Flat Earth

The flat earth society has members all around the globe, anon

File: IMG_20170250_092219.jpg (146KB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 480x287px

They have found plastic bottles on mars, so your opinions are all invalid.

>>18651244
It being true and nasa "cucking us" is the same thing in this scenario

Are you retarded?

>>18651244
Society as a whole took the round earth red pill about 322bc.

Plus I'm pretty sure most of the flat earth society are trolls.

>>18651372
Uhh yeah they're trolls, obviously. Also, you can watch space station footage on youtube, it circles the earth every 92 mins.

>>18651422
You can also watch people using dry ice and a fan to cool their house and a fire being started with a lemon, but that doesn't make these people not retarded.

If you use the term "CGI" on that feed, you get permabanned from about 15 channels.
Why would they permaban you for saying this?
Go try it.

>>18651372
>thinking round earth was the red pill
silly anon, you are confused.

>>18651437
"In my spare time, which is all day, every day, in my mom's basement, I like to make flat-earth threads on /x/. I consider myself to have achieved master troll status. You should see my fingerbox collection."

>>18651444
>be pythagoras
>create equation
>immediately debunked
>one false answer
>can not be proofed
>die
>wait 2512 years
>come back from the dead
>still not proofed
>90% of the population believes it anyways
>doot doot all the way back to my grave

>>18651437
Probably because they're sick of your faggot asses and your shit comments. And fuck you for thinking I can't tell the difference between real life and cgi.

>>18651465
You didn't make any sense, friendo

>doot doot

Mental retardation confirmed

File: pic-27-by-request-large-assorted-gallery-of-samantha-w-mf-ff-12806.jpg (196KB, 610x458px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 610x458px

>>18651307
love it when the first response is the best

>>18651469
Go say CGI on the live feed and post screenshot.
Just those three letters.

Or go proof the pythagorean theorem, it's been 2500 years champ, someone has to do it.
>theorem
>theory

Basically you're touting a 25 century old conspiracy as reality, now imagine people continue to theorize what happened to JFK or attempt to prove the mandela effect for the next 2500 years and your annoyance at this.
It was disproven two and a half thousand years ago dude. Or it would be called the Pythagorean formula. But it's not. Science people do not take theorems seriously.

>>18651514
But-but anon, I learned that A2 + B2 = C2 in 6th grade. And thus you have found the area of a right triangle. Your banter needs work friend, you'll get there one day, and then I will truly call you "master troll" :)

>>18651465
>>18651514
What the fuck are you on about nigger?

>>18651582
don't worry about him, his troll banter sucks. I'm waiting to see what gem of wisdom he has for us next.

>>18651568
We all did.
It took a little while for most people to realize that there are bad reverse calculations all over it, and one false answer makes the theorem impossible to proof.
It took me a half hour when I was that age to figure out that the thing was all kinds of fucked up, and when showing my teacher that I had disproved thousands of years of mathematics in 30 minutes with pencil and paper at the age of 14, you know what she told me?

"You just round it up anon."

What the fuck man.

>>18651592
wut

>>18651591
That the calculation you use to figure out the curvature of the earth was disproven in 500 BC and it remains a theory until this very moment.

You might like bigfoot for a change in conspiracy theory.
I'm not jerking off about flat earth, I'm stating hard facts that people don't seem to understand.
Theory: No proof or disproof.
Theorem: Has a false calculation, exempt from being proofed for eternity, but a huge majority of calculations are correct.
Proof: Assumed to be correct, has been proven true in all attempts and a false calculation has not been discovered.

You can't argue with me about the shape of the earth because that's not what I'm talking about.
I am saying that the calculation that is used has been proven wrong.

>>18651630
The earth isn't a perfect sphere. It bugles at the equator and flattens slightly at the poles.

No single equation would prove or disprove this shape. Especially one taught to 14 year olds in school.

>>18651630
You don't understand mathematics, stop embarrassing yourself.

>>18651568
>pythagorean theorem
Seriously I dont know how that relates to flat earth even, other than morons being like hurr durr it involves squares or something?

Im genuinely starting to feel bad for these people.

>>18651675
I'm definitely not. Their dip shittery is their own problem.

>>18651630
>>18651514

... but there are multiple proofs of the Pythagorean theorem.

Also you keep using those words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

>>18651630

Are you confusing Pythagoras with Erastothenese?

Because the Pythagoras theorem has been proven many times, and Erastothenese's math checks out too.

>>18651592
Alright, anon. For what values of A, B, and C do the pythagorean theorem not work?

>>18651653
You can disprove the curvature with a laser, cardboard, a level, a pencil, some cardboard and some sticks with a brain and access to a football field.
Please explain how people are doing this on youtube at 1 mile lengths with high powered lasers and finding no 8 inch drop?

Would your water leveled laser simply not go straight into space after a couple miles?
It doesn't. It stays at exactly the same height off the ground 1 mile away.
Now I'm aware that light doesn't bend, but there is one thing that can overcome this: a round earth. If the guy 1 mile away has dropped 8 inches below you, then the laser would fail to hit the target, but it doesn't.

So does the laser's light bend to hit that mark?
Does it break the laws of physics to stay x inches above the ground (experiment done at sea level mind you) one mile away?

Does the water not have a constant level? Does it curve along with the earth? If so, how could this laser have passed through it, bent itself, aimed back down towards the ground and hit its mark at the exact same height it was placed one mile away?

You really have to do some thinking man.
Either light doesn't work like you think it does, the waves have the power to bend light, gravity is affecting the light, the atmosphere is bending the light, or your calculation is wrong.

Something is very wrong here though.
Just take what I said and make your own assumptions, I don't give a fuck if you want to fight on a blue board in the middle of the night, my suggestion is you read what the other party has to say and then either discuss or walk away. Calling everyone a retard is what makes these threads so bad.

File: Terrence_Einstein.jpg (115KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 600x800px

"How can it equal one? If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect. One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told it's two, and that cannot be."

>>18651728
I didn't say anything about flat earth, I said you don't understand mathematics and should stop talking about it.

I'm a flat earther btw :)

File: IMG_20170250_110341.jpg (95KB, 320x319px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 320x319px

>>18651675
>>18651687
Are you guys 100% serious right now?
Like 100%?

This is what your side actually believes?

Don't bullshit me, do you actually believe that equation has NOTHING to do with this?

Guys?

>>18651707
Yeah but there are invalid number sets, or it would be called a formula, and you can expect half an hour to an hour of work to find one and I'm not wasting my time.

Go change the wiki page title from "theorem" to "formula" and you will get your answer.
Read and think and make your own decisions, I'm just throwing two things out on the table that seem kind of strange to me.

I can definitely find something better to do than this, you should too. It's bitch work trying to scour the math and science of this and reee at eachother about it.

File: WRONG.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>18651728
>Now I'm aware that light doesn't bend

>>18651728
You're retarded. The precise curavture measurment of the earth becomes irrelevant if you aren't in a mile strech zone of pure flatness, ie on boats

File: good-job-retard.jpg (51KB, 553x569px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 553x569px

>>18651730
This might be the most retarded thing I'll read all week

>>18651244
https://youtube.com/watch?v=PBD7A-OMWyE

Please research Flat Earth:
1. Horizon always rises to eye level
2. Water always finds its level
3. Gyroscope’s always remain level throughout worldwide aeroplane flight travel
4. Polaris never moves from its position despite earths travel through space
5. No measurable curvature
6. Terminator line on the moon during daytime often does not coincide with suns directional light
7. Gravity is simply buoyancy & density (and electromagnetism)
8. No photographic evidence of satalites
9 . Questionable flight paths in southern hemisphere
10. Antarctic treaty forbids freedom of movement in Antarctic
11. Van Allen radiation belt makes space travel impossible
12. Water bubbles on ISS film footage
13. The Fake moon landing
14. The Sun & globe earth model contradictions

>>18651793
Literally all of those points are false or are unrelated to the argument. You are the one who should do some research. stay open-minded

>>18651819
You are closed minded, brainwashed one, and clearly haven't done any research yourself, if you are able to seriously say "those points are false or are unrelated to the argument".
Please actually research it before making a bigger fool out of yourself.


>>18651793
Heres another video to watch:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=t30-YbayyXE

>>18651793
1. No it doesn't

2. yes. Meaning it's all equidistant from the center of gravity, curving around the earth.

3..Nope, they precess with the rotation of the earth.

4. Sure it does. Polaris wasn't there thousands of years ago.

5. False.

6. False, it always corresponds. Half moon is directly overhead at dawn, full moon at midnight, etc.

7. False. In zero gravity, dense objects float. E.g. vomit comet.

8. False, there are lots of photos of satellites. They can be seen with the naked eye.

9. False. There's nothing strange about southern hemisphere flights. They all fly great circle paths, same as in the norht.

10. False. People are allowed to travel anywhere they want in Antarctica.

11. False. The Van Allen belts only exist partial around the earth, hence the term "belt." They are not so radioactive as to be fatal. They were discovered in the first place by a spacecraft traveling through them.

12. False. There are flakes of debris in ISS footage. They are not water bubbles. The go in different directions, as opposed to underwater air bubbles. They do not increase in size, etc.

13. False, moon landing was real.

14. There are no contradictions.

>>18651904
Vomit comet isn't zero gravity. The ISS isn't even zero gravity.

>>18651920
Right, according to you, everything is zero gravity because gravity doesn't exist. Except density still exists on the vomit comet.

