Lets Settle This

ur a shill

checkmate

File: The Visage of God.png (347KB, 600x788px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 600x788px

This is gonna be good.

>>18947465
its been almost an hour and nobody's said anything

If you get a camera with a long range zoom you can wait for ships to disappear "below the horizon" then zoom in and see them with your camera.

File: hqdefault (3).jpg (11KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 480x360px

All science is payed for by the Elites! Nasa faked the moon landings 6 times! I you disagree, you work for them!

>>18947510
No you can't.

>>18947510
just because your camera's unzoomed resolution cant pick up a small boat at the horizon does not mean its past the horizon. In both zoomed images and unzoomed images the boat is always in view (sky never replaces the place where the boat is)

Also if this is true the sun would come into view after sunset with a telescope on the horizon and there would be no stars remotely near the horizon since they would be much farther and much smaller than the sun is. and if you want to bring up atmospheric diffusion you still wouldn't see stars since they'd again be much farther away

File: IMG_0255.jpg (50KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x600px

>>18947349
Well, seeing is believing, so...

Maybe you should send people who disagree with you money, so they can buy a rocket and see for themselves?

>>18947536
I wish I worked for them I could use that money

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/15/how-far-away-is-the-horizon/#.WQP-r3TD_qA

>>18947464
This

>>18947510
This is wrong. You flat earthers should get some equipment together and do this experiment for real.

You won't, because it will prove you wrong.

>>18947536
erick ovey is a shill tho.... dont expect more from him that le earth is flat and just that

>>18947349

Nobody actually believes the earth is flat, anon. People who say they do are just trolls.

As amazing as it seems, not even bible-thumpers and chem-trailers are that stupid.

>>18947704
This kind of thinking is dumb. It only ever considers the Earth's supposed curvature from one angle at a time. If the horizon line is caused by the Earth curving away from me then I should also see the same amount of curvature to the left and right of where I'm looking. That's the nature of a sphere.

File: warning_mp4[1].jpg (89KB, 696x556px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 696x556px

>>18947349
If it's flat, it can't be hollow.

Checkmate, flatists.

>>18947349
The universe is flat so the earth has to be flat

>>18947473
Because your thread sucks and we all know own Earth is a flat plane.

>>18950537
>see the same amount of curvature to the left and right of where I'm looking. That's the nature of a sphere.
>That's the nature of a sphere.
>sphere
The Earth isn't a perfect sphere, and is nonnegligibly wider at the Equator. Then factor in that the atmosphere is even wider there, curving light even more. And you're on placement on Earth (anywhere that isn't a pole) and the horizon will have a different curve. I haven't even read the article yet though, so I might find the writer's a tard afterall.

>>18950572
The article simply runs through the maths on how far away the horizon would be based on vantage points at different heights. None of what you said addresses my point though.

The spherical Earth is a stupid idea that was based on a flawed philosophical notion that the sphere is the most perfect of shapes and so of course the Earth is a sphere. Since then there has been numerous revisions to the model, from geocentrism to heliocentism, from circular orbits to elliptical ones, from sphere to oblate spheroid, and let's not get into the ever-increasing distances placed between the Earth and the Sun and stars.

File: IMG_2195.jpg (29KB, 394x580px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 394x580px

>>18947349
Orbiting sphere. Like the moon.

File: Hubble Reveals All.png (53KB, 697x687px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 697x687px

Edwin Hubble all but stated that the Earth is the center of the universe but that he couldn't possibly admit such a thing and so came up with an alternate and much weaker argument that would go on to become The Big Bang Theory.

>>18950609
You called the Earth a sphere. That was my only objection. It's spherical.

>>18950646
Well then you're grasping at straws.

>>18950640
Picture of the Sun. I just can't believe we're having this discussion with the Moon there. This is a picture taken once a year on the same day. Same location. We are orbiting the Sun.

>>18950653
Wrong. An analemma photo is taken over a single year.

>>18950665
I stand corrected.

>>18950658
>>18950663
>>18950667
>>18950678

I thought the rules were that you couldn't post pics without your own commentary or argument.

File: IMG_0034.png (461KB, 997x750px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 997x750px

>>18950682

>>18950686
That's about the strangest shill tactic I've seen yet.

>>18950658
If something gets closer from a flat plane far away, they would literally appear in view. Not come into view like this. It proves we are on a sphere. A globe. Whatever.

>>18950694
*it

File: IMG_0035.png (839KB, 1024x956px) Image search: [Google]

839KB, 1024x956px

>>18950689

>>18950550
the universe and our plane of existence set in the third dimension and a sphere is a third dimensional object, what now?

>>18950628
so it's not perfectly spherical and distances and measurements change as technology changes. surprise surprise.

>>18950640
this is possible on both the round and flat earth models given the "suns path changes" thing for the flat earth model. its not proof for either.

>>18950755

Flat earthers are intellectually lazy.

All it would take is two dues with lasers and two boats to prove earth was flat.

>>18950682
The stars move in a 24 hour cycle. You should know this as it is the same in the globe earth model.

>>18950689
>>18950700
It is difficult to say for sure what an overall map of the Earth would look like. You would never use a world map for any practical purposes of navigation and if you did, you would end up lost or dead. Instead you would follow maps with a much larger scale so that you could see details you couldn't on a world map. It is hard then to make a claim for the accuracy of continental placement on a world map as they aren't tested in any practical way.

Now here's the kicker: Those lines of longitude that are giving you so much trouble on the flat earth map? Do you know how we measure them? Well, we measure lines of latitude based on the angle of the sun in the sky based on the time of year and what-not, that one's easy. It wasn't until we were able to create accurate time-pieces that would be able to keep the same time in one part of the world and another that we were able to measure longitude because: We measure longitude based on the time of day. We look at the clock we set at the start of our journey and by comparing its hour to the position of the sun in our new location, we can tell how far east or west we have traveled from that set-out point. So to make this point clear, the straight terminator line you think of as proof of the globe is in fact an assumption based on your model of the world. Longitude works on a flat earth but the assumption that this means that three locations with the same sunrise time are in a parallel line doesn't.

>>18950761
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNEUOnlcIAQ&t=197s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBhDFO4NMrw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwCRej0BoA4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RXbEhkLt3U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uersWDp-3c

vs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev7NJqWQ6PE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1SQZVEg6Hw

File: d7ds98f.png (38KB, 641x400px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 641x400px

Earth doesn't exist.

>>18950761
>intellectually lazy

By the way, that would be physically lazy.

File: 1490591820659.jpg (659KB, 739x1561px) Image search: [Google]

659KB, 739x1561px

>>18950781

I'm playing WoW while doing this. I hope those are youtube videos of two dudes with lasers in the middle of the ocean showing you can use lasers farther than the earths curve.

Cause I aint got time for that.

>>18947349
butt earth is sphere

>>18950807
You made a claim, now back it up boiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

>>18950815

When I fly in a plane I see earth's curve. Also I see ships disappear on the horizon.

>>18950841
Cool anecdotes there, bucko.

>>18950841

Nah. I gave you the instructions to reproduce.

Go watch some goddamn boats on a clear day with a telescope.

Or if you want go get a laser and two boats and prove earth is flat.

Until I see the Earth from orbit, I have no way of knowing.

>>18950858
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuqBFBZGOe4

>>18950867

You piece of shit. You can tell the earth is round or flat by taking a powerful laser and reflecting it off another goddamn boat that is farther than the earth's curve. If you can't then the earth if round. If you can, the earth is flat.

Are you retarded?

>>18950869
see
>>18950873
and dozens of other yt vids that show earth is flat using a laser

>>18950869

OMFG. You can see ships at 12 miles with optical gear. He only measured 8 goddamn miles. You need 15-20.

>>18950873
I've never done that. I don't have the time, resources, or the interest to do it. All I can do is take your word for it. And you could be lying.

>>18950883

Well the earth is a simulation until you prove otherwise.

>>18950881
>Doesn't understand that what he just said proves the sphere model is wrong.

>>18950886
I can't do that either.

>>18950886
The guy you're replying to is simply saying "I don't know if the Earth is flat." He's not saying it's flat or round. Your post makes no sense.

File: Willy_Wonka_Shining.gif (868KB, 200x148px) Image search: [Google]

868KB, 200x148px

>>18950895

Question. Why does it matter if earth is flat or not?

>>18950873
>>18950781

except under certain circumstances light can and will curve when subjected to cool air over water, skewing results

The Bedford level test and the subsequent disproval of it is an example of this

again, if the earth is flat there will be subsequent proof and clear contradictions in the globe model that doesn't require some eastern European holding a poster board on a boat on a lake in some kind of thrown together experiment

File: cQS81Gf.jpg (239KB, 1280x703px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1280x703px

>>18947349

>>18950899
It doesn't matter much to me personally. Though no one likes feeling like they're being lied to.

I honestly can't tell you if anything outside of the few square miles I moves within on a daily basis is real. China could be a lie, for all I know.

>>18950948

China is real because it affects you. Even if its just abstracted in simulation, China has taken millions of manufacturing jobs affecting your life.

To be fair, automation much more so.

>>18950906
Bedford Level Test: Look, you can see further than you're supposed to be able to. The Earth must be flat!

Subsequent "disproval": Nuh-uh! The Earth's a sphere so the light refracts as it moves through different densities of atmosphere!

Just another example of the globe model being used to prove the globe.

>>18950921
>>18950969
>>18950979

This is what happens when the flat earth arguments are too strong.

>>18947543
DESU I do high power rocketry and it's not super expensive. A ~$100 rocket can get you to a couple miles above the earth's surface, and a ~$1000 rocket can easily punch through 150,000 feet. You have to have the know-how, obviously, but the curvature is definitely visible from that altitude. As long as you stay subsonic you should be fine.

>>18950790
tastes like chicken????

