/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9435156]

This was a piece of "flat earth evidence" that caught me off guard, couldn't think of the correct answer by my own. Is the answer clear to you without googling, /sci/?

[Anonymous No.9435175]

>>9435156
Because the earth also rotates around its axis?

[Anonymous No.9435179]

Because Earth also rotates about its own axis and if we're being honest, jumping back and forth an hour each year is an antiquated idea that was only made for agricultural purposes

[Anonymous No.9435180]

The "day" is defined by the position of the sun in our sky, not the position of the earth relative to the sun.

Only one of the times in the pic is correct (top middle).

[Anonymous No.9435272]

The 12 hours is already adjusted each day, the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

[Anonymous No.9435294]

I am aware of the difference between solar days and sidereal days, yes.

[Anonymous No.9435298]

>>9435156
Sidereal motion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_year

You can buy sidereal clocks if you want. The astronomy department at my university has one.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=sidereal+clock

[Anonymous No.9435305]

>>9435294
I'm confused about the question then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wGFJd3j3ds

[Anonymous No.9435338]

>>9435156
Because the earth rotates a little bit more that 360 degrees in a 24 hour period, right?

[Anonymous No.9435369]

>>9435338
not relative to alpha centauri

[Anonymous No.9435371]

>>9435338
Yes. Roughly speaking, that's 360 + (360 / 365) degrees -- one extra rotation per year. (The true number is a bit subtler because a couple of complications apply, but it's very close to this.)

[Anonymous No.9435374]

>>9435156
coz erf spin :)

[Anonymous No.9435416]

>>9435371

The video evidence of this happening from space is abundant.

[Anonymous No.9435426]

>>9435416
>videos from space

[Anonymous No.9435435]

>>9435416
http://physics.gu.se/LISEBERG/eng/foucault.pdf

[Anonymous No.9435463]

The globe model just has more intuitive sense, it's the occam's razor approved choice. Basically the earth is rotating at 1,070mph on a fixed, tilted axis, and it's orbiting the sun at 66,627 mph, but the orbit isn't an equal circle, it's actually an elliptical, so it actually moves around the sun faster when it's closer (although we don't feel this change in speed). But also, the earth doesn't orbit perfectly, and it actually makes one rotation a year

Oh and the sun is orbiting the milky way at 500,000+mph. I mean you'd have to be a fucking idiot not to believe that.

[Anonymous No.9435479]

>>9435435
>http://physics.gu.se/LISEBERG/eng/foucault.pdf

Foucalt pendulums are nothing more than a toy. If you let the swing long enough they will start making all sorts of movements. It's 2017, show a 4k video of the earth orbiting around the sun from space.

[Anonymous No.9435488]

>>9435479
Is this good enough? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtU_mdL2vBM

[Anonymous No.9435499]

>>9435488

I'm afraid not, that's not an actual live feed either. There's clear evidence of doctoring or covering things up. I believe they are above earth, but on a stationary weather balloon, but the clouds moving makes it look like they're moving too.

[Anonymous No.9435505]

>>9435479
You're such a disingenuous sophist, is there really any point?

[Anonymous No.9435513]

>>9435505

If pendulums are enough to satisfy your belief that the earth is rotating, you go right ahead.

We don't need to settle for that any more, just fucking film it!

[Anonymous No.9435521]

>>9435499
please dont exercise your right to vote

[Anonymous No.9435526]

>>9435513
Even if I were to, you would simply claim that I'd faked it. The only evidence that will satisfy your bias, is evidence you yourself create; though I'm sure you would simply put it down to government conspiracy.
Also, you obviously don't understand Foucault's pendulum so I implore you to read this:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
And watch this:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U
Note that even after such a length of time, it remains upon the promised plane.
Also, the Earth is at least spherical:
>https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/teachersguide/MeasECAct.html
You yourself can also measure this, you can also perform the same experiment all over the globe (I will not take my time to do this for you, because you would simply say I have faked the result). The result means that, if the object you are standing upon has non-local curvature, it is a sphere.

