Thread replies: 159
Thread images: 47
Thread images: 47
Anonymous
/Flat Earth Debunk/ general 2017-07-25 06:52:19 Post No. 19346229
[Report] Image search: [Google]
/Flat Earth Debunk/ general 2017-07-25 06:52:19 Post No. 19346229
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Last thread: >>19330642 →
As per usual, no Flat Earth advocate in the last thread was able to present a mathematically sound equation or reproducible experiment which denies, undermines, or overturns modern understandings of physics, cosmology, and geography.
ITT I propose a few friendly suggestions:
>No gish gallops. Ten point maximum for the ease of ongoing discussion.
>No deflection. If you think a notion is false, don't change the subject, undermine it by presenting your math, experiments, and findings.
>No well-poisoning. Yelling about shills, jews, freemasonry, w/e, is only a diversion when asserting the mathematical or experimental soundness of a given postulate.
I'm going to post some YT links, and five images. I invite any Flat Earther to refute any single one of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeMooNFtFJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ0EKJWyl_g
>>
>>19346229
Also last thread:
>>1934061
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQoz5iWPrbs
>>19340619
>>19340626
>>19340650
>>19340927
>>19341088
>>19341116
>>19341148
>>19341179
>>19341222
>>19341261
>>19341439
>>19341398
>>19341433
>>19341457
>>19341439
>>19341447
>>19341536
>>19341545
>>19341583
>>19341676
>>19341785
>>19341880
>>19342630
>>19342659
>>19342804
>>19342821
>>19342900
>>19343069
>>
>>19346240
For astronomical/cosmological phenomena:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1837
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102
Gravitons have always been theoretical until we can devise an experiment that parses them.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/2/1/001/meta (exists, obviously, but WHAT it is is up for grabs. Take a shot at explaining it and get famous if you can).
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v7/n7/full/nphys2025.html?foxtrotcallback=true
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/quasar-astronomy-daniel-w-weedman/1100950747?ean=9780521356749
>>
>>19346248
https://www.metabunk.org/crepuscular-angles-and-the-flat-idea.t7360/
https://www.metabunk.org/lake-balaton-laser-experiment-to-determine-the-curvature-of-the-earth-if-any.t7780/
https://youtu.be/_4DqAnEpD98 [Embed]
A man on the shore of a lake uses a telescope to watch a helicopter hovering over the opposite shore 6 miles away. The helicopter descends towards the ground and disappears from his view while still in the air. It ascends again, becomes visible to the observer, and reports an altitude above the lake of 24 feet at the point that it appears 'level' with the horizon.
Interestingly, 8 inches x miles squared returns exactly 24 feet of obscured height at six miles. Or using the earth curvature calculator, 24 feet and 1/164th of an inch.
See the table here: >>19340842
>>
>>19346229
Why do the moon phases go about with a curve if not due to the spherical shape of earth casting a circular shadow on the moon?
>>
File: IMG_1383.jpg (82KB, 900x773px) Image search:
[Google]
82KB, 900x773px
>>19346229
>>
>>19346255
Assertions for proof of geocentricity, refuted:
>>Sagnac expirement,
How?
>airy's failure
AFAIK this only undermines luminiferous aethyr so maybe EXPLAIN how it refutes heliocentricity.
>michelson morely expirement
Yet another experiment refuting luminiferous aethyr which I cannot clearly as refuting heliocentricity without YOUR help, if you're willing to parse it out with me.
>>balloon observations
OP of last thread had a high altitude observation with no fisheye that showed curvature.
>failure of foucalt pendulum replication
>>19340618
>there being a great deal of Foucault pendulums active throughout the world
>failure of cavendish replication
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgWaYng2eRg [Embed]
>AP Physics C students at Bishop O'Connell High School in Arlington County, Virginia recreate Henry Cavendish's famous 18th century experiment demonstrating the force of gravity on a small scale.
>cgi,composite nasa images
That proves nothing other than they use non photographic representations for illustrative purposes.
>disproves gravity as a force
Show me.
>>
>>19346264
>>19340798
Refutation of gravity as density:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMIglW-hlVs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XJcZ-KoL9o
>>
>>19346264
The Michelson morley expirement was poorly conceived and did little to actually disprove the existence of aether... Which is why now they like to use the term "quantum flux" so they don't overtly sound like back stepping idiots. The aether is real, all radiation is the transverse byproduct of the longitudinal coaxial circuit that is the source. Gravity is not due to any particle. It is the lack of an electromagnetic field, or the void left by an increase in electromagnetic field coherence.
>>
>>19346325
>Gravity is not due to any particle. It is the lack of an electromagnetic field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
>>
>>19346377
Linking the wiki to a pulsar does nothing to refute me. A pulsar has rediculously high field coherence which means a very large EM void at its center. All while moving extremely fast through the galaxy. As the pulsar moves the EM void is filled in... And there you have "gravity waves". You need to go study basic things like magnets
>>
File: 647c45ce3b84c4deaeeb8300541e58c2.jpg (17KB, 320x179px) Image search:
[Google]
17KB, 320x179px
>>19346377
>>
>>19346449
>does nothing to refute me
>>Gravity is not due to any particle. It is the lack of an electromagnetic field
>A pulsar (from pulse and -ar as in quasar)[1] is a highly magnetized, rotating neutron star or white dwarf, that emits a beam of electromagnetic radiation.
>Their magnetic fields are between 108 and 1015 times as strong as that of the Earth. The gravitational field at the neutron star's surface is about 2×1011 times that of the Earth.
>very large EM void at its center
>In rotation-powered pulsars, the beam originates from the rotational energy of the neutron star, which generates an electrical field from the movement of the very strong magnetic field, resulting in the acceleration of protons and electrons on the star surface and the creation of an electromagnetic beam emanating from the poles of the magnetic field.
