Convex water

File: 97 KB, 640x398, lake-pontchartrain-causeway-fe-version.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Convex water Anonymous Fri Jan 26 09:31:48 2018 No.9462317 [DELETED]

What s the name of the scientific experiment that proves that bodies of water are convex?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 26 09:37:20 2018 No.9462339 >>9462317 The fuck off experiment

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 26 09:39:32 2018 No.9462343 File: 727 KB, 1564x1564, IMG_20171010_090656.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9462339

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 26 22:35:30 2018 No.9463813 >>9462317 >>cilinder

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 04:44:02 2018 No.9464395 File: 113 KB, 720x960, img_9158.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9463813 Almost 24 hours and not one person here can post a link to an experiment that demonstrates and proves that a body of water is convex.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 04:46:35 2018 No.9464398 >>9462317 >are convex define your terms before Science disproves them you sniveling retard

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 04:51:09 2018 No.9464403 File: 11 KB, 300x245, flat earthth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9462317 the take-the-boat experiment?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 04:52:44 2018 No.9464406 I'm sorry but I didn't catch the name of the experiment that proves they aren't, your images just read about "experiments" in general.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 05:02:08 2018 No.9464424 >>9464395 this >>9464403

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 05:07:14 2018 No.9464427 File: 106 KB, 1080x1281, IMG_20180126_102933.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464398 >>9464406 I live by the ocean. I go outside and I m looking at a 30+ mile flat line. I did the math and it dosen t make sense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 05:09:50 2018 No.9464433 >>9464427 It's not flat, it curves toward you. It's a radius with you in the center.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 05:10:33 2018 No.9464434 >>9464427 >I did the math Which math?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 05:15:22 2018 No.9464443 >>9464427 Yep >>9464434 Show math and we will rate math

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 05:16:24 2018 No.9464446 >>9464434 It s above. 8 inches a mile times the distance squared in miles.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 05:17:31 2018 No.9464448 >hurr durr I'm fucking retarded >listen to me or my church buddies will start a movement

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 05:19:02 2018 No.9464449 >>9464443 It s above.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 05:19:24 2018 No.9464452 >>9464446 I think you may not be very smart. Or any good at math, for that matter. That statement has units of [inches]x[miles].

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 05:22:07 2018 No.9464455 File: 241 KB, 1075x1703, IMG_20180122_000003.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464452 I m starting to think the experiment I asked about dosen t exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 05:27:43 2018 No.9464465 File: 406 KB, 1080x1920, Screenshot_20180127-062524.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464446 >>9464455

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 05:31:07 2018 No.9464468 >>9464455 okay so this website uses terrain data and a little bit of basic geometry to show you what you should be able to see from any place on earth and any altitude. http://www.heywhatsthat.com/

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 05:34:23 2018 No.9464471

>>9462317
When you are looking out over water, the curvature bends away from you equally over the entire body of water. So the horizon appears level. So you look out over the middle and the ocean curves away at 8 inches per mile, then you look 45 degrees to your right, the ocean here ALSO curves away from you at 8 inches per mile. Then 90 degrees to your now left, the ocean, again, still bends away from you at 8 inches per mile. So over that 90 degrees of view of ocean, you see it bending away from you at the same rate at every point on the horizon, so a flat line.

This is as you would expect. If instead when you look to your left or right the ocean suddenly was bending away from you more than that rate, then you would see a curve that was higher in the middle and lower to the left or right. But this would mean the water was uneven (that there would be a "hill" in the water) as you would if you saw a hill out on the horizon.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 05:47:02 2018 No.9464484
File: 271 KB, 1079x1686, IMG_20180124_200114.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9464471
I m not looking left or right.
I m looking at one line, straight on.
I ve checked physical maps and Google maps and the distance is 30 miles.

That's a 600 feet.

I can t find any anything online about the convex nature of bodies of water or the name of the experiment that proves it s even possible.

If you guys could just post me the links to the information about convex bodies of water, I would appreciate it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 05:50:59 2018 No.9464487 >>9464406 Yeah, I know. I can t find information on them so I came here. I ve googled it and can t find anything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 05:55:34 2018 No.9464492 File: 157 KB, 602x339, AGV3xiF.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464484 Oh so you mean pic related

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 05:59:22 2018 No.9464494 >>9462343 >every time such experiments have been conducted, however, standing water has proven to be perfectly level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 06:05:02 2018 No.9464498 >>9464494 >1870 Repeated and found to show no curvature. The videos are on YouTube. Can you sight something modern with better equipment?

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 06:09:18 2018 No.9464501
File: 390 KB, 683x1024, 78051565.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9464492
Go watch the video that still is from.
The creator is posting fake videos and asking for money.
If it was real you could post numerous examples along with the name of the modern scientific experiment that demonstrates and proves that standing bodies of water are convex.

There s real pictures of those transmission tower, here s one, give the rest a google

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 06:10:35 2018 No.9464502

>>9462343
>>9464403
>>9464465
The problem with these is that they basically don't take into account the atmosphere.
The atmosphere has an affect on light. Cold air bends light in a different way than hot air. I think we have all observed the affect of hot air on light so there's no point denying that the effect exists.

The real problem with these amateur experiments is that they don't take into account or mitigate as many variables as they can. They just make an observation and if it fits their desired result they accept it.
When faced with opposing observations they make up explanations for them, often using the same reasoning that could be affecting their own observations.

Scientists aren't perfect, but there is enough opposition in science to keep them mostly honest, unlike the Flat Earth Society. An echo chamber doesn't make for good science. None of them are looking for flaws in each others work. Anything that fits is acceptable. Anything that doesn't fit doesn't count.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 06:11:01 2018 No.9464503 File: 183 KB, 1200x675, DAy9SNOVYAAcabX.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464492 >>9464501 Here a clearer still than the one you posted...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 06:12:08 2018 No.9464505 >>9464498 >they took out the markers Wallace used to prove the refraction of the light Nicely done.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 06:12:36 2018 No.9464507 File: 271 KB, 1024x683, 498502317.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464492 >>9464501 >>9464503

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 06:14:44 2018 No.9464508 File: 548 KB, 1564x1564, IMG_20171010_090452.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464505 Could you post the link to science experiment they demonstrate and prove the that standing bodies of water are convex in schools and universities, please?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 06:15:00 2018 No.9464509 >>9464507 I sure hope you posted that image supporting the curved Earth, or else I have some bad news for you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 06:15:31 2018 No.9464510 >>9464508 Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 06:16:48 2018 No.9464512 >>9464510 See >>9464498

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 06:17:39 2018 No.9464513 >>9464512 See >>9464505

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 06:18:28 2018 No.9464515 >>9464509 No you don t. Please post the link to information I requested. http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2014/11/photographing-the-curvature-of-the-earth-trickier-than-you-think.html

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 06:20:30 2018 No.9464516 >>9464513 So you don t have anything modern or more scientific than from 1870? https://youtu.be/XUjMytEgLyw

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 06:20:59 2018 No.9464517 >>9464515 I have some bad news for you then. There's a clear curve in those pylons as they reach the horizon.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 06:22:07 2018 No.9464518

>>9464516
See >>9464505 again.

Wallace specifically put markers of even height at measured distances along the canal so that if any refraction were occurring it would be visible in the relative heights of the markers.

They did the test without markers.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 06:42:43 2018 No.9464531

>>9464515
That talks about curvature from left to right across the field of view.

See >>9464471

>>9464501
This pic is taken from too high up. The ~8 inch drop per mile squared is undetectable at this distance because the curvature does not obscure the pylons in any way, as you are well above the height of the pylons. Even if the curvature was enough to complete obscure the last pylon at the distance that pylon is from the camera, the camera being well over twice the height of the pylon from the ground would still clearly be able to see the entire pylon.

In every picture taken from below the height of the pylons: >>9464503 >>9464507 the curvature is clearly visible.

