/fe/ Flat Earth General

>>18610291
Rotation and orbit:
Why can’t we feel the effects of the Earth’s 1,000mph spin? Why doesn’t the wind seem to rush past us in the opposite direction of the Earth’s orbit at hundreds of miles per hour at all times?
Even if it were true that you can’t feel the effects of a constant speed such as when you’re driving at a constant speed (which isn’t true. Have you ever tried walking around on a moving train?), how can we not feel the effects of the Earth’s 70,000mph orbit around the sun which would throw off the direction of our inertia constantly and is supposedly slowing down and speeding up throughout the year. What about the sun’s 450,000 mph orbit around the galaxy?
If the Coriolis effect is caused by the Earth’s spin and has such a significant influence on the weather and ocean currents, why don’t the aforementioned greater speeds of the Earth’s and sun’s orbits have similar effects on the planet? Shouldn’t the atmosphere be ripped away from the Earth under these conditions?
If the Coriolis effect also modifies the trajectory of bullets once they’re flying in mid-air, shouldn’t this also have an effect on airplanes? For instance, shouldn’t a plane traveling east to west be able to fly much faster than a plane traveling west to east? Doesn’t this whole Coriolis effect thing completely disregard any gravitational explanation given in answer to my previous questions about the wind rushing past us or about the atmosphere sticking to the Earth?

File: redshifting.jpg (730KB, 1800x1800px) Image search: [Google]

730KB, 1800x1800px

No takers?

File: image.jpg (61KB, 749x584px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 749x584px

>>18610291

Why don't you fly around the world and prove ice wall or infinite plane or whatever dumb shit you came up with this week

>>18610367
>>18610372

Pathetic.

>>18610373
Why you tag me with that nigger

I'm jus sayin minecraft tells all

>>18610291
I think we should ask trump I'm sure he knows

>>18610291
I'm convinced this is just a really advanced trolling technique, these people can't actually be this autistic.

What do the powers at be (whoever you believe is in power) have to gain by lying to everybody and say the earth is a sphere?

Do you really believe the earth is a saucer on the back of a cosmic space turtle?

I have asked this in numerous threads and never gotten a legit answer.

>which came first gravity or mass

Irrelevant.This isn't a chicken or egg question. You don't have gravity and then have mass and then have gravity and then have mass. Gravity and mass co-exist. Furthermore, this is a basic cosmology question, and nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

>how does a planet form itself.

A large cloud of dust pulls itself together gravitationally. Most of it falls to the center, forming a star. Some of it is thrown free, some clumps together to form planets.

>Big bang supposedly sending everything in the universe in opposite directions

Obviously some mass is close enough to attract each other. Nobody ever claimed otherwise

>vacuum is pulling

Vacuum is not a force. It does not pull.

>why don't we see our hair raise due to the moon, like we see the raising of the tides

The oceans weigh trillions of tons. And is also a fluid. Your hairs weight very little, so you never notice the difference. Yes, things weigh a little less when the moon is overhead. But you'd need either a very sensitive scale, or a very large mass in order to notice the difference.

>how come I can jump

Because you can, for a split second, provide more force than your weight. Smaller things like bugs weigh even less, so they need even less force to fly.

>we cannot simulate gravity

I think you mean we can not measure gravity of other objects on earth. But that's wrong. If you get a great big ball of lead, one that weighs several tons, it has a large enough mass to measure its gravity. Scientists did this experiment well over a hundred years ago now.

>why does the moon not orbit the sun

It does. The moon is orbiting the earth. But it's also orbiting the sun, the same way the earth is orbiting the sun. Once every year.

cont..

>>18610291
>at what height should a person be expected to see any curvature of the horizon

About 20,000 ft should do it, provided a clear horizon and a good field of view and good vision. Of course if the person viewing it is dishonest, it doesn't matter.

>if the horizon line is where the curvature becomes apparent...

I'm not sure I'm following. There's two different types of curvature going on here. There's the curvature looking to your left and right, which you probably won't see at sea level, but you will see at high altitude. Then there's the curvature going perpendicular to that. A ship going away and towards you. This one is easier to see because the height of the ship aids you.

Since there are two curves perpendicular to each other, you get a sphere, not a cylinder.

>why can't we feel the effects of the earth's 1,000 mph spin

First off, unless you're at the equator, you're not spinning at 1,000 mph. Second, same reason you can't feel yourself going 500 mph on a jet plane. You feel accelerations, not speeds.

>why doesn't the wind rush past us

The air is also spinning with us.

>which isn't true have you ever tried walking around on a train

It is true. If you have difficulty walking on a train, it's because the train is shifting and bouncing a little on the tracks. If the train is moving one hundred miles an hour, and you get up from your seat, you don't get blown back at 100 mph. You don't have to run 101 miles per hour to move forward.

>what about other orbits

Same thing.

>if the coriolis force is caused by the earth's spin

It's caused by the relative difference in spin. Things are moving 1000 mph at the equator, 0 mph at the poles. All points move around the sun at the same speed.

>shouldn't the atmosphere be ripped away

Of course not.
cont.

>>18610297
>coriolis effects on planes

Negligible. Planes fly through the air, the air rotates along with the earth.

The rotation of the earth is more significant with rockets, however. It is easier to launch a rocket into orbit from the equator. Where that extra 1000 mph means you have to accelerate less to get up to orbital velocity. That's just rotation though, not the coriolis effect.

>doesn't this whole coriolis effect thing completely disregard gravitational explanation

the coriolis effect is present in any rotational system and is independent of gravity. Beyond that, I'm not following the question.

File: Power Patrick.jpg (21KB, 320x295px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 320x295px

>>18610415
>>18610448
flat earth btfo

Not gonna troll.

If stars are just cymatics of water, what happens in observatories?

>>18610473
>if stars are the cymatics of water ...

What in the what?

>>18610415
>Irrelevant.This isn't a chicken or egg question. You don't have gravity and then have mass and then have gravity and then have mass. Gravity and mass co-exist. Furthermore, this is a basic cosmology question, and nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
>A large cloud of dust pulls itself together gravitationally. Most of it falls to the center, forming a star. Some of it is thrown free, some clumps together to form planets.
>Obviously some mass is close enough to attract each other. Nobody ever claimed otherwise

This is a chicken or egg question and you have failed to properly address what I've asked. Where does the gravity come from to draw together this mass when it's all meant to be flying apart from each other? Did some of this original matter grow lazy and simply stop moving so that it could pool?

>Vacuum is not a force. It does not pull.

U wot? How does your vacuum cleaner work? Here, try this simple experiment. Take a straw (any kind will do) and seal one end with your finger while sucking the air out from the other end. Feel it pulling?

>Because you can, for a split second, provide more force than your weight. Smaller things like bugs weigh even less, so they need even less force to fly.

And yet it's strong enough to keep the atmosphere safely attached to the Earth next to an infinite vacuum?

>I think you mean we can not measure gravity of other objects on earth. But that's wrong. If you get a great big ball of lead, one that weighs several tons, it has a large enough mass to measure its gravity. Scientists did this experiment well over a hundred years ago now.

You mean the one Cavendish did in his garden shed?

>It does. The moon is orbiting the earth. But it's also orbiting the sun, the same way the earth is orbiting the sun. Once every year.

No, it orbits the Earth which orbits the sun. If it was orbiting both then it would have left the Earth's orbit long ago. It wouldn't be spinning around Earth year in year out.

>>18610448
>About 20,000 ft should do it, provided a clear horizon and a good field of view and good vision. Of course if the person viewing it is dishonest, it doesn't matter.

How much curvature would you expect to see at this height?

>I'm not sure I'm following. There's two different types of curvature going on here. There's the curvature looking to your left and right, which you probably won't see at sea level, but you will see at high altitude. Then there's the curvature going perpendicular to that. A ship going away and towards you. This one is easier to see because the height of the ship aids you.

So shouldn't I be able to see around a ship-height's worth of curvature on the horizon line?

>First off, unless you're at the equator, you're not spinning at 1,000 mph. Second, same reason you can't feel yourself going 500 mph on a jet plane. You feel accelerations, not speeds.

So if I travel north or south shouldn't I be able to sense a change in the Earth's rotation speed?

>The air is also spinning with us.

Yet is affected by the Earth's spin with the Corialis effect? Nevermind, I'll wait for you to get to that.

>It is true. If you have difficulty walking on a train, it's because the train is shifting and bouncing a little on the tracks. If the train is moving one hundred miles an hour, and you get up from your seat, you don't get blown back at 100 mph. You don't have to run 101 miles per hour to move forward.

Sure, the train isn't a perfect example. Have you tried running up and down the aisles of a train though? You can certainly tell a difference between running with and against the direction the train is travelling.

>Same thing.

Not good enough.

>It's caused by the relative difference in spin. Things are moving 1000 mph at the equator, 0 mph at the poles. All points move around the sun at the same speed.

Not true. Look up Corialis effect.

>Of course not.

Not good enough.

>>18610548
>It is the chicken and the egg problem
>where does the gravity come from to draw together this mass

Ah, I see where you're confused. The mass is always there, and the gravity is always there. There's no one thing creating another.

The mass of the solar system, and the gravity of the solar system, is pretty much the same as its always been. It's just denser now than it was when it was a dust cloud.

You have mass A and mass B. Each of them have their own gravity. Mass B is moving away from mass A. If mass B is fast enough, the strength of gravity between them won't be enough to cause them to come together. If they're not moving away fast enough, then they fall together and form one mass. If the difference is just right, then they orbit each other.

>how do vacuums work

The motor your vacuum cleaner creates a chamber of low pressure inside of your vacuum cleaner. There is high pressure in the atmosphere around you. The high pressure wants to go to low pressure, it goes in through the head of the vacuum, creating wind, that blows the dirt off your carpet and into the vacuum hose.

>and yet it's strong enough to keep the atmosphere next to an infinite vacuum.

You're still making the false, and rather silly mistake of thinking that vacuum is a force. It is not. If there were a force pulling on the atmosphere that were stronger than gravity, then yes, this force would pull the atmosphere off the earth. Thankfully there is no such force.

In physics, you can figure out how things move, or are going to move, by adding up all the forces and their directions and seeing which one wins. With you jumping, the force is momentarily greater than the gravity on you, so you lift off, briefly. Air molecules don't have very strong leg muscles, so they don't jump.

>Cavendish experiment

See? I knew you were only playing dumb.

File: lol1.jpg (28KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x400px

>>18610548

>How does your vacuum cleaner work?

omfg

>>18610555
>Not true.

