/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9750644
Anon, this is sci not pol, no one here is retarded.

>>9750667
I didn’t say anyone is retarded. The picture is the thumbnail from the video.

Also, there are flat earthers here. If you haven’t run into them yet, then lurk moar.

Bibble sais erht is flat.

>>9750680
>this says the Bibble

>>9750667
>thinks the stray poltard wondering into sci is part of the board
Also you just learn what lurk means bud?

>>9750696
Wandering*

>>9750699

>>9750644
Good videos and arguments, I doubt any flattards will be persuaded by them though.
They are completely disconnected from reality and reason, instead choosing to trust in their simple feelings that the Earth is unmoving and flat, the Sun is close, since they seem to be that way.

>>9750746
Perhaps I think too much of people, but I disagree.

Presumably, flat earths largely constitute people who either did not pay attention to, have forgotten about, or were unsatisfied with the arguments presented in grade school for why the earth is a Sphere.

Consequently, when someone comes along and provides some (highly misguided) efforts as to why Earth may be flat, they cling onto the explanation that provides the most “proof” contained within their heads, which of course is not indicative of the true proportions of evidence supplied by each theory in the real world. The flat earth “arguments” appeal to the incredibly minuscule amount of intuition available to an individual person, which is why it may be convincing to some.

If true, then when confronted with a sufficient amount of evidence for why the earth is round (that may have either never been learned or forgotten), any flat earther without too much of a confirmation bias could be convinced.

>>9750738
Its a good thing you had that image handy or else you would've had to actually reply to what i said

>>9750644
I'm not going to watch the entire series but I did watch the first 2 videos and yes it is pretty annoying watching him name call like a pre-schooler, it doesn't surprise me that he believes something he was taught around the same time. Almost every argument he presents is a strawman, using "flat earth models" when there aren't any, and then applying globe-model theories and expecting it to mesh.

The thing about cognitive dissonance is that it doesn't allow you to see things from another perspective. It's a self defense mechanism against tricksters, but i'm no jester.

Why don't flights going from LA to NY have huge varying times?

What is the curvature of the earth, and why is it not observable on the surface?

Why is there no demonstrable experiment showing mass attracting mass?

Why does gravity go out the window when you change mediums from air to water, or when you apply magnetism?

Eclipses with both sun and moon above the horizon?

There's hundreds of other questions but I doubt you'll even ponder them. Knowledge makes people so jaded they don't realize their entire lexicon is fiction, like spending your life studying pokemon stats and breeding charts.

>>9750644
>https://www.cnet.com/news/the-bizarre-tale-of-the-australia-flat-earth-convention-that-fell-apart/

Recent article about Flat Earthers. These happen to be from Australia.
Psychologist explains how beliefs, once accepted and however bizarre, can rarely be negated by logical arguments. Such convictions are emotionally-basedl.

Interesting read.
At least some of these people can appear to be quite sane -- except on this one issue.
Of course, it's hard to tell on /sci/ how many are truly sincere and how many are simply trolls who enjoy starting arguments.

>>9750773
>Why don't flights going from LA to NY have huge varying times?
>What is the curvature of the earth, and why is it not observable on the surface?
>Why is there no demonstrable experiment showing mass attracting mass?
>Why does gravity go out the window when you change mediums from air to water, or when you apply magnetism?
>Eclipses with both sun and moon above the horizon?

>>9750765
Something you have to realize is, everything about a globe earth that you believe is 2nd hand information, there's no actual proof that can be independently presented and I actively search for it. Maybe most flat earth people ARE retarded, but most people in general are. Realize that there are people who believe in scientific theories but don't actually have an understanding of the underlying concepts. That's what flat earth is about as a whole.(From both perspectives humorously)

>>9750773
"Mass attracting mass."
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
First done a few centuries ago.
Recent refinements have explored the range down to a millimeter or two (with correspondingly small masses) checking to see if the inverse-square law breaks down at very small distances.
Thus far, it's always true.

The Cavendish experiment is something anyone can do. No billion dollar apparatus is needed. It DOES require care to eliminate air currents and other sources of error.

>>9750782
You can easily go here and see the curvature with your own eyes https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/

>>9750773
I don’t exactly know what you want him to do. He is exploring the consequences of a flat earth and showing it contradicts from what is observed. How is that not valid?

>why don’t flights from LA to NY have huge varying times?
I don’t know why you would expect them to, considering their distance is constant. Are your referring to the fact that because the earth is spinning, one might naivly expect that traveling one way would be faster than another?
This is not the case because the atmosphere, under the influence of friction against the spinning earth, is moving with the earth’s rotation. You can see this in action by taking a bucket of water and spinning it. After awhile, the water begins to spin with the bucket. Of course gasses are much less dense than fluids, but the concept is the same.

>What is the curvature of the earth, and why is it not visible from Earth’s surface?
The first question is a little ambiguous, and I don’t know how you want me to answer it.
The second question is easy though. All “smooth” (you can look up the mathematical definition of this) surfaces appear flat locally. This is the principle behind non-Euclidean and differential geometry. The easiest way to see this is to take two spheres of very different sizes, perhaps a small balloon and a very large ballon, and compare the flatness of a circular region of 1 inch diamater. You’ll notice that, relative to an observer on the sphere, the larger sphere appears more flat within that circular region. That’s because the 1 inch diameter circle takes up a smaller percentage of the total surface area of the larger sphere than of the smaller sphere.

>why is there no demonstrable experiment of mass attracting mass
First of all, there are plenty. It’s just very difficult because the gravitational constant is so small compared to, for example, the Coulomb constant responsible for electrostatic attraction.

(1/2)

>>9750773
(2/2)
You can do the calculations yourself. Using newton’s Law of gravity, which is approximately correct for small masses, you can find the force of attraction between two 1kg masses. Take that number and compare it to the sensitivity of most commercially available scales.

>why does gravity go out the window when you change mediums from air to water, or when you apply magnetism?
I don’t know what you mean by this, since gravity is always present. Are you referring to the fact that some things sink in air but not in water? This is because every object under the influence of gravity is also subject to an opposing bouyant force when submersed in a medium. The force is proportional to the density of the medium, so the higher the density, the higher the force. Since water is many many more times dense than air, it’s not difficult to find an object who’s net force is downwards in air (because the force of gravity is greater than the force of buoyancy) but who’s net force is not downwards in water (because the force of gravity is less than the force of bouyancy)

>eclipses with both sun and moon over the horizon?
This cannot happen. I suspect if you saw a picture on the internet of this, it is photoshopped. You may try to argue against this, but then you have to accept the possibility the photos of the earth taken from space, which are a sphere, are also not photoshopped, which they aren’t.

Hopefully you see now that we indeed do ponder your questions, we just immediately recognize them as misguided because we know better.

>>9750782
I wonder why no physics and astronomy students subscribe to flat earth theories? Because they have deal with evidence for the earth is a sphere every day.

There is proof everywhere for why the earth is a sphere, you just are not willing to accept it. Watch the videos.

DO NOT FEED

>>9750819
>when you’re so good at contradicting yourself you manage to do it in a single sentence

You’ve reached a level we thought unreachable.

Bump

spherecucks pounding the ground losing hoap lmao

>>9750957
To whom are you referring as pounding the ground? OP? Some other poster? The narrator of the videos? You’re just claiming you’re right with no context or justification.

>>9750644
please stop

>>9751011
Why?

>>9751011
Just one more debate, Mom! I promise!

>>9751021
I was like you once. I wanted to challenge the flat Earthers with well thought-out arguments based on my own experiences/calculations, but they only ever responded with pasta or links to smug youtube videos. No original thought or signs of comprehension, just regurgitation, every time.
Shit ain't worth it, dog. Stop inviting them to debate and they'll go away.

>>9751063
Well at least I got one flat earther to reply with legitimate questions, which I then addressed.

>>9750776
How are they defining beliefs? Aren't beliefs the only thing that can be negated by logical arguments, or are they trying to delineate between beliefs and ideas or something?

>>9751087
His point is they don’t listen.

>>9751092
Well obviously they don't. But he's also making a statement about beliefs in general, and I what to know what he means by it.

>>9750773
>Why does gravity go out the window when you change mediums from air to water, or when you apply magnetism?

>>9751086
Legitimate questions, sure, but no insight as to why they think those questions disprove a spherical Earth, or how they might work on a flat Earth. I can almost guarantee the poster got the questions directly from some third source and accepted their consequences on a very basic level without bothering to think it through.
It feels good to flex your brain in an attempt to educate people, but it's pointless here, and only serves to attract more flat Earthers

>>9751098
If it attracts more flat earthers, that’s fine with me provided they can have a logical discussion, which you are certain they cannot.

Besides, surrounding myself with opposing views strengthens my own arguments.

>>9751087
"Logic" is the process of starting with agreed upon axioms and, step-by-step, coming to conclusions.
Axioms must, in a sense, be taken on faith. Otherwise you get infinite regress. Euclid started the definitions of points and lines; things so basic that no one argued over them. They were considered self-evident. (There was a hidden assumption in his 5th postulate, but Euclidean geometry is still valid within that assumption.)

There's not much you can do if your axioms aren't accepted. People have emotional reasons for believing certain things and logic-be-damned!

With some things, you can offer evidence. Photos of the Earth from space. Ground surveys using triangulation. Doesn't help is someone is really closed minded and insists you (and a few billion co-conspirators) are doctoring the photos and the numbers to Hide the Truth.

Look at fields where Everything is taken on Faith. Theology. People are willing to go to war (and die) for crack-brained notions without a shred of evidence that they're valid.

>>9751119
This is true in the mathematical sense to some degree, but mathematics that doesn’t agree with objective reality is rejected. It’s less based on faith than you give it credit for.