[Anonymous No.9435528]

>>9435499
I think this demonstration of the coriolis effect is pretty neat evidence for the earth's being round. It also can be done by anyone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDorTBEhEtk

[Anonymous No.9435538]

>>9435526
Also, just in case you didn't notice, he measured his latitude the pendulum and you would only be able to do this, if the Earth is spherical.

[Anonymous No.9435540]

>>9435538
>*latitude the pendulum = latitude with the pendulum

[Anonymous No.9435543]

>>9435521

I will take this advice into consideration.

>>9435526

The point is that no one has filmed it or even tried to fake it. All we have are shitty animations and silly circus toys. The globe model should be filmed in all its glory. We love to document how nature works.

[Anonymous No.9435545]

>>9435543
I'd imagine the main reason is that it has been and still is quite expensive to launch stuff into space, so funds are diverted towards projects that actually will reveal new knowledge rather than confirm a theory that's already has mountains of evidence supporting it.

[Anonymous No.9435549]

Toilet swirl? Really? This has been a known myth for quite some time. It's just due to the design of the toilets.

[Anonymous No.9435550]

>>9435543
I love how you don't respond to the standpoints that challenge (entirely countermand) your ideology.
You certainly are:
>a disingenuous sophist

[Anonymous No.9435562]

>>9435549
No, not toilet swirl. If you had watched even 1 minute of the video you would've heard him say exactly what you just said: that toilet swirl is a myth. The video shoes water at a standstill in a circular pool draining toward the middle.

[Anonymous No.9435566]

>>9435549
>inb4 they obviously have different basin designs in the US compared to Argentina :^)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iPJ-h1MiFo

[Anonymous No.9435574]

>>9435562
>shoes
ouch. I meant shows. The 'e' key is located right next to the 'w' key after all :^)

[Anonymous No.9435579]

>>9435545

This is a very arrogant attitude. The core of science is about observation, we have the ability to observe the rotation of the earth its orbit around the sun. If we could see real video footage of this, then the theory can be considered pretty much fact.

Why do we only have CGI when we could have the real thing? That seems extremely odd to me. It's not like it'd be very expensive at all compared to what going to the moon or mars would be.

>>9435550

What standpoints? A pendulum does not prove the rotation or shape of the earth, that's a bizarre claim. If you want to prove that, then show the earth rotating!

>>9435562

But this is just more pseudo-science. Why would the water swirl at all if everything is rotating with the earth?

[Anonymous No.9435584]

>>9435579
First of all, the weight of the pendulum spins in accordance with the hemisphere and the very fact you can use it to measure latitude (accurately), clearly you didn't watch the video or read the article:
You also avoided:
>https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/teachersguide/MeasECAct.html
And:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iPJ-h1MiFo

[Anonymous No.9435603]

>>9435584

Do non-metal pendulums work?

[Anonymous No.9435611]

>>9435579
>But this is just more pseudo-science
It's actually a very simple geometric fact, that is literally proven in the mathematical sense. I'm not the best explainer, so I'll just leave this video that explains it pretty nicely and intuitively: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHGKIzCcVa0

skip to 12:08.

Also, you want a camera to record earth's orbit right? Is something like pic related what you envision?

[Anonymous No.9435615]

>>9435603
Why does that matter?

[Anonymous No.9435621]

Are flat earthers really serious or is it just satire?

[Anonymous No.9435637]

>>9435611

Oh great, more pseudo-science drivel and CGI. These convoluted and theoretical explanations wouldn't be necessary to prove the spinning of the earth if you could just show the earth actually spinning.

[Anonymous No.9435642]

>>9435615

Because you have to factor in other "forces" that could be at play, one being electro-magnetism.

[Anonymous No.9435645]

>>9435637
It's not convoluted at all. It's pretty simple geometry that a 6th grader could understand. It also allows for testable hypotheses, that have actually been confirmed, like in that swirl video. Anyway, how would you propose to record the earth spinning. Like the diagram in my previous post?

[Anonymous No.9435651]

>>9435642
You mean Earth's magnetic field? You know, that would still prove that Earth is sphere right?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field
And yes, it just needs to be a weight.

[Anonymous No.9435668]

>>9435645

If it's so simple, why couldn't you explain it? Enough with the CGI.

