Why is the Flat Earth Society so intent on Making Every Flat Earther Look Stupid

[Anonymous No.9902304]

I am starting to think the Flat Earth Society does not represent any flat Earthers and is there to make them look stupid.

[Anonymous No.9902309]

it's a bunch of people taking a piss and a whole lot of retards who feel welcome
kinda same thing that happened to this place

[Anonymous No.9902489]

>thinking the earth is flat despite literally all the evidence saying otherwise
>worrying that subscribing to that retarded conspiracy theory makes you look stupid
>posting about it on a Javanese encaustics imageboard

[Anonymous No.9902504]

>>9902304
Because Flat Earthers ARE stupid.

[Anonymous No.9902569]

>>9902304
>and is there to make them look stupid.

so you are saying they don't usually look stupid?

[Anonymous No.9902571]

>>9902304
Flat Earth Society is smarter than those "true flatearth" conspiracytards

[Anonymous No.9902587]

>>9902304
The Flat Earth Society is a fraud. If flat earth is true, government are going to want to make it look as stupid as possible.

You can see this with youtube as well, type in flat earth and look at the endless stream of mocking bullshit.

The Senate recently had a hearing with social media platforms and youtube will now be adding an "information box" when someone searches flat earth stating that the earth is not flat.

If flat earth is as stupid as people say, they wouldn't need to go these lengths to censor it.

[Anonymous No.9902603]

>>9902587
HAHAHAHAHA HOLY FUCKING SHIT. You are a waste of oxigen.

[Anonymous No.9902627]

>>9902603
At least I can spell oxygen.

The heliocentric model is fucking retarded and it cannot be saved.

[Anonymous No.9902630]

>>9902627
If the earth is flat, then why is the ocean curved?

[Anonymous No.9902643]

>>9902627
>The heliocentric model is fucking retarded and it cannot be saved.
>every single celestial object, even larger asteroids is at least roughly spherical or at worst at least some potato shape
>we are standing on a board with mountains that stretches into infinity and sky is actually rotating above it

seems legit

[Anonymous No.9902655]

>>9902627
Spotting typos isn't an intellectual achievement. Heliocentrism is. Also the best geocentric models, deferents and epicycles, use round earth as a model. kys

[Anonymous No.9902660]

>>9902630
Kek.

>>9902643
>Look at that cloud in the sky, we must be shaped like that cloud.

>Look at the moon, it must be a sphere even though we only see one "side" of it. And during a full moon the entire face is lit up evenly when a sphere would have a brighter spot.

>we are standing on a board with mountains that stretches into infinity and sky is actually rotating above it
We are standing on a space testicle flying aimlessly through an infinite vacuum in multiple different directions at multiple different speeds with no rhyme or reason

Seems legit.

[Anonymous No.9902664]

>>9902660
>Kek.
Well they are, I have measured it myself.

[Anonymous No.9902666]

>>9902660
Stop larping.

[Anonymous No.9902667]

>>9902304
You are being deceived by these so-called flat earth websites. Here is the real home page. You're welcome.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm

[Anonymous No.9902670]

>>9902660
>Look at the moon, it must be a sphere even though we only see one "side" of it.
We have 3D maps of its entire surface you insufferable imbecile

[Anonymous No.9902675]

>>9902655

"Oxigen" isn't a typo that's how you thought it was spelt.

As a globalist you need keep up the charade that you're more intelligent than someone who believes we're on an infinite motionless plane.

>Also the best geocentric models, deferents and epicycles, use round earth as a model. kys
They're wrong then. All illusion of curvature or things going around a sphere are due to perspective. If you disagree with this, can you tell me how perspective works/what it does?

[Anonymous No.9902677]

>>9902664
I need to see proof of this groundbreaking discovery.

[Anonymous No.9902684]

>>9902666
Not larping Satan.

>>9902670
Oh cool CGI? Scientific proof doesn't get better than that.

[Anonymous No.9902688]

>>9902677
You deny any proof that goes counter to your conclusion anyway.

Take a look at a sailboat going over the horizon, and you can see it with your own eye. It doesn't even need to be measured like I have done.

[Anonymous No.9902690]

>>9902688
>sailboat going over the horizon
Seriously? That's Bill Nye level stuff. What happens when you zoom in with a camera, does it come back again?

[Anonymous No.9902692]

>>9902675
>All illusion of curvature or things going around a sphere are due to perspective.
Perspective will never produce curvature where there are none. If you don't agree with this statement,
then you need to explain in this in depth how this curvature becomes apparent.

[Anonymous No.9902696]

>>9902690
The sail falls below the horizon and stays there. Yes. Like I said, I measured it directly.

[Anonymous No.9902697]

>>9902587
I can see the argument you're making, but you're ignoring the other possibility.
Your assumption is that if Flat Earth is credible then the governments who are pushing the Globe Earth would try to discredit people who go against the Globe model.
Therefore, the Flat Earthers who look retarded must be the government false flagging.

What you're ignoring is the possibility the Flat Earthers are just retarded.

>>9902660
>And during a full moon the entire face is lit up evenly when a sphere would have a brighter spot.
Only if the light source was close to it.

[Anonymous No.9902700]

>>9902675
>oxigen isn't a typo
It could certainly be that I got confused since in spanish "oxygen" is spelt oxígeno"". And spanish being my native languange it's pretty easy for me to confuse some spelling.

anyways I'm certainly not any genius, but I don't need much to trust that I'm miles above a delusional retard like you who doesn't understand perspective. Perspective is the ilusion that certain object look smaller when they are farther away. Curvature is an intrinsic property of geometrical objects and you can certainly measure it in many different ways.

[Anonymous No.9902712]

>>9902692
When you look at at the ocean, ever notice how the water and the sky meet at your eye level, the horizon line?

Perspective forces everything towards this central point that meets at your eye level. This central horizon line could be a few miles away to 1000s of miles away depending on your altitude.

This means that the ground is forced upwards to meet your eye, anything beyond this meeting point of your vision will disappear as if it was going behind something, when in reality it is being blocked by your perspective.

[Anonymous No.9902716]

>>9902696
Did the sail stay straight up?

[Anonymous No.9902717]

>>9902712
When do you get to the curve part?

[Anonymous No.9902721]

>>9902697
>What you're ignoring is the possibility the Flat Earthers are just retarded.
So why go to the effort of constantly discrediting them? Surely the globe will be 100% verified once public space tourism/travel is possible. Why waste time trying to convince people it's nonsense? What are people worrying about?

[Anonymous No.9902722]

>>9902716
The sailboat example is for you to try yourself with a simple telescope.

We used a laser from land.

[Anonymous No.9902723]

>>9902712
>When you look at at the ocean, ever notice how the water and the sky meet at your eye level, the horizon line?
When I am at sea level, yeah.

Ever notice when you're on a hill or mountain by the ocean the water and sky don't meet at your eye level anymore?
There's this really odd tendency for the horizon line to drop the higher in elevation you get. I wonder why that could be.

[Anonymous No.9902725]

>>9902712
The vanishing point exists because we can distinguish anything that makes an apparent aperture smaller than 1arc minute (and that's a strech). That's why we use telscopes.

[Anonymous No.9902727]

>>9902721
Why would that change anything? They can already explore the oceans to disprove / prove it. They wont do it.

[Anonymous No.9902728]

>>9902697
>Only if the light source was close to it.
The sun does the same to spherical things on earth, why not the moon?

[Anonymous No.9902730]

>>9902700
So perspective doesn't make things disappear behind the horizon line? Is the horizon line at eye level or not?

[Anonymous No.9902734]

>>9902717
The ground is forced up to your eye level, anything that goes beyond that is hidden behind it, that is your "curve".

[Anonymous No.9902738]

>>9902722
You didn't answer the question - did the sail stay straight up or did it angle downwards like it would it going down a curve?

[Anonymous No.9902739]

>>9902721
>Surely the globe will be 100% verified once public space tourism/travel is possible.
Will it? Will it really?
For less than $20,000 you can already go see the curvature of the Earth in a MiG-29, would space tourism actually convince people?
https://www.migflug.com/en/jet-fighter-flights/flying-with-a-jet/mig-29-edge-of-space.html
Don't forget, there are also people claiming Australia doesn't exist, even though you can fly there for less than $1000.

No, I don't think space tourism will solve the Flat Earth problem. There'll always be people who can't go, or choose not to go, and will deny it.

[Anonymous No.9902740]

>>9902730
Perspective is just another way of showing the empirical limitations of our senses you retard. The point if it being an illusion is that it's not actually disappearing. As oposes to the fact that any n-sphere has constant sectional curvature. And so, with the use of a cheap telescope, you can actually see that. So, your inability to distinguish objects far away has nothing to do with the fact that you observe a horizon.

[Anonymous No.9902741]

>>9902723
>Ever notice when you're on a hill or mountain by the ocean the water and sky don't meet at your eye level anymore?
It does meet at your eye level still, either the horizon line is being blocked by thick atmosphere or you haven't really looked. It stays at your eye level on a plane, I was on one a month ago.

[Anonymous No.9902742]

>>9902725
Is the ground forced up to meet your eye level or not?

[Anonymous No.9902744]

>>9902727
>They can already explore the oceans to disprove / prove it.
How so?

[Anonymous No.9902748]

>>9902728
Because you're relatively close to those things.

See, what you're seeing in those objects is a reflection of the Sun. The further away from the object you move the larger the reflection of the Sun appears in the object, relative to its size, so that a marble has a small bright spot on it when you are up close, but just be a bright light when you are several meters away.

So the Moon doesn't have a bright spot because you're a long fucking way away from it, so the reflection of the Sun in it is its entire fucking face.

[Anonymous No.9902758]

>>9902738
There wasn't a sail.

[Anonymous No.9902761]

>>9902741
>It does meet at your eye level still, either the horizon line is being blocked by thick atmosphere or you haven't really looked.
No, it doesn't.

>I was on one a month ago
That's nice. Your first plane trip, I assume. I have been on quite a few planes, even traveled between hemispheres a few times.

It's kinda funny that the excuse here is basically "it does, you just can't see it" which is what Flat Earthers boil down the curvature argument to.

[Anonymous No.9902763]

>>9902734
>The ground is forced up to your eye level,
This is the worst understanding of perspective I have ever seen. No wonder you belive in flat earth.

Anything on the horizon would do the same thing. But we don't observe that, we observe them falling gradually below the horizon.

[Anonymous No.9902764]

>>9902739
I think even casual space travel and colonization, even including other stars would not stop flat earth cult and it would still exist.

[Anonymous No.9902768]

>>9902739
>For less than $20,000 you can already go see the curvature of the Earth in a MiG-29, would space tourism actually convince people?
Yes but jet windows are curved, as are the helmet visors one wears. You have to eliminate all variables that could affect the horizon line.

>Don't forget, there are also people claiming Australia doesn't exist, even though you can fly there for less than $1000.
Those are shills trying to discredit.

>No, I don't think space tourism will solve the Flat Earth problem. There'll always be people who can't go, or choose not to go, and will deny it.
Not if space was publicly accessible. Which is another reason the globe model is dying, no one's been out of LEO since the supposed moon landings in the 60's.

[Anonymous No.9902770]

>>9902744
Take a trip to The Antarctic or measure distances to Australia.

[Anonymous No.9902775]

>>9902744
Actually being able to navigate the oceans of the world by use of stars I would assume.
Something that makes absolutely no sense under Flat models, especially once you cross the equator and new constellations become visible.
The fact that the Southern Cross can be used to find south anywhere in the southern hemisphere and doesn't sink below the horizon at any point during the night when you are below 30 degrees south of the equator no matter where you are, whether it's South Africa, South America, Australia or New Zealand.

[Anonymous No.9902786]

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

[Anonymous No.9902787]

>>9902768
>Yes but jet windows are curved, as are the helmet visors one wears. You have to eliminate all variables that could affect the horizon line.
Your eyeballs are curved.
Can't trust them then. All visual observations must be discredited, no matter if they are supportive or contrary to your beliefs.