>>9750792
How exactly is the atmosphere attached to the surface of the planet? and how does it not leak out into space?
How does spinning a bucket compare to a spinning globe, where instead of the water being inside the enclosed shape(leaving only the opening pointing 'up") its on the outer surface of a round ball? Not a good comparison.

What I mean by curvature sorry, is what is the expected drop below the horizon over a particular distance. All the numbers provided by globe science DO NOT work, where you can see objects and buildings that should be hidden by hundreds of feet of curvature. I believe the longest photo capture was over 200 miles but i'll have to double check.

If there are plenty then it should be easy to give me a couple real world examples of mass attracting mass, don't dance around.

Look up Boyd Bushman On The Hutchison Effect in regards to the magnestism thing, i'm just a layman.

It can and HAS happened. Do research. It is explained away as atmospheric refraction but this is another globe-lie. There have been several recorded all through history, even in the last 5 years.

Listen I know exactly how you feel I believed in NONE of this about 1 year ago, I infact argued the same points you did because i never actually allowed myself to even ponder what flat earth people were saying. There are laser light tests showing no curvature over distances 10-20miles where there should be a considerable dip but there isn't. Look up ships going over the horizon, then being brought back into sight with a more powerful zoom. Things simply don't add up. >>9750807

>>9751119
You are correct but I wonder if you realize you might be the person you're talking about? Pictures are not evidence. Video is not evidence. Theories are not evidence. There should be a discernible curvature, and drop over certain distances but there isn't. People gloss over this as if it isn't game breaking.

How do gyroscopes work? If i took one into "space" and brought it back to another side of earth, would the gyroscope flip around, or keep its original position in space?

>>9751126
>>9751126
>how exactly is the atmosphere attached to the earth
The same way the water is attached to the bucket in the example provided. It’s not “attached” in the normal sense (which typically means held together by electrostatic bonds), but there is an exchange of force between them that provides the connection. It doesn’t escape because it’s attracted to the earth via gravity (or, more accurately, the molecules in the air fall into the gravitational field caused by the presence of the earth).
The spinning bucket was only meant to provide you with a physical picture for the exchange of forces present in the two seemingly disconnected physical systems, nothing more. You can imagine that if there was no friction between the water and the bucket, then the water would stay completely still even as the bucket rotates. Indeed, superfluids (like superfluid helium) exhibit zero friction and are capable of doing this. However, most matter under normal conditions (not extremely cold temperatures) exhibit friction.
Why doesn’t the atmosphere fly off the earth as a result of the fast rotation of the earth? If the gas had enough kinetic energy, it could do this. However, the friction mentioned previously prevents it from gaining enough energy to do so. However, you may be interested to know that atmospheric hydrogen is very scarce in planets of roughly earth-like masses. This is because hydrogen molecules are so small that they do not undergo collisions frequently enough to lose enough energy to remain in the earth’s gravitational field and eventually leave it. Higher mass planets however, where the gravitational field is stronger, are capable of holding onto the hydrogen.

Cont...

>>9751132
>How do gyroscopes work?
You clearly don't know, so why are you bringing it up as if it was some gotcha?

>>9751126
>all the numbers provided by the globe do not work
I would like you to post the source of where you are getting this, because I do not think this is correct. I do not know off the top of my head, but I believe the “curvature” you are referring to is 0.67 feet of drop per 1 mike horizontal distance. This means you would expect about 130 feet of drop per 200 miles of horizontal distance IGNORING OPTICAL EFFECTS. That is, if the earth was like the moon and contained no atmosphere, this is what would be observed. However, you have to take into account important optical effects resulting from the temperature, composition and water content of the air, which obscures these values. The same effects that cause the distortions that cause “puddles” the appear on the road on a hot day can cause these issues.

Cont...

>>9751119
To understand the world with have to make a great deal of abstraction, and the logic we use is never as precise as propositional logic. It's very difficult to prove that any position was reached with or without logic. Even theologians try to come up with something resembling logical arguments.

>>9751126
>if there are plenty, then it should be easy to give me a couple

Here is a more recent one. It is the thesis of one of the advisors I considered working with during my graduate school visits. His thesis was testing an on-chip experiment to look for deviations from Newtonian gravity. I hope this link works, I had trouble loading it:

http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~weld/publications/dmw-dissertation.pdf

Cont...

>>9750644
My favorite argument against a flat earth is the thought of how ridiculously fast the earth wold have to spin to become a flat disc.

>>9751126
>it can and HAS happened
If you are referring to the eclipse thing, please post your sources. If you ask for my sources about the gravity experiment, I expect sources in return for this.

>I know exactly how you feel I believed in NONE of this 1 yr ago
I’m sorry but anecdotal stories don’t interest me. I have three degrees in physics, pure math and astronomy and I am a physics graduate student so I am fully aware of the scientific method and the falsifiability of theories. I’ve have “researched flat earth” and have seen absolutely no valid arguments for why the earth is not a spheroid. Anyone who has a decent track record in the physical and earth sciences comes to the same conclusion because they know how to test their theories. The fact that so many people, all of whom are not scientifically literate, believe that the earth is flat does nothing to dissuade me from knowing that the earth is in fact spheroidal.

>things don’t add up
I’m afraid they do. Not that you’ll take my word for it, but every “fallacy” you come up with has an experiment that demonstrates it away. Things appearing and reappearing over the horizon? Of course you have a problem with this, but you have never questioned the fact that due to temperature and humidity variations in the air, you can see objects blocked by the position of the side of a hill. You can see over bumps in the road because of the same phenomenon. Pick up a basic textbook on optics and it will use these everyday observations in the pictures for their exercises at the end of the chapter.

>>9751126
Sorry, long replies got clouded in other replies. My replies are:
>>9751138
>>9751143
>>9751148
>>9751165

I also recommend you watch the video titled “questions for flattards” in the playlist. It’s much shorter than the other ones but address tangentially-related questions about your eclipse issue. Again, pardon the name-calling. His series was clearly intended for people who do not subscribe to the flat earth model.

>>9750773
>>Why is there no demonstrable experiment showing mass attracting mass?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

>>9751138
You keep presenting the spinning bucket as if it has any bearing on the earth.
Bucket spinning in a circle with fluid inside=/= A ball rotating on its own axis AND orbiting another object with fluid on the OUTSIDE of the surface. I understand how when you throw in the gravity everything magically seams together but you have to realize that it wouldn't be necessarily if you weren't working with such a broken view of the world. I'm not saying your theory doesn't work in computation, which is all you're proving. It DOES. That's the reason why everyone believes it. The problem is that it doesn't work in the real world.
>>9751139
Stop running, or just ignore the questions don't try and flip it on me. Just answer the question if you can.

>>9751143
The way you calculated the numbers are incorrect, you can do a google search to find your error but here's a couple calculators
http://earthcurvature.com/
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=5&h0=6&unit=imperial
>>9751148
I read the abstract, the experiment doesn't at all prove that mass attracts mass. They're spinning up gold balls and creating a AC current.. And then measuring the average signal of the cantilever's displacement.. Again just a layman. Can you explain how this experiment shows MASS simply attracting MASS on its own effort?

>>9751165
https://www.space.com/13856-total-lunar-eclipse-rare-senelion.html

Just use google

>>9751169
Cavendish experiments have never been repeated

>>9751191
You are a troll. Angular momentum can’t pull the atmosphere and oceans off the earth when it’s weaker than gravity you small child.

>>9751191
>Stop running, or just ignore the questions don't try and flip it on me. Just answer the question if you can.
>running
m8 that was my first response to you. Gyroscopes don't orient themselves with gravity. So no, it wouldn't flip around. Now why did you think they did orient themselves with gravity, and why are you trying to use something you know nothing about as evidence?

>>9751201
Troll proven. You’re just lying now.

>>9751191
>you keep presenting the spinning bucket
I’m providing you with an example that gives you an intuitive understanding of the same physics process. I understand that it’s not the Earth, but there’s no small scale system version of the a body keeping gasses on it due to gravitational attraction.
Stop confusing reality with magic. Just because you don’t understand the mathematics that goes into seaming together the model doesn’t mean it’s magic. If you think it’s magic, then you’re using the lack of mathematical background given in most videos explaining how it works, which has been obviously omitted because most people don’t understand or care about the math.
You are right, the one failure in connecting the analogy to the actual earth is the fact that there are no walls keeping the atmosphere constrained to the earth like in the bucket. But don’t assume that just because an analogy isn’t perfect that you’re right.
The atmosphere spins with the earth because the friction between the atmosphere and the surface of the earth keeps it in motion with the earth. It also prevents it from gaining enough energy to overcome the force of gravity keeping it on the earth in the first place.
I don’t understand how you can call the globe a broken view of the world even in the face of all of the evidence presented against the flat earth. You’re stuck on these few questions that I’m providing explanations for and yet you haven’t considered the ones in the video.
I would also like to point out that the truth of ideas is not determined by what makes sense but what is yielded by experimentation, observation, and reproduction. So just because something doesn’t make sense to you, it’s not wrong.

Cont...

>>9750644
Here's a simple experiment for you: take a look out the window, are the trees in the distance straight in front of you or do they look like they're wrapping around some damn baseball curve?

Trust your instincts not the propaganda. Our World is Flat. Deal with it.

>>9751191
Quantum mechanics for example (please don’t debate this, it’s very off topic, I’m just using this as an example) is notoriously difficult to understand intuitively and yet it predicts the outcome of every known experiment with unmatched precision, so scientists accepted it in spite of its confusing implications.

