[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 118 KB, 1200x627, flatearth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10450297 No.10450297[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What is a simple experiment, using stuff found around a household you can use to dispute flat earth.

>bonus points if math above geometry isn't involved.

>> No.10450299

>>10450297
a pendulum

>> No.10450300
File: 22 KB, 680x350, bar-magnet-alnico-low-power-75mm[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10450300

>>10450297

>> No.10450308
File: 1.25 MB, 2421x2361, moon perspective.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10450308

how about the fact that the stars circle the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere, no way to make that work on a flat earth

or the fact that all observers see the same face of the Moon

>> No.10450362
File: 15 KB, 400x300, 976390792__My.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10450362

a glass of water

>> No.10450364

>>10450362
how do i use a glass of water to dispute flat earth?

>> No.10450383

>>10450297
>household
If we're talking about americans, a sniper rifle can be used to show coriolis effect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX7dcl_ERNs

>> No.10450387

No need for an experiment besides some simple observations
Go to a marble table, and look at the foliations in the grains

The metamorphic process responsible for this could not be possible without plate tectonics which in turn is impossible on a flat earth

>> No.10450407

>>10450364
gravity

>> No.10450411
File: 59 KB, 180x240, Water_drop_animation_enhanced_small.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10450411

>>10450364

>> No.10450424

>>10450407
flat earther's have a explanation for gravity that works with their narrative.
>>10450411
what is up with the sci board and just posting images with little explanation?
ex.
>>10450300
>>10450362
>>10450411

>> No.10450436
File: 609 KB, 1860x862, 1537570343398.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10450436

>>10450424
There is absolutely no explanation to the cause of magnetism, however the fact that it exhibits polarity and responds to the planets polarity is proof that it is three dimensional. For where would 2 poles go on 1 surface?

>> No.10450450

>>10450297
You really can't, especially if they're dumb and can't understand complex arguments, and don't trust any picture they haven't personally taken themselves.
>>10450362
That's because of the capillary effect, not the shape of the Earth.

>> No.10450452
File: 24 KB, 1009x117, Screenshot_1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10450452

>>10450436
their counter is something along the lines, that what we know as the south-pole would be an infinite amount of poles around the edge of the disk that is earth
>pick related is a screenshot from their wiki

>> No.10450455

>>10450436
What are you talking about? The poles could span the diameter of the plate.

>> No.10450458

>>10450450
can you give me an example, just assume I'm fluent in stupid and capable of boiling any complex argument down to fifth grade level. Just please be light on the math like in OP

>> No.10450468
File: 66 KB, 288x396, 1321821834667.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10450468

>>10450297
Turn on your phone's GPS. Does it work? Yes? That means the Earth's round.

>> No.10450481
File: 124 KB, 680x680, 135.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10450481

>>10450468
gps uses trig to find you location based on the orbit of 4 satellites (usually) 3 for an x-y coordinate, and the 4th for depth (fourth is not required but is used for better results). GPS would be easier to use given it was on a flat plane.

>> No.10450491

>>10450481
Ok, how does GPS work then?
Are they all suspended in space? Is there space? Are they moving? What makes them move? Where are they moving?

>> No.10450502

>>10450491
first off, i have no idea how flat earther's explain gravity or rotation of the earth, but are you genuinely asking how gps systems (would) work on a 2d plane?

>> No.10450510

>>10450458
Well, for one the disk of the Sun would slowly become smaller and smaller until it becomes a dot like a star, not just go down the horizon and seem to just disappear. And if it was just because the Sun is moving across the flat Earth, the movement of the Sun would be way faster when it's over you than when it's near to the horizon, where it would seem to move much slower.
Another is how how the rotation of a globe explains a position in the sky being fixed while every other point in the firmament (stars etc.) rotates around it, with that point being over the horizon however many degrees you are from the equator. If it was merely an issue of distance you would see the part of the firmament between the fixed point and the horizon compressed and not just cropped.
But the problem is that flat earthers don't need to explain away those issues, they feel entitled to just say "you're wrong dude" and when questioned on why things are or aren't a certain way (basically when asked to come up with a model that explains the observations) they feel free to shut down all discussion by saying it's because of
>P E R S P E C T I V E
or
>fata morgana
or
>REFRACTION
without ever explaining what they think it means and how does it explain their observations, other than in very vague ways that aren't concrete enough to find a flaw in them.

>> No.10450511

>>10450491
They'll tell you you don't know what advanced tech they have.
If you have basically infinite delta-v it wouldn't be hard to simulate satellites over a flat Earth without ever actually getting into orbit. You just need a hover thruster under the satellite to be able to maintain altitude.

>> No.10450514

>>10450510
This was all i needed. especially this.
>Well, for one the disk of the Sun would slowly become smaller and smaller until it becomes a dot like a star, not just go down the horizon and seem to just disappear. And if it was just because the Sun is moving across the flat Earth, the movement of the Sun would be way faster when it's over you than when it's near to the horizon, where it would seem to move much slower.
/thread

>> No.10450520
File: 103 KB, 480x734, 1456722119572.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10450520

>>10450502
I was trying to suggest that 2D GPS doesn't make sense.

