Any Flat Earthers here?

[Anonymous No.8253545]

Just wondering if there are any other Flat Earthers on /sci/..?

The following video deals with 21 of the most commonly asked Flat Earth questions, and is a great source of information for anyone sitting on the fence. One of the best Flat Earth videos I've seen, and I recommend all Flat Earthers on here share this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0xClWgidZU

Anyone who questions the mainstream narrative and the accepted model of the world around us is insulted, ridiculed and debate on this topic is viciously opposed. I find that rather ironic. In science, we never stop questioning things. A theory only stands until a better and more likely theory comes along. The most commonly accepted reasons why the Earth must be a spinning ball are debunked in this video. It's always the same, tired questions from people ignorant about the Flat Earth model and how or why it works. I hope this video will help educate people who have been conditioned since birth to believe in a falsehood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0xClWgidZU

[Anonymous No.8253548]

>>8253545
lmao

[Anonymous No.8253550]

fuck
off
back
to
>>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.8253551]

>>8253545
We had this exact same thread yesterday.

[ǝƃɐs No.8253552]

>>8253545
Kill yourself and fuck off, not necessarily in that order.

[Anonymous No.8253563]

So, getting past the usual narrow-minded ad hominem comments, are there any Flat Earthers here, or just anyone open-minded enough to discuss this topic in general? Would love to talk to follow FE's on /sci/

[Anonymous No.8253566]

>>8253545
"Why are you a retarded shithead?" doesn't seem to be in the 21 questions.

[Anonymous No.8253572]

>>8253545
what the fuck happens when you go off the edge then?

[Anonymous No.8253575]

>>8253563
>fellow FE's on /sci/
You won't find those here. You can try this, though:

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8253579]

>>8253545
You want to know why you're being ridiculed? It's because, despite overwhelming evidence against your premise, you keep to it. Don't even start about science, you ignore the evidence regardless what science puts forth, like a religious zealot who is too scared that he could be wrong and has to adjust his worldview. So sad.

In any case, here is our great friend Martymer81 who will rape all your "arguments" in his debunking series of flat idiots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAm2cagpsnk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzYJ61EC9XI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSM1104MHqk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yfocAJJ4gE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOKHnSJZUds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zZo1hLPM38

>>8253563
There's no ad hominem here, retard. It would be ad hominem if we said your arguments are wrong because of your stupidity. However, you are stupid because your arguments are wrong. See the difference? It's called an insult, get over it moron.

[Anonymous No.8253582]

>tfw there are people who given all the power of today's technology can't replicate a simple fucking experiment

[Anonymous No.8253592]

>>8253572

Why don't you just watch the video? The same tired questions you cretins keep asking have been explained over and over again. The very first question in the video deals with the "edge".

Can you see why the Flat Earth topic has been skyrocketing online over the past year and a half? Because this conditioned response only makes people want to research it further. Every single flat Earther starts out trying to debunk it. And every single one of them fails, and are forced to accept reality.


"It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled".

[Anonymous No.8253599]

>>8253592
>"It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled".
Speak for yourself.

[Anonymous No.8253600]

>>8253592
It's turtles all the way down, isn't it? I knew it!

>"It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled".
“Irony is wasted on the stupid”

[Anonymous No.8253603]

>>8253579

Yeah, I've seen the "Flat Out Wrong" series. It's laughable. One of his first arguments claims that ships going over the horizon are caused by the curvature of Earth. He claims that when you zoom in with a camera, a ship that has disappeared over the horizon will not be brought back into view.

But the video I've posted has several clips of people zooming into ships that have long disappeared over the horizon, proving that this phenomenon is caused by PERSPECTIVE, and not the "curvature of the Earth".

Here. Skip to 7:20 of this video, and you'll see for yourself, several clips proving it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0xClWgidZU

Stop blindly believing what people tell you without investigation.

[Anonymous No.8253621]

>>8253592
>Why don't you just watch the video?
Not that anon, but I've tried. Guy shows this: https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:7h149v85z and says it's suspicious that it fits onto a globe. How is it like to be so braindead you don't understand the idea of a projection?

[Anonymous No.8253622]

>There's no ad hominem here, retard. It would be ad hominem if we said your arguments are wrong because of your stupidity. However, you are stupid because your arguments are wrong. See the difference? It's called an insult, get over it moron.

