After attending several seminars on the subject, I am fairly convinced the Earth is, in fact, flat.
>ITT: we discuss Flat/Round Earth
I'll post some of the most compelling evidence I have:
If the sun were truly 93 million miles away, then all light that finally reached earth would have to be running parallel when it reaches us. Yet, when you see the sun's rays beaming through the clouds - at all angles - you can see that that's CLEARLY not the case. The sun's apparent movement in the sky works both ways, mathematically.
From all altitudes, as far as your eye can see, the horizon is completely flat and raises to eye level. The supposed curve of the earth is actually just the vanishing point of your vision from your perspective.
Whatever rocks your boat. #redpilled
Learn to question things. You might learn something.
The statue of liberty stands 326 feet above sea level, and on a clear day can be seen upwards of 60 miles away. On a ball with 25,000 miles in circumference, the statue should be over 2,000 feet below/behind the horizon.
taking the bait here:
First "Evidence" is an optical illusion. The sunrays are infact (almost) parallel.
Second "evidence" those are panorama shots which make it look like the horizon is flat.
Being this bad at physics/trolling
sure. Good argument. lol
implying what they feed you isn't fish eye images.
pic fucking related.
Unless of course the sun was much larger than the earth. Causing the sun's rays to hit the earth from many different angles. Also, You can see the curve of the earth, it is just so massive that it seems like it is flat.
being this bad at arguing.
A natural and observable property of water is for it to find and maintain level in its container. We're told that on a large enough scale it curves, yet the curve is not independently observable. In fact, the opposite is true.
>Causing the sun's rays to hit the earth from many different angles.
Yeah, because you can clearly see that's what's happening in the picture. lol
>You can see the curve of the earth, it is just so massive that it seems like it is flat.
No, you can't. Even in a round earth model, perceived curvature is an illusion, even from the highest mountains.
To all you indoctrinated nay sayers, here's a good one:
You could measure curvature, if it actually existed. They say the round earth is 25,000 miles in circumference. So, using spherical trigonometry, the curvature figures to 8 inches per mile squared. The mile is squared so the first mile is 8 inches, 8x1x1 = 8, the second miles 8x2x2 = 32, the third mile is 8x3x3=72 etc.
This is the kind of curvature you would see on a ball 25,000 miles in circumference. Even if it were 100,000 miles in circumference there would be a measurable curve, that is just not observed except when viewed through a convex window or using a lens effect.
MEMES METALEROS JEFE VAMOS A ESCUCHAR GENITALLICA Y A PRENDER UNA VELAAAAAA JEFEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
ASI ASI SI
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" - Albert Einstein
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
A lot of the biggest proponents of Flat Earth Theory are those who started out determined to prove it was wrong. So, be my guest and disprove it. Be intellectually honest and really look at the evidence.
Or don't. Be a troll. Be closed minded and mock people for seeking the truth. Curl up with your warm safety blanket of indoctrination and have a great laugh.
I pretty much had the same reaction to the Flat Earth thing as you do about a year ago. Hundreds of hours of research changed my tune.
Have you ever even been on a plane?
The curvature is visible.
>taking the b8
Do you even understand the math?
Simple test: try making the same visual observation using binoculars, a telescope or even a camera with zoom. It's shocking how boats that are supposedly below the Earth's curve suddenly appear with the aid of “magic” optics.
It’s all about perspective and, to a certain degree, refraction. Things start disappearing at the convergence point. At the horizon, this means from the bottom up.
Do you know what occam's razor is? That's what I'm going off of. Go to space and look for yourself if you really want to know? Also what's with all the other planets being spheres? Or are they perfectly facing us always? Or do you think planets are made up by the government?
LOL. Fucking tard. Even round earth scientists agree that you can't see the (supposed) curvature from a plane. They attribute that to a combination of refraction, the windows used on the plane and wishful thinking.
looks like you don't know the relative speed of the objects. you have the same speed with the earth and its atmosphere while on standstill, the amount of speed you use to accelerate can be calculated from 0 no doubt.
also, if earth is flat, explain the concept of gravity.
In the Flat Earth model, 'gravity', rather than being a force, is the upward acceleration of the Earth. The Earth always accelerates upward at 1g, which is equivalent to the gravitational acceleration in the Round Earth model. Like the force of gravity, the Earth's acceleration causes several commonly observed phenomena in our daily lives.
Due to special relativity, this is not the case. At this point, many will question the validity of any answer which uses advanced, intimidating-sounding physics terms to explain a position. However, it is true. The relevant equation is v/c = tanh (at/c). One will find that in this equation, tanh(at/c) can never exceed or equal 1. This means that velocity can never reach the speed of light, regardless of how long one accelerates for and the rate of the acceleration.
>Go to space and look for yourself if you really want to know
lol obviously easy thing to do.
As for other planets, Earth is "special" as in truly sui generis. “Other planets” aren't giant distant globes as we've been told. Referred to as the "wandering stars" by Flat Earthers, these are seen as heavenly bodies that project light, and mainly differ from stars only in their motion movement.
Replied here: >>673375855
Except the only "samples" we have are fish eyed. See: >>673374564
lol Learn2spherical geometry, retard.
NASA alone, since it's inception, has been sucking up hundreds of billions in tax dollars. More importantly, though, it all boils down to control and power. The “science” religion takes humanity from a place of supreme importance and replaces it with random accidents of chance. Nothing turned into everything for no apparent reason. We're taught not to question the other side because it's "stupid". This is how they indoctrinate us and know we’re under their control.
