Prove me wrong https://youtu.be/pnzUgKZ8m2k

File: antarcz+-+Copy-1.gif (30KB, 386x385px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 386x385px

https://youtu.be/azOBO1lPMNk

No one's going to prove you wrong. /Sci/ is an intelligent board and understands the enormous fallacy of a round earth. It's one of the more accepted things around here, in fact.

File: carpet_pilling.jpg (151KB, 500x494px)

151KB, 500x494px

Flat as a fucking pancake kiddos

File: tackle-fishing-5-wip-v1.png (58KB, 500x304px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x304px

Explain how water curves?

>>8516585
>What is a meniscus

File: downloadfile.jpg (48KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1280x720px

>>8516586
>>8516586

>>>/pol/

What is with the recent influx of /pol/fags on /sci/? Leave now and never come back. LEAVE NOW AND NEVER. COME. BACK!

>>8516553
OP, how come when I'm in new york and can see certain constellations, my friends in Australia can't see those same constellations?
if the earth were flat, we should be looking up at the same stars, no?

File: img_9608.jpg (94KB, 960x613px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 960x613px

The stars in the night sky rotate around common barycenters above the earth just as the sun and moon do. From a location on the earth's surface the stars in the sky might seem to scroll across the night sky with Polaris at the hub. The underlying cause for this rotation is due to vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of mass - an imaginary point completely compliant with the Newtonian system. This is an extrapolated and more complex binary star movement.

Each star in a cluster is attracted to one another through gravitational vectors. Formation is created through gravitational capture - at least three objects are actually required, as conservation of energy rules out a single gravitating body capturing another. The stars maintain their movement over the years through Newton's first law: An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

The stars in the night sky trace almost perfect circles around the hub of the earth because by necessity the mechanics of a multiple system rely intimately on the movements and vectors of every member body. Circular movement is the most perfect, stable movement. If one celestial body is out of place or moves in a different fashion than the other bodies of the group the entire system becomes inherently imbalanced. Eddies will either leave the system entirely or are compelled by the stellar system to move back into its locked pace and apogee. This is why there are no elliptical orbits.

Instability can be avoided if the system is what astronomer David S. Evans has called hierarchical In a hierarchical system.

>>8516557
Reminder that no one has ever crossed the Antarctic in a straight line

>>8516630
So, wait a second
is the Earth the only object that is flat? or are those stars that we are seeing also flat?

>>8516553
>33 km !!!!!!!

>>8516563
>23 miles!!!!!!

You need to get way higher for a significant curvature and/or you need to get more of the earth in the picture frame.

even from ISS camera the curve isnt as spectacular as you might think

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream/theater

File: iss.png (77KB, 1258x654px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1258x654px

>>8516659
>http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream/theater
this must be another government conspiracy

>>8516660
>CGI
Implying NASA doesn't have the super computers to render in real time at that quality
You could probably do that good on a damn desktop computer these days

>>8516645
>>8516659
See
>>8516634
After you've answered then you may ask a question

MODS

flat earth threads are permabannable

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

How come we never see the shadow from satellites down here on the surface? Since they are much closer to the sun than us they should cast a quite large shadow

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-05 at 6.39.28 PM.png (2MB, 1174x1490px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1174x1490px

>>8516553
you're cucked by THIS guy? really?

>the sun is only 32 miles across

>>8516673
Nice credible source

>>8516676
Someone doesn't understand how light works

>>8516673
>gravity doesn't exist, the flat disc earth is accellerating up at 9.2m/s

brainlettes don't consider that for there to be an "up", or accelleration, or direction at all for that matter, that there must be gravity

the next time you try to debunk the last 5000 years of accumulated mathematical knowledge, at least have a more convincing argument

>>8516681
Then explain it if you do buddy I'm an engineer

>>8516678
No I just wanted the video here is the original
https://youtu.be/WwimocU0IIc

>>8516679
you make me so mad !!!!!

>>8516660
>government conspiracy
I think they would have the images up 100% of the time if that were the case

>>8516688
/thread

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

>>8516694
if you understand this, congratulations, you understand what an integral is and you should learn differential calculus

File: flatline.png (206KB, 645x365px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 645x365px

>>8516553
b-but I can see the curve even from that shitty screencap

File: downloadfile-1.jpg (2MB, 3132x2148px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3132x2148px

>>8516694
That's nice and all but do you have the math to back that up? It's no secret that zooming in on a sphere will have that effect but can prove that is to scale?
Also flat earth doesn't been completely flat, see pic
Also see this video where there is a convex effect from being in the lowest point on that picture
Go to about 52 mins and see that is convex
https://youtu.be/R77j9rUuky4

>>8516710
It's not looking directly at the horizon. It's looking at the horizon at an angle on the x axis. Hold a piece of round paper up to your face and rotate it

>>8516685
Light diffraction. At night, only with artificial light, lift a small object from the floor towards the light source. Watch how the shadow turns less dark.

>>8516715
ROFL what the fuck
How do we at south america not see north america somewhere in the sky then, what the fuck

That variation is even more retarded

File: Curve.png (180KB, 637x356px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 637x356px

>>8516717
doesn't explain how its higher in the center and lower on both sides

>>8516721
Source?

>>8516727
See
>>8516715
Meant to say a sight cone

>>8516715
k, i have a bachelors in mathematics, and i'm gonna trust trigenometry over you.

people have had the common sense and proof that earth is round since antiquity. why? beacuse they actually think. they use their minds to think about the problem, instead of clinging to false hope, and ignoring contrary proof.

btw, evidence =/= proof. only proof is proof, and the language of proof is mathematics.

>>8516727
Idk what is anyone implying but the existance of a curvature or not in the horizon of those kinds of shots wouldn't prove anything for either side, since it could mean we are just sitting atop a disk seeing its circumference or atop a quasi-sphere seeing an approximation of the circumference of a disk, since our line of sight aka horizon would be the crossing point of infinite tangential lines from the respective limits on the horizon.

With that being said, from the videos we can actually take out the fact that you CANNOT see the entire earth. Hell, you can see a fucking limit. You should be able to see, although some small, every part of the entire disk.

File: 900px-KB_United_States_Dvorak.svg.png (39KB, 900x300px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 900x300px

>>8516734
trigonometry.

and i made a typo, i'm not a retard who can't spell the name of one of my own tools

>>8516731
>source
You're probably american, just try it out right now.
Either way you can try reading the entire Serway physics textbook to see if you can get something out of it.

>>8516727
gee, you really think someone would do that?

just go on the internet and tell lies?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8KtRVWYoT8

>>8516568
My horizon is always 6feet below eye level. What are you 0 feet tall?

Getting quite tired of these straw men, will be back shortly

ITT: people who haven't learned basic geometry, or have any clue what a vector is.

>>8516745
/thread

>>8516553
ban prove me wrong threads

>>8516739
Surely there is something that you can link to that is publicly available?

>>8516735
>sitting atop a disk seeing its circumference
That would mean that the earth is not only flat but also no bigger than Australia

>>8516734
>Can't spell a word you supposedly use on a daily basis
>Much less provide a valid mathematical proof that you keep talking about

>>8516553
>to teh Edge of teh Space
balloon is floating at 33km altitude
>floating in what?
...errmm, in teh Air?
>not even close to teh Space

>>8516557
Wtf why do planes not do this?

>>8516753
>makes a fool of himself in public on a daily basis

>>8516738

>>8516749
Can you like try the fucking experiment? Physics needs theory (which you will find well explained in some high school physics textbooks, no less) but an experimental proof might satisfy you.

Look up the Serway Physics textbook in, i don't know, libgen? I've got it on paper so I can't link it.