[Anonymous No.9902792]

>>9902740
No idea what you're saying. Are the hurdles in pic related at the same height? Are the furthest hurdles going down curvature? Why are the tops of them lower, but the bottoms of them higher the closer hurdles? Is there any curve?

[Anonymous No.9902798]

>>9902792
Are you retarded? The point is that if you use any sort of optical magnifier you will still see nothing after it far enough. I.e., perspective is basically a human limitation, but no mater how powerful of a telescope you have, you are not going to observe a fucking boat in the middle of the ocean from sea level.

[Anonymous No.9902801]

>>9902792
Actually, there does appear to be some curve in that image.

Just sayin'.

[Anonymous No.9902808]

>>9902748
The moon is supposedly reflecting the light from the sun and bouncing it back to earth as moon light. You'd think the outer "edges" wouldn't be reflecting the same way as the center.

[Anonymous No.9902809]

>>9902792
>>9902798
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX2m_NfrJD4
here you retard. You haven't even kept up with the flattards arguments.

[Anonymous No.9902810]

>>9902758
Did the top of the boat you could see angle down as it if was following curvature, or was it straight up?

[Anonymous No.9902818]

>>9902761
>No, it doesn't.
You're denying reality then.

>That's nice. Your first plane trip, I assume. I have been on quite a few planes, even traveled between hemispheres a few times.
It was actually a flying lesson - I even asked the pilot if the horizon line always rose to eye level no matter the altitude and he confirmed it did.

[Anonymous No.9902823]

>>9902768
So Asutralia does exist? Why is then that there isn't any single flat model that agrees on the width of australia with the empirical data collected?

[Anonymous No.9902832]

Its cringe worthy when I see people arguing about this.

Typically many rational people will fall for the bait and argue with the flat earthers.

Look guys, understand this, the flat earthers are not into the rational, they are just there to bait you into arguing. Arguing is the end game for them, not truth, or understanding.

Just getting you to waste your time is a victory for them. They are not interested in a win or lose to the discussion. Anyone so juvenile to troll the flat earth meme is exactly that, a juvenile. Anyone so retarded to actually genuinely believe in a flat earth is exactly that, retarded.

This is why they usually want to place the burden of proof upon you.

You may as well be explaining quantum physics to a cat while dangling a ball of wool in front of it. The cat may seem to be paying attention, but it isn't interested in what you are saying, it just wants to play with the ball of wool.

[Anonymous No.9902841]

>>9902832
Lol, it takes minutes from your time to expose them. It's fun and you learn shit.

[Anonymous No.9902842]

>>9902808
>you'd think
If you didn't think, maybe. Distance is what you're not factoring in, partly because more of the Moon is illuminated than what you can see.
Part of the function of a sphere is that the further away from it you are the more area of it you can see. The Sun, being a fuckload further away from the Moon than us, can "see" a larger area of the Moon than we can, thus the outer "edges" are out of our line of sight.

[Anonymous No.9902851]

>>9902763
I'm talking beyond the horizon line, anything that moves further than it will look like it's disappearing, particularly over water where there's a mirroring effect created by the evaporating water on the surface.

[Anonymous No.9902853]

>>9902841

Guess if you think being trolled by retards and juveniles is fun, and if you think there is something to be learned from that, great, have fun, kid.

[Anonymous No.9902855]

>>9902764
Why would you care? You'd be safe in the knowledge that it was a globe all along.

[Anonymous No.9902856]

>>9902818
>I even asked the pilot if the horizon line always rose to eye level no matter the altitude and he confirmed it did.
Well, if he's a pilot he must be right!
https://www.youtube.com/user/Wolfie6020

[Anonymous No.9902858]

>>9902770
That proves seas are curved how?

[Anonymous No.9902859]

>>9902855
Misinformation can be harmful.

[Anonymous No.9902861]

>>9902775
Stars are local and also affected by perspective. Stars far away go behind the horizon, stars close go high in the air.

[Anonymous No.9902868]

>>9902853
I've learned plenty of optics, physics, astronomy, because actually knowing (without going out to space) that the earth is round is not nearly as trivial as you think. But if you prefer you superficial comprehension give at you by pop sci books, then by all means keep posting cringy yt-comment tier shit.

[Anonymous No.9902869]

>>9902786
According to the globe model you can't see curvature until 70,000ft so he's full of shit and the window is distorting it, otherwise he'd move the camera around.

[Anonymous No.9902874]

>>9902869
That's according to your fucking ass. https://www.quora.com/At-what-altitude-do-you-see-the-curvature-of-the-Earth

[Anonymous No.9902875]

>>9902787
Our eyes keep us alive, if it distorted things like that we'd be fucked.

[Anonymous No.9902878]

>>9902798
You realise air exists? You can't see infinitely far through it.

[Anonymous No.9902881]

>>9902861
>Stars are local and also affected by perspective. Stars far away go behind the horizon, stars close go high in the air.
Thanks for spouting some bullshit that doesn't explain the southern night sky at all.

[Anonymous No.9902885]

>>9902875
>if it distorted things like that we'd be fucked.
No, you'd just be used to it.
We make allowances for things all the time.

[Anonymous No.9902891]

>>9902809
This is an example of perspective forcing the ground up, obscuring what is behind it. How could you possibly think that horizon line is the result of sphere? Everything behind it is sticking straight up.

[Anonymous No.9902892]

>>9902878
So air is the reason for perspective now? Lol, are you the same retard who claims all physics is due to air "magnetism"? Jesus christ lad fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9902895]

>>9902823
Why is it that there isn't a single globe model that has all the continents the correct size?

[Anonymous No.9902907]

>>9902832
Why are you trying to stop people from discussing flat earth? What are you so afraid of? This is cult like behavior.

[Anonymous No.9902913]

>>9902842
The light isn't being reflected off the "edges" of the moon differently to the center?

[Anonymous No.9902915]

>>9902891
>Perspective forcing the ground up
There are no examples of this absolutely
retarded idea.
>Everything behind is sticking straight up
Well, because over that distance the ange between them is miniscule. That doesn't mean the horizon is not going to change.
>>9902895
You have any evidence for that?

[Anonymous No.9902919]

>>9902856
Why is he the only pilot publicly "debunking" flat earth? Shouldn't there be thousands? There are pilots that have said the earth is flat, one of them was taken off youtube.

[Anonymous No.9902924]

>>9902859
Who is flat earth harmful to?

[Anonymous No.9902929]

>>9902874
Does that look like the right amount of curvature for 40,000ft?

[Anonymous No.9902933]

>>9902881
The southern sky works the same as the northern, only it rotates the opposite direction and doesn't have a "pole" star.

[Anonymous No.9902936]

>>9902929
What is the "right amount"? The cruvature of a sphere is a constant and is 1/R R being the radius of earth.

[Anonymous No.9902939]

>>9902919
Because not everybody want to make youtube vids trying to educate viewers of something or argue with retards.

[Anonymous No.9902941]

>>9902885
We can tell if something is curved or not with more than just our eyes. Our eyes can discern flatness and curves.

[Anonymous No.9902942]

>>9902892
The air blocks light - perspective makes things smaller and forces things in the distance to merge into the horizon line at one's eye level. We cannot see forever.

[Anonymous No.9902943]

>>9902855
I just find this fact really amusing and iritating at times

[Anonymous No.9902946]

>>9902942
So you cannot see the stars at night? Yes any optical device has it's limits, but that's why WE HAVE TELESCOPES

[Anonymous No.9902948]

>>9902946
To be clearer, telescopes also have limits, but we still see a horizon even with telescopes that have a vanishing line far away from that.

[Anonymous No.9902950]

>>9902741
>>9902818

>it meets at your eye level
no lol.

[Anonymous No.9902958]

>>9902915
>There are no examples of this absolutely
>retarded idea.
Seriously? Look out at the ocean, does the sky and the water meet at the horizon line level with your eyes? Is the water actually at your eye level or below your eye level? There's your proof.

>Well, because over that distance the ange between them is miniscule. That doesn't mean the horizon is not going to change.
The angle is so miniscule yet the water looks to be dipping down extremely sharply. Shouldn't the water be constantly curving downwards, along with everything behind it?

>You have any evidence for that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy__1gnOSvI

[Anonymous No.9902959]

>>9902936
How much curvature should there be at 40,000ft?

[Anonymous No.9902960]

>>9902942

you are retarded. you have an incredibly childish, literally infantile understanding of perspective. has it ever occurred to you to ask why things get smaller with distance? has it occurred to you that the exact same squeezing occurs not just horizontally, but in every other direction as well, as would be clearly evident if you actually were a pilot as you claim to be?

[Anonymous No.9902962]

>>9902933
so then, we would expect that at some point we would see the connection between the two skies where the sky is split in two and stars rotate two different directions

[Anonymous No.9902963]

>>9902939
Or maybe most pilots know flat earth is true - they never have to account for curvature when flying - 100% proof we live on a flat plane.

[Anonymous No.9902964]

>>9902943
So you're emotionally invested in the globe?

[Anonymous No.9902968]

>>9902946
Stars are in the sky, you look through less atmosphere to see them.

>To be clearer, telescopes also have limits, but we still see a horizon even with telescopes that have a vanishing line far away from that.
The horizon line isn't fixed - it extends or gets closer depending on your altitude, or if you optically zoom.

[Anonymous No.9902976]

>>9902587
>You can see this with youtube as well, type in flat earth and look at the endless stream of mocking bullshit.
Because it is very easy to disprove flat Earth and make it look stupid, and people very much enjoy laughing at flat Earth because it is very stupid.

[Anonymous No.9902978]

>>9902950
Embarrassing - the horizon line is level with the camera, not the tubes of water, the real horizon line is also hidden by haze.

[Anonymous No.9902979]

>>9902960
What does perspective do to things above your eye level. and what does it do to things below your eye level?

[Anonymous No.9902981]

>>9902978
the tubes of water are connected, meaning that they establish a perfect level, as per the principles of hydraulics.

>the haze!

you can clearly see the peak of the mountain.

[Anonymous No.9902983]

>>9902962
Yes, it's called the equator.

[Anonymous No.9902984]

>>9902979

[Anonymous No.9902987]

>>9902979
you clearly didn't even finish reading my post, as i already answered your question.

>>9902983

you realize that all the stars in that image are rotating the same direction, right? have you ever seen a star timelapse?

[Anonymous No.9902989]

>>9902768
If plane windows did make the Earth look curved, then the Earth would look curved from inside a plane on the ground.

[Anonymous No.9902990]

dropping this as a retard detector

[Anonymous No.9902995]

>>9902976
Laugh if you wish, you might regret it though.

[Anonymous No.9902996]

>>9902810
A boat disappearing over the horizon would not be a large angle of the Earth away from the observer, it would be difficult to see a change in angle.

[Anonymous No.9902997]

>>9902981
I don't think you know what the horizon line is - you're not supposed to see the peak of anything, it should be a perfectly flat, horizontal line.

[Anonymous No.9903001]

>>9902997
it doesn't matter what "it should be" what matters is what it is, and you can clearly see that the horizon is below eye level.

[Anonymous No.9903006]

>>9902919
The vast majority of people know that almost no one thinks the Earth is flat, and that there is no use trying to convince flat Earthers that it is not because the flat Earthers are too stupid and obstinate to be convinced otherwise.

[Anonymous No.9903012]

>>9902987
>you clearly didn't even finish reading my post, as i already answered your question.
Are you admitting that perspective forces everything below eye level up to eye level?

>you realize that all the stars in that image are rotating the same direction, right? have you ever seen a star timelapse?
You sure about that? Where's your proof?

[Anonymous No.9903019]

>>9902989
You're not looking at the horizon on the ground - a horizon line will show window curvature much better than anything on the ground.

