Flat earth theory

um the space program with cameras/videos of our round earth from orbit and the moon

>>8547815
So you're just one more guy who just believe in things because you was told so.
You have no valid argument, you pleb

>Who can give me a valid argument to disprove flat earth theory ?
Lunar eclipses.

>>8547813
The shadow cast on the moon by the earth is only possible with a spherical earth.

>>8547821
Interessing one. But not enough.
If I telle you, in a flat earth theory, I don't know how are produced lunar eclipses. Will you tell "that's the proof earth isn't flat" ? then you would be wrong since you'll be using the "ignorance argument", would be like saying "we don't know how pyramids were builds, so it's a proof it was aliens".

Moreover, we can start using imagination to explain lunar eclipse. By the way, during lunars eclipse, the moon is still visible, it just turn red.

Coriolis effect

>>8547831
This is bullshit, When you see a cressent moon, it's not the fucking shadow from earth, it's just a part of the moon which is not in front of the sun. Retard.

By the way, why makes you believe the moon isn't flat either ? after all, you only see one side of the moon.

>>8547813
>Measure moment of inertia of the earth
>Measure the density of the earth
>Calculate moment of inertia of earth as sphere
>And again modeling the earth as disk/cylinder/cone
>Compare the experiment and theory
>See the sphere is the closest to experiment
>Conclude the earth is a sphere

Either that or just look at the numerous photos that exist. Or this >>8547821

The Coriolis effect. Basically, due to the earth's tilt, the rotation of the earth causes air and water at different latitudes to move at different speeds relative to each other, creating a swirl effect that moves in different directions depending on whether you are in the north or southern hemisphere. This effect is consistent with the "spinning ball"model of the earth.

>>8547835
So basically it boils down to this:
>I can't prove the earth is flat therefore it's flat

>>8547836
This the worst argument so far.

You dense motherfucker !!! How dare you use a theory in which round earth is an axiom in order to prove round earth ? get the fuck out of this tread !

>>8547843
All crap, and it's not even argument, you're just telling "dude, do theories and measurement" get the fuck out of here

>>8547850
you can't prove a theory is right, but you can prove a theory is wrong, please learn to read people's argument before opening your mouth

>>8547844
read this
>>8547851

retrard

>>8547861
If the effect can be measured it provides evidence towards the axiom

>>8547855
Reminder: ironic shitposting is still shitposting.

>>8547813
Can you provide us with more data? Is this earth a half-sphere or is it flat like a plate? How thick is it? Does it have a mantle and a core?

I have an idea that would excellently prove the validity or invalidity of the Flat Earth theory: travel around the world in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere at an equal distance from the equator. If the Flat Earth meme is true, the distance covered in the Southern Hemisphere would be longer than the one in the Northern Hemisphere. On a sphere the distances would be equal.

>>8547863
Dude ! seriously ? you are fucking insisting on that ?

Ok let's do this. Coriolis effect is a correction to Newton's gravitation theory.
Indeed in a lab frame, classical mechanics work perfectly however scales that need a geocentric frame, it doen'st work anymore. Therefore was added coriolis and centifugals effects as forces, because in order to correct Newton's mechanics. This issue lead to the discussion of frame definition and an issue in gallileo's transformation.

Later general relativity and Lorentzian's transformation gaved a better description of those effect since it reconcilliate the presence of a force without the presence of a mass.
Still general relativity failed to agree with quantum theory, showing that relativity is incomplete.

Therefore something is missing in this theory, what if it is because one of the original axiomes, round earth, is wrong ?
Dude you just can't create an axiom in a theory and use the theory to prove this axiom, this is wrong.

>>8547813
Why is it flat? Is it because it's only 5 thousand years old and Jesus loves us?

I can call up a friend on the other side of the planet and ask if it's day or night. If the Earth were flat every continent would be in daylight at the same time.

When you see a ship sail towards you, it looks like it's appearing out of thin air, which is what you would expect if the earth was spherical. This was how the ancient greeks knew the earth was round.

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

67KB, 953x541px

>>8547813
Every flat earth op has ignored this post and you will too.

The horizon and ships appearing mast first over them.

Every flat earth thread should just end with this.

>>8547813
>disprove flat earth theory
I didn't know it was proven. What's the proof for it ?

>>8547886
I actually never though about this.
This is actually a really good argument, you nailed it. BRAVO.

>>8547887
Look this is how a scientific mind works, you fag.

There is also the proof by the moon observation, indeed the moon crescent orientation change with your lattitude, and therefore travelling on both sides of ecuador will give you a geometry construct which is possible only due to a round shape. (Aristotle demonstration)

>>8547901
That's an interressing argument, but I don't think this is enough.

The changing of size would depend of moon distance and size. But also of this trajectory. In a round earth construction we know how the moon move in order to explain what we see. However that's not because we don't know how moon move in a way that it agree with our observation that flat earth can be disproven by that. You cannot use the ignorance argument to prove a disprove a theory. You need to give a counter example, something that is not possible assuming the earth is flat.