>>8516727
lol, go ahead and believe the earth is flat. your life will be better.

File: problem_cunt.jpg (207KB, 962x1434px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 962x1434px

>>8516759
Post the fucking mathematical proof if you're so smart shithead cunt

>>8516762
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EspZtA7C3o

>>8516760
So you're saying that you can't explain it even tho you claimed to understand it?
I will check out that book when I get the chance but why can't you explain it in your own terms?

oh, i get it now. flat earth is the meme all the contrarians are currently fucking with.

wew, what will they gravitate towards next?

>>8516764
That video did not contain a mathematical proof, only anecdotal proof

>>8516767
they won't gravitate towards anything because they actively rebel against the idea of gravity. it's just too mainstream.

>>8516766
No I can't cause I suck at explaining things in English, since it's not my native language. I could, however, gladly explain it to you in Spanish.

>>8516773
you didn't even watch it because i've been watching it since i posted it and it's still not over.

get fucked loser, i have real math to do, it's not my job to make a 70 IQ fuckwit understand this shit

>>8516774
Gravity works in vectors

>>8516776
Hahahhahahahauhahhahahha the excuses just keep coming don't they

inb4 100 replies and 20 image posts omitted

yall niggas posting in a b8 thread. nobody here is actually this stupid.

>>8516777
I went through it to see if there was mathematical proof, that is all I require. I didn't bother watching it because there was no proof

Evidence =//= proof. Proof is proof, and the language of proof is mathematics

>>8516782
>noone here is actually that stupid
>/sci/
>niggerchan
>the internet

>>8516778
I'm pretty sure you haven't tried the thing, either way.

>>8516788
What?

>>8516553
bait thread.

>Global Rules

>You will not post any of the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text (example: "lol u tk him 2da bar|?"), anthropomorphic ("furry") or grotesque ("guro") images, post number GETs ("dubs"), or loli/shota pornography.

>>8516789
This
>>8516721

>>8516764
doesn't rule out the possibility of the earth looking like this
>>8516715
you see, it has curves but it's not a sphere

>>8516563
For fucks sake inertia

>>8516796
>not being able to see that shape from any of the previous videos

File: 1480438496801.gif (57KB, 446x384px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 446x384px

>>8516799
>Not being able to provide any objective proof of that shape

>>8516799
every video provided so far has been doctored
the only ones that show any kind of clear circular shape have all been produced by governments

>>8516809
Disinformation shill

>>8516809
G E E T H A T ' S A S H A R P E D G E Y O U ' V E G O T T H E R E M A T E Y

During a lunar eclipse, the shadow of the earth on the moon is always circular no matter where the eclipse takes place. The only shape to always have a circular shadow at all angles is a sphere. QED.

>>8516811
>>8516824
>I trust the Russian and American governments!

>>8516832
The sun always passes directly infront (center) of the flat earth during an eclipse, that is why there is no variance in the shadow shape. If it didn't pass directly infront then it would not be an eclipse.

File: EINSTEIN.jpg (4KB, 215x280px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 215x280px

I got another question not from a scientific but from a social point of view.
Let's say the earth is indeed flat and we have been fooled. That means
>Millions of hours spent on editing images and video footage
>countless faked events (rover exploration, satellites, ISS)
>everyone on NASA is in on it, not only NASA but amateur astronomers too
>gravity itself is not viable as a force we understand which means most of the laws of physics are made up
There's alot more but you get the point.
All of that effort and for what? To trick us peasants into living on a ball instead of a pancake? I don't find any logical reasons how this would benefit any parties

>>8516872
The answer lies in Antarctica

>>8516557
>>8516634

>>8516872
it's not as much as you think
Since most of those space "missions" were faked, NASA obviously doesn't have to be as big an organization as they claim to be, it's just a front. Therefore "everyone in NASA" is not that many people.
and there is no gravity; the earth is simply accelerating upwards

>>8516557
>>8516757
http://aerosavvy.com/etops/

>>8516594

Meniscus is emergent from the viscosity and surface tension of water. Water in the quantities present in lakes and oceans has virtually zero viscosity and zero surface tension when considering the scale. Your argument doesent hold up.

>>8516676

They're barely any closer to the sun than they are, and on top of it, even if they were not only would the shadow barely ever cross the surface of the earth, but it would be extreemly dim due to how close it is to the light source. When an extreemly small obstruction is placed close to a large light source the shadow becomes 'out of focus'

>>8516630

The stars actually have a slight measurable shift in position per year due to the earth's the gyroscopic precession over the course of around 20000 or so years. Not only is this precession observable, but it's also calculatable, and fits with the scale of the earth. This system would only be feasible with a round earth model.

>>8516684

It is pretty clear that 'up' for the purposes of the flat earth model Is perpendicular to the plane of the earth, should it be flat.

You're the real brainlet here dude. Anybody with any smarts at all is able to reason through the fallacious arguments of the flat earth model.

>>8516757

Because it's expensive, dangerous, and completely pointless. If people from South America want to go to Australia they're just going to have to settle for a connecting flight to Dubai or something. There simply isn't enough of a population on those lower latitudes to support a full route.

>>8516881
by what mechanism? where is it accelerating to?

ITT strawmans with zero proof

>>8516553
>33km and the earth is flat

As gleaned by a quick and dirty look-over from some unsourced photo without controllable altitude values or camera specs? How about actually *measuring* the curvature, including possible error sources, and comparing it to precalculated values for a given radius and observer position?

But that's just too much work for FE trolls, I guess.

>>8517161
If it were a sphere it wouldn't be hard to figure out the altitude based off some simple trigonometry

File: scr00002.jpg (170KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1920x1080px

>>8516553
Here's what a simulation of a spherical Earth looks like from 33km. Hmmm...

>>8516563
kek. When you jump verticaly you just follow the earth spin.

>>8516757
>fly a route with several major airports along the way in case emergency landings are necessary, along with detailed and accurate weather reports
>fly a route over a completely uninhabited land with no safe areas to land and scant weather reports
which one would YOU choose if you wanted to arrive at your destination alive?

>>8517378
Neat. Did you write that code? Care to break down the mathematics behind it instead of posting a literal CGI picture?

>>8517396
Implying flying over the Antarctic would be any different than flying over the Pacific if you started around SA and ended around NZ

>>8517385
>What is air resistance

>>8516832
The moon is also flat, you gullible idiot.

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-05 at 12.29.18 PM.png (675KB, 1174x664px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 1174x664px

""""""""""""""""flat""""""""""""""""

>>8517492
Lens distortion you fucking idiot. It's a very key part to making a good lens but very difficult to do for a reasonable price. This is something that applies to any camera that uses a lense.

>>8517488
Yeah basically it is in parametric equilibrium with earth and the sun

File: 1478911769283.gif (1MB, 482x482px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 482x482px

>>8517505

>>8517503

Why does it only distort in one side?

>>8516757
ETOPS regulations.

Do NOT engage in arguments with flat Earth autists
Do NOT reply to flat Earth autist threads
Do NOT respond to flat Earth autist posters.

>>8517511
What's keeping the sun from illuminating the rest of the world?
Surely you agree light travel in a straight line.

>>8517531
See
>>8516715
Try to keep up please

>>8517517
And what's to say those regulations aren't in place to protect the truth?
Also those regulations wouldn't prohibit flight from SA to NZ if you were to fly near but not over Antarctica

>>8517511
I've seen the moon during the daytime LOL

>>8517513
Why doesn't it distort only one side?
Distortion isn't inherently uniform my friend

File: 1478913347307.jpg (67KB, 953x541px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 953x541px

Explain this op

My dick is diamonds in anticipation

>>8517535
But OP video proves it wrong, we see the sun, and no piece of earth higher than it.

