/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9662226
Actually an interesting question. I mena it makes sense that it happaned in this decade, with the internet enabling you to reach more idiots and everything

Where's the curvature?

>>9662226
I feel like anyone who buys into one big conspiracy theory (flat earth, 9/11, holocaust etc) is very likely to also buy into some other big conspiracy. There must be some personality type that makes one highly susceptible to shoddy and sensationalist youtube """"documentaries""".

>>9662334
Same goes for scientism followers who believe whatever "scientists" say without personal verification.

>>9662334
I think it also has to do with life experience, I remember as a teen I was sort of belieivng the 9/11 and fake moonlanding crap, because some people I grew up with were and at that age you don't really have the capacity to properly analyse the evidence provided.
Point is, as soon as you are convinced that governments are able to keep secrets as big as the shape of the earth or the moonlanding without a single person involved spilling the beans, you're pretty much susceptible to anything else you hear on youtube.
And of course you'll always have people like >>9662355 pretending to be flat-earthers for some (you)s

>>9662226
>climate change deniers

I'm skeptical of global warming, but I'm not a climate change denier.

>>9662334

I think that 9/11 may have been very preventable, and I don't discount the theory that a lot, if not the majority of jews might actually have been murdered, wittingly or unwittingly, by the allies at the end of the war.


that said, I don't understand how the flat earth theory can exist, especially since there was a flat-earther conference to where flat-earthers traveled to by plane.

>>9662226
did it not just start as some thought experiment that there is no reason the earth could not be flat rather than round to most people, since most people have not independently tried any experiments to strengthen their belief that the earth is round?

I mean sure it is fucking retarded to with no evidence claim that the earth is flat just because you also have no evidence of the contrary, and I feel like most people jumping on "flat earthing" misunderstand the original thought experiment

>>9662520
Well, with their confirmation bias and lack of knowlege they have actually created the illusion, that they do have a bunch of evidence

>>9662334
>conspiracy theory (flat earth, 9/11, holocaust etc)
I like this bait and will reuse it

Meme got way out of hand.
The craze cant last more than a year.

>>9662334
>conspiracy theory (flat earth, 9/11, holocaust etc)
Nice bait.

it is pretty hard to definitively prove the earth is round without actually looking at it, and a lot of people don't trust the government or media to tell the truth. so if you don't believe the "proof" of pictures and you understand that the various non-proof deductions are not definitive, there is a window for doubt. add in a dose of admiral bird and some ayyy's and you've got a genuine flat earth/ hollow earth suspicions among the general population.

>>9662520
It was some nut job in USA that restarted it afaik.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TcrJ_brpe1M/Vpk6AqxYwEI/AAAAAAAA48U/X-nV2VRR5AU/s640/Screen%2BShot%2B2016-01-15%2Bat%2B10.22.22%2BAM.png
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilbur_Glenn_Voliva

>>9662580
>>9662531
I'm pretty sure he was refering to the holocaust being fake as a conspiracy theory

>>9662226
I think it is a reactionary result to certain aspects of post industrial society. Our lives rely on and are part of a system which is larger in scale than we can fully grasp. We're surrounded by and depend upon technologies which are complex and can not be understood. Those of a certain personality type (and intellect) are likely to feel angry and confused, unable to reconcile with the world around them. They see "the system" as controlled by some sort of monolithic entity known as "them" or "the illuminati" or whatever because it's easier to swallow. Modern advances forces people to deal with certain truths that may not fit within their preferred worldview, and their lack of understanding makes them feel stupid or inferior. This leads to hostility, and the easy target is "science" as the anti-force against "nature" or god.

It's easier to see things as good vs evil, rather than acknowledge that it's all uncertain. The "everything is a conspiracy" and anti-intellectual worldview is appealing for the same reason as any other religion: it offers clarity and reduces the complexities and uncertainties inherent in life. It's just easier to digest than the truth, and it has the added benefit that you get to feel superior to the "sheeple".

Tl;dr it's easier for stupid people to swallow

>>9662226
It's all bullshit, nobody actually believes the earth is flat, they are all just trolling.

>>9662573
I really hate that it became a thing at all so much. My mother has been taken by a meme and her Biblical literalism will never allow her to let it go. I'm going g to have to deal with this for the rest of her life.

>>9662226
Basically, its just a group identity thing/ trolling. It's just sort of a double-think they accept to fit into their group and to antagonize outsider groups. They are being retarded on purpose.

Red-necky people do the same thing. They're extra red-neck, rolling coal and asserting dumb-ass opinions for peer acceptance and points within their sub-culture.

It's due to the internet and every dumb subculture out there is doing it and it only gets worse.

subcultures have gotten more insular and hostile toward ideas that don't come in the flavor of Kool-Aid they prescribe to.

>>9662729
Untrue, I know em personally. If they're already Biblical literalists, then they aren't trolling.

>>9662489
global warming is climate change you fucking incel

we have multiple proxies of paleoclimates most of which correlate with each other

of course, freshmen software engineering students like you don't know that geology and geochemistry exists

Seriously why do every one of you cocks think that you're being clever by spewing shit like "oh the climate is always changing, I acknowledge that so therefor I am right and know science LOL"

Because you're full of shit and the crap you feed us daily about your so-called science is unobservable and completely different from what we see and experience in our daily lives. Then when people call you out on your lies your only defence mechanism is to ridicule us and regurgitate even more "evidence" allegedly collected by NASA.
There is a reason why only two countries in history have had relevant "space programs" so far. America and USSR. Two machines of the same evil intelligentsia designed to enslave the masses. Both competing to see which was the most efficient economic model to adopt, but equally bound by the same objective. Because space is an expensive hoax and nothing ever came out of it.
You can see scientific advancements in medicine, chemistry, physics and engineering coming from all corners of the world, because they are profitable. Yet only one country spends so much money on this hoax of "space exploration". Why? Billions in cash so that every two months a bunch of nerds gather around a table and present the world with yet another photoshopped ARTIST'S IMPRESSION of what "Jupiter looks like when it's south pole is leaking gasses into Aurora Moon" or some mumbo jumbo along those lines. How convenient. How distant and inaccessible to the common man. How odd that the field dedicated to studying our very cosmos ie GOD is out of reach for billions of peasants and only a small "scientific elite" has access to it. Then you have the absolute travesty that was Stephen Hawking, long time in a vegetative state, unable to talk or move yet being credit as the author of countless publications and journals. His body displayed on a remote-controlled wheel chair by some sabbatical committee with the occasional computer-generated voice, right in front of everyone! The most bizarre display of satanic manipulation and a mockery of the Human spirit.
Is the Earth flat? Flat like a disc? I don't know. But one thing I know for sure. It isn't round.

>>9662765
This.

Anyone who smugly thinks unequivocally the earth is a globe has not honestly reviewed the evidence for both sides. There are so many holes in the heliocentric model it's not funny.

>>9662226
>climate change deniers
Yeah if you are still buying that bullshit there is no hope for you. Flat earth is getting big and is going to continue to get big because it's true.

>>9662765

Do you have any idea how a zoom lens works?

>>9662841
Zoom lens would have that effect on small objects like a flower and a dog in the background or a person and a house, not two bodies that are supposed to be so far apart in a dark void.

>>9662849

If you're way way further from the moon and the earth than the moon and the earth are from each other, it will do exactly what I said.

>>9662658
yeah, it's a symbolic middle-finger to scientism
"we don't even trust you on basic geometry"
the Antarctic Treaty doesn't help, its exactly what a cover up would look like

>>9662878
Do you think flat earthers believe what they do because they never grew out of that edgy phrase of life?

>>9662355
Science is funded overwhelmingly by Jews and Deomcrats. Except petroleum science. Look it up.

>>9662942
>t. globe expert

>>9662942
they just can't into simple math
it's the dunning-kruger effect, their skepticism-to-the-point-of-paranoia could be a useful trait in a smarter person.
also, a lot of them are probably just shitposting

>>9662952
What are you talking about?
Jews own Oil&Gas companies.
Rockefeller built his fortune with oil.

>>9662658
>people who try to point out how deep rooted problems of the world are that plague everybody at least on lowest of levels are of inferior intellect because they don't want to ignore those said problems and act that everything is a ok
baaaad sheeple, get your noggin' working or keep living in fantasy

>>9662226
globe is going down faster than the twin sis buildings, truly an amazing time to be alive

>>9662971
>I'm smart because I blindly believe the globe model that I was brainwashed with since birth.

Pointless trying to talk with demented flatearthers, better to just ignore them, I've met enough mentally deranged people to know they're serious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u2RpK7K7Ww

>>9663000
nice trips dingus

>>9663016
Is that you Chris 'Damage Control' Hadfield? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOfcyYlQzZk

I think it's a symptom of a larger problem, the governments. If the government is not of the people, for the people, it will eventually step outside its jurisdiction. As the founding principles are slowly eroded away, a sense of distrust begins to form in the population. That sets the stage for the next act.
So now the people distrust the establishment. In current year + 5, the world governments are also in charge of most space exploration and imagery. Naturally, if you can't trust the government, why should you trust what it has to say? Especially in something that isn't easy for the average citizen to confirm, like pictures of the planet from orbit. Including the fact that the government has done some shady shit in the past with said space exploration, you begin to see the story come together.
Something like this is how the flat Earth theory could have plausibly been born. There's historical context, distrust of the authority on the subject, and high barrier to entry.

>>9663029
A little critical thinking is enough to disprove flat earth "theory", but that's probably too hard for the morons hell-bent on being anti-everything

>>9663033
>A little critical thinking is enough to disprove flat earth "theory"

Please share globespert.

>>9662816
>jetstream path on the flat earth map doesnt match reality
>jetstream path on the globe map matches reality
I guess I'll take the Globe then.
These sorts of appeals to sensibility arguments are really dumb. You could apply the same logic to rivers, why are some rivers squiggly lines instead of straight? The answer is probably pretty much the same, path of least resistance.

Then you have people like >>9662849 and the image maker who don't know how cameras work and think that they can just point a camera at the Sun and capture the true size of it at any time.

I know that people think Flat Earth is just a big collective troll but there's too much energy being put into it for everyone to be trolling.

>>9663036
What for? You're already convinced of your religious beliefs and nothing I say will mean anything, I've talked with your kind before, pointless.

>>9663033
It takes basic mathematics, brainlet-tier physics, and a couple experiments you could replicate from a YouTube video where the guy recording has an IQ miraculously higher than the number of fucks I give.
Take an orange, and your cellphone camera. Get down real fucking close with that camera, and suddenly the curvature of the orange disappears. Where my flat orange truthers at?

>>9663038
>You could apply the same logic to rivers, why are some rivers squiggly lines instead of straight? The answer is probably pretty much the same, path of least resistance.

Funny you mention rivers. On the globe model, rivers will need to flow up and down the curvature of the earth (while it's spinning) as it finds the path of least resistance. That makes much more sense on a flat, stationary earth.