>>
File: 396e97261c9049b87c9dc4d3fbe239d5.jpg (52KB, 426x809px) Image search:
[Google]
52KB, 426x809px
>>19346377
Show one observational proof of pulsars existing
better yet do the same for gravity and I'll show you a thousand debunking it.
Nasa and space agencies are fakes.
Earth is flat.
Check for yourself.
>>
>>19346475
It seems you do not understand what field coherency is? Again nothing you said conflicts with what I'm saying. Look into what a ferocell is and look for yourself the shape of a magnetic field. Where are auroras located on earth? The bigger and stronger the EM field the bigger the EM void at its center. Imagine spinning the water inside a bucket, what happens?
>>
>>19346475
Seriously lad go investigate how a magnet actually works, most people have zero clue. Don't fall for the "Virtual particle" jew, you may as well believe in tinkerbell. Go get a ferocell and a guass meter and look for yourself, take the readings.
>>
>>19346454
Not sure if serious but,
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/68507/does-heat-affect-the-magnetic-field-of-an-electromagnet
>>
bump for assmad flatwits
>>
File: imagepastednasaearth.jpg (115KB, 1100x650px) Image search:
[Google]
115KB, 1100x650px
>>19346264
>That proves nothing other than they use non photographic representations for illustrative purposes.
Can you find a (((REAL))) picture of earth??
Why do we donate billions every year for CGI/FISHEYE LENS shots of earth???
>>
shills getting toasty
>>
>>19346325
Please elaborate why m-m ain't true.
>>
>>19346454
Charged particles change depth due to convection. Coriolis effect makes those particles swirl around the earth's axis. The result is a huge electromagnet. You can also check dynamo theory.
>>
File: timezone.jpg (50KB, 564x564px) Image search:
[Google]
50KB, 564x564px
>>19346229
Just look at the timezone on a flat earth map. Works just the same.
>>
>>19349745
Neat.
Not proof of FE tho.
>>
File: sunraylogic.jpg (53KB, 720x720px) Image search:
[Google]
53KB, 720x720px
>>19349749
More neat stuff that helps my case.
>>
>>19349752
How does showing the earth at one specific angle of the year, with temp bands which imply the entire tropic zone is more or less equally heated through the whole year cycle, help your case?
>>
>>19349762
The suns rays don't discriminate if the sun is huge and 93 million miles away... so why is it only certain portions of our tilted axis receive higher temp?
That pic shows the different solstice movements the sun makes, which creates the heat signatures as shown.
>>
File: dogcam.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search:
[Google]
3MB, 1280x720px
>>19349762
>>19349792
This footage shows the true locations of the sun (without measuring the cloud-rays to its destination point) which is revealed from the small hotspot below the orb.
The true height of the sun is about 3000 feet high.
And this footage didn't require a 60mil a day NASA budget.
>>
>>19349792
If the sunlight hits the Earth at an angle, it has to pass through a greater thickness of atmosphere. The equator is the hottest at the surface because the smallest amount of light is being absorbed by the upper atmosphere.
>>
>>19348040
I am willing to bet that we could sit down and look at the hundreds of thousands of pictures taken from space and you would just declare all of them to be CGI/faked, because to admit otherwise would mean your entire delusional view of the world would crashing down.
>>19349792
What the fuck is that image even supposed to be proving?
>>19349801
The "small hotspot below the orb" is the light reflecting off of the COAST of the Baltic sea. IF you look closely, the back edge is irregular. Because it's bordered by land that doesn't reflect as much light. Is this really the best evidence you have?
>>
File: Angular difference.png (69KB, 647x361px) Image search:
[Google]
69KB, 647x361px
>>19349792
>The suns rays don't discriminate if the sun is huge and 93 million miles away
They sure don't.
Good thing the Earth is on an tilt and reaches both terminal angles in the course of a year.
Here's a neat experiment you can try. Turn your oven on low. Hover your hand over the burner so you can feel the heat and not hurt yourself. Start angling your hand at intervals; forward angle for a few seconds, back angle for a few seconds.
You should be able to feel most of the heat concentrated toward the center, with the fingertips and bottom palm feeling cooler.
By what mechanism does Sol in the flat earth model migrate up and down latitudes, and why does this conflict with observations of the solar angle in the sky on equinoxes and solstices?
>>
File: nocurve.jpg (311KB, 2000x1333px) Image search:
[Google]
311KB, 2000x1333px
>>19349818
>NASA's astronomical figures always sound perfectly precise, but heliocentrists have historically been notorious for regularly and drastically changing them to suit their various models. For instance, in his time Nicolas Copernicus calculated the Sun’s distance from Earth to be 3,391,200 miles. The next century Johannes Kepler decided it was actually 12,376,800 miles away. Issac Newton once said, “It matters not whether we reckon it 28 or 54 million miles distant for either would do just as well!” How scientific!? Benjamin Martin calculated between 81 and 82 million miles, Thomas Dilworth claimed 93,726,900 miles, John Hind stated positively 95,298,260 miles, Benjamin Gould said more than 96 million miles, and Christian Mayer thought it was more than 104 million! Nowadays they have settled around 93 million for the time-being.
>>
>>19349829
This does not explain the mechanism of Sol's migration up and down latitude, but thanks for repeating yourself.
>>
>>19349823
>science updating their findings and offering fresh takes with new methods is bad
If this is an argument against the standard model, the why is the distance from the earth's surface to Sol under so much contention in FE models? Last time I asked about that they said it was a developing model and there was no consensus, but science not having a completed model with varying perspectives through time was BAD.
>>
File: eesacgi.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search:
[Google]
3MB, 1280x720px
>>19349834
Thanks for playing, try again soon!
>>19349837
Great point, why is it nothing but ridicule if I hypothesize that the sun is smaller and closer than previously estimated? Is it possible science is currently wrong and this model will be proven correct within this generation?
NASA and other space agencies are the source of all things OUTER space. If they are proven liars, as is most government agencies, how does that effect our judgement of what is real?
Science is the pursuit of truth: The ultimate skepticism of what works and what doesn't. I'm not sure how it turned into this condescending religion of sorts.
