/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10222527
You should make expedition in a balloon high enough with low security measurements.

Prove to me that earth is flat. Protip: you can't.

>>10222551
its flat when you look around

another globetard BTFOD

there's more than 20 buildings in NYC that are taller than 600 feet. given your parameters, 1000 feet eye height and 60 mile distance, only 300 feet of the city are hidden by the horizon. that's also not taking into account refraction.

>>10222556
How does the sun dip below the horizon at sunset? With a flat earth the sun would never set, and also have the appearance of getting larger and smaller throughout the day.

>>10222567
pic related literally proves it
due to the distance the atmosphere blocks out the sun because too much air gets in the way

>>10222571
How does it fall the below the horizon? And why doesn't the sun appear several times larger when it's directly overhead at noon? The thickness of air, even if that weren't retarded, would only explain dimming.

>>10222527
>the earth is flat/spherical

>>10222527

>>10222578
sunrises are optical illusions

>>10222596
Then how is the flat horizon optical illusion in round earth due to being close to the ground like in >>10222583 any worse than the hundreds of physically inexplicable optical illusions required to make flat earth work? You can't even justify the physical processes behind how your sunset optical illusion works.

>>10222567
what is stopping people from flying a plane over the arctic?

checkmate

>>10222596
Funny how proof against your stupid flat earth is an 'optical illusion', and yet you retards immediately jump on the asses of anyone who tells you that a fata morgana is a viable explanation of seeing an object beyond the curvature of the earth.
Almost like special pleading...weird.

So flattards simply failed at understanding pythagoras theorem?

>>10222527
If that pic is true then I would say the Tesla thing is fake. I don't want to go full blown conspiracy theorist though.

>>10222691
it's real, what's missing is any data on the field of view of the cameras involved

>>10222580
that's hot

>>10222580
I wish

>>10222677
Correct.

>>10222948

>>10222578
The sun during sunrise/set isn't the real sun, it is refracted by the atmosphere's density gradient, also known as advanced sunrise/delayed sunset.

>>10222969
Okay, but that still wouldn't make half the sun appear below the horizon. It would appear as a squished oval. Try again.

>>10222969
Where are the units on this graph? It's pretty much meaningless without units and a source

>>10222527
>I'm too retarded to know what 'zoom' means on a camera.

>>10222983
The sun disappears into itself, half of it isn't actually below the horizon, it is an optical illusion.

>>10222527
is that lower one really at 177 km? the roadster was launched onto a geocentric elliptical orbit around earth first, which, according to wikipedia, brought it out to the van allen belts. after that, it boosted to a heliocentric orbit.

>>10223039
*pats head* That's right kiddo, that's right. Starman is out there.

>>10222571
I sincerely hope you are joking. That goes in the top 10 most ignorant things a flat earthist could say. And I'm talking dumb like "The earth is flat, but all the other planets are obviously round" dumb

>>10223089
ill take that as no, and that the image is not taken at 177 km.

>>10223109
What altitude is it?

>>10223107
>brainlet doesn't realise the sun is small and local, affected by atmospheric lensing and refraction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8PAam8USH0

>>10223143
That's not up to him to prove. You posted the picture, now provide evidence that the car was claimed to be at 177km at the time of the image.

>>10223001
>what is refraction
retard

>>10223143
like >>10223163 said.
but since i cant be fucked to google it, i'd ballpark it around 7000-14000 km. just working off the relative size of starman and earth, although i dont know what the zoom is.

>>>/x/21899964

>>10223205
7000km was around the maximum height of the orbit the car was in. 177km was around the height the payload fairing detached.
Yes, flattards are knowingly spreading false information with this image but since when have they cared? They think that cameras are borderline magic anyway.

>>10223309
177km is very high for fairings. did they not attempt recovery?

>>10222527
>the sooner NPCs realize that the sooner we can truly progress as humanity
>he says this while sending his thoughts by electrons through paths he doesnt understand so that they can be read by other humans anywhere in the world

>>10223316
They only attempt recoveries on the west coast.
I think the fairing separation was more around 120km but either way, that image was taken a long time after the separation and they just slap this low number on it as if they have any idea what the claimed height at that time was.

>>10223145
Have you ever watched a sunrise/sunset?

I'm not sure who are the bigger morons; actual flat-earthers or those who argue with them (or argue with the people pretending to be flat-earthers).
In either way, the people pretending are some of the biggest geniuses who know how to use the biggest bait possible.

>>10223039
It was quite low. The batteries for the cameras didn't last very long, and would not have been running near GEO. You don't see any land in the picture, just water, so your sense of scale is all fucked up.

>>10224165
No, it was not "quite low".
The parking orbit Starman went into was an eliptical orbit with the lowest point around 150km and the highest point greater than 6000km.
It completed at least one (if I remember correctly, only one) orbit in this configuration about three hours before the excape burn was fired. The batteries lasted long enough that they got some images back as it headed out into heliocentric orbit, but they cut the feed before the burn.
But, yeah, the Pacific is huge.

>>10224115
Why are /sci/ posters the worst at identifying sarcasm/jokes
I notice many reply serioisly to obvious joke threads involving "needing to learn x in y time. Am i fucked??"

>>10224288
Because feeling smart is more important than being smart.

>>10222640
Nothing. If you have enough money, you can pay a pilot to do it. Commercials airlines don't do that because they need to be a certain distance from an airport at all times in case something fucks up in the plane.

>>10222640
>>10224651
I guess you would have to do both the arctic and the antarctic or else flatearthers would say that the center of the disc is at the other end
but then again what is stopping them from saying that the center of the disc is literally anywhere, e.g in the middle of russaI

>>10224651
Not quite.
It's more that in order to take those routes they'd actually need to be direct and more economical, and they're not.
Some flatearthers argue that if they offered those routes they'd get more custom as it would prove the globe, but they're deluding themselves as usual.
If anything the first flights would have a few flatearthers on them who would claim if was a fraud and try to convince others not to fly them.

>>10222646
finally a good argument against flat earth/for ball earth

Imagine not understanding how camera lenses work

>>10222527
If you move fast enough towards the earth it is flat. (Lorentz contraction)

>>10222691

>>10223765
Yes I have brainlet, have you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz7YNuwz5ok&feature=youtu.be

>>10222527
>How is this possible
Because on a curved earth, anything taller than ~300 feet can be seen from 1000 ft up, 60 miles away.