>>9464508
https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/teachersguide/MeasECAct.html
Here is one meant for like kids I guess. Curvature isn't really something that is needed to be taught in universities because experiments aren't needed.. You can just go watch a ship sink below the horizon or go look at a far away building and see how the bottom is hidden from view. And the sun set experiment also benefits from all but removing the errors in the Bedford level experiment since change in atmospheric distortion would be minimal over such a short period of time, so would be basically identical for both observations. Also wear sunglasses and dont look directly at sun or even better any left over eclipse glasses

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 06:45:54 2018 No.9464534

>>9462317
>What s the name of the scientific experiment that proves that bodies of water are convex?
What does this even mean? Why is this being used like some sort of trump card? This is just meaningless word salad. This is just asking the wrong question.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 07:27:09 2018 No.9464582 >>9464534 What experiment proves water can conform to the exterior of a solid sphere? Can't get much clearer than that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 07:31:34 2018 No.9464590 >>9464582 Still the wrong question, faggot. Your retarded question comes from a position that assumes that liquids adhere to a surface without some external forces involve. It's still a question that doesn't make any fucking sense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 07:34:18 2018 No.9464596 File: 234 KB, 1200x900, condensation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464582

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 07:36:45 2018 No.9464602 >>9464590 Globalists state that the oceans conform to the exterior of the spherical earth due to gravity. Science requires observable, repeatable and measurable experiments to prove such claims. If you don't have any, it's not science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 07:37:20 2018 No.9464605 >>9464582 >What experiment proves water can conform to the exterior of a solid sphere? Can't get much clearer than that. Experiments that prove gravity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 07:38:26 2018 No.9464608 >>9464602 Take a drinking glass and hold it 1 meter above the floor. If it doesn't become shards of smaller pieces of glass on the floor at approximately 9.8 seconds later, then you win.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 07:48:34 2018 No.9464625

>>9464596

Is condensation surface tension or gravity?

>>9464605

Not asking for experiments that prove gravity (no that there are any), but an experiment that proves gravity can hold deep bodies of water to the exterior of shapes.

>>9464608

That's a totally unrelated "experiment" to proving oceans are being held to the exterior of a sphere due to gravity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 07:50:21 2018 No.9464629 >>9464531 https://youtu.be/L93WyZ01V24

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 07:52:19 2018 No.9464632

>>9464625
>That's a totally unrelated "experiment" to proving oceans are being held to the exterior of a sphere due to gravity.
How? Gravity pulls objects towards the center of a mass. What makes you think that fluid particles are going to behave differently?

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 07:53:31 2018 No.9464637

>>9464625
>Not asking for experiments that prove gravity (no that there are any)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
Gravity exists and it holds the oceans to the planet.

Your argument is invalid because you have no argument, just denial of facts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 07:54:18 2018 No.9464638 >>9464629 >flat earther is faced with argument >lacks the capacity to think for himself and just posts a video hoping that it would contain his arguments

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 07:54:33 2018 No.9464640 File: 328 KB, 1564x1522, IMG_20170425_153044.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] https://youtu.be/3oz7k7Wn_vo

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 07:55:37 2018 No.9464645 >>9464632 >Electromagnetism >Surface tension Gravity is not the only force in this system

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 07:58:41 2018 No.9464655

>>9464645
>Electromagnetism
Only significant when it comes to shit like difference in polarity.
>Surface tension
Only if the volume is small enough that their mass doesn't get overwhelmed by something like gravity.
You're also, probably, under the assumption that all forces probably have some sort of linear behavior.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:03:03 2018 No.9464667 >>9464629 I see one of us is far more willing to have a conversation than the other.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:03:08 2018 No.9464668
File: 152 KB, 1078x1658, IMG_20180121_210524.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9464638
The ships you think are going over the horizon come back with the p900 when you zoom in.

YouTube has lots of videos.
I m going to buy a p900 to see for myself.
Have you ever heard of The Socratic method?

Thanks for your ad hominem
Have a nice day

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:03:28 2018 No.9464669 >>9464645 You're right, it isn't the only force. Glad to see you aren't denying gravity anymore.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:04:22 2018 No.9464671 >>9464668 >socratic method >thinking that posting a video is equivalent to asking questions as an argumentative tactic try harder, kiddo

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:10:56 2018 No.9464683 >>9464637 Is there a modern version in operation we can observe? In a science exhibit or university? Could you post the link?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:14:14 2018 No.9464686 File: 1.91 MB, 2592x1944, Horizon,_Valencia_(Spain).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464668 Ships are small, though. What about big structures that actually sink below the horizon?

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:17:41 2018 No.9464691
File: 273 KB, 1068x1682, IMG_20180127_090719.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9464671
So the answer to my question about the experiment that demonstrates and proves bodies of water are convex is an 1870 experiment that s been repeated with mixed results, up until it s on YouTube with flat results.

No modern scientific experiment exists proving a body of water, such as the ocean, is convex.

Got it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:18:40 2018 No.9464693 >>9464683 It's an experiment whose only aim is to find the gravitational constant. It's operating under the assumption that gravity exists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:19:41 2018 No.9464696 >>9464691 NOBODY FUCKING ASSUMED THAT BODIES OF WATER JUST NATURALLY FORM AS A SPHERE WITHOUT ANY EXTERNAL FORCES. THAT IS A FUCKING RETARDED QUESTION COMING FROM A POSITION THAT HAS A FUCKTON OF FALSE ASSUMPTIONS.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:20:13 2018 No.9464698 >>9464686 There are vids on YouTube of atmospheric lensing experiments that are interesting as well if your interested in the topic https://youtu.be/w24KqhKjHxY

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:22:58 2018 No.9464700

>>9464691
>proves bodies of water are convex is an 1870 experiment that s been repeated with mixed results, up until it s on YouTube with flat results.
Because they didn't use markers to measure if any refraction was taking place.

They didn't even try to remove KNOWN variables. Did they even read the wikipedia article before they attempted to recreate the experiment or were they just trying to fall into the same trap as the first person who did it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:23:06 2018 No.9464701 >>9464693 10 minute mark to the end if you don t want to watch the whole video https://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:25:10 2018 No.9464704 >>9464686 Same thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oBmNe13AVE

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:25:27 2018 No.9464706

>>9464693
Well, if gravity didn't exist then there would be no gravitational constant to measure.

Seeing they were able to measure the gravitational constant clearly gravity, or at least a force that acts like gravity, exists.

You can call it whatever you want. So long as it is acting like gravity then it's just gravity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:30:09 2018 No.9464710 >>9464701 >rounding error exists Imagine My Shock™

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:30:34 2018 No.9464712

>>9464700
And there is no modern scientific experiment you can post that demonstrates and proves water, such as the ocean is curving.

I or anyone else can go and observe and measure it. Where I am, the apex of the curve should be 600 feet and clearly visible. It s flat though.

See >>9462317
>>9464395
>>9464465
>>9464455

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:32:22 2018 No.9464715 >>9464712 Luckily we have observations for that >>9464503 >>9464507

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:35:31 2018 No.9464721 >>9464704 Maybe this guy should use a filter next time so that what we're seeing is actually the sun and not a glare.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:40:07 2018 No.9464727 File: 391 KB, 1719x876, whatcurve.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464715 Those pictures have been debunked already.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:41:18 2018 No.9464731 File: 85 KB, 1178x692, mirage 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464727

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:41:53 2018 No.9464732 >>9464698 Why do flat earthers always post videos without explanations? It's almost like something done intentionally to make it more difficult to argue with them. Giving us a task of deducing and explaining what their arguments are supposed to be.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:44:40 2018 No.9464736 >>9464727 Why would there be tilting left or right when it is going away from you? Are you actually retarded? >looks like they're floating on water Oh, he is retarded.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:45:09 2018 No.9464737
File: 78 KB, 960x720, c9e3f5f3873d57951fa6cb5e5def2413.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9464715
The math completely refutes it.
There is no modern experiment that proves a body of water is or can be convex, at least that no one has posted yet.

The fake image you just referenced, go to the author's still images and videos (which look like CGI, more so when compared to real photos of those transmission towers) and post the towers from the side view so we can all see the curve clearly.

Other examples should not be hard to find.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:47:26 2018 No.9464743 >>9464737 >There is no modern experiment that proves a body of water is or can be convex, at least that no one has posted yet. >>9464696

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:48:52 2018 No.9464745

>>9464727
>red arrow to left
See >>9464471

>tilted on angle
It is tilted away, but hardly a measurable amount at this distance. Also would not be noticeable from this camera since, you know, AWAY.

>arrow on right
See the 8 inches per mile squared stuff. If the further from you the distance is squared, then the closer the distance is square rooted. The right most pylon is closest to camera, so curvature near it is exponentially less than the ones further away.