This FLAT EARTH theory would be a lot harder argument if NASA/EESA wasn't so full of shit. Basic observation is an amazing tool we can use to prove this.
>>
>>19349829
You should see the sun at night in this model.
>>19349745
The sun should be crescent shaped in this model. You should still see it at night.
>>19349858
Even if nasa and other space agencies are lying, why are you supporting a theory based on untested and unconfirmed and generally bad hypotheses that cancel each other out? Maybe people would start to take flat earthers more seriously if they used some of applied science. The way things are working out for you now is that people reasonably think you're full of shit.
>>
>>19349858
>Thanks for playing, try again soon!
Thank you for this detailed and painstakingly researched breakdown of why Sol rotates freely above the surface of earth migrating between the tropics.
>hypothesize
That's fine, now present to me the full mechanisms of the hypothesis and the experimental methods by which we can verify it?
Because one method would be measuring the angular difference of the sun at the same point inside -90 and 90 lat. at the solstices, which has already been observed and graphed, compared to both the 3000 and 6000 FE model, with a diagram of the 3k model (iirc) here: >>19349819
>>
File: locallight.jpg (57KB, 564x752px) Image search:
[Google]
57KB, 564x752px
>>19349886
Its perspective, the sun rotates in a circle and leaves sight.
https://youtu.be/LjvtmzbEgm8
>>
>>19349916
But that video actually refutes your position as the arctic also has six months of night and should be visible at all times at all locations if it were as close as and movements constrained as the FE model asserts.
>>
>>19349916
You don't seem to understand, even if lightbulb does cast light on limited area, you still see the lightbulb itself. Your could be barely valid for darkness, but not for seeing the sun.
>>
>>19349924
>>19349925
>10 minute video
>Posts 4 min into video to argue
Why not finish the video? You want proof and an explanation? You're absolutely right, the sun sets on may 17 and not seen again on the horizon until july 21
>>
>>19349951
>You want proof and an explanation?
Yes, and your vid just makes baseless assertions with zero experiments and math, arguing against nonscale illustrations, to assert correctness.
>>
>>19349925
Horizon perspective and layers of particles(dust etc)+humidity in the air, takes care of it making you unable to see it past some point, making it look like it merges into the horizon/goes under it, when infact it doesnt, just focused inwards with a high amount of blur(humidity and particles) layers.
>>
>>19349959
>Horizon perspective and layers of particles(dust etc)+humidity in the air, takes care of it making you unable to see it past some point, making it look like it merges into the horizon/goes under it, when infact it doesnt, just focused inwards with a high amount of blur(humidity and particles) layers.
Post your optics and trig proving this.
>>
File: flatearth12pm.png (1MB, 844x879px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 844x879px
>>19349957
>arguing against nonscale illustrations, to assert correctness.
Its footage and visual logic. How is the midnight sun explained on a globe model?
>During Arctic summer, from the 22nd to the 25th of June, at a high enough latitude and altitude, you can watch a phenomenon known as “the Midnight Sun” where the Sun stays continuously visible in the sky for 3 days straight! The “Midnight Sun” rises on the 22nd and for the next 72 hours never disappears from sight, slowly ascending and descending every 12 hours, showing 3 brilliant “sunsets” and “sunrises” without ever actually setting below the horizon. If the Earth were actually a spinning globe revolving around the Sun, the only place such a phenomenon as the Midnight Sun could be observed would be at the poles. Any other vantage point from 89 degrees latitude downwards could never, regardless of any tilt or inclination, see the Sun for 24 hours straight. To see the Sun for an entire revolution on a spinning globe at a point other than the poles, you would have to be looking through miles and miles of land and sea for part of the revolution! Anyone below the 89th parallel could never witness the Sun for 72 hours, 3 whole revolutions, straight because to do so would be to assume you are somehow seeing “through the globe” and to the Sun on the other side! Since such an assumption is ridiculous, and yet the Midnight Sun can clearly be seen as low as the 65 parallel, this is another absolute proof that Earth is the flat, stationary center of the universe.
>>
All flat earth 'photgraphy' proving the earth is flat is all CGI and photoshop by flat earthers to prove the Earth is flat so they can cover up that the Earth is round so they can get rich off stupid people.
>>
File: hqdefault.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search:
[Google]
17KB, 480x360px
>>19349978
Pls you cant be serious..
>>
File: superjones.gif (3MB, 480x350px) Image search:
[Google]
3MB, 480x350px
>>19349997
Cool argument
>>
File: 40104127_443dcff9e0.jpg (17KB, 500x379px) Image search:
[Google]
17KB, 500x379px
>>19349978
These are fake pics, it cant be real, surely... right?
>>
File: Golden-Gate-Bridge-fog.jpg (231KB, 1024x768px) Image search:
[Google]
231KB, 1024x768px
>>19349978
Omg impossible! How can humidity, fog and other particles that are in the air be layered and compressed into the horizon making them swallow the light, due to horizon perspective over distance?!
>>
File: horizon-line.jpg (47KB, 400x296px) Image search:
[Google]
47KB, 400x296px
>>19349978
This cant be how it works, can it?
>>
>>19346229
>able to present a mathematically sound equation or reproducible experiment which denies, undermines, or overturns modern understandings of physics, cosmology, and geography.
Science board is that way, sir.
>>
File: images (2).jpg (8KB, 225x225px) Image search:
[Google]
8KB, 225x225px
>>19349959
>>19350003
>>19350025
>>19350036
>>19350054
Someone please confirm or deny this anon... it cant be real, right..?
>>
File: tumblr_inline_nlq6oti9291s1btgh_400.png (128KB, 396x330px) Image search:
[Google]
128KB, 396x330px
>>19350141 anon here
Debunk this debunk too please
https://youtube.com/watch?v=PqFN-_xwyF8
>>
File: perspectives.jpg (215KB, 1280x720px) Image search:
[Google]
215KB, 1280x720px
>>19350141
>>
lol
drink it up drinkkkkkk
saying this is cia psyop is trying to convince me the US federal government is NOT comprised of a bunch of bumbling idiots.
