How will flatfags defend this? https://www.youtube.com/watc

File: 1470897340709.gif (3MB, 286x258px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 286x258px

>>18543672
Once you go flat you never go back.

>>18543672
probably by claiming it's fake in some way

File: 1468840096136.gif (639KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

639KB, 500x750px

>>18543691
What if i told you it's fake for sure

File: nasa-rocket-launch-high-quality-6.jpg (118KB, 800x674px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 800x674px

>>18543672
Herpa derba derp derp, dat is cgi and fake! Thur is no such thing as satalites and GPS. Believe me when I say earth is flat herp derp derp.

File: 60114268.jpg (90KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 400x400px

>>18543732
DERP DERP DERP WHY HAVE WE STILL ONLY GOTTEN COMPOSITE IMAGES OF OUR BALL EARTH IN FUCKING 2017 DERP DERP.

>>18543732
im not a flat earther, but I watched the stream for less than 5 minutes and the main panel entirely switched which part of earth it was looking at on two separate occasions. This is definitely not exactly a live feed from one camera. Seems more like a recording which they have compiled.

>>18543764
NASA shills btfo

Where did the stars go?

>>18543773
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF7vt-c2N1g

>>18543775
They are hiding behind a black hole or something

>>18543781
Like a space anus?

Same way they defend everything.

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

>>18543879
Most of the people are pretty open minded. It's really the NASAcucks who bring the aggression and triggering or just pure denial mode because they think like "I know the truth! The gov is my friend! We should be grateful!"

>>18543879
what the fuck is that thing

>>18543750
How many pics do you want?

https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

The EPIC camera on DSCOVR takes about 12 a day. It has been since August of 2015.

File: Image_003.jpg (27KB, 338x314px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 338x314px

>>18544527
>https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

File: 1484888641993.png (962KB, 1700x2200px) Image search: [Google]

962KB, 1700x2200px

>>18544550

>>18543908
>pretty open-minded

lol, no. They literally start with the flat earth, and then ignore every single piece of evidence and just make up shit.

>>18543672

They'll say NASA is lying

>>18543908
>Most of the people are pretty open minded.
Denying empirical evidence is the opposite of being open minded.

>>18543764
Yeah that stream is all fucked up. Here is the official stream. https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ESRS/HDEV/
The official one does have multiple cameras, but it doesn't abruptly cut to different cameras like that youtube stream does.

>>18543775
You would have to up the exposure really high to get a shot of stars while looking at a planet. You'd see the stars but the earth would look like a big white ball.

File: 1455858824778.gif (81KB, 182x249px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 182x249px

>>18544550
>>18544527
Wow thats such a pretty ball there. It even has a 10 frame spin rate. And enhanced colors holy shit thats awesome. Wait you really mean to tell me your religion assumes we all live on this thing? What about that priest Niel Degrasse Tyson? didnt he say it was shaped like a pear?

>>18545090
What's the matter? Your God too stupid to understand 3 dimensions that he had to put everything on a flat plane?

>>18544660
Don't get me wrong, I know the earth is sphericalish but NASA does lie about a lot. I can see why the flat earth believers don't believe anything they say

believing in nasa is on the same level as flat earth.

>>18543686
you cant go back but you can go hollow
atleast its better then flat

>>18545100
Cool strawman
>>18545102
See i dont know if its flat either but i like to say its flat just to take the piss when someone go on about their faith in Scientism and then say they don't believe in fairy tails and im not afraid of being wrong. everyone need to stop being divided up and call out NASA for spending taxes by the billions a year and giving us CGI and fraudulent half assed trash
>>18545111
Triple 1 speaks truth

>>18545169
Strawman implies there was an argument put forward that I am falsely portraying. There was no argument. I'm simply mocking you.

File: bda705a60c88c4b9b6cf453a7ba8f79d.jpg (51KB, 460x597px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 460x597px

>>18545100
>>18545171
Ahh i guess what i meant to say was pic related

>>18545194
So you agree you have no argument.

Explain to me how flatfags can reconcile how airplanes work

>>18545090
Proof that weeaboos really are the most stupidest beings in the planet

>>18545198
Why would i propose an argument to something you claimed was a non argument?
>What's the matter? Your God too stupid to understand 3 dimensions that he had to put everything on a flat plane?
>3 dimensions
>flat plane
>3 dimensions
>oblate sphere with a magic force that pulls everything to the center
How is this a argument again? The first one seems a lot more efficient

File: here's how it works.jpg (34KB, 631x481px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 631x481px

>>18545236
There's been no argument. It's mockery all the way down.

>>18545090
Kekd
>>18545111
Except flat earth gets you thinking

>>18543732
Hey, where are those thousands of satellites supposed to be orbiting around the earth dipshit?

>>18545652
They rotating around a flat earth, not a round one, get that through your numbskull. If the earth was round, and it was spinning, then everything on the surface would get flung off into space due to centrifugal force. Learn some science you ape. Stop being ignorant and open up your eyes.

>>18545111
There's evidence against flat earth.

Not so much for NASA.

>>18545759
>If the earth was round, and it was spinning, then everything on the surface would get flung off into space due to centrifugal force.
why? how big is the force? what is the angular momentum of the earth in this model? present your math

File: nothing-in-orbit.jpg (52KB, 1023x575px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1023x575px

>>18545759
The post Ianswered mocked flat earth, read next time.

>>18543672

They claim that NASA has some massive computer system somewhere rendering it in real time.

No, really.

This board is fucking cancer. Nobody studies, 99% shills fuck you all

File: blue marble.jpg (267KB, 1280x922px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1280x922px

>>18543750
we haven't

>>18546186
Enjoy your mental prison. Truth is within its all mirrors and smokescreens

File: satelite.jpg (107KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 500x500px

>>18546109
Why can't I see any mosquitoes in this swamp?

It must mean that mosquitoes don't exist.

>>18543700
I'd demand evidence and say you were full of shit when you failed to produce said evidence.

>>18546190
>all mirrors and smokescreens

Says the guy who just got proven wrong, but can't admit it.

>>18546214
Quality post.

Underrated.

File: 1468752445135.jpg (30KB, 420x280px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 420x280px

>>18543672
Woah, is that like an accurate image? Is the Pacific really that big? There's so much ocean.

File: proof.jpg (647KB, 2560x1812px) Image search: [Google]

647KB, 2560x1812px

>>18543672

File: pacificoceanspace.jpg (68KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 720x480px

>>18546465
>is that an accurate image

No. Look at Australia. It's all sorts of fucked up.

The Pacific Ocean is really big though. Here's real picture from space.

>>18546488
How'd they get so far away from the Earth?

>>18546507
rockets

>>18543672
when you change the date and time on your computer the iss tracker shows a different location.. not live

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload

Does this look real to you??

>>18546690
Sure does.

