/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9705440]

I've been think it /sci/, and I think most flat Earther's are misunderstood. The commonly known theory is that we live on a disc shaped earth where in fact, we live on more of a disc shape. Here is a graph that I made to explain my theory.

[Anonymous No.9705444]

>>9705440
>The commonly known theory is that we live on a disc shaped earth where in fact, we live on more of a disc shape
what did she mean by this

[Anonymous No.9705449]

>>9705440
so you're saying the planet is three-dimensional and isomorphic with an oblate spheroid

[Anonymous No.9705450]

>>9705444
See the graph

[Anonymous No.9705456]

We all know we live on disc on top of a giant turtle you dumb dumb

[Anonymous No.9705459]

So, basically, parents need to beat their children more so people think before they post stupid shit, got it.

[Anonymous No.9705462]

This might clear things up for those whom are confused

[Anonymous No.9705464]

can we get a more in depth break down of this graph.

[Anonymous No.9705468]

>>9705456
This.
How can people be so stupid?

[Anonymous No.9705469]

>>9705462
>genus 1 celestial bodies
>brainletwojack.png

[Anonymous No.9705490]

to those of you who think that the turtle is holding our disc up i am sad for. The world is clearly not held up by a turtle because then where is the shell? I have never seen shell. If you think this you need to re-evaluate your theory because it is wrong. the world is a disc shape that orbits the sun in a ring shape just as I said previously.

[Anonymous No.9705504]

>>9705490
>HE DOSEN'T KNOW ABOUT THE ELEPHANTS!
>laughingpepe.png

[Anonymous No.9706471]

>>9705440

[Anonymous No.9706474]

>>9706471
Icewall of Antarctica

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

---


Antarctic Explorers Killed? Jarle Andhoy's Story
https://youtu.be/mkq5CjLQFLk

[Anonymous No.9706481]

Why fake something that shouldn't require faking?

I have a fundamental problem with our space agencies KNOWINGLY faking pictures of earth if theres nothing to hide.

[Anonymous No.9706570]

>>9706481
NASA assumes the earth is flat and windless to simplify the maths, not because they believe it to reflect reality.
Why do you take this as evidence that the Earth is really flat, but not as evidence that there is no wind?

[Anonymous No.9706588]

>>9706471
This, the earth is an infinite plane.

[Anonymous No.9706604]

[Anonymous No.9706606]

[Anonymous No.9706610]

[Anonymous No.9706611]

[Anonymous No.9706614]

[Anonymous No.9706622]

[Anonymous No.9706625]

[Anonymous No.9706632]

[Anonymous No.9706635]

[Anonymous No.9706650]

[Anonymous No.9706655]

[Anonymous No.9706666]

[Anonymous No.9706692]

[Anonymous No.9706771]

*crickets* from the globecuks who cannot defend their retarded model.

[Anonymous No.9706813]

>>9706604
>magnetic fields can only be created by permanent ferromagnets
>droolingwojack.jpg

[Anonymous No.9706930]

>>9706813
The magnetic field is created from the "stars" rotating around us as shown here: >>9706614

[Anonymous No.9706971]

>>9706930
that shows a globe earth though??

[Anonymous No.9706981]

>>9706481
You seem to be mistaking "faking" a pic with building a composite pic, or enhancing a pic to show features you are trying to highlight.

[Anonymous No.9706984]

>>9706604
Planets without magnetic fields have gravity, though.

[Anonymous No.9706995]

>>9706971
It is the stars rotating around a flat earth like a ball, rather than the earth being a ball.

>>9706984
Planets are just wondering "stars", they are not solid physical objects.

[Anonymous No.9706997]

>>9706632
Speed of Earth around sun varies by where it is in orbit, but averages around 67,000 miles per hour.

The curvature is about 7.98 inches in a linear mile. Not sure what you think "Curvature per square mile" even means. Do you mean curvature per linear mile squared, to account for the fact that it curves away more, compared to your staring point, as you get further away? That has nothing to do with "square miles, and your number is wrong anyway,

The tilt of the Earth's axis, relative to our orbit around the sun, is about 23.5°.

tl:dr Your bullshit graphic is fulled with bullshit, and is bad, and you should feel bad.

[Anonymous No.9707000]

>>9706995
>It is the stars rotating around a flat earth like a ball
Why would they do that?

[Anonymous No.9707006]

>>9706655
There are regular (during the summer) tourist flights to the South Pole now. Save your pennies. Anybody who can pay the cost can go.

https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole

[Anonymous No.9707009]

>>9706995
>Planets are just wondering "stars", they are not solid physical objects.

You need to allow telescope to come into your life.

[Anonymous No.9707017]

>>9706997
>Speed of Earth around sun varies by where it is in orbit, but averages around 67,000 miles per hour.

Wrong, only if you round the number up.

>The curvature is about 7.98 inches in a linear mile

Wrong, it's 8 inches per mile, squared. The squared part is required as the curvature increases exponentially from a point.

>The tilt of the Earth's axis, relative to our orbit around the sun, is about 23.5°.

Wrong, you just made that up. It's 23.4°.

[Anonymous No.9707018]

>>9707000
Who knows...

>>9707006
No one is denying that, but you are heavily restricted in where you can go.

[Anonymous No.9707022]

>>9707009
I have brainlet. Telescopes will deliberately force the light from a "planet" to focus at a small point, giving the illusion it has solidity.

[Anonymous No.9707055]

>>9707022
And with that obnoxiously stupid answer, we have assurance that this is yet another troll thread.

[Anonymous No.9707065]

>>9707055
You can't even explain why it's a stupid answer because it's true.

[Anonymous No.9707072]

>>9707065
You can't even make sense because you're a troll.

[Anonymous No.9707082]

>>9707072
>Russian shillbot detected

Do you even know how a telescope works?

[Anonymous No.9707104]

>>9707022
>Telescopes will deliberately force the light from a "planet" to focus at a small point

Your eyes do the same thing.

[Anonymous No.9707110]

>>9707104
Yes, but not to the same extent.

[Anonymous No.9707122]

>>9707082
Do you? I don't think so. Your 'explanation' bears that out. You're a troll, home alone from school. No friends. An escaped /b/tard.

For instance: there is no such thing as a "small point." A point is an absolute, like there's no such thing as 'very unique.' It's either unique or not. It's a point or not.
Next, I'd like you to tell me what really happens. 'Cause you don't know, troll.

[Anonymous No.9707132]

>>9707122
>Do you? I don't think so. Your 'explanation' bears that out. You're a troll, home alone from school. No friends. An escaped /b/tard.

Projection.

>For instance: there is no such thing as a "small point." A point is an absolute, like there's no such thing as 'very unique.' It's either unique or not. It's a point or not.

You're playing a game of semantics. A telescope will concentrate the light hitting the lens to a smaller, more defined "point" of light. It's not an accurate representation of what it actually is.

[Anonymous No.9707137]

>>9707132
>You're playing a game of semantics.
I'm pointing out a lack of scientific vocabulary.

>A telescope will concentrate the light hitting the lens to a smaller, more defined "point" of light.
The image passes through that point. That's not the end of the story though.

And get ready - next I'll be asking how that bears in interpreting the image of a planet as anything other than what it is.

[Anonymous No.9707139]

>>9707132
>Projection.
Oh yeah - and that was speculation, not projection. Get it right.

[Anonymous No.9707157]

>>9707137
Planets are not static balls of matter reflecting light, they flicker and twinkle as if they're giving off their own light. If you film a planet, they will twinkle in a patterned like manner, as if they are giving off a certain frequency. A telescope will remove this phenomena by condensing the light to a concentrated point.

[Anonymous No.9707173]

>>9707157
... not reflecting light, but twinkle *as if* they are? So where is this light coming from? What mechanism generates it?

Having fun making up more stuff? Where are you getting this profound understanding (yes, sarcasm freely injected) about how light from planets is this or that and this is how it behaves in telescopes?

You know, there are some really clever flat-Earthers out there with whom it's interesting to debate. When a kid like you resorts to making stuff up with nothing vacuum behind it, it's a waste of time.

Take off, troll.

[Anonymous No.9707201]

>>9707173
Why would they twinkle if they were reflecting light? The light comes from itself, but asking what generates it is unknown at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if it was electromagnetic in nature however.

>Having fun making up more stuff? Where are you getting this profound understanding (yes, sarcasm freely injected) about how light from planets is this or that and this is how it behaves in telescopes?

Making stuff up is exactly what the heliocentric model has done since its inception. This understanding comes from first hand observations from using telescopes, binoculars and high zoom cameras.

[Anonymous No.9707207]

>>9707201
>unknown
To you, only because you just like to be stupid.

My point up here
>>9707137
was that you should be tailoring your answer about how a telescope works so that you could make some plausible explanatio for what is currently seen as your idotic response about a planet appearing to be solid (when it's not?). You kinda jumped the gun and went for giving a new and demented description of what type of light comes off a planet, but you never really finished the explanation of how a telescope works to make things appear not as they are.

Here's another forewarning: I'll be asking how or why this effect is seen or not in reflecting vs. refracting scopes, and hwo or why this does ot not affect how we see terrestrial objects, and that if a planet "appears" solid (but isn't?) then hwo do you come to your idea that it's something other, and what that is?

You're so full of shit, I forgot to mention how this is wrong:
>>9707157
>Planets are not static balls of matter reflecting light, they flicker and twinkle
They don't, in fact. It's one of the things that distibnguish them from stars. Even with the naked eye. Planets do not twinkle, excpet maaayyybe on the most turbulent of nights. Stars almost always do, except on the most stable of nights.

End of communique. I know you'll come back with "oh, if you don't answer, I'm right." It's SOP for you shitheads.

[Anonymous No.9707214]

>>9707207
>Here's another forewarning: I'll be asking
Oops - my bad. I won't be.
>End of communique

[Anonymous No.9707236]

>>9707207
If you look at the sun through a telescope, it will look like a solid object as well, when the heliocentric model considers it not to be solid at all. Planets don't twinkle as much as stars but they do twinkle.