>>8547887
You're moving into irrelevant fields that do not address the argument. Coriolis effect bus only valid in rotating reference frames , Coriolis effect is observed on earth. Conclusion: earth is a rotating reference frame. Implication: evidence towards a rotating sphere

>>8547903
What about the fact you see mountains that you're not supposed to see ? mirages
So why ships appearing mast first is not a mirage either.

This issue is actually the origin of flat earth society. The fact that mirages exist and that therefore observations of the horizons are not exacts and reliable.

By the way mirages are proven without taking a round earth as an axiom, so they it is perfectly valid to work with it and use it to doubt about it.

>>8547920
>Coriolis effect bus only valid in rotating reference frames
AXIOM
>Coriolis effect is observed on earth. Conclusion: earth is a rotating reference frame.
Use of a theory to prove theory's axiom

Faggot

>>8547927
Not really just use of experimental evidence to prove a theory. Then again you don't seem to have much experimental evidence.

>>8547927
Can you provide a similarly elegant theory explaining the effect using a flat Earth model?

Gyroscopes

>>8547813
you cant prove things to retards who refuse to except the simplest evidence and instead just believe in the next new thing because they want to be a special snowflake and different.

>>8547933
dude, since you know the coriolis effect, I assume that you study physics, or have studied it.

But you have a serious issue here. You cannot use a theory to prove the theory's axiom. If you keep thinking like that, well, if you're still a student, this will represent a serious issue in your formation.

Let's take the example of the ultraviolet catastrophe. Planck solved this issue with a discrete mathematical approach introducing discretes energy exchanges. He ended up calling that the quantum of energy.

The question is, did the black body radiation have proven that matter is discrete and therefore made of atoms ?
Well it didn't.

Ultraviolet catastrophe have disprove the vision of a continuous matter. This doesn't mean that atoms exist, even if this was an observation validating this axiom.

Why ? because, you cannot prove a theory, however you can disprove a theory. A valid theory is a theory that haven't been disprove yet. And if you want to disprove a theory, you have to use the theory and his axiom to show that observation doesn't match it. This is why the black body radiation was called the ultraviolet catastrophe, because a continuous matter approximation don't work in ultra violet.

With this same example, if you want to disprove flat earth theory, you must use his axiom and look for an observation that doesn't agree with this axiom, You cannot use a theory having a different axiom to prove that your first theory is wrong.

>>8547935
You are using the proof by ignorance !

"you cannot disprove that the pyramids were build by aliens because you don't have a theory for their construction without aliens, therefore pyramids were built by aliens"

Dude, you're a serious piece of shit, I don't respect you anymore.

>>8547953
You keep going on about axioms but the Coriolis effect but the only axioms are basic mechanics.

>>8547842
He's talking about eclipses....

>Artificial satellites orbiting the earth right now, providing you with shit like GPS and television
>Literal photographs of the spherical earth
>Gravity, which works incredibly well and has a whole spectrum of more evidence for you
>Coriolis effect and weather patterns
>You can fucking travel around the earth and it has been done countless of times
>You can actually see the curvature of the earth in a lot of places (i.e. towers across a large lake will appear cut off)
>Radio transmission, which happens to have finite range
>Echoes of seismic waves which clearly show that earth is a spherical body

Are flat earthers always this dogmatic? It's a bit disgusting really

>>8547964
OK so now that you are changing the orientation of your arguments So let me go back to my initial argument.

The axiom of coriolis effect on earth is the fact that earth is round.

Indeed, Newton's mechanics work perfectly in a lab frame. Indeed you'e only axiom is to introduce g as uniform.
However to explain coriolis effect, you need to use a geocentric frame, therefore g is not uniform anymore and you assume a spherical geometry. Therefore a round earth become your axiom.

By the way a flat earth rotating around a center would still have a coriolis effect, when you calculate the coriolis effect in a round shaped earth, you always make a projection of the earth rotation anyway.

You just don't want to admit that your argument is bullshit.

>>8547813
Flat earth is a silly distraction from science's real problems which are mainly that what gets awarded is not finding new truths but what looks fancy for the publishing business and sells well.

>>8547982
>>8547886
>>8547905

File: Friendly Neighborhood Autism Specialist.jpg (35KB, 419x499px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 419x499px

>>8547813
Please take your medication, OP.

Your schizophrenia is flaring up.

>>8547989
seriously dude ?

>that what gets awarded is not finding new truths but what looks fancy for the publishing business and sells well

Tell me, which scientific publication did you read ?

The flat earth movement is actually to be taken really seriously, it shows a real issue on science in media.
The example is here, only one dude was able to give a valid argument to disprove flat earth theory.
The rest of the replies were either arrogant invalid argument like "dude modern science sattelit and shit" and people like you who didn't read anything here and just started complaining about "flat earth believers"

>>8547989
I think the true problem is that science is too apologetic for degenerates such as those "diagnosed" with gender dysphoria and schizophrenia.