>>18546707
where is everything when the satellite is facing the dark side of the planet?

why dont you ever see stars or the milky way galaxy or any shit like that.
billions of dollars on optical equipment and they still fail to show you a clear image of anything or a video of earth actually going around the sun.

wasted money, cgi, satanic rulers, you will not convince me. i will not abandon my eternal soul

>>18546672
Why would you even lie about that, such a pointless shitpost.

>>18546785
>>18546672
when i changed my date and time, the video actually froze. but then i noticed when it restarted it was in the same place. strange coincidence perhaps?

>>18546758
If they were going to fake it, why wouldn't they add in stars?

>>18546804
the more detail, the higher the chance at a fuck up.

gotta keep it nice and simple but even then it can be easily recognized as cgi

>>18546804
if the milky way galaxy exists and has 200,000,000+ stars, imagine how difficult it would be to keep consistent with their nonsense once they release a few varied photos

>>18546818
Yet they can replicate weather patterns that match up 1-to-1 with what we observe on Earth in real time?

Your argument is nonsense.

>>18546758

>i don't understand how cameras work: the post

>>18546758
That camera you linked to is pointed down straight at the ground.

How many stars do you expect to see between the earth and the the space station?

>a clear video of the earth actually going around the sun

Do you realize it takes a year for the earth to go around the sun? Would you sit there and watch a video for a year?

>>18546867
>That camera you linked to is pointed down straight at the ground.
no... theres a lot of emtpy space above the earth

>>18546829
well they should have multiple cameras then or some lense-shifter crap. they couldnt incorporate that? just one shitty camera that cant even pick up the light from cities, or the stars or anything else? wtf nasa what are we giving you billions of dollars for.
that cgi isnt worth shit. even star wars has better visual effects than their modern "technology"

>>18546959
>why don't they use special cameras to film stars

Because it's called the Earth Viewing Experiment you fucking retard. If I want to see stars I can go outside at night.

>cgi that isn't worth shit

You're working from the false premise that it's cgi. There really is an ISS. Star Wars doesn't have a real ISS.

File: dag.jpg (100KB, 800x647px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 800x647px

They will call Ops Pic fake because 'Murica isn't the largest Continent

>>18546975
but i dont see stars when i look up at the sky
its blank

the flat earth meme is like an accidental growth of cancer

>starts out as a joke to fuck with people
>was originally just a group of people pretending to be dumb
>suddenly it attracts the attention of new agers, conspiracy theorists and pseudo intellectuals
>suddenly the following is filled with more of the latter than the former
>has grown into a legitimate belief

it's like a joke that's gone too far and at this point you can't even distinguish who's joking and who's actually formed a schizophrenic version of reality.

>>18547094
>you can't even distinguish who's joking and who's actually formed a schizophrenic version of reality.
no wonder you guys are getting so butthurt. you dont even realise youre being trolled

>>18547027
Wait until nighttime and the clouds go away.

>>18547176

There comes a point where pretending to be retarded is indistinguishable from actually being retarded.

This is it and you all deserve to be sterilized and locked in a rubber room.

>>18543672

If earth is flat.

Then how deep is it?

Check M8

>>18546214
/thread

It's flat because we perceive it as such. Biocentrism matrix.

>>18546813
how would NASA fuck up stars? they literally look at stars all day and night.

>>18546959
>well they should have multiple cameras then or some lense-shifter crap. they couldnt incorporate that? just one shitty camera that cant even pick up the light from cities, or the stars or anything else?

>they should use multiple cameras to make it look different than how it looks with one camera, so we can be sure that's how it actually looks

Alright.. if there are so many satellites, why cant we see their silhouette against the moon?

>>18548782
Low Earth orbit is 160 to 2000km above the Earth's surface.
The moon is about 38,000 km away from the earth.
Satellites are usually the size of houses at most.
No way in hell are they big enough to make a shadow that far away

One thing that always fucking pisses me off in these types of shitflinging "discussions" is when someone says "learn some science." Like you expect me to believe you have some actual understanding of science besides reading articles on sciencenews or bbc with titles like "Scientists just theorized what the inside of a black hole looks like and it's simply epic." Sure, you may have gotten an A in your highschool physics class, but that doesn't mean you have some perfect understanding of the entire fucking universe. None of these sensationalist pop-scientists like Neil Degrasse Tyson or even non-theoretical scientists that do actual work are close to understanding how everything really works. fuck all yall

>>18549205
True. But when people criticise theories they should at least know what they say and why they say it. A lot of rejection of science is based on retarded expactations or on predictions the theory doesnt even make. Thus "learn some science" is good advice

>>18549205
>that doesn't mean you have some perfect understanding of the entire fucking universe
Then it's a good thing you don't need that to understand basic orbital mechanics.

File: qq5wkm.png (208KB, 421x290px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 421x290px

>>18549425
>basic orbital mechanics.

>>18549434
?

>>18549452
Van Halen belts.

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

>>18549452
He doesnt know shit about the van allen belt but the dunning-kruger effect lets him think he "knows" that it somehow prevents space travel. Thats why he wont be able to explain why or show any math. Just ignore

>>18549463
I was just exposing my basic knowledge of orbital mechanics.

Somehow proving the point that people doesn't knows shit about them.

You scientists are terrible communicators.

>>18543672
if the earth is flat, why aren't australians falling off into space?

>>18548782
see >>18546214

OP Why don't you take this to the flat earth site, instead of shitposting here. clearly you aren't up for any sort of serous debat and will simply say any evidence or argument against yours is "BullShit". If you wanted a good discussion you wouldn't have come here.

>>18549573
lol, show me one flat earth site with actual debate and without the sort of intellectual dishonesty you mentioned. what a joke

>>18549578
Use fucking google,

How old are you?

>>18549580
I couldnt find what you described

>>18549595

Maybe ask mommie for help *tears*

>>18549580
Yeah, I've used google. And other search engines.

I've never seen a flat earther even put forward a working model. Probably because that's physically and logically impossible.

>>18549602

Yeah nice try normie, I've seen lots of "models" maybe if you used google like you said. Instead you just want attention so you be all edgy.

>>18549602
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KS0PeBgloo

I don't really believe it's the case, but under the correct circumstances it's physically possible.

>>18549205
>you should learn some science
>You should learn all science

Do you understand the difference between these two statements?

You have to be 18 to post on 4chan. An 18 year old is expected to have completed or be near completion of a high school education or equivalent.

Many here, the flat earthers in particular, seem woefully behind that basic standard.

>>18549609
>>18549608
Alright then. Show me a working model that doesn't contradict itself, and conforms to basic observations.

>>18549614

How about you get off your 2 year old butt and do it yourself

>>18549625
Because it doesn't exist. There is no working model of flat earth.

There are models, but they all fail. Take OP's for instance.

>>18549627
Well let me know when you actually start doing research.

>>18549633
Anon, you're the one making the claim that there is a working model of the flat earth. Even though it's absurd.

So the burden of proof is on you. Of course you'll weasel out of this and not post it, because you're a bitch.