>floating on water
I mean, because you can't see through the water to see that they aren't.. But what does it matter if they are floating or not? They are all the same height above the water either way

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:50:40 2018 No.9464750 >>9464737 The curvature is 8 inches per 1 mile That's only ~16 feet of curvature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:53:19 2018 No.9464753 >>9464750 8 inches per mile per mile. The curve increases exponentially the further you get, otherwise you would get a straight line slope downward.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:54:16 2018 No.9464754 File: 412 KB, 1080x1920, Screenshot_20180127-095300.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464750 You have to square the distance.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:54:36 2018 No.9464757 File: 19 KB, 600x360, 1477697241918.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] http://www.strawpoll.me/14938555/r

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:55:31 2018 No.9464759 File: 940 KB, 1080x1920, Screenshot_20180127-095316.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464750 The chart is posted above at >>9464395

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:59:07 2018 No.9464762 >>9464737 There is no missing curvature. That photo is taken from high above. As your point of view rises the distance you can see increases. Even you argue that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 08:59:46 2018 No.9464765 >>9464753 >>9464754 >>9464759 okay then, riddle me this, would that 380ft of curvature even be visible at that angle?

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 09:02:49 2018 No.9464769

>>9464737
The math completely justifies it. On a perfect sphere under constant atmospheric pressure with a single dominant force pulling all mass equally towards the center, enough water would evenly cover the entire sphere with constant depth. Even if the sphere wasn't completely smooth, the surface of the water would be.

Math, logic, and reality all completely and entirely supports this. You aren't even (really) denying that math supports it, even though that is what you so foolishly declare. What you are REALLY asking, is that if observations made on Earth support level water on a giant ass imperfect sphere, or if they support a level but not perfectly smooth plane. And observations clearly support the former. If you with to respond with some quickly made YouTube video by someone who clearly doesn't know what they are talking about, go right ahead. But they fail to prove, and more importantly disprove, NOTHING.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 09:11:55 2018 No.9464781

>>9464765
Unlikely. If you take a rope around the entire circumference of the earth (perfect sphere version), measure it, then take another rope around the entire earth at 1m height, the difference in length between the 2 ropes would only be 6.28m (2pi). And we aren't even close to a significant percentage of the circumference at 380ft curvature. I'm too lazy to do the math but it would be even less noticeable because the camera angle is almost completely in line with the curvature of the structure. As in, the tilt would appear as a slight shrinkage of the apparent height of the structure (from the structure's base, which is hidden from view) compared the structure with no rotation (there would be no non-rotated reference near by, so you would have to calculate what the non-rotated's structure's height should be at that distance and compare to that). So I assume it would be incredibly hard go detect the tilt that results from the curvature

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 09:13:49 2018 No.9464787
File: 294 KB, 1564x1377, IMG_20171219_164601.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9464765

When you start measuring things the dimensions of Earth and the math for it aren t observable or repeatable.

If you don t feel like leaving the house, look up aerial photography of your area, identify two landmarks 20 miles or more apart and then check the posted trig chart above.

There are online earth curvature calculators and horizon calculators as well to compare your results to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 09:21:51 2018 No.9464800 File: 108 KB, 1076x1071, IMG_20180127_101728.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464762 You can watch the bridge be built from the ground up on Mega Structures on you tube. There is no measurable or observable curvature from any height.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 09:23:00 2018 No.9464803 File: 13 KB, 335x502, b3765ea366feea49fccd29f49b3f4617--lake-pontchartrain-baton-rouge.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464762

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 09:33:58 2018 No.9464828 File: 422 KB, 720x1280, Screenshot_20180127-083207.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464800 Here let me go to the mega structures YouTube channel and quickly browse the video. Hmm, yep. No curvature whatsoever you got me

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 09:47:34 2018 No.9464843 File: 103 KB, 595x446, verrazana-narrows-bridge595.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464828 Glad you found the missing 200 ft of curvature. Hard to believe what difference two inches can make. >>9464787 >>9464800

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 09:48:47 2018 No.9464844 File: 410 KB, 1564x1564, IMG_20180127_104407.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464828 >>9464843 >>9464787

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 09:51:28 2018 No.9464848

>>9464800
They build the bridge to match the curvature of the earth, such that it remains a constant distance above the water at all points. "Accounting for the curvature of the earth" means they DON'T build it like in the lower half of your image.

Also, (you), I guess.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 09:53:01 2018 No.9464850 File: 28 KB, 612x407, 477626292.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464844 >>9464848 >>9464843

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 09:54:18 2018 No.9464854 File: 63 KB, 600x401, dsc05736.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464850

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 09:55:46 2018 No.9464855 Honest question to flat earthers: what's the motive behind making us believe that the earth is spherical? It's not like there is a round earth tax we have to pay or anything of that sort.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 09:56:02 2018 No.9464856

>>9464843
>Glad you found the missing 200 ft of curvature. Hard to believe what difference two inches can make.
This is so stupid it's physically painful to read.
Do you not understand the difference between the height of a bridge and the width of a bridge?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 09:56:29 2018 No.9464858 I miss the time when nutjobs were talking about 911 and not about earth's shape

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 09:57:29 2018 No.9464859 File: 414 KB, 1080x1920, Screenshot_20180127-105535.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464843 >>9464844 >>9464848 >>9464850 >>9464854

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 10:00:11 2018 No.9464866 >>9464850 >>9464854 >>9464859 Is there some point to all this image spam?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 10:06:58 2018 No.9464872 >>9464498 >sight

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 10:10:25 2018 No.9464877 >>9464855 No point exploring, we've found it all. Keep people contained to one area for easy control. Finite resources etc.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 10:13:24 2018 No.9464882

>>9464858
This. I honestly hope we're all being collectively trolled and the flat earth movement will be revealed as an epic ruse somewhere down the line, but I doubt it.
>>9464866
That's the flattard modus operandi.
>post youtube videos
>post pictures/inforgraphs supposedily showing the earth is flat
>call everything CGI

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 10:18:11 2018 No.9464887

>>9464625
>That's a totally unrelated "experiment" to proving oceans are being held to the exterior of a sphere due to gravity.
No it isn't, it shows what you asked for, that water will adhere to the Earth under the effects of gravity. Obviously there is no way to replicate the experiments with the entire ocean, but there is no reason to think a larger body of water would behave differently.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 10:21:49 2018 No.9464895
File: 545 KB, 720x1280, Screenshot_20180127-091511.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9464843
The two inches is the difference between the length of span at sea level, and the length of the span at the height of the bridge.

The engineers literally admit to accounting for the curvature in the very video you post as "proof" of no curvature.

The curvature of the other end of the bridge is not viewable from 1 end of the bridge to the other because there is a significant bump near the middle. Pic related. Which would obscure the other end before the earth obscures it.

You aren't even trying anymore. Repeating the same shit, talking without understanding even the bs you say. What started as a genuine (still bait) search of scientific nature into properties of our planet has devolved into YouTube spamming, and the repetitious posting of the same images that borderline avatarfagging. What used to be intelligent conversation has turned into some retard posting internet crap in hopes it will argue for them. There is no point in continuing this thread any longer.

Thanks for the thread, it was fun while it lasted

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 10:25:43 2018 No.9464905 >>9464395 You can see that it’s curved in the pictures, conspiratard

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 10:29:24 2018 No.9464914 >>9462317 ISS water droplets.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 10:35:50 2018 No.9464928 >>9464877 >No point exploring, we've found it all. Except we haven't - there's still big chunks of the world that not very much is known about. Plus there's space exploration.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 10:52:35 2018 No.9464970 >>9464877 You're the one contained and trapped in your conspiracy nightmare. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-khULLjtgU

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:04:11 2018 No.9464998 >>9464668 >The ships you think are going over the horizon come back with the p900 bullshit

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:08:22 2018 No.9465005 >>9464866 Yeah the math and dimensions don t match reality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:09:43 2018 No.9465007 >>9464895 See >>9464803 >>9464800

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:11:29 2018 No.9465010 File: 37 KB, 552x449, 4914a24a3f87aefa2e35d629fd977a94.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464887 Except for 30+ mile flat ocean lines missing 600 feet of curve

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:13:07 2018 No.9465014 >>9465005 >Yeah the math and dimensions don t match reality. They do though. You've completely failed to point to a single example otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:14:31 2018 No.9465015 File: 638 KB, 1564x1564, IMG_20171219_165024.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464882 We can measure the Earth to confirm the dimensions