>>8547894
How can you tell it's your friend you are talking to?

File: 1337388478559428.jpg (23KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 320x240px

>>8548002
You seem triggered. Have you presented your evidence for why you believe the Earth is flat?

>>8548002
Using only arguments is philosophy. You use measurements to disprove theories, not arguments. Alternatively you try to show to what extent - or degree of certainty you are unable to disprove the theory.

>>8547819
>has never seen a satellite

Go outside more

>>8548006
Made-up things are discussed to a larger extent than real issues. It drowns the real valid parts of criticism in a literal flood of horse shit. Far too many respond to the horse shit instead of just ignoring it or calling it out for what it is.

>>8547813
>Who can give me a valid argument to disprove flat earth theory ?
just the fact that none of the "flat earth theory" makes any sense physically, mathematically or geographically

>>8547983
What the fuck are you babbling about? The Coriolis force is derived from Galilean relativity and Newton's laws. It has nothing to do with gravity or shape of Earth.

And yes, if the Earth was flat then you still could observe the Coriolis effect. But if you would fly directly up from flat Earth, the Coriolis force would vanish. Which not the case in reality.

Has anyone mentioned time zones?
Time zones.

I can see the sun when people on the other side of earth cannot.

Is that simple enough for everyone?

In case a flat-earther says "the sun shines like a spotlight": if that was the case, it wouldn't disappear at the horizon, but appear/disappear above the horizon at dawn/dusk.

>>8548032
The Coriolis effect is a consequence of the spherical geometry of the earth and its rotation. No rotation, no Coriolis effect.

The thing about flat earthers is not that they don't believe in certain aspects of physics, they don't believe in physics nor science. Arguing with them is pointless.

>>8547927
Are you doing the entire field of classical mechanics?

The eötvös effect numbnuts, how do you explain that

>>8547914
>something that is not possible assuming the earth is flat
The fact that the moon always looks about the same size no matter where you are on earth

Cant believe nobody mentioned analemma.
Fucking brainlet neets.
/thread

>>8548039
They somehow believe that the earth "curves downward" at 8 inches per mile which gives the earth a radius of like 1200 instead of the known 3900.

They flat out deny that other planets, satellites and orbiting things exist and theres absolutely no proof to any of their statements like "we know theres an edge but no one has ever observed it"

>>8548041
>Doing
*Doubting

>>8548031
And still it is being babbled about. So back to logic... What other reasons could remain for someone to keep babbling about it if those you mention are ruled out?

>>8548053
when someone doesn't believe in normal logic or ways of reasoning to the point that they flat out deny certain aspects of their own physics and shit its impossible to argue with someone whose so convinced they're right that they'll deny your explicit proofs, evidence and extensions of reasoning even using their own reasoning its completely fruitless

>>8547821

Don't forget solar eclipses

>>8548066
or the fact that all the other planets are round

>>8547858

Actually, you can. And it's called burden of proof. We have already proven the globe earth. If you want to prove your flat earth model, you're going to have to provide proof. so, let's hear it.

>>8548060
There are some reasons why they could be doing that you are just looking in the wrong places.

Let us assume they have no intent on making sense. What other objectives could they have?

>>8548077
They wouldn't because if their intent doesn't make sense their prose doesn't make sense and their objective doesn't make sense

No amount of reasoning, evidence or anything will prove a senseless person wrong and convert them

>>8548076
No. You don't prove theories - that's not how science works. You instead try to show that they with some certainty can't be disproven.

>>8548085
Maybe their intent is not about being correct about science at all. What else could it be about?

>>8548088

That's called proof.

>>8548092
I don't know man you just tried to ask what else would prove to a guy who rejects and denies anything that would disagree with their previous notions even if none of it made sense

>>8547813
>a valid argument to disprove flat earth theory ?
I've seen the curvature of the earth
I've sailed beyond sight of land and then turned around and sailed back to watched the buildings on shore rise up from the empty horizon.

>>8547813

Any legitimate theory is falsifiable. Tell us, what evidence or reasoning would indicate for you that the earth is _not_ flat?

>>8548098
I think they don't want to make any sense, they just want to confuse and mislead people.

>>8548113
You would need to define flat first so we know what we are talking about. If we agree that light travels in straight lines and "flat" means "lying in the same plane". Then we can conduct optical experiments. Fly something with a mirror, shoot it with a laser and measure where on the ground the reflection hits.

But if you question the earth being round you probably question much science which came afterwards, including almost all the theories of light and electromagnetism.

Is it Down Syndrome or Autism OP?
Probably Schizophrenia.

File: Devation.png (34KB, 1520x602px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 1520x602px

We can solve this once and for all if we just measure it ourselves.

>>8548218
Yes, that is a better example than I proposed here >>8548188

But it still assumes gravity points downwards at each point and that light travels in straight lines.