File: occult5.gif (43KB, 388x287px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 388x287px

>>18549614
Sorry for the shitty picture.

Ether theory, it does all that and it worked with a flat earth.

File: flatmapbroken.png (288KB, 974x382px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 974x382px

>>18549639
Ether's been debunked.

Also I'm talking about basic shit. Like the shorted distance from the U.S. to australia being northwest. Or explanations of how the sun and moon works. Pic related.

Flat earthers have managed to take a map and flatten it (actually they didn't they just stole it and misrepresented it). But they can't actually get the map to work.

File: ISS- fake door3.webm (293KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 720x576px

>>18543672
space monkeys will defend this :^)

File: ddd.jpg (86KB, 736x440px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 736x440px

>>18549921
All religions knew about the true shape of Earth. It's only recently that Humanity has been conned into the spinning ball Earth deception

>>18549690
Moon has its own light which is cold light, its not reflecting the suns light to us. Also the moon is a 4d(or more properly for this case not actual 4d but a 2d at a 360* directional 3d) projection, meaning it will always face you the same way no matter from which point or angle you look, but does not turn around/flip in relation to your position, meaning all see the same image but south will see flipped than north etc...

>>18549614
>What is google

>>18550106
>the earth is flat
>also the moon emits its own light
>it's magic light that makes things cold

So now are you not making one absurd claim without any evidence "the earth is flat." You've now got three or more absurd claims unsupported by any evidence.

You haven't fixed the problem with the flat earth model, you've only made things harder for yourself with more absurd claims. You've just made more work for yourself.

>>18549690
The merit of the ether hypothesis is that a stationary reference frame can be defined. This
stationary reference frame is compatible with the theory of special relativity; however, it is not
compatible with the interpretation of special relativity. I only disagree with the interpretation, which
is very strong and usually used in the discussion of the gravitational field of the earth.
At first, I considered the ether to be an additional concept to aid in understanding the theory of
special relativity; at this stage, however, I have come to believe in the physical reality of the ether. I
believe that the ether is compatible with the theory of relativity; the Michelson-Morley experiment
can be solved using the theory of general relativity without the orthodox interpretation.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0704/0704.1942.pdf

Ether theory only obstacle it's gravitational theory, that I assume physics cling to, because of sheer respect for the inventor of calculus.

>>18550139
Neither model has anything to do with either special or general relativity. This is classic obfuscation.

>>18550114
All the models on google contradict themselves and are fundamentally broken.

>>18545759
GRAVITY (look it up)
RELATIVITY (look it up)
AIR RESISTANCE (look it up)
POLAR ELECTRO-MAGNETIC FIELD (look it up)

>>18550173
You're asking way too much.

Simply Newtonian mechanics fixes all his problems, but he doesn't even understand how basic forces and inertia work.

>>18550154
Aberration of light is compatible with ether-dragging

The aberration of light was observed by Bradley in 1725. He explained the aberration using
Newton’s particle property of photons, as shown in Fig. 3. The aberration was considered to be one
of the experimental results that show there is no ether-dragging around earth. Fresnel explained the
aberration by assuming that the ether is unaffected by the motion of the earth [16]. This aberration is
difficult to explain using the wave nature of the photon; however, it is easily explained using the
particle nature of the photon.

By the time science abandoned ether theory some discoveries haven't been made yet.

>>18549633
>>18549625
stop dodging the questoin and actually fucking answer. even if the guy you rtalking too is as kid he's still acting 200x more mature then you

>>18549975
>religions founded on the beleifs of people rather then the results of logic are tue because fuck you
nice one anon

globetards like the devil's big cock up their assholes

>>18543672
take a photo of a circular object from near skewed angle and compare it

File: Cartoon Earff.jpg (56KB, 400x286px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 400x286px

>>18546229
watch these (((space)))) streams closer and youll see it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6IZUq6v92I

>>18549975
NASA doesn't know how to art

File: ISS-scubatank.webm (501KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 720x576px

>>18546229
a scuba tank in space is pretty good evidence for me. LOL

>>18550612
why one blob is going sideways?

File: 187_1003705_americas_dxm.png (3MB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2048x2048px

>>18550605

that "cock" written in the blue ball is a wink at NASA. They got caught a while back with 'sex' written in the clouds of one of their fake genuine blue marble.

>>18550605
NASA doesn't hire fine art majors

>>18550650
so Incans did?
wew

File: j92WfRA.png (321KB, 420x398px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 420x398px

>>18550640

>>18550622
Yeah you can see many bubbles as a bonus, LOL

>>18543750
Because it's a ball you can only see one side at a time. So to see the whole thing you need a composite. However, if the Earth were flat you wouldn't.

>>18543732
>satalites
talking of which, I just realized I never seen any photograph of real sadallites. Not talking of CGIs, but the real shit.
By any chance, do you have a few real photographs to share, dear anon?
A quick research in google image only returns CGIs, not a single photograph.
It's like they do not exist.

>>18550700

You've never watched a satellite launch?

File: otragtes.jpg (20KB, 575x299px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 575x299px

>>18550934
That proves nothing.

Flat earthers are really just a psyop to distract you from the truth that the earth does not exist

>>18550940

They show the satellites at the end.

>>18550700
If satellites don't real then why does a major Telecom company pay me and several others to pretend to perform remote maintenance and operational functions on them?

>>18550700
If I show you a photo of a real satellite will you just stick your fingers in your ears and claim it's cgi?

Because that's the same thing you do when we show you real photos of the round earth.

>>18550664
That's just pareidolia.

>>18550612
That would be good for me too but I don't see any scuba tank in that video, just a part of an astronaut still in the airlock. Maybe an arm.

File: 1475954031.jpg (299KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1920x1080px

nice hollywood studio

>>18550106
no it doesnt

i'm still trying to figure out what purpose a global conspiracy to hide the earths shape would serve. How the fuck would anyone benefit from lying about the shape of the earth

>>18551406
This is the one question that flat earthers can never ever answer.

>>18551406
Control. And because they dont want to admit they were wrong for the past ~600 years, and all understanding of it all needs to be rebuilt from close to 0. If the earth is different then that also means that the approach, and the view on the universe, of our science is atleast half wrong if more than half(note that I havent said its completely wrong, because current science does work, but to a point then hits an early deadend in its use and understanding, and then needs breakthroughs which go against the natural processes which makes things worse for us in the long run) wrong, which leads to the understanding that theres probably purpose to life, not the one(work, getting money, spending money, being dependent for resources) current science lead us to.

And if the above is right, then, that also means theres another purpose, as well as another approach to science which is actually correct, which will allow everyone to no longer be dependent, to actually create their(each and every person) own resources, and the only thing they will need help with(sometimes), is protection from bad and lazy(greedy) people.
If the approach to science is correct then science can easily make almost anything happen, almost complete control over most laws of the universe without deadends(other than non-physical existense).

And also if earth is not the way they say it is, if it continues past the "south pole" somehow, then you can figure out what else it means.