LOL nigger. Your cell phone and GPS ain't working on flat earth. Lol troll or not, I love how dum so many buttfucking niggers are.
Op, how do you explain that we have millions of photos from astronauts and satellites that AREN'T from fish eye lenses that clearly show the earth is round, but not a single one casting any doubt on that. Do you really think anyone cares enough or has enough power to maintain a conspiracy like that?
Have YOU ever done it? Didn't think so.
If you did, you would've figured you were fed fish eye images. See: >>673374564
it's Astral PLANE, you fucking ignorant piece of shit. Also, that's philosophical, not scientific.
Yeah, right... if you pay upfront I'll gladly try it.
How did Loran work with no satellites? Pseudollites are stationed around the disk, and your position is triangulated from these beacons.
The sun circles the Earth, making a ring above the plain from a distance of around 3,500 miles. Sunlight is only visible for about a third of the earth at a given time. It has a diameter of around 32 miles, which explains why we cannot see the sun from all spots at all times.
How many pictures do we have from private enterprise and non-government agencies? How many pictures do even these have that aren't admittedly "composites"?
You can't see curvature from that height. The level of the earth escapes you before you reach the curve, Even from the ISS you cannot view the curvature of the earth. you need to go many hundreds of miles above where Geosynchronous sattelites orbit, to view curvature, or the sphere of earth. There is no where on earth within the atmosphere can you see curvature.
NASA, with all of the missions and years of the space program, only have two supposedly legitimate pictures of the earth that they actually claim are something other than "composite images". TWO. Even those are laughable with copy/paste cloud formations, continents of different sizes, and a plethora of gross errors.
Just a question, saying the Earth is accelerating upwards into space or whatever. Does that mean if you shoot a bullet directly upwards, it should land exactly where you shot it from?
Or are you going to make up some more bullshit variables about how you the Earth would move sideways now?
Special relativity. It will go up and down, just like in the round earth model. See: >>673375855
No actually, in the round earth model, the earth spins and a bullet never lands at the same place.
The picture you posted literally has nothing to do with what I asked.
I'm going to bed, done with this toddler level bait.
Not a troll. Just want to discuss valid, plausible ideas. Guess the blanket of indoctrination is too comfy for /b/tards.
Except Nasa 'eats' so little of the budget that this literally makes no sense. You Could link flat earth to anything from third wave feminism, to fucking lizard mole 1%ers. Yet you attribute this 'denial of flat earth' to further the goals and whatnot of an agency thats takes less than 1% of budget.Its more like tens of billions per year. Don't be so daft. That is almost nothing compared to say military spending, or social services. Which is what every other spending reason falls under. Even more confusing, if this is the case then why aren't Russian and chinese space programs shitting down the throat of every other country showing and proving everything you said here? It would undermine american intelligence and standing. "If they are lying about something as fundamental as the shape of earth, how do you know they will decend you in attack?" but as many anons say, if you want to prove it your self go and buy a camera, any camera of your choice. Ensure it does not have 'fish eye' lens and attach it to a weather balloon.
>the earth spins and a bullet never lands at the same place.
LOLOLOLOLOL being this much of a retard. Even in a round earth model, the bullet spins with the earth because of the atmosphere.
It's something I don't have the answer to and I'd gladly discuss.
More like a spotlight.
On we go to the top 10 ways to know the Earth is unequivocally, absolutely, positively, 100% not flat:
(1) The Moon
Now that humanity knows quite positively that the Moon is not a piece of cheese or a playful god, the phenomena that accompany it (from its monthly cycles to lunar eclipses) are well-explained. It was quite a mystery to the ancient Greeks, though, and in their quest for knowledge, they came up with a few insightful observations that helped humanity figure out the shape of our planet.
Aristotle (who made quite a lot of observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth’s, and it’s a great clue on the spherical shape of the Earth.
Since the earth is rotating (see the “Foucault Pendulum” experiment for a definite proof, if you are doubtful), the consistent oval-shadow it produces in each and every lunar eclipse proves that the earth is not only round but spherical – absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat.
(2) Ships and the Horizon
If you’ve been next to a port lately, or just strolled down a beach and stared off vacantly into the horizon, you might have, perhaps, noticed a very interesting phenomenon: approaching ships do not just “appear” out of the horizon (like they should have if the world was flat), but rather emerge from beneath the sea.
But – you say – ships do not submerge and rise up again as they approach our view (except in “Pirates of the Caribbean”, but we are hereby assuming that was a fictitious movie). The reason ships appear as if they “emerge from the waves” is because the world is not flat: it’s round. Imagine an ant walking along the surface of an orange, into your field of view. If you look at the orange “head on”, you will see the ant’s body slowly rising up from the “horizon”, because of the curvature of the Orange. If you would do that experiment with a long road, the effect would have changed: The ant would have slowly ‘materialized’ into view, depending on how sharp your vision is.
3) Varying Star Constellations
This observation was originally made by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who declared the Earth was round judging from the different constellations one sees while moving away from the equator.
After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and […] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained with a round surface, and Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2-10)
The farther you go from the equator, the farther the ‘known’ constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat.
(4) Shadows and Sticks
If you stick a stick in the [sticky] ground, it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow.
But they don’t. This is because the earth is round, and not flat.
Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE) used this principle to calculate the circumference of the Earth quite accurately.