>>18651904
Good job, you have made a fool out of yourself.
Now go actually research it instead of reading about it.

And based on the answers you gave, you didn't even understand what most of those points were about. You looked at them very closed mindedly.
Example: >Polaris never moves from its position despite earths travel through space.
Is about the following -
Even though the earth moves and spins at the speed it does, even though our solar system does so much faster, and the galaxy even faster, every night, polaris will appear at the same spot from the same angle relative to earth.

If you cant comprehend the problem with the above then you are very much brainwashed, I suggest rereading it again and again trying to imagine it until you understand the problem.

Thats only one of many many examples.

>>18651966
>what is light-years?

>>18651966
>it will appear in the same spot relative to earth.

Again, it does not. Because Polaris is very, very far away, it changes very, very little. But it does change minutely.

In fact, astronomers are able to measure that it's 433 light years away, based on parallax. That is, by how much it changes based on how far the earth moves.

You'd know this if you did either reading or research.

>>18651921
What the fuck are you talking about? What I meant was the vomit comet and ISS are still affected by the Earth's gravity. They're just moving fast enough in a direction (either downward for the vomit comet or horizontally for the ISS) to seem like there's no gravity.

>>18651975
>>18651980
>the same angle relative to earth
>the same angle
>relative to earth
>angle
>relative
>to earth

At those speeds, and spinning, it does not matter how far the object is, the angle relative to earth will constantly change and by the seconds is already too slow, yet its there every night same spot.

>>18651999
>it doesn't matter how far something away is

Did you ever look out the window of your car while your parents were driving and notice the moon seems to follow you?

>>18651999
It is NOT in the same spot every night. Again as >>18651980 said, we can measure its distance based on the changes in its position.

>>18651989
>still affected by earth's gravity

But you just said earth had no gravity.

Gee whiz, anon. It's almost like you're trying to troll, and you're being really bad with it.

>>18651437
I'm gonna guess they banned the word after the stream was flooded with flat earth retards?

>>18651975
>>18651980

>>18651999
(cont.)
While the stars around it form a perfect star trail circles.

>>18652021
>But you just said earth had no gravity.

No, I didn't.

>>18651975
it's a measurement of how old light is

File: polaris.jpg (147KB, 1402x698px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1402x698px

>>18652030
Yes. Which is due to the rotation of the earth.

Since polaris is almost exactly above the north pole, it appears to spin very little. It's about a degree off, so it does make a very small arc.

>>18652042
Great. Then we're agreed. Gravity exists. And the flat earth can't exist because it would collapse in on itself.

>>18652030
>white the stars around it form a perfect star trail circles

Gee, Billy, almost like what we're standing on is revolving!

Also, you can cherry pick Polaris because, based on what we know about it, it is within our galaxy. In other words, as Sol moves around (and our solar system with it), Polaris is acted on by the similar forces (the center of our galaxy).

You aren't going to talk about the thousands of stars that we don't see every night because that ruins your idea. We picked Polaris as a star of significance because of its relatively stable appearance in our night sky, but before it was in our night sky we weren't using it. You find plenty of stars that come and go very quickly, but you won't see us putting any significance on them because they aren't useful to us for long-term study or navigation.

>>18652055
I think you have me confused with someone else and you're being very confrontational. I was simply stating that the vomit comet and ISS technically aren't zero g. It's a misnomer. Nothing I said implied whether I believed in gravity and flat earth or not.

>>18652077
The OP said there is no such thing as gravity. Rather, things fall due to density. I disproved this by pointing out things in "zero g" like the vomit comet have density, but do not fall.

I don't know why you chose to butt in at this point. I'd guess you wanted to look like a smart ass, but ended up looking like a dumbass.

>>18652051
So youre telling me that polaris spins/moves around with our galaxy maintaining almost completely perfect angle to us at all times? Okay.

Youre still not getting the point.

>>18652085
I was simply pointing something out and I guess I drew the ire of your tard rage freakout. My apologies.

File: 65fb88d23927c1b01b150faf5ddf53ab.jpg (18KB, 236x274px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 236x274px

>>18652108

>>18652096
>So youre telling me that polaris spins/moves around with our galaxy maintaining almost completely perfect angle to us at all times?

No, anon. I'm not saying that. Quite the opposite. The solar system and Polaris are on different trajectories.

But because it is so far away, It takes a long, long time for the differences to matter.

Tomorrow Polaris will look like it's in the same position it is now. Ten thousand years from now it will not.

>>18652129
You're still not getting the point.

>>18652096
Because it is IN our galaxy. It is acted on the same forces as our solar system with very minute differences of course because of its own surroundings, but the largest of those is the CENTER OF THE GALAXY just like our largest force on us is the CENTER OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM (the sun).

>>18652096
>>18652085
>>18652055
>>18652021
>>18651921

This sounds like you right meow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9dhVP_toXc

>>18652132
That you're only pretending to be retarded?

>>18652133
Yet it still somehow manages to keep the same angle relative to earth. Okay.

>>18652149
It does not, anon.

See

>>18652051

It follows a circle. Like all the other stars, just smaller, as it's closer to the axis. Over a long time, it travels in an arc. Like all the other stars.

>>18652149
What is so hard to grasp about what we have said again and again. IT DOES NOT KEEP THE SAME ANGLE RELATIVE TO EARTH.

It has minute changes based on the sheer distance it is from us (see: moon looking like it stays in the same place in the night sky when you drive in a car, but on an even larger scale) and these changes are CALCULATEABLE and VERIFIABLE. Your naked eye cannot tell much of a difference, but even >>18652051 can.

If you're a troll, good job, but if you seriously believe this stuff you need to focus your attention on other things. This is a disinfo scheme to keep people spread out and not focused on important things. There is plenty of actual conspiracy on this planet, you could be focusing your attention on that instead.

>>18652171
Exactly. Maintaining the same angle to the earth.

>>18652182
>>18652182
>if you're a troll, good job

No, if he's being a troll, he's doing a pretty shitty job. The job of a troll is to make the other guy look stupid, not to pretend to be retarded yourself. Trying to get (yous) isn't trolling, it's being an attention whore.

>>18652189
The point of trolling is to piss people off. Looks like he's doing a good job.

>>18651244
https://youtube.com/watch?v=u73e4hc_tdA

>>18651372
>Society as a whole took the round earth red pill about 322bc.

How come you globe shills say this all the time, when everyone was told that Columbus completely blew everybody's minds when he supposedly proved the Earth was round?

>>18651310
You believe them? :D

File: 20170209_165752.jpg (632KB, 1388x811px) Image search: [Google]

632KB, 1388x811px

Satellites were invented by a sci/fi author, so go figure..

>>18652706
middle ages, remember that the Greeks got cucked and the church imposed the belief that the earth was flat, then Columbus tried to reach India and discovered a new land that he believed to be India, this is why the natives are called indians

Fake and gay

File: height-obscured-by-horizon-equation.png (29KB, 640x547px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x547px

>>18651736
Thats only good up until 100 miles and assumes the earth is a sphere not an oblique spherioid.

The therom was never developed for such long term measurements as they dont correct using the taylor series so after 100 miles of measurement (Which again was also meant for a perfect sphere which the earth is not.) the mounting cumulative errors due to the incomplete formula (No taylor corrections) means that you get wildly innacurate data using strictly pythagoreans theorem.

You should check your variables better before starting to assume youre some kind of mad genious whos got it all figured out, google isnt a fucking source.

At 100 miles you have an 0.000118 margin of error and after that is exponentially climbs.

At 1000 miles you have an -1.920735 mile margin of error.

At 2000 its up to -28.548166 miles.

At 3000 its at -128.102721 miles.

Heres a better formula, numbers dont lie people still may use them in a lie however.

>>18652952

Also worth noting there are also other ways to calculate the proper drop of the earths curvature for its entire actual distance which take into account the taylor series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1lw5nWm31A

>>18652758
Most if not all of the tech we have was at one time inspired by science fiction.

>>18651630
Literally the most ignorant thing I've ever read. kill yourself planarjew

We know that the moon and sun are round. You can tell the moon is just by looking at it.

Why would the earth be any different?

Explain that faggots

>>18653043
The Earth doesn't float around in the sky like they do. Why would I assume it's like them?

>>18651966
>You are closed minded for denying my outrageous claims which can be easily debunked

Next you'll ask me to cite it being debunked. In reality, The evidence is so immense I'd have no idea where to begin. You know there's a mirror the soviets placed on the moon? You can observe it with a powerful laser and you'll see a small sparkle

>>18652706
Columbus discovered the New World, not that the world was round.

Navigators at the time knew that the world was round, and 25,000 miles in circumference. They knew about how far away it was to China, sailing in either direction, but sailing west over open ocean was too far. The little caravels they used at the time didn't have the range.

Columbus made an argument that the circumference of the earth was much smaller than Erastothenes had estimated, thus it would be in range to sail West to China.

Columbus was wrong and Erastothenes was right. Lucky for him, there were two whole continents that he didn't know about, where he could stop for fresh water and food.

>>18652244
I see people correcting him, I don't actually see anybody getting pissed off.

Flat earth thread 1 and 3 are dead is this one ready to die?

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

33KB, 1008x630px

this shit again?

>>18651307
Oh you

File: o-SMUG-MAN-SUIT-facebook.jpg (543KB, 1536x1902px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 1536x1902px

>>18655549
>the five stages are deniaI, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

>>18651591
His trolling really did get better

>>18655803

You don't need a rocket going supper high for that, just like the sun and boats, Planes seem to be going down a curve to the horizon even if they are going straight.