>>18551518
Yeah, no, that doesn't make any sense.

>>18551535
If the world works different than the current accepted model then that means we have more options.
That means that theres more to this world than what current science limited us to.
That means if we figure out the correct approach to science, we will not need governments, we will not need money, we will not be dependent.
All living resouces can be created by us, we dont need to harvest the earth for them, we can just create more if we need.
The main attention of the person will be towards trying to understand the universe and its laws.
Not become a mental robot(which we are atm) who just works/gains/spends and asks for more.

>>18551552
But why does it matter if the earth is flat?

>>18551579
Because all of the current model on how the universe works shatters along with the 'globe' model.
That also means there no "gravity" but something else. (From my understanding its actually the work of density and buoyancy, with electromagnetism.

>>18551518
But anon, science admits it's wrong all the time. That's the whole point, it's whole system is set up for things to be wrong.

You could prove that the earth is flat, and science will accept that. You just need evidence.

>>18551589
I mean, I get that gravity wouldn't exist, and other forces take it's place. But why does that matter to any layperson and what would be the point of lying about scientific theory?

>>18551589
>from my understanding

But you don't have any understanding. Not of gravity, density, buoyancy, or electromagnetism. Those are just words you throw around without understanding.

>>18551599
It admits but only within its accepted model(foundation of it). The whole model(foundation by which and on which science is based) is wrong.
Science needs to be remade from close to 0, its foundation is wrong.

>>18551604
I actually do have understanding of density, buoyancy and electromagnetism.
Ive done actual research and conducted many experiments.
And I encourage you to do the same.

>>18551603
To limit the person.
To control.

>>18551621
You don't, and you haven't. You're outright lying.

>>18551630
But how does that actually limit or control anyone in any way? There are more effective ways for governments to control the population that don't involve such a massive cover up

>>18551662
If the person will have the correct approach to science then that person will be able live without being dependant on anyone but themselves(same with diseases and illnesses too, ALL of those can be cured easily with the right approach to science) more than what most rich people have nowdays, and have most of their day free to keep researching and trying to understand more laws of the universe, or to just relax and do other stuff.
That applies to literally any and every person living on this earth.

As for why keep trying to comprehend the laws of the universe in your free time if you have everything(except other people ofc) you want? Because with enough understanding, you will eventually reach immortality or live for atleast few hundreds or thousands of years if you fail.

>>18551677
Religion and the current science are pretty much the same in how they work atm. Both are bad and wrong.

>>18551691
What does the earth being flat have to do with any of that? A flat earth didn't produce germ theory, and we know that people didn't live longer when people believed the world was flat

>>18551698
Science produces predictive models of the universe and updates those model's with more information. Religion doesn't

>>18551705
Because the plane being flat is closer to the correct approach to science than it being round.


The plane is flat. The space is round.
And here is partially how it works(from the point of geometry):
Singularity(1-D) > Density(1d>2d>3d), Form(3-D) > Expansion(3d>4d) > Space(4-D) > Deepening(4d>1d).

>>18551709
That was not the point.
Both rely on belief that their theory is right.
Religion is far more wrong than science though, yes.
The current approach to science is just as wrong as religion is to science when/if to be compared to the correct approach to science.

>mfw a flatfag claims the "burden of proof" is not on him
I studies physics you nimrod, stop quoting garbage you heard on the discovery channel and come at me with some scientific proof, "bro".

If the Earth is flat, how come we don't see all the continents at once on the live ISS feed?

>>18551717
But it's not? When constructing a bridge over a long distance, curvature is accounted for. Not to mention gps, satellite communication, air travel, and satellite photography.

>>18551735
Science relies on finding accurate predictive models for natural phenomena, science admits when it is wrong when faced with evidence.
Religion relies on the belief that your god has the bigger dick

>>18550568
go home hitler, you tried to use that theory to bomb pearly harbour and guess how that went

File: InstaFit_1484865371.png (299KB, 685x685px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 685x685px

it only appears round because the shape of our eyes.

>>18551942
thats not how light works...or how gravity works

File: zog manipulates earth, image to scale.jpg (29KB, 473x439px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 473x439px

flatfags are a falseflag, see the true form

I don't believe people are that stupid that they think earth is flat. It must be a troll

>>18552097
>"I don't believe people are that stupid that they think earth is flat. It must be a troll"

Literally the words of most flat earthers inb4 they do research for months/years and become flat-earthers themselves. Kek

>>18552170
I had a privilege of sailing around the world, and it is true that you come out the other end if you go far enough. It is proof enough for me that it is not flat

>>18546132
I could use that computer system to play games.

File: east-west.png (552KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

552KB, 700x700px

>>18552172
Works exactly the same on flat too.
East and West are directions around the point of North. You navigate based on flat coords or based on compas.

>>18546488
Imagine what it was like for Magellan's crew: sailing across the Pacific, not having any idea how big it really is, and not seeing any land for more than 3 months.

File: noman.jpg (7KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 300x168px

>>18552172
No man they just tricked you into believing it was round with teleportation

>>18552185
Okay, then we do a polar circumnavigation then. That can't be possible on a flat earth.

>>18552190
Just as easy if you limit it at an angle. Also they never went over(/crossed) "Antarctica" in those polar circumnavigation so far.

File: Infinite-plane.jpg (33KB, 572x403px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 572x403px

>>18552185
And btw for all the fags out there, most people when they say "flat earth" they mean "infinite plane" which is flat. Pic related.

>>18550640
I thought the Earth wasn't in a perfect round shape?

File: ice-wall-21.jpg (16KB, 383x255px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 383x255px

>>18552208
And for fags who say theres no ice wall.
Google images "antarctic ice wall".

>>18552253
yes there are ice cliffs if you straight in the other end will be the same ice wall

>>18551589
>the work of density and buoyancy, with electromagnetism
bullshit

>>18552208

Well what's the point of this? Why would NASA make all these elaborate hoaxes that flat earthers (infinite planers what ever) claim when that pic is pretty much just a flat solar system of earth like planets with no sun? I mean, we're still talking about other worlds that cant be reached by simple means. What difference does it make if they're seperated by the vacuum of space or impossibly huge sheets of ice?

flattards BTFO:

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

I expect no refutation or reasonable answer as always. I am just laughing at your retardation

>>18552581
Difference is the ones on the flat infinite plane can be reached, quite easily.
Can get to another 'earth' within days/month using an especially prepared vehicle or airplane.

The outer space globe earth model ones cant.

File: shuttlelaunch.jpg (20KB, 500x677px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x677px

>>18551579
basically the flat Earth disc hints at God. Once you add the dome, spinning firmament, the clockwork done by stars and wandering stars, God is a certainty.

File: torusdonut2-thumb.png (182KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 500x375px

>>18543672
the earth is actually a torus

File: 1483908499563.jpg (91KB, 539x960px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 539x960px

>>18551180
>but I don't see any scuba tank in that video
look better then because all see it.