>>9662734
My family had the same problem with my grandmother.
Basically everyone in my family is an engineer with very academic tendencies and my grandmother because of how things were when she waa young didnt even go to college so she claimed she didnt believe in evolution as if thats something you believe in.
My uncle one day became infuriated with her because she starting ranting about how our "beliefs" are "heathen, unproven nonsense" and patiently but unequivocally destroyed her by making her see how ignorant and childish she really was.
I still smile when I think of the moment.
My grandma is a nice lady but ignorance will fuck you up almost as much as mental illness.

>>9663042
I consider the globe model a religious belief. I likely know more about your religion than you do because you will refuse to question it.

>>9662616
And how is that not obvious bait? I mean you may agree with him in that the holocaust was real, but this kind of conspiracy theory and the earth being flat are two vastly different categories of theory.
One is easily disprovable by anyone willing to put some thought into it, while the other one lies in the past and can only be disproven by photographs and testimonials, which are a far weaker form of evidence.

>>9663051
Your grandma is the smartest in the family ape boy.

>>9663048
Different anon here, you're ignoring gravity. The acceleration of gravity is much more than the angular acceleration of the Earth, which is why Strayans aren't flung into the stratosphere. The path of least resistance for water is straight into the Earth's core, but there's a whole mess of stuff in between.

>>9663068
Does grabbity make rivers flow up a curve?

>>9663074
If the forces acting on the water are so that the net force is up the curve, yes.
And for the globe, there is no "up". There's away from the surface, towards the surface, and across the surface.
Is it any harder for you to walk West than East?

>>9663074
From any position on a flat sphere every direction is down.
Rivers always go down in altitude, so that's also fine, too.

>>9663078
So rivers are able to overcome the spin of the earth and the gravitational pull of the moon/sun, as well as flow as if a curve wasn't even there.

It is not harder to walk west than east, however the earth is spinning at 1040mph at the equator, and 792mph at the poles. Should we not feel this difference in speed as we traverse between hemispheres?

>>9663092
You can, sort of. You just don't often, because you're moving at the same speed as the surface of the sphere. Also, since the radius of the Earth from North pole to center is 3,949 miles, the average speed change per mile is .06mph. There is equipment to measure this, but the human body ain't that good.

>>9663092
>poles
I think you meant the Great Ice Wall

>>9663048
>On the globe model, rivers will need to flow up and down the curvature of the earth (while it's spinning) as it finds the path of least resistance. That makes much more sense on a flat, stationary earth.
On the globe model, the only force acting on water is gravity. Water seeks to minimize its potential energy and thus goes down hill. Any fictitious forces from earth spinning or other gravitational bodies is essentially negligible. This perfectly matches observation.
What drives water down hill in flat earth?
>inb4 matter just likes to go downward

>>9663114
>inb4 matter just likes to go downwards
I wish my unwanted erections, ego and debt all followed Flat Earth general relativity.

>>9663092
>1040mph at the equator, and 792mph at the poles
If you stood on the north pole, your angular velocity from the rotation of the earth would be 0. You can't even get basic facts right.

>>9663119
Explain how general relativity works in flat earth
>it doesn't because general relativity agrees with the heliocentric model

>>9663092
If you could teleport from one place to another instantly, sure.
The small problem is that you travel across the Earth, whether in a plane or on the surface, so you are adjusting for this change constantly.
Also the centripetal forces generated by the spin of the Earth are really fucking small because it is so huge.

>>9663126
My guess is something along the lines of
>Hurr everything goes down because that's what I see in nature
>What's angular velocity?
>Who needs a magnetic field if there's an infinite ice shelf and the sun is a little meme ball in the sky?
>Gravity isn't real
>Particles are either solid, liquid, gas, superfluid, supersolid, or flat

>>9663092
>however the earth is spinning at 1040mph at the equator, and 792mph at the poles
These speeds are in linear velocity, which is meaningless when considering the effect centripetal force has on the way we experience gravity. The angular velocity of the Earth is pretty small because it only turns once a day. So while you are lighter on the equator than elsewhere becuase you're spinning faster, it's a very small effect, like +-.05 m/s^2 compared to the 9.81 m/s^2 of gravity.

>>9663106
>You can, sort of.

First I've heard of it. What if you took a plane and travelled from a place spinning at 800mph to a place spinning at 1000mph?

>>9663141
Read the rest of the post to see my answer.

>>9663114
>Any fictitious forces from earth spinning or other gravitational bodies is essentially negligible. This perfectly matches observation.

Very convenient. What scientific experiment has proven this?

>What drives water down hill in flat earth?

Water finding the path of least resistance, the same way gas will escape with least resistance.

>>9663149
>What scientific experiment has proven this?
It's math you can do with high school level Newtonian physics.

>>9663121
That's much, much worse.

>>9663129
You can adjust to this spin while in an enclosed plane where the air inside it is not spinning? Or would you make the bizarre claim that the air is spinning in the plane as well?

>>9663151
We're talking science, not math.

>>9663158
>implying

>>9663158
>We're talking science, not math.
This is what I write whenever I see a word problem on a test.

>>9663158
Math is the language of science you fucking brainlet

>>9663162
>>9663163
>>9663165

Math can only be the language of science when the scientific experiments have taken place. Otherwise you can make up any old shit with math which is what theoretical science is based upon.

>>9663175
>I don't know what math, science, or language mean.

>>9662226
>why we think the Flat Earth... has gotten so big...

Trolling is a big thing.

>...in a year or two.

I suspect they'll have moved on to the next troll.

>>9663197

>>9662226
Architects of railroads never have to take the curvature of the earth into account

>>9663175
>Otherwise you can make up any old shit with math which is what theoretical science is based upon.
The theoretical science behind the heliocentric model matches what is observed. We even use this knowledge to operate GPS and telecommunications satellites, some of which you may be using at this moment if you're posting on 4chan through the internet.

Let's be honest: 95% of people could not sufficiently answer when challenged "prove to me the earth is round without using pictures from NASA". Most people would not be able to prove this.

>>9662589
It s not hard to prove at all, other then to people who are fucking with you and reject any evidence that conflicts with the conspiracy.

Whether they do this as trolls or as morons is hard to say; I suspect it's mostly trolling. Though Lord knows there is no shortage of stupid people.

>>9662734
Cheer up, maybe you'll die young.

>>9663210
Just look at ships disappearing on horizon?

>>9662741
Many/most Biblical literalists also understand the Earth is round.

>>9663220
>?
*!

>>9663210
>What are timezones and seasons?

>>9663208
>The theoretical science behind the heliocentric model matches what is observed.

No it doesn't. You've never actually observed a satellite orbiting the earth, just a pinprick of light moving across the sky which could be anything. It's no secret they've launched satellites on weather balloons which is much easier and cheaper.

Also, the internet uses cables on the ocean floor.

>>9662226
I sometimes hear pop sci lords using flat earth as an example of why we live in a "scientifically illiterate society". It's not a big deal to be honest.

>>9663220
Zoom in on the ship and it comes back again.

>>9662765

It is still amazing to me that conspiritards continue to post such dumb-assery as this image. That's a big part of why I think most of this is trolling. Anybody seriously promoting a conspiracy they BELIEVE in would not post dumb shit that makes them look stupid.

>>9662849
Holy shit. New levels of dumb achieved. I am in awe.

>>9663236
>>9663240

Could you globe experts actually present an argument?

>>9663242
Time-zones and seasons.

>>9662878
>Antarctic Treaty

You can buy a ticket, board a commercial plane, and fly to the South Pole as a tourist. The meme of "Antarctica's Closed" is bullshit.

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

>>9663245

>>9663156
A plane is not entirely air tight. It does bring in air from outside and introduce it into the interior.
Yes, it is pressurized.

Most importantly, the air inside the plane is moving relative to the plane. So as the plane speeds up the air inside will speed up with it, it is affected by inertia the same way you are, but it will match the vector and velocity of the plane.
So as the plane itself "adjusts" for the spin of the Earth as it travels north or south (simply by being a part of the atmosphere), the interior air will also adjust, as will you sitting in your seat.

>>9663255
You can pay a ridiculous amount to go on a highly restricted tour.

>>9663259
>Replies with an image that contains proof of a globe earth.
Thanks for making this easy, now look at the inset images on the bottom right and left and remark at the strange shape the sun makes when it shines on a "flat" surface.

>>9663263
1 or 2 k will get you a flight to the airport from where I am, pretty reasonable prices considering how far it is.

>>9663229
I have been to the southern hemisphere and gone outside at night, observed the southern set of circumpolar stars. I live in the northern hemisphere, and have seen the different circumpolar stars up here many, many times.

This double set of circumpolar stars is predicted by the globe model, and is not possible under the flat model, which predicts one set of circumpolar stars, to the north, visible from anywhere in the world.

As for our "satellite" claim, I've observed satellites where and when the predictions made by tracking their orbital parameters say they will be. Now you could claim that they're faking it with planes or something. But if so, in order for them to be seen where and when the orbital tracking says they will be seen, from the widely separated places on the ground predicted, the planes would have to be at the altitudes claimed for the satellites, flying at the speeds claimed by the orbital parameters, over a spherical Earth. In other words, they'd have to be satellites.

>>9663234

But t doesn't, if you've watched it drop below the horizon. If you are talking about something small enough that you lose sight of it before it drops over the horizon, then yes. But once it disappears below the horizon, no amount of magnification will bring it back.

>>9663229
>It's no secret they've launched satellites on weather balloons which is much easier and cheaper.
And it's no secret that GPS would be impossible on weather balloons because they can't maintain a predictable location or velocity and direction.

>You've never actually observed a satellite orbiting the earth
I've observed the ISS.
>t-thats a space station, not a satellite!
Technically still a satellite.
>i-it's fake CGI!
Which is why you can observe it passing in front of the Sun and Moon, of course.
>t-that's not the ISS!
He says without any shred of proof.

The ISS is really big and it is in quite a low orbit. Most of the satellites in a similar orbit are nano-sats about the size of a suitcase.

Nothing we have put into orbit is anywhere near as big as the ISS and the majority of things are 10 to 100 times as far away. Try to work out why observing other satellites (in high resolution, I think you mean) is exceedingly difficult.

Now that's not to say we haven't seen or interacted with satellites up there. The Space Shuttle retrieved a few from orbit and they did repairs to a few others too, most notably the Hubble telescope.
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/15094/what-satellites-did-the-shuttle-retrieve-from-orbit

>Also, the internet uses cables on the ocean floor.
Yeah, they do take the majority of the Internet traffic. There are places on this planet where the only Internet access (or cellular access) is by satellite though.

>>9663242
We could explain it to you again in every new thread. But we can't understand it for you. We can't stop being stupid for you, or stop being a troll for you.

>>9663261
>So as the plane itself "adjusts" for the spin of the Earth

How does it do that?