You'd have to orbit the same speed of the rotation in the opposite direction. Or put a camera on the moon that film the earth and sun from its perspective, that would be enough to prove the helio-centric model.

>>9435651
All of the illustrations are using a flat, circular plane. Show this magnetic field on a 3D sphere.

[Anonymous No.9435675]

>>9435668
Actually read this:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field
And this:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field#Physical_origin
And then this:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory
And then explain how you would operate the same mechanics on a disk.

[Anonymous No.9435677]

>>9435675
Also pay attention to this:
>See picture.
As I've already proven, we're on a sphere and this proves its rotation:
>>9435526
>>9435584

[Anonymous No.9435682]

>>9435668
Ok, the water at the edge of the pool is moving at a different velocity than the floor of the pool near the center. So when that water with a greater velocity approaches the center of the pool, the discrpenacy in their velocities will make them diverge, causing a swirl effect.

Also what you're asking for sort of already exists. For instance the "pale blue dot" photo (pic related). Also more distant images from voyager 1. Granted these are just photos not video. But the scale of things makes it impractical anything. In pic related you can barely see the earth and the sun still isn't in view. Also recording from the moon wouldn't really be good evidence. It's no different than satellite footage.

[Anonymous No.9435687]

>>9435677
Why do you even argue with flattards? It has reached a point where even /x/ doesn't want them anymore. We've had this thread 10,000 times already and nothing changes- all evidence is completely flexible and irrelevant yho them.

[Anonymous No.9435691]

>>9435687
>yho
*to

[Anonymous No.9435694]

>>9435687
To keep me sharp, I guess?

[Anonymous No.9435698]

>>9435675

If you take the view that it is the universe revolving around us, then it makes sense. The North and South poles have stars that rotate in opposite directions over them. Opposite poles, opposite rotations.

When you're in the northern "hemisphere", you can only see the stars that are above you in that area, you cannot see beyond the vanishing point anywhere on earth. If you fly to the souther "hemisphere", you will be looking up at a different part of the sky, and will see different stars rotating in a different direction. It's pretty simple.

At the equator, you can see the stars rotating in different directions around two fixed points in the sky. If the earth was spherical, you would have to look north or south stars rotating in different directions, not how the pic shows.

[Anonymous No.9435700]

>>9435698
What are you even going on about?

[Anonymous No.9435706]

>>9435700
He's not a flat earther, he's a earth-is-the-center-of-the-universe'er

[Anonymous No.9435711]

>>9435706
Dear sweet God.

[Anonymous No.9435716]

>>9435706
Also, it shows me that he didn't read any of those articles, or understand (or see) >>9435677 and if he did? Well then, his IQ is probably lower than your average potato.

[Anonymous No.9435722]

>>9435156
Because the 24 hour day was defined as the period between the sun reaching its apex in the sky, not the amount of time it takes the Earth to rotate 360 degrees.

The sidereal day is approximately 23 hours 56 minutes and would result in a 12 hour shift relative to a 24 hour day over a half year ((4/60)* (365.25/2) ~ 12).

[Anonymous No.9435724]

>>9435700

Imagine you were directly on the equator line on a spherical earth. The pole star's positions are at opposite ends to each other by being above the north and south poles.

Would you be able to see nearly see the north and south pole together at the same time on the equator by looking in one direction? It would be impossible.

[Anonymous No.9435737]

>>9435724
As tempted as I am by your redirection, we're not finished here:
>>9435675
Or here:
>>>9435677
So, are you going to admit that you were wrong and that not only is Earth spherical, but that it is also spinning?
If not, we're not moving onto >>9435698 or >>9435724, because you've been ducking out of far too much.

[Anonymous No.9435749]

>>9435737

No where do I see a sphere.

[Anonymous No.9435758]

>>9435749
Look at the red box in the full infographic I posted, you disingenuous (hardly even a) sophist.

[Anonymous No.9435764]

>>9435758

Quite the coincidence that the direction of the field matches that of the stars...

[Anonymous No.9435770]

>>9435764
Another misdirection, you no longer qualify as a sophist:
>a person who reasons adroitly and speciously rather than soundly.
You are not adroit, you are a buffoon.

