/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11179038]

What proof is there of earths curvature? And if you use nasa what is the radius they supposed? Or is the radius based on a presupposed spherical model we cant prove?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HETwy5FzXJw

[Anonymous No.11179295]

>>11179038
Eratosthenes used this method that you can also try for yourself:
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/ancient-greeks-proved-earth-round-eratosthenes-alexandria-syene-summer-solstice-a8131376.html

You can also draw a giant triangle and measure the angles. The sum will be larger than 180°.

[Anonymous No.11179505]

>>11179295
Eratothenes assumed the earth was a ball. He started with a preassumption in his observation. You dont start with a preassumption in a science experiment.
What was eratothenes's evidence for curvature?

[Anonymous No.11179507]

>>11179505
Start with the assumption the earth is a plane and do it.

[Anonymous No.11179509]

>>11179295
>You can also draw a giant triangle and measure the angles. The sum will be larger than 180°.
Assuming the earth is a ball, yes that would happen. But what is the evidence that the earth is a ball or what is the evidence that the earth has curvature?

[Anonymous No.11179526]

>>11179507
On eratothenes observation and explanation:
I can take a flashlight and hover it over two salt shakers on a table. The shadow angles produced by the flashlight on the table can give me the same result to what eratosthenes observed in his shadow experiment. Now is the table flat or a ball? And does this suggest that the sun is a local light source and not a supposed big gas ball millions of miles away?

[Anonymous No.11179690]

>>11179038
>>11179505
>>11179507
>>11179509
>>11179526
Video explaining how fish-eye distortion works and how to account for it: https://youtu.be/cHhDhYeYf2Q

Compilation of high altitude balloon footage from various different sources, analysed at the point where distortion is eliminated as explained in the previous video: https://youtu.be/dV99TJ9KlJQ

Simple repeatable experiment that allows one to photograph the curve of the horizon from a cliff overlooking the sea, take note of the straight-edges remaining straight when the image is compressed horizontally, indicating that lens distortion is not the cause of the curvature: https://youtu.be/tOCodgq1oM8

[Anonymous No.11179698]

>>11179038
>>11179505
>>11179507
>>11179526
Experiment performed by many people from all around the world at various latitudes on the equinox to measure the sun's angle relative to the observer and map these results onto both a flat and globe model: https://youtu.be/J9w4KtHxZ68

3-D representation of this experiment using data obtained from timeanddate.com: https://youtu.be/7nzEhDX-xzg

Notice how in both instances, the angles don't line up on the flat model indicating the sun is in multiple places at once, while all angles on the globe model point towards the same distant sun as to be expected.

I know you weren't asking in good faith anyway, so either refute these two posts or kindly fuck off back to your containment board.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11179827]

Evidence for a round earth:
>sun, stars, moon drop below horizon
>the night sky in general looks like a shell of stars rotating about a sphere
>ships disappear hull-first below horizon
>the existence of seasons
>the existence of time zones
>the fact stars in the northern hemisphere rotate about a different point than in the south
Not to mention classical physical models make no sense if earth is flat. And our physical models are very, very well supported.

[Anonymous No.11179877]

>>11179690
>>11179698
In that sun and horizon observation, did they account for lights behavior in air in several conditions? The suns rays bend and sometimes the sun is magnified by the air surrounding us. https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox

Further the horizon is an apparent visual line, keyword meaning apparent.
If what we truly see as curvature and the measurements are sound then we can test it by aircraft.
If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute. Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.
We dont observe this. A concorde plane would have to adjust for curvature. And assuming everything as flat to make calculations work in practice and not theory proves there is no curvature.

"COMPARED to errors from other sources,
the errors introduced into most conven- tional photogrammetric techniques by earth's curvature and atmospheric refrac- tion are of such small magnitude as to be negligible." ------The Effects of Earth's Curvature and Refraction on the Mensuration of Vertical Photographs*
J. W . S M I T H ,
N. Y. College of Forestry, Syracuse University, Syracuse, N. Y.

[Anonymous No.11179896]

>>11179877
The refraction of light is not as significant as you think.
By the way, why do you think temperature gradients cause air to refract light in the first place? Hint: it has something to do with the specific weight of air and gravity, a theory which only makes sense with round earth.

[Anonymous No.11179906]

if /sp/ got /asp/ to store the special folks why can't we have /asc/? and then punish flat earth, ufo, etc. posting by death on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.11179916]

>>11179827
B-but NASA conspiracies, anon.

[Anonymous No.11179923]

>>11179827
>sun, stars, moon drop below horizon
Horizon is an apparent visual line. Not a real thing or a location. This visual line can be distorted by objects. "Dropping below the horizon" is a perspective argument.
>the existence of seasons
>the existence of time zones
>the fact stars in the northern hemisphere rotate about a different point than in the south
Reification fallacys as proof the earth is round. You would have to test for the earths curvature for those explanations of mechanisms to be valid for round earth. They much very well be due to other mechanisms and doesnt have to be limited to round earth model. >>11179526
>>11179690
>>11179698
>>11179827
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D-NJjCl_Emk

[Anonymous No.11179942]

>>11179923
>Reification fallacys
le epic informal """"falacies"""" are not an argument. You asked for the evidence that led basically all ancient societies to believe earth is round, and I gave it to you. Enjoy your final (You).

[Anonymous No.11179961]

>>11179038
How do threads like this keep popping up? Why are we allowing for conspiracy theory garbage in this board? This place is literally becoming /pol/-2 with the amount of retards that post shit like this.

[Anonymous No.11179964]

>>11179038
Well, proving is fun, but they proved ball, nobody proved we live on a ball. Yet, it should be ball, but less bally, diameter is variable as it is not a perfect sphere.

[Anonymous No.11179983]

>>11179896
Whats gravity? What is the cause?
We do not know the cause of gravity and only the effect of it if we live on a ball: all objects fall in a vacuum at a specific rate.
Gravity holds things down right? If i have one chamber filled with a gas and on top of it another chamber thats empty where there is a barrier in the middle, what do you think is going to happen when i remove that barrier? The gas disperses to the top. Is this claimed gravity going to hold it down from dispersing? What happens if i have a container filled with gas and on top of it, instead of another container, but now an infinite space filled with nothing and only a barrier separating between the container filled with gas and infinite nothing, what do you think is going to happen when i release that barrier? The gas disperses, its leaves. Is gravity holding it down?
Not only does this thought experiment make gravity a mathematical concept to make sense of the globe model, but an atmosphere, which is pressure of gases, next to the claim of an infinite vacuum of space cannot exist due to a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. This suggests that there should be a container to keep this gas pressure of air and the atmosphere, being pressure itself, cannot be the explanation. You cannot get pressure from pressure alone. You need some container to make the air gradient around us.
You need to be critically thinking about this round earth nonsense.

[Anonymous No.11179988]

>>11179906
>>11179896

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg-zsck6uSQ

[Anonymous No.11180013]

>>11179896
Look, climate is like parachute, we must be correct, or we hit the ground, it usually is that from certain clouds, sun is reflected, and high water, therefore hot air, causes... Waiiit, in hot air less sun is reflected and we burn more fasltly becuse...

Can somebody calculate, that we get more water from ocean evaporated, or less humidity?

Which force wins, the space or the condesation, when we add global temperature.

[Anonymous No.11180015]

>>11179983
Particles of hydrogen was basically teleporting and they hit on each other and sticked, cos they are a little bit sticky... Sticky froom huuge distance.

[Anonymous No.11180032]

>>11179038
>What proof is there of earths curvature?

The existence of the day-night cycle proves Earth possesses positive curvature. The decreasing distance required for circumnavigation the further south you go and the further north you go past the equator proves the earth is a sphere.

[Anonymous No.11180036]

>>11179983
>Literal retard doesn’t know that the resistance of gasses to pressurization can be stronger than the gravitational force acting on the gas

Holy shit

[Anonymous No.11180078]

>>11180036
You just proved my point. This gravity is almost nonexistant. Not real and only a concept. This so called gravity of the earth supposes to hold the weight of the oceans but can hold gas dispersing or the dispersion of gas overcomes the effect of the supposed round earth bending of this pesudo fabric of space and fabric of time, time being just a measurement but in einstiens theory its a physical thing ? Come on now

Also
>the gravitational force acting on the gas
Gravity is not a force. It is a farce

[Anonymous No.11180082]

>>11179983
gases in infinite space coalesce into stars, retard

[Anonymous No.11180103]

>>11180082
What force causes this gas to form stars? Lol.

[Anonymous No.11180105]

>>11180103
..... gravity?

[Anonymous No.11180109]

>>11180105
Jesus christ. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/140-physics/the-theory-of-relativity/general-relativity/1059-if-gravity-isn-t-a-force-how-does-it-accelerate-objects-advanced

https://nathanoakley.com/community/science-for-gravity/gravity-fails-on-all-scales/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg-zsck6uSQ

Show proof of gases turning into stars.