It takes one year for a spot on the pole to travel the 584 million miles around the sun. It takes a spot on the equator one year to move the 584 million miles around the sun. There's no substantial difference.

Now if the earth were a disk, and you were moving from mercury to earth, then you'd have an issue with the coriolis effect in this system. You're screwing up your rotational reference frames.

>>18610291
Ok fucker. Pull off the foil, its cutting of circulation to your brain, and you are gonna need it for this truth bomb im gonna drop on you. Magnetite. Magnetite forms in space. We see asteroids with magnetite and their core. Magnetite, in large enough concentrations, can attract a fuckton of rock. The rocks, under enough pressure, begin to compress, melt, etc.
an isolated asteroid, can eventually gather enough material to become a planet. So to answer your question, the mass came first. Cant have gravity without mass. And in your tiny little mind, you cant have that amount of mass, and still have "Muh 5000 year old universe". Burn your bible and retake high school. You might fucking learn something.

>>18610555

>the moon doesn't orbit the sun

Of course it does. The moon goes around the sun every year. To be more precise, the moon and the earth orbit around a common center of mass. This center of mass orbits around a center of mass between the sun and the earth-moon system.

>how much curvature would you expect to see

Very little, but enough for an honest person to admit

>shouldn't you be able to see a ship's height

No, not a linear relationship

>So if I travel north to south shouldn't I sense a change

You'd have to go very fast. A bullet from a gun is only effected a few millimeters for every mile it travels at great speed. If you were in some hypothetical device teleporting you from the pole to the equator, you'd be in a lot of trouble.

>the atmosphere is effected by the coriolis system

Of course. The air at the pole is moving at 0 mph. But it's moving at 1000 mph at the equator. Now the air is a fluid and it mixes. So you get spinning weather systems because of this difference. Btw, that's one of the proofs of the round, spinning earth. It's moving 0 at the north pole, 1000 mph at the equator, and 0 at the south pole. And as it mixes, the spinning systems are inverted in the southern hemisphere.

>You can tell the difference on a moving train

No, you cannot. Everything you feel is simply side effects. A plane is a better example, you're moving far faster, but it feels the same as if you're on the ground. Barring engine vibration and turbulance.

>not good enough

Then think about it harder.

>>18610581
> It's just denser now than it was when it was a dust cloud.

How was it ever a dust cloud? Shouldn't all these particles have been moving further and further away from each other since the supposed Big Bang?

>You have mass A and mass B. Each of them have their own gravity. Mass B is moving away from mass A. If mass B is fast enough, the strength of gravity between them won't be enough to cause them to come together. If they're not moving away fast enough, then they fall together and form one mass. If the difference is just right, then they orbit each other.

Sure, why not. I don't see how the strength of gravity between any of these particles could have ever overcome the ever-increasing distances between them.

>The motor your vacuum cleaner creates a chamber of low pressure inside of your vacuum cleaner. There is high pressure in the atmosphere around you. The high pressure wants to go to low pressure, it goes in through the head of the vacuum, creating wind, that blows the dirt off your carpet and into the vacuum hose.

Yes, so the low (i.e. lowest possible) pressure of space should suck the high pressure atmosphere right off the Earth, right?

>You're still making the false, and rather silly mistake of thinking that vacuum is a force. It is not.

I don't care about your definitions. Vacuum creates a pulling force. Try my experiment with the straw.

>See? I knew you were only playing dumb.

A lot of us have done a good amount of research on these topics, trying to figure out where all these bogus theories came from.

>>18610727
>Shouldn't all these particles have been moving further and further away from each other since the supposed Big Bang?

No. Most things in the unverse are moving away from most other things. Some things in the universe are going in the same direction at about the same thing, and thus clump together.

>I don't see how gravity pulls things together.

Gravity is a force. It makes things accelerate together. Mass B is moving away from Mass A. But because gravity is pulling on it, the speed at which it is moving away slows down. It slows down, and slows down, and then Mass B stops. And then, because gravity is still pulling on it, it continues to accelerate towards mass A. You can observe this yourself by throwing a ball in the air.

Now as it happens, gravity diminishes over distance. So if Mass B if moving very fast, something called an "escape velocity," then the gravity will weaken faster than gravity from Mass A can slow it down, so it keeps going forever.

>so the lowest pressure of space should suck the high pressure right off the earth.

Sure. If not for gravity holding it down. Gravity is much stronger than air pressure. In fact, gravity is the reason there is any air pressure at all. If you had a magic hypothetical switch that turned off gravity, then all the atmosphere would go exploding into space. Along with the oceans and molten mantle, since that's under pressure too.

>I don't care about definitions, vacuum is a force.

Obviously you don't care about definitions, because there is no definition of force which included vacuum.

>I have done a good amount of research

Your posts indicate an opposite of this. I believe you watch a lot of very stupid youtube videos, but that's not research. If you had done even basic research, you'd have a working concept of what a force is.

File: tiresome.jpg (7KB, 266x190px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 266x190px

>>18610636
>Of course it does. The moon goes around the sun every year. To be more precise, the moon and the earth orbit around a common center of mass. This center of mass orbits around a center of mass between the sun and the earth-moon system.

Think about it this way: Every time the moon orbits the Earth in a direction that is away from the sun, it is pulling against the sun's gravity. Every time it orbits the Earth towards the sun, it is being pulled towards the sun. How can it maintain a consistent orbit around the Earth under these conditions?

>Of course. The air at the pole is moving at 0 mph. But it's moving at 1000 mph at the equator. Now the air is a fluid and it mixes. So you get spinning weather systems because of this difference. Btw, that's one of the proofs of the round, spinning earth. It's moving 0 at the north pole, 1000 mph at the equator, and 0 at the south pole. And as it mixes, the spinning systems are inverted in the southern hemisphere.

So the 1,000mph speeds are enough to cause our spinning weather systems (with the cyclones and hurricanes and whatnot), but the 70,000mph orbit of the Earth around the sun doesn't seem to affect them? Keeping in mind that the trajectory of this movement is constantly changing due to the circular nature of this orbit as well as the planet's own rotation.

>>18610291
Long ago, I knew of a man named Wooden Henry by the townsfolk after he lost his left leg in an accident involving the old mill, and had it replaced with a mostly wooden leg. It didn't stop him from riding his horse around day in and day out.

Wooden Henry had developed mental issues at a relatively young age after losing his leg. He told stories of leaving town on his horse and finding the edge of the world.
Nobody believed him, but he set off anyway to investigate further.
He never returned, and was never found.

I believe you, old Woody. I believe that the world is flat, dang nabbit.

>>18610785
YOU KNOW TOO MUCH

>>18610762
>Obviously you don't care about definitions, because there is no definition of force which included vacuum.

What is suction?

>Gravity is much stronger than air pressure.

Here's Bill Nye fucking gravity over with not that much air pressure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeAp3CuGjk8

I'll be back later. I've got shit to do. I don't get paid to post here all day like you do.

Op ive read most posts here
I don't understand why you cherrypick certain facts of science and then go and deny others in order to substantiate your claim of a flat earth.
It doesn't make sense

>>18610815
>what is suction

The flow of fluid across a pressure gradient. The reason a suction cup sticks to a surface is because of the high pressure on the atmosphere pushing against it.

>video disabled by viewer

But yes, anon. You can use atmospheric pressure to lift objects. Even heavy objects like airplanes. What's your point?

>>18610778
>every time the moon is away from the sun it's pulling against the earths gravity... etc.

Yes. But the earth is also pulling on the moon with the same force. It cancels each other out. If you plot the center of the earth as it travels around the sun, it always a little curlique dance. But if you plot the center of the moon-earth system, it's a nice clean ellipse.

>so the 1000 mph speeds

Again, you're confusing actual speed with relative speed. Imagine a man standing at the equator. He's moving at 1000 mph. Now imagine a guy standing next to him. He's moving at 999.999999 mph. Not enough to notice any difference. Now consider the earth moving around the sun. All parts are moving at 700,000 mph. Or there about. So there's no difference. No difference = no effect.

Again, if the earth were a big huge disk, stretching from the sun all the way out to the distance of the earth, then coriolis effect would be huge moving away from or towards the sun. That's because if you're close to the sun, you'd be moving much slower than way out towards earth.

>>18610401
>Someone is curious about our earth
>y-you are trolling

What

>>18610406
These questions suck tbqh. Maybe that's why no one answers.

If the earth is round, where is the bowling pins and lanes?

>>18610291
I'm pretty deep into some conspiricies, but I don't get this. We have proof the Earth isn't flat, have you ever been on a plane?

>>18611042
If he were really curious about earth, he wouldn't be asking questions he knew the answer too, or outright deny the answers that he didn't like.

>Accidentally posted this in the wrong damn thread earlier.... So here is my post in the correct thread..


I'll take a stab at normie round earthers.

During the summertime in the northern hemisphere, the earth is farther away from the sun (supposedly anyway) than during the wintertime. During the summertime in the southern hemisphere, they are closer to the sun! Yet the south pole region is vastly fucking colder than the northern artic. And you can't say "oh its the angle" cause according the round earthers, either the earth is round so there is no angle change if the earth tilts, or its an "oblate spheroid" which would actually seem to make it hotter in the southern hemisphere at first glance, until you realize that if it were an oblate spheroid it would be oblate roughly all the way around, so you would have equal parts facing the sun and off into space, so its heating and cooling from the sun would equal out to that of a sphereical earth anyway. But in the case of an oblate spheroid, it would allow a larger area and angle difference, but it would work against the truth of the data, the data being its fucking colder in the southern hemisphere.

>>18610855
This

>>18611217
Your not taking a stab at anyone here but yourself

>>18610467
>planes fly through the air
So do bullets. So it negates it for planes and not bullets because ....

Did I miss something?

File: tmp_7060-1486510132516889244647.png (668KB, 810x798px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 810x798px

>>18611296
Knives are dangerous!

File: tmp_7060-14865096389531537075661.jpg (47KB, 458x523px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 458x523px

>>18611077
Aren't plane windows curved? And not to mention the horizon indicator which is gyroscope and completely analog in nature on a plane that detects whether its nose is pointing up or down never needs adjustment no matter how far the plane flies, which is an impossibility on a globular earth. Anyone who knows how a gyroscope works can confirm this, its why a gyroscope is used in the first place.

physics answers your questions, doesn't seem like a post for /x/

>>18611316
Coriolis effects can be significant. But prevailing winds (which themselves are caused by Coriolis and other effects) are more significant that any direct Coriolis effect on the airplane.