[Anonymous No.9903021]

>>9902995
>you might regret it
Thanks for the personal advice. Let me give you some: stop doubling and redoubling down before you lose contact with reality entirely, and all your engagements with other humans do nothing but make them think you are a worthless excuse for a human being.
Seriously.
Not memeing.
Not trying to make fun of you.
Save yourself before you spend your whole life as a willfully ignorant lunatic.

[Anonymous No.9903026]

>>9903012

>Are you admitting that perspective forces everything below eye level up to eye level?

again, you clearly didn't read my post, as i spelled out in no uncertain terms the precise answer to your question. it's as if you believe denying i said what i said counteracts the fact that you've been proven wrong.

>You sure about that? Where's your proof?

the fact that you ask for proof that not only can you easily google but are certain to have seen prior shows that you are not really a flat earthier and are just trying to get a rise. that said, here you go.

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

[Anonymous No.9903039]

>>9902990
The irony.

>>9902996
How can the boat disappear by going down curvature, but this same curvature doesn't make the top of the boat go down perpendicular to the curvature? That's not how spheres work.

[Anonymous No.9903040]

>>9903001
If it was a clear day, the actual horizon line would be present, higher than the mountains.

[Anonymous No.9903045]

>>9903006
> there is no use trying to convince flat Earthers that it is not because the flat Earthers are too stupid and obstinate to be convinced otherwise
So why is he doing it?

[Anonymous No.9903046]

>>9903039

>go down perpendicular

is this you, in your special retard language, attempting to say "sideways"?

the answer to your question is yes, it does. and further, the answer was provided in the very post you replied to. i'm beginning to pity you. you along with a lot of other flat earthers i've talked to seem to somehow be unable to actually process the arguments presented to you.

can you visualize things in 3d?

[Anonymous No.9903050]

>>9903021
You want me to join the globe cult again? Then I can be worth something?

[Anonymous No.9903051]

>>9902304
Pretending to be stupid is the whole point, nobody actually believes it.

[Anonymous No.9903056]

>>9903026
>again, you clearly didn't read my post, as i spelled out in no uncertain terms the precise answer to your question. it's as if you believe denying i said what i said counteracts the fact that you've been proven wrong.
Oh okay, don't answer then.

>the fact that you ask for proof that not only can you easily google but are certain to have seen prior shows that you are not really a flat earthier and are just trying to get a rise. that said, here you go.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI [Embed]
I can see stars rotating in opposite directions, can't you?

[Anonymous No.9903057]

>>9902304
controlled opposition.

flat earthers know something, figure out what it is.

[Anonymous No.9903062]

>>9902958
Dude. You misunderstand the whole point of that educational video for brainlets. What the nice English fellow said is you can't perfectly portray the curved, closed (no edge) surface of a sphere onto a flat surface.
This should also be obvious to anyone who can visualize in 3 dimensions. Since I suspect you can visualize 3 dimensions, I must assume that you spread stuff online as flat Earth "proof" without even noticing if it supports your position or not.

[Anonymous No.9903069]

>>9903046
How noble of you to try and re-educate me.

Can you show me a mountain or some other large object leaning sideways down curvature, as expected on a globe?

[Anonymous No.9903073]

>>9903050
I want you, as a fellow human being, to not die young in a rubber room or a shack in the woods, muttering to yourself about "the globe cult" or some other stupid, delusional shit.

[Anonymous No.9903074]

>>9903040

so on one hand you postulate that it does appear at eye level, and you have clearly seen it, and on the other hand when presented with clear evidence to the contrary, you claim there to be some special exception. has it occurred to you that the day in the image is just as clear, if not clearer due to high altitude, than a normal, clear day? has it not occurred to you that the human body is actually quite bad at detecting 'level' and in addition, readily alters your perception of things to match your expectations? has it occurred to you that maybe you with nothing but your fallible senses are wrong, while everyone else who uses accurate tools to measure their environment is right?

>>9903045
for recreation.

[Anonymous No.9903075]

>>9903062
Can you explain this?

[Anonymous No.9903076]

>>9903050
Also, I never said that you are worthless, I said that being a flat Earther who works so hard to stay one makes people think that yoy are worthless.

[Anonymous No.9903078]

>>9903026
>stars on the right go counter-clockwise
>stars on the left go clockwise
Same direction huh?

[Anonymous No.9903082]

>>9903073
Is that like how religious cultists want others to stop sinning and to join their religion otherwise they'll end up in Hell?

[Anonymous No.9903083]

>>9903075
Acknowledge what I said about the impossibility of accurately portraying the surface of a sphere on a flat surface.
And fucking find real photos from space (not all of which are from Nasa), don't rely on 3-pixel shopped and reshopped meme bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9903084]

>>9903075
>NASA is smart enough to keep flat earth a secret and convince the entire world of the earth being round
>can't get two pictures to agree how big a continent is
These are mutually exclusive claims.

[Anonymous No.9903085]

>>9903056

>Oh okay, don't answer then.

i did. for some reason you are either denying, or unable to understand what constitutes as an answer.


>I can see stars rotating in opposite directions, can't you?
+
>>9903078

are you seriously trying to parse the definition of "opposite directions"?

>"this wheel is spinning clockwise, but when i go to the other side it's spinning counter clockwise. it's spinning two different directions at once... ????????? how can this be possible"

[Anonymous No.9903089]

>>9903082
Sins are offenses against God or our fellow men. Being intentionally ignorant, stupid, and delusional, just hurts yourself.

[Anonymous No.9903090]

Flat Earthers, how do you explain lunar eclipses? Fast response please :)

[Anonymous No.9903092]

>>9903074
Can you draw the horizon line on the picture please? You must be seeing something I'm not.

>for recreation.
I'm sure that's it - constantly making videos about something that's supposed to already be 100% fact. What a genius.

[Anonymous No.9903093]

>>9903085
Imagine you were inside a sphere. The sphere is rotating. If you look up and you look down, will the half above you be rotating the same direction as half below you?

[Anonymous No.9903096]

>>9903069

it's as if you are only able to understand the very surface level meaning of what was said, and don't get that there are implications that result from an argument. additionally, you still somehow have yet to grasp the meaning of the post you replied to, and supposedly read, yet somehow took no meaning from.

he clearly said that THE ANGLE SUBTENDED BY THE SHIP, OR ANY OBJECT STILL PARTIALLY VISIBLE, IS NOT GREAT ENOUGH TO BE DETECTABLE WITH ANY SORT OF ACCURACY.

[Anonymous No.9903100]

>>9903093

yes. Christ. you're an imbecile. by definition it cannot be rotating two separate, absolute directions, because that would preclude it's existance as a solid object.

[Anonymous No.9903109]

>>9903083
>Acknowledge what I said about the impossibility of accurately portraying the surface of a sphere on a flat surface.
This is my point - the globe model will never have an accurate map.

>And fucking find real photos from space (not all of which are from Nasa), don't rely on 3-pixel shopped and reshopped meme bullshit.
Wait, are you saying NASA images aren't real?

[Anonymous No.9903110]

>>9903084
>NASA is smart enough to keep flat earth a secret and convince the entire world of the earth being round
They're not smart enough are they? They're fucking idiots.

[Anonymous No.9903113]

>>9903100
A flat earth has SOME length does it not? It’s not literally a disc, but a thick chunk of earth, obviously, otherwise we wouldn’t have found Gold or Oil

[Anonymous No.9903117]

>>9903089
>Being intentionally ignorant, stupid, and delusional, just hurts yourself.
So if I join the globe believers again I will stop hurting myself?

[Anonymous No.9903118]

>>9903113

this is not a response to my post. nothing in your post has anything to do with the post you replied to .

[Anonymous No.9903122]

>>9903090
Moon is self-illuminating, hence why it disappears before turning red. The red color is from interacting with the sun, but it's not reflecting the sun's light or going through a shadow, has to be some electromagnetic effect of some kind. Requires scientific investigation.

[Anonymous No.9903123]

>>9903096
>he clearly said that THE ANGLE SUBTENDED BY THE SHIP, OR ANY OBJECT STILL PARTIALLY VISIBLE, IS NOT GREAT ENOUGH TO BE DETECTABLE WITH ANY SORT OF ACCURACY.
THAT
WHAT? EVEN AT A HIGH ALTITUDE? AMAZING.

[Anonymous No.9903129]

>>9903123
high altitude would have absolutely nothing to do with it. why do you think it would?

[Anonymous No.9903132]

>>9903113
It's an infinite plane.

[Anonymous No.9903134]

>>9903109
Oh my fucking God. I legitimately wanted to have a helpful discussion with you. Now I just want you to die in a fire.
One last response, then I'm out, hoping to never make contact with you again.
You said the globe model does not accurately portray the size of continents. I pointed to the very video you linked to, and informed you that the model is accurate, it's just that there is no one perfect way to portray the surface of a globe on a map. There is a difference between a conceptual model and the physical representation of it. A flat map can not portray the globe model perfectly in all aspects simultaneously. Do you know what object better portrays the globe model? A FUCKING GLOBE!
Also, I was disparaging your tiny, illegible, certainly modified, who knows where it came from, bullshit meme pic. I also suggested getting space pics from somewhere other than Nasa, because you flat Earth assholes like to say "don't trust Nasa" when there is evidence from other entities, other countries, and the time before Nasa existed to refer to.
Now fuck off and die, my time to amuse myself is over.

[Anonymous No.9903144]

[Anonymous No.9903152]

>>9903132
Absolutely not. I’ve never heard anything stupider in my life.

The flat earth is a thick, rotating chunk of earth.

[Anonymous No.9903155]

>>9903129
Higher altitude = more curvature visible.

[Anonymous No.9903159]

>>9903122
Pffffft. Not sufficient.

First. Why is the Moon self-illuminating.

Second. Certain eclipses actually darken the moon. If this were the case, why would we see a darkened PORTION of the moon?

[Anonymous No.9903172]

>>9903134
>Oh my fucking God. I legitimately wanted to have a helpful discussion with you.
Translation: I wanted to force you back into the globe cult.
>Now I just want you to die in a fire.
Translation: You still won't join back, so I wish harm upon you.

>ou said the globe model does not accurately portray the size of continents. I pointed to the very video you linked to, and informed you that the model is accurate, it's just that there is no one perfect way to portray the surface of a globe on a map. There is a difference between a conceptual model and the physical representation of it. A flat map can not portray the globe model perfectly in all aspects simultaneously. Do you know what object better portrays the globe model? A FUCKING GLOBE!
This must mean then, that we cannot portray anything accurately on a flat map, since everything is curved - correct? Cites, seas etc are all mapped inaccurately. What a shame, it's almost like the globe is unnatural and cannot be represented properly.

>I also suggested getting space pics from somewhere other than Nasa, because you flat Earth assholes like to say "don't trust Nasa" when there is evidence from other entities, other countries, and the time before Nasa existed to refer to.
Can you prove it's modified?

[Anonymous No.9903177]

>>9903152
I thought that was the moon?

[Anonymous No.9903180]

>>9903159
>First. Why is the Moon self-illuminating.
How am I supposed to know? Why is anything self-illuminating?

>Second. Certain eclipses actually darken the moon. If this were the case, why would we see a darkened PORTION of the moon?
Because it's self-illuminating. How does most of the moon completely disappear into darkness before turning red during a lunar eclipse?

[Anonymous No.9903204]

>>9903122
>Requires scientific investigation.
I think you are a little late there bud.

[Anonymous No.9903220]

>>9903172
>This must mean then, that we cannot portray anything accurately on a flat map, since everything is curved - correct? Cites, seas etc are all mapped inaccurately.
If you take a small part of the curved surface and portray it on a flat surface, you get less distortion. This amount of distortion can be fine if the map shows a small enough area.
Also, whether something can be portrayed well on a flat surface is not a test of whether it is real.

[Anonymous No.9903230]

>>9903204
Watch a lunar eclipse and ask yourself if it's sufficiently explained by the globe model. There's serious issues with it.

[Anonymous No.9903232]

>>9903155

congratulations. increasing your altitude to the point where curvature is clearly visible makes the curvature clearly visible. clever.