>>18950957
That doesn't effect my life. I've never lost a job to the Chinese. When I go outside I don't see people losing jobs to the Chinese. I can take your word that it goes on, but you could be lying too.

>>18950969
>>18950979

What is this?

>>18950995
A post religious society.

>>18947349
>the bible's a useless hunk of paper
tips fedora

File: 1439003887738.jpg (70KB, 697x1024px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 697x1024px

>>18950995

From CERN themselves:

>Although not yet found, the “graviton” should be the corresponding force-carrying particle of gravity. The Standard Model includes the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces and all their carrier particles, and explains well how these forces act on all of the matter particles. However, the most familiar force in our everyday lives, gravity, is not part of the Standard Model, as fitting gravity comfortably into this framework has proved to be a difficult challenge. The quantum theory used to describe the micro world, and the general theory of relativity used to describe the macro world, are difficult to fit into a single framework. No one has managed to make the two mathematically compatible in the context of the Standard Model.

http://home.cern/about/physics/standard-model

>>18950994
Know anyone unemployed?

>US company Apple
>IPhones made in China

Jobs lost.

>>18951703
Gravity is a Myth and Does Not Exist, Electricity is the only Force

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jODyhZVbTM

Gravity is Density:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_j_SUAwafU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY3sY6AoQLM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHlhJ-URYts

>>18950628
>claims without source

At least read fucking wikipedia, or any random encyclopedia for once. Don't think you're smart if you refuse to learn.

>>18951725
explain nuclear reactors or bombs with electricity only
protip: you can't

>>18950966
except you can prove through snells law that different densities of air/different air composition does deflect light, especially when it comes to cold air over water/water vapor

the same test was carried out that took those factors into account and you couldn't see the flag

>>18951725
you'd be able to measure major electrical disturbances around the world, and if it was a magnetic phenomenon then demagnetized metal would float or at least be lighter than magnets, which would be incredibly heavy.

>>18951735
gravity is needed for buoyancy to work. its even in the equation for buoyant force. density doesn't mean anything if there isn't gravity, since gravity is the driving force of buoyancy.

>>18950641
That's not what that says. He is saying the vastly most likely scenario is that the universe has an even distribution. The reason everything is "moving away" is because the universe is expanding.

File: 6280fcd1bb04d1138c1b3d95b3547d32.jpg (256KB, 985x720px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 985x720px

>>18947349
>make claim without giving any evidence whatsoever
>"prove me wrong"

>>18950646
It is an oblate-spheroid.

>>18951735
>orgone or life energy

Sounds legit

>>18951725
If things fall from electricity...

How come uncharged things fall at the same rate as charged things?

How come lightly charged objects fall at the same rate as highly charged objects?

How come positively charged objects fall and so do negatively charged objects fall? If it were electrical, then only one of the would fall, and the other would be repelled?

It seems to me these people don't know anything about electricity, any more than they do gravity.

>>18953036
the flat earthers have the extraordinary claim, thus burden of proof is on them.

that's how this works, that's how all of this works

>>18952667
It's basic history my friend.
>Wikipedia
kek

>>18952952
>except you can prove through snells law that different densities of air/different air composition does deflect light, especially when it comes to cold air over water/water vapor
None of which would be a factor if we're talking about two points at the same height on a flat earth, right?

>the same test was carried out that took those factors into account and you couldn't see the flag
How exactly did they take these factors into account? Tilting the telescope up so it was no longer pointing at the flag?

>you'd be able to measure major electrical disturbances around the world, and if it was a magnetic phenomenon then demagnetized metal would float or at least be lighter than magnets, which would be incredibly heavy.

Still searching for some non-existent force when none is necessary...

gravity is needed for buoyancy to work. its even in the equation for buoyant force. density doesn't mean anything if there isn't gravity, since gravity is the driving force of buoyancy.

Density is the driving force of buoyancy. Gravity is an enormous supposition that still has no real explanation. The only supposition we require is that there is an up and a down, and that denser things will tend to move downwards pushing less dense things upwards.

>>18953087
How come you people are all onboard with any mention of an electronic universe until the notion is in any way tied with the earth being flat?

>>18947349
The Earth looks like a potato. Fucking spherecircle fags

>>18953302
>Earth's spinning at 1000mph
>Orbiting at 70,000mph around a sun that's orbiting at 450,000
>Earth's a sphere when the horizon is flat as fuck

The globe is the extraordinary claim, my friend. Always has been, always will be.

>>18953421

because flat earthers are on such an incredible level of retarded that they immediately taint the validity of anything just by proxy

Well, guys after going over all these posts I've really started seeing things in a different light. It just seemed like such a stupid thing to lie about but you guys seem to have it right, I'm not a flat earther myself.

But the real question I have now is ... why do they cover up the earth being flat? What's the benefit?

File: out.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

Good example of gravity aboard the ISS

>>18953448
Would love to know if this is legit. If so, thank you for considering our point of view.

>>18953452
What are we supposed to be seeing here? He's reaching out to steady him, because he's drifting left out of frame. Are we supposed to ignore all the clear weightlessness in the rest of the video?

This isn't a very good example of gravity on the ISS.

>>18953485

Tell me about your home life. Right fucking now little piggy. Oink for me like mommy did.

>>18953437
None of that is an extraordinary claim, though.

And furthermore, it's a claim corroborated by evidence. Indeed all evidence.

>>18953421
>all on board with the electric universe

Says who? Electric universe shit is as retarded as flat earth.

>>18950781
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDk5mlas_fg

>>18953498
They are weightless because they are equipped with harness and wires. Something goes wrong with the backflip and the astronaut top left grabs wire. Astronaut in bottom right grab the wire that comes out of pants from astronaut bottom left. They all react to what is happening

>>18953582
Or maybe he was reaching for his buddy so he didn't fly off and hit something
But his buddy pushed himself off the wall and back into frame.

Just go outside and fucking stare into the sun you will soon learn all you need to know faggot

>>18953582
I see neither wires nor harnesses. The guy in the right only hooks his finger in the guy's pocket. The only reaction is they're all smiling.

>>18953590
>>18953594

Look again. Astronaut bottom right is grabbing wire coming out from pants with his right hand.

>>18947349
Flat earth is probably a psyop....probably one of the many which came out during obama.....I think obama may have been an enemy of the people

>>18953614
Thats called a harness, its so he doesnt go flying off when he does anything in his fucking seat. You see when you go to push or pull anything there is an equal and opposite reaction. Your push will buth push that button and move you away from the button. On earth gravity usually keeps you steady, along with friction. In 0 grav you would push away. You cant even turn a door knob in space, the know would turn you. Keep on believing in whatever retarded shit you believe in though. Just dont breed. (lol implying you'd ever get your dick wet)

>>18953720
I'm rubber, you're glue... whatever you say to me bounces off of me and sticks to you

>>18953720
I love the rationalization when evidence of hoax hits you in the face

All I see is childish cuckery....inferior race, likely or something

>>18953614
I'm looking, there's no wire.
He's grabbing the pants themselves.

I understand that you're imagining their to be a wire, because you want the video to be fake. But it's not fake and there's no wire. This isn't evidence that there's gravity, it's evidence there isn't.

so stupid, so fail

"Sticks and stones can break my bones but names'll never hurt me"

Telenetwork is a fail corp

USA police state is a fail corp

>>18953760
Ok smart ass, explain exactly how his "wire rig" works to make him spin like that without showing the wires? Bluescreen? Magic? Lizard men who control our minds?

>>18953812
this is not "name-calling", but describing behavior

>>18953760
You are the worlds greatest argument to partial birth abortions

>>18953815
Its obviously just an exaple of levitation. These people are wizards

>>18953815
Also he's flipping at an even constant rate. If you were doing that on a harness it'd flip slow and then fast depending on where his center of gravity was.

>>18953865
spotted the reptilian shill

you know he's just displaying his power by actually levitiating right?

>>18953498
sorry buddy, but hair isn't drawn to the roof in 0G.
should acting morose as it would underwater, waving with moment of the body.
these cunts are upside down in gravity and i can point out more to prove it, mostly you can see by the way they hold their hands and posture, as if they are trying not to fall.

File: zero grav dog.gif (2MB, 155x118px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 155x118px

>>18953948
They're trying not to start rotating. In a micro-grav environment, there's little to counter momentum so small twists of the body produce constant motion.

>>18953948
>implying you couldn't just pull your hair up and leave it that way

Another vagina drying moment of failure in your pathetic life.

>>18953948
It's not being drawn to the roof, shit-for-brains.

She hasn't had a proper wash and shampoo in weeks, so yeah, it's just going to stick out.

>I can point out more to prove it

You haven't pointed out one thing yet. Just imaginary wires and harnesses.

>>18947349
>The Earth is Round

Actually, its spherical. An oblate spheroid.

learn to 3dgeometry

>>18954014
spheroids are round

>>18947510
theres this thing that we actually see further than the ''curve'' or the ''horizon'' because atmosphere reflects light, theres a term for that but too lazy to look for it.

>>18954028
refraction

>>18954020
theyre not round, they are fucking spherical you faggot

>>18954007
i'm not the anon that posed that that video or said about the wire, nor am i flat earther, but that clearly isn't 0g or there about, that is cunts chilling upside down.
look at the way the bags under their eyes are raised and prominent, look at the way their all squinting and rather red faced, as if they have more blood in their head than normal. their cloths clearly have stabilizing wires through them, so as to keep them from falling down or up so to speak, you can see by the way all the loose parts on their clothing are again drawn to the roof. 0g means only your movement should crate a force on any loose object around hair,cloths,jewelry they should not all be drawn to a common point on every person

>>18954055
Spheres are round, anon.

>>18954061
>as if they have more blood in their head than normal

Which is what you'd expect in zero g.

>stabilizing wires right through them

I'm looking right at them and there's no such thing.

