stuffed down everyone's throat worldwide. It's an awakening, that's for sure - but it should awaken something other than what most claim it is.

>>9623145
polaris is so far away the difference in angle at those two positions is invisible to the naked eye

>>9623215
MSM is wrong on many things because it's manned by uninformed working Joe layman normies not so dissimilar as yourself.

Also it's a typical low-IQ brainlet trait to automatically assume some entity of authority is lying, when in reality a lot of times they're just simply uninformed or wrong.

At least I typically see it in lower intellect proles to knee-jerk assume a false statement being a lie instead of just being incorrect. Maybe your brain needed a little more development to grasp that mommy and daddy aren't liars, just only humans.

>>9623145
Eyes are a piece of shit precision measuring device

>>9623212

Wobble is what is supposed to cause the season. The Earth simply spirals up and down a vortex crossing the meridians in a predictable manner.

>>9623046

They have not. Eratosthenes was half right. They never talk about how he said the sun was 4000 miles and the moon was 480 miles above the earth. Look it up. It was measured in stadia back then.

>>9622905

There are ham repeaters kohai.

>>9622877

Dubay was my first choice but there are many observations you can make on your own about this. Even the Georgia guidestones show an immovable Polaris though a little hole. Immovable as in it makes a tiny circle but that it, its stationary as fuck. No wobble, no seasons from a wobble. SMALL LOCALIZED SUN :)

>>9622812

Satelloons can fill the need where a land network is not available.

I present to you, a satelloon...

https://youtu.be/owO_h8FZtTI

>>9624788
>Wobble is what is supposed to cause the season.
No.
This is a common misconception which comes from how it is explained when you are young.

The Earth is at a FIXED angle. It's like this
\---O---\
With the O being the Sun and the slash showing the angle.

>Ballontard again
Reminder that his arguments hinge on numbers being too big for him and you shouldn't reply

>>9623145
"Lisa" is standing on the North pole, so of course Polaris would be straight overhead, and it wouldn't matter what time of year or what time of any day. It could be on the equinoxes just as well.

Similarly, if you make a permanent equatorial mount for a telescope, you will design it such that the axis of rotation points directly at the the north celestial pole. This angle will be the same as your latitude.

Until you get to the equator and farther south. Then the north celestial pole is below the horizon, so you have to align with the south celestial pole, and the drive mechanism will turn the opposite direction.

Which wouldn't work on a flat Earth. Except at the north pole, the axis angle would not be your latitude's, because you are not creeping around a ball as you move south, but just farther away from a point in the sky,

I have a perfect experiment for flattards. Some guy circumnavigates the globe in a plane at the equator. Some other guy in the same model of plane traces the "ice ring" (presumably its allowed to be within your range of vision. Presumably the second trip ought to take much longer. A 5 year old could come up with this.

>>9625194
Circumnavigation plane trips aren't exactly easy to do.

>>9624857

Do you think balloons are like unicorns?

>>9625194
I have a better one:
>stop being a faggot for five minutes
>realize the Earth isn't flat and you've been a dipshit wasting all your time and energy on this horseshit for so long

>>9625318

Stay mad globecuck.

>>9619636

>flat-tards keep demanding proof when they can't even work an onscreen box you type a question in to

>>9625481
I have often wondered just what a flatearther considers as proof.
They will often link videos to back up their claims, but when shown other videos that debunk those videos or show different results they call them fake.

What is the logic behind using one as evidence and calling another fake? Is it just confirmation bias? If I made an easily debunkable video claiming to support flat earth would they also defend it religiously.

That gives me an idea.

>>9625541
Simply there's no logic. These people are just dummies.

>>9625541
They're just trolls, lad. The whole idea s to get a >>>(You)

>>9625541
They're just trolls, lad. The whole idea s to get a

>>>(You)

Virgin globalist "proofs" require: pseudo-science, brainwashing from an early age, arrogance, ad hominem, naivety, inability to think critically, CGI, emotional investment, nihilism/atheism/edginess

Chad flat earth proofs require: Natural science (practical experiments), logic, critical thinking, real photos and video, an understanding of how the eyes work (perspective), not afraid of being thought of as "crazy", intelligent design (not religious).

Which side are you on?

>>9627470
As a virgin I have to say I am on the globalist side.