>>18552591
write a summary, I don't watch that garbage.

>>18552762
flat earth "theory" falls apart on many many different basic levels

>>18552753
I really wonder why they would need an oxygen tank in space. Everyone one knows you can breath in space.

>>18552762
Keep being uninformed then. It really shows how your view about the Earth is biased from the get go. You're willfully keeping yourself ignorant. But I'm ok with this. It makes you easier to control.

File: 8373718.jpg (92KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 400x400px

Stupid goy earth isnt flat nor it is perfect sphere
All these picture and nasa streams are fake.
Flat earth make no fucking sense.
sphere fags are naive
Flat fags failed physics and are retarded
The only thing thats near perfect sphere in our SS is sun.

File: meth.jpg (155KB, 604x719px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 604x719px

Step aside plebs I`ve got two sticks a shadow and math to prove the earth is round.

File: Venus - orb - 2.webm (2MB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x576px

>>18552839
>I really wonder why they would need an oxygen tank in space
Just take a look at the second frame in the lower half for an answer.

>>18552818
I'm sure you wish you were right.
>>18552859
You provided nothing but empty words, Keep up the good work shill.

has any of you observed Venus, our beautiful wandering star lately? You should.

>>18552991
in 500 years of spinning ball earth hoax, nobody was able to provide any definitive proof of Earth curvature. There is a simple reason for that, it is flat.

>>18553097
Why don't you just take a boat to Antarctica and videotape the edge of the earth?

>>18553097
>Literally thousands of pieces of definitive proof that the earth is sound
>B-But if I ignore all those then there is none!

It can't be flat. Where would the water go?

>>18552762
>I am too stupid to watch scientific and mathematical evidence but will call it garbage

>>18551552
aw, no wonder you retards desperately want for this to be true

>>18553097
>I'm sure you wish you were right.
oh fuck off. This sort of vague shitposting doesnt make the flattardation any more coherent. I am right and you arent even able to pretend otherwise.

>>18551589
>. (From my understanding its actually the work of density and buoyancy
I see you here a lot, anon. But I've never heard you expand on this "theory" of yours.

If there is no gravitational force, then what is making denser objects move towards the earth? What force is acting upon them?

>>18551552
>The correct approach to science
You mean the one that has been practiced for hundreds of years and what has revolutionized the world a hundred times over?
I wonder what your "science" would consist of.

>>18553097
Except fatfags are literally believing the earth to be flat despite all proof because they wish it to be so.

>>18551607
what is the foundation of science?

>>18551735
>Both rely on belief that their theory is right.
Scientific method relies on the theories until they are proven untrue.

If a theory is internally consistent, externally consistent and yields predictive results, there is no reason to doubt it.

>>18552185
why don't pilots need to constantly correct when traveling east or west?

What possible benefit could anyone get from lying about the shape of the Earth?

>>18553169
Anything past latitude 60*S is forbidden to anyone not seen as "observer". Being part of the general public doesn't make you an observer by default.
>Article 7 – Treaty-state observers have free access, including aerial observation, to any area and may inspect all stations, installations, and equipment; advance notice of all activities and of the introduction of military personnel must be given;
>>18553175
Earth is a flat disc, it is round and flat.
There is no proof of the heliocentric model, not a single one. Just show me one I dare you.
>>18553189
I don't watch shill video. I will be able to debunk every lie that was being told anyway, just write a summary.

>>18552705
why do you assume this?

have you ever been past this supposed ice wall?

File: 121,000 feet Little Piggy .webm (2MB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x576px

>>18553252
> despite all proof because they wish it to be so.
shills always talk of this great number of proofs available that support the heliocentric model, they just never tell more about what they are.
Please go ahead and show the meat.

>>18553281
>Anything past latitude 60*S is forbidden to anyone not seen as "observer".
no it isn't
https://travelwild.com/antarctica-cruises/?gclid=CKGMlpHG1tECFRB4fgodcgIIXg

https://oceanwide-expeditions.com/antarctica/cruises?gclid=CI_c5pjG1tECFUNafgodqckMFQ

https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica?gclid=CKuk6p_G1tECFQx3fgod8FkAZQ

http://www.antarcticatravels.com/en

http://www.intrepidtravel.com/ca/antarctica

https://www.gadventures.com/destinations/polar/antarctica/

>>18553293
hey look, an observable horizon
at exactly the same distance as the one observed from the ground

to any reasonable person, this would be seen as proof of a round Earth
I wonder how anon interprets it

>>18553296
those are flights, idiot.

>>18545759
Centrifugal Force isn't even a real force mate and obviously it's way weaker then gravity
>inb4 Gravity is a thing and can and has been measured for quite some time now

>>18553302
>hey look, an observable horizon
at exactly the same distance as the one observed from the ground

the horizon always at eyes' level is proof that Earth is flat. On a sphere, the horizon would drop forcing you to look down to find it.

>>18553311
>The horizon is always at eye level

If this were true, then yes it would mean the earth was flat and stretched infinitely far.

But it's not true. It's measurably not true. At a jetliner's cruise altitude, the horizon is three to four degrees below the horizontal.

>>18553293
see >>18552591

>>18553311
>the horizon always at eyes' level is proof that Earth is flat
why?
how does it prove the earth to be flat? please provide math
Why would there even be a horizon to begin with? Most flattards just spout out "perspective!" at this point. Thats not an explanation. Please explain, because at this point it just seems you have fundamental misconceptions about nearly everything

>>18553305
>flights
>clearly says cruises

Also no, they're full package deals.

>>18552753
Yeah, no, I saw that. That's an astronauts arm.

>>18553311
the fact the a horizon exists AT ALL at the that altitude proves that the Earth is not a continuous plain

>>18553311
The horizon drops several degrees below the horizontal. It does so in a measurable and predictable way. You have no basis to claim that it does not.

if the Earth were a flat plain, there would be no horizon at that altitude. Your argument is nonsense.

um did u even click the link moron it looks flat

File: FE-from a plane.webm (1MB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 720x576px

>>18553339
> and stretched infinitely far.

No not necessarily
you have to take air density and perspective into account i.e Objects in the distance become blurry and invisible, they also appear smaller and smaller and disappear.
You can't just determine that because you don't see the edge, it must be infinite.

>At a jetliner's cruise altitude, the horizon is three to four degrees below the horizontal.
Wrong, many pilots have joined the flat Earth movement already and we got neat videos.

>>18553342
> please provide math
I don't see it spin, I don't feel it spin, I don't see any curvature
yet you insist it is a spinning ball.
You have the burden of the proof, dickhead.

>>18553366
If the earth were a flat plane and had a finite distance to the edge, then the horizon would dip below eye level at any altitude.

Not being able to see a dip in the horizon because the air is blurry is another issue.

If you make the false claim that "the horizon never disappears below eye level regardless of altitude," the only possible explanation is that the earth is a finite plane.

>many pilots have joined the flat earth movement.