>>9663268
Follows the magnetic field. The sun isn't 93 million miles away.

>>9663275
You cannot freely explore it which is the point.

>>9663278
>This double set of circumpolar stars is predicted by the globe model, and is not possible under the flat model, which predicts one set of circumpolar stars, to the north, visible from anywhere in the world.

Which flat model? The flat model can easily have northern and southern stars, they are intimately linked to the earth's magnetic field.

> I've observed satellites where and when the predictions made by tracking their orbital parameters say they will be.

Have you actually seen what they are, or just a speck of light?

>>9663285
>But once it disappears below the horizon, no amount of magnification will bring it back.

Not true unless it's reached the vanishing point (the point at which light cannot travel through the atmosphere as visible light any more). There are thousands of videos of people bring big ships back by zooming in on them.

>>9663296
>Land at airport
>Start walking
If someone stops you come back and complain in this thread. Until that happens you can go fuck yourself.

>>9663294
>Follows the magnetic field. The sun isn't 93 million miles away.
What follows the magnetic field?

>>9663263
Goalpost moving at an amazing clip here.

Yeah, it costs money. But if you save money, you can visit Antarctica in several different ways, including flying to the center of the continent and enjoying freezing your ass off and sleeping in a tent with the sun shining 24 hours a day, as predicted by the globe model and s impossible under any flat model I've seen. You can take a sextant with you and confirm you are at the South Pole.

No, there are not tourist stops on every square mile of a giant frozen-ass continent that few people can afford to go to. This is as you'd expect. But you can go there, and the evidence for where you are and that you are on the opposite pole of a spinning sphere is observable by anybody who does so and cares to make the observations.

Sorry you can't afford it. But you being poor is not evidence of the Earth being flat, or Antarctica being closed by conspirators, or aliums, or anything else.

>>9663287
>And it's no secret that GPS would be impossible on weather balloons because they can't maintain a predictable location or velocity and direction.

Not necessarily, we don't know what technology they have, but I'd agree they'd be much more likely used as geostationary satellites.

>I've observed the ISS.
Looks like a hologram to me. There's not a chance any human beings on that thing.

Any photos from amateurs of the ISS being docked/un-docked? Didn't think so.

>>9663292
That's not the attitude I'd expect from a globe expert.

>>9663294
>How does it do that?
By being in the atmosphere.

>shadows under clouds are a sign of a near sun
Or a vacant mind.

>>9663304
>If someone stops you come back and complain in this thread. Until that happens you can go fuck yourself.

Are you seriously saying Antarctica is open for exploration? You're denying reality here.

>What follows the magnetic field?

The celestial "bodies".

>>9663308
> including flying to the center of the continent and enjoying freezing your ass off and sleeping in a tent with the sun shining 24 hours a day,

I've not seen any credible evidence of 24 hour sunlight in Antarctica. It all looks like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv_dcW1WrMo

>>9663296
Cannot freely explore what? You can go there,take your sextant and prove the latitude you've reached. You can observe the southern summer 24 hour sun, as predicted by the globe model and not possible under the flat model with the North Pole at the center.

No, you will not be allowed to wander away from your group on a continent full of all sorts of unpleasant ways to die. I mean, you can, but they'll yell at you if you don't die.

But you can then save up more money and go to other parts of Antarctica on another trip. Take your sextant or your GPS or whatever and note that you are where they say you are.

The flat model is only sustainable if you ignore the evidence that proves it wrong. I can't make you stop doing that.

I can point out that you are wrong, and put the proof in the thread. That's all I can do -- you not being dumb is up to you.

>>9663319
It's approximately as open for exploration as mount Everest. It's dangerous as hell and idiots who can't grasp basic concepts like time and seasons shouldn't be trusted alone in either place.

>>9663316
>By being in the atmosphere.

Wow the gaseous air must be pretty strong to force a plane to do that.

>Or a vacant mind.
You're supposed to look at the angles.

>>9663300
Your made-up bullshit aside, do you know the difference between the word "stars" and the two-word phrase "circumpolar stars?"

If not (ad many people do not) then go google that -- there is no point in discussing what they mean unless you know what they are.

>>9663319
>The celestial "bodies".
So what you are saying is that our magnetic field shifts every year by 46.8 degrees moving objects in the sky with negligible perceptible difference in the functionality of compasses or other equipment used to measure magnetic fields?

How far away is the sun?

>>9663300
>> I've observed satellites where and when the predictions made by tracking their orbital parameters say they will be. Have you actually seen what they are, or just a speck of light?

Quit dodging, I explained here >>9663278 why what I see in looking for satellites using their orbital parameters and why what I am seeing has to be at the altitude, speed and position of a satellite in orbit, and therefore is, definitionally, a satellite. If you cannot understand that, that is not something I can fix.

By the way, if you do not understand orbital mechanics, but want to see satellites when and where their orbital parameters say they will be, google "satellite viewing" and use any of the several sites that do all the math for you, and just tell you where and when to look.

>>9663324
>you can observe the southern summer 24 hour sun
No, no you can't.

>I mean, you can, but they'll yell at you if you don't die.
You know this how? Are there "protected areas" or not?

>>9663300
>Which flat model? The flat model can easily have northern and southern stars, they are intimately linked to the earth's magnetic field.
All flat earth models.

Below about 30 degrees south the circumpolar stars never set below the horizon at night, which means they are visible from all locations at night at the same time.
These stars can also be used to find south at night, particularly the Southern Cross.

By all flat earth models, south is just away from north, the center of the flat earth map, however people in South America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand can all observe the Southern Cross at night and use it to find "south". By the flat earth models these would all be different directions, yet they observe the same stars and can use those stars for navigation.

>>9663303
There are none that show a ship being visible again after dropping below the horizon. There are many showing ships dropping below the horizon. f you don't trust video, you cn always watch a sunset, watch as he sun bit by it disappears below a horizon how it does not dwindle to a vanishing point in the distance - and then, as soon as it is below the horizon, whip out your telescope and see if you can bring it back into view. It's safe, because once it sets you can't bring it back with any amount of zoom. DO NOT try to look at the sun with a telescope before it sets, it is dangerous as fuck to your eyes.

>>9663331
You don't need two circumpolar stars on the flat model. Have you noticed how a time lapse photo of the northern stars rotating and a time lapse photo of the southern stars rotating resemble the positive and negative points of an AA battery?

>>9663333
I'm saying the magnetic field plays a much bigger role than we've been led to believe.

>How far away is the sun?

I don't know, some posit around 3000 miles away.

>>9663335
You think it's orbiting the earth using gravity, when it could also be circling around a flat earth, it's not proof of a globe earth I'm afraid.

>>9663311
>Any photos from amateurs of the ISS being docked/un-docked? Didn't think so.

You would not expect there to be. Google a vid of the station transiting the sun or moon - it crosses that distance in under a second. Tracking it with enough magnification to resolve a lot of detail would be almost impossible. Tracking it with a telescope for long enough to watch docking/undocking would be literally impossible - it is visible for a minute or two at most; that mofo BOOKS across the sky.

So, lack of amateur ground-based pictures of ISS showing details of prolonged maneuvers is not evidence, one way or anther. I would be the case either way.

How do flattards explain gravity accelerating?

>>9663313
Why the fuck not? Trolling gets old after awhile. Taking it seriously gets older, faster.

>>9663329
>Wow the gaseous air must be pretty strong to force a plane to do that.
Have you ever walked outside in a hurricane?

All the air around you is moving at the same rate you are (give or take a few km/h if it is calm). If you go at at 100km/h through that air you feel the resistance when you put your hand out the window.

This is easily observable. I don't know why you're trying fight this.

>You're supposed to look at the angles.
The "angles" are just failed depth perception.

>>9663347
>By all flat earth models, south is just away from north, the center of the flat earth map, however people in South America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand can all observe the Southern Cross at night and use it to find "south". By the flat earth models these would all be different directions, yet they observe the same stars and can use those stars for navigation.

But doesn't that constellation move as well so how can it be used for accurate navigation when unlike the north star it doesn't move?

>>9663321
Then you are stupid. Sorry, tired of sugar coating it to feed your trolling.

You want evidence you'll maybe accept? Save your fucking money and go there. If you can't afford the trip to the actual South Pole, just get your ass inside the Antarctic Circle in the middle of the summer. and go the fuck outside.

>>9663360
People have taken pretty decent pictures of the ISS (hologram). Docking supposedly takes days, so I see no reason why there wouldn't be a photo of that.

>>9663342
There are protected areas, because scientists are doing experiments and taking samples from places where they don't want people to wander through and fuck things up.

There's also wildlife they don't want people to fuck around with either, so those are also protected areas.

Basically, there are protected areas for the same reasons there are protected areas in most countries, only these are protected by an agreement between countries.

>No, no you can't.
Woah, big claim there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgZa9oZDN5g
>b-but clouds obscure the sun so it could have set!
Do I have to do your thinking for you?

>>9663366
It moves around the celestial south pole.
https://teara.govt.nz/en/diagram/7486/navigating-by-the-southern-cross

>>9663362
The more air an object passes through, the more pressure is being exerted by the object itself, as well as the medium it is in (air). Things do down because they are denser than the medium they are in, down is the fastest route to higher density/pressure, and up is the fastest route to low density/pressure.

>>9663363
Globe experts should be willing to educate their fellow 4chan peers.

>>9663371
If he means taking photos of docking from the ground the Dragon capsule, the Soyuz and other craft are really small compared to the ISS. It would be hard to make out.
The Space Shuttle was a reasonable size in relation to it and may have shown up as a reasonable difference in before and after photos, but unfortunately the Space Shuttle isn't being used anymore.

>>9663388
Flattards should be willing to be educated.

>>9663365
>Have you ever walked outside in a hurricane?

Oooh so it's hurricanes that force the plane to spin at the same speed as the earth as it's flying.

>All the air around you is moving at the same rate you are (give or take a few km/h if it is calm). If you go at at 100km/h through that air you feel the resistance when you put your hand out the window.

So you wouldn't feel any resistance if the air wasn't moving?

>The "angles" are just failed depth perception.

Ooooh okay.

>>9663342
There are lots of areas you cannot get to. What does that have to do with whether the earth is round, which s all I am discussing? Could there be some secret Nazi UFO alium bases in parts of Antarctica you cannot get to? If you believe there could be secret Nazi UFO alium bases, then they could be there as easily as in any of the other inaccessible parts of the world. I'd say the other secret Area 51 type places would be less fucking dangerous to hide your sNUFOab's with less chance of freezing to death.

My point is that you can go deep into Antarctica, all the way as far as it is possible to go, and observe the various evidences of the roundness of the Earth, that you are at an opposite pole from the one up North. You can also notice the absence of thousands and thousands of miles of giant ice wall, for fun.

>>9663370
You've witnessed the 24hour midnight sun in Antarctica I take it?

>>9663401
You've witnessed the Ice wall I take it?