I get it - it's scary when you realize you're smarter than your "protector" with the big club.
lol
>>
>>19346454
thats fucking dumb. exactly as dumb as you would expect from someone using image macros as arguments
>>
>>19346485
lmao, try to debunk the infographics posted above then. should be easy if the earth is really flat. we are waiting. no dodging accepted
>>
All of this is just perspective, knowing perspective...it's just what you believe you're seeing. I could take some hallucinogens, think some shit, and see it. doesn't mean its true. PERSPECTIVE!
>>
>>19349858
>if I hypothesize that the sun is smaller and closer than previously estimated?
But you dont. At least show some numbers and a coherent line of thought/reasoning how you got to that conclusion
>>
File: sacred geometry.jpg (256KB, 640x640px) Image search:
[Google]
256KB, 640x640px
I bring you a geocentric world without borders.A world wide civilization united again.
>>
>>19349916
wait, but you could see the lightbulb from every point on the wall. You just btfo your own argument, lmao
>>
>>19350236
>>As per usual, no Flat Earth advocate in the last thread was able to present a mathematically sound equation or reproducible experiment >>which denies, undermines, or overturns modern understandings of physics, cosmology, and geography.
Here's a clue - flat earth doesn't have to disprove modern understandings of physics, cosmology, and geography. The premises of this AND the last thread are flawed. You ...just "wont" get it. I mean, you are physically incapable of consideration of the absurd.
Roundearther brain's EXPLODE to AMURGUFRDS JESUS NEVER RODE DINOS.
...It's...like watching a bible thumper convention.
if this IS a psyop - it's only to point out devoted zealot group think mentality is fucking DANGEROUS.
>>
>>19349959
>making it look like it merges into the horizon/goes under it
zhis doesnt make sense tho. Simple trigonometry shows that it would "vanish" many degrees above the horizon if the earth was flat. Yeah, but I know nobody will try to adress this, because you trolls know that math is hard to bullshit your way around
>>
>>19350269
>WEE DUNT GOTA PROV NUFFINS
>WEE DUNT GOTA PROV NUFFINS
>WEE DUNT GOTA PROV NUFFINS
>The premises of this AND the last thread are flawed
How you keep saying you have proof. Post it.
>You ...just "wont" get it.
Oh, just like last time, huh? Am I too dumb or too unworthy?
>>
>>19350279
>question that you're too dumb
>already too dumb
>glhf
>>
>>19350275
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj0oHz9Dezs&feature=youtu.be&t=13m38s
>>
>>19350269
>blah bla bölah
So you are unable to adress the flaws with the FET pointed out by these graphics. It doesnt even have anything to do with "modern physics", most of these flaws are demonstrated by simple math, logic and how they contradict natural observation.
You CANT refute those graphics. Thats not my fault. You are simply unable to do so. And hiding behind bullshit and condescending sperg-outs wont fool anyone
>>
File: sunheight.jpg (36KB, 640x426px) Image search:
[Google]
36KB, 640x426px
>>19350262
>>19350266
See
https://youtu.be/sb5kDVdPx84?t=304
>>
>>19350292
>posts just a yt link like someone with no own argument
Ok, but where does it adress the point I made? Are you going to adress the gaping hole in the flat earth theory or is this going to be ignored again?
>>
>Flat earth theory
>using real evidence
pick one.
>>
File: curvelol.jpg (81KB, 959x720px) Image search:
[Google]
81KB, 959x720px
>>19350309
Nice argument
>No deflection. If you think a notion is false, don't change the subject, undermine it by presenting your math, experiments, and findings.
>>
>>19350298
>convergent sun rays
>equal divine opposits
This isnt an answer to anything I said. Where are the formulas and experiments? Any numbers? How does that make the wall analogy any smarter? Are you able to express a coherent thought or are you going to resort to retarded images and yt links if you get nervous again?
>>
>>19350297
...well for starters graphic 6 fails to mention the rotation and circurcumference of the sun/moon precession changes dynamically with the seasons. whoppity doo da
The rest of the graphics are all fucking over the place haphazardly. Post them all on your next reply and I'll answer them.
>>
>>19350314
>Nice argument
It is. Something having no real evidence is a strong case against it
>>
>>19350314
>>19350321
Guys the argument i present is the fact that all im seeing from flat earthers is the fact they can take pictures and show a flat line. I could go outside and do that.
>>
>>19346229
>starts a thread about flat earth
>n-no talking about Freemasons!
why even make the thread, desu
>>
>>19350320
So the sun and moon change their circumference and rotation rate? Ok. How does that affect the points made in that graphic? At what rate do they change? For example, what is the exact circumference and rotation rate of the moon in may as opposed to november?
Sorry, but I dont think you really refuted the central point by just mentioning some vague thing about seasonal change
>The rest of the graphics are all fucking over the place haphazardly
well, how?
>Post them all on your next reply and I'll answer them
I am talking about the ones posted itt
>>19346270
>>19346264
>>19346255
>>19346248
>>19346240
>>19346229
>>
>>19350302
wat?
The vid clearly shows the refraction present in either FE or RE models causes things to sink below the horizon...
I guess my point was you don't need math...I suppose we could take the observable and slap math on top of it...but I don't see how this "proves" the observable.
>>
>shoot a flat earther into space
>???
>profit
>>
>>19350275
>>19350302
....
>>19350292 video
Literally answers your question.
>>
>>19350327
Show me how Freemasony has ANYTHING, at ALL to do with FE.
Be sure to cite historical sources, and not that goofy infographic which asserts Pythagoras, a man born over a thousand years before even operative Freemasonry, was a Freemason.