[Anonymous No.11180111]

>>11179983
It's not exactly like that.

[Anonymous No.11180128]

>>11180111
Oh it is like that
Second law of thermodynamics. You cannot have gas pressure without a container. Atmosphere next to the vacuum of space is impossible.

[Anonymous No.11180129]

>>11180078
>You just proved my point.

Nope.

> This gravity is almost nonexistant.

Wrong. While individual gas particles have so little mass that they require comparatively little energy to overcome it, the same can not be said for the multitude of more massive entities like humans, cars, or rocks, which are held to the surface.

> This so called gravity of the earth supposes to hold the weight of the oceans but can hold gas dispersing or the dispersion of gas overcomes the effect of the supposed round earth bending of this pesudo fabric of space and fabric of time

It’s actually easier for Earth’s gravity to hold more massive things, because the more massive something is, the greater the force of gravity is on it. Do you really have no idea what you’re talking about, or are you trolling?

[Anonymous No.11180130]

>>11179038
In all your sources you are pre supposing that the earth is flat to prove is not serical. So you are wrong since evidently the earth is a torus

[Anonymous No.11180134]

>>11180128
>You cannot have gas pressure without a container.

Wrong. Atmospheric pressure is literally nothing but the force of the particles above you pressing down. The reason they’re pressing down is gravity. It’s exactly the same mechanism as pressure underwater, which increases the deeper you go because there’s more water pressing onto you.

>Atmosphere next to the vacuum of space is impossible.

Yes it is, and space isn’t a true vacuum.

[Anonymous No.11180138]

>>11180078
then what holds down the ocean?

[Anonymous No.11180142]

>>11180138
Inb4 “density”

[Anonymous No.11180144]

>>11180129
What is mass?
And also, are trolling? You actually believe your bullshit? The earth can hold down heavy things but gas is so light, it escapes. You believe this bullshit?

[Anonymous No.11180150]

>>11180144
>What is mass?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

> The earth can hold down heavy things but gas is so light, it escapes.

Yes. Why does that confuse you?
Lighter things have less mass, so gravity applies less force to them.
It’s a bit saddening you don’t understand this, because most people figure this out when they’re literal babies.

An object that weighs one pound is E A S I E R to lift than an object that weighs two pounds.
Do you understand?

[Anonymous No.11180151]

>>11180138
Why does the ocean have to be held down? Or the explanation of it need to be stated? If the earth isnt a ball, all mechanics dont need to be explained entirely. A non ball earth is essentially not held by heliocentric explanations.

[Anonymous No.11180153]

>>11180151
>Why does the ocean have to be held down?

If there is no force acting on water particles pulling them toward’s the interior of the Earth, then we ought to observe water particles simply floating away. If there is no force acting on me pulling me down, then I can jump and fly into the sky until drag slows my movement to zero, at which point I’d hang in the air forever.

Why can’t I do that?

[Anonymous No.11180157]

>>11180151
>Why does the ocean have to be held down?
because we can observe that it's beaing held down
>If the earth isnt a ball, all mechanics dont need to be explained entirely
I rather work within a system that "presupposes" the earth is a sphere where I can explain mechanics with precission than one where the earth is flat and I can't explain shit

[Anonymous No.11180165]

>>11180150
Mass is a concept bearing no relation to the natural world unless you describe it in settings of a presupposed ball earth model.
I can do basic calculations involving a spring scale and writing arbitrary numbers to show the difference between a lead bearing and a leaf. The lead bearing weighs more than the leaf. Now depending on the medium surrounding me, some things that were heavy in air will become either heavier or lighter. Would they fall at the same rate? In air or in water or in oil? What cause those objects to fall or float depending on the medium surrounding it? Well i picked them up and let them go. Gravity certainly didnt do that.

[Anonymous No.11180168]

>>11180153
Youre implying that gravity is a force. It isnt. Why do you think without gravity everything would fly off? You need a round earth for that concept. Can you measure curvature? Your need curvature to hold your round earth concept together.

[Anonymous No.11180175]

>>11180165
>Mass is a concept bearing no relation to the natural world unless you describe it in settings of a presupposed ball earth model
no it isn't

>You need a round earth for that concept
no you don't

ok that's it, im out of here

[Anonymous No.11180181]

>>11180153
You are heavier than the air and you have no wings to produce lift. But you can stay in the air indefinatley with a solar plane.

[Anonymous No.11180183]

>>11180175
Prove mass. Is mass a real thing or a conceptual description of an object?

[Anonymous No.11180185]

>>11180165
>Mass is a concept bearing no relation to the natural world unless you describe it in settings of a presupposed ball earth model.

What a peculiar claim.
Tell me, is it easier to lift a ten pound weight or a twenty pound weight?
If it is easier to lift the ten pound weight, why is it the case and what is weight in the first place?
What is the difference between the two weights?

> Would they fall at the same rate?

In a vacuum, yes!

> Well i picked them up and let them go. Gravity certainly didnt do that.

Gravity returned them to the ground, and you had to work against gravity to lift them in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11180191]

>>11180168
>Youre implying that gravity is a force. It isnt

Yes, it is. Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions.

> Why do you think without gravity everything would fly off?

If there is no force applied to objects in the direction of the Earth, then objects ought to be able to be thrown into the air and then become suspended in it, floating forever. This does not occur, because there is a force being applied to those objects in the direction of the Earth called gravity. You are in denial of basic laws of motion.

> You need a round earth for that concept.

Earth is round, but this would be true even if earth were magically flat, which it isn’t.

> Can you measure curvature?

Yep.

[Anonymous No.11180192]

>>11180181
>>11180165
>>11180168
> deny gravity
> deny mass
> ok with weight

[Anonymous No.11180193]

>>11180181
> You are heavier than the air

Yes, I am more massive than the air. Tell that to the flat earther, who believes that mass is not real, which would allow any object to float freely through the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.11180197]

>>11180185
Weight is measured on a spring scale. The elasticity of the spring can give different results. Ask yourself how is weight measured and how scales work and if scales work differently in water, oil or anything else. Then ask yourself why?

Then ask why gravity doesnt pull a feather down to the surface if it floats in water. Or why gravity doesnt pull helium down when surrounded by air.

[Anonymous No.11180201]

>>11180191
This gravity is implying a ball earth. In order for the calculation to be correct you need to define a radius. How do you get that r value?
Where is prove that there is curve?

[Anonymous No.11180206]

>>11180193
Youre reificating the ball earth with your gravity argument. Prove curvature.

[Anonymous No.11180208]

>>11180192
To have gravity you need an r value, prove your r value using the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.11180213]

>>11180197
>Then ask yourself why?

We already know why, silly. Why don’t you?

> Then ask why gravity doesnt pull a feather down to the surface if it floats in water

The water is denser than the feather, so the force of gravity on the feather is not sufficient to displace the water. Some objects can become soaked by the water, at which point they will sink.

> Or why gravity doesnt pull helium down when surrounded by air.

Gravity does pull helium, but the force of gravity on helium is much smaller than the force of gravity on other gas particles in the atmosphere like oxygen or nitrogen, so the helium particles are forced upwards by the force of gravity on the other more massive particles, where it will eventually leave the atmosphere.
Your questions are ones a high school teacher could answer. Did you have a really bad teacher or are you yourself at fault?

[Anonymous No.11180215]

>>11180208
to measure weigth you need a force pulling down, that force is gravity, there's no need for an r value

[Anonymous No.11180217]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Akip2Ev_N8

[Anonymous No.11180219]

>>11180201
>In order for the calculation to be correct you need to define a radius.

Radius is not part of Newton’s gravitational equation or Einstein’s. You are now lying.

> Where is prove that there is curve?

Eratosthenes proved Earth has positive curvature over two thousand years ago.

[Anonymous No.11180221]

>>11180208
>To have gravity you need an r value, prove your r value using the scientific method.

The only “r” value in Newton’s gravitational equations is for distance. There is no “radius”.

[Anonymous No.11180227]

>>11180217
>>11180215
That force is weight. Not gravity.

[Anonymous No.11180228]

>>11180227
call it what ever you want, it is a force pulling down

[Anonymous No.11180229]

>>11180219
In newtons you do need a radius. In einstien you need to believe that time is a physical thing like 3d space and not a measurement based on movements of the sun or caesium 133

[Anonymous No.11180230]

>>11180227
Weight does not exist without gravity.

[Anonymous No.11180231]

>>11180217
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ancient_Greeks>>11180228
The force of weight is dependent on the medium surrounding it. Gravity is now debunked.

[Anonymous No.11180232]

>>11180229
>In newtons you do need a radius

No, you don’t. The “r” value in Newton’s equation is for distance. You’re lying now, and obvious lying makes people stop buying your troll bait.

