You can't provide hard evidence that the earth is round.

File: 91 KB, 900x600, Flag_of_the_United_Nations.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

You can't provide hard evidence that the earth is round. Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:19:14 2010 No.2073715 [Reply] [Original]

I have posted the flag of the U.N. purely as an example of a theoretical flat earth model to show that circumnavigation on a flat earth is entirely possible. There is no hard evidence to suggest circumnavigation has ever occurred south to north or that a south pole has ever been found.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXkoIBDXwd8 The earth lacks the amount of curvature that you expect to see at the altitude of 100,000 feet. The camera in the video has a very clear amount of barrel distortion creating much of the visual anomaly of curvature. The proof of the barrel distortion rests in the fact that the arch of the visual curvature changes in the video as the camera tilts. Precisely how much visual curvature is present with a proper camera lens is unknown, but it is fairly certain that light would bend on its way to the observer at such a high altitude due to the changing mediums and changing atmospheric pressure on the journey to 100,000 feet. Interestingly, amateur videos clash with the visual presentation generated by NASA in that they do not depict the level of visual curvature NASA has provided in photographs and videos.

I ASSURE YOU THIS IS _NOT_ TROLLING. Flat earth theory is real. http://theflatearthsociety.org/

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:22:14 2010 No.2073729 get the fuck off faggot troll

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:23:14 2010 No.2073732 >>2073715 >>I ASSURE YOU THIS IS _NOT_ TROLLING. Flat earth theory is real. http://theflatearthsociety.org/ That does not make it right. Die.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:23:14 2010 No.2073733 I've seen the earth from Space. Watch the Nasa channel, they have space walks live all the time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:24:14 2010 No.2073738 >>2073729 There really are people that theorize that the earth may be flat. If you are not interested in debating or trying to provide hard evidence for round earth theory, there is no need for you to post.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:25:14 2010 No.2073744 >>2073738 Well, they can have their theories, but the Earth is round, FACT. Re:1 Fe:0

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:26:14 2010 No.2073748 >>2073738 I would enjoy watching you die a slow, painful death. I assure you I am being completely serious.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:26:14 2010 No.2073749

>>2073733
I have already provided criticism of NASA photography and videos in the original post with the link to the Youtube video. Amateur photography and videos clash with the visual presentation provided by NASA. Read how the visual curvature is explained in the original post.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:26:14 2010 No.2073751 >>2073738 Debating what you want to debate is just as logical as debating that [H+] (Hydronium ion concentration) of 6*10^-6 M is not equal to a pH of 5.22184875 So shut the fuck up and go take your bullshit somewhere else.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:27:14 2010 No.2073755 I have a theory that the moon is a holographic projection created by witches. IT'S LEGIT GUYZ LISTEN TO ME IT'S DA TRUTH.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:27:14 2010 No.2073758 >>2073744 You are unable to support this baseless assertion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:28:14 2010 No.2073762 Evidence: - time zones - star shifts - sun movement - sun seasonal shifts - horizon (boat example) - earth magnetic field - temperature shifts due to axial wobble

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:28:14 2010 No.2073763 >>2073751 It seems you have religious bias against the idea that the earth could be flat and are unable to provide hard evidence for a round earth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:30:14 2010 No.2073766 >>2073763 >>religous bias HOW THE FUCK DO YOU COME TO THAT CONCLUSION

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:30:14 2010 No.2073768 >>2073763 go learn some fucking physics, or use a GPS fucking retard

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:30:14 2010 No.2073770 >>2073762 You forgot lunar eclipses

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:31:14 2010 No.2073771 File: 581 KB, 708x639, randomearth.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2073749 >>2073758 I trust nasa over amatures.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:31:14 2010 No.2073772 >>2073762 All natural and observable phenomena are possible on flat earth models. You simply don't understand flat earth theory. In vague summarization, it involves a spotlight sun orbiting above and going around a central point such as the north pole.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:31:14 2010 No.2073773 File: 33 KB, 410x303, sagesagesagesage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] sage

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:33:14 2010 No.2073778 >>2073771 Why do you trust one witness for data when multiple other sources are conflicting with that one source? It is a sign that NASA may be untrustworthy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:33:14 2010 No.2073779 >>2073772 Explain how the Earth's shadow during lunar eclipses is always round and never an eclipse.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:33:14 2010 No.2073780 File: 5 KB, 150x120, sageatombomb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:33:14 2010 No.2073781

faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:34:14 2010 No.2073783
File: 37 KB, 555x448, THISISWHYWECANTHAS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage! sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage

>>	OP Thu Nov 18 02:35:14 2010 No.2073785 explain seasons

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:35:14 2010 No.2073786 >>2073772 No they aren't. All natural and observable phenomena are possible on round earth models. You simply don't understand round earth theory. In vague summarization, it involves Earth orbiting around the sun.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:35:14 2010 No.2073787

>>2073772
>All natural and observable phenomena are possible on flat earth models.
Evidence:
- time zones -Possible on FE
- star shifts -No
- sun movement -Possible on FE
- sun seasonal shifts -No
- horizon (boat example) -No
- earth magnetic field -You can't even POSSIBLY tell me you can prove this on a FET
- temperature shifts due to axial wobble -No

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:36:14 2010 No.2073794 File: 34 KB, 500x375, stopposting.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2073785 You already pissed off /sci/ so we won't help you lose your ignorant way of thinking go fucking get yourself educated, also, SAGE

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:36:14 2010 No.2073795

>>2073779
My ability to explain this is irrelevant to the shape of the world. We cannot see precisely how these eclipses occur due to our limited perception, and when we imagine an explanation it does not dictate the shape of the natural world. Nonetheless, the Flat Earth Society has theoretical explanations for lunar eclipses.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Lunar+Eclipse
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/The%20shadow%20on%20the%20moon%20during%20a%20Lunar%20Eclips
e%20is%20round

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:37:14 2010 No.2073799 File: 15 KB, 400x265, spacex20080928falcon1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2073778 Nasa doesn't work for you? Here's SpaceX's first space mission.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:37:14 2010 No.2073800 >>2073715 The flat earth society exists as a group for rhetoric and debate based on the patently false assertion of a flat earth, it was never intended to be taken seriously

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:37:14 2010 No.2073802

If you really want to insist the earth is flat, it's fairly straightforward to work out the modifications you'd have to make to the laws of physics to make everything appear as if the earth was round. Just express everything in terms of spherical coordinates centered on the earth, and then reinterpret those coordinates as rectangular. It's a bit like the brain-in-the-vat hypothesis, though; we can't disprove it, but we should assign it a very low likelihood because it's far more complicated than needed to explain our observations.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:39:14 2010 No.2073811 File: 141 KB, 640x359, Magnets.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The Earth has a magnetic field. You lose. /Thread

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:39:14 2010 No.2073812

>>2073787
I also forgot the aurora Borealis and Raleigh's effect...

Oh and vitamin D deficiency due to angular defraction of beta sunrays that activate vitamin D (polarized countries cannot make it and have to consume it but equatorial countries can make it)

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:41:14 2010 No.2073818

>>2073787
The magnetic field of the earth says nothing about the shape of the earth. Horizons are entirely possible in flat earth theory. Boats traveling on the ocean simply merge with the horizon and their shrinking in size makes it appear as if the mast is lowering. Theories about light bending explain the way the sun appears to sink. It is quite likely that light bends in the atmosphere due to the changing mediums of the atmosphere before light reaches the observer. And as a reminder, I'm not trying to prove flat earth theory. I am only proving theoretical possibility.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:43:14 2010 No.2073825 >>2073818 Learn what the fuck a magnetic field is and how it's produced or get the FUCK out. It depends COMPLETELY on the "shape" of a planet you faggot sack of shit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:44:14 2010 No.2073828 >>2073802 The reason why you should not dismiss it is because nobody has proven the reverse, that the earth is round. All assertions about the earth being round are baseless assumptions.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:45:14 2010 No.2073831 File: 16 KB, 550x375, oh shi fire.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2073825 DAAAAAM OP GOT FUCKING FLAMED AND TOLD

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:45:14 2010 No.2073832 >>2073825 That is merely your assumption.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:45:14 2010 No.2073834 >>2073818 Could you explain Earth's magnetic fields in a flat earth model without using magnetic monopoles and still keeping the apparent distance between landmasses?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:45:14 2010 No.2073839 >>2073828 GO TURN ON A FUCKING GPS DOES IT WORK FOR YOU AND GET YOU TO WHERE YOU NEED TO BE? THEN THE EARTH IS FUCKING ROUND

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:46:14 2010 No.2073843 >>2073834 actually since magnetic monopole fields have been detected inside of materials, that's not necessarily an assumption you can make

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:47:14 2010 No.2073845 File: 228 KB, 531x353, wonka_wtfamireading.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] all. troll'd.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:47:14 2010 No.2073846 >>2073834 Clearly state why a magnetic field requires a round earth. I won't be doing work for you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:48:14 2010 No.2073854 >>2073843 >Implying the Earth's magnetic field is ferrous. HURRRRRR DURRRRRRRRRRR

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:48:14 2010 No.2073852 >>2073812 There you go; if FE was true we could all synthesize vit D!