>>10450511
Yeah, but even according to flat earther rhetoric, we should be able to see something like that with even low-powered telescopes. Or do they also believe ((they)) have invisibility technology?

>> No.10450528
File: 12 KB, 1152x648, aaaaa.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10450528

>>10450520
given a point, you would only need to measure the distance to 3 points. given the distance to these 3 points and the distance from one point to the next is known. you can easily find the position of the point in question.

>> No.10450531

>>10450528
thus giving you your x,y coordinate

>> No.10450535

>>10450520
>I was trying to suggest that 2D GPS doesn't make sense.
What are you talking about? Of course it does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN was 2D as far as I know, just like the VOR and TACAN systems are.
>Yeah, but even according to flat earther rhetoric, we should be able to see something like that with even low-powered telescopes.
What rhetoric? I think most of them accept there's something flying at a high altitude that's supposed to be the ISS, whether it's a physical craft or a hologram is up for debate.
I wouldn't expect to see a half a meter hole in something flying at hundreds of thousands of feet or higher.
Plus the propeller could be on top.

>> No.10450537

also if the earth was flat you wouldnt even need satellites, 3 poles a few stories high would work just as well. so long as you knew their distance from another and their position

>> No.10450538

If by household object, you mean your own eyes:

You really just need simple observations. Not even a telescope.

Eg. it is always day on one side of earth and night on the other. Why can only half the earth see the moon (or any object) at once?

How can the distance from Australia to Argentina be like 10x greater than it actually is?

>> No.10450545

>>10450538
>How can the distance from Australia to Argentina be like 10x greater than it actually is?
You can't measure that with your eyes, you would need a sailboat or a plane.
>Eg. it is always day on one side of earth and night on the other. Why can only half the earth see the moon (or any object) at once?
The way they explain it is that as the sun moves over the earth, there's a distance at which the light coming from the object is refracted upwards so much that it's not able to reach your eyes anymore.

>> No.10450546

>>10450538
>How can the distance from Australia to Argentina be like 10x greater than it actually is?
how in the hell am i supposed to measure the distance of australia to argentina from my house?
>it is always day on one side of earth and night on the other. Why can only half the earth see the moon (or any object) at once?
I honestly don't know how a flat earther would
answer this.

>> No.10450547
File: 83 KB, 560x541, 1455594736000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10450547

>>10450528
>>10450531
I understand GPS, dingus.

>>10450535
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN
>It was similar to the UK's Gee system but operated at lower frequencies in order to provide an improved range up to 1,500 miles (2,400 km) with an accuracy of tens of miles.
The "G" in GPS stands for "Global".

>I wouldn't expect to see a half a meter hole in something flying at hundreds of thousands of feet or higher.
I would, especially with modern technology, and the fact that something like that would need refueling to work. How and when would something like that happen without being visible?

>>10450537
Then you'd see poles everywhere, and anytime something hits a pole, there's a power outage, or you're above poles in the mountains or on a plane, GPS wouldn't work.

>> No.10450559

>>10450547
>The "G" in GPS stands for "Global".
There's nothing stopping you from putting enough transmitters around the world to reach every point on the surface of the Earth. You could also fly transmitters hooked up to airplanes.
>I would, especially with modern technology
Low-powered telescopes aren't "modern technology" they're three hundred years old.
The refueling could be done in the middle of the ocean or other remote locations, especially when the satellites are supposed to be in the dark (not visible from Earth).

>> No.10450561

>>10450547
>The "G" in GPS stands for "Global".
can this be a meme please? I've never had the displeasure of talking to someone so fucking stupid and pretending to be smart.

>I understand GPS, dingus.
no you don't you just said that 2D GPS dosn't make sense and I proved it did. You either prove me wrong or admit it works on a 2D plane.

>Then you'd see poles everywhere, and anytime something hits a pole, there's a power outage, or you're above poles in the mountains or on a plane, GPS wouldn't work.

At this point im pretty sure you are pretending to troll to save face on an image board that wouldn't matter if you just left.

>> No.10450571
File: 415 KB, 480x238, 1469779581478.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10450571

>>10450559
>There's nothing stopping you from putting enough transmitters around the world to reach every point on the surface of the Earth.
Yes, there is. How about oceans and mountains? Even refueling/energy supply and general logistics aside, how would you not see these things? GPS works on every mountaintop. Is there an airplane hovering over every peak all the time, or are all of them covered with invisible transmitters that need no energy?

>>10450561
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

>no you don't you just said that 2D GPS dosn't make sense and I proved it did.
I wasn't saying it doesn't make sense mathematically, but practically. From its very basic theory, it has to "work" in 2D, but it would not be practical on a global scale without satellites.

Your last point was just undisguised ad hominem, so there's nothing to debate there.