Foucalt's pendulum doesn't prove anything per se and the Coriolis effect is a shaky “proof”, at best. The water swirl has already been extensively debunked by Flat Earth scientists. Also, why do you think snipers don't take it into consideration when aiming at a long distance?
(5) Seeing Farther from Higher
Standing in a flat plateau, you look ahead of you towards the horizon. You strain your eyes, then take out your favorite binoculars and stare through them, as far as your eyes (with the help of the binocular lenses) can see.
Then, you climb up the closest tree – the higher the better, just be careful not to drop those binoculars and break their lenses. You then look again, strain your eyes, stare through the binoculars out to the horizon.
The higher up you are the farther you will see. Usually, we tend to relate this to Earthly obstacles, like the fact we have houses or other trees obstructing our vision on the ground, and climbing upwards we have a clear view, but that’s not the true reason. Even if you would have a completely clear plateau with no obstacles between you and the horizon, you would see much farther from greater height than you would on the ground.
This phenomena is caused by the curvature of the Earth as well, and would not happen if the Earth was flat.
But, the sun is a giant source of light. If it were that close and that large then the planet would be lit at all times. You are also making no claims as to a change or reduction in mass.
(6) Ride a Plane
If you’ve ever taken a trip out of the country, specifically long-destination trips, you could notice two interesting facts about planes and the Earth:
Planes can travel in a relatively straight line a very long time and not fall off any edges. They can also circle the earth.
If you look out the window on a trans-Atlantic flight, you can, most of the times, see the curvature of the earth in the horizon. The best view of the curvature used to be on the Concorde, but that plane’s long gone.
(7) Look at Other Planets
The Earth is different from other planets, that much is true. After all, we have life, and we haven’t found any other planets with life (yet). However, there are certain characteristics all planets have, and it will be quite logical to assume that if all planets behave a certain way, or show certain characteristics – specifically if those planets are in different places or were created under different circumstances – our planet is the same.
In other words: If so many planets that were created in different locations and under different circumstances show the same property, it’s likely that our own planet has the same property as well. All of our observations show planets are spherical (and since we know how they’re created, it’s also obvious why they are taking this shape). Unless we have a very good reason to think otherwise (which we don’t), our planet is very likely the same.
In 1610, Galileo Galilei observed the moons of Jupiter rotating around it (click here to see a beautiful video reconstruction of his observations). He described them as small planets orbiting a larger planet – a description (and observation) that was very difficult for the church to accept as it followed a geocentric model where everything was supposed to revolve around the Earth. This observation also showed that the planets (Jupiter, Neptune, and later Venus was observed too) are all spherical, and all orbit the sun.
A flat planet (ours or any other planet) would be such an incredible observation that it would pretty much go against everything we know about how planets form and behave. It would not only change everything we know about planet formation, but also about star formation (as our sun would have to behave quite differently to accustom a “flat earth” theory), what we know of speeds and movements in space (like planets orbits, and the effects of gravity, etc). In short, we don’t just suspect that our planet is spherical. We know it
(8) The Existence of Timezones
The time in New York, at the moment these words are written, is 12:00pm. The sun is in the middle of the sky (though it’s hard to see with the current cloud coverage). In Beijing, where Michael Phelps is likely getting ready for yet another gold medal, it’s 12:00am, midnight, and the sun is nowhere to be found.
In Adelaide, Australia, it is 1:30am. More than 13 hours ahead. There, the sunset is long gone – so much so, that it’s soon going to rise up again in the beginning of a new day.
This can only be explained if the world is round, and rotating around its own axis. At a certain point when the sun is shining on one part of the Earth, the opposite side is dark, and vise versa. That allows for time differences and timezones, specifically ones that are larger than 12 hours.
Another point concerning timezones, the sun and flat/spherical Earth: If the sun was a “spotlight” (very directionally located so that light only shines on a specific location) and the world was flat, we would have seen the sun even if it didn’t shine on top of us. The same way you can see the light coming out of a spotlight on a stage in the theater, even though you – the crowd – are in the dark. The only way to create two distinctly separate timezones, where there is complete darkness in one while there’s light in the other, is if the world is spherical.
Instead of simply copy/pasting you should try and lurk and use your own brain for a change.
This has already been addressed here: >>673375593
(9) The Center of Gravity
There’s an interesting fact about mass: it attracts things to it. The force of attraction (gravity) between two objects depends on their mass and the distance between them. Simply said, gravity will pull toward the center of mass of the objects. To find the center of mass, you have to examine the object.
Consider a sphere. Since a sphere has a consistent shape, no matter where on it you stand, you have exactly the same amount of sphere under you. Imagine an ant (perhaps the same one from the previous point) walking around on a crystal ball. Assuming the crystal ball is polished, the ant’s only indication of movement would be the fact it’s moving its feet. The scenery (and shape of the surface) would not change at all.
Consider a flat plane. The center of mass of a flat plane is in its center (more or less – if you want to be more accurate, feel free to do the entire [shriek] integration [shriek] process), and the force of gravity will pull a person toward the middle of the plain. That means that if you stand on the edge of the plane, gravity will be pulling you toward the middle, not straight down like you usually experience.
I am quite positive that even for Australians an apple falls downwards, but if you have your doubts, I urge you to try it out – just make sure it’s nothing that can break or hurt you. Just in case gravity is consistent after all.
The fact that the related photo was made in ms paint makes your argument invalid.
(10) Images from Space
In the past 60 years of the space exploration era of humanity’s history, we’ve launched satellites, probes and people to space. Some of them got back, some of them still float through the solar system (and almost beyond it) and transmit amazing images over to our receivers on Earth.