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:48:14 2010 No.2073853

>>2073828
I didn't say dismiss it. Rather, assign it a low probability. If evidence were found that discredited the round-earth model but not the coordinate-transformed flat-earth model, then we would revisit this assignment. But by construction, no such evidence is possible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:48:14 2010 No.2073857 the earth is an oblong spheroid if I am not mistaken

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:48:14 2010 No.2073858 >>2073839 You'll need to explain why GPS is dependent on the shape of the earth first.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:49:14 2010 No.2073860 >>2073843 >magnetic monopole >monopole hahaha oh wow.jpg

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:50:14 2010 No.2073861 >>2073853 You shouldn't assign low probability to a theory if you can't show another theory is more likely.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:50:14 2010 No.2073862
File: 34 KB, 750x600, EpicFacepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

From their website:
Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

Subsequently:

Q: "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?
A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

>Mfw.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:51:14 2010 No.2073863 So if the earth is flat what happens when I walk off the side?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:52:14 2010 No.2073868 >>2073863 Some have theorized that there is not an edge, but if there is an edge, it is relatively unknown what is beyond it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:53:14 2010 No.2073876 >>2073862 I lol'd.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:54:14 2010 No.2073880 >>2073868 then what is on the other side how thick is it

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:55:14 2010 No.2073889 >>2073880 Unknown.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:57:14 2010 No.2073897 >>2073861 In the case of the round-earth model versus the coordinate-transformed flat-earth model, the former is simpler. That is why it is more likely.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:57:14 2010 No.2073898 File: 24 KB, 288x344, this fucking faggot, now gtfo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2073858 if this pic doesn't explain it to you then an hero. period

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:58:14 2010 No.2073901 >>2073897 Making baseless assertions again. It's quite common for those who believe in round earth theory to do this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:59:14 2010 No.2073905 File: 29 KB, 523x350, 000a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 02:59:14 2010 No.2073908 >>2073898 Nice. You posted an irrelevant picture of a sphere. This proves nothing about the shape of the earth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:00:14 2010 No.2073910 File: 22 KB, 400x266, 000c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:01:14 2010 No.2073911 File: 7 KB, 299x169, 000d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Filenamefag !gzv4si5.ww Thu Nov 18 03:01:14 2010 No.2073914 File: 40 KB, 600x449, annoyed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2073800 >>2073800 THIS. Stop posting, /sci/. Just stop posting.

>>	not OP Thu Nov 18 03:02:14 2010 No.2073915 >>2073898 I'm not a flat earthe believer myself, but GPS could probably work in a flat earth model if the satellites can somehow suspends itself in the air.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:02:14 2010 No.2073918 If you go into a high altitude the earth starts to curve. If it was flat, motion wouldn't appear the same.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:02:14 2010 No.2073919 Is there anything adjacent to the sides of the planet. What does it look like from the sides? If there are no sides how does one not simply travel off indefinably?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:02:14 2010 No.2073922 We have seen dozens of other planets, all spherical. A flat earth also implies you can fall off.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:02:14 2010 No.2073924 >>2073901 It's a pretty trivial conclusion. If we can't agree that a duck is simpler than a duck in a box without me being asked for proof, there's not much point in discussing it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:03:14 2010 No.2073926 File: 7 KB, 276x183, 000e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:04:14 2010 No.2073929 File: 24 KB, 527x350, 000g.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:04:14 2010 No.2073931 >>2073914 I think everyone in this thread, regardless of what they're arguing, knows this. (Now someone will dispute me on this point.)

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:04:14 2010 No.2073932 Worst troll I've ever seen, so obvious. And yet, so many people bit. The Greeks proved round Earth thousands of years ago without any modern tech. But it's not like OP really believes flat Earth anyway because he's just a stupid troll.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:05:14 2010 No.2073936 File: 22 KB, 527x350, 000f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:05:14 2010 No.2073937 Just posting in a shit thread also, nice doubles! They're sequential and next to each other. >>2073799 >>2073800

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:05:14 2010 No.2073940 File: 10 KB, 183x276, 000h.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:06:14 2010 No.2073944 File: 208 KB, 1152x1728, 000j.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:06:14 2010 No.2073946 File: 56 KB, 768x1024, 000i.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:07:14 2010 No.2073949 So that must mean the moon is flat too? But I can see that from earth... it looks kinda like a sphere... >norainge ignorace

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:08:14 2010 No.2073951

>>2073918
I already explained the appearance of curvature from high altitudes in the first post.
>>2073922
How do you know the earth is a planet? The earth doesn't have to be like the celestial bodies above us. The ability to fall off does not invalidate the flat earth model. If there is an edge, it is located at the edge of the sun's path and is probably frozen because of this. Water would not fall off.
>>2073914
This is also baseless. The Flat Earth Society has a long history reaching back into the 1800s. It was founded as the Universal Zetetic Society by Samuel Burly Rowabotham. (May have misspelled his name.) There is no evidence in its long history that the goal of the society was simply to exercise critical thinking skills. People genuinely believe the earth to be flat in the society. Visit their forums and see for yourself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:08:14 2010 No.2073952 what's with the random porn dump?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:08:14 2010 No.2073954 >>2073937 They are consecutive posts: 99 and 00. This is /sci/, it IS in fact that slow.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:10:14 2010 No.2073958 >>2073932 This is a common misconception. Nobody has ever shown where the Greeks "proved" this. _Some_ Greeks assumed the earth to be round and theorized about it. That is all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:10:14 2010 No.2073959 >>2073932 It brings up the question of whether we can prove the earth is round. Many will say yes, but we can easily make the answer no by demanding unreasonable standards of proof. What I don't understand is why you're so upset at the thread.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:11:14 2010 No.2073962 >>2073800 So was /b/ but look what happened.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:11:14 2010 No.2073963 >>2073952 What? Oh, sorry. I just figured this thread couldn't get much worse.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:11:14 2010 No.2073965 >>2073959 I have never demanded unreasonable standards of proof.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:11:14 2010 No.2073966 If the Moon weren't tidally locked to Earth, I wonder where we would be scientifically and mathematically... And of course I'm guessing Flat-Earthers vigorously deny the libration of the Moon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:12:14 2010 No.2073969 File: 57 KB, 598x720, 1289076159835.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2073963

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:13:14 2010 No.2073974 >>2073966 Read up on flat earth theory. http://theflatearthsociety.org/ You are uninformed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:15:14 2010 No.2073980 >>2073951 But is there any connection between the old society and the forum?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:18:14 2010 No.2073986 >>2073974 Of course, I forgot that comparing the Moon to the Earth was a non-sequitur. Anyway, the Flat-Earth "theory" isn't falsifiable, as any direct evidence against it is a "conspiracy", so can it really be considered a theory?

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:19:14 2010 No.2073989

>>2073980
I _think_ there is. I believe there is some history on the website. I forgot the details, but the really important part is that it is the main website for discussing flat earth theory. People do appear to express genuine support and belief in flat earth theory on their forums, and I genuinely hold flat earth theory to be plausible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:21:14 2010 No.2073991 File: 41 KB, 714x548, earthshadow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >88 posts and 21 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view. God damn it, /sci/.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:21:14 2010 No.2073993 >>2073986 It is entirely falsifiable. We must thoroughly examine the earth. We could search for the edge or the infinite cold wasteland beyond the sun's path if there is no edge.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:22:14 2010 No.2073994 >>2073991 Haven't you heard? Lunar eclipses are caused by an unidentified dark body passing in front of the Moon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:22:14 2010 No.2073995 >>2073958 By measuring the shadows cast by the sun at noon in two different cities in Egypt seperated by a significant distance on the summer solstice, Eratosthenes demonstrated that the Earth was a sphere.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:22:14 2010 No.2073996 >>2073991 countersage

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:23:14 2010 No.2073999 >>2073993 Of course it's falsifiable, but they seem to reject every bit of falsifying evidence given to them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:24:14 2010 No.2074003 Stupid Bible literalists.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:24:14 2010 No.2074004 >>2073994 If that's true than why doesn't the "dark body" block the light of stars?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:24:14 2010 No.2074005 >>2073995 Shadows only say something about the position of the sun and not the shape of the earth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:25:14 2010 No.2074006 >>2074004 Because the Jews control it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:25:14 2010 No.2074009 >>2073778 I can find multiple 1st graders that will consistently tell me that 1+1 = 11, doesnt make them right. I must admit, I'm outright fascinated by this level of denial, it's genuinely intriguing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:26:14 2010 No.2074010 >>2073994 You're kidding, right? There's no way something close enough to be orbiting between the moon and Earth would be "unidentified"

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:26:14 2010 No.2074011

>>2074004
It could, but nobody would necessarily notice it due to the many other various things that keep you from seeing the stars at night. Also, it is theorized that it would stay close to the sun some or most of the time. I will remind everyone that this explanation for lunar eclipses is entirely theoretical. The natural world took its shape before we imagined explanations for lunar eclipses, so even if a round earth theory explanation for lunar eclipses is plausible, it does not dictate the shape of the earth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:27:14 2010 No.2074013 >>2074010 Of course I'm kidding. It's just one of the idiotic explanations on their website.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:29:14 2010 No.2074020