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:20:07 2018 No.9465026 File: 573 KB, 1564x1564, IMG_20160731_082228.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464998 https://youtu.be/ppHSyTzd9e8

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:23:36 2018 No.9465034 >>9465010 THE OCEAN DOESN'T HAVE WALLS BESIDE IT YOU FUCKING RETARD. THAT IMAGE IS LITERALLY USELESS FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:23:40 2018 No.9465035 >>9464928 >there's still big chunks of the world that not very much is known about Yeah, like Antarctica. >space exploration It's a meme, I'm sorry. >>9464970 What's that video supposed to prove?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:24:45 2018 No.9465037 >>9465035 >keep spamming videos in hopes that it would argue for them >someone else does it to him >"hurr durr y u do dat?"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:27:38 2018 No.9465042 >>9465014 See >>9465026 >>9464854 >>9464850 >>9464844 >>9464803 >>9464800 >>9464737 >>9464508 >>9464484 >>9464465 >>9464455 >>9464395 >>9462343 >>9462317 >>9465015 >>9464787 I did.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:29:49 2018 No.9465047 >>9465015 Atmospheric lensing. See, I can say it too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:29:51 2018 No.9465048 File: 1.87 MB, 1920x1080, Screenshot_20180125-034104.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465034 Typing in all caps dosen t change the math

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:30:50 2018 No.9465050 >>9465042 Posting screengrabs from youtube videos does not constitute presenting an argument, you absolute mongoloid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:31:46 2018 No.9465054 >>9465010 Who told you water works like the third example? I'm sure no one did. I mean, there's an ocean because the earth curves down in that part, not because it curves up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:31:53 2018 No.9465055 >>9465048 BECAUSE OCEANS DON'T HAVE WALLS BESIDE THEM AND YOU'RE ASKING THAT FUCKING RETARDED QUESTION AS IF THAT'S WHAT THE CASE IS. IT ISN'T, YOU FUCKING RETARD. ADDRESS THIS. ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT YOU ASKED THE WRONG FUCKING QUESTION.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:32:50 2018 No.9465057 >>9465026 I can't see the lower part of some of those ships.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:35:52 2018 No.9465060 >>9465055 Does typing in all caps demonstrate and prove a body of water such as the ocean can be convex?

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:37:51 2018 No.9465062
File: 39 KB, 600x338, verefr1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9465015
How the fuck did you manage to post an image from a site that has information that completely refutes your own point?
https://beyondhorizons.eu/visibility-facts/refraction/

>>9465035
>It's a meme, I'm sorry.
Are you completely retarded?
You wrote:
>No point exploring, we've found it all
If "they" want us to believe that, then giving us a enormous space to explore is more than sightly counterproductive. Whether or not space is real is entirely irrelevant.

>>9465042
Half of those are photos of bridges without any text or context, and the other half have already had someone explain to you why they're bullshit / don't mean what you think.

>>9465048
It's a bit hard to tell, but I think the curvature of the Earth might be just barely visible in that image. Look at the gap between the horizon and the red line, it's slightly larger at the edges of the image than the centre.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:37:57 2018 No.9465063 >>9465060 OCEANS HAVE NO FUCKING WALLS. YOU'RE ASKING THAT RETARDED QUESTION AS IF I HOLD THE POSITION THAT IT DOES.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:38:53 2018 No.9465064 >>9465057 Look into water lenses and atmospheric lensing. See >>9462317 It can t be flat on one axis and curved on the other and still be a sphere. Not that cconvex water bodies have proven.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:39:49 2018 No.9465067 >>9465064 >convex CAN YOU FUCKING STOP WITH THIS CONVEX SHIT? THE OCEAN DOESN'T HAVE ANY WALLS THAT ARE ENCLOSING ON IT.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:42:19 2018 No.9465071

>>9465062
It doesn't t.

There s hundreds of missing feet of curvature of the line in that image is really 30 miles. That bridge is 24 miles and I ve posted the measurements above.

Anyone living near an ocean can go and confirm these results.

I can observe a 30 mile flat ocean line missing 600 feet. It s part of reason I choose the image.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:43:32 2018 No.9465075 File: 9 KB, 281x200, 1427348659434.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465064 >Look into water lenses and atmospheric lensing. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:44:43 2018 No.9465078 >>9465054 I live near the ocean. There s 600 missing feet. Any sci anon living near the ocean can go confirm themselves.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:44:52 2018 No.9465079 >>9465064 >look into [random terminologies] so that I don't have to think for myself and formulate my own arguments

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:47:35 2018 No.9465083 >>9465064 You do realize the horizon is at the same distance in every direction, don't you? Of course it appears flat at sea level.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:48:35 2018 No.9465088 >>9465050 I be provided all the necessary information for any sci anon to go and confirm or disprove Ad hominem dosen t change that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:50:33 2018 No.9465094 >>9465088 >I have provided material with no arguments of my own >it's up to you to formulate my arguments for me for you to disprove them

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:51:11 2018 No.9465097

>>9465071
>It doesn't t.
What doesn't?

>There s hundreds of missing feet of curvature of the line in that image is really 30 miles.
What do you think "missing feet of curvature" are? What do you expect them to look like?
You seem to have a bizzare idea of what a spherical planet would look like.

>>9465088
>I be provided all the necessary information for any sci anon to go and confirm or disprove
No you haven't. You've posted pictures of bridges and barely-readable rants where you don't understand geometry, perspective or what the word "curvature" means.

I'll give you a hint:
CURVATURE IS NOT MEASURED IN FEET

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:51:28 2018 No.9465098 >>9464877 But those things are not in any way implied by a flat earth. We are still told there are other planets (flat or not), and about big empty places on earth. And why has no flat earther reached a place not shown on the sphere yet?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:54:42 2018 No.9465103 >>9464736 That s debunked fake image from someone asking for money. Real photos of those towers were posted earlier.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:57:54 2018 No.9465108

>>9462317
>>9465048
Image is taken from too high up for the curvature t be noticed along Z and the X distance isn't actually correct.

>>9462343
>>9464508

Eye height 15 ft is a joke that picture is taken from a helicopter much higher than 15 feet

>>9464395
Implies that you point your camera using a level instead of whatever looks best for the photo.

>>9464501
Picture from higher than the top of the towers is not low enough to see curvature.

>>9464727
The "debunking" literally misses the entire point of the image and points at unrelated things.

>>9464737
Too high

>>9464803
Too high

>>9465010
dumb

>>9465026
Unverified observer height

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:58:03 2018 No.9465109 File: 235 KB, 1564x778, IMG_20180127_123402.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464625 >>9464596

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 11:59:21 2018 No.9465111 File: 68 KB, 736x732, 329079ed2b4b85c631b670846e4b1d4d--flat-earth-proof-kolam-renang.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464602 True.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 12:07:07 2018 No.9465124 File: 62 KB, 639x623, DBk5-RoXsAAsb1h.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9462317 >>9465111 https://youtu.be/7dCh19dLGlQ

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 12:08:19 2018 No.9465130 >>9465111 >>9465124 >The shape of a body of water depends on the forces acting on it. Who could have guessed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 12:09:38 2018 No.9465133 >>9465111 >>9465124 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91IU8cFJ7o

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 12:14:16 2018 No.9465143 File: 118 KB, 1069x1696, IMG_20180127_131036.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464803 >>9465108 How about 100,000 feet? The math never matches reality. Anyone can confirm for themselves outside or with aerial photography.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 12:14:56 2018 No.9465145

>>9464877
>Keep people contained to one area for easy control. Finite resources etc.
I'll take your rejection of photographs of the planet from the space seriiously, if you prove the existence of a global conspiracy that has survived multiple generations, and somehow not had a single whistleblower, and somehow silenced all sea and air navigators and explorers, and all of the scientists and engineers whose discipline is tangential to the matter are in on the conspiracy, silenced, or tricked.
From your arguements and evidence, I expect the same rigour you are demanding of others in proving gravity and the curvature of the planet.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 12:19:08 2018 No.9465160 >>9465143 You can't even see the horizon in that image because of the clouds. how would you determine the distance?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 12:19:41 2018 No.9465162 >this whole thread Is there a doctorate level course in identifying b8 I could refer you weenies to?