>In einstien you need to believe that time is a physical thing like 3d space and not a measurement based on movements of the sun or caesium 133

Relativity has predictive power, so it doesn’t matter that your tiny brain has trouble accepting that time is something physical.

[Anonymous No.11180233]

>>11180230
Some things weigh less in water than in air. How does gravity play in this role? As a force pulling things down?

[Anonymous No.11180234]

Proof only exists in mathematics. You have to take everything else on faith.

[Anonymous No.11180236]

>>11180233
yes

[Anonymous No.11180238]

>>11180231
>The force of weight is dependent on the medium surrounding it.

Wrong. The apparent force applied to a scale can be altered if there are other forces acting on the scale itself and the object being measured. Measurements of weight can be taken in a vacuum. That measurements can be taken at all of weight proves gravity exists.

>Gravity is now debunked.

Lol.
No.

[Anonymous No.11180239]

>>11180233
>Some things weigh less in water than in air

Wrong again. Things have less apparent weight in water because water is a more massive and dense medium than the atmosphere which interacts with the scale and the object being measured. That weight can even be measured in this context proves gravity exists, as there ought to be no force on the scale at all if there is no gravity. In a vacuum, things still have weight.

>How does gravity play in this role? As a force pulling things down?

That’s what gravity is, yes.

[Anonymous No.11180240]

>>11180232
What predictive power does the theory of relativity play because i can show you that the quantum eraser experiment shows that information travels faster than light. And then tell me how time is a physical manifestation that bends and warps and not just a measurement based on movement of objects. Btw light can be bent with magnets, that is how you get tube tvs.
Please tell me you are just stupid and not delusional. Like holy fucking shit you think time is a physical thing. If a football field is measured in yard sticks and i bend a yardstick does that mean the football field bends too?

[Anonymous No.11180250]

>>11180238
>>11180239
So far you implied that gravity is a force that has apparent strength against all things but no things at the same time.
Does this force of gravity hold objects down like a helium ballon in air? Can we measure this force you claimed because you claim it to be the cause of weight?
If i am swimming in a salt water pool is gravity pulling me down under? Or is it the interaction of saltwater the cause of me weighing less than i would if i were in fresh water?
Do we have a measurement of this force of gravity you claim? And does it change in different surrounding mediums or is it constant throughout? What is your proof of gravity?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1AF32ithurc

[Anonymous No.11180258]

>>11179505
>>11179509
You don't need to assume anything for those two experiments. Just do them and see the results for yourself. You either proof all of geometry wrong or that the earth is positively curved.

[Anonymous No.11180264]

>>11179038
F=ma is more than enough to prove the Earth is round

[Anonymous No.11180291]

>>11180258
Eratothenes assumed the earth was a perfect sphere.
Wikipedia eratothenes, shadow experiment.
Prove the earth has curvature using The scientific method

[Anonymous No.11180434]

>>11179877
>In that sun and horizon observation, did they account for lights behavior in air in several conditions?
Standard atmospheric refraction will actually LESSEN the perceived curvature, not increase it.
https://www.metabunk.org/standard-atmospheric-refraction-empirical-evidence-and-derivation.t8703
>sometimes the sun is magnified by the air surrounding us
No it isn't. Can you provide some examples of the sun having a greater angular size than 30 arcminutes? (Not counting the regular and predictable change due to orbital eccentricity of the earth)

[Anonymous No.11180439]

>>11179877
>If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute. Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.
Now you're just copypasting shit from er*c d*bay, so I'll link you some rebuttals to his "200 proofs".

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGSTO75_3Rv_gvv4rPK8VUfBypyBhgWn0

https://flatearthlunacy.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/961-eric-dubay-his-200-proofs-earth-is-not-a-spinning-ball-debunked

https://flatearth[dot]ws/eric-dubay

[Anonymous No.11180440]

>>11180291
See >>11179698 for an example of Eratosthenes' experiment performed with multiple data points from various countries, applied to both a flat model and spherical model. The results only make sense on the globe model.

[Anonymous No.11180441]

>>11179877
>>11179923
Are you not going to address the video evidence I provided >>11179698

[Anonymous No.11180442]

>>11179983
What pressure and temperature is the gas at? If low enough, the gas will not expand into the top container.

[Anonymous No.11180448]

>>11179505
It's called a hypothesis you idiot

[Anonymous No.11180455]

>>11180434
>No it isn't. Can you provide some examples of the sun having a greater angular size than 30 arcminutes?
The sun gets magnified during apparent sunsets at the beach. The cause is weather conditions.

[Anonymous No.11180460]

>>11180434
Does a plane nosedive 2000ft per minute to account for this supposed curvature you claim?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c8WjMpbh6XM

[Anonymous No.11180463]

>>11180455
>The sun gets magnified during apparent sunsets at the beach.
Evidence?
>>11180460
See >>11180439

[Anonymous No.11180470]

>>11180439
Your picture doesnt explain why we dont nosedive 2777 ft every minute. It just reasserts that they do account for curvature with an altimeter. But an altimeter does prove that we dont follow curvature due to the pressure not changing every minute if we really were on a ball.
An aircraft not periodically making adjustments due to curvature but makes adjustments due to pressure, well how much does the pressure change every minute? We would be nose diving if the earth was a ball. We don't experience it. Pressure changes with heat as well. How does pressure follow curvature? Its simple, we dont because there isnt any.

[Anonymous No.11180471]

>>11180455
>The sun gets magnified during apparent sunsets at the beach.
It's an optical illusion, the sun (or moon) is closer to reference objects on the ground.

[Anonymous No.11180474]

>>11180440
Did he account for refraction?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D-NJjCl_Emk

[Anonymous No.11180476]

>>11180463
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D-NJjCl_Emk
https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

[Anonymous No.11180478]

>>11180470
>Your picture doesnt explain why we dont nosedive 2777 ft every minute.
It does. What is energy.
>But an altimeter does prove that we dont follow curvature due to the pressure not changing every minute if we really were on a ball
Why would the pressure change at a constant altitude?
>How does pressure follow curvature?
Try looking into what causes atmospheric pressure in the first place and you might actually realise the answer.

[Anonymous No.11180480]

>>11180474
>Did he account for refraction?
Yep. Like I've said in my previous posts, standard atmospheric refraction is very small and actually makes the earth appear less curved, not more.
>>11180476
Neither of those two links contain EVIDENCE of the angular diameter of the sun increasing due to the atmosphere. Can you provide some evidence?

[Anonymous No.11180481]

>>11180460
How would you tell?

[Anonymous No.11180484]

>>11180460
>Does a chestnut on a string nosedive 2cm per second to account for this supposed curvature you claim?

[Anonymous No.11180485]

>>11180478
>Why would the pressure change at a constant altitude?
>change at a constant altitude
>constant altitude
>Why would the pressure change at a constant altitude?
Because a plane going straight at a constant altitude proves no curvature.
Otherwise on a presupposed ball, a plane going straight across would end up at a higher altitude a minute later and the pressure would change. The plane would have to compensate for pressure change due to following a curve. But we dont see or feel that. Your language tells it all, constant altitude. Therefore, level flight relative to constant altitude due to the altimeter showing this, not a change every minute and a nosedive 2 thousand feet if the earth were curved.

[Anonymous No.11180488]

>>11180480
>actually makes the earth appear less curved
Yeah makes it almost no curve or neglectable doesnt it?
Wheres your measurement of curvature that agrees with planes nose diving 2777ft every minute to compensate for this non refracted curve? You assert there is a curve right? And you assert that light does tricks to make you think there isnt curve? Well do our flights on planes nosedive 2777ft every minute to compensate for our official measurement of circumference that nasa claims? Yes or no?

[Anonymous No.11180491]

>>11180481
Constant feel of a rollercoaster ride on commercial flights. But we dont get that do we?

[Anonymous No.11180493]

>>11180484
How fast is that chestnut going?

[Anonymous No.11180495]

>>11180491
>>11180460
A plane does not "nosedive", it travels on a vector more or less perpendicular to that of gravity.

I have a question: if you believe there's a massive conspiracy in league with the devil to mislead you about the shape of the Earth and everybody except a tiny few is either a brainwashed dupe or an active collaborator, then what is it you're hoping to gain in this thread?

[Anonymous No.11180501]

>>11180485
>Because a plane going straight at a constant altitude proves no curvature.
Define straight.
>Otherwise on a presupposed ball, a plane going straight across would end up at a higher altitude a minute later
Why? You realise it costs energy to gain altitude, right?
>>11180488
>Yeah makes it almost no curve or neglectable doesnt it
No, it actually makes the earth appear the to have a radius 7/6 times that of its actual radius.