>>2074010
It has already been identified as a shadow object if it exists, and it is entirely possible for a celestial body that big to remain relatively unknown if it emits no light and rarely noticeably obscures the view of other celestial bodies. It could do this by staying close to the sun some of the time.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:30:14 2010 No.2074022
File: 21 KB, 240x249, troll thread.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

LRN2ERATOSTHENES YOU ASSRAPING NIGGERFAGGOT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

BEING BETTER THAN YOU SINCE 200BC

NOW EVERYONE (read: trolls) SHUT THE FUCK UP

EVERYONE BELOW AND ABOVE THIS LINE IS GETTING TROLLED AND/OR IS A TROLL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thanks for playing

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:30:14 2010 No.2074023

>>2074011
you realize the object would have to be far away from the sun to cast a shadow on the moon... from the moon's perspective it would have to block out the entire sun... about the size and distance as the earth is from the sun... the closer it is the bigger it has to be... did you take geometry?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:30:14 2010 No.2074024 Ever seen a harvest moon? /thread

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:31:14 2010 No.2074026 >>2074020 In this model the sun is probably a spotlight disc, so the shadow object wouldn't be reflecting light if next to the sun.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:33:14 2010 No.2074029 >>2074022 So far nobody has demonstrated precisely how Eratosthenes demonstrated that the earth is round rather than assuming it to be round and theorizing about it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:33:14 2010 No.2074030 File: 91 KB, 550x380, 1244625121220.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Sooo....um....OP, What's on the other side to us of this 'conceptual' flat earth?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:34:14 2010 No.2074033 >>2074004 The stars are closer to the earth than the moon, which is further from the earth than the dark body.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:36:14 2010 No.2074036 >>2074030 Why would I know that?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:36:14 2010 No.2074038 >>2074033 Oh fucking hell, do people actually believe this bullshit?

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:36:14 2010 No.2074039

>>2074029
>>2074029
>>2074029

if you're going to be wrong, at least be wrong having read the second paragraph

"
He was the first person to calculate the circumference of the earth by using a measuring system using stades, or the length of stadiums during that time period (with remarkable accuracy). He was the first person to prove that the Earth was round. He was the first to calculate the tilt of the Earth's axis (also with remarkable accuracy). He may also have accurately calculated the distance from the earth to the sun and invented the leap day. He also created a map of the world based on the available geographical knowledge of the era. In addition, Eratosthenes was the founder of scientific chronology; he endeavored to fix the dates of the chief literary and political events from the conquest of Troy.
"
see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Eratosthenes.27_measurement_of_the_earth.27s_circumference

it's well documented, we even have his notes.
which he kept in books. are you familiar with books?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:37:14 2010 No.2074041 >>2074020 >Implying we couldn't see it during day time

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:37:14 2010 No.2074044 >>2074033 Not necessarily. The shadow object can safely block stars _some_ of the time without causing anybody to notice, because much of the time something else like clouds or city lights obscure the view of stars.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:38:14 2010 No.2074048 >>2074041 This does not at all imply that the shadow object would be visible in the daytime. The sun is probably a spotlight disc in this model meaning it would not light up objects next to it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:39:14 2010 No.2074052 >>2074048 Then why would it light up other planets?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:41:14 2010 No.2074060 >>2074039 So far you've said that Eratosthenes made calculations that are dependent on round earth theory being true and once again asserted that he proved the earth to be round without showing where. Useless text. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:43:14 2010 No.2074069 >>2074052 Nobody said it would. Celestial objects are perfectly capable of creating light. See: stars.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:43:14 2010 No.2074070

>>2074036
>>Why would I know that?

Well, if the Flat Earth theory were a realistic and thought out scientific theory as opposed to, say, some crap made up whilst ignoring all the physical evidence to the contrary, I would expect someone to have some theory as to the nature of the reverse side of this crazy disc we may live on.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:44:14 2010 No.2074076 >>2074052 Also, by saying "other planets" you imply that the earth is a planet like the celestial objects we see above us. This is entirely dependent on round earth theory being true.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:46:14 2010 No.2074080 >>2074076 I like how you completely ignored my question and insisted that the Earth was flat.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:46:14 2010 No.2074081 >>2074070 Water, dirt, magma, and probably some other stuff. The topic isn't explored much, because we aren't all knowing. We don't have magic eyes that let us see on the other side.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:47:14 2010 No.2074085 >>2074081 Why don't you buy a plane and go to the other side of this flat disc that we live on? Or drill straight down until you find the other side?

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:47:14 2010 No.2074086

>>2074060
>So far you've said that Eratosthenes made calculations that are dependent on round earth theory being true and once again asserted that he proved the earth to be round without showing where. Useless text. Try again.

No, so far he's said Eratosthenes made calculations that would have proved once in for all which way the debate ended. And the calculations, completely unbisaedly proved that the earth was round. You can read the book if you want, but you can't say he didn't show where. The text is completely relevant, try again troll.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:48:14 2010 No.2074090 >>2074080 I answered your question here: >>2074069

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:48:14 2010 No.2074094 >>2074081 Then you aren't scientists, and your entire point is invalid.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:49:14 2010 No.2074101

>>2074060
>>2074060
>>2074060

so i guess you like just reading one small part of the post, disregarding the rest, and forming an opinion based on that.

it's cool, plenty of retarded people are successful today. my sister was retarded, she's a pilot now.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Eratosthenes.27_measurement_of_the_earth.27s_circumfer
ence

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:50:14 2010 No.2074102

>>2074069
That's fucking retarded.In order for a object to produce light, it requires energy. As the electrons jump from a higher level down to a lower energy level, light is emitted. To produce that much light without any new source of energy would make the object fade to black very fast.
Notice how a lightbulb stops producing light when you turn it off?

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:51:14 2010 No.2074107

>>2074085
It could be dangerous to fly off the edge. Why don't you? Drilling would be expensive and probably not practical.
>>2074086
Completely baseless. A _demonstration_ of where this "proof" is still not being shown. I require work to be shown. Answers alone are baseless.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:51:14 2010 No.2074108 File: 96 KB, 650x400, troll building.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:51:14 2010 No.2074109 In order for their to be a flat Earth, their would have to be no gravity. INB4 trolls try to say gravity completely relies on Earth being round.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:53:14 2010 No.2074113 >>2074107 Because I know what's on the other side of the Earth from me; Africa.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:54:14 2010 No.2074115

>>2074102
How do you know that the source of light on the sun isn't biological? Besides you can only see the face of the sun, so you can't even see for sure if there isn't a fuel behind it.
>>2074094
That's terrible reasoning. We aren't scientists, because we don't know everything or we haven't explored a topic much. TERRIBLE REASONING.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:55:14 2010 No.2074116
File: 91 KB, 1729x1200, eratosthenes_experiment.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2074107
If call this picture baseless and a fallicy then I have nothing more to educate you with. You can't deny this picture, and everything you need to know about the Eratosthenes method can be inferred from it. You can look his number crunching anywhere, but if you don't understand the picture you're beyond help.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:55:14 2010 No.2074118 >>2074109 This assertion is absolutely baseless. Gravitational phenomena would still occur on a flat earth model, but our theories that explain the phenomena would need revision.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:55:14 2010 No.2074119 >>2074115 >Terrible reasoning Like everything you've said in this entire thread? Yep.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:57:14 2010 No.2074122

>>2074115
>How do you know that the source of light on the sun isn't biological? Besides you can only see the face of the sun, so you can't even see for sure if there isn't a fuel behind it.
I know because I was talking about planets. L2READ

>we don't know everything or we haven't explored a topic much
WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT, SO IT MUST BE TRUE!!!!!@^!&%*@!&%@!^#!%!$@%!^#$%!!

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 03:59:14 2010 No.2074124 >>2074116 The picture and calculations are meaningless without round earth theory. You need to show that the earth is round _first_ before your calculations that depend on this theory are of any use in explaining reality.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:01:14 2010 No.2074127 >>2074124 gravity would pull on all parts of the Earth some what equally, thus making it into a sphere. >/thread.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:02:14 2010 No.2074129

>>2074122
It is a mystery as to how planets could produce light, but it is entirely possible that they would if the earth is flat. Our inability or ability to explain the mechanics of the universe does not dictate the shape of our universe. The universe existed before we imagined explanations.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:02:14 2010 No.2074131

>>2074118
>This assertion is absolutely baseless. Gravitational phenomena would still occur on a flat earth model, but our theories that explain the phenomena would need revision.
If your answer to everything is "completely" baseless is the entire world crazy or are you? You've given know thought to the conceptual idea behind the argument against your ideas. You keep saying you want to see numbers. Fuck you troll. If you believe in gravity then you have to believe that gravity causes celestial objects like the earth to become spherical over time when orbiting the sun.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:03:14 2010 No.2074133 >>2074129 Then why doesn't the Earth produce light?