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 12:19:47 2018 No.9465163
File: 683 KB, 2308x2028, PROOF THE EARTH IS ROUND.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9465143
>The math never matches reality.
Stop.
What makes you think the math doesn't match reality? You've plugged some numbers into a website and taken a screenshot. Nowhere have you actually pointed to any kind of contradiction with what's in that picture of a bridge.
You're still just posting random crap and hoping it will convince people, rather than making an argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 12:20:39 2018 No.9465166 >>9465162 You can't prove that bait exists.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 12:27:00 2018 No.9465180
File: 1.09 MB, 1564x1564, IMG_20171205_132840.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9465145
All you have to do is measure outside and /or aerial photography to find out the dimensions and math are incorrect and don t match reality.

/Sci/ should have a project to prove the Earth is a <25,000 mile circumference sphere covered in flat/convex water spinning over a 1000 miles an hour.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 12:28:04 2018 No.9465183 >>9465180 >All you have to do is measure outside and /or aerial photography to find out the dimensions and math are incorrect and don t match reality. WRONG

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 12:37:08 2018 No.9465202
File: 352 KB, 1071x1079, IMG_20180127_132944.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9465163
You can prove a body of water is convex?
The Earth is 70% covered in water.
Here s a pic of the whole body of water.

>>9464803
>>9462317
>>9462343
>>9464508

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 12:41:04 2018 No.9465213 >>9465202 https://youtu.be/FER0tnEFzLc

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 12:48:21 2018 No.9465226

Lmao this thread is fucking autistic. I don't actually understand how flat earthers can even take themselves seriously if they had actually ever done an ounce of real science in this their lives. There is literally an entire field of science that takes for granted the idea that the Earth is a fucking sphere called astronomy which is founded upon physics. Astronomers which include some of the most intelligent people in the world utilize the Earths curvature on a regular basis to do their work and don't even discuss this absurd idea because it's so fucking retarded. You people are only insulting yourself. I wish we could put you all in a giant space cannon and shoot you into space so you could suffocate and watch your own beliefs crumple before you die. Please, neck yourself. The idea of a flat Earth would miraculously shatter a majority of the basis for physics. Fucking inbreds.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 12:51:56 2018 No.9465237

>>9465202
Do you even read the posts you're replying to?
I said that you haven't bothered to make an argument, and now you're asking me to make one for you. That's pathetic.

>Here s a pic of the whole body of water.
All of those pictures are taken from places where you wouldn't expect to see significant curvature.

>>9465213
What a retarded video. Of course making a bunch of assumptions and not measuring anything will get you stupid results.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 12:54:26 2018 No.9465243 File: 919 KB, 1920x1080, Screenshot_20180127-135252.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465213 >>9465226 >>9465237

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 12:57:06 2018 No.9465246 File: 64 KB, 1600x1200, levelnotflat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465010

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 12:58:28 2018 No.9465251 File: 1.20 MB, 1920x1080, Screenshot_20180127-135537.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465243 https://youtu.be/hIHPi2rVVOw

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:01:16 2018 No.9465260

>>9465237
no, he doesen't.

>>9465202
>>9465180
>>9465143
>>9465124
>>9465111
>>9465048
>>9465026
>>9465015
>>9465010
>>9464859
>>9464844
>>9464843
>>9464828
>>9464803
>>9464800
>>9464787
>>9464759
>>9464754
>>9464737
>>9464727
>>9464691
>>9464668
>>9464640
>>9464508
>>9464501
>>9464484
>>9464465
>>9464455
>>9464427
>>9464395
>>9462343
>>9462317

this guy just spends all day creating flat earth threads and spaming his shit. he does NOT listen to arguments against him. he does NOT reason logically.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:03:28 2018 No.9465262

>>9465243
They weren't actually looking at Ireland, so all those numbers are wrong.

>>9465251
I've already responded to this stupid shit. Taking advantage of unusually strong refraction to photograph things that would normally be beyond the horizon is the whole point of that website. It's literally called "beyondhorizon".

Just stop.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:04:17 2018 No.9465265 File: 135 KB, 1077x1078, IMG_20180127_140146.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465251 >>9465260 Math and observations prove the Earth has to be flat. If it s a sphere it has to be much bigger than we ve been lead to believe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:05:46 2018 No.9465267 >>9465265 REFRACTION

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:08:40 2018 No.9465274

>>9465251
>>9465265
no, if it were a sphere with no refraction it would only have to be about 1/7'th larger.

you have to account for refraction.

basically, refraction curves light downward. this makes the earth's curvature behave as if it's radius were 1/y'th larger than it actually is. if you take this into account, everything works out. it's called the 1/7'th rule. its used quite frequently in long distance surveying.

funny enough, refraction would cause a flat earth to be slightly concave looking, like you're standing on the inside of a bowl. and even funnier, in order for the earth to appear flat the earth would have to be slightly curved. I REPEAT: IF THE EARTH LOOKED FLAT, THAT WOULD SERVE AS PROOF OF CURVATURE.

also, take a look at this.

https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/

this explains your lack of side to side curvature. now please stop being such a retarded phone poster. you've proven again and again that you have no capacity to reason logically, please leave before you get banned like you did on /x/ for incessantly spamming your shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:09:44 2018 No.9465275 File: 286 KB, 1564x1364, IMG_20180127_140620.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465262 You can t prove the ocean is convex. It is observed as flat and measures flat. Horizon Horizontal

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:15:26 2018 No.9465293
File: 255 KB, 640x486, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9465275
you, this entire argument. you provide literally no evidence. you just continually say one thing and don't provide your reasoning.

what's funnier is that there are plenty of pictures in this thread that DIRECTLY PROVE and SHOW IN FULL VIEW the curvature of the earth, but you are somehow just ignoring them and continuing on your happy way proving no arguments of substance. you're not even arguing. an argument requires a back and forth exchange of refutations, etc... you don't even do that. no matter what you just try and push a single point over and over again, despite being proven wrong every time with actual fucking pictures of the earth's curvature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:17:34 2018 No.9465299 >>9465275 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKYpMl0gJGE

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:19:31 2018 No.9465302
File: 1.51 MB, 1564x1564, IMG_20180127_141423.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9465274
>>9465274
Those videos and images are clearly fake as discussed earlier and real photos of the transmission towers have been posted.
If they weren't you would have other examples. Numerous examples.
I guess that s the only place on Earth where the water is convex in one direction.

The observations and math are there, and I just posted two videos using metabunks curvature calculator to prove it s flat.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:22:28 2018 No.9465309
File: 681 KB, 2190x1026, maxresdefault[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9465145

The flat earth debate was still happening in the 1900s, it was only until NASA came along that "settled" things.

If you look at the "scientists" who peddled the globe theory, they were all freemasons (pic related).

In terms of pilots and scientists being in on the conspiracy, they weren't and aren't, they've been tricked like everyone else.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:25:39 2018 No.9465315
File: 2.83 MB, 2088x1392, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9465302

>Those videos and images are clearly fake as discussed earlier and real photos of the transmission

again, you can't just say "FAKE!!" at images that clearly prove you're wrong. i can just as well yell "FAKE!!!!" at YOUR images but i won't, because they don't prove me wrong.

do you seriously not understand how looking at something from right at its edge as opposed to above it magnifies EXISTING curvature?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:26:55 2018 No.9465320 File: 758 KB, 1564x1564, IMG_20180127_142318.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465299 Thanks for helping prove my point. How long do you think that flat horizon line is? He measured out 7.19 miles for us. Sure is flat.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:29:41 2018 No.9465327 >>9465180 I'm still waiting for your rigorous evidence and analysis of a global conspiracy that involves hundreds of millions of co-conspiators, whereof not one blew the whistle, yet you know of this conspiracy by some means inaccessible to us.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:33:25 2018 No.9465337 File: 821 KB, 1564x1564, IMG_20160803_222503.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465327 This is the math and science board. You should go ask x.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:33:37 2018 No.9465338

>>9465302
>Those videos and images are clearly fake as discussed earlier
Earlier where? You don't get to assume images are fake because you don't like them.

>If they weren't you would have other examples. Numerous examples.
There ARE numerous examples.

>I guess that s the only place on Earth where the water is convex in one direction.
Learn basic geometry.

>>9465309
>The flat earth debate was still happening in the 1900s
The flat earth debate has been settled since Aristotle. By AD 150 Ptolemy was drawing atlases and discussing different map projections.