Here’s a list of some of the pictures we’ve seen from space throughout the years:
October 24, 1946: A group of scientists in the New Mexico desert saw the first grainy photo of the Earth. The photograph was taken from a height of 65 miles (104.6 kilometers) by a 35-millimeter motion picture camera riding on a V-2 missile.
August 14, 1959: First crude photo of the Earth from the Explorer VI satellite. The photo showed a sun-lit area of the Pacific ocean and cloud coverage. It was taken from about 17,000 miles (27,350 kilometers) above the surface.
June 5, 1966: Astronaut Eugene Cernan took this amazing picture of Gemini 9 and the Earth during his EVA (Extravehicular Activity). The spacecraft itself and Cernan’s “umbilical” (the cord that keeps him connected to the spacecraft’s systems) are visible on top of a beautiful background of the Earth.
August 23, 1966: First view of Earth from the Moon. This picture was taken by Lunar Orbiter I when the spacecraft was on its 16th orbit and was just about to pass behind the Moon.
December 29, 1966: A spectacular view of the rising Earth from the Moon, taken by the crew of Apollo 8 after coming out from the other side of the Moon, approximately 239,000 miles (384,000 kilometers) from Earth.
December 1, 1968: Photo of Earth from Apollo 8. This photograph was taken by an 80-mm lense, at a point very close to the Moon.
More pictures from the NASA Missions throughout the years can be found at NASA GRIN Website: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/index.html
More Methods Throughout History
Abu Rayhan Biruni (sometimes known as “The Father of Geodesy“), has managed to calculate the circumference of the Earth using complex triangulation equations. I couldn’t find the actual calculation, or the method, so I can’t judge it this as a relatively easy “DIY” way to do it, but it’s still worth mentioning. If anyone has any more information about the method used, do post in the comments.
Bedford Level Experiment: At the Bedford river in Norfolk, England. The experiments were done initially in order to prove that the Earth is flat. Though the first results of this experiment seemed to agree with the flat-earth contention, later attempts to repeat this experiment agreed with the fact that the Earth is, in fact, spherical.
A Bit of History: Neil Armstrong narrating this video of the Earth as viewed from the Apollo 11 Command Module on its way to the Moon.
Brief List of Manned Missions to Space
In the past 60 years humanity’s quest for Space has produced hundreds of pictures, videos and audio records from more than just the United States. Some of these countries used to be enemies. Some still are. The amount of proofs, from opposing countries and ‘sides’, for the non-flatness of the Earth, if nothing else, should cast serious doubt on any possibility for the existance of “Global Conspiracy”. Here is an abbreviated list of some of the first missions to space:
April 12, 1961 (USSR; Vostok-1): Yuri Gagarin, becomes first man in space.
May 5, 1961 (USA; Mercury-3): Alan Shepard becomes first American in space.
July 21, 1961 (USA; Mercury-4): Gus Grissom performs the second sub-orbital flight at an altitude of 126 miles (203 kilometers).
August 6, 1961 (USSR; Vostok-2): Gherman Titov becomes the first man to spend an entire day in space.
February 20, 1962 (USA; Mercury-6): John Glenn orbits the Earth at a distance of 100-162 miles (161-261 kilometers).
May 24, 1962 (USA; Mercury-7): Scott Carpenter orbits the Earth three times.
August 11, 1962 (USSR; Vostok-3): Andrian Nikolayev leads the first four-day flight, and first “group” flight with Vostok-4.
August 12, 1962 (USSR; Vostok-4): Pavel Popovich mans the other half of the “group” flight with Vostok-4.
October 3, 1962 (USA; Mercury-8): Walter Schirra orbits the Earth six times.
May 15, 1963 (USA; Mercury-9): Gordon Cooper pilots the longest (and last) Mercury mission, lasting 34 hours in space.
June 14, 1963 (USSR; Vostok-5): Valery Bykovsky is the first to stay 5 days in space.
June 16, 1963 (USSR, Vostok-6): Valentina Tereshkova becomes the first woman in space, spending three days in orbit.
You can find a full list of the chronology of manned space missions at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
I need to research more on this particular subject.
Wrong. Pic related.
These were all addressed.
>even in a round earth model
>round earth model
learn to read, you tard.
That's your opinion.
The equator stretches over 25,000 miles, which means the sun moves beyond the vanishing point.
Maybe you should start here:
Oh, also, they are indeed much smaller than they are thought to be (the sun and moon, that is). Before you ask how they are held up in the sky, I'll go ahead and tell you.
Quantum trapping. The magnetic force of the earth, sun and moon make the objects levitate and glide without any friction, roughly along the Capricorn and Cancer belts. These are all positively charged while the sea is negatively charged, which explains the Meisner effect.
This thread is really tiring. Instead of discussing, you people just attack. Anyway, as far as the Lunar Eclipse goes, there is no evidence that the shadow which manifests on the moon during a Lunar Eclipse originates from the earth at all. That shadow could come from any celestial body intersecting the light between the sun and moon.
The only reason the Greeks and ancients (and modern astronomers) are able to predict the Lunar Eclipses was because the predictions are based on recurring charts and tables of past eclipses. It had nothing to do with the shape of the earth or the actual geometry of the cosmos. The Lunar Eclipse is a phenomenon which comes in patterns. By studying these patterns it is possible to predict when the next transit or eclipse will occur. The astronomer can use historic charts and tables with a few equations to predict the time, magnitude, and duration of a future eclipse.