Also, I think you have a very distorted idea of what science is. We don’t just add in ad-hoc explanations for things and call it a day. The only way we have to distinguish between the ramblings of a mad man and an accurate description of reality is experimentation and observation. The fact that the numbers predict what is observed means that it is correct? At this point, you are just claiming that anything you don’t agree with as part of the conspiracy. Do you think math is part of the conspiracy? What about logic?

>gyroscopes
This wasn’t me, your beef here is with another guy


I also do not know how you can be so against numbers from calculations not providing a guide for reality when you are trying to use this calculator to argue why the earth’s curvature is not real?
However, you are correct that I made a mistake in my calculations. I used horiztonal distance instead of the distance along the arc.
h=r(1-cos(a)) is indeed the correct formula, which is what is in that calculator.

As for the experiment I sent you...
(1) this experiment isn’t designed to show that two masses attracted each other because it’s accepted by every physicist
(2) it directly measures the gravitational attraction between two masses suspended by cantilevers. The AC current generated by the harmonic motion of the cantilevers is how they determine how much the cantilevers is moving, which is then used to calculate the attraction between the masses. It’s stated directly in the abstract.

Cont...

>>9750782
I don't know why flattards keep claiming this. It's not at all true. There are plenty of experiments and exercises that can be done. They have been done. It's not like someone woke up one day and said "Round!" This model was based on observations, testing, reliance for navigation, and finally we witnessed it from spaceborne imagery (inb4 "All fake! CGI!" - get real).

>>9751328
But baseballs are small. The earth is at least twice the size of a baseball.

>>9751191
If that experiment was not to your liking, read this:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.3210
It’s a relatively new technology called atom Interferometry that is now being used for gravity gradiometry (measuring small deviations in the gravitational force across the surface of the earth due to slight variations in the mass below the experiment, caused by either under or over dense regions) and geodesy.
All of these experiments require that the equations describing gravity are correct. If the equations for gravity were incorrect, the experiment would yield different results than what is predicted.


Consider this for a moment. Imagine you’re right, that the earth is flat and accelerating upward to provide the force that keeps everything on the world. What then would keep adjacent parts of the earth together?
What keeps anything in the earth together at all? What keeps the moon together? Since you’re so against the idea that the atmosphere could remain constrained to the earth, why not consider the possibility that mountains would also fly off the earth into space? Why doesn’t loose dust on the moon fly off into space? What do you think keeps all of those things together? What about saturn’s rings rotating about Saturn? The existence of a large body of mass keeps them there.

If you’re going to ask me to explain why, I cannot. No one understands “why” gravity exists, because physics is about understanding how the world works, not why it works the way it does.

>>9751328
>trust your instincts
>My instincts are that the sun is fully visible for entire days in the polar regions, without being visible for anyone else

My instincts lead me to believe that you can literally have a geocentric earth theory like Aristotle, Arichimedes, or Ptolemy and be significantly less retarded than flat earthers.

>>9751328
The fact that you think one simple observation about the world constitutes all your “instincts” about the natural world means you have experienced only an insignificant fraction of it compared to the rest of us.

>>9751389
This

>>9751328
I have a globe. They're easy to come by. This one's .305m in diameter (about a foot).

The Earth is 12,756,000m in diameter.

That's a scale of about 1:41,822,951.

So that means if I'm at the top of the 828 meter Burj Khalifa, that building would jut out of my globe .00002 m or 0.02 mm = a fiftieth of a millimeter, something like a flake of silt. The texture of the globe material would obstruct any view of curvature.

How about in an airplane at 12,000 m? I'd be .00029 m or .29 mm = one third of a millimeter above the globe - something like a grain of salt. *Maybe* I could see a bit of curve, but I doubt it.

The ISS orbits at about 395,000 m. That would put it about .00944 m or 9.44 mm above my globe, about the length of a coffee bean. Yes, you should be able to see curvature from there (protip - they do).

What makes you think you should be able to see curvature?

>>9751196
>atmospheric refraction
I assume you find this unsatisfactory because they way it’s presented seems ad-hoc.
DO NOT confuse the fact that “space.com”, a website intended for audiences of all scientific backgrounds, decided to omit the complicated math required to draw the conclusion that atmospheric refraction was responsible for the effect with an ad-hoc excuse.

Look up refraction, reflection, snell’s laws, the fresnel equations, and several worked physics problems that explain how this type of conclusion is reached.
The math is complicated, but that doesn’t mean it’s “magic”
Surprise, surprise - the world is not a simple place. If it were, we wouldn’t be complicated enough to be smart enough to be having this debate.

>>9751132
>pictures are not evidence
>videos are not evidence
>theories are not evidence

>evidence is not evidence

You realize what you’re saying, right?

>>9751191
And again, the reason why experiments that try to directly observe the gravitational attraction between two bodies is because the gravitational constant is very, very small which makes observing the attractive force between everyday objects very, very hard.

Two 1kg masses suspended 1 meter away from each other exhibit an attractive force of less than 10^-10 newtons. Literally blinking produces air moving fast enough to cause a greater force than that, by several orders of magnitude.

>>9751191
Continuing >>9751422
I’m assuming by now you’re thinking “how convenient that all of this points to the earth being a spheroid. That’s suspicious”
The reason why all of this “conveniently” fits the current accepted theories of gravity, celestial mechanics and the sphere earth is because this is how we arrived at the conclusion that the earth was a sphere. It’s not like hundreds of years ago, people decided that the earth was a sphere and then invented a bunch of math and physics to suit that unjustified model. All of these experiments were done and the evidence piled up that earth was a sphere, so that’s what became the accepted idea, because all of the evidence points to that conclusion.

You are faced with mounds of evidence for the earth being a sphere and trying to argue that all of science is guilty of a massive confirmation bias, and you have absolutely no reason to believe that to be the case.

>>9751328
Shitty eyeballs beat scientific instruments confirmed. Earth isn’t that small you dumb retard.

>>9750773
Please be bait.

>>9751232
Correct, it would retain it's position in space, now how exactly does a gyroscope work on a plane? Keep in mind because you seem to not realize, I know the answers but am leading you to a specific point.

>>9751324
I'm not confusing reality with magic, i'm asking you to show me a model that actually presents the things you claim, not something "simililar".

Can you show one example of an atmosphere being stuck to a ball surface through friction?

I considered the questions in the video, and the ones you presented. What you don't realize is you're dancing in circles because you aren't taking in any new information, just making assumptions, and educated guesses based off 2nd hand information. You can't present me with anything demonstrable or repeatable.

>>9750773
Those are NOT psilocybin mushrooms, they're Destroying Angels.

>>9751373
I don't disagree that the math "works" thats the whole reason why there is a conspiracy, because a ball earth does work on the surface. It's only when you truly examine things that you start to form questions. Your perception of how I see science is incorrect, I'm fully aware that the scientific method should be backed up by real experimentation. That's all i'm asking for. Real world examples of Mass attracting Mass, curvature, reasons why atmosphere isn't leaching off into space ect.

The abstract isn't exactly clear, and your 2nd link is even more confusing. If the idea was to present something that could befuddle me into saying gee, I don't get it so i must be wrong, you succeeded. ((not)) Pretend i'm not as smart as you, can you show me a repeatable, demonstrable experiment showing mass attracting mass that I or another simpleton could understand?

>>9751388
I never said anything about the earth accelerating at some ridiculous upward pace. That's disinformation from the flat earth society, they are a group designed to sew bad information to dissuade people from Flat Earth. It's seemingly a Flat, Motionless plane.

Now your just talking silly. Never claimed objects didn't have weight, or could fly ect. You're just trying to burn the biggest strawman that you can but i'm not sure you have enough timber.
I don't have the answers, but I would assume it's something involving the electromagnetic spectrum that is affecting the bodies floating in the sky.

I'm not asking you to explain why gravity exists, I'm asking you to show it to me in how it's described. Aspects of gravity are obviously true, I'm just asking you to show me one real world example of Mass attracting mass that can be understood simply. Nature does not speak in English, or in Newtonian physics. these are simply ways of describing what we see and experience. You have taken this to the next level, and treat your observations as gospel.

>>9751406
I understand the concept of atmospheric refraction, and it's not to say that it isn't a real phenomenon, What i'm saying is that, that isn't what is occurring in these instances where the sun, and moon are both above the horizon.

>>9751409
Here's a picture of a massive shark eating a man, it's real. Do you see my point?
You can present me evidence, but if I can't go out and repeat your findings it's nothing but fiction, like most of the writings here ;)

>>9751431
>>9751422
You have to realize whats happening, all you are doing is regurgitating everything you have been taught, and studied. When I studied astronomy in college everything made perfect sense, from calculating orbits to observing Jupiter. Most of the work was digital but it fit with the model I learned my entire life. It's not that the globe earth doesn't fit together snugly, it's the fact that reality is different than what is being presented in the model, and that's what no one seems to understand.. They can't show any real world examples to prove their theories, you have to do a bunch of mental gymnastics, and crazy irrelevant experimentation to prove something that never was.

>>9751938
So basically it is pointless to argue with you since you refuse to do participate

>>9751942
Or you just haven't read enough to understand how much of life is dependent on these models and how the whole world would have fallen apart long ago if they weren't true
Flat earth hasn't been a part of legitimate scientific discussion since the classical era seeing how easily it falls apart under scrutiny

You have a long list of adhoc excuses which do not work together to form a single functioning system
No theory is perfect, but this is a clear cut example of one being better then the other

>>9751120
Absolutely agree.
Objective reality is what we can measure.
Theories ABOUT REALITY which don't fit the experimental data should be rejected.

The problem we have is with people who reject experimental data when it conflicts with their deeply held "theories".