There's nothing being drawn to a common point.

>>18954074
In fact if you just look at her necklace, it's completely floating around independently and it only reacts to her movement, it's not being drawn in any direction.

the earth is egg shaped and thats just a fact so deal with it

File: IMG_3359.gif (417KB, 500x279px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 500x279px

>>18953452
What is going on in this movie? Why does everyone look like they just took a big fat dose of Amphetamine?

>>18954086
Mmm, no, eggs are prolate, earth is oblate.

I don't know. Is he supposed to be grabbing a wire? Why bother faking zero G? Or shots of them eating food in zero G on thanksgiving? Seems ridiculous. I have doubts about the first moon landing. That was about the space race. But this just seems schizo.

>>18954109
That's a fold in his shirt, anon. Calling the file a "harness" doesn't make it a harness.

File: green.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>18954117
You are right, it is nothing

It's round, duh. We're in space. We've seen pictures of the round earth. No, it wasn't faked. That is ridiculous.

>>18954129
This is obviously video lag.

>>18947464
First post only post

>>18954129
>what are compression artifacts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEzhxP-pdos

>>18954063
circles are round
and a 2d circle could be considered to be "flat"
so saying the earth is "round" is an ambiguous statement in the context of an argument about "flat-earth"

Instead, using the correct term of "oblate spheroid" leaves no doubt of your meaning.

>>18947349
x(88:2.7) In olden times the fetish word of authority was a fear-inspiring doctrine, the most terrible of all tyrants which enslave men. A doctrinal fetish will lead mortal man to betray himself into the clutches of bigotry, fanaticism, superstition, intolerance, and the most atrocious of barbarous cruelties. Modern respect for wisdom and truth is but the recent escape from the fetish-making tendency up to the higher levels of thinking and reasoning. Concerning the accumulated fetish writings which various religionists hold as sacred books, it is not only believed that what is in the book is true, but also that every truth is contained in the book. If one of these sacred books happens to speak of the earth as being flat, then, for long generations, otherwise sane men and women will refuse to accept positive evidence that the planet is round.

>>18954231
>circles are round

So are spheres. They're even more round than flat circles.

"Saying the earth is 'round' is ambiguous."

But it's not wrong.

>>18954239
>one of these sacred books happens to speak of the earth as being flat,
that particular passage is referring to the "firmament" meaning the heavens, or more specifically, our solar system. which is more or less "flat" in that all the planetary bodies orbit along the plane of the ecliptic. except that one pesky planet whose orbit is somewhat tilted away from the ecliptic plane

>>18954248
>"Saying the earth is 'round' is ambiguous."
>But it's not wrong.

maybe not, but its foolish and irresponsible to use the term "round" when referring to the earths shape if you are arguing against a flat-earth retards logic

>>18954262
>they (spheres) are not round

>>18954265
A sphere (from Greek σφαῖρα — sphaira, "globe, ball") is a perfectly round geometrical object in three-dimensional space that is the surface of a completely round ball, (viz., analogous to a circular object in two dimensions).

>>18954258
88:2.8.The practice of opening one of these sacred books to let the eye chance upon a passage, the following of which may determine important life decisions or projects, is nothing more nor less than arrant fetishism. To take an oath on a "holy book" or to swear by some object of supreme veneration is a form of refined fetishism.
88:2.9.But it does represent real evolutionary progress to advance from the fetish fear of a savage chief's fingernail trimmings to the adoration of a superb collection of letters, laws, legends, allegories, myths, poems, and chronicles which, after all, reflect the winnowed moral wisdom of many centuries, at least up to the time and event of their being assembled as a "sacred book."
88:2.10.To become fetishes, words had to be considered inspired, and the invocation of supposed divinely inspired writings led directly to the establishment of the authority of the church, while the evolution of civil forms led to the fruition of the authority of the state.

>>18947349
If you look at the earth from a photon's perspective, then in the direction the photon is travelling, the earth is exactly
12,742,000 * ((1-1)^1/2) metres wide
this, of course, is 0
making the earth perfectly flat with respect to any observer travelling at the speed of light

>>18954279
>Urantia book
has anyone ever read the entire thing?
seems like it has alot of interesting analyses

>>18952675
more like explain reality with only the electromagnetic force

>>18953503
You have 0 evidence. The only "evidence" you think you have are NASA composite images that even NASA admits are composite images. Dumbfuck

>>18953415

>None of which would be a factor if we're talking about two points at the same height on a flat earth, right?

no it wouldn't. if the flag and telescope were at the same height it would be like passing light through the exact center of a lens. there would be no curve in the light because the angles to the normal incidents on both ends of the boundary would both be 0

>How exactly did they take these factors into account? Tilting the telescope up so it was no longer pointing at the flag?

the telescope and flag were raised higher off of the surface of the water by about 2 meters. the flag was not visible. through several other experiments on different days with different temperatures of water and air different results can be achieved. on days where you have optimal temperatures (where temperature differences are very low between the water and air above it, thus negating a lot of atmospheric refraction) the best you can measure is a curved earth that's about 15% less curved than
other more accurate measurements show.

>Still searching for some non-existent force when none is necessary...

jump off a roof, you'll feel it, if it wasn't there you wouldn't fall.

>Density is the driving force of buoyancy.

no it isn't because density doesn't create a force nor is it a force itself. The reason why things float is because the air around them is being pulled down beneath them by gravity. if gravity wasn't here they wouldn't be pulled down or pushed up, but rather float in the substance because there is no driving force for them to move.

>Gravity is an enormous supposition that still has no real explanation.

we have near flawless explanations for how it works, just not why. and you cant get the theory of gravity mixed up with the Law of Gravitation. They are not the same.

>>18954440
Mmm, nah. The ancient Greeks didn't have NASA photos, but they proved the round earth.

Also, just because they're composite images it doesn't mean they're not real. Dumb trash.

>>18953948

there is no benefit, by flat earthers logic the top dogs of the illuminati spectrum would make much more money if they exploited the infinite land on the earth disk rather than making it a secret.

that and so many people would have to be let in on the secret for society to not crumble that it wouldn't be much of a secret, and much more engineers, scientists and meteorologists would be flat earthers

>>18953437
none of that is extraordinary whatsoever. if you actually run the math (don't be afraid now) the perceived acceleration, even on the equator where it would be the absolute highest would be about 17-20 times less than an elevator ride. You wouldn't be able to feel it, but you can calculate it.

>>18953582
even the top of the line movie harnesses hand made for Hollywood blockbusters with HUGE budgets don't have nearly as much movement range or capability in such a confined space. and even in the movies they cant hide wires without a lot of post production.

>>18953948
contrary to your belief, hair grows straight out of your head, and when there's nothing holding it down it tends to stick straight out

>>18954440
please explain these at your earliest convenience.

1 why do storm systems spin
2. why do snipers have to compensate for curvature and spin of the earth/ Coriolis and Eotvos
3 Why do pendulums process the way they do in the north and south hemispheres and on the equator
4 how can there be several nigh infinite southern celestial poles?
5 how can the 24 hour sun work in Antarctica during the Winter Solstice
6 how on equinoxes does the sun rise in the east and set in the west everywhere on the earth when its geometrically impossible on the flat earth model?

>people constantly refer to the four corners of the earth
>a round earth would have no corners
QED

>>18954539
>everywhere on earth
I mean everywhere on the equator

File: tumblr_oozlrl9qvg1w6y3dfo1_540.jpg (60KB, 540x542px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 540x542px

Here OP, lemme just mathematically prove the earth can't be flat because the land can't be flat and a continuous disk.


https://youtu.be/kIID5FDi2JQ

>>18954539
>there is no benefit, by flat earthers logic the top dogs of the illuminati spectrum would make much more money if they exploited the infinite land on the earth disk rather than making it a secret.

Spreading out your slaves is a good way to lose your slaves. They like to keep us locked up tight in cities, and lead us to believe there's less land than there even is in your model.

>that and so many people would have to be let in on the secret for society to not crumble that it wouldn't be much of a secret, and much more engineers, scientists and meteorologists would be flat earthers

You obviously don't know how a hierarchy works.

>none of that is extraordinary whatsoever...

It's pretty extraordinary when you consider that the direction of these motions is in constant flux, unlike a linear example such as an elevator or an airplane.

>contrary to your belief, hair grows straight out of your head, and when there's nothing holding it down it tends to stick straight out

Now I know you're a shill. That hair looks like it could break bricks it's so solid.

>1 why do storm systems spin
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/azimuthal_equidistant=0.00,90.00,138

>2. why do snipers have to compensate for curvature and spin of the earth/ Coriolis and Eotvos
Prove that they do.

>3 Why do pendulums process the way they do in the north and south hemispheres and on the equator
Huh?

>4 how can there be several nigh infinite southern celestial poles?
What?

>5 how can the 24 hour sun work in Antarctica during the Winter Solstice
It doesn't:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18RKoYIu0GA

>6 how on equinoxes does the sun rise in the east and set in the west everywhere on the earth when its geometrically impossible on the flat earth model?
Please explain.

>>18954129
hahahaha holy shit are you being serious?

>>18955469
lmao what a obtuse faggot

>>18955511
Nice argument you have there my friend. Mind if I use it some time?

File: ESA_Earth_24609260915_a840b027e5_o.jpg (370KB, 700x466px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 700x466px

>>18955524
Lmao go for it faggot, I'm not going to argue with some one with his head so far up his ass he looks like Ouroboros. Keep living in that fantasy world where everything is a lie and the big bad reptilian ppl want to keep us from exploring the planet or what ever the fuck nonsense you are on about. Prove the earth is flat.

Imagine you’re at a Broadway show, and you see a spotlight shining on a lead actor. You can see the light beams hitting their face, yet you’re sitting in darkness. But on Earth, you can’t stand in an open area and then look off in the distance and see the neighboring land basked in light.