[Anonymous No.11180506]

>>11180495
>A plane does not "nosedive", it travels on a vector more or less perpendicular to that of gravity
Yes a plane doesnt nosedive every minute. Therefore no curvature. More or less perpendicular to this so called gravity is nonsense. You really mean on a vector above the ground.

There is a desperation to disprove a creator, not suggesting what religion is correct or incorrect, just that there is a creator or creation and it is more evident when you consider that the earth is not a spinning ball due to evidence of no curvature. The earth is not some accident, more center of a creation.

[Anonymous No.11180510]

>>11180501
You are not stupid you just don't want to admit your arguments are invalid at this point either due to faulty critical thinking or arrogance.
Come on now.
Either we are on something many times greater than what we are told or the earth is flat.

[Anonymous No.11180512]

>>11180510
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.11180513]

>>11180506
>There is a desperation to disprove a creator, not suggesting what religion is correct or incorrect
So you think that promoting flat earth will help people believe in your god?

[Anonymous No.11180514]

>>11180491
Could you quantify it?

[Anonymous No.11180521]

>>11180513
No. Showing scientific evidence of a not round earth proves that the entirety of mathematical concepts like the fermi paradox, gravity, and the big bang is just mere concepts, based on a presupposed ball. Concepts of a creator or creation doesnt become ridiculous. The nature of this creator or intent on this creation is up to interpretation.

[Anonymous No.11180530]

>>11180485
>Because a plane going straight at a constant altitude proves no curvature.
But how can you tell you are going straight?

[Anonymous No.11180532]

>>11180530
Altitude sloping

[Anonymous No.11180533]

>>11180532
But how can you tell altitude is straight?

[Anonymous No.11180538]

>>11180533
Not sure if related

[Anonymous No.11180541]

>>11180538
What is altitude?

[Anonymous No.11180652]

>>11179526
>The shadow angles produced by the flashlight on the table can give me the same result to what eratosthenes observed in his shadow experiment.
It actually can't, since two people at opposite ends of the equator will see the sun at a 90 degree angle at sunrise and sunset respectively. The only way this could happen on a flat Earth is if the Sun is in between them and touching the Earth. Or consider someone standing where the Sun is directly above them, producing no shadow. Yet at the same time there is someone observing sunrise or sunset with the sun at a 90 degree angle. On a flat plane those two lines meet at the person standing under the sun, meaning not only is it touching the Earth, it's engulfing that person. Since this never happens, the Earth cannot be flat.

[Anonymous No.11180660]

1) Why do all people, everywhere on Earth, always see the same face of the Moon?

There is no way to make this work on the flat Earth. The only way this could be possible is if the Moon is very far away

[Anonymous No.11180667]

>>11180660
>but what if the Moon is actually light shining through a hole in the firmament?
In that case, for different observers the Moon would appear to be ovular, rather than circular. And how does this hole slide across the firmament?
Furthermore, we know the Moon gets closer and further away periodically over time. And we know it passes over the sun. How does that make sense at all? And how does a HOLE block light from the sun?

You can make it all work, but in the end you'll have to make assumptions which make the flat earth idea far more complicated and convoluted than the round earth model

[Anonymous No.11180672]

>>11180667
2) How come stars in the Southern Hemisphere appear to orbit the South Pole?

This wouldn't work at all in the flat earth model. Furthermore, how is it possible for New Zealand and Argentina to be seeing the very same stars in the sky?

[Anonymous No.11180675]

>>11180672
3) Tide Charts follow the phase and position of the Moon.

People who live near the ocean already know about this, but tide charts are generally printed with the Moon's phase on them. Because it's known that during half moons, the tide is much weaker. Pic related, you can see this.

That's because when the Moon and Sun are in alignment, their respective tidal forces add together (the sun has approximately 1/2 the tidal force of the Moon). When the Sun and Moon are out of phase, their tidal forces subtract, giving us "neap tides" (reduced tides).

Furthermore, the position of the Moon in the sky can tell you what the tide is. High in the sky, it's high tide. Near the horizon, it's low tide. On the flat earth model this doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous No.11180677]

>>11180675
4) We have something called a gyro-compass, which uses the Earth's rotation to point North.

These are mostly used in submarines, but they can find north without any magnetic field. And this isn't "magnetic north" either, it's True North.

[Anonymous No.11180682]

>>11180677
Here's how it works, more or less. It uses the earth's rotation to generate a torque which pushes the gyroscope to point north.

[Anonymous No.11180684]

>>11180682
5) Why does the sun move through the sky at a constant rate?

In the flat Earth model, because the sun is strafing over the Earth, it should be moving faster through the sky around midday, and fade off into the distance much more slowly. But this isn't what we observe, the sun moves through the sky at a constant rate day by day. And we can literally see it dipping below the horizon.

[Anonymous No.11180722]

>>11180506
If you take an object moving in a straight line, and apply an acceleration perpendicular to that line, the path of the object's motion will be a curve. You can observe this by throwing something straight forward and observing the path of its fall. You know that objects accelerate downwards, and you know that the plane is moving forward, so you know that it should travel along a curve. Lift, upward acceleration, counteracts downward acceleration (falling), so the more lift the plane has the more slowly it falls, hence the less steep the curve (an object falling more slowly will cover more horizontal distance in the time it takes to drop). You appear to be arguing that the lift of the plane must always be exactly enough to make the plane's path a straight line rather than a curve, but there's no reason at all for that to be the case.

There's no desperation to disprove a creator, which is impossible anyway. Instead, people over hundreds of years, almost all of them religious, have made observations of the world around us and adjusted their ideas to match what is observed, which is a round Earth and the laws of physics as we know them. Your problem is that you're doing it backwards - unlike them, you're starting with something you want to believe, and then trying to find evidence for it.

Suppose the Earth were round. How would that make you feel? Why does the idea of a round Earth distress you?

[Anonymous No.11181367]

>>11180652
Flat earthers did a better explanation of equinoxes.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox

[Anonymous No.11181370]

>>11180660
>>11180667
Strawman arguments

[Anonymous No.11181374]

>>11180675
Thats called the theory of tides. Tides are not caused by moon gravity. Its ridiculous to assert that the moon is strong enough to pull salt water but nothing else.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FMYUrtg2ItQ

[Anonymous No.11181390]

>>11180682
It doesnt use the earths rotation because that contradicts the claim that we cant observe rotation from airplanes or helicopters because of inertia.
Either we observe rotation at ground level, ie focaults pendulum, or we don't, ie laser ring gyro using sideral day or the stars movements and not actual earth spin detected. You cant have it both ways.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Ring_Laser_Gyroscope

[Anonymous No.11181396]

>>11180684
Horizon is an apparant visual line. Not curvature. Its called sun set because we know the sun moves above us and not the horizon tilting up to cover the sun.

[Anonymous No.11181402]

>>11180722
>If you take an object moving in a straight line, and apply an acceleration perpendicular to that line, the path of the object's motion will be a curve.
In relation to what? Did you know the thrust of a plane and the lift keeps the plane in air and overcomes this downward acceleration you claim? Is the ground curving at 8 inches per mile squared?
Are you reasserting that there must be ground curvature? Prove curvature of the earth. The plane disproves it.

[Anonymous No.11181435]

>>11181402
>In relation to what?
In relation to yourself, standing on the ground, throwing for example a tennis ball in a straight line forward from yourself. You will perceive the path the ball travels through the air as a curve - it will travel forward at a near-constant speed, while simultaneously falling faster and faster.

> Did you know the thrust of a plane and the lift keeps the plane in air and overcomes this downward acceleration you claim? Is the ground curving at 8 inches per mile squared?
Are you reasserting that there must be ground curvature?
I don't clearly understand what you're trying to say in relation to my own post, and I don't want to guess at your meaning.

>Prove curvature of the earth.
I'm not attempting to. You gave an argument which you claimed disproved it, and I explained how it does not.

Unless you answer my second and third paragraph >>11180722 I can't tell if you're a genuine flat earther or a troll. I'll give a flat earther courteous help if I can, but flat earth trolls are more common and I don't want to waste time with them.

[Anonymous No.11181635]

>>11180291
Can you read, retard? Do the experiment without any assumptions. You'll arrive at the same conclusion.

[Anonymous No.11181642]

If the earth is flat, what countries lie at the edges?

[Anonymous No.11181663]

>>11181642
AFAIK flat earth tradition has the north pole at the centre of the map and Antarctica around the edge, with a wall of ice preventing all the water from falling off. So you'd think they'd be pretty big climate activists.

[Anonymous No.11181665]

>>11179698
I can project Earth pictures onto a dildo just because it fits doesn't mean its shaped like a dildo probably

[Anonymous No.11181676]

>>11181665
its not a sphere either, the shape is constantly changing, distorted by rotation and tidal forces and uneven heating

[Anonymous No.11182698]

Quick question for any flat earthers in here. Do you guys generally assume the flat earth is infinite or has something like a boundary (I hear ice wall a bit)?
For the boundary assumption, what is stopping someone from taking a plane and flying to (and then over) this boundary?
For the infinite assumption, what is stopping us from exploring this space?