I doubt this claim is true. If the claim is true then should look into having their licenses revoked, as they are dangerously incompetent.

I'm sure there are a few flat earther nuts out there that might have basic beginner licences.

>>18553372
>If the earth were a flat plane and had a finite distance to the edge, then the horizon would dip below eye level at any altitude.

For it to be a noticeable drop, you either have to go high enough or the disc has to be short enough. You don't know how far is the disc so there is no way you can draw any conclusion from a mere video showing Earth from an altitude of 120,000 feet.
There is a conclusion that is reasonable to draw though and it is at this altitude and with a near perfect sphere (according to nasa and disgrace magic) with a Circumference of roughly 40,000km there is no way the horizon can still be at eye's level. (same level in camera's frame in this case).
i.e it doesn't prove the infinite plane (which I don't buy into until proven otherwise) but it definitely blow the spinning ball out of the water.

>>18553372
>as they are dangerously incompetent.
but since you are nobody, you have no say on that matter.

>>18553366
>You can't just determine that because you don't see the edge, it must be infinite.

And yet despite your shallow "perspective" argument, the horizon is NEVER more than a few miles out, even when I am miles above the surface. Common sense dictates that I am seeing the edge of a curve.

Do you disagree?

>>18553398
>the horizon is NEVER more than a few miles out
This is objectively wrong as can be seen by anyone on the video posted here
>>18553293
> Common sense dictates that I am seeing the edge of a curve.

again, there is no drop as should be expected on a sphere. You always look right in front of you and find the horizon line, at the same level.
it is flat.

>>18553393
Me, no, but the FAA and whatever licencing bodies there are would agree.

>>18553267
They do actually, just look at their routes displayed on a flat model map.. you will be amazed. They fly almost in straight lines from point a to point b. While the route doesnt make sense on a globe model map lol

>>18553432
>Me, no, but the FAA and whatever licencing bodies there are would agree.
probably, that world is fucked up beyond repair, filled with sell out dickheads like you.

>>18553386
>you have to go high enough

Right, and the claim is no matter how high you go, the horizon is at eye level.

So if the disk is 10,000 miles in radius, and you go ten thousand miles up, then the horizon will be 45 degrees below eye level.

If it's 100,000 miles in radius, you go 100,000 miles high, and the horizon will be 45 degrees below eye level.

If the earth has some finite radius, there will always be a distance you can go up where the horizon will be clearly below eye level.

If the statement "no matter how high you go, the horizon always remains at eye level" to be true, then it is a logical requirement that the earth is an infinite plane.

Fortunately the claim is false. Flat earthers are full of false claims, just like this.

>>18553440
Or just people interested in protecting lives from the dangerously incompetent.

>>18553416

>You always look right in front of you and find the horizon line, at the same level.

But that would indicate you are seeing the drop over the edge of a sphere.

If it were flat, the higher you went the more of the plane you'd be able to see.

>>18553437
Mm, no, if you display flight routes on a flat earth map they become ridiculously curved.

On a globe, however, they're all the shortest routes.

>>18553366
>Its only real when I can feel it
>muh feelings!

yeah no, I wont even bother. thats childlike logic you have

>>18551077
Those dishes are pointed at the towers anon, you still dont understand this?

>>18553416
see
>>18553443

>>18553366
Oh god, I think I've seen the video this webm was taken from. The guy who uploaded it (not the pilot), was claiming that because the moon and sun were visible at the same time, then therefore the earth was flat.

He's also claiming that the plane was flying higher than the sun.

Jesus these people are such retards.

>>18553449
>But that would indicate you are seeing the drop over the edge of a sphere.
No because your ascension is made in a straight line with an angle of ~90* with the ground. If Earth was a sphere no matter where you look at, it must be lower.
Balltards fail at basic geometry

>>18553437
is it possible that they're doing it to avoid traveling long distances over open water?

>>18553464
M-muh fee fees

File: earthrise.jpg (373KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1920x1080px

>>18553508
>it must be lower

And it is.

The only way for the horizon to true meet eye level is to dig a hole in the ground and stand in it until you're eye level.

At 30,000 ft. the earth drops about 3 or 4 degrees below eye level.

At 250,000 miles, the earth is only a small circle beneath your feet, only a couple degrees across.

>>18553437
>just look at their routes displayed on a flat model map

Look up LAX to Sydney. Now plot that on a flat earth map.

>>18553508

But it is lower the higher you go.

Which is why it eventually starts looking like a disc.

If it were a flat plane, you'd eventually just see more and more of it.

File: 12794515_1018181468228516_7462981041320719741_n.jpg (135KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 960x960px

>>18553451
What about this?

File: CkTHyNLUgAA5NRf.jpg (57KB, 418x460px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 418x460px

>>18553451
Or this?

File: felix_baumgartner_2012.10.14_05.jpg (31KB, 700x392px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 700x392px

>>18553521
Your pic is a composite made by Disney, retard.
Show me a real photograph or video so we can discuss.
>The only way for the horizon to true meet eye level is to dig a hole in the ground and stand in it until you're eye level.

>At 30,000 ft. the earth drops about 3 or 4 degrees below eye level.
Yet there is no drop on high altitude video.
but thanks for confirming that all the material spoon fed to the public is fish eye lens rubbish.
pic related is what is shown on mainstream garbage channel as curvature of Earth at 90,000 feet.

File: 13335922_1131590810236678_6444293309872755053_n.jpg (62KB, 556x720px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 556x720px

>>18553451
Or even this?
(There are many many more of these)

File: balance.jpg (14KB, 400x343px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 400x343px

>>18553366
>I don't see it spin, I don't feel it spin
>You have the burden of the proof

Do you have any friends abroad?
Here's a simple experiment that you can do to observe the spin of the Earth.

1. Buy a small weight (100 mg)

2. Use a calibrated electronic balance and record the weight up to several decimal points.

3. Mail the weight to a friend who lives at a different latitude (the closer to the equator, the better) and ask them to take the same measurement.

Depending on the relative latitudes of you and your friend, you should actually record different weights for the 100mg weight. This difference can be calculated based on the spin of the Earth.

Since the Earth is ball, the spin actually varies depending on where you are on the globe. The spin is roughly 1000mph at the equator, but drops to to 0 by the time you're on the North pole. The centripetal force of the Earth's spin counteracts gravity, and makes reduces the weight of objects the closer to the equator.

Give it a try for yourself.

>>18553546
Coincidence. That's also a straight line in a globe map. However if you look at all flights, very few are straight on a flat earth map. Most of them, particularly the further south you go, don't make any sense on a flat earth map.

>>18553553
Those aren't the actual flight paths. Just a flat earther playing connect the dots on a flat earth map. Yes, there are flights that go between those cities, but they're not the straight lines shown here.

>>18553554
>composite by disney

citation needed

>there is no drop on high altitude video

There is drop, you just don't know where the eye level is.