One minor caveat though.
>mathematics that doesn’t agree with objective reality is rejected
Not so.
Mathematics that doesn’t agree with objective reality gets a footnote that it doesn't agree with objective reality. But it's still perfectly good mathematics. The Banach–Tarski paradox doesn't work IRL because matter can't be infinitely subdivided, but we shouldn't reject it. Hilbert's Hotel doesn't (and can't exist) but its logic is impeccable.

>>9751982
Statements like yours is what makes flat earth derps argue with you brainlets.
No, life is not dependent on the models. Models are made to fit data, not the other way around.

Sincere question to the flat earthers: how do you know the earth is centered around the arctic?

>>9751979
I'm not refusing to participate, I want you to realize that just because you've seen video or a picture of something doesn't mean that it's real.

>>9750791
Nope.

I wonder if the field of psychology or some other can benefit from the flattard phenomena.

>>9752810
>the flattard phenomena
no.
there can be no benefits from it.
it bodes very badly for us all

>>9752819
Yeah, I guess people into social engineering and information manipulation can learn a lot from observing flattards, but WE would definitely not be benefiting from that.

>>9750644
Wasn't this whole flat earth thing a cult started by some "scientist" 100 or 200 years ago? I know it was recently introduced on the internet as a meme. I felt shocked there were people in this day and age who actually "believed" this.

>>9752154
It's centered around the north magnetic pole (Polaris)

>>9752768
This only happens when the atmospheric conditions are just right. You should be able to find a not curved picture if it were due to the atmosphere.

>>9752843
The Lake Pontchartrain pylons that globalists love to use as proof of curvature is distortion caused by the water they are above. If you look to the right and left of the horizon you can see a mirroring/miraging effect created by the water.

However, with the right atmospheric conditions the curvature disappears: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5_efcyCjBo

>>9752849
Weird that the "right atmospheric condition" Is the one where there is the most visible distortion. It's almost as if there is normally a curve and then it gets distorted to straight.

Are there flattards in the southern hemisphere? I wonder what they have to say about fucking Polaris.

>>9752857
>It's almost as if there is normally a curve and then it gets distorted to straight.
Kek.

>>9752861
The southern hemisplane is dominated by the southern magnetic force, so they look north relative to magnetic south

>>9752866

This is how ships disappear as they get further away, nothing to do with a curve.

>>9752868
What do you think people in the southern hemisplane think about Polaris?

>>9752913
Ships are a lot bigger than bikes and therefore have enough light bouncing off of them to visible, even through atmospheric wobbling, long enough that they will be swallowed by Earth's curvature before fading.

>>9750773
I'm only replying to the argument that I found more ridiculous. Gravity doesn't dissapear in presence of water or magnetism. Common mechanics explain that different forces applied to one object can be treated as one resultant force, which is the vectorial sum of all of them. If you take a mass and make it "levitate" with magnetism, you are not making gravity dissapear, you are just applying a force big enough to balance the gravitional pull for it. And if you are going to say force sums are an elaborate trick by scientists, it's a perfectly working model that has been proven to work through centuries, so there's no reason to consider it unreliable

>>9752925
Nope.

>>9752962
Globalists? Where are you?

Local sun.

>>9753002
Explain this globalists. Back your theory up it's your duty.

>>9753002
what's meant to happen here?

>>9753033
Fit it with this model.

>>9750644
>this video is just a NASA shill project
you can't win against conspiratards. any evidence that goes against their beliefs is photoshopped/fake/shill/paid actor
>>9750667
this

Physics students vs Flat earth proponents

Physics Students vs Flat Earth proponents: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dkMKpY7cG4

Here's the deal: there are three types of Flat Earthers who have regularly posted to 4Chan: prankster intellectuals who troll to test your knowledge and debate skills, literal Bible interpreters, and far and away the most proliferate: the juvenile-level troller.

None of them provide any evidence of phenomena that *require* a flat Earth model to explain, but rather place the onus on you to prove the round Earth (again, and again, and again, ...) while disavowing any science or proofs put forward. They will post memes that ostensibly 'prove' some flaw in the round Earth model, but containing geometry, maths, logic, and facts so absurdly wrong that you are compelled to display your superior intelligence and knowledge. Mostly though they will provoke you with the classic, "If you don't respond, you're a faggot and you prove me right." By responding, you've taken the bait.

They don't care whether the Earth is flat or round. Your posts (reasoned or prefereably emotional) are met with insulting or provocative responses, because it's all about the lulz from getting you to respond. If you reference web-based information (that they could have looked up, had they interest) they will accuse you of being a shill for some absurd conspiracy.

It is simply impossible to keep up with having to explain away the barrage of stupid posts, and the anonymous mask of 4Chan removes culpability for the prankster and enables this crap. Arguing is akin to painting over mud - you just end up with a dirty brush.

>>9753040
the camera is spinning the other way?
the earth is rotating relative to its own axis and around the sun?

>>9752962
why don't these people use something that isn't a shit camera. Why no tripod. Why no magnification. Like when they point their shit phones at the stars and the noise they film are what the actual stars look like.

>>9753081
Not talking about the spin of the camera. Notice how the clouds closest to the sun are brighter than the clouds further away, when in the globe model the whole earth should be lit up equally as the sun is much larger and further away than the earth.

>>9753103
Angle of incidence. You trolls aren't even trying anymore.

>>9753084
>Why no magnification.
It was zoomed in pretty far, much further than the eye can see, it has also been sped up very quickly exaggerating the shakiness.

Are you claiming the ship is going over a curve?

>>9752768
There is no refraction at the top of the towers, try again.

>>9753120
See
>>9752849

>>9751930
>Pretend i'm not as smart as you, can you show me a repeatable, demonstrable experiment showing mass attracting mass that I or another simpleton could understand?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

>>9751923
Once again, you're asking about something you clearly don't understand and haven't properly looked into. Obviously you think that the purpose a gyroscope on a plane is to tell which way is down and it is free to rotate about any axis. The truth is that there are several kinds of gyroscopes used on planes and each have their freedom of movement restricted in some way. The earth gyro, which is used in detect the direction of the ground, is attached to a weight that will ensure that it axis of rotation will always return to vertical. This information isn't hard to find. Why do you think it's enough to just assume things?

>>9753126
Caused by static electricity (lead is as static as cats fur).

>>9753107
I am not saying that at all. The camera is probably not designed for the recorded condition.
CohuHD's 8800HD
A camera that can actually see a far target.
Somewhere around twelve miles should be enough for ocean to ocean horizon.
Or a lens / telescope, and tripod, put on a digital camera to give it good range and quality.

>>9753135
But the ship has to be going over a curve just based on the "fact" that it's sailing over curved water, that gets exponentially more curved the further it gets.

And when people say they see ships going over a curve, you would disagree, correct?

>>9753132
Static electricity doesn't occur between objects that are grounded, there has to be charge isolation

>>9750644
Havent you fucking morons figured out that, other than three schizophrenic shitposters from Iran, every flat earther is just a troll? This shit is obvious but >ledditors keep talking about it.

>>9753132
You said this in the other thread and I believe I challenged you to demonstrate that the experiment could be affected in this way.
Have you done the experiment yet?

>>9753142
Just by handling lead balls you will be creating static charge, lead balls are a dumb material to use. The Cavendish experiment is laughable, some guy in his barn watched two lead balls move through a telescope that was outside of the barn so his own gravity wouldn't mess the experiment up. The smallest gust of wind, the smallest static charge, dust in the air could all create movement.

>>9753022
The Sun, she is bright.

>>9753159
I did the experiment over 200 years ago in my barn so you have to believe me.

>>9753169
She is bright because she's close

>>9753105
Correct, angle of incidence from something local.

>>9753150
Which one of the schizophrenic posters are you? If flat earth was just a troll it would be long gone by now, the globe has still yet to be unproven scientifically.

>>9753150
And which of the schizo posters are you? If flat earth was just a troll it would be long gone by now, but the globe has still yet to be proven scientifically.

>>9752849
This guy >>9752857 is right.
When you look at that video you see the pylons are distorted by the air right to the top of them well before reaching the horizon.
There's a reason for this and it relates to why this guy is recording from the western edge of the lake late in the day (see the color of the light on the closer pylons and the angles of their shadows).
You get the maximum amount of mirage effect over water when there is a large temperature difference between the air and the water.
Almost all of the photos and videos showing curvature are taken east to west, unlikely to be late in the day unless it is very cloudy, in which case the air temperature may be lower anyway to reduce how much mirage distortion there is.

No, just because you have one video that appears to show what you want doesn't discount all the other videos and photos. The guy doesn't even have facts of what he is looking at right, the lake isn't 18 miles across and the pylons only run 10 miles (they end 12 miles from the intersection he is at). He is certainly not seeing the other side of the lake because he's only just seeing the closest portions to the right of the pylons 10 to 12 miles away.

>>9753173
>>9753175
I'll explain it to you but first I want to make sure we agree on one thing.
Everything we see is light reflected to our eyes, correct?

>>9753203
Are you seriously trying to claim that atmospheric conditions can make curved things look flat, when all experimentation shows that such conditions make flat things look curved?

The reason the photos look as curved as they do is because they're taken from a low vantage point, which as >>9752768 shows greatly increases atmospheric distortion, and this distortion is even more prominent over water. This >>9752849 video was taken at a higher vantage point, decreasing atmospheric/water distortion so the true path of the pylons can be seen.

>>9753204
That's one way of describing it.

>>9753080
Are you saying flattards are like a Marine boot camp for debating?

>>9753236
>Are you seriously trying to claim that atmospheric conditions can make curved things look flat
Of course. That was the problem with the Bedford Level experiment, remember? You can see the distortion in the pylons as they refract fairly clearly.