[Anonymous No.9435780]

>>9435770

You're obviously completely closed off to new ideas and theories. That's not how science progresses.

[Anonymous No.9435787]

>>9435780
Well, one we have evidence for, the other we do not. By the scientific method, one is automatically more valid than the other.
So, to borrow a phrase from an idiot I know:
>That's not how science progresses.

[Anonymous No.9435800]

Any time you lose relative to the background stars in 6 months, you gain back in the next 6 months.
Any timeshift you would notice is also lost due to the tilt of the earth to the ecliptic which eats time in the morning and at night. If the earth had no tilt with respect to its orbit you would notice the lag then the lead in sunrise and sunset with respect to sidereal time.

The twelve hours difference you lose relative to an arbitrary starting point shows up in the difference between the time lost or gained in the morning or the evening which is only even twice a year.
If we weren't going around the sun, the shorter then longer days from the tilt of the earth, (or from a flat earther's - earthcentric perspective, the change in path of the sun) would be equally losing time in the morning and at night.

So the answer is we do lose 12 hours, but we gain it back, and that shows up in the uneven shrinking or lengthening of our days between the sunrise time lost or gained and the sunset loss or gain.

[Anonymous No.9435859]

>>9435787

So you should have no trouble explaining how you can see the stars rotate as they do at the equator if you're on a sphere.

[Anonymous No.9435865]

>>9435859
https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/StarMotion.html

[Anonymous No.9435885]

>>9435865

I mean come on, they even use a flat plane with the stars revolving around the earth to illustrate the movements. I'd love to see them animate it with respect to the earth's other movements such as the orbit of the sun, and the sun's orbit around the milky way.

[Anonymous No.9435897]

>>9435885
Because it's for reference. What else would they reference?
Considering I've already proven we're on a spinning sphere and that.

[Anonymous No.9435914]

>>9435897
>What else would they reference?

A sphere.

[Anonymous No.9435920]

>>9435914
Ah yes, because that would make total sense with the perspective we have due to gravity, sure.
You Flatards really have some bizarre criterion.

[Anonymous No.9435928]

>>9435920

Someone in Australia looking up is different to someone in Canada looking up. The universe is 3 dimensional, so in every direction you will look at different parts of the universe. You cannot reference a stationary flat plane if you want to model a spherical earth.

[Anonymous No.9435933]

>>9435928
Did you even bother to read the article?

[Anonymous No.9435936]

>>9435156
>12:00 pm
tf you talking about

[Anonymous No.9435942]

>>9435914
Just rotate it and paste it on a huge ball.

[Anonymous No.9436007]

>>9435933

I want a working model that incorporates all movements involved in the heliocentric model.

[Anonymous No.9436178]

>>9436007
>I want a working model that incorporates all movements involved in the heliocentric model.
Nobody can give you a model like that if you're not going to read how it works.

[Anonymous No.9436265]

>>9435885
>>9435914
Hopefully this explains it better. If not, then I don't know what I can do for you.

[Anonymous No.9436279]

>>9436007
http://spaceengine.org/

It's free.

[Anonymous No.9437263]

>>9436265

In no way shape or form does that map to the reality of what we see when we look at the stars.

>>9436279

Already got it thanks. It's useless.

[Anonymous No.9437422]

>>9435179
>agricultural
Nigger you fucking dumb. It was invented in WW1 so the civilian population would use fewer resources during the day.

[Anonymous No.9437547]

>>9437263
>In no way shape or form does that map to the reality of what we see when we look at the stars.

But it does. Your latitude will determine the position of the celestial poles.
Stand at the North Pole at 90°N latitude and the North Celestial Pole will be 90° above the horizon which is straight up. The stars will never go under the horizon at that latitude and will seem to rotate counter clockwise around the Celestial Pole.

Stand on the Equator at 0° latitude and the North Celestial Pole will now be 0° above the horizon to the North and the same goes for the South Celestial Pole but it will be to the South. The stars will rotate counter clockwise around the North Celestial Pole and clockwise around the South Celestial Pole. Stars Rising in the East will seem to make a big arc towards the West.