[Anonymous No.9903236]

>>9903230
lmao at the fact that you actually believe this. if you simulate a globe and a moon and the earths atmosphere, you will (and do, as many programs exist that already do this) see lunar eclipses exactly as you see them on the normal earth. hence, the globe model is correct.

[Anonymous No.9903238]

>>9903144
I recommend to my fellow flat Earthers that they follow this advice and use telescopes and binoculars to look straight at the Sun, as they are intended to be used.

[Anonymous No.9903241]

>>9903220
How much curvature does New York have? How much distortion is created by turning it into a flat map?

[Anonymous No.9903245]

>>9903232
I want to see mountains curving away - if you are supposedly seeing the horizon curve, then surely there must be objects curving as well, in every direction equally.

[Anonymous No.9903246]

>>9903236
Provide evidence.

[Anonymous No.9903247]

>>9903238
I prefer to look at dark matter.

[Anonymous No.9903281]

>>9903246

http://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=stellarium

>>9903245

sorry but your conception of what is actually reasonably possible to see is severely warped.

[Anonymous No.9903286]

>>9903281
>http://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=stellarium
Is there a video? Much easier.

[Anonymous No.9903293]

>>9903286
no, unfortunately. do you really need to be spoonfed everything?

also

http://spaceengine.org/

just so happens to precisely match observations. it's almost like the heliocentric model matches reality or something.

[Anonymous No.9903298]

>>9903241
Ok. I found an NYC map that goes from N 40 deg 30 min and N 41 degrees, and from W 73 deg 40 min to W 74 deg 20 min. The N 41 deg line is in reality ("sphere Earth model" for you) 1.000086 times as long as the N 40 deg 30 min line. So the North edge of the map portrays 79.007 miles in length, while the South edge portrays 79 miles in length. So there is that tiny distortion, which obviously makes no difference to any reasonable use of the map.

[Anonymous No.9903322]

>>9903180
Because you’re the man with the scientific theory. Looks like it’s not fully fleshed out, huh?

[Anonymous No.9903330]

>>9903177
The moon is a sphere.

You have to understand, by rotating I mean like how a frisbee turns in midair. The earth is essentially a giant frisbee.

You can combine this with various theological views, like God casting a disc out or something, but overall that is what the Earth looks like.

Kind of funny. It’s up to us to explain why it looks like that, enough questions and answers I actually have work tomorrow because I’m an actual scientist unlike you

[Anonymous No.9903369]

>>9902995
Yeah, like laughing at somebody who you later realise was seriously mentally handicaped

[Anonymous No.9903379]

>>9903075
Take pictures of globe from diffrent distances

[Anonymous No.9903473]

>>9902933
You're basically right.
Firstly, the North Star isn't exactly the northern celestial pole, the North Star itself draws a small circle in long exposures. The southern celestial pole also doesn't have a bright star marking its location.
The stars are all rotating in the same direction, it's just the direction you face that changes the apparent direction of their rotation.
If you are on the equator and you look east they appear to rotate from the horizon towards you, east to west.
The big problem is that when you look south they appear to rotate around a point in the sky that is south of you. No matter where you are in the southern hemisphere this is the case. But on the flat earth south is just a direction away from north, it doesn't converge. However the night sky converges.
This is the big problem that flat earthers try to explain, but can't. They have to make special rules for the southern hemisphere to explain what we see in the night sky while on the globe Earth we have just one rule that works no matter what hemisphere you are in.

[Anonymous No.9903475]

>>9903075
see >>9902842

[Anonymous No.9903884]

>>9903293
Don't be a coward - show a video that simulates a lunar eclipse and I guarantee it's a load of bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9903888]

>>9903298
How much curvature does NYC have from one side to the other?

[Anonymous No.9903892]

>>9903322
Give me a break here, you've had 500+ year to come up with your bullshit theory. You still can't explain why the moon disappears during a lunar eclipse.

[Anonymous No.9903897]

>>9903330
The earth is an infinite, stationary plane. It's not space that's infinite, it's the earth.

If you think you're spinning and flying through infinite space at ridiculous speeds then you're a complete schizo.

[Anonymous No.9903902]

>>9903369
I guarantee all mentally handicapped people believe the earth's a globe so you're in good company.

[Anonymous No.9903904]

>>9903379
Kek, sure looks like it.

[Anonymous No.9903917]

>>9903473
Not sure what's so hard to get. If you're in the southern hemisplane, then the dominant magnetic force is the southern magnetic force, looking south is relative to magnetic south in the southern hemisplane.

[Anonymous No.9903956]

>>9903247
>I prefer to look at dark matter.
You can't because dark matter don't interact electromagnetically. That's what happens when you mock something that you don't understand.... Not that you understand much...

[Anonymous No.9903973]

>>9903956
Damn you got me - I meant I prefer to look at spacetime.

[Anonymous No.9904277]

>>9903884

are you afraid of something?

[Anonymous No.9904286]

>>9904277
I'm too lazy to mess around with shitty simulators - just show me a video made by a professional that simulates the lunar eclipse, or are you afraid of something?

[Anonymous No.9904300]

>>9904286


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VPwvyvJCQ0

>why doesen't it turn red?

space engine doesn't account for atmospheric refraction, which is what causes the dim red glow.

[Anonymous No.9904305]

>>9904300
Kek - earth needs to be in frame as well, try again.

[Anonymous No.9904314]

>>9904305

first of all, that doesn't even matter. earth is being simulated whether or not you can see it in the video. why are you changing the goalposts?

solar eclipse - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96DC2IkabCI

lunar eclipse - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e43hOpJbkvY

solar eclipse predictions - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB9Z1HiYPxU

lunar eclipses - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_ukROWU1IQ

> why is the moon big? shouldn't it be small since it's so far away???

it's called zoom, retard. pic related.

[Anonymous No.9904328]

>>9904314
>why are you changing the goalposts?
Because he is a dumb flatearther. That's why.

[Anonymous No.9904332]

>>9904314
See the issue now brainlet?

[Anonymous No.9904340]

>>9904332
are you trying to say that it's backwards? lol. it's not. in the right side hand of the image, the data is assembled backwards.

[Anonymous No.9904356]

>>9904340
>in the right side hand of the image, the data is assembled backwards
Oh dear brainlet, clutching at straws now.

The moon is the opposite to the sun, it even gives out cold light, it is not reflecting the sun's light, it produces its own.

[Anonymous No.9904360]

>>9904328
Yeah, I'm the dumb one...

[Anonymous No.9904363]

>>9904356
the composite you posted was assembled by an idiot. compare it to a lunar eclipse time lapse. the direction the moon is implied to move in the image does not correspond with the movement of the shadow.

[Anonymous No.9904367]

>>9904363
EVERY time lapse is like that because that's what happens. You're denying reality now.

[Anonymous No.9904380]

>>9902587
Pilot a boat around the world.

[Anonymous No.9904381]

>>9904356
>The moon is the opposite to the sun, it even gives out cold light, it is not reflecting the sun's light, it produces its own.
Somebody don't know spectroscopy (pic related).....

[Anonymous No.9904382]

>>9904367
you still don't seem to understand that a simulation of the heliocentric model produces an exact replication of what we see night after night, day after day.

i'm an ammatuer astronomer. i use space engine and stellarium, both virtual simulations of the heliocentric model, to make predictions about what i can expect to see, when, where, and why. it has literally never been wrong. ever. compare that to the flat earth model that literally can't make any accurate predictions that can be tested.

[Anonymous No.9904383]

>>9904380
You can go around a flat earth like you can go around a neighbourhood.

[Anonymous No.9904390]

>>9904381
It's not reflecting the sun's light, but it is interacting with it in some way.

[Anonymous No.9904404]

>>9904390
>It's not reflecting the sun's light, but it is interacting with it in some way.
"It look like sunlight, behaves like sunlight, has the same spectral lines, but trust me.... It's totally different from sunlight....."

[Anonymous No.9904407]

>>9902712
>>9902741
the horizon drops below eye level as soon as you get appreciably above the ground.
pic related is from the observation deck of the Sears Tower in Chicago.

you may not be able to tell a difference of a few degrees with the naked eye in an airplane, but it's there.

[Anonymous No.9904408]

>>9904382
Yes but they were predicting the stars/planets way before the heliocentric model - predicting is a mathematical endeavour, it doesn't need to comport to how reality actually is.

Ptolemy made accurate predictions using a flat earth.

Also, does space engine and stellarium also simulate the sun moving 450,000mph around the galaxy and the galaxy moving over a million mph? Do they also accurately depict a lunar eclipse?

[Anonymous No.9904414]

>>9904404
It doesn't look like sunlight, it's a different colour. Measure the temperature of an object in moonlight, then move the object into shade, measure the temperature - the object in moonlight will be colder.

[Anonymous No.9904423]

>>9904407
Kek - gold star for effort.

[Anonymous No.9904425]

>>9904408

stellarium accounts for just the solarsystem, and predicts stars using already known motion data, which allows for you to view the sky, say, in 10,000 years.

space engine simulates the rotation of the galaxy and motion of stars.

the predictions made before the heliocentric model did not use the flat earth model. they used a model that didn't even take into account the shape of the earth. it's possible to make rough predictions just taking into account the planets, moon, etc... position in the sky, but they'll be inaccurate and will get more inaccurate further forward they go.

and yes, predicting the sky is not just "a mathematical endeavor" what, do you think that some joker just makes a computer program to "match the patterns" and out pups eclipse predictions? the predictions are made by literally just imagining, but very accurately and with the assistance of computers / math, what would happen in a heliocentric solar system. spoiler alert: what is predicted comes to pass with great accuracy.

[Anonymous No.9904438]

>>9903892
>You still can't explain why the moon disappears during a lunar eclipse.
this is some "tide goes in, tide goes out" shit right here.
hey genius: the moon becomes almost impossible to see during some lunar eclipses because it's passing through the shadow cast by the Earth. with the Earth blocking the sun's light from hitting the moon, it becomes too dim to see against the night sky.
you'll notice it doesn't actually physically disappear because you NEVER EVER see stars where it was.

[Anonymous No.9904451]

>>9904425
>stellarium accounts for just the solarsystem, and predicts stars using already known motion data, which allows for you to view the sky, say, in 10,000 years.
Does it show a new North Star replacing our current one in the next few thousand years? That really sounds like sci-fi to me.

>the predictions made before the heliocentric model did not use the flat earth model. they used a model that didn't even take into account the shape of the earth. it's possible to make rough predictions just taking into account the planets, moon, etc... position in the sky, but they'll be inaccurate and will get more inaccurate further forward they go.
Don't you find it interesting how the earth is a sphere, but the solar system is an orbital plane? The planets/stars aren't flat, but their orbits are. Interesting...

>and yes, predicting the sky is not just "a mathematical endeavor" what, do you think that some joker just makes a computer program to "match the patterns" and out pups eclipse predictions? the predictions are made by literally just imagining, but very accurately and with the assistance of computers / math, what would happen in a heliocentric solar system. spoiler alert: what is predicted comes to pass with great accuracy.
You can predict things 'till the cows come home, the problem comes when you try to map this mathematical model to our physical reality - do they add up?

In regards to the lunar eclipse, they simply don't. The sun and moon meet correctly, at the correct time, but what actually happens in physical reality doesn't match with a moon reflecting the sun's light and going through earth's shadow.

[Anonymous No.9904454]

>>9904414
>it's a different colour
A combination of the Purkinje effect and the higher reflectance of the moon at low wavelenghts (pic related, comparison between data from my previous pic and Lunar sample 15-071 from the moon. But, of course, we have never been to the moon....).

[Anonymous No.9904459]

>>9904438
Hey genius, the "shadow" comes in from the wrong side for it be cast by the earth.

[Anonymous No.9904473]

>>9904459
your inability to understand basic geometry is your own problem, not mine.