>The reason the photos look as curved as they do is because they're taken from a low vantage point
That itself wouldn't make them look curved outside areas of the mirage. As the video you linked shows the guard rails look curved as they enter the mirage while the tops of the pylons start curving in photos and videos well before they reach the mirage.

>>9753239
Okay, explain it to me then.
I want us to be on the same page before I go through the explanation, or else we would have to argue about other things.

>>9753080

>>9753267
>Of course. That was the problem with the Bedford Level experiment, remember? You can see the distortion in the pylons as they refract fairly clearly.
Refraction != curve

>That itself wouldn't make them look curved outside areas of the mirage. As the video you linked shows the guard rails look curved as they enter the mirage while the tops of the pylons start curving in photos and videos well before they reach the mirage.
That's because the water adds another layer of distortion, mirroring etc. There's reason the only photos of supposed curvature are over water.

>>9753258
Debating? No. They're trolls. How did I not convey that point?

>>9753080
>the most proliferate: the juvenile-level troller.
>By responding, you've taken the bait.
>it's all about the lulz from getting you to respond.

>>9753321
>There's reason the only photos of supposed curvature are over water.

there are no topographical irregularities with water, aside from waves, so you can get a rather clear picture over a stretch.

>>9753267
Why is that picture so out of focus?
Oh! Because it's shopped to flatten the lineup.
Good job, Anon - no-one will recognize that.

>>9753332
Stop messing my mind up with facts!

>>9753334
If you want to know why it is out of focus, ask the person who made the video.

>>9753332
>there are no topographical irregularities with water
Utter nonsense. What's going on here? >>9752962

So.... did OP ever get a proof for the flat Earth, or did this degenerate into yet another troll thread?

I've never seen a proof either, so I'm curious.

>>9753160
>Just by handling lead balls you will be creating static charge, lead balls are a dumb material to use.
aaand the balls are grounded by the wires in the apparatus.
last time you claimed that there were no wires, that it was quartz fiber, but conveniently ignored that the experiment was done 40 years before quartz fiber was invented
>The smallest gust of wind, the smallest static charge, dust in the air could all create movement.
then explain why EVERY TIME the experiment is done, it yields about the same result? if the movement was due to minor fluctuations in the setup rather than an actual gravitational force, the results should be all over the place.
but instead, the experiment consistently comes up with the same value for the strength of gravity. REALLY MAKES YOU THINK...

>>9753348
>REALLY MAKES YOU THINK...
Alas, it is not so.

>>9753344
Checked.
It's a troll thread.

>>9753340
Shaky cam and a mirage.
Try again with a tripod and a day where conditions are not conducive to a mirage.
>b-but if it appears to disappear behind the horizon without distorting like that i'll just claim it is a trick of the conditions
Which is pretty much where we are right now, both sides are saying each side is taking the perfect conditions to create the affect that matches their desired narrative.

>>9753351
>Alas, it is not so.
ipsee dicks it

>>9753150
Trolls don't exist, half of the internet is just fucking retarded.

>>9753348
>aaand the balls are grounded by the wires in the apparatus
What wires did Cavendish use? The modern version uses dielectric quartz fiber. Why change the wires?

>then explain why EVERY TIME the experiment is done, it yields about the same result? if the movement was due to minor fluctuations in the setup rather than an actual gravitational force, the results should be all over the place.
but instead, the experiment consistently comes up with the same value for the strength of gravity. REALLY MAKES YOU THINK...

How would Einstein feel about this "force", when according to him gravity isn't a force. If it's not gravity, then what is it?

>>9753362
>Try again with a tripod and a day where conditions are not conducive to a mirage.
It's not mirage, it's the natural layer of distortion from the water, atmosphere and light, it will always happen to ships going beyond the horizon.

>>9753390
Nice try, but anyone so retarded as to post the made-up crap that comes out of their fingers is only a troll. It takes some intelligence to make a good troll, and these guys don't even accomplish that.

>>9753396
>If it's not gravity, then what is it?
A local warping of space.

>>9753408
So space(-time) is what's pulling the lead balls together?

Einstein was a fucking troll.

>>9753428
So are you.

>>9753402
>It's not mirage, it's the natural layer of distortion
What the fuck do you think a mirage is?

>>9753446
>What the fuck do you think a mirage is?
A word that takes away from the mystery of a bullshit term like "refraction" and diminishes the woo-woo of flatearthism.

>>9753431
I don't always troll but when I do it's with the truth, the earth is so fucking obviously flat when you actually start observing things for yourself, and you begin questioning the current model which would have been a blasphemous thing for you to do previously, very quickly the heliocentric model falls apart.

>>9753446
Well, not all mirages are equal, some require more conditions to form than others, however water will always have a natural distortion layer due to its mirroring effects and being side by side with dense atmosphere, anything that gets far enough will be affected by this natural phenomena.

I wonder how long it will be before the flathead claims that "perspective" can allow an object A to block one's view of another object B without A actually being between B and the viewer...he did it last time and refused to even attempt to explain his lunatic opinion.

>>9753396
>The modern version uses dielectric quartz fiber. Why change the wires?
better and more reliable torsion properties due to reduced variances in crystal structure, you retard.
you're just raising irrelevant questions to try and distract from the fact that the "flaw" you found in the experiment proving you wrong isn't actually real.

>>9753458
>blasphemous
Ah... now we're getting to it. You think you're devoutly religious, and your minister has scared you into believing you'll burn if you use a brain and go against his special and literal interpretation of the Bible.
You could take comfort in the knowledge that most everyone in the space program of the '60s and '70s was also quite religious, but they weren't stupid.

>heliocentric model
Heliocentric and spherical Earth are not tied together. You can still have a flat Earth orbiting for all I care a flat Sun. That heliocentric. A Sun orbiting an Earth is a geocentric model.

At least learn what you're blathering about.

>>9753467
>he did it last time and refused to even attempt to explain

>>9753080
>They don't care whether the Earth is flat or round. Your posts (reasoned or preferably emotional) are met with insulting or provocative responses, because it's all about the lulz from getting you to respond.

>>9753467
Please show me how perspective works using a diagram.

>better and more reliable torsion properties due to reduced variances in crystal structure, you retard.
It's dielectric though.

>>9753396
>How would Einstein feel about this "force", when according to him gravity isn't a force. If it's not gravity, then what is it?
It doesn't violate anything Einstein said.
All mass curves spacetime, the greater the mass the greater the affect.
Smaller masses will create a local affect even in the presence of larger masses, and that's what the Cavendish experiment plays on. It doesn't negate Earth's gravity, it just sets up a situation where you can observe the affect of a smaller mass' affect on spacetime.

>but instead, the experiment consistently comes up with the same value for the strength of gravity. REALLY MAKES YOU THINK...
Well, the value of G is said to be a constant, so I don't see any problems here.

>>9753470
>Ah... now we're getting to it. You think you're devoutly religious, and your minister has scared you into believing you'll burn if you use a brain and go against his special and literal interpretation of the Bible.
I'm not religious, which is why I also don't believe the heliocentric model along with other religions.

It's quite funny that the Bible seems to be more accurate than science with regards to the earth, but it's not exactly a hard thing to get right.

>Heliocentric and spherical Earth are not tied together. You can still have a flat Earth orbiting for all I care a flat Sun. That heliocentric. A Sun orbiting an Earth is a geocentric model.
They are intimately tied together, from the big bang to gravity, atoms etc. It's all one big spherical fuckfest.

>>9753467
You mean >>9751316 ?

Yeah, he failed to explain a lot of things in that thread.
He didn't even respond to my reply to his post.

>>9753491
>It's quite funny that the Bible seems to be more accurate than science with regards to the earth
Have you actually read the fucking Bible?

>>9753491
>They are intimately tied together
Both of these models assumed spherical Earth, Sun, Moon and known planets.
You'll notice in the geocentric model the Sun and Moon are not above the Earth, and the Moon is closer than the Sun.

>>9753490
>It doesn't violate anything Einstein said.
What force is being measured then?

>>9753490
>All mass curves spacetime, the greater the mass the greater the affect.
>Smaller masses will create a local affect even in the presence of larger masses, and that's what the Cavendish experiment plays on. It doesn't negate Earth's gravity, it just sets up a situation where you can observe the affect of a smaller mass' affect on spacetime.

So the lead balls warp the space-time (that the earth is also warping!?) in such a way to move closer together? This metaphysical space-time exists only in the non-physical imaginations of its believers.

The big question is,
Did OP's question ever get answered? Is there a defense of the flat Earth model? All I see is fallacious nonsense about how sphere arguments are wrong.

In the meantime ...
Here's a picture I took from the Lummi Indian Reservation near Bellingham. The left edge is facing east of north, the right edge is due east. I took this picture about 15 minutes after witnessing the sunset. Now facing NE, I see some things that are explained thusly: The peak of Mt. Baker there is in sunlight becasue it is very high up, and can see beyond my horizon. tehbright pink in the sky is the vestige of the Sun's rays going off into space. The very dark below it is the Earth's umbra - its deep shadow where sunlight is blocked by the body of the Earth. Across the bay, lower mountains are also in post-sunset evening. But Baker, 38 miles away from me to the east, is still lit up by direct sunlight.

Over the course of the next half hour or so after this picture, the lit portion of the peak has shrunk upwards and left the peak in darkenss. THe shadow has climbed higher, the overall skyhas gotten darker, and the pink has also dissipated, chased from below bythe shadow.

How does this happen on a flat Earth?

>>9753509
>What force is being measured then?
The bending of spacetime.

>So the lead balls warp the space-time (that the earth is also warping!?) in such a way to move closer together?
Yes. Now you're getting it, we just need to do something about that incredulity now.

>>9753491
>I'm not religious
Then why would you bring up "blasphemous?"

