/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8970653]

flat earther here

explain this

[Anonymous No.8970659]

>>8970653
nah, i'd rather just continue to make money from your ignorance. i fully support your decision to not enter the aerospace industry. thanks for keeping my skillset in demand.

[Anonymous No.8970660]

Do not feed troll spamming threads. Report, hide and move on.

[Anonymous No.8970663]

>>8970659
don't forget to sign that paper for never revealing the truth...

[Anonymous No.8970667]

>>8970660
>i have no arguments against this
>i ll just report it lol

[Anonymous No.8970671]

>>8970653
look it's another sign of idiocracy

[Anonymous No.8970672]

>>8970653
>explain this
youre a brainlet

[Anonymous No.8970675]

>>8970672
>>8970671
>HURR DURR YOU ARE STUPID XDDDD

nice arguments

[Anonymous No.8970676]

>>8970667
Imagine a circle. Then imagine you are incredibly small relative to the overall circumference of the circle. As you get closer to the circle, the circumference of the circle becomes straighter and straighter.

[Anonymous No.8970678]

>>8970653
>>8970667

I'm not a flat earther but I have to laugh at the people that dont know what an orbit is

[Anonymous No.8970680]

>>8970675
not an argument

[Anonymous No.8970682]

>>8970653
As a man of science, I will concede that wide-angle photography can be misleading. It is necessary to know what the focal length of the lens and the sensor size of the camera were, and where the center of the photograph is. Only lines radiating from the center show their true geometry. If a horizon passes under the center, it will bend upward at the edges. If above, then downward. Pic related. If indeed this image was posted on a site attempting to use it as evidence of curvature, they were misleading.

An idiotic science post does not negate an otherwise verifiable model though.

[Anonymous No.8970687]

>>8970660
yeah you better run you intellectual coward PIGGOT

roundies are all the same