>>9465320
>How long do you think that flat horizon line is?
>Sure is flat.
I still have no idea what the fuck you're on about. As best as I can tell, you seem to think that, if the Earth was round, then every long object would visibly curve when viewed from every direction at every distance. Which is retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:33:46 2018 No.9465340 >>9465327 It's nowhere near that number. See >>9465309

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:34:52 2018 No.9465343 >>9465309 HAHAHA This is so fucking entertaining though. Thanks for keeping the gradient extreme, brainlet. You make this memelife worth observing.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:36:29 2018 No.9465346
File: 1.04 MB, 1564x1564, IMG_20160607_120400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9465315
His videos and images have been debunked.
He collecting money for them as well.
Since he s on metabunk here a link to their earth curve calculator
https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

You can use it to prove the Earth is flat like the videos I posted.

>>9465265
>>9465251
>>9465243

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:36:41 2018 No.9465347 >>9465338 >The flat earth debate has been settled since Aristotle. By AD 150 Ptolemy was drawing atlases and discussing different map projections. Old people remember the debate was still happening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4Fg17NBWI4

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:40:40 2018 No.9465354 File: 70 KB, 470x470, 1515748365576.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >184/27 Do you know what the definition of insanity is? Stop beating your fucking head against the brick wall of willful ignorance.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:42:36 2018 No.9465356 >>9465346 >His videos and images have been debunked. No they haven't. >>9465347 >Old people remember the debate was still happening Dumbasses shouting stupid shit isn't a debate. Flat Earthers are a subset of dumbasses.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:43:16 2018 No.9465357

>>9465346
>His videos and images have been debunked.

again, all you're doing here is just saying "NUH UH!!" and expecting people to take you seriously. and how the fuck do you debunk a pool Que appearing more curved the closer your eye is to one of it's ends? it's a basic property of perspective. have you seriously never checked to see how warped a piece of wood is by putting your eye up to it? also also what's the point of calling it fake when you can literally just go there yourself and take a look? nobody will stop you.

i don't understand why you just flat out ignore arguments against you. like >>9465274

you didn't address the core of his argument. you just took the one teeny tiny bit that you actually had prerehearsed material on and you decided to just deflect to that issue instead.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:48:35 2018 No.9465367 File: 145 KB, 1111x597, 1516482282265.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9464727 >where is he curve in this direction? I will never not think that flat earthers are trolling

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:50:09 2018 No.9465372
File: 105 KB, 580x387, _mg_8118mod[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9465357

The picture of the pylons supposedly going over the curve of the earth is easily explained by perspective (pic related).

You also have to remember that the water creates a miraging effect which covers the bottoms of the pylons, adding to this effect as pointed out here: >>9464731

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:54:05 2018 No.9465384 >>9465372 >easily explained by perspective >Doesn't know what perspective is. Whew lad.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:55:51 2018 No.9465391

>>9465309
>>9465340
>The flat earth debate was still happening in the 1900s, it was only until NASA came along that "settled" things.
Wrong. You're arguing it here.
Anyways, no evidence of global conspiracy.
>If you look at the "scientists" who peddled the globe theory, they were all freemasons (pic related).
And? Where is your evidence that they were all in a concerted conspiracy to peddle a lie, when they knew otherwise?
>In terms of pilots and scientists being in on the conspiracy, they weren't and aren't, they've been tricked like everyone else.
Navigators assume the roundness of the planet. And then they end up at their destination. Scientists assume the roundness, and their calculations work out. If it be trickery, then deft trickery it must be.
I want you to describe this trickery. I want your evidence and analysis on how they are tricked. The mechanism of their trickery. How they have not noticed it, but you did. How you came by its evidence. Who maintains this trickery, and how, and how you came by its evidence.
I'm still waiting for your rigorous evidence and analysis of a global conspiracy that involves hundreds of millions professionals and experts tricked flawlessly, yet you know of this conspiracy by some means inaccessible to us.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:56:23 2018 No.9465392 >>9465384 >makes claim >doesn't back it up

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:56:55 2018 No.9465393 >>9465392 Why are you quoting yourself?

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:57:46 2018 No.9465395

>>9465372
>The picture of the pylons supposedly going over the curve of the earth is easily explained by perspective (pic related).
No it isn't. That's not now perspective works.

>You also have to remember that the water creates a miraging effect which covers the bottoms of the pylons
The tops of the pylons also have viable curvature, which is apparent before the pylons sink low enough the mirage has any impact.

>>9465392
Learn what perspective is. Start with Wikipedia.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 13:59:06 2018 No.9465397 >>9464503 that is so obviously shopped holy duck is this your first day on the internet?

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 14:07:37 2018 No.9465413

>>9465391
>And? Where is your evidence that they were all in a concerted conspiracy to peddle a lie, when they knew otherwise?

Because that's what secret societies do. The heliocentric model is advantageous to those in power.

Navigators use maps (which are flat). What calculations do scientists do that involve the spherical nature of earth? You've said it yourself, the matter has been settled, so scientists don't bother experimenting to prove the shape of the earth, that's not going to get you any grant money now is it?

By the way, architects and bridge builders don't take into account the curvature. Pilots do not account for the curvature. But if they said the earth was flat, they'd be ostracised and seen as crazy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 14:10:42 2018 No.9465418 >>9465395 Perspective doesn't make objects appear smaller and smaller until they merge into a central point known as the horizon? This is such a simple fact that I can't believe you don't accept it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 14:15:16 2018 No.9465428 >>9465413 >Navigators use maps (which are flat) I'm done.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 14:17:24 2018 No.9465433 >>9464608 >9.8 seconds lmao sci

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 14:17:36 2018 No.9465434 >>9465428 Great argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 14:18:24 2018 No.9465436 >>9465418 >appear smaller and smaller Yeah but how does that explain the curve?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 14:20:45 2018 No.9465440 >>9465436 You're not looking at a curve, you're looking at objects getting smaller as they go off into the distance.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 14:28:40 2018 No.9465460 Jesus, I hope commercial space travel becomes a achievable reality soon so these retarded mongoloids can look for a different topic to attack already

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 14:30:03 2018 No.9465463 >>9465460 Not going to happen, we'd already have it by now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 14:30:44 2018 No.9465467 File: 85 KB, 580x387, Straight lines.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465440 Wow look at that, a curve.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 14:31:13 2018 No.9465469 >>9465463 Well then I hope for your sake that you live long enough to realise you're wrong about the vast majority of things you're fantasising about

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 14:35:29 2018 No.9465479 >>9465467 Don't be tricked by the mirage, it covers the bottom of the pylons adding to the illusion. >>9465469 Same to you.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 14:38:47 2018 No.9465487

>>9465413
>Because that's what secret societies do. The heliocentric model is advantageous to those in power.
Where is your evidence, man? Stop wasting time!
>Navigators use maps (which are flat).
And? How is this trickery? Flat maps are projections of geodetic coordinates. Have you seen paths of shipping lanes on flat maps? They're curved, because shortest paths on the globe appear warped when projected onto a flat map. I recommend that you study geodesy.
>What calculations do scientists do that involve the spherical nature of earth?
You betray extreme ignorance with this question. How do you even know how the scientists are tricked if you don't even know what they do?
Everything, from climate, forecasting, earthquakes, hurricanes, navigation, telecommunications, satellites, military manoeuvres. I work in modelling and simulations, and have to account for the curvature when combining geodetically referenced satellite images and aerial photographs in the computer model. Please describe to me how I'm being tricked and how it's carried out.
>You've said it yourself, the matter has been settled
Did not.
>so scientists don't bother experimenting to prove the shape of the earth
Wrong. Models are constantly updated for accuracy. Surveys are done all the time. I know this. Or am I being tricked? Please provide evidence and analysis.
>By the way, architects and bridge builders don't take into account the curvature. Pilots do not account for the curvature.
Just flat out wrong. If you disagree, please provide evidence.
You have still yet to describe the mechanism of this trickery. Or to provide evidence of a mass global conspiracy.
Even you must see that your arguements are orders of magnitude weaker than the evidence for global earth.
I'm STILL waiting for your rigorous evidence and analysis of a global conspiracy that involves hundreds of millions professionals and experts tricked flawlessly, yet you know of this conspiracy by some means inaccessible to us.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 14:41:01 2018 No.9465496 >>9465479 >it covers the bottom of the pylons Then why do they curve downward and not upward?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 14:42:30 2018 No.9465502 >>9465302 are you the fucking autistic retard that keeps spamming /srg/? man you have some problems.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 14:44:40 2018 No.9465507
File: 980 KB, 1600x929, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9465479
you realize that mirages over water cause things to appear upwardly curved, right?

anyway, it doesn't matter. pic related. no matter how much you cry and scream "WAAAAH FAKE!!!!! IT CANT BE REAL BECAUSE THAT WOULD MEAN I AM WRONG WAAAHHHHH!!!" like a retard, just consider for a moment that the picture, which ANYONE can take just by going there, PRECISELY MATCHES the curvature expected on a globe model.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 14:46:57 2018 No.9465515

>>9465487
>By the way, architects and bridge builders don't take into account the curvature.
They don't have to, if the structure is small enough.
>Pilots do not account for the curvature.
They use a global coordinate system. You're literally assuming things in favour of your arguement- not that the fabrication even helps your arguement.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 14:47:31 2018 No.9465517 File: 2.16 MB, 1720x8208, funked.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] i would encourage everybody to save this and use it every time you come across a flat earth retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 14:49:48 2018 No.9465525 i would encourage everybody to get a life holy shit aren't you embarrassed?