Nothing in our sky can be considered a solid object, if you think the moon is then you would have to explain why the moon's light is colder than moon shade, because this is proof it gives off its own light. The moon is also transparent, as you can see the blue sky through it.

[Anonymous No.9707266]

>>9706930
no, it isn't

it's created by the geodynamo

[Anonymous No.9707271]

>>9707236
>you would have to explain why the moon's light is colder than moon shade

The shade is warmer because there are more objects around preventing the infrared light from escaping. This happens regardless of whether or not the Moon is in the sky. This is why you find morning frost on open fields but not inside the forest.

[Anonymous No.9707298]

>>9707266
>geodynamo

Pseudo-science, it's not even been confirmed what the "core" of the earth actually is because no one's been there, so this "geodynamo" theory is an assumption built upon another assumption.

Metal loses its magnetic properties when heated, this is confirmed, first hand scientific knowledge that can be replicated over and over, even by a kid in his backyard.

From first hand observation, you can see how the movements of the stars are correlated with the magnetic field, again something that can be confirmed by anyone, not just "scientists" with millions of dollars behind them.

This observation of the stars matching the magnetic field is a far more sane explanation than "geodynamo". Not only do the stars' movements match the shape of the magnetic field, they also behave in a similar fashion, each side being the opposite to the other (they rotate in opposite directions, as well as one having a pole star, and the other not), matching the positive and negative properties of magnets/electricity.

[Anonymous No.9707318]

>>9707298
Have you ever seen lava bro? Where do you think it comes from? How does it get so hot? Did you know that liquids move around?

Also the magnetic field doesn't come from permanent magnet effects, which is what you're referring to when you say "metal loses its magnetic properties when heated." The Curie temperatures of ferromagnetic materials are actually the exact reason why we know that the field doesn't come from ferromagnets. lmaoing at your pseud shit

[Anonymous No.9707322]

>>9707271
That doesn't make any sense. If the moon is reflecting the sun's light, then the light must have heat, so anything in that light will heat up too, and anything not being hit by that light will be colder.

Also, you will find frost on open fields because there's more water in the atmosphere, a forest won't have as much.

[Anonymous No.9707334]

>>9707318
>Have you ever seen lava bro? Where do you think it comes from? How does it get so hot? Did you know that liquids move around?

In the globe model, lava doesn't come from the core, because it'd be made of iron, so I'm afraid that's not proof of a core at all.

>Also the magnetic field doesn't come from permanent magnet effects

You believe the magnetic field comes from heat, so now you have to invent some new type of magnetic production with no scientific backing whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.9707335]

>>9707322
Doesn't make sense to you. We get it. You're retarded. It's okay.

[Anonymous No.9707340]

I love seeing flat Earth shit because idiots apparently do great world building, thanks

[Anonymous No.9707341]

>>9707335
>I have no argument.

[Anonymous No.9707342]

>>9707334
>You believe the magnetic field comes from heat, so now you have to invent some new type of magnetic production with no scientific backing whatsoever.
Maybe you missed high school physics class, but get this: moving electrical currents generate magnetic fields. It's easy to test this phenomenon with a battery, a copper wire, and a compass needle. Now, stay with me here, there are moving charges in the magma that constitute currents in various directions. Whether or not the core is solid or not is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.9707344]

>>9707341
How can anyone have an argument against fantasy? Enjoy it. Don't mind us.

[Anonymous No.9707348]

>>9707018
You don't have to go anywhere to see a 24 hour day.

[Anonymous No.9707357]

>>9707342
>Maybe you missed high school physics class

I wish I did because it's a load of bullshit.

You're speculating that liquid iron moving around in the earth's core is creating electrical currents that in turn create the magnetic field. Again, what evidence do you have of this magnetic creating liquid existing, and has this been recreated in an experiment?

Instead of that assumptive nonsense, I look at this I can actually observe, in this case the lights in the sky that move around us.

[Anonymous No.9707361]

>>9707357
>I wish I did because it's a load of bullshit.
>I didn't understand, and got a "D" because teach was nice.

[Anonymous No.9707364]

>>9707344
Well you're quite contented in believing in fantasy yourself.

>>9707348
There is no 24 hour daylight in Antarctica otherwise there'd be hundreds of videos of it, any that purport to be it are clearly faked, or taken from the north pole.

[Anonymous No.9707368]

>>9707357
>You're speculating that liquid iron moving around in the earth's core is creating electrical currents that in turn create the magnetic field.
Among all of the other elements down there, yes. It's far more than just iron.
>Again, what evidence do you have of this magnetic creating liquid existing
I've seen a volcano before.
>and has this been recreated in an experiment?
Why yes, it has.

https://physics.aps.org/story/v19/st3

[Anonymous No.9707376]

>>9707364
>Well you're quite contented in believing in fantasy yourself.
Another spurious claim. Current models and theories are observable, reproduceable, and can be explained and described.

You, some anonymous bullshitter, come up with something, say it's right, and that we're wrong for not believing you. Yet doing so would be exactly what you claim shouldn't be done - believing with out facts or explanation.

You have offered nothing but demagoguery.

>>9707364
>any that purport to be it are clearly faked
Claim without proof.

[Anonymous No.9707380]

>>9707361
You realise that high school teaches you how to blindly accept certain theories and then regurgitate them on a piece of paper?

You can only really make money being a scientist if your science is built upon the pre-existing doctrines of mainstream science. Everything you do is confined to a narrow pathway made up of this theoretical doctrine.

[Anonymous No.9707386]

>>9707364
>There is no 24 hour daylight in Antarctica otherwise there'd be hundreds of videos of it, any that purport to be it are clearly faked, or taken from the north pole.

>All evidence is fake and there isn't enough fake evidence to prove that all evidence isn't fake.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH

[Anonymous No.9707387]

>>9707380
You realise that a cop-out, and a complete and total dodge?

You can only make money doing science if you can prove your theories to be correct and viable and repeatable and commercially profitable (otherwise you're just working or a uni under some grant as a poorfag hoping for tenure).

You on the other hand have nothing, offer nothing, and are nothing other than an example of a laughingstock when you're pretending to be scientifical.

You're a joke only because you have no influence on anyone.

[Anonymous No.9707388]

>>9707368
>Among all of the other elements down there, yes. It's far more than just iron.

Again, you're theorising about a core that you have no actual knowledge about at all, and neither does anyone else (because it doesn't actually exist).

>I've seen a volcano before.

Again, not proof that a "core" exists. It's also interesting to note that lava isn't magnetic until it cools down, which is why the model has to say that lava doesn't come from the magical magnetic core, the core has special stuff that is magnetic when it's hot.

[Anonymous No.9707393]

>>9707388
>you're theorising about a core that you have no actual knowledge about at all

And yet, it's not stopping you. I'm guessing you have never even heard of P and S waves?

[Anonymous No.9707394]

>>9707368
>https://physics.aps.org/story/v19/st3

This doesn't recreate it at all, they used liquid sodium, and at no point does it say they used any heat.

[Anonymous No.9707399]

>>9707376
>Another spurious claim. Current models and theories are observable, reproduceable, and can be explained and described.

Completely disagree, they are theoretical for a reason rather than laws.

>You, some anonymous bullshitter, come up with something, say it's right, and that we're wrong for not believing you. Yet doing so would be exactly what you claim shouldn't be done - believing with out facts or explanation.

My proof is observable and testable and repeatable by anyone, yours is not.

>Claim without proof.
Post a 24 hour time lapse of Antarctica, I'll bet you it will look like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv_dcW1WrMo

[Anonymous No.9707401]

>>9707388
>Again, not proof that a "core" exists. It's also interesting to note that lava isn't magnetic until it cools down, which is why the model has to say that lava doesn't come from the magical magnetic core, the core has special stuff that is magnetic when it's hot.
lmao, you're a special kind of retarded

Charges flowing in a current will create a magnetic field at any temperature, even very high ones. Again, get yourself a battery, a copper wire and a real compass needle and you too can achieve some understanding of this aspect of Maxwell's equations. I'm glad we're in agreement that the Earth's interior is too hot for ferromagnets to exist past a certain point, although apparently it also doesn't exist.
>https://physics.aps.org/story/v19/st3
>This doesn't recreate it at all
It does actually, on a smaller and simplified scale. The proof of concept here is concrete.

[Anonymous No.9707406]

>>9707394
>What is an experiment with controlled conditions and limited parameters?
You are grasping at straws here.

[Anonymous No.9707408]

>>9707386
Not an argument.

>>9707387
Who gets to prove their theories correct? That is the question.

[Anonymous No.9707410]

>>9707388
>a core that you have no actual knowledge about at all, and neither does anyone else (because it doesn't actually exist)
>still not knowing about seismology

of course, flatheads have to believe that all seismology is fake, because it puts the last nail in the coffin of their little cult. once the field gets to the point of predicting earthquakes by detecting the early stages of seismic slip, they still will insist that it's all fake. heck, they probably think that earthquakes are manufactured outright by the conspiracy.
that's the difference between scientists and flatheads, honestly. when scientists come up with something they can't explain, they change their theory. when flatheads come up with something they can't explain, they call it fake.

I notice that you don't have any comeback to molten metal dynamos being recreated in the lab.

[Anonymous No.9707411]

Flat earthers are either complete idiots or trolls. Do not give them attention. Sage this.

[Anonymous No.9707412]

>>9707399
>Completely disagree, they are theoretical for a reason rather than laws.
And that's what makes you a joke. You follow your own path and that's fine, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

>My proof is observable and testable and repeatable by anyone, yours is not.
You have absolutely nothing. Not an experiment, not a theory, not evidence. You only have claims.

>Post a 24 hour time lapse of Antarctica, I'll bet you it will look like this:
You've already done the search, found it, denied it. It is literally a waste of time for anyone to bang their head against your wall.