That’s because the Earth’s curvature creates distinct places where light can land, which forms the basis of timezones.

>>18950646
semantics

>>18955469
>Spreading out your slaves is a good way to lose your slaves.
we aren't slaves lol, you have no evidence of that, and even if you do I have much more evidence for round earth than you do us being slaves

>You obviously don't know how a hierarchy works.
so all engineers, pilots, scientists, ship captains, astronomers, meteorologists, avid shooters, construction workers and many more are all the hierarchy then?

>It's pretty extraordinary when you consider that the direction of these motions is in constant flux, unlike a linear example such as an elevator or an airplane.
yes that's what constant accelerations is. that's my point. it does feel like you are always accelerating the thing is that the acceleration is so small that you cant perceive it.

>That hair looks like it could break bricks it's so solid

its not though, there are plenty of videos of people in either real microgravity or faked microgravity aboard airplanes and their hair works the exact same way.

>https://earth.nullschool.net/#c

admittedly kinda cool looking but you have wind patters that are both moving clockwise and counter clockwise both in the northern and southern hemispheres, yet storm systems only spin one way in the north and south hemisphere.

>Prove that they do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX7dcl_ERNs

unless this product specialist at Gun Works is in on the secret which would bolster my point above that so many people would know it wouldn't be a secret
>Huh?

pendulums process in different directions in the northern and southern hemispheres, and don't process at all on the equator. explain.

>What?

>>18950682
pic related

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18RKoYIu0GA

saying "i haven't seen it myself so its not true" isn't an argument lol. Anyone can go to Antarctica on an expedition, you either have to be smart enough to be a researcher or have enough money to go with the researchers. even so it isn't an exclusive journey for the government elites.

1/2

>>18956116
2/2
>Please explain.
on the equator during the equinoxes the sun always rises directly to the east and sets directly to the west, which is impossible given the suns apparent path on the flat earth model. The sun would rise in the north east and set in the north west.

File: 1490547012249.jpg (423KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 1600x1600px

>>18955469
oh another question, how the fuck does light work like this

>>18955469
>24 h sun is only verifiable by Antarctica.

Nope. 24 h sun south of the antarctic circle is a verifiable fact. Anybody can go there and observe. This liar even included video of it in his video.

In fact Antarctic tourist season coincides with local summer, so it'd be hard not to.

You are part of NASA conspiracy and I will not listen to you because of that. The earth is flat.

File: jet streams.jpg (22KB, 518x292px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 518x292px

>>18956116
>admittedly kinda cool looking but you have wind patters that are both moving clockwise and counter clockwise both in the northern and southern hemispheres, yet storm systems only spin one way in the north and south hemisphere.

To be fair, that link IS how weather patterns work on Earth. The link just translates it to an azimuthal map. The FEtard just avoided your question completely. There was no answer as to WHY storms would spin this way on a flat earth. Because storms wouldn't work this way unless the Earth was a globe.

>>18954129
artifacts are now proof that the earth is flat and it's all a hoax mayne

neck yourself retard

>>18947349
this isn't an argument or anything just a question, since I don't have an opinion either way: how come I can't look out into the sea from my home in Virgina Beach and see all the way to Europe or Africa with my telescope if the Earth is flat? It stands to reason that I should be able see at least some of the islands in the Azores if that's the case.

>>18956413
d-did you read the post? read the post

r e a d t h e p o s t
e
a
d

t
h
e

p
o
s
t

>>18950769
Globeiacs won't respond because they can't handle the truth and therefore don't want or need you on that wall

File: flat earth distances 2.jpg (302KB, 1475x1104px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1475x1104px

>>18956641
I have REPEATEDLY asked for ANYONE to help me do this experiment. Are you offering your service?

It would be REALLY EASY to determine horizontal distances of land masses around the globe. From this we can start piecing together a map of true distances.

Where do you live, latitudinally? I'm just abve the Tropic of Cancer, so ideally it would be done with someone from the Southern Hemisphere.

>>18950769
>The stars move in a 24 hour cycle. You should know this as it is the same in the globe earth model.

If that were the case, and the earth were flat, then people in the northern hemisphere would see the same stars as those in the southern hemisphere. Also, as the post you're replying to discusses, people at different longitudes would be looking in different directions if they were looking south.

>it is difficult to say what an overall flat earth map would look like

It's literally impossible. By definition you have to distort shapes to go from a globe earth to a flat earth. There will always be errors. Just one more proof the earth is round.

However a globe is easy to construct, and it's incredibly useful for navigation.

>longitude works on a flat earth

No, it doesn't. You can draw lines radiating out of the north pole, this is what flat earthers substitute for longitude.

But in the real world, lines of longitude are at their greatest distance at the equator, but the distance between them gets smaller the further south of the equator you go. Because the world is round.

>>18957014
I dont like your latitude Mr

>>18957014
>If that were the case, and the earth were flat, then people in the northern hemisphere would see the same stars as those in the southern hemisphere. Also, as the post you're replying to discusses, people at different longitudes would be looking in different directions if they were looking south.

You can't see forever. Learn about perspective and vanishing points.

>It's literally impossible. By definition you have to distort shapes to go from a globe earth to a flat earth. There will always be errors. Just one more proof the earth is round.

Maps are drawn on a 2D plane. Always. They are then taken and shaped to fit a 3D globe but these are only for illustrative purposes.

>However a globe is easy to construct, and it's incredibly useful for navigation.

No one has ever navigated using a globe. That's retarded.

>No, it doesn't. You can draw lines radiating out of the north pole, this is what flat earthers substitute for longitude.

As I said, longitude is measured based on where the sun is at your location compared to where it is in your location of departure. This was only made possible to measure once accurate time pieces were invented. You can model these lines to whatever shape you want but that's not proof in itself.

>But in the real world, lines of longitude are at their greatest distance at the equator, but the distance between them gets smaller the further south of the equator you go. Because the world is round.

Again, you're using the globe as evidence for the globe.

File: 1491084462859.png (74KB, 400x270px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 400x270px

>>18957083
HURRRRRR


you are so fucking retarded just stop trying bro you are making your ancestors weep

/7 DON'T GO CHASING WATERFALLS THEY AIN'T THE RIVERS AND THE LAKES YOU'RE USED TO /7

>>18956116
>we aren't slaves lol, you have no evidence of that, and even if you do I have much more evidence for round earth than you do us being slaves

It just takes a little honest reflection to realise this.

>so all engineers, pilots, scientists, ship captains, astronomers, meteorologists, avid shooters, construction workers and many more are all the hierarchy then?

Now I know you don't know how a hierarchy works. In any case, please tell me how each of these professionals would come across evidence that the earth was either shape? I'm learning construction, for instance, and they glossed over the whole earth is really round stuff by saying it didn't matter on our scale. Even pilots are told that they wouldn't notice the curvature at their level.

>yes that's what constant accelerations is. that's my point. it does feel like you are always accelerating the thing is that the acceleration is so small that you cant perceive it.

I wasn't talking about acceleration, I was talking about constantly changing the direction of those great momentums.

I'll answer the rest when I get home tonight.

>>18957083
>>18957105
Are you willing to do my experiment?

>>18956673
>>18956673
>>18956673
>>18956673

File: dicklok2.png (464KB, 848x604px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 848x604px

>>18957105
This faggot is at work arguing about the earth being round

An excellent use of time.

>>18957083
>You can't see forever. Learn about perspective and vanishing points.

With an unobstructed view, sure you can. Furthermore, perspective and vanishing points have nothing to do with this topic.

You're still missing the point. In the southern hemisphere, at night, you can look due south and see the Constellation Octans. Everywhere at night. So people in New Zealand and Western Australia both look south and see the same object. But according to the flat earth map, they should be looking at different directions. And no, rotating stars don't have anything to do with it, since they can see octans simultaneously, despite their latitude.

>maps are drawn on a 2d plane

And maps are always inaccurate, unlike a globe which is 100% accurate.

>No one has ever navigated using a globe.

Thousands of pilots use the globe every day to plan their flight paths. That's why they always fly great circles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAsEVdhAss0

They might use a 2D representation of it on a computer screen for ease of use, but the model is still a sphere.

>You can model these lines to whatever shape you want but that's not proof in itself.

You can draw lines whatever shape you want, but they're not real lines of longitude.

So yes, you can use accurate clocks to determine your longitude.

Then you go to the equator and you measure the distance between one line of longitude and the next line of longitude, and it's 69 miles between them. Now go either north or south of the equator, measure the longitude, and you find that the distance between one line of longitude and the next is shorter.

If you're at the north or south poles, you can walk around all 360 lines of longitude with a few steps.

>>18957105
>engineers

Bridges need to account for the curvature of the earth for their spans. Engineering requires surveying, and any surveying takes curvature into account. Though it's true, they probably wouldn't bother telling the bricklayers about the curvature.

>pilots

Basic navigation requires understanding of the globe earth. Any pilot will also notice that the horizon drops below eye level with altitude. Determining eye level is very important for proper control of the aircraft. Why, even good pilots will notice their fuel loads will be less when flying east along the equator then when flying west, even if it's the same mass. Whoever told you pilots don't notice curvature is lying to you.

>Scientists

This is just basic observation and interpreting observations. Not to mention history of science. This is a joke,r ight?

>ships captains

Navigation. Both in planning great circle routes. Also competent ships captains should be able to navigate by the stars should the situation arise. Navigating by stars means understanding things like why polaris is not visible below the equator.

>astronomers

Again, basic star sightings. None of it makes sense on a flat earth. Also basic physics, like gravity. It's not just that the earth is round, anon. There's an important reason why it's round.

>meteorologists

Coriolis effect. They need to understand why vortexes spin differently in different hemispheres. Or for that matter, what causes the seasons.

>avid shooters

Both the coriolis and eotvos effects come into play with shooting accurately.

