What is the easiest proof that the Earth is not flat? There is this flat-earth conspiracy page on facebook using crappy arguments and I'm feeling kinda freaked out that I can't remember any rebuttal from my high school physics education

File: 80 KB, 600x396, temp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Nov 15 23:13:05 2015 No.7662119 [Reply] [Original]

What is the easiest proof that the Earth is not flat? There is this flat-earth conspiracy page on facebook using crappy arguments and I'm feeling kinda freaked out that I can't remember any rebuttal from my high school physics education

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 15 23:20:02 2015 No.7662130 >>7662119 The earth is flat anon. Flat and infinite. That's what Physics 101 taught me.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 15 23:26:14 2015 No.7662145 >>7662130 Oh great they were right then Gravity is a lie and NASA is a conspiracy run by ex-nazis

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 15 23:30:46 2015 No.7662150 >>7662119 The fact ships go downwards as they sail out to see and the last bot of them you'll see is the highest point.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 00:04:10 2015 No.7662190 File: 13 KB, 595x188, 12241432_10207957660960272_9053752294940424195_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7662119

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 00:08:19 2015 No.7662195 >>7662119 Round Earth makes the time zones work without some kind of time cube crazyness. Good enough for me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 00:18:19 2015 No.7662204 >>7662119 >>7659435 this video is everything you need to know BELIEVE YOUR OWN EYES PEOPLE

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 00:23:56 2015 No.7662206 the typical flat-earth model is kinda like in the pic, with sun and moon orbiting around it all. you can call a friend in a different country and verify that it's a different time there than where you are. how are the flat-earthers gonna explain THAT?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 00:34:21 2015 No.7662211 >>7662195 >>7662206 I dunno I've seen versions where the sun goes in a smaller circle that, at least visually, checks out. This one's too easy to explain away, I think

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 00:48:52 2015 No.7662227 >>7662119 You being alive is proof enough. A flat Earth would not be stable enough for the billion of years it took for life to form and evolve. On these huge time scales, gravity would have long caused a flat Earth to collapse into a sphere.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 00:50:40 2015 No.7662231 >>7662211 Post a pic then.

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 00:51:35 2015 No.7662234

>>7662119
I thought a lunar eclipse would do it

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Lunar+Eclipse
says there's just some other mystery object floating around in space or we have poorly mapped the orbit of some known body

I think the mystery object is my sides

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 00:58:05 2015 No.7662244

>>7662231

Don't have it on me, but the "flat earth" would have to look different than the pic in the OP. In the flat earth shit I've seen, the north pole is at the center, and the antarctic forms a barrier around the circumference keeping all the oceans in. The sun and moon are on a path along the equator.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 01:01:15 2015 No.7662251 >>7662227 >>>>gravity no you idiot the earth is just accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2 forever

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 01:07:40 2015 No.7662259 >>7662211 like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R52_PdZlSq8

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 01:23:47 2015 No.7662279

>>7662119
The moon isn't flat, Mercury isn't flat, Venus isn't flat, the sun isn't flat, Mars isn't flat, Jupiter isn't flat, Saturn isn't flat, Pluto isn't flat, Neptune isn't flat, Uranus isn't flat. Lots of planets beyond the solar system aren't flat. By proof via induction, the Earth isn't flat.

q.e.d

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 01:44:36 2015 No.7662316

>>7662119

Watch a ship travelling directly away from you out to sea.

Lie down and watch the Sun set, as soon as it does run up several flights of stairs and watch the sun set all over again.

Sail around the earth.

Go directly north until you reach the pole from starting from NYC

Go directly north from LA and arrive in the exact same spot.

They've known the earth to be round since the Greeks.

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 01:59:53 2015 No.7662328

The curvature of the fucking earth. It can be observed with shadows. Put a pole in the ground. Watch its shadow behave in a linear fashion. That doesnt fucking happen on a flat earth. Shadows make big circles because the sun has to make big circles. The farther north or south, the less linear the path.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 02:00:23 2015 No.7662329 >>7662119 Anon, I think you're mistaken, everyone knows the earth is cubical. Or so I learned in humanities

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 02:05:59 2015 No.7662334 >>7662279 wow that was garbage

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 02:07:12 2015 No.7662335 >>7662150 the fact that airplanes use least fuel when flying along great circles from A to B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 02:31:54 2015 No.7662354 Telecommunications Satellites?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 02:46:42 2015 No.7662368 >>7662279 Nice Straw Man argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 02:47:15 2015 No.7662369 >>7662354 for the people OP is dealing with, telecommunications satellites are either a conspiracy or put there by the devil to mess with non-believers

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 03:18:12 2015 No.7662391
File: 125 KB, 522x400, j2_how_alt_works.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

For /sci entists (hahahahaha) there is not one argument here proving the earth is an oblate sphere.
Frankly, the flat earthers at least have researched and can hold an argument. I am with them.
>>7662244
This explains time zones, night and day.
>>7662316
>>7662328
>>7662190
My pic explains. Plus perspective, a ship as it recedes into the distance gets smaller relative to the waves near to the observer.
>>7662227
>>7662251
Gravity is a theory, not a proof. Just because the math works does not prove it exists. Dark energy, working against mass would fit the equations well, keep our moon and planets in equilibrium and account for accretion of matter int solar systems, galaxies etc. In fact DE is a better explanation than gravity, centripetal and centrifugal force (all of which are just nomenclature).

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 03:28:06 2015 No.7662400 >>7662391 >This explains time zones, night and day. Not really. I mean day and night still don't work at all geometrically unless the Earth is a convex lens instead of a flat disk. But then you'd be lens-earthers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 03:34:00 2015 No.7662409 >>7662400 In flat earth theory, the sun has a giant lampshade on top of it so the light only shines on the part of the world that it's currently above.

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 03:41:20 2015 No.7662418

>>7662279
Uhhmm but we can really only see the moon and the sun? Any picture of the other planets is just a blatant LIE by NASA, just like those pictures of Earth. Besides, Earth is special. It has life. Why would it not be special in other ways?
(At least this is what Flat Earthers would say)

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 03:49:41 2015 No.7662427
File: 363 KB, 720x1280, 1443756176272.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Message to flat earthers.
nasa hiding that the earth is flat isn't true, the government are tricking you. So that when you figure out the real conspiracy, they can just point at how you were saying that the earth was flat in the 21st century, immediately discrediting you.
Open your eyes people, this was their plan all along.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 03:53:23 2015 No.7662431 >>7662409 And here is a problem because if sun was only a spotlight people on earth would see sun disappearing in the middle of sky instead of going from horizon to horizon.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 04:04:07 2015 No.7662436 File: 49 KB, 1024x480, FE sun.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7662400 Here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 04:04:57 2015 No.7662437 >By proof via induction, the Earth isn't flat. Your argument was alright, but fuckin kek anon.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 04:07:21 2015 No.7662440 >>7662279 >By proof via induction, the Earth isn't flat. KEK

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 04:09:25 2015 No.7662443 >>7662436 See >>7662431

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 04:13:13 2015 No.7662447 >>7662119 Because if Earth was Flat would be Spinning around the Sun like a fucking Frisbee until it got launched of the Solar system.

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 05:41:56 2015 No.7662508

>>7662369
>for the people OP is dealing with, telecommunications satellites are either a conspiracy or put there by the devil to mess with non-believers
It doesn't matter if they're a conspiracy or not, the satellites are still measurably THERE.
I can point a microwave dish at a predictable spot in the sky and get a signal. As I change my (lat,long,alt) that point will move in a way consistent with a source high above a round Earth. There isn't any way for them fake that, unless the laws of physics are in on the con too.

>>7662436
It's amusing that the only way they've found to work around the flaws people point out in flat-Earth theory is to make the Earth ROUNDER. It's almost like they're onto something.

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 05:48:24 2015 No.7662514

>>7662508
>unless the laws of physics are in on the con too.
Most flat-earthers (and geocentrists and growing-earthers in my experience) do believe that the laws of physics follow a bunch of weird curves and shit which boil down to "what we have now, but with more complicated math."

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 07:20:42 2015 No.7662589 the earth is flat with a hyperbolic metric i'm sure if you were clever you could find a way to explain flat earth gravity with mathemabation

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 07:39:23 2015 No.7662607

>>7662190

I like this explanation best.

I've visited the underground MiNOS detector in what was formerly the Tower-Sudan mine, where they recieved a neutrino beam sent from Chicago. The facility in Chicago had to angle their beam down into the Earth, because the distance from Chicago to the Minos detector was large enough that the Earth's curvature between them was significant. At the MiNOS detector, despite being a mile underground, the beam is recieved at an upward angle, and at precisely the angle it is angled downward in Chicago.

The Earth is thus demonstratively curved.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 10:38:57 2015 No.7662749 >>7662391 >Newton's Law of universal Gravitation No, gravity isnt a theory lol, its a law.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 10:41:39 2015 No.7662751 >>7662514 So they believe the laws of physics are curved and not the earth? Occam's Razor is whispering in my ear. Its saying "pssst, thats bullshit. Those people are idiots." Is it whispering to you too?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 12:07:27 2015 No.7662846 File: 12 KB, 567x401, 1446117981650.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7662589 Is an ellipsoid flat in any metric, faggot?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 13:05:25 2015 No.7662911 >>7662436 how would you explain earth's magnetic field? without rotation there's no current in its core, and if planets did rotate the entire planet would have daytime at the same time if it was flat.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 14:07:13 2015 No.7662998 >>7662447 >This desu , Underrated comment

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 14:10:05 2015 No.7663002 >>7662279 That's not induction. You established many base cases, but you didn't make use of an Inductive Hypothesis to show that one object's property implied the next object's property.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 14:49:00 2015 No.7663051 >>7662335 Idiot, planes are just high speed trains with computer screen windows to keep the truth away from the public.

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 14:51:14 2015 No.7663054

The Moon would look different depending on your location, you would be able to see a big part of the far side from the southern hemisphere for example. Same with the Sun, some solar spots would not be visible from some places (they are all basically equally visible from every single point on Earth).

Also, gravity is real, Cavendish measured it in his laboratory more than 2 centuries ago. A disc would not produce the gravitational field we have on Earth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 15:05:21 2015 No.7663073 >>7662436 >The moon is only around at night Flat earthers have literally no idea how basic physics, astronomy, or mathematics work, do they?

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 15:23:54 2015 No.7663096
File: 15 KB, 1200x900, flat_eearth_nobel.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Alright beat this:

A flat - heliozentric earth - perpendicular to the ecliptic which not only rotates around its center but also tips in and out of its own shadow by rotation around the z-axis.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 15:29:09 2015 No.7663103 >>7663096 How does that explain day and night?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 15:32:21 2015 No.7663106 >>7663103 The top side turns away from the sun duh.

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 15:33:36 2015 No.7663109

>>7662119
>What is the easiest proof that the Earth is not flat?