>>10225268
looks like ball going round another ball, huh

>>10225268
>using a glared video of the sun taken with a camera using auto-exposure to prove a point

>>10225307
Only if you're deluded.

>>10225310
Quiet cry baby, it's more about the movement of the sun rather than its size.

>>10225320
>Quiet cry baby, it's more about the movement of the sun rather than its size.
>webm is named "local sun moving over stationary plane"
>doesn't support this hypothesis at all
You're not very bright are you?

>>10225320
So you're admitting its relative size down in fact stay the same yes?

>>10225326
Which direction is the earth rotating in the webm brainlet?

>>10225328
What constitutes the actual sun's size?

>>10225320
>Only if you're deluded
Not an argument

>>10225341
>Not an argument
Neither is:
>looks like ball going round another ball

The sun that appears behind the horizon line during sunrise/set is not the actual sun, it is a refracted projection caused by the atmosphere. The sun going "behind" the horizon is merely an optical illusion. It's called advanced sunrise, delayed sunset.

>>10225348
>The sun that appears behind the horizon line during sunrise/set is not the actual sun, it is a refracted projection caused by the atmosphere. The sun going "behind" the horizon is merely an optical illusion. It's called advanced sunrise, delayed sunset.
only if you're deluded

>>10225349
Don't you ever call me that again buster: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class10th-physics/in-in-the-human-eye-and-the-colourful-world/in-in-atmospheric-refraction/v/advanced-sunrise-delayed-sunset

>>10225332
You tell me, faggot

>>10225338
Why don't you get off your fat ass and have a look outside? Or is your basement door locked?

>>10225358
I'll give you a hint fag: It ain't rotating.

>>10225361
How do you figure?

>>10225360
My basement door is none of your concern you creep. Answer the damn question.

>>10225364
What are you asking for? The relative size or the actual size of the sun?

>>10225355
>https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class10th-physics/in-in-the-human-eye-and-the-colourful-world/in-in-atmospheric-refraction/v/advanced-sunrise-delayed-sunset
damn, earth confirmed round

>>10225363
Based on the movement of the sun in the sky. If the earth was rotating, the angle of the plane would change, therefore the angle of the camera out of the plane's window would also change, but this doesn't occur.

>>10225355
>use effect that's only possible on a globe earth to prove that the earth is flat

>>10225367
The relative size and actual size are directly linked. What would you need to do to observe the sun's actual relative size?

>>10225374
>the angle of the plane would change
Why?

>>10225379
Which are you asking for? The actual or the relative size?

>>10225370
Works on a flat plane as well brainlet. It's only to prove that the sunset/rise is an optical illusion, so not as good an argument for the globe as once thought.

>>10225385
>Works on a flat plane as well brainlet
No it doesn't.

>>10225375
>use effect that's only possible on a globe earth
Completely false brainlet. The same refraction effect will occur.

>>10225382
Because the plane would be rotating with the earth.

>>10225392
No it won't because the sun isn't moving below the horizon on a flat earth.

>>10225383
Both.

>>10225385
>Works on a flat plane as well brainlet
Prove you, you crazy person

>>10225385
>the sunset/rise is an optical illusion
Wtf are you talking about, you schizo

>>10225396
>Because the plane would be rotating with the earth.
It is, so what "angle" would change?

>>10225391
>>10225398
Pic related imbeciles.

>>10225399
Actual radius of sun: 695,508 km
Angular decimeter of the sun at perihelion is 32.53 Arc minutes and at Aphelion is 31.4 arc minutes.

>>10225408
>Pic related
What about it?

>>10225408
Nice photoshop

>>10225403
>>10225410
>>10225413
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga_-FvaUT10

>>10225408
CGI

>>10225414
>using filthy plastic sheets to represent "miles" of atmosphere
Wow, very scientific!

>>10225414
>the buoyant force
wtf gravity proven real therefore flat earth debunked

>>10222527
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg

everybody just watch this video. it's such a BTFO that it almost always gets zero replies. the flat earthers dont even bother addressing it.

>>10225414
Why can we see things that have disappeared over the horizon when we increase our altitude? You'd be looking through more air yes?

>>10225404
Imagine the plane was stationary in the air, now imagine the path of the sun to the horizon. Now imagine what direction the earth would be rotating to cause that sunset. Would the plane/camera's angle relative to the sun keep changing?

>>10225415

>>10225417
Same effect brainlet, get over it.

>>10225424
>Would the plane/camera's angle relative to the sun keep changing?
The plane/camera is rotating with the earth, so the change in angle is what we perceive as a sunset. I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this?

>>10225419
Gravity != sphere

>>10225422
>let's use a straw man model
>debunked!11!!!1

>>10225427
>Same effect brainlet
Nope :^)
>>10225430
How do you propose gravity works on a flat earth?

>>10225430
Why aren't we pulled to the middle of the flat earth?

>>10225432
Why don't you propose a better model then? I'll wait.

>>10225423
>You'd be looking through more air yes?
No, you'd be looking through less, as air density decreases with altitude.

>>10225436
Prove that the density decreases at such a rate as to counteract the increase in the length of the hypotenuse you form with the object you observe as a result of your increasing altitude. I'll wait.

>>10223001
1. See sun "disappear into itself".
2. Video chat someone who is where it is still daytime.
3. Move on to a new dumb anti-reality theory.

>>10225432
its literally more or less the "official" flat earth model. if your definition of strawman is whatever model doesn't incorporate magic to make everything magically work then by definition any model that doesn't work is a strawman.

>>10225437
(he couldn't give a straight answer for this in the last thread either)

xD

>>10225443
The flerfs say the sun has something around it blocking the light, like a lamp or spotlight does. Which doesn't explain sunsets. On a flat Earth the Sun should never come CLOSE to the horizon.

See, we can have these discussions without them now.

>>10225446
Oh yeah?

>>10225415
>CGI
...is fun in movies, but irrelevant in sphere/flat discussions because of all the images of spherical Earth, and the zero such images of a flat Earth.

Finished your sentence for you. You're welcome.