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:03:14 2010 No.2074134

>>2074127
This is entirely dependent on modern gravitational theory being true. It is questionable whether or not large quantities of matter have any sort of gravitational pull. Our ability to explain gravitational phenomena in a way that is in line with reality isn't as great as you may assume.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:04:14 2010 No.2074136 I know this is a troll, but what is the agenda for NASA to try to convince us that the earth is round?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:04:14 2010 No.2074137 >>2074133 Once again, earth being another planet and not simply the unique earth is dependent on round earth theory being true.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:05:14 2010 No.2074139

>>2074129
>It is a mystery as to how planets could produce light, but it is entirely possible that they would if the earth is flat. Our inability or ability to explain the mechanics of the universe does not dictate the shape of our universe. The universe existed before we imagined explanations.

You're mixing ideas here champ. Just because an object is flat doesn't mean it can't produce light, however, objects flat or not will not produce light given no energy process.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:05:14 2010 No.2074141 >>2074124 >>2074118 >>2074115 >>2074107 >>2074081 Completely baseless, I want to see the numbers that prove that those words form a coherent sentence, and the numbers that prove you aren't trolling.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:06:14 2010 No.2074143 >>2074136 I've been meaning to research in detail this and write down my own length explanations. I apologize for not coming to this debate with that information prepared.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:06:14 2010 No.2074144 >>2074137 The chances of something unique to something common is the very reason why your statement has to be proven before the other can be discarded. Prove the earth is unique first.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:08:14 2010 No.2074149 >>2074141 I don't have to support what I am clearly saying to be purely theoretical. My goal is not to prove flat earth theory in this debate but to show that round earth theory is baseless. I also wish to show the plausibility of flat earth theory.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:09:14 2010 No.2074151 The Earth, as seen from space, is roughly spherical. What is your counterpoint?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:09:14 2010 No.2074152 >>2074137 >Once again, earth being another planet and not simply the unique earth is dependent on round earth theory being true. Once agan, other planets being not like Earth and not simply round is dependent on flat earth theory being true.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:09:14 2010 No.2074155 >>2074144 I would if I was proving the earth to be flat. I merely wish to show the flat earth theory is plausible and round earth theory to be unsupported.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:10:14 2010 No.2074156 >>2074149 Anyone with basic knowledge of trigonometry can completely annihilate your "theory." Round earth is a proven fact.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:11:14 2010 No.2074160 >>2074155 >I would if I was proving the earth to be flat. I merely wish to show the flat earth theory is plausible and round earth theory to be unsupported. Well you haven't done that, so what is your counter point?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:11:14 2010 No.2074161 >>2074156 These numbers and calculations in trigonometry are completely useless and out of context without round earth theory. Round earth theory has yet to be shown true, so these calculations are laying on an unsupported foundation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:13:14 2010 No.2074163 >>2074160 I most certainly have been doing that. I have been explaining many details of flat earth theory and proposing reasonable objections to everything so far presented as hard evidence for round earth theory.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:15:14 2010 No.2074165

>I don't have to support what I am clearly saying to be purely theoretical.
This is where your wrong. There is a difference being something being theoretical and a theory. Theories need computation and evidence within the parameter that it fits with thin the laws of physics. So you can be a skeptical as you want, but if you can't disprove facts all you're being is naive.

>My goal is not to prove flat earth theory in this debate but to show that round earth theory is baseless. I also wish to show the plausibility of flat earth theory.
It's not baseless read a fucking book. Watch a fucking video. Listening to a fucking astronomer. You haven't said anything that would show plausibility yet, lets that with that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:15:14 2010 No.2074168 >>2074151 I covered this in my very first post. Read it carefully. The curvature could be purely visual.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:16:14 2010 No.2074170 Flat-Earth man. This is your home planet, as seen from space: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwwioJhQzeg What say you?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:17:14 2010 No.2074171 >>2074161 Your reasoning is entirely circular. Trigonometry is what proves that the Earth is round. What don't you get about the fact that the calculations would be impossible given a flat Earth model?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:17:14 2010 No.2074173 >>2074168 And that explains the apparent rotation of the Earth as well?

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:19:14 2010 No.2074177

>>2074165
I've been showing plausibility of flat earth theory this whole debate, and if you need more details, read up on the flat earth theories at the society's website. Round earth theory is not supported simply because of its popularity. That's about all round earth theory has going for it at the moment. You were taught it at a young age in school, and it's hard to argue with what you were told at such a young a naive age.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:19:14 2010 No.2074179

>>2074163
But your objections haven't been reasonable and don't coincide with any known laws.
>>2074161
>These numbers and calculations in trigonometry are completely useless and out of context without round earth theory. Round earth theory has yet to be shown true, so these calculations are laying on an unsupported foundation.

Stop bullshitting. Trigonometry is a branch of mathematics that studies triangles and the relationships between their sides and the angles between the sides. Trigonometry defines the trigonometric functions, which describe those relationships and have applicability to cyclical phenomena, such as waves. The field evolved during the third century B.C. as a branch of geometry used extensively for astronomical studies.

Has nothing to do with whether or whether or not the earth is round. Is it an already formed science that happens to be able to prove that the earth is round. The numbers and calculations aren't incorrect, and if the earth wasn't round they wouldn't be what they are.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:20:14 2010 No.2074181 >>2074173 There is no hard evidence that the earth is rotating. All we can tell is that the sun is moving.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:22:14 2010 No.2074186

>>2074177
I was taught this at a young age, and continue to believe in it because it's true, not because its popular. And you haven't been showing the plausibility of flat earth theory you've been denying anything said about the earth being round, which is completely different.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:22:14 2010 No.2074187

>>2074171
I can calculate 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples even if I don't have apples at all. You can make these trigonometrical calculations even if you don't have a round earth. They're purely theoretical in that they lay on the round earth theory, which has no foundation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:23:14 2010 No.2074188 >>2074181 Watch the video again. The Earth is indeed rotating.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:23:14 2010 No.2074189 >>2074181 All we can tell is that my bowel is moving.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:23:14 2010 No.2074190 >160 posts and 27 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view. Wow...just wow.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:24:14 2010 No.2074193 >>2074186 You say it's true, but you and everyone else continue to not show where. It's a shame that you have a religious devotion to round earth theory.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:24:14 2010 No.2074197 >>2074163 There is not a plausible sentence constructed on theat whole flat earth website lol. Occum is rolling in his grave as to how you are using his razor to stimulate your sexual organs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:25:14 2010 No.2074199 File: 262 KB, 510x384, sbeh.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I can't believe people in this age can actually believe earth is flat.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:25:14 2010 No.2074201 >>2074188 It is equally plausible that the movement of the camera and clouds moving due to wind creates this illusion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:25:14 2010 No.2074203 >>2074161 What we can say is that the calculations would be unlikely to be true by coincidence. So if a flat earth theory is true, it must explain why round earth theory gets all the right answers.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:27:14 2010 No.2074207 >>2074197 This is the OP. Thanks for making me laugh. lol But on a serious note, this thread and all my posts are completely serious. http://theflatearthsociety.org/ There is a _real_ Flat Earth Society.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:29:14 2010 No.2074211 >>2074201 No, it isn't. You can plainly see the horizon, and the continents move through the view as the Earth rotates.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:29:14 2010 No.2074213 File: 31 KB, 227x236, noway.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2074207 Must be seeing things. No way that site exists.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:29:14 2010 No.2074215 >>2074203 Theoretical calculations don't depend on reality.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:30:14 2010 No.2074216 >>2074207 We already knew this. What was accomplished here?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:30:14 2010 No.2074219 >>2074211 The other interpretation of the data is that the camera and clouds are moving creating the appearance of a rotating earth. You can't invalidate this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:31:14 2010 No.2074220 the earth has to be a sphere because ELSE if it was night, it would be night everywhere

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:32:14 2010 No.2074225

>>2074216
Round earth theory has been publicly crushed shaking the foundations of the religious devotions to it. If we are to truly know the shape of the earth, we must be open to reality. Because we don't automatically know reality because we breath, we must consider other explanations.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:33:14 2010 No.2074226 >>2074219 It's pretty easy to invalidate. All it really requires is a look at the continents. Which are moving.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:33:14 2010 No.2074227 >>2074220 Incorrect. Flat earth models use a spotlight sun that only illuminates a portion of the earth at a time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:34:14 2010 No.2074230 File: 248 KB, 726x1100, berserk21-chapter04-page080.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2074225 Round earth isn't a theory dork.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:34:14 2010 No.2074233 >>2074226 It cannot be said one way or another about the video. There are two equal interpretations of it.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:35:14 2010 No.2074234

>>2074215
No, but somehow they predict all the correct observed angles for the Eratosthenes observations as an example. If the earth is flat, then either (1) it's a coincidence which is unlikely given the large number of successful predictions or (2) there is a quantitative explanation based on flat-earth theory for why round-earth theory works.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:36:14 2010 No.2074236 >>2074230 This is correct. Round earth theory is little more than an incredibly popular hypothesis which has no true backing in hard evidence.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:39:14 2010 No.2074244

>>2074233
Nope. There are multiple interpretations, but the correct one is that the Earth is roughly spherical and rotating. Your alternative hypothesis, that the Earth is flat, is not at all an equal interpretation, because it is disproved by the video. One that is not disproved is that the "planet" being viewed is simply a highly advanced computer simulation created by squid-men specifically to deceive you and your family. A complementary tin foil hat and blazer are available to those that believe this.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:39:14 2010 No.2074245

>>2074187
>I can calculate 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples even if I don't have apples at all. You can make these trigonometrical calculations even if you don't have a round earth. They're purely theoretical in that they lay on the round earth theory, which has no foundation.