[Anonymous No.9904478]

>>9904454
>Purkinje effect
A full moon is hardly in low illumination, we also seem to have no trouble watching it turn red either. Weak excuse.

>higher reflectance of the moon at low wavelenghts
You assume it's reflecting, but the lunar eclipse shows there's an alternative explanation (plus the temperature of moonlight being cold).

>But, of course, we have never been to the moon....).
No we haven't - you are insulting your own intelligence if you believe that nonsense, it was so poorly done.

[Anonymous No.9904489]

>>9904473
Yes genius I'm sure that's it. I'd love for you to explain what side the dark "shadow" appears on the full moon during the beginning of a lunar eclipse and how this happens.

[Anonymous No.9904490]

>>9904451
>The planets/stars aren't flat, but their orbits are. Interesting...
Do you want to know why is that? Physics, idiot, learn about it. It's a consequence of the conservation of the angular momentum. You can't never get rid of rotation in the plane perpendicular to the angular momentum. This is an effect that appears also in galaxies and accretion disks.

Why then the sun, mars and the earth are spheres? Because the effect of gravity won over angular momentum (but you don't believe in gravity either.....)
A full explanation: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-that-the-stars-and-planets-are-spherical-but-galaxies-are-disc-like

>>9904478
>A full moon is hardly in low illumination
Full moon on a clear night: 0.05–0.3 lux.
Full daylight (not direct sun): 10,000–25,000 lux
Your ass is not low illumination.

>You assume it's reflecting
Because the spectral lines are the same as the sun. But you don't know what are those....

>>But, of course, we have never been to the moon....).
>No we haven't -you are insulting your own intelligence if you believe that nonsense
You idiocy is totally predictable.

[Anonymous No.9904518]

>>9904490
>Do you want to know why is that? Physics, idiot, learn about it. It's a consequence of the conservation of the angular momentum. You can't never get rid of rotation in the plane perpendicular to the angular momentum. This is an effect that appears also in galaxies and accretion disks.
Yes but these are just words that you're applying to observations as if they're fact. It works mathematically (although that's debatable), that doesn't mean it's true until you can practically demonstrate it.

>Why then the sun, mars and the earth are spheres? Because the effect of gravity won over angular momentum (but you don't believe in gravity either.....)
I only believe in gravity as a word to describe an effect of objects falling or rising depending on their density and the density of the medium they are in. Curvature of spacetime/force pulling centers of mass together are metaphysical, not scientific. The type of gravity you need is one that forces things into spheres, but you have no proof of this, you have no proof of "spacetime".

>Your ass is not low illumination.
Staring at a full moon doesn't look dim to me. And again, you can see it turn red during an eclipse.

>Because the spectral lines are the same as the sun. But you don't know what are those....
The sun is emitting its own light. The moon as the same spectral lines as the sun, therefore the moon is also emitting its own light.

>You idiocy is totally predictable.
You defending your space religion is totally predictable.

[Anonymous No.9904545]

>>9903917
That's not an explanation, it also makes zero sense.

[Anonymous No.9904586]

>>9904545
Are you thinking of the flat earth as an enclosed dome system with the north star in the center and all the constellations revolving around it?

Or as an infinite plane, with an infinite flat barrier above, with the north pole star on side with the northern constellations rotating around it, and a southern point in the sky on the "opposite" side, with the southern stars rotating around it in the opposite direction?

The northern star creates the northern magnetic attraction, and the fixed point of sky in the south creates the southern magnetic attraction.

[Anonymous No.9904588]

>>9902304
I think you over-estimate how much help flatists need to look stupid.

[Anonymous No.9904596]

>>9902690
>What happens when you zoom in with a camera, does it come back again?

No.

[Anonymous No.9904601]

>>9902721
>Why do people on a /sci/ence board mock pseudo-scientific nonsense?

Well, let's think about that for a moment.

[Anonymous No.9904604]

>>9902728
What is the albedo of the moon?

[Anonymous No.9904623]

>>9902924
Not him but it can be an outlet for psychotic and paranoid people and cause them to get caught up in a massive delusion. The paranoia makes them see themselves as one of the outliers of an oppressing narrative imposed by some controlling group. They think they are freeing their minds from external control by rejecting common beliefs. It’s generally not healthy to be this paranoid and flat earth only exacerbates it.

[Anonymous No.9904630]

>>9902775
Almost right. Crux is not circumpolar for much of the southern hemisphere -- Octans, would be the best example of what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.9904631]

>>9904518
>that doesn't mean it's true until you can practically deminstrate it
https://youtu.be/-Cc-jGnIwCM
>I only belive in gravity as a word to deacribe an effect of objects falling or rising depending on their density and the density if the medium they are in
Literally Aristotelian physics you mong. It has been debunked since galileo
https://youtu.be/QyeF-_QPSbk
>Curvature of spacetime/force pulling centers of masa together are metaphysical, not scientific
They are mathematical models, which are strong enough to theoretically tell you the paths many objects will follow. The correspondence these have with reality is obviously prone to interpretation, but given a distribution of mass, and a set of initial conditions, the equationa will let you compute a trajectory followed by a massive object, this is true for newton and Einstein. This makes the theory highly falsifiable as you can test by observing the motion of a lot of objects in the universe and see how it comparea to your prediction.
>you have no proof
I already gave you proof in another thread, you simply dissmised through gibberish, I don't know what else can I do. You can recreate the cavendish experiment if you want.
>the sun is emitting its own light. The moon has the same sepctral linea as the sun, therfore the moon is also emitting its own ligh

Jesus christ, if you reflect light form the sun, it's still the same fucking light so obviously you will have similar spectral lines. The moon is not alway visible you retard. The res comes from the light that has been refractes by earths atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.9904634]

>>9904588
Wow you really proved the globe with that one.

>>9904596
I guess bodies of water really do curve around the exterior of spinning spheres then.

>>9904601
I'm not talking just about /sci/, searching flat earth on google/youtube will instantly show mocking videos/articles and misinformation and pop-sci bullshit sites "debunking" it like a 5 year old.

[Anonymous No.9904635]

>>9902853
Retards and juveniles, no. Rarely, though, somebody with a brain gets in and trolls his ass off, and refuting his arguments is a pleasant way to stretch the mind while laughing at how morons think.

[Anonymous No.9904638]

>>9902913
Not the guy with whom you are playfully bickering, but are you assuming the moon is pretty highly polished?

[Anonymous No.9904642]

>>9904604
How do you know the moon is reflecting the sun's light rather than emitting its own?

[Anonymous No.9904644]

>>9902924
It is generally harmful to have people taught to buy into nonsense conspiracy theories and to believe pseudo-scientific total bullshit. Teaching people that stupid is smart has a detrimental effect.

[Anonymous No.9904654]

>>9902958
Not sure why anybody thinks you can tell the difference between "at your eye level" and "5-6 feet lower than your eye level" at several miles distance.

[Anonymous No.9904657]

>>9902304

Shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.9904658]

>>9902968
>Stars are in the sky, you look through less atmosphere to see them.

What about the stars that are near the horizon? I can see them, but they are further than the horizon -- as far or further than all the way to the edge of a flat Earth.

[Anonymous No.9904662]

>>9904623
Everyone thinks they oppressed by some group or another nowadays, be it SJWs or right wing vs left wing, science vs religion etc.

The difference with flat earth is it can be proven scientifically. You can verify whether it's a delusion or not, yet most globalists are unwilling to do this and will ask the same inane questions over and over again when they can be answered with a few minutes of research.

Granted, you have wade through a lot of bullshit now to get genuine stuff.

[Anonymous No.9904664]

>>9904642
How do we know te moon isn't a star? Because of it's density.

[Anonymous No.9904665]

>>9904662
>it can be proven scientifically
Can you provide ANY proof?

[Anonymous No.9904670]

>>9903075
Yep. Are you smart enough to see that it is what you'd expect to happen in pictures taken from different distances?

Even if you don't understand HOW it happens, can you now admit that it does?

[Anonymous No.9904677]

>>9903109
>This is my point - the globe model will never have an accurate map.

Of course it does. Can you guess the shape?

PROTIP: Starts with a "G," ends with an "E," rhymes with "blobe."

[Anonymous No.9904680]

>>9904631
>https://youtu.be/-Cc-jGnIwCM
That's not quite what I mean - is that wheel following curved spacetime as well? Is there another wheel orbiting around it too?

>Literally Aristotelian physics you mong. It has been debunked since galileo
>https://youtu.be/QyeF-_QPSbk
You realise that the vacuum isn't actually a true vacuum? There is still gas in there? The density explanation still applies - both objects are nearly 100% denser than the sparse air that they fall at pretty much the same rate.

>They are mathematical models, which are strong enough to theoretically tell you the paths many objects will follow. The correspondence these have with reality is obviously prone to interpretation, but given a distribution of mass, and a set of initial conditions, the equationa will let you compute a trajectory followed by a massive object, this is true for newton and Einstein. This makes the theory highly falsifiable as you can test by observing the motion of a lot of objects in the universe and see how it comparea to your prediction
That's not hard when you can just make up the "mass" that objects have to fit your model.

>I already gave you proof in another thread, you simply dissmised through gibberish, I don't know what else can I do. You can recreate the cavendish experiment if you want.
You can't show gravity forcing things into spheres, you just assume it does. Cavendish experiment doesn't prove this either.

>Jesus christ, if you reflect light form the sun, it's still the same fucking light so obviously you will have similar spectral lines. The moon is not alway visible you retard. The res comes from the light that has been refractes by earths atmosphere.
It would have the same spectral lines if it was emitting its own light.

[Anonymous No.9904682]

>>9903892
>You still can't explain why the moon disappears during a lunar eclipse.

That does not require an explanation since that is not what happens during a lunar eclipse. To stand up, a theory must agree with what happens, not explain things that do not happen. The moon is visible throughout a lunar eclipse.

[Anonymous No.9904686]

>>9904638
Assuming the moon is spherical, the "sides" should be "reflecting" differently to the "center".

[Anonymous No.9904689]

>>9904642
I guess the most obvious way we know is because the Earth can eclipse the Moon.
You might protest that a Lunar Eclipse isn't what we are told, but the globe model can predict them many years in advance. You're free to present a model that can do the same thing if you can.

[Anonymous No.9904693]

>>9904686
see
>>9902748
>>9902842

[Anonymous No.9904694]

>>9904383
Sure could. But the distances you travel would be profoundly different than the distances youd travel on a globe. Navigation using flat Earth models would be profoundly different than it would be using a globe model.

Guess which model people who travel all over ther Earth, navigating their ships r flying their airplanes, actually use in order to get where they are wanting to go!

Hint: It is a globe.

[Anonymous No.9904696]

>>9904407
Stop using that idiot image -- the lower red line is wrong -- look where it crosses the corner of the further glass construction. Draw it with the line right -- it still works.

[Anonymous No.9904701]

>>9904644
Well I think the globe model is pseudo-scientific total bullshit and harmful to people. Time will tell who is right.

[Anonymous No.9904704]

>>9904634
>Wow you really proved the globe with that one.

You may have been wrong in guessing my intent with that post.

>I guess bodies of water really do curve around the exterior of spinning spheres then.

Ha! Build me a sphere that matches the mass of the Earth -- we can pour some water on it and see what happens.

[Anonymous No.9904710]

>>9904642
Couple of ways. One was already mentioned -- when the moon passes through the Earth's shadow, it dims as you would expect, rather than continuing to shine just as brightly.

Another way that I am sure was mentioned somewhere above -- you can look at the spectrum of the light.

[Anonymous No.9904713]

>>9904686
SO you are assuming it is a smooth, polished surface? On what grounds?

[Anonymous No.9904715]

>>9904654
It's not just the observer's height, it's the fact that a globe will curve downwards equally in every direction, at an exponential rate.

[Anonymous No.9904718]

>>9904696
In the interest of opacity, I just added new lines to the image.

[Anonymous No.9904727]

>>9904658
There is no edge, and they're not that far away, they are local.