>>8517553
It's all a gubmint conspiracy! everything is a conspiracy! Stop lying to me! NASA doctored those images! NASA doctored everything! It's all lies! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

>>8517553
You're retarded if you don't realize the one on the right would be what it would look like if earth was round....
Have you ever watched a plane flying over head and then get smaller and smaller as it gets further away?
It would be the same story with the moon but on a bigger scale.

File: downloadfile1-01.jpg (4MB, 3132x2148px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3132x2148px

>>8517559
Here I fucking drew it in for you since you're too stupid to fucking visualize it

>>8517567
I honestly believe that you people must have eaten lead paint chips as children, or parents dropped you on your heads multiple times, or you have fetal alcohol syndrome or some other developmental disorders.

That's the only thing that can explain this level of autistic retardation, an inability to understand even simplistic scientific concepts. What's even worse is I'm relatively certain that you aren't baiting either, you genuinely believe the nonsense you post. It's honestly quite sad.

Please leave and go back to your hugbox on /pol/, where the other retards there will circle-jerk around your autism.

>>8517590
I pity you. For you fail to understand or realize that the systems of logic you use to back up or "prove" the earth is round is all based on that very assumption. Also PI is an irrational number for a reason, I'll let you figure out why though.

File: 1477449961826.png (445KB, 6888x5000px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 6888x5000px

>>8517590
Tfw to intelligent to rotate

>>8517590
So are you just going to call me an idiot therefore I'm wrong or provide some objective, non-anecdotal, proof?

>122 replies
>Not a single mathematical model has been posted yet
You guys are worse than fucking Reddit

>>8516553
The difference is that you can find articles written since the XVIII century to this very day explaining the shape of the Earth and how do we know it and you can EASILY find them if you take a couple of minutes and go into Scholar Google.

But what do you find if you go with the Flat Earth theory? Conspiracy theorist blogs.

File: Real-shape-of Earth.jpg (146KB, 640x625px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 640x625px

>>8517635\
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHDpbZVLYrg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_mass

http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/geas/lectures/lecture10/slide05.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius

It's astounding how absolutely retarded people like you are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzDGvyiJ0rc

I'm a Geologist, I have a BS in Geology focused on petrology and mineralogy. You are nothing more than a brainlet pleb who cannot understand the simplest scientific ideas. Go back to >>>/x/ or >>>/pol/ where you can live in your deluded fantasy world of conspiracies. If you refuse to learn, or actually understand any evidence as to how the Earth is not flat, then you clearly should fuck off out of here.

Do you simply not understand that gravity acts on mass, and that the more massive an object becomes, the more gravity acts on that mass to form a spherical object? This is very simple stuff honestly, the fact that people like you are so retarded, well I can't do anything to help that I suppose.

It's honestly hilarious how you believe you're so intelligent by rejecting scientific concepts and ideas that have been known since before Christianity existed. People in ancient Greece were far more intelligent and had far better critical thinking skills than the Flat Earthers of today.

File: 1455822673314.jpg (104KB, 513x658px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 513x658px

>>8517503
>The lens is faulty!
>Uses the very same lens as an argument that the earth is flat.
Kek

>>8517473
>what is conservation of momentum

>>8517473
>Flat earth doesn't allow for gravity, meaning that the only way that we can stay on it is if it magically accelerates upwards
I wonder why there isn't a massively strong wind blowing downwards at all times all over the planet.

>>8517664
Nice appeal to authority
Care to explain why the things you've linked are true?

>>8517727
appeals to authority are valid arguments if the authorities are recognized experts, the statements are generally recognized as true in the field, and the authority is only speaking within the field they are an expert in.

File: 1471599931483.jpg (101KB, 513x486px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 513x486px

>>8517727
>Wah wah! It's a fallacy and therefore invalid.

File: bunch-of-sage-leaves.jpg (23KB, 700x466px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 700x466px

remember that only [math](You)[/math] can save /sci/ from whatever this is

File: eratosthenes_experiment.jpg (91KB, 1729x1200px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1729x1200px

>>8517727
What is a massive body of centuries of scientific EVIDENCE. You can test these hypothesis yourself in the same exact way that Eratosthenes tested it over 2300 years ago.

You can test the speed of light in a vacuum scientifically, measuring it to prove the distance of the Earth from the Sun. You can measure the radius of the Earth scientifically. You can measure the gravity of the Earth.

I swear this is like trying to teach a fucking baby calculus, it's like your brains never developed or something. You simply take empirical evidence and you throw it out the window.

There is not a single peer-reviewed paper with scientific evidence and data that supports a Flat Earth hypothesis. Not a single one. Go ahead, go ahead and link me up with an academic peer-reviewed journal paper about flat Earth that has valid, testable data. I'll wait.

You have allowed your contrarianism to take yourself too far buddy. Best leave now.

Post proofs or shut the fuck up

File: 14790350266778.png (206KB, 317x321px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 317x321px

/vg/ here

the actual fuck am I reading

>>8517664
Then why can't you explain it in your own words if you are such the expert you claim?
All you do is strawman someone else's work every fucking time

Daily reminder that an ancient Greek was able to prove that Earth is round using sticks, fucking sticks.

>>8517540
>what's to say those regulations aren't in place to protect the truth?
They're in place to protect passengers.

>Those regulations wouldn't prohibit flight from SA to NZ if you were to fly near but not over Antarctica.
Actually, they would.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=AKL-JNB&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=330

File: latest.png (494KB, 906x514px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 906x514px

>>8517763
>strawman

File: 1465148658162.jpg (161KB, 762x900px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 762x900px

>>8517762
"Flat earthers" Usually decide to shitpost on sci.
It's fun to bully them.

>>8517769
my parents said I should not get and advantage on the mentally handicapped

If the earth was flat the pressure and gravity will be higher at the edges than at the centre.

File: 1457160660266.jpg (12KB, 206x193px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 206x193px

>>8517790
They aren't really flat earthers though.
They're just shitposters looking for their daily dose of [YOU]s.
Surely no one can actually be stupid enough to believe that the earth actually is flat.

File: 1371871249114.jpg (73KB, 1068x600px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1068x600px

>>8517769
And people who believe the earth which is round can't even explain it despite it being true
Who is the real idiot here?

>>8517802
I guess all of us who got suckered into checking this thread. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>8517802
there is something to be said for a responsibility for knowing the theory behind accepted scientific truths, but how you're going about showing that people aren't living up to their intellectual responsibilities is not the clearest way to achieve your goal

File: 1456103095521.jpg (21KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x400px

>>8517802
That's just because you dismiss anything people say.
>Genuinely presenting >>8516715 as evidence.
I mean, the bait is working and all, but you should really seek out something better.

>>8516553
I live in cali, when I go to the beach I don't see Hawaii or Japan in the distance.

Checkmate flat earthers

>>8516685
>I'm an engineer
We figured

File: FB_IMG_1480972236376.jpg (55KB, 960x613px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 960x613px

>people STILL seriously believing in gravity

This is why /sci/ is brainlet central

File: 1480961203807.jpg (3MB, 3132x2148px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3132x2148px

>>8517581
Since you seem too retarded to understand anything, I drew it for you.
What's stopping the sun rays A B and C ?
Why don't we see the north pole mountain in OP video while we clearly see the earth and the sun.

File: 1476371441176.jpg (26KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x300px

>>8517465

>>8517802
Look, here he is throwing out the line again!