>>9753486
>It's dielectric though.
So what if it's dielectric? Earlier iterations of the experiment using conducting wires demonstrated the effect just fine, and modern versions using quartz fibers have returned results consistent with those. If the same results are obtained regardless of whether or not the wires are conducting, it's pretty obvious that the conductivity or insulation of the wires doesn't affect the experiment in any meaningful way.
You are engaging in more of your special pleading because your model falls apart in light of the Cavendish experiment.

>show me how perspective works using a diagram
ezpz

Case 1:
viewer----------------------------------A----------------------------------B
because A is between B and the viewer, it blocks the view of B by intercepting rays of light traveling from B towards the viewer

Case 2:
viewer----------------------------------------------------------------------B
------------------------------------------A
because A is not between B and the viewer, the view to B remains unimpeded. no amount of foreshortening or vanishing point effects can change this.

>>9753512
With a local sun moving above the flat plane in an analemma type fashion. I don't endorse the map in pic related as I don't believe an accurate map exists anywhere, at least publicly. All globe maps are wrong and have to distort the countries to make it accurate enough.

>>9753535
That is a very cobbled bullshit answer.
>Here's the explanation but it's wrong so don't blame me
You don't even know what an analema is. Completely inappropriate use of the term.

This is what I call juvenile-level trolling.

>>9753514
>The bending of spacetime.
Space-time is 2D?

>Yes. Now you're getting it, we just need to do something about that incredulity now.
Sorry, I'm not joining your cult any more, you're going to have to preach to the kids instead, much higher success rate.

>>9753538
>Space-time is 2D?
Nice strawman

>>9753523
Because the heliocentric model is a religion and it is blasphemous to question it (just look at the emotional reaction globalists have).

>>9753538
The easiest way to visualize it is in 2D, yes.

>>9753538
>he thinks only 2-D things can be bent

>>9753543
You misinterpret the reason for the reactions you see. No zeal or conspiracy is required to elicit the natural response of contempt from any science-oriented person when hearing a flat-Earther trying to pass off the model as factual. The resources and time wasted on arguing with these idiots is provocatively aggravating.

>>9753529
>So what if it's dielectric? Earlier iterations of the experiment using conducting wires demonstrated the effect just fine, and modern versions using quartz fibers have returned results consistent with those. If the same results are obtained regardless of whether or not the wires are conducting, it's pretty obvious that the conductivity or insulation of the wires doesn't affect the experiment in any meaningful way.
>You are engaging in more of your special pleading because your model falls apart in light of the Cavendish experiment.
You realise the "Gravitational Constant" has changed constantly over the years?

And why keep fucking with the equipment if it works perfectly fine with the original wires that Cavendish used (no one has been able to tell me what they were made of).

>ezpz
Would you mind uploading an image, ASCII art doesn't really cut it for me.

>>9753486
A and B meet at the vanishing point, A never appears in front of B and B never appears in front of A.

>>9753541
What are the threads made of? Atoms? Nothingness?

>>9753560
>You realise the "Gravitational Constant" has changed constantly over the years?
As we have been able to more accurately measure it, yes.
We did not set G. We are trying to define G by measuring it.

>>9753565
Mostly cotton, with a little egg protein.

>>9753565
>the aids for visualization are real because theyre pictured!

>>9753545
>>9753547
See >>9753565

>>9753551
How much time is actually spent trying to prove current theories wrong, rather than trying to prove them right (and failing)?

Science should be independent to what the majority believes, its primary aim is to be independent of it. I had no issue believing the globe model for most of my life because I assumed that science was independent of dogmatic belief, I trusted it without personal verification or free, critical thought. If you criticise mainstream scientific theories you will not pass your exams, you have to go along with it.

>>9753562
That's incorrect, the horizon line/vanishing point will be in the middle for observer 2 as well.

>>9753537
What's an analema?

>>9753574
>As we have been able to more accurately measure it, yes.
So it's actually the complete opposite to a constant? Nice.

>>9753577
I'll only believe you if Einstein said it.

>>9753578
What's space-time made of please?

>>9753593
If you try to prove them wrong and can't, that's an essential factor in proving them right.
Are you implying there's a proof that the Earth is flat? That's what started this thread and there hasn't been bo-diddly squat about that. In short there *is no* evidence or phenomenon or anything that requires a flat Earth model to explain. Period.

Science *is* independent of what the majority believes. But the round Earth is not a belief. It is simply fact, proven and accepted over and over again for centuries, and utilized by commerce and science and surveying and navigation...

Your argument sounds more like you're a wannabe thinker and are trying to completely disavow how we think so your screwed-up brain wiring becomes acceptable. That's not the way reality works, sunshine. The world is the way it is, and there are some things you have to accept because they are what they are.

>>9753605
>I'll only believe you if Einstein said it.
Einstein said it.

>>9753593
see >>9753578

What if the current theories are actually right and you're wrong?
Also,
>theres totally no lens distortion going on in this video, dont mine the fact that antenna sticking out is curved

>>9753605
>What's an analema?
It's a typo when my "M" key doesn't trigger and I don't proof.

>>9753560
>the "Gravitational Constant" has changed constantly over the years
Cavendish's original experiment indicated that G = 6.674 x 10^-11 m^3/(kg*s^2). Modern measurements vary from 6.672 x 10^-11 to 6.693 x 10^-11. Over 200 years ago, Cavendish was able to measure the fundamental constant to within 1%. 1% of variability in measurement is pretty damn good, given how hard it is to measure such a weak force.
if someone had weighed an object 200 years ago with a simple pan scale, and measurements with successively better and more precise instruments over the years had varied by about 1%, would you claim that the variation means that the object's weight is unmeasurable and doesn't actually exist?
(well, you might. flatheads have no problem denying evidence; if they did, they wouldn't be flatheads any more.)

>>9753597
niBBa have you ever been in a hallway?
what you're claiming there is that the view down the hallway will be the same for an observer standing up as for an observer lying down. even for a flathead, this is a fairly bizarre lie.

>>9753605
>So it's actually the complete opposite to a constant? Nice.
No one told us what the constant is, we have been trying to work it out since discovering that gravity is a thing.
It's called a constant because it is the same everywhere. We use this value in the calculation of orbits of other planets and their satellites, in the movement of stars and other bodies.
We know it is a thing because we can use it to predict the motion of masses in relation to each other. The only problem is dark matter.

>What's space-time made of please?
Space itself.

>>9753617
When people say "there's no evidence/proof" of a flat earth, I immediately know you're being dishonest and/or completely invested in a dogmatic belief.

You can't say there's no evidence of a flat in the same way I can't say there's no evidence of a spherical earth. The sun seeming to go behind the earth is evidence of rotation/day night, and the stars rotating is observation evidence that the earth could be rotating as well. I accept that, but what you can't do is accept an alternative explanation using a local sun moving above the earth, with perspective and the atmosphere creating day and night. The evidence of this is how perspective works, this cannot be denied, things get smaller as they into the distance, the atmosphere water distorts objects and eventually hides them, the sun's behaviour is consistent with a local sun moving above the earth. Even if you reject it, you can still admit it is evidence, just as I can the globe.

>>9753605
>So it's actually the complete opposite to a constant? Nice.
Ha ha, smartass. The constant has remained constant (within our range of measuring it). The ability to discern the precise value has improved since the time of the original experiment, and the value has been refined.

>>9753597
Alright, draw a diagram of how perspective actually works then.

>>9753637
>When people say "there's no evidence/proof" of a flat earth, I immediately know you're being dishonest and/or completely invested in a dogmatic belief.

That's a bullshit guilt trip you're laying on.
There is no proof of a flat Earth. If you know of one, post it.
Your entire nonsense is based on saying a globe can't be proved (and it can and is, but you're obstinate in refusing to accept any arguments). And then you simply say it can't be proved, and that's that.
You're a waste of time.

>>9753637
And by the way,I didn't see anyone jumping in with any sincerity to explain this.
>>9753512

>>9753637
>The evidence of this is how perspective works, this cannot be denied, things get smaller as they into the distance the atmosphere water distorts objects and eventually hides them, the sun's behaviour is consistent with a local sun moving above the earth. Even if you reject it, you can still admit it is evidence, just as I can the globe.
It's a pity the Sun and Moon have never been demonstrated getting smaller as they approach or appear from behind the horizon.

And I know you'll post videos of the Sun setting taken with a wide angle lens with the Sun swamping out the sensor, but it's pretty easy to demonstrate that bright lights appear bigger than they really are.

>>9753620
Well if the cult leader said it...

>>9753621
Of course there's lens distortion, it's always going to occur due to them being curved. However, with the lens centered with the horizon line, the true shape is shown, and it's flat.

>>9753624
What's an analemma?

>>9753630
How about testing this non-constant constant with other materials? Do it at a much larger scale for easier measurement. This shitty experiment hasn't proven anything.

>what you're claiming there is that the view down the hallway will be the same for an observer standing up as for an observer lying down. even for a flathead, this is a fairly bizarre lie.
You need to realise that the higher you are, the further you can see, and the lower you are, the less far you can see, therefore your horizon line/vanishing point is much closer than someone higher than you. Perspective is subjective to the individual but objective in its effects, just as light is.

>>9753669
>What's an analemma?
You're the one who incorrectly used the word. Don't you know? Or are you admitting to spewing bullshit?

>>9753538
>He doesn't know non-Euclidian geometry
If you don't even know the basics of Einstein theories, don't even try to use him as an argument. By the way, i think your definition of force is misleading. The effects of spacetime bending can be correctly interpreted as a force given the necessary context. Just like magnetism, you can explain it through wave alterations on a field, but the effects are easily interpreted as a force

>>9753669
By the way, what's your proof that the flat Earth model is the correct one?