Accept it. You're worthless in everyone's eyes except yours. You have the choice to continue being a pain the ass, or you can go silently on working to refine your fantasy so it's at least somewhat plausible and doesn't rely on lies and offhand dismissals to reconcile your cognitive dissonance.

But you won't get respect with your tack.

[Anonymous No.9707416]

>>9707408
>Who gets to prove their theories correct? That is the question.
The other scientists who repeat the experiment and try to falsify it.
It's not a question. You just hope it is.

[Anonymous No.9707417]

Reminder that all you need to disprove the flat earth conjecture is the fact that the sun’s angular diameter doesn’t change whatsoever during a day. Nothing else is needed. Do not feed trolls.

[Anonymous No.9707418]

>>9707411
What else is there to do?

[Anonymous No.9707420]

>>9707408
>Not an argument.
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.9707421]

>>9707401
>Charges flowing in a current will create a magnetic field at any temperature, even very high ones.

But that's just a complete lie. Where is the evidence of something molten creating a magnetic field?

>It does actually, on a smaller and simplified scale. The proof of concept here is concrete.

It's not at all, liquid sodium is magnetic when cool, so creating an electrical current from it by spinning it around isn't exactly surprising. For that experiment to have slightly more validitiy would be that the liquid sodium was heated up, and seeing the effect of the magnetic production then.

[Anonymous No.9707424]

>>9707421
>liquid sodium is magnetic when cool
it's not though

[Anonymous No.9707426]

>>9707421
>would be that the liquid sodium was heated up
How do you think it got molten? It just melts a temperature that safe and less expensive for experiments in a lab.
Are you confusing 'molten' with 'sonofabitchthat'shot"?

[Anonymous No.9707427]

>>9707421
>liquid sodium is magnetic when cool
Sodium ceases to be liquid when cooled.

[Anonymous No.9707428]

>>9707410
Seismology proves a magnetic molten core does it? You've just conflated the denial of one theory with the denial of a separate theory that don't require each other to work.

[Anonymous No.9707430]

>>9707412
>but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

The cult of science.

>You have absolutely nothing. Not an experiment, not a theory, not evidence. You only have claims.

I can see the stars and observe their movements. I can observe the magnetic field and its shape. You can't observe the core of the earth. The evidence is on my side.

[Anonymous No.9707434]

>>9707428
>I have never studied thermodynamics in my life

[Anonymous No.9707436]

>>9707416
So if you had a theory that you wanted to test, but you didn't have access to the equipment needed to test it, what do you do?

>>9707417
That's not true at all. Watch a sunset with direct line of sight, it very clearly does get smaller.

[Anonymous No.9707438]

>>9707428
>The cult of science.
The saving of time wasted on idiots.

>I can see the stars and observe their movements.
So can we. Your observations are limited and your interpretations are unsound.

>I can observe the magnetic field and its shape.
Indeed? And how do you do that?

>You can't observe the core of the earth. The evidence is on my side.
You can't either. You've got nothing but fantasy.

[Anonymous No.9707444]

>>9707436
>Watch a sunset with direct line of sight, it very clearly does get smaller.
Watch a sun go behind a cloud, it gets smaller.

[Anonymous No.9707448]

What causes Iridium flares in the flat earth model since satellites apparently don't exist?
Why are they predictable down to the second?
Why can their apparent position in the sky only work if the ground is curved (the same goes for the Moon, Sun and everything else in the sky)?

[Anonymous No.9707447]

>>9707427
Liquid sodium is used to cool things down (in nuclear reactors for example), so yes it is cool.

[Anonymous No.9707451]

>>9707430
>The cult of science.

You have to go to an important job interview where you have to defend your theory of XYZ. The little neighbor boy comes up to you as you get into your car, and shows you a crayon picture he's drawn from his memory of your lab, and starts telling you about how this is that, and hwo the colors are nice to show the other things...

You've gotta run. Are you going to spend time with that kid and inform him of all the work you've done and all the predecessors and the experiments and the math...

Or will you say, "That's nice! Let me take that drawnig and I'll use it in the meeting!" and then take off and continue as you were?

Beat it, kid.

[Anonymous No.9707453]

>>9707447
>Liquid sodium is used to cool things down (in nuclear reactors for example), so yes it is cool.
Cool-ER. Not "cool," deceiver.

[Anonymous No.9707456]

>>9707438
>So can we.

Have you seen the core of the earth?

>Indeed? And how do you do that?
Sprinkle magnetic flakes over a magnet and see where they land.

>>9707444
Mind blowing.

[Anonymous No.9707459]

>>9707456
>>So can we.
>Have you seen the core of the earth?

Non sequiter. The two quotes are unrelated.

>Sprinkle magnetic flakes over a magnet and see where they land.
That is "a" magnetic field. You said you see "the" magnetic field, implying the Earth's. Deceiver.

>>>9707444
>Mind blowing.
Idiotic. How do people think crap like claiming the Sun appears to get smaller when it's behind cloud is credible?

[Anonymous No.9707461]

>>9707459
Change your ISO settings, the sun gets smaller.
Put a filter on your camera, the sun gets smaller.

[Anonymous No.9707464]

>>9707456
>>So can we.
>Have you seen the core of the earth?
Non sequiter. The two responses are unrelated.

>Sprinkle magnetic flakes over a magnet and see where they land.
Granted, that is how magnetic lines can be revealed. However, you said "the" magnetic lines, which in the course of the conversation implied the Earth's. In other words, you can't.

And you'd still find a way to misinterpret them f you did (say, using a magnetic compass and several thousand sample points from all over the globe).

[Anonymous No.9707467]

>>9707461
You have clearly never done photography of the Sun, or understand pixel saturation on CMOS and CCD detectors.
Is there no end to your ignorance?

[Anonymous No.9707468]

>>9707448
Satellites can exist but not by orbiting a gravitational field around a spherical earth, but rather circulating above the flat plane. Geostationary satellites are on weather balloons.

[Anonymous No.9707470]

>>9707467
You are just mad that I have the power to influence the size of the sun at will whenever I want.

[Anonymous No.9707471]

Test

also /sci/ is gay

[Anonymous No.9707473]

>>9707468
Explain the forces that keep the satellites (and the Sun and Moon for that matter) from coming down to the Earth. Why do they move in a circle around the pole? What acts upon them to keep them from moving in a straight line? Why do they move closer to the north in the summer and south in the winter? How can you model this so the positions can be predicted?

[Anonymous No.9707479]

>>9707470
LOL! It has gotten about that silly.
And 4Chan's borked. Half the posts aren't flying.

[Anonymous No.9707498]

I wish I were easily amused enough that I could find joy in creating a 117 reply thread where I pretend to be an idiot.

[Anonymous No.9707501]

>>9706611
>Sorry, we couldn't retrieve user @FlatEarthLife

[Anonymous No.9707515]

>>9707473
Satellites don't move north or south with the seasons. You have to remember that the Earth doesn't actually tilt back and forth (it wobbles a little though) it's just that when it's on one side of the Sun the tilt means one hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun and when it's on the other side the other hemisphere would be tilted towards the Sun.
Half way inbetween the tilt isn't in line with the Sun, so neither hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun.

The satellites just maintain their orbits relative to the Earth tilt.

[Anonymous No.9707531]

>>9707515
The question was for the flat-Earther.

[Anonymous No.9707542]

>>9707531
Yeah well be careful of the questions you ask because dumb questions can make them feel smart.

[Anonymous No.9707568]

>>9707542
Yeah well be mindful of thread attribution and sequence, because you can butt in and look dumb..

[Anonymous No.9707592]

>>9707568
Welcome to message boards.

[Anonymous No.9707695]

>>9707428
Seismology proves a molten core. At least, it proves that part of the core is molten.

[Anonymous No.9707827]

[Anonymous No.9707857]

Okay so how do people even explain this flat disc shit? I can understand the gravity, kind of. Get the disc going in the right direction at a constant thrust of 1g. But what about all the other shit, like plate tectonics or the sun or anything? Like what, is there a giant dome or something that projects the entirety of space? Are meteorites just rocks that our secretive alien overlords threw in a blast furnace for a bit? Are clouds a lie?
I'm honestly curious about this, I've never seen any explanation from a flat-earther for any of this.

[Anonymous No.9707863]

>>9707857
God did it.

[Anonymous No.9707885]

>>9707857
Here's the deal: there are three types of Flat Earthers who have regularly posted to 4Chan: prankster intellectuals who troll to test your knowledge and debate skills, literal Bible interpreters, and recently the most proliferate: 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 (again, and again, and again, ...) while disavowing any science or proofs put forward. They will post memes that ostensibly 'prove' some flaw in the round Earth model, but containing geometry, maths, logic, and facts so absurdly wrong that you are compelled to display your superior intelligence and knowledge. Mostly though they will provoke you with the classic, "If you don't respond, you're a faggot and you prove me right." By responding, you've taken the bait.

They don't care whether the Earth is flat or round. Trolls await your posts (reasoned or prefereably emotional) and meet them with insulting or provocative responses, because it's about the lulz from getting you to respond. If you reference web-based information (that they could have looked up, had they interest) they will accuse you of being a shill for some absurd conspiracy.

It is simply impossible to keep up with having to explain away the barrage of stupid posts, and the anonymous mask of 4Chan removes culpability for the prankster and enables this crap. Arguing is akin to painting over mud - you just end up with a dirty brush.

[Anonymous No.9707944]

>>9707364
I have a friend that did a summer season working at McMurdo. She would talk about how disorienting the 24 hour daylight was at first but later on it was nice because you can do stuff outside at all hours.

Has my friend that ive known since college been brainwashed by the round-earth pushing Illuminati? Did they put false memories in her head about 24 hour daylight when they were actually 10 hour daylight? IS SHE A LIZARD PERSON NOW?!?!

Give us answers, anon. Since you seem to know everything.