>>10225447
They took crayons to space like the Soviets did, and drew it with them.

Love seeing these flattards come over from /x/ to peddle their nonsense only to get a huge shock when they realize this board isn't full of single-digit IQ retards and their dishonest tactics won't work

>>10225462
>this board isn't full of single-digit IQ retards

>>10225464
Come on, it's at least low 20s on average

>>10225429
The path of the sun towards the horizon is too linear to be caused by a spinning globe.

>>10225469
>The path of the sun towards the horizon is too linear to be caused by a spinning globe.
No it's not.

>>10225433
>Nope :^)
Exactly the same brainlet.
>How do you propose gravity works on a flat earth?
I subscribe to an infinite plane model, so there's no centre of mass of the earth, therefore no spherical forming gravity. There is a universal up/down, up being low density, low pressure, down being high density, high pressure, and the natural laws of physics operate within this logical order of separation/equilibration.

>>10225434
See
>>10225479

why do flat earthers even believe maps? literally every single map we use is made by cartographers who are globites.

>>10225479
>Exactly the same brainlet.
Nope :^)
>I subscribe to an infinite plane model, so there's no centre of mass of the earth, therefore no spherical forming gravity. There is a universal up/down, up being low density, low pressure, down being high density, high pressure, and the natural laws of physics operate within this logical order of separation/equilibration.
You're wrong.

>>10225435
One without a dome would be a good start. There needs to be two celestial points of rotation, although there could be more to be discovered.

>>10225437
Give an example of something coming back into view after disappearing by increasing altitude - how much altitude?

>>10225439
>the "official" flat earth model
Doesn't exist you imbecile, this is true science. You will get Christfags who cling on to the retarded dome model, but true scientists are not tied down to an official model.

>>10225440
What's your point here? Are you making the retarded argument about how the sun would illuminate the whole earth at once?

>>10225479
>earth is infinitely big
Prove it, you delusional homeless person

>>10225509
Why are /sci/ posters the worst at identifying sarcasm/jokes
I notice many reply serioisly to obvious joke threads involving "needing to learn x in y time. Am i fucked??"

>>10225443
More straw man.
>>10225446
>The flerfs say the sun has something around it blocking the light, like a lamp or spotlight does.
No one says that you schizo.
>On a flat Earth the Sun should never come CLOSE to the horizon.
Atmospheric refraction. Learn about it.

>>10225476
The earth isn't spinning. Gyros prove this.

>>10225488
Maps are a waste of time unless you can freely travel the earth to create one. No accurate globe map exists either.

>>10225490
>You're wrong.
By all means stick with your Jesuit globe, Jesuit Heliocentric model, and Jesuit big bang theory.

>>10225509
It has to be in order to be logically consistent.

>>10225479
>I subscribe to an infinite plane model
The funny thing is, this is actually compatible with the mathematics of the Newtonian model. Just like of it like an infinite plane, with a constant, finite charge density over the surface of the plane. Simple astronomical observation still blows it out of the water, but at least gravity makes sense.

>>10225557
Just think of it as*** jfc

>>10225268
Ok i will fall for the bait. The second half of the video is the first half backwards

>>10225516

>>10225557
>Simple astronomical observation still blows it out of the water
Like what?

>>10225577
>The second half of the video is the first half backwards
Yes, just to emphasize the movement.

>>10225522
No they don't.

>>10225583
>HEYLO IAM SPINNY ON GLOWEB
>*gets phd*

>>10225530
Okay.

>>10225586
All of them

>>10225494
https://gizmodo.com/5917230/did-you-know-that-the-burj-khalifa-is-so-tall-that-you-can-watch-two-sunsets-on-the-same-day
Here's one, the sun comes back into view for 3 minutes after setting on the ground when you go to the top of the Burj Khalifa which is 828m tall.

>>10225601
Oh okay spinfag.

>>10225607
You arent actually talking to a flat earther, retard.

>>10225619
Glad you conceded.

>>10225606
Enjoy.

>>10225621
Of course I'm not talking. I'm typing words with my hands. What did you think?

>>10225631
Okay thanks!

>>10225607
There aren't any.

>>10225639
Why do those on the southern hemisphere see different stars than those on the northern hemisphere?

>>10225648
Weather balloons. Stars don't exist

>>10225613
Does this observation require the horizon line to lower on a globe to be possible?

>>10225665
Nope.

>>10225626
What caused the axial tilt rotation of the earth spinfag?

>>>/x/21906713

>>10225648
Because there are different lights in the sky in those areas. Can you prove to me that Australia and South America are looking at the same southern celestial pole from opposite sides of the globe?

>>10225697
I don't see where you're going with this considering you already conceded. Why don't you use a search engine?

>>10225710
>shifting the burden of proof
Why don't you prove your first statement first?

>>10225711
>considering you already conceded
You wish spinfag.
>Why don't you use a search engine?
You're the spinfag, you should know.

>>10223001
LMFAO

>>10225713
Why do I need to prove that there are different lights in the sky in the southern hemisplane? That's self-evident, and a part of your model too.

You're the one shifting burden of proof.

>>10225732
>You wish spinfag.
>>10225619

>>10225736
What's so funny?

>>10225739
Why wouldn't they be visible to those in the northern hemisphere on a flat Earth?

>>10225772
Can't concede to a claim that has no evidence to back it up.

>>10222527
Successful bait

>>10225799
Too far away. The stars are local, therefore affected by perspective.

>>10225810
Like your original post?

>>10225826
Why can't telescopes see them then?

>>10225842
If the earth was rotating, gyroscopes would highlight this fact.

>>10225843
Because telescopes just magnify the light that's already there, they can't change their distance to the light, nor zoom through air which is not transparent.

>>10225710
>Can you prove to me that Australia and South America are looking at the same southern celestial pole from opposite sides of the globe?
The same star charts work in both places.
So either there's a case of pic related, or there's just one set of stars.

>>10225898
>Because telescopes just magnify the light that's already there, they can't change their distance to the light, nor zoom through air which is not transparent.
Ah yes but the density gradient means that air shouldn't be as much of an issue up there right?

>>10225890
They do, you just need a decent gyroscope that won't be affected too much by friction etc.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/338054/measuring-earth-rotation-rate-about-its-axis-with-gyroscopes

>>10222596
You're an optical illusion.

