If the Earth was flat, it would be incredibly easy to prove. Just charter a private jet to fly past the location you believe to be the edge. It's very possible to get a flight across Antarctica from Australia to south America for example
What difference would it make if the earth was flat, or a sphere? I can understand the fish-eyed lens debacle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvkGQVuNPsY This world is huge irregardless if you want it flat or round. I just know for a fact I am in preference to the sphere, and I suck reptilian cocks.
>>7842887 Wouldn't a computer generated image a flat earth lay things out?
I know dragons are real, it's just that they went extinct like the unicorns after people kept stealing their eggs. The unicorns died out after over-population and lacking snd natural predators and a sub-species of inter-galatic pegasus left earth for who knows what reason.
>>7842955 An ice wall surrounding the continents would be a big fucking deal. An extraordinary claim, if you will. Plus, you'd be able to see it from Africa in the pic. Which you can't. You literally squished all the continents to fit your model,when their distances have been measured. As for the ice wall, wow, an ice wall! It's almost like Antarctica is really fucking big! Wonder why it's a continent..... Also, you can see Russia from Alaska. >>7842954 If it were any closer the experiment wouldn't work. Your model says it's closer. It works. And what do you mean infinitely far away? It might as well be infinite, sure, but we both know it isn't.
>>7838087 Compasses >North is towards the north pole, South is towards the south pole
How does a flat earth explain the magnetic field? Circular Earth: Spinning Iron Core creates magnetic field, Flat Earth: Spinning Flat Disc? Doesn't work Rod through the center? Magnetic field would be weaker Away from the center. Also, Aurora, just in general.
>Pictures from space >We sent satellites into space and took pictures of the Earth Rotating because we can.
According to Flat Earthers, these all must be fake, and anything that requires 10s to 100s of thousands of people keeping a secret. Especially a really big secret just doesn't work.
>Horizon The horizon is visible from beaches, and boats disappear over it. In the Flat Earth Model, boats would get smaller, but if you had binoculars or a telescope, you could still see them. Instead ships disappear hull first, followed by sails. Flat Earther's claim this is atmospheric distortions, but if you take out binoculars, you cannot see the ship. Similarly, as you drive along say I-80 in the US, the mountain tops appear first.
>>7843018 >How does a flat earth explain the magnetic field?
>Circular Earth: Spinning Iron Core creates magnetic field
I'd be willing to bet quite a lot that you don't have a good idea of why a spinning ball would create a magnetic field. Let alone have an explanation for why magnetic north is NOT at the north pole, which even ball earthers are forced to admit.
, Flat Earth: Rod through the center? Not a "rod" and not through the center (which it doesn't have to be in a flat earth, unlike a ball earth!), but yes, a large ferromagnetic deposit deep under northern Canada.
>Magnetic field would be weaker Away from the center.
It is. Which again, even ball earthers admit. It seems like you're not that familiar with your own theory, but you still just blindly accept it because your teacher said so.
>>7843016 It would be visible. It isn't. Probably because it's not there. >You can't see hundreds of miles through the air With your eyes, maybe. Telescopes exist. >Measured how Borders? And by whom The people who made the borders? Because arable or useful land is hard to come by, and you'd want to know how much you have? >Do you believe everything you're told? When you can back it up yes. Do you believe everything you're told? Because this implies that no one has seen Antarctica. When you can fly over it. >Don't know what your point is The poinf is showing me an ice wall to the horizon doesn't really prove anything when you're looking at the edge of a continent. >Sarah pls So you're saying you can't?
>>7843059 >I'd be willing to bet quite a lot that you don't have a good idea of why a spinning ball would create a magnetic field. Let alone have an explanation for why magnetic north is NOT at the north pole, which even ball earthers are forced to admit.
Yes wonderful. The north pole isn't magnetic north because the tilt of the Earth's Axis of rotation. The iron core creates a magnetic field due to heat currents, essentially. Flowing Iron generates the magnetic field as heat is conducted from the center of the Earth. > Not a "rod" and not through the center (which it doesn't have to be in a flat earth, unlike a ball earth!), but yes, a large ferromagnetic deposit deep under northern Canada. >It is. Which again, even ball earthers admit. It seems like you're not that familiar with your own theory.