>>18610868
Earth doesn't rotate, that's why we don't feel any motion. Research "Airy's Failure." He had light come down the barrel of a telescope that was pointed at a star, then filled it water and noticed that the image of the star he was looking at didn't disappear. Which means the earth isn't moving in reference to the stars and the stars -are- moving in reference to the earth.

>>18611341
This really isn't about the shape of the earth
Its just an ego inflating system to make yourself look special or smart
If your under 20 years old this is acceptable.
If not ... It becomes less acceptable

>>18611365
>>18611341
>>18611217

These are mine I'm setting up a trip code so responses are easier

>>18611391
This isn't an ego thing it's a discussion. :) I simply gave info that sets itself against a sphere earth model thats all.

Why do people always fall for these troll threads....

>>18610372
Show me one documented case where someone went around the earth from North Pole to southpole then back to North. Why are the globe earthers so close minded and blind

>>18610406
Google a real flat earth model so you can get an idea for reference

Gravity: The big bang was not a universe wide "bang", scientists and historians are just terrible at naming things. You can jump off the ground and birds can fly because when you jump you apply force against the gravity constant that pulls you back down at all times. Birds fly because they sail in the wind becaude they're not heavy. The distance between the Earth and the Sun's gravity wells are well over far enough for the moon to keep falling around the earth. Think of a marble rolling around the entrance of a trough.

The earth dwarfs us in comparison and it's hard to see any curvature from such a small line of sights of the area. The easiest way to prove the curvaturr is just looking at a departing ship and watch it disappear over the horizon. I'm guessing the altitude as was your question would be ~4000m. It's a guess. I'm not sure because I don't own a personal rocket

>>18611365
Are you saying a gyroscope wouldn't work on a globe earth ?

>>18611217
>and you can't say "oh, it's the angle"

Sure we can. The distance from the sun has a very insignificant effect. It's the tilt that causes the seasons. The tile is pointing the northern hemisphere towards the sun in the the summer. It's pointing the southern hemisphere towards the sun in the winter (their summer).

The south pole and the north pole get equal amounts of sunlight. The only reason the south pole is colder than the north is because there's land at the south pole, and ocean at the north pole. The ocean is always mixing, so it stays more moderate in temperature than land.

This is not complicated.

>>18611316
>did I miss something

Yes. Ballistics. Bullets fly a ballistic path. That is everything depends on the explosion that fires it. Everything else is inertia and air resistance.

Furthermore it travels very quickly over its entire distance.

Planes on the other hand, use the air for both its lift and it's maneuvering. Any effect on the air directly influences a plane's flight characteristics. As the air changes as it travels north or south, the plane's flight changes. All a pilot has to do is point the plane in the right direction. The plane travels slowly enough that it corrects itself for the coriolis effect along the way.

>>18611448
I'm saying the gyroscope would maintain its internal position as the plane flew across the horizon. What I mean by this is, on a globe earth, even if the pilot for whatever reason doesn't have to point the nose downwards constantly to stay level with the curving ground beneath him, as the plane flew around the earth the gyroscope would "tilt backwards," falsely indicating that the plane was constantly nose diving. But it doesn't tilt backwards. Which a pretty solid reason as to why the pilot doesn't have to correct the plane's vertical position direction. Its cause the earth is flat. I remember a video somewhere of a guy wrestling a cheese wheel that had a spinning metal disc inside of it(basically a gyroscope) and he can't tip it over until the disc quits spinning, proof that it maintains it internal position regardless of what goes on outside of it. That's why they're used in planes to maintain an "artificial horizon."

>>18611217
This has more to do with long term global temperatures. We're transitioning from an inter glacial period into another ice age.
The islands that are Antarctica built up ice a few million years ago for the final time and have been frozen ever since.
As for why it's so much colder, perhaps it's because of the lack of land around the Antarctic region, in relationship to the northern hemisphere.

>everytime I see a flat earther:
>bitch you never been in a plane?

>>18611472
I am aware that this tilt(on the round earth model) or wobble between the north pole and outside antartic edge(on the flat earth model) cause seasons. However there is significantly less landmass in the southern hemisphere compared to the northern, unless what you meant to say is that it is the land itself that allows more heat to be absorbed in the northern hemisphere. The north pole does have a much wider "swing" between temps of summer and winter, getting up to freezing and -40F in the winter. But the supposed south pole is already -18F in their summer, and -76F in their winter. Its always colder in the southern hemisphere on average. Unless there is a desert next door.

>>18611511
And last I checked if I stand closer to a radiant heat source, I get hotter. :/

>>18611496
See
>>18611523
Sorry I'm on a phone and messed up my post, meant to put you in the reply

How can the sun possibly illuminate the bottoms of clouds on the flat Earth model?

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


there are thousands of examples but this one is easy to do at home.

>>18611554
Simple. Stand next to a long wall. Now say said wall ends at a certain distance. This shall represent the clouds. Now have someone go behind that wall with a flashlight. This will be our sun above the clouds. Even if your friend stays on that side of the wall, no matter how far away he is from it, and he continues to walk in the direction you're facing, at some point in the distance he will be seen beyond where the wall ends in front of you. Simple line of sight shows this. Another example would be if you had your sun visor down while driving at night, and you drove under a street lamp in reverse, at some point you would be able to see that street lamp in the distance in front of you, even if it is 30ft in the air above you.

>>18610868
I'm tired of this. You admit that a high pressure system will give way to a low pressure system but then you do everything you can to deny that the infinite vacuum of space should have any effect on our atmosphere.

You talk about relative speed versus actual speed as though speed in itself is meaningless.

I think I've done my job presenting some of the more glaring holes in the globalist's universal framework. I leave it up to the reader to decide whether you've answered my questions sufficiently. If you believe this horseshit or just take his word for it cause his answers sound all sciency, all the best to you.

>>18611209
I don't know the answer to these questions because in my mind they are unanswerable, which is why I stopped believing in the current model of the universe. What answers did I deny outright? When he simply answered "of course not"? I think that's fair enough.

>>18610855
Could you be more specific or are you just trying to build a sense of peer pressure for others to disagree with me?

>>18611391
Yes. I want to look smart to a bunch of autistic 13 year olds by posting anonymously on an obscure Sri Lanken kitten juggling forum.

>>18611667
>Sri Lanken kitten juggling forum.
thats a good one, im stealing that

>>18611579
But in the first example, the wall on your side would remain dark, and the street lamp example involves the under-lit object actually being a light source itself so your analogies are kinda dumb here and show nothing

>>18610372
Why dont you do that to prove earth is round?

>>18611699
Umm, I'm sorry let me fix my first example. Two walls running parallel, with you between them. Now have your friend walk on the outside of left wall. At a certain distance, you will see him carrying his light. At a certain farther distance, said light will reflect enough to light the "underside" of said wall. So my analogy is perfect with a ground and clouds, just with a dimmer light source. And in the second example, of course its a light source. Wtf do you think the sun is? A giant no light having ball of blankness? :)

>>18611699
>>18611767
Sorry forgot to use my trip code

>>18611667
>in my mind they are unanswerable

Especially when you ignore all the simple explanations.

>>18611511
>There is signifcantly less land mass in the southern hemisphere than the northern

Sure. But at the poles, there's an ocean at the north and land in the south, so the south pole's going to be a lot colder. In the tropic regions, there will also be colder average temperatures because there is less land than the north. The oceans are a moderating factor.

>>18611667
>as though speed itself is meaningless

In terms of the coriolis effect, yes. Absolute speed is absolutely meaningless. What matters is the difference. Same with feeling speed. If you're in a train going a hundred thousand miles an hour, you'll never feel the speed. You feel changes in speed.

>A high pressure system will give way to a low pressure system.

Yes. Unless there's some force acting on the high pressure. Like the walls of a balloon. Or gravity.

>I want to look smart

Then you're failing miserably.

Yes, you're basically restating what's already been said. So for the sake of this conversation, allow my to reiterate my original point. During the southern hemispheres summer, they are significantly closer to the sun than the northern hemisphere is during its summer due to the supposed orbit of the earth around the sun. Which is why I said it doesn't make sense why the southern hemisphere is on average colder. Much colder the further south you go. So my original point stands, that the closer to a radiant heat source, whether that be an electric heater or the sun, I should get warmer. But in the globe earth theory case, it doesn't. So the only thing that can partly save this problem is there is less land in the southern hemisphere. But I hold my ground and say that shouldn't make as much of a difference as it does, due to the closeness of the earth to the sun during that time of the year. If anything it should be equal or hotter than the north, not colder.

>>18611838
See>>18611882
Phone messed my reply up again sorry.

>>18611882
>>18611886

I'm reiterating what I'm saying because you're still apparently too thick to get it.

The differences in distances to the sun are irrelevant. You can for practical purposes ignore it completely.

What we've got left is the tilt of the earth. Now that's a constant. The Southern hemisphere points towards the sun in the true winter and away in the true summer.

The southern hemisphere gets the same amount of daylight and night time that the northern hemisphere gets, just at opposite time of the year. During the day things heat up, during the night things cool off. When nights are long, winter comes and it gets cold, when the days are long, summer comes and get things warm.

In the Southern hemisphere, in the tropics, where things are warm year round, there is more ocean than land. Thus things are cooler in the southern hemisphere in the tropics, on average, at the same latitudes. All that cool sea breeze.

Now moving onto the polar regions, which are cold all year round. In this case there is more land in the polar regions than in the northern hemisphere. Land gets colder in the polar regions than the ocean does. Again because the ocean mixes but land does. So even in the local summer time, when there's lots of sun, it still stays very cold, as opposed to the north where there's all those ocean currents mixing.

Less land in the tropics, and more land at the polar regions both contribute to the southern hemisphere being cooler. On average.

Again, none of this is complicated, nor should it be hard to understand.

>>18611916
You can't weasel your way around the fact that according to the textbooks the sun is -closer- to the southern hemisphere during its summer due to the earths orbit around the sun. It should be hotter, not colder. So, no you can't ignore it completely. Or at all. If you think that I can stand closer to a radiant heat source and not get warmer, you're going to have to prove it. Give me an example where an object gets closer to something emitting light or heat and it gets colder. The amount of land above equator plus the closer distance to the sun during north winter does not equal the amount if discrepancy in temperatures.

>>18611853
>Absolute speed is absolutely meaningless.

Yes, to believe we're travelling the speeds you say we're travelling, speed really does lose all meaning. Never mind that we're spinning and corkscrewing and corkscrewing again. According to you, it's all consistent to the point of non-existence.

>Yes. Unless there's some force acting on the high pressure. Like the walls of a balloon. Or gravity.