Trying to 'prove' the Round Earth model or 'disprove' the flat one is a pointless endeavour. They will just change their arguments to sidestep around any point you bring up. The best thing to do against flat earthers is to try and get them to do something useful with their model. Try asking them to come up with a set of flat Earth laws to predict the motion of Venus or something.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 15:34:49 2015 No.7663111 >>7663106 But that would mean it would be night everywhere.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 15:35:40 2015 No.7663116 >>7662119 there is none cos earth is flat if it werent you would slip and fall over

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 15:36:20 2015 No.7663118 >>7663111 That's okay we'll just put up more candles.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 15:38:32 2015 No.7663121 >>7663096 >no central core >vulnerable to high amount of Gamma radiation >night time for entire planet when 180 degree

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 15:39:45 2015 No.7663123 File: 546 KB, 255x255, Smiley Face.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] if the earth is flat, where is the edge of the earth, and why is there no proof of it ? :^)

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 15:49:04 2015 No.7663141

>>7662391
>Plus perspective, a ship as it recedes into the distance gets smaller relative to the waves near to the observer.
That doesn't respond to the point. The ship gets smaller from perspective AND it sinks below the wave. Getting smaller in proportion to the wave doesn't explain how it actually sinks below the wave since perspective does not change any line of sight.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 15:53:18 2015 No.7663149 >>7663054 Gravity is real. You do not know that. You see an effect.We have equations that fit that effect. We cannot detect travity and are trying very hard to do so.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 15:56:06 2015 No.7663155 Trade winds trade winds trade winds

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 15:56:37 2015 No.7663156

You don't even need science to refute this. Thousands of commercial flights go over the north pole every day. Dozens of countries have bases in the Antarctic. The US South Pole station is staffed by academic researchers and ordinary-Joe support personnel. Nearly every country in the world has high altitude balloons and aircraft. Even that Red Bull video from a few years ago clearly showed the earth to be round. How big are they claiming this conspiracy is?

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 15:58:51 2015 No.7663160

>>7663149
>You see an effect.We have equations that fit that effect.
Exactly, we call that gravity.

>We cannot detect travity and are trying very hard to do so.
Some sort of transvestite field?

>>7662391
>Gravity is a theory, not a proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 15:59:27 2015 No.7663163 >>7663156 Ok maybe not thousands a day

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 16:01:18 2015 No.7663170 >>7662119 Continuous video of launch into outer space and orbit. Also telescopic images of other (spherical) round planets and their moons. No other flat planets in solar system.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 16:04:33 2015 No.7663177 Lel why would a sun ever dip below the horizon on a flat earth? You'd need a fuckec up geometrical theory of optics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 16:04:38 2015 No.7663178 File: 22 KB, 483x385, flat_moon_transit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Missing ice edge.. How do they model seasons and eclipses?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 16:23:25 2015 No.7663216 File: 142 KB, 800x562, 1446444157218.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7662119 too many options to choose

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 16:25:27 2015 No.7663224 >>7662251 yes, bc infinite acceleration is possible.....

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 16:27:15 2015 No.7663228
File: 446 KB, 1598x1066, atheist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7662119
well, the earth is flat in a way, just like the sun, the moon and every star/planet in the universe.

What makes it look spherical is the space/time distortion, that's why satellites can orbit earth even though they are technically following a straight line for ever.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 18:09:15 2015 No.7663410 >>7663228 Wrong. Satellites in orbit constantly accelerate towards the center of mass for the system it belongs to. An acceleration that is never in line with the satellite's current velocity vector so long as the satellite is indeed in orbit

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 18:13:38 2015 No.7663418

Ancient Greeks knew the world was round just by watching the ships sink into the horizon (they even understood latitude to a certain degree), only people who were never educated (which in most non-modern times was the vast majority of people) entertained the notion of a flat Earth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 18:16:13 2015 No.7663421 >>7662447 Underrated Comment.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 18:25:24 2015 No.7663439 >>7662119 >what are timezones

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 18:26:20 2015 No.7663441

>>7663141
I dont understand how you can just ignore the point that as the ship reduces in size due to distance the waves closer to the observer gradually get larger than the shrinking ship - giving the appearance of the ship dropping below the horizon.
You then ignore completely the picture I posted of dips in the ocean.

If any one of you uad mentioned 'clouds meeting the horizon line' or satellites dropping below the horizon, I couldnt have argued, but none of you picked the obvious.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 18:30:16 2015 No.7663449 uttawise twouldnt need damn GAYlightsavingstime. Seriously doe, u eva ceen a tang go below horizon? i aint. jusayin yo

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 18:31:50 2015 No.7663454 and all those pictures of this round earth are from the .gov

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 18:32:06 2015 No.7663455 >>7663441 The same happens if there is no waves. Also, why do you admit that you can't explain clouds meeting the horizon line?

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 18:32:43 2015 No.7663457
File: 34 KB, 800x600, Round Earth Experiment.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Go to the beach, bring binoculars.
>Take a look at lifeguard tower
>Start swimming in a straight line (Assume your eyes are ~1 meter above the water)
>Every four meters or so, look back at the tower (use binocs if you have to)
>At around 3.57 kM, the curvature of the earth will come between you and the tower, obstructing your view.
Pic related demonstrates this visually.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 18:34:15 2015 No.7663460 The earth's curvature hides boats that go out too far you'd know this if you had a middle-school education

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 18:37:40 2015 No.7663470 >>7662279 top proof

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 18:51:01 2015 No.7663499 >>7663457 >>7662150 Maybe air just curves light downward? Why don't flatearthers just provide a picture of the edge of the earth? Why don't they cross the antarctic?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 18:53:50 2015 No.7663515 >>7663457 This is not strictly true, refraction will fuck your shit up so you will need to go further away. The best way to do this is to increase the distance and the size of the object by an order of magnitude compared to your pic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 18:53:58 2015 No.7663516 >>7663499 >Maybe air just curves light downward? Then lasers fired into space would exit Earth's atmosphere at an angle more extreme than simple refraction would allow. This is not the case.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 18:55:22 2015 No.7663519 >>7663499 That would require effort on their part to understand something.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 19:11:18 2015 No.7663571 >>7663418 >they even understood latitude to a certain degree To what degree? 30°? 45°? Why couldn't they understand it all the way to 90°?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 19:14:11 2015 No.7663578 >>7663515 For flatearthers I'd suggest that you keep swimming out indefinitely desu

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 19:40:06 2015 No.7663622

>>7662119

depends from which dimension out of you are looking at the earth.

Out of the fifth dimension there is a way to describe the earth as indeed flat.

since in it's abstract form its a plain wrapping inside out constantly.

I imagine this could be observed if the earths core movements would be accurately displayed by a recursive function

but you should not imagine it like the picture.

>>7663516

through what, gravity?

Anonymous Mon Nov 16 20:12:30 2015 No.7663684

>>7663441
>I dont understand how you can just ignore the point that as the ship reduces in size due to distance the waves closer to the observer gradually get larger than the shrinking ship
I already explained this. The size difference has nothing to do with line of sight. Perspective does not affect line of sight. If you are looking horizontally at a part of the ship then it's impossible for the waves to then obscure that part simply because the ship moved farther away.

>You then ignore completely the picture I posted of dips in the ocean.
The picture you posted is just a simple drawing that has nothing to do with what the ocean actually looks like.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 17 04:49:09 2015 No.7664338 How do flat Earthers explain lunar eclipses?

Anonymous Tue Nov 17 05:10:43 2015 No.7664353

>>7662119
If you go in a straight line for about 40 000 km you end back at your starting point.

Ships in the distance disappear from the bottom up

If you go high enough in altitude you can see the curvature of the Earth. Plenty of pictures from space. If they don't believe it, they can attach a camera to a helium balloon and see for themselves

The shadows at noon are not the same length depending on the latitude. That's how Erathostenes derived the circumference of the earth in the first place

Off the top of my head

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 17 08:07:20 2015 No.7664467 >>7663123 this

Anonymous Tue Nov 17 08:38:55 2015 No.7664493

>>7662119
I'd imagine that you could use a foucault pendulum and the coriolis force. The anomalous motion of the pendulum would imply a rotating earth, however the motion of a pendulum on a rotating disk and that same pendulum on a rotating sphere would be different. On a sphere there would be a larger affect at the north pole, getting smaller as you reach the equator before swapping directions completely as you enter the southern hemisphere, before reaching a maximum again at the south pole. On a rotating disk the affect should just increase as you make your way towards the "ice wall".

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 17 14:37:03 2015 No.7664894 File: 31 KB, 498x498, flat_earth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7663123 >>7664467 "Impenetrable walls of ice" that no explorer has ever gotten penetrated.

Anonymous Tue Nov 17 16:27:15 2015 No.7665123

>>7664894
I'm sure that one or two explorers have got penetrated at those ice walls.

Also apparently people take this video as "evidence" of a flat earth dome, even though they'll tell you that the footage of earth as a sphere is all "an elaborate deception"
https://youtu.be/GOhbZZy02lQ
I can't believe people will watch a few videos made by random people on the Internet and then think that everything that scientists study is a big conspiracy. Can any psychology fags explain? Are people so insecure in their intelligence that they convince themselves that all intellectuals are actually being fooled as part of a big conspiracy and that they are the only ones who are smart enough to realize the "truth" because someone on he internet says so? I met a grown man who actually believes this shit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 17 16:30:34 2015 No.7665129 >>7665123 http://youtu.be/IAcp3BFBYw4 Sorry, i accidentally linked the advertisement before the video. This is the intended video.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 17 17:04:06 2015 No.7665178 Every picture I have seen with the earth in it has been flat.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 17 20:24:33 2015 No.7665500 What reason do the flatearthers even give for there being a conspiracy? I can't see who possibly gains from faking that the earth is round.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 17 20:48:23 2015 No.7665531 >>7663455 Because he doesn't believe this shit, he's playing devil's advocate. He's been doing that the whole time.

Anonymous Tue Nov 17 21:41:54 2015 No.7665598

The only thing I can think of are satellites. How do they get up there and how do they stay up there. The current thing is that they move so quickly to the side that they fall past the earth constantly, orbiting it.

Otherwise you'd have to prove satellites don't exist, which would be quite hard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 17 21:56:14 2015 No.7665609 Sunlight hours of Antarctica. A single point in Antarctica should not have 24 hour days during the winter, however, it does.

Anonymous Tue Nov 17 22:02:18 2015 No.7665616

>>7665598
Satellites are a lie by the Illuminati. The fact you can see large satellites and the ISS through good telescopes is a lie by the NWO's Astronomy shills. There anon. I have just conclusively disproved satellites using the logic of a Flat Earther. If you try and counter you are either a shill or part of the brainwashed masses.

>>	Carbon Tue Nov 17 22:08:09 2015 No.7665623 >>7662119 Gravity and the horizon curving They can't explain either.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 17 22:11:15 2015 No.7665624 >>7665616 Satellite TV, satellite phones, satellite Internet, GPS... They must all work with some secret terrestrial radio mode they don't want us to know about. Maybe that's what the whole conspiracy is about.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 17 22:18:21 2015 No.7665629 >>7662119 the north/south pole and it's funky sunlight. no flat earth model can explain the suns position there.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 17 22:20:22 2015 No.7665639 >>7665616 kek Although, do a majority of Flat Earthers believe in the Illuminati? Or at least some kind of new world order?