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:03:55 2018 No.9465566

>>9465487

The heliocentric model is masonic sun worship, removing the earth from being the center of things to having the sun being the center of the solar system.

Flat maps are projections of flat earth made spherical, not the other way around.

>climate, forecasting, earthquakes, hurricanes, navigation, telecommunications, satellites, military manoeuvres

All these things work on a flat earth, although satellites are science fiction both literally and in literature (they began in science fiction magazines).

Please show me a real photo/video of a satellite in orbit.

Please explain how your work proves to you that the earth is spherical.

>Models are constantly updated for accuracy.

Provide evidence.

What is the mechanism of this trickery? Control the education system and its syllabus. The education system is designed so that you can only progress within it if you pass the exams. If you don't memorize and regurgitate what's been given to you, you will not progress both educationally or career wise. When you control that, you can control what people think and believe.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:10:33 2018 No.9465582
File: 414 KB, 1080x930, left-right-curve.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9465517
>>9465507
>>9465467
Weak proof. The proofs I posted are better and the math with them can be applied anywhere to prove it s flat.

I ll go a link to the video so everyone can see how real it looks.

If it was real, you d be able to post other examples.

https://www.metabunk.org/a-side-view-of-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t9268/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:12:03 2018 No.9465588 >>9465566 >Please show me a real photo/video of a satellite in orbit. literally just look into the night sky and watch for the blinking and moving dots

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:12:12 2018 No.9465589

>>9465566
>The education system is designed so that you can only progress within it if you pass the exams. If you don't memorize and regurgitate what's been given to you, you will not progress both educationally or career wise. When you control that, you can control what people think and believe.

>he actually believes this

i think we got to the bottom of why this dude is so butmad. He failed school and he thinks that maybe if he proves "they were wrong all along" then he doesn't have to feel bad about being a retard.

i'll give you a hint for soul searching purposes: tests aren't regurgitation. to YOU they are regurgitation because literally all you know how to do is have information spoon fed to you. you can't actually think critically. and if you think you can you are hilariously delusional.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:13:53 2018 No.9465593 >>9465582 >Weak proof. The proofs I posted are better and the math with them can be applied anywhere to prove it s flat. Weak proof. The proofs I posted are better and the math with them can be applied anywhere to prove it is round.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:14:12 2018 No.9465595

>>9465566
>Please show me a real photo/video of a satellite in orbit.
The moon.
You have provided ZERO evidence of this insane paranoid conspiracy.
To me, evidence is stronger that you are the one tricked by the conspiracy theory, than that there is a flawless global conspiracy over multiple generations that had no whistle blowers and tricked hundreds and millions of experts and professionals.
I'm still waiting for your convincing evidence of global conspiracy and how it all works so well. No need to be so secretive with it. Do share with us.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:15:12 2018 No.9465597

>>9465582
do you have some kind of disorder where you are somehow unable to remember things effectively? you do realize that that the metabunk page i linked provided numerous examples that WEREN'T at the lake ?

how many extremely long structures that go over water at a constant altitude do you think there are?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:18:08 2018 No.9465605 File: 150 KB, 338x507, 78051567.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465582 Looks fake and he s been debunked. Become a Patreon https://youtu.be/kADO7nkt-rk

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:19:15 2018 No.9465610 File: 771 KB, 4095x4095, appollo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] http://www.strawpoll.me/14941910

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:20:16 2018 No.9465613

>>9465588

Could be anything. You think you can see a satellite the size of a bus hundreds of thousands of feet in the air when you can barely see a 747 at 30,000 feet?

>>9465589

I have a Masters degree (freemasonic), I have been through the education system, not that it matters, as you are clearly dodging the argument.

>>9465595

>The moon

Very funny. I've already told you, government control of the education system. What's your argument against that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:21:10 2018 No.9465616 >>9465613 >claims to have a masters degree >doesn't even say what it is in i'd love to hear about your masters thesis.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:21:22 2018 No.9465617 >>9465613 >Could be anything. like what?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:23:02 2018 No.9465623 >>9465597 It s been debunked In part, the same way you think it proves the curvature. https://youtu.be/PqFN-_xwyF8

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:24:16 2018 No.9465627 >>9465613 http://www.isstracker.com/ Had an app that let me know when it was coming overhead and looked up and it was there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:26:18 2018 No.9465634 >>9465616 I bet you would because you're ignoring the argument. >>9465617 Anything that can fly and project light.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:26:52 2018 No.9465638

>>9465623

so you admit that the pictures aren't fake?

you do realize that the claim that they are fake and the claim that they are turning slightly are incompatible statements, right?

anyway, the mere fact that the exact same phenomena appears on both sides of the transmission lines completely shatters this dude's argument.

https://youtu.be/ojMctpxCon8?t=1m22s

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:27:01 2018 No.9465640
File: 1.10 MB, 1564x1564, IMG_20170402_165725.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9465610
My favorite Earth Ball is the one with sex in the clouds
The one where north america changes shape is second
Third is the Russian one where the forgot to take out the Photoshop hand

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:28:07 2018 No.9465642 >>9465525 You have no evidence of people having a life existing.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:28:24 2018 No.9465643

>>9465634
>I bet you would because you're ignoring the argument.

if you can't tell me even the tiniest detail about WHAT you did to obtain your supposed masters degree (or even what school it's from) then it's just another one of your completely empty claims with exactly zero actual evidence to back it up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:28:59 2018 No.9465646 >>9465597 Metabunk has been debunked

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:29:53 2018 No.9465648 >>9465634 >Anything that can fly and project light. But you say that satellites are fiction; what would orbit (I'm sorry, fly circles) over a flat earth and why?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:30:57 2018 No.9465650 File: 20 KB, 516x378, 340416-5636-nndb4-a[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465640 I like Pluto personally.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:31:31 2018 No.9465654 >>9465646 yeah, i'm going to need a little. you know... evidence? you know, a little bit of logic that supports your position and backs up the central point?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:32:37 2018 No.9465657 >>9465648 Hmm, if only we had the technology to make things fly in the air.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:33:30 2018 No.9465661 File: 662 KB, 1024x576, Dick cloud.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465640 >Random clouds formed something similar to letters >It's a conspiracy!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:34:29 2018 No.9465665 >>9465657 avionics are a lie by the deep state. wake up.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:35:14 2018 No.9465667

>>9465613
Is it difficult to imagine that man-made satellites orbit the earth the same way the moon does EVEN with your flat earth model?
>I've already told you, government control of the education system. What's your argument against that?
There's nothing to argue. The government enforces standards in the education system to teach correct things. The government is not a conspiracy. It's the government.
Maybe you can give EVIDENCE of how the conspirators introduce falsehoods in the curriculum, with so many people involved in the system. How the conspirators trick them. And describe how everyone who uses the global coordinate system in their profession stays tricked, instead of discovering the flatness for himself.
To be clear, I'm not asking for your conjecture. I'm not interested in your personal fantasy. I'm asking for evidence.
I'm STILL waiting for your EVIDENCE of a global conspiracy, that remains undetected, and tricks many but you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:37:33 2018 No.9465674 >>9465654 >>9465646 >>9465623 https://youtu.be/nQXGuNc72fg

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:39:50 2018 No.9465684 File: 36 KB, 480x480, fe-two-objects.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465595 How did NASA measure the size and distance of the Moon? Post the link please https://youtu.be/6Myf7oH0n9g

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:40:12 2018 No.9465685

>>9465667

Pic related is supposedly real video footage of the "moon" "orbiting" the "earth". Pathetic, isn't it...