>>9663353
>I'm saying the magnetic field plays a much bigger role than we've been led to believe.
This statement is almost meaningless. Do you have any experimental data to back it up?

>>9663353
>some posit around 3000 miles away
Why does the sun set then? It should only be able to go down to 12 degrees above the horizon minimum.

>>9663387
Why does gravity work in a vacuum chamber then?
And before you ask, I've experimentally verified this myself.

>>9663342
Yu literally can. They don;t do trips t the South Pole in the winter because you'd, you know, die. It is dangerous as fuck. But in the summer, it is mostly just cold and if you have the cash and want to take the minimal risks, you can do it. Link to one of the companies that will take you is upstream in the thread.
If eye witness evidence is all you'll accept, that's the only way to get the evidence that you can find in Antarctica -- go there. Which you can. Claiming that THEY!!!! won't let you is a lie. Lying s Bad. Lying about whether you can travel to a place that people travel to on the commercial trips advertised all over the place is not only Bad, but Stupid.

>>9663393
>So you wouldn't feel any resistance if the air wasn't moving?
You would because your speed relative to the air is still different.
If the air was going at 100km/h in the same direction you wouldn't feel any resistance while traveling at the same speed, you would if you stopped though.
This can also easily be observed by simply running in the same direction as the wind is blowing.

But that would require going outside, and running, both of which may be foreign to you.

>>9663373
Yeah, not buying it. Every country in the world happy to cooperate in keeping Antarctica preserved for purely altruistic reasons? What fantasy land are you living in?

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgZa9oZDN5g [Embed]

That's exactly the type of fake video I'm talking about. The rays are clearly edited.

The earth is a flat disc. We've only ever photographed earth in outer space from one angle, all other photographs are fake.

>>9663389
Yes, ground photos. That photo was taken in a pool.

If you can make out individual parts of the ISS from photos on the ground, you should be able to catch something docking with it too.

>>9663351
No, but then I'm not loony.

I have noticed that if you are an astronomy buff, and go stand outside and watch the stars for a night, you can see the circumpolar stars to the north of you in the northern hemisphere, and if you gat a chance to do the same while in the southern hemisphere, then lo and behold! The southern circumpolar stars are there, doing exactly what the globe model not only predicts, but requires. Interestingly, the flat model with the north pole at the center predict the northern circumpolar stars, but rules out the possibility that there would be circumpolar stars to the south. There could not be -- there is no southern center of rotation for them to appear to rotate around.

>>9663398
No, I don't believe in aliens.

>My point is that you can go deep into Antarctica, all the way as far as it is possible to go, and observe the various evidences of the roundness of the Earth

So why has no one ever done this?

>>9663406
Some people have claimed to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAgJgGRIGDw

>>9663418
>That's exactly the type of fake video I'm talking about. The rays are clearly edited.
>its fake because i say it is fake
General flat earth argument. Would be nice if you could try something new.

>>9663434
What does that video prove? You could literally go to any coastline in the world and claim it goes on forever. Nobody ever claimed Antarctica was small.

>>9663407
>This statement is almost meaningless. Do you have any experimental data to back it up?

The coriolis effect can be attributed to the magnetic field. So can the movement of the Foucault pendulum. There's increasing evidence that the sun is electromagnetic in nature. It doesn't seem wild to think these things would be affected by the magnetic field in some way.

>Why does the sun set then? It should only be able to go down to 12 degrees above the horizon minimum.

Because as it gets further away it not only merges with the horizon and takes the light with it, the light has to travel through the atmosphere and after a certain distance it cannot travel to our eyes any more.

People have nothing to do and want to become part of a group that shares the same beliefs, even if it's a preposterous idea.

>>9663329
>Wow the gaseous air must be pretty strong to force a plane to do that.
I mean, it is holding a multi-ton aircraft aloft, so I'd say it's pretty strong

>>9663428
>If you can make out individual parts of the ISS from photos on the ground, you should be able to catch something docking with it too.
You can make out the shape of it. You can't see the flags on the sides of the modules.

Basically the answer is it's difficult. The best photos are when there is a backdrop like the Moon or the Sun and those opportunities are fairly uncommon. It's something you would have to go out of your way to photograph, before and after docking photos. It's not something you can just go "I'll take a photo of it tonight".

>>9663358
No it couldn't. If that was the case, it would not be visible in the part of the sky that corresponds to where it predicted to be, from any point on the globe, at the times. The angles and times in different areas would be radically different. You could not spot a satellite by figuring out t's orbital parameters and where you are on the globe.

IF there was a way to fly circular patterns over a flat Earth, you could use the data on how fast and along what path the "satellite" was moving, and where you were on a flat surface, and predict when and where you could see it.

But the parameters are different. You couldn't do the math about a satellite orbiting a globe and use it to spot circling conspiracy fake satellites over a disk. It would not work.

But you can do the math (if you learn how, which everybody is free to do) to use the orbital data and see satellite when and where, and at the apparent speed across the sky, for the length of time, predicted.

As a plus, satellites are only visible when illuminated by the sun, but after the sun has set for the location where you are standing. Which means you are also showing that the sun has dropped below the horizon where you are, but at a much greater altitude than you, with a more distant horizon, the sun is still shining and visible. And you'll see the satellite move in and out of Earth's shadow exactly as predicted, and totally unlike what it would do with a "spotlight" sun or any of the other weirdnesses invented by flatists.

>>9663450
The Coriolis effect works on things that magnets don't. Also the Foucault pendulum in the Griffith observatory is made of brass which is not magnetic.

>>9663450
>Because as it gets further away it not only merges with the horizon
Why does it merge with the horizon? and not just disappear? 12 degrees is substantially above the horizon.

>>9663450
>Because as it gets further away it not only merges with the horizon and takes the light with it, the light has to travel through the atmosphere and after a certain distance it cannot travel to our eyes any more.
By brain fell out.

>>9663428
Taken by a French Photographer when the ISS passes in front of the sun

>>9663413
Because vacuum chambers still have a tiny amount of air pressure in them, so solid objects will act in the same way, only having far less resistance in doing so.

>>9663471
At the same acceleration regardless of the amount of air in the chamber?
In the same direction no matter which way the chamber is held?

>>9663366
Knowing where the Southern Cross is allows you to easily find the celestial south pole -- it lacks a highly visible star sitting on top of it like celestial north pole, so a handy way to find it is nice. Having found the celestial south pole, it will be to the south of you forever, as long as it is dark and you can keep track of it..

>>9663467
Oh cool, clear shape of the Space Shuttle there.

>>9663467
flattards BTFO

>>9663415
Can you see the 24 hour sun on the coast of Antarctica?

>>9663371
And if somebody happens to get a pic of the ISS and a supply ship docking, you'll just say that the supply ship is a hologram.

I could explain why taking pictures of the ISS from the ground is hard, again. But you either would not understand t again, or would pretend not to.

>>9663482
Anywhere inside the dotted line.

>>9663388
I was about to post this. >>9663392

But I would have been more rude.

In any case, shit has been explained to you, at length, all through this thread.

You will not stop trolling if I explain it more, or in a different way.

That is unlikely to help, if you are just willfully ignorant.

Definitely won't help if you are stupid.

>>9663416
So what are you proving by saying that you'd feel resistance of the air when sticking your arm out of a moving plane?

>>9663429
The movements of the stars doesn't not mean it is the earth that is moving, it could also be the stars revolving around us, you cannot deny that, particularly since all scientific experiments have shown the earth is not moving.

>>9663443
Looks real to you does it?

>>9663449
You wanted an ice wall, you got an ice wall.

>>9663432
A few hundred go there every year. A few thousand or tens of thousands go into the Antarctic circle every year. You could be one of them, save your pennies. There is no prohibition that will prevent you.

Your premise that no one has ever done it is either ignorant or a lie. Upstream in the thread is a link to one of the companies that takes people there, when you have your money saved up. Or Google up another one, if you are afraid I am steering you to a fake tourist site or something.

>>9663486
It should be noted that the further south you go the more days of 24 hour Sun you get. You can't just rock up to the Antarctic Circle any time during summer and expect to have 24 hours Sun that day.

>>9663492
>So what are you proving by saying that you'd feel resistance of the air when sticking your arm out of a moving plane?
Of course. If you didn't then you wouldn't have any lift and the plane wouldn't be flying.

>>9663492
>The movements of the stars doesn't not mean it is the earth that is moving, it could also be the stars revolving around us, you cannot deny that, particularly since all scientific experiments have shown the earth is not moving.
Except that doesn't work in the southern hemisphere which is why we know the shitty "scientific" experiments you do to try and prove the Earth is not spinning are bullshit.

>>9663498
>Looks real to you does it?
Yes, it looks completely real.
Possibly because I am familiar with cameras and photography, and you aren't.

>>9663455
If you think the atmosphere at 35,000ft where it's less dense can by its own volition force a multi-ton aircraft to spin at faster or slower speeds then that's up to you, I just don't see any evidence for it.

>>9663462
But docking/undocking must happen all the time seeing as it needs constant resupplying.

>>9663511
>But docking/undocking must happen all the time seeing as it needs constant resupplying.

92 missions
20 years
4.6 per year average

>>9663511
There is more often something docked to the ISS than isn't, so like I said you would be looking for uncommon favorable conditions to take the particular photos you are after.

>>9663450
>Because as it gets further away it not only merges with the horizon and takes the light with it, the light has to travel through the atmosphere and after a certain distance it cannot travel to our eyes any more.

You have literally never watched a sunset? I am amazed. It would make more sense if you had never seen it rise -- who the fuck wants to get up that early, right?

But a sunset? Fuck, man, go outside and watch it happen. Watch the sun approach the horizon, watch it appear to touch the horizon. Watch it slowly, visibly, slip further and further below the horizon. Note how t does not dwindle into the distance just above the horizon, how you can see the fucking sun being blocked more and more by the Earth. You can eventually see half the circular face of the sun above the horizon, and then less and less of it. How it at no time acts like it is moving further away and then is too far to see while remaining above the horizon.

It's interesting as fuck.

As a bonus, sometimes you get lots of pretty colors.

>>9663520
Each resupply craft is usually docked for 2~3 months.

>>9663511
>If you think the atmosphere at 35,000ft where it's less dense can by its own volition force a multi-ton aircraft to spin at faster or slower speeds then that's up to you, I just don't see any evidence for it.
The force required to shift the plane's horizontal speed by the .06 mph per mile anon mentioned here >>9663106 is tiny compared to the force required to overcome 9.81m/s^2 of gravity.

>>9663464
If flight paths make more sense on a flat earth, then so would satellite paths. It is only a belief they are orbiting a spherical earth using gravity, you cannot deny this.

>>9663465
>Foucault pendulum in the Griffith observatory is made of brass which is not magnetic.

It has a magnetic tip on it as described here: http://griffithobservatory.org/exhibits/centralrotunda_foucaultpendulum.html

>Why does it merge with the horizon? and not just disappear? 12 degrees is substantially above the horizon.