>>8517993
The sun is obviously not as high in the sky as you are trying to portray. If you look closely it is illustrated much lower on that picture to begin with.
Stop playing stupid

File: IMG-20161205-WA0036.jpg (9KB, 195x258px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 195x258px

>>8517993
Is it low enough for me to do the same experiment in OP's video in southern Argentina and expect to see the Sun the same direction as I would see North America? Or not that low?

How come I don't see North America when I look up? (Southern Argentina)

And how come no FE theorist can explain to me what exactly is driving the Earth's disk upwards with a constant acceleration? Will it eventually reach the speed of light and beyond, if so?

How was the flat disk of Earth created? Are the stars and exoplanets more disks? Where are the other planets of the solar system? What shape do they have?

>>8518106
Sorry, I meant to reply to >>8518057

>>8518106
Man, don't even bother. These people are either baiting, or they have no logical way to deduce their bullshit. It's mostly people just baiting / triggering people on /sci/ though.

>most replies of any thread
>flatworlders
this board is a joke

>>8516701
Don't you mean derivative?

>>8518227
>not differential

>>8518236
In the case of an instantaneous rate of change that's not being compared to another, doesn't it make more sense to call it the derivative?

Round earthers still haven't refuted most of the points made in this thread

>>8518106
No shit you can't see that far dude. There's tons of particles in the atmosphere to block visible sight that far. It's the same reason you can't see across very large bodies of water

>>8517815
Literally just asking for people to exercise their knowledge in the form of hard proofs in terms of mathematics and physics. This is ridiculous that no one can explain it for themselves without having to link to someone else's work

>>8517746
I understand calculus very well. So if you can post a mathematical proof of your hypothesis I would be very happy to check it

>>8517838
What is atmosphere?

>>8518351
refute this

ur a faget

File: 15284808_1804423199798169_2175360911213701324_n.png (261KB, 828x960px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 828x960px

Tfw to intelligent to solve proofs

>>8518458
jesus christ these are getting impressive

>>8516797
Nope. At the planetary scale newton's laws dont apply anymore. Einstein;s relativity does.

File: 20161129_081803.jpg (478KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 2048x1152px

>>8516872
There must be an experiment that would provide us with irrefutable proof that the earth is flat.
Say launching a rocket into space with a camera attached to it which any other country with a space program can do, which mean again they're either in on it or we life on a ball and you guys just have too much free time.

So why hasn't something been done that would make the general public go "oh, we cant disprove that, the earth is flat no question". That way the agencies would have no choice but to admit their hoax and you'd win.
But it hasn't been done, I wonder why?
Pic related, photo I took last week, looks a bit curved but it could the window bending the image so who knows

>>8516734
Pwned!

>>8516568
Look at the ground. The horizon is now above eye level. Look at the sky. The horizon is now below eye level.

>>8516585
Gravity. If you doubt its existence, go walk off a cliff.

Why do so many people pretend to be dumb as hell?

Are they actually dumb as hell?

This has to be the stupidest fucking meme, I swear.

>>8516881
What force provides earth's acceleration?

>>8516881
Also, how do we account for the fact that objects experience less attraction to the earth with increasing altitude? If it were simply accelerating, the attraction would be equal everywhere. Is the earth accelerating in a straight line? If so, is the sun accelerating in exactly the same direction and speed? How?

>>8518670
God's boundless love

>>8518863
Quantum mechanics

>>8518863
Because that's what parallel lines lines looks like when viewed from in between.

can someone post the pic of that israeli astronaut headshotting the american once he realizes earth is flat

"I believe the earth is flat" is just another way of saying "I have never been to another continent"

>>8516784
there is a mathematical proof in the video.

it's right there in the video. he laid it out in terms of a thought experiment, but if you're smart enough you'd see that what he demonstrated was more than adequate. he walks you through the thought process you need in order to write the same thought in a different way (mathematical notation)

>>8516784
it's at 4 minutes.

>>8516614
I'm pretty sure it's because it's bright fucking daylight mate, grabbing your telescope and looking straight at the the stars would be committing suicide.
I'm no flat Earth believer, but your logic doesn't check out. Even then, ignoring my sarcasm, the Earth still spins so eventually they would.

I think what flat earthers are trying to say is they have a really high standard for evidence.

yeah, they personally, haven't seen evidence that earth, or every other astronomical body larger than a few hundred km's in diameter is roughly round.

i'm not trying to make fun of them, they're right. they should be skeptical. they shouldn't accept something as truth just because someone else says it's true.

but on the same coin, they need to educate themselves in the means by which they can deduce for themselves, the truth. just because you haven't seen evidence for or agiainst something yet doesn't mean it's false, it just means you haven't found the evidence.

in maths, if you want to disprove a theory there is a simple rule: you have to prove that it is impossible. it's not enough to just say "well, it's been tried for 100's of years and nobody has found the answer yet so it must be impossible" that's not good enough. maybe you, and everyone else just weren't smart enough.

the thing with flat earth is, you can't just say things like "the sun wolud look like this" or "gravity doesn't exist" without having proof as to how everything else would still work if our understanding of gravity is flawed.

You think gravity doesn't exsit, or our understanding of it is flawed? Great. Please share with the scientific community in a public forum your new interpretation of gravity and let us analyse it for consistency. If it passes the test, you're a hero, man.

>Be amateur astronomer
>Am now part of a vast conspiracy to hide the true nature of the earth

So when do I get my paycheck? We get paid, right? And what about our insurance plan?

All these "you can't see the curvature" arguments are dumb as shit.
The earths radius is 6371km. Even if you're 100km high, this is like standing on a sphere with a 115m radius and looking at the edge. It'll look pretty flat. You need to go much higher to see it curve

>>8518649
Earth is accelerating upwards

File: 1448703523744.jpg (137KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1024x1024px

>>8518654
If it's so dumb prove it wrong

>>8518976
Probably the first reasonable argument in this thread

File: 1479243585407.png (638KB, 495x597px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 495x597px

>>8517718
>Flat earth doesn't allow for gravity, meaning that the only way that we can stay on it is if it magically accelerates upwards
The universe is electric.

"Gravity" is just electromagnetism

Most of science is based on a couple fundamental mistruths. "Gravity"/"Big G" and the shape of magnetic fields

>>8519522
>"Gravity" is just electromagnetism
OK so somehow this magnetism affects everything but somehow affects certain metals more but not even the largest electromagnet on earth can pull or push a human?

File: 350px-Oblate_spheroidal_coordinates_full_hyperboloid.png (83KB, 350x394px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 350x394px

>>8516645
>is the Earth the only object that is flat? or are those stars that we are seeing also flat?
All "planets" are "flat".

They just look round when you're far away from them.

We're merely 3 dimensional, don't forget that ;)

>>8518981
>I think what flat earthers are trying to say is they have a really high standard for evidence
More Like a really high cognitive dissonance where certain pictures are real but any picture that goes against them isn't real

The biggest flaw you'll find with them is that none of them can do math nor can any of them apply symmetrical logic to different ideas that would easily contradict each other. It's a dumb work around they'll do where "that picture is real but yours are all fake " bullshit

>200 replies
No one has mentioned how the pull off the moon is the reason for the oceanic tides
Man /sci/ really is brain dead

>>8519522
>The universe is electric.
Oh no, not again the idiocy of the electric universe....

>>8519528
That's because everything is a little electromagnetic. The fact the earth is so large is the reason that it has such a large force

File: 3BAvjHR.png (691KB, 899x548px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 899x548px

>>8519528
>OK so somehow this magnetism affects everything but somehow affects certain metals more
Yes. The way our current electromagnets are designed is based on this mistruth about the shape of magnetic fields.
When you know how to make a REAL electromagnet you can repel/attract anything you want.