Yes, like the walls of a balloon. Note that this is the only kind of example of maintaining unequally pressured environments side-by-side without them naturally equalizing you'll ever find on Earth, with a barrier between them. Of course, your model of the universe is evidence itself for someone like you.

>Then you're failing miserably.

And here's a perfect example of what you've been doing this entire time: cherry picking sections of my questions and arguments so that you can make a semi-decent sounding response. I'm done with you. The reader can decide whether you've actually answered any of my questions if they're thoughtful enough to make their own decisions.

>>18611826

None of these explanations have been simple. There is nothing simple about the globe Earth hypothesis. It's proponents have been dreaming up more and more convoluted explanations for its glaring errors for centuries now, they have bullshitting down to a fine art.

thread went quiet.... shills musta left when anons handed it to em...

>>18612193
Top keks

>>18612197
True but.

>>18610401
Thats what it started as.

The fact that you can travel around the earth and end up in the same place proves we live on a globe. Do flat earthers really think they reach a spot and magically teleport across the flat earth?
>>18612358
Also this picture makes no sense. What does it mean by missing curvature?

Have you seen this Flat Earth app on google play?

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.zpg.flat_earth_clock.android

retard general

added to filters just like divination, tarot, hanz, "magick", tulpa, astrology and mandela

>>18610297
Bait biting me, there's no noticeable feeling Because the velocity isn't changing. Same reason why you only feel cars slowing down or speeding up, not the constant speed ride through a kansas interstate.

>>18612585
Except that flying around the world isn't as hard as it seems. In the old days you would use a compass and fly east with north to your left, and make slight corrections the whole trip. Not enough to notice when you go as slow as those old planes did. In modern times, its easy enough to look at flight patterns and know somethings up. Sure, you could say that a trip from south america would stop in England on its way to Australia, because of a large amount of people on board would probably being going there, even if it is out of the way. On a flat earth map however, its a straight shot from one side the the other with a stop in europe in the middle with no deviation. As for ship navigation, there was a boat that sailed around anartica by James Cook, and found it sailed a whopping 60,000 miles. Doesn't work on a globe earth. Works fine navigating an anartic ice wall on the outside of a flat earth map. Sure a modern boat could do it, but they'll prob use GPS(ground based repeater stations on flat earth), or could just "claim" they circumnavigated anartica to its passengers and then head north, therefore I trust in oldschool explorers even if their maps tend to be a little skewed. I think he would know if he went 60000 miles via the stars. You cant fuck up that bad.

>>18612734
Fuck forgot to use my trip code again..I hate using my phone...

>>18612728
Except when you turn. People always forget that. While it may be true for going straight, at some point you'll turn when flying or otherwise moving at a certain rate of speed. When you do that, you will notice a difference like walking on a marry go round. Surely jet pilots would feel it. Never heard of any of them complain about it though. That's why they made up this coriolis effect and say it applies to only bullets, even if humans should be able to feel it too. Cause regular people don't have access to a SR-71 Blackbird to test it. So they just take it as fact. Because most people are sheep. Research "Airy's failure." The earth is -not- moving. The sky above us is.

>>18612748
Yeah no shit you feel a turn, it's a change in velocity. But the force of earth's turn is negligible compared to the other forces we have acting on us like gravity, buoyancy, friction, normal. You also forget how Damn MASSIVE the thing is, you'd probably feel some turn standing on a rotating basketball that had the gravitational force of the earth, because at that point the subtle change in velocity is no longer negligible.

>>18612735
>>18612748

Full disclosure.

Full disco sure, L?

Full disc, o sure L.

Lets make this plain our party!

AEIOU. Love.

>>18612764
Don't tell me how it's negligible, then turn around and tell me how massive it is. The equator spins at 1000mph, or approx 16 miles per SECOND, under your feet. So everyone in the U.S. is spinning at somewhere near 7-12 at least. But yet I can feel a 3mph wind push my van while cruising at 55mph, but can't notice a marry go round effect when turning a curve with the earth rotating at about 12 mpS below my feet. I'm not buying it. Coriolis effect doesn't exist, or if it does its something else, guessing by how slight its effects are. But as far as a rotating earth beneath me, I'm going to need proof that refutes the regular data that scientists and everyone else regulary claim often, that being a 1000mph spinning equator, which I just used against round earthers to prove them wrong using their own data.

>>18612772
Kek

File: 1441921263002-co.jpg (20KB, 280x480px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 280x480px

>>18612801
Teach me to actually try and talk to you people seriously, and all I get in return is a reply like he just skimmed what I said.

>>18610815
why would anon get paid to post on /x/? /v/? sure, shills are very real over there but nobody is advertising anything on /x/.

>>18612801
>I can't feel it.

Everything is moving at the same speed. Of course you wouldn't feel it. We've told you this.

>the coriolis effect doesn't exist

The coriolis effect exists for any rotating object. Record and CD players have a coriolis effect. Bicycle wheels. You can demonstrate it in a laboratory.

>I just used against round earthers to prove them wrong

You did no such thing. All you did was make false claims and ignore the evidence.

>>18612748
>research Airy's failure

Research it yourself. Airy failed not because the earth is stationary, but because there's no such thing as aether.

Guys please
I perzonal think dat coz of laws of attraction and mass dat things in space form in balls.
What is inside those balls whatever
But the earth is not a disc hahahahahahahahahahahahha
Please

>>18611996
>note this is the only kind of example maintaining unequal pressure environments side by side you'll ever find on earth

Mmm,nope. Air pressure is high at sea level. It's low at 10,000 ft. There's no membrane separating the two of them. Why is one high and one low? Gravity, retard.

>none of these explanations have been simple.

No, they're very simple. You might not be able to understand them, but that's because you're being obtuse.

>>18611985
>The sun is closer in the summer
>this should make things hotter

The difference in distance is trivial. The earth only gets a tiny amount more sunlight at its perihelion as it does at its apihelion.

However, the difference due to the tilt of the earth is very, very significant.

Twenty four hours a day of sunlight is going to be a lot warmer than twenty four hours a day of night.

Tilt wins.

File: flat earthers btfo.png (25KB, 1008x630px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 1008x630px

since I'm so fucking tired of seeing these threads, I am finally shutting this shit down with my input that I have yet to see anyone bring forward similar arguments - here I drew you a picture.

File: 1469750624447-sugen.gif (178KB, 492x567px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 492x567px

Sage this hot garbage already

>>18612887
seriously

nobody wants to respond to my picture and explanation because you now realize you are stupid fucks and cant argue it because you have zero valid points

File: flat earthers btfo.png (33KB, 1008x630px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1008x630px

Did some editing to my pic.

>>18612867
I'm about to ruin your day sweet heart.

look at my picture, explain.
>>18612914

>>18612901
it has also been less than 7 minutes since your last post you impatient child

>>18612914
Its ok. You can believe what you want.

Never wondered why every masonic art shows a plane tho?

>>18612894
it's always hot garbage with this topic. frankly i don't understand why janitors and mods leave it up.

>>18612925
You're right, the earth isn't flat. I think you've confused me with a flat earther.

>>18612933
Yes it should be under censorship! Because we have science! Science-fiction! Delete it all. Nobody should even DARE to think otherWISE. NASA is our god!!

Make me cringe some more please!

>>18612944
board quality used to be a standard here, kiddo.

>>18612951
You are right im a kiddo.

Who are you tho?

>>18612928
wait, you quite obviously just tried to brush me off as if I didn't have a diagram showing you exactly why your theory is bullshit

is that what flat earthers do? not willing to look at both sides of something to make a valid conclusion? it's that exact attitude (once my minds made up and ive defended something, it's set in stone) - is why there are still stupid people on this planet.
the whole "you've showed me evidence and proved me wrong but I'm just gonna say believe what you want instead of make valid arguments" bullshit? hahahahaah k, you only make yourself look uneducated and unwilling to be open minded

awe cute nobody wants to argue me. =)

>>18612986
this is a slow board. check back in a while and I'm sure you'll find what you want.

>>18612585

Flat earthers seem to have this really fucked up idea about the size of the earth, like you walk a mile and are over the horizon or something.

I think it's a side effect of never leaving the basement.

>>18612914

LMAO dude omg, you are still fucking rekt, just accept defeat and be a man

>>18613265
>side effect of never leaving the basement

This. They can't even understand simple things, like the way the sun and stars move across the sky over time. Or the summer sky being different than the winter sky. Bunch of shut-ins.

>>18612970
Planet is just plane with an incomplete cross. T

>>18612592
Why are you here at all?

>>18612728
What about when you do a 100mph turn? You'd feel it then, right? As we rotate and orbit simultaneously, the direction of our inertia is changing constantly.

>>18612772
Welcome back, poem guy!

>>18612874
This is explained much better by density than by your model. As you get closer to the infinite vacuum of space, the particles are lighter and less affected by Earth's gravity and yet we're supposed to believe these form a barrier between our atmosphere and space? Impossible.

>No, they're very simple. You might not be able to understand them, but that's because you're being obtuse.

Compelling argument you have there.

>>18612880

How can anywhere on Earth get 24 hours of night due to its tilt unless its rotation perfectly matches its orbit in the same way that the moon only ever shows one side of itself to us?

>>18612951

True keks.

>>18612970

Wanna try answering my original questions bucko?

>>18613265
No, it's globalists who claim that the horizon

>>18613329
>>18613265

Whoops, didn't finish up there.

No, it's globalists who claim that the horizon is only 3 miles away for the average heighted person.

File: 1443271773271-co.jpg (70KB, 456x512px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 456x512px

>>18613329
S a g e this garbage already.

>>18613351

Who's forcing you to read it?

File: 1485771268754-x.jpg (33KB, 600x347px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x347px

>>18613354
Oh I read it to pass the time. Just like everyone who visits this site without a purpose. My main place is ic, doing something productive and nice with my free time instead of shitposting. Anyway, another sage on the fire.

>>18613349

No. No it isn't.

>>18613329
>what about when you do a 100 mph turn

100 mph is a speed, not a turn. Turns are acceleration. If you were in a car going at 100 mph and did a very sharp turn, then yes you'd feel it. If you did a very very slow turn, one that takes 24 hours to complete, you would not.

We could also talk about freefall and orbits, but you're still confused on the differences between velocity and acceleration, so I don't think you're read for that yet.

>this is better explained by density

It is not.

>the particles are lighter

A molecule of nitrogen weighs the same at high altitude as it does low altitude.

>less affected by earth's gravity

The difference in gravity is negligible between sea level and mountain tops.

