Earth

[Anonymous No.11115795]

What's the /sci/ take on the flat earth theory? Some things over at NASA aren't adding up.

[Anonymous No.11115796]

>>11115795
>thinking earth exists

[Anonymous No.11115798]

[Anonymous No.11115801]

not science or math

[Anonymous No.11115805]

>>11115796
are we living in a simulation then?

[Anonymous No.11115807]

>>11115796
this
flat and round earthers are both retarded

[Anonymous No.11115813]

actually sun is flat all of yall r retards

[Anonymous No.11115822]

>>11115801
sure it is. couple simple calculations and observations should be able to prove it. for instance, how how high must we rise before we see the curvature of the earth?

[Anonymous No.11115836]

>>11115801
can we not calculate the distance of the sun with basic geometry?

[Anonymous No.11115846]

>>11115822
36,000 km, faggot. The Earth appears as big as a dinner plate set at arms length at that altitude/distance.

[Anonymous No.11115850]

crunched some numbers on this theory the other day and it actually doesn't add much distance/flight time if you fly 5 feet above the ground or 35,000 feet above the ground

[Anonymous No.11115852]

>>11115822
>>11115836
How familiar are you with non-linear optics?

[Anonymous No.11115855]

>>11115836
Crepuscular rays are effectively parallel, they appear to converge only because you are tiny and perceive perspective effects at this scale. It's exactly how rail lines do not converge with distance, but they appear to.

[Anonymous No.11115856]

>>11115846
>36,000 km
how'd you come up with that number?

[Anonymous No.11115858]

>>11115850
>assume the Earth is 30,000 feet wide
lol, figure out the flight time increase for a real-sized Earth which is ~42 million feet across

[Anonymous No.11115859]

>>11115795
An occasional fun exercise into misguided Pyrrhonism, but ultimately a joke.

[Anonymous No.11115860]

>>11115852
educate me

[Anonymous No.11115861]

>>11115856
it's simple trigonometry.

[Anonymous No.11115862]

>>11115856
Go to geostationary orbit and the Earth will appear that wide. 12,000 km wide object viewed at a distance of 36,000 km. You can see the curve before then but the fact that you can put out both hands and completely block out the Earth your field of view is a more obvious effect to shoot for.

[Anonymous No.11115867]

>>11115822
the horizon always appears as a flat line

[Anonymous No.11115874]

>>11115862
>geostationary orbit
where is it and how do I get there?

[Anonymous No.11115879]

alright. let's talk some science then.
>a body in motion stays in motion unless otherwise acted upon by an outside force
meaning that a boulder will sit motionless until it gets pushed and a train doesn't start down the tracks until the engines start. with that in mind can someone explain this to me.

[Anonymous No.11115886]

>>11115874
36,000 km altitude above the equator moving sideways at 3 km/s

[Anonymous No.11115890]

>>11115874
Analemma, caused by Earth's elliptical orbit around the Sun combined with our axial tilt and inclination.

[Anonymous No.11115900]

[Anonymous No.11115907]

[Anonymous No.11115911]

tape on the lunar lander?

[Anonymous No.11115912]

is this board always not lively?

[Anonymous No.11115914]

>>11115860
ehh..
Why don't the fuel stops make sense?
Is there some premise here that is meant to be obvious or something?
Can you translate this image into a syllogism?

Non linear optics is the field of scientific study that focuses on the behavior of light in complex mediums. or some such. I'm no expert, I'm just wondering if you are. The validity of your inferences is highly questionable, since you've not described how these images were obtained in a rigorous way.

[Anonymous No.11115919]

>>11115879
Explain what to you? I don't see anything wrong with this image. He unhooks his feet after leaning backwards from his center of mass. So what?