The problem here is that you're drawing a conclusion based on a pre-conceived notion about your own intellectual superiority, and I'm afraid that doesn't hold any weight as a counter argument. Simply claiming that someone is stupid because their arguments are "wrong", without the slightest bit of evidence as to WHY those arguments are wrong, only proves your own stupidity.

Just because you can't rationally discuss this topic without resorting to playground-level insults, doesn't mean that everyone who can is just an idiot. If you have nothing to add, just say it. Don't get all pissy about it. Ignorance is no excuse for bad manners.

[Anonymous No.8253629]

>>8253603
I doubt you've seen it. Part 2 debunks everything claimed in your bullshit video.

Spoiler: it's not perspective.

[Anonymous No.8253639]

>>8253621
>https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:7h149v85z

You haven't tried at all. The video explains that the Flat Earth map was projected onto a globe, and not the other way around. The point is that the Flat Earth map didn't "copy" the globe as is commonly claimed.

If you're going to watch the video, watch the video. Don't simply turn off at the first thing you dislike, just because your ego can't take it. I don't mean that in a condescending way. You don't have to agree with every single point. There are 21 main points. You'll find some more reasonable than others, I'm sure.

[Anonymous No.8253656]

>>8253629

I have seen it. It just uses the same tired old attempts that everyone else uses, and that have been debunked and explained so many times, in so many videos.

I've been into this Flat Earth thing for just over a year. I've heard every argument, and I'm afraid that video was nothing new. Every attempt to debunk this fails. I know because I started out trying, just like everyone else who gets into this.

It is indeed perspective. The only people who argue otherwise are people who don't understand how perspective works. And that's understandable - it's not something we were taught growing up. We were all taught that ships going over the horizon is caused by the Earth's curvature, but as the video I posted proves, this is bullshit. Like I said, go to 7:20 of my video and you'll see those same ships coming back into view when zoomed in with a camera. Several clips, of several ships.

Spoiler: They don't disappear "over" the horizon, they disappear INTO the horizon. That's how it works on a flat plane.

You know how the ground appears to be going up, the farther away it is? Like it's touching the sky? Well the same is true of the opposite. If the ground comes up to meet the sky, then why doesn't the sky come down to meet the ground?

Use your head. This stuff isn't hard. It's really, really simply.

[Anonymous No.8253658]

*really, really simple.

[Anonymous No.8253670]

>>8253622
Oh boy, I provided you with evidence, 6 videos filled with counter arguments to be exact. Your argument about perspective is simply retarded if you knew anything about high-school geometry.

>>8253656
>Spoiler: They don't disappear "over" the horizon, they disappear INTO the horizon. That's how it works on a flat plane.
Sure, but the earth is a spheroid and if the guy that made the video was not a halfwit he would have noted that the ships he filmed were not far enough to be over the horizon at all, hence why you don't see the effect. Seriously, high-school level geometry here, just triangles.

>I've been into this Flat Earth thing for just over a year.
Did someone from church recommend this to you?

[Anonymous No.8253679]

>>8253656
Hey buddy, why can't you see England from France then?

>inb4 fog
Can't even reach it with strong laser.

[Anonymous No.8253680]

>>8253639
I made it through the flimed "incoming" sun (nevermind sun doesn't actually look like that irl, that's a fucking camera glare), the guy claiming that the core of the Earth is a speculation or a lie (seismological data, for fuck's sake) but apparently secret underground bases aren't, calling out NASA for photoshopping while showing a radar map of Venus (no shit it doesn't look like this in visible light) or obvious CGI Saturn, calling satellites a hoax (how does he think satellite TV or phones work?), and I finally gave up on GPS operating from cell phone towers. I'd say you owe me 15 minutes of my life, but then I remembered I'm on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.8253685]

>>8253656
>I have seen it.
Apart from you having seen it, have you UNDERSTOOD the mathematics (geometry)? If not, get back to school. If so, explain how the math is wrong.

[Anonymous No.8253688]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvDqoxMUroA

People laugh at you because you are a bunch of conspiratards.

[Anonymous No.8253690]

>>8253670
>Sure, but the earth is a spheroid and if the guy that made the video was not a halfwit he would have noted that the ships he filmed were not far enough to be over the horizon at all, hence why you don't see the effect

Once again, if you would actually bother to watch the video, you would see how wrong you are. You are just parroting the nonsense from the video you posted claiming that in ALL the clips used by Flat Earther's to show that a ship reappears when zoomed in, simply aren't far enough away. But if you watch the video I posted, you will see SEVERAL clips in which ALL the boats are far BEYOND the horizon, and only re-appear back into view when zoomed into with a decent camera.