Because that's what things do when they get further away.

>>9663466
Good argument.

>>9663467
I'm asking for a docking/undocking scenario where there's two separate crafts.

>>9663524
Yes 12 divided by 4.6 is between 2 and 3. Your point is? Moran wanted to see a picture of the actual docking process where it is detached and closing in on the ISS that is exceedingly rare. Though I guess you get two shots at it for every mission.

>>9663473
Density matters far less when the medium is about as less dense as you can get. Of course it still goes down, there is still air in the chamber.

>>9663511
>If you think the atmosphere at 35,000ft where it's less dense can by its own volition force a multi-ton aircraft to spin at faster or slower speeds then that's up to you, I just don't see any evidence for it.
It can, and will and remember, this is a gradual process. It is not teleportation. The plane doesn't magically disappear from the equator and appear at the pole.

Even then, the plane has to go through the thicker parts of the atmosphere to land, so if it wasn't adjusted higher up it would be adjusted then, which, again, is not teleportation but a gradual transition.

>>9663482

What >>9663486 said. The reason I keep stressing that you can take a tourist trip to the actual south pole is that flatist usually clam that the only place you can go in Antarctica is where the cruise ships touch briefly near the tip of South America. That is what is technically called a goddam mufuggin lie.

>>9663537
My point was more trying to get a shot with nothing docked would also be rare if you were trying to go for a before and after type of photo.

>>9663529
Luckily fight paths don't make more sense of a flat earth so we don't have to bother with the satellite path speculation.

>>9663483
>And if somebody happens to get a pic of the ISS and a supply ship docking, you'll just say that the supply ship is a hologram.

That would be a valid counterargument, but if there isn't a photo at all of such a thing then that's more evidence to suggest no one is actually in that thing.

>>9663486
And what do those other lines represent?

>>9663538
>Of course it still goes down, there is still air in the chamber.
What way is down? There may be air still in the chamber but there is no pressure. What determines how the matter should sort itself?
How does the object know what in direction the Earth is?

>>9663555
>And what do those other lines represent?
Lines of latitude and longitude.
You have them on your fucking flat earth maps, too. How can you not know this?

>>9663492
The stars moving the way they do show the Earth is a globe. You are correct in art when you say that this does not prove the Earth is turning -- indeed, a big rotating glass ball with glowing stars on it that encloses the Earth COULD explain the movement of the stars as well, if that is the only evidence you look at.

>scientific experiments have shown the earth is not moving.

This is nonsensical, but I'm not letting you change the subject. We're talking about the spherical shape of the Earth. You want to start a "does it move" thread, go ahead. Somebody will argue it with you, I imagine.

>>9663491
Why do globe experts have such difficulty spreading their knowledge?

>>9663504
What dates would I have to go to see the 24 hour midnight sun?

>>9663505
>Except that doesn't work in the southern hemisphere

How did you come to that conclusion?

>>9663522
To make sure everybody understands, what he is saying is that when,say, a progress is docked to the ISS, it is so much smaller than the station that it is unlikely you'd be able to make it out in the pictures.

>>9663529
>It has a magnetic tip on it
Yeah but it worked back in 1923 when it didn't have a magnet. Foucault pendulums worked back in 1855 before the discovery of electromagnetism.

>>9663522
Where's the photo of this happening? There's gotta be someone on earth would want to get that shot.

>>9663564
>How did you come to that conclusion?
By making real observations from having lived there for decades.

>>9663560
The best date would be the summer solstice (aka the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere) because on that date everywhere in the Antarctic circle would see 24 hour Sun.
The further before or after that date the further south you have to be.

>>9663529
>If flight paths make more sense on a flat earth, then so would satellite paths. It is only a belief they are orbiting a spherical earth using gravity, you cannot deny this.

Oh yeah -- watch this!

I deny it. The ANGLES of where you'd have to look would be totally different on a sphere than they would be on a flat surface. If the world was flat, and there were circling "satellites" above it, and you had the path and speed and altitude, you could do what we do now with similar orbital data around a sphere. But again you could not use data that was faked up to show where to look for a satellite over a sphere and use it to spot a "satellite" over flat Earth - the angles would be all wrong.

>>9663555
>Evidence of how people get there proves nobody is there.

Holy shit. This is amazing.

>>9663523
I've seen many. You realise that the sun isn't actually setting below the horizon, right? It's an illusion of the water + perspective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oBmNe13AVE

>>9663555
>That would be a valid counterargument, but if there isn't a photo at all of such a thing then that's more evidence to suggest no one is actually in that thing.

And now you claim the shuttle is a hologram, after lying and saying that a photo you can find on Google in fractions of a second does not exist.

You ignorant fuck.

>>9663571
>Where's the photo of this happening? There's gotta be someone on earth would want to get that shot.
It's possible that photo exists. It's also possible that photo doesn't exist on the Internet. It's also possible that we have yet to find that photo on the Internet.
Now that you have brought it up I may look into trying to get the photo myself. It may have to wait until after I get a new lens and possibly a 2x or 4x magnifier as well.

Just because you can't find the needle in the haystack quickly doesn't mean the needle isn't in the haystack.

>>9663560
Go to the South Pole tour at any time in the summer.

>>9663584
12 degrees

>>9663584
>sunrise and sunset only happen over water
Of course this is all completely irrelevant because the Moon must do the same thing and is far easier to observe through the entire arc across the sky with the naked eye and no one has ever presented evidence of the Moon changing size through the span of a night from moonrise to moonset, which is why it is never used as an example because it proves the theory wrong.

>>9663584
Nope, you're just trolling, you are not actually this stupid. And no, I'm not looking at another loony-tunes YouTube video. You explain what you men to me, I'm talking with you, not some loon that made a stupid-ass video for YouFuckingTube.

>>9663589
>>9663588
I love that this happened

>>9663539
Where's your scientific proof?

>>9663544
>That is what is technically called a goddam mufuggin lie.
You don't actually know that though.

>Luckily fight paths don't make more sense of a flat earth so we don't have to bother with the satellite path speculation.

Yes they do, look it up.

>>9663557
The quickest route to high pressure/high density is down, and the quickest route to low pressure/low density is down.

>>9663558
So they don't represent the length of darkness you'd experience?

>>9663559
So either it's the earth that's moving, or it's the stars. I'm banking on the stars, makes much more sense.

>>9663605
Yeah I do too. I was looking particularly for photos of Progress and other current craft though. Something that people could relate to now.

>>9663593
For those who do not know, the apparent size of the sun n the sky is around a third of a degree. 12 degrees above the horizon is an appreciable distance, much larger than the apparent size of the sun.

A sun orbiting above a flat plane-et Earth that could not approach closer than 12 degrees to the horizon would look NTHING like what we see at sunset. As somebody else pointed out, neither would the moon as it rises and sets.

>>9663606
>Where's your scientific proof?
I drive with my window down.

>>Luckily fight paths don't make more sense of a flat earth so we don't have to bother with the satellite path speculation.
>Yes they do, look it up.
No, they don't. Planes that fly from Sydney to South Africa don't fly over India and Northeast Africa.

>The quickest route to high pressure/high density is down, and the quickest route to low pressure/low density is down.
You're just repeating "down". I specifically asked how does the object in the zero pressure container know what direction is towards a higher pressure.

>So they don't represent the length of darkness you'd experience?
Not really but kinda.

>So either it's the earth that's moving, or it's the stars. I'm banking on the stars, makes much more sense.
But in either case the Earth is a globe.

>>9663588
Why did it take so long to post it? And yes, that could easily be a hologram, at least they were smart enough to add a separate craft to it.

>>9663592
Show what the tour entails.

>>9663593
Not an argument.

>>9663601
No one knows what the moon is, it emits cold light which physics conveniently ignores.

>>9663602
Perspective forces everything converge into the horizon as it gets further away. Objects will also get smaller, and their light must travel through more and more atmosphere until they vanish to our eyes. It's a very simple concept.

>>9663608
Can't find one of an undocked progress, and retards will not understand what they are looking at -- but this one is interesting

>>9663616
>it emits cold light which physics conveniently ignores.
Which has been thoroughly debunked, which completely surprises flattards.

>>9663616
>No one knows what the moon is, it emits cold light which physics conveniently ignores.
lmao what

>>9663616
>Not an argument.
12 degrees is just under how far the Sun moves in an hour. It's a pretty good argument.

>>9663611
Additionally if the the sun were hovering above a flat earth at 3000 mi it would bend toward the north as it neared the horizon in the evening reaching it's lowest height at due north midnight while traveling west to east relative to an observer then it would travel southward to the start of a new day in the east. All the while visible to every person on earth, Truly a surreal path that would be noticed immediately.

>>9663616
>Show what the tour entails.

www.google.com. Or look for the link up in the thread.

>Perspective forces everything converge into the horizon as it gets further away. Objects will also get smaller,

yes indeed they do seem to get smaller. Which the motherfuckng goddam asslicking shtheap setting sun DOES NOT FUCKING DO you cretin. Nor does the moon. They stay the same size as the sink below the fucking horizon, you can watch them do it. Go the fuck outside and watch t happen, it'll blow your mind.

So, you having destroyed your own argument, I am going to bed.

I'm sure our paths will cross the next time you morons want to troll 4chan with bullshit nonsense and I happen to be here to call you out.

Until then, peace out. Maybe get laid, I'm going to try to. G'night.

>>9663616
>Why did it take so long to post it?

It took me so long to say "Hey, wonder f these morons are so fucking stupid as t not even have googled for an image."

>>9663627
It is also the angle of the sun at altitude 3000 miles at midnight when viewed from the equator during the equinox on a flat earth.

>>9663611

The higher you go, the longer you can see the sun "set" as you can see further, it most definitely changes size: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aA0yfQkfqw

>>9663612
>I drive with my window down.

Not scientific proof with regards to the atmosphere forcing aeroplanes to spin faster/slower.

>No, they don't. Planes that fly from Sydney to South Africa don't fly over India and Northeast Africa.

They don't need to on a flat map.

>You're just repeating "down". I specifically asked how does the object in the zero pressure container know what direction is towards a higher pressure.

*up. The container is not zero pressure, don't you know it's impossible to create a perfect vacuum on earth?

>But in either case the Earth is a globe.
Nope, no measured curvature to speak of.

>>9663639
>Time-lapse proves that cameras adjust automatically for changes in exposure caused by the atmosphere.

>>9662658
>I think it is a reactionary result to certain aspects of post industrial society. Our lives rely on and are part of a system which is larger in scale than we can fully grasp. We're surrounded by and depend upon technologies which are complex and can not be understood. Those of a certain personality type (and intellect) are likely to feel angry and confused, unable to reconcile with the world around them.
This makes me think of stuff like Foundation or WH40k where science is organized like a religion because it's easier for people to accept it that way. The need to make sense of a confusing world is what led ancient peoples to create their mythological stories, maybe as human society continues to become ever more complex, things we actually do understand will need to be viewed in the same sort of way to keep the ignorant from becoming paranoid weirdos.