There's not 4 fundamental forces. Instead they're just 4 different manifestations of electricity.

>>8519545
>Oh no, not again the idiocy of the electric universe....
Would you prefer the name "plasma universe"?

>>8519551
Except when measuring electromagnetic force there are a plethora of things that give off way stronger fields the earth not being one of those strong thing

>>8519554
Forgot to add to this. We aren't being pulled DOWN onto Earth, instead we're being PUSHED into it.

File: lfTxGkW.png (326KB, 852x383px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 852x383px

>gravity is real
>there is no experiment that shows ANY amount of mass attracting even the smallest of objects
>except for the Cavendish experiments that have NEVER been recreated to any accuracy
>that same experiment is how "Big G" was derived
Please, tell me more about this 'Gravity' /sci/

or wake up. The choice is yours.

>>8519567
What keeps you on the ground then?

>>8519567
Google gravity constant

File: Screenshot from 2016-12-06 11-06-38.png (68KB, 1131x639px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1131x639px

>>8519567
I carried out the Cavendish Balance experiment in my Modern Physics lab. I got a roughly accurate value.
bottom number in pic

>>8519554
>Would you prefer the name "plasma universe"?
No, it's still dumb.

>>8519554
>Yes. The way our current electromagnets are designed is based on this mistruth about the shape of magnetic fields.
>When you know how to make a REAL electromagnet you can repel/attract anything you want.
>There's not 4 fundamental forces. Instead they're just 4 different manifestations of electricity.
You are fucking stupid this is /x/ tier shit

File: V130.jpg (31KB, 432x436px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 432x436px

>>8519575
>What keeps you on the ground then?
Electromagnetism. Like i said, we're being PUSHED.

>>8519579
>Google gravity constant
I know all about "Big G" pal ;)
>Pic related


>>8519581
>I carried out the Cavendish Balance experiment in my Modern Physics lab
Prove it.

"our" understanding of physics is OBO and it's a result of trust of this Cavendish experiment.

Your screenshot of equations proved just about as much as his did when he showed them off the first time.

It's like if you mess up your 12 step problem at step 2, it might workout great for 9 steps then fall apart at step 12, ESPECIALLY when we're talking large numbers(or floating point imprecision). Or you could just make up something (like say Dark matter) to keep the lie going.
>>8519591
>You are fucking stupid this is /x/ tier shit
Not an argument, sweetie ;)

>>8519605
nigger if you are unwilling to believe experiments you can try to reproduce them.
if you dont want to reproduce them then you just gonna have to live with not accepting the experiments conclusions.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU MUST REJECT THEM WITHOUT PROOF FAGGOT

>>8519605
>Prove it.

Define what you mean by this and made someone will give a shit about interacting with you. Every time anyone seems to legitmately make the mistake of thinking one of you dunces can be educated, you just go all spaghetti about PROOF IT!!!! and keep changing the goal posts for your proof. You'll always have a complaint about what someone shows you, yet you never define what you want. This person clearly carried out an experiment and is showing you the data and conclusions they arrived at. How is this not proof? Or any of the other flat earth nonsense, and their ultimate fallback when they can't scream and screech and move their goal posts for proof, is to claim it's a conspiracy. Have a pilot that can offer various proofs against flat earth? CONSPIRACY! He's in on it, you're in on it, everyone is in on it. It has literally all the major signs of a mental illness.

File: 1479490127486.jpg (244KB, 1600x1125px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1600x1125px

>>8519611
>nigger if you are unwilling to believe experiments you can try to reproduce them.
And no one can reproduce the Cavendish experiments. I'm glad we've come to an agreement.

>>8519619
>Define what you mean by this
Give me a video of you conducting the experiment front to back. Followed with your analysis and conclusion.

I'm not doubting his arithmetic. I'm doubting that the original cavendish experiment is how "Big G" was derived.

>Cavendish experiement never worked
>No way to solve the Mass of Earth now because they couldn't figure out Big G with their shitty experiment
>Instead they solve for G using an estimated Mass of Earth(they 'knew' the volume) then attribute that result to your experiment


Thanks Freemasons ;)

>>8519649
>Give me a video

You in the next post:

>You just CGI'ed it, FAKE, PROVE IT. Pay to fly me out to you and do the experiment in front of me

You after that:

>FAKE! Your equipment is rigged. PROVE IT

And it goes on and on with you people.... Yawn

You're either going to accept people's results or call them liars for no reason, you've chosen the 2nd option, which isn't a valid choice. What does a video give you that his written results don't?

File: b08c58b768423570d21bfb73459b6ac8.jpg (42KB, 650x433px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 650x433px

>"Gravity" starts running out of mass to make reality still operate
>reality clearly still fully operational
>uhh uhh DARK MATTER!
>Gravity's face when

File: dc cap building dome.jpg (516KB, 1024x792px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 1024x792px

>>8519667
>ask what I want for proof
>tell him exactly what I want for proof
>present me with a strawman argument instead

Nice try buddy.

This experiment has never been reliably recreated. "Reliably" as in: "gotten the same results as the original claim"
>You're either going to accept people's results or call them liars for no reason
No, I've clearly chosen the 3rd option. Calling someone a liar WITH reason.


The only evidence of this claim is an experiment that has NEVER BEEN RECREATED. That is literally the antithesis of science, but somehow most of physics is based on it.

>>8519667
>What does a video give you that his written results don't?
Showing the actual experiment WORKS.

You can plug in the expected values for things and get big G every fucking time because that's how they ORIGINALLY derived it. They solved for G using an estimated Mass of Earth since they "knew" the volume.

>>8519605
>prove it
do you want me to send you a 20 hour video of me taking data or something?

File: 1477137075685.jpg (446KB, 1600x791px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 1600x791px

>>8519730
>do you want me to send you a 20 hour video of me taking data or something?
You'd literally be the first guy ever to ever upload a video of a working version of the experiment.

Go for it, make history my mans.

>>8519649
Fucking this. Why in the fuck hasn't it been able to be reproduced? Also to add, the technology and instruments they used to measure and test in the 1790s is no doubt less accurate than what we are capable of today. What gives.

File: wHI9lMQ.gif (2MB, 942x484px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 942x484px

>it's an /x/fag BTFO out of /sci/ episode
uhhh

ITT word thinkers with no mathematical proof

>>8519705
>No, I've clearly chosen the 3rd option. Calling someone a liar WITH reason.

And what reason would that be? Because you're the one out and out dismissing someone's experimental research, with no evidence. I've done this too experiment as well, multiple people alone in this thread have, so I'm unsure where you're getting that no one has ever replicated this experiment? Are you calling us all chaotic liars? Or are we all part of your grand conspiracy?

Again, this is the behavior that makes no one listen to you. You dismiss proof contrary to your beliefs as out of hand false or conspiratorial in nature.

>>8519780
Fucking hell man stop shifting the goal posts. I'm not even defending the poster you are calling out. I just want to call you out on your conspiracy slippery slope.

>>8519741
>You'd literally be the first guy ever to ever upload a video of a working version of the experiment.
Are you sure?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mcg2h--JDv4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOZ2wf9Tiok

>The only evidence of this claim is an experiment that has NEVER BEEN RECREATED
Are you sure? http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Stephen.Merkowitz/G/Big_G.html

>Electromagnetism. Like i said, we're being PUSHED.
By the evil Maxwell and his maxwellian followers...

>Instead they're just 4 different manifestations of electricity.
The, why the W and Z bosons are massive instead of massless?
I bet you are going to say "because all the experiments are false".