Or you can work at McMurdo too and tell us how it went. They hire tons of trades: https://www.jobs.net/jobs/pae/en-us/search/Antarctica/city/McMurdo-Station/

https://www.usap.gov/jobsAndOpportunities/

[Anonymous No.9707956]

>>9707857
>I've never seen any explanation from a flat-earther for any of this.
There isn't one. They can't explain why the Moon rises without growing, how day and night works at the poles, or how far apart cities in Australia are. People who were interested in reality abandoned the idea of a flat earth thousands of years ago, and their reasoning still hold up today.
Flat earthers aren't interested in building a coherent worldview, they're just conspiracy theorists who desperately want to be in on some big secret.

[Anonymous No.9707969]

How does the flat earth model explain trade winds?

These winds have been observable for centuries by fisherman, explorers and seamen all across the world. This would make absolutely no sense if the earth was flat, because then they would be concentric circles on a flat earth for no discernible reason.

[Anonymous No.9707975]

>>9707969
Through an appeal to credibility >>9706610

[Anonymous No.9707987]

>>9707956
>People who were interested in reality abandoned the idea of a flat earth thousands of years ago, and their reasoning still hold up today.
this.
even most religious scholars back in older times knew that the earth is round, regardless of how well that jibed with Scripture. Flat-Eartherism is a relatively recent phenomenon despite its frequent claims of ancient wisdom.
>http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/SS05/efs/materials/FlatEarth.pdf

[Anonymous No.9708010]

>>9707975
Are you braindead?
That pic offers no rationale or argument.

The tradewinds exist like this because of the Coriolis Effect.

"How do these commerce-friendly winds form? Between about 30 degrees north and 30 degrees south of the equator, in a region called the horse latitudes, the Earth's rotation causes air to slant toward the equator in a southwesterly direction in the northern hemisphere and in a northwesterly direction in the southern hemisphere. This is called the Coriolis Effect.

The Coriolis Effect, in combination with an area of high pressure, causes the prevailing winds—the trade winds—to move from east to west on both sides of the equator across this 60-degree "belt."

As the wind blows to about five degrees north and south of the equator, both air and ocean currents come to a halt in a band of hot, dry air. This 10-degree belt around Earth's midsection is called the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone, more commonly known as the doldrums.

Intense solar heat in the doldrums warms and moistens the trade winds, thrusting air upwards into the atmosphere like a hot air balloon. As the air rises, it cools, causing persistent bands of showers and storms in the tropics and rainforests. The rising air masses move toward the poles, then sink back toward Earth's surface near the horse latitudes. The sinking air triggers the calm trade winds and little precipitation, completing the cycle"

Unless you can find a better reason why the winds alternate direction based on latitude. What other planet-wide force would cause this on a flat earth model??

[Anonymous No.9708020]

>>9707975
>... using incredible diagrams with flawed or no explanations.

[Anonymous No.9708022]

>>9707956
>>9707885
>>9707863
>>9707857
For fucks sake. No theory to back this up? No scientifically plausible explanation? Nothing? On would think that someone would have come up with something, anything, if nothing else than to project the illusion that their argument is serious.
Fuck, I don't know. The greys wanted to see if they could create a civilization and wanted to experiment with the capabilities of a disc for space travel. We are one of many discs, sent out into space with a few thousand aliens watching and examining us. 1g thrust and all that shit. A thick dome serves two purposes:to protect against debris and to project the illusion of an atmosphere. Stars, the sun, the moon, all of them act the way they do because they are lies. Clouds are moved around with weird alien weather tech, so as to fool us primitive apes. The greys know that any major power will figure them out eventually, so they work with them to protect the conspiracy from the average person. Any who figure out regardless are either inducted into the conspiracy or disappeared.
There. Done. We've got all the elements: flat earth, government conspiracy, faked moon, aliens. I came up with this in roughly 20 minutes. How the fuck is there nothing like this out there? Aren't there at least a few flat-earthers that actually believe their shit?

[Anonymous No.9708027]

>>9708010
>Are you braindead?
No. I don't believe in the flat earth.

[Anonymous No.9708041]

>>9705440
>another flat earth thread
>133 replies
The absolute state of four-channel.

[Anonymous No.9708265]

>>9706614

[Anonymous No.9708284]

>>9708041
Are you genuinely surprised? Look at the amount of traffic IQ and climate change threads get. This board is predominantly uneducated pseuds and undergrads.

[Anonymous No.9708448]

Bump

[Anonymous No.9708454]

>>9705468
fake picture, the elephants are supposed to be smaller and circling around on top of the turtle's body, not just standing there

[Anonymous No.9708466]

>>9707857
The earth isn't moving at all, and "plate tectonics" can still work. The sun is around 3000 miles away and much, much smaller. Quite the coincidence that it appears the same size as the moon despite its supposed differences in size and distance, your model is full of these (((coincidences))).

Your asking questions that haven't been confirmed yet - is there a dome? Quite possibly, what is it made of? Who knows, it could be electromagnetic in nature.

[Anonymous No.9708468]

>>9707885
This is a typical shill pasta response, likely financed by NASA.

[Anonymous No.9708474]

>>9708010
The Coriolis Effect is again just the magnetic field as produced by the stars moving around us, nothing to do with the earth moving (all scientific experiments have proven the earth is not moving).

[Anonymous No.9708477]

>>9708474
>all scientific experiments have proven the earth is not moving
I love this quote.

[Anonymous No.9708478]

Oh and the most basic and fundamental evidence of a flat earth is the fact there's no measurable curvature anywhere. You fucking weirdos think the earth has oceans curving around the exterior of a sphere while also being perfectly flat (when still).

You're completely nuts.

[Anonymous No.9708481]

>>9708477
Look up Michelson-Morely, Airy's failure, Sagnac.

[Anonymous No.9708483]

>>9707944
Anecdotal evidence, discarded. If she genuinely did see 24 hour sunlight, then she was at the north pole.

[Anonymous No.9708500]

>>9708466
>>9708474
>>9708478
>>9708481
>If I make lots of assertions, that means I'm right!

>>9708483
>Any evidence that disagrees with me is obviously wrong!

Fuck off back to /x/.

[Anonymous No.9708503]

>>9707468
>Satellites can exist but not by orbiting a gravitational field around a spherical earth, but rather circulating above the flat plane.

But their angle above the horizon from different viewing locations can't work on a flat plane. The viewing directions don't intersect at a mutual point on a flat plane but they do on a sphere. The same goes for the Sun and Moon.

I plotted Iridium 62's angle above the horizon from 30° north latitude to 50° north latitude and the lines only intersect if the ground is curved.
Here are the angles taken from Stellarium. The first one is from 30° north latitude.

70°00'25.4"
62°09'01.8"
55°06'44.2"
48°54'15.0"
43°28'11.4"
38°43'15.6"
34°33'42.0"
30°54'03.7"
27°39'32.6"
24°46'04.0"
22°10'14.2"
19°49'15.2"
17°40'49.1"
15°43'02.6"
13°54'22.3"
12°13'31.1"
10°39'25.1"
9°11'10.8"
7°48'03.5"
6°29'25.4"
5°14'44.3"

[Anonymous No.9708507]

>>9708481
>experiments that werent aimed to prove one way or another the earth's motion

[Anonymous No.9708535]

>>9708500
Globalist got nothin'.

>>9708503
You don't understand how perspective works when things get further away, in this case the sun and moon.

[Anonymous No.9708538]

>>9708507
Airy's failure was supposed to prove the rotation, but it proved it was the stars that were moving.

[Anonymous No.9708614]

>>9708027
That's because you're extremely thick, stubborn and brainwashed.

[Anonymous No.9708666]

>>9708614
>says the flathead brainlet
lmao

[Anonymous No.9708696]

>>9708666
Satan go to hell.

[Anonymous No.9708762]

>>9708535
>You don't understand how perspective works when things get further away, in this case the sun and moon.

Presented with data; resorts to hand-waving denial.

Is it that you do not understand the data, or that you understand it but are unable to refute it?

[Anonymous No.9708766]

>>9708483
>this absolutely cannot happen, under my model
>oh wait, even if it did happen once, that's just anecdotal evidence! it doesn't count!
a single occurrence is all that's needed to disprove impossibility. you brainlets.

[Anonymous No.9708782]

>>9708535
>that image
holy shit, what a moron

[Anonymous No.9708803]

>>9705440
>I've been think it /sci/

Clearly not.

[Anonymous No.9708809]

>>9705462
>whom are confused

[Anonymous No.9708810]

If earth is flat, what happens when you fall over?

[Anonymous No.9708821]

>>9708762
>>9708782

You need to learn the most basic principles of perspective.

In that image, do you see how the horizon line where the sky meets the water is at eye level to the observer? If you take perspective out of the equation, then this would mean on the globe model that is actually physically rising up to one's eye level, which we know on either a flat or globe mode, is not true. So with this in mind, we can see how perspective will hide things in the distance behind things that are closer. I mean really simple stuff, I don't understand why you can't understand this. There is no curvature, and there doesn't need to be, for this to work.

[Anonymous No.9708834]

>>9708766
Anecdotal != Scientific

Either your friend is a lying bitch, or she was actually at the north pole, it's not like she'd be able to tell the difference.

[Anonymous No.9708839]

>>9708762
>>9708782

You need to learn the most basic principles of perspective.

In that image, do you see how the horizon line where the sky meets the water is at eye level to the observer? If you take perspective out of the equation, then this would mean on the globe model the water is actually physically rising up to one's eye level, which we know on either a flat or globe mode, is not true. So with this in mind, we can see how perspective will hide things in the distance behind things that are closer, because this is just how perspective works. This is really simple stuff, I don't understand why you can't understand this. There is no curvature, and there doesn't need to be, for this to work.

[Anonymous No.9708841]

>>9708839
You'd never see the sun touching the horizon on a flatearth, perspective doesn't work like that, you're a moron if you don't get that.