Also, I lived in the southern hemisphere for 30 years and flattards can't explain observations of the Sun and stars in the southern hemisphere without turning the atmosphere into glass.
And last time I walked outside the air didn't seem to be solid glass.

>>9627510

So you're willing to ignore the mountains of chad flat earth evidence because the stars in the southern hemisphere don't make sense to you?

You will remain a virgin with that kind of attitude.

>>9627606
They make perfect sense to me if I imagine the Earth being a globe.

If the chad evidence cannot even explain the simple observations you can make every day just by looking up into the sky then I can't help but question the validity of the other explanations.

>>9606312
>ebin jewish-lizard-jezuit-iluminati-masons repeatly made perfect film quality fakes of space
>but keep forgeting to add starts in faked space picture
Flatards believing this bullshit and dare to call other people sheep.

>>9627618

What is it about the movements of the stars? (Note: It is the stars moving, not the earth).

>>9627918

Straw man from the globalist as usual. Get in your pen sheep.

>>9627928
They rotate around a southern celestial pole that is due south of anywhere in the southern hemisphere.

>>9627941

>southern celestial pole

Do they now? Where's your evidence for this?

>>9627956
Go to /int/ and ask someone with an Argentinian, Straya or South-Africa flag.

>>9627956
Personal observations.
Where is your evidence they don't?

>>9627956
>Do they now? Where's your evidence for this?
If you have to dismiss the observations of nearly a billion people as part of the conspiracy, maybe your "theory" isn't all that watertight.

>>9627965
>>9627991
>>9628131

There is no "south pole star", it's bullshit.

>>9628303
There's no northern pole star either. Just there's one star that's closest to 90°. Polaris on the north (at least for the next millennia), Sigma Octanis on the south (barely visible).

>>9627606
>you will remain a virgin with that kind of attitude

I do hope so.

>>9628303
I thought it was the southern Cross. Not a single star.

>>9628303
You're right, but I never mentioned a star, just thr southern celestial pole.

>>9628886
The Southern Cross is near the southern celestial pole but not directly on it. We use it to find South at night.

>>9627470
Fixed it for you

https://youtu.be/McdMMmclGVc
Its over... theres no coming back from this.

>>9630336
We're getting there.
Soon Flat Earthers will be claiming the Earth is a globe like they're presenting something we didn't know.

>>9630336

Globalists BTFO

for all those saying what about muh southern cross?

>the law of perspective apples to the stars as well
>the sky changes because you are changing your location

we should compare the southern stars from the supposed 4 cardinal points on a flat earth and see if there is an anomaly. remember if there is a dome light would still distort as if you were looking from under a bowl. what does that look like?

>>9631246

Correct, because the celestial lights in the sky we call stars are much closer in the flat model, they are affected by perspective just as anything else is on earth.

>>9630002

cute.

>flat. 100 miles up.

just screengrabbing what's shoved in my eyeholes. what you got?

>>9631451
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream
>inb4 cgi
>inb4 the space video the shows curvature is fake, but the one that doesn't is totally legit

>>9631451

At 69 miles per arc degree (25,000miles/360) of the earth, you should see at least a few degrees in this picture, no? wtf.

>>9631469

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJZ9sqvH9dY

>>9631519

>>9631246
>apples
What it would not look like is all the stars in the sky rotating around a single point to the south that rises higher in the night sky the further south you go. I can tell you that much.

>>9631451
That's clearly concave.
Flattards btfo.

>>9631540

globe loses always.

300 replies and not a single proof of curvature. wow, nasa shills are getting REALLY desperate.

>>9631628

they look like dis.

>>9602327
imagine being on the side of a hill, and being so infinitesimally small, that you cannot see anything but a flat surface. there you go. this is basically the description of tangent lines for a derivative.
derivatives are fancy equations which describe rates of change at any individual point. You'll learn about them in your AP high school class.

>>9631628
>why havent you posted any proof of the curvature
Because I rather enjoy DESTROYING the validity of your proofs rather than just arguing about whose proof is right.

>>9631681

ok soundly, put it to rest.

>>9602327
Why do flat earthers continually jerk off about the curvature? Shouldn't they be working to explain all the things which require a round earth to happen?