File: recommendation.png (41KB, 344x288px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 344x288px

please keep the quality of posts on /sci/ higher than than they are in this thread

>>8517503
Do you have a picture where it is not distorted? Do you have a picture where it is distorted with a way that is inconsistent to a spherical earth?

>>8519786

I'm asking what his claimed reason is for dismissing research a poster in this thread has done. All I can see is he called the person a liar, which seems par for the course. It wasn't like this a decade ago.

This was all fun and games in like 2007 when I found the people pretending to be FE people, and it was interesting as a philosophical aside among smart people, sciency philosophy. There's plenty of ways FE makes no sense, but it's interesting to have had conversations with people adding on new bandages to see how far you can go in making the theory bend to work with real life observations. Best part was working out how GPS can function, because again, you can grab an antenna and get raw GPS signaling data pretty easily.

The core of it came down to the fact that as long as you were stuck on the ground, it became exceptionally hard to disprove that the earth is flat *IF* you also make the assumption that you can't trust anyone else, it has to be measurements you can conduct yourself.

I can disprove FE theory with 2 sticks 2 people and a phone call, but it requires me trusting what the other person is telling me. Was a really interesting philosophical aside into the concept of what "knowing" really means, was really fun.

Fast forward a decade, and this little inside joke among sciency types has snowballed out of control into an actual movement out of our hands where retards actually believe the core tenants of FE. It's like the ultimate example of a joke gone too far, and out of hand/control.

I can smell the autism.

>>8519780
You're still strawmanning my argument and moving the goalposts

>Cavendish Experiment Revisited
The comments in the video by the creator of the video itself explain all the problems with his version of the experiment so I didn't have to.

Air currents
The string used
Material electromagnetic properties(bingo!)

This is not a reliable version of the experiment and you know it.

The second video suffers for all the same reasons.

>http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Stephen.Merkowitz/G/Big_G.html
Their result for Big G varies from the accepted version. Like I said at the start, Big G "works" for a bit. But because we're talking floating point precision, eventually you run out of mass and have to invent Dark Matter. Once again, I'm not saying "gravity" doesn't exists. I'm saying it isn't what they say it is.

>I bet you are going to say "because all the experiments are false".
No, because we have to go back. Our understanding of physics is "off by one".

File: cmon man.png (412KB, 1071x805px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 1071x805px

>>8516553
>we concave earthers now

File: Ganking Void.gif (461KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 500x282px

>see thread
>/x/fag ITT is not entirely off his rocker so I go to disprove him
>head to youtube
>stumble across THIS
www.youtube.com/watch?v=heiznYx-Ryk
>watch it
Ok guys help me out here. Keep me grounded

>>8519822
>But because we're talking floating point precision,

What does floating point precision have to do with any of this?

>>8519842
>What does floating point precision have to do with any of this?
Same idea behind exponentially large numbers

File: 1477956374983.gif (2MB, 320x362px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x362px

>>8519822
>floating point numbers mean an experiment is bad

File: Karen_Nyberg_looks_through_Cupola_on_ISS_(ISS037-E-026900).jpg (1MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4288x2848px

Who would be behind that incredible conspiracy ?
Why would they do it ?
How could they maintain the lie when today everybody has satellites, airplanes, internet, etc ? Why do millions of people of every nationality, religion, social status keep lying ?

>>8519848
Ever notice how GPS works indoors? If there were satellites then that wouldn't work as LOS would be blocked.

>>8519847
Do you not understand how significant digits work?

>>8519845

Which is....?

You do realize computers can calculate numbers with near arbitrary precision since, well, basically ever...

If you're in a 100 baby level programming class using built in types, yes you're limited to a few bytes to hold a value, past that, you're memory bounded for precision, and a kilobyte can store about 250 digits of precision. Let alone a megabyte or even a gigabyte of precision.

>>8519851
>If there were satellites then that wouldn't work as LOS would be blocked.

Okay, so how does GPS work then?

>>8519851
I didn't ask for more "evidence", I asked about who is behind the conspiracy.

>>8519848
Exactly. Even if you never have the chance to observe Earth's roundness directly or indirectly, what's more likely: that there's some massive, global conspiracy that has literally no apparent motivation or that the Earth is round?
The Flat Earth movement is derived from comedy and was meant as a satirical jab -- but it's evolved into a shit storm in the pop-sci, casual science community. I imagine that most of what you see on /sci/ about it is shit-posting, or at least I hope it is. There are countless ways to confirm the shape of the Earth, like using GPS, looking out the window of an airplane, buying a telescope and looking at the shapes of every other planet/moon around us, etc.

>>8519834
>Ok guys help me out here. Keep me grounded

What are you confused about? I watched some of it, any this guy repeatedly claims he's great at physics (then subtley hints he dropped out of school at 18), but the first question I could find was 4 minutes in.

Yes, if you took a scale to the moon, and put the same chems on it, it would read a lower gram reading. Weight is in Newtons, Mass is in Kilograms. The scale can only really measure Weight, and then implicitly converts it to Mass with the assumption it's being used on Earth. Holy shit the derp with this one.

>>8519857
Triangulation. It can be done very accurately at ground level tho you will just argue that GPS is satellite triangulation (or more)

>>8519853
I absolutely do. I also know that for anything larger than half precision floats, the distance from one value to the next representable value is at most 10^-23, vastly smaller than the measured value for G (on the order of 10^-11), and precise enough that there is no empirical data except possibly high energy particle physics that needs more than single precision to accurately store numbers.

>>8519859
This isn't /x/. I want to discuss the scientific side of things not the philosophical side of things

>>8519867

Triangulation with what? If I'm inside a structure without clear LOS, you claim this somehow makes GPS sat signal reception impossible.

So... What am I receiving to perform this triangulation if every structure in your mind is completely 100% impervious to all RF.

>>8519851
GPS doesn't work indoors -- at least not well. The best and most widely used GPS ventures such as Google have developed systems to assess what local WiFi networks you're connected to, and they guess your location based on that. It's fairly accurate. You technically don't need GPS capabilities anymore to be located on the globe.

>>8519822
>You're still strawmanning my argument and moving the goalposts
I smell.... Projection... A lot of projection.

>This is not a reliable version of the experiment and you know it.
"E pur si muove".

>Their result for Big G varies from the accepted version.
You are talking shit:
Codata 2014: 6.67408 (31) x 10^(-11)=(6.67408 ± 0.00031) x 10^(-11)
Washingtong university: (6.674215 ± 0.000092) x 10^(-11)
The second one is inside the 1 SD region of the accepted version.

> But because we're talking floating point precision, eventually you run out of mass and have to invent Dark Matter.
What does precision of an experiment, floating point and dark matter have to be with each other?

>No, because we have to go back. Our understanding of physics is "off by one".
Maybe "your" understanding of modern physics is what is "off by one".

File: 1478887096886.gif (1MB, 185x175px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 185x175px

>>8519847
>floating point numbers mean an experiment is bad
Who are you quoting?

>>8519848
Some sect of freemasonry.

Knowledge is power

Satellites exist, I don't know even close to everything involving this earth we're on. I have so many questions myself. Airplanes allegedly never go high enough to see the curve. What's wrong with internet?
There's 2 societies on earth. Them and us. We're kept like cattle and lied to by them for reasons I'm not too sure of myself.

Space is real, just not the way they say it is. We are only 3dimensional observers.

Cavendish didn't even find the gravitational constant you fucking idiots. He found something similar that was reinterpreted albeit slightly modified

File: 1480454742174.png (977KB, 595x845px) Image search: [Google]

977KB, 595x845px

>>8519860
>I imagine that most of what you see on /sci/ about it is shit-posting
Yeah either shit-posting or mental illness.
I think over 90% of people who actually believe in it must live in Africa and the Middle East

>>8519885
I'm quoting the post indicated by the number after the arrow brackets.