Now tell me, where do the heirarchy do these people rank? Are sharpshooters above or below meteorologists or pilots?

>I wasn't talking about acceleration but changing momentum

What do you think acceleration is?

>>18950769
Best answer I've received. Only answer I've ever received for that question. Here anyway.

>>18957168
Still not a valid answer though.

>>18957089
The laws of physics couldn't be the same thinking that there have been several species inhabiting the planet whether flat or sphere, sort of the same as how the red may look black to someone of seperate ancestry. There is a song in the temple with the lyrics "Do you see what I see" meaning everything is made up and the points don't matter when you remember not to act obtuse!

>>18957197
Could you rephrase that in English please?

>>18957197
FSHAGHSDHFASDFA


thats you thats how dumb you sound

>>18955548
lmao no response from >>18955524 unless he's prepared to argue that time zones are some grand conspiracy

File: REFLECTION2.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>18956357
Nasa shills out in force

File: 46d52b5b5cbb82ea0b30605e1035cbde08a500c66bf0a40da25fa4c942283a77.jpg (7KB, 215x234px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 215x234px

>>18947464
Definitely this.

I like making jokes with my friends that we actually believe in gay shit like flat earth. Can anyone give me a good meme video of a "flat earth proof hurrdurr" to link that we can make fun of?

>>18957321
Heres a vid making fun of another vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDk5mlas_fg

File: bushsr.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>18957321
Just youtube one of the following: ISS hoax, ISS harness, ISS water bubbles, NASA HOAX, Moon landing hoax, Neil Armstrong interview etc.

Quite a few laughs to be had.

>>18957325
I watched this after a link in a previous thread but this guy's a huge retard, and now youtube keeps recommending me a lot of alt right bullshit.

>>18957334
He's not alt right, he's just a skeptic. He goes after everyone

>>18957321
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iWq3McSfAI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk-z-XHvNqM&index=55&list=PLEY9dn5gvr6r3euEwfo3tYl-wPh8oYF2N

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObJL6aA2czo

>>18957352
No, he's definitely an alt right retard. He also picks off low hanging fruit like flat earthers.

>>18947349
If you were to approach the speed of light and pass by the earth and take a picture, the Earth would apear flat.
Either that, or slice the earth into pieces.

>>18957355
What about when he attacks alt right people?
The dude just hates Identity politics
He hates anyone applying a label to another group, like you are doing now.

>>18957355
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C9XO_Y77AY

Lmao faggot

>>18957408
>slurp slurp slurp

>>18957407
>dude just hates identity politics

That's the same shit all alt-righters say. Yes, even though it's hypocritical.

>>18957192
No it's not. Usually don't even an answer of this caliber.

File: IMG_3814.jpg (2MB, 3032x1986px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3032x1986px

Are the pictures from the ISS faked? Kek.

>>18957422
>hitler was a painter
All painters are nazis

LOGICAL FALLACIES
>>18957419
How did you know I was eating spaghetti

>>18957444
Obviously photoshop you can see where they combined the images in composite

>>18950858
Earth is not flat dipshit.
Case in point - volcanoes. If the Earth were flat, we would have no core. No core equals no fucking molten rock. No molten rock means no volcanoes busting a nut.
Now go eat a dick and choke on it.

>>18957445
>Hitler and Armored Skeptic

Well I don't know if Armored Skeptic is a painter, but they're both a couple of nazis.

>>18957449
You sir are a grade A dipshit

File: biblical flat earth.png (656KB, 838x945px) Image search: [Google]

656KB, 838x945px

>>18947349
bible biggest pill

>>18957453
>>18957462
To hard to wrap my head around so better start insulting. No wonder the globers are losing.

File: literallyeverycontradictioninthebible2.png (2MB, 3288x1344px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3288x1344px

>>18957470
is it?

>>18957508
complain about ad hominem all you want, my questions are still unanswered

>>18957449
where is that then, can you point that for us?

>>18957493
If these flat earths are right, how come they're all different?

Where is the giant snake in the sky? Why isn't there a giant tree at the north pole?

>>18957493
>Ancient people all thought the same thing based on their own senses and nothing more
>science marches on and we find that those assumptions are wrong
>proof out the ass
>LALALAL I CANT HEAR YOU

By around 500 B.C., most ancient Greeks believed that Earth was round, not flat. But they had no idea how big the planet is until about 240 B.C., when Eratosthenes devised a clever method of estimating its circumference.

It was around 500 B.C. that Pythagoras first proposed a spherical Earth, mainly on aesthetic grounds rather than on any physical evidence. Like many Greeks, he believed the sphere was the most perfect shape. Possibly the first to propose a spherical Earth based on actual physical evidence was Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), who listed several arguments for a spherical Earth: ships disappear hull first when they sail over the horizon, Earth casts a round shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse, and different constellations are visible at different latitudes.

Around this time Greek philosophers had begun to believe the world could be explained by natural processes rather than invoking the gods, and early astronomers began making physical measurements, in part to better predict the seasons. The first person to determine the size of Earth was Eratosthenes of Cyrene, who produced a surprisingly good measurement using a simple scheme that combined geometrical calculations with physical observations.

Eratosthenes was born around 276 B.C., which is now Shahhat, Libya. He studied in Athens at the Lyceum. Around 240 B.C., King Ptolemy III of Alexandria appointed him chief librarian of the library of Alexandria.

>>18957508
>globers are losing


Are we? Lmao how


Known as one of the foremost scholars of the time, Eratosthenes produced impressive works in astronomy, mathematics, geography, philosophy, and poetry. His contemporaries gave him the nickname “Beta” because he was very good, though not quite first-rate, in all these areas of scholarship. Eratosthenes was especially proud of his solution to the problem of doubling a cube, and is now well known for developing the sieve of Eratosthenes, a method of finding prime numbers.

Eratosthenes’ most famous accomplishment is his measurement of the circumference of Earth. He recorded the details of this measurement in a manuscript that is now lost, but his technique has been described by other Greek historians and writers.

Eratosthenes was fascinated with geography and planned to make a map of the entire world. He realized he needed to know the size of Earth. Obviously, one couldn’t walk all the way around to figure it out.

Eratosthenes had heard from travelers about a well in Syene (now Aswan, Egypt) with an interesting property: at noon on the summer solstice, which occurs about June 21 every year, the sun illuminated the entire bottom of this well, without casting any shadows, indicating that the sun was directly overhead. Eratosthenes then measured the angle of a shadow cast by a stick at noon on the summer solstice in Alexandria, and found it made an angle of about 7.2 degrees, or about 1/50 of a complete circle.

File: IMG_3813.jpg (54KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x333px

>>18957449
This too?

>>18957105
>honest reflection
sounds like a wish washy argument you can use that no one can prove right or wrong

>I wasn't talking about acceleration, I was talking about constantly changing the direction of those great momentums
so acceleration then. you are describing acceleration. its acceleration is how you change velocity of large objects, or small objects.

>Now I know you don't know how a hierarchy works

see >>18957155

He realized that if he knew the distance from Alexandria to Syene, he could easily calculate the circumference of Earth. But in those days it was extremely difficult to determine distance with any accuracy. Some distances between cities were measured by the time it took a camel caravan to travel from one city to the other. But camels have a tendency to wander and to walk at varying speeds. So Eratosthenes hired bematists, professional surveyors trained to walk with equal length steps. They found that Syene lies about 5000 stadia from Alexandria.

Eratosthenes then used this to calculate the circumference of the Earth to be about 250,000 stadia. Modern scholars disagree about the length of the stadium used by Eratosthenes. Values between 500 and about 600 feet have been suggested, putting Eratosthenes’ calculated circumference between about 24,000 miles and about 29,000 miles. The Earth is now known to measure about 24,900 miles around the equator, slightly less around the poles.

Eratosthenes had made the assumption that the sun was so far away that its rays were essentially parallel, that Alexandria is due north of Syene, and that Syene is exactly on the tropic of cancer. While not exactly correct, these assumptions are good enough to make a quite accurate measurement using Eratosthenes’ method. His basic method is sound, and is even used by schoolchildren around the world today.

Other Greek scholars repeated the feat of measuring the Earth using a procedure similar to Eratosthenes’ method. Several decades after Eratosthenes measurement, Posidonius used the star Canopus as his light source and the cities of Rhodes and Alexandria as his baseline. But because he had an incorrect value for the distance between Rhodes and Alexandria, he came up with a value for Earth’s circumference of about 18,000 miles, nearly 7,000 miles too small.

File: IMG_3651.jpg (40KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x399px

>>18957535
And this one also?

Why do they have Transpolar flights, If there's no North?

File: IMG_3872.png (385KB, 1200x400px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1200x400px

>>18957558

>>18957558
cuz the snake headed jews are trying to control our minds with thier wizardry the northern lights are the pulses of mind control waves

>>18957568
They even fly past, Antartica. Those CGI wizards.

>>18957568
I flew directly over the North pole a few years ago. GPS identified it as the north pole

>>18950546
Underrated post desu

>>18957568

Private planes can fly over the south pole, and there are a plethora of reasons commercial planes avoid it.

>>18951725
I'm not insane like you, but I actually tend to think that gravity doesn't exist, either — at least not as a particle. I much prefer Einstein's possible interpretation wherein gravity is the result of weird spacetime. It would make a lot more sense, as well as would help to explain how it seems to propogate over extreme distances instantaneously.

>>18957934
Gravity is a distortion of spacetime, not some particles.
The effects of gravity doesnt beat the speed of light either, that was a mistake in data some years back

>>18957934
>at least not as a particle
nobody thinks gravity is a particle, retard

>>18958011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

>>18957998
Ahh, okay, thanks! Still, I don't think it even really 'propogates' — more likely it just exists across all of spacetime.