>>10225898
I always ask this, and I've never gotten an answer. If I go to somewhere far south of the equator like, say, south australia, and take a star trail photo, the stars appear to be circling a point near sigma octantis the south. How do flat earthers explain this on their model?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09TwUYK1XLg

>>10225995
With bullshit explanations that make no sense in the real world.
Like, "we can see circular pattern if we look through this solid hemisphere of glass on top if a star map" and "they just like reverse crepuscular rays".

>>10226030
>19 minutes of driving whike talking to a camera
I bet he even used the wrong calculation for curvature.

Here's some OC debunking of the flat earth model as presented by Eric Dubay (one of the most prominent flat earthers). This is a screencap of his model explaining how seasons work on the Flat Earth. I drew in how the sunrays would look if the sun truly were a "spotlight", as claimed by the FE.

>>10226105
This is a webcam from the city of Adelaide, some 40 minutes after noon. Adelaide is on the coast of Australia, a bit east from the sun in >>10226105

>>10226107
I marked on google maps where the shadows point towards. If you have an IQ of above 80, you probably realize where the problem lies.

>>10226110
forgot pic lol

>>10226112
Now I looked at a webcam in New Zealand to further drive home my point.

>>10226113
This is how the shadows looked there. This snapshot was taken at the exact time the one in Adelaide was.

>>10226116
Now I've drawn them in again on google maps. The yellow lines show where the shadows should point towards according to the flat earth. The black lines are reality.
It's over for the FE.

>>10226117

https://youtu.be/SBV_x8LYEUc

https://youtu.be/Qa66P1kT7qU

>>10226105
optimized

>>10226032
Man, I'll take a bullshit explanation over no explanation at all. Every goddamn time the only answer I've gotten is deafening silence

>>10226433
Based?

>>10225697
What does it matter?

Flatbrains are getting BTFO on their own territory on the /x/ thread lmao

>>10225332

Left.

>>10225908
>muh friction
Mechanical gyros would be "sensitive" enough to show the earth's rotation, which is why you have to resort to ring laser gyros which are detecting the rotation of the aether.

>>10226986
You seem to deny Focault's pendulum, why is that?

>>10222527
the numbers in that pic are WAAAAAAAY off.
>posts obviously bullshit information
>expects people to believe it.

>>10226986
>Mechanical gyros would be "sensitive" enough to show the earth's rotation
No, they wouldn't. Not a cheap one anyway, hence why we generally use laser gyros

>>10225900
>The same star charts work in both places.
Not proof. The stars move and aren't seen at the same time in both places. Best evidence would be to show a flight over the south pole from Australia to South America.

>>10227001
Foucault pendulum is a parlour trick, the bob actually spins slightly, changing the plane of swing. Try and find a video of the Foucault pendulum that has markings on the bob. They are always unmarked and highly polished to stop this movement from being shown.

>>10226120
What time was that photo taken on google maps?

>>10227034
>the bob actually spins slightly, changing the plane of swing
Prove it

>>10225903
You also have the sun's light to content with.

Flat earthers, get REKT.

>>10227043
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U

>>10227065
Flat earther method : When in doubt, make assumptions that confirm you predetermined narrative.

>>10227027
What force is overcoming the mechanical gyro to keep it rotating with the globe?

>>10227096
Show me a video of a Foucault pendulum with a marked bob, where the bob does not spin.

>>10227056

>>10225995
Still no answer, really? You can't make this problem go away by just ignoring it, flat earthers. Star trail photographs in the southern hemisphere show stars rotating around a central point towards the south pole. This is clearly impossible on a flat plane, and perfectly reasonable and expected on a ball earth. What is your explanation?

>>10227149

>>10227154
Alright, how does this explain what I'm talking about?

>>10227154
>identical set of stars

>>10227040
why does that matter

>>10227177
I didnt want to believe that's what this dude's trying to say. Because how the fuck does that work when you can literally take the same star trail photograph, pointing south, showing the same constellations, circling the same point, from any point along the same longitude in the souther hemiSPHERE (I saw that, by the way, you cheeky fucks)

>>10227171
>>10227177
You need to step out of your Jesuit big bang belief for it to be possible.

There is zero proof that Australia is geographically located as close to the South Pole as the globe has it. Until you can prove this, you haven't proved that the same lights are being viewed by both countries.

You may laugh about having an identical set of stars, but a better name for it would be identically opposite. Identically opposite things appear all over nature, north/south magnetic pole for example. left/right hand, etc.

>>10227182
Date and time. NOW.

>>10227185
See
>>10227200

>>10227185
I also think he's saying that I'm seeing stars circling the poles of lands beyond their crazy little ice wall? Which doesnt solve the problem at all. And there's the wierd 'air prevents you from seeing distant objects' that's been used to explain why you can't simply use a telescope to zoom in and see the north star from the southern hemisphere, but that doesn't explain why the angular size of ursa minor doesnt change at all as you travel south and...
Jesus christ, what a headache. Is there an answer flat earther's can give that doesnt create more problems than it 'solves'?

>>10227228
>Is there an answer flat earther's can give that doesnt create more problems than it 'solves'?
No, their entire model is literally a patched together mess with more and more ridiculous bullshit added on to it every time they realise they've come across a stumbling block that poles holes in their hypothesis. It's pretty funny seeing what they come up with

>>10227210
How the fuck am I supposed to find that out? Also, why the fuck do you think it matters?

>>10227200
>There is zero proof that Australia is geographically located as close to the South Pole as the globe has it.
Except generations of fucking explorers and navigational data of their expeditions, like James Cook, whose expedition around antarctica I've seen used as evidence of the Antarctic ice wall.
Are you even listening to yourself? Identically opposite star fields? You mean three, right? Because you can take the same photographs from the southern tip of africa, too. So, looking at your crazy ass map, there's a third, identical star field south of africa. And I assume another identical star field on the opposite side. And all around the map it goes, until there are an infinite number of layered, identical star fields all around the rim of the flat earth. It's crazy that anyone gets any sleep at all with all those multiple, overlapping star fields shining all over the place.