>>9753631
>It's called a constant because it is the same everywhere. We use this value in the calculation of orbits of other planets and their satellites, in the movement of stars and other bodies.
Clearly it's not the same everywhere because it keeps being measured differently.

>We know it is a thing because we can use it to predict the motion of masses in relation to each other. The only problem is dark matter.
You know it's a thing because it can't explain the rotation of galaxies? The science cult has fucked itself with dark matter, there's no moving beyond it now, it's essentially an admission of defeat without trying to be one.

>Space itself.
And what's that made of please?

>>9753669
>How about testing this non-constant constant

Read:
>>9753639

>>9753669
>However, with the lens centered with the horizon line, the true shape is shown, and it's flat.
But the horizon line is below the center through the entire clip.
You need to be careful of confirmation bias. Yeah, lens distortion is a thing and the center is (generally) less distorted than the outside (it varies by lens and you need to know how the particular lens is affected by distortion) but just because it looks like how you want it to doesn't mean it is in an area that is unaffected by distortion.

>>9753687
So you're saying that because there is an anomalous phenomenon, that everything has to be thrown out and the Earth is therefore flat?

>>9753687
>>Space itself.
>And what's that made of please?
Space.
How about this. Assume you remove all gas from a vacuum chamber (any size, doesn't matter, assume you have vacated it of everything), what is the area inside that vacuum chamber made of?

It's not nothing, it is still part of the universe, if the chamber is transparent then light still travels through it, but there's no matter in there.

This is space.

>Clearly it's not the same everywhere because it keeps being measured differently.
Continue seeing >>9753639

>You know it's a thing because it can't explain the rotation of galaxies?
It can explain the rotation of galaxies, we just don't know how observe all of the matter that is making up the mass of galaxies currently.

>>9753639
Why do they keep getting it wrong?

>>9753642
Pic related. Next time you look out at the ocean, ask yourself why the horizon is directly at your eye level, is that by chance or is something causing that?

>>9753643
I think there is proof already, but to really put it to rest you would have to either go to "space", or cross Antarctica to the other side of the earth and continue on until you're at the north pole.

What are the chances if going to space? Pretty much nil. It's mainly a select few government agents/military and a few billionaires that go/have gone. So you're not going to prove it that way, how about crossing Antarctica to the other side of the earth? No? Too dangerous? That's too bad, guess we can't prove it that way either.
Interesting how controlled, regulated and peaceful space and Antarctica are. Never any trouble. US astronauts happily share the ISS with Russians, and the the US and Russia have no trouble leaving Antarctica alone for purely peaceful and scientific purposes, they've even signed a treaty which most of the world has, too.

>>9753724
>Pic related.
Okay, so that's the position of Observer 1, we want to see the position of Observer 2, remember?

>Next time you look out at the ocean, ask yourself why the horizon is directly at your eye level, is that by chance or is something causing that?
Yeah and Observer 2's eye level is lower which is why the vanishing point (aka horizon line) is lower.
Just checking, are you legally blind? Have you actually observed the world around you with your own eyes?

>Why do they keep getting it wrong?
You mean, why do they keep getting it within a small deviation? Hmmm, it's almost like it isn't varying wildly nor completely random.

>>9753724
>how about crossing Antarctica to the other side of the earth? No? Too dangerous? That's too bad, guess we can't prove it that way either.
>everyone who crosses antarctica is part of the conspiracy including the people who do it solo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions

>>9753645
What's to explain? How is it incompatible with a flat earth?

>>9753667
At what point is the light the "right size"?

>>9753674
Explain how I'm using the word incorrectly.

>>9753676
>non-Euclidian geometry
As if that's supposed to be some kind of proof. You think there's something called space-time, with which has no physical properties to speak of, yet it bends physical things. It's batshit.

>>9753685
I don't know which model is correct, all I know is that it's flat. I have a theory it's an infinite plane based on how the horizon behaves but I can't be certain about that as I've not been beyond Antarctica.

>>9753754
I'm not saying geometry prove anything you deep moron. What I'm saying is that if you have to think the spacetime "needs" to be 2D in order to bend, you don't enough about the physics theories you are bragging to debunk. By the way, no one is 100% sure our universe works like that, but several observations (and I'm talking about measurements and experiments, i.e. proofs) seem to point out that model is practical enough to be used. That's how science works, you chose the model that fits better current observations.

>>9753724
>Why do they keep getting it wrong?

Define "wrong." Ever play a musical instrument? Were you a virtuoso the first time you picked it up? Are you now? Did practice help?

Same thing, but the practice gets passed on to new students. With your question, you're really being silly.

Eye level - more bullshit.
The Horizon Always Rises To Eye Level
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/08/flat-earth-folloies-horizon-always.html

And by the way, what proof do you have that teh Earth is flat and cannot be explained with a round Earth?

>>9753739
>Okay, so that's the position of Observer 1, we want to see the position of Observer 2, remember?
It's the same, as I said the effect of perspective is objective, the horizon will always be at eye level, but the horizon will be shorter or further away depending on your altitude.

>Yeah and Observer 2's eye level is lower which is why the vanishing point (aka horizon line) is lower.
You can't usually actually see the horizon "line" or the vanishing point if your vision isn't able to travel that far, you have to high up or to a beach to see the horizon/vanishing line.
>You mean, why do they keep getting it within a small deviation? Hmmm, it's almost like it isn't varying wildly nor completely random.
No, I mean why do they keep getting it wrong, being "close" isn't correct, so what are they doing wrong?

>>9753754
>What's to explain? How is it incompatible with a flat earth?
Explain it to me. How does this work on a flat Earth, where the Sun is supposed to disappear because it gets far away? What causes the shadow to rise? Why do the pink layer and umbra continue up?

Are you so stupid you don't even know how this doesn't fit a flat Earth? Youdon't even know what you're arguing for?

Duh. It's a troll.

IT'S A TROLL THREAD!!!!!

>>9753754
>At what point is the light the "right size"?
Somewhat arguable. The LED, of course, doesn't take up the entire space in the front of the penlight, it's just a small portion in the center. If I had a variable ND filter, or my camera could adjust the aperture while in video mode (damn you Nikon) then I could continue reducing the light until the LED that is the source becomes visible separate from the lens around the LED reflecting the light into a wider area.

But that's pretty much the point. It's so bright you're not seeing the source, and it's the source that needs to be changing size as it moves further away because that's our view of the object itself.

Luckily the Moon doesn't really need this as it is far dimmer than the Sun, you just have to expose properly for it (I suggest catching Moon rise rather than Moon set as it would likely be earlier in the evening and not a pain to stay up or wake up for. I don't expect other people to catch dawn like I do).

>>9753776
You might want to visit reality sometime.

>>9753744
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions
That's nice, history is scientific evidence. How can people cross Antarctica to the other side of the earth in 2018?

>>9753773
I don't think space-time needs to be anything because I don't believe it exists in physical reality, what I'm trying to point out with those 2D and 3D models is that they're trying to physically represent something that is inherently non-physical. That's the very definition of magic.

>Same thing, but the practice gets passed on to new students. With your question, you're really being silly.
That's a false equivalence. You can only pass knowledge on about playing a song if you can play that song correctly yourself. No one has got the gravity constant right (and they never will), so it's extremely dishonest to call it a constant.

>The Horizon Always Rises To Eye Level
It does if you can see that far unobstructed.

>And by the way, what proof do you have that teh Earth is flat and cannot be explained with a round Earth?
Kansas is flatter than a pancake, why is gravity not creating curvature there? Funnily enough, everything works the same in Kansas with things disappearing behind the horizon, you can't see the whole of Kansas at once, and yet it's flat, that is very strong evidence that a flat earth can exist and behave as we observe it.

>>9753724
>ask yourself why the horizon is directly at your eye level
Ask yourself why you would believe that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=30&v=NqOQ_BCtqUI

>>9753819
>How can people cross Antarctica to the other side of the earth in 2018?
What, 2017 is now too long ago?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Horn#Pole2Pole

>>9753819
>Kansas is flatter than a pancake, why is gravity not creating curvature there?

That is quite some shitposting, son.

>>9753819
>It does if you can see that far unobstructed.

Hey, Troll! See:
>>9753822

>>9753819
>what I'm trying to point out with those 2D and 3D models is that they're trying to physically represent something that is inherently non-physical. That's the very definition of magic.
No, that's not the definition of magic.
They're trying to represent something visually that we cannot see visually. That's not the definition of magic.

>Kansas is flatter than a pancake, why is gravity not creating curvature there?
>>9751125

Hey - has any flattard posted proof for a flat Earth model that cannot be explained using any other shape for the Earth (especially round)?

That *is* what this thread is supposed to be about, right?

Wow, man. 231 posts.

That flat guy is winning by a landslide!

>>9753782
It's likely because the atmosphere is less dense at the top of the mountain so the light is able to travel further through it lighting the top of the mountain more, but as the sun continues to move further away the light disappears bottom first as they will have slightly denser atmosphere than the air above it.

>>9753842
Of course! And you can point me to where this theory of light propagation has been published, or at least who performed the experiments to prove this, right? I mean, I wouldn't want to just take the word of some random dude who might make up stories, right? So please point me in the right direction.

I don't get it. People are responding to the flat guys.
Do y'all think they believe it's real - that' you're going to convince someone who's just a little confused?
Y'all are as dumb as a sack of rocks.

>>9753868
I know it's hard when you are running out of arguments to admit you're wrong, but the least you could do is not pretend to be a third party.

>>9750644
>responding to a troll with facts

>>9753824
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Horn#Pole2Pole
>H.S.H Prince Albert of Monaco II and Mercedes-Benz sponsored his trip
So you have to be sponsored by royalty and a car company?