>>18958011
This >>18958447 is what I was thinking about. A lot of people have made it a really big deal, and they think it's a thing.

>2017
>falling for the gravity meme

top kek

>>18950769
first off,
the earth spins on a 24 hour cycle.
the stars do not appreciably move on these time scales in the inertial reference frame.
however, since we operate on the rotating reference frame of the earth, the immobile stars are revolving with respect to us.

anyway,
any rotation must occur about an axis.
any stars directly in line with this axis would appear to rotate around their own current position.
this is the case with Polaris, known also as "the north star".
a flat earth model can account for this on a single pole by using the map shown in that image.
however, there is also a cluster of stars called the Octans constellation which is very close to the axis of rotation on the other side (south hemisphere)
it is impossible to account for both of these star clusters.

Maps are of earth.
Maps are flat.
By the transitive property, earth is flat.
Get fucked, dumbass.

>>18950869
you know, i was actually taking this dude seriously until 19:12 when he starts going on about creationism.
people with religious backgrounds have a LONG history of falsifying results.

>>18958622
>I have a picture of my cat
>the picture is s flat piece of paper
>therefore my cat is flat

wew lad

>>18953452
i see a pinky finger getting caught in the dude's pocket giving the illusion of grabbing a wire.

>>18957116
Do what exactly? Measure the distance between Sydney and Perth? Driving straight across the desert? No, I'm not doing that.

>>18957129
>perspective and vanishing points have nothing to do with this topic.

Yes they do. If the stars aren't a million trillion miles away then they're subject to the same laws of perspective as everything else. The more distant things get the smaller they get and the smaller the distances between objects. The vanishing point is where these are reduced to an infinitely small scale both above and below so that the land and sky seem to meet. If you have things like mountains in the way then you are obscuring much more of the sky than is obscured by it receding into indiscernibility. Honestly, most of what has been taken for centuries as proof of the globe is simply ignorance of the basic principles of perspective.

>And maps are always inaccurate, unlike a globe which is 100% accurate.

This is just wrong. If I'm surveying and recording that data onto a map, then that map is accurate. It's at least a hell of a lot more accurate than if I then take that data and transfer it to a globe.

>Thousands of pilots use the globe every day to plan their flight paths. That's why they always fly great circles.

So a pilot draws a curved line on his flat map. So what? Does it make any difference to the latitude and longitude of his starting point and destination? How is this anything but a reinforcement of the globe in the psyche of pilots?

>Then you go to the equator and you measure the distance between one line of longitude and the next line of longitude, and it's 69 miles between them. Now go either north or south of the equator, measure the longitude, and you find that the distance between one line of longitude and the next is shorter.

Cool. I assume you have done this then?

>>18957530
>By around 500 B.C., most ancient Greeks believed that Earth was round, not flat.
>It was around 500 B.C. that Pythagoras first proposed a spherical Earth

Talking out yo ass.

File: world-political-map-2000px.jpg (645KB, 2000x1479px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 2000x1479px

>>18959259
>This is just wrong. If I'm surveying and recording that data onto a map, then that map is accurate.
What he means dumbass is that a a map like this is not to scale, since its all stretched out to take the surface of the globe and make it into a re-presentable 2d image.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2596783/Why-world-map-youre-looking-WRONG-Africa-China-Mexico-distorted-despite-access-accurate-satellite-data.html


Motherfucker you are denser than the core of our planet

>>18959297
Jesus Christ. As I have been trying to explain to this other gentleman, the flat map comes first. An area is drawn on the local scale and this information is eventually compiled and a larger picture is formed. You don't start with a globe map, that's ridiculous.

File: 1493597404752.png (107KB, 430x160px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 430x160px

>>18959306
?????????

File: Fek.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>18947349
No idea why I lurk these threads.

>Flat earth
lol

>OP starts thread wanting to start an honest conversation about round Earth deniers
>Is instantly labeled a shill and thread is flooded with retards shitposting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPD6WpF6p3s

>>18959320
is that Kevin Owens?

Flatheart fags are people who never traveled far from home.

I traveled several times for work to japan and you can see how the sun follows you for 16 hours. Also time diference. Here is 9 AM and there is 9 PM.

This board is full of space dreamers who can't let go of their imaginary ufo's and aliens. Research flat earth.

>>18959306
>you don't start with a globe

No, you literally start with a globe, then you decide what sort of shape of surface you want to turn it into.

That's why they call it a projection. Some are rectangular, some are circles, some look like orange peels, and then the globe is projected onto these shapes.

>>18953302
You are the one making a claim here, though. If you had said "Prove the Earth is flat", that would be different because you are asking them to prove their claim.
You cannot make a claim and then say "prove me wrong", that isn't how arguing or logic work. The person making the claim is the one who must support their claim with evidence. I understand what your point is, but you're doing it in a really retarded way that shows you have no idea how real arguments work.

>>18959259
>The vanishing point is where these are reduced to an infinitely small scale both above and below so that the land and sky seem to meet.

Objects never become infinitely small until they get infinitely far away. Nothing will ever disappear below a horizon, unless the horizon comes between an object and the observer (for example on a curved earth). But that still does has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

>If I'm surveying and recording that data onto a map, then that map is accurate.

No. If the map is flat, then it will always be distorted. If it's a very small scale map, the distortion will be minimal. The larger it is, the more distorted it will be. In a mercator projection, everything at high and low latitudes is greatly distorted. In your flat earth map, everything is distorted and the further south you go the more distorted you get. Australia is not 8,000 miles wide as it appears on a flat earth map. This is a natural consequence of trying to map a round object on a flat map.

>So a pilot draws a curved line on his flat map.

It's only curved on a flat map, because flat maps always distort the shape of the earth. On a globe it's the shortest, straightest distance.

>So a pilot draws a curved line on his flat map.

Yes. Next time you're on a road trip you can do it yourself. A GPS will do the same thing accurate clocks will do but better. Your odometer can keep track of your mileage. You don't need to be at the equator, since every latitude has a different distance between longitudes.

>>18950550
If that was true, shouldnt we all be flat too?

>>18960274

Without even getting into the shape of the earth or any personal beliefs, wouldn't you say that if the scientific community and general public accepts something as fact, that the onus is on a person making a claim to the contrary to provide evidence of that?

For example, people assume that gravity exists. If a person then says "gravity does not exist," isn't it their burden to then offer reasons why?

>>18950628
No, spheres (or in this case, spheroids) are formed in space because it is the best way to have large amounts of mass with the smallest volume, according to the physics

File: ee.png (291KB, 774x484px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 774x484px

Follow the buzzards

>>18960276
>Objects never become infinitely small until they get infinitely far away. Nothing will ever disappear below a horizon, unless the horizon comes between an object and the observer (for example on a curved earth). But that still does has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Seriously dude, read up a bit on perspective. Here, read this:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/613725/a-formula-for-perspective-measurement

As I said, this means that far distant objects will be obscured to a much greater extent by closer obscurants such as mountains or the accumulation of atmosphere you'll get over many many miles. Try to find me a place on earth where these things do not exist.

>No. If the map is flat, then it will always be distorted. If it's a very small scale map, the distortion will be minimal. The larger it is, the more distorted it will be. In a mercator projection, everything at high and low latitudes is greatly distorted. In your flat earth map, everything is distorted and the further south you go the more distorted you get. Australia is not 8,000 miles wide as it appears on a flat earth map. This is a natural consequence of trying to map a round object on a flat map.

Do you honestly think that surveyors and cartographers draw their maps up on giant globes? They'd need to be pretty huge if they were drawing larger scales, and I guarantee you, this is how all maps begin: at a local scale. Smaller scale maps are then compiled from the collective data of a bunch of connected larger scale maps and things like world maps can be drawn. They don't start with your sacred, perfectly accurate globe and then make shitty inaccurate flat maps from it. What you're saying is nonsense.

>>18960276
>It's only curved on a flat map, because flat maps always distort the shape of the earth. On a globe it's the shortest, straightest distance.

What I'm saying is it doesn't matter what shape you draw, it's not going to have any actual effect on your heading which will be based on your latitude and longitude.

>Yes. Next time you're on a road trip you can do it yourself. A GPS will do the same thing accurate clocks will do but better. Your odometer can keep track of your mileage. You don't need to be at the equator, since every latitude has a different distance between longitudes.

I'm sorry, I don't have any perfectly straight east to west roads where I live.

>>18960308
>wouldn't you say that if the scientific community and general public accepts something as fact, that the onus is on a person making a claim to the contrary to provide evidence of that?

>argumentum ad auctoritatem
>argumentum ad populum

You should be deciding your own truths my friend. No one can do that for you.

>>18957536
>sounds like a wish washy argument you can use that no one can prove right or wrong

It would take a lot of time and effort and tl:dr for me to prove this to you. In short, it goes something like:
>You have no birthright
>You must pay taxes
>You must earn a certain kind of money to pay those taxes
>There are people who control the distribution of that money
>There are people with so much of that money that you could never hope to compete with them that way
>You are allowed to vote in arbitrary ways where your voice is so comparatively small that it is never heard
>Your "representative" government doesn't actually represent you or anyone else
>There are levels of social hierarchy that ensure that our fellow slaves keep us in check, in the same way that the house negro kept watch of the field negro (speaking of which, the white overseers who kept a lookout for black slaves were themselves forced to do so by the government)
>We have shifted from a religious slave mentality through Christian institutions to a scientific slave mentality through public education and bullshit, belittling theories of existence that hold no ground to any decent theological system.

>so acceleration then. you are describing acceleration. its acceleration is how you change velocity of large objects, or small objects.

Yes, I stand corrected. Could you please explain to me how I have this concept so wrong then rather than nitpicking my terminology?