[Anonymous No.9904728]

>>9904664
Seems to have translucent properties.

[Anonymous No.9904732]

>>9904728
>Seems to have translucent properties.
He said, lacking any evidence whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.9904734]

>>9904680

it doesn't fucking matter. you realize at this point that you are basically denying 100% of the physics that is used to design the world around you.

two things matter in science:

1. the predictive power of a theory.

2. the reducability of a theory.

all of the theories you posit are either irreducible, meaning that there is no more basic explanation other than "well, it just works that way", or they have zero predictive power. additionally, you seem to be immune to any sort of argument. no matter what is presented to you you find some minuscule flaw (really, a misunderstanding on your part) to latch on to and disregard the entire thing. realize that you have essentially made it such that it is impossible to show you that you are incorrect because your standards for what constitutes as evidence are so high that even in the presence of perfect evidence that irrefutably shows your position to be false, you somehow manage to misunderstand it, and cite your own inability to understand the evidence as proof that it is false.


watch. pic related is a picture of the curve of the earth. yet, you will find some way to weakly refute the validity of the picture by finding a part of it that you don't understand and claiming that because you don't understand it, the proof is not valid.

[Anonymous No.9904735]

>>9904680
>That's not quite what I mean
>curved spacetime
Why do you think your criticism is solid if you absolutely no idea what you are talking about? The point is that the prediction of mechanics are empirically solid within a wide rango of applicability
>You realise that vacuum isnt true vaccum hurr durr
Yes, but what you observe shit that is falling in a denser medium is how the rate of falling is a function of it's shape only, and matter composition. Also the fucking hammer is still far more dense than a feather? So why on earth would they be falling at the same rate and QUCIKER THAB IN air. What sort of retardes interaction can you propose?
>That's not hard when you can just mup the "mass" that objects have
What? Are you retarded? Mass is a fuxcking intrinsic property of matter, you cannot make it up. Or do you have evidence of scientists deliberately tampering data of mass measurments? Do you mean we used gravity at some point to calculate matter? We still had to calculate G you retard.
>You can't show gravity forcing things into spheres
https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=CukAzsJHQaQC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=jeans+stability+for+planets&source=bl&ots=z6rElPPPbe&sig=1TgbaOn8FmgiKD_aAnhRQBE77Mk&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjY54T76MfcAhUSSK0KHbGgDZoQ6AEwEHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=jeans%20stability%20for%20planets&f=false
>Cavendish experiment doesn't prove this either
It gives significant evidence that there is a gravitational interaction you absolute retard. You still have failed to show how "density" has anything to do with that.
>it would have the same spectral linea if it was emitting
Are you devoid of all forms of argumentation? Spectral lines are used to determine the Chemical composition of objects. The moon would be a fucking sun if that were true.

[Anonymous No.9904736]

>>9904727
SO the ones that appear low in the sky are actually almost at ground level and very nearby? You could get in your car and go grab one? Cool, post pics when you get back!

[Anonymous No.9904737]

>>9904728
Name one such translucent property of the moon.

[Anonymous No.9904742]

>>9904665
If we look at the recent lunar eclipse, you notice that the moon disappears from the wrong side, so it cannot be moving through earth's shadow, nor can it be lit up by the sun. The lack of earth's shadow proves the earth is not spherical.

[Anonymous No.9904743]

>>9904670
>metabunk.org
Oh boy.

The satellites are no where near that distance from the earth, don't be ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.9904744]

>>9904742
Your inalienability to visualize what the geometry of happens during an eclipse does not constitute a problem for the theory behind why it happens.

[Anonymous No.9904745]

>>9904742
which side do you think it should be dissapearing from?

[Anonymous No.9904746]

>>9904677
Those things that say "Not for educational purposes" under them?

[Anonymous No.9904750]

>>9904732
>>9904737

[Anonymous No.9904758]

>>9904750
you cite Venus, going BEHIND the moon, and being subsequently BLOCKED by the moon, as evidence that the moon is TRANSLUCENT.

how in the fucking world. you are the most retarded person i've ever seen.

[Anonymous No.9904793]

>>9904758
That was the wrong one to post - there is a photo of Venus inside the moon but I can't find it anywhere, almost like google has scrubbed it. It looked much like the Islamic flag (the flag is not based on nothing.)

[Anonymous No.9904795]

>>9904793
i absolutely guarantee you that Venus is not, and will never be, visible behind the moon.

[Anonymous No.9904796]

>>9904793
>I have evidence that I can't find, therefore google is part of the hoax
I mean, this is what a stereotype of a fuckibg conspiracy tard sounds like. Do you have absolutely no self awareness?

[Anonymous No.9904800]

>>9904734
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5_efcyCjBo

The pylons are warped by the water distortion, similar to gif related.

[Anonymous No.9904812]

>>9904800

in that gif, the bridge is actually curved. why wouldn't it be?

>water distortion

you mean refraction? there's no such thing as "water distortion". by the way, refraction over water makes things appear to curve up, not down. try again.

[Anonymous No.9904822]

>>9904735
>Why do you think your criticism is solid if you absolutely no idea what you are talking about? The point is that the prediction of mechanics are empirically solid within a wide rango of applicability
The wheel is spinning pretty fast, how fast is the moon spinning to maintain its orbit?

>Yes, but what you observe shit that is falling in a denser medium is how the rate of falling is a function of it's shape only, and matter composition. Also the fucking hammer is still far more dense than a feather? So why on earth would they be falling at the same rate and QUCIKER THAB IN air. What sort of retardes interaction can you propose?
The density of the medium they are in is what changes things - if they are both nearly 100% denser than the "vacuum", then they will fall at very near the same rate, but if you added a normal amount of air in, suddenly the feather becomes 20% denser by the hammer is still 90%+
>What? Are you retarded? Mass is a fuxcking intrinsic property of matter, you cannot make it up. Or do you have evidence of scientists deliberately tampering data of mass measurments? Do you mean we used gravity at some point to calculate matter? We still had to calculate G you retard.
How is the "mass" of Mars calculated? By going there and measuring its physicality empirically? Or by observing its movements and making its mass whatever fits the model?
>https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=Cuk......
Seeing a whole load of equations and no practical demonstrations.
>It gives significant evidence that there is a gravitational interaction you absolute retard. You still have failed to show how "density" has anything to do with that.
It uses lead balls, which have static electricity, which create movement by interacting with not only the lead ball but potentially anything around it.
>Are you devoid of all forms of argumentation? Spectral lines are used to determine...
Who maps the spectral lines to chemicals in the first place?

[Anonymous No.9904828]

>>9902304
The flat earth society exists as a rhetorical device like some posters have pointed out. If you can spend that much time poking holes and bringing arguments about something provable such as the earth being round, how many other theories are more ridiculous and under-analyzed?

[Anonymous No.9904829]

>>9904812
The specific manner in which light is distorted will depend on the thermal layers and weather. Proof: sometimes there are mirages and sometimes there aren't.

But here's some direct proof that the atmosphere does screw with objects near the horizon. Try it yourself.

So to take precise measurements, it's best to aim for something higher in the sky. For that, I have something I'd like to suggest...

[Anonymous No.9904833]

>>9904743
>>metabunk.org
>Oh boy.
Ridiciousling source what proves you wrong only makes you look more dumb

[Anonymous No.9904838]

>>9904822
>>9904828
Routinely the Earth's diameter is necessary for launching craft into orbit or GPS satellite usage - but since that's all hax or lies, let's bump down to telescopes.

In order to coordinate observations with telescopes, you have to adequately take Earth's curvature into account. Okay, maybe they're lying, too...

Well why don't you try it yourself, by practicing marksmanship? Get yourself a good sniper and get good enough, and you'll find you have to account for the Coriolis effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#Applied_to_the_Earth

Even better, you can visit a museum that has one of these things, or if you have good enough machining, build one yourself, since apparently everyone is lying to each other; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

But I've got an even better idea I'll describe in my next post that just takes $20 and a few trusted friends around the world...

[Anonymous No.9904841]

>>9904793
Funny how you always claim that pictures are shoped, cgi or faked other way when those are not fitting your narative and then claim that your picture is proof enough without possibility of it being faked.
And then you fail to still provide picture anyway.

[Anonymous No.9904844]

>>9904795
Keep watching it then. People have videod stars/planets visible behind the moon but they have been taken down.

"On March 7th, 1794, four astronomers (3 in Norwich, 1 in London) wrote in “The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Astronomical Society” that they “saw a star in the dark part of the moon, which had not then attained the first quadrature; and from the representations which are given the star must have appeared very far advanced upon the disc.” Sir James South of the Royal Observatory in Kensington wrote in a letter to the Times newspaper April 7, 1848, that, “On the 15th of March, 1848, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined disc so beautifully. On my first looking into the telescope a star of about the 7th magnitude was some minutes of a degree distant from the moon’s dark limb. I saw that its occultation by the moon was inevitable … The star, instead of disappearing the moment the moon’s edge came in contact with it, apparently glided on the moon’s dark face, as if it had been seen through a transparent moon; or, as if a star were between me and the moon … I have seen a similar apparent projection several times … The cause of this phenomenon is involved in impenetrable mystery.”

[Anonymous No.9904847]

>>9904800
That vid still shows curve

[Anonymous No.9904850]

You can find one of these on Amazon, here's a link: https://www.amazon.com/Estes-302232-Alti-Altitude-Finder/dp/B0004HJO9M/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1532990787&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=estes+motor+angle+measurer

Get a few friends on Discord or Skype or whatever who live some thousands of miles apart, and take some observations of the moon, north star, handle on the end of the big dipper, etc.

Keep in mind you're not lying all on a 2d plane, then see how your model compares with a round Earth model. The math gets somewhat complicated, though, but perhaps you could compare it to what you get in some program like Celestia and realize that the 3d world Celestia paints is a perfectly accurate predictor of what you observe with the altitude of Celestial objects: https://celestia.space/

[Anonymous No.9904854]

>>9904796
So go and find it yourself.

[Anonymous No.9904856]

>>9904822
>How is the "mass" of Mars calculated? By going there and measuring its physicality empirically? Or by observing its movements and making its mass whatever fits the model?
It's calculated by observing its movements and making its mass whatever fits one particular piece of the model, and then using the model to predict a bunch of unrelated things that depend on the mass, and checking whether they correspond to observed behavior. (Spoiler alert: they do.)

Then we do a bunch of experiments in which we actually go there, and do things like measuring weights on scales and check whether the results fit with what they should be based on the computed mass. (Spoiler alert: they do.)

And after having gone through that process a couple of times, we are then fairly confident that the model correctly predicts masses even for things that we can't measure as directly as that, such as planets that are a bunch further away.

[Anonymous No.9904857]

>>9902304
Because every Flat Earther is stupid

[Anonymous No.9904859]

>>9904812
>in that gif, the bridge is actually curved. why wouldn't it be?
The bridge isn't curved, that's why it was chosen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmwg4kKDhec

[Anonymous No.9904863]

>>9904847
Kek.

[Anonymous No.9904865]

Of course, maybe the best way to realize how the Earth is round, though, is the aprocophyl sort of legend on how humans first realized it; see how long your shadow is on the zenith of the longest day of the year (the summer solstice). If you take careful observations of how long the shadow is of, say, a meter stick throughout the day, you should find about how long the shadow is at the shortest point (ie, solar noon - because of time zones and stuff, it's not always exactly "noon", though).

What you should find is the shadow is cast at an angle that is your latitude minus the Earth's axial tilt. A little geometric reasoning should tell you why that is. Just make sure to use a plumbing line to ensure it's up straight and some right angles to make sure it's on flat ground.

Compare this measurement with people at different latitudes, and watch as the round Earth model predicts something that you can prove, yourself.

If you're unwilling to do all that work then you're not actually pursuing the truth you're just being an ass and wasting everyone's time.

[Anonymous No.9904879]

>>9903888
The exact amount you will find it has when you calculate it yourself.