>>18651310

Thats garbage from NASA's shit.

File: IMG_1492.png (42KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 2000x1000px

Look at the Australian flag and the New Zealand flag and some other flags from that region. You might notice something on it: a constellation. For us northern hemisphere'ers it's called the Southern Cross. If the Earth was flat this constellation would be visible from the NH. It isn't, and it never will be. This is a simple proof that disproves the flat earth theory.

>>18651728
>Please explain how people are doing this on youtube at 1 mile lengths with high powered lasers and finding no 8 inch drop?

They're likely just cheating.

There are plenty of youtube videos where they do it properly and there is the expected drop.

>>18651244
Is it true that flat earthers explain gravity by saying the flat disc moves upwards constantly ?

>>18655720
Accepting what ? That the earth isn't flat after all ?

File: Pythagoras.png (9KB, 371x500px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 371x500px

>>18651630
alright, tell me where exactly the math doesn't check out
pic related has two congruent triangles, one is rotated by 90°
first, let's calculate δ:
α=α', β=β'
from both trianges, we know that α+β=90°
β'+α=90°
β'+α+δ=180° --> δ=90°

We have 3 right triangles

Now lets calculate the Area of the right Trapezoid in two different ways: The normal way on the eft and by adding up the Area of the three Triangles on the right.

1/2 (b+a') * (a+b') = 1/2 ab + 1/2 a'b' +1/2 cc'

since a=a', b=b' and c=c' we get

1/2 (b+a) * (a+b) = 1/2 ab + 1/2 ab + 1/2 cc
1/2 (b2+2ab+a2) = 1/2 (ab+ab+c2)
b2+2ab+a2=2ab+c2
b2+a2=c2

>>18656038
Accelerate upwards. That's an older claim though.

The modern claim is that there's no such thing as gravity. Things fall because of "density." Whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.

>>18655966
You can't see the Southern Cross because you're too close to the center. We can't see Polaris because we're too far from the center. The stars spin above us in a 24 hour cycle which matches that of the sun which is why such distant places as Australia and South America can see the same constellations during their respective nightfalls.

>>18656064
If the stars rotated with the sun, then anybody on the "night" side would see the same stars regardless of position, because the stars and sun would be in sync.

Try to put at least a little thought into this.

>>18656038
That;s the kind of shit you'll find on theflatearthsociety.org which is largely a disinfo site that has been around a few years before it became so popular. We don't need to explain gravity because gravity was invented to explain the globe model. Gravity is a stupid theory and anyone who puts a minute of honest thought into it can see that.

File: 51A3oaap3gL._AC_UL320_SR254,320_.jpg (21KB, 254x320px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 254x320px

>pranks that went too far

>>18656054
Think of the Earth in electromagnetic terms. You have a spectrum that extends upwards and downwards, positive and negative. Things of a higher density are attracted to one end of the spectrum while things of a higher density are attracted to the other.

>>18656070
How is this any different to what I said?

>>18656073
So what's a flat earth models equivalent of gravity ? If I jump up why don't I fly away ?

>>18656100
I answered that here:
>>18656089
In short, it's because you're too heavy.

>>18656073
>We don't need to explain gravity because gravity was invented to explain the globe model.


Mmm, no, it was invented to explain why things fall down, and why the planets move through the sky the way they do. Round earth was already a forgone conclusion.

>Think of the Earth in electromagnetic terms.

I don't think you understand how electromagnetism works

>Things of a higher density are attracted to one end of the spectrum while things of a higher density are attracted to the other.

You probably mean lower density in your second clause. But that would still be wrong.

All things, more dense and less dense, are attracted downwards, because of gravity. The balloon full of gravity is attracted downwards, towards the earth. The reason it rises is because the force of gravity is greater on air, so the air goes lower, pushing the balloon up.

If you had a balloon full of helium in a vacuum chamber (and provided it didn't pop), the balloon would fall to the floor, just like anything else made of mass.

Gravity is not a dipole. There are no charges. There is no repulsive force. It is not electromagnetic in any way, and anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of either would not conflate the too.

>>18656104
Too heavy is not answer anon.
Compared to what ? An ant ?
Why doesn't an ant fly away then ?
Or oxygen molecules ?

>>18656094
In order for people in the south to see different stars than the north, in your model, then the stars would need to be fixed and the sun moving.

But even that wouldn't work, because there would always be a clear line of site to both the sun and every star in the sky.

Is there a consensus as to what the motives are of the people who knowingly promulgate the round earth lie?

>>18656104
Density as in mass ? Too heavy ?
You know that weight only has any meaning at all if gravity is a thing right ?

>>18656120
It ranges from "They're trying to turn us away from God and the Bible" to "If they can convince us the earth is round, they can trick us into doing anything."

>>18656106
>Mmm, no,
Gotta love that edge.

>it was invented to explain why things fall down, and why the planets move through the sky the way they do.
Yes, within the globe Earth model.

>Round earth was already a forgone conclusion.
Why?

>You probably mean lower density in your second clause.
Yes, thanks for that.

>All things, more dense and less dense, are attracted downwards, because of gravity.
Gravity exists because of gravity. Got it.

>The balloon full of gravity is attracted downwards, towards the earth. The reason it rises is because the force of gravity is greater on air, so the air goes lower, pushing the balloon up.
I don't even...

>If you had a balloon full of helium in a vacuum chamber (and provided it didn't pop), the balloon would fall to the floor, just like anything else made of mass.
Yes, because it would be far denser than the vacuum.

>Gravity is not a dipole.There are no charges. There is no repulsive force. It is not electromagnetic in any way, and anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of either would not conflate the too.
Still using gravity to prove gravity?

>>18656115
>there would always be a clear line of site to both the sun and every star in the sky.
That's just the kind of backwards thinking your globe model of the universe has instilled in your mind. You can only see so far before something gets in the way, whether it be mountains or accumulative atmosphere.

>>18656128
>Mass didn't exist before Isaac Newton got bonked on the head

>>18656152
That's not the point.
Do you want an honest discussion ?

>>18656120
Why do you people keep asking this as though:
a) it never gets answered
b) it is relevant to the debate outside of petty curiosity?

>>18656114
This

>>18656163
I try, man. I try so hard to have honest discussions with you people.

>>18656114
Because you're much heavier than the air around you and your arms aren't big or powerful enough for you to push against the air well enough to gain any sort of lift.

>>18656144
>why

Ships disappearing hull first over the horizon, stars in the southern hemisphere being different than the northern hemisphere, people having circumnavigated the globe, time zones, lunar eclipses always having round shadows despite the orientation of the sun and earth, objects at different latitudes casting different shadows at the same time, despite the sun's rays being parallel, etc.

>gravity exists because of gravity

No, things fall down because of gravity. All things with mass. That's an explanation of how gravity works. It is not a complicated subject.

>I don't even

It doesn't surprise me you don't understand a simple concept. Gravity is a force. Density is not a force. Forces cause things to move. Density does not. Remove gravity from the system, and dense things to not fall. E.g. people floating around in the vomit comet despite being heavier than air.

>it would be denser than vacuum.

If you want to replace the word gravity with the word "density" or any other word you'd like, that's fine, stupid as it is. You could call it magic, or flubber, a woozlewuzzle. But then you have to deal with all the exact same consequences that you do with gravity. A flat earth would collapse in on itself because of "density."

>still using gravity to prove gravity?

No. Is English your second language? I'm distinguishing the clear and obvious features that make gravity completely different from electromagnetism.

>>18656150

>You can only see so far before something gets in the way, whether it be mountains or accumulative atmosphere.

In this case what gets in the way is the curve of the earth.

According to the flat model, the sun could never get low enough to go behind any mountain. And it doesn't disappear due to "atmosphere" because that would just cause it to get dimmer and dimmer, which isn't a thing the sun does when it sets.

Also, the sun doesn't change in angular size during the course of the day.

>>18656165
Its relevant because people like to know why some people fly in the face of everything that's logical. Just being bored is not an answer. And the bible and god thing is not really an answer either because that would mean all Christians are flat earthers. Also the if they get you to believe the earth is a planet then they van get you do do anything is just plain retarded.
The only real answer left is just plain blatant trolling that got to the next level

>>18656174
What keeps air we can breathe on the planet then ?

>>18656165
I'm not familiar with flat earth talking points. If the people conspiring to dupe us are benevolent, then maybe it's for our own good, no?

>>18656195
>benevolent

No, anon. Scientists and teachers are evil. They're out to get us. That's also how we know that they're wrong, and we're right.

>>18656175
>Ships disappearing hull first over the horizon, stars in the southern hemisphere being different than the northern hemisphere, people having circumnavigated the globe, time zones, lunar eclipses always having round shadows despite the orientation of the sun and earth, objects at different latitudes casting different shadows at the same time, despite the sun's rays being parallel, etc.
Entry level flat earth stuff here. I suggest you do a little research if you're genuinely interested.

>No, things fall down because of gravity. All things with mass. That's an explanation of how gravity works. It is not a complicated subject.
No, you're literally using the concept gravity as an argument for the existence of gravity.

You originally said:
>The balloon full of gravity is attracted downwards, towards the earth. The reason it rises is because the force of gravity is greater on air, so the air goes lower, pushing the balloon up.
The reason it rises is because the force of gravity is greater on air? So the air goes lower? Pushing the balloon up? What the fuck are you talking about?