Are you kidding me? You can't use that analogy for such a complex idea. And yes, you can make the calculations even if you the earth isn't round, but if it wasn't they wouldn't be true! Heres a better analogy: I want to prove your intestine aren't square so I make you swallow whole a cylindrical object that is too tough to be compressed by crushing and can't be eroded by acids. Then when I see you can't pass it a week later, and you don't feel anything pressing against your rectum I know that your rectum is square. Besides that I can plainly see from your fecal matter, however, there will be some dumbasses who argue that your rectum is in the shape of a triangle and I'll just say lol no.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:39:14 2010 No.2074246 >>2074234 I'm tired of repeating myself on so many things. Perhaps if you think about it, you'll finally understand.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:40:14 2010 No.2074248
File: 39 KB, 481x157, getout.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2074236
You want hard evidence like your dick is right now from trolling several /sci members? Fly a plane around the world, don't you fucking sleep either, watch as you cross the oceans and continents that you come "around" to where you started. Amazing. People everyday seeing for themselves that the earth is indeed spherical.

Get out of here scum.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:41:14 2010 No.2074250 >>2074244 Carefully read my explanation of the video. Flat earth theory is not invalidated by it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:41:14 2010 No.2074253 >>2074236 I already gave you evidence troll.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:42:14 2010 No.2074254 >>2074246 Team Flat Earth tired of arguing? Can it be?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:43:14 2010 No.2074256 >>2074248 Circumnavigation is entirely possible on a flat earth model. Read my first post and the single picture I have posted. Read it carefully and LOOK AT THE PICTURE.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:43:14 2010 No.2074258 File: 69 KB, 360x274, beenfun.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2074254 Never.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:44:14 2010 No.2074259 >>2074254 What team? I have coordinated with nobody.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:45:14 2010 No.2074263 >>2074256 That would require going around the continents instead of around the "circle" of the Earth. A circumnavigation of a flat Earth would take much longer than a circumnavigation of a roughly spherical Earth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:46:14 2010 No.2074267 >>2074256 I'm looking at the picture bro, what happens when you get to the edge though. Do you fall off to space which is also flat now? Let me guess theres air in space too and Nasa is just playing the worlds biggest prank.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:46:14 2010 No.2074268 File: 231 KB, 708x298, 1289681355374.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2074259 You, your left hand, your dick, your right hand and your keyboard. Perfect team.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:46:14 2010 No.2074269 >>2074263 That depends on flight paths. You should view the flight paths for some commercial airlines. This point really isn't worth arguing. You can clearly travel around the entire world on a flat earth model.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:48:14 2010 No.2074271 >>2074269 I was talking about ships, actually.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:48:14 2010 No.2074272 File: 3 KB, 203x222, 1281539760142.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2074258 Fuckin cool man with his NGE manga screenshots.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:49:14 2010 No.2074276 >>2074269 Don't fucking take a plane then, take a hot air balloon ride around the world. A few people have done it, why don't you? Afraid?

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:49:14 2010 No.2074277

>>2074267
It could be possible to fall of the edge by walking off, but there is no worry of sailing off it or the earth losing all its water from it. The edge, IF IT EXISTS, is probably at the edge of the sun's path, so it would be cold and probably frozen.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:49:14 2010 No.2074279 File: 214 KB, 1050x1050, earth (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Where is the USA in this pic? /thread

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:51:14 2010 No.2074284 >>2074276 I am not afraid of going "around the world" but going away from all the continents and the sun's path could result in going off the edge if it exists. >>2074271 How do ships make this difficult for flat earth theory to explain?

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:52:14 2010 No.2074285

You board a high-altitude plane that has a projected flight path taking it from Rome, Italy to Rome, Italy, circumnavigating the Earth by traveling roughly along the equator. Assuming a round Earth, this presents no difficulty.

What would you have to do to make the same trip, ending up right where back you started, on a flat Earth?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:53:14 2010 No.2074286 >>2074279 Amateur photography and videos of high altitudes do not at all present an earth that resembles that. Hint: This is criticism of NASA's data. NASA's data is suspicious. The famous Blue Marble photo could quite easily be faked.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:55:14 2010 No.2074289

>>2074285
Look at the _example_ model I posted in the original post. The question will answer itself when you see that circumnavigation is possible on flat earth models. Take your finger. Pretend it is a plane, and move it from place to place on the example model.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:55:14 2010 No.2074291 >>2074284 Well, if you take a ship around the world on a round Earth, you will pass certain places on the way. If you take a ship around the world on a flat Earth, you will pass different places, because your course cannot be the same. See what I mean?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:56:14 2010 No.2074293 >>2074291 No. The course can be the same. Are we looking at different example models?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:58:14 2010 No.2074295 >You can't provide hard evidence that the earth is round. Actually, I can. I'd have to meet you in person to show you though. I can't hard evidence when you are far away from the example.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:58:14 2010 No.2074296 File: 13 KB, 251x251, 1287738557423.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm not sure why anyone's arguing this guy, unless we're all having a good laugh like me.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:58:14 2010 No.2074298 >>2074289 That's not a proper example of a flat Earth. The continents are squashed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:58:14 2010 No.2074299 >>2074286 NASA's data is just that, data. What evidence do you have of a massive conspiracy? Oh that's right, none.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 04:59:14 2010 No.2074301 >>2074298 What part of "example model" don't you understand? The Flat Earth Society provides other models on their website. View their forums and Wiki for more details. http://theflatearthsociety.org

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:00:14 2010 No.2074303

>>2074234
Actually, Eratosthenes is a bad example there unless you compare it to another method of calculating the size of the earth. A better example would be the prediction of lunar eclipse dates. And throw in the motions of the sun and all the planets, too.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:00:14 2010 No.2074306 >>2074299 When others aren't able to replicate the same data, it makes NASA's data look questionable.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:01:14 2010 No.2074307 >>2074303 Lunar eclipses and other celestial events are predicted by historical recordings of these events. No geometrical calculations are used at all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:02:14 2010 No.2074308 >>2074301 I read the whole site, none of it is convincing and I believe in aliens visiting earth. You'd have to do pretty bad to make me who is pumped full of drugs not believe a word on that site.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:03:14 2010 No.2074310 >>2074308 I read every argument ever about round earth theory, and I wasn't convinced. rolls eyes Debate better, please.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:03:14 2010 No.2074311
File: 8 KB, 211x193, 1288114210584.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

my face this whole thread.

OP im glad you have an open mind, and want to see both sides of something. but why flat earth against round earth?
i mean seriously flat earth just doesn't work. not only can you not explain how the "bottom" would work. but theres also the fact that in this day and age their would be documented proof of the edge of the earth if it were true.
but nothing we say will change your mind and the only thing i can hope for is. is that in your lifetime commercial space flights become available for cheap and you get to see the earth from space. then you can cry over how most of your life you argued a stupid point.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:04:14 2010 No.2074314 >>2074296 The argue with me out of the frustration that is created by their inability to provide hard evidence for round earth theory.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:06:14 2010 No.2074324 >>2074306 You're looking at it completely backwards. NASA's evidence has merely added to all the evidence for a round earth we already had for thousands of years.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:07:14 2010 No.2074328

>>2074311
You have presented more baseless assertions and poor reasoning. Flat earth theory can work. You must learn the details to see that it is plausible. http://theflatearthsociety.org/ In a commercial spaceflight, the craft would have to circumnavigate south to north to prove round earth theory. Spacecrafts can travel around in circles on a flat earth model, so normally traveling in a spacecraft doesn't say anything about the shape of the earth.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:07:14 2010 No.2074329

>>2074314
Earth quakes, magnetic field generated by earths core, radiation belt, the fact that other bodies in the solar system are round and ANYONE can buy a telescope to see this, and stars moving across the sky. ECT.!

You are challenged by far more then the fact that earth is indeed round, but a multitude of other things that work because earth is round.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:08:14 2010 No.2074330 File: 46 KB, 468x484, 1288733522914.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] OP here, thanks for the laughs. Really, trolled, flamed etc etc. /sci/ you crack me up!