If the Earth was flat and the Sun hovered above it and moved in a great circle around the N pole, you would see a difference from reality 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 movement (foreshortened) to the south (right, as it follows its circular path). Its horizontal motion diminshes over the course of the morning as its direction loses an X-component. As it reaches 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.

>>8548233
Furthermore, if you are *anywhere* south of the path of Sun on a flat Earth, 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 between Sept-Dec-Mar, you can watch the Sun rise in the SE, move up over your head and depending on the time of year and your latitude, see the Sun south of you at Noon, and then set in the SW. This means the Sun 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.

>>8548219

We know for a fact that light travels in straight lines (or at least straight enough for out purposes). and we know for a fact that gravity accelerates objects downwards based on the fact that gravity defines what direction downwards even is.

File: hillas.png (20KB, 950x602px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 950x602px

The earth is completely flat, flatter than a pancake. Hills and mountains are not actually real, they're just abnormalities in gravity,.

File: light.png (10KB, 614x388px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 614x388px

>>8548218

Here's the deal: there are two types of Flat Earthers: trolls, and literal Bible interpreters. Somewhat surprisingly, we usually encounter the latter on 4Chan. There are a few passages in the Bible that transliterate into English with an implication the Earth may be disk-like, or even square. This *human* interpretation is then presented as gospel by their chosen or inherited ministry. There must be no explanation or evidence to the contrary allowed, or the ministry will be shown to have a fundamental flaw.

The first confusion here is that the flat-Earth religious zealots put the onus on *you* to prove the current description of the Earth as oblate spheroidal ("round"). That's not really necessary, because evidence and explanations are available in schools, libraries, museums, from astronomers amateur and professional, on the web, and even dumb old TV. They have no interest in knowledge. They're here to argue to convince you that you're as stupid as they are, and should believe the same crap they do.

They have the freedom to make shit up because truth and understanding are not their goals. They believe their arguments are good enough to sway you, because they themselves don't think. By disavowing any science put forward and continuously prevaricating, they can argue forever by simply accusing you of being wrong, and still be perfectly happy that theirs is God's work. They concentrate on parroting their leaders and may project onto you the moniker "sheeple" as they sarcastically try to prevent your explanation from marring their fractured perception of the universe. They bear false witness, do not recognize that they behave as agents of the devil with lies and confusion, conceal truth, and are missing out on the beauty and wonder of God's creation.

Simply, there is no arguing. It's like trying to paint over mud. You just end up with a dirty brush.

As you move to the edges the gravity would become stronger,travelers would fall off the earth,even ancient greeks proved the flat earth is unlikely,there aren't any flat planets.Prove me wrong here /sci/.

File: 1481417901444.jpg (20KB, 292x257px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 292x257px

>>8547905
But does it have to be Ecuador?

Why not Peru?

>>8548238
If arguing with someone who questions the roundness of the earth one can probably not be too careful in double checking all assumptions of the experiments.

That there could exist something like laser and that it is light wasn't even considered until around 1900 for example. Gravity and force was Newton, even that was a few hundred of years after Galileo and Copernicus.

>>8547813
>Who can give me a valid argument to disprove flat earth theory ?
First if you give a good argument in favour of it. Since (you) are challenging an established theory, the burden of proof is also on you.

And as an argument of how the Earth is round, I'd say daylight time.

The fact that equator gets 12hours of sunlight every day, no matter the season, but the North pole lives in the Arctic night/Arctic day can only be explained if the Earth is round.

>>8547813
>who's a real scientific here

clearly not you

>>8547835
>I don't know how are produced lunar eclipses
>provided with requested evidence, does not understand it, dismisses it on the basis of not understanding it.

This is why you fail

>>8547813
Why can't we see the same stars all over the earth?

>>8547813
if the sun and moon traveled as you suggest they do in that picture, the would not rise from under and fall beneath the horizon. they would fade out of view above it

File: 1302195358578423.jpg (124KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1024x576px

>>8548030
Do you have evidence to show that gender dyphoria or schizophrenia are imaginary?

>>8548779
Get back to >>>/pol/.

File: coriolis.jpg (45KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x480px

>>8547813
Coriolis effect

>>8547813
Please take your non-scientific hypothesis elsewhere or kindly take your autism medication.

>>8547972
>>8547842
May as well throw the phases of the moon in there too, because there's no way a flat earth model can create lunar phases.

>>8547813
In your diagram, what is limiting the suns light to that small portion of the earth?

>>8551072
I would guess it's muh haze, same way they explain not being able to see Mt. Everest from anywhere.

>>8547813

Why are there like daily posts on this? If you are limited to strictly being on the surface of the earth, refuse to believe anything anyone else provides or tells you, and have limited access to resources/money, then it becomes extremely hard, if not impossible, to prove the earth is spherical. Yes, we get it, after like a decade of this retardation, that it's hard. That's why you either need resources or more specifically to trust what other people say/do.