>If you want to replace the word gravity with the word "density" or any other word you'd like, that's fine, stupid as it is. You could call it magic, or flubber, a woozlewuzzle. But then you have to deal with all the exact same consequences that you do with gravity. A flat earth would collapse in on itself because of "density."
No, gravity is a superfluous word to density. Why would a flat earth collapse in on itself? It would have the strongest foundations possible.

>No. Is English your second language?
No, and I'm a lot better at expressing myself than you as can clearly be seen above.

> I'm distinguishing the clear and obvious features that make gravity completely different from electromagnetism.
When did you do this?

>>18656183
>According to the flat model, the sun could never get low enough to go behind any mountain.
Sure it could. Don't you know anything about perspective? The further away from you it gets, the further down it sinks towards the horizon, relative to any mountains that might be closer to you.

>And it doesn't disappear due to "atmosphere" because that would just cause it to get dimmer and dimmer, which isn't a thing the sun does when it sets.
Why not? Are you still imagining it in your globe earth terms?

>>18656202
>No, and I'm a lot better at expressing myself than you as can clearly be seen above.
Oh the irony

>>18656218
Not that anon but what does the sun do in your model again ?

>>18656184
>Just being bored is not an answer.
Huh?

>And the bible and god thing is not really an answer either because that would mean all Christians are flat earthers.
They should be. The bible is pretty clear on its shape.

>Also the if they get you to believe the earth is a planet then they van get you do do anything is just plain retarded.
Getting closer.


>The only real answer left is just plain blatant trolling that got to the next level
Eliminate strawmen, argument over. Well done.

>>18656225

I'll post it again:
>The balloon full of gravity is attracted downwards, towards the earth. The reason it rises is because the force of gravity is greater on air, so the air goes lower, pushing the balloon up.
I couldn't make this shit up.

>>18656228
Brings light, brings warmth, gives life. That's about it, right?

>>18656202
>I suggest you do research

I've seen all the the flat earth material, and while they make a half hearted effort to debunk it, they cannot.

>you're literally using the concept as gravity for the existence of gravity.

No, anon. I'm defining the word gravity as the force which causes objects to fall towards another massive object. To argue for the existence of gravity, I point to things falling down.

>what are you talking about.

Gravity pulls on both air and helium. The force is greater on air, so that sinks lower. Helium sinks as far as it can go, but since the air is heavier, the air gets in the way.

Density does explain why some liquids and gases float on top of each other, yes, that's a thing. But it does not explain why things are attracted downwards in the first place. Density is not a force. Density does not make things move.

>gravity is a superfluous word to density

Maybe the way you misuse it. But in the real world, density is not a force. It's not even a vector, it's a scalar.

>Why would the flat earth collapse on itself

Because of that force that attracts all mass together. All that rock, all that water, all that atmosphere, it all pulls itself together.

And it pulls it into a ball. Why? Because that's the geometric shape with the greatest amount of volume and the least amount of surface area. When you pull everything together it forms a sphere. That's why water drops are spherical and not flat.

>when did you do this

In the post that you replied to but went over your head.

>>18656218
>do you know perspective?

Yes? do you know trigonometry? According to the flat earth model, the sun never gets that far away.

>why not

Well because I go outside and I watch the sun rise and sunset. That's called an "observation."

If observations aren't consistent with your theory, than your theory is wrong.

>>18656240
What's the problem you're not understanding, anon.

Do you know what a force is?

>>18656247

>I've seen all the the flat earth material, and while they make a half hearted effort to debunk it, they cannot.
You say one thing, I say another.

>No, anon. I'm defining the word gravity as the force which causes objects to fall towards another massive object.
Yes, you are defining the word gravity by its scientific definition. Its Latin root gravitas means weight or heaviness, or it can refer to the gravity of a situation as in weight.

>To argue for the existence of gravity, I point to things falling down.
So we have a phenomenon: things falling down, and you have a theory: gravity. How have you done anything to argue your theory other than state your theory?

>Gravity pulls on both air and helium. The force is greater on air, so that sinks lower. Helium sinks as far as it can go, but since the air is heavier, the air gets in the way.

Oh, so you were talking about helium. No problem, you corrected a similar mistake I made earlier. Ok, well if this is true, then why do objects of different sizes fall at the same speed?

>Density does explain why some liquids and gases float on top of each other, yes, that's a thing. But it does not explain why things are attracted downwards in the first place. Density is not a force. Density does not make things move.
I gave an explanation: polarity. Works just as well as your theory of gravity. Take it or leave it.

>Maybe the way you misuse it. But in the real world, density is not a force. It's not even a vector, it's a scalar.
Definitions have no effect on reality.

>Because of that force that attracts all mass together. All that rock, all that water, all that atmosphere, it all pulls itself together.
So you're saying that the globe earth should collapse in on itself? I would agree with you there.

>>18656247
>>18656274

>And it pulls it into a ball. Why? Because that's the geometric shape with the greatest amount of volume and the least amount of surface area. When you pull everything together it forms a sphere. That's why water drops are spherical and not flat.
Sure, if we're talking about a point in space where that things are attracted to. Your model doesn't discount my model.

>Yes? do you know trigonometry? According to the flat earth model, the sun never gets that far away.
What flat earth model?

>Well because I go outside and I watch the sun rise and sunset. That's called an "observation."
I didn't ask you what you saw when you watched a sunset, I asked why it would only get dimmer and dimmer and not disappear completely.

>What's the problem you're not understanding, anon.
Well I understand that you meant to say helium at some point there now. Before that it was pretty confusing.

>Do you know what a force is?
That's that thing from Star Wars, right?

>>18656244
I meant the location of the sun.
Even on a flat earth the sun is not always in the same place right ?
Where does it go on a flat earth model ?
I'm going to imagine this without the toxicity of a globe earth in my mind.
A drawing in ms paint would be nice.
For example morning 6 am noon 6 pm and midnight.

>>18656274
>Yes, you are defining the word gravity by its scientific definition.

Indeed. Etymology is irrelevant.

>have you done anything to argue your theory other than state it

Yes. Observe things falling down.

>why do heavier things fall at the same speed

Same acceleration. Force is proportional to mass. Larger mass, proportionally larger mass, means the same acceleration.

If the force of gravity were the same on a light object and a heavier object, the heavier object would accelerate more slowly, as it's got a larger mass to acceleration.

>it works just as well as your theory of gravity

No it doesn't. Different poles attract opposite charges. A light object isn't the opposite of a heavy object, it's just less of it.

>Take it or leave it

I'll definitely leave it. It's garbage. And I think you know that.

>Definitions have no effect on reality

Names have no effect on reality. So if you want to change "gravity" to "notreallydensity" you can go ahead, but your flat earth still can't exist.

>you're saying the globe should collapse in on itself?

It already has. So has the sun. So has the moon. So has Jupiter. Gravity has pulled all these things together into spheres. That's why anything with a large enough mass will become a sphere. Even comets and asteroids.

>>18656289
>your model doesn't discount my model

No, gravity does. Or "density" if you want to call it that.

>why doesn't it disappear completely

Hypothetically if you had a thick enough atmosphere it would get dimmer and dimmer and dimmer until you could not see it anymore, and it would disappear.

But if you actually watch a sunset, that's not what happens. It goes below the horizon, quite bright the entire way.

>it was all pretty confusing

I'm sure for you many things are confusing. Like what a force is.

>>18656232
There was no argument to begin with.

>>18656302
>A drawing in ms paint would be nice.
I can do better than that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R52_PdZlSq8

Just as a rule of thumb, if you have a question about anything to do with the flat earth model, try searching it on YouTube with the words flat earth included (for example I searched "day night cyle flat earth" to find this video). There has been a lot of effort put in by a lot of people on there to answer these questions as we have them too. Having been fooled so royally before, none of us are exactly eager to jump on the next bandwagon without being damn sure it's real first.

Also, you can google this shit too, especially when you don't find what you're looking for on the Tube, but I find that this sort of stuff really lends itself to visual presentation.

I thank and applaud you for being so open-minded.

>>18656323
If I understood the videos correctly both explanations only work with their own models.
Flat earth stuff on a flat earth model etc.
So now its up to me to come to a conclusion which one I believe correct ?

>>18651244

Flat earth is 100% true. It's sad how many on /x/ just won't even look into it. They are brainwashed.

Do you know what NASA means? It is the jewish word for deception. They deceive humans to bring more power and glory to satan. Jews are demons.

File: Sun don't set.webm (546KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 720x576px

>>18656303
>Indeed. Etymology is irrelevant.
I didn't say that, nor would I agree.

>Yes. Observe things falling down.
Again, we have our phenomenon. Now what is your proof that your theory for this phenomenon is correct?

>Same acceleration. Force is proportional to mass. Larger mass, proportionally larger mass, means the same acceleration.
You're pulling at straws here. You need a larger force to drop a heavier object?

>No it doesn't. Different poles attract opposite charges. A light object isn't the opposite of a heavy object, it's just less of it.
Light is the opposite of heavy, just as negative is the opposite of positive or heat is the opposite of cold. Each of these operates on a spectrum.

>I'll definitely leave it. It's garbage. And I think you know that.
Up to you bud.

>Names have no effect on reality. So if you want to change "gravity" to "notreallydensity" you can go ahead, but your flat earth still can't exist.
Don't know what you're trying to say here.