>>18957300
>>18955548
How come you people are always arguing about how we can't comprehend things at such a grand scale as the size of the earth and shit like that, and then you turn around and use the dumbest analogies on a completely unrelated scale? You see a sunrise far off in the distance. Some things are lit up, some are not. Depends on what the light can reach. It's not like a top down spotlight. That's stupid.

On the flat Earth model the Sun is just going around in s circle right. So if that is the case, as it would be with the moon, why are they the only two objects in existence that do not appear smaller when they are further away and larger as they get overhead? Also how can the sun rise from the horizon? Bonneville flats is a good place to see how it actually rises. The reason it appears to do this is because it actually is coming around the corner, or from beneath the horizon if you will. Example, Lay on your back and have a buddy move a ball across your view the way the sun would move on a flat Earth. Notice how it appears smaller as it comes from the side and larger as it is above you. Now take the ball in your hands and extend your arms. With your arms extended above the ball from side to side. Notice how it remained the same size. Fin!

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

546KB, 720x576px

>>18962303

>>18947349
>1. No Bible

only one man 200 years ago used the bible to make an argument about the shape of the world.

File: African Sun.webm (606KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

606KB, 720x576px

>>18962342
Fuck it, here comes a webm dump!

>>18960308
>If a person then says "gravity does not exist," isn't it their burden to then offer reasons why?

Yes, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM, LIKE YOU DID WITH THIS TREAD.

I put that in all caps in hopes that it might help it sink in to that little brain of yours, since you still can't seem to grasp anything I've said.

IF YOU MAKE A CLAIM, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE

That's it.

It's so fucking simple, I can't believe you aren't comprehending it.

File: chinese bubbles.webm (2MB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x576px

>>18962415

File: circumference_eratosthenes_500px.jpg (74KB, 500x647px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 500x647px

flat earthers please explain the shadows if it's flat

>>18962369
That's great, but these all just show flare, not the actual disk of the sun.

>>18960308
>>18962395

The real truth is that there is no "burden of proof". It's just a phrase invented by scientists to hold others to their own standards of evidence, when they are also the champions of those standards. This is why you can't argue theology with a scientist; because they can't accept being beaten purely on logical grounds. They'll say, "Oh yeah? Where's your proof?" when there are things that simply can't be proven empirically, and things that can be proven non-empirically.

What they fail to realise or admit is that they themselves will take on beliefs that have not been proven to them directly, and they'll take them up on faith. This is when you hear someone say "Well the scientific consensus is that [insert claim]", or "Are you saying that all scientists are in on the conspiracy?". There is an assumption here that scientists are trustworthy and that if an untrue claim is made by a scientist then another scientist will instantly swoop in and correct it before any serious damage is done. Never mind that scientific consensus is constantly changing, that different scientific fields are usually at odds with each other or that we have to trust someone else to tell us that there is a consensus at all in the first place. Never mind that by "peer reviewed" they mean approved or denied validity by a body of scientists whose own scientific work and reputations will be on the line when new discoveries are made and the old ones shown false. Never mind that your own scientific heroes were victims of this authoritative dismissal when they first tried to get their ideas out there. Never mind that the nature of public discourse is now far more monopolised than ever before in history with the mass media belonging to a very small number of people. Never mind that science is funded almost entirely by the military and by corporate interests who have ever reason to hide any truths that harm them and perpetuate any lies that help them.

>>18962518
math is a hoax

>>18962519
Yes, a big flare that shrinks into a tiny pinprick then disappears completely.

>>18962174
There's nothing in that link that contradicts what I said.

Object B will never obscure object A unless object B moves between A and the observer.

>Do you honestly think that surveyors and cartographers draw their maps up on giant globes?

I don't think cartographers draw maps the way Long John Silver draws Treasure Island. I think surveyors and cartographers take down coordinates. And if they do make a 2D map of it, they always take into account the curvature. That's why you'll sometimes see crescents or long triangles of terrain that's simply blank, because they have to distort the 2d to match actual data.

And no, they don't just take a bunch of small maps and stitch them together to make a globe. Fucking retard.

>>18962538
Put a filter on the camera. Then the flare goes away and you only see the disk of the sun. Which does not change in size as it moves through the sky.

>>18962518
The fact that you can't figure this out myself tells me that you're not smart enough to think any further than what you're taught.

Our sun is not 93,000,000 miles away and its rays are not parallel by the time they reach Earth.

>>18962545
Before it disappears above the horizon?

>>18962539
You said:
>Objects never become infinitely small until they get infinitely far away.
Wrong. They will become infinitely small at the vanishing point.

>Nothing will ever disappear below a horizon, unless the horizon comes between an object and the observer (for example on a curved earth).
There will always be things on the land-side of the horizon that obscure the sky-side, i.e. terrain and atmosphere.

>And no, they don't just take a bunch of small maps and stitch them together to make a globe. Fucking retard.

No, they take the data taken by many many local surveys and piece that together. Of course they don't stitch together the actual maps. That'd be silly. Please explain to me how they go about constructing a world map then?

File: trainvanishingpoint.jpg (246KB, 1024x811px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1024x811px

>>18962548
>its rays are not parallel by the time they reach Earth.

Incorrect. The sun's rays are demonstrably parallel when they reach earth.

>>18962554

The sun does not appear above the horizon. The sun moves down below the horizon, always maintaining the same size it did at local noon.

>They will become infinitely small at the vanishing point.

Only if the object is infinitely far away. Pic related. This train is at the vanishing point. It has not disappeared.


>There will always be things on the land-side of the horizon that obscure the sky-side

Nope. Unless the 'land object" is between the sky object, it won't obscure it.

>how does cartography work

Well they go out to different points of land and measure the latitude and longitude and usually a bunch of other data like altitude.

This process is called geodesy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesy

Perhaps you've heard of the term "geodetic survey" before. Perhaps you've gone out and actually scene the markers that the cartographers and surveyors cement into the ground. Now all this data describes the surface of a sphere, or more specifically, an oblate spheroid, even if they don't make a physical globe. Cartographers and surveyors always take the globe into account.

Now if they want to make a 2d map, then first they have to figure out what sort of projection they want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection

That is, any kind of 2d map will distort the data. Do they want the continents the right shape and not care about their relative size? Do they want the right sizes and not care about the shape? Do they want one specific part of the map to be very accurate at one point, and very distorted the further you get, like your "flat earth map" (that, btw, was made from a projection of the globe). Do they want the final result to be a perfect square? A rectangle?

Well whatever shape you want, you distort the latitudes and longitudes the way you want, and then you plot the data.

>>18947349
Actually it's a sphere

>>18962639
That is a funny joke.

>>18962605
>Incorrect. The sun's rays are demonstrably parallel when they reach earth.

How so? The variance in shadow length at different locations seems to prove otherwise.

Only if the object is infinitely far away. Pic related. This train is at the vanishing point. It has not disappeared.

>This train is at the vanishing point. It has not disappeared.

Are you just fucking with me man?

>Well they go out to different points of land and measure the latitude and longitude and usually a bunch of other data like altitude.

Yes.

>Perhaps you've gone out and actually scene the markers that the cartographers and surveyors cement into the ground.

I'll do you one better, I've actually used both dumpys and laser levels. Those are nailed into the cement by the way, so you can use a plumb to anchor your level to the same point if you need to go back there. They don't cement them into the ground, that's just silly.

>Now all this data describes the surface of a sphere, or more specifically, an oblate spheroid, even if they don't make a physical globe. Cartographers and surveyors always take the globe into account.

Okay, I'm sure that you'll admit that in your model of the Earth, the amount of curvature at the local, practical level is negligible, right? Even over an intercontinental journey, the curvature is more or less completely unnoticeable. So when they tack on the equation for curvature its only real practical purpose is to draw a map onto a globe.

>like your "flat earth map"

Hey man, I never said anything to validate that map. If anything I've been arguing the inadequacy of any world map projection for any practical purpose. You can twist the data any way you want to fit whatever assumptions you want. You believe that the globe is real so you twist that data to accommodate the curvature. This has very little bearing on reality one way or another. It only affects your worldview which is what filters your perceptions in the first place.

>>18962530
You honestly make a lot of good, valid points in your second paragraph, but...

>The real truth is that there is no "burden of proof". It's just a phrase invented by scientists

...all this bullshit is absolutely retarded.

The term "burden of proof" was not "invented by scientists", it was created by philosophers/logicians to describe one of the rules of forming logical arguments. Logic wasn't invented by scientists, scientists follow/abide by logic (or at least they're supposed to, but as you pointed out they often don't)

So the burden of proof is very real, it's just that scientists do still sometimes commit this fallacy. They are human just like the rest of us, after all.

>>18963029
>You honestly make a lot of good, valid points in your second paragraph,

Thank you, you're very kind.

>The term "burden of proof" was not "invented by scientists", it was created by philosophers/logicians to describe one of the rules of forming logical arguments.

You're right in that I did make a pretty baseless assumption there. As far as I can google though, it's originally a legal term, which I feel pretty stupid for not realising before as it makes a lot of sense in a legal perspective. If you can show me a philosophical basis, I'd love to see it. My argument though, which I forgot to put in that last post, is that the real burden of proof belongs to the one who is seeking truth. If you're accusing someone of a crime and trying to convince others of this then of course you must substantiate your claims, but if you're just making claims then you are free to do so without providing evidence. It's up to the individual to decide what they think is true and what is false. Everyone has to make sense of the world within their own paradigm and within their own standards. To claim that someone else has not met a certain standard of truth is to say that that standard is the ultimate standard and that everyone else must abide by it.

>Logic wasn't invented by scientists, scientists follow/abide by logic (or at least they're supposed to, but as you pointed out they often don't)

Yes, to a certain extent. They've more or less based their entire method for discerning truth on the wild assumption that real truth lies in the world of perceptions. When science was still referred to as natural philosophy, it was considered an avenue of investigation, not the be-all and end-all. Science ignores its own logical foundations which assert that a truth can be proven a priori, based upon its own merits, without any external proof. If this is not true then logic is not true and thus science has no basis.