This does not apply only to the eclipse, either: All recurring phenomena such as the transits of planets, occultations of bodies, and precision of paths across the sky are predicable only because they are phenomenons which come in patterns. Astronomers predict celestial events by studying the patterns and predicting when the next occurrence will occur.
>planes don't fall off the earth when flying around the earth
>planes fly in all different directions, so don't give me that fucking bullshit "hurr durr but all the planes are going with the rotation."
>that's not fucking true
>the earth is not flat
>mfw people are really taking this b8
>mfw the b8 is making me rage
>mfw OP got me
>fuck you OP
i think theres evidences of lunar eclipses, one nigger on the other side of the earth goes hey look the sun then the other nigger on the other side of the earth goes hey look he moon.
and you didnt explain solar eclipses where you can literally see the moon go over the sun
So, the earth being flat, it's safe yo assume that these otger entities are flat as well? If that's the case then how does nuclear fusion on the sun, or any star for that matter work? How do the keep their shape. Accelerating up wards at earthly rates would mean that all the material would float out due to fusion. Also. How is there less gravity on the moon? Does it move slower than the earth? This woild mean that the sun moves faster right? Surely, because gravity is stronger there. If thats the case, wouldn't it just leave us behind? If they glide with no friction and are constantly accelerating up then how fast is our total accumulative speed upwards?
Well, I thought it was obvious by now. The Sun is at 3000 miles in altitude and the Moon is slightly below it.
The Solar Eclipse occurs when the Moon passes in front of the Sun. The Solar Eclipse does not occur everywhere on earth at once. It occurs only on a narrow strip of land.
The people who can see the sun during the event are not located on this narrow strip. They are looking at an angle where the two do not line up.
Yes, let's just shoot a million questions. Fuck you, learn to use the thread.
Lol. Because the moon needs to be bigger to cover your view of the sun? Oh, right.. because that's how eclipses work on the round earth model? LOL
You are all wrong.... THIS is an actual photo of the earth.
How does quantum mechanics work? What are quarks? How are they different from other subatomic particles? How does quantum mechanics correlated with classical physics?
Now see how fun it is to answer all of that at once, you stupid faggot.
Obviously, you tard. You don't need the moon to be bigger than the sun to have it cover it fully from your view. That's exactly the point.
Well I dont claim to know any of those things. So i wouldn't know where to begin. You claim to have knowledge of why the earth is flat. And when you ask compound questions like this it's easier (at least for me) to understand how all the answers fit together. Please stop avoiding my questions and answer them as best you can.
I've attended seminars, yes... but I'm here to discuss, not be attacked.
The dude, like all the others like him are self important trolls. You are just feeding his ego. Make fun of him instead. He will NEVER change his mind because he has done INTERNET RESEARCH!
We are all better of going to /s/ and fapping...
OP here. Since there is no actual engaging discussion here, I'm leaving.
I'll leave you with a nice series if you want to know more:
Farewell and remember, kids: YOU CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP.
Im trying to discuss, the nature of this board means that posting all those questions one by one is a huge bother. What with the street sign captchas. Better to be avoided. My questions still stand however. Everyone else, including the guy who copy pasted got their objections voiced and answered and i expect my to be as well.
>can't figure if troll or not
>calls OP a sub par troll
>implying a troll would believe in this
All you niggers here are just falling for the bait.
>So, the earth being flat, it's safe yo assume that these otger entities are flat as well?
Answered here: >>673376017
>If that's the case then how does nuclear fusion on the sun, or any star for that matter work? How do the keep their shape. Accelerating up wards at earthly rates would mean that all the material would float out due to fusion.
>Also. How is there less gravity on the moon?
That's what you've been TOLD. Nobody has ever been there.
>Does it move slower than the earth? This woild mean that the sun moves faster right?
They (sun and moon) move pretty fast, hovering above the earth. This has been addressed in multiple posts.
>Surely, because gravity is stronger there. If thats the case, wouldn't it just leave us behind?
Doesn't make sense.
>If they glide with no friction and are constantly accelerating up then how fast is our total accumulative speed upwards?
It is a common misconception that if we were to continuously accelerate over time, we would eventually be moving faster than the speed of light. This is of course, incorrect as nothing with mass may do so.
According to the Special theory of Relativity, the Earth can accelerate forever without reaching or passing the speed of light. Relative to an observer on Earth, the Earth's acceleration will always be 1g. Relative to an inertial observer in the universe, however, the Earth's acceleration decreases as the its velocity approaches c. It all depends on our frame of reference to measure and explain the Earth's motion. Thus, despite what most people think, there is no absolute "speed" or velocity of the Earth.
not OP here, just someone studying physics
>How does quantum mechanics work?
DINGLY DANGS DINGING IN THE DARGO KEEPS CONNECT OF THE INTERNECTED MATTER
>What are quarks?
This one I actually know, a quark is the quantum measure (is basically just the smallest possible thing) of matter, meaning it cannot be made up of anything smaller, as of now.
>How are they different from other subatomic particles?
They are different since they are so tinier. Protons and Neutrons keep together by another force than the quarks inside the protons. The difference are that different rules apply. e.g. you can know the rules of how a team is placed in the charts in football cups, but a smaller part of the football cup, the matches themselves, have different rules.
>How does quantum mechanics correlated with classical physics?
Calssical physics are more convenient ways to say the same thing, because in the quantum world things are so small that to get it accurate, you must know of an exact position and exact rules that apply.