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:09:14 2010 No.2074335 >>2074330 Aww but its been so fun trolling them.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:10:14 2010 No.2074339

>>2074329
Earthquakes and a magnetic field say nothing about the shape of the earth. Celestial bodies don't dictate the shape of the earth. Why assume that the earth must be like the celestial bodies? On a side note, we can't even tell for sure that celestial bodies are indeed spherical and not flat discs with changing faces. Stars moving across the sky says nothing about the shape of the earth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:11:14 2010 No.2074344 >>2074330 This is not the OP. I, the OP, have only posted one picture and will not be posting anymore pictures for the remainder of this thread.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:11:14 2010 No.2074345 >>2074328 wow did you just really disapprove going into space to see it being round? JUST FUCKING GO FARTHER AND THEN AROUND IT. ITS THE SAME CONCEPT WHEN LOOKING AT A BALL. i dont even, im not even gonna argue further your just retarded.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:12:14 2010 No.2074350 you aren't op though

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:13:14 2010 No.2074356 >>2074345 I just explained what must be done once you reach space to prove the shape of the earth. I did not disapprove of it, but I will admit it would be at least somewhat dangerous regardless of the shape of the earth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:18:14 2010 No.2074375 I'm still waiting for someone to provide hard evidence of round earth theory.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:18:14 2010 No.2074376
File: 51 KB, 1024x768, 87789565.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2074356
>Spacecrafts can travel around in circles on a flat earth model, so normally traveling in a spacecraft doesn't say anything about the shape of the earth.

this implies that you meant that going into space someone could not prove to you it was round. that they could just be going in circles.

i gave you a foolproof way to know that it is round once you're in space.

and don't tell me to go look up flat earth theories because i dont understand it. i dont want to understand it. unless you or your theory can tell me whats on the other side of the planet if its flat, and why we don't have documented proof of the "edge". your theory can go eat a dick for all i care.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:20:14 2010 No.2074382 >>2074227 herp derp if the earth was flat, the earth would be completely dark during lunar eclipses nice playing with you

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:21:14 2010 No.2074386

>>2074376
The ability or the inability of the theory to tell you what's on the other side of the earth does not invalidate it. I'm fully aware that you _could_ prove the shape of the earth in a spacecraft. You need to go in one direction away from magnetic north until you circumnavigate south to north if that is indeed possible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:21:14 2010 No.2074388 File: 215 KB, 1280x1024, Earth_cube.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] OP isn't right. The Earth is of course a cube. Timecube was right.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:23:14 2010 No.2074392

>>2074382
Please read theoretical explanations of lunar eclipses on the Flat Earth Society's website.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/The%20shadow%20on%20the%20moon%20during%20a%20Lunar%20Eclips
e%20is%20round
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Lunar+Eclipse

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:24:14 2010 No.2074395

>>2074386
i like how you ignored why we haven't been to the edge.

thats the biggest thing for me to call bullshit on it. we are way to advanced to not have evidence of an edge if the earth were flat. and until you can tell me why we don't that makes sense.
your just trying to prove a theory that could work, but not a theory for earth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:25:14 2010 No.2074397 http://www.google.com.au/images?q=picture+of+earth+from+space

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:27:14 2010 No.2074403

>>2074395
Our reliance on navigation tools like compasses and GPS may actually keep us from the edge. You may actually have to use dead reckoning (traveling in a straight line without following any navigation tools other than your senses) for a while to find it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:28:14 2010 No.2074405 >>2074397 My first posts deals with what earth looks like at high altitudes. Read it carefully.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:33:14 2010 No.2074414 OP here. I'm getting bored waiting on more arguments for round earth theory. Should I leave? I'm kind of hungry. I'll stick around if I get some more posts.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:37:14 2010 No.2074420

Things aren't looking so good for round earth theory. We debated all this time, but nobody provided reasonable hard evidence for it. It makes you wonder why people are so devoted to this theory when flat earth theory is plausible and testable. I'm just waiting for the day when I or someone else will truly set out to test it.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:38:14 2010 No.2074424
File: 12 KB, 297x169, 1288203331657.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2074414
nobody is posting because multiple people have already posted "hard evidence" tons of times. but you seem to be blind to it.
and if their arguments are invalid yours are to because if anything your arguments aren't any better then theirs most of them are worse.

that is why no ones answering. your also a troll.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:42:14 2010 No.2074439

>>2073958
>>2073959

>Eratosthenes (276–194 BC) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BC. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a 'stade' is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes' figure only has an error of around five to ten percent. Eratosthenes used rough estimates and round numbers, but depending on the length of the stadion, his result is within a margin of between 2% and 20% of the actual meridional circumference, 40,008 kilometres (24,860 mi). Note that Eratosthenes could only measure the circumference of the Earth by assuming that the distance to the Sun is so great that the rays of sunlight are essentially parallel.

So yea he pretty much proved it and was able to make predictive calculations using nothing but two sticks, a ruler, and trigonometry.

But since I don't have time to explain what trigonometry is or how it works, I doubt you will accept this, when you can just say flat earth models can account for this (without ever providing these models or proofs or going into any detail).

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:42:14 2010 No.2074440

>>2074424
I have posted logical rebuttal after rebuttal every time somebody has asserted something as evidence. You can't just assert that something is evidence for it to be actual evidence. Every argument so far for round earth theory has missed the mark. Look at it all closely. There is no foundation for round earth theory. I am not a troll. I genuinely do not have faith in round earth theory. I have been reading the arguments presented by The Flat Earth Society for quite some time now.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:44:14 2010 No.2074444 -Place a CD in a dark room -shine a torch towards the cd -Move around room shinning torch on flat cd -Notice wherever you go the entire cd will be lit up Now replace cd with flat earth and torch with the sun Why is night and day?

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:46:14 2010 No.2074448

>>2074439
Eratosthenes calculated a circumference that depends on round earth theory being true. You are reading into the data too much. The proof is not there. Feel free to view the _example_ model I presented in the first post, and if that is not enough, view some more on the Flat Earth Society website.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:46:14 2010 No.2074449 WE NEED TO TEACH BOTH THEORIES IN THE CLASSROOM ---FLAT THEORY--- ---ROUND THEORY--- LET THE CHILDREN DECIDE caps lock off

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:47:14 2010 No.2074450

>>2074440
and because their arguments have no evidence neither do yours. they are giving just as much evidence as you are (i have read the whole thread)
and your just going off bias for why they arent giving good arguments.
everyone in this thread has given far more mathematical and scientific evidence then you have and yet you continue to disapprove it with either poor mathematical proof or scientific. but yet your theorys are more correct then theirs. therefore you ARE a troll.
if their evidence is wrong becuase they cant physically prove it without NASA or some other agencies research, your research is just as if not worse proof.

just leave and go back to your website

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:48:14 2010 No.2074456

>>2074444
In flat earth models, the sun acts like a spotlight that is not large enough to illuminate the whole earth at once. To be clear, in flat earth theory the sun is much closer and smaller. You would use plain geometry to calculate its distance from a flat earth. This spotlight sun would travel around in circles above the earth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:50:14 2010 No.2074462 >>2074456 And why does it do this? Blank out.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:51:14 2010 No.2074464 >>2074392 the author assumes omnipotence, else there's no way for him to back up his black object theory while at the same time, i could look at jupiter and saturn and see lunar eclipses allday everyday you lose i win nice playing with you

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:52:14 2010 No.2074469

>>2074450
They have not presented hard evidence simply because they have jumped to conclusions and have made more conclusions from data than it logically makes sense to conclude. There have been way too many assumptions. Eratosthenes made good calculations, but his calculations depended on the earth being round. Nothing Eratosthenes proved the earth to be round, but Eratosthenes theorized about a round earth. That is all.
Let me reiterate _again_ that I am not aiming to provide hard evidence for flat earth theory. I am merely trying to show that flat earth theory is plausible and that round earth theory is without a solid foundation.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:54:14 2010 No.2074476

>>2074448
Actually it didn't depend on anything the calculation are the calculation they aren't biased they are just mathematical computation that show the measurement of an area. Thats it. Now, the measurements show that the Earth is round, but it went from A to B, not for B to A to B. Do you understand?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:54:14 2010 No.2074477 >>2074456 All of those factors would mean we would still have constant light and you always be able to see the sun

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:55:14 2010 No.2074479 >>2074462 You ask a question that is outside the scope of flat earth theory. Why not ask why the sun is there at all? Why are such perfect conditions present for our existence?

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:55:14 2010 No.2074480

>>2074469
well now that you have made your intentions clear.

come back and talk to me when you find another galactic body that is flat and rotates around a sun.

then we can talk. until then your theory is just something started over 2000 years ago by people that didnt understand how the universe worked so they went with what they could see.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:57:14 2010 No.2074485 WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS THREAD You can see its not fucking flat with your own too eyes OP, get out of your basement and go and observe the ocean (its near the beach)

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 05:59:14 2010 No.2074495

>>2074480
I made my intentions clear earlier. Flat earth theory does not suggest that the earth rotates or that the earth revolves around the sun. Flat earth theory does not predict another earth. Just because celestial bodies are one way does not mean we should expect the earth to be the same way. We don't need to find another earth and sun system in the sky to prove the plausibility of flat earth theory.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:00:14 2010 No.2074503 >>2074485 The appearance of the ocean does not support round earth theory, and I explained in the first post why the appearance of the earth from high altitudes does not provide hard evidence for round earth theory.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:00:14 2010 No.2074504 >>2074495 Actually you do. We have cataloged tens of thousands of celestial bodies that are round. And not one that is flat. So, you show me a flat celestial body and we'll talk.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:01:14 2010 No.2074507 >>2074503 If the earth is flat than how does the water stay where it is? Wouldn't it just drain off the edge?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:03:14 2010 No.2074509 >>2074504 How do you know the earth is just another celestial body? Hint: You don't. The earth is the earth, and it's illogical to conclude more from the data we have. Celestial bodies are simply those objects in the sky that aren't man made or birds.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:03:14 2010 No.2074510

>Flat earth theory does not suggest that the earth rotates or that the earth revolves around the sun.