It is true that air is less dense at high altitude.

This is because air molecules have mass. and gravity pulls them down. However, the sun heats the air, which makes air molecules bounce around a lot. Some of them bounce way up higher than the mountain tops, but not most of them. They come falling back down to the ground.

If not for the sun, all the air molecules would be down on the ground. But we're getting into the kinetic theory of gases, which is probably also beyond your grade level.

>how can the anywhere on earth get 24 hours of night.

Quite simple. The same way it gets 24 hours of day. The earth's orbit is tilted. And since it's also round, then the sun stays below the horizon for twenty four hours. This begins to happen at the arctic circle and antarctic circle. At the poles they get six months of darkness and six months of light. Places south of the arctic circle have very long nights and very short days in the winter. You have noticed this, have you not?

>unless it's rotation matches its orbit the same way the moon only shows one side


No, if that were the case, one side would be permanently night, the other would be permanently day.

>wanna try my original questions?

These all got answered.

>>18613329
>wanna try answering my original questions bucko?

what fucking questions you retard!?!?
you didn't even answer mine ? explain to me how the fuck my diagram could be false / not possible.

oh wait, you fuckin can't, because it makes perfect logical sense

god this board is full of captain autismo's.

What I want to know is, how a person even gets through life without knowing that there are places that get 24 hours of light or dark depending on the time of the year.

What's the flat-Earther's current explanation for the day-night cycle? Do they believe the world is a disc with edges or does the sun just crash into the horizon and turn off like the little light in my fridge when I can't see it?

>>18610548
haha oh shit
You really don't understand, do you?
>Vacuum force sucks

It doesn't pull, the atmosphere pushes..

You probably also think that 'cold' flows to 'hot', right?

>>18613879
They don't have one.

They claim that the tiny sun rotates above the plane of the earth.

They claim that when the sun gets a certain point away, it simply "disappears due to perspective." And that's when night time happens. Even though it's still above the plane of the earth.

Also, apparently, it's got some kind of lampshade on it, so it only illuminates a part of the earth at a time.

>>18613930
Thats totally not observeable or is it?

Better trust our government!

>>18610855
It is because it is a troll. All FE discussions were trolls, carefully constructed like this one. Unfortunately, there are those who are impressionable enough to believe these things they read, with absolute conviction. All FEers are simply trolls or ignorant. Both explain this thread.

>>18611042
>someone is curious about our earth
>asks retarded questions which can be observed on the visible fucking plane

Yea, he's trolling, and if he's not, he should probably kill himself for being such a dumb piece of shit.

>>18613934
No, there's no observable lampshade over the sun.

In fact, the sun sets at nighttime, without a change in angular size, in total contradiction with the flat earth model.

>>18610635
The bible doesn't even say the Earth started 5000 years ago.

This guys just a genuine dipshit.

>>18610291
Honestly this entire argument is really fucking stupid cause it could be solved relatively easily but there's always excuses as to why.

As >>18610372 said, thats all it would take. Physical evidence with a documented air trip including photos/video/logs whatever.

Now look at the responses he got
>>18610373 >>18611428 >>18611738

Basically a Merry-go-round of, "well why dont YOU do it tough guy?"

Needless to say, that the earth being round has a myriad of information that proves how its supposed to work, (the math checks out folks, take a trigonometry course, please).

Now, you could say "well fuck you man, that math is fake and its been passed as truth for so long that you think its real now and it renders this part of your argument useless". Fair enough, lets say we're all wrong and we've been indoctrinated to the point that you must free us from our shackles and show us the way. You could take it upon yourselves to make the most important discovery of the 21th Century a reality as a community, but instead you say "whoa man fuck you, why don't you do it? (even though if you do it and post pics, I won't believe it and think its Photoshop unless I myself do it).

TLDR: The only way to prove this shit (to Flat Earthers), is to actually go to the edge and document it, but flat earth people always have excuses to not do it even though it would be the greatest discovery in mankind's history and Round Earth people don't have an incentive cause everything else in our model already proves it.

>>18613965

And the

>muh high school

Anon

Better learn your own language.

Childhood = true self hooded aka hidden

School is pure indoctrination. Nothing could be further from truth.

File: 1457566528687[1].jpg (136KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 750x1334px

>>18613976
>muh flat earth

Try harder with some more bullshit.

>>18613965
It doesn't say specifically that succinctly, but it traces the geneology of everybody from Adam to King Solomon, and gives their ages, so you can just count it all up and you get 4004 BC.

Of course, different books give different ages and geneology, so you get slightly different numbers. The Bible is constantly contradicting itself.

>>18613981
Shhhh ape of this plane doesn't even matter.

Get it?

Cleaning up your temple matters.

>>18614020

LOVE THIS !

>>18614020
So then how thick is the earth?

If its flat, we should be able to dig through it, and if we do, what's on the other side? Nothing?

>>18614041
Deepest hole drilled by mankind is 12km.

Rekt.

Do your homework namefag.

>>18614041
Now you tell me more about the core of earth.

Kola ultrad33p.

>>18614041
>>18614050
Hahaha I love it when earth retards eat shit, especially tripfags
>duur how deep is da earf

>>18614020
Reminds me of the flat earther guy who'd make these really long videos where he never actually discussed arguments, he'd just edit these really long action scenes from movies and video games, and claim the guys winning were the flat earthers, and never said why. Most of it was from really shitty Star Wars games, with edgy lightsaber fights. I think he added lots of heavy metal to the soundtracks or something.

>>18610291
Lots of reasons why this is likely a top-level shared dream. Unfortunately, it's effectively real. Pain is real and death and rebirth is real.

>>18612843
I'm just saying that you should feel an effect of being slung when you go around a curve more one way than the other way if the earth is rotating.

>>18612867
Yea I know you keep saying that. And you also fail to show me why using round earth logic I don't feel a swing when making a turn, everyone here is evading this very thorn in their side. Its like saying a figure skater slows down when they stick out there arms while spinning, but actually only they can do that, so you can't feel it if you try but its true even if we can't back up what were saying just trust us your head is thick. I'm not buying it.

And so the coriolis effect only affects spinning objects huh? Never heard that one.

>>18612869
I have researched it. And if you had, you would know that he was looking for a "moving aether." He did not find a "moving aether." And what he also found, is that based on the interaction of light coming down a telescope barrel filled with water, that the earth is in fact "not moving." And that it was the stars overhead that were. This did not prove that an either does not exist, but did prove that either the earth is stationary or the earth and the aether are stationary together.

>>18612880
I agree the distance is trivial. Its about 5% closer and the the northern hemisphere contains about 18% more landmass. But the tilt actually works against everyone on here's argument, because it also tilts the southern hemisphere towards the sun when it is closer to the sun. And the northern hemisphere towards it when its farther away. So the tilt would eventually equal out and it shouldn't make that much of a difference. Idk wtf you're talking about with the 24 hour thing..

>>18612914
Umm... Well to be honest you've never actually seen any of that stuff. You can't honestly even say that the other planets up in the sky or AKA "wandering stars" are even like earth at all. You're assuming that the dots in the sky are like earth. For all you know they could be pin pricks that allow light from the next flat earth system above us. Or they could be the actual projectors that make this holographic world seem real. Idk. We flat earthers do not pretend that we do know. But what we do know is 90% of the shit we've been taught is wrong, and everything that seems unanswerable so far at least on my journey is in fact answerable, just not with using round earth logic. Round earthers expect everything to match up to their worldview(kek) when it is in fact a damn hood possibility that their worldview is wrong, and taught to them at birth.

>>18614328

>flat earther has never heard of a telescope

There is nothing more revolting than wilful ignorance. It legitimately makes you less than human.

File: 003.jpg (103KB, 600x848px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 600x848px

Why is flat-earth still being argued? Are you retards actually trying to debunk shit that's been confirmed by scientists over the course of several centuries?

Debate all you want, all planets are spheres or at least spherical to some degree in shape.

Any validity any of you true flat-earth'ers have hoped to gain is now impossible to achieve due to just about every single last one of you bringing up points that are easy to debunk or destroy with counterclaims.

Even a child could tell you why and how the Earth isn't flat, it simply makes no sense.

You know what? Since so many of you are fixated on this concept, please draw me a map and diagram of what you believe the Earth supposedly looks like.

Obviously it cannot be a plate of some sort, because if this were true then we could drill through the Earth, or find an edge to it.

So please, don't humor me, but CONVINCE me. Show me what makes you people believe in this so-called flat earth, I'm VERY curious but note I will be passive-aggressive due to how asinine this topic is.

Thanks in advance.

>>18614350
Nothing more revolting than someone who produces insults instead of meaningful discussion. Gtfo and kys. All you see with your telescope is dots, and some dots with color. Don't give me NASA photos. They're not trusted even among non flat earthers.

>>18614368
No sense being passive aggressive. Clearly mainstream science and beleifs do not have the final say. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Flat earthers poke holes in round earth theory, most of which mainstream science and thought processes can't find a valid answer for. Then provide answers for them by saying the earth is flat. But a typical response by round earthers is when you give a valid reason for the way something is, that tears them up inside because it messes up more than one thing simultaneously. Example. Some flat earthers believe in a firmament. Round earthers then ask well what about satellites. There are no satellites. But that is something only a few of them can even fathom, and they usually resort to insults or the like. Better question, if there are no satellites, what have they been feeding you your whole life with these fake images and why have they been doing it? That's a better question.

>>18614288
>I don't feel a swing when making a turn

Not when you're in orbit, or turning around the earth, no. The only force acting on you is gravity. Other than the normal force, due to the force of gravity acting on whatever part of you is touching the ground, there is no external contact force.

If you're in a car and you turn a corner, you feel it because the seat of the car is pushing on you, and the side of the car is pushing on you, and it's providing pressure on your nerves that you feel. Also to some extent there's fluid in your ear that helps you know you're turning, and a large psychological effect from seeing the outside world turn.

All this adds up to "I feel myself turning." WIth gravity, every single part of you is being acted on at the same time, with the same force, so you never notice it.

Nobody's evading anything, the answer is obvious.

If you'd like to simulate it. Sit in an office chair, and turn around once over the course of 24 hours. Make notes on how you feel.

>figure skater slowing down

Now you're talking about the conservation of angular momentum, a completely unrelated topic and nothing to do with "feelings."

Also, this whole "I can't feel a spin, that means we're not spinning" thing is just a reiteration of the "Well the earth looks flat from where I am, that means it is flat" argument. Or for that matter, "I can't see mommy when she plays peakaboo with me, that means she really vanishes." It's absurd.