>>9663618
Yeah that's a cool hologram they've got.

>>9663622
No it hasn't, where's your evidence?

>>9663626
Look it up, many people performing experiments proving this.

>>9663627
How do you know?

>>9663628
>>9663638

Did you just come up with a straw man model?

>>9663631
Yes it does, watch videos of sunsets. The higher you are the better you can see it. Globalists don't get laid.

>>9663635
And you got a hologram, that's way cool.

>>9663569
Kek, why does it need a magnet now? Such nonsense.

>>9663242
Of course. And we do. And flattards consistently forget or start anew each and every day.
That's why we can't take you seriously.

>>9663652
The magnet is there so you don't have to manually lift it to start it swinging every time it stops. Same reason we switched away from grandfather clocks.

>>9663650
>Look it up, many people performing experiments proving this.
So I looked it up, and as expected, it's complete fucking nonsense. What is the explanation for how light from the moon is cooling the objects it hits? And why do we never see this behavior with other kinds of light, which have been very extensively studied down the the quantum level?

>>9663576
>By making real observations from having lived there for decades.
Anecdotal, no evidence. Discarded.

>everywhere in the Antarctic circle would see 24 hour Sun.

Not true.

>>9663578
Why would the angles be wrong? Everything works the same on a flat model.

>>9663650
>Did you just come up with a straw man model?
3000 miles is commonly stated as the height in the model. If you have a better figure you want me to do my math with then let me know. If you can't calculate the height of the sun then you should probably switch to the globe model because that number is pretty fundamental to the flat earth model.

>>9663061
This is how I know you’re a /pol/fag.

>>9663662
>Not true.
Proof or bait desu.

>>9663371
Well of course there are, you silly troll. I would ask why you're not searching on your own, but we know the answer: you're having a laugh and don't give a whit about whether photos were taken.

For others here though, the ISS moves really fast for a telescope to track. But there are a few amateur astronomers who have taken the challenge to image the ISS for fun. Some wait for a predicted transit and capture its silhouette as it crosses the Moon or Sun, some actually track it with high-speed (for a scope) computer-controlled slew motors.

>>9663653
Is that you Copernicus?

>>9663655
Suuuure, how convenient. You do realise the majority are powered by electrical motors right?

>>9663657
>it's complete fucking nonsense

Very scientific.

>And why do we never see this behavior with other kinds of light, which have been very extensively studied down the the quantum level?

Because you pussies don't want to study it because it turns everything on its head.

>>9663639
>They don't need to on a flat map.
I don't think you have looked at the most direct path between Sydney and South Africa on a flat earth map.

>The container is not zero pressure, don't you know it's impossible to create a perfect vacuum on earth?
The container doesn't have to be a perfect vacuum to reach zero pressure.

>>9663650
>No it hasn't, where's your evidence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjS3H70O89Q
Even Jeranism has come to a different conclusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSHs2_116JQ
This guy moves one glass of hot water onto a different part of the counter to be in the moonlight, invalidating the reading (the counter under the glass would have warmed in the original position).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L_0TD-E2Zg

There's plenty of evidence that all the experiments that flat earthers attempt are flawed because they can't fucking remove variables.

>>9663674
Grandfather clocks are powered by a large weight which is lifted and then hangs on a chain. This weight provides the energy used by the grandfather clock and must be reset occasionally. The taller a grandfather clock the longer it can run without being reset.

>>9663674
>Because you pussies don't want to study it because it turns everything on its head.
It can't be studied because it doesn't exist. If there was some magical property of moon light that cooled things down, you can bet some amateur scientists would be trying to make a freeze ray or some shit with it. Or make a huge collector apparatus and use it to run fridge for shits and giggles. But nobody does this because there's nothing special about moonlight.

>>9663662
>Anecdotal, no evidence. Discarded.
I thought the whole mantra behind flat earth was to believe your own observations. So when my observations don't match what you want they are discarded? Seems fair, I guess.

>Not true.
Absolutely true. That's pretty much how the Antarctic, and Arctic, circles are defined.

Why are y'all encouraging this trolling?
(protip: it's a rhetorical question. Just stop typing)

>>9663662
>Everything works the same on a flat model.
No, you SAY everything works the same on the flat model but it doesn't.

>>9663663
It's not just the height, it's the size of the sun. No one knows this either but some like to say around 32 miles across.

>>9663667
Where are the hundreds of timelapses of the Antarctic 24 hour sun?

>>9663673
Looks like a hologram to me. You can't prove otherwise.

>>9663677
Compare the globe path with the path on an equidistant map and you will see the similarity.

>The container doesn't have to be a perfect vacuum to reach zero pressure.
Impossible, anything on earth that is not a vacuum will have pressure, no matter how minute.

Anyone who is making money from flat earth like Jeranism can be discounted. Do the experiment yourself.

>>9663678
And electromagnetism is having no effect on that?

>>9663679
Do the experiment.

>>9663680
Your observations are telling you that while standing on (as far as you're concerned) a flat plane, the stars couldn't work while standing on a flat plane, you have to be on a curved one. I'd argue that's not true at all.

>>9663704
>Do the experiment.
Which experiment? None of the ones I've seen on the flat earther sites have any degree of rigor.

Here's the deal: there are three types of Flat Earthers who regularly post to 4Chan: prankster intellectuals who troll to test your knowledge and debate skills, literal Bible interpreters, and recently most proliferately: the juvenile-level troller.

None of them provide any evidence of phenomena that *require* a flat Earth model to explain, but rather place the onus on you to prove the round Earth (again, and again, and again, ...) while disavowing any science or proofs put forward. They will post memes that ostensibly 'prove' some flaw in the round Earth model, but containing geometry, maths, logic, and facts so absurdly wrong that you are compelled to display your superior intelligence and knowledge. Mostly though they will provoke you with the classic, "If you don't respond, you're a faggot and you prove me right." By responding, you've taken the bait.

They don't care whether the Earth is flat or round. Trolls await your posts (reasoned or prefereably emotional) and meet them with insulting or provocative responses, because it's about the lulz from getting you to respond. If you reference web-based information (that they could have looked up, had they interest) they will accuse you of being a shill for some absurd conspiracy.

It is simply impossible to keep up with having to explain away the barrage of stupid posts, and the anonymous mask of 4Chan removes culpability for the prankster and enables this crap. Arguing is akin to painting over mud - you just end up with a dirty brush.

>>9663704
>Where are the hundreds of timelapses of the Antarctic 24 hour sun?
We already posted them in this thread. Prove that the videos we showed you were faked.

>>9663704
>And electromagnetism is having no effect on that?
Considering the fact that the grandfather clock was invented well before electromagnetism, it has no effect.

>ITT: A master troll
I bow down to the flat earther. I am truly not worthy of your presence.

>>9663704
>Where are the hundreds of timelapses of the Antarctic 24 hour sun?
Already an example in this thread that was called fake because it hurt someone's feelings. Any reason why you wouldn't call all the others fakes?

>Compare the globe path with the path on an equidistant map and you will see the similarity.
Rendering the Earth flat it does appear similar, but on a globe this becomes the shortest distance between the two points. It doesn't on any flat map.

>Impossible, anything on earth that is not a vacuum will have pressure, no matter how minute.
Only if gravity exists.
The pressure in the container is reduced to the point the remaining gas molecules actually collect at one end of the container (the end facing the Earth). Gas is matter too. It won't just fill the container because there is space available.

>Do the experiment yourself.
Have you done the experiment yourself?

>Your observations are telling you that while standing on (as far as you're concerned) a flat plane, the stars couldn't work while standing on a flat plane, you have to be on a curved one. I'd argue that's not true at all.
That's probably because you haven't observed the southern stars and realized it makes no sense at all if the Earth is flat.

The earth is round because the genius Greg Gutfield says so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh5eWq6bxg4

Just send Flat Earthers to Antartica and watch them die of cold.
Or see for themselves that its "unusually" small.
Then send them to North Pole to prove the other side.
And have another chance of dying there by polar bear attacks.

Reality is what it is believed to be. There are no such things as discoveries, only inventions.
No one discovered the earth is round. The idea of a round earth was invented.
You could live in a world where you could fly if they taught flying was possible at school. You could live in a world where you don't need to eat to survive and remain healthy if you werent surrounded by degenerate brainlets with oral fixations for satan's dick.

Instead, you teach that things are bound arbitrarily, and make it too complex to keep up. Instead, you teach that "death is just a part of life" to teach murder and your own eventual death as suicide, and wonder why there appears to be no interest of heavenly God in this world. What knowledge you can know is undercut and counter-knowledge. Why would a sphere world be real when its just as likely to be a topography in non-euclidean space. How can non-euclidean geometry exist even as an idea when no objects in reality appear to replicate non-euclidian abstraction how could this idea even come about if discovery defacto pre-existence is the truthful expression of reality, and how could such an abstract invention be abled reproduceable within reality?

Existence is what you think it is. Don't think it's trivial.


,X

>>9663750

>>9663764
Pompous bullshit.

>>9663768
It isn't.

>>9663771

>>9663772
You're right. Not pompous.
Delusionally pretentious bullshit.

>>9663773

>>9663777
Trips of truth!

>>9663775
Also wrong. This is the fact of existence bro. Its fucking water. Its maleable. It can be anything. You're a brainlet cause you will eventually die.

>>9663780

>>9663784
Drug-addled nonsense.

>>9663786

>>9663789
Define knowledge, if you can.

>>9663794
Describe the sound of one hand clapping.

>>9663796
For being such a realist, you sure are on full tilt.

>>9663799
Make sense, and I'll participate.

>>9662765

>>9662226
Muh flat earth had only gotten big because pseuds like debunk low hanging fruit with someone else's arguments to make themselves feel intelligent

>>9662226
People were all just memeing until eventually some turbo redneck retards arrived who thought they were actually in good company.

>>9663995
Fotography is basically magic, honestly.

>>9662990
You probably think the twin towers were so.ehow tranny demons too don't ya

>>9663057
Fish eye lens are bad except when they make the Earth look flat hurr dur

>>9663158
t. Katy Pery

>>9663796
you can clap with one hand

>>9663222
This.

Unlike evolution, which you have to deny if you are a Bible literalist (unlike the filthy 'symbolic' Biblical interpreters), the idea that the Earth is round is fine, in addition to it being verified by the Koran

>>9663259
So time stretches as you go south?

>>9663707
Measure the temperature of moonlight vs the temperature of the shade, and see which is colder. Very simple.

>>9663711
Another globe expert unwilling to defend their model.

>>9663727
>We already posted them in this thread. Prove that the videos we showed you were faked.

You've posted grand total of one. It gas been debunked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzdemmXhapc

>Considering the fact that the grandfather clock was invented well before electromagnetism, it has no effect.