>>8547813
Because i've been in a high altitude plane and personally seen the curvature of the earth.

>>8547901
For that matter, how would horizons even work on a flat earth? The sun and moon would never breach a horizon if they revolved at a fixed pitch around a central axis above the earth, they'd just get smaller and smaller and never truly vanish. How can flat earth theorists be so deluded? I know the vast majority of them are ironic, but there are still those who genuinely believe it, which shocks me.

>>8547813
Take a go pro and strap it to a weather balloon. It will get high enough to show you Earths curvature.

>>8551167
>The sun and moon would never breach a horizon

This has always boggled my mind about flat earthers. How can you look at their flat earth model, with the sun and moon suspended above a disk, and not see how ridiculous it is in a matter of seconds? it's not even plausible.

>>8547813
Go into space faggot.

>>8547813
The fact you can't see Polaris in the southern hemisphere, on a flat earth you should see it anywhere, thus the earth cannot be flat.

>>8547813
Global warming proves flat earth

>>8547813
Google earth makes accurate predictions of the distance between any two points on earth
Google earth uses a spherical map of earth
Given these two observable facts the earth must have the curvature of a sphere
>inb4 wut says who
It's a mathematical fact. If you don't understand then go learn geometry

if gravity doesn't exist how does the sun hold its hydrogen fuel?

>>8551274
>>8551442
/thread.
Btw OP it's a good thing not to believe everything our Jewish overlords tell us, but being retarded isn't one of them. Fuck just Google the experiments the ancient Greeks did to find out the earth was round. If some Greek sodomites could understand that why can't you?>>8551458

>>8551542
Forget last post number. My mistake.

Mods

>>8547813
Go to arctic, fly in circle or jump and do a 360. Having flown around the earth, note it's round.

File: toointelligentforglobes.jpg (429KB, 1589x646px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 1589x646px

>too intelligent to believe in jewish lies

>>8547813
Take what you round-earthers would call an earth-centered spherical coordinate system. I simply reinterpret this coordinate system as a cylindrical coordinate system. And I reinterpret the so-called metric tensor as a physical field that causes all matter and energy to be stretched, shrunk, or bent, in a manner which makes the earth appear to be round. To elaborate, the distances given by round-earthers' metric are merely apparent distances distorted by the stretching/shrinking effect. To calculate true distance, you need to use the cylindrical interpretation of the coordinate system.

Alternately: You are a brain in a vat on a flat earth being fed simulated sensory data consistent with a round earth.

File: Road Train.jpg (82KB, 620x350px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 620x350px

>>8547813
>Who can give me a valid argument to disprove flat earth theory ?

Talk to an Australian who's traveled their own country.

They'll tell you their country is a big, slightly dented oval, and not squashed like a long, greasy turd, which is what all the stupid and gay flat earther polar projection maps depict.

>>8547813
the earth's 2d projection onto the moon creates only curved eclipses
i think even aristotle observed that in his time

>>8548247
ohh I like this, I might save it

>>8547835
But we do know how the pyramids were built. They used water to turn the sand in front of their blocks into quicksand so they could move it with manpower.

Travel on an air/sea route, compare rhumb line with great circle distances covered.

Then try finding a great circle route using standard triangles rather than triangles projected onto a spherical plane. Compare.

Spherical trigonometry will find you the shortest route, then standard trig, then rhumb line. Therefore we are on a sphere.

>>8547842
>By the way, why makes you believe the moon isn't flat either ? after all, you only see one side of the moon.

Libration. We see slightly more than half, only possible on a sphere.

>>8547858
fuck, i have met people this retarded before so it begs the question of whether or not OP is trolling

>>8548021

Gathering, organizing, interpreting, and presenting, data pertaining to the external world are at the mercy of Human whims.

>>8548060

Logic and reason require belief?

>>8547813

Wo don't need to disprove your stupid retard "hypothesis". You need to disprove the theory that the earth is an ellipsoid

>>8551663
If you do, make sure you replace "transliterate" with "translate" or you'll end up looking stupid.

>>8547813
op i'll be brief, do you have a foto of the edge of this supposedly flat earth ?

File: 1430914749914.jpg (39KB, 560x560px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 560x560px

>>8552695
on top of that, do you also believe the sun and moon to be flat ?
If yes/no, based on what evidence ?

>>8547923
Astronomically improbable for mirages to appear so regularly/consistently.

And its not just the partial vertical occlusion of objects located at the maximum horizon. If the earth were flat, view distance in clear weather and without obstruction would be *much* greater.

That is my second reason to belive that the earth is not flat, the first being that I do not believe that the widespread consistent documentation, across the various media (internet, TV, radio, books, magazines/newspapers), is fake.