>the coriolis effect only affects spinning objects

Of course it does. The coriolis effect is a direct result of a rotating system. The earth, for example. This is a very fundamental thing.

>I have researched it

If that's true, then you're lying when you claim it proves a stationary earth. I think probably it's a bit of both, you haven't researched it, and you're being dishonest.

>it proved the earth was stationary

It did not. Airy never made that claim.

File: FE - venus 4.webm (1MB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 720x576px

>>18614350

Venus, wandering star (planet)

Maybe I missed it, but if the earth is flat, please explain plane travel.

For instance you can fly Los Angeles to Frankfurt, change planes, fly Frankfurt Tokyio, change planes and continue on to LA. You just circumvented the globe.

Also, if earth is in fact flat, who are the forced trying to hide this knowledge and why? What's the conspiracy? I mean it must be a clandestine undertaking but what for?

>>18614507
Learn to focus.

>>18614511
Flat earthers believe people lie about the shape of the earth because they don't want you to know that your special and that god exists.
Its stupid because god can exist even with a globe model.

>>18614511
circumnavigation works pretty much the same on a disc and on a globe.
Draw a circle, put the North pole at the middle of it and see.
If earth is flat and it is, then it was created. Knowledge on our origin, our creator, our purpose is at stake. Knowledge is power for the sick fucks.

>>18614522
The guy did just that before your eyes. Zooming in and out.

>>18614527
The earth was created regardless of shape anon.
This isn't a valid thinking point.

File: tiltyouretard.png (50KB, 715x604px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 715x604px

>>18614288
>I don't know how the tilt of the earth works or the seasons

This does not surprise me. Here, because you are so stupid, I've drawn you a picture.

This is the earth in winter. The north pole is tilted away from the sun. All points north of the red line experience 24 hours or more of night. More the further north you go. All points south of the green line experience 24 hours or more of sunlight.

All points north of the equator experience more night time than day time. This makes it cold. All points south of the equator experience more day time than night.

This is how seasons work.

This is one of the many proofs of the round, spinning earth.

You should already know this material, simply by going outside of your house from time to time and looking at the sky.

>>18614450
>Flat earthers poke holes in round earth
Such as ?
Also a lot of people poke holes in a flat earth theory . Doesn't that count ?

>>18614526
Interesting. And I agree, science leaves enough free space to fit in God (goes for evolution as well)

But I would love to hear from one of Flat Earth advocates here why the world goverment is undertaking this enormous effort to fool us all into believing the earth is a globe?

>>18614536
>. Knowledge on our origin, our creator, our purpose is at stake. Knowledge is power for the sick fucks.

If Earth is flat then moderrn sciences are wrong on everything thus all the official story regarding our origin/purpose/creator is void.
People will then start to research who they are, where they live and what they're supposed to do here. The fundamental questions of life.

>>18614559
But we already do all that constantly.
We still search knowledge endlessly.
And it just happens that we came to a conclusion that the earth is a planet shaped like a globe.
If someone loses faith in god due to the shape of our homeland he or she didn't have much faith to begin with.
Im not really qualified to absolutely 100% state the earth is a globe but to me it makes more sense than a flat planet.
A flat planet leaves too many unanswered questions behind while a globe one does not.
And ibdont see anything wrong with that.

Why are believing in God (Christian God I assume) and round Earth not reconcilable?

I don't see how flat earth would prove Gods excistance (or non excistance) in any way.

I will not discuss mindless discussion. Yes it does have to do with feeling, as that's a sense, and yes angular momentum stands true in my argument, not for yours. If you want to tell me that you can drive a car at 60mph around with a surface beneath you moving at 10mp/second, and not feel a g force stronger when turn certain directions, then discussing this with you is pointless. Objects in orbit obviously do not count, as they ate not connected to the ground.

I will not discuss the corilois effect further. The data behind it poor at best when it comes to actual experiments.

Yes I researched airys failure. And those are my words based on looking at what his experiment concluded, not his. All he knew is that if there was an aether it wasn't moving.
>>18614507
Thank you for this.
>>18614526
Or that perhaps there is more land beyond the anartic ice wall with more suns. Its funny how the moment man was able to travel long distances the earth was declared a globe, when it conveniently hides the ice wall as a single continent on the bottom of the globe model and its disastrously cold there so why would anyone go there? Another method of containment is what it is, no different from saying you'll fall off the earth.

File: 1486069840626.jpg (33KB, 480x764px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x764px

>>18614572
>And it just happens that we came to a conclusion that the earth is a planet shaped like a globe.

No, not "we", only the celebrities in charge of modern sciences. The ordinary guy is told at school and through the television that it is that way.
>If someone loses faith in god due to the shape of our homeland he or she didn't have much faith to begin with.
> but to me it makes more sense than a flat planet.

Pretty sure that at least the Bible, Vedas, Quran describe a flat Earth. It seems more logical to say that it is if you believe the globe that you don't have much faith.

> to me it makes more sense than a flat planet.
not to me because I don't feel any motion, no spin and I can't see any curvature, my senses tell me it is flat so that it makes more sense to believe my sense than my television.

>>18614585
Please enlighten me on who is behind all this and why?

File: 1483040363970-x.jpg (429KB, 1589x646px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 1589x646px

>>18614328
I could help you formulate a theory on those other planets with this informational image.

>>18614539
>I don't know how the tilt of the earth works...bla bla bla
Nice try bud but that green text you quoted I never fucking said. So fuck off with that shit.

>>18614555
Sure. But the holes they poke are usually answerable in regards to flat earth discussion, whereas the round earth version they arent, because if they could be there wouldn't be any flat earth discussion in the first place. I gave you the example of the firmament. You want more?
But to entertain you seasons work on a flat earth map too. :)

File: procyon.webm (1MB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 720x576px

>>18614585
more firmament gems

>>18614598
The archon's. The original AI gods created in this reality. They hate humans, as they were not given creative capacities. They were created at the same time this world was created, known as the demiurge by Sophia. Humans were given creative abilities by the original god after he leanered of what Sophia had done. Read the gnostic gospels. You are on the right path by asking that question.

File: 6ba1a147-4063-4f26-9234-17a299366eee.png (412KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 500x750px

>>18614585
>>18614607
You're either the most committed troll on x, or you are honestly stupider than the kid with adhd in my physics class. At least he doesn't deny literally ANYTHING against him, but like you he does annoy everyone around him with child like hyperactive behavior.

>>18614532
Zooming in and out is not the same as focusing.

Those are two different operations. He's zooming in, but it's egregiously out of focus.

>>18614586
Its interesting your talking about your senses.
Your senses didn't show you what happend in the bible.
You've read it or have been told by people or television. You never actually seen Jesus or allah .
You just chose to believe one thing and dismiss the other and that's not your fault.
Anti religion dudes do the same only the other way around.

If earth is flat and the same is true for the other object in our solar system, what about the moon?

Is the moon also flat and we just stare at it from the top all the time?

Is the moon round and the earth flat?

>>18614585
>I will not discuss mindless discussion

That's all you've been offering.

I think you came here with a bunch of questions you didn't think we'd know the answer to. We knew all of them, immediately, you shit you pants and now ever since then you've just been sticking your fingers in your ear going "la la la."

You don't know the difference between velocity and acceleration. A vector and a scalar. Focus vs. zoom. Or what a force is. You ARE mindless.

>>18614636
> it's egregiously out of focus.
Clearly not.

File: 1469961536514-sugen.jpg (39KB, 714x416px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 714x416px

>>18614646
We are replying too much to these threads though, it's funny but we should still sage these mongoloids into oblivion.

>>18614585
>I will not discuss the coriolis effect further
>the data behind it is poor at best when it comes to actual experiments.

You never even asked about any experiments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt_XJp77-mk

>>18614640
>Your senses didn't show you what happend in the bible.
Again my senses do not show me what modern sciences teach (spinning motion, curvature,...), real life experiences hint at a flat Earth exactly as told in the scripture.

>You've read it or have been told by people or television. You never actually seen Jesus or allah .
Nor did I see a curvature or a spinning motion of Earth or even a real photograph of the ball.
in my entire life.

>You just chose to believe one thing and dismiss the other and that's not your fault.
I chose to believe my senses other choose their teachers/television/celebrities. I feel like my choice is the most reasonable in the lot.

>>18614671
>I've never seen a real photograph of the ball of the earth

You have, you're just lying. The Bible says not to lie, but it's funny how you pick and choose which parts you believe in.

>>18614671
I'll say it again then
Your senses did not show you anything that religion teaches you.
Your absolutely right that your senses didn't even show you the motion spinning etc sonyou came to the conclusion that the earth must be flat.
But you chose to believe in these religious teachings and according to you you only believe your senses.
So what happend ?

>>18614682
>You have, you're just lying.
No CGIs and composites crap do not count as evidences.

> The Bible says not to lie, but it's funny how you pick and choose which parts you believe in.
what do you mean? there is a nice sample in that pic I posted here
>>18614586

>>18614696
>no cgi

I wasn't talking about cgi

>composites don't count as evidence

They do, but I'm not talking about composites either. You've seen single, non-composite photographs of the round earth.

You claim it's cgi. You claim it's photoshop. But it's not. You're lying.

>Thou shalt not give false witness

You give false witness. It's even one of the ten commandments. They're kind of more important than the stupid shit about flat earth.

File: timelapse - Sunset.webm (606KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

606KB, 720x576px

>>18614694
>But you chose to believe in these religious teachings and according to you you only believe your senses.
I do not choose to believe, I know that Earth is flat thanks to my senses.
That clip taken in Africa for instance is impossible on a globe Earth model and for that reason you will dismiss it completely, you will act as if it doesn't exist because it is you who choose to believe.

>>18614706
What about this wouldn't be possible if the earth is a globe and why?

>>18614710
He's making the patently false claim that the sun is getting smaller because it's getting further away.

Therefore the sun is small and hovers over a flat earth.

Of course the size of the sun isn't getting smaller, and it's just glare.

>>18614703
>>composites don't count as evidence
>They do
Not for me otherwise Spiderman would be pretty much proved as a real-life superhero.

> You've seen single, non-composite photographs of the round earth.
none that wasn't a fake (CGI or composite)

>You claim it's cgi. You claim it's photoshop. But it's not. You're lying.
No just telling the Truth, when I see a shit I call it.

>You give false witness. It's even one of the ten commandments. They're kind of more important than the stupid shit about flat earth.

Earth is a immovable circle, made with a compass, it is bounded, is covered by a dome containing the Sun Moon and stars.