>>18553539
it isn't as proven here
>>18553293
and here
>>18553366

>>18553560
what if, crazy thought, the airline thinks they can make more money by hitting two routes in a single flight.

And again, wouldn't the pilots notice that they are flying in a stright line and not making dramatic turns like in their flight plan?
Is every pilot in on the conspiracy? or all they all just retarded.

>>18553546
That comparison is retarded. It makes sense to stop by Canada because you have to fucking refuel the god damn plane and have clear straight paths between airports to monitor air traffic more efficiently. Helps to discover issues when a plane goes off course.

File: santiagotosydney.png (451KB, 502x477px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 502x477px

>>18553560
Well there you go. On the "flat earth map" a plane going from L.A. to Sydney heads to the Northwest. In reality it goes to the southwest.

>flight path not available

Oh dear, look at that. Five seconds in google.

>>18553580
>refuel the plane

Nope, this is just a standard great circle route. It's a straight line on a globe.

>>18553570

How exactly does that prove whatever it is you're trying to prove?

File: flight times.png (413KB, 660x660px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 660x660px

>>18553560
you really want to play this game?

Are pilots all lying about their routes and flight times? How can they all be in on the conspiracy? How does that make an ounce of sense to you?

>>18553570
None of those pictures show where eye level is.

File: 1483908468805.jpg (71KB, 918x960px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 918x960px

>>18553568
citation needed for what?

>At 30,000 ft. the earth drops about 3 or 4 degrees below eye level.
>At 250,000 miles, the earth is only a small circle beneath your feet, only a couple degrees across.

claims made without substance as for anything else with balltards. the world is a big SCI-FI novel

>>18553598
watch the launch and landing video of the lil piggy cam journey in high altitude, compare level of horizon in camera frame at ground level then at 120,000 feet.
cry.

>>18553605
Oh wow you know photosop. Good job buddie.

File: 1485041890996.jpg (296KB, 1172x1182px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1172x1182px

How will flatniggers ever recover?

How come they can't understand basic geometry of their own system? Why can't they account for the southern hemisphere's night sky?

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

>>18553605
For your claims made that the photos are fake.

You made it without substance.

File: 1483910172671.jpg (125KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 720x960px

>>18553614
>he has reached 'cry' point
That was fast
lel

File: flat earth trig.jpg (2MB, 2340x4160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2340x4160px

flat earthers refuse to admit that their model is flawed

They're so attached to it that they can't imagine anything else. You keep proving them wrong and they just try to dance around it. It's sad.

>>18553613

Do you really not understand that if you point a camera up and down it's going to change the level of where you see the horizon in a picture?

File: 1484884665518.jpg (278KB, 1600x700px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1600x700px

>>18553624
Are you genuinely retarded?

>>18553626
It's like the Mandela Effect. They can't imagine they remembered something wrong, therefore it's the universe's fault.

File: AS17-134-20387HR-smokescreen.png (2MB, 2741x2311px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2741x2311px

>>18553623
Check the Link inside if you need to.

>>18553613
hey flat earth anon, are you going to try this out? >>18553562

>>18553633
photoshop fish eye lens effect applied to 2 of them
different angles between the first and the two others.

but regardless, you genuinely believe that watching a sphere from a greater distance would magically widen your field of view of said sphere?
I can't believe it, you are just shilling too hard and losing your shit because it's over.

>>18553638

So what are these mysterious guys in the suits doing on the sound stage?

>>18553638
Does the link address the photo that I posted?

Does it claim it's made out of legos like this image is suggesting?

Because that's not really a debunking of the photo. It's just more retarded usupported claims.

>>18553657
oh look, a convenient conspiracy explanation

Is this how you deal with any evidence that doesn't support your conclusion?

>>18553663
If you look close, the guys in suits don't even match the blur in the reflection. The guys in suits have rectangular masks, but the blur that sort of looks like a guy in a suit has a round mask. Also the scale is wrong, because the lego figure comes up to his waste.

>>18553670

Of course, I just want to know what the crazy guy thinks they were doing.

File: composite-AS11-44-6588HR.jpg (2MB, 2340x2327px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2340x2327px

>>18553663
>Because that's not really a debunking of the photo.
Well it just debunks the lol landings from which you sourced your photograph.
balltards BTFO again

>>18553657

That's not a fisheye lens effect.

You could literally do this experiment yourself with 5 minutes of effort.

>>18553678
>it debunks the landings

No it doesn't

>>18553678
>jpeg artifacts

Congratulations. You've confirmed the image you analyzed was in a jpeg format.

File: horizon_diagram.jpg (24KB, 394x369px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 394x369px

>>18553311
You're imagining something like this picture here. Well, that picture is accurate! But the scale's all off. Let's assume the guy in the picture is 2m tall (about 6'6") and let's average out the diameter of the earth to 6365km.

So, finding 'd' in the diagram would be:
√(6365.0022-63652) = 5.043790721 So the horizon's 5.043790721 km away, or about 3 miles. Now, let's say there's no horizon, instead, there's a 'vanishing point' that would be located directly in front of the observer's eyes, and directly above where the horizon would be. We'll call the line from the observer to the vanishing point 'v'. To find v, we need the angle between the two Rs in the diagram. So sin^-1(d/(R+h)) = θ, which comes out to about .045421 degrees.

So now imagine a line drawn perpendicular to R+h, going from R+h to the intersection of d & R. This is v. To find it, we take R(sin(θ)) which comes out to:
v=5.045789136
and remember, d=5.045790721.

So the difference between the horizon and the 'vanishing point' is √(d2-v2)= .0039993942 kn, or about 4 meters, or about 13 feet, about 3 miles away. The degrees between them is about .0454, which, for an average human eyeball with a radius of about 24 millimeters, comes out to moving your eye about 9 micrometers, or .00035 inches, up or down.

>>18553678

No seriously. Why were there guys in those suits on the sound stage? What were they doing that was so important it would eventually lead to the debunking of the moon landing?

>>18549205
I study physics at one of the top 50 universities in the world, and I don't need NASA to tell me the earth is spherical. Flat earth is total bullshit.

>>18553669
No it's basic geometry applied.
looking at a sphere from a greater distance doesn't magically inflate the sphere nor does it allow you to see it with a wider field of view.
I know you ain't retarded, just posting that pic everytime you see that other pic here
>>18553624
like a good simpleton.
my guess is you will be soon replaced by bots

>>18553699
take 5 minutes and try it out for yourself

No conspiracy allegations. Do the experiment and record your observations.

Stop being a lazy fuck.

File: composite-AS11-44-6592HR.jpg (2MB, 2340x2327px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2340x2327px

>>18553688
happy that you liked it, have another one good shill.

>>18552752
Mmmmmm, donuts.....

>>18553713
>even more jpg files have jpg artifacts

Who could ever believe it!

>>18553705
I don't even need to try it, I use my brain.
You may actually be that retarded on a second thought.
that's scary in fact.

>>18553720
You terrified of being proven wrong.