[Anonymous No.11115930]

>>11115914
>fuel costs money
>more distance = more fuel
>airlines don't like to spend money unnecessarily
>flights would be shorter distance if they went over the south pole
>these flights don't exist
why don't these flight paths exist?

not an expert in optics

[Anonymous No.11115932]

>>11115795
Man I have a few answers for you if your willing to listen,
If you do alot of research into the moon landing, from a scientific view point, was almost certainly faked,
I can go into detail for days but I'll give you one example, when the satellite "explorer" first discovered the van Allan radiation belt, the onboard Geiger Counter read off the charts the whole time it was in the van Allan belt,
It's impossible with current technology for lifeforms to pass the belt,
And NASA claimed the Apollo missions passed through "holes" in the belt, this is rediculous if you know anything about how magnetic flux lines work.

Anyway so NASA had to fudge large amounts of data to explain away the inconsistensies.

And this is one of the reasons behind the flat earth theory proliferation.
Because numerous inconsistensies in a narrative suggest it might be false.
So NASA being so secretive and misleading has lead to a few conspiracy theories,
Mainly that NASA just filmed the moon landing video in the same warehouses they made all the training videos that looked identical.

Or
That the earth is flat and for some reason all the wolrlds governments and scientists are working together to keep it a secret.

[Anonymous No.11115945]

>>11115919
>leans back
what? do you seriously see that or is that a cope? even if he did lean back and unhook his feet why would he spin perfectly at the hips?

[Anonymous No.11115951]

>>11115930
There are many lines of reasoning that need to be explored exhaustively to address this question. It doesn't simply boil down to more distance equals more money.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that Airlines are a service that takes people and cargo where they need to go, and they must take them from point A to B regardless of how far or convenient it is.
I think these images are also very confusing, because the flat earth and round earth are not drawn to scale. The continents should be equal in size on the images left and right for reference.

[Anonymous No.11115959]

>>11115945
Because he practiced, or maybe it's just not that hard to do. Fine motor control is no doubt accounted for, this is an astronaut we are talking about.

You should consider the possibility that you are mistaken, and try to follow this line of reasoning to its ultimate destination. If it doesn't lead anywhere particularly promising or useful, just discard it.

In my opinion, flat earth is a psy-op with a singular intended purpose. To strengthen the credibility and authority of established dogma and institutional thought. It is an obvious misinformation scheme meant to create the appearance of elegance and simplicity in the approved narrative by comparison.

[Anonymous No.11115966]

People will buy into a pyramid scheme or subscribe to a belief if they think it will show that they are smart, wise or virtuous. When there are no ignorant people to compare them with, authority stinks even worse of deceit.

[Anonymous No.11115969]

>>11115951
sure. it's a lousy meme. but going through the south pole for certain A to B destinations is a lot shorter than the roundabout cross-continental path but because but for reasons these flight paths don't exist.

[Anonymous No.11115977]

>>11115930
From my research, it's difficult to put geosynchronous satellites as the poles, so gps doesnt work, AND compasses don't work.
So with no navigational equipment it's very difficult to fly there safely, also if you crash or have a forced landing you will die from exposure.

[Anonymous No.11115979]

>>11115959
>fe is a psy-op with a singular intended purpose to blah blah blah blah
wow. that is deep. and perhaps even spot on. but what does the science and evidence tell us?

[Anonymous No.11115982]

>>11115930
The North and South poles are off limits and I don't know why. I don't conclude that this is because of a conspiracy to conceal the true shape of the Earth, that's absurd.
Such a notion seems like misdirection to me. Maybe so that such questions about the legitimacy of the antarctic treaty can be shut down more easily in the future.

I agree with you on one thing though.
The narrative we have been told about the nature of the cosmos is false.
I suspect that there are noteworthy physical phenomena at the poles which occur because of the presence of a physical aether.
There are other legitimate environmentalist arguments for the limited access as well, but they aren't interesting.

[Anonymous No.11115995]

>>11115979
I wish people on this board would stop asking what science tells us and start asking what experiment tells us. It's all so tiring.
I know it might seem like I'm splitting hairs.. but so much of the connotative meaning has contaminated the word science. It feels dirty to me now.

[Anonymous No.11115997]

>>11115977
planes go over the north pole all the time. why would they not go over the south? how close to the pole do you have to get before your equipment is unreliable? just don't get to close then. there are bases and stations in the south pole so clearly navigational equipment works to get them there.

try an experiment. go to google earth and zoom in on some mountains. the Rocky Mountains perhaps. zoom in on those mountains. what kind of resolution and detail can you see. then go to Antarctica. do you get the same resolution and detail?