[Anonymous No.9904884]

>>9904822
>The wheel is spiining pretty fast, how fas is the moos spinning to mantain it's orbit?
That's a fucking 1 year undergrad problem you retard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_orbit#Properties_of_trajectory_equation The parameter b should be large enough to be at a point were the density of the air or other fluids is not going to generate any noticeable drag. The eccentricity can be computed with pure physical quantities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_problem#Solution_of_the_Kepler_problem
>The density of the medium they are in is what changes things - if they are both nearly 100% denser than the "vacuum", then they will fall at very near the same rate, but if you added a normal amount of air in, suddenly the feather becomes 20% denser by the hammer is still 90%+
Okey then, you are telling me that the interaction of certain materials with air is enough to change their density, and so when a feather touches air it becomes denser, for reasons. Well, then why would it fall slower? Dense materials fall faster you retard, so for arguments sake, i'm going to assume you fucked up and you meant the feather becomes less dense. Well then, why is that if I throw a sheet of metal and a sphere of the EXACT SAME MATERIAL, is the sheet going to move slower? What on earth does the geometry of a material have to do with it's physical composition? Are you also going to deny chemistry and material science now? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-KYLXp2MG4 Recreate it with whatever paper you want retard.
How is the "mass" of Mars calculated? By going there and measuring its physicality empirically? Or by observing its movements and making its mass whatever fits the model?
You can fucking test the idea of inertia and inertia mass yourself. Go to a hockey ring and push things that look bigger, you will see that it's harder to push some shit than other wow much science so hard. The thing we have to be certain is the
wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle cont

[Anonymous No.9904899]

>>9904822
>>9904884
The equivalence principle says that mass you see on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation Is the same as the inertial mass. Therefore you can calculate a mass through the orbit it forms if you know G which we know because of, you guessed it, fucking cavendish. The test of equivalence principle are plenty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_experiment
It's not in any sense letting any "free variables" to be fixed so that the theory fucking works.
>Seeing a whole load of equations and no practical demonstrations.
Well, because except you are some sort of god that can create a fucking experiment that replicates the formation of planets, the evidence is obviously inderect. The point is to show how through the accepted gravitational theories you can have a synthesis of planets.
>hurr durr so you arent certain
Well yes, science is never certain, but it's the best explanation we got, but the point is that there is no contradiction that would made gravity invalid with the spherical formation of planets.
>uses lead balls, which have static electricity, which create movement by interacting with not only the lead ball but potentially anything around it.
So you discharge the fucking balls you absolute moron. Also, the value of coulombs constant is 8 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE BIGGER than G, so any fucking electrostaic interaction would have been detected.
>Who maps the spectral lines to chemicals in the first place?
Scientists? Quantum Chemists in particular. Spectroscopy is one of the most important fields of science, and it has verification here.

[Anonymous No.9904902]

>>9904793
>a flag with a star inside a crescent is proof the moon is translucent
My word, the grasping at straws.

[Anonymous No.9904904]

>>9904854
>go and find something i claim exists and can't find
How about you provide your evidence instead of making us do it?
Better yet, work out the next time Venus should be visible behind the Moon and take a photo of it. We'll wait.

[Anonymous No.9905028]

>>9904750
OK, this was cute, but tell me the truth now, just this once -- you are not actually so ignorant as to think that is a picture showing a translucent moon, are you?

[Anonymous No.9905031]

>>9904746
Buy a better globe, poorfag.

[Anonymous No.9905032]

>>9904793
>there is a photo of Venus inside the moon but I can't find it anywhere, almost like google has scrubbed it.


<---/x/, you drooling moron, go back there.

[Anonymous No.9905036]

>>9904841
That was harsh.

[Anonymous No.9905041]

>>9904844
>Pictures and vids that I cannot produce are proof, actual pictures and vids that exist are all lies.


This troll is not even trying anymore, too bad, abandoning thread.

[Anonymous No.9905043]

>>9904904
>Better yet, work out the next time Venus should be visible behind the Moon and take a photo of it. We'll wait.

No need to wait that long -- the moon is nearly full now, but in a week or two it will be enough of a crescent that there will be enough dark moon to be visibly blocking known stars.

[Anonymous No.9905302]

>>9903172
>he doesn't know about map projections

[Anonymous No.9905703]

>>9904658
>What about the stars that are near the horizon? I can see them, but they are further than the horizon
Hahahaahahaha.... He thinks he can measure the distance of the stars simply by looking at them one day....

>>9904833
>Ridiciousling source what proves you wrong only makes you look more dumb
What do you expect? He is a flat earther.....

>>9904822
>The density of the medium they are in is what changes things
Then, why would a scale mark a different think if you put one apple or two apples? If it only depends on density the scale should mark the same....... It's like it is measuring something like density times volume...... If we only had a name for that quantity.....

>>9904822
>if they are both nearly 100% denser than the "vacuum", then they will fall at very near the same rate
YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT. You are directly changing your explanation when it was proven that your previous "You realise that the vacuum isn't actually a true vacuum? There is still gas in there? The density explanation still applies" was totally full of shit.

>Seeing a whole load of equations and no practical demonstrations.
"That book contradicts my stupid ideas, so I'm going to ignore it with a crappy excuse".

>>9904822
>It uses lead balls, which have static electricity, which create movement by interacting with not only the lead ball but potentially anything around it.
I don't know what is better.... If answering: "hurr, durr, I don't like the experiment, so I'm going to make shit up" or "Hurr, durrr, the Cavendish experiment have never been repeated giving the same result".... Decisions, decisions....

>Who maps the spectral lines to chemicals in the first place?
See >>9904381
Also, it's something that you can do by yourself (if you weren't so dumb).

[Anonymous No.9905853]

>>9902304
me too. There really can't still be people who believe that Earth is flat. Right?

[Anonymous No.9905884]

>>9902304
They're trying to look smart but they're not very good at it

[Anonymous No.9906003]

>>9904451
It may sound like sci fi, but in Alexandria Ptomely documented Alpha Centauri. It’s not visible there anymore (or at anywhere on that latitude) due to precession.

[Anonymous No.9906049]

>>9906003
>but in Alexandria Ptomely documented Alpha Centauri. It’s not visible there anymore (or at anywhere on that latitude) due to precession.
You can also see precession in astrology. You can see that the zodiac don't correspond to where the constellations are nowadays, giving you the date when the zodiac signs where fixed.

[Anonymous No.9906411]

>>9904865
You realise Eratosthenes experiment works on a flat earth with a local sun circling above?

[Anonymous No.9906414]

>>9904879
I want you to tell me - surely there are some empirical measurements?

[Anonymous No.9906426]

>>9904884
Things fall due to the density of the medium and the density of the object dumbass. There's no such thing as a perfect vacuum so the only variable that changes is the density of the medium (air).

[Anonymous No.9906441]

>>9904899
>The equivalence principle says that mass you see on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation Is the same as the inertial mass. Therefore you can calculate a mass through the orbit it forms if you know G which we know because of, you guessed it, fucking cavendish. The test of equivalence principle are plenty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_experiment
>It's not in any sense letting any "free variables" to be fixed so that the theory fucking works.
Cavendish experiment is fucking stupid - it uses lead balls which have static electricity - the balls are also held up by a bar and strings, it's a pathetic experiment to use as proof of how planetary orbits work.

>Well, because except you are some sort of god that can create a fucking experiment that replicates the formation of planets, the evidence is obviously inderect. The point is to show how through the accepted gravitational theories you can have a synthesis of planets.
Ain't science then.

>Well yes, science is never certain, but it's the best explanation we got, but the point is that there is no contradiction that would made gravity invalid with the spherical formation of planets.
What about "curved spacetime" - space/time are metaphysical concepts that don't have any physical properties, they have no physical substance, so how the fuck can they be "curved"? Absolutely retarded.
>So you discharge the fucking balls you absolute moron. Also, the value of coulombs constant is 8 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE BIGGER than G, so any fucking electrostaic interaction would have been detected.
Why haven't the retarded "scientists" done this?
>Scientists? Quantum Chemists in particular. Spectroscopy is one of the most important fields of science, and it has verification here.
You can make any shit up with that bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9906449]

>>9904902
Re-read what I wrote retard.

>>9904904
Do the same thing faggot.

[Anonymous No.9906454]

>>9904841
Retard thinks this is real.

[Anonymous No.9906479]

>>9906441
>Cavendish experiment is fucking stupid
>it's a pathetic experiment to use as proof of how planetary orbits work.
You didn't even understand what the Cavendish experiment is nor its goal. The experiment is for measuring the average density of the earth, it was later used to find the gravitational constant G. It never intended to reproduce the planetary orbits.

>Ain't science then.
You wouldn’t even know what science is even if it bites your ass.

>space/time are metaphysical concepts
No, they are not, dumbass.

>so how the fuck can they be "curved"?
A circumference, as a one dimensional space is a curved space. But everyone know that math is not your "forte".

>Absolutely retarded.
You are the one proving to be retarded again and again.

>Why haven't the retarded "scientists" done this?
They have done it. You just don't want to accept it.

>You can make any shit up with that bullshit.
You are the one making shit up. Spectral lines are known since the XIX century. The "H-alpha", "H-beta", "H-gamma" lines where discovered in 1885.

[Anonymous No.9906547]

>>9906479
>You didn't even understand what the Cavendish experiment is nor its goal. The experiment is for measuring the average density of the earth, it was later used to find the gravitational constant G. It never intended to reproduce the planetary orbits.
It was done to try and prove Newtonian gravity, which we now know is bullshit. You think those static electric lead balls are attracted to each other due to spacetime curvature? Take your meds schizo.

>gravitational constant G
Kek, so constant it changes all the time.

>You wouldn’t even know what science is even if it bites your ass.
Says the spacetime schizo, who thinks he's expanding with the universe.

>No, they are not, dumbass.
Great argument.

>A circumference, as a one dimensional space is a curved space. But everyone know that math is not your "forte".
Space isn't curved retard, it's the lack of any physical properties dipshit.

>They have done it. You just don't want to accept it.
Nice source faglord.

>You are the one making shit up. Spectral lines are known since the XIX century. The "H-alpha", "H-beta", "H-gamma" lines where discovered in 1885.
Kek, you can believe that, that's way cool. Doesn't mean it proves anything.

[Anonymous No.9906731]

>>9902309
>taking a piss
taking THE piss you bloody faggot

[Anonymous No.9906737]

>>9902995
GAMERS RISE UP

[Anonymous No.9906741]

>>9903039
it does go down perpendicular to the curvature, due to gravity
you're just too retarded to realize now subtle the curvature is

[Anonymous No.9906746]

>>9903155
this is the level that flat earthers are operating on. literally below middle school geometry students. truly incredible, i wish we could experiment on these fascinating specimens

[Anonymous No.9906752]

>>9903884
why would you trust videos, which are susceptible to manipulation and retouching, instead of raw simulation, which is not?
oh right it's because you're not actually looking for the truth

[Anonymous No.9906758]

>>9904408
>predicting is a mathematical endeavour,
as a math phd student i wish you would jump off a very tall cliff you insurmountable faggot
nothing on the flat or round earth makes me more furious than incompetent niggers like you that pontificate about mathematics without knowing the first thing about it

[Anonymous No.9906770]

>>9904518
>The type of gravity you need is one that forces things into spheres, but you have no proof of this,
sometimes i wish i was stupid so i could revel in the happiness that comes from ignorance
then i read things like this

[Anonymous No.9906824]

What would "they" win with deceiving the public that the earth is round? Besides selling globes.

[Anonymous No.9906836]

>>9902660
>infinite
the cosmos isn't infinite

[Anonymous No.9906880]

>>9902942
>air blocks light
it's a miracle we can see through it then despite this crippling limitation

[Anonymous No.9906888]

>>9906449
>Do the same thing faggot.
just did it
go search google for it, mine is the first result
and also the second result
in fact, the first 300 results are all me
now post yours please we're all dying to see it

[Anonymous No.9906909]

>>9906741
What's happening to the boat here >>9902851 ?