Genuine questions- not putting forth an argument or trying to refute something, I’m interested in the explanation

[Anonymous No.11183054]

>>11180078
The ocean does not exert as much pressure on the atmosphere as gas in your hypothetical container. If you were to compress water into that container it would also expand, like the gas. However, because it is so heavy it wouldn't dissipate.

[Anonymous No.11183059]

>>11181374
It pulls fresh water as well.

[Anonymous No.11183073]

>>11179038

I sailed across the Atlantic Ocean using a sextant, spherical trigonometry and an almanac.
Compare the two trigs and see if you can find Bermuda.

[Anonymous No.11183080]

>>11180677

Gyro compasses are the most commonly used compass on any ship, there are very few fibre optic compasses. Every ship >500t has to have a gyro compass and a magnetic.

[Anonymous No.11183091]

Flat earthers should be executed. Every single one. And their children too.

[Anonymous No.11183114]

>>11183091
Flat earthers are valuable. The defaults in the way they think are the same kind as exist in other people, just exaggerated. If you can catch a genuine flat earther and study him, it's a great object lesson in how for example racists or anti-vaxers come by their views.

[Anonymous No.11183116]

>>11183073
But if you claim to have personal knowledge that the Earth is round, that makes you part of the conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.11183119]

>>11183116

Yea I admit I'm a paid shill.
Do the math yourself and find out.

[Anonymous No.11183124]

>>11182698
Fun fact: since light also "falls down" due to gravity, if the earth was an infinitely large plane we would see it rise up in the distant sky. It would appear to be a giant hollow shell surrounding us on all sides, since every sightline will eventually fall back onto the plane in the distance.

[Anonymous No.11183163]

>>11183119
>Do the math yourself and find out.
It's probably a logic worm designed to program me to believe your agenda, no thanks.

[Anonymous No.11183205]

>>11181367
This doesn't respond to my point. It doesn't need to be the equinox for someone to be standing directly underneath the sun while another person witnesses sunrise. By your own argument this places the sun on Earth at the first person's location. The only model in which all observers simultaneously measure the distance from Earth to the Sun as the same value is the round Earth.

[Anonymous No.11183258]

>>11183114

I was in high school when I first encountered flat earthers. At first I was like: How can people be this dumb? They are adults living in an educated and scientifically orientated society. They drive cars, have phones, use electrical appliances like microwaves and computers. All things which the rationality and logic of science based technology has bestowed upon us.

But then it dawned upon me. They were not serious. No, they were merely suggesting, in a rather obscure way, that we should never take any fact for granted. That being skeptic is intellectually healthy. That we should always challenge our beliefs and remain objective no matter how incredulous an idea may appear. We should not always blindly believe what we are told or read in a book. From such a state we have a better chance of discovering new concepts , new approaches, or gaining greater understanding rather than being blinkered by what we already think to be true.

By claiming the Earth to be flat they were challenging us to use our minds, to examine our own use of evidence and logic to prove them wrong. To examine our own knowledge base, our own observations, our own conclusions. To be on guard against all claims, no matter how mainstream or apparently obvious. A healthy and mentally stimulating exercise to sharpen one's thinking.

So I dug a bit deep into their literature, spoke to them, listened, expecting to find some sort of confirmation of my judgment of their rather eccentric way of pitching an enlightened philosophy of scientific self reflection.

Nope. Nothing like that at all. They are just fucking idiots.

[Anonymous No.11183297]

>>11183258
I lol'd, but they're actually more useful for being idiots. Labelling anyone with false beliefs an idiot is easy, but examining why they believe what they do gives you useful insights about false beliefs in general.

[Anonymous No.11183388]

I missed these threads, I learn a lot from people who know their shit but keep getting baited by flat earthers. I assume it's an ego issue.

[Anonymous No.11183390]

>>11183388
It's fun, spoilsport.

[Anonymous No.11183402]

Hey flat earthers, question not an argument: do you believe in communications satellites? If so how do they stay up there, and if not what's actually going on with GPS etc?

[Anonymous No.11183450]

>>11183402

They fly in a square holding pattern, you fuck nugget.

[Anonymous No.11183479]

>>11183450
>square
Obviously it's a round one.

[Anonymous No.11183495]

ITT: People playing pigeon chess.

[Anonymous No.11183543]

>>11179906
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11183594]

This thread is pure cancer, laziest baits I've seen in a long while

[Anonymous No.11183619]

The paradigm is changing and globecucks can't handle it as the lies are exposed. It's only going to get worse.

[Anonymous No.11183727]

>>11183594
>A've nae business being on /sci/

[Anonymous No.11183863]

>>11183727
Get tae fuck

[Anonymous No.11183900]

Wind patterns.

[Anonymous No.11183913]

>>11183900
Pathetic, always pointing to things other than the earth itself. Where are the empirical measurements of curvature from the earth's surface!?

[Anonymous No.11183925]

>>11179505
>You dont start with a preassumption in a science experiment.
yes, you do. if it’s wrong, the experiment will fail.

[Anonymous No.11183937]

>>11180109
Look up nigga, and gravity is not a force its the curvature of spacetime, gass may be light but it still has mass, which means it is affected by the curvature of space. Hell even light follows that rule and it has no mass

[Anonymous No.11183940]

>>11183925
False, there can be more than one reason why an experiment works

[Anonymous No.11183946]

>>11183937
>t. Schizo

[Anonymous No.11183952]

>>11180134
>Wrong. Atmospheric pressure is literally nothing but the force of the particles above you pressing down.
wrong, only correct for fluids. atmospheric pressure is gas molecules hitting you constantly because they carry heat in the form of kinetic energy. the reason pressure is decreasing with altitude is that gravity increases the probability of molecules to be closer to the surface i.e. air density.

[Anonymous No.11183962]

>>11183952
>Gases aren't fluids
>t. Retard
Not to mention that there are countless experiments that prove the validity of the Earth's curvature, with some being so simple you could do them with a laser and a lake. Stop shitposting here and to do some experiments until you prove it's flat.

[Anonymous No.11183965]

>>11179038
I know non-Euclidean geometry scares the brainlet, but we don’t have to prove this; you have to prove it’s flat and you can’t.

[Anonymous No.11183984]

>>11179038
My life experiences makes me believe it's probably flat

[Anonymous No.11183985]

>>11183962
you are ridiculous. gases aren’t fluids, gas pressure is thermal pressure because molecules in normal gases at normal temperatures and pressures (read: air at earth surface temperature and pressure) don’t noticeably repel each other, and I’m not the troll who pushes this flat earth nonsense. go learn some elementary physics.

[Anonymous No.11183986]

>>11183402
Ground based

[Anonymous No.11183989]

>>11183985
Gases are fluids. Fluid is not synonymous with liquid.

[Anonymous No.11184003]

>>11183989
fine, english is my fourth language, excuse me for not having these shibboleths down pat. I guess I’m not up to date on gender vs. sex either. or monkey vs. ape, that’s another retardation in this vein. gas pressure is still not due to gas weight.

[Anonymous No.11184015]

>>11184003
Except it is, because the atmosphere isn't confined within bounds. If it wasn't for gravity, air would all expand into space.

[Anonymous No.11184030]

>>11184015
Is gravity making the atmosphere spin with the earth? If so, how?

[Anonymous No.11184031]

>>11184015
air does expand into space, but not at a rate that would be significant. and gravity is merely making it more likely that molecules move towards/are preferentially nearer to the surface of the planet, but the kinetic theory of gases accounts for the whole pressure without invoking gravity.

[Anonymous No.11184037]

>>11179505
>Eratothenes assumed the earth was a ball.
No he did not.

[Anonymous No.11184052]

>>11184030
The height of the vast majority of the atmosphere is incredibly thin compared to the radius of the Earth, so the differential acceleration between the atmosphere and the surface is negligible. Drag on the surface is overwhelmingly strong enough to keep the average air speed close to ground speed.
>>11184031
Kinetic theory (along with average molar mass of air) allows you to convert air pressure to density, but the pressure is caused by gravity and weight of air above it. If you were to heat the atmosphere to a somewhat higher temperature, the pressure would (at least momentarily, until some gas escapes) remain constant, while the density would decrease.

[Anonymous No.11184064]

>>11184052
>The height of the vast majority of the atmosphere is incredibly thin compared to the radius of the Earth, so the differential acceleration between the atmosphere and the surface is negligible. Drag on the surface is overwhelmingly strong enough to keep the average air speed close to ground speed.
Are you claiming "drag" forces the atmosphere to rotate with the earth?