>earth does not revolve around the sun
>around the sun.

so you think the geocentric theory works to huh? you obviously have only been paying attention to what the flat earth and round earth theories state and nothing else about the universe.

as someone who studies things inside and out of our solar system you disgust me for even thinking the flat earth theory is plausible.

either way your intentions aren't as you say because your still biased towards the flat earth theory.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:04:14 2010 No.2074514 >>2074507 If there is an edge to the earth, it would most likely be at the edge of the sun's path making it frozen.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:05:14 2010 No.2074517 >>2074509 I know the Earth is a celestial body because I've talked to Neil Armstrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:06:14 2010 No.2074520 >>2074503 You can see it you dim shit, ever wondered why it looks like the ocean is rising as you look out (and if you have a wide enough view you can see the curve anyway)

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:06:14 2010 No.2074523 >>2074510 The only bias is towards the truth. I wish to see the theory tested one day, but if nobody considers it, who will test it?

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:07:14 2010 No.2074525

>>2074514
But if we followed that logic than all water would freeze if not directly recieving sunlight and we know thats not true. The water just doesn't "freeze" at night, infect the ocean doesn't freeze at all except at the poles. And no, we don't have to check from space. It's not like as soon as you "touch space" you freeze.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:08:14 2010 No.2074528 >>2074523 so you believe the geocentric theory then? answer that before i continue my discussion with you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:08:14 2010 No.2074530 >>2074520 You cannot see something curving downwards from a perspective directly behind the curve. You have to be facing the curve from the side to see it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:09:14 2010 No.2074536 >>2074514 I think you're forgetting that you're talking to people who study science.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:11:14 2010 No.2074542 >>2074530 You're not looking at it curving 'downwards' you're looking at it curving 'upwards'

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:12:14 2010 No.2074545

>>2074525
You are misunderstanding flat earth theory. Look at the _example_ model in the first post and imagine that the outside border is the edge. Imagine that a spotlight sun simply doesn't shine very directly or maybe not at all at that border. The edge would be cold because of this.
>>2074528
I want to see that theory also tested by testing flat earth theory.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:13:14 2010 No.2074550 >>2074542 What do you mean? Are you a hollow earth theorist?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:14:14 2010 No.2074552 >>2074536 It would be easy to forget that considering how much everyone has failed in supporting a so-called scientific viewpoint.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:16:14 2010 No.2074555

>>2074448
>Eratosthenes calculated a circumference that depends on round earth theory being true.

So let me get this straight... you are saying that he developed a theory that the earth is round, made mathematical predictions based on that assumption, backed up predictions with hard data and measurement, data turned out to be true within ~5% according to modern techniques, and (this is where I lose you) it can only be a theoretical postulation because his assumptions agreed with his measurements and have been verified innumerable times since?

>You are reading into the data too much
I seem to have found you problem... you don't seem to think reading data is how you prove a theory and rely instead on wild speculation fueled by anti-government paranoia

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:16:14 2010 No.2074556

>>2074545
that's all i wanted to hear.

you are clearly someone who hasn't studied anything but false theories and the opposing theories and nothing more.
you know nothing of mathematics, chemistry, astrology, geography, etc. if you actually knew these things you would have no trouble believing the round earth theory. and the fact that you actually have a shred of thought that the geocentric theory may work futher proves that.

you are an insult to scientific studies especially astrology and geography and i hope you don't join these fields.

please keep your theorys to your website and don't come back.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:18:14 2010 No.2074561 >You can't provide hard evidence that the earth is round. OP pretty much meant >I won't accept hard evidence that the earth is round.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:18:14 2010 No.2074562 >>2074530 has never driven on hills or mountains

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:19:14 2010 No.2074565 >>2074550 YOU CANT ITS NOT www.hoololearth.fact Put it another way, if it was flat you wouldn't see any ocean

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:19:14 2010 No.2074567

>>2074555
I'm saying that Eratosthenes made some calculations, and they are only true if the earth is round. His calculations did not venture into the scope of proving the shape of the earth. He imagined that it could be round and did not test it. He must have wanted to know the circumference of his hypothetical round earth.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:25:14 2010 No.2074576

>>2074561
Actually, my standards for evidence are quite reasonable. I just refuse to make jumps in logic and make assumptions.
>>2074556
I'm leaving it up to scientists and regular joes from multiple disciplines to provide hard evidence for round earth theory. Nobody has. I don't need to read all your round earth scriptures to philosophize and argue against weak arguments. Besides, you have really no idea what I've studied.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:27:14 2010 No.2074583 >>2074562 Flat earth models allow you to see ocean. On a round earth a small area would be roughly flat anyways, so... I'm not sure what you're pointing out here.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:29:14 2010 No.2074587

>>2074567

no you obviously didn't read what I put because he quite clearly made measurements (not just calculations) to approximate the circumference of the earth. Basically he knew the distance between two cities and put a stick in the ground at each city. Then he measured the shadow cast by each of the sticks when the sun was at its peak (although 1 did not have a shadow since he made the measurements at a time when the sun was directly over head). From this, he could measure the difference in the angle between the sun and the earth at this spot. He realized this distance was a 1/50th circular arc, so concluded that the earth was a spherical object with a circumference of 50 times the distance from the two sticks he planted.

This was not just theoretical calculations... he was doing actual science with actual measurements that produced actual data and backed up an actual theory... not that you care to know anything about reality and science.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:30:14 2010 No.2074592

>>2074576
by the fact that you think the hard evidence the people in this thread have provided is false, and that you believe the geocentric theory, i can tell pretty easily what you have and havent studied, and i know for one thing you havent studied astrology and geography, and probably a good amount of mathematics.

also by saying most of the evidence posted in here is philosphies also strengthens this.

like i said don't join astrology or geography fields. better yet do it. maybe you'll learn something. if not you'll just be rejectred.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:33:14 2010 No.2074601 >>2074587 Sounds like that 1/50 circular arc could easily reflect the suns path instead of saying something about the shape of the earth. Still taking things from the data that aren't there.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:34:14 2010 No.2074602

>>2074576
Your standards aren't reasonable at all.

We (and by that I mean we from the planet earth, many different nations doing the same things) have launched multiple probes into heliocentric orbit in order to study the sun. They continually observed the sun as they orbited it. They have found that the sun is a vast sphere, incredibly far away, and that it exhibits absolutely no characteristics of the fictional giant spotlight that's actually very close to us imagined by the flat earth theory. This single undeniable fact, that the sun is a round object and that it is vastly far away and casts out light in all directions, completely destroys any notion of a flat earth, because for the model to work, as you have repeatedly stated in this thread, it requires a fictional giant spotlight hanging above us, closer than we imagine the sun to be.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:36:14 2010 No.2074609 File: 8 KB, 225x224, 45792334.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >295 posts and 41 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:37:14 2010 No.2074611 10000/10, OP. You trolled everybody in here. You don't have to come and confess, they're looking for you - and if they find you, prepare for surprise buttsecks

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:38:14 2010 No.2074614

>>2074592
Just because I don't accept the popular theories doesn't mean I haven't read about them. It just means I haven't been indoctrinated by the popular theories. Because I haven't clearly stated yet, I don't just think that round earth theory is unsupported. I think flat earth theory and geocentricism are likely, but I am unprepared to provide hard evidence for them yet. At this point, I am able to easily show that round earth theory is unsupported and that flat earth theory is plausible.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:42:14 2010 No.2074623

>>2074614
you are not getting the point at all, your still sticking to theories.
your mind is clouded by constant theories.
this is how i know that you have no truly studied.

i mean actually study what is going on outside and inside earth. not reading it.

their is data for everything to proof everything people have stated in this thread. your spouting constant theories from philosophies and no data.

theres a reason there is a scientific method.

enjoy babbling in your theories, while i get actual work done with data.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:42:14 2010 No.2074625

>>2074602
And before you respond to this, remember that I said multiple nations. The USSR has things in heliocentric orbit. The ESA and JAXA also have things in heliocentric orbit.

But of course they're also a part of the NASA conspiracy. Especially the soviets, you know how much they loved NASA.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:43:14 2010 No.2074629 >>2074623 ugh, now you have me misspelling. im just gonna stop, theres no hope for you.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:43:14 2010 No.2074631
File: 17 KB, 723x403, THE EARTH IS FLAT!!!.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I actually checked out their theories, because I'm a nice guy. Picked the easiest looking one to understand and it looked good. Used Pythagoras theorem and seemed to prove that over a distance of 33 miles that there should be a 600 foot bump...

THEN I actually THOUGHT about what I had read rather than suck up the persuasive language. Got out my maths book and proved that his maths are good but his understanding is ALL WRONG.