Stop trying to debate this using confirmation bias. Watch the video I posted. Specifically go to 7:20 of the video, and see the effect for yourself.

Unless you're saying that the horizon is only the horizon when you say it's the horizon. Like when a ship goes beyond a camera's zoom capacity.

>Did someone from church recommend this to you?

I don't go to church and I think Christian fundamentalists are morons. "God" is simply the Source of all that is, not some guy that sits on a cloud judging people. If you tell them this, they accuse you of "New Age Witchcraft". And yes, I know many Flat Earthers are Christians. They plague every moment they can get their claws into, I'm afraid.

[Anonymous No.8253701]

>>8253688

Useless video. They're using a GoPro fish-eye lens, which makes straight lines look curved. Another tired attempt to debunk the Flat Earth that we've seen hundreds of times now.

it doesn't matter how high you go. The horizon is ALWAYS flat. Not only flat, but LEVEL. This is not consistent with a globe, and ONLY consistent with a flat plane. See for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg

121,000 feet, and not one bit of curvature. Same with rocket videos from over 200,000 feet. Yet people claim the curvature is visible on Concorde, which only had an operating ceiling of 60,000 feet.

[Anonymous No.8253708]

>>8253685

The math also adds up on a flat plane, using various experiments, assuming that the Sun is only a few thousand miles away and is 32 miles in diameter. Sunspots on clouds are solid evidence of a close Sun.

[Anonymous No.8253709]

>>8253701
You didn't even watch it, there's two cameras on board, first one is normal, second one is fish-eye lens.

[Anonymous No.8253712]

>>8253690
>You are just parroting the nonsense from the video you posted
Funny how you're parroting all your nonsense from your video. But hey, I don't have to parrot anything, maths doesn't lie after all.

Speaking of maths:
>have you UNDERSTOOD the mathematics (geometry)? If not, get back to school. If so, explain how the math is wrong.
Show your work.

>>8253708
Show your work.

[Anonymous No.8253716]

>>8253708
>assuming that the Sun is only a few thousand miles away and is 32 miles in diameter.
Alright mods, time to throw this trash thread away.

[Anonymous No.8253718]

>You didn't even watch it, there's two cameras on board, first one is normal, second one is fish-eye lens.

I know, but since there was no curvature seen on the normal camera, I assumed you were referring to the fish-eye lens.

I've seen similar videos where you will see a convex curvature, and people say: "Hey look! See? The Earth is round!"... but when you keep watching the video, you also see a concave curvature, proving that the camera lens is what's causing this effect.

[Anonymous No.8253724]

>>8253545
Everyday with this shit.

[Anonymous No.8253729]

>>8253708
Except it doesn't, these are the functions that describe the sun's angular elevation during the northern summer solstice as a function of distance from the equator for both models. They only match in three points.

[Anonymous No.8253730]

>>8253579

>shit cgi to start the video off
>starts talking about picture""""s"""" of earth when NASA doesn't even claim to own more than 1 photo
every other image of earth is photoshop as admitted by them and they don't even match up to each other....
>talks about gravity
doesn't exist
>flat earthers think that the earth is rising constantly
no

The fucking eggs on all your stupid goy faces soon

[Anonymous No.8253731]

>>8253718
>I know, but since there was no curvature seen on the normal camera
The fuck are you talking about. See that guys attached pic and explain it, or just go to >>>/x/ where you belong.

[Anonymous No.8253732]

>>8253729

>muh graphs

[Anonymous No.8253735]

>>8253718
>there was no curvature seen on the normal camera
Did you even look at the pic I posted? Go ahead and find concave curvature for the first camera.

[Anonymous No.8253739]

>>8253730
>>8253732
1/10 for making me smile

[Anonymous No.8253742]

>>8253730
>talks about gravity
Nigger, take your bait back to >>>/b/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

[Anonymous No.8253743]

>>8253732
>math also adds up
>complain when people use graphs to discuss the topic
Yeah no.

[Anonymous No.8253745]

the best part of all this is that you're gonna find out how much of an absolute retard you were and you won't even have anyone to blame but yourself

[Anonymous No.8253751]

Is there any thing anybody could say to you to make it more plausible that they actually believe in FET than they're either being trolls or taking devil's advocate just a little too far?