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 00:27:00 2015 No.7665826

>>7665639
All of them believe in some kind of higher power to an even more extreme degree than normal conspiracy theorists.
Your average tinfoil hats typically believe that there's some ancient society or group that's been influencing humanity for their personal benefit. Which is really plausible compared to "we've been brainwashed to believe that the earth is a sphere our whole lives" but not have any argument as to why. They're convinced that most, if not all, scientific facts are elaborate lies. "Gravity is only a theory", to quote one of them.
While I would love to think that they're all mentally ill, I think it's a simple psychological phenomenon that allows them to become to thoroughly deluded. Same as how religious people will cling to obsolete parts of their belief systems because of their programmed fear of some sort of ultimate punishment for lack of faith, flat-earthers get a notion that if they doubt their beliefs, they're suddenly a victim of brainwashing. Which is so ironic that it's almost not funny. They will claim all evidence against them as "government lies" and hold a vague YouTube video as "infallible evidence". They've inverted their logical reasoning.

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 04:01:21 2015 No.7666136
File: 923 KB, 2165x2295, Flat earth NASA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

NASA doesnt put curvature, spin or moving atmosphere in the equation for aircraft in applications.
Although this is a proof for a flat earth to help people understand that we do not live on a ball, there are much more simpler proofs to show and test. Like pilots never adjusting the the amount of curvature during the entire duration of an hour flight which at going 550 mph would have to account to atleast 15 miles of curvature.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 04:03:32 2015 No.7666137 File: 82 KB, 736x520, eda031f53a266b1dd46970cf0d44d3bb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7665639 because its just pure coincidence famous people throw gang signs every now and then.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 04:04:39 2015 No.7666140 >>7666137 "Quiet coyote."

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 04:05:42 2015 No.7666141 >>7664493 wind patterns, weather systems and the Coriolis effect prove that the atmosphere does not spin with the earth.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 04:07:43 2015 No.7666144 File: 63 KB, 499x427, b1bef57720dcd9eae200ae2b130a37bb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7666140 >its just coincidence

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 04:11:07 2015 No.7666148
File: 19 KB, 800x510, flatrth.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

the boat sinking below the horizon wives tale can be disproven. Curvature does not exist on an otherwise proven flat surface.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awCx5ob04ZY

"As is well known, atmospheric ducting is the explanation for certain optical mirages, and in particular the arctic illusion called "fata morgana" where distant ocean or surface ice, which is essentially flat, appears to the viewer in the form of vertical columns and spires, or "castles in the air.""
As is well known, atmospheric ducting is the explanation for certain optical mirages, and in particular the arctic illusion called "fata morgana" where distant ocean or surface ice, which is ESSENTIALLY FLAT, appears to the viewer in the form of vertical columns and spires, or "castles in the air."

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 04:12:19 2015 No.7666149 >>7666141 What has the motion of the atmosphere got to do with the motion of a pendulum?

Heliocentric Wed Nov 18 04:50:05 2015 No.7666173 [DELETED]

File: 372 KB, 900x720, Reading and Comprehending.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

1. TIMEZONES work on a flat earth with the sun as a spotlight LIKE working around a circuit LIKE a superconductor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npn29xn36mM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXHWJ4iUlZs

2. SUN RISE and sun set are perception based and the sun does not actually follow a curve. In higher altitudes you can observe the sun moving away towards the vanishing point of the horizon and its light is like a spot light with limited radius.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDHB6aXQJMI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDaiw-G1VGE

3. GRAVITY is theoretical and the graviton is purely hypothetical and only an explanation for round earth assumptions. To assume gravity is powerful enough to keep the oceans and everything else stick yet weak enough to let birds, the moons gravity, and magnets overcome it is proof how ridiculous the theory is. The earths gravitational pull is strong enough to keep the moon in orbit, attract everything to the center but heavy metal objects such as a plane is able to lift off the ground is bunkum. The moon is 1.2% of the earths mass and should have already been pulled closer until impact. Also, the iron core of the earth is speculation to explain magnetic properties of the north pole of a round earth. It is way past curie point for any magnetism of iron to occur if the earths inner crust is 10,800 F. The furthest dig is the Kola Superdeep Borehole.

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

4. FOUCAULT pendulum does not prove a rotating earth. But it does prove that something else is affecting it, possible the magnatism of the moon and sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect

5. TIDES work by the water being diamagetic and the moon having magnetic properties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pauQitNEM0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phj7RUP9oyY

>>7666136
this

Heliocentric Wed Nov 18 04:54:59 2015 No.7666176
File: 38 KB, 630x472, Read and Comprehend.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

1. TIMEZONES work on a flat earth with the sun as a spotlight LIKE working around a circuit LIKE a superconductor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npn29xn36mM [Embed]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXHWJ4iUlZs [Embed]

2. SUN RISE and sun set are perception based and the sun does not actually follow a curve. In higher altitudes you can observe the sun moving away towards the vanishing point of the horizon and its light is like a spot light with limited radius.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDaiw-G1VGE [Embed]

3. GRAVITY is theoretical and the graviton is purely hypothetical and only an explanation for round earth assumptions. To assume gravity is powerful enough to keep the oceans and everything else stick yet weak enough to let birds, the moons gravity, and magnets overcome it is proof how ridiculous the theory is. The earths gravitational pull is strong enough to keep the moon in orbit, attract everything to the center but heavy metal objects such as a plane is able to lift off the ground is bunkum. The moon is 1.2% of the earths mass and should have already been pulled closer until impact. Also, the iron core of the earth is speculation to explain magnetic properties of the north pole of a round earth. It is way past curie point for any magnetism of iron to occur if the earths inner crust is 10,800 F. The furthest dig is the Kola Superdeep Borehole.

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

4. FOUCAULT pendulum does not prove a rotating earth. But it does prove that something else is affecting it, possible the magnatism of the moon and sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect

5. TIDES work by the water being diamagetic and the moon having magnetic properties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pauQitNEM0 [Embed]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phj7RUP9oyY [Embed]

>>7666136
this

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 04:57:01 2015 No.7666180 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2zKARkpDW4 Or look up any other material about Joseph Kittinger's space jumps.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 05:20:35 2015 No.7666203 >>7662119 But from a perspective of a light particle it is anon.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 05:22:33 2015 No.7666205 I'd tell them to discover a new continent.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 05:28:46 2015 No.7666212 >>7666205 Oh but they're believing in the earth as a non-infinite disk?? I'd ask if there was a way to find out what's on the other side.

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 05:36:41 2015 No.7666223

>>7666176
>4. FOUCAULT pendulum does not prove a rotating earth.

From your link I can say three things:
1.) That effect seems to be transient to say the least (it looks like at least 2 sensitive pendula experiments returned a null result)
2.)It clearly states that it's an additional effect only observed during eclipses.
3.)You're and idiot.

The point made further up thread stands.

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 06:36:04 2015 No.7666276

>>7666176
>TIMEZONES work on a flat earth with the sun as a spotlight
And I suppose you have evidence for that?
Do you have photos of the side or back of the sun?

>LIKE working around a circuit LIKE a superconductor.
What? How does superconductance fit into this?

>2. SUN RISE and sun set are perception based and the sun does not actually follow a curve.
The sun doesn't give a fuck about your perceptions and it absolutely follows a curve through the sky.

>3. GRAVITY is theoretical
No it isn't. Gravitation is a fucking fact. You can measure it with some decent weights:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

>To assume gravity is powerful enough to keep the oceans and everything else stick yet weak enough to let birds, the moons gravity, and magnets overcome it is proof how ridiculous the theory is.
The oceans weigh a shitload, and there isn't much trying to lift them away. Also, birds have to be light and put a lot of effort into flying, and magnets a damn strong when the seperation distance is small.

>The earths gravitational pull is strong enough to keep the moon in orbit, attract everything to the center but heavy metal objects such as a plane is able to lift off the ground is bunkum.
People put a lot of work into building those planes, and they use lots of very energy-dense kerosene to fly.

>The moon is 1.2% of the earths mass and should have already been pulled closer until impact.
Why? The moon's mass is irreverent to it's orbital motion.
Do you not know how orbits work?

>Also, the iron core of the earth is speculation to explain magnetic properties of the north pole of a round earth. It is way past curie point for any magnetism of iron to occur if the earths inner crust is 10,800 F.
The Curie point isn't some maximum temperature magnetic fields can exist at, it refers to the point where a particular effect stops.

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 06:37:06 2015 No.7666277

>>7666176
>4. FOUCAULT pendulum does not prove a rotating earth. But it does prove that something else is affecting it, possible the magnatism of the moon and sun.
Pendulums are often made of lead, which isn't magnetic.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect
Given the observations are super unreliable, it's probably nothing.

>5. TIDES work by the water being diamagetic and the moon having magnetic properties.
Uh, no.

Also, all of the videos you posted are utterly stupid. I got to see everything from "perspective" being some magic force of illusion to positive and negative electromagnets.

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 06:43:59 2015 No.7666281
File: 79 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7666223
>It clearly states that it's an additional effect only observed during eclipses.

that alone is proof that its not measuring the earths rotation and something else. being null in other experiments can be explained that its on different locations away from the circuits of the sun and moon in pic related.
It seems to have an effect in relation to the suns circut in the summer but not winter. And a scientist observed the Allais effect in china but wasn't publish in a peer reviewed study. Clarence C. Little, spokesperson for the tobacco industry: "To expect, as Dr. Wynder [a tobacco epidemiologist] and some others do, that those still unconvinced [that smoking cases lung cancer] should state the exact and specific evidence that would 'convince' them is being completely unrealistic. If one could define such specific evidence the problem would be already solved."
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Little, Clarence C. "Some Phases of the Problem of Smoking and Lung Cancer" New England Journal of Medicine 1964 (264), 1241-1245.

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 07:01:14 2015 No.7666291
File: 96 KB, 650x488, 185440d1424033149-my-journal-3-crepuscular1606_650x488.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7666276
proof that the sun is closer is measuring the rays.

pic related. you can do this too.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBZugj4prh8

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-c9VQ-BDJI

>What? How does superconductance fit into this?
its behavior.

>The sun doesn't give a fuck about your perceptions and it absolutely follows a curve through the sky.
solar analemma proves otherwise.

>Gravitation is a fucking fact
its is not. There are still controversies on using netwonian gravity to which the experiment was based on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation#Modern_controversy

The observed fact that the gravitational mass and the inertial mass is the same for all objects is unexplained within Newton's Theories.

everything else you rebutted is already explained.
such as the earths gravity being strong enough to hold the oceans and the moon in orbit yet weak enough to allow leaves to be lifted with a gust of wind and the temperature of the iron core being too hot to be permanently magnetic.

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 07:01:55 2015 No.7666292
File: 53 KB, 680x1023, sostupidithurts.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7662119
-Link them google earth
-Images of a spherical earth.
-Every object in the solar system visible by eye or telescope is a spheroid.
-The changing path of the sun throughout the year
-During Lunar eclipses the earth casts a curved shadow each time.
You don't need to leave the atmosphere to see a curved earth, it takes a complete refusal of science and logic to actually believe in a flat earth. It is a waste of time "logically" argue with them, hopefully some equally ignorant extremist culls these people and the human race can take another step towards improving ourselves.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 07:11:48 2015 No.7666298 >>7666292 earths shadow on the moon can also be observed when the sun and the moon are in the sky at the same time. its not the earths shadow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUkjb4bbjpc >>7666176 this

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 07:17:28 2015 No.7666301

>>7666291
>proof that the sun is closer is measuring the rays.
They're parallel.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBZugj4prh8
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-c9VQ-BDJI
Yeah, that's what parallel lines look like when viewed from an angle. Go look at contrails or something, they do the same thing despite the flight corridors being parallel.