[Anonymous No.11116002]

>>11115855
Nice.

[Anonymous No.11116003]

>>11115997
Again, you have legitimate concerns over inconsistent data, but your conclusion is too much of a logical leap.
The global conspiracy to suppress education and literacy in physical sciences is certainly not to prevent us from discovering that the Earth is flat.
It makes much more sense that they are trying to stop us from doing something very very very dangerous.
Anitgravity propulsion is as dangerous compared to nukes as nukes are to sharp sticks.
There's a motivator right there.
What point would there be in stopping us from learning that the Earth is flat?
There's no interesting consequence for that shocking discovery. Where does that line of reasoning even go?

[Anonymous No.11116004]

>>11115995
ok. I got an experiment for you to run. try propulsion in a vacuum.

[Anonymous No.11116010]

>>11116004
Sure let me just head over to the lab and fire up the vacuum chamber.
Dude space isn't empty.
False premise means invalid argument. Besides, you are a complete brainlet who failed 8th grade physics. You failed to account for the static friction, which would never be overcome by such pathetically weak source of thrust.

[Anonymous No.11116022]

>>11116004
>Thinking a vacuum cleaner is a vacuum
Jesus fucking Christ. What went wrong with the American education system?

[Anonymous No.11116027]

>>11116003
me making too much of logical leap?
>they're trying to stop us from doing something dangerous (so benevolent)
>anitgravity propulsion
do you listen to yourself? I do like you, anon, but you are making laugh in ways you should be embarrassed about.

>what would the point be in concealing a FE
well, what's the current narrative?
>endless universe
>billions and billions of years explains all
>we're just an insignificant spec of chance in an infinite universe that evolved from goo
what if all that was bullcrap? if the earth is flat what does that mean about our universe? our solar system? our origin story? our beginnings? our purpose? do you get what I'm getting at?

[Anonymous No.11116028]

>>11115879
It's subtle but he kicks off with his left foot to get inertia, then let's go with his right foot.

[Anonymous No.11116034]

>>11115907
>>11115907
Van Allen belt was discovered before NASA was formed man.
By a different government institute.
Talking about the van Allen belts existence has nothing to do with NASA

[Anonymous No.11116035]

>>11115911
Yes, tape works in vacuum.
>>11115912
The Sun doesn't emit X-rays.

[Anonymous No.11116036]

>>11116010
>space isn't empty
what?

>static friction
must be huge for something on wheels that's on a flat surface. regardless, this is an easy experiment to replicate. give the toy a little push yourself if you think it'll make a difference.

[Anonymous No.11116039]

>>11115930
The places you can't go in the Arctic are military bases, they have them everywhere , it's just an area 51 in the Arctic.

[Anonymous No.11116040]

>>11116036
He's retarded, it has nothing to do with friction. It has everything to do with putting your propulsive airstream into a faster airstream and calling the faster airstream a vacuum.

Seriously, don't breed.

[Anonymous No.11116043]

>>11116022
>vacuum cleaner
>vacuum
>vacuum
why do europeans think that the american education system is so terrible when every invention of significance comes out of here? regardless, how does the vacuum created by a vacuum cleaner differ from the vacuum in space? it's a negative pressure system. do you understand why this experiment relates to space? think in terms of propulsion.

[Anonymous No.11116046]

>>11116043
>how does the vacuum created by a vacuum cleaner differ from the vacuum in space
In one important way: IT'S NOT A FUCKING VACUUM

[Anonymous No.11116050]

>>11116004
I bring a bowling ball with me. In orbit I give the bowling ball a shove. It moves away from me with a certain amount of momentum. Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, I also move away form the bowling ball, with the same momentum change, but since I weigh more I move more slowly than the ball.