[Anonymous No.8253755]

>>8253731
The fuck are you talking about. See that guys attached pic and explain it, or just go to >>>/x/ where you belong.

I just did explain it. If you actually WATCH the video, you can see no curvature. Similar videos purporting to show the curvature of the Earth also reveal a concave (as well as convex) curvature, and it varies depending on the angle and rotation of the camera. Proving that a distorted image causes any curvature seen through a camera, whether it's convex or concave.

Watch the video I posted from 121,000 feet - no curvature is seen, because the camera's view is normal and no distortion of any kind is seen.

See for yourself, again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg

[Anonymous No.8253762]

>>8253755
>little piggy cam
And moments ago you where whining about gopro cameras, you're a fucking joke.

Oh, by the way, here's the landing of Little Piggy, clearly shows the curvature of the urf, lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93iwouFwejE&feature=youtu.be

Ya fucking dingus.

[Anonymous No.8253763]

>>8253755
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8253765]

>>8253735

I didn't say there was a concave curvature in the first camera shot, I said there are other examples of similar videos showing this phenomenon.

There is NO curvature, convex or concave, in your video. Anywhere.

[Anonymous No.8253771]

>>8253765
This must be you.

[Anonymous No.8253773]

>>8253762

The curvature can't be detected from such a low altitude. Does nobody on here understand that images will be distorted depending on the camera lens?

Once again, watch this video, of a camera that has no distortion, and tell me if you can see the curvature: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg

[Anonymous No.8253774]

>>8253765
>There is NO curvature, convex or concave, in your video. Anywhere.
So you are saying the screenshot I took is shopped? Pause the video at that exact moment and do the same thing I did in paint, then tell me there is no curvature.

[Anonymous No.8253781]

>>8253773
It's like listening to a broken record. You lost buddy, the evidence piles up against you. Little Piggy by the way is a camera that distorts the image, nice job on using it as "evidence". As can be clearly seen from >>8253709, that camera has no distortion, and the same picture made by this camera as posted in >>8253688 clearly shows the curvature of the earth from a camera that has no distortion.

Case dismissed.

Oh, you still haven't shown your maths about those claims earlier. Remember to show you work, buddy.

[Anonymous No.8253786]

>>8253563
How come the surface of the earth is curved whenever I look down while in a plane? Why does having an alternate explanation automatically mean that alternate explanation is correct?

[Anonymous No.8253793]

>>8253592
Debunk that I'm fucking a unicorn right now you fucking faggot

[Anonymous No.8253794]

>>8253742

>earth is apparently spinning at 1000mph at the equator
>gravity is strong enough to hold all the earths water to it
>i can jump freely, butterflies can fly freely
>no one can feel the apparent centrifugal force
>even though it would be ridiculously more and less powerful all """""around the globe"""""
>mass attracts mass
>a car and a bowling ball fall at the same speed, the only thing that would affect the rate of falling is wind resistance
>a pen and a bowling ball fall at the same speed
>helium balloons rise up even though they have mass
>b-but it's less dense
>I can pull down the less dense than air helium balloon with my arms but the entire gravity of earth can't?

You know understand that things rise and fall because of density

[Anonymous No.8253798]

>>8253762

how small do you think the earth is you mongoloid?

[Anonymous No.8253799]

>>8253603
>one video with shitty quality
Fuck off, have ever been on a plane?

[Anonymous No.8253800]

>>8253798
It was obviously meant to discredit the piggy cam as anything can be claimed from that footage, you fucking dumbass.

[Anonymous No.8253806]

>>8253800

heh, my bad

[Anonymous No.8253811]

>>8253656
The same thing could be said about you, retard. All you do is come with completely unrelated explanations for each and every phenomenon caused by a the earth being a globe each with that phenomenon being the only evidence for it. The evidence pointing to the earth being a globe is far more substantial than that of each individual property you claim is actually reponsible for these things.

[Anonymous No.8253815]

>>8253794
Don't give us your "it just doesn't add up" hand-wavey bullshit. Give us the math. Or do you even know enough about physics to do that?

[Anonymous No.8253817]

>>8253656
Also, who is supposedly faking this and why? Is it big globe?

[Anonymous No.8253820]

Serious question:

How do flat earthers explain Rayleigh scattering in the atmosphere?

[Anonymous No.8253825]

>It's like listening to a broken record. You lost buddy, the evidence piles up against you. Little Piggy by the way is a camera that distorts the image, nice job on using it as "evidence". As can be clearly seen from >>8253709, that camera has no distortion, and the same picture made by this camera as posted in >>8253688 clearly shows the curvature of the earth from a camera that has no distortion.