Except you're wrong:
how exactly can I, as in ME, as in THIS PERSON, do this?
Because saying scientists have done it and the results indicate this and that simply lead back to "government & scientists are faking it"
Of course no response from OP, and you dimwit fucks arguing with him don't realize this is the easiest way to disprove his bullshit theory.
Do you guys like to get mad or something?
This thread isn't worth typing an argument, so here: https://youtu.be/VNqNnUJVcVs Take this and be gone, we all know the earth is round and your bait is bad. Even for the sake of a debate, all you're doing is trying to assume an unpopular opinion to get a rise out of people.
>mfw the b8 is making me rage
>mfw OP got me
you're the one raging
couldn't they rig the equipment to change the results when they hire it to you?
How the fuck would you even manage to do something like that, I'm assuming it has to be extremely precise, as I doubt they put up several hundred kilometers of reflectors up there
Well O.P. This is all fine and dandy, just for shits and giggles, you convince me. no i didn't read the whole thread, so if this has been addressed i apologize
please explain to me why there are multiple different maps and can you explain flat map distortion?
Well, there are formulae for calculating the rate of gravity bassed on mass which is where that 1g figure came from. Using those same formulae. You can get a fairly accurate rate of gravity.
I never said that we were moving at or near the speed of light, i just asked what our accumulative speed upwards was.
So, what you are saying is that they aren,t planets but flaotibg points of light? That explanation made zero sense to me. It was a bunch of words strewn together.
One more question. What's the 'engine' driving us upwards, and what is it's observable reaction.
Protip: if your theory does not explain how the sun works then it probably fails to hold water else where. Look into that.
Wow! Thread's still alive. Guess I'll answer a few then.
No one knows for sure. Many speculate Admiral Byrd found "the end of the world" in his Antarctic expeditions, and hence the Antarctic treaty and why we’re not allowed to freely roam about in any sort of independent expedition.
The theory that sounds most reasonable to me is that we are in an enclosed dome under a firmament but there is no way to know for sure. Also, the Van Allen radiation belt could act as an effective dome.
It's made to be convincing if you don't understand anything that they're saying. For instance, in a flat earth, going to the edge would cause the gravity to become slanted (as per the video I linked). Please tell me, have you ever seen or felt that sensation while traveling? I'm sure OP is some kid that stays shut up in his room and never travels outside of his city. Anyone that has traveled by plan over a long distance can tell you that you fly in one direction, you don't curve off while flying. That simply would not happen on a flat earth.
There you go again with a thousand questions. Go fuck yourself.
One thing that always boggles my mind is how can the collective powers cover what appears to be the largest possible area of water in the world. If Antarctica is truly surrounding everything then it would be nearly impossible to patrol and control. They can barely keep immigrants from crossing a small sea.
This is kind of off subject but the UN has been working along side alien forces for a very long time now, at least since the 1940s.
If the earth is flat and the sun is doing a circular circuit around the top, how can the sun light the undersides of clouds. It shouldn't be possible for a flat earth sun to shine directly to the underside of a cloud since it is always directly above them.
So it's just a coincidence they use the exact same model as the flat earth model? lel
Then we should be able to organize an arctic expedition and see all the cool alien tech they would have to use to identify and stop them. Once again, they can't prevent immigrants from hopping on shitty boats across a tiny sea, by comparison the amount of water to patrol the edge of a flat earth is absolutely insane.
I'm fairly sure tens of thousands of people have flown long distances longitudinal, you brought up an edge being in antarctica, which I'll agree, might be as not many people passed through there, but if you're implying the earth is a disc, it's be extremely impossible to hide it from so many people
>No one knows for sure. Many speculate Admiral Byrd found "the end of the world" in his Antarctic expeditions, and hence the Antarctic treaty and why we’re not allowed to freely roam about in any sort of independent expedition.
> the Antarctic treaty and why we’re not allowed to freely roam about in any sort of independent expedition.
Please provide proof with a valid source that says that. The treaty protects it for scientific research and DOES NOT mention people are not allowed to roam. Given the average human does not have the money to fund such a project, however the treaty does not prevent anyone from going there because NO ONE OWNS THE LAND.
I ask again, if the earth is flat where is the edge? You can provide proof because there is no edge. all you have said is a lie. Something that is flat has an edge
Lurk around. There are gifs/images showing how that works.
They don't care about immigrants getting into your country. This is an entirely different thing.
>by comparison the amount of water to patrol the edge of a flat earth is absolutely insane.
looking at >>673383935
I think he's implying the north & southpole covers the entire edge
Yes, it covers the entire edge as in pic related.
Let's assume for a moment that they are covering up a flat earth. Why in the hell would they put clues in international symbols? That's dumb as hell. What would be gained in hiding this fact? Absolutely nothing. I challenge you and anyone to take a boat and sail straight towards your supposed "edge". You will either continue on, proving the round earth, or you will experience increased, slanted gravity and a sense that you're slanting. Pro tip: This proves the earth is round
Why would someone lie about it? What do they achieve?
Hiding things in plain sight is a common practice in occult/masonic/illuminati groups.
>descending order (start from bottom work way up)
And this is how you defeat those trolls.
I think asking flat earthers to do a proof that is expensive and hard to do won't work.
How about those flat earthers in the southern hemisphere can empirically test the flat earth model. since magnets will always point to the center of the map, you can follow the longitudinal lines and see how far apart they are. If the flat earth model is correct, in the southern hemisphere the lines will be further apart. We would expect them to get closer together in a spherical (oblate spheroid) model.