>>10227228
The two "South" celestial poles aren't that far away at all, but I've never seen evidence of someone travelling direct to the south celestial pole from Australia, it only occurs from South America.

How can you measure the angular size of something that is being refracted through the atmosphere? Try measuring the changing angular size of a rainbow.

>>10227242
You understand the position of the sun will change the direction of the shadow?

>>10227127
Thank you for admitting to being retarded.

>>10227154
>>10227200
The stars in the southern hemisphere rotate counterclockwise, while the stars in the northern hemisphere rotate clockwise, which is impossible in your ancient sandnigger comicbook flat earth.

>>10227283
jesus christ you're retarded. I didn't map the shadows according to google maps. I mapped them according to screenshots from webcams which were taken at exactly the same time on the 16. of December.

>>10227281
>How can you measure the angular size of something that is being refracted through the atmosphere?
Are you seriously saying you can't measure the angular size of something in the sky because of our atmosphere?

>>10227278
>Except generations of fucking explorers and navigational data of their expeditions, like James Cook, whose expedition around antarctica I've seen used as evidence of the Antarctic ice wall.
Provide a modern example.
>Are you even listening to yourself? Identically opposite star fields? You mean three, right? Because you can take the same photographs from the southern tip of africa, too. So, looking at your crazy ass map, there's a third, identical star field south of africa. And I assume another identical star field on the opposite side. And all around the map it goes, until there are an infinite number of layered, identical star fields all around the rim of the flat earth. It's crazy that anyone gets any sleep at all with all those multiple, overlapping star fields shining all over the place.
There is a thing called parallax. Stars will follow you, therefore north/south (visually) also changes with you as you travel around.

>>10227314
Stay retarded, your opinion will never matter to anyone because your lack of reasoning skills is obvious to everyone you interact with.

>>10227297
Only if you think the stars are balls of gases shat out of a big bang like a good child of stardust.

>>10227316
I have a telescope and understand the basic technology known as spectrometry, your ancient sandnigger tricks don't work on me.

>>10227314
>Stars will follow you, therefore north/south (visually) also changes with you as you travel around.
What the fuck is this bullshit?

>>10227314
>Provide a modern example.
Sure, commercial cruise lines leaving from Hobart in Tasmania traveling to Commonwealth Bay in Antarctica, the distance of which is about 2600 km.
It's weird to me that you require so much evidence from others, but never seem to apply that to yourself.
>There is a thing called parallax. Stars will follow you, therefore north/south (visually) also changes with you as you travel around.
I understand parallax, what I'm saying is that I can go to the tip of south america, southern africa and south australia, turn south, and take a star trail photograph that shows the same constellations circling the same point, which is sigma octantis, at three different points in the southern hemisphere. Now, on the flat earth map that was shown above, this should be impossible. You stated that it's because of 'identical star fields' or whatever nonsense. I pointed out that there needs to be at least three identical views at three different points at the southern edge of your flat earth map, showing the same damn thing each time. How the fuck does parallax explain that?

>>10227330
A flat earther's bizarre understanding of Parallax, apparently.

>>10227337
Oh, and the Antarctic cup race.
http://www.acronautic.com/antartica-cup-ocean-race/
Awaiting unfalsifiable narrative in 3,2,1...

>>10227034
dont need a video when I can head up to my uni and watch a huge one for hours

>>10225447
Why has my country moved? Usually we're just omitted.

>>10227379
Where you from?

>>10227303
How big and far away is the sun you're modelling?

>>10227311
You can measure an apparent size, but measuring the size of refracted light based on distance is pretty dumb.

>>10227315
Clearly matters to you.

>>10227326
>I have a telescope
Congratulations.
>understand the basic technology known as spectrometry
So you understand that astronomical spectrometry makes assumptive conclusions based on assumptive observations to fit a predetermined conclusion?

>>10227386
The one in entirely the wrong place.

>>10227330
If you move east to west, the north and south stars will follow you. This must also occur on the globe you brainlet.

>>10227417
>the north and south stars will follow you
What did he mean by this?

>this is one of the great minds heading the flat earth movement
https://youtu.be/Qa66P1kT7qU

>>10222527
/p/, here. The focal length at which the photo above was taken was much longer than that of the photo below.

>>10227337
>Hobart in Tasmania traveling to Commonwealth Bay
And from Commonwealth Bay to the South Pole please?
>there needs to be at least three identical views at three different points at the southern edge of your flat earth map, showing the same damn thing each time. How the fuck does parallax explain that?
Which kind of "South"? There's a reason they've created a magnetic "south", a geographical "south", and a celestial "south", with two of them not being static in nature.

>>10227417
>This must also occur on the globe you brainlet.
Yeah, this is what happens on a globe.
It makes absolutely no sense on a pizza because the stars appear to have a rotation around a Southern point.

>>10227467
>Which kind of "South"? There's a reason they've created a magnetic "south", a geographical "south", and a celestial "south",
They're all roughly in the same direction, so it doesn't matter until you get close to them.

>>10227034
If rotating the bob changes the plane of the swing, then set up a spinning bob and get it swinging to observe the plane change. Interesting fact, it won't be affected by the spinning bob, retard.

>>10227467
>There's a reason they've created a magnetic "south", a geographical "south", and a celestial "south", with two of them not being static in nature.

Magnetic south changes because it's just where the southern pole of Earth's magnetic field, generated by the core, is located. This point as well as the north magnetic pole wanders over time, as is expected from a liquid dynamo electromagnet.

Celestial south is just the rotational axis of the Earth, which also changes over time slightly as the Earth follows precession. 'Celestial' simply refers to the fact that this measurement comes from looking at the distant stars.

Geographic south does not change much because it is determined by the rotational axis of the Earth in relation to the Earth's surface, and that will only move as the Earth's mass distribution changes.

>>10227121
Do it yourself and prove it doesn't work. Don't go changing the burden of proof.

What is the point of the flat earth conspiracy? Is it a test to see how many retards will believe shit?

>>10222527
how do eclipses work if the earth is flat?

>>10227467
>And from Commonwealth Bay to the South Pole please?
There's no distance given, but there is a latitude. Given about 69 miles between each line of latitude, and the bay sits (roughly) at -66 degrees, south pole is -90, so 24 degrees of separation, about 1600 miles or so. Anyone want to check my math on that?
>Which kind of "South"?
'South' in my example is facing out towards antarctica.