Also:
>As the sun sets watch your shadow it will elongate as it gets darker. this tells us that the sun is moving away from your position overhead. Notice your shadow never moves off the ground the entire time.
>ILLY-MUNTY did it!
Did you actually watch this shit before posting it?

>solar analemma proves otherwise.
No it doesn't. That pattern is what you would expect to see given the Earth's axial tilt.

>There are still controversies on using netwonian gravity to which the experiment was based on.
>The observed fact that the gravitational mass and the inertial mass is the same for all objects is unexplained within Newton's Theories.
Right, which is where Relativity came from.
Do you have a point? None of that matters to measuring the Gravitational constant, which is (effectively) what that experiment was for.

>the earths gravity being strong enough to hold the oceans and the moon in orbit yet weak enough to allow leaves to be lifted with a gust of wind
The force of gravity is proportional to the sum of the masses. This isn't hard.

>the temperature of the iron core being too hot to be permanently magnetic.
It's not a permanent magnet.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 07:18:36 2015 No.7666304 >>7666291 >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation#Modern_controversy The whole section is on Hooke's influence on Newton's work, not whether gravitation is a fact.

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 07:28:02 2015 No.7666313
File: 24 KB, 500x380, tumblr_ll9mgrp1cD1qbfu8h.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7666301
>Yeah, that's what parallel lines look like when viewed from an angle.
>Do you have a point? None of that matters to measuring the Gravitational constant, which is (effectively) what that experiment was for.
>not knowing that the experiment used a defunct theory.
>not knowing its not universal and pure assumption
>The force of gravity is proportional to the sum of the masses. This isn't hard.
>not knowing that the earth has mass according to his parroted claim.

do they just give GEDs to who ever can memorize the most shit?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 07:32:04 2015 No.7666314 >>7666304 thats exactly my point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation#Problematic_aspects

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 07:35:12 2015 No.7666317

>>7666298
>earths shadow on the moon can also be observed when the sun and the moon are in the sky at the same time. its not the earths shadow.
Right, because the atmosphere refracts the image of the sun and the image of the moon slightly. If it was caused by an entirely separate object, then the timing of the Luna eclipse should have nothing to do with relative positions of the Sun and the Moon to the Earth. But they ARE connected, and the eclipse only takes place when they are in (near) opposition.

>>7666313
>not knowing that the experiment used a defunct theory
>not knowing its not universal and pure assumption.
Right, but the defunctness of the theory didn't matter in that particular case. The gravitational influence of a small mass was still being measured, demonstrating that gravity is universal and not a property of the Earth. You could do the same thing with relativistic mechanics if you wanted, but the results would be identical.
I'd also normally cite space missions here, but if you're willing to accept that aircraft pilots are being trained by the Illuminati then that's unlikely to go anywhere.

>not knowing that the earth has mass according to his parroted claim.
It kinda obviously does. You can pick up bits of it and weigh them.

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 08:20:38 2015 No.7666344
File: 53 KB, 500x388, earthistilted.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7666298
I don't see how you can get the idea that the earth is flat from this video.
That video is actually really amazing and further proves that the earth is a sphere.
I am not going to try and get you to understand it because I know you aren't even trying.
But here are some hints:
The size of the sun, earth, and moon
The Latitude of observance
The Season of observance

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 08:23:33 2015 No.7666346 File: 9 KB, 500x273, Moon_phases_drawing.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7662119 Actually the best way is simply observation of the cycles of the moon.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 08:31:46 2015 No.7666354 >>7666344 >>7666346 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIDd76HzMo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occultation

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 08:35:05 2015 No.7666358

>>7665123
>Are people so insecure in their intelligence that they convince themselves that all intellectuals are actually being fooled as part of a big conspiracy and that they are the only ones who are smart enough to realize the "truth" because someone on he internet says so? I met a grown man who actually believes this shit.
Yes, but the internet doesn't help since it allows echochambers and hugboxes, so instead of being corrected by people IRL they just move into online hugboxes and feed each other's retardation

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 08:38:32 2015 No.7666360

>>7666354

say something yourself if you wanna disprove decades of scientific research, instead of posting a miserable youtube vid and a wiki page.

or you know, just wake the fuck up from your delusion and focus on the math behind it if you're still thinking this is legit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 08:44:35 2015 No.7666364 >>7666354 >Video quotes 18th and 19th century astronomy tip top kek

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 08:51:46 2015 No.7666374

>>7666358
Any idot can parrot science reviews and call it fact and deny the possibility of being wrong. Acedemia and peer review studies are responsible for scheduling marijuana as number one while giving heroin a schedule 2 and prescription pills being less harmful.
There used to be peer reviewed studies of fluoride not causing neurological problems and was good for teeth. Now there are studies that show it damages the brain and causes splotches. Now there are studies showing the exact opposite.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/27/us-lowers-fluoride-in-water-too-much-causing-splot/?page=all

The point is that academics is controlled and any opposition with proof will be ridiculed and denied. The earth is not a globe.

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 09:01:50 2015 No.7666383

>>7666360
you can see Chicago from the Michigan shore when the earths curvature should hide it.

The moon behaves as a flat disk based on its absense of a hot spot and absence of degrees in light when you observe a ball reflecting light. its entire face lit up unformally like a disk reflecting light. It should not be visible at all, even have a termniator line, during the day if the sun is behind it at 96 million miles away.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 09:12:48 2015 No.7666394 >>7666281 >that alone is proof that its not measuring the earths rotation and something else. >What are higher order effects You're a literal retard, seriously.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 09:15:03 2015 No.7666398 >>7666374 /thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 09:58:07 2015 No.7666430 Hey, flat earth nutters, can you poin5 your crazy at my post >>7662607 Because I want to see what shape your crazy takes to explain that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 10:52:52 2015 No.7666490 >>7662607 yeah. this debunked everything you swear by. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole suck my dick.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 11:05:54 2015 No.7666507 >>7666490 And this explains a neutrino beam sent at a downward angle being recieved at an upward angle ...how?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 12:07:24 2015 No.7666587 >>7662119 Call someone on the implied "other side" of the world. Ask if it's morning or night over there. Check outside your window. If results match=flat. If results don't match=spherical.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 12:08:36 2015 No.7666588 >>7663051 Demonstrate your claim or we have no reason to believe you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 12:23:28 2015 No.7666608 >>7666587 But what if that "soneone" works for .gov and is just a member of the conspiracy? Then who can you trust?! Youtube-videos, ofc!

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 12:24:21 2015 No.7666609

>>7666354
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIDd76HzMo
>Have you noticed the cooling effect of moonlight?
Do you actually believe that moonlight is cold? Because that's retarded, even by flat-earth standards.

>>7666383
>you can see Chicago from the Michigan shore when the earths curvature should hide it.
I can't speak for that example, but under the right conditions refraction lets you see pretty damn far.

>The moon behaves as a flat disk based on its absense of a hot spot and absence of degrees in light when you observe a ball reflecting light.
What?
It's clearly not a flat disk, it has a visible terminator line.

>It should not be visible at all,
Why?

>>7666490
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole
What does that have to do with anything?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 12:30:39 2015 No.7666621 i haven't read the thread because why would i read it but one thing i don't get is how do flat earthers account for circumnavigation bringing you back home? do they think the earth just repeats ad nauseum?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 12:35:45 2015 No.7666632 >>7666621 >All the captains are in on the conspiracy. When you already believe that there is a world-wide conspiracy, that somehow every government for the past 2000+ years are all in on, then I dont think that would be that far a leap in reasoning...

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 12:37:54 2015 No.7666639 File: 332 KB, 1400x933, IMGP1265_Orig[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7666292 oh wow look guise ! they made the building in a spherical curvy form. it definitely doesn't have a flat surface and this picture is a solid evidence for it :O

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 12:39:19 2015 No.7666643

>>7666621
why dont you look into it and ask questions later.

all of these replies are because they didnt do research that explains how things work on a flat earth. some are better explanations than a round earth.

here let me spoon feed you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pauQitNEM0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDaiw-G1VGE

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 12:41:18 2015 No.7666647 >>7666621 here let me spoon feed you some more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kG02Wrx9D8 and heres some more >>7666176

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 12:46:05 2015 No.7666667 >>7666643 >>7666647 Notice how none of these actually answer >>7666621 Typical flat earth retard, just spamming idiotic youtube videos because he's too stupid to shitpost originally.

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 13:45:41 2015 No.7666811

Flat-earthers, do you actually tell other people in real life that you believe the earth is flat?

Because if the dad of one if my kid's friends mentioned, "you know, I think the world is actually flat. Makes a lot of sense to me," I would pick my kid up immediatly and explain that he can't be friends with that other kid anymore, because his dad is dangerously insane.

How stupid do someone's beliefs have to be before it's no longer rude to just refuse to entertain them? Because we already all just smile politely when someone talks about the magic man who lives in the sky, I'm smiling right along with you, but surely we can draw the line well before a flat earth, can't we?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 14:14:47 2015 No.7666854 >>7666811 back in the old days, you would get laughed at for telling others that smoking cigarettes is harmful and causes cancer.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 15:07:26 2015 No.7666955 >>7666647 >Polaris is always the pole star Top kek, it won't be in a few thousand years

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 15:12:09 2015 No.7666967

>>7666854
False equivalence. At the time no one knew smoking was harmful, no-one was doing research into cancer, cancer was itself very poorly understood until a few decades ago (in fact, research is still ongoing). As soon as research began, mountains of evidence about links to smoking was collected in studies.
The earth being round has already been studied for centuries (millennia even, Greeks estimated the radius of the earth) and is incredibly well understood, the scientific theories relying on it are many and they are consistent with the earth being an oblate spheroid. This is even before photographic evidence from space itself is added.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 15:40:23 2015 No.7667023 >>7666854 you can LITERALLY buy one of those cameras, tie it to a professional baloon and see the curvature of the earth for yourself

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 15:43:47 2015 No.7667029
File: 26 KB, 469x331, 9cf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7666967
your whole post is absolutely wrong. you are either uninformed about how easy it is to hide scientific evidence that is unfavorable to wanted results in the scientific community or you remain ignorant and deny that the academic board and peer review can be corrupted.

"The documents show how tobacco companies funded epidemiological and biological research that was designed to support claims that secondhand smoke posed little or no harm."
"Unfavorable research results also were suppressed by the tobacco industry, according to Tong and Glantz."
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20071114_cardio-tobacco/

"Smoking and health research programs were organized both separately by individual tobacco companies and jointly through their German trade organization. An extensive network of scientists and scientific institutions with tobacco industry links was developed. Science was distorted in 5 ways: suppression, dilution, distraction, concealment, and manipulation.
The extent of tobacco industry influence over the scientific establishment in Germany is profound. The industry introduced serious bias that probably influenced scientific and public opinion in Germany. This influence likely undermined efforts to control tobacco use."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470431/

Just with this very easy example of the corruption and suppression of evidence in the science community in favor of the tobacco industry and how the general public's knowledge remains absent and conformed to popular trends in the matter, there is absolutely a reason to acknowledge that proofs for a flat earth and a entirely different cosmology that what we are given can be heavily suppressed and denied to irrational scrutiny. Wake up and smell the bloodshed because popular science is whitewashed as fuck to be taken for granted.