While it's true that unipolar magnets can't exist, this isn't a problem for the Flat Earth. This is because ring magnets, which are shaped like (you guessed it!) a flat disk, are capable of having radial magnetization. In a radial magnet, one magnetic pole is at the center and other other is at all points on the edge of the magnet. A magnet like this can be found in loudspeakers, and perfectly replicates what is found on the Earth.
>believing the jew controlled media
>No, it's because no one is allowed there, you moron.
Where Is your proof no one is allowed there? If you say the treaty show me where it says that in the treaty. O wait you can't because it doesn't say that!
>calls me a moron because he got BTFO
FoH, on to the next. Abandon thread OP and all flat land biebers just lost the argument. Hahaha can't provide proof of an edge, you people are retarded.
Have YOU ever done it YOURSELF? Didn't think so.
If you look at the flat earth map that they love to use, the lines going north and south only converge when you head towards the middle of the map. You should be able to test these lines in the southern hemisphere, thereby proving the map wrong. I'm not sure how a circular magnet proves this proof wrong maybe I'm misunderstanding.
>Can't provide proof to what I ask so he changes the subject.
Hahaha. The sun is irreverent and I never mentioned it. You're the one who claimed all this bullshit about us not being allowed to go there and the earth being flat. I simply asked where was the edge because if it is flat it has to have one right? I personally don't care if it's round, flat or square. YOU'RE THE ONE MAKING CLAIMS NOT ME. :)
it is basic perspective. if you don't believe the jew you can go stand in the street and see the phenomena for yourself. does the street really converge down to a point off in the distance, or are the sides of the street more or less parallel and the convergence a mere illusion?
Not my fault you don't understand basic physics.
There is a continual pressure of the atmosphere upon the Earth. Associating it with the fact that the Earth is a vast plane ‘stretched out upon the waters,’ it MUST, of necessity, slightly fluctuate. As by the action of the atmosphere the Earth is slowly depressed, the water moves towards the receding shore and produces the flood tide; and when by the reaction of the resisting oceanic medium the Earth gradually ascends the waters recede, and the ebb tide is produced.
You're also claiming the round earth model is correct.
Two words: vanishing point.
Anyway, this was (kind of) fun. I hope next time we can have a real discussion instead of people holding fast to their warm blanket of indoctrination without an open mind.
I need to leave to get a rental car since I'm on my vacations. Later, faggots.
>mfw this entire thread
>mfw 229 replies
>mfw 45 anons
it's a definitive win when you idiots keep taking the bait and feeding the troll. kill yourselves.
Please so me where I claimed the round model was correct. Stop avoiding my questions. That's all you've been doing this whole thread, you avoid the questions that blows a hole in your theory.
>Have YOU ever done it YOURSELF? Didn't think so.
You've never seen anyone In this thread, how do you know we are real? You are truly retarded. Good job.
y'all niggers replying to a copy pasta thread that's been going on since 2014.
I don't know if this is a supreme bait or if OP is genuinely autistic
>being this retarded
I had that one screencapped because in that particular week, several of these threads were being made... daily.
If you see the filenames of the pics, they are the same used by OP in this thread.
Some of the replies here are exactly the same also.
so just like how people have the same filename when they upload the same image from the same url?
>If the sun were truly 93 million miles away, then all light that finally reached earth would have to be running parallel when it reaches us
Evidence 1. If the sun were not 149.6 million km away, then the Inverse-Square Law of light would begin to take effect. if it were in fact, say ,30 km above as so often claimed by these scientific illiterates, then when it were midday in Ohio, it would be twilight in NY State and Colorado.
furthermore acurate measurement of Crepuscular rays will show that they are parallel, and that it is perspective that makes their convergence appear to be closer.
>The sun's apparent movement in the sky works both ways, mathematically.
... if you cant do maths.
Place a strong magnet at the centre of a kitchen table. Place a compass in each corner. All compass needles will point at the magnet. Irregardless if the magnet is "ringshaped", cubic, cylindric or whatever shape.
No such thing as a ring magnet. A magnet is a magnet, electro- or natural magnetic.
Thanx for revealing that you have no clue whatsoever about basic physics. You're no longer a source for nuisance
How do you explain that the only truely accurate map is a sphere or "globe" or how plats are never perfectly accurate due to the spherical curve of the earth. This is why you have to hire surveys and not just trust all plats.
I didn't know David icke was touring again but he needs to pay for his super-lagers somehow
Ok, throw out the government supplied shit. What about all of the high school science projects where they send up a camera attached to a weather balloon? Let me guess. NASA hit squads show up and steal the memory card and replace it with sanitsed images? Or a secret team intercepts the balloon and loads the camera with fake pictures?
As light travels from the sun it wobbles the ether fields and cause the various rays to curve as they approach the fliparelli layer that keeps the earth's atmosphere from escaping. That causes the light rays to look like they are coming in at an angle.
How does the air not fall off the edge and leak into space? Also, if the earth is constantly accelerating at 1G, what is causing the acceleration? How do the planets keep up with us?
The air doesn't leak because the Hezariana barrier keeps it in check. Think of it as a cell membrane that keeps everything together.
The planets keep up because they are actually refractions of objects stuck to the outside of the outer maculonum field.
Because the medium that moves the sun and moon in their "orbits" has mass and that generates what appears to be a coriolis effect, but is actually a third level wave modulation in the underlying matter.