Next time I bring a bag of golf balls. I start throwing them. Same physics applies, the balls go one way I go the other way, but now I start off with a mass of balls that is bigger than my own body mass, and since each ball is lighter I can throw each one much faster than the bowling ball. Eventually I throw a combined mass of golf balls ten times heavier than myself away at almost 100 km/h each. Through momentum exchange I am now moving significantly faster than I was at the start of the experiment.

Finally, I bring a bottle of compressed air with me instead of balls. However, a gas is just a collection of extremely tiny balls called atoms moving very fast but confined to a volume. The momentum exchange caused by each collision of an atom with the bottle causes the gas particle to reflect back and stay in the bottle, but that force is exerted on the bottle anyway. Instead of individual jolts of momentum exchange, the force of quadrillions of impacts is felt as a homogeneous pressure inside the bottle and the bottle doesn't move. However, I have a valve I can open, which can allow the gasses to leave the bottle instead of exerting pressure evenly on the entire inside. Gas particles, tiny balls, are now leaving through that hole at a much faster speed than I could possibly throw them, and the only reason they are moving in that direction is because they bounced off of either the walls of the bottle or the other particles in the bottle in order to be moving in that direction to pass through the valve hole and into space. Just like with the larger balls, the gas cloud exchanges momentum to move away from me, pushing me in the process.

[Anonymous No.11116052]

>>11116028
>cope: the post

[Anonymous No.11116056]

>>11116050
>momentum
yes! exactly! you know the difference between a rocket and a jet, right? rockets bring their own oxygen so they can ignite in an atmosphereless environment. why would this be necessary in a vacuum where you can only use momentum to move.

[Anonymous No.11116059]

>>11116039
why do they need so many military bases there? how many effing experiments can you honestly run down there?
>it's still cold here, got it!

[Anonymous No.11116065]

>>11116046
clearly you don't know what a vacuum is or how one works

[Anonymous No.11116066]

>>11116056
Because a rocket works by storing liquids that can be reacted to generate hot, high pressure gasses, which can be expanded out of a nozzle to invoke momentum exchange and therefore thrust. Storing an equivalent mass and energy density of compressed gasses directly would be impossible.

[Anonymous No.11116069]

>>11116056
A balloon satellite is just what it sounds like, a satellite that uses interior gas pressure to inflate itself to deployment size. The fact that it was a balloon containing a few pascales of pressure to stay spherical had nothing to do with buoyancy.

[Anonymous No.11116070]

>>11116065
Are you trolling or just retarded? A vacuum is an absence. Do you want to explain to me how a fast moving airstream constitutes a vacuum in any way?

Cut your nuts off

[Anonymous No.11116076]

>>11116040
>it has nothing to do with friction
you're right on that one.
>putting your propulsive airstream in a faster airstream
ok, if it helps you to think of it in such terms. how will this differ in space? you fire up your booster rockets and your propulsive airstream will always be lass than spaces airstream (vacuum). so if you're in space you can move with momentum like this anon >>11116050 describes but you can't move with rocket thrusters like NASA will have you believe.

[Anonymous No.11116077]

>>11116065
A vacuum is a volume devoid of matter.
A household vacuum cleaner only produces a pressure reduction of about 2% of normal atmospheric pressure, enough to cause air to flow into the unit quickly enough to carry dust with it. Importantly, it's the pressure outside the machine that pushes the gasses into the hose oft he cleaning unit. In a true vacuum environment, suction is impossible, because you cannot create a reduced pressure environment when ambient pressure is zero.

[Anonymous No.11116081]

>>11116076
>spaces airstream (vacuum)
American education, ladies and gentlemen. Space doesn't have an airstream, you fucking moron, and an airstream is not a vacuum.

Seriously, do not reproduce. The world will be a better place if you just die alone.

[Anonymous No.11116084]

>>11116076
>so if you're in space you can move with momentum like this anon >>11116050 (You) describes but you can't move with rocket thrusters like NASA will have you believe.
I'm the anon you quoted and what I described is 100% how every engine we use in space works, which is exactly what NASA says. An engine takes cold liquid, reacts them, they turn into hot gasses. A hot gas is made of a huge number of tiny balls bouncing around very fast. These balls exit the engine through a small hole, and move very fast. Because they had to bounce off of the engine in order to move fast in that direction, the engine therefore experiences the recoil and is pushed in the opposite direction. Simply calculate how fast the balls end up moving on average and how many balls per second are bouncing off the engine (or to use a smaller number how many kilograms of gas per second) and boom you have how much thrust that engine produces.