>It already has. So has the sun. So has the moon. So has Jupiter. Gravity has pulled all these things together into spheres. That's why anything with a large enough mass will become a sphere. Even comets and asteroids.
Yet the atmosphere is free to float up hundreds of miles up into the air where it gets to shake hands with Mr. Infinite Vacuum.

>No, gravity does. Or "density" if you want to call it that.
How? And no, density has nothing to do with your supposed gravity so I would not think them interchangeable.

>But if you actually watch a sunset, that's not what happens. It goes below the horizon, quite bright the entire way.
Watch the attached.

>I'm sure for you many things are confusing.
Nope, got my feet firmly planted on terra firma with the heavens above me and the underworld below. Feels good man.

>Like what a force is.
I understand what forces are, but I'm sure we'd disagree.

>>18656347
More or less, yes. That's what's so stimulating about the topic, you get a really good insight into how the same phenomena can be explained by two entirely different models. This goes a lot deeper than the flat/globe earth models to a much more personal level where you begin to understand that the way in which you see the world is unique to you and probably unique to this particular period in your life. The word for this is paradigm, and a sudden paradigm shift can be an incredible experience.

>>18656357
Saturn worshipers, perhaps, but it has its place like everything else. Do not hate those who would wish you harm for they do you more good than you realise. Without chaos and evil we would grow stagnant and restless. Those who take on the role of the villain give us purpose in life and allow us to fulfill the timeless role of the hero. This is the meaning of life.

>>18656359
Yes, anon, there are clouds that make it dimmer before it goes below the horizon.

Now repeat your observation on a clear day and see what happens.

>I understand what forces are.

Then define it. It's very simple.

earth is a disk and it gets carried by four elefants standing on the back of a giant turtle... how can anybody not get this by now?

>>18656405
>Yes, anon, there are clouds that make it dimmer before it goes below the horizon.
Sure man, whatever you say. I'm not here to convince you. I know there's little chance of that. I don't know whether you're arguing with me because it's your job or because your worldview is being threatened and you're instinctively becoming defensive, but I have enough of a sense to know that you are not going to consider what I have to say any time soon. All I'm doing is putting this information out there for more inquisitive minds to ponder. I hope you realise how much you're aiding me in this by prompting me to keep arguing my points again and again.

In any case, have another one.

>Now repeat your observation on a clear day and see what happens.
Not my observation. This seems to be something you're more likely to see when you're closer to the equator and the sun is more overhead than it is for me over here at the 38th degree south.

>Then define it. It's very simple.
Why do I get the feeling that your argument is now somehow hinged upon my answer to this? What does it prove either way when I disagree with the scientific definitions of so many things already? But fine, a force is a term we can use to describe an action that causes movement in something else. How's that?

I'll admit to you now that my formal training is in philosophy and not physics, although you have to remember that the term science refers to natural philosophy and thus I have a foundational understanding of the sciences that most specialists today lack. Also, I know a bullshit argument when I see one, not to mention a fallacious model.

>>18656064
is new england far enough for you?

>>18656601
For what?

>>18656562
What he's trying to tell you is that your points make no sense only to you.
Its hard for people to understand people like you because your obviously so anti science that you have to throw out basic understanding s such as gravity etc.
But at the same time your using science each and every day when you post or when you get in a car or make coffee in the morning. Its not like your in a forest or anything. If people like you truly view everything as a Jewish conspiracy you should have switched off your computer long ago and go join some underground city where like minded people and yourself could come up with a plan to destroy the Jews. Everything you do from taking a shit flushing it to talking a language is scientific and therefore Jewish conspiracy.
It just doesn't make sense. Nobody has a problem with you believing in a flat earth but coming on an image board telling everyone is a sheep and to open their eyes comes off as arrogant so expect to get confrontational arguements from people.

>>18656447
This is my absolute truth and I'm done questioning the nature of existence now because it's absolutely fucking terrifying.

>>18656666
Aw man, this shit got the quads? I don't know what you shills sacrificed to Kek but it must have been young and innocent.

>Its hard for people to understand people like you because your obviously so anti science that you have to throw out basic understanding s such as gravity etc.
Prove to me that gravity exists without using gravity as your argument.

>But at the same time your using science each and every day when you post or when you get in a car or make coffee in the morning.
I really hate this one. Scientists taking credit for fucking everything under the sun (and far beyond it as well). Technology is the result of invention. If inventors followed the scientific method, they'd never invent anything. They'd be too busy trying to disprove their inventions. For those of you who need help understanding this point, I'll lay out the inventor's method:
1) Observe something doing something
2) Form a hypothesis on how you could make something else do that thing or do it better
3) Test your hypothesis to see if it worked
4) If no, back to the drawing board. If yes, hypothesis proved.

Please tell me how the scientific method ever gets anything done?

> If people like you truly view everything as a Jewish conspiracy you should have switched off your computer long ago and go join some underground city where like minded people and yourself could come up with a plan to destroy the Jews.
When did I say anything about Jews?

>It just doesn't make sense.
Nice argument.

>Nobody has a problem with you believing in a flat earth but coming on an image board telling everyone is a sheep and to open their eyes comes off as arrogant so expect to get confrontational arguements from people.
Re-read the OP. In case scrolling up or hitting the [Top] button is too much work for you, here it is again:

>Redpill me on the flat earth. Is it true or has NASA cucked us?

>>18656697
It can be, sure. This is only a temporary state of mind though. You'll soon remember and re-realise how beautiful, fun, rewarding, fulfilling, surprising, adventurous, heroic, stimulating, and all other kinds of cool shit existence is. I'm here for you anon.

>>18656710
Ooh, I forgot romantic. That's a big one. Don't worry if it isn't happening for you at the moment, hunger only makes the fruit taste sweeter.

>>18656706
You think technology and science are separate ?
Why ?
But your right I can't prove to you gravity is real same way you can't prove to me how earth is a disk that goes upwards 9.8 meters a second. I noticed how you throw around the word density in earlier posts. Prove to me density without the use density.

>>18656710
Thank you for your words anon

>>18656722
>You think technology and science are separate?
>Why ?
Come on, I thought I explained that pretty well. Because the scientific method is bogus and only an idiot would follow it, to no possible end.

>But your right I can't prove to you gravity is real same way you can't prove to me how earth is a disk that goes upwards 9.8 meters a second.
Please stop misquoting me. It's terribly dishonest and the only reason I can imagine you doing it is to dissuade any potentially interested lurkers from looking into this thread when they're scrolling through the board. I never said anything about the Earth rising at any speed and I don't at all believe it to be the case.

>I noticed how you throw around the word density in earlier posts. Prove to me density without the use density.
I never said that I could, and that has never been my intention in this argument. I've simply been presenting the readers with an alternate theory for things falling to the Earth. But ok, here it goes:

Density is observable by weighing different objects of the same volume made of different materials. Some objects will be heavier and some will be lighter, even though they are the same size. It is also observable when you place objects of different materials in substances such as water where objects that are denser than the water will sink and objects lighter than it will float.

See? Density is an observable property which can be proven with simple and repeatable experiments. Will you stop wasting my time with such inanities now? (Protip: you wont)

>>18656747
Thank you for your thanks. This kind of validation is one of my greatest joys in life.

>>18656722
Youre either a troll or didnt even bother to check about the flat model nor the posts in this thread.

Flat earth = infinite flat plane.
>>18652119 .
It does not move.
It is a realm.

The lower you go the higher the density, eventually reaching 2-Dimensional 3-dimensional surface.

The higher you go the lower the density, eventually reaching 4-D(Space).

We are between Density(2d 3d) and Space(4D).
The whole realm is a Singularity(1D).

What makes things "fall" is electromagnetic interaction between matter under the laws of density and buoyancy(a quality of density), by that allowing higher density to move through lower density,
While pulling lower density towards lower density and higher density towards higher density by the shift/difference/levels of dimensions(/the qualities of their configuration):
Singularity(1-D) > Density(1d>2d>3d), Form(3-D) > Expansion(3d>4d) > Space(4-D) > Deepening(4d>1d).
Lower density will expand, higher density will solidify.
Also, mind that one of the effect of that shift/difference/levels of dimensions is,
The higher you go, the lower the density.
The lower you go, the higher the density.

>>18656834
So what happens if you keep going up or down? What happens above and bellow this infinite flat plane, in the 1D and 4D spaces?

>>18656849
You cant, we are limited to 4D(Space) and 3D(Form) and 2D(Surface), inside this 1D(Sigularity), outside of it there might be higher dimensions possible, but this universe/realm is limited up to Pure 4D(Space).

>>18656853
>You can't
Really
If you kept drilling down or going with a spaceship into deep space what would physically happen?
Hit a physical barrier of some sort, get disintegrated, kept going into infinity?

What about the horizontal plane?

>>18651675
Don't forget it also involves triangles! OwO !!!
Seriously, some people in the thread have to be retarded for it to be entertaining to the rest of us, ya understand?

File: 0.jpg (33KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x360px

>>18656849
The layer between pure 2D(density/surface) and pure 4D(Space), stretches/goes on, possibly infinitely/endlessly. (Look at pic for example)

The goal/purpose of this realm is probably to comprehend the laws of nature within it by which it exists, and then to control it/create your own or exit it.

>>18656878
If you keep moving higher you will reach a layer in which you keep moving at the same spot unable to proceed any higher.
If you keep going lower, you will be eventually crushed into 2D then if by impossible means you still keep going down then you will be crushed and turned into the layer of space(turn into 4D) of the 1D. Which makes you unable to go higher in the first example.