[Anonymous No.9708863]

>>9705459
FUCKING BASED

[Anonymous No.9708871]

>>9708841
>You'd never see the sun touching the horizon on a flatearth, perspective doesn't work like that

Absolute brainlet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeAD6-GdLg0

[Anonymous No.9708880]

>>9708871
zoom in to this >>9708782, braindead retard
what do you think would have happened if that video was 10 minutes longer zoomed in?

[Anonymous No.9708889]

>>9708880
Silly brainlet, obviously the zoom is limited. Eventually the sun will get too far away that its light won't reach the lens any more. There's this thing called "atmosphere" that blocks the light coming through, hence day and night.

[Anonymous No.9708910]

>>9708889
>Eventually the sun will get too far away that its light won't reach the lens
This doesn't happen though, you can clearly see during a sunset how it goes below the horizon pretty fast.

[Anonymous No.9708927]

>>9708910
Sorry, there's too much evidence to support this. Watch a sunset from a plane, you can see it for longer since the atmosphere is less dense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aA0yfQkfqw

[Anonymous No.9708937]

>>9708927
Fucking NASA got it deleted, see this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGETGMJU7CQ

Notice the localised spotlight on the clouds, impossible if the sun is 93 million miles away and millions of miles wide

[Anonymous No.9708947]

>>9708937
How would the sun appear to go below the horizon if the earth is flat with the sun always staying at the same altitude?
Fucking moronic.

[Anonymous No.9708953]

>>9708947
Jesus brainlet, it doesn't go below the horizon, it just merges with it, as everything does the further it goes away from the observer. It gets smaller, and merges, simple as that.

[Anonymous No.9708957]

>>9708953
Retard.

[Anonymous No.9708978]

>>9708957
Zoom in further and the sun will begin to rise up above the horizon line, you can't seem to wrap your head around this basic principle of perspective.

[Anonymous No.9708982]

>>9708978
kys subhuman flatard

[Anonymous No.9708987]

>>9708978
That picture is already extremely zoomed in, and that's not how perspective works.

[Anonymous No.9709002]

>>9708982
no ur mom

>>9708987
If it was capable of zooming further, you would see the sun rise again, you cannot dispute this.

[Anonymous No.9709020]

>>9709002
No, it wouldn't
Whatever, believe whatever shit you like, you'll just spin everything to match your retardation.

[Anonymous No.9709023]

>>9709020
Keep believing the sun is 93 million miles away, absolutely retarded.

[Anonymous No.9709112]

>>9705449
Isomorphic in which category? There's no diffeomorphism because of the corners.

[Anonymous No.9709118]

>>9709023
>miles
Of course flattards would be amurican, nice education lmao

[Anonymous No.9709182]

>>9709118
Real science doesn't care about nationality. The globe model is freemason science.

[Anonymous No.9709394]

>>9709002
>If it was capable of zooming further, you would see the sun rise again, you cannot dispute this.
This has never been observed or demonstrated.
Thus we must discard it, under the very rules flat earthers use for evidence.

[Anonymous No.9709671]

>>9708834
>Anecdotal != Scientific
Not Actually True
A single anecdotal observation of the ivory-billed woodpecker would be proof positive that it is not yet extinct. No controlled study or survey is required to prove that something exists or is possible; a single example suffices!

>Either your friend is a lying bitch,
>all evidence that proves me wrong must be fake!
n e c k yourself

>or she was actually at the north pole, it's not like she'd be able to tell the difference.
you'd think the fact that she was standing on solid land, not sea ice, would be a good clue. the presence of penguins near the shore is also a solid indicator.

[Anonymous No.9709689]

>>9708871
>have shitty camera
>zoom in on an extremely bright object in the distance
>bright object now fills most of the frame
>can't see the dark foreground objects for shit due to bloom
>bright object appears to smear onto and over its surroundings
only literal retards who don't understand the most basic mechanics of photography don't get how this works.

pic related. look, the sun is in front of the tree branches!

[Anonymous No.9710230]

>>9709671
>A single anecdotal observation of the ivory-billed woodpecker would be proof positive that it is not yet extinct.
Eh, I could say I have seen an ivory-billed woodpecker, but that isn't proof. If I took photos of it then it could be proof, but then it wouldn't be anecdotal.

[Anonymous No.9710248]

>>9710230
>If I took photos of it then it could be proof, but then it wouldn't be anecdotal.
A chance sighting of a bird, even if documented with photographic proof, is anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence doesn't just mean a story you heard; it's evidence that's collected without any sort of overarching experimental design or sampling protocol, that is therefore susceptible to sampling biases or random chance.

[Anonymous No.9710299]

>>9710248
Anecdotal means that you're taking my word without any proof. A photo would be evidence, if not conclusive evidence.

[Anonymous No.9710335]

>>9706471
>the sun carved a pool of water from ice
Then why is it so much lower than the ice? Also, why is the ground made of non-ice instead of more ice?

[Anonymous No.9710339]

>>9707017
You ruin the fun of trolling when you make the bait obvious.

[Anonymous No.9710359]

>>9710299
wrong.jfif

[Anonymous No.9710372]

>>9710359
No, that's pretty much the definition of anecdotal.

[Anonymous No.9710497]

>Flat Earth thread
>/sci/
Wtf

[Anonymous No.9710499]

>>9710497
anti-science nuts, flatearthers especially, love shitting up this board

[Anonymous No.9710505]

>>9710499
I thought /his/, /sci/, and /lit/ were bastions of rationality on 4chan?

[Anonymous No.9710523]

>>9710505
they're easy to spot and ignore, being completely detached from reality

[Anonymous No.9710532]

>>9709394
Absolute brainlet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP9yJvhIx7k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G19hmYbk87g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUZVcfo864M

[Anonymous No.9710537]

>>9709671
You weren't even there kid. You don't think they could have put a few penguins at the north pole for goodness sake?

Until you've personally gone to Antarctica and seen the 24 hour sun you can hush it.

[Anonymous No.9710540]

>>9709689
Complete brainlet, the sun moves up above the horizon, lens flare alone cannot explain that.

[Anonymous No.9710559]

>>9710532
Are you referring to yourself? In none of the videos was the Sun even partially below the horizon, as evidenced by the videos themselves.
Surprisingly, when the Sun is above the horizon and you zoom in on it the gap between it and the horizon appears to increase in size.
That's not something anyone has ever contended.

>>9710537
>You weren't even there kid.
Neither were you, yet you claim she must be mistaken which side of the planet she is on, as if she could be mistaken about which country she left from and how long it took to get there.
You don't even have anecdotal evidence to disprove his hearsay, so you should basically just shut up.
You can refuse to accept it as sufficient evidence, but you shouldn't pretend you can refute it.

[Anonymous No.9710563]

>>9707827
Why would someone even waste their time putting together something so stupid? it's not even funny or clever.

[Anonymous No.9710565]

>>9710559
Oh and I forgot she would also have had to be mistaken about what time of year it was, seeing 24 hour Sun in Antarctica is in December while in the Arctic it's in June.
But I'm sure she could have just been confused.

[Anonymous No.9710566]

>>9708468
>likely financed by NASA.
Actually flat-earth threads are most likely disinfo campaigns, designed to distract from real and critical ongoing scandals in national and international politics.

[Anonymous No.9710569]

>>9710559
>Surprisingly, when the Sun is above the horizon and you zoom in on it the gap between it and the horizon appears to increase in size.
>That's not something anyone has ever contended.

And how do globalists explain this without resorting to perspective? Remember, this is a 93 million mile away sun we're talking about, which you must think is completely retarded.

>Neither were you, yet you claim she must be mistaken which side of the planet she is on, as if she could be mistaken about which country she left from and how long it took to get there.

I don't even know if this woman exists, or some brainlet anon made it up. Very weak evidence.

[Anonymous No.9710597]

>>9710569
>And how do globalists explain this without resorting to perspective?
Explain what? That when you zoom in the gap appears to get bigger?
Are you even aware what zooming is?

>I don't even know if this woman exists, or some brainlet anon made it up. Very weak evidence.
Then just ignore it. You're not going to accept any evidence presented anyway unless you fucking go and do it yourself.

[Anonymous No.9710689]

>>9705440
It's actually not at all like an disc-shaped earth, but more like a earth-shaped disc.

[Anonymous No.9710763]

>>9710597
>Explain what? That when you zoom in the gap appears to get bigger?
>Are you even aware what zooming is?

The sun would not move from its position if it was just zooming brainlet, that's the point. Perspective clearly plays a part in what position the sun appears to be at.

[Anonymous No.9710772]

>>9710763
The Sun isn't moving from its position though.
Where do you get that impression? Just because the flaring reduces?
This has nothing to do with perspective, it's just optics.

[Anonymous No.9710847]

Actually, the third video is a good demonstration of what is actually happening.
When it starts the Sun is indistinct and large, you can't easily see the true disc.
As he zooms in you see two things happen, the Sun shrinks in size and the area around the Sun darkens. This is a property of superzoom lenses, as you zoom in the T-stop increases which means less total light is reaching the sensor. Because of this it is getting less overwhelmed by the Sun so the flaring decreases, but less light is coming from the clouds around the Sun as well, so they get darker.
As he continues to zoom in the true disc of the Sun becomes visible, you can see a distinct edge to it. At this point, as he continues to zoom, the Sun gets BIGGER, not smaller.

I don't know if this guy was actually making this video to show the claims flat earthers make to be bullshit, but he did it anyway.

[Anonymous No.9711145]

>>9709112
I mean in the topological sense, i.e. a homeomorphism. But you are right about there being no diffeomorphism.

[Anonymous No.9711270]

>>9708474
You want to back up your claim there buddy?


How would the magnetic field affect prevailing winds???

How would the stars, which are many light years away, affect our magnetic field??

How would they produce a magnetic field that alternates polarity based based on latitude??

Why isnt this big magnetic field that apparently strong enough to affect WEATHER not affecting or representative of earth regular magnetic field??