I notice you keep ignoring this >>18553562 too

>>18553705
okay stop being retarded and look at this pic here
>>18553633
it literally claims the rightmost frame was shot from a greater distance and as a result more of the sphere is visible. i.e North america appears relatively smaller.

Now if you honestly buy into it, you are dumb as a rock.

the leftmost frame was obviously shooped with fish eye filter. You can also tell by the artifacts visible on the edge.
Shills are so much desperate, they need to forge evidences. lol

>>18553746
literally
>this is a shop, I can tell by the pixels

You're a living stereotype

>>18553756
>the farther I am from a sphere, the more of it I can see

that's unironically how retarded you are.

>>18553766

Why don't you try it and find out for yourself?

File: SPHERE.png (59KB, 1000x773px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1000x773px

>>18553766
Am I speaking to a kindergradener? Do I need to draw you a picture?

>>18553774
>being that dishonest
>trying this hard

try again using the same sphere in the two frames.

File: SPHERE.png (67KB, 1000x773px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1000x773px

>>18553780
You're blatantly trolling at this point.

File: btfo.jpg (19KB, 1152x648px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 1152x648px

>>18553780

I used the crayon brush, just for you.

>>18553797
>>18553790
Jokes on you. I was just pretending to be retarded!

>>18553797
Now imagine North America painted on top of that sphere entirely encompassed in the read region as drawn in the left most frame.
Now does North America looks smaller in the right most frame? relative to the rest of the sphere
No it doesn't.

>>18553816
Of course it does.

And why are you blatantly lying here >>18553780

Are you deliberately shitposting?

>>18553816
the dingus who made >>18553797
messed up, >>18553790
is actually a better illustration because of how it shows the field of view

>>18553831
No it doesn't, whatever is drawn on the surface of your sphere keep the same relative size.

regarding
>>18553774
1/You didn't even use a sphere
2/ Your observer has a wider field of view in the top most frame for no apparent reason.
apply the same FOV above and below and see what it gives

>>18553881
as good as you are at trolling, the sad thing is that there are people who genuinely think like this

You know how perspective works, right? (clearly some don't)

The closer you are to something, the larger it appears.

Well a sphere is 3D. Which means the part in the middle is closer to you than the parts around the edges.So the part in the middle appears larger, proportionally.

The closer you are, the greater this effect is.

File: gaybook-AS17-141-21608HR.jpg (834KB, 2340x2350px) Image search: [Google]

834KB, 2340x2350px

>>18553894
You are deflecting again.
Balltards keep being BTFO'd.

>>18553902
>The closer you are to something, the larger it appears.

No not its relative size.
i.e North America won't magically appear larger relative to the rest of the sphere. Proportions stay what they are, no matter how much you zoom in or out.
For N.America to show a larger relative size, you need to apply a filter on that area. That's what was done in that stupid pic here in the two left most frames.

>>18553633

>>18553905
you know it's weird that flattards always do this "i'll believe it when i see it" thing, but you can't find a ball and take some pics of it

>>18553881

But these >>18553633 clearly aren't using the same FOV. The globe stays the same size as you move further away because you're zooming in.

Come on, a child could understand this.

>>18553929
>FOV.

FOV is the field of view of the observer, a human being in this case. It doesn't change between two shots and has to be identical in the three frames except it isn't because the two left most frames are shooped.

>>18553955

Are you retarded? When you zoom in a camera you are literally changing the field of view.

http://martybugs.net/blog/blog.cgi/learning/Field-Of-View-And-More.html

>>18553971
>When you zoom in a camera you are literally changing the field of view.

That depends on you and the model of camera, you can change the FOV manually to adjust to the magnifying factor but the most important part is that if you don't you will obtain a fish eye lens effect.
i.e reality is deformed.


>So what does this mean? When you create a camera object in Papervision3D, the field of vision does not remain fixed if you zoom or change the focus. If you change the field of vision (manually), this relates to a change in focus (keeping the zoom fixed). Visually, if you reduce the zoom (keeping focus fixed) or decrease the focus (keeping zoom fixed) you will increase the field of vision and can easily have a fish-eye lens effect occurring on the screen – a distorted, extreme perspective view.

http://root.uabid.com/understanding-zoom-focus-and-field-of-view/

>>18554014
forgot my conclusion

In such case, a fish eye lens effect is applied on the entirety of the photograph not just North America.
>>18553633
confirmed shooped.

>>18553605
>claims made without substance
simple high school level math is the substance. come on man, basic trigonometry applies regardles of the shape of the earth.

>>18553657
>magically
no. simple laws of perspective. the picture you replied to literally makes it clear.

maybe this helps:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS12p0Zqlt0

>>18553766
But thats fucking true you retard. Hold your hand right in front of your empty eyey, then hold it farther away from them. Compare observations.

>>18554136
No, the unsubstantiated claim is that Earth is a ball. Of course if Earth really was a sphere, your claims of a drop would be observed in the real world but you have no video/photograph that supports this affirmation aside from a few fakes made for the lol landings.

>>18554146
laws of perspective won't make North America appears bigger on a sphere. Why not South America BTW? Why not just the Falklands?
You claim this comes from a fish eye lens effect induced by the magnifying factor of the camera that took that pic, I say No! otherwise the fish eye effect would be seen on the entirety of the photograph.
Considered your pic here >>18553633 has been debunked.

>>18554158
Do not have kids, please.

>>18554227
>your claims of a drop (of the horzion below eye level) would be observed in the real world

And they are. You can climb to a tall hill and measure it.

>>18553921
If north america is in the center of the sphere, it will appear larger proportionally to the objects at the side, simply because it is closer to you.

exactly as shown here

>>18553633

File: BOB-Earth-Is-Flat-Meme.png (668KB, 810x798px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 810x798px

>>18543672
Do you honestly believe that animation is real? lmao

>>18554227
>laws of perspective won't make North America appears bigger on a sphere
yes they fucking do you stubborn retard.
see
>>18553633

fucking hell. It is like someone insisting that 1+1 is 3 and I have to continously count 2 marble in front of him but it just doesnt go through his thick skull. Shit idea of trolling really

>>18551406
To steal your money while they show you cartoons.

>>18554289
Here, look. It's from the cockpit of an airplane.

The horizontal green line on the HUD is "eye level."

The horizon is several degrees below eye level.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD6bH03DJBI&t=0s

The other instruments confirm the plane is flying level and not pitched upwards.

>>18553097
>Eratosthenes lived between 276~194BC
>First person to calculate circumference of the earth.
>500 years


Jesus; pick up a book sometime. Shits been round since the ancient Greeks.

>>18553881
Seems like they dont understand what "eye level" and "eye level horizon" means.
I will draw it for all of them soon. (In few hours)

>>18553247
>>18553246
I will answer and explain about what I meant in the same post when Ill reply here with a pic for "eye level".

If this thread goes archived or poof before then, I will post it in one of the next threads with >> to post numbers above.