> The government enforces standards in the education system to teach correct things. The government is not a conspiracy. It's the government.

You must be very naive to think that. That's also complete conjecture. If you don't think the government lie for their own benefit, then I don't know what else to say.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:41:18 2018 No.9465688 File: 1.50 MB, 1800x700, epicmoonthumb-5jul2016_0.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465685

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:43:17 2018 No.9465693 >>9465684 >What is focal distance and depth of field?

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:43:52 2018 No.9465694

>>9465674
hole christ this video it litterally misinfo.

just skipped to a random point. it claims that the north star never moves and is NOT 1 degree off center. has this person EVER seen the north star in their lives? it DOES move and i have seen it do so over the course of a night.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:45:40 2018 No.9465700 >>9465684 >NASA When do you think NASA was created?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:47:29 2018 No.9465704 >>9465700 don't even try to get into that. flat earthers do not understand that every single thing they dispute about astronomy was known to be a fact far before NASA was created.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:52:03 2018 No.9465715

>>9465685
>If you don't think the government lie for their own benefit, then I don't know what else to say.
So you finally admit no evidence, and to making a claim without evidence? Are you giving up?
Then I'll do the same: If you think there is an evil global conspiracy that remains somehow undetected, and that the earth is flat, then I don't know what else to say.

By the way, that moon footage looks perfectly reasonable given the low frame rate and the lack of atmospheric scattering in the vacuum of space.
Is it difficult to imagine that man-made satellites orbit fly overhead in the same mechanism the moon does EVEN with your flat earth model?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:55:11 2018 No.9465720 >>9465715 All the evidence you need for a flat earth is right in front of you. The next question is who is responsible for the deception of a spherical (sorry, oblate spheroid) earth. There's your task for today. Try and work it out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:55:48 2018 No.9465722 >>9465720 Nopt that anon, but if the earth is flat and globes are a distortion of its true nature, then where the hell is the seam?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 15:58:03 2018 No.9465732 >>9465722 Why would there need to be a seam?

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:01:33 2018 No.9465738

>>9465720
>All the evidence you need for a flat earth is right in front of you.
All I got was pseudoscientific garbage spewed by somebody who is not aware to which extent professionals and experts all over the world depend on the global coordinate system.
Where is your evidence of a conspiracy that produces fake images of the planet from space? Don't give up now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:02:06 2018 No.9465740 >>9465732 Because the Earth is finite, and the representation is faithful. A finite plane is not homeomorphic to a sphere('s surface).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:04:23 2018 No.9465743 >>9465738 >professionals and experts As if that's any accolade. Their salary depends on what they are taught, not what they actually know. >>9465740 >Because the Earth is finite How do we know that's true?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:05:35 2018 No.9465745 File: 110 KB, 800x759, flat-earth-memes-225-13-copy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465694 https://youtu.be/tp6UkqIwVfk

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:07:00 2018 No.9465748 >>9465745 are you seriously trying to refute my claim that Polaris moves in the sky by posting a video of Polaris clearly moving in the sky?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:08:21 2018 No.9465752 >>9465740 plot twist: earth is a moebus strip

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:08:28 2018 No.9465753

>>9465743
I knew you would attach yourself to that.
If it were not finite and you were to cut a piece out of it, you'd have the same problem as before (finite plane to surface of sphere).
If it were infinite, considering the globe you wish to map it to is finite, you'd still need a seam wherever you put the point at infinity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:09:56 2018 No.9465755 File: 189 KB, 1078x1557, IMG_20180127_170845.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465738 https://youtu.be/NV1X6JOnmQg

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:10:57 2018 No.9465760 >>9465752 That's actually the moon, that's why we only see one side of it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:12:03 2018 No.9465762 File: 244 KB, 438x665, Screen Shot 2016-12-13 at 6.41.22 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465745 >>9465748 https://youtu.be/5WtSTPodQ60

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:13:46 2018 No.9465767 >>9465753 Considering the horizon always remains at eye level no matter how high you go, is evidence that the earth is infinite, or at least far far bigger than we're being lead to believe.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:17:32 2018 No.9465772
File: 113 KB, 800x634, 1516054097390.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9465762
this is a new level of retardation. trying to disprove something so plainly obvious as the fact that Polaris moves over the course of the night.

literally google "polaris star trails" and notice how polaris is not a single dor amidst a bunch of streaks, rather, it is also a streak it'self.

>>9465767

honestly i do not understand how you could see direct evidence against you and simply go back to believing a simple lie. pic related.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:19:16 2018 No.9465778

>>9465767
Okay, but going back to what I said earlier: seeing as a seam is required to exist (as globes, wrong as they may be, are still usable), where is it located?

>>9465752
Laughs aside, how would it orbit the Sun? How would it even rotate? Someone should simulate that.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:19:49 2018 No.9465779

>>9465743
>Their salary depends on what they are taught, not what they actually know.
Irrelevant. Their daily operations DEPEND on the global coordinate system. They would FIND OUT immediately if the earth was not round. I, in my profession, would know if I were given satellite imagery that fit onto a plane, not an oblate spheroid.
You claim that ALL of these people are tricked simultaneously, flawlessly. Where is your evidence of this global conspiracy? All you did was repeatedly sidestep the issue that you have no evidence of an evil conspiracy that fabricates photographs of the Earth.
I'll have to believe that you don't have convincing evidence until you provide them.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:25:04 2018 No.9465787

The artifical seam would be Antarctica which surrounds us. The North pole is at the center. This is how compasses work. They point to magnetic north, the central circle of the earth, so any direction you go opposite to it, you go south, to Antarctica. This is also why flights go east to west rather than north to south.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:26:41 2018 No.9465789 >>9465779 And yet it is admitted that the globe map isn't accurate either. As someone has already pointed out, adjustments are constantly made to it. So it doesn't seem as if they are dependent on something that's 100% accurate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:30:31 2018 No.9465797 File: 614 KB, 1536x1030, aa-fe-map-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465789

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:30:44 2018 No.9465798 >>9465787 How were Amundsen and co. able to doctor their images in the '10s?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:32:35 2018 No.9465802 >>9465772 https://youtu.be/S2subVaRUfk

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:36:42 2018 No.9465807

>>9465802

Polaris moves in the sky. i don't know how else to put it. i have seen it move. i have taken time lapse pictures showing Polaris moving in the sky. i have showed you star trails showing Polaris moving in the sky. but for some reason you seriously won't stop latching onto the belief that Polaris stays perfectly still.

you are literally insane. you are incapable of accepting evidence, no matter how strong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:37:43 2018 No.9465810 >>9465789 >adjustments are constantly made stop saying things that aren't true just so you can convince yourself that your obviously false and decrepit web of beliefs is actually true.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:37:54 2018 No.9465812

>>9465789
I was the one who pointed it out. Do elevation surveys and more accurate measurements for different applications make maps inapplicable for flight navigation? Please stop if you don't know what you're talking about. You're rambling and grasping at straws.
Where's your evidence of an evil global conspiracy that fabricates photographs of earth? Don't come back until you have them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:38:00 2018 No.9465813 File: 944 KB, 1564x1564, IMG_20180127_172753.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465566 >>9465589 >>9465667 >>9465685 >>9465715

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:38:26 2018 No.9465814 >>9464498 Repeated by Alfred Wallace and found to have curvature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:38:31 2018 No.9465815 >>9465797 Funny how it doesn't show Antarctica. >>9465798 Doctor what images? Amundsen also mysteriously disappeared when his plane went missing on a flight to the North pole.

Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:40:02 2018 No.9465822

>>9465802
>I'm going to quote lots of large numbers to sound like I know what I'm talking about!
>What even are distances and angles
>Polaris MUST be moving the same speed and direction as the sun for it to stay above the north pole
>Flat earth proof globetards

Actually kill me

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:41:44 2018 No.9465827 File: 31 KB, 450x450, thumbnail.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9465812 >>9465797 Good enough to fight a world war with

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:42:31 2018 No.9465830 >>9465260 It's almost like he's...... >baiting everyone and everyone falls for it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 27 16:43:10 2018 No.9465832 >>9465815 https://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/History/roald_amundsen_pictures.php

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