How come when you're on a ship and you climb up the mast you can see further?
Anon, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read that.
OP is an idiot. You cannot explain the earth magnetic field if the earth is flat. Gravity is caused by the roation of the earth on an axis and if you think it's caused by the moon you're a Fucking idiot. Earth is round. Get over it.
If the Earth was flat, that would mean gravitation wouldn't be a real thing, which mean orbits couldn't happen, which means satellites (natural and man-made) couldn't exist.
Truth is gravity does exist and so large enough structures are spheres.
Do you really not understand how perspective works?
Yes the sun will be at the point in the sky where the top of that triangle is, no that does not mean The Sun is just above the cloud directly above where the sea is lit.
Gravity is hard to explain even for round earth theories.
NASA linear aircraft models use flat, stationary earth for calculations. Therefore flat earth is truth
No it is not. The mathematics would calculate the surface area of a sphere. Just because the math would represent a flat earth, doesn't mean it isn't a sphere. Fucking idiot. Go learn some 3+ dimensional calculus and come talk to me.
Flat earth is misleading. What they mean is that the earth is a terrarium with the north pole at the center, Antarctica encircling, and a glass like dome covering it.
The round earth cannot be magnetic, it's temperature is above Curie point for iron. A magnetic mountain at the center of the terranium is much more plausible.
>NASA linear aircraft models use flat, stationary earth for calculations. Therefore flat earth is truth
Because to an aircraft travelling around the earth, it for all intents and purposes is flat, because the plane follows the curvature of the Earth due to gravity, just as with satellites. The plane maintains a constant altitude (always parallel with surface) so the maths etc involved would be the same as if the Earth were flat, so no need to add the complexity of a sphere.
And yeah, not gonna watch 15 mins of videos for you. Gravitation is not hard to understand.
Mass distorts spacetime, causes a pseudo "non-contact" force, causes massive object to be attracted to each other...
Pulls large things into rough spheres. Nothing difficult to explain about that. Where do you think the difficulty is?
You incompetent inchoate basement-dwelling idiotic fuck can propel yourself out of this site. Sorry, autistic faggots with an IQ under '5' are not allowed on this site.
Hell, bait me. Who cares. Let me prove to you in two words why your moronic shitskull is wrong:
Nigger how do satellites work? LEO, geostationary, elliptical orbit, plus the fucking MOON, private carriers like arianespace and spacex are putting satellites in orbit based on a spherical earth model and it works every time. Flat earth = satellites fall over. Fuck man, you could compare GPS satellite timing pulses and determine the shape of the earth from that.
I think it's a pretty important and tell tale sign that something funny is going on when NASA is using aircraft flight models that suggest a "flat, non rotating earth."
That seems like a pointless exercise with the consideration that the aircraft willbe expected to fly in a globular, rotating model.
In short, this attempted rebuttal actually does nothing to explain why NASA would model this environment in the first place.
There's theoretical math and then there's practical math. Flat earth is practical and observed.
You're whole basis for this argument is that there is "no evidence" for a Round Earth. I have yet to see an aerial photograph of the entire earth being flat, only drawings and diagrams.
There's been no evidence to suggest things stick together from mass alone. Otherwise the sun would pull everything in. Mass and gravity is like the chicken before the egg. Gravity just doesn't work on round earth theories. >>673399188
>upward acceleration of the Earth
The only things accelerating upwards here are my sides.
Dumb faggy white boy dont know shit.
99 percent of all communication is land based, including GPS. Stratelights are real, but satalites are an impossibility due to outstanding radience of the sun would melt the components, particularly gallium arsenide: the conductor for solar panels.
Whether the planet is rotating or not makes no difference to a plane. If you're in a car going at a constant speed, it doesn't affect your movements. If you're on a planet rotating at a constant rate, you don't need to take it into account. A hovering helicopter is still relative to the Earth, it doesn't have to propel itself to keep up with Earth's rotation. It retains it's momentum from when it was on the ground.
Same goes for curvature of the the Earth. As far as the plane is concerned, it's flying in a straight line. Gravity keeps it parallel to the earth. The pilot doesn't constantly have to point the nose down slightly to maintain his altitude.
I am not the dumb fuck here.
>Otherwise the sun would pull everything in.
Go learn how orbits work.
>Mass and gravity is like the chicken before the egg.
Wrong, (according to theoretical physics) gravitation decoupled from the rest of the 4 fundamental forces before the strong nuclear force. So gravitation has existed mass.
If you're talking the observable area of whether gravity causes mass or mass causes gravity, only the latter is true. There is no "chicken and egg case".
Mass generates gravitational wells.
Gravity does not generate mass, it just affects it.
Tell me how you think gravitation can't work on a spherical Earth.
>is the upward acceleration
Caused by what force?
>This means that velocity can never reach the speed of light, regardless of how long one accelerates for and the rate of the acceleration.
You're also failing to take into account the fact that as something approaches the speed of light, it's mass increases. So we should either detect an increase in volume or density of the Earth. Do we? No.
As you approach the speed of light, the energy (force) required to maintain the same acceleration increases exponentially, so not only does your model require a driving force, but a force increasing in magnitude.
I never said it keeps it stuck, I said it maintains the plane at it's altitude.
The plane is producing a constant magnitude of lift and it's experiencing a constant force due to gravity, so long as you keep the two forces balanced, your altitude will remain the same.
Show me how I'm wrong. Pro tip, you can't.