I had no idea they made the clocks entirely out of wood.

>>9662334
it's called "crank magnetism"
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)#Crank_magnetism
basically, fool 'em once, you can fool 'em again.

>>9663080
>From any position on a flat sphere every direction is down.
>flat sphere

>>9663121
>spin

Absolutely WHIRLING around at half the rate of the hour hand on a clock.

>>9663130
>Flat particles
brb, I think I'm taking this to /x/ for a test drive.

>>9663149
>Facts are suspiciously convenient.

facepalm.pdf

>>9663764
I'd suck of a qt futa demon

>>9663650
>watch videos of sunsets

No. outside and watch them with your own eyes. Then come back nd apologize.

>>9663061

Yes, the Holocaust is practically ancient there is basically no proof that it even happened I mean who would believe anything that happened 70 years ago.

>>9663650
>And you got a hologram, that's way cool.

Called it.

>>9663483
>And if somebody happens to get a pic of the ISS and a supply ship docking, you'll just say that the supply ship is a hologram.

Denying any evidence that shows you to be wrong indicates you are either not a very good troll, or just an idiot.

Since we're all anonymous here and nobody knows who you are, would you indulge my curiosity and tell us which you are?

>>9663995
>FUKIN SAVED

Very well done. I'd tried to show the same thing with still shots of different sized balls, ut this is better.

Flat Earth is about as believable as a turtle that has a punk hair style that breathes through it's dick.

>>9665574
Oh shit

>>9663750
So it's a win/win!

>>9663764
>You could live in a world where you could fly if they taught flying was possible at school.

You need to stop using Gilligan's Island as a science text.

>>9665547
It's not a fact just because you say it is.

>>9665554
Watch one from a plane, then come back and apologise.

>>9665567
>Called it.
You can't prove it isn't one. If they faked the moon landing of course they'll fake the ISS too.

>Denying any evidence that shows you to be wrong indicates you are either not a very good troll, or just an idiot.

False dichotomy.

>>9663791
You stopped before you got to my favorite one.

>>9665586
>You can't prove it isn't one.
Holograms don't exist.

>>9665523
Reifying cold. That is where you fucked up.

For all the globe experts in here, is there anything in the globe model that doesn't make sense to you? Are you completely trusting of NASA and what they put out? Or do you retain a space in your mind for criticality of these things?

>>9665608
>Using a straw man model and explaining why it's wrong

>>9665617
>Holograms don't exist.

Unlike the ISS, you can actually prove they exist as they are purported to be.

>>9665628
Cold is as real as heat, two sides of the same coin.

>>9665586
Have you never ridden on a plane? Sun sets beyond the horizon from a plane, as it does from the ground, if you have a cloud-free view to the horizon. The only difference is that it sets a bit later (and rises a bit earlier) than it would from the same latitude and longitude on the ground. Wonder why that is? The "spotlight sun" model would predict the opposite, but I am not sure if you use that model or something else.

>>9665645
>Unlike the ISS, you can actually prove they exist as they are purported to be.
Bullshit, prove that holograms are real.

>>9665586
Do you suggest a third option to cause you to deny evidence that you are wrong when you cling to vast pointless conspiracies in order to defend a "theory" that is totally wrecked at:

>>9663771
>>9663773
>>9663777
>>9663780
>>9663786
>>9663791
>>9665608

>>9665646
That would happen with the spotlight model, you will also see on a plane the sun get much smaller before it disappears. The higher you are, the further you can see due to a combination of perspective and the air being less dense so it's able to travel further through it.

>>9665649
Star wars/star trek

>>9665630
>Trusting NASA

Stop with that idiot straw man. The shape of the Earth was not made up by NASA, t was known for centuries before NASA was even a gleam in Kennedy's eye.

NASA has no part in, for example, >

>>9665608
>>9663791
>>9663786
>>9663780
>>9663777
>>9663773
>>9663771

>>9665654
Evidence != proof

There's evidence for both models, I just reject the evidence for a globe because there's no measurable curvature, so everything instead must be explained on a flat plane. It's by no means a complete theory, but the fundamental axiom that it is flat being true means the conclusions to why we see what we see will also have a much higher chance of being true.

Starting with the earth being a globe is a false axiom, but it doesn't mean you can't construct a model based on that which can give accurate predictions, that's the magic of mathematics, but as has already been pointed out, mathematics is a language and therefore is not inherently truthful unless the axioms it uses are.

>>9665645
>Oh, this might be fun. Please show me your version of the flat model that shows day and night at southern summer solstice . Please say you will, I'm all on tenterhooks.

>>9665660
Someone should take you on board a space shuttle and fly you into outer space to see the shape of the earth and then not turn the shuttle around until you die, so the last thing you see before you die will be the Earth being spherical.

>>9665670
is for Satan
>>9665666

>>9665660
>Stop with that idiot straw man. The shape of the Earth was not made up by NASA, t was known for centuries before NASA was even a gleam in Kennedy's eye.

This is a straw man. I never said NASA came up with the globe model, their purpose is to spread the heliocentric propaganda. They're a military wing, not a scientific one. They know how to make missiles, not rockets that go into space.

Those images are a straw man model. There is no measurable curvature, it's as simple as that.

>>9665656
You missed the point of the spotlight model which says that we can't see the sun at night not because it has set below the horizon, or because it s to faraway, but because the sun acts as a spotlght, throwing a conical beam that only illuminates a small part of the Earth. In a plane, you'd be higher, and the cone of light from the sun would be narrower at higher altitudes, so from a plane the sun would set sooner.

So I assume that you are using the "you can't see the sun because it is too far away" explanation, not the spotlight sun model? n which case, the time difference between the sun disappearing at "sunset" should be more or less the same time. But he "distant sun can't be seen any more, too far" concept would not allow for the sun to be seen passing beyond the horizon, as it is from the ground or a plane.

>>9665670

Did you copy that from a vsauce comment section?

>>9665667
Pic related offers us some potential clues as to how the sun moves.

>>9665666
>It is by no means a complete theory.


You got that right! Even worse, it is completely blown the fuck out of the water by all of the examples listed at >>9665660


But let's look at them if you're up for it. Start with number one, and explain how what is observed by very living soul south of the equator who cares to look s compatible with a flat model.

>>9665670
Please practice reading comprehension. I linked a series of very nice proofs that the flat theory is utterly at variance with observable evidence. Don't waste a space ship ride on me, I already understand the globe.

>>9665679
Then refute one or two of the mages, for fun. Hard mode, do the first one, as it is the one most easily observed by millions and millions of people.

If your answer is "Every human being in the Southern Hemisphere is n on the conspiracy", I will be disappointed in your mental agility.

>>9665684
The sun sets sooner in the sense that the spotlight wouldn't be covering you, but you can still see the sun itself for longer because it's not hidden by perspective/atmosphere.

>>9665679
>I never said NASA came up with the globe model, their purpose is to spread the heliocentric propaganda.
You asked f anybody who understands the globe Earth has any doubts, or do they just swallow everything NASA says. I replied that the theory s in no way dependent on ever having seen anything produced by NASA, as t was well understood before NASA came into existence, by many centuries (millennia in many arts of the world.)

Claiming that understanding the shape of the Earth is dependent on buying whatever NASA says is thus a straw man. If you did not intend that, why bring NASA up at all?

>>9665713
So your interpretation is that the sun is a spotlight for no particular reason, since you can still see it after you are no longer in the cone of light it throws, and it remains visible until it goes so far away, always well above the horizon, until it is so far away you can't see it? That's a new one to me.

>>9665694
So with number 1, is it saying that Octans can be seen by people in Australia and South America at the same time?

>>9665689
Wait are you trolling me or are you trolling the flatists? Is this shit going recursive?

>>9665713
>The sun sets...but you can still see it...

Sides orbiting a round Earth.

>>9665723
NASA and other government "space" agencies are the only source for images of the earth in its entirety. If it's true that they're not providing real photos of the earth, then the sensible question is why?

>>9665730
What I'm saying is just because you're out of the spotlight doesn't mean you still can't see the spotlight source.

>>9665731
Not at the same time, in the same direction. Always due south. t never tracks across the sky from west to east, it is always due south, not only at A. B and C but anywhere in the southern hemisphere.
The maker of the mage gets a little too cute by saying "All day," sine of course you can't se eit n the daytime at all. The point is that, all night to anybody at any and all points in the southern hemisphere, it is always due south.

But on the flat model, due south s not the same direction. In order to be due south in South America, it has to track away from due south in Africa or Australia. But t does not, it is always due south.

It is like the North Star in the northern hemisphere, but the North star would always be north to everybody in either model -- it is the south celestial pole that is not possible on a flat Earth.

Please forgive any dropped letters, ths keyboard is apparently dying.

>>9665755
But all the flat model does is make it so that it is the stars that are moving, not the earth. Octans moves in such a way in the sky that it's visible to both continents when they look in their versions of south.

>>9665577

>>9665723
>NASA bullshit

Let's say for a moment that I agree, for the sake of argument, that NASA is evile and is hiding something and is faking all the pictures of Earth from space. EVEN is that is true, the overwhelming proof of the shape of the Earth, predating and independent of NASA, shows that, whatever they are hiding, it is not the Truth that The Earth Is Flat. We knew the shape of the Earth before NASA existed, he repeated for emphasis.

>Spotlight stuff

Then why do you want it to be a spotlight? That is not necessary if it disappears not when you go out of the light cone, but when t gets too far away. The spotlight sun was nente n an attempt to explain why a sun orbiting above a flat earth does not illuminate the whole surface all day and night. You don't need both the spotlight hypothesis and the "it goes to far away to be seen" hypothesis. Combining them gets silly, and you wind up saying things like "you can see the sun after it sets." Maybe pick one.

It does not matter which, neither accounts for the still-visibly-a-circle sun gradually passing beyond the horizon.

>>9665735
it's not flat it's a cube xD

>>9665775
Was intended to reply to >>9665741

>>9665767
But it s visible from everywhere always due south, it does not track across the horizon so it can go be in the totally different direction that is south to everybody else. If you watch it, it seems to spin in place, never going anywhere, all night long, from every point in the southern hemisphere. It does not move. around to the other side of the Earth so people over there can see it being due south. On opposte sides of the same continent, where due south is in significantly different directions, and t is night at the same time for at least part of the night, it is always due south for observers in either location. It always spins in place. It never hustles along to be due south of the next folks.

>>9665779
You're about to post Time Cube aren't you?

>>9665775
>We knew the shape of the Earth before NASA existed, he repeated for emphasis.

Incorrect, it was a belief then and it's a belief now. The debate was still taking place in the 1900s. All evidence for a globe at that point relied on observing how other things behaved, rather than measuring the actual earth itself. From Erostephenes who looked at shadows (which works on both models), to Copernicus who looked at how the celestial bodies moved (which works on both models), to sailors watching ships disappear (easily explained on the flat model). When it comes to actually measuring the earth itself, there is no curvature, and it is not moving.