>>9631921

We all tried. It doesnt work.

>>9631628

Here you fucking spaz. Some math:

2/sqrt(5)=88.5%. In this case, if the Earth is a perfect sphere with a radius of 1,000 miles, 88.5% of 1,000/2 miles = around 440 miles. At 440 miles above the surface, the horizon is 44.72% of the distance from the spot directly under you to the edge of the hemisphere 1,000 miles away, or about 447 miles.

More math:

5280 feet/mile. 6 feet tall is 6/5280=00.1123% of a mile. .1123/440=0.0000025 miles shy of being able to see 44% of your hemisphere in any direction. So scale your line of sight by this number, and even without trigonometry.....

>>9632245

This is nonsense lol. Now I’m convinced we’re onto something.

>>9631681
Your pic is proof of eye level perspective vanishing point, not of a "curvature"

>>9632281
Well, why don't you finish the problem, mr skeptic

>>9632341

Your formulas have so application besides inside of Minecraft.

I was the original poster of this thread and how in the fuck has this thread managed to continue? I sought my answer and got that answer very near the beginning. I was only wondering how come spherical worlds in video games allow one to see the curvature from the surface. I still can't believe it hasn't dawned on me that those worlds are small since Earth is huge and that is why we cannot see our curvature?

Also, is this thread alive because of the Flat Earthers? Jesus Christ, I agree with some of the anons in this thread. You fucks need to be gassed.

>>9632326
Nice straight lines. Pity they're missing from my picture.

>>9632539

Skip to 1m 25s, your pylons photo is immediately debunked. Can't see globecucks recovering from this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmwg4kKDhec&feature=youtu.be&t=1m25s

>>9632610
Congratulations, he discovered mirages.
It's a pity the curving in the power lines happens before they reach the level of the mirage. Or are we supposed to overlook that?

The egos of insignificant-feeling people who were bought up in a christian mindset of faking false-modesty come up with a way to derive the pleasure of feeling grand and significant by picturing a large enemy, becasue by implication then they have to be equally large and grand and significant too; for it to consider them a big enough threat to conspire against them.

That's the psychological basis of these bullshit conspiracies. It's not culturally accepted for you to say that you're fucking amazing so you'll say you enemy is fucking amazing, it's the same thing, you're amazing by proxy, you're "god's chosen".

I'm so tired, of like, this entire species, or whatever percentage of it is this, and this fucking ego game that they all think is so complex and amazing, while it's actually simple, and childish, and pathetic. Just makes me want ot go aout and say your jewish reptilian banker devil is weak, and so are you. But I guess I'm also too intelligent not to criticize myself for feeling about it so strongly.

Sorry for the blogpost.

>>9632644

Silly brainlet, the mirage begins where the pylons touch the horizon line.

>>9632775
Exactly. The curving of the pylons starts well before they reach the mirage.

>>9632784
That's not called curving, that's how perspective works.

>>9632359
Its a line and a circle deadbeat

>>9633137
>trees are all of different heights
>pylons are all of the same height
>trees have no overall curve shape, either top or n bottom, as they head into the distance
>pylons do
Honestly, I don't know what you are trying to prove. You could say the lack of curve shape on the tree line means there is no curve, but then that tree line only look to go about a quarter of a mile at the most and the horizon is obscured by perpendicular row of trees.

>>9633181

Globecuck is desperate to hold onto this notion of non-existent curvature.

Can't keep denying reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5_efcyCjBo

>>9602933
Try Eco, sounds very similar to what you want

>>9620260

>>9615119
>Protip: grants are not awarded to people who take ground-based images of satellites to satisfy the obstinate cravings of lunatics.
This made me chuckle
I like this guy

>>9633234
Again you can see it curving before it reaches the mirage.

>>9633234
This is actually even funnier than I thought.
First, it would be nice if his camera could actually focus or retain detail from that amount of magnification, but anyway.
Here is where he is taking the video from and the distance the poles run. It's a distance of 12.5 miles at the most and the land he is seeing to the right of the poles could be as close as 9 miles.

There's also a very telling effect as he zooms in again, the mirage. At least as large as the one in >>9632775

I'm afraid you'll have to come to some kind of consensus on what the effect of the mirage is, either it makes the pylons appear straight or it makes them appear curved.