I would say go on google earth and then you will see that the earth is round

>>8552743
>If the earth were flat, view distance in clear weather and without obstruction would be *much* greater.
Are you so sure ? I think you're neglecting Beer-Lambert's law. Take a cup of tea, drink it and let a small quantity to just hide the bottom of your cup. Now if you had cristal clear water up to the top of the cup, will you be able to see the bottom of the cup ?

>>8552695
This is an "ignorance argument"

"Do you know how the egyptian built the pyramids ? no, therefore pyramids were built by aliens"

retard

>>8552711
we only see one side of the moon ! are so sure it's not flat ?

how can you be so sure moon is not flat ?

File: 1546192_577636765648547_276483068_n.png (185KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 403x403px

SPHERE KEKS BTFO

File: huh.gif (583KB, 500x275px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 500x275px

>>8547813
If the Earth is "flat", what's on the other side, and how come we can't get there?

>>8552807
i was asking for a proof, which every sound argument needs in order to be taken seriously. A foto of the edge of the earth would be one such proof. Given OP's assumption one such image should easily be retrieved, yet he shows nothing but drawings, which i can use to back, for instance, my claim that the earth is a truncated icosahedron with smooth edges.Your example is an incorrect analogy.

>>8552934
oh yes, it's a correct analogy, OP ask "disprove earth theory to me" and you come like an ass "do you have a pic of the edge of earth ? no ? then earth is no flat"

you're a cunt

File: 1435693667909.jpg (144KB, 514x624px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 514x624px

>>8552951
ever heard of proving something by contradiction?
You suppose something to have a certain quality, then if logical steps from this assumption lead to absurdity the assumption is false.

Suppose the earth is flat
It follows that it has edges, as well as another side

The rest is left as an exercise for the reader

>>8552829
(OP)
Amazing quote from orwell, too bad there's not the full article here.

all the quote : alexpeak.com/twr/hdykteir/

Final part :
>It will be seen that my reasons for thinking that the earth is round are rather precarious ones. Yet this is an exceptionally elementary piece of information. On most other questions I should have to fall back on the expert much earlier, and would be less able to test his pronouncements. And much the greater part of our knowledge is at this level. It does not rest on reasoning or on experiment, but on authority. And how can it be otherwise, when the range of knowledge is so vast that the expert himself is an ignoramous as soon as he strays away from his own speciality? Most people, if asked to prove that the earth is round, would not even bother to produce the rather weak arguments I have outlined above. They would start off by saying that ‘everyone knows’ the earth to be round, and if pressed further, would become angry. In a way Shaw is right. This is a credulous age, and the burden of knowledge which we now have to carry is partly responsible.

Now, does the authority argument is a valable one ? It's not if you claim to be a scientific.

>>8552976
A proof by the reduction of the absurd does not allow the use of the proof by ignorance.

You can not ask to some one "have you seen that ? ->no" "then your suppositions are absurds !"

Tell me, do you have a picture of egyptian building the pyramids ? NO, therefore he wasn't build by egyptians.

Now go fuck yourself.

>>8547819
Why would they lie about the Earth being a sphere?

what other proof do you need other than flying in an airplane? really? have you never flown across the globe? I've flown from the US to europe, europe to japan, and japan to the US. how is this possible with a flat earth?

>>8547813
If the earth was flat, seeing the sun set would mean that the sun is on the fucking ground, and all of us would be dead.

File: triangle.gif (24KB, 650x682px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 650x682px

>>8547813
start from a point on the earth, A.

travel forward for a quarter of the circumference of the earth to point B.

travel the same distance to the right at a right angle to point C.

once at C, do the same to reach a point D.

you find you are in point A again. D=A.

3 right angle turns and you have already a closed area. sound like euclidean geometry to you? nope.

the earth is spherical not flat.

>>8553358
You can scale.it down to mile in each direction. It will not make a triangle.

>>8553116
Plane routes and people thinking they flew "around" the earth.

Doesn't prove a round earth.

>>8553358
>You can scale.it down to mile in each direction. It will not make a triangle.
and what did i say?
>travel forward for a quarter of the circumference of the earth to point B.
>quarter of the circumference
stfu and read the post before showing off how retarded you are. in any sized sphere, a quarter of the circumference will yield the same result.

>>8553358
>>8553368
>>8553372
it doesnt even matter if its 3 times 90 degree turns. what matters is that you will never have a square with all sides 90 degrees on a sphere. you can approximate one, but never have one. even a mile in each direction shows that euclidean geometry breaks down.

>>8553372
>>8553378
Assuming it's a sphere. It's not.

Gravity

>>8553383
The experiment of doing the measurement doesn't depend on the underlying geometry.

If the Earth is flat, you'll be able to make perfect euclidean shapes like a rectangle with 4 90 degree angles or an equilateral triangle whose interior angles add up to 180 degrees. Alternatively, start at a point and go out some long distance then carve a circle around the starting position. A flat surface would find the distance between you and the point, measured on some tape or assembly or meter sticks, is precisely the circumference of your traced circle divided by 2pi.