What scientific experiments are you talking about that prove the earth isnt moving???

Why do you constanly just post assertions with no structured arguments or links to ANYTHING that would supply evidence to what you believe??

[Anonymous No.9711316]

>>9708834
Im the anon with the friend who went to McMurdo.

She took a flight to New Zealand, and then a flight to McMurdo.

Did the Illuminati fake all of NZ too? Was she really just in Canada when she thought she flew 18 hours to Oceania? Are all the airlines in the Southern Hemisphere in on this too? When she had the layover in Auckland and ate some street food out of a truck, was she really in Canada the whole time??

When she left NZ how did the Illuminati make 22+ hour flight to the north pole seem like the 8 hour flight to Antarctica? Do they have advanced time-dilation machines now??

If there's supposedly a secret base in the Arctic that masqurades as McMurdo, how do they keep the tens of thousands of people who've been to McMurdo from countries all across the world quiet? That's a complicated conspiracy to manage.


>>9710537
If I were to tell you right now that i've been to the Antarctic and saw a 24 hour day you would just call it anecdotal evidence and dismiss it. Like you've done this whole thread.

>>9710565
I said "Summer season". The summer season in the Antarctic is October to March. That's when they fly in the majority of their seasonal workers because they only do emergency flights in the 24 hour night winter season, which is April to September.

Your obviously an American kid because you saw the word "summer" and thought May-August. Did you miss the part in high school where they taught you the other hemisphere has opposite seasons to the US?

The only one confused in this thread is you.

[Anonymous No.9711329]

>earth is flat

[Anonymous No.9711353]

>>9711270
>How would the magnetic field affect prevailing winds???

There are other forces at play with the wind, not just the magnetic field.

>How would the stars, which are many light years away, affect our magnetic field??

They're not light years away, that's complete bullshit.

>How would they produce a magnetic field that alternates polarity based based on latitude??

Because that's how they are position above the flat earth.

>Why isnt this big magnetic field that apparently strong enough to affect WEATHER not affecting or representative of earth regular magnetic field??

It is representative of the earth's magnetic field, that's the whole point.

>What scientific experiments are you talking about that prove the earth isnt moving???

Michelson-Morely, Sagnac, Airy's failure. Also, Foucault pendulums are actually following the earth's magnetic field (they all use magnets), and they stop working when there's a solar eclipse.

[Anonymous No.9711369]

What if gravity isn't real and we live on a constantly accelerating disc?

[Anonymous No.9711377]

>>9711369
The Moon has gravity too, as evidenced by tides and the moon landings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDp1tiUsZw8
inb4
>it was faked 6 times hurr

[Anonymous No.9711380]

>>9711377
The moon is accelerating along with us!

[Anonymous No.9711391]

>>9711380
Jupiter has moons, and you can see them orbiting with a telescope.

[Anonymous No.9711394]

>>9711316
>the friend
That's a complete lie.

Your friend could not have seen 24 hour sunlight in Antarctica even on the globe model, it's not possible. The reason you can see sunlight for a long time in Antarctica is because the sun is much closer to Antarctica during its circle around the flat earth. Couple this with the high elevation of Antarctica and its extremely clear atmosphere that allows the sunlight through much easier, and there's your answer.

[Anonymous No.9711399]

>>9711391
The entire system is accelerating with us!

[Anonymous No.9711407]

>>9711391
Kek, I just see dancing lights, look at their irregular movements.

[Anonymous No.9711408]

>>9711399
Doesn't make sense, you can see the moons orbiting around Jupiter, no form of constant acceleration would create that effect.

[Anonymous No.9711416]

>>9711407
>moron can't even grasp basic patterns
Must be hard living with a level IQ.

[Anonymous No.9711418]

>>9711416
*retard level IQ

[Anonymous No.9711440]

>>9710772
>>9710847

Swallow your pride brainlets, the sun is not 93 million miles away, it is much closer and is moving around us. How can you explain the localised hotspot on the clouds from this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGETGMJU7CQ

[Anonymous No.9711443]

>>9711418
No, sorry, only retards like you forget words.

[Anonymous No.9711446]

>>9711440
please do everyone a favor and try to throw yourself off the edge of the "flat" earth. you cant but the hope is you freeze to death in the attempt thereby nullifying the possibility of passing on your obviously flawed genetics.

[Anonymous No.9711461]

>>9711443
Fuck, guess flat earth is right then
Close down all physics lectures guys, delete all human achievements realized so far, i made a typo, time to restart everything from scratch

[Anonymous No.9711471]

>>9711446
There's no edge imbecile.

>>9711461
Good idea. Oh dear, does pic related show the sun getting smaller as it sets? Checkmate.

[Anonymous No.9711480]

>>9711471
why do mods allow this trash?
whatever their reasons are, they're not good enough. Take your garbage back to x/ where it belongs

[Anonymous No.9711493]

>>9711471
If the sun was really going farther away as your "model" says, then the sun at midday would appear to move in the sky much faster than it does at sunset when it's much further away, instead if you actually observe the sun during it's trek across the sky you'll see it always has the same apparent speed regardless of it's position, which is impossible under your "model".

[Anonymous No.9711499]

>>9711480
Globe cultist getting mad, you belong in /x/

>>9711493
That's true and it does get slower as it sets, gif related.

[Anonymous No.9711506]

>>9711499
>gif related
Are you fucking serious?
get the fuck out of here

[Anonymous No.9711528]

>>9711506
Go find a dark matter thread brainlet, only real science is allowed in here.

[Anonymous No.9711533]

>>9711528
>real science
yeah, like looking at gifs or youtube vids online
you're fucking pathetic dude

[Anonymous No.9711534]

>>9711499
It's also important to note that the sun is doing two movements, it circles but also moves forwards and backwards as outline here: >>9706588

[Anonymous No.9711536]

>>9711408
Maybe they're orbiting on the same plane so there is no change in acceleration.

[Anonymous No.9711545]

>>9711533
You buffoon, that would mean you could disregard anything on youtube as unscientific, even your favourite vsauce "scientist".

[Anonymous No.9711548]

>>9707827

>trusting your eyesight to someone who can't even work the Magic Wand tool in Photoshop

[Anonymous No.9711558]

>>9711545
You don't know shit about me.
You could easily measure the sun's speed across the sky during a day and fucking calculate with math the truth for yourself, but you'll never do that because you're too far invested into your conspiracy theory and shattering that would make you feel bad.

[Anonymous No.9711579]

>>9711558
I know for a fact vsauce is your favourite youtuber.

The sun gets smaller and slows down the further away it gets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz_jBGga0js

[Anonymous No.9711582]

>>9711579
>another youtube vid
yeah, thanks for proving me right

[Anonymous No.9711609]

>>9711582
Attacking the video host rather than the content, classic ad hominem tactic. Go back to Tumblr, only sound logic is tolerated in here.

[Anonymous No.9711615]

>>9711609
I'm attacking you and your methods of using youtube instead of reality to prove things about nature, you absolute fucking retarded moron.

[Anonymous No.9711623]

>>9711615

Not sure if you've noticed, but we're on an IMAGE board you cretinous bozo, what do you expect?

Clearly you believe dark matter exists, and yet you can't even film that, let alone put it on youtube. Your beliefs have far less evidence.

[Anonymous No.9711628]

>>9711623
>either you believe in dark matter or the earth is flat
Are you so fucking retarded to reduce everything to this? I never mentioned dark matter anywhere.

[Anonymous No.9711634]

>>9711628
Since you're in the globe cult, it would be logical to infer you believe dark matter exists also.

[Anonymous No.9711650]

>>9711634
Stop replying to me please, it's embarrassing talking to such inbred retarded shitstains like you.

[Anonymous No.9711668]

>>9711650
Quiet stardust boy, your fallaciousness is interfering with the real scientific discussion about earth's physical nature. Go and daydream about visiting a black hole with Hawking you sci-fi cultist.

[Anonymous No.9711735]

[Anonymous No.9711785]

My favorite quote from a flat earth scientist is “A hyuk hyuk derp”. He noticed the earth dunt look right one morning through his gas station sunglasses as he was cleaning out some gutters and knew he was right and those godless postdocs were wrong.

[Anonymous No.9711794]

>>9711785
>Implying postdocs actually bother to prove the earth's shape using science, rather than just regurgitating what they've been taught without first hand observation.

[Anonymous No.9711798]

>>9711440
It's a reflection, which is why it is directly between you and the Sun, always between you and the Sun, never directly below the Sun.

>>9711394
>Your friend could not have seen 24 hour sunlight in Antarctica even on the globe model, it's not possible.
You know nothing about the globe model if you claim this. Nothing about the globe model prevents this, in fact, it facilitates this.
It doesn't work under YOUR model, which is why you try to undermine it.

>>9711316
>Your obviously an American kid because you saw the word "summer" and thought May-August. Did you miss the part in high school where they taught you the other hemisphere has opposite seasons to the US?
You are confused. That's what I said, I was on your side.
Yeah, the Summer season is six months long on both sides, but you only get 24 hour Sun directly at the poles for six months, everywhere further North (or South) has less days of 24 hour Sun.
I don't know the exact times but if she was standing on land then it probably wasn't within October or March. I just chose December because it's bang in the middle. It's still basically the opposite time of the year that you would experience 24 hour Sun in the Arctic.

[Anonymous No.9711844]

>>9711634
>claims the sun gets smaller
>posts a gif of it remaining the same size
>b-but a gap grows between the top of the sun and the top of the circle!
That's just because the circle goes from moving down and to the left every frame to moving down or to the left every frame once the Sun starts to disappear behind the horizon.
It's subtle but it's clearly deliberate, some flat earth moron tried to be dishonest as usual.

[Anonymous No.9711870]

>>9711798
You would not get a small reflection like that from a sun that was 93 million miles away and 2.7 million miles in circumference, that was lighting up the entire half of the earth all at once as well as the moon and other planets in the solar system, it's simply impossible.