So lets go back to square one and start with the basics in proof: earth has no curvature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWLOT3Tqi-Q

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 16:14:32 2015 No.7667077 >>7663224 Why not?

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 16:27:41 2015 No.7667098

>>7667029
There's a huge difference in scale between big tobacco firms bribing biologists to suppress studies and someone withholding a fact that underlies most of modern science. I've done work in communications (as in satellites), am I in on the conspiracy too?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 16:28:44 2015 No.7667102 >>7667077 Relativity

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 16:31:31 2015 No.7667110 >>7667029 >That video Dunkerque is in northern France, he's done exactly 0 research there.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 16:57:09 2015 No.7667153 >>7667098 no you dont. >>7667110 and what do you add to the table? am i supposed to believe you know better?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 16:59:38 2015 No.7667164 File: 30 KB, 300x300, madmen.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7667098 >>7667110 proving my point in irrational skepticism.

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 17:08:36 2015 No.7667188

>>7667164
What are you even on about? I'm sceptic in your belief that every scientist, pilot, boat captain, everyone who goes to Antartica, everyone working in aerospace or space industry and all governments and physicists ever are in on a conspiracy to hide the "fact" the earth is flat, yes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 18 17:41:10 2015 No.7667262 >>7662391 For /sci entists (ha ha ha ha) the burden of proof is on the claimant. You need to prove the Earth is flat, not just shitpost away reason why it is not.

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 17:46:07 2015 No.7667274
File: 51 KB, 500x375, stop-posting.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7667188
there is no curvature. topology, yes; overall curvature, no.
information works by compartmentalization. only a few people really know and everyone else works in what they are told and given a few equations to explain it without much thought or realization.

if you were to tell a pilot that the horizon is eye level and flat in high altitudes, which it true and can be proven based on my own experience with air travel, he would agree not knowing that contradicts evidence of a round earth. That same pilot would tell you that he has to stay above a certain altitude and level with the horizon, only making minor adjustments for air pressure, not knowing that he does not follow the curvature of the earth over the duration of a long flight only to descend when given permission to land by air traffic control.
Your assumption that every scientist believes in mainstream theories as fact is contradictory of leading edge discoveries made by scientists who challenged peer reviewed studies. Its been proven that often peer reviewed studies can be falsifiable and bias against new ideas, like marijuana being a schedule 1 substance and thus limiting actual study to challenge it or propose actual logic behind allowing alcohol being widely available despite numerous problems it can cause.
A boat captain and the entire history of people traversing open waters and dry land have used celestial navigation for centuries and we are supposed to believe that constellations don't change over the course of 1000 years while the sun orbits the galaxy. I'll mention also that its difficult to measure stellar parallax of stars.

Of course the aerospace industry would cover up facts since that's where most of the information about it comes from. Contradictions of Apollo astronaut interviews and their behaviors prove it. Buzz Aldrin became an alcoholic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBhzRY6UuVA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2FTZhyuJy8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 17:50:35 2015 No.7667286

>>7667274
>A boat captain and the entire history of people traversing open waters and dry land have used celestial navigation for centuries and we are supposed to believe that constellations don't change over the course of 1000 years while the sun orbits the galaxy
Constellations do change though, very slowly, the constellations reported by the greeks do not exactly match today's skies.
>The celestial pole will move away from α UMi after the 21st century, passing close by Gamma Cephei by about the 41st century. Historically, the celestial pole was close to Thuban around 2500 BCE,[22] and during classical antiquity, it was closer to Kochab (β UMi) than to α UMi. It was about the same angular distance from either β UMi than to α UMi by the end of late antiquity. The Greek navigator Pytheas in ca. 320 BCE described the celestial pole as devoid of stars.

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 17:55:42 2015 No.7667295

>>7667274
>Its been proven that often peer reviewed studies can be falsifiable and bias against new ideas
The knowledge of the earth being round predates peer review by about 2200 years actually. There are people working in space industries literally right now (including people I know) are all of the thousands in atmospheric and space industries brainwashed too? Your whole idea is moronic.

>if you were to tell a pilot that the horizon is eye level and flat in high altitudes, which it true and can be proven based on my own experience with air travel
24,000 feet is not very high at all though, curvature there would be very hard to distinguish with the naked eye.

How do you even reconcile with how planes fly on arcs of great circles? Or that flights from Australia to South America don't take longer than Australia to Europevas a flat earth would imply?

Anonymous Wed Nov 18 18:01:13 2015 No.7667310

>>7667274
>not knowing that he does not follow the curvature of the earth over the duration of a long flight
A plane naturally follows curvature of the atmosphere though?
A plane is like a boat, except instead of floating because of density, the lift provided by the shape of the wings keeps it "floating" in the air. Boats don't magically take off by travelling in a straight line on the ocean (which is curved), planes will remain at altitude as the pass over the surface of the curved earth unless they are purposefully taken upwards or downwards (this is over simplified, since fluid dynamics is so complex and small corrections are made by autopilots very often, but the idea still works generally)

Anonymous Thu Nov 19 00:34:10 2015 No.7668058
File: 57 KB, 638x479, eratosten-english-rumunija-2014-8-638.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7667286
"Being very difficult to measure, only about 60 stellar parallaxes had been obtained by the end of the 19th century, mostly by use of the filar micrometer."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax#19th_and_20th_centuries

>>7667295
>The knowledge of the earth being round predates peer review by about 2200 years actually.
those experiments performed back then only work on the assumption of a round earth. pic related.

>24,000 feet is not very high at all though, curvature there would be very hard to distinguish with the naked eye.
the amount of curvature during the entire duration of an hour flight which at going 550 mph would have to account to at least 15 miles of curvature.

Anonymous Thu Nov 19 01:31:30 2015 No.7668106

>>7668058
>those experiments performed back then only work on the assumption of a round earth. pic related.
Nope.
The change of the angle of the shadows would be completely different if the Earth was flat and the Sun a near source. You would not be able to get a consistent diameter of the Earth using that method if the Earth was actually flat.

>"Being very difficult to measure, only about 60 stellar parallaxes had been obtained by the end of the 19th century, mostly by use of the filar micrometer."
>the amount of curvature during the entire duration of an hour flight which at going 550 mph would have to account to at least 15 miles of curvature.
You keep quoting this shit, but you never say why any of it actually matters.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 19 12:08:58 2015 No.7668792 I haven't read any good explanation of the day/night problem from flatearthers. Can a flatearther elaborate on this?

Anonymous Thu Nov 19 12:22:19 2015 No.7668817

>>7668058
>"Being very difficult to measure, only about 60 stellar parallaxes had been obtained by the end of the 19th century, mostly by use of the filar micrometer."
So your response to the fact that stars are not fixed in place is to point out that in the 1800s it was difficult to measure the change?

>those experiments performed back then only work on the assumption of a round earth. pic related.
You mean the Earth being round explains the experimental results. And your flat earth hypothesis directly conflicts with experimental results, such as the curve in the horizon, objects falling under the horizon, the sun rising above and dipping below the horizon and not moving around in a circle in the sky, etc, etc.

>the amount of curvature during the entire duration of an hour flight which at going 550 mph would have to account to at least 15 miles of curvature.
As has been pointed out to you many many times, what you call curvature is a meaningless statistic. Flying at 24,000 feet only increases the distance traveled by 0.1%, because 24,000 feet is minuscule compared to to the 21,000,000 feet of the radius of the earth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 19 12:22:42 2015 No.7668818 >>7666144 >A bunch of people covering their eye in completely different ways=illuminati. kek

Anonymous Thu Nov 19 20:52:02 2015 No.7669865

There's one thing I never undestand why no one brings it up to counter Flat Earthers:

The smallest light is visible at night. Light tears darkness like a hot knife on butter. If the Earth was flat, there would be no day/night cycle - or, at least, we should be able to see the sun on the distance, since it's a fucking ball of light, no matter how distant. Or am I thinking wrong?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 19 20:54:47 2015 No.7669869 File: 30 KB, 762x640, 1406524146476.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7662119 >What is the easiest proof that the Earth is not flat? >175 posts

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 19 21:01:31 2015 No.7669881 >>7667077 because basic physics.... just gtf off /sci/ forever please.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 19 22:06:42 2015 No.7669971 UHF and VHF line of sight transmissions from ship to ship, plane to plane... Lots of things in radio, actually.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 19 22:15:09 2015 No.7669985 What about the Pythagorean Theorem? Shouldn't we be able to measure, from a sufficient distance away, the difference between the adjacent side and the arc length of the curve of the actual distance, while correcting for altitude differences?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 19 22:37:02 2015 No.7670009 >>7669869 Is this your first bait thread or something?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 19 22:39:37 2015 No.7670012 >>7669869 What do you expect? Not too long ago it took /sci/ nearly 100 posts to solve a literal high school level trig problem.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 19 22:40:05 2015 No.7670013 >>7663216 Saw this thread and came in to post about seismic waves but thankfully someone has.

Anonymous Thu Nov 19 22:40:15 2015 No.7670014
File: 661 KB, 958x775, jew destroying world.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7662119
matter forms a sphere in empty space, even on Earth, except Earth's gravity distorts the sphere, for example throw some water up in the air and it will form spheres.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 19 23:30:00 2015 No.7670059 >>7665616 You don't need a good telescope to see the ISS. In fact, you don't need a telescope. You need at least one functioning eye and a clear sky.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 19 23:32:38 2015 No.7670063 >>7670059 That light in the sky could be anything. A bird, Venus, swamp gas, or more likely a NWO plane spraying chemtrails to brainwash the sheeple like you who blindly accept the word of science shills.

Anonymous Thu Nov 19 23:35:19 2015 No.7670071

>>7666136
BS. Anyone having basic flight school experience up to at least Navigation knows curvature needs to be taken into account for any trip longer than 100nm or so.

Other than properly planning a Great Circle course, what other "adjusting" do you think is needed?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 19 23:51:36 2015 No.7670097 >>7669881 What basic physics?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 19 23:58:01 2015 No.7670103 >>7670063 NWO...right. Venus? Bird? swamp gas??? Dude, wait, what, do you ever go outside? You've clearly never seen an ISS pass.

Anonymous Thu Nov 19 23:58:55 2015 No.7670105

The Earth is actually convex, space is contained within Earth and its much smaller than you think.