Once again - here is what the surface of the Earth looks like, from 121,000 feet in a high altitude balloon, without any distortion of the image due to the camera, ie. no convex or concave curvature changing in rapid succession, like in other videos. Nobody has addressed this video yet, but keep parading other videos as "proof". Confirmation bias at its finest.

: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg

You see the way horizon stays level, and doesn't distort? That's what your eyes would see from that altitude.

[Anonymous No.8253826]

>>8253794
You clearly have no concept of how centripetal forces work beyond "mass on string fly away when i let go". Neither are you familiar with buoyancy. Go calculate the difference in centripetal force between r and r+2 in meters where r is the earth radius. Bonus points: calculate their ratio and determine whether or not it is noticeable effect. Having graduated redneck high, you should be able to do this. And remember: show your work!

[Anonymous No.8253830]

by the way for any flat earthers in the thread what we're the main reasons for you getting in to flat earth?

This one was from about a year before I realised the earth was flat and to be honest didn't lead me to realise the earth was flat, it just made sense after

But on youtube there was that video of the ISS going around earth and it looked so fucking retarded and fake like ps4 graphics, and all the comments saying how cool it looked and how great NASA was and I was about to tell them it's CGI but I looked on the video description and the uploader was actually claiming it to be video capture, I couldn't fucking beleive it

I had no idea why they would need to upload fake videos

Then a year later it made total sense

[Anonymous No.8253834]

>>8253825
>>It's like listening to a broken record.
Yes, it truly is. Also see >>8253762 where that video is addressed and footage of the same camera is linked when it is landing, discrediting your video.

>>8253830
They are probably just borderline retarded.

[Anonymous No.8253836]

>>8253830
Mods, please escort this gentleman to >>>/x/. Thank you!

[Anonymous No.8253837]

>>8253701
I've been in a plane and I can tell you that's not true

[Anonymous No.8253839]

>>8253837
I've been in a plane and I can tell you what that man you quoted said is true.

[Anonymous No.8253843]

>>8253794
>earth is apparently spinning at 1000mph at the equator
Yes.
>gravity is strong enough to hold all the earths water to it
Yes, do the math.
>i can jump freely, butterflies can fly freely
You have evolved to be able to do that, in the moon you can jump really high, in the sun you would be squashed against a solid surface.
>no one can feel the apparent centrifugal force
What is a Foucault pendulum? It's that small.
>even though it would be ridiculously more and less powerful all """""around the globe"""""
Not when you compared to gravity.
>mass attracts mass
Yes.
>a car and a bowling ball fall at the same speed, the only thing that would affect the rate of falling is wind resistance
>a pen and a bowling ball fall at the same speed
G is tiny, do the math.
>helium balloons rise up even though they have mass
>b-but it's less dense
>I can pull down the less dense than air helium balloon with my arms but the entire gravity of earth can't?
Exactly, gravity is not strong enough for that, what's problematic about it?

Also, why don't you point out what's wrong with Cavendish's experiment? (No, lead is not magnetic)

[Anonymous No.8253846]

>>8253794
3/10 bait, made me get a calculator to see what's the centripetal force at the Earth surface.

[Anonymous No.8253847]

>>8253724
This board is absolute garbage

[Anonymous No.8253849]

>>8253815

Maths

1000mph is more than 0

If you stand somewhere where the earth is """"spinning""" at 100mph and you stand somewhere where the earth is """spinning""" at 1000mph you won't feel any difference

>inb4 someone measured it in a lab somewhere but you forgot their name and no one else can do the experiment because we aren't "certified scientists tm"

[Anonymous No.8253852]

>>8253815

Keep trying to invoke a circular argument, lol. Instead of trying to debunk me, you want to focus on this one detail, because you know that whatever I say, it doesn't prove the Earth is either a globe or flat. As I explained, it's pointless, because the math adds up on both models, depending on the assumptions made previously. If you assume the Sun is 93 million miles away and over 100 times bigger than Earth, then the math will add up just fine. But it also adds up fine when you assume the Sun is only a few thousands miles away and 32 miles in diameter.

You can try and keep the topic constrained to this one detail all you like, but my explanation is perfectly valid, and you know it as well as I do.

Was that hand-wavey enough for you?