[Anonymous No.11116086]

>>11116070
a vacuum is negative pressure. no different than the vacuum created by a vacuum cleaner. are all spacecucks as angry as you are?

[Anonymous No.11116089]

>>11116081
between your lame and direct insults and temper tantrum it's clear that you are a woman. NASA would probably suit you.

[Anonymous No.11116095]

>>11116086
>Negative pressure
Jesus. You realize there's no such thing as negative pressure, right? That even scales with negative pressure values are still positive pressure because there's still particles in that space? Of course you don't. Now tell me how fast moving air is like the vacuum of space.

Consider suicide

[Anonymous No.11116098]

>>11116089
>Comes to a science and math board to be retarded
>Is salty that he was called retarded
What was your endgame here, champ?

[Anonymous No.11116101]

>>11116084
sure. but look at the size of these rockets. how much mass do you need to push around this other massive a$$ object? you're telling me that they brought up enough food, water, oxygen, batteries to keep everything from freezing and enough propulsion gas to move this massive rocket ship around in space. does not add up.

[Anonymous No.11116110]

>>11116098
to educate spacecucks such as yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmcwW-8CC6E&feature=youtu.be

[Anonymous No.11116111]

>>11116101
>how much mass do you need to push around this other massive a$$ object?
Literally any amount. That's Newton's third law

>does not add up
Show me your math

[Anonymous No.11116116]

>>11116110
>youtube
I think you're a little lost. You were probably looking for >>>/b/

[Anonymous No.11116120]

>>11115945
>why would he spin perfectly at the hips?
Because that's where the human body's center of gravity is.

[Anonymous No.11116125]

>>11116116
spacecuck too scared to watch a 3-minute video?

[Anonymous No.11116127]

>>11116111
>equal but opposite
again, it doesn't add up. they did not bring up with them enough mass to move around a massive rocket ship.

[Anonymous No.11116132]

>>11116095
negative can be relative

[Anonymous No.11116135]

>>11116127
The problem with your logic is that equal and opposite applies to forces not masses. You can accelerate a large mass to a reasonable speed by accelerating a small mass to a much greater speed as exhaust.

[math]\Delta v = v_\text{exhaust} \ln \frac{m_\text{initial}}{m_\text{final}}[/math]

[Anonymous No.11116139]

>>11116125
I'm scared to shit up all the targeted ad algorithms with a bunch of flat rather shit. Last time I humored one of you whackos I got alt right propaganda for months.

>>11116127
Let's see that math

>>11116132
So you still haven't explained how a fast moving airstream at near atmospheric pressure is anything like the near vacuum of space.

Try wrapping a rubber band around the top of your nuts for a week. It'll hurt at first, but when you take it off you'll cum way harder.

[Anonymous No.11116145]

>>11116135
think back to your bowling ball example. if you were in space on the Apollo 11 rocket ship, you would need to hurl a thousand bowling balls off of that ship to move that massive mother effer 10 feet over.

are you reasoning that since the gas is pressurized that you can gain acceleration in space? negative. it would not work that way. since you are in space (vacuum) you're not pushing off of anything.

[Anonymous No.11116148]

>>11116145
>hurl a thousand bowling balls off of that ship to move that massive mother effer 10 feet over
We get it, you failed physics. Can you leave now?

[Anonymous No.11116150]

>>11116139
>worried about ad algos
then open it in a private browser. or get an ad blocker. how can someone so ignorant of technology be browsing /sci/. just watch the video already.

[Anonymous No.11116152]

>>11116150
>He thinks he's not tracked in incognito
Lol what a fucking moron. Suck my dick and come back when you have a basic understanding of highschool physics.

[Anonymous No.11116154]

>>11116027
No I don't. If you think there are any significant implications whatsoever I would love for you to enumerate them and enlighten me. The suggestion of possible implications means nothing to me.