>>
File: flat earther.jpg (2MB, 2340x4160px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 2340x4160px
>>19350344
Well, what we observe clearly contradicts what is described by the flat earth theory. If the sun spins in a circle above the flat earth, it is not expected to see the sun sink below the horizon every single day. If atmospheric obstruction is the reason we dont always see the sun, then we should see the sun vanish mid-air, at least sometimes.
>>19350350
no, it doesnt. And I dont have a question. I point out a gaping hole in your theory and you are unable to adress it
>>
File: distort.jpg (36KB, 662x364px) Image search:
[Google]
36KB, 662x364px
>>19350338
>>>>19346270
For diagram #1:
Phew - I'm glad these southern points on the map are all on different time zones...I.e....one's night, one's day, one's...in the middle. - otherwise the claim that they can all see Octans "at the same time" would be pretty strange...regardless of RE or FE model.
Stars closer to the "edge" are distorted severely in my mind. I've never been south of the equator. I can say ... I believe the "southern" planisphere is probably accurate to a degree. To test this graphic either way we need a test - observatories or individuals in south africa, argentina, and australia...all studying the southern sky.
>>
>>19350428
uhhh 15 degrees looks ok.
22 degrees looks ok...
I don't see the "hole" in the argument. Different areas on earth will be at different angles relative to their position from the sun at different times.
Also - around the equator the earth is "24,901 miles" so....the "border would be...a lot bigger than your 11250 miles.
Seems like you've put a lot of faith in what "FE believers" have told you..but uh...like I've said before - there is no consensus on an FE model ...but certainly - it has to be larger than "15000 miles"
>>
File: sky00s90.gif (22KB, 657x544px) Image search:
[Google]
22KB, 657x544px
>>19350429
>I.e....one's night, one's day, one's...in the middle. - otherwise the claim that they can all see Octans "at the same time" would be pretty strange...regardless of RE or FE model.
Yeah, the circumpolar stars are there whether or not day/night renders them visible or washed out from sunlight.
>Stars closer to the "edge" are distorted severely in my mind.
Prove it. Show me a "distorted" photograph of the SH sky.
>To test this graphic either way we need a test - observatories or individuals in south africa, argentina, and australia...all studying the southern sky.
Good thing we have thousands of them! And that sky was used for centuries to navigate both native and colonial explorers!
>>
>>19350465
>there is no consensus on an FE model
>screams and cries and bitches and shitfits when science updates it's findings
Ok, so tell us what your favorite model is and we'll go from there.
>Different areas on earth will be at different angles relative to their position from the sun at different times.
Sol always rises due East for every observer on earth on the Equinox. This is, so far, impossible on every single FE model I've ever seen.
>>
File: diengin.jpg (58KB, 540x583px) Image search:
[Google]
58KB, 540x583px
>>19350429
For diagram #2:
This is also disingenuous. The model is closer to the one attached. The claim that somehow the sun lights up "exactly half the earth" is playing to retards to keep slurping up bullshit.
...sooo.. #2 is pretty bad bud
>>
>>19350483
>The claim that somehow the sun lights up "exactly half the earth" is playing to retards
But it is half day and half night.
How does Sol behave light a spotlight? Does it have a lampshade?
>>
>>19346229
You know when (((they))) make goys argue about non-issues like tranny rights or faggot rights or [insert "oppressed" group] rights purely so you won't ask any important questions that actually matter? That's basically what flat earth shills are and the ego stroking "intellectuals" who "debunk" it are the worst goys around.
I just wanted to let you know you're retards.
>>
>>19350556
>my rights are rights
>others' rights are "boutique issues", "irrelevant", and "the problem"
Precious.
>>
>>19350483
#3 - Show me some southern polar navigations.
I mean this one is pretty easy to verify either way....buuuut there's a large lack of evidence traveling the southern oceans...
I found all these dating back to the 7th century:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions
But I guess the first guy to circle antarctica was in ...1982
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Sanders
>>
>>19350575
>#3 - Show me some southern polar navigations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4V5PYO9wWw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxgYnTKkvyg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSz2xzIyCzI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaIiw0uKE-s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ghEOD6iD_Y
>buuuut there's a large lack of evidence traveling the southern oceans...
http://theconversation.com/why-im-spending-three-months-sailing-right-around-antarctica-for-science-67782
http://www.acronautic.com/antartica-cup-ocean-race/
https://lisablairsailstheworld.com/antarctica-cup/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7v3HBkdpE8
>>
>>19350575
Oh...I answered #4 unknowingly...
#5 is easiest explained(at least by their diagram) by there existing a third body in the sky that isn't observable normally. ...mmm I forget the name but it's talked about in history.
The other one would be...again - no consensus on the models. In the FE model - Why can't the sun and moon travel at different speeds of rotation? Why are they on the same axis? Right - because if we loosen these fixed "axioms" you can't really dispute it anymore...
>>
>>19350591
Also - #6 is plain retard math. East and west lie along the lines of latitude - i.e. those pointing arrows??? they should curve. ...something this guy clearly forgot to account for. Seriously. Waste of fucking time.
I'll be back later. I gotta go smoke some ribs...
>>
>>19350591
>Oh...I answered #4 unknowingly...
Where? How?
>mmm I forget the name but it's talked about in history
Very convenient for you, but I guess we should all just unquestioningly believe you, hm?
>>19350591
>no consensus on the models. In the FE model
>>19350482
>>there is no consensus on an FE model
>>screams and cries and bitches and shitfits when science updates it's findings
>Ok, so tell us what your favorite model is and we'll go from there.
What about the eclipses?
The moon takes 27 days to orbit earth once.
I mean Sol and Luna, if they were on the same track on an FE model, had differential speeds, they'd be knocking into each other.
Please, please, PLEASE, instead of just saying shit, but out a calculator and SHOW US how the infographics are wrong.
>>
File: tmp_20996-ballin70560659.jpg (2MB, 1481x1481px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 1481x1481px
>>19350404
are they paying you well, anon? I imagine being paid to shill /x/ is pretty comfy
>>
>>19350603
>they should curve
What? Why?