Stand at the South Pole at 90°S latitude and the stars will behave like they did on the North Pole except that they will rotate clockwise instead of counter clockwise. The stars will never go under the horizon here as well.

The fact that the celestial poles elevation matches your latitude is proof that the Earth is a sphere. It simply can't work on a flat plane and feel free to prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.9437584]

>>9437547

Why do the north and south star constellations appear side by side at the equator, rather than at opposite ends of the earth, opposite each pole?

Unless you have 180 degree vision, you should not be able to see that, you would have to look left to see the north stars, and turn 180 to see the southern.

[Anonymous No.9437611]

>>9437584
>Unless you have 180 degree vision, you should not be able to see that, you would have to look left to see the north stars, and turn 180 to see the southern.

Exactly, and that's what we see.

[Anonymous No.9437631]

>>9437547
Typically their arguments hold that there has never been a legitimate expedition to the north pole. The south pole also obviously can't exist so nobody has ever been to it either.

The stars often considered to be some image from the firmament. People actually take photos with their smart phones and consider these images more accurate than any telescope.

There isn't reasoning with this crowd. They swallowed something from youtube, something that starts with a legitimate doubt of government, and grows to a cancer of its own.

[Anonymous No.9437643]

>>9437611

How could you possibly see the stars making these movements when looking from the equator of a sphere that is rotating in one direction?

[Anonymous No.9437653]

>>9437643
1) That photo isn't from the equator.
2) It is using a very wide--angle lens.

[Anonymous No.9437659]

>>9437643

You dont, thats either a wide angle lens or a composite photo

[Anonymous No.9437662]

>>9437643
I don't understand how flat-earthers think the stars work... Even if there was some credibility for a flat earth, it just results in a universe that makes no sense

Also, this image probably isn't at the equator and it's probably a wide angle lens

[Anonymous No.9437682]

>>9437643
Earth rotates West to East so the stars will seem to rotate East to West. Stars will rotate counter clockwise around the North Celestial Pole and clockwise around the South Celestial Pole.

It's not a hard concept to grasp. You'll probably figure it out eventually.

[Anonymous No.9437695]

>>9435156
So, is the whole Flat Earth Movement actually just a stealth "Educate Regular People About Cosmology" movement or something?

Because while their stupid bullshit never really makes any sense, it makes me want to actually go study space shit.

[Anonymous No.9437707]

>>9437695
I had no comprehension about how the sun analemma forms until people started mention it in flat earth debates which propelled me to think about it and now I understand it.

[Anonymous No.9437837]

>>9437653
>1) That photo isn't from the equator.

The sun is in the middle setting at Equinox (the equator).

>2) It is using a very wide--angle lens.

That still wouldn't produce those star trails.

>>9437659

Are these all composites too? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CyG2zc8HkU

>>9437662

The universe revolves around us, it's a much simpler explanation.

>>9437682

When facing east or west, think about where the north and south pole stars are in relation to you. They're directly north and south, you should not be able to see the movements they do on a spherical earth.

[Anonymous No.9437857]

>>9435764
actually, it's not.

the field aligns it'self with the earth's spin, as it is created by the earth's spin.

the spin of the stars is also caused by the spin of the earth.

so, not a coincidence at all, actually.

[Anonymous No.9437865]

>>9437263
why is it useless? it's litterally a shot for shot simulation of the heliocentric model.

do you not like it just because it proves you wrong?

[Anonymous No.9437871]

>>9437584

>Unless you have 180 degree vision
which you do
>you should not be able to see that
which you do
>you would have to look left to see the north stars
which you can.
> and turn 180 to see the southern.
which you can.


you have a table to your right and a couch to your left.

you can see both the couch and the table if you just look such that the couch can be seen on the left side of your vision and the table on the right side. you don't have to pick either the couch or the table to look at.

[Anonymous No.9437873]

>>9437837
>Are these all composites too?

he said wide angle OR composite, retard. what are you even getting at?

[Anonymous No.9437876]

>>9437837
>The sun is in the middle setting at Equinox (the equator).