>>10227631
Invisible third body, according to some

>>10227643
So about 3200 miles from Hobart, tasmania to the south pole, unless I'm mistaken

>>10227410
You apparently don't know what spectrometry means.

>>10222527
The tesla wasn't 177 km away at the time that photo was taken. The 177 km figure comes from a misunderstanding the flattard who made this image had that it was in orbit rather than traveling away from the planet.

>>10227030
>The stars...aren't seen at the same time in both places.
Yes they are but at an angle because that's how the earth works.

>>10227649
invisible body that somehow manages to block light but can never be observed outside of eclipse events?

wow that sure makes sense

>>10227968
The craziest part is that I've talked with plenty of flat earthers who've told me that eclipses are 'impossible' on a heliocentric round earth model

>>10227030
Pan Am flight 50, flew over both poles on a San Francisco to San Francisco flight.
Doubt you'll accept it, what with your unfalsifiable narrative and all.

>>10227401
My man the sun is as big as Eric Dubay shows it to be. How far away it is literally does not matter.

>>10222567
Why would you argue with these people? I can ad hoc rationalize any model and so can they.

If you want me to I can argue you through torus earth...

>>10226433
How do you explain the whole Antarctica being illuminated at once at 21th Dec?

>>10228656
The atmosphere is made out of glass.

>>10228684
Please tell me you're making fun of flat earthers

>>10227483
The bob/string spins, not the damn the earth underneath, that's ridiculous.

Before you make another flat earth thread, just stop and t-h-i-n-k.
Could it really be that the true shape of the earth has been covered up by a global (or, in your case, planar) conspiracy
for well over 400 years? Is every space agency, including that of states like north korea or china under the tolal
influence of said conspiracy?
There are over 17'000 people working for NASA, yet not one of them has ever spilled the beans. Even more people
are commercial airline pilots, yet they all seem perfectly content with the globular shape of the earth.
Hell, the US airforce employs at least 10'000 pilots whose fighter jets have the ability to climb high enough for a curve
to become visible. No airman ever came forward to confess that he never observed such a thing. Remember, this is for the US alone,
and there are countless more airforces out there.
But since you're a flat earther, large numbers probably scare you, so let's go over some proofs of the globe you yourself can obseve.
First of all: Polaris. Also known as the north star (actually north stars, as it's a system with two stars orbiting eachother),
Polaris is very close to the actual north celestial pole. Due to the round shape of the earth, polaris gets closer
and closer to the horizon the closer you are to the equator, untill it disappears entriely when you cross it.
If the earth truly were flat, this should not be possible, and polaris could be brought back into view with a strong enough telescope.
This, however, is not the case.
Next, just take a look at starmaps from the northern and southern hemispheres. They show completely different constellations. If the earth
were flat and the stars just lights on the dome, we should see the same night sky no matter where we're at on the plane.

>>10228927
Now, for a compilation of ships going over the horizon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUwvu0WPq8U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDdwP0Ucomk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ObTd7DLMw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVJFgIRIQ0A
Flatards will now claim that ships do this simply because of "perspective". They just get too far away and disappear over time.
The fault in this argument is that ships should get smaller both horizontally and vertically, yet they always stay just as long while somewhow
still getting shorter. (Hint: They're going over the curve.)

Finally, gravity. Flatards may claim that gravity is not real and has never been measured. This is entirely false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
But I don't need high tech science to prove that gravity has to exist for our world to work the way it does. When
responding to the question of why things fall down without gravity, flatards often like to say something along the lines of:
"Because the object falling is more dense than the medium it's passing through, it falls down"- but what defines "down" without gravity?
Why doesn't an anvill dropped start moving up if there's nothing pulling it down? What causes it to push the air molecules in it's way away
if not for gravity? Density can't do that.

All of these statement completely disprove the flat earth theory, and if you are not able to answer every single one of them, your model is
not valid scientifcally.
Thank you.

>>10228927
Argumentum ad absurdum.

>>10228941
That's not a fallacy, I hope you know.

>>10228927
>>10228929
Me: If the world is flat, why do ships disappear over the horizon hull first and sail last?
Flat Earther: Perspective.
Me: Okay. If the moon is small and close, why do people north of it and south of it see the same side and the same phase?
Flat Earther: Perspective.
Me: Interesting. If the sun is always circling over the flat Earth, why does it sink below the horizon at night?
Flat Earther: Perspective.
Me: Got it. If the stars are all on a disk rotating around Polaris, why do people south of the equator see them rotate around a southern celestial pole?
Flat Earther: Perspective. By the way, if Earth were really a sphere with no dome over it, what would stop the air from escaping out into space?
Me: Gravity.
Flat Earther: Oh brother. You Globe-heads think gravity is the magic answer to everything!

>>10228944
Yes it can be, but the wrong one in this case. Argument from incredulity is more apt, along with a lot of straw manning.

>>10228945
Perspective actually exists though.

>>10228962
just like gravity

>>10228963
Which kind?

>>10228965
the perspective one

>>10228967
Made of space-time?

>>10228971
made of objects bent by perspective

>>10228975
Space-time bends perspective?

>>10228976
yes, perspective is the answer to everything

>>10228982
Space-time is more real than perspective. Perspective doesn't exist.

>>10222527

>>10227622
Just b8ing for (You)s.
/sci/, despite their self confessed quadruple digits IQ can't ever seem to identify this and keeps the garbage threads bumped for days.

>>10229011
Proof?

>>10228929
>Now, for a compilation of ships going over the horizon
>Flatards will now claim that ships do this simply because of "perspective". They just get too far away and disappear over time.
It's not just perspective brainlet. The evaporating water coming out of the ocean creates a mirror/miraging effect that will look to cut off the bottom of the ship.

Globalists think that any obstruction = curvature. Ridiculous.

>>10229061
ah yes. Truly a beautiful mirage.

>>10229057
search your hearth, you know its true

>>10228957
>Argument from incredulity is more apt, along with a lot of straw manning.
could you point those out?

>>10229061
>muh mirage
Why does increasing altitude bring back into view things that have disappeared over the horizon?