>>18656900
This is very interesting.

>>18651307
fpbp

>>18656883
>>18656929
The shills are switching gears now that they're completely out of their depth with the responses they're getting by referencing posts from all the way up there. Sad!

>>18656887
I would say definitely infinitely. It doesn't make sense to have existence stop at any point. It would only beg the question, what's on the other side?

File: idi.ot.jpg (16KB, 320x130px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 320x130px

>>18656932
Excuse me for reading the thread top to bottom.

>>18651307
haha, nice one

>>18656939
that image.jpg
keked heartly

>>18656939
Holy shit at that pic for proof. How hard do you wanna try?

>>18656940
>>18656932
And another one.

>>18656949
You can literally witness their gameplan changing when they hit an argumentative wall. Not that they hadn't hit that wall hours ago, it's just that the body hadn't stopped twitching until just now.

>>18656938
We have no proof/facts to prove that much, so we cant assume it does continue infinitely there, we have no idea what laws might come in play, horizontal 3D-4D wise, there might be even higher ice walls layer eventually going up to the 4D-1D layer, you never know... So whats definitely is, that you definitely can't say "definitely infinitely".

>>18656938
>>18656960
>ice walls layer eventually going up to the 4D-1D layer
Meaning eventually might connect 2d, 3d, and 4d together with the cold energy which can affect/bend/lower the property of dimension, creating 1D-2D-3D-4D edges to the realm.

File: 1293680546751.png (175KB, 416x361px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 416x361px

>>18656939
>>18656940
>>18656943
>>18656947
Wer trollt hier eigentlich wen?

>>18656960
Perhaps not but I don't think the alternative makes any logical sense. I mean, lets say you do have an ice wall stretching to the upper and lower limits, what's on the other side of that? More ice? Until what? More ice forever? A void? Another form of impenetrable barrier?

Infinity is a very interesting concept to me because no matter how far you walk down an infinite road, it will still stretch on into infinity. Even if it at some point must loop back on itself like a mobius strip, you could never get through the infinity before you to ever reach that point.

File: who is trolling who.png (34KB, 370x163px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 370x163px

>>18656979
They are.

File: something happened.jpg (123KB, 1128x770px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1128x770px

>>18656990
Funny thing, the first one was myself and the other two in the middle reference my posts.

>>18656980
Possibly another form of impenetrable barrier due to it being stretched upwards by lowering the temp of the 3D form.
>>18656977

>>18657003
>upwards
And downwards*

Should be somewhere close to "infinity" diameter if it does happen though.

Or like >>18656980 suggested
>loop back on itself
If it does not happen.

>>18651244
Yeah pretty much just watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgMgoZNOtcY

>>18651244
oh look, the /shitpost/ general is back.

File: straightjacket2.jpg (12KB, 236x316px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 236x316px

What have we allowed society to become?

It's 2017 and these retarded monkeys run free, polluting the gene pool, leeching off society, and generally acting like annoying roaches.

It's long past time to clean house.

>>18657880
I think you should pay a bit more attention to the posts, heliocentric model lost.
Flat earth won the arguments there in the end.
You don't have any excuses anymore, the kind of comment you posted is the only thing you globefags are able to resort to now, it seems. So sad.

>>18658362
>the flat earth arguments won

lol

>>18658362
Please tell me you're trolling. People can't be this dumb right?

>>18657880
That's the third time I've seen you post the exact same picture with the same dumb totalitarian shit about how you'd be doing society a favour if you killed us all or locked us all up. I honestly hope you're a shill, because the alternative is far more depressing; that you sit there posting this shit out of some misguided sense of self-arbitration to a society you probably never even venture out into.

Fuck you and your attacks on free speech.

>>18658379
>>18658716
This is what you get when they run out of arguments. Pathetic attempts at trying to look like they've still somehow won.

>>18651244

Just read through the thread.

This is crazy. Spherical earth theorists got BTFO yet again. Starting to seriously believe there is something to this flat earth theory now. Would explain why the shills always come out...

>>18651244
it's true

Can we call it the flat earth myth?

Try and post an image of a red dot, right now. DO IT.

You can't due to the shape of the Earth.

>>18651793
none of those actually prove a flat earth
fail

>>18656357
what a convincing argument you have for it being "100% true"

>>18659894

The flat earth is the truth. Spherical earth is a theory/myth.

>>18651437
>If you use the term "CGI" on that feed, you get permabanned from about 15 channels.
>Why would they permaban you for saying this?

because they have no tolerance for ignorant trolls

>>18658362
>heliocentric model lost
not even once
it's fact

>>18659908
>>18659908
>Spherical earth is a theory/myth.
since when?

>>18659963

Since forever. There is ZERO solid proof of it. Flat earth has MOUNTAINS more proof.

>>18659968
Wow mountains

>>18659908
All facts point to sphere
No facts point to flat
Done.

>>18659973

No, it is quite the other way round. Begone spherical shill.

>>18659993
>can't name any of these "facts" for flat

>>18651714
He will never answer.

>>18660010
You give him to little credit, by the time he finishs high school he may be able to.

>>18651244
Watch these videos.
It is slightly biased against the flat earth (even though he says he isnt) but is still somewhat fair towards both flat and spherical. A good work still.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=r7ue3hHd4EQ
https://youtube.com/watch?v=VOUTcpfHEQ0
https://youtube.com/watch?v=LmE21xc4NFU

>>18651307 kek

>>18660018
no... I'm pretty sure he won't.

>>18660093
This too:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=AYH-xnTKfG4

>>18651728
Gravity curves light, mate.

>>18660218
There's no proof to that.

>>18660304
there's plenty of proof of it you are just too lazy to look it up

>>18660304
The locations of stars are distorted during an eclipse by the mass of the sun

If the earth is flat. What is mars?

>>18660340
Eclipse lowers the regions temp by a tiny bit in the direction of the eclipse, creating a density lens, which bends light(gets in the way of the light like a lens), until the eclipse is fully over.

>>18660364
That doesn't work, bud.
Eclipses viewed from satellites exhibit the same property.
>durr satellites don't real
Suck my dick luddite.

>>18660093
There's a good comment in the first of those videos, it asks why the stars at the southern pole rotate the opposite(clockwise) to the ones at the north pole(counter-clockwise). There was some stuff about stars in the other thread but the OP just ignored it and said they were projections by satanic jews onto... projectors? in the sky

>>18660438
Watch this video for a well thought out, logical answer to this question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahNfU7zYlmY

>>18660362
if mirrors arent real

how can our eyes be real

Flat earth is retardation, just skydive and you'll see the curvature

I love how flatfags constantly shriek about muh NASA, like NASA are the only ones saying the earth is round. I guess it most convenient for them to ignore the thousands of years of research in multiple diverse fields that say the earth is round. Let's take geography for example. The earth has been mapped extremely extensively, and the mapping of the earth was done long before the creation of NASA. However, the dimensions and locations of places on earth are significantly different on flat and round earths, because you cannot make the surface of a sphere into a flat disk without heavily distorting it. Despite this, not a single explorer or cartographer in the past few hundred years has noticed any discrepancy from the round earth model.

>>18651244
Its a scam devised to discredit legitimate discussion

>>18651630
Are you from /sci/? That's the only place where I have seen such level of denial.
There is always an over the top ridiculous theory that makes more plausible alternative explanations look stupid.

With that you have "ancient aliens", "flat earth", "fake moon landings", "creationism" ... all that bullshit put there to make the current truths unquestionable.

>>18660530
that's fucking deep

>>18651244
the same debate can be made concerning Filipino women, are they flat or round?

my nephew cucked me

>>18660438
https://youtube.com/watch?v=t30-YbayyXE
This too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzMQza8xZCc

>>18651793


>what is gravity

>the Planet is a spaceship

>>18660872
>what is gravity

>baby don't hurt me

>no more

File: 1413115877056.jpg (119KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 720x576px

>mfw flat-earthers still exists

>>18660890 fucking kek'd

>>18660615 see, the earth is round like our friend, spoops here.

>>18660595
definitely not flat, and round in the right ways.

>>18660872
>>18660881

This:
>>18656834
>>18656853
>>18656887
>>18656900

>>18660967
So who came up with the 1D 4D flowchart shit? I see it posted all the time. And it almost sounds like it could make sense. But whenever it's posted it just comes off as word salad

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

14KB, 400x343px

>>18651244
For anybody who is interested, here's a relatively easy experiment you can do to prove the rotation of the earth. All you need is a friend in another country.

Step 1: Buy a 100mg weight. Use a well-calibrated electronic balance to measure the weight down to a couple decimal points.

Step 2: Mail the weight to a friend who lives abroad. This works best the more significant the difference in latitudes is between your 2 countries, so try to get somebody closer to the equator or to either pole.

Step 3: Have them measure the weight on a well-calibrated electronic balance and compare your 2 observations. You'll find that the 2 measurements are actually difference. Not only that, but you'll be able to calculate and predict the difference depending on how close you are to the equator

Since the Earth is a sphere, it spins fastest at the equator (roughly 1000 mph). This spin decreases as you approach the poles until it gradually reaches zero. The centrifugal force of the Earth's spin counteracts the acceleration of gravity and affects the weight of any given mass.

So not only is the spin of the Earth observable, but it can also be used to predict the changes it weight as you move across the globe. Isn't that neat?