It just illustrates the banking problem noted in the first vid, that compass directions would change if you move in a straight line, which they never do.
>I'll be back later
Hopefully with some math rather than argument from incredulity.
>>
>>19350611
>>19346229
>>No well-poisoning. Yelling about shills, jews, freemasonry, w/e, is only a diversion when asserting the mathematical or experimental soundness of a given postulate.
>>
>>19350642
How did you know I love and collect schizoid infographics?
>>
File: main-qimg-25b7d44b0c45e1a4aba6d8a8fe9715b9.png (15KB, 450x296px) Image search:
[Google]
15KB, 450x296px
>>19349986
It might help if you used a diagram that shows the sun's rays hitting the earth straight on instead of deliberately using one that depicts it coming in at a tight angle from a small, close body in keeping with FE belief.
>>19350269
But you do, because in essence you're claiming that all of them are based on faulty or falsified premises in order to make your position tenable.
>>19350298
Third time's the charm....
https://www.metabunk.org/crepuscular-angles-and-the-flat-idea.t7360/
>>19350575
First to circumnavigate Antarctica would be James Cook's expeditions. Sanders was first to solo.
>>
>>19349818
>I am willing to bet that we could sit down and look at the hundreds of thousands of pictures taken from space and you would just declare all of them to be CGI/faked, because to admit otherwise would mean your entire delusional view of the world would crashing down.
This is what I was saying in the last thread. There's no discussion to be had because they can't accept even one point on the round Earth side, or their entire narrative falls apart, since it's predicated in "all evidence not supporting FE is fake."
>>
>>19350465
>uhhh 15 degrees looks ok.
>22 degrees looks ok...
How is it "ok". It is a giant fucking contradiction, since we would expect at least 0degrees since the sun goes under the horizon. Feel free to give me any other numbers, but anybody who is at least a little bit mathematically literate should see, that any reasonable circumference would still end up with the sun never going below a certain angle in the sky
>>
>>19350483
So you dont believe that roughly half the earth has day/night? Really? Literally the whole world is lying about the times the sun rises/sets at their respective locations? Thats really your refutation here?
>>
>>19350744
lol - it's ok cause the math with his numbers are "ok"
It's like you can't imagine how a tiny flaming ball could disappear from your view on a flat plane as you and it drift further apart.
What's vanishing point mean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_point
>>
>>19350883
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
>>
>>19350883
You are dodging the problem I pointed out. Why doesnt the sun "vanish" above the horizopn?
>he math with his numbers are "ok"
present it then please. Or give me the "correct" numbers and I show that there will still be a similar problem
>>
>>19351029
uhh it doesn't.
horizon is the vanishing point. what the fuck
>>
>>19346229
>dat continental distortion
proves everything wrong
>>
>>19349829
So what is keeping someone from doing a trans south pol crossing by plane?
South American to Say, Australia
>>
File: Screen Shot 2017-07-26 at 14.22.08.png (427KB, 991x730px) Image search:
[Google]
427KB, 991x730px
>>19351120
>>19350758
also this
>>
>>19351120
>>19351130
so what we need to do is find someone with money, buy a drone, and send it over the south pole from australia, and land it in South America, or vice versa
>>
>>19351153
Even simpler.
Participate in the Antarctica race, and if it takes less than 78,000 miles (circumference of FE according to the FE society), you've proved it's NOT flat (approx 11,000 miles in circumference for Antarctic coast according to RE, 14,000 miles in the yacht race as it doesn't hug the coast that closely).
>>
>>19351178
that tough sailing brah, I know the tea clippers did the southern pass in the 19th century but still...
ok, perhaps x would benefit from becoming sailing bums, good community overall and a great way to get off of the internet and learn something cool
pro sailing has plenty of news outlits covering races, so we just need to find one that fits what we are looking for
>>
Here is the problem with sphere theory. We all know that the earth APPEARS flat from our frame of reference. If the earth was spherical, for this illusion to occur would require the earth to be really really big.
A sphere is the most perfect 3D shape imaginable. Entropy tells us that a sphere, much less an enormous one, could not possibly exist for very long before disentigrating.
Physicists tell us that if an average eight ball, in all its smoothness, were scaled up to the purported size of the spherical earth, it would have imperfections greater in magnitude than Mount Everest and the Marianas Trench. And we are to believe that somehow, miraculously, a gigantic ball of almost perfectly spherical rock has survived the doldrums of space for billions of years?
Viewing the Earth as a thin, flat sheet, on the other hand, magnifies its imperfections due to the increased surface area to volume ratio. Suddenly it doesn't look so perfect. That's in line with the proven scientific theory of entropy.
>>
>>19351276
physicists actually don't tell us that 8 balls are not as smooth as the earth. they are smoother than the earth. please provide a source.
https://youtu.be/mxhxL1LzKww?t=14m41s
Entropy has to do with disorder increasing infinitely, and it does not contradict the idea of the earth as being a sphere. in fact it has nothing to do with the way matter is held together in the universe. the earth is not a perfect sphere, it is the easiest shape for matter to clump together and form. that's why all heavenly bodies past a given mass are spheres; they couldn't hold together otherwise.
please describe what happens in your model of physics when a large sphere somehow exists. how does it disintegrate, and how would it act? where does the matter go in space instead of the shape it just was?
>>
>>19351318
for the youtube link go to 14:41 if you don't already
>>
File: 51485MXMPGL._SX287_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (34KB, 289x474px) Image search:
[Google]
34KB, 289x474px
>>19350404
you're basically asking someone to give you a quick rundown of over 2000 years of occult history.
To cut it short.
Caesar got "god" power from king of Pergmon Attalus. He passed these powers on to Augustus, who both fiddled the caledar, which controls peoples minds
The god powers are descended from Babylonian kings who were overthrown by the last Jewish Messiah Cyrus , but claimed descent from Nimrod..