[Anonymous No.11184076]

[Anonymous No.11184080]

>>11184064
Yes, that is the basic boiled down reason.

[Anonymous No.11184088]

>>11184052
>Kinetic theory (along with average molar mass of air) allows you to convert air pressure to density
it is literally the study of how the movement of molecules adds up to pressure.
if you closed a jar on the surface of earth and took that jar somewhere into the interstellar space where gravity is negligible, all while keeping the jar at earth surface temperatures, would the air inside the jar have a pressure equal to what it was on the surface of earth before the lid was closed?

[Anonymous No.11184092]

>>11184080
Does that not seem retarded to you?

[Anonymous No.11184096]

[Anonymous No.11184101]

Can any globecuck show someone completing the route in pic related?

[Anonymous No.11184106]

The earth is not rotating.

[Anonymous No.11184107]

>>11184101
I do it every couple of years.

[Anonymous No.11184116]

Boats "disappearing behind curvature" is an optical illusion caused by the surface of the ocean evaporating + the mirroring effect of the water. Webm related.

[Anonymous No.11184120]

Is /sci/ the lowest IQ 4chan board?

[Anonymous No.11184121]

>>11184107
You've never left your basement.

[Anonymous No.11184127]

>>11184120
People with the lowest IQs believe the earth is a globe.

[Anonymous No.11184142]

This kills the globe.

[Anonymous No.11184150]

>globecucks thinks the cyclist is disappearing behind curvature

[Anonymous No.11184166]

>>11184088
Yes, because a jar has bounds, while earth does not.
>>11184092
No, why would it be?

[Anonymous No.11184167]

>globeshits are convinced that CGI is reality

[Anonymous No.11184186]

>>11184166
>No, why would it be?
Because you're requiring that the atmosphere, which is a gas, behaves like a solid when it comes to drag/friction. This is obviously absurd.

[Anonymous No.11184188]

>>11184166
is this some goalpost-moving? the original claim was that gravity creates air pressure.

[Anonymous No.11184191]

Is it practical to just buy a high-altitude weather balloon, attach a camera and optically confirm the curvature of the earth?

[Anonymous No.11184196]

Every supposed flat earther in this thread is a troll, BTW, not a legitimate believer. Just a reminder.

[Anonymous No.11184198]

>>11184191
If you don't use a fish eye camera like a go-pro, then you won't see any curvature.

[Anonymous No.11184206]

>>11184196
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.11184209]

>>11184186
Viscosity + collisions with ground.
>>11184188
It causes air pressure on earth. That was the original goalpost. A jar is a bounded system, so the walls provide the external forces necessary to maintain pressure. The earth provides no such bound, so air pressure is entirely produced by gravity.

[Anonymous No.11184217]

>>11184209
>Viscosity + collisions with ground.
This is meaningless gibberish. What is dragging the air that's not even in contact with the surface of the earth?

[Anonymous No.11184219]

>>11184217
The air that contacts the ground quickly collides with air in its vicinity, distributing momentum through a chain of collisions through the atmosphere. This is essentially what viscosity is: the diffusion of momentum.

[jesus the god No.11184225]

>>11188888
i agree

[jesus the god No.11184228]

>>11184222
scientifically speaking i was so fucking close

[Anonymous No.11184235]

>>11184219
Air does not have the viscosity/density to drag itself with the earth. That is an absurd claim.

[Anonymous No.11184238]

>>11184209
no, gravity causes the continuous presence of air next to earth, so you have something to have a pressure. but you are so transparently obstinate that unless you are a dunning kruger poster child, then you are a troll akin to flat earthers, so fuck off, I’m not wasting my time on you any more.

[Anonymous No.11184240]

>da sun is 93 bajizillion miles away coz i was told dat

[Anonymous No.11184248]

>>11184076
Wow, compelling argument!

[Anonymous No.11184250]

>>11184240
>atmosphere is magic because I can't explain sunsets

[Anonymous No.11184251]

>>11184248
Time for bed globe baby.

[Anonymous No.11184256]

>>11184250
Sunsets are an optical illusion caused by the atmosphere you dingbat, no curvature involved.

[Anonymous No.11184258]

>>11184206
Taking into account the height of the two mountains, and without taking into account refraction, the two peaks should be visible from each other at a distance of about 255 miles, so obviously the claim that there's 50,416 feet of missing curvature is aggressively stupid. A real flat earther would have focussed on those missing 20 miles, which can only be accounted for by refraction.

[Anonymous No.11184263]

>>11184256
why are you just repeating what I quoted?

[Anonymous No.11184265]

>>11184198
Weather balloons can get pretty high, like what, 40 km? I'd expect at that altitude you could see a measurable curve, am I wrong?

[Anonymous No.11184268]

>>11183124
To bad they don’t believe in gravity either

[Anonymous No.11184271]

>>11184258
So you're claiming it's an optical illusion - yet when things appear to be obstructed by the horizon, it is not an optical illusion, and is definitely curvature?

[Anonymous No.11184273]

>>11183258
>Reddit humour

[Anonymous No.11184276]

>>11184263
Is the sun disappearing behind curvature during a sunset?

[Anonymous No.11184279]

>>11184271
you use "optical illusion" as a stand in for "magic" like all braindead flattards, notice he was talking about refraction, which is measurable, why not learn a little
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction

[Anonymous No.11184283]

>>11184265
Not according to your globe priest NDT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzh1hU2UpPs

[Anonymous No.11184288]

>>11184235
It’s on you to argue/proof that claim

[Anonymous No.11184291]

>>11184271
I'm claiming that if you believed what you're saying, you wouldn't have pretended that two mountain peaks are the equivalent of two points at sea level, and would have attacked the refractive "illusion" from the beginning. You obviously haven't put any thought into this, which leads me to believe you're a troll.

[Anonymous No.11184292]

>>11184279
I know what refraction is you pompous swine. I'm not calling it "magic", I'm calling it an optical illusion, because it is one. Explain how refraction isn't an optical illusion if you disagree.

[Anonymous No.11184297]

>>11184292
explain why the sun isn't visible during clear nights without conjuring the magic sun blocking atmosphere, which of course has never been and cannot be measured

[Anonymous No.11184305]

>>11184288
There's no measurable friction between the surface of the earth and the air in contact with the surface of the earth. Go outside and have a look to see if you can observe any drag.

[Anonymous No.11184309]

>>11184305
explain dust then

[Anonymous No.11184338]

>>11184291
I didn't make the video, but you are correct that the observer height should have been taken into account. Regardless, claiming refraction is the reason it is visible requires much more faith and assumption on a globe compared to a flat earth. It just so happens to be refracted perfectly above the horizon, as if the curvature wasn't even there. You also have no proof it is purely refraction.

[Anonymous No.11184348]

>>11184297
I don't know what the sun is, but the atmosphere absolutely plays a role in its visibility. The sun isn't some schizo ball of fusing gases like you believe.

[Anonymous No.11184350]

>>11184309
What about dust?

[Anonymous No.11184356]

>>11184338
>It just so happens to be refracted perfectly above the horizon, as if the curvature wasn't even there.
Wouldn't that mean the whole mountain was visible, instead of just the very top?

[Anonymous No.11184373]

Don't mind me, just going to post some beautiful images until the fatass janny decides to do his job for once

[Anonymous No.11184379]

>>11184251
>not even trying

[Anonymous No.11184381]

>>11184120
/sci/ is being raided by flat earth lunatics , trolls and true believers

[Anonymous No.11184383]

>>11184356
If the mountain is being obstructed, what is it being obstructed by? Real curvature? Refracted curvature?

[Anonymous No.11184388]

>>11184379
Hush little baby, the adults are talking now.

[Anonymous No.11184417]

Ex-Soviet cosmonaut confirms flat earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2_3rLmctkA

[Anonymous No.11184419]

>>11184417
very trusted source

[Anonymous No.11184427]

>>11184419
Are you calling him a liar?

[Anonymous No.11184450]

BBBBBBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

snnnnniiiiiiffffffffffff...oh yes my dear....sssnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiiffffffff....quite pungent indeed...is that....dare I say....sssssssnniff...eggs I smell?......sniff sniff....hmmm...yes...quite so my darling....sniff....quite pungent eggs yes very much so .....ssssssssssssssnnnnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiffffff....ah yes...and also....a hint of....sniff....cheese.....quite wet my dear....sniff...but of yes...this will do nicely....sniff.....please my dear....another if you please....nice a big now....