>>10229063
That was taken during a high wave.

>>10229087
of course it was. That's why it stays exactly the same over the whole duration of the video. I also don't see you engaging this>>10229070

>>10229068
>There are over 17'000 people working for NASA, yet not one of them has ever spilled the beans.
Implying 17,000 people need to know. Most of them do absolutely nothing of worth anyway.
>Is every space agency, including that of states like north korea or china under the tolal
influence of said conspiracy?
They're part of it, of course, at least China anyway.
>Even more people
are commercial airline pilots, yet they all seem perfectly content with the globular shape of the earth.
Not really something you'd be public about now is it? Some have gone public though.
>No airman ever came forward to confess that he never observed such a thing. Remember, this is for the US alone,
and there are countless more airforces out there.
Lots of ex-military have gone public about it.

>>10229070
The water has evaporated to a less dense state at higher altitude. Less mirroring effect off of the water as well.

>>10229103
What's that?

Sci has no real world understanding of perspective and shadows. What shade does a Shadow of a Sphere take on another sphere? An S-Curve. Where is this on the moon?

>>10229122
>Implying 17,000 people need to know. Most of them do absolutely nothing of worth anyway.
I'd assume that a NASA employee would be up to par with the newest developments
>They're part of it, of course, at least China anyway.
So the global conspiracy influenced Xi Jingpingpong and it didn't even occur to him or the russians or the norks to go public about the flat earth do discredit the US?
>Some have gone public though
citation needed
>Lots of ex-military have gone public about it.
citation needed, not just crayon eaters but actual airforce

>>10229130
Oh so now we're back to the mirage? Explain to me how it would be big enough to hide all of the boat.

>>10222580
Imagine getting noticeably periodically heavier and lighter

>>10229153
shape FUCK

>>10229172
>I'd assume that a NASA employee would be up to par with the newest developments
Space is a religion, so they will treat working at NASA like working at a church.
>So the global conspiracy influenced Xi Jingpingpong and it didn't even occur to him or the russians or the norks to go public about the flat earth do discredit the US?
Why would they discredit each other when they're stronger together? They're not actually enemies, that's political theatre.
>citation needed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iop8j4WJDXM

>>10229202
>Space is a religion, so they will treat working at NASA like working at a church.
Yes, yes. Typical non argument.
>Why would they discredit each other when they're stronger together? They're not actually enemies, that's political theatre.

>the world almost ending in nuclear hellfire like 3 times was political theater
That dude you showed gives no proof whatsoever of actually being a navigator

>>10229175
Because the water below the boat is also miraged.

>>10229214
>the world almost ending in nuclear hellfire like 3 times was political theater
Theatre is dramatic.
>That dude you showed gives no proof whatsoever of actually being a navigator
Don't believe him then brainlet. The militaryfags most likely to speak out are going to be Christfags because they think it's proof of the Bible.

>>10229232
What? Is it a double mirage for both that stuff on the deck and the water? Do you even know what you're even talking about?
>>10229265
>Theatre is dramatic
So dramatic, in fact, that the sovjets, who by all accounts were working on establishing their own communist NWO just sat there in silence while the US faked the moon landing and space as a whole. Right.

flatearthers, why doesnt moon fall?

>>10229296
>What? Is it a double mirage for both that stuff on the deck and the water? Do you even know what you're even talking about?
A single mirage can mirror both the water, and what is above the water. Does the waterline look real to you?
>So dramatic, in fact, that the sovjets, who by all accounts were working on establishing their own communist NWO just sat there in silence while the US faked the moon landing and space as a whole. Right.
They faked the "cold war" together brainlet.

>>10229304
Have to work out what it's made of first. It's an intangible object currently.

>>10229315
it made of cheese, every flatearther know this, but that doesnt explain why does it not fall

>>10229314
>Does the waterline look real to you?
Yes, but since you're obviously unable to provide any reasonable explanation of how a magic mirage like this would work, I'd kindly ask you to tackle the other points made in>>10228927
>They faked the "cold war" together brainlet.
Nwm you're retarded

>>10229318
Does light fall?

>>10229327
light can be pulled by gravity in globe earth, so yes, it can fall. how does light work in flat earth?

>>10229322
>Yes, but since you're obviously unable to provide any reasonable explanation of how a magic mirage like this would work
See: >>10227127
>I'd kindly ask you to tackle the other points made in>>10228927
>But since you're a flat earther, large numbers probably scare you, so let's go over some proofs of the globe you yourself can obseve.
First of all: Polaris. Also known as the north star (actually north stars, as it's a system with two stars orbiting eachother),
Polaris is very close to the actual north celestial pole. Due to the round shape of the earth, polaris gets closer
and closer to the horizon the closer you are to the equator, untill it disappears entriely when you cross it.
Pic related.
>If the earth truly were flat, this should not be possible, and polaris could be brought back into view with a strong enough telescope.
>This, however, is not the case.
You can't physically zoom through the air.
>Next, just take a look at starmaps from the northern and southern hemispheres. They show completely different constellations. If the earth
were flat and the stars just lights on the dome, we should see the same night sky no matter where we're at on the plane
Dome model is retarded.

>>10229341
Aether.

>>10229354
is that why moon doesnt fall?

>>10229358

>>10229347
This post is a clusterfuck and appears to be retarded.
Your hurdles perspective example is really good because perspective dictates that anything above the Horizon will remain above the Horizon as it continues to infinity, which isn't what we see. There's no "compression" of the stars either, which is what you would expect if you were moving a significant distance in relation to them.

Once again, flattards use the word "perspective" with no idea what is actually expected in the real world.

>>10229364
still not getting why moon doesnt fall on flat earth or why it moves like it moves. does it use jetpacks or something?

>>10229369
Do you know what advanced sunset, delayed sunrise is brainlet? Same with the stars you dolt. http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~fv/webnotes/chapt11.htm

>>10229370
Dark matter.

>>10229382
dark matter is a globe earth creation, flat earth cant use it. stop throwing random words left and right and just explain why doesnt moon fall. you make flattards look retarded, if that even possible lol

>>10229389
Clear matter.

>>10229396
retard

>>10229420
>thinks he's flying through a vacuum right now in multiple different directions at once

>>10229381
Oh, that's nice. You've learned about refraction now.
Still doesn't solve your problems.