[Anonymous No.8253856]

>>8253847
I doubt there are mods here nowadays... makes me feel a bit sad inside.

[Anonymous No.8253857]

>>8253817
>Also, who is supposedly faking this and why? Is it big globe?

There's no such thing as "Big Globe", that's a term that VSauce made up.

Once again, watch the video. It answers this question, and all the most frequently asked questions on this topic.

Is it that people just don't have the attention span to watch a full video, or are they just stupid? Genuinely curious.

[Anonymous No.8253859]

I'm willing to bet that ~95% of flat earthers never flew in a moderate-high altitude plane or sailed on an ocean. And that 5% that did; denied their own experience.
:^)

[Anonymous No.8253860]

>>8253826

>he thinks he can physically measure the spinning from Earth

if you could do that you wouldn't have to shill on /sci/

[Anonymous No.8253862]

>>8253852
If the earth is flat, then why doesn't gravity's net effect pull stuff sideways when you're away from the center of your so called disc?

>inb4 gravity doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.8253865]

>>8253859
>And that 5% that did; denied their own experience.
They're probably scared to fly so they take a seat away from the window :')

[Anonymous No.8253867]

>>8253852
>But it also adds up fine when you assume the Sun is only a few thousands miles away and 32 miles in diameter.
No it doesn't, see: >>8253729

[Anonymous No.8253869]

>>8253852
>Keep trying to invoke a circular argument
What?

All you have to do is show us all the math that confirms everything you have claimed. But instead you keep avoiding the point because you can't do the math, don't have the math, or know that the math actually shows that earth is a sphere. Instead of showing us your work, you just tell us "the math just works out, maaaan."

Show us your work.

[Anonymous No.8253870]

>>8253860
>what far away are stars and galaxies

[Anonymous No.8253873]

>>8253843

>centrifugal forces that anyone can measure on objects of any size are weaker than """""gravity""""" that only starts to work when things are the size of the fucking moon

[Anonymous No.8253874]

>>8253852
>If you assume the Sun is 93 million miles away and over 100 times bigger than Earth, then the math will add up just fine.
And if you reflect the whole universe around a point, then you could make the Earth hollow with the universe inside. That probably would require a little more mental masturbation with a flat Earth, but I think a spherical projection would do.

[Anonymous No.8253877]

>>8253843

because it can't pull down a helium balloon when I can, but magically it can hold down all the water of earth...

[Anonymous No.8253883]

>>8253862

Because density and buoyancy are responsible for objects falling, not gravity.

Also, stop watching VSauce. His video was bullshit.

[Anonymous No.8253886]

>>8253870

[Anonymous No.8253892]

>>8253870

>far away

[Anonymous No.8253898]

>>8253865

Flown dozens of times. Not even NASA would claim that the Earth's curve can be detected from 35,000 feet. You can't see the curve from a plane.

Here, see for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYC-7Oj9SBE

[Anonymous No.8253902]

>>8253870

>the suns light takes 8 minutes to reach us and it looks smallish in the sky
>if it took 32 minutes it would be a quater of the size
>an hour tiny
>a week?
>a year?

You wouldn't see anything that far

[Anonymous No.8253903]

>>8253873
>that only starts to work when things are the size of the fucking moon
Clearly you have never fallen down, where is that force coming from genius?

>>8253877
The mass of the second body is also in Newton's law, helium is too light to be trapped by Earth's gravity.

[Anonymous No.8253906]

Why do we allow this shit to spread. The earth is not flat for fucks sake

[Anonymous No.8253907]

>>8253903
>The mass of the second body is also in Newton's law, helium is too light to be trapped by Earth's gravity.
Please don't use retarded explanations even when you're right. That's not the reason at all why a helium balloon rises, it's pulled by the Earth's gravity just fine.

[Anonymous No.8253908]

Sounds like a nigger, opinion discarded

[Anonymous No.8253911]

>>8253883
>not gravity.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
called it!

>>8253886
>>8253892
? Galaxies that are far away can be regarded as being in a fixed position for all intents and purposes. We can use those just fine as anchor point for measuring the rotational velocity of the earth.

>>8253902
So now stars don't exist, amirite? I guess they're just painted on a ceiling, amirite? Let me laugh even harder!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.8253914]

>>8253903

1. Density genius

If you drop an object next to a wall, it won't go slightly closer to the wall when you drop it even though "mass attracts mass"

2. Helium rises because it is less dense than air, anything more dense than air can't rise without another force acting on it

[Anonymous No.8253916]

>>8253914
Two possiblities:
>I have no idea how gravity works
or
>I'm just trolling you gais :^)

In any case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91IU8cFJ7o

[Anonymous No.8253919]

>>8253907
I'm not saying it's not pulled by gravity, just that gravity can't keep it in the atmosphere and it becomes lost in space.