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

2MB, 2340x4160px

>>18651244
the flat earth model, as it exists, is plainly impossible

Flat Earth fags need to rethink their model, instead of ignoring any evidence that contradicts them

>>18651437
>Why would they permaban you for saying this?
because they can?

>>18656900
If you keep moving lower you reach 2Ds (Nuts)

>>18656750
>It is also observable when you place objects of different materials in substances such as water where objects that are denser than the water will sink and objects lighter than it will float.
Why?
What force is acting upon denser objects?
Why don't denser objects move away from the Earth?

You're not providing an alternate explanation at all.

File: pencil water.jpg (20KB, 198x200px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 198x200px

>>18651728
>Now I'm aware that light doesn't bend
how could anybody be this stupid?

Literally go drop a pencil in a glass of water and tell me what you observe.

Guys lmao, they aren't serious..they're TROLLS! they do this shit for fun and get a kick out of seeing you try to debunk something they already know isn't true. it's all about fun.

>>18659157

Free speech is a right reserved for human beings.

You're irrational, unthinking monkeys.

>>18661499 most definitely totalitarian/10

>>18661499 found the redpill. it was downstairs on the computer desk.

File: obsidian_target_audience_4.png (268KB, 327x1192px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 327x1192px

>>18661577

There's nothing totalitarian about it.

The mentally ill need to be institutionalized for their own good as well as society's.

Letting crazy people run free with their delusions isn't doing them any favors.

>>18661625
This.

>>18661499
Free speech is a fundamental right, but just because you can say whatever you want doesn't protect you from the repercussions of saying whatever you want

>>18661716

A fundamental right for humans.

Dogs don't have free speech. Monkeys don't have free speech.

Being a human requires the ability to think rationally. Flat earthers don't have that ability, so they're not human.

>>18657880
W-who are the retarded monkeys?

File: bigbrotherspoops.jpg (16KB, 185x272px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 185x272px

>>18661625

>>18661900 fucking kek

>>18661625 wait, is this in reference to flat earthers?

>>18661216
Ancient people.
Then later Thales of Miletus and Pythagoras brought it and some of the Ancient Science back with them from their trips to Egypt (studying in an Egypt's Mystery school), that marked the new beginning of Philosophy, mathematics and science of the 'West'(marked "new" beginning, at least in the last ~3000years period that we are aware of).
Later the philosophers of the next few hundred years period of time, have probably tried to revive the ancient science but seen it as dangerous in the wrong hands, so they encrypted it and purposefully added misleading mistakes into the system they have created, mistakes that would appear true but in reality would mislead into deadends.
Many years later, we now have our current science that is based on that misleading approach.

The 1D(2D->3D->4D) geometric realm(/universe) understanding is extremely ancient.

>>18651592
Can we return to this please? What is your disproof of the Pythagorean theorem?

>>18662054
It doesn't exist, of course.

>>18652706
Proof that flat-Earthers are stupid

>>18651707
>proofs of the Pythagorean theorem.

Even I who knows nothing of what this is apart from what I saw in this thread, understands the argument.

Proven = not a theorem

In fact I know this much from when I did study at a university;
>you start by observation and draw a conclusion, this is your hypothesis
>you test this hypothesis vs reality and find it confirmed, when you have enough results supporting it, you use these to form a theory
>a theory is the final form, you cannot prove anything, actually you are supposed to be very humble about this, because later researchers may discover new things effectively disproving your theory
>when this happens, if your theory was widely spread, science goes through a paradigm shift
>this means all the old knowledge which was based on the now disproven theory will be discarded because it is not correct anymore

This is how science progresses, you do not ever claim ultimate truth, you realize that what you have is uncertain and may be shown to be wrong sometime in the future. All of you saying certain things are proven and shouldn't be questioned are simply breaking the code of honor of scientists.

>>18662023
>Many years later, we now have our current science that is based on that misleading approach.
Many years later, we now have our current science that is based on that misleading approach, with the bullshit of heliocentric model, and "gravity".*

PLEASE DEBUNK THESE, FLAT EARTH FAGGOTS

Why do we cast a spherical shadow on the moon?

>>18662063
Theory =/= theorem. Now you claim to have easily disproven the Pythagorean Theorem when you were 14, so it shouldn't be impossible for you to do it again right?

>>18651966
What is, celestial north?

>Arguing the Pythagorean Theorem's legitimacy
HAHAHAHAHA how far will these people go?

Someone give me a real life example of it not working.

>>18662063
Mathematical theorems and scientific theory are not the same thing

In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proved on the basis of previously established statements, such as other theorems, and generally accepted statements, such as axioms. A theorem is a logical consequence of the axioms. The proof of a mathematical theorem is a logical argument for the theorem statement given in accord with the rules of a deductive system. The proof of a theorem is often interpreted as justification of the truth of the theorem statement. In light of the requirement that theorems be proved, the concept of a theorem is fundamentally deductive, in contrast to the notion of a scientific law, which is experimental

>>18662063
The Pythagorean theorem is not some theory, it is a mathematical formula that states the relationship between the sides of a right triangle. And it always fucking works.

Go draw a right traiangle with a protractor and measure the sides, then plug them in. I guarantee it will come out perfectly unless you made a human error.

There is literally no disputing it, it works.

>>18662072
Heliocentricity and gravity are based on observations and experiments that have taken place over hundreds of years.
The ptolemic system was dropped because it was unreliable in its predictions, overly complicated, and not supported by evidence
Aristarchus created the first heliocentric model around 300 bce and placed the planets in their correct order based on naked eye observations, but was often rejected in favor of Aristotle's and Ptolemy's models

File: Pythagoras-proof.png (18KB, 700x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 700x400px

>>18662060
...the theorem doesn't exist? Like, the idea and the description itself is a figment of everyone's imagination? That's a bold claim.

>>18662063
This is math, not science. Math can easily prove things beyond a shadow of a doubt. Pythagorean's Theorem has multiple MULTIPLE proofs, probably more than any other mathematical theorem. It's only named such because Pythagoras's proof is the first known. He did it with geometry: pic related. Here's 117 variations on proving this theorem. http://www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/

>>18662096
So much this. There IS a way to make Pythagoras' Theorem incorrect, but it involves changing the axioms upon which it is based. Namely, if you are working in a space where the angles of a triangle =/= 180, the theory no longer works.

>"I believe in a skyman that watches us all masturbate and sent his only son, who was him, to Earth to become a zombie for us."

Minimal bitching. Usually a Philosophical debate ensues.

>"Earth is a Prison Planet"

Minimal bitching, constructive debate.


>Earth is Hollow

Minimal bitching. Yet again, usually constructive or very philosophical debate ensues.

>"I jizz on paper and make wishes!"

"TELL ME MORE"


>I believe the Jewluminati Vampires run the gubbermint

Same as aforementioned topics...

>Earth is flat

"KYS YOU FUCKING FUCK! FUCK YOU HOW DAAAAARRREEE YOU QUESTION SCIENCE" Reddit level responses and autism.

I don't understand why this, of all topics, rustles so many jimmies. We can disregard disbelief to discuss anything else. Anything BUT this. Why?

>>18662063
>studied at university
>doesn't understand the difference between math and science

You would have been given a proof of pythagorean theorem in jr. high school.

>>18662134
It was all an act to encrypt a totally different system(the geometric 1D 4D one), and make sure that later philosophers/scientists will follow a misleading approach. (But without the truth being completely lost, and only to be fully understood/figured out by those who understood the correct approach)
>observations
"observations" are still from a point of view.
They have seeded a misleading point of view(/lens) through which you approach to understand/logic what you observe.

You can observe from a different point of view and arrive at another explanation that is equally true and works in the real world, yet is completely different than the first one.

>>18662154
Because we get 5 threads a day, up to 4 active at the same time, and even when a constructive debate tries to take place it is ignored by flat earthers in force.
After 50 of these threads everyone got pissed off and it's devolved into who can derail the thread the fastest.

>>18662154
I think it's because FE is a wholly negative conspiracy theory. It seeks only to take away knowledge, offering nothing to replace it that the other threads don't openly give. The entire core of flat earth is about going "nuh-uh" to established knowledge and the scientific process. The rest is camouflage; FE leeches onto Illuminati control or the canon of ancient religion for legitimacy.

>>18662174
But those observations are backed by models that can be used to accurately predict natural phenomena,
The 1D 4D model, aside from not seeming to exist outside of /x/, doesn't have the predictive capabilities of actual science

>>18662181
You have not answered my question though. Why? What about this topic brings out the stupid in us and why do deniers devolve into Fedorafags while simultaniously asking me for divination in another thread?

>>18662184
Possibly. But that doesn't exactly speak highly of anyone. It is not impossible to imagine answers to all questions against it. And it doesn't help for people to automatically dismiss any form of non-negative views towards FE, because all that is, is sitting and letting others think for you.

Like...I don't think the Earth is flat. But I can imagine how it could be. I can even see how some peoe could think it is. Nothing wrong with that.

And at the end of the day, none of them will blind-pilot a plane across the Earth until they fly off an edge or run out of fuel after passing over Sibera for the 3rd time.

So who gives a shit whether it is true or not. If it is fiction, treat it as such. But thst doesn't mean we can imagine ways in which this fiction could be reality.

>>18662195
>doesn't have the predictive capabilities of actual science

It does, all of the math works perfectly in it the moment you take away "gravity", and use the more logical, natural explanations.