If the Earth is NOT flat, these will fail. You'll find interior angles to be greater in the square/triangle and that the distance you've measured from the central point to the outer circumference is NOT the circumference divided by 2 pi.

File: DoResearch.jpg (52KB, 460x458px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 460x458px

I see a lot of paintbrushes getting dirty.

>>8553358
I just tried this in my yard. It didn't work; Earth confirmed flat

#proof complete by contradiction

>>8553411
>in the age of information, ignorance is a choice

Fuck, what a fucking asshole. What about the poor? What about those who cannot afford computers or the internet? What about those who work two jobs just to stay afloat because the minimum wage is slavery.

It is easy to say that ignorance is a choice when we have the freedom to browse 4chan 5 hours a day you fucking retard. Acknowledge your privilege and stop being a condescending asshole.

>i-ignorance is a choice, I am such le reddit/intellectual xD

Fuuuuck youuu.

>these are the same people who call themselves 'woke'

>>8553412
>quarter of the circumference of the earth
>yard
kek

>>8553431
There still would have been a difference if the earth were round, just on a smaller scale.

>>8553431
>Earth has a circumference of 12 feet
What if the grand conspiracy is that we're actually picoinches tall?

>>8553427
Either that's SJW bait, or you are one very screwed up individual.
What about the poor? They can go to libraries. Oh wait - there aren't any, because the hoods are too full of gangstas.
But we're seeing ignorant people right here. Obviously they *have* resources. But they *choose* to either believe flat Earth, or they're too lazy to point their computers and brains into learning.

Fuck you for giving ignorance purchase.

>>8553454
>What about the poor? They can go to libraries.

>Let them eat cake

>>8553470
why the fuck do we teach proletariat scum to read anyway?

>>8553470
Nice try, entitleist. Talk about condescending sanctimony. It's not like there aren't resources to provide education. And by the way, Mr. Ignorant himself,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake

But that's not really the issue. We're talking about ignorant people *here*. They have the resources. You're not addressing that. At all. You just want to feel great. But you're an enabling asshole who is helping people feel good about their failures. Believe me, you're the jerk.

>>8547819
Thread should have been over here, if not earlier.

>>8553358
Something to this effect should have been one of the first responses, followed by a lie that someone had done this and come up with Euclidean Geometry, or a claim that nobody ITT has actually done this experiment, so the earth is still flat. I usually use LOS communications or RADAR not traveling over the horizon, but making it to space and back just fine (with all of the proper delays showing that the horizon never exceeds 4.7 KM at sea level, but the radio waves can indeed travel much further if there's LOS), but trig is really the only thing necessary.

>>8547813
gravity is unidirectional
/thread

>>8547813
Can you give me a valid argument to prove that America exists?

>>8553823
wrong

>>8547813
Go to a port, use a telescope and observe a ship approach. If the top of the ship is seen before the middle of the ship, then flat earth theory is wrong.

>>8552695
Not flat earther, but I've seen drawings where antartica is actually a ring that surrounds the earth and makes up the edge.

>>8553968
meant to say isn't
its 4d

Go on a cruise and look out at the ocean, you can see the curvature of the earth

cori fucking olis effect b8 thread

>>8555339
Gee... you mean kinda like OP's idoitic initial post?

>>8552434
No, I meant transliterate. Translation would mean to use \a word or words that carry the intent as well as meaning of the original. Transliterate means to use the same word or the closest that you can come to it, even if the meaning is wrong. Software "translators" are actually transliterators, and that's why they come out so goofy and fail.

Bait or not, it's pretty amazing to me that ancient Egyptians figured this shit out with fucking rocks and sticks and bit of walking and people today are still struggling with it and they have planes and GPS and lasers. The ignorance necessary to convince you of all that bullshit just blows my mind.

>>8556021
>Planes
Government chemtrail devices. The planes normal people go on stay close to the ground and have TV screens on the windows, to simulate curvature.
>GPS
Antennas. You don't actually believe that something "in space" can tell you where you are, right? Come on, this is /sci/, not /x/.
>Lasers
What does shining a light prove?

>>8547813
Gravity

>>8547858
can't read your argument if you can't even say it properly

Are you actually this fucking stupid? A high school physics class will prove that the earth isn't flat, why do you feel the need to post this?

>>8556021
>>8557757

>>8548247
>There must be no explanation or evidence to the contrary allowed, or the ministry will be shown to have a fundamental flaw.

>>8547842
The phases of the moon

File: 1171149515_501c7dc22c_o.jpg (614KB, 2556x1534px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 2556x1534px

People in the 15th century were more astute than you.

As were the geometricians of 2500 years ago.

File: i hate NASA now.png (170KB, 952x462px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 952x462px

Thoughts on this?

>>8548060
Have you ever seen a rocket launch before?

>>8557842
>Thoughts on this?

That you posted a picture, thinking you're being clever by not providing any claims. But you have no idea what's being shown, or why it's there. Those are my thoughts.