There is a glass sky that was created by the sand released during the great flood that NASA has penetrated and one day the glass will shatter and kill us all.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 20 02:00:08 2015 No.7670313 >>7669865 thats actually explained very well. A combination of perspective and vanishing points and the radius of the suns light and it being closer to the earth is what makes it work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDaiw-G1VGE

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 20 02:05:23 2015 No.7670321 The Universe is flat. The Earth is part of the Universe. Therefore the Earth is flat.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 20 03:48:14 2015 No.7670446 If Earth were flat, its center of gravity would be wherever the center of the map is, not the core. So, if you dropped something on a flat Earth it would fall toward wherever that place is relative to you rather than down.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 20 04:34:52 2015 No.7670492 >>7670446 The problem with that one is that it's TOO easy. Any flat earther with Internet access will have already rejected that model of gravity or gone over to the infinite plain Earth or some shit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 20 04:35:57 2015 No.7670493 >>7670492 >plain plane even

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 20 04:41:31 2015 No.7670499 >>7665123 So what the hell is the dome anyway? Shouldn't the rocket get destroyed if it hits something solid, it shouldn't just stick to it like a dart.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 20 04:50:11 2015 No.7670507 >>7670446 According to flat earth theorists, the gravity we feel is artificial because earth is constantly accelerating 'upwards'.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 20 04:57:29 2015 No.7670514 >>7662119 the fact that u need less more time to travel from japan to america , than shovved in your picture . peace

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 20 05:03:44 2015 No.7670522 There're numerous satellites with mirrors on them. Find one and show them via telescope.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 20 08:10:11 2015 No.7670688 Wow, I didn´t even realize this was a thing till today. Thanks for destroying my hope in humanity, OP.

Anonymous Fri Nov 20 12:46:47 2015 No.7670961

>>7670688
Flat earthers, with some reasonable and tested proof destroyed your faith in humanity? Nothing else? Nothing else that goes on in the world, like corruption and the whitewashing of criminals? It was only till a flat earth argument that gained consideration on a Japanese animation discussion based website ruined your view of humanity? It wasn't that peer reviewed science can be bought off to hide data that rustled your faith in the integrity of people?

www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu%2Fwelcome%2Ffeatures%2F20071114_cardio-tobacco%2FF

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470431/

Anonymous Fri Nov 20 17:32:48 2015 No.7671467

>>7670961
>tested proof
>science has been faked and censored in other situations, therefore I've proven that the earth being round has been faked and flat earth is censored
Flat ear there remind me of when I was younger and watched the Matrix and freaked out about the world being a simulation but eventually I realized it doesn't matter. Flat earthers are fucking wastes of space because even if there was concern about the shape of the earth, there are more important socio-political issues that may involve some extent of conspiracy. You should be concerned about how the people who control world banks are controlling the planet or something actually important like that.

Also, none of you have countered great circles, seismic waves, MiNOS detector neutrino beams, or meteorites paths in the sky.
Also, flat earth is easily shaved off by Occam's razor, due to the fact it makes far more assumptions than round earth

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 03:05:55 2015 No.7672201 >>7671467 I can debunk round earth proofs. the arguments are already done for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy_xGdqKqfU

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 03:11:54 2015 No.7672210 >>7664338 same shit, flat moons comes over flat sun

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 03:19:23 2015 No.7672218 >>7670507 We're constantly accelerating at 9.8m/s? How quickly did we reach FTL during the earths formation?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 03:32:18 2015 No.7672235 >>7672218 no. I know the earth is not a globe and is stationary.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 03:39:14 2015 No.7672240 >>7672235 ok bud.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 03:45:39 2015 No.7672244 >>7672201 stopped at time zones, wtf?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 04:01:28 2015 No.7672255 >>7672244 this guy proves that satalite data is generated with random numbers and do not reflect observation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Cf_bNnohDc

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 04:05:59 2015 No.7672259 File: 120 KB, 2308x498, happening.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] It's over /sci/, Earth is flat 100% CONFIRMED by a random youtube user!

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 04:10:15 2015 No.7672263 >>7672259 /sci/ on suicide watch

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 04:13:00 2015 No.7672268 File: 493 KB, 3166x1168, lel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] BTFO T F O

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 04:13:02 2015 No.7672269 >>7672259 SAVAGE

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 04:13:38 2015 No.7672272 >>7662119 Every fucking day a youtuber that makes flat earth videos makes this thread and you cunts lap up the videos.

Anonymous Sat Nov 21 04:35:46 2015 No.7672288

daily reminder it was that peer reviewed science to schedule marijuana as a dangerous substance with no studies backing it. Today it is the same classification as heroin and its schedule is preventing independent studies. Yet alcohol, cause of liver disease, brain damage, and related deaths, is widely available.

it was peer reviewed science to tell us that fluoride is good for the teeth and does not cause problems in neurological function yet amounting evidence against those claims.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470431/

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20071114_cardio-tobacco/

whos to say that youtubers arent creditable against the round earth if the tests are repeatable and the viewer can do the same?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYlKD2Y-GZM

Anonymous Sat Nov 21 04:46:14 2015 No.7672294

>>7672288
>whos to say that youtubers arent creditable against the round earth if the tests are repeatable and the viewer can do the same?
yeah, if you ignore literally all the arguments of the round earth, then earth becomes flat (in your mind)

Flat earthers should use their superior knowledge to build a rocked and take a "real picture" of the flat earth and post it on youtube, since apparently the illuminati and the NASA doesn't prohibit their videos there.

Now if you fuckers can't build a fucking rocket, just live in your meme illuminati conspiracy world for ever.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 04:47:15 2015 No.7672296 >>7672294 *build a rocket

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 04:52:27 2015 No.7672301 >>7672296 rockets dont work in space https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfFJImcFx3s

Anonymous Sat Nov 21 06:01:15 2015 No.7672360

>>7672201
>I don't understand induction.
>My complex explanation is just as good as your simple explanation.
>Huur, what is "fizz-axe"?
>Geometry is too hard, who needs it! Also everything must scale directly, or I'll get upset.
>Fuck it, I don't even need logic. Let's just call arguments I don't like "assumptions" now.
>I don't understand Parallax! I don't even understand what a sphere is!
>Navigation is a hoax, no-one really knows how far anything is or what direction they are going.
>Perspective is a type of magic. If I say "vanishing point" enough times everything will make sense.
>My denial is better than observation,
>What even is the moon, anyway?
>ITS THE ILLY MUNTY

This is incredibly stupid, and a beautiful demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Anonymous Sat Nov 21 06:13:52 2015 No.7672375

>>7672201
God, that bit about triangles is physically painful.
>"If you turn ninety degrees three times, you make a triangle, hence the earth is round becau-
>NUH UH THREE NINETY DEGREES DOESNT ADD UP TO 180
>No, thats the point, three ninety degree angles make a triangle ON A S-
>NO THEY DONT UR STUPID TRIANGLES ARE 180

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 06:18:12 2015 No.7672381 >>7672255 >I don't understand how GPS works. >Therefore it's a hoax! Top notch reasoning.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 06:40:10 2015 No.7672411 >>7670097 see >>7667102 also, fuck off forever

Anonymous Sat Nov 21 07:04:06 2015 No.7672466
File: 17 KB, 385x277, haters.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7672375
hes right tho. no need to walk 10k, just scale it down on a mile and you don't end up in the same place. round earth proof debunked.

>>7672360
>induction
induction doesn't prove a sphere earth. in fact you proved the earth is not a globe because the speculation of the earths core temperature is way above the curie point for an iron core to hold a magnetic field.

>>7672381
gps works by triangulation using radio towers. this is why gps fails to get a signal in some areas. also all gps satalites are owned by the US, so dont count on them being entirely legit if its from the military. soldiers serving in afghanistan has numerous drops in signal for satellite phones.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 07:22:29 2015 No.7672489 >>7672466 So you don't have anything left but reheating shit that's already been pulled apart. Okay then.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 07:57:17 2015 No.7672557 File: 29 KB, 500x275, 6e9.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7672489 youre just a shitposter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 08:21:01 2015 No.7672600 >>7672301 >I have no idea how momentum works Tip top kek

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 08:49:04 2015 No.7672625 File: 53 KB, 800x331, flat,800x800,075,f-c,0,75,800,331.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7672600 >momentum meme >because NASA said so stop posting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8IRFSPLV60

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 09:22:49 2015 No.7672656 >>7672294 >yeah, if you ignore literally all the arguments of the round earth you ignore all proofs for a flat earth. dumb nigger

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 09:25:02 2015 No.7672659 >>7672656 >dumb nigger See that? He called him a dumb nigger. DUMB NIGGER. HE'S A DUMB NIGGER. LOL XD~

Anonymous Sat Nov 21 09:43:54 2015 No.7672684

>>7672466
>hes right tho. no need to walk 10k, just scale it down on a mile and you don't end up in the same place. round earth proof debunked.
Thats patently fucking untrue though. A small, local patch of a sphere can act like a euclidean plane. Try drawing a very small square on a basketball. I literally just tried this with the bulb of a bloody bicycle horn. 10K Kilometers is relevant because thats almost the circumference of the globe. It only acts like noneuclidian geometry if you actually use enough of it for the curvature to have an effect.
If you drive a mile, turn 90 degrees, do that thrice more, you'll make a square. If you get in an airplane and fly 10K kilometers north, turn 90 degrees, go another 10K, do the same, and fly another 10K, you'll arrive at your starting point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 09:46:15 2015 No.7672688 Can a flat earth explain magnetic poles but more specifically how their magnetic poles move and are known to move and have even switched before?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 09:50:26 2015 No.7672696 >>7672688 Yes. It's magic. Also vanishing points.

Anonymous Sat Nov 21 10:06:48 2015 No.7672720
File: 130 KB, 641x909, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7672688
Speculation of the temperature of the earths core is 10,800 F. I put speculation because no one has dug deep enough to find out. The Earth's core temperature is way above the curie point for an iron core to hold a magnetic field. So that's a can of worms I just opened for you.

There is a magnetic center with the south polarity all around it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwITo_XsS08

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 14:23:09 2015 No.7673121 >>7672720 >The Earth's core temperature is way above the curie point for an iron core to hold a magnetic field Curie points refer to permanent magnetism, the earth's field is generated by the dynamo effect and is not permanent at all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 16:28:28 2015 No.7673317 >>7672696 damn vanishing points everywhere m8

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 16:48:44 2015 No.7673346 >>7673121 That's just a theory tho. Not proven.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 16:50:55 2015 No.7673353 > Where is the edge of the earth ? > uhh...we dont know :U flat earthers BTFO

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 17:07:25 2015 No.7673383 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8QWuSn_Wxw I'm calling mods to sage this thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 17:09:26 2015 No.7673385 File: 29 KB, 717x548, 1447283604329.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7662119 look at a flat earth map end explain this

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 17:13:34 2015 No.7673393 >>7673385 Go by customer experience and actual flight times rather than paper.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 17:16:12 2015 No.7673402 File: 34 KB, 523x243, 9729987.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7673383 Pic related.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 17:17:29 2015 No.7673404 >>7673353 this

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 17:18:45 2015 No.7673406 File: 126 KB, 500x756, 500px-Xlg_globe_3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7673383 Pic related

Anonymous Sat Nov 21 17:25:27 2015 No.7673419

>>7673393
are you trying to say that airlines around the world lie about absolutely everything and every person working for them knows the truth and they explain it to the million of people that use and have used airlines and all of them hide the truth from everyone who has never used a plane?

wow anon you have opened my mind
>tfw I've traveled by plane and feel so stupid for not remembering all this

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 17:29:08 2015 No.7673422 File: 19 KB, 334x313, fat face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7673406 > the sun is closer to earth than the radius of earth itself

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 17:32:56 2015 No.7673431 >>7673406 >south of argentina what? did they think that peninsula was an island?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 17:40:09 2015 No.7673436 File: 2.28 MB, 3132x2148, Earth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This is the truth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 19:34:30 2015 No.7673594 >>7673436 Why can't we look up in Argentina and see Canada?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 20:03:47 2015 No.7673638 http://strawpoll.me/6065606/ /sci/ will provide they said

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 20:10:43 2015 No.7673644 If the earth is flat then can you please explain to me in flat earth physics how continental drift works and how the San Andreas fault formed? K the

Anonymous Sat Nov 21 22:42:33 2015 No.7673885

>>7673402
But those two hypothesises give entirely different and incompatible angle predictions, so long as you have at least three measurements. Do the maths if you don't believe me.
Because of that, a measurement of the "radius" of a flat Earth with a nearby sun shouldn't give a consistent result. But it does.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 07:35:28 2015 No.7674593 >>7673419 >jumping to conclusions >/sci/

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 07:38:41 2015 No.7674597 >>7673644 I don't really see how that would be hard to explain with flat Earth. Just replace "molten core" with "molten plane."