The Talmud and Kabbalah is implicated in freemasonry, as are the corpus hermeticum and ancient egyptian texts that date from pre bronze age collapse.
Nimrod is a figure in Freemasonry, and they utilize baylonian symbolism to align world order along their astrological design which reflects the views of ancient Babylonian priesthood who worshipped Baal/Moloch and sacrificed children to.
Look into it mang.
>>
>>19351455
>you're basically asking someone to give you a quick rundown of over 2000 years of occult history.
I highly doubt you have a handle on that history, but lay it on me, mate.
>Caesar got "god" power from king of Pergmon Attalus.
That ignores the entire history of astrotheology in the deep past.
>The Talmud and Kabbalah is implicated in freemasonry
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
>>
>>19350428
>according to flat earyhers the sun can never be above 15 degrees
this is a false claim.
Further, I will point out this math is rather appropriate, and reflects the steps flat earthers themselves are taking to understand this pickle we got ourselves in philosophically and socially.
>there is no consensus on an FE model
the fact is we admit this, which is why we are trying to raise awareness to develope better measurements with this model. But at least we don't claim the sun is 3 million miles away with no way of checking, and later claim it's 93 million miles away, and act like that's not a huge error.
at this moment we're just trying to tell people about NASA and the fakery they produce for billions in tax money, and understand the whys.
If you wanna know the science of it, try posting a thread in /sci/ and watch what happens.
you'll be banned, and you'll end up back here questioning why you were banned for posting trigonometry.
>>
>>19351497
>the fact is we admit this, which is why we are trying to raise awareness to develope better measurements with this model. But at least we don't claim the sun is 3 million miles away with no way of checking, and later claim it's 93 million miles away, and act like that's not a huge error.
How can you be this disingenuous about model development?
Disprove the math here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQoz5iWPrbs
It calculates solar distance using basic high school trig. You can follow along, and if you can refute anything, please post the corrections of the math
>>
File: 509dd1c280b3a812f1057ccb8aedc9d1.jpg (52KB, 540x540px) Image search:
[Google]
52KB, 540x540px
>>19351463
>That ignores the entire history of astrotheology in the deep past.
no it doesn't...at all,
you just haven't made the connection in the powers of the pontifex maximus from today back to the founding of Babylon.
>babylon founded by Nimrod
>Persia conquers babylon from Belshazaar under Cyrus
>Ishtar priests leave and settle in Pergamon
>Alexander conquers Persia and Egypt for Greek empire
>Greek empire, splits among seleucid and ptolemy
>Rome conquers all that shit and Emperor inherits god title from Babylon through persia
>Caesar is Pontifex Max
>get declared a god
>burns library of alexandria
>killed before conquer Parthia/Babylon
>pontifex Maximus is now the pope
>Kings of Europe are roman Magister militums
>Roman Catholic is Sun worship cult, with roots in Babylon
>World Calendar Changed to align with Rome
>Atilla's leftover army sacks rome, history records it as Alaric I
>Rome Ruled by Byzantine Emporer
>"Dark Ages "power of WRE is gifted to Princes and Duchy's
>Reformation, millions die and books burned
>calendars changed by gregory
>rennaissance, rebirth of graeco roman knowledge
>Freemasonry established with rediscovery of Ancient Egyptian and babylonian occult texts by ALCHEMISTS AND ASTROLOGERS
>Talmud written in Jewish Babylonian Captivity
>Theory of Gravity and natural laws developed by occultist/ alchemist Issac Newton who wrote a several volume book detailing the anachromism of the last 2000 years of history as established by Josephus Scalinger
>>
>>19351564
Math worship? Where do I sign up?
>>
>>19351564
>no it doesn't...at all,
Cool, tell me about Göbekli Tepe, then.
Try to use primary sources.
Also, try to refute the math here, please:
>>19351519
>>
File: 1043c4c2b8b904002b751480e07a0b41.jpg (59KB, 480x732px) Image search:
[Google]
59KB, 480x732px
>>19351519
>How can you be this disingenuous about model development?
Mid Paradigm shift.
I can see the truth , yet not fully comprehend it.
>>>19351519
If you wan't that tedious shite based on false presumptions, go to /sci/
this is /x/ where we talk freely about the illuminati and Jesuits
In either case the geometric harmonies of the Earth moon and Sun suggest intelligent design regardless, so In anycase that fact is being hidden.
>>
>>19351581
>If you wan't that tedious shite based on false presumptions, go to /sci/
>"I can't prove the math wrong but it's wrong because muh widdle feelies".
I'm not seeing a refutation here.
>>
>>19351576
>Cool, tell me about Göbekli Tepe, then.
the academics just dug it up and after dating it, they got btfo and had to push human history back several thousand years, which retroactively fucks up many of their historical assumptions.
But even still these experts will ignore the evidence and assume migrating hunter gatherers built it, rather than accepting human civilization is much older than the consensus we believed.
>Try to use primary sources.
Im not here to spoonfeed you what is easily available to you.
Either verify what im telling you yourself or fuck off.
Im not writing source cited essays for you to not read.
>>
>>19351581
>false presumptions
Seriously, if it's false, simply demonstrate how the trig is wrong.
It should SERIOUSLY not be that hard if the presumptions are false. Just one (1) equations. We'll be waiting.
>>
>>19351595
The math is not wrong but it is only relative.
>>
>>19351603
>the academics just dug it up and after dating it, they got btfo and had to push human history back several thousand years, which retroactively fucks up many of their historical assumptions.
I'm not hearing anything about their astrotheology or the primary sources thereon.
>Either verify what im telling you yourself or fuck off.
Nah, think I'll keep pressing you for anything other than desperate whining.
If you're an expert, tell me of their astrotheology. I have a copy of Star.ships open in front of me.
>>
>>19351595
>you wont play meaningless numbers with me
show me one one physical proof of water sticking to spinning ball.
>>
>>19351608
Ah, so the math isn't wrong after all.
Good to know.