>Mike will travel by land and his sailing vessel, Pangaea, from Africa to Antarctica, Oceania, Asia, the Arctic, and back to Europe.
At no point does it say he will traverse across south over Antarctica to the other side of the earth, he's just going to sail past it.

>On February 7 22:50 UT Mike Horn [1] completed the longest ever solo, unsupported north-to-south traverse of Antarctica from the Princess Astrid Coast (lat -70.1015 lon 9.8249) to the Dumont D'urville Station (lat -66.6833 lon 139.9167) via the South Pole.
This is not evidence that he was on the other side of the earth because he did not go beyond the station.

There's also an unsurprising lack of proof to a lot of these claims made by these "explorers". Often these "explorer" types are born to wealthy families, or families with other famous explorers in them. And they tend to be full of shit. But how can you prove them wrong unless you were there?

>>9753940
What part of this didn't you understand, sweetie?

On February 7 22:50 UT Mike Horn [1] completed the longest ever solo, unsupported north-to-south traverse of Antarctica from the Princess Astrid Coast (lat -70.1015 lon 9.8249) to the Dumont D'urville Station (lat -66.6833 lon 139.9167) via the South Pole.

>>9753940
>So you have to be sponsored by royalty and a car company?
It can't help to have financial backing.

>At no point does it say he will traverse across south over Antarctica to the other side of the earth, he's just going to sail past it.
Reading is hard.

>This is not evidence that he was on the other side of the earth because he did not go beyond the station.
>via the South Pole.
Reading is really hard.

>But how can you prove them wrong unless you were there?
Track them via GPS. He wasn't aided in his trip across Antarctica, but that doesn't mean people didn't know where he was and that he wasn't in contact with people.
>Once on the ice, Mike will be sending regular audio and photo updates via his Iridium satellite devices (GO and Extreme) and capturing imagery with his iPhone7 Plus and Moment Lens add-ons for exceptional mobile photography from Antarctica.

Your misgivings aren't really counter evidence, if you have some proof that he faked it that would be great.

>>9753968
The journey was from Princess Astrid Coast (weird name) which is in Antarctica, to Dumont D'urville Station (weird name), which is also Antarctica, that is not the same as going fully over Antarctica to the other side of the earth until you go beyond Antarctica back to the north pole.

>>9753976
READING IS HARD
>In 2016, Horn set off on his latest expedition “Pole2Pole”, a two-year circumnavigation of the globe via the South and North Pole.

>>9753976
"... via the South Pole."
Are you still having trouble?

>>9753976
Astrid is a common Norwegian name. As many explorers of both polar regions were of Nordic descent, the name is not really unusual. Anyway...

Pic related. I drew two lines connecting the three dots given on the Wikipedia site. It's a little ballpark, in that degree tics are not marked, but it's close enough at this scale.

How is this not traversing Antarctica?

>>9753993
*Ahem*... that was the blank. This is the path (in red)...

>>9753974
>It can't help to have financial backing.
What if you're not sponsored by royalty?

>via the South Pole.
So what? He never leaves Antarctica to the other side of the world.

>Track them via GPS.
Again, this data is not available to us and it wouldn't matter if it was because it doesn't prove there's no more land beyond Antarctica.

>>9753974
>Once on the ice, Mike will be sending regular audio and photo updates via his Iridium satellite devices (GO and Extreme) and capturing imagery with his iPhone7 Plus and Moment Lens add-ons for exceptional mobile photography from Antarctica.
Sounds like a fucking ad. Clearly financially motivated. Very fishy.

>>9754005
>What if you're not sponsored by royalty?
Save your pennies.

>Sounds like a fucking ad. Clearly financially motivated. Very fishy.
From his own website advertising is own expedition.
Very fishy.

>>9754005
>So what? He never leaves Antarctica to the other side of the world.

Yeah, okay. Enough.
>>9753080
>It is simply impossible to keep up with having to explain away the barrage of stupid posts, and the anonymous mask of 4Chan removes culpability for the prankster and enables this crap. Arguing is akin to painting over mud - you just end up with a dirty brush.

>>9753827
Can you answer the question or?

>>9753829
Retarded experiment, he moves the camera further back each take and uses bumpy surfaces.

>>9754037
>Retarded experiment, he moves the camera further back each take and uses bumpy surfaces.
>i dont understand the point of the experiment or how it logically works
You could have just asked.

>>9753669
>Of course there's lens distortion, it's always going to occur due to them being curved.
in the last thread, I posted this video:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOsxgGeABGM
and you insisted that there must be distortion making a flat horizon appear curved, despite the fact that the pan over the instrument panel (and the complete lack of distortion in its shape) shows there is no detectable distortion in the footage. you claim it's impossible to make a lens that doesn't distort the image, and yet you've been shown over and over again that it has already been done.
flatheads will deny the evidence right in front of their eyes in order to cling desperately to their sad little delusion.

>>9753669
>How about testing this non-constant constant
Read: >>9753639
>with other materials? Do it at a much larger scale for easier measurement.
Why would the material the wires are made out of affect the measured attractive force?
You STILL can't explain why the experiment consistently returns the same value for G (to within ONE PERCENT) no matter what setup is used.
>This shitty experiment hasn't proven anything.
just saying so doesn't make it true, you pissbaby.

>>9753593
if you'ver ever watched your video with your eyes open, you would notice how the clouds at the edge of the capture space stretch and distort to match the artificial flattening of the earth

I predict that in the next FE thread the same guy will post the same arguments, from the beginning again, having conveniently ignored all the counter arguments and unaddressed questions from this thread, including all photo, illustrated and video evidence against his arguments.

Honestly, I don't care that much if he is a troll because the claims these people make lead me to learn more about reality through comparing what they state to what I have actually observed and continue to observe through testing their claims.
Kinda fortunately I live near the east coast (unfortunately there are hills between me and it) but some point this summer I'm looking forward to either camping out or getting up at some ungodly time to photograph or film the sunrise over the ocean.
Should be fucking beautiful.

>>9753669
>How about testing this non-constant constant with other materials? Do it at a much larger scale for easier measurement. This shitty experiment hasn't proven anything.
There's other ways of measuring G than Cavendish style experiments. All of them report very close values for the constant.

Seriously? There were retards back in 0 AD that believed we lived on a plane surface, you know what Ptolemy did? He BTFOd then in Chapter four of Book one of the Almagest then proceeded to delineate one of the most influential astronomical treatises in history.

Suck my two thousand year old verified circular cock flat earthers

just gonna repost this here because the flathead goes on suicide watch every time it's demonstrated that the horizon drops below eye level as you go up in altitude

(pic is the observation deck of the Sears Tower in Chicago)

>>9750667
dude like at least a quarter of people here are poltards who think theyre smarter than the average person because they know the hidden truth about black people

>>9751403
The ISS doesn't exist, it's just CGI, Hollywood can make anything now days. Did you really think the planets in the Alien series were actually other worlds too? It's all something called Green Screen.

>>9754593
Prove it, then.

>>9754593
>The ISS doesn't exist, it's just CGI, but I can't explain how people are able to take photos of it.

I have never seen a flat earther adequately explain the sun in a flat earth model. It is absurdly easy to contact someone on the other side of the planet and confirm that the sun is visible to one and not the other. It seems like such an obvious flaw that even someone with zero scientific literacy would have little trouble comprehending.

>>9750773
>Why don't flights going from LA to NY have huge varying times?

Why would they?

>>9754037
>Can you answer the question or?
You're not even reading what has been posted.
>>9753831
>>Kansas is flatter than a pancake, why is gravity not creating curvature there?
>>>9751125 →

>>9753080
>Mostly though they will provoke you with the classic, "If you don't respond, you're a faggot and you prove me right." By responding, you've taken the bait.

>>9754593

>>9753080
It is simply impossible to keep up with having to explain away the barrage of stupid posts

>>9754037
You're not even reading the responses.

>>9753831
>>>9751125 →

>>9753080
>Mostly though they will provoke you with the classic, "If you don't respond, you're a faggot and you prove me right."

>>9750773
>What is the curvature of the earth, and why is it not observable on the surface?

>>9751403

>>9754037
>Retarded experiment, he moves the camera further back each take and uses bumpy surfaces.
Holy shit are we into it deep now.

>>9754005
>he never leaves Antartica
He returned home, you know
>>9753819
Your definiton of magic is weird, but anyways, that's not what spacetime representations does. It is actually trying to describe in mathematical terms the real observations in the physical world, in a way that people can make more or less accurate prediction of the phenomena in the universe. And that's the basic concept of science. It may seem weird and outlandish, but is practical and the predicitions made with it go well with observations, so it's useful. Flat earth, in the other hand, it's only useful in local and simple mechanics problems (where the people, actually, still assume the surface is flat enough), but for interatlantic travel, telecomunications, and other stuff, a globe model has been proven to work better, so that's why we use it. It's not conspiracy, it's utility

>>9754653
they think that light can only travel a certain distance before it just stops, or something. therefore the side of the disc that the sun is further from at the moment is in night. but wait! they think that using a telescope or zoom lens can MAGICALLY help the light go a little further, which is why they believe that zooming in towards the sun after it sets will allow you to see it again (which goes against the rules of optics, literally all the evidence, and basic reasoning) despite the fact that they can't seem to actually show this happening in any footage.
it's entirely unsupported, and in fact completely disproven, by all the evidence, but that never stopped flatheads. their modus operandi is to assume that the earth MUST be flat and that even if all the evidence proves that wrong, the evidence must be faked. I honestly believe that if you took them spacewalking, they'd just assume they were hallucinating.