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 09:06:18 2015 No.7674684

>>7674597
Except for the fact things move completely different on a plane than on a globe.
Another thing I don't get is how can the earth be constantly accelerating upward in a flat earth world but also be perpendicular to the sun..... it doesn't makes sense in terms of gravity and in the fact we would hit the sun if we're accelerating perpendicular towards it.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 10:17:18 2015 No.7674805
File: 33 KB, 640x480, ayy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7662119
Trying to argue with them or come up with a silver bullet proof to shatter their bullshit beliefs is pointless. You're incorrectly assuming that flat earthers and other batshit conspiracy theorists want to know the truth. They don't.

What they want is attention and to feed their persecution complex. If you agree with their views they see themselves as some kind of prophet, bringing arcane secrets to the ignorant sheep. If you disagree with them, they adopt the role of the persecuted genius against the establishment like Galileo or Tesla, giving some kind of purpose to their sad existence browsing conspiracy sites and watching (sorry, "researching"!) Youtube videos about aliens and chemtrails.

And those are just the sincere ones - the rest are just trolling.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 10:36:36 2015 No.7674826 I remember watching a video of a man running on a disc earth that showed how gravity would work. It seems the farther out you go on the disc the more it is like you are running up hill until the edge is like a top of a wall.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 10:41:24 2015 No.7674830

>>7674684
>Except for the fact things move completely different on a plane than on a globe.
They sure do.
It seems to me that if the continents are free to drift, and the earth is spinning on its axis, all the continents would migrate towards the equator.
Why hasn't that happend?

>Another thing I don't get is how can the earth be constantly accelerating upward
I think some disinfo has made its way into the view.

>>7674826
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs

That video↑ assumes that gravity would draw us towards the center.
Why can't things just fall strait down?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 14:03:46 2015 No.7675149 Do flat earthers also say the sun and moon are flat? if they arent, why is the earth flat? How did a flat earth form?

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 14:05:53 2015 No.7675156

>>7674830
The continental crust and the oceanic crust have different densities. Basically continental crust is floating like ice does on water. So for the same reason ice doesn't accumulate in a localized position in the water is the same reason the continents don't localize around the equator.
Also my question was how are the continents the way they are now and how the San Andreas fault formed using the premise the earth is flat.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 14:30:11 2015 No.7675203 >>7662418 You can see planets from a regular ol' telescope.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 14:39:12 2015 No.7675221 >>7662391 >Just because you have proof doesn't mean you can prove it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 14:47:21 2015 No.7675235 >>7663051 That argument carries more weight with people who haven't jumped out of a plane in mid flight.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 14:48:56 2015 No.7675237 >>7663073 If they did, they wouldn't be flat-earthers

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 14:50:51 2015 No.7675239 >>7663116 >What is physics?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 15:29:52 2015 No.7675287 >>7662119 How do I argue with people who bring up things like bridges and say the curvature of the Earth should say you can't see the other end

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 15:32:34 2015 No.7675292 >>7667029 >What is the coriolis effect?

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 15:39:43 2015 No.7675304

>>7667274
Very comprehensive, but still no one gives any explanation at all as to WHY any of these people would conspire to make people believe in a round earth instead of flat. What possible gain is there in lying about this? This is the one point that no flat-earther has a reasonable answer for. Just for the fun of it? A millenias-old conspiracy just for shits n' giggles? Really?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 15:46:52 2015 No.7675309 >>7670063 Until you whip out a telescope and see that it's the ISS.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 15:48:44 2015 No.7675312 >>7670105 Got any proof? Or did all of this just come to you in a dream?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 15:53:06 2015 No.7675322 >>7670961 Modern people buying into a theory that was absolutely disproven over 2000 years ago does give one pause when contemplating the future of the species, yes.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 16:01:25 2015 No.7675336

>>7672288
>The illerminatty use their unlimited power to make people beleive the earth is round, here's the youtube video to prove it!

But anon, if they have that kind of pull, why would they allow proof of their deception to remain on youtube?

>SHILL! CATTLE! BEGONE, STRAWMAN!

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 16:07:23 2015 No.7675341 >>7673346 It's just a theory that a fluctuating magnetic field creates a changing electrical field, and vice versa? Do you even know how magnetism works?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 16:33:34 2015 No.7675375 >>7662119 night, seasons, pictures from space, polar orbits, moon gravity influence, light blocking, lunar eclipse. ect

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 16:38:06 2015 No.7675383 File: 37 KB, 750x500, twiligh-phases.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7662119

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 19:45:07 2015 No.7675647

>>7675156
>Basically continental crust is floating like ice does on water. So for the same reason ice doesn't accumulate in a localized position in the water is the same reason the continents don't localize around the equator.

But Ice would go to the outermost edges if you were to spin the water it was floating in.
See↓
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LDxOSz80pI

>Also my question was how are the continents the way they are now and how the San Andreas fault formed using the premise the earth is flat.

I don't know, but I fail to see the problem.
Can you give me a reason why there should not be contential drift on a flat earth?
How about a reason why there could not be a fault line on a flat earth?
Why coulden't these things happen on a flat earth?

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 20:07:47 2015 No.7675669

>>7667274
BUT WHY THOUGH? why would they hide it? what good could they possibly gain from hiding that the earth is flat? are they having tea parties on the underside that they don't want to invite us to? what could anyone possibly gain from lying about something like that? or do you think they're just doing it out of meanness or what? i really want to know your reasoning here.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 20:15:57 2015 No.7675680

>>7674830
Earth DOES bulge at the equator, and is squished flat (relatively) due to the spin. The diameter at the equator is significantly larger than the diameter along the axis.

Also, during the last ice age, the weight of the ice further squished Earth flat, and it is still in the process of springing back into place.

Continents are only the skin of the planet, are very thin, and contain an extremely small % of the Earth's mass. Shit is alot more complicated than you assume, yo

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 20:18:13 2015 No.7675687 >>7675647 Because gravity on a flat Earth would have pulled Earth into a sphere billions of years ago.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 20:21:02 2015 No.7675691 >>7662119 How flat is the earth according to them?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 20:22:56 2015 No.7675699 >>7675680 >Earth DOES bulge at the equator.. Thats nice. Would you mind telling me why the continents are not located there?

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 20:38:10 2015 No.7675720
File: 35 KB, 620x412, FBSB4ZVGQ3FZM0D.MEDIUM.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The earth is not orbiting the sun, it's actually free-falling around it, you can flip the north-and-south pole and have the solar system model spinning clockwise, and rotating west-to-east. When satellites are launched with a lateral vector, so when they are in the Low Earth orbit, they fall continuously.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 20:45:56 2015 No.7675735

>>7675699
The distance from the deepest point in the ocean to the highest mountain is 12.3 miles, the Earth's radius is 3959 miles. The entire surface of the Earth occupies less than a third of 1% of the Earth's radius. The remaining 99%+ conforms to the fact that the Earth's mass concentrates towards the equator.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 20:49:45 2015 No.7675748

>>7675647
The thing is the earth's crust isn't spinning like the earth does.. The earths crust has several convection cycles that affect its motion and not a single one that affects continental and oceanic crust movement independently. The biggest misconception you have if that centrifrugal force is not the dominant force when it comes to continental movement. And you also assume there are no external forces acting on its motion either. And yes it is a huge problem that the continents move on a flat earth because their current position is based on the spherical geometry of the earth.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 21:08:52 2015 No.7675777 >>7675720 >free falling in space

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 21:17:45 2015 No.7675794 >>7675777 Fine, don't believe in gravity.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 22:18:27 2015 No.7675868

I do know gravity exists... if you agree things free fall in space then you know in terms of general relativity an object in free fall has no force acting on it and moves along a geodesic. Which means you should not believe in a flat earth! Look up what a geodesic is..

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 22:19:37 2015 No.7675872 >>7675794 >>7675868 Forgot to click reply

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 22:21:51 2015 No.7675877 >>7662119 measure the angels between three places far apart from each other, it wont add up to 180

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 22:56:44 2015 No.7675922 >>7675868 But an object in free fall does have a force acting on it...: gravity.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 23:31:29 2015 No.7675961
File: 1.83 MB, 4256x2832, lightning-seen-from-space-9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7662119
get keked.

I almost didnt reply to this thread because its not really worth entertaining this kind of willful ignorance. But it took two seconds to google a photo taken from astronauts in space, who have dedicated their lives to science and have knowledge of the universe that you can't comprehend because you don't even want to. You don't want to believe the earth is a sphere. You just want to reject what everyone else knows is right because you want to feel special and that your life has some kind of meaning outside your job at burger king.

:)

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 04:07:55 2015 No.7676234

>>7675961
I doubt a "photoshopped picture" taken by "the big evil international conspiracy" that has been feeding us "obvious lies" for like 2000 years for no reason will somehow make him re-think youtube-videos with flashy letters and crazy leaps of logic now, do you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 08:08:16 2015 No.7676482 >>7675922 No other forces than garvity of one body* Still moves along geodsic...not a plane

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:06:25 2015 No.7676606 File: 952 KB, 3132x2148, 1386292229011.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] If the Earth is flat, then why can't I see South America from the top of a tall building or mountain?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:30:23 2015 No.7676633 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvbN-cWe0A0

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 11:38:46 2015 No.7676721 >>7675961 Kek http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=38ynHKGzplQ

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 11:46:15 2015 No.7676734 File: 54 KB, 625x626, hooklineandsinker.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7676721 Light doesn't behave like in the shots in water though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 12:03:22 2015 No.7676756 >>7676633 That's obviously using a fisheye GoPro lens.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:35:49 2015 No.7677007 >>7675720 they are not "free-falling", they are in orbit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:38:33 2015 No.7677011 >>7662119 >What is the easiest proof that the Earth is not flat? The difference between day and night when you are in the opposite side of the globe. The altitude of the polar star changes with your latitude.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:48:49 2015 No.7677025 I dont believe in flat earth but i will admit its a bit unnerving that the exact same side of the moon has faced the earth for all of human history. Thats a level of orbital synchronization thats outright terrifying.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:02:54 2015 No.7677049 >>7677007 What the fuck do you think orbit is, dumbass?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:27:38 2015 No.7677099 >>7677011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOgXN8qRUQI

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:38:46 2015 No.7677124 >>7677099 That video didn't explain anything I asked.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:46:44 2015 No.7677141 >>7677025 >thats a level of orbital synchronization thats outright terrifying. Tidal locking is actually very likely as an outcome of a two body system though, given enough time.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 19:57:41 2015 No.7677605

>>7677025
The moon's spin isn't perfectly locked in yet. It still shifts and wobbles, but tidal forces always correct the effect to keep the moon's close side pointed at Earth. The moon is also slowing down the Earth's spin, and in millions/billions of years the Earth and Moon will both be tidally locked to each other. This isn't some sort of synchronization by happenstance, it is the result of billions of years of forces distributing energy between between the Earth-Moon system until the most stable configuration is reached.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 20:09:16 2015 No.7677619 Guys you can't beat flat earth theorists with logic they already abandoned it

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 20:09:57 2015 No.7677620 parallax of the sun measures it as millions of miles away measurements of the suns position during the equinoxes shows different angles as different latitudes therefore it must be round

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 21:04:10 2015 No.7677693
File: 71 KB, 1268x768, flying pig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7675961
>pictures are proof
I guess that means pigs can fly. (pic related)

>astronauts in space, who have dedicated their lives to science and have knowledge of the universe....
You mean these guys?↓
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyjppxh2-C0

Hey, why do these heros have shame on their faces?
Shoulden't they be proud?