[Anonymous No.11116155]

>>11116022
I would say Europes much worst in education now by the fact you allow muslims to teach islamic pseudo-science and that think
30 year old muslim terrorist should be around 10 year olds Europeans as classmates. Safety is one of the primary requirements to have a good learning environment after all.

America's abyssal education has far more to do with increased jewish teaching wrong think instead of academics. Along with the huge influx of low iq non-whites that are now calculated in America's average, same goes for all the other bad statistics America is ball chained to, from their (((leaders))) selling out the country to retarded inbred foreign invaders. Now the factory work model slavery classroom always contributed but, non-whites are now "teachers" too so you are left with only a few self sufficient learners.

So ask yourself why has education in
White /Europen countries turned to shit rather recently when jewish nepotism was left unchecked?

[Anonymous No.11116160]

>>11116040
I meant even without the vacuum the thrust created by a balloon that small deflating wouldn't propel a hot wheels car or whatever. You're obviously right about the airstream. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

[Anonymous No.11116164]

>>11116154
this post makes no sense. can you clarify.

[Anonymous No.11116168]

>>11116160
It actually would propel the car, but no problem for clarifying. Sorry for calling you retarded, but it was the easiest way to dismiss your argument so I could replace it and then call him retarded.

[Anonymous No.11116169]

[Anonymous No.11116172]

[Anonymous No.11116174]

>>11116164
Uhh yeah sorry.
>do you get what I'm getting at
No I don't.
Implications for Earth being flat.

Seriously, am I missing something?
Why would that even matter?
It's just like, something to say at parties to look cool or something. It's not like it's a groundbreaking new (or ancient) metaphysics model that directly implies the possibility of FTL travel. It's an insignificant meme of an obsession that will never lead to any innovations in engineering. What point is there in even entertaining the notion when all you can say is
>hurr durr the earth may or may not be six thousand years old
>dude our origins are remarkable (maybe)

[Anonymous No.11116179]

>>11116168
Don't worry about it. I am so autistic and so used to being called a retard, it has absolutely no effect on my emotional health or sense of wellbeing. I am just relieved somebody corrected me. When people are wrong, they should be corrected.

[Anonymous No.11116183]

>>11116145
It depends massively on the speed at which you can hurl the balls.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/85/

[Anonymous No.11116184]

>>11116174
well if we're not on a big spinning ball in an infinite space caused my random chance billions of years after a big bang that didn't happen then how does that mean we got here? it's not about party tricks or intellectual conversations, it's about coming to terms with reality.

[Anonymous No.11116186]

>>11116179
That's a good outlook. Personally I come here solely with the intention of finding someone I can call retarded. I should find more productive uses for my time.

[Anonymous No.11116189]

>>11116183
eh... maybe i'm starting to concede that. it's getting late.

[Anonymous No.11116190]

>>11116189
>maybe i'm starting to concede that
Wow, you're starting to concede that physics exists. Great fucking job.

[Anonymous No.11116197]

Why is all this complicated shit retards can't verify debated?

How does the sun rise and set on a flat earth? That's literally all you need to ask. Before we had global communication ancient people just thought it was night and day everywhere. Now you can call someone in another country and ask. The sun and moon traveling in a circle never made any sense because you could see them at all times. The sun wouldn't set, it would just shrink and dim out if you want to take the atmosphere blocks light retard route.

[Anonymous No.11116198]

>>11116190
NASA is still fake and gay

[Anonymous No.11116199]

>>11116198
You're just going to concede that it isn't fake later so lets skip the part where I have to walk you through the highschool education your mother never gave you at home.

[Anonymous No.11116227]

>>11115969
Plug in 40 miles for s and r in feet and you'll actually get about 600 feet of horizon blocking, there are plenty of buildings in Chicago that are above 600 feet

[Anonymous No.11116316]

>>11115795
You say some things over at NASA aren't "adding up" for you. Have you considered you're just retarded?

[Anonymous No.11116370]

Last flat earth thread was deleted, will this one be?