True Science is the reverse engineering of nature.
If you try do anything else other than reverse engineering then youre going to make mistakes.

>>18662145
I meant his disproof doesn't exist, despite him saying "I had disproved thousands of years of mathematics in 30 minutes with pencil and paper at the age of 14."

>>18662212
>doesn't mean we can

Meant can't in that last bit. Sorry about typos. My phone is crappy.

>>18662212
People get angry probably because these threads are an insult to the intelligence.

People can suspend disbelief when it comes to ghost stories, or conspiracy theories about who killed JFK.

When people claim that all photos are cgi or that they've never seen a sunset happen, it's infuriating that so many tax payer dollars were wasted on this person's education.

>>18662079
you can't cast a spherical shadow

shadows are 2 dimensional

>>18662212
>>18662195 did a pretty good job explaining why the people on the FE side are so toxic. FE supporters spew their links and memes like dogma and shut down any actual debate by refusing to explain their models and predictions. Adding onto that the sheer over saturation on such a slow board causes people to over react on the FE denier side

>>18662214
Alright, explain the tides without gravity

>>18662242
>>18662184 copied the wrong anon, whoops

>>18662230
Why?

One idiot...even a million idiots (I mean...look at how the moon landing stuff has evolved) doesn't make a theory invalid. Hell here on /x/ a vast majority of us believe people come here and pretend to be idiots to make us NOT talk about stuff.

Why should that disuade you from thinking about it on your own and coming to a conclusion?

>>18662145
>if you are working in a space where the angles of a triangle =/= 180
a triangle, by definition, is planar

If you curve a triangle so that the angles come out to more than 180, it is no longer a triangle

>>18662242
Well. Sure. But that doesn't mean we can't contain the threads. (We did it with /div/) and eventually come to some form of peace and start talking about the topic at hand like adults.

I HAAAATE the bullshit spewing as well. But it comes from both sides.

>>18662258
No, the theory is demonstrably invalid based on simple observable evidence.

And that right there is why people get irate. You pretend that it's valid, which is absurd. It's like lying straight to somebody's face.

It's like a little kid with his hand in the cookie jar, claiming that he wasn't eating any cookies. Except instead of having the excuse of being a small child and not knowing that lying is wrong, they're some kind of pathetic manchild.

>>18662154
Unlike those other topics, flat earth does not rest in plausible deniability. It is demonstrably wrong with even highschool level math >>18661236

Since its so easy to prove flat earth wrong, this attracts the people who like to laugh at retards and make them confront the gaping holes in their theory.

>>18662265
>it comes from both sides

This is another lie. It does not.

moon is round
sun is round
other planets are round
stars are round

hmmm....could the Earth possibly be round too?

literally no point talking to baller scum

>>18662260
He was talking about in reference to spherical geometry, the same principles apply, but a triangle drawn on the surface of a sphere will exceed an angular sum of 180° due to the outward bulge of the spheres surface

>>18662301
If you put a triangle down on the surface of a sphere it is no longer a triangle, and thus the Pythagorean theorem does not apply.

It doesn't break the theorem.

>>18662214
>It does, all of the math works perfectly in it the moment you take away "gravity"
no it doesn't

Without gravity, there is no explanation for why denser objects accelerate towards the center of the earth. They cannot move unless some force acts upon them. This is BASIC shit.

Didin't the transit of Venus in like 18 or 19C prove earth was round once more?
Also, how do you explain seismic shadows?

It's so outstanding people will ignore years of evidence and research, just heaps and heaps of research based on the principles in which earth is round, only to believe earth is flat for whatever reason.

It's hard to grasp the vastness of this stupidity.

File: flat earth muller.png (100KB, 599x1082px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 599x1082px

>>18662258
flat earth is a fun topic in general

Although these topics tend to be 25% schizos, 25% retards and 50% shitposters.

>>18662301
>He was talking about in reference to spherical geometry
I know doofus. What did you think I meant by planar?

>>18662326
There are numerous independent proofs.

I'm not familiar with the transit of mercury being involved, though the orbit of mercury did prove the general theory of relativity in the early 20th century.

File: universe curves.jpg (52KB, 557x501px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 557x501px

>>18662212
>It is not impossible to imagine answers to all questions against it.
They get increasingly bombastic and hard to prove, if any answer is given. That's my personal peeve against them. Not just the automatic nay-saying of any evidence against them, but the flat refusal to do any work to go about creating a detailed model of their system.

>>18662260
No, it is planar by axiom.
>Triangles are assumed to be two-dimensional plane figures, unless the context provides otherwise (see Non-planar triangles, below).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle#Non-planar_triangles
If you take the 2-D space the triangle is contained within and warp the space, not the triangle, it is possible to invalidate the Pyhtagorean Theorem. Again, we are changing the assumption, the axiom, which the theorem is based on.

I promise you I can make a polygon with 3 lines, completely straight in 2 dimensions, where all inner angles equal 90 degrees.

>>18662265
Agreed. I thought the FE general was great, and truly did mean my appreciation to flatanon, though I think he's a blind nut or likely a master troll.

>>18662246
Sun circling around -> heating up the air and water -> movement.
Density very deep crushing matter -> releasing/producing heat and lava, which is logically is of lower density -> heat and lava trying to escape out upwards -> movement.

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/
Select AE(azimuthal equidistant) and look.

Theres a lot more to it but this is a long story short easier explanation.

>>18662355
>it is possible to invalidate the Pyhtagorean Theorem
I'm not sure what you're arguing exactly. Do you think non-planar triangles are a new invention or something?

The pyhtagorean theorem does not apply to non-planar triangles. You might as well say that its invalid because it doesn't apply to squares.

>>18662378
>Sun circling around -> heating up the air and water -> movement.

Doesn't explain tides. Currents, but not tides.

>Density very deep crushing matter -> releasing/producing heat and lava, which is logically is of lower density -> heat and lava trying to escape out upwards -> movement.

I don't know what you're trying to explain here. Volcanoes? Because no, this also doesn't explain ties.

>easier explanation

It's not an explanation if it doesn't explain anything.

>>18662274
Yet again...why is it a lie? At its core, the FE theory, in its most simple and least retarded terms is that "the Earth is not formed in the way we were told" which...I like to think is most likely true. Does that make it totally flat? No. Does that mean that the truth lies in the middle? Possibly. If not probably.

That is how I see it. I ignore horseshit on both sides. Shitposting from non-believers ( I am one myself) and I ignore bullshit from people "proving" it.

Just like I ignore Atheists in religion threads and people doing "math" in them as well...you know...

>999 -333 is 666
>666 divided by 2 is 333
>Obama's phone number in college startef with 333
>COINCIDENCE!?!?

You get the idea.

On all the more popular theories most of us already think that the truth is in the middle somewhere or we have our own ideas.

But we fail to do that with FE. You don't have to think the Earth is a pancake. But you don't have to shit down and scream "lalala" eaither. That is what people you and I laugh at on other topics do.

>>18662348
Copying from wiki

Venus transits are historically of great scientific importance as they were used to gain the first realistic estimates of the size of the Solar System. Observations of the 1639 transit, combined with the principle of parallax, provided an estimate of the distance between the Sun and the Earth that was more accurate than any other up to that time. The 2012 transit provided scientists with a number of other research opportunities, particularly in the refinement of techniques to be used in the search for exoplanets.

File: AEWeather.jpg (234KB, 630x565px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 630x565px

>>18662392
It does explain it, and also explains earthquakes.

>>18662281
Telling people that the ancient mathmatical theories that are staples of intelligence are wrong is bullshit.

Telling people who are obviously ignorant to go kill themselves without attempting to teach them is bullshit.

Screaming "lalalala" when someone thinks differently, is bullshit.

>>18662409

Flat earthers literally do not think.

>>18662407
Seismic shadow?

>>18662396
>most simple and least retarded terms is that "the Earth is not formed in the way we were told"

No, it's the most retarded "everything my teachers and scientists told me is a lie, and therefore the opposite is true," claim

And that's another thing about FEers that drive other people nuts. The sheer ego. Perfect examples of Dunning-Kruger effect.

These are people that did not finish school. Are functionally illiterate. Never go outside. Never conduct any experiments. Yet they firmly believe that they are smarter than everybody else who has ever lived.

Because of contrarianism.

>the truth is somewhere in the middle

What's in the middle between a round earth and the flat earth?

Your Terra is not flat, neither is it round.
Such concepts assume your knowledge of dimensionality is correct.
It 'maps' to a spheroid from higher dimensions than those your species are chained within.
You are a little lower than where you should be for infinity to be within reach.
There are 2 ways you (presently) may reach the infinite 'corners' of the Universes.
1. Taking aeons to travel there.
2. Move through a higher dimension than Time.

>>18662407
Nope. Tides are timed to the rotation of the earth beneath both the moon and the sun.

Your claims don't explain that.

>>18662396
the flat earth argument can be dismantled and invalidated point by point. There is not a single merited argument for why the Earth did not form a sphere.

The spherical earth model is consistent, both internally and externally across dozens of independent fields. It can be proven with simple experiments like >>18661228

All these threads do is attract arrogant autists.

>>18662414
I think they think too much. Honestly.

>>18662419
Middle between flat and round Earth is just that maybe...Antarctica is more than meets the eye. Maybe another continent, or a few hidden islands exist etc.

Maybe the Earth just ain't what we are told. That's the middle.


As for contrarianism and stupidity being prevalent, I agree. But that goes for many things.