>
Then why do you want it to be a spotlight? That is not necessary if it disappears not when you go out of the light cone, but when t gets too far away. The spotlight sun was nente n an attempt to explain why a sun orbiting above a flat earth does not illuminate the whole surface all day and night. You don't need both the spotlight hypothesis and the "it goes to far away to be seen" hypothesis. Combining them gets silly, and you wind up saying things like "you can see the sun after it sets." Maybe pick one.

Yes you can have both and it works perfectly. The sun doesn't "set" behind a curve as already mentioned.

>>9665790
Let's simplify -- to explain #1, you need to explain how the same point in the sky will always be seen to be directly rimward of everybody in the Southern hemisphere. You need to explain a point that stretches across 360 degrees.

>>9665800
>The sun doesn't "set" behind a curve as already mentioned.

>>9663523


It does, in fact, visibly set beyond the horizon. Whether the curve is the curve of a sphere or a circle, or shit the straight edge of a square or a cube, the sun visibly sets beyond it.

Everybody in the world can go outside on a cloudless day and watch it happen. If you deny that, your conspiracy now has to include everybody n the world!

If you have to deny that something everybody in the word can see happening to keep your delusion alive, I'm not sure there is much point talking to you.

>>9665790
Looks like it's moving to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MRjDTA22A4

>>9665800
>The sun doesn't "set" behind a curve as already mentioned.

>>9665822
Octans is in the center of the vid almostat the horizon. It is spinning in place. It is not tracking across the horizon , it is staying due south the whole time.

As it does for everybody in the southern hemisphere, always.

Stop dodging. It is OK to admit you can't show a point that covers 360 degrees beyond the edge of the world, nobody can. Trying to say that a phenomenon that can be observed by every human in the southern hemisphere, as far back as there are records of observing t, is not happening just makes you look retarded.

>>9665824
Moon does to, in case the sun is too bright and hurts your eyes. Neither stays above the horizon and just dwindles into the distance.
In order to salvage the flat model, you need to accept the things that everybody in the world can see with their own eyes.

The sunsets and sunrises we all can see happen. As do the moonsets and moonrises.

Sunsets/rises will present huge problems to your theory in other ways, but do you really ant to argue that things we all can see daily can't happen in your model?

>>9665809
>>9665824
This is called an illusion of perspective, the sun is not lower than the water: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MRjDTA22A4

Otherwise you would also have claim that the water is at the height of your eye level (as that is where the horizon will meet you).

>>9665838

Nothing in that video is spinning in place. Their visibility will depend on not only where you are on earth, but also where they are in the sky. There's a reason Octans is said to be the closest constellation to the southern pole, because it is not a pole star/constellation, it moves.

>>9665608
I did not know there was an 8. Or a 7. Do you have that?

>>9665843
The way sunsets/rises happen don't make sense on the globe model.

On the globe model, the water has to curve upwards before it starts curving downwards, because the horizon is always at eye level, all despite the supposed fact that the earth should be curving downwards constantly, so you should be looking downwards during a sunrise/set, not straight on.

>>9665857
And that response obviates the fact that this whole thread is a troll.

>>9663711
>They don't care whether the Earth is flat or round. Trolls await your posts (reasoned or preferably emotional) and meet them with insulting or provocative responses, because it's about the lulz from getting you to respond.

>>9665523
>Another globe expert unwilling to defend their model.

Unwilling to piss time away with a troller.

>>9665894

Typical shill response using a meme pic from the first page of google images and providing nothing to back up their claims.

>>9665902
So predictable.

>>9663711
>they will accuse you of being a shill

>>9665889

>>9665939
>>9665941
You are posting the kind of memes that a middle aged government agent would post to try and blend in.

>>9665953
You are posting the kind of idiocy that an underage twink would post, hoping to be edgy.

>>9665961
I'm only giving you tips. You stick out like a sore thumb to a seasoned 4chan user.

>>9665964
What of it?
If appearing like you is the alternative, I'll take it.
Is anyone supposed to take a flat-Earther seriously?

>>9665970
>Is anyone supposed to take a flat-Earther seriously?

You clearly don't want them to be. I wonder why?

>>9665981
Lemme spell it out so your innuendo doesn't have to play at being Damocles' sword: you would say it's because I'm part of a conspiracy to 'hide the truth' of a flat Earth.

I would take you seriously if you posed sensible arguments in favor of a flat Earth. But you don't. The responses in this thread have been anything but sincere. Or if they were, then I'd have to take pity on you. I'm not buying that.

Also, you're not even proving a flat Earth. Everything in this thread is about how the round Earth arguments have been flawed (and haven't, but that brings us back to the stupid responses). An allegory to your contentions is like someone saying their house is whit. You come out and say it's yellow, and your proof is that it looks yellow to you. I note you have yellow sunglasses on. You say they have special lenses that correct light.

But even if the house isn't white, you never prove the house is yellow. So I can't take you seriously. The memes are posted to get to *your* level of stupid, not 4Chan's.

>>9665580
>So it's a win/win!
Exactly

>>9665656
>I saw it in a science fiction movie
>therefore it exists in real life

>>9665666
>I can't personally measure the curvature of the earth
>therefore there is no curvature
I bet you think that atoms, viruses, and deep sea fish are also elaborate hoaxes.

earth is a rhombus pls respond

OP here, pls stop arguing about the shape of the Earth. This thread is supposed to be why ppl are delusional not trying to cure them of their delusions.

>>9665845

You can save your time with posting goofy loon YouTube videos -- as posted several times before, I've watched enough of them to know not to watch any more. If YOU can't explain what you are talking about, that is because you do not understand it well enough. So, you have labeled the phenomenon "an illusion of perspective." Cool, explain how that works please. A label is not an explanation.

>>9665857
More dodging...

If you cannot see the center of rotation in that image, even after I tell you where to look for it, then that indicates your basic trollish nature. You seem able to type a coherent sentence, so I am ruling out just being totally retarded.

If "spinning in place" bothers you, I'll rephrase -- spinning around a set place, a point in the sky seen due south, this point and the stars in proximity to it never track to the west, never set. They just stay up there, all night, spinning around the south celestial poll. As the North Star does over the North poll.

But let's play some more, I am hoping for an entertaining answer. Please, describe the path that stars around the celestial south pole, the center of rotation in the video you or one of your coreligionists posted >>9665822

Your description has to allow for what your video shows -- that they stay tightly circling the same point in the sky, not moving off to the west, and yet are never visible in any part f the sky other than due south for everybody in the Southern Hemisphere and and are never seen to track away from that point.

No changing the subject to start a new argument about water or hand-wavy appeals to made-up terms -- we're talking about the path stars seem to take in the night sky. You need a path that s both always, ALWAYS. due south when see by anybody south of the equator, is never observed to track away to the West so as to move on and be due south for the next round of viewers for whom due south is as much as 180 degrees n the opposite direction.

>>9665874
I do. Here you go.

I'm not sure he's as on-point here, so I don't often use this one.

In a discussion of them with flatists, whether trolls, morons or just ignorant (which is curable, with great difficulty) I've never gotten past the first one, the only way they really try to get past it is to had-wave and change the subject. It is impossible to answer under their model -- under any variation of their model.

>>9667006
I mean, he's accurate, but some of the others are much easier to visualize,so you don't waste as much time with people who are struggling with getting hat he's saying.

There are at least 20 of these, by the way. The first handful is sufficient, though, and are the most easily understood by non-technically people, and the hardest to creative misunderstand by trolls.

I just have a warm spot in my heart for 8, since (though many people had thought of it before me) I thought of t myself before seeing anybody else's version. It's like the one Sherlock Holmes story I solved before he did. Gotta treasure such moments.

>>9666245
Oh stop it, you knew what you were doing when you did it.

>>9665666
>(Globe is wrong) but it doesn't mean you can't construct a model based on that which can give accurate predictions

Yeah, the ability to give accurate predictions is how we test a hypothesis and eventually elevate it to a theory, if it correctly makes them again and again.

The problem with the flat hypothesis is it predicts things like the sun either must always illuminate the whole disk, or set, but in the latter case night and day are simultaneous all over the world, and we know that is wrong. So then the hand-waving starts, and things like "the sun acts like a spotlight" or "you can't see the bright sun when it is too far away, even though you can see the fainter stars that are way beyond it," and similar unexplained or unobserved shit. Flat Earth predicts that every point on Earth can see one set of circumpolar stars, the SAME one over the center of rotation, and the concept of two centers of rotation is impossible, yet people to the North see the northern circumpolar stars, and people in the south cannot see them and instead see the different set of stars to the south that are circumpolar to a point always in the south.

The issue is that, as you rightly say, the globe model correctly predicts what will happen -- from the rotation of hurricanes to the movements of the stars to which route is the shortest to fly from Point a to Point B. The model fits every bit of data by which you can check it, every prediction it makes is correct.

This leaves the dedicated flat Earth enthusiast in a bad position; the only way he can appeal against the correct model is "I don't understand" claims, as in "I can't see a curve!" nonsense, or he has to just go full tinfoil and try to explain how navigators in Columbus's day were secretly working for NASA in spreading the false view of the world that The Illuminati WANT us to believe.

Globe model makes correct predictions, Flat model predicts things that do not happen and have to be explained away.

The end?

>>9665741
>Only people why can get to space can take pictures of the entire Earth. I can't do it from my basement because of a government conspiracy.

>>9665800
>Yes you can have both and it works perfectly.
OK, but if you have both, you have to explain why it is not visible for the sun to set twice each evening, onc when you move out of the cone of lght, which s the whole purpose of the spotlight model, and then again when t get's too far away to be seen any more, which is the purpose of the "as far as I know has no name model that says you can't see the sun at night because it is too far away, it fades into the distance."

You think they are both true. Do you have any evidence that both are true? Or are you just this afraid of retracting misstatement on an anonymous board>

>>9666008
That's a good image, but can we please find another guy who will say that evidence will change his mind, other than Bill Fucking Nye?

>>9667015
I found 24, but 14 apparently had posted text that went with it, and I can't see it makes much of a point without the text explaining what he's trying to show. Some of the later ones essentially make the same point as an earlier one, but in a different way.

In any case, although it is interesting to look at them all and see what proofs he's finding that flat model is totally incompatible with what we actually see, in the end all you really need is the first handful, since nobody can refute them, and all attempts soon turn to changing the subject or hand-wavy bullshit.

>>9667063
>Or are you just this afraid of retracting misstatement on an anonymous board>

To show you that this is easy to do, not fatal to you or necessarily to your argument, I'll provide an example:

Earlier in the thread, at >>9663611, I stated the apparent diameter of the sun as seen in the sky is about a third of a degree. This is in error, it is in fact about half a degree. I want to correct that, though it does on change the point I was making.

>>9667234
>does on

Read "does not"