[Anonymous No.8253920]

>>8253914
>If you drop an object next to a wall, it won't go slightly closer to the wall when you drop it even though "mass attracts mass"
For fuck's sake, already posted in this thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment#The_experiment

You're enjoying this, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.8253926]

>>8253911

another one bites the dust

[Anonymous No.8253934]

>>8253869

The point was never about whether or not the math works out.

You just want this debate to be about attacking someone's personal credibility instead of the actual subject matter, which is why you keep repeating yourself. Since my argument never depended upon showing you calculations, it's actually you who is straying from the point, not me.

You think if you can ask me to do certain calculations, then I'll trip up, in which case you can come in and say "See?? This guy's math is faulty, it proves that all Flat Earther's are stupid".

This is a strawman, since only in your head does the stereotype of the idiotic redneck flat Earther exist, and therefore disproving it matters only to you, but not to me.

What I'm trying to say is, I don't care whether my credibility matters to you or not. So the answer is no.

[Anonymous No.8253936]

>>8253926
>being ridiculed means I win
No it doesn't, but it wouldn't surprise me if you already convinced yourself.

[Anonymous No.8253938]

>>8253920

>muh secret lab that no one can replicate because they aren't scientists tm

>even though everyone can demonstrate density on even the smallest objects
>even though everyone can demonstrate centrifugal forces on the smallest objects
>gravity that no one but only mcfaggot in his cave can measure is the most ultimate force of nature

[Anonymous No.8253945]

>So now stars don't exist, amirite? I guess they're just painted on a ceiling, amirite? Let me laugh even harder!

Of course stars exist, But they aren't gigantic balls of burning plasma (lol). They are luminaries, a few thousand miles away from us, and are much smaller than Earth.

[Anonymous No.8253948]

>>8253934
>You think if you can ask me to do certain calculations, then I'll trip up, in which case you can come in and say "See?? This guy's math is faulty, it proves that all Flat Earther's are stupid".
So you think being an incompetent piece of shit excuses you from the burden of proof? WRONG! Show your work or fuck off. This is high school geometry, are you fucking retarded?

[Anonymous No.8253949]

>>8253914
>1. Density genius
So you are saying that the force that makes you fall down comes from the density of massive bodies. Sounds an awful lot like gravity doesn't it? Riddle me this, what happens when a solid object has a big density gradient? Does the less dense part move towards the more dense one?
>If you drop an object next to a wall, it won't go slightly closer to the wall when you drop it even though "mass attracts mass"
Remove other forces and it does, see: >>8253742
>2. Helium rises because it is less dense than air, anything more dense than air can't rise without another force acting on it
Why are there no concentrations of helium very high in the atmosphere then? Helium is produced by alpha decay, it should be up there somewhere.

[Anonymous No.8253955]

>>8253938
>even though everyone can demonstrate density on even the smallest objects
Like weighing two objects of same mass but different dimensions and magically getting the same number on the scales?

[Anonymous No.8253958]

>>8253938

silly me I didn't realise it was THAT canvendish experiment...

>these fucking idiots think they can measure the weight of the entire earth with some fucking balls on sticks my fucking sides

[Anonymous No.8253960]

>>8253938
I did that exact same experiment during my second year in university, you are just too lazy or incompetent (or both) to do it.

[Anonymous No.8253966]

>>8253948

You shouldn't swear so much. It's rude.

[Anonymous No.8253972]

>>8253934
But your argument depends on whether your calculations add up or not. "It just doesn't add up" is not a sound SCIENTIFIC argument. You do realize what board you're on, right? Credibility is definitely an issue to be legitimately concerned about.

[Anonymous No.8253978]

>>8253945
>But they aren't gigantic balls of burning plasma
Correct, they are not made of "burning plasma" (lol, this guy)

>They are luminaries
What the fuck does this mean, define this.

>a few thousand miles away from us, and are much smaller than Earth.
Provide proof for both claims.

>>8253966
You should provide proof of you claims and show your work. You seem incompetent.

>>8253958
>argument from ignorance
Retard.

>>8253938
What's heavier, a kilogram of steel or a kilogram of feather?