In fact, I think I found a 1.8 inch "bulge", so maybe my maths aren't perfect,but his definitely aren't right.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18114.msg319626

I think I'll let them know my findings. BUT PLEASES TELL ME IF I'M WRONG!

Image demonstrates his perspective and my perspective.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:45:14 2010 No.2074635

>>2074602
I could just start making baseless assertions in favor of flat earth theory, but I won't. All we see of the sun is a circular face that appears to be changing. We haven't with absolute certainty got anything on the opposite side of the sun from the earth's location yet to see what's there, and any claims by a space agency to have done so are suspicious as NASA can't even reasonably convince everyone that men landed on the moon. However, you should know that I have not come prepared to argue at length about space agencies. I've been meaning to research this topic more, so I ask that we stick to the subject of the shape of the earth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:47:14 2010 No.2074640 >>2074623 I would love to stop theorizing and do actual testing. Traveling to the end of the earth is beyond my wealth at the current time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:50:14 2010 No.2074646 >>2074640 and i cant wait until the day you do start actually studying because you will realize the truth. people learn, discover and write down their findings for a reason. but i guess you need your own discovery to believe it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:51:14 2010 No.2074648 >>2074646 Who else is traveling to the end of the earth to determine its shape? I feel the need to do this myself, because nobody else is.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:51:14 2010 No.2074649

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXkoIBDXwd8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nojl3aiYBOw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTOohZhoKXg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R7-SJPID_I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygpYWzKGN6c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-J_YIWJ698&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPBwum3AbW0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNZDq3MYVA4&feature=related

All amateur weather balloon launches (youtube has many, many more), none involve NASA, yet all indicate a round earth at high altitudes. You could easily repeat these with cameras suited to your preferences and see for yourself... or you know go for a plane ride and observe the round earth for yourself

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:51:14 2010 No.2074650 File: 79 KB, 366x440, 1288294945984.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2074592 >and i know for one thing you havent studied astrology and geography, and probably a good amount of mathematics. >studied astrology >astrology >mfw

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:53:14 2010 No.2074653 >>2074649 I covered an amateur video in the very first post. Read it _very_ carefully.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:53:14 2010 No.2074654

So you deny that there are man-made objects, from multiple independent space agencies, in heliocentric orbit. You further seem to imply that even if they were in heliocentric orbit, this doesn't prove the sun to be anything other than a two dimensional face that seems to change.

I don't know what else to say. I can lead you to water, show you how to drink, I can even splash some in your face. But I can't force you to drink it no matter how I try. Hell I can show you the water a million times, each time the water appears blue, and I can tell you it's blue, but you don't have to believe it's blue either.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:54:14 2010 No.2074657 OP still here?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:56:14 2010 No.2074659 >>2074654 Please prove these things are in heliocentric orbit. NASA claiming they shot something into the heavens, and it stayed there is hardly proof.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:56:14 2010 No.2074660 >>2074657 Yes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 06:56:14 2010 No.2074661 >>2074650 i meant astronomy. i'm tired and not paying attention because of the rage this person causes. my apologies.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:00:14 2010 No.2074664 >>2074657 If you have something to say, please say it. I think I will actually be leaving soon. Look at the time I made my first post.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:01:14 2010 No.2074666

>>2074659
It's not just NASA. It's NASA, JAXA, the ESA, and the now defunct USSR.

Independent tracking data from all of these agencies reveals the locations of these objects. One of them being the S-IVB from Apollo 11, a mission that was watched closely and with great scrutiny by almost everyone on the face of the Earth, including those in the USSR.

It is very critical to be able to determine the precise location of an object in space. It's something that, if not achieved, no space program would be possible. So it's a fact that these agencies have this ability. What you're debating, I guess, is that the tracking data is incorrect or somehow altered from its original state. However, the USSR, JAXA, and the ESA, have absolutely no incentive to bend their own independent data to NASA's wishes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:02:14 2010 No.2074667 >>2074659 >>2074659 sounds like someone simply needs to invest in a telescope http://www.isstracker.com/ You could start by observing the orbit of the MIR Space station since it is large compared to most of the satellites in orbit

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:03:14 2010 No.2074670

>>2074631

I said this:

>>2074660

Quote from: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Experimental+Evidence

>Tom Bishop conclusively demonstrates that the earth is flat here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18114.msg319626#msg319626

Who is correct? Me or him.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:03:14 2010 No.2074671
File: 12 KB, 467x236, Gravity.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I assume in my drawing that the weight is directed toward the center of the flat earth. Can you explain why people feel the same force regardless of their location ?

If what I assumed is right and the earth is really flat, then people in Buenos Aires shouldn't feel attracted by the ground under their feet, while people located at the north pole should.

Is gravity biased as well ?

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:04:14 2010 No.2074673

>>2074666
I didn't come to talk about space agencies in detail. I did not come prepared to talk about them. I leave it to all of you who have read this thread and debated with me to fill in the gaps of knowledge yourselves. I can only teach so much. Flat earth theory is plausible. Read about it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:06:14 2010 No.2074679 >>2074671 Gravitational phenomena doesn't change in flat earth theory, but our gravitational theories that explain these phenomena do.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:06:14 2010 No.2074680

>>2074673
It doesn't matter if you want to talk about space agencies, because I don't want to either. I'm citing them as sources and you're ignoring them and moving on because as you clearly admit, you haven't actually done any research, therefore you don't know what they say. But what's funny about it is that what they say is entirely relevant to what you believe because if heliocentric orbit is possible, and if the sun is not a giant fictional spotlight, then the flat earth theory holds no water. Much like a flat earth would.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:09:14 2010 No.2074686 I'm done for the night. It is reassuring to know that my lack of faith in round earth theory is still not without reason. Thanks for debating.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:10:14 2010 No.2074687

>>2074679
I don't really get it. Gravitation doesn't change. This means that the gravitationnel center of Earth is where I located it on my drawing. You're implying that, if I were to stand on ice somewhere in Australia (near the edge of the flat Earth) I would automatically move in direction of the north pole without having to do anything ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:11:14 2010 No.2074692 File: 13 KB, 400x378, harald_lesch_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] And the trolling... was a success.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:11:14 2010 No.2074693 >>2074686 But what about this? >>2074631

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:11:14 2010 No.2074694 Fuckin Global Circumnavigation how does it work?

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:14:14 2010 No.2074701

>>2074687
Really last post this time. lol This is not at all how gravity would work as that is not observable in reality. Flat earth theory doesn't change gravitational phenomena. There are gravitational theories, which aren't necessarily true like the idea that large quantities of matter attract other matter.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:17:14 2010 No.2074708

>>2074701
Oh you nigger. You ignore me again. I cite multiple independent sources who all claim the same thing, something which backs up both round earth and all of NASA's other findings, and you shrug them off and completely ignore them because you haven't read anything about them.

You are a funny man with your thread here.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:24:14 2010 No.2074740 >>2074708 i stopped paying attention to him when he said he believed the geocentric idea could be true. thats when his true troll came out. he's either an elaborate troll, or an ignorant person unintentionally trolling.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:27:14 2010 No.2074752 Trolling is an game of identity deception.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:32:14 2010 No.2074765 >>2074701 and also remember, the new model of gravity that supports flat earth only applies on earth because all other planets can still use the standard model because they are celestial bodies and the earth is not - its an earth

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:40:15 2010 No.2074799 [DELETED]

This is an animation depicting the orbits of GPS satellites in medium earth orbit.

As you can see, they circumnavigate the earth. At least one of them circumnavigates the earth, crossing over both the north and south pole. This is how the GPS system works.

Your argument is invalid.

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:41:14 2010 No.2074805
File: 485 KB, 240x192, ConstellationGPS.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This is an animation depicting the orbits of GPS satellites in medium earth orbit.

As you can see, they circumnavigate the earth. At least one of them circumnavigates the earth, crossing over both the north and south pole. This is how the GPS system works.

Your argument is invalid.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:43:14 2010 No.2074810 Actually, you are all wrong, earth and all of reality is a 2 dimensional holographic projection

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:45:14 2010 No.2074820

>>2074805
This is the exact thing you were asking for the entire time. Even in the first post:

>There is no hard evidence to suggest circumnavigation has ever occurred south to north

Yes, there is. There are satellites in that kind of orbital configuration, one of them being a GPS satellite.

So you got what you asked for. Exactly that and nothing more. What will you do now? I suppose you're going to reject this, too.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 07:53:14 2010 No.2074851 >>2074820 Maybe you know like thats not true because NASA. They might not actually be orbiting, but NASA is actually tracking the eliptical spotlight shadow reflection motion over earth's gravitational pressure matrix

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 18 08:00:14 2010 No.2074868 File: 24 KB, 604x453, 1277491339963.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2074851 lol

Anonymous Thu Nov 18 08:03:14 2010 No.2074874

>>2074851
If these things didn't exist, neither would GPS, and you can verify first hand whether or not that exists. Millions of people do this every day. GPS devices are probably owned and used daily by a lot of people who browse the flat earth society forums, ironically enough.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math