>FE btfo
>>
>>19351615
>show me one one physical proof of water sticking to spinning ball.
Surface tension brosephus.
Nice subject change though.
You're making the assertion that it's wrong. Back it up or run back to wherever you come from with tail tucked firmly between legs weeping about mean evil Freemasons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8TssbmY-GM
>>
>>19351612
>I'm not hearing anything about their astrotheology
they just dug it up you . they don't know who even built the goddamn thing or barely why or when, most don't even know what the hell it is.
>If you're an expert
noone here claimed to be an expert, you are the only person pretending to be.
> I have a copy of Star.ships open in front of me.
then read that faggot.
>>
>>19351627
Still not seeing an occult history here friend.
>you are the only person pretending to be.
Nope, you implied being well versed on occult history. I'm trying to initiate a dialogue on it but you're refusing to.
>then read that faggot.
Already did, I wanna see how much you know about occult history since you implied I didn't know about it.
>>
>>19349752
....what? Are you forgetting that our planet has an atmosphere? The reason temperatures are higher at the equator is because the sun's rays are hitting at an almost 90° angle. Less atmosphere to push through means more energy getting to the surface. The more severe the angle, the more atmosphere it has to push through, which means more energy lost before it contacts the surface. You can perform this experiment yourself with a flashlight and your own damn hand. Also, your second graphic doesn't explain why the sun can stay above the horizon for extremely long periods the closer you get to the poles. Almost like we're on a globe with an axis that points at the same point in the sky revolving around the sun.
>>
>>19351625
>show me one one physical proof of water sticking to spinning ball.
>doesnt
>shows Chris Hadfield in a zero G airplane wringing out towels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGsHENZYpHU
>mfw Globe Earthers start thread specifically disallowing critique of space agencies and historical collusion of secret societies.
Im really not sure what you wan't from us at this point.
>>
File: 800px-Metriccurvature.jpg (167KB, 800x565px) Image search:
[Google]
167KB, 800x565px
>>19351617
Why does this always get ignored when globers ask for math/trig?
>>
>>19351617
>FE btfo
Not in the slightest don't jump the gun.
>>
>>19351677
>Why does this always get ignored when globers ask for math/trig?
But it doesn't. It's already been accounted for as correct, in all three threads. See: >>19346255
>https://www.metabunk.org/lake-balaton-laser-experiment-to-determine-the-curvature-of-the-earth-if-any.t7780/
>https://youtu.be/_4DqAnEpD98 [Embed] [Embed]
>A man on the shore of a lake uses a telescope to watch a helicopter hovering over the opposite shore 6 miles away. The helicopter descends towards the ground and disappears from his view while still in the air. It ascends again, becomes visible to the observer, and reports an altitude above the lake of 24 feet at the point that it appears 'level' with the horizon.
>Interestingly, 8 inches x miles squared returns exactly 24 feet of obscured height at six miles. Or using the earth curvature calculator, 24 feet and 1/164th of an inch.
>See the table here: >>19340842 →
>>19351661
I'm showing how water tension works.
Now multiply that out to an object large enough to have a gravitational field.
>>19351684
Then post the math.
>>
>>19351677
>>19351704
>Then post the math.
You do not listen anyways.
>>
>>19351715
>You do not listen anyways.
Oh, we're back to the "you're too dumb/unworthy" argument again.
Cute.
I imagine that'll be one of the first things posted next thread too other than a simple concise refutation of the math in question
>>
>>19351704
>It's already been accounted for as correct, in
seems you forgot to check that same post for the debunk on the stephen hawking bullshit expirement.
and you ignore the hundreds of videos and pictures showing well over a hundred miles.
im just gonna accept the impasse, believe what you want.
>>
>>19351747
>still no refutation
Zozzle.
Precious.
>>
>>19351721
>"you're too dumb/unworthy" argument again.
That's not what I'm implying I apologize if it seems that way what I am encouraging is for you to broaden your horizon.
>>
>>19351755
I can't broaden it if you can't help me find a foundation from which to broaden it (i.e. a solid, repeatable, experimental or mathematical refutation of the standard model).
Brotip: Rejecting high school trig in favor of poorly edited YT vids and shitpostchan infographics just because it [TRIGGERS] you doesn't make you a brave and noble renegade.
>>
>>19351747
>and you ignore the hundreds of videos and pictures showing well over a hundred miles.
Like you ignore hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers and thousands of replication verified experiments?
>>
>>19351794
I didn't ignore them, I HAD to leaern them, only by having the underlying presumption challenged was I able to discard theories based on Gravity until an expirement proving it idependently from density.
but I understand if you think I completely abandomed the consensus.
I just wanna double check, and verify ASA and Freemasonry.
If your only measure of intelligence is the ability to regurgitate texts by others then good luck.
>>
>>19346264
OP of last thread had a high altitude observation with no fisheye that showed curvature. no there isnt
>cgi,composite nasa images
That proves nothing other than they use non photographic representations for illustrative purposes. why would they not show un edited pics ???
>disproves gravity as a force....gravity is bollocks now im not saying that when you drop an object it doesnt fall to the ground but this sis due to boyancy stop being sheep and actually look into this !
>>
>>19351866
How do you explain objects falling in a vacuum?
>>
>>19351866
>things fall due to buoyancy
No, buoyancy works in the direction opposite of gravity, and it requires gravity to exist.
>>
File: 1500751447134.jpg (62KB, 500x360px) Image search:
[Google]
62KB, 500x360px
>>19351866
>no there isnt
>>
>>19351925
you don't understand. high altitude photos vs. "nasa space photos". They are two different things.
If you can't keep up with the conversation, it's better you don't speak up at all...
>>
>>19351968
>everything that disagrees with my poorly constructed worldview is FAKE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>
>>
>>19350221
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBFVllm2fyI
>>
>people are seriously arguing with flat earthers here
I mean, I knew that people from US are not very smart, but damn.
Thread posts: 159
Thread images: 47
Thread images: 47