File: article-0-12AFBAE9000005DC-60_634x369.jpg (33KB, 634x369px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 634x369px

First colour picture of earth

>>18963014
>how so

The half moon is directly overhead at dawn/dusk. Thus the suns rays are parallel over the distance between the sun and the moon. Therefore, over smaller distances, the suns rays must also be parallel.

Pic related.

>are you just fucking with me?

No, you just don't know what a vanishing point is. The train is on the vanishing point. Note the traintracks. It's a point on a 2d image where parallel lines appear to converge, that's all.

>even over an intercontinental journey the curvature is more or less unnoticeable

To the naked eye? Maybe. To decent maps? No. Even over the United States, flight paths are curved due to being great circle routes. The flightpaths are actually straight, it's the map of the U.S. that's deformed.

>I've never said anything to validate that map

You're a lying little weasel and you're trying to ahve it both ways. If you've got a better flat earth map, either post it or eat shit.

>>18963095
>If you can show me a philosophical basis, I'd love to see it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

The specific term "burden of proof" did originate in law like you said, but the concept it is based on is at the foundation of formal logic. Any logical argument is made up of premises and a conclusion that follows from them. Making a claim without providing premises isn't an argument, so it isn't even worth considering. That's how logic works (to put it extremely simply) and logic (which is a branch of philosophy) is the basis for the practice of law (which is why many philosophy graduates go on to law school). But the point is, making a claim without providing evidence (or premises) is nonsense, and we shouldn't entertain nonsense.

>if you're just making claims then you are free to do so without providing evidence

Anybody can do whatever they want in regards to anything. The point is that when you are arguing for something, you need to provide evidence or premises for your conclusion. If you don't, whatever you're saying isn't an argument, it's just a worthless statement.

Saying "The Earth is round" doesn't matter when your goal is to convince people you are correct, which is what OP was trying to do. When you want to convince people that a statement is true, simply stating the statement is not how you go about doing it.

>To claim that someone else has not met a certain standard of truth is to say that that standard is the ultimate standard and that everyone else must abide by it.

That's exactly what logic is, dude. You should really educate yourself about it. It's extremely useful not only when having discussions with people, but just thinking about things on your own. Understanding logic helps you sort out your thoughts a lot more clearly, and it also helps you recognize when people are feeding you bullshit, which is extremely common. Once you learn about logical fallacies, you'll start seeing and hearing them everywhere.

>>18963240
>Once you learn about logical fallacies, you'll start seeing and hearing them everywhere.

And then once you're done with your philosophy 101 class and have ordered your fedora, you'll simplify what you've learned to the point of misunderstanding as you begin to "school" other people by misattributing logical fallacies. lol

(I'm just fucking with you man. I'm new to the thread, but at a glance, haven't seen any explicit bullshit on your part. But the sentiment of that quote is often flung by college students who think they have become the all-knowing authority on a particular subject just because they've taken one class. Philosophy in particular: we see the ramifications online all the time.)

>>18963120
>Posts a picture of the Earth from the Moon as proof of the globe.

Do you realise what we're even arguing here?

>The train is on the vanishing point. Note the traintracks. It's a point on a 2d image where parallel lines appear to converge, that's all.

No, the train is obscuring the vanishing point. Converge in this context means meet, as in where parallel lines appear to meet. Not where parallel lines appear to not be parallel. That would mean that everywhere was a vanishing point.

>To the naked eye? Maybe. To decent maps? No.

A decent map would be one which was of a large enough scale that it was practical for navigation purposes. In terms of planning a flight, a world map would be alright just to get a gist of what latitude and longitude you were aiming for, of course you would still need a large scale map to know where the airport was. No pilot is looking at a map of the world or even of a country and plotting their course then saying "that's good enough for me" and taking off with just that to guide them.

>You're a lying little weasel and you're trying to ahve it both ways. If you've got a better flat earth map, either post it or eat shit.

Show me where I said that the azimuthal equidistant was correct. I'll say it again: I don't trust the accuracy of any world map. They're not practical and they're subject to bias in the way that they're drawn.

>>18963240
>The specific term "burden of proof" did originate in law like you said, but the concept it is based on is at the foundation of formal logic. Any logical argument is made up of premises and a conclusion that follows from them. Making a claim without providing premises isn't an argument, so it isn't even worth considering. That's how logic works (to put it extremely simply) and logic (which is a branch of philosophy) is the basis for the practice of law (which is why many philosophy graduates go on to law school). But the point is, making a claim without providing evidence (or premises) is nonsense, and we shouldn't entertain nonsense.

But again, you're holding the expression of opinion to a set of standards when such a standard is limiting to the expression of truth. Take the "ancient quarrel between poetry and philosophy" that Plato discusses. Poetry, and art in general, makes claims about the world just the same as philosophy but it does so in away that avoids arguments and attempts to strike right at the audiences heart. There is much to learn about the world that cannot be argued in any formal manner. Things that must be experienced to be understood, and if they cannot be experienced then the next best thing is artistic expression. We're getting way off topic here now though.

>Anybody can do whatever they want in regards to anything. The point is that when you are arguing for something, you need to provide evidence or premises for your conclusion. If you don't, whatever you're saying isn't an argument, it's just a worthless statement.

What is the point of an argument? Is it to convince the opposing party? Then yes, you will have to provide some sort of proof that will override their existing opinion. Is it to convince a third party that has no stake in it one way or another? Then it is up to them to decide which of the arguments is more valid. The burden of proof then lies with them because they are the ones doing the work of proving.

File: hadley mtn survey marker.jpg (1MB, 2039x1533px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2039x1533px

>>18963014
>Those are nailed into the cement by the way, so you can use a plumb to anchor your level to the same point if you need to go back there. They don't cement them into the ground, that's just silly.

Control points are usually an aluminum cap hammered onto rebar that is driven into the ground. The cap is then indented with a nail to give the exact point of measure. Temp control points are either a finishing nail on the top of a foot-long wooden stake, or are hammered into the cement/asphalt with a mag nail.

What anon was talking about is pic related. This is a geodetic marker, and they need to be as motionless as possible. This is absolutely done the vast majority of the time with cement: bore a hole in street/boulder/bedrock, place the rebar and cap, fill with cement, if you can't get the cap flush then fine-tune position and support with rocks so it doesn't wiggle while the cement is drying.

File: surveyor mark.jpg (92KB, 600x397px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x397px

>>18963476
Because I'm bored - here's a pic of a standard control point to see the difference. Aluminum cap on a piece of rebar hammered into the ground. Much less stable, and a lot more temporary - even though a good control point still takes about a 1/2 hour to solidify its location. This one appears to be marking boundaries - either property or just the USGS grid.

File: magnail survey mark.jpg (766KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

766KB, 1600x1200px

>>18963509
And here's what flatanon was likely thinking of. A magnail is a reinforced nail (they look neat, check em out) designed for hammering into cement/asphalt. The proper way is to put a little ring around the nail to make it more visible, but we often just folded up some of the ribbon and had the nail pierce that and the cement.

they can work for control points in urban environments, but even then they are hard to adjust and much easier to dislodge. We would prefer to break through the asphalt/cement and place rebar and cap if the point was going to be permanent.

My guess is flatanon is/was a construction worker and used points for local leveling. I note no mention of using a theodolite or "the gun" as every surveyor I know has called it.

>>18963476
>>18963509
>>18963526

"I stand corrected!" said the man in the orthopedic shoes.

>>18962280
>It's not like a top down spotlight. That's stupid.
Because the sun rays are hitting a globe, not a flat plane. If it was hitting a flat plane it WOULD be like a fucking spotlight

>>18962605
>The sun's rays are demonstrably parallel when they reach earth.
You dont know what the word RAY means do you dumb fuck? It means it CAN NOT BE PARALLEL, as the space between one ray and the other will increase over time

>>18962605


They are not sent in any parallel order, they're sent in every possible direction! The ones that are intercepted on earth's surface, correspond to a very small solid angle, for which all rays can be considered roughly as parallel.

File: stewie.jpg (68KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 400x400px

im BEEEEEAAAAACK

>>18962254
id like to point out that this small strawman has turned into a full on strawman argument that has nothing to do with the earth being round, keep on topic. your argument has become "i feel like a slave so everyone's a slave" which is retarded. I work for my own benefit, not anyone elses. my motives are straight for me. everyone else can burn and die, as long as im making money i dont give a shit.

>>18962342
>>18962369
>>18962376
>>18962382
>>18962385
all either cutting down on the flare of the sun or taken in such humid environments that the moisture in the air effectivly cuts down glare and makes the sun appear to shrink the closer it gets to the horizon. And for anyone who says "but its in a desert and its dry" an arid desert is not a "dry" desert and most of those are taken in arid deserts given by the landscapes. If it was due to the dryness of the air then the same thing would occur in the Atacama Desert, also known as the driest desert on earth. but it doesn't.

>>18962390
great except the atmosphere doesn't act like a magnifying lens. water droplets in the air don't work like a large convex lens either. you would see major distortions in other objects in the sky as well as in terrestrial objects in the distance, which you dont.

>>18962393
>tinyfov.webm
>horizonisntateyelevel.webm
>literallyprovesnothing.webm

>>18962397
an even smaller fov. great. OH AND A BIBLE VERSE, EVEN BETTER HAHAHAHAHAH

>>18962404
quite obviously pressing something either on or in the box. In statics this is called a couple and it creates a moment around the point of the couple. In kinematics this moment causes an angular acceleration about the couple, which is exactly what you see happen in the video. you can demonstrate this while underwater if you let enough air out of your lungs to not float up or down then trying to twist a fixed horizontal ladder pole or really anything for that matter, albeit its going to happen slower due to increased resistance