The image was taken near Teide Observatory at the Canary Islands which is around 28.3° North latitude so the North Celestial Pole is 28.3° above the horizon to the North and you can clearly see that the celestial pole is above the horizon in the image. If the image was taken at the equator the pole would be touching the horizon and it's clearly not.

Also, equinox does not mean geographical equator. It's the time of year when the Sun is located at the CELESTIAL equator which results in equal day and night all over the globe. The Sun will also rise exactly East and set at exactly West no matter your latitude.

You have a cloudy understanding of all this.

[Anonymous No.9437879]

>>9435603
Non-metal pendulums work fine.
I used to watch this one when I was a kid.
https://www.fi.edu/exhibit/foucault%E2%80%99s-pendulum
Bob must weigh several hundred pounds and no trivial force was going to disturb it. Losses due to air resistance were unnoticeable over the course of each day.

[Anonymous No.9437882]

>>9437837
>When facing east or west, think about where the north and south pole stars are in relation to you. They're directly north and south, you should not be able to see the movements they do on a spherical earth.

Why?

[Anonymous No.9437887]

>>9437865
He probably couldn't understand it. Short attention span.

[Anonymous No.9437892]

>>9437876
>The Sun will also rise exactly East and set at exactly West no matter your latitude.

If i am standing at the poles, though...

[Anonymous No.9437897]

>>9437892
Except for the poles obviously. The Sun would go around and around parallel to the horizon line.

[Anonymous No.9437971]

>>9437876

The image was taken in Ecuador: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/picture-galleries/8688878/The-2011-Astronomy-Photographer-of-the-Year-competition.html?image=2

>>9437879

That's made of metal.

>>9437882

Picture yourself at the equator, and picture where the pole stars are in relation to you. Would kind of rotation do you expect the stars to make with that in mind?

>>9437865

You can't simulate the stars rotating on with the perspective of looking up on earth.

[Anonymous No.9438012]

>>9437971
>You can't simulate the stars rotating on with the perspective of looking up on earth.

You can.

[None !niqjediPCA No.9438023]

>>9435156
A year is actually about 365.25 days, every 4 years we have a "leap year" which adds a day at the end of feburary... in addition to this, we have daylight savings time with adds or subtracts an hour during the solstice.

Other than that, the sun rises earlier and sets later in summer, and rises later and sets earlier in winter.

So, there is all sort of fluctuation in the actual length of the time constants we use to measure the passage of days or years...

but the earth is still rotating at the same speed, so your question doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.9438043]

>>9437971
>Picture yourself at the equator, and picture where the pole stars are in relation to you. Would kind of rotation do you expect the stars to make with that in mind?

They would move like this.

[Anonymous No.9438049]

>>9437971
The Telegraph fucked up. See www.twanight.org/newTWAN/photos.asp?ID=3002629&Sort=Photographer
Which says:
>The trails of the sun and stars are captured on one image taken from Teide Observatory (IAC) in the Canary Islands. As explained by the photographer "this image was made during the spring equinox of 2010. A full format DSLR with a fisheye lens were placed in a fixed position toward the west. First I made exposures for the Sun every 30 seconds with a solar filter placed on the lens during about 6 hours (the bold rectilinear trail the sun). After sunset, exposures were made continuously (30 seconds each) to capture the motion of stars for about 5 hours. Then all images (almost 16 GB of data) were combined with computer. The distortion of the fisheye lens was also fixed. The resulting image captures the moment the sun passes the celestial equator (the bright trail of the sun also marks the equator). Startrails on each celestial hemisphere (North and South) are curved in the opposite direction. To the right is the North Star, the Polaris. The building on the right is the solar laboratory "Pyramid Van der Raay" (known as Pyramid) which studies the sun's interior by Helioseismology. In the background is the Teide volcano (3710 m) and right on the horizon is La Palma island. Juan Carlos Casado/Starryearth.com

[Anonymous No.9438057]

>>9438049
I was just about the post that link with this image attached.

[Anonymous No.9438076]

>>9437422
and continued during ww2, so they could have an excuse to mention the war each time the radio announced the time.
it's now N o'clock eastern wartime.

[Anonymous No.9438096]

Some of you people in this thread are dangerously stupid.
Ive only seen instances of this magnitude on /g/ but always though they are just ignorant teens looking for a ruse.
People be ware.