BBBBBBRRRRRRRAAAAAAAPPPPPPPFFFFFFFFLLLLLLLLLPPPPPPPPPFFFFFF

Oh yes...very good!....very sloppy and wet my dear....hmmmmm...is that a drop of nugget I see on the rim?...hmmmm.....let me.....let me just have a little taste before the sniff my darling.......hmmmmm....hmm..yes....that is a delicate bit of chocolate my dear....ah yes....let me guess...curry for dinner?....oh quite right I am....aren't I?....ok....time for sniff.....sssssnnnnnnniiiiiiiiffffffff.....hmmm...hhhmmmmm I see...yes....yes indeed as well curry......hmmm....that fragrance is quite noticeable....yes.....onion and garlic chutney I take it my dear?.....hmmmmm....yes quite.....

BBBBBBRRRRRRRRPPPPPPFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTT Oh I was not expecting that…that little gust my dear….you caught me off guard…yes…so gentle it was though…hmmmm…let me taste this little one…just one small sniff…..sniff…ah….ssssssnnnnnniiiiiffffffffffff…and yet…so strong…yes…the odor….sniff sniff…hmmm….is that….sniff….hmmm….I can almost taste it my dear…..yes….just…sniff….a little whiff more if you please…..ssssssnnnnnniiiiiffffffffff…ah yes I have it now….yes quite….hhhhmmmm…delectable my dear…..quite exquisite yes…..I dare say…sniff….the most pungent one yet my dear….ssssnnnnniiiifffffffffffffffffffffff….yes….

[Anonymous No.11184494]

>>11184417
I think a longer interview is in order.

[Anonymous No.11184496]

>>11184450
>typical globeshit

[Anonymous No.11184504]

>>11184494
It's flat, that's all you need to know.

[Anonymous No.11184508]

>>11179526
easiest one is go to some coast and look at ships. Then wonder how it is possible they disappear.

[Anonymous No.11184541]

>>11184508
See
>>11184116

[Anonymous No.11184553]

>>11184417
>>11184504
So out of hundreds of astronauts and cosmonauts who have gone into space, a single guy says it's flat. I want to know the full story.

[Anonymous No.11184582]

>>11184553
Show me the astronauts that have said the world is a spheroid.

[Anonymous No.11184597]

>>11184582
Show me the astronauts besides this one who say it's flat.

[Anonymous No.11184647]

>>11184597
There's only this one so far - now it's your turn.

[Anonymous No.11185224]

>>11184647
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOfcyYlQzZk

[Anonymous No.11185233]

planet Earth is a fucking miracle inside a miraclous solar system on a miraclous star neighborhood

[Anonymous No.11185368]

>>11184647
My point >>11184494 still stands, I'd like to hear his full story. If there's such a huge coverup, why does he feel safe saying it? How large is the disk? How are orbits maintained? Unlike a bunch of people on the internet, he would be in a position to answer the questions.

[Anonymous No.11185373]

>>11184582
>>Show me the astronauts that have said the world is a spheroid.
10 second search:
https://www.space.com/38305-flat-earth-bob-nasa-astronauts.html
Terry Virts
Buzz Aldrin
Scott Kelly

[Anonymous No.11185659]

>>11184417
>brainlets can't into sarcasm

[Anonymous No.11185701]

>>11179961
Eh, I'd rather have flat earth threads than pol iq/race threads

[Anonymous No.11185952]

>>11185224
One of them is lying. I believe it's Mr Hadfield, he looks and sounds like a bullshit artist.

[Anonymous No.11186708]

>>11185373
These astronauts are already proven liars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmcwW-8CC6E

[Anonymous No.11186881]

>>11179038
CRT monitor and magnet is proof of curvature.

[Anonymous No.11187097]

>251 posts
>57 unique IPs
Isn't it curious how these low effort shit threads are always samefag city?

[Anonymous No.11187930]

>>11186708
Predictable - you claim the Polish cosmonaut is telling the truth, but all the other astronauts are not?

[Anonymous No.11188322]

>>11187930
Correct. The Polish are straight shooters.

[Anonymous No.11188542]

>>11184291
>>11184338
>>11184356
>>11184383
>There's 50,416' of missing curvature!
>OK that was nonsense. But how convenient is it that the mountain is perfectly exactly visible above the horizon?
>OK that was nonsense too. But it's beside the point!
A real flat earther wouldn't need to add made-up shit to his argument. He knows what he believes is true, and argues the truth on its own merits, spurning easily-debunked falsehoods. How could he do otherwise, as a rationalist in a world he believes dominated by a lie? You're a troll.

[Anonymous No.11189499]

This is a flat Earth.

[Anonymous No.11190760]

>>11184120
prove curvature using the scientific method.
sci believes that a magical downward accelerating force keeps us from observing rotation or curve during flights yet a swinging pendulum at ground level can detect rotation and the sinking ship effect is caused by curvature. contradictions in globe earth

[Anonymous No.11190813]

>>11179038
Globe = gay

[Anonymous No.11190829]

>>11190760
prove the earth is flat using the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.11190830]

>>11188542
Not a troll you degenerate. There's plenty of proof showing no curvature. Laser test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOAQHT_GWp0&feature=youtu.be

[Anonymous No.11191031]

>>11179038
information supertrollway

[Anonymous No.11191038]

>>11190829
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNMZftFGZKo

[Anonymous No.11191144]

>>11191038
>comments and ratings are turned off

[Anonymous No.11191164]

>>11191144
>ignoring the evidence

[Anonymous No.11191496]

>>11191038
>>26 minutes
That guy sure knows how to beat around the bush, doesn't he?

[Anonymous No.11191501]

>>11191496
>can't handle the science

[Anonymous No.11191510]

>>11191501
Can't handle the boredom!
Seriously, it starts with about 11 minutes of shaky camera footage of him just panning around. At 1:30, he's pointing the camera at the gravel. Learn to edit.
The music's pleasant enough, though.

[Anonymous No.11191519]

>>11179038
It’s depressing that a retarded flattard thread has so many posts.

[Anonymous No.11191564]

>>11183952
>wrong, only correct for fluids.

Gasses are fluids, so everything else you said was wrong and idiotic.

[Anonymous No.11191570]

>>11183985
>you are ridiculous. gases aren’t fluids

Fluid: a substance that has no fixed shape and yields easily to external pressure; a gas or (especially) a liquid.

The gas particles, a fluid, above me have a force acting on them known as gravity that is trying to push them down. I am under them, so the atmospheric pressure I experience is from the particles above me pushing down. Underwater pressure and atmospheric pressure are literally the same thing without any difference.

[Anonymous No.11191579]

>>11184064
>Are you claiming "drag" forces the atmosphere to rotate with the earth?

The atmosphere IS Earth so whatever bizarre thought processes are occuring in your head are incorrect.

[Anonymous No.11191601]

>>11191510
>can only be entertained by grand CGI spectacles found in pop-sci shows
Find a shorter video on his channel if you can't handle it. He's BTFO the globe plenty of times.

[Anonymous No.11191651]

>>11191579
Erm brainlet, are you saying that not only does gravity pull mass down towards a center, but can also apply a force to make mass move in a spinning motion?

[Anonymous No.11191734]

>>11191651
>What’s tidal locking

Earth’s spin is due to the angular momentum its been carrying since its formation.

[Anonymous No.11191744]

>>11191734
Erm brainlet, is the atmosphere orbiting the earth?

[Anonymous No.11191772]

>>11191744
>Erm brainlet, is the atmosphere orbiting the earth?

No, the atmosphere is part of the earth in the same sense the oceans are.
Why do you not know this, and why isn’t it intuitively obvious?

[Anonymous No.11191796]

>>11191772
Erm brainlet, so why did you mention tidal locking?

If the earth suddenly stopped spinning, would the atmosphere also?

[Anonymous No.11191842]

>>11191796
> Erm brainlet, so why did you mention tidal locking?

Gravity slows rotation. It doesn’t speed it up.

>If the earth suddenly stopped spinning, would the atmosphere also?

The atmosphere is part of earth in the same sense the oceans, the rocks, and the trees are, so yes.

[Anonymous No.11191955]

>>11191842
>Gravity slows rotation. It doesn’t speed it up.
Erm brainlet, what does that have to do with the atmosphere?
>The atmosphere is part of earth in the same sense the oceans, the rocks, and the trees are, so yes.
So why do scientists say things on the surface of the earth like the oceans would continue to move and cause serious destruction if the earth suddenly stopped spinning?

[Anonymous No.11191973]

>>11191955
>Erm brainlet, what does that have to do with the atmosphere?

I don’t know. You’re the one who brought it up with “ are you saying that not only does gravity pull mass down towards a center, but can also apply a force to make mass move in a spinning motion?“

>So why do scientists say things on the surface of the earth like the oceans would continue to move and cause serious destruction if the earth suddenly stopped spinning?

No idea who said that, but they’re wrong.