Aslo when asked if he remembered seeing stars, his response was " I don't recall".
Really?
You don't recall?
Being on the fucking moon!
Bullshit.
If you were actually there, you would have noticed, one way or the other.
It would have been.
Oh look at how clear the stars are with no atmosphere.
Or.
Wtf I can't see any stars.
You would have remembered that shit either way.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 21:22:05 2015 No.7677726
File: 339 KB, 1210x1283, 70HC80.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7677693
More like
I had all this sun pro blocking my eyes so it didn't cross my mind that I could see the stars. And they'd be too faint to be sure I was really seeing them anyway.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 21:26:14 2015 No.7677730 >>7666955 when you read about coral castle

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 21:26:45 2015 No.7677731 >>7677726 And as for the shame on their faces?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 21:29:04 2015 No.7677735 >>7667310 >planes will remain at altitude as the pass over the surface of the curved earth unless they are purposefully taken upwards or downwards then level flight is a myth?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 21:30:02 2015 No.7677738 >>7677693 You didn't really listen to what the astronaut said, did you? You just excepted what the flat-earther narrator said about it. You don't even look at your own evidence, and you can't even watch videos right. Flat-earth cult in a nutshell.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 21:36:25 2015 No.7677745 >>7677738 accepted*

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 22:16:01 2015 No.7677817 >>7677738 show me an apollo photo with radiation damage. show me a chernobyl photo with radiation damage only one of these are real

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 22:22:17 2015 No.7677832

>>7677099
Good job on posting all those retarded youtube videos. Watching someone else demonstrate their complete lack of understanding will surely convince everyone.

>>7677693
>Aslo when asked if he remembered seeing stars, his response was " I don't recall".
Actually, it was "no". Listen to the goddamn video you posted:
>"We were never able to see stars from the Luna surface or on the daylight side of the moon, without looking through the optics. I don't recall, during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona, what stars we could see." "I don't remember seeing any."

>>7677817
And now you're just making shit up. The gear taken to the Moon was designed to operate in that environment.

>>7677731
>And as for the shame on their faces?
It's your own bizarre delusion.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 23:49:37 2015 No.7677939

>>7677832
>Good job on posting all those retarded youtube videos.

yeah i dont see you with evidence. so far flat earthers have counter arguments and everything else is shitposting on how dumb it sounds.

nigga, gravity aint even entirely known yet we make assumptions of how it makes everything work and like some george lucas plot device it changes on the whim of what exactly it does.

>The gear taken to the Moon was designed to operate in that environment.
yeah right, Van Allen radiation belts weren't entirely known in 1969.

if you know about celestial navigation, that's what they used for the moon expeditions. Michael orbited the moon and didn't see any stars to which Niel gives him an arm budge to not say anything more. Theres a reason why buzz became an alcoholic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5AW57Wy9A

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 00:39:27 2015 No.7677983

>>7677939
>yeah i dont see you with evidence.
I've pulled apart plenty of those dumb videos in this thread already. Unless you start putting even a tiny bit of effort in, I can't see the point in doing more.

>nigga, gravity aint even entirely known
Believe it or not, but there was this guy called "Issac Newton". You might want to look into the work he did - it's more than powerful enough for this shit.

>and like some george lucas plot device it changes on the whim of what exactly it does.
Uh, no. Just that you're alarmingly ignorant of physics doesn't mean that physics is wrong. Newtonian gravity is incredibly consistent:
The attractive force between two objects is proportional to the sum of their masses, and the inversely proportional to their separation.

>yeah right, Van Allen radiation belts weren't entirely known in 1969.
They were pretty well studied, actually. Also the Apollo missions didn't spend much time in them. Also also what does that have to do with images taken on the Moon?

>if you know about celestial navigation, that's what they used for the moon expeditions.
Okay, and?

>Michael orbited the moon and didn't see any stars
That's not in the thing you're quoting. At all.
Again:
>"We were never able to see stars from the Luna surface or on the daylight side of the moon, without looking through the optics. I don't recall, during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona, what stars we could see." "I don't remember seeing any."

>to which Niel gives him an arm budge to not say anything more. Theres a reason why buzz became an alcoholic.
You're just making shit up now. Stop.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5AW57Wy9A
I don't even know what to say to this.
What the fuck is wrong with you? Were you abused as a child?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 00:40:47 2015 No.7677985 >>7677983 >and the inversely proportional to their separation. The square of their separation. My bad.

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 00:55:56 2015 No.7678000
File: 16 KB, 225x225, index.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7677983

Im gonna lay it down:

Newtonian gravity has problems. which was superseded by Einstein which has more problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation#Problematic_aspects

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jODyhZVbTM

the apollo missions are bunkum. van allen stretches far out enough to not have the apollo missions just fly past them. Aside from high doses of radiation on actual astronauts spending time in low orbit , there is a book published about risks.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13343/technical-evaluation-of-the-nasa-model-for-cancer-risk-to-astronauts-due-to-space-radiation

EVEN FUCKING AIRLINE PILOTS ARE EXPOSED TO RADIATION THAT CAN CAUSE CANCER AND THAT'S IN THE ATMOSPHERE!!!!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12862322

youd figure spending a few days in the vacuum of space and no protection against all sorts of cosmic radiation would pose a significant threat to crew men, at least causing one to not be able to perform due to radiation sickness.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 01:05:11 2015 No.7678009 >>7678000 So, radiation in space can be harmful, and increases cancer risk. That doesn't mean you can't go. By your logic, coal mining must not exist, either.

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 01:19:51 2015 No.7678024

>>7678000
>Newtonian gravity has problems. which was superseded by Einstein which has more problems.
None of which matters here. Like I just said, Newtonian gravity is more than powerful enough as an explanation for what we're doing here.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jODyhZVbTM
This is stupid.

>the apollo missions are bunkum.
No.

>youd figure spending a few days in the vacuum of space and no protection against all sorts of cosmic radiation would pose a significant threat to crew men,
I'm not sure how you think this argument is supposed to work.
Going to the Moon was risky for a long list of reasons; radiation wasn't even the biggest one. But people do risky shit all the time, if they think it's important enough.

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 01:34:54 2015 No.7678033

>>7663073
They played too much Minecraft.
On an unrelated note, I think Minecraft would be cooler if the moon couldn't be used like the sun to tell the time of night, because the whole thing of hoping for the sun to rise was a pretty cool gameplay aspect back when Minecraft was challenging.
I remember when me and a bunch of other players on a server were founding a city, and rather than just people building haphazardly, it was several people creating a gigantic protective wall while several others ran around protecting the builders.
Nowdays there's no need to worry about health, just plant a few melons and you've got permanent and rather fast health regen.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 02:26:24 2015 No.7678106 >>7678024 wheres you facts that solar radiation wasn't an important risk...oh wait. you dont have any.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 03:01:15 2015 No.7678155 >>7678106 It's not hard to look that kind of stuff up. Batshit conspiracies aside, NASA tends to be pretty obsessive about reporting everything they do. But if you're lazy, start here: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 04:35:42 2015 No.7678250

>>7678009
>So, radiation in space can be harmful, and increases cancer risk.
>That doesn't mean you can't go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE

>By your logic, coal mining must not exist, either.
Nice analagy.
Except coal miners who did not use proper protection got black lung.
Whereas noone who supposedly went through the vanallen belt ever got radiation poisioning, or cancer.

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 05:06:09 2015 No.7678278

>>7678250
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE
Uh, that's nice? Are you just linking to random videos now?

>Whereas noone who supposedly went through the vanallen belt ever got radiation poisioning, or cancer.
Because their exposure was limited. Read the link >>7678155

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 06:56:46 2015 No.7678378 >>7678278 That video is related. If you had watched it you would have heard him talking about how the van allen belt is an issue that they are still working on. If we went to the moon without issue, why is it an issue now?

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 07:47:26 2015 No.7678428

>>7678378
>If you had watched it you would have heard him talking about how the van allen belt is an issue that they are still working on. If we went to the moon without issue, why is it an issue now?
Why would the issue go away?

Radiation protection isn't a problem that you solve once and never have to deal with again, it's a complex issue that you manage on a case-by-case basis. There was a bunch of work put into making sure that the Apollo craft could safely pass through the Van Allen belts, and now NASA is doing work to ensure that the Orion craft can too. And when they build an even newer spaceship, they'll have to do this work again.

Plus, radiation is in some ways a harder problem now than it was in the 70s. People we more willing to take risks back then, and older electronics were much less sensitive.

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 10:54:08 2015 No.7678647

>>7678428
>Why would the issue go away?
It wouldent.
But if they had a solution then, why cant we use that one now?

Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins are both still alive.
Neal Armstrong lived to be 82.
None of them ever got cancer.
If they went through the belts unaffected, then why is it an issue now?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:08:12 2015 No.7678679 >>7678647 >If they went through the belts unaffected, then why is it an issue now? >>7678428 >older electronics were much less sensitive. Oh nevermind. It seems they had better tech in the 70's. Too bad they can't just remake that shit.

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:36:06 2015 No.7678744
File: 1.04 MB, 2400x2400, KL_CoreMemory.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7678647
>But if they had a solution then, why cant we use that one now?
Like I just said, there is no simple "solution". It's just a thing you've got to deal with in the design.

>If they went through the belts unaffected, then why is it an issue now?
First, it was an issue then too.
Second, they went through a particularly weak area of the belt. They also didn't spend long on the Moon. So their total exposure was actually pretty small.

We might want to spend longer out there, or travel further. We may also end up with a situation where we need to punch straight through the belt. Finally, some of our equipment is more sensitive, and will need more protection.

>>7678679
>It seems they had better tech in the 70's.
Were did you get "better" from? They were using magnetic core memory, for hell's sake. Modern computers are vastly more powerful, and can do things that the Apollo designers couldn't dream of.

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