>You know nothing about the globe model if you claim this. Nothing about the globe model prevents this, in fact, it facilitates this.
>It doesn't work under YOUR model, which is why you try to undermine it.

This imaginary friend went to McMurdo station, which is on the coast of Antarctica, you're not going to see the 24 hour sun from there, you have to go much deeper to see it, which pleb tourists won't be allowed to do.

[Anonymous No.9711915]

>>9709182
not really retard, even babilonians, greeks and all crhistians in the mediaval era knew the earth was a globe. Only jews, shitskins and niggers like you ever believe in "muh flat earth"

[Anonymous No.9711921]

>>9711870
>This imaginary friend went to McMurdo station, which is on the coast of Antarctica, you're not going to see the 24 hour sun from there, you have to go much deeper to see it, which pleb tourists won't be allowed to do.
This shows how little you know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circle
Everywhere within the Antarctic Circle will have at least one day of 24 hour Sun during summer, on the edge it is the Summer Solstice.
At McMurdo station you'd easily have more than a month of 24 hour Sun.

>You would not get a small reflection like that from a sun that was 93 million miles away and 2.7 million miles in circumference, that was lighting up the entire half of the earth all at once as well as the moon and other planets in the solar system, it's simply impossible.
It's not impossible, you just don't understand it. You have practically the same affect when looking at a body of water in the same direction as the Sun.

[Anonymous No.9712550]

>>9710372
"anecdotal evidence" is one of those terms like "theory" which is used colloquially in a different sense from its meaning in science.
you could have fifty security cameras pointing at the scene of an accident, and yet those recordings would still be anecdotal evidence for the purpose of studying traffic accidents (because it's a single cherry-picked event rather than a controlled experiment or properly sampled study).

[Anonymous No.9712564]

>>9710540
No it does not. It blurs out, and the horizon becomes too indistinct to see because of all the bloom.

If you guys were actually serious, you'd try to "recover" the setting sun by zooming in on it while masking most of the sun, like actual scientists do to study the corona. that way you could focus on it without getting a bunch of photographic artifacts.
but you're not actually interested in the evidence; you're just trying to fool people who are dumber than you are.

[Anonymous No.9712574]

>>9711353
>how does this work?
>IT JUST DOES, STOP ASKING QUESTIONS

>Michelson-Morely, Sagnac, Airy's failure
according to these experiments, the Earth COULD not be moving...or it could just be that there's no such thing as luminiferous ether. given the abundance of other evidence that the Earth IS moving, guess which one we pick?

>Foucault pendulums are actually following the earth's magnetic field (they all use magnets), and they stop working when there's a solar eclipse
almost every solar eclipse, scientists observe Foucault pendulums to see if there is some weird effect. there hasn't been any observed.

[Anonymous No.9712582]

Y'all know you're feeding the trolls, right? As long as you're having fun...
>>9707885
>because it's about the lulz from getting you to respond.

[Anonymous No.9712587]

>>9711440
>I'm too retarded to understand reflections or bloom
>therefore the Earth is flat!

>>9711471
>can only see a sliver of the sun during sunset
>LOOK THE SUN WAS A BIG BALL BUT NOW IT'S A TINY SLIVER, IT SHRANK

>>9711499
anything is possible with sufficiently poor picture quality
if you flatheads were at all serious, you'd pool some money, buy a decent camera, and try to document the effects you claim are taking place. but amazingly enough you never do, for some reason. really dinks you dink.

[Anonymous No.9712605]

>>9712550
You're right, but that example is similar.
If you use the data from that one intersection to apply nationwide then it would be anecdotal, but if it was just to be applied to that intersection then it would not be.

[Anonymous No.9712613]

>>9705444
REEEEEE

[Anonymous No.9712950]

>>9711921
Brainlet globalist, do some research. The shortest day of the month is March 31, with 9 hours, 59 minutes of daylight and the longest day is March 1, with 17 hours, 52 minutes of daylight - this is at McMurdo Station, no 24 hour sunlight you fraud.

>It's not impossible, you just don't understand it. You have practically the same affect when looking at a body of water in the same direction as the Sun.

Come on brainlet, the reason the sun does the same thing on the water is because the sun is a few thousand miles away and much, much smaller. The sun rays are not parallel, which they should if they were coming from 93 million miles away.

[Anonymous No.9712951]

>>9711915
Dumb globecuck, you don't think the masons haven't re-written ancient history?

[Anonymous No.9712957]

>>9711921
Show me a flight I can buy right now to get to McMurdo Station you fraudulent cretin.

>It's not impossible, you just don't understand it. You have practically the same affect when looking at a body of water in the same direction as the Sun.
Come on brainlet, that's because the sun is a few thousand miles away and much, much smaller than you're fantasy model states.

[Anonymous No.9712971]

>>9712564
Your globe propaganda ain't fooling me. The sun moves closer and further away above the flat plane, it's Occam's Razor in play, you can't compete with your nutty orbiting heliocentric bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9712992]

>>9712951
>>9712971
tinfoil conspiracy nutjobs, take that razor and firmly plant it in your necks please, you'll do humanity a great favor

[Anonymous No.9712998]

>>9712992
I'll use it to slice up your faggy globe, thanks.

[Anonymous No.9713010]

[Anonymous No.9713015]

[Anonymous No.9713021]

[Anonymous No.9713028]

[Anonymous No.9713033]

[Anonymous No.9713036]

>>9706481
shouldnt the ASAN space tweet be curved as well if it was shot with a fisheye?

[Anonymous No.9713039]

[Anonymous No.9713045]

[Anonymous No.9713065]

>>9713039
im from au and we never see the big dipper...

but i can see the southern cross all year...

[Anonymous No.9713073]

>>9713065
Silly brainlet, it's visible all year round for those in the northern hemiplane, impossible if we're orbiting the sun.

[Anonymous No.9713091]

[Anonymous No.9713094]

>>9712957
>Show me a flight I can buy right now to get to McMurdo Station you fraudulent cretin.
Start with contacting Air New Zealand, as they do charter flights out of Christchurch.
http://wheretonext.airnewzealand.co.nz/
>b-but I want to book on tripadvisor!
Oh boo hoo.

>Come on brainlet, that's because the sun is a few thousand miles away and much, much smaller than you're fantasy model states.
No, there are several problems with this. The first being if you do the geometry for the reflection you will get a wildly different result for the distance to the Sun and it's height above the ground than you do with the attempted geometry from the crepuscular rays.
Second, the reflection is exactly the same as what you observe if you stand on the shore of a lake or pond, except you are further away. When you are right on the shore of the lake you see a reflection that is roughly the size the Sun appears to you. If you climb a hill and look down on the lake you again see a reflection roughly the size the Sun appears to you, now it may cover the entire lake. You get up in a plane and now you witness the same thing.
This is why it is always between you and the Sun, it's a reflection, not a hot spot.

>>9712971
>it's Occam's Razor in play
In a single instance perhaps you could use Occam's Razor in this way, but taking the entire heliocentric model and comparing it to the flat earth or geocentric model Occam's Razor is clearly on the heliocentric side because what we actually realized is that Earth is not special.

>>9713028
I honestly hope this is jest. There are direct flights from Australia to South Africa, and that's Saudi Arabia the line is going to on the globe.

>>9713073
>>9713039
Why? Can you even explain why it would be impossible?

[Anonymous No.9713096]

[Anonymous No.9713098]

>>9713091
The antenna that's sticking out in the bottom image is not straight.
I suggest you try lens correcting the image for the known straight object in the frame rather than for the horizon, which you want to be straight.

[Anonymous No.9713100]

>>9713096
>south points in different directions for different places on the southern hemisphere
>but all places in the southern hemisphere can use the southern cross to find south, which is magically everywhere at once
Who are the brainlets who make these things?
Also, absolute lol at that lack of understanding how magnetic fields work. They even use the magnet and iron filling arguments. They should be able to get this.

[Anonymous No.9713148]

>>9713094

>Start with contacting Air New Zealand, as they do charter flights out of Christchurch.

Why's this so difficult and expensive? Yes, I do want to just use tripadvisor, there's no reason why that shouldn't be possible unless something's being hidden.

>the reflection is exactly the same as what you observe if you stand on the shore of a lake or pond, except you are further away. When you are right on the shore of the lake you see a reflection that is roughly the size the Sun appears to you. If you climb a hill and look down on the lake you again see a reflection roughly the size the Sun appears to you, now it may cover the entire lake. You get up in a plane and now you witness the same thing.
This is why it is always between you and the Sun, it's a reflection, not a hot spot.

No, it's a hotspot. What's pic related if not a hotspot? Can't believe you actually think that's 93 million miles away - reflections don't work like that.

>In a single instance perhaps you could use Occam's Razor in this way, but taking the entire heliocentric model and comparing it to the flat earth or geocentric model Occam's Razor is clearly on the heliocentric side because what we actually realized is that Earth is not special.

Yes the earth is special you abhorrent buffoon, it's the only one with life on it for a start. Your model has to go through so much mental gymnastics and ridiculous coincidences to even begin to make "sense".

>Why? Can you even explain why it would be impossible?

Because think about it, when look at out at the sky, you are looking away from the sun out at a part of the universe. In 6 months, you are on the oppsite side of the sun, looking out at a completely different part of the universe, and yet you can still see the same constellations, which is impossible because you can't see directly through the sun.

[Anonymous No.9713159]

>>9713148
>Why's this so difficult and expensive?
Because not enough people are going down there to have it as a regular booked route.
Also they want to keep Antarctica fairly clean and free of introduced pests.
It's not actually that difficult to get down there, I know a few people who have, but it's just not your average booked flight.

>>9713148
>What's pic related if not a hotspot?
It's a reflection.
>reflections don't work like that.
Except they do. You've seen them work like that but you just won't admit to it.