>> No.10450581
File: 59 KB, 800x535, 1546639344334.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10450581

>>10450571
>How about oceans
buoys and navy or commercial ships
>mountains
Radio waves can reach mountains just fine, especially if you have line of sight.
>how would you not see these things?
Do you know exactly what equipment any ship or scientific station is holding at all times?
Couldn't the antennas be confused with simple short wave radios and so on?
>Is there an airplane hovering over every peak all the time
You don't need one plain over every top, as long as you got line of sight you're fine.
>but it would not be practical on a global scale without satellites.
It would be very doable, especially with autonomous drones. Do you need a satellite over every mountain top? No. All that matters is having line of sight with a few of them.

>> No.10450583

>>10450571
are you telly implying that there is no possible way to have 3 transmitter/receivers above the highest mountain on earth without use of a satellite?

man idk what to do with you.
You are on the right side (globes) but for all the wrong reasons. you are the exact type of person to fall for flat earth bs.
glhf man.

>> No.10450585

>>10450583
sorry i re-wrote this post so many times attempting to be helpful but it ended up giving me a stroke. as seen
>are you telly implying that
are you implying that (is what it is meant to say.)

>> No.10450591

>>10450559
> You could also fly transmitters hooked up to airplanes.
At 35,000 km altitude?

>> No.10450596

>>10450581
Yes, and all of this, with all the cost and all the personnel (who, of course, unanimously agreed to keep their mouth shut to protect the round earth hoax) is somehow more believable than a few satellites. Oh, and while we're here, please remember that GPS is only one of the GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite Systems). So all of that infrastructure and expenses and secret-keeping has to be multiplied by four (GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou, GALILEO).
I agree that It is theoretically possible, but it is impractical, improbable, not to mention that each and every GNSS satellite broadcasts their position, which can be used to tell where they are, and predict how and when the system will work.

>>10450583
No, I'm implying there is no PRACTICAL way to have 3 transmitter/receivers in LoS with ALL OF THE MOUNTAINS on earth ALL THE TIME without use of a satellite.

By the way, you're the one who didn't even know what GPS stood for, so I'd exercise a little humility after that.

>> No.10450597

>>10450591
Anon... A radio positioning system doesn't need to be that high to work.
And there's no easy way to verify that the satellites are actually at the altitude they're supposed to be (which is 20,000 km not 35,000 km btw)

>> No.10450601

>>10450597
>And there's no easy way to verify that the satellites are actually at the altitude they're supposed to be (which is 20,000 km not 35,000 km btw)
Yes there is. They broadcast their position and altitude, which can be used to predict when they'll disappear over the horizon and stop transmitting. The same data can be used to predict when you'll see them again.

>> No.10450615

>>10450596
>Yes, and all of this, with all the cost and all the personnel
>implying anyone except a few generals know what the money funneled into the military and intel agencies is actually used for
>(who, of course, unanimously agreed to keep their mouth shut to protect the round earth hoax) is somehow more believable than a few satellites
I never said it was more believable. I just said it was technically possible.
I'm not saying it'd be possible to keep the amount of techies working on it shut up, I don't know if that would be possible.
>Oh, and while we're here, please remember that GPS is only one of the GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite Systems). So all of that infrastructure and expenses and secret-keeping has to be multiplied by four (GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou, GALILEO).
You can't really verify if those additional systems actually exist by yourself unless you're one of the designers for either the transmitters or the receiving ICs.
>No, I'm implying there is no PRACTICAL way to have 3 transmitter/receivers in LoS with ALL OF THE MOUNTAINS on earth ALL THE TIME without use of a satellite.
And how do you know this? Have you done the calculations on how many transmitters you would need?
>By the way, you're the one who didn't even know what GPS stood for, so I'd exercise a little humility after that.
If you're referring to the comparison with LORAN, I know what GPS stands for bro. I just compared it to LORAN to show how the same principles apply to ground-based systems too, I wasn't saying both have the same coverage.
>>10450601
>They broadcast their position and altitude
And how do you know that data is accurate?
>The same data can be used to predict when you'll see them again.
How do you know they aren't just turning off and on certain transmitters to simulate the supposed orbital periods of the satellites?

>> No.10450641

>>10450615
>You can't really verify if those additional systems actually exist by yourself unless you're one of the designers for either the transmitters or the receiving ICs.
>And how do you know that data is accurate?
As a matter of fact, I AM an Electrical Engineer with a specialty in embedded systems and I had to implement systems like this.
You know the data is correct, because you can do the math yourself. You read the chip's output, you draw some triangles and BOOM, position. If it wasn't accurate, the whole system wouldn't work.

>How do you know they aren't just turning off and on certain transmitters to simulate the supposed orbital periods of the satellites?
Because loss of signal is different based on position, obstructions, movement etc for every receiving party. Since they're only receivers, they don't send data, and the transmitters wouldn't know how to fake their data.

>And how do you know this? Have you done the calculations on how many transmitters you would need?
I admit I haven't done the calculations, but I'm too lazy and I think my other points stand on their own.