[Anonymous No.11191996]

Stop arguing with this fucking lazy troll and let the thread die already

[Anonymous No.11192002]

>>11191973
>I don’t know. You’re the one who brought it up with “ are you saying that not only does gravity pull mass down towards a center, but can also apply a force to make mass move in a spinning motion?“
Erm brainlet, let's imagine our (supposed) spinning earth had no atmosphere, but suddenly some gas appeared near the earth and moved towards it due to the gravitational attraction. At what point would the gas start spinning with the earth?
>No idea who said that, but they’re wrong.
Are you calling vsauce a liar? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0-GxoJ_Pcg

[Anonymous No.11192013]

>>11191996
No. You're gay.

[Anonymous No.11192079]

>>11192002
>let's imagine our (supposed) spinning earth had no atmosphere, but suddenly some gas appeared near the earth and moved towards it due to the gravitational attraction. At what point would the gas start spinning with the earth?

Not until the atmosphere is sufficiently dense to be in constant contact with the planet. Without intermediate particles to transfer the energy, there’s no way for the planet to confer it’s angular momentum to the gas.

> Are you calling vsauce a liar?

No, I’m saying they’re wrong.
Are you ever going to have an argument or do you have only elementary school questions?

[Anonymous No.11192101]

>>11192079
>Not until the atmosphere is sufficiently dense to be in constant contact with the planet. Without intermediate particles to transfer the energy, there’s no way for the planet to confer it’s angular momentum to the gas.
Erm brainlet, you're saying that contact with the surface of the earth would be required for the gas to spin with the earth, therefore there must be some force other than gravity that causes the gas to spin, since the gas is already under the force of gravity before reaching the surface.
>No, I’m saying they’re wrong.
>Are you ever going to have an argument or do you have only elementary school questions?
He put his sources (below) in the video description, can you explain how they're wrong?

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=322
https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/q1168.html
https://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0610/nospin.html
https://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/what-would-happen-if-the-earth-stopped-spinning/
https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/what-if/what-if-earth-stopped-spinning.htm

[Anonymous No.11192782]

>>11191601
>>can only be entertained by grand CGI spectacles found in pop-sci shows
>Find a shorter video on his channel if you can't handle it. He's BTFO the globe plenty of times.
>>11191651
>Erm brainlet, are you saying that not only does gravity pull mass down towards a center, but can also apply a force to make mass move in a spinning motion?
>>11191744
>Erm brainlet, is the atmosphere orbiting the earth?
>>11191796
>Erm brainlet, so why did you mention tidal locking?
>If the earth suddenly stopped spinning, would the atmosphere also?
>>11191955
>>Gravity slows rotation. It doesn’t speed it up.
>Erm brainlet, what does that have to do with the atmosphere?
>>The atmosphere is part of earth in the same sense the oceans, the rocks, and the trees are, so yes.
>So why do scientists say things on the surface of the earth like the oceans would continue to move and cause serious destruction if the earth suddenly stopped spinning?
>>11192002
>>I don’t know. You’re the one who brought it up with “ are you saying that not only does gravity pull mass down towards a center, but can also apply a force to make mass move in a spinning motion?“
>Erm brainlet, let's imagine our (supposed) spinning earth had no atmosphere, but suddenly some gas appeared near the earth and moved towards it due to the gravitational attraction. At what point would the gas start spinning with the earth?
>>No idea who said that, but they’re wrong.
>Are you calling vsauce a liar? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0-GxoJ_Pcg
>>11192013
>No. You're gay.
>>11192101
>>Not until the atmosphere is sufficiently dense to be in constant contact with the planet. Without intermediate particles to transfer the energy, there’s no way for the planet to confer it’s angular momentum to the gas.
>Erm brainlet, you're saying that contact with the surface of the earth would be required for the gas to spin with the earth, therefore there must be some force other than gravity that causes the gas to spin,

[Anonymous No.11192902]

>>11180439
Learn2scale, nigger

[Anonymous No.11192914]

>>11192782
Leave and never return.

[Anonymous No.11192942]

>>11192902
>Learn2scale, nigger
>>11192914
>Leave and never return.

[Anonymous No.11192990]

>>11179906
/x/ already exists

[Anonymous No.11193254]

>>11192990
Flat earth is science.

[Anonymous No.11193410]

>>11193254
>Flat earth is pseudoscience
Fixed that.

[Anonymous No.11193504]

Flat Earth models can not explain the behavior of the sun, moon, or stars in different locations. But it is pointless talking to them because if they get confronted with observations they can't explain, they will just say "optical illusion" or this:

>>11181370
> Strawman arguments

Flat Earthists just want to waste everyone's time and stop smart people from improving the world.

[Anonymous No.11195199]

>>11193504
>Flat Earth models can not explain the behavior of the sun

[Anonymous No.11195201]

>>11193504
>Flat Earth models can not explain the behavior of the sun, moon, or stars in different location

[Anonymous No.11195203]

>>11193254
>Flat earth is science.

Yes

Science is what you can prove, I dont know how it became dogma based on theoretical beliefs

[Anonymous No.11195207]

Weather on flat earth makes MORE sense

https://youtu.be/1XIn89TxZS0


Azimuthal Map erased

https://youtu.be/FFTDaLbYbPE

[Anonymous No.11195209]

[Anonymous No.11195215]

>>11179505
>Eratothenes assumed the earth was a ball. He started with a preassumption in his observation. You dont start with a preassumption in a science experiment.
>What was eratothenes's evidence for curvature?

[Anonymous No.11195220]

>>11181642
>If the earth is flat, what countries lie at the edges?

[Anonymous No.11195223]

>>11195220
what do you say about people who have been to the south pole?

[Anonymous No.11195229]

>>11195223
>what do you say about people who have been to the south pole?

>Admiral Richard Byrd (first man to transverse north AND south pole) said theres more land to be discovered outside of south pole
>Byrd says antartica (south pole) is full of uranium and mountains of coal that could "generate enough energy for the entire earth for centuries"
>Byrd says theres a continent as big as america beyond the south pole from south america

"... Strangely enough theres left in the world today: an area as big as the U.S. thats never been seen by a human being, and thats beyond the pole on the other side of the southpole from middle america - and I think its quite astonishing that there should be an area as big as that unexplored." Admiral Richard Byrd

https://youtu.be/czW0iRJuH1A?t=75

[Anonymous No.11195230]

>>11195229
>I think its quite astonishing that there should be an area as big as that unexplored." Admiral Richard Byrd

[Anonymous No.11195231]

>>11195230

[Anonymous No.11195651]

>>11195229

[Anonymous No.11195740]

>>11195651
>>11195231
>>11195230
>>11195229
He was describing Antarctica itself. But people like you will never question or dig more into this as long other cospiracy tards (especially youtube gurus) repeat some claim you blindly believe and spread it

[Anonymous No.11197725]

there is no scientific evidence of gravity.
we havent found the cause of gravity and things falling at 9.8 meters per second squared is debunked with helium in air.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg-zsck6uSQ&list=PLeA9uslHyMNku7LeMyiwJOzUMRF8Cf2fz&index=6

[Anonymous No.11197837]

>>11180448
lel

>>11179505
>You dont start with a preassumption in a science experiment.
Yes, actually. You do. That's literally what an experiment is about.

Also the dude could have stood on a tall mountain and seen the curvature.

[Anonymous No.11198166]

>>11197725
>things falling at 9.8 meters per second squared is debunked with helium in air.
Imagine a bunch of home-schoolers teaching their kids this garbage. Unbelievably dumb.

[Anonymous No.11198192]

>>11195231
>>Computer simulated infinite realm
You realize the sun or moon cannot set on that, right? It would have to be infinitely far away. How can you guys not see that?

[Anonymous No.11198280]

>>11198192
>You realize the sun or moon cannot set on that, right? It would have to be infinitely far away. How can you guys not see that?

It moves out of perspective

[Anonymous No.11198292]

>>11198280
You don't understand perspective. That's nonsense.

[Anonymous No.11198295]

>>11180078
you should test gravity by finding a tall building and jumping

[Anonymous No.11198314]

>>11180165
but we did that experiment on the moon, without an atmosphere to provide air resistance, and they both fell at the exact same speed and time

[Anonymous No.11198322]

>>11181370
that's not what strawman means you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.11198372]

>>11198292
>That's nonsense.

Tell me what doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.11198425]

>>11198166
If you legit believes the globe earth model you're no better than home-schoolers

[Anonymous No.11198428]

>>11198280
I can still see lightbulb from unilluminated part of room

[Anonymous No.11198431]

>>11198428
Yeah, but your viewpoint is higher than that of the bulb (sun). This doesn't happen in real life as you can't be higher than the sun.

[Anonymous No.11198789]

>>11198431
False. I can see lightbulb even if it is on celing and I'm floor in really big and long hallway

[Anonymous No.11199218]

>>11198372
>Tell me what doesn't make sense.
The sun dipping below the horizon in your scenario. Also the document you posted is completely unrelated.