Molinya satellite orbits

>>8547813
Have you ever been in a desert? I've been to the Black Rock desert. We launched rockets and had to drive for miles to retrieve them. If you watch someone leave, you can actually see them go under the horizon, and around 2 to 3 miles away, you can't see them anymore because of the curvature of the earth. If you stand on top of one of the cars, you can see them again.

You seem the type to want very first-hand, non-sciencey proof. This is that.

File: worldmap1.jpg (3MB, 5451x2800px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5451x2800px

Alright. Here's another one.

If the earth is flat, it can't "wrap around" like we think of the round earth being continuous. So, I present you a map. Draw me the line where the left and right sides of the flat earth are.

>>8547851
You use a model for a sphere earth, and a force which comes from the calculus of a rotating sphere reference frame is found to exist on earth, thus the mathematical model can describe our earth.

>>8547813
Gravity makes no sense with a flat Earth.

>>8547927
The Coriolis effect is not an axiom, it just shows up in the math as an imaginary force, just like the centrifugal force, and is a result of having a rotating frame instead of a stationary frame. It was not "just added" because "Newton's laws didn't hold". It comes about from Newton's laws

>>8551224
They think the horizon is just an optical illusion resulting from "perspective" and things shrinking as they go away. It doesn't explain why the bottom disappears first

>>8558936
Gravity makes no sense period

>>8559234
>Gravity makes no sense period
It doesn't need to. But at least what it does is measurable and predictable.

>>8548109
>Anecdotal
>Evidence

What's next?

>>8557672
xD

People in Australia are upside down. How can that be true. If the earth is flat?

>>8547813
I've never seen Europe with my own eyes. Therefore it doesn't exist.

> Something that mnake you be sure that earth isn't flat
If you want to test this yourself, here:
Go to the outer edges of any city with enough flat undeveloped land around it. Las Vegas for example.
Pick any very tall building, preferably something with a distinct top half and bottom half.
Walk a fair distance away from it.
Look back.
Walk a fair distance away from it.
Look back.
Repeat until you can no longer see it.

If the top half and bottom half disappear at the same time, the Earth is flat (or round and much larger than current estimates).
If the top half is still visible after the bottom half has disappeared, the Earth is round.

You can try this yourself.

>>8547953

are you German?

>>8548271

>Newton was a few hundred years after Galileo

What? He was born literally 1 (one) year after Galileo died. And that was only like a century after Copernicus died.

>>8547813
earth is flat
get out more people

>>8548096
hahah no. it's proof that it's a credible possibility. we tried real hard and just can't manage to figure out why it's not wrong. in principle there could be an infinite amount of credible possibilities.

what it boils down to is which of the possibilities require the fewest axioms, basically Occam's razor.

>>8547850
>>8547815
this thread is about whether or not you can show that the flat earth theory is legitimately possible. it doesn't even claim that it is though, or that if so it's more likely than alternatives. rather, it mocks your confidence in the global theory when you can't even offer solid arguments against the major alternative.

this might seem like some shart sniffing philosophical technicality, but it separates reason-based scientific knowledge with faith-based. if you get really snobby about it, you can argue that you have to understand and explain the underlying mathematical/ formal logical structure of every claim.

with this perspective, people who are unable to do so but instead take it on faith
are placed on an uncomfortable spectrum with dogmatic fundamentalists.

>>8547813
Walk straight for ~100km turn 90 degrees to your right .Walk straight for another ~100km and turn again 90 degrees. Walk straight ~100km and you should end up in the same spot. Not possible in a flat surface. Try it.

>>8553358
oh u already mentiond

>flat earth meme
>science still hasn't figured it out
Noovs detected.
Earth is 4D and all your 3D earth models will never fit. To measure 4D you need to go 4D.

>>8547917

That fish just looks like he has a super rad hat on.

Gravity makes all the sense. It's literally the fabric of space as a fluid. With no gravity existing how would we stay in heliocentric orbit? Or better yet how would the 5000mph spinning ball we inhabit have a moon being thrown from it ( inches a year but still) even a flat earth model gravity in effect would be 80x more at the outer edge of it then at the center because if centripetal acceleration and the weather patterns would be catastrophicly diffrent as well. The Suns orbit as the anon well above pointed out, would have radically different orbits and then finally with all that of you look at black holes, they are pure gravity influencing the micro matter and normal matters, even light which is energy is pulled into the center. Essentially gravity is at the center of modern science and understanding. For you to reject 1000's of years of knowledgeable thought for flat earth is beyond me and I hope this puts this post somewhat near ending as this is a waste of my time and everyone else who seeks knowledge. Thanks for the distraction tho.

>>8560076
>100km

where did you pull this number from

apparent retrograde orbits, seasonal stars, seasonal weather patterns

>>8560233
>Earth is 4D and all your 3D earth models will never fit. To measure 4D you need to go 4D.

Making shit up.