[Anonymous No.8253980]

>>8253949

1. No it doesn't sound like gravity.
>solid object
stays solid obviously

Now if we were using liquids... The less dense liquid would head to the top

2
>muh experiments that no one has done

3
>muh places that no one has been

[Anonymous No.8253982]

>>8253938
This is you right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH0hikcwjIA

[Anonymous No.8253989]

I just realised one of you mongoloids think he can measure the weight of the Earth and Moon with some fucking wooden toys

[Anonymous No.8253994]

>>8253972

It doesn't depend solely on calculations. That the Earth is flat can be proved using simple common sense alone, plus the plethora of evidence we already have.

It's amazing that on a scientific board, you people don't realize how ridiculous the concept of convex water curving around a globe is. Lol. Water cannot curve. And gravity cannot magically make it possible. Water is always flat and level. There is no such thing as convex water. Add to that the idea of this curved water spinning around a ball at 1000 mph... and it gets even more ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.8253999]

>>8253982

without gravity a kg of steel and a kg of wool would still weigh the same...

[Anonymous No.8254006]

>>8253994

BUT MUH ISAAC JEWTON TOLD ME SO!!

I READ IT ON A GRAPH!

[Anonymous No.8254007]

>>8253999
>trips wasted for a faggot that doesn't understand the difference between weight an mass
Reee.

[Anonymous No.8254009]

>>8253994
>That the Earth is flat can be proved using simple common sense alone
Nope, you're just a sad little man talking out of his ass. Provide proof and show your work, you incompetent basement dweller.

>It's amazing that on a scientific board
What's amazing is how you can wipe your own asshole while being this retarded.

[Anonymous No.8254014]

>>8253980
So no matter the rigidity of the solid and the density difference it would never do anything? You should be able to at least see some effects.
>muh experiments that no one has done
Proofs that he didn't do it? I did it >>8253960 as did everyone in that course. Also, why did people believe him back in the day? Why did no one say bullshit?
>muh places that no one has been
You can just use an hellium filled balloon to reach that area, don't tell me no one has been there before.

[Anonymous No.8254020]

>>8254007

>oxygen wasted for a faggot that doesn't understand that things fall at the same speed regardless of weight or mass if they are more dense than air, which would be impossible if gravity was pulling things towards earth depending on their mass

[Anonymous No.8254026]

>>8253999
Without gravity they wouldn't weigh anything, dumbshit.

>>8254006
>laws of physics anyone can verify with the crudest of tools are wrong because I say so and also because I'm too lazy/stupid/incompetent to verify them for myself.
>even though kids learn and see this for themselves in high school
>even though there is absolutely no scientific or engineering misunderstanding on the topic
>even though everything based upon it works flawlessly
You are trolling, right? Please tell me you're not actually this stupid. Although it wouldn't surprise me after the shit OP posted.

>>8254020
The only oxygen that was wasted was used to revive you from your oxygen deficit at birth.

[Anonymous No.8254029]

>>8254026

triggered as fuck

think I'm gonna read that shit

[Anonymous No.8254031]

>>8254026

gravity doesn't exist and we weight things all the time...

[Anonymous No.8254032]

>>8254020
[math]ma = G\frac{Mm}{R^2}[/math]
[math]a = G\frac{M}{R^2}[/math]

What are the flatearther equivalents?

[Anonymous No.8254039]

>>8254029
I would be surprised if you could read at all at this point.

>>8254031
>hurr durr it doesn't exist
>yet we weigh things with it
What's heavier, a kg of steel or a kg of feathers?

[Anonymous No.8254051]

>>8254039
Depends. What type of feathers and what type of steel?

[Anonymous No.8254054]

>>8254039

they weigh the same

[Anonymous No.8254058]

>>8254051

what underhanded tactics

can't say I'm surprised

[Anonymous No.8254059]

>>8254051
Chicken feathers and A36 steel.

[Anonymous No.8254060]

>>8254032

[Anonymous No.8254062]

>>8254058
It's common knowledge that, for example, a gram of diamond weights around 15 grams. You can't just make wild guesses.

[Anonymous No.8254065]

>>8254059
I would say if there are enough feathers, they would weigh more.

[Anonymous No.8254066]

>>8254062

[Anonymous No.8254067]

>>8254062
>weighs 15 grams
>weighs
>grams

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

[Anonymous No.8254077]

>>8254065
Here it is, a (You).