This comes not from one book but from 6 and I didn't even use Enoch, just the official stuff recognized by the satanists at the Vatican.

>>18614717
>otherwise spiderman would be proved as a real-life superhero

Please show me a composite photograph of spiderman.

>none that wasn't fake

Yes, ones that weren't fake.

Also, you apparently don't know the difference between a composite photograph and a fake photograph. Among zoom and focus, velocity and acceleration, etc.

File: FE - sunrise ecuador.webm (422KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 720x576px

>>18614710
>>18614716
>claim that the sun is getting smaller because it's getting further away.
exact
also shown in OP clip
and that other clip from Ecuador.
All are impossible on a globe Earth model.
>He's making the patently false claim
As I said you will dismiss it because it contradicts a system you have been brainwashed to believe

File: sequoiatree.jpg (185KB, 267x638px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 267x638px

Here is a composite photograph of a tree.

This is proof that trees don't exist.

>>18614728
Neither of those videos show the sun getting bigger or smaller.

Neither of them are using a filter, and are thus invalid.

These are videos of glare. Glare is possible on a round earth.

>>18614627
Whoa, I'm not being childish. Nor am I a troll. I'm just being honest and presenting different arguments that I believe support a flat earth model, and showing ones that do not support a round earth model.
>>18614646
No, what I have received is a bunch of half truths and circle talk and answers that contradict themselves. Much like your insults.
>>18614655
Its funny how this effect appears true, but doesn't explain why I DONT feel anything while driving. All atmospheric systems etc can be explain by the heating of the atmosphere and rotation of the sun above. Once again, the best explanation I have found of the coriolis effect that only seems to affect long range ballistics is that of a rotating magnetic field. Which can also occur on a flat earth map, no need for a spinning earth inside of a Faraday paradox.

>>18614731

Autism Detected!

Might want to get that checked...

>>18614734

Yup they will deny anything that they were told not to question.

>>18614450

Get a better telescope, retard.

>>18614721
>>composites don't count as evidence
>They do
Spiderman was in reference to a CGI counting as a valid evidence. It's scary that people think that way but unfortunately you're probably not alone.

>Yes, ones that weren't fake.
No

>Also, you apparently don't know the difference between a composite photograph and a fake photograph
A composite photograph is by definition a forgery

>>18614734
>I'm not being childish

>I don't feel it spinning, therefore it's not spinning

This is childishness. It's very juvenile.

>>18614728
Wait what? The sun is getting smaller?

Just you are saying the sun is flying above our heads for most of the day at a set pace and then at sundown it suddenly speeds up and gets away as fast as possible?

>>18614507

Get a better telescope, monkey.

>>18614756
>CGI

Well cgi is fine then. CGI and composites are different things.

>a composite is by definition a forgery.

No. See

>>18614729

>>18614706
Your missing my point anon.
The dust has settled the earth is flat you won
The earth is flat based on our senses
Now tell me what phenomena told your senses that religious teachings are true ?

File: image.jpg (142KB, 1220x813px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1220x813px

Does this one count?
It's from the Russians, bot NASA.

File: Moon coming - (moonrise).webm (1MB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 720x576px

>>18614731
>Neither of those videos show the sun getting bigger or smaller.
strange how everybody but you has been able to see and understand what these clips are about.
I wonder why.
>Neither of them are using a filter,
by the difference of the size between the first few frames and the last ones, there is no need for a filter. There is some flare because this is the Sun, a very bright orb, but the delta is so huge that your answer is laughable.
However the same experiment can be made with the Moon without any glare this time.

>>18614771
It doesn't count because of (add incoherent tinfoil reason)
So fuck you sheeple

File: 1485188345984.jpg (420KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 700x467px

>>18614771
the stars are all killed :^(
it's very japanese anim tier, desu.

OP is a fag

>>18614790

It's daytime. Why would you see any stars?

If Antarctica isn't just a cover for a great ice wall keeping us away from glorious undiscovered lands, how come a bunch of people have been able to cross the Antarctic?

>>18614795
daytime in space, how doe it work?

>>18614799

The picture is being taken on the daytime side of earth, you retarded monkey.

>>18614759
>it suddenly speeds up
it doesn't need to speed up, the Sun is a small orb very close to us and because of the law of perspective its size appears to decrease as it goes away.

You're all fags

>>18614816
Much truth anon

>>18614807
Well but the size of the sun stays the same during the day, implying it's moving at the same speed. Yet in the last 15. min of sundown it must suddenly accelerate in order to account for the sudden and dramatic size change, doesn't it?

And where is it actually going? Under the flat earth?

>>18614757
You green text me without green texting WHY I said that. Everyone else here seems to think telling me that just because I can't feel a spin doesn't mean its not there, but then continue to tell me it affects certain objects in the air, but not all. So the coriolis effect affects ballistics, but not high speed jets or me? Artificial horizon gyroscopes mysteriously need no adjustment on planes and jets? Flight paths mysteriously stop at locations that seem WAY off course on a globe, but b-line shot on flat model? No one except NASA can see other globe earth like planets? Airy detects the lack of a moving aether and accidentally proves the earth has either no rotation or has a stuck aether field along side it?
Speaking of angular momentum, why do satellites and planes not fall west as the earth spins east when they go up into the atmosphere? Logically it would follow that if the coriolis effect was real, then its effect would apply to flying objects as well. Case in point, a bullet traveling at 1000mph east at equator fired north, should travel east the further north it goes. This is the coriolis effect. But for some reason a plane traveling in any direction from equator moving 1000mph east does not experience this no matter how high up it travels. Anyone with common sense can tell you that the further up you go, the greater the distance between you and the axis of the earth, which mean you have to travel a larger circumference to get anywhere and if you fly up and "disconnect" with the ground below you, and account for the 1000mph east rotation, you will travel net west. Because you haven't increased your eastward speed, and because you increased your height so you're traveling a greater circumference. Without increasing eastward speed, you "lag" behind the rotation of the earth the further up you go. And this simply doesn't happen. I'm not a troll but I am armed to the teeth with facts.

File: Gate-To-Firmament.jpg (3MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2560x1600px

>>18614804
and? the Earth is so bright that the stars in the background can't compete? What a shitty camera! Surely enough in 50 years of space program we have amazing photograph of the blue ball with the milky way in the background
please share any photograph you have as I said CGIs do not count as evidences (nor do composites)

>>18614796
I would like to ask you exactly "who?"

Legit curious. If the earth is flat is there anything notable at the edge?

>>18614807
>The sun is very close

This is true. Here's proof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRf93gfV9dc

You can clearly see birds flying behind the sun.

File: image.png (114KB, 500x167px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 500x167px

Quantas flys Sydney to Santiago de Chile, across the Antartic.

Please explain how this is possible on a flat earth?

>>18614836
Why does there have to be an edge? It can't go on indefinitely with other ice ponds with their own suns much like ours?

>>18614839
Ok now you are just being silly

>>18614839
HOLY COW ! ROUND EARTHERS BTFO

>>18614842
I remember seeing a guy actually trying to book the flight, as he had searched before and no flights existed, until this flat earth stuff popped up, but no matter what the flight was always booked, and while the system said it was full and the gos said the plane was moving he couldn't book it and had been trying for months. Not sure where I seen the video though. Would take some digging.

>>18614830

>it's a flattard doesn't know how cameras work episode

>>18614855

Lying is a sin.

>>18614839
Ok, let's for with this.
If the sun is really that small and hanging so deep, why don't you just fly a drone with a camera around?

Now is the sun at least a proper Globle? And in your theory, what's the diameter of the sun? Can be big at al, judging by the size of the birds.

>>18614828
>Without green texting why I said it

You made a claim. I proved your claim false. No ifs, and or buts.

>the coriolis effect affects me?

If you move fast enough, you will feel the the coirolis effect. Airplanes constantly make all sorts of adjustments, which naturally compensate for the coriolis affect anyway.

>flight paths mysteriously stop at locations way off course on the globe but b-line shot on flat model

No. This doesn't happen. Flight paths make perfect sense on a globe. They do not on a flat earth model. On a flat earth model, if you want to go from Los Angeles to Sydney, you would head northwest. This is not the path flights take to get to Sydney.

The north polar projection map that flat earthers co-opted for their model of the flat earth does accurately represent most flight paths in the northern hemisphere. Flights in the southern hemisphere make no sense in this model.

>speaking of angular momentum, why do satellites and planes not fall west as the earth spins

This has nothing to do with angular momentum. Airplanes are in the air, the air spins with the earth. An airplane flying over the equator going east is going its airspeed, plus 1000 mph. Going west it's 1000 mph minus its airspeed.

Satellites do not set in the west because they are going towards the east considerably faster. Most of them, anyway. Things like the moon and sun and stars set in the west because they are very far away and essentially "stationary" to our rotational reference frame. I'm not sure if you understand what rotational reference frame means. You clearly don't know what angular momentum means.

File: image.jpg (218KB, 1125x1769px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1125x1769px

>>18614855
Booking the flight seems to be very very easy.
http://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/book/am/en

>>18614828
>for some reason a plane does not experience this coriolis force

It does, it simply doesn't need to correct for it. AIrplanes ride and maneuver in the atmosphere, and the atmosphere does all the correcting for it.

If the earth had no atmosphere, and if airplanes could fly without an atmosphere, the coriolis effect would be a real issue that it would have to very carefully correct for.

>this simply doesn't happen

No, it does. If you had a magic levitation machine, and you went up straight up from the equator, the earth would turn underneath you and you'd lag behind as you describe.

>I'm armed to the teeth with facts

Pull the other one.

>>18614825
>Well but the size of the sun stays the same during the day
it doesn't

>>18614843
No. Gravity would cause it to collapse. In fact, it can't be a disk with an edge, for the same reason.

>>18614876
It does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tclLuN1NoBg

>>18614876
But it would still need to accelerate during sundown to account for the drastic and sudden change in size

>>18614884
Except this is wrong, I'm an amateur astronomer and I observe the Sun with a filter on a regular basis.

>>18614891
No you're not, and no you don't.

>>18614842
>>18614872
Still would like to know how's is possible to fly across the Antarctic if it doesn't exist.
Anything better true story about a guy who tried to book it?

>>18614890
angular size decreases faster toward the end of the motion, this is consistent with the law of perspective.

>>18614894
"Nuh-uh!"
"UH-HUH!"
well i guess that's settled then

How does Foucault pendulum work on a Flat Earth?

>>18614830
anybody got a genuine photograph of the Earth globe with the milky way in the background?
After 50 years of international space program and trillion of dollars spent on it, there must be a load of such high quality material.
where is it?