Weaker at the Equator, but close at similar latitudes, the force is roughly equal to the cosine of the distance from the magnetic north pole. In your model, as pictured, the force in Northern Russia would be about the same as the force in Brazil, which is demonstrably false. Also, a deposit, by itself doesn't create a magnetic field, so no, that doesn't work.
>>7843096 Forgot pic. Blue dot, roughly, magnetic north, Purple dots, roughly, same latitude on the flat earth model from magnetic north, would have the same force from the magnetic field, they do not.
>>7843100 Also, also, just since I was thinking about it, flat-anon here hasn't explained the Southern Hemisphere Aurora. A Deposit in Canada (given that it works like the Iron Ball model), in a flat model, would cause the Northern Aurora, but the southern Aurora, would be on the Underside of the planet (which flat earthers never talk about, what is on the underside?), as the magnetic field lines would pass directly through the crust at the pole. However the Southern Lights exist, which would require a second deposit of some kind, and would create a bunch of interfering magnetic field lines.
>>7843151 Yes, actually. The magnetic north pole is caused by changes in the Earths core due to the wobble of the Earth's axis, it shifts over time (another thing the deposit model doesn't predict) due to conduction currents which are altered due to the angle of the axis shifting. The magnetic south pole is off axis due to the density of the core not being evenly distributed, again due to the tilt of the axis shifting over time.
>>7843158 That's good, draw a picture of the force lines of a magnetic pole which causes both the northern and southern lights, without causing overlap in the magnetic fields. Would it look roughly, like this? What happens when the magnetic fields (with the same direction of force) overlap? They add, so the force at some points would be the sum of the two magnetic fields.
>>7843207 Thats true, for compasses to work the south pole deposit (which exists to create the southern aurora) must be upside down. Which means that the magnetic field cancels at a point equidistant from both. So, on your model, there must be a spot where there is no magnetic field and compasses don't work, roughly half way between Canada and Austrailia.
>>7843269 Ball Earth works like this, no interference, because only a north and south pole (even if they aren't on the same axis, force lines come out one pole and go in the other). Flat Earth requires two separate magnetic poles, otherwise the Southern Lights don't exist, which is what causes interference.
Force lines come out of the pole and goin the rim. How is that hard to understand? There's no such thing as "interference" - field lines are just an abstraction for visualizing the directionof the field. They can't point in different directions at the same location.
>>7843333 So, this; >>7843100 which is force field viewed top down, and still doesn't account for the southern lights, without being this: >>7843182
Magnetic force fields come from the poles and form ellipsoids, which will be smaller close to a small deposit. If you want northern and southern lights, a rod between Canada and Austrailia is required. But please, if I'm misunderstanding what you're describing, illustrate it for us.
>>7843368 So where are the southern lights? Also, why are the "lodestones" round, but the Earth not? See something like this, almost works, except you have the problem of equal magnetic force along the axis.
A couple of years ago I was assailed by "friends" spouting shit about hollow earth. Now they are flatearthers.
I just really don't give a shit what shape the planet is since I'm not sending up rockets or anything. But, holy fuck, they want my to believe their horseshit over whatever else horseshit there happens to be.
>>7843466 I'm actually mainly disappointed with /mu/, and i can tolerate other people, i've been on boards with nazis and holocaust deniers, really ignorant and hateful people, but i don't hate them or anything.
1. all theories of a magnetic core are not proven. 2. curie point is too high for earth to be magnetic 3. most proof of a ball earth is based on assumptions 4. gravity has not been measured or understood and explanations are contradictory. 5. there are no pictures of the earth from space or Antarctica.
>>7844769 >There are no pictures of the earth from space How's a video? http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream Right now it's on the dark side of the Earth. ISS does orbits around earth in 90 minutes, so in ~20 minutes you should probably be able to see the South Atlantic Ocean, and in maybe 45 minutes you should see the coast of India and China.
I'm also curious as to how flat earthers think an atmosphere would work.