>>10229430
great argument, but you forgot to address the question in the process

>>10229430
flat earth is not inside a vacuum?

>>10229432
Yes it does. A refracted star circling further away will move towards the horizon due to perspective, and then disappear once low enough.

>>10229434
What does the moon not falling have to do with the shape of the earth?

>>10229453
No true vacuums can exist, so no.

>>10229471
i dont know, you tell me. according to flatearthers gravity doesnt exists, so tell me why moon doesnt fall down?

>>10229467
Only if it can actually move below the Horizon.
Did you actually look at that page you linked before?

>>10229476
Would have to go there first.

>>10229482
Even on your retard model, that stars you observe as they set are not the actual stars, so how can you possibly say that an optical illusion is doing something physical, like going behind curvature? Impossible.

>>10229494
why? you dont need to go on apple to see it fall, big rock? it falls, moon? it should fall. are you implying moon is made of magical cheese thats floating in the air? why doesnt it fly away? is it on leash? you make no sense, and in fact you sound like a retard

>>10229513
Cheese would fall retard. Why doesn't helium fall?

>>10229535
because you skipped middle school, and it shows

>>10229535
ok, explain to me why doesnt helium fall, lets hear your mental gymnastics

>>10229540
>takes school seriously

>>10229562
yeah, it really show you dont take it seriously, or even attend it at all

>>10229558
Pressure equilibration.

>>10229566
>believes government education

>>10229567
so you are saying that the moon is lighter than air? that it is made of gas? why dont it spread around? why does it form a globe?

>>10229577
Don't know unless you go there.

>>10229592
no you dont need to go there. gas doesnt form globes and things heavier than air dont float. you are full of shit and cant even defend your shit theory
>i cant explain anything
>but i know your theory is wrong
whoopy doop you are retarded, get help

>>10229600
Where did the moon come from in your retard model?

>>10229636
meteors, part of the earth, you connect things? where does the moon come from in flat earth model?

>>10229641
>meteors, part of the earth
Evidence?
>where does the moon come from in flat earth model?
How do I even know it "came" from anywhere? If you assume that, you end up with retarded ideas about it being from the earth, or meteors, when that's just schizo babble.

>>10229649
so you dont have explanation for it, you dont have explanation for why moon doesnt fall, why it is there, why it doesnt fly away. you dont have explanation for literally anything. child in middle school could explain it but you cant, what does this tell us about you. you think anyone will take you seriously? you made up some retarded story and think normal people will follow you? guess what, normal people are not retarded

>>10229661
So all you need is an "explanation" and that automatically makes it true? The shape of the earth doesn't need to be explained, it can be observed, tested and repeatedly tested. It "explains" itself.

>>10229498
By understanding the stuff you linked, to begin with.

>>10229558
Helium does fall, it's just that gravity forces density gradients in gases.
Release helium in a vacuum chamber and it will settle on the bottom.
>b-but there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum!
It doesn't have to be perfect to demonstrate this.

>>10229677
nigga, globe earth has explanation, its an explanation that is logical, you can logically take atoms, merge them and make sense of that explanation, while you dont even have that. you cant explain simple things that globe earth earth teach in middle school. you dont have anything other than "earth is flat fuck you". theres no logical reason why flat earth would not collapse because theres no gravity whatsoever in your retarded theory. in your flat world pictures from above doesnt exists because they would prove you wrong, they are all "CGI" you are clinically retarded. you seriously should consider getting help

>>10229679
I do brainlet. Globe disciples constantly point to sunrises/sets, stars rising/setting as "proof" of them going behind curvature, but refraction ruins this because your observations are based on an optical illusion.

>>10229695

>>10229728
nice picture you got there champ. you are retarded, every flatearther is a retard. you should make a group for people like you, people that think earth is flat, people that need help. be the hero flatearthers need

>>10229720
>but refraction ruins this
You still haven't done the calculations to show that the increase in distance to an object caused by the rise in altitude is counteracted by the lowering in density to such an extent that the object would be brought back into view

>>10229684
sorry but according to flatearthers gravity doesnt exist, so try to explain it without that word

>>10229064
Assuring "you know it's true", just like Milli Vanilli did.

>>10229728
Yeah, humans are pretty good at matching patterns.
Pity his nose is far too close to his eyes, but I guess that's fine for your narrative.

>>10229775
Just ignore the first sentence and have a flatearther explain why Helium settles on the bottom if it doesn't fall.
Also, I realize I shouldn't have quoted you, but the other guy.

>>10229786
just be yourself

>>10229801
so why does it settles down? what is the force that pulls it down? dont forget you cant use gravity for your explanation, mate :^)

>tfw wasting entire days in these threads

>>10229801
whats the matter mate? you cant think of anything? let me help you, just join this guy' group >>10229677, then search for more mentally ill people. it shouldnt be hard, /x/ and /sci/ are full of retards like you, full of mentally ill people like you, you just have to ask :^)

>>10229813
My explanation is gravity, but I'm not a flatearther, so I don't deny things that have been proven.

>>10229874
and what things were exactly been proven? is gravity real? you think saying gravity is real make it real?

>>10229858
just be yourself, believe things that are most real to you, dont believe in things that dont make sense. you dont believe in flat, why would you believe in anything they say? earth is a globe, theres millions of explanations for things that happned in the globe world, while theres none in flat earth. they cant even explain existence of moon. that movement is fuealed by retards. but its YOU who make the choice, just dont choose the wrong one

>>10229891
>you think saying gravity is real make it real?
No, I think it being proven real makes it real.
What I don't think is saying that gravity isn't real makes it not real.

>>10229935
so you think gravity is real? that makes you a anti-flatearther. thank you for your contribution to this dying thread

earth is not flat and you cant prove me wrong

>>10222969
>advanced sunrise/delayed sunset
https://youtu.be/xqAOsI2Ekf0

>>10229720
>>10229498
>>10229381
>Brainlet
>Dolt
>retard

Why are you stealing our oxygen?

>>10224769
You can get distance just by looking at sphere projections. Lense magic has nothing much to do with it in this case.

>>10224774
ow

>>10229180
like jumping into a pool?