>>8519879
Do you not understand how IP blocks are assigned?

>>8519511

How? Where is the energy coming from?

>>8518624
This is so stupid on so many levels and it sounds exactly like what of my physics undergrads would say

This thread is legitimately one of the best threads on /sci/ right now. Actual discussion was had, at least more so than any other thread.

>>8519893
Not very well but I understand that there's a location component to the address so I can wrap my mind around how they use network connects to surmise location.

>>8519893
Do you not understand how they find your location with wifi?

>>8519955
Yeah and? If they knew where that IP was that would eliminate the need for GPS now wouldn't it

>>8516684
>brainlette

>>8517735
it is pronounced sah ghey

>>8516553
Just put a straightedge across the horizon in the picture and you will see that it is in fact curved.

>>8518863
Its' a cloudy day

>>8518981
DO NOT try to be reasonable and /or understanding...Flat earthers see that as a weakness in your belief system and will compound the layers of bullshit they will put on you.....just wait until they get started about Antartica.. the best thing sci or 4 chan can do is stop them from posting here.

File: parameters.jpg (8KB, 250x192px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x192px

This picture represents the mindset you will be up against with Flat Earthers. You cannot argue with them using anything considered "sciencey". All of their arguments are based on the personal observations made by others. You must debate within the parameters they set because any thing with science or from NASA is lies and fake. They will use their pictures to prove a point but you cannot, because yours have to be faked. Do Not allow this poison onto 4Chan in general and /sci/ specifically. They have left Youtube shit scattered so much that you step in it no matter where you go. It's mental cancer. You've been warned.

>>8519540
I think it would check out just fine in the retarded "donut-holed-disk-because-it's-not-entirely-flat" model just as in the real Earth because the moon would be rotating in the same circular axis as the Sun. It's still retarded tho.

Seems to me we'd be able to see considerably more of the night sky given a flat earth than we do. I can't help thinking that the observable behavior of and relation between the sun and moon would be much different as well. Wouldn't the sun create tidal forces much different than what we observe if the sun, moon and earth were the configuration I see on flat earth maps?

>>8516872
The all-powerful desk globe industrial complex wills it.

>>8520216
So flat earthers have the argumentative capacity of creationists and fundamentalists, and that's it? This is the wrong board for this topic for sure then.

>>8520234
You might even see less of the night sky if it were flat.

>>8517465
>>8516757
>plane goes down over pacific
water landing, survivors get on rafts and rescue effort from NZ and SA begins to try and save them
>plane goes down over Antarctica
Weather conditions unknown, average temperature of the interior is -57 degrees Celsius. The terrain is harsh and unforgiving, and rescue efforts are near impossible.

File: 1480781311045.png (301KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 512x384px

>>8516879
Holy shit I really want to know right now
What other conspiracy theory connects to the Antartica? I mean, surely it has something to do with alien sightings and the US and Russian space programs and shit

Come on dude, redpill me here ROFL

>>8520216
Funny thing is that's the same exact mindset of round earthers

>>8520184
>Trust me, I read it's true but I can't back up that scientific fact with any hard science

>>8520220
You do realize that flat earthers don't believe the conventional theory of gravity.... right?
So no that would not check out.. Seriously how stupid can you be to not even understand your own argument.

>>8520310
Look at where the Titanic sank...
There are more shipping accidents than plane accidents but that doesnt stop them from traveling that same route. Explain that

File: TLAuKyBVxhY.jpg (34KB, 185x604px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 185x604px

>6/12/16
The day that /sci/ couldn't even prove the fact that the earth is round. I hate flat earthers but you guys really made an ass of yourselves and your (lack) of understanding of why earth is round. You guys really are armchair scientists and brainlets all around.

>>8520522
No boat has sunk due to an iceberg since the Titanic, so i'm not sure where you're getting this "shipping accidents" claim from. Also, many new protocols were put in place like 24/7 radio operation and lifeboat requirements. Today, we use satellite imagery and other methods to keep an iceberg watch to try and prevent iceberg collisions in the first place.

>>8520555
I meant that many shipping routes go near either pole. I then made the point that there are more shipping accidents than plane accidents that result in abandoning either one. I never said specifically because of icebergs. Also I didn't mean flights over Antarctica, I meant flights near Antarctica and subsequently near those shipping routes. Also what does monitoring and instruments and safety protocol have anything to do with the topic, despite all these methods to avoid loss there are still more shipping accidents? You can say the exact same about airplanes being just as equipped if not more. In fact that's probably one of the big reasons that planes have far fewer accidents.
Jesus Christ you guys are insufferable.

>>8520310
You are so fucking stupid that it hurts. The main reasons that planes fly the routes they do is because of the jet stream and unpredictable weather patterns around the poles. Like holy fuck dude this is basic fucking knowledge

>>8520555
>No boat has sunk due to an iceberg since the Titanic
How fucking dense can you be?
The most recent one was 2007 with many in between...

>>8520604
forgot link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_sunk_by_icebergs

Tbh, flat earthers are the next Galileo

File: 1429730610945.jpg (79KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 500x500px

>>8520555
(((Iceberg)))

years ago, it was a big joke. everybody thought it was funny.

now there are many that take this shit seriously. think about this for a moment...they actually seriously think the earth is flat. that there is a giant ice wall. that NASA photoshops all of the pictures of earth. it's all a big conspiracy. they really truly believe that.

>>8520617
It's not necessarily that people believe earth is flat. It's more that people don't believe that it is round (spherical actually).

>>8520610
A renaissance in back to facts and back to hard evidence if I say so myself.
Space is a quantum soup of the most primordial building blocks of life. It is not in fact a vacuum as this would make no sense whatsoever. The reason that the atmosphere doesn't shred apart by the immense force this supposed vacuum would create is because the atmosphere is simply gasses being held together by ionic bonds.
Also the recent discovery of gravitational waves could lead to a new era of science.

OP here. I'm not even a flat earther but I just wanted to do an exercise to see if people who believe that earth is round (pretty much most sane people) could scientifically, logically, or mathematically explain why earth is round in their own words and understanding. Other than a few posters no one has been able to do it and even then most relied on linking an external source. There were (too) many incorrect arguments as to why we believe earth is round in addition to many flat out wrong arguments/reasons to questions which were used as reasons to question if earth is round. And no these weren't loaded questions, they were questions that were well within the scope of general scientific knowledge and logic.
The point here is that just because you believe something doesn't mean you understand why that belief is factually true. A dead giveaway is the inability to explain that very thing in your own way and understanding of that knowledge.
You guys are pathetic in your understanding of basic science and will achieve nothing if you can't grasp that very scientific idea. This thread has without doubt proved to me that most of you don't really understand jack shit without having to memorize and copy someone else's works.

>>8520749 no one has been able to do it

Without IDs I don't know who's who, but making some guess, roughly the 3rd person to post in this thread explained what's wrong with your OP. >8516659

>>8520749
Here. This is OC...
If the Earth was flat and the Sun hovered above it and moved in a great circle around the pole, you would see a difference in motion most marked at times of rise and set. Place yourself on the equator during the equinox. At rise, the Sun would appear somehow and from north of the equator (left), with slow movment (foreshortened) to the south (right, as it follows its circular path). Its horizontal motion diminshes over the course of the morning. As it reached overhead (Noon) it would be moving most quickly and almost straight east-west. After Noon it would appear to slow down and begin its drift right (north), and farther along it loses the vertical movement (yet never set) while gaining the drift to the right and magically disappearing.