>Yes the earth is special you abhorrent buffoon, it's the only one with life on it for a start.
You lack evidence that Earth is the only planet with life on it. We only have proper experience with our own planet. Also, life has absolutely nothing to do with the planet.

>Because think about it, when look at out at the sky, you are looking away from the sun out at a part of the universe. In 6 months, you are on the oppsite side of the sun, looking out at a completely different part of the universe, and yet you can still see the same constellations, which is impossible because you can't see directly through the sun.
What if it just does not cross the plane of the Sun? By the looks of things the Big Dipper is reasonably high up in the sky so I don't see any reason why the Sun should come between us and it.

[Anonymous No.9713162]

>>9713148
>t LARPmaster Caesar
Just keep to your usual shtick that these are made up photos.

[Anonymous No.9713180]

>>9713159
>Also they want to keep Antarctica fairly clean and free of introduced pests.

Kek, since when did the governments of the world give a shit about that? They're hiding something, it's blatantly obvious.

>It's a reflection.
>Except they do. You've seen them work like that but you just won't admit to it.

You're claiming that's a reflection of an object 93 million miles away and thousands of times bigger than the earth. Talk about assumptions.

>You lack evidence that Earth is the only planet with life on it. We only have proper experience with our own planet. Also, life has absolutely nothing to do with the planet.

The earth is unique in every way compared to other "planets", but in your model its shape is not special. I'm afraid that's wrong as well, it's flat (no measurable curvature anywhere).

>What if it just does not cross the plane of the Sun? By the looks of things the Big Dipper is reasonably high up in the sky so I don't see any reason why the Sun should come between us and it.

There should be a completely different set of stars after 6 months.

[Anonymous No.9713204]

>>9713180
>Kek, since when did the governments of the world give a shit about that?
Many countries have areas or islands that they're trying to keep pest free or eradicate pests on. Again, you are showing your ignorance.

>>9713180
>You're claiming that's a reflection of an object 93 million miles away and thousands of times bigger than the earth.
Yes. It isn't an assumption, again look at a lake sometime.

>The earth is unique in every way compared to other "planets"
No. It is a roughly spherical rock orbiting a star.
There are gas giants, that are considerably different, but if you want to look at it that way every planet is as unique as Earth and in that way Earth is not special.

>I'm afraid that's wrong as well, it's flat (no measurable curvature anywhere).
Except it has been measured.

>There should be a completely different set of stars after 6 months.
You're failing to comprehend the distances involved here. We're able to measure them thanks to the parallax caused by the distance we move in those six months. Even though it is the same method you use in trying to prove the distance to the Sun, you refuse to accept those measurements.

[Anonymous No.9713222]

>>9713028

Wrong

https://fr.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA63
https://fr.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA64

[Anonymous No.9713227]

>>9713204
>Many countries have areas or islands that they're trying to keep pest free or eradicate pests on. Again, you are showing your ignorance.

No one actually owns Antarctica you brainlet, so how can there be laws and regulations?

>Yes. It isn't an assumption, again look at a lake sometime.

I'll be looking at the reflection of a close, localised sun.

>No. It is a roughly spherical rock orbiting a star.

Thicko. Zero evidence of this.

>There are gas giants, that are considerably different, but if you want to look at it that way every planet is as unique as Earth and in that way Earth is not special.

You're talking about "planets" you've never been to, you've just seen CGI images of them. They're just lights in the sky, that's all you know.

>Except it has been measured.
That's where you're wrong again. It has not been physically measured - flatness however is measured all the time, look at the Bolivian salt flats, Kansas, frozen lakes/oceans, you name it, there's no curvature.

>You're failing to comprehend the distances involved here.

Nope, anyone who thinks the stars are millions/billions/trillions of light years away needs medication.

[Anonymous No.9713237]

>>9713222
>https://fr.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA64

There's zero radar for the majority of that flight, funny that.

[Anonymous No.9713243]

>>9713237

Not an argument for your position, what we have is enough to know that FE is retarded.

https://www.metabunk.org/flat/

[Anonymous No.9713252]

>>9713237

You can also check
https://fr.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA28
https://fr.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA27

more radar for your tastes

[Anonymous No.9713266]

>>9713243
Mick West you're utterly retarded and your "reasoning" and "evidence" stinks. You're clearly a government shill.

[Anonymous No.9713269]

>>9713252
Kek, still far too much missing radar. What's their problem? This is the 21st century, there should be radar everywhere. Hiding something, I see.

[Anonymous No.9713271]

>>9713269
>This is the 21st century, there should be radar everywhere.
You don't even know what radar is, do you?

[Anonymous No.9713276]

>>9713266

I'm not Mick West, i'm French.

[Anonymous No.9713279]

>>9713269

Let me guess, if there were radar everywhere you would scream Fake ! and Shill ! anyway.

Why do you want to go back to science of the -1000 BCE ?

[Anonymous No.9713303]

>>9706650
This is why flat earth theory exists.They think they're Neo agaisnt a swarm of Mr.Smiths. You guys alredy figured that out, right?

[Anonymous No.9713314]

>>9713271
Yes brainlet, I do.

>>9713276
Stop shilling for him.

>>9713279
Don't you find it odd that there isn't radar for the whole journey? Is not that just a little suspicious? Or are you just completely naive?

[Anonymous No.9713349]

>>9713096
Looks like the flat earth is a magnetic monopole

[Anonymous No.9713365]

>>9713100
>Pretending they know how the magnetic field works

>>9713349
Fits better than the globe bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9713369]

>>9713314

just that the area is not really used and building/setting up radars there isnt worth the endeavour.

so, what about moon phases?

[Anonymous No.9713373]

>>9713365
So you're confirming the stars moving around the earth create a magnetic monopole?

[Anonymous No.9713383]

>>9713369
>just that the area is not really used and building/setting up radars there isnt worth the endeavour.

Suuure.

>so, what about moon phases?
The moon is its own light source. Measure the temp of moonlight, it is colder than moonshade.

>>9713373
If you isolate the northern stars, yes.

[Anonymous No.9713391]

>>9713383
How are the northern stars different from the southern stars?

I'm also wondering how I can make my own magnetic monopole in a similar way on a smaller scale, trying to get started with this idea here.

[Anonymous No.9713498]

>>9713391
>How are the northern stars different from the southern stars?

That's like asking how is one ceiling different from another? That's just how it is.

>I'm also wondering how I can make my own magnetic monopole in a similar way on a smaller scale, trying to get started with this idea here.

Go to the north pole and camp under polaris.

[Anonymous No.9713520]

>>9713498
No I need to have a magnetic monopole here so i need to make one like how the stars do

[Anonymous No.9713555]

>>9713520
Magnetism requires two opposite poles to work, can't have one without the other. In the same way you can't make a complete electrical circuit with without positive and negative.

[Anonymous No.9713855]

>>9713383
>The moon is its own light source.

Hahaha. So many pictures of the moon prove this is wrong.

[Anonymous No.9714081]

>>9707956
>Flat earthers aren't interested in building a coherent worldview, they're just conspiracy theorists who desperately want to be in on some big secret.
absolutely wrong. they are 110% trolls. not a single one of them believes this drivel. it's just the malevolent failed-chad-but-also-failed nerd taking it out on autistic eggheads who can be relied upon to respond to bait.

[Anonymous No.9714456]

>>9713227
>No one actually owns Antarctica you brainlet, so how can there be laws and regulations?
Because the countries with stakes in Antarctica decided to come together and make laws and regulations. If you want to get into it then ownership is just who is in control, because it's not like any country has purchased ownership of their land from someone else (inb4 there is one case of this).

>I'll be looking at the reflection of a close, localised sun.
As long as you're recognizing it is the same effect, that's good enough.

>Zero evidence of this.
A lot of evidence of this.

>You're talking about "planets" you've never been to, you've just seen CGI images of them. They're just lights in the sky, that's all you know.
I've seen Jupiter and Saturn through a telescope. I've seen the different colored clouds of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn. They're not just lights in the sky.

>It has not been physically measured
Yeah, it has. You can go an measure a large triangle over several kilometers and find the angles don't add up to 180 due to the curvature of the Earth for yourself.

>Nope, anyone who thinks the stars are millions/billions... of light years away needs medication.
Reality doesn't give two shits about your credulity. This has been measured.

>>9713269
Radar requires radar stations and the range is not infinite. Countries have it almost completely covering their land masses because they need it for flight control, but over the ocean there's not really anywhere to put the radar or power it, also no one owns those areas so who would be in charge of them.
The important part though is that if the plane went anywhere near land it would be picked up by radar, and it's not. You can cry all you want but the simple fact is that it is not going anywhere near land until it reaches South Africa, and none of the passengers report making stopovers.

[Anonymous No.9715506]

>>9713855
Pictures are scientific proof of the moon's light source?

>>9714081
You can keep saying that but you're going to look stupid in the future.

>>9714456
>Because the countries with stakes in Antarctica decided to come together and make laws and regulations. If you want to get into it then ownership is just who is in control, because it's not like any country has purchased ownership of their land from someone else (inb4 there is one case of this).

Sure kid, if no one owns it then no laws can be put in place.

>I've seen Jupiter and Saturn through a telescope. I've seen the different colored clouds of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn. They're not just lights in the sky.

No you haven't, you just saw light.

>You can go an measure a large triangle over several kilometers and find the angles don't add up to 180 due to the curvature of the Earth for yourself.

Bullshit, Gauss never proved the curvature of the Earth, nor has anyone else.

>Reality doesn't give two shits about your credulity. This has been measured.

You're a fantasist if you think your eyes can see light from trillions of miles away, you're not superman you weirdo.

>Radar requires radar stations and the range is not infinite. Countries have it almost completely covering their land masses because they need it for flight control, but over the ocean there's not really anywhere to put the radar or power it, also no one owns those areas so who would be in charge of them.

Excuses on top of excuses, pathetic.

[Anonymous No.9715526]

>>9715506

This is tiresome, you have no proof. Go troll on another topic.