>>7843079 Because you are moving with the earth retard. You have the same angular velocity as the surface of the earth. The air around you does as well When you jump you still have the same velocity, and because you have no relative angular motion to the atmosphere it does not slow you down. So because the only force acting on you is gravity which pulls perpendicular to your rotational motion. You experience no net force in the direction of rotation. Objects in motion stay in motion unless acted upon by a net force So you continue forward with the same rotational velocity as the earth. That's why it doesn't spin out from under you
How do flat-earthers explain away the fact that flat earth can never replicate the distances between locations on a sphere? It shouldn't be hard to prove for example that the coastline (the alleged ice wall in these retards' fevered minds) of Antarctica isn't 50,000 miles long, but only 10,000 miles long.
>>7844255 As a flight engineer, I have personally flown across Antarctica in a P3.
Whats with this 'it only counts if you have done it' argument? You can't prove anything that other people have done at all then, including flat earth bullshit because you personally haven't seen the earth is flat
>>7847546 I'm trying to cull out the apparent spookiness to make way for greater scientific scrutiny. We can't just kill off our unintelligent portions if we want our collective intelligence to have a normative growth curve.
>>7847835 >If you hold compass in your hand and face north, then move to the either east or west, the compass needle will not change direction relative to your path. If earth was flat that would not be the case.
Yes it would. That works the same in either model. Either way, "east" and "west" means walking in a circle around the pole. On a ball earth you have to be on the equator for east to be a straight line. But the earth is far too big to accurately test it that way.
>>7838087 >force of gravity is always perpendicular to earth's surface >you don't see the same stars from northern/southern hemisphere >space exploration shows that every object with radius of more than ~200 km is spherical (look up differentiation) >earths shadow during every lunar eclipse is round
If you travel 1000 miles take a right angle turn, travel 1000 miles take a right angle turn, and finally travel 1000 miles and take a right angle turn you will end up in your starting point. In a flare plane this is impossible
>>7848225 >If you travel 1000 miles take a right angle turn, travel 1000 miles take a right angle turn, and finally travel 1000 miles and take a right angle turn you will end up in your starting point.
That's not true even on a ball earth. You ballboys can't seem to get your story straight.
>>7848563 > pictures of earth from space They look like artist renderings. We don't even have much footage of the earth spinning in real time and the ones that do are proven to be CGI. We have tons of pictures of monuments and documents about history and preservation. Moon landing footage and telemetry data is accidentally erased and lost. Some moon rocks in museums have been proven to just be petrified wood. Wheres the integrity?
>ships sinking below horizon proves round earth Its an illusion. The ship goes past the vanishing point of perspective and depending on the temperature and time of day mirages happen. Mirages do happen on flat surfaces, which what bodies of water are. water does not bend or bulge and always finds level surfaces to rest. This explains why there are mirages on large bodies of water, because the earth is made up of more than 50% percent of flat surface. This is a huge contradiction of what NASA shows us, a perfect spheroid planet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_%28mirage%29
>gravity proves round earth Gravity is just another name for what goes up must come down. However gravity is pushed to explain why we dont fall out of the earth if it were round. The only problem is that gravity gets very hypothetical upon further explanation and is at its core, contradictory and falsifiable. It has never been measured or tested or observed outside of earth to claim. NASA can film out in the desert of Arizona and say they were on mars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Osm7azX6k
I like the argument of no gravity, the flat earth is just accelerating.
That means it would be accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s2, constantly. Which means that if it started stationary, after 1 year it would be hurtling upwards at the speed of light.
Any flat earthers got a theory for what's supplying this energy, and how the acceleration manages to remain constant as we get up to relativistic speeds? And that this doesn't present some sort of problem?
>>7848618 >dey look like Oh wowe, china just posted new moon-images please die neo-luddite. >water is always flat what is a drop of water retard, what is surface tension.. what is a meniscus You need to die. >gravity is contradictory and falsifiable If it were falsifiable there would be an experiment testing how it could be falsified, I don't think you understand the crux of the word when it is applied scientifically...
>>7848815 yeah, it is sad shit just call them idiots, or if you have the motivation try to trick them into believing that revealing the flat earth is in fact a desperate attempt at the government to hide some other deep-seated conspiracy
>>7848815 >They answer that the government is basically the devil and they want to make the bible look fake.
youd be surprised in how many famous people and politicians dabbled into the occult. In fact all famous serial killers had dabbled into the occult and knew high ranking officials. The book is called "programmed to kill".
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.