That of course, is not what we see at the equator at an equinox. The Sun rises due east, transits straight up, and sets due west all at a constant angular speed all along its path, which is apparently straight up, over, and down, because in this geometry you (not a distant pole) are at the center of a circle it appears to trace.

Also, a close-proximity Sun would increase in brightness from invisible at "rise" to its brightest at Noon and back again to invisible at "set" in the course of one day. The graph of the intensity of the received light would vary by the square of the distance of the Sun. This means the increase/decrease in brightness would vary most radically around Noon. Again, we don't see that. We see the Sun remain more or less constant in brightness during the day, with a good accounting (and weather-dependent) for its dimming when near the horizon due to atmospheric opacity.

File: downloadfile-2.jpg (127KB, 940x608px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 940x608px

>>8520976
That's meaningless unless you can prove the mathematics behind that claim my dude. Yeah that's true but you need to explain and prove the height and angle/viewport of that camera in relation to the circumference of the earth. So to put into perspective, assuming a roughly 90 degree field of view, you would need to be approximately 565 miles above earth to see a curvature of about 13 degrees. That's basic fucking math that wasn't posted in this entire thread.
Pic related

>>8521193
Sorry I meant 166 miles altitude would mean 565 miles to the point where you lost sight on the horizon

>>8521185
Furthermore, if you are *anywhere* south of the path of Sun, then you would see the Sun appear from the NE, head towards a spot above but always north of you, then move away again to the NW. In fact, between latitudes 23°S and the equator, you can watch the Sun rise in the SE, move up over your head and depending on the time of yar and you latitude, see the Sun south of you at Noon, and then set in the SW. This means the sky is moving around a pole that is above the southern horizon. A Sun moving around a disk will not behave like it has two poles to orbit.

>>8521185
>>8521215
One of the only logic based posts in this whole thread with sound reasoning and explanation.

>>8520627
>Space is a quantum soup of the most primordial building blocks of life
When somebody says the word "quantum", 98% of the time he doesn't know anything about quantum physics.

> It is not in fact a vacuum as this would make no sense whatsoever.
Have you ever heard about interplanetary gases? A hypothesis that you can see even on papers from the 50's (for example http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1959ApJ...130..670B)

>The reason that the atmosphere doesn't shred apart by the immense force this supposed vacuum would create is because the atmosphere is simply gasses being held together by ionic bonds.
No, it's gravity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape
Assuming your idea was true, then why the three most abundant elements of the atmosphere are two covalent diatomic molecules (N_2 and O_2) and a noble gas (Ar)? Because there are no ionic bonds there...

>>8516553
>>I'm 15 and dont understand optics or geometry

File: bob tweet 1.jpg (37KB, 529x575px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 529x575px

then there's this guy

>>8520749
Your experiment was fundamentally flawed from the start because you chose a topic /sci/ is thoroughly conditioned to ignore by the constant deluge of flat earth threads. You should have picked a new topic or made your motive clear from the start.

>>8521968
So just because a topic is absurd means you are unable to correctly represent the truth?
Sorry that's bullshit dude. There's no excuse for not understanding basic mathematics and science.

>>8522047
>So just because a topic is absurd means you are unable to correctly represent the truth?
It means that we feel very literal motivation to correctly represent the truth, not that we are incapable.

>>8516563
>doesn't understand conservation of momentum
Nice b8, but he was moving relative to the earths spin, because he started out on the ground.

>>8516684
Not only that, but the universe does have a speed limit, and the closer you get to c the more energy a rocket would have to put out to maintain the same acceleration. Not to mention such a rocket would require a fuel tank bigger than the observable universe and therefore would need even more rockets.

>>8522047
>a crowd of filthy hobos crowds around you asking for money for food
>you give a few some money
>they immediately buy drugs from another hobo
>this keeps happening
>one hobo asks for money and you refuse
>he says "it was a test all along, i wanted to see if you were a good person"

>>8516726
Science denial is a plague the Internet has. They'll make up whatever they want no matter how retarded it is

Can someone explain to me what exactly is happening in modern times that "Flat Earth" and other retarded """""theories""""" are gaining so much traction among normal idiots? What is causing this? Look at boards like >>>/pol/ and >>>/x/. Of course it's driven by the standard global conspiracy schlock, and I'm sure there's a fair share of ironic shitposters, but Poe's Law is certainly true in this case as well. Is shitposting turning people into actually believing this nonsense?

Look back a few decades and Flat Earth was extremely fringe and laughable, even to your average scientific illiterate. These days, retards on Youtube make videos about it that get millions of views, and empowered idiots that are emboldened by this spread out onto the Internet to shitpost this garbage.

Honestly, it feels like more and more people are being taken in by this sort of thing, you see so many scientifically illiterate people on the Internet these days, it's just fucking sad, and our University culture of SJW and leftism is making things WORSE. Look at that video from that South African university where the retarded students try to argue that all science is "white" science, and their brains need to be "decolonized."

>>8516881
>accelerating
Such a rocket would need to be bigger than the observable universe, and not only that but last I checked you cannot accelerate beyond the speed of light.
>inb4 hurr durr light travels at infinite speed

>>8517464
Dude. The image is a spherical earth model which looks almost exactly the same as OP image. Stop being this retarded. The earth is round and you are being willfully ignorant of something that was proven over 2000 years ago.

>>8517511
This isn't fucking minecraft, The moon can appear during the day.

>>8517567
The moon orbits on a *mostly* circular orbit. If you know what a "super moon" is, that is when the moon is a full moon at perigee. Other than that, the moon does not change size very much at all. If the moon moved around in a circle above a circular earth, it would definitely look like the one on the right. You would still be able to see it when it was at its farthest point, though it would be a lot smaller than the REAL moon at apogee.

>>8518421
no reply lmao

>>8522207
Nobody on /pol/ really takes this shit seriously. I can't really speak for /x/ but who gives a fuck about that board anyway.
It's mostly all bait or trolling

>>8519848
>that incredible conspiracy ?

I don't care about the shape of the Earth either way. It wouldn't change anything.

But this wouldn't even be that big of a lie or that hard to maintain.

>>8522372
>I don't care about the shape of the Earth either way. It wouldn't change anything.
Nice back-pedaling when you get called out on your retardation. If you are stupid enough to be convinced by flat earth arguments, you really are a brainlet retard.

>But this wouldn't even be that big of a lie or that hard to maintain.
Keep on proving to everyone how absolutely retarded you are. How is something that can be proven by an amateur astronomer, or just a regular ass person who wants to measure the Earth's radius be an easily maintained conspiracy? You don't have to be a professional scientist or researcher to gather evidence to prove the shape of the Earth. People were proving it thousands of years ago, before Christianity even existed.

>>8522410

Uh, that was my first post in this thread. I am just as willing to believe in a flat Earth as I am in a round Earth, or a cube Earth, or a pyramid Earth, or a cylinder Earth. It's a meaningless material formality either way.

File: 1481012153509.png (97KB, 467x496px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 467x496px

>>8522500
You need to go back to >>/college/ and stop smoking so much weed.

Materiak things matter if they will bring us closer to understanding the universe.

File: demiurge.jpg (125KB, 418x627px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 418x627px

>>8522571
>Materiak things matter if they will bring us closer to understanding the universe.

A riddle cannot be solved by putting it under a microscope.

>>8522637
>A riddle cannot be solved by putting it under a microscope

I assume you're are speaking metaphorically, but the metaphor makes little sense.

But it depends on the puzzle. There are a variety of tools and methods for solving all sorts of problems.