>>18614937

Learn how cameras work you retarded monkey.

>>18614943
Let's try again.
there must be a load of genuine photographs made during night time showing stars and milky way. Where are they?

File: 1486689526352.jpg (93KB, 960x637px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 960x637px

>>18614839
that was funny, shills have a sense of humor and that's a proof they ain't stupid.
here is a real proof though

>>18614900
>>18614858
>>18614917
This!

Pease answer

>>18614937
There pale blue dot

>>18614987
They won't answer this
They alsobfik to answer the circumference of the flat earth or hell even simple shit like why there ate different stars on the two hemispheres.
No (You) means eternal btfo

File: earth_iss.jpg (429KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 1920x1080px

>>18614966

>>18615006

Beautiful as fuck

File: convergingrailroadlines.jpg (413KB, 1300x917px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1300x917px

>>18614975
>makes up claims about perspective
>doesn't know perspective when he actually sees it.

File: shuttle-timelapse.jpg (2MB, 4256x2832px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4256x2832px

>>18615001

Because you're looking in a different direction, retard.

Is that it? have we once again successfully surpressed the truth? Will mankind believe in round earth for a few more years?

>>18615013
With a giant burning ball the size of the Jesuit Sun, located 93 millions miles away, all the Sun rays would come parallel to us.
That's basic geometry.
Your picture shows a very close vanishing point, not 93 millions miles away but one mile at most.
Read on perspective and educate yourself, anon.

>>18615045
yes, because the earth is round. if the earth was flat then it would be the same direction, up.

>>18615006
No it's fugly and fake furthermore what I asked is a complete sight of the ball during night time with a milky way behind

File: MG_7295.jpg (334KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1280x853px

>>18615078

>all the Sun rays would come parallel to us.

You do understand refraction correct?

>>18615045
LOL I almost missed that gem.
It reminds me of Lexx (TV series) and its epic green screen scenes.
If you were wondering, most everybody figures this shit is fake in a matter of seconds.

>>18615101
okay since you first argument failed miserably
now you try the next one in your list?
Yes I do understand refraction and that's not what we see in my pic.

>>18615092

Even if its fake and not what you asked for, its certainly not fugly you tasteless fagot.

>>18614857
good thing I wasn't.
>>18614867
>>18614875
This is hilarious. You guys actually believe yourselves? You know other people are watching this forum right? I don't think I need to refute anything here, its obvious you will just try to ignore actual real world analysis. These people on here have the internet, and they're going to go read everything I've said, then research it, I found out youre wrong.

>>18614880
I suppose you have an explanation as to what gravity "is?" Round earthers don't know either. They think it keeps the sun together, a supposed ball hydrogen that somehow coagulated and didn't fly off into the places in space with the smallest pressures were located like all floating gases do. Before modern science came along, astronomers believed the sun to be a ball of calcium ferrite. Its an electrode.

>>18614917
A rotating magnetic field... That centers itself at the north pole. Or simply a field that occurs between us and the roatating firmament above.

>>18615118

First of all this is the first thing I've posted. And second of all us ot is what we see in your pic. If you knew anything about refraction you would know that it happens in our atmosphere. Which means your pic obviously includes refraction because your pic was taken on the ground where light has to travel for miles through an atmosphere.

>>18615092

You'd just call that fake too.

You monkeys are truly pathetic.

File: ISS - livefeed.webm (389KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 720x576px

>>18615120
>shitty low res CGI
>not fugly

isn't this much superior?

>>18615101
This this this! As the sun appears to set on the horizon, it's actually just a certain distance away where it would appear to set, and that setting is where the sun appears to be reflecting off the floor like the laser. This is how it lights the bottoms of clouds, this is how it appears to set at a distance.

File: ISS - live2.webm (785KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

785KB, 720x576px

>>18615141
NASA can't into space as well as Universal studio

>>18615141

No, I believe the stars and milky way hold more beauty then water and dirt.

>>18615146
and here I have my night time ball with the milky way behind
Universal Studio actually made it

>>18615141
that actually is cgi though, lol. https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html

watch that for a couple hours so you know it's not looped :)

>>18615159
watching a CGI playing in loop for hours
LOL
okay I guess it is live because it is written it is on the page, right?

>>18615144

Distance doesn't effect refraction. It would either require the laser or in this case the tank moving to change the direction of refraction.

Damn. Round earth shills' paychecks and trolls are in it deep tonight. Flat earthers are fucking them up pretty bad..wow.. Why can't you RE's provide actual proof of how they are wrong? Flatanons right, you guys are just circle talking anyone with a fucking brain can see that.....

>>18615164
if it's looped it'd be pretty easy to prove, furthermore you could get the locational data from elsewhere and see if the view of the weather effects actually corrospond to the location in question.

>>18615168
>it's called circlejerking instead of globejerking for a reason

Oh I forgot the atmosphere is not a medium for refraction. My bad. Its not like water at all. At least, its not like water in an square tank. Wait, oh it is completely like that, and not in a square tank..So in other words, in this case distance does equal refraction, and the medium can even allow for other things to happens because of dust, atmospheric pressures, and distance. Because its not in a tank. I rest my case.

>>18615190

What the hell are you babbling about? The distance of an object does not change the way it refracts. How the hell would it? Do you you honestly believe pulling the laser back but keeping it pointed in the same exact direction is going to change the way the light refracts?

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

second stream, slightly different angle, HD now.

>>18615173
I actually watched a little and the video looks like a composition made from a real footage filmed from a high altitude drone through a fish eyes lens and a layer of CGI to insert the parts of the ISS visible.

>>18615173
I see no reason to believe it is "live" and since I don't trust NASA, I don't believe it.

>>18615168
>>18615177
HAHAHA....noice...
>>18615202
It would indeed change where the laser would appear to an observer, due to refraction, reflection, and the distance. But we're not taking about a laser, were talking about a glowing circle in the sky, that is probably above the atmosphere, outside of our atmospheric "tank" if you will. If you can't see what I mean by the reflection and refraction causing the light source to disappear over the horizon, I'm afraid I can't really explain it too well. Maybe someone else can sorry.

>>18615202

Sorry this
>>18615190
was referencing this
>>18615166

I'm on a phone. Fucked up my response

>>18615224
so when the drone reaches the edge, it's edited to seamlessly transition into the next area? how convenient! what path do you think this drone flies? and if it's not live drone footage, when is it from?

>>18615078
>suns rays should be parallel

Yes, and they are.

>your picture shows a close vanishing point

So does yours. In either case, they're pictures of parallel lines.

That's what vanishing points do. They make parallel lines appear to converge.

>>18615247
>So does yours.
exact that was my point, the Sun is close and my vanishing point is close like yours.
In the Jesuit model, the rays would come from 93 millions miles away and would be parallel but that's not what we observe here.
case closed. Sun is close and Earth is flat.

>>18615243
>so when the drone reaches the edge, it's edited to seamlessly transition into the next area?
Implying the drone doesn't just circumnavigate like a plane.

>>18615121
>do you know what gravity is?

Yes. It's a force, a property of matter, that attracts all matter together.

The force of this gravity is the gravitational constant, times the product of any two masses, over the square of the distance between them.

I could go on, but that's unnecessary. This definition describes the fall of objects on the earth, the shape of the earth, and the motion of the planets.

>you know other people are watching this

Yes, and if they're not retarded, the'll know I'm right.

>somehow coagulated

Yes. Due to gravity. Hydrogen has mass. A lot of hydrogen has a lot of gravity, like the sun.

>believed the sun to be a ball of calcium ferrite, an electrode

No they didn't. You're cribbing this from Electric Universe, a kook theory up there with ancient aleums

>the sun is an electrode

Oh really? Which charge is it? If it's positive, how come negative charges fly away from it. If it's negative, how come positive charges fly away from it?

>>18615130

>rotating magnetic field

If you make a foucault's pendulum out of a nonmagnetic material, it still precesses with the earth. Same as if you make one in a faraday cage.

>a magic field I just made up

What is your evidence for this field?

>>18615260
>the sun is close

No, in your picture the sun is 93 million miles away.

In my picture, the train station could be ten miles away, a hundred miles away, a thousand miles away, or 93 million miles away. The picture will always look the same, regardless.

>>18615277
my reply to this depends on your personal modal of a flat earth, because if it looks like a typical world map squashed onto a circle, i don't think that argument works.

Before I get confused with anyone else, this is my first time chiming in.

>>18615277
So you're saying NASA has a drone that can circumnavigate the Earth disc in 92 minutes?

>>18615298
So you're saying NASA has a drone that can circumnavigate the Earth disc in 92 minutes?

or they speed up their shit in post production. Even I know how to do that.

>>18615297
I couldn't make any sense of your answer, you are probably too clever for me.

>>18615312
how much fucking footage do they have then?

>>18615293
>No, in your picture the sun is 93 million miles away.
go to sleep.

>>18610291
Flat earth is a ridiculous myth with no evidence

>>18615316
with a budget of 50 millions $/day, I guess they can make a lot.

>>18611434
>real
But it's not real

File: sunrays.jpg (1009KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1009KB, 1920x1200px

>>18615322
How far away do you think it is? I mean according to your picture, if you converge the lines, it's just behind that cloud. So maybe a thousand feet up?

But if you look at this picture, it looks like the sun is just behind those leaves. So maybe ten feet up? twenty?

Then if you look at the video where the bird flies behind the sun, that bird's only maybe a hundred feet up. So the sun has to be less than that.

>>18612370
that's just the clouds acting oddly, nothing notable

>>18615331
How long do you think it would take for a drone to fly around the disc? Let's be generous and say it can achieve Mach 3, around 2,000 mph, and I guess you've got no problem thinking it can remain at that speed, constantly, in flight 24 hours.

File: moonhorizon.jpg (108KB, 700x685px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 700x685px

Give up

>>18615339
>I mean according to your picture, if you converge the lines, it's just behind that cloud. So maybe a thousand feet up?

No you have to think in spatial geometry, it isn't right above the cloud but above and away.
currently the most prevalent figure in the community is a few thousand miles and this is consistent with that pic I posted earlier.

>>18614754
The earth is very clearly round, you don't need to be "told" not to question it when it's clearly fact

>>18615348

let's try it again

>or they speed up their shit in post production. Even I know how to do that.

>>18614607
>whereas the round earth version they arent
name five of these "unanswerable holes"

you can't

>>18615359
Yes it is round and flat. (disc)

>>18615363
How much footage would they need to record going around the entire disc?