[Anonymous No.9438109]

why cant we take a picture from space thats real

[Anonymous No.9438121]

looks like a flat plane with a celestial sphere above divided at the equator

[Anonymous No.9438127]

>>9438121
oh shit so like the earth is more coin like,with two sides and all

[Anonymous No.9438133]

>>9438127
what do you think the other side is like

[Anonymous No.9438141]

Has that flat earther with the steam rocket managed his spectacular suicide attempt yet?

[Anonymous No.9438149]

>>9438141
I think he cancelled the flight and blamed it on the BLM

[Anonymous No.9438250]

>>9437971
>You can't simulate the stars rotating on with the perspective of looking up on earth.

You can and you can even turn on the celestial coordinate grid.

[Anonymous No.9438260]

>>9438250
I don't know why you bother, this guy seems to have trouble visualising 3D space from 2D images, and just really wants someone to spoonfeed him a live webcam from space (god forbid it have any kind of compression or anything).

[Anonymous No.9438323]

>>9435543
>>9435550
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMIflnNQrkQ&feature=youtu.be&list=PLu1x_rWJqzrVCbZSknl1N2IYAZNPzsfS7

[Anonymous No.9438327]

>>9435621
There are three types of Flat Earthers who regularly post to 4Chan: prankster intellectuals who troll to test your knowledge and debate skills, literal Bible interpreters, and most recently and proliferately, the juvenile-level troller. They are easily identified by posting memes that ostensibly 'prove' a round Earth is false, but the geometry, maths, logic, and facts are so absurdly wrong that you feel compelled to display your superior intelligence and knowledge, and so you respond. You've taken the bait. They have only insulting or provocative responses to your reasoned posts, or claim you're a 'shill' for some silly conspiracy. They actually have no interest in the concept of flat or round Earth at all. It's all about the lulls at getting you to respond.

[Anonymous No.9438353]

>>9438260
i'm pretty sure most flat earthers either have trouble or cannot visualize things in 3d, or cannot think in images.

i can see how someone who is only able to think in words would be more susceptible to fall for FET.

[Anonymous No.9438358]

>>9438327
as much as you think this i have met and talked with actual people who actually believe the absurdly wrong geometrical "proofs". they need help.

i respond to the people because i don't want somebody reading it and going "gee well that makes sense"

[Anonymous No.9438359]

>>9438353
>cannot visualize things in 3d, or cannot think in images.

That's sounds like hell. Hey flatties is this true?

[Anonymous No.9438365]

>>9435621
>>9437695
There are three types of Flat Earthers who regularly post to 4Chan: prankster intellectuals who troll to test your knowledge and debate skills, literal Bible interpreters, and most recently and proliferately, the juvenile-level troller. None of them provide any evidence of phenomena that require a flat Earth model to explain, but rather place the onus on you to prove the round Earth. Their only tactic is to disavow any science or proofs put forward. You're probably going to use information that is readily available (and they could have looked up). Then you're called a 'shill' and your argument is dismissed.

Trolls are easily identified by posting memes that ostensibly 'prove' a round Earth is false, but the geometry, maths, logic, and facts are so absurdly wrong that you feel compelled to display your superior intelligence and knowledge, and so you respond. You've taken the bait. They have only insulting or provocative responses to your reasoned posts, or claim you're a 'shill' for some silly conspiracy. They actually have no interest in the concept of flat or round Earth at all. It's all about the lulls from getting you to respond.

[Anonymous No.9438376]

>>9438359
believe it or not there are people who think in words, with what is described as an "inner voice" acting as a sort of narrator to their thought process, and based on what i've heard it's pretty much most of the population. i feel bad for the normies.

one extreemly retarded redditor didn't beleive me when i said that i do not have any words "inside my head", even when i read, and rebutted "durrr if u don't think in words then how are you writing this rite now??". again, i feel very very the normies.

[Anonymous No.9438485]

space is just cgi fakery, raw images on left

[Anonymous No.9438504]

went to the moon this many times, took 3 shitty pics that turned out to be fake, gave fake moon rock to other countries
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html