[Anonymous No.9906913]

>>9906547
>It was done to try and prove Newtonian gravity, which we now know is bullshit
You are the only one that thinks that.

>Take your meds schizo.
Classic projection.

>so constant it changes all the time.
There are two possibilities for that: 1. You are blatantly lying, like you have done here several times. 2. A think that you didn't understand but you didn't care and used it anyway.

>Great argument.
You provided no argument, why should I?

>Space isn't curved retard
Keep saying that retard: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.013001

>Nice source faglord.
As good as yours.

[Anonymous No.9906992]

>>9906909
i'm not sure how that video relates to my post
care to explain?

[Anonymous No.9907004]

>>9906746
Hasn't got a rebuttal so uses ad hominem instead.

>>9906752
Show a video of "raw simulation" then numbnuts.

>>9906758
Shut up you little cry baby and actually use mathematics properly instead of making up bullshit with it.

[Anonymous No.9907016]

>>9907004
>Show a video of "raw simulation" then numbnuts.
how do you know it hasn't been edited or doctored? why is your paranoia and skepticism so selective?
just run the simulation yourself and convince yourself

>Shut up you little cry baby and actually use mathematics properly instead of making up bullshit with it.
oh ok you're just false flagging/trolling. well that's somewhat a relief.

[Anonymous No.9907022]

>>9907004
What is there to rebut? Make a claim with some sort of evidence and we can move forward from there.

[Anonymous No.9907028]

>>9904715
>at an exponential rate.
at a quadratic rate, retard. go retake middle school algebra.

[Anonymous No.9907084]

>>9907016
>how do you know it hasn't been edited or doctored? why is your paranoia and skepticism so selective?
>just run the simulation yourself and convince yourself
I've run it and it doesn't work, the shadow comes in at the wrong side. There's also no red atmospheric refraction.

>oh ok you're just false flagging/trolling. well that's somewhat a relief.
Map mathematics to physical reality that has been confirmed by the scientific method dipshit, the heliocentric model is just observations turned mathematical, there's no real substance to it.

[Anonymous No.9907088]

>>9907028
If I'm standing on the globe, how much "dip" is there in one mile you quadfaggot?

[Anonymous No.9907089]

>>9907022
What physical properties do time and space have?

[Anonymous No.9907101]

>>9907088
360 * arc_length_of_1mile_on_surface / circumference_of_earth
you can simplify and assume the arc length above is simply a mile

that comes out to approximately 0.01445725071 degrees

can't recall how many times i've had to tell you to go back to middle school but if you make me keep teaching you rudimentary math i'll have to start charging you

[Anonymous No.9907102]

>>9907089
why are you avoiding the prompt?

>>9907084
your post is only barely worht a reply

[Anonymous No.9907105]

>>9907088
>>9907101
woops sorry, i thought you were the "perpendicular to the curvature" guy who was talking about degrees and angles

if you find your buddy, redirect him to my post thx

[Anonymous No.9907116]

>>9907088
open wide, the airplane is coming for a landing vrooooooooommmm open wide baby
now you can compute it all by yourself! that is, if the google conspiracy hasn't set up this equation to preemptively defeat your point

[Anonymous No.9907119]

>>9907101
How many inches of dip is that?

[Anonymous No.9907124]

>>9907119
>>9907116
compute it yourself. i believe in you! 頑張って!
remember to convert all your units like your teachers taught you!

[Anonymous No.9907125]

>>9907102
>why are you avoiding the prompt?
Why are you avoiding the question? How much does spacetime weigh?

[Anonymous No.9907126]

>>9907125
Why are you avoiding my prompt? Why are you asking nonsensical questions? Why are you trying to change the topic?

[Anonymous No.9907128]

>>9907116
Yaaay circles! Things that don't actually exist in physical reality!

[Anonymous No.9907129]

>>9907128
weak bait
don't ask how to compute something if you don't want to do computation

[Anonymous No.9907133]

>>9907124
If you can't work it out just say.

[Anonymous No.9907137]

>>9907126
Gyroscopes prove the earth is not rotating.

[Anonymous No.9907139]

>>9907133
ok, i can't. do it for me.

[Anonymous No.9907141]

>>9907129
I thought earth was an oblate spheroid?

[Anonymous No.9907142]

>>9907137
cool, where's your evidence
support your claim so we can discuss it

[Anonymous No.9907145]

>>9907139
8 inches per mile, squared.

[Anonymous No.9907148]

>>9907145
why did you keep asking me to do it? i knew you could. i always believed in you anon :3

[Anonymous No.9907153]

>>9907145
>squared
nani kore? なにこれ?

[Anonymous No.9907154]

>>9907142
Gyroscopes remain rigid in space, counteracting all forces, including "gravity". If the earth was rotating, then the earth would rotate closer and closer to an active gyroscope every second, yet this does not happen.

[Anonymous No.9907165]

>Gyroscopes remain rigid in space,
wrong. kindly refer to the other anon that described rotational momentum in this thread.
if you don't like physics or math (of course you don't, let's be real) watch this instead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQEKhIovKA0

>>9907154
>counteracting all forces, including "gravity".
provide evidence to support this, as the scientific consensus and experimental observation disagrees

>If the earth was rotating, then the earth would rotate closer and closer to an active gyroscope every second, yet this does not happen.
even assuming your first sentence is true, i don't see how this follows. you just said gyroscopes counteract gravity, so why should they attract other bodies through gravitation?

[Anonymous No.9907166]

>>9907148
>>9907153
Can you explain this.

[Anonymous No.9907171]

>>9907154
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo

[Anonymous No.9907175]

>>9907166
idk mate that video looks doctored to me
how about you don't post photoshopped videos and then we can talk

[Anonymous No.9907184]

>>9907165
>wrong. kindly refer to the other anon that described rotational momentum in this thread.
If gyroscopes don't remain rigid in space, why are they used as artificial horizons in planes to know if the plane is level or not?

>provide evidence to support this, as the scientific consensus and experimental observation disagrees
See artificial horizons in planes.

>you just said gyroscopes counteract gravity, so why should they attract other bodies through gravitation?
It's not attracting the earth, the earth is rotating independently to the gyroscope because the gyroscope stays in the same position, so as the earth rotates, and the gyroscope doesn't, the angle between what the gyro is on and the gyro will change.

[Anonymous No.9907189]

>>9907154
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLMpdBjA2SU&

[Anonymous No.9907195]

>>9907175
What about this one?

[Anonymous No.9907196]

>>9907184
>If gyroscopes don't remain rigid in space, why are they used as artificial horizons in planes to know if the plane is level or not?
because of conservation of angular momentum. this is not the same as being "rigid in space," whatever that means.

>See artificial horizons in planes.
this is only evidence of you not understanding what gyroscopes are and how they work.

>the earth is rotating independently to the gyroscope because the gyroscope stays in the same position, so as the earth rotates, and the gyroscope doesn't, the angle between what the gyro is on and the gyro will change.
but the gyroscope is moving. please provide evidence of gyroscopes somehow decoupling themselves from the inertial frame of reference of the earth. when you do, kindly collect your nobel prize on the way.

[Anonymous No.9907199]

>>9907195
come on this one's bloody obvious. there's text on the sodding screen, mate! of course it's been photoshopped!

[Anonymous No.9907202]

>>9907196
don't ignore the videos i've provided, now
>>9907171
>>9907189
you wouldn't want to be arguing in bad faith, would you?

[Anonymous No.9907203]

>>9907184
don't ignore the videos i've provided
>>9907171 (You)
>>9907189 (You)
you wouldn't want to be arguing in bad faith, would you?

[Anonymous No.9907204]

>>9907196
Can you explain what an artificial horizon does and how it works?

[Anonymous No.9907205]

>>9907204
sure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_indicator
let me know if you disagree with anything i've said

[Anonymous No.9907206]

>>9907199
This?

[Anonymous No.9907210]

>>9907205
>Traditional, self-contained attitude indicators use a gyroscope (powered via vacuum or electrically) to establish an inertial platform.

[Anonymous No.9907212]

>>9907206
mate what's up with this, it's starting to look like some sort of a conspiracy? what truth are you trying to hide from me by posting these obviously edited videos?

[Anonymous No.9907214]

>>9907210
yes, and? are you going to ignore all of my explanations of how gyroscopes work?
are you going to conveniently ignore the fact that i never doubted that gyroscopes are used to generate artificial horizons, and that what i was disagreeing with you on were your claims that gyroscopes are "rigid in space?"

[Anonymous No.9907216]

>>9907210
>>9907214
or were you pointing out that that line which you quoted is a line that you disagree with?
let me know what your argument is.

[Anonymous No.9907218]

>>9907212
Real or fake?

[Anonymous No.9907219]

>>9907216
Inertial platform = rigid in space

[Anonymous No.9907223]

>>9907219
if that's your definition of "rigid in space" then it doesn't correspond to the rest of your argument, since objects which provide inertial platforms (such as gyroscopes) are still subject to movement by forces (and most importantly, subject to gravity) and they do not stay still in space relative to the earth (meaning they remain in the earth's inertial frame)
all of this can be derived from my videos which you've ignored or from an introductory physics course any undergraduate would take

want to try again?

[Anonymous No.9907225]

>>9907218
that's nick cage
seems real to me

[Anonymous No.9907230]

>>9907219
have another video, on the house
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHGKIzCcVa0

[Anonymous No.9907245]

>>9907223
>they do not stay still in space relative to the earth (meaning they remain in the earth's inertial frame)
So when a plane is flying, what movement(s) does the artificial horizon do to remain in earth's inertial frame, but not the plane's?

[Anonymous No.9907249]

>>9907225
And this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP2GdhmPWXo

[Anonymous No.9907251]

>>9907245
>but not in the plane's?
why do you think it's not in the plane's inertial frame? again, you don't understand how gyroscopes work and it seems you refuse to learn.

i've thoroughly debunked your argument, despite any defensive objections you might have. if you want to try a different argument, you can go ahead at this time. if you continue along the same path i'll go cash in my victory for beers and hookers.

[Anonymous No.9907256]

>>9907249
>trusting youtube, owned by google
mate come on even I'M not stupid enough to fall for that patently obvious conspiracy

[Anonymous No.9907265]

>>9907251
>An inertial platform, also known as a gyroscopic platform or stabilized platform, is a system using gyroscopes to maintain a platform in a fixed orientation in space despite the movement of the vehicle that it is attached to.

[Anonymous No.9907266]

>>9907256
Why are you posting youtube links then?

[Anonymous No.9907268]

>>9907266
what are you talking about? i'm just looking at your videos i haven't posted shit lad

[Anonymous No.9907271]

>>9907265
right, so you haven't been paying attention to my posts. thanks for making this brief i guess
hookers and beer here i come

[Anonymous No.9907278]

>>9907268
Very convincing.

>>9907271
>hookers and beer
That's right, drown your sorrows. Planes fly over a plane (funny that I guess the names are just a coincidence).

[Anonymous No.9907281]

>>9907278
>Very convincing.
unlike your videos mate
still waiting for you to post some undoctored ones

[Anonymous No.9907293]

>>9907281
This real?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t8UNxY2bgQ

[Anonymous No.9907315]

>>9907293
>thinking i'm going to trust google again
it's almost like you don't believe the conspiracy

[Anonymous No.9907333]

>>9906414
>I want you to tell me - surely there are some empirical measurements?
Well, the ground has a lot of local variation. I'm not Mr. Earth Measurer.
Your question is confusing anyway. What are you trying to find out?

[Anonymous No.9907352]

>>9907315
>thinks google makes every single video

>>9907333
I'm trying to work out how much curvature the terrorists had to account for when flying into the WTCs, because it'd be much different flying at a low altitude than a high one.

[Anonymous No.9907402]

>>9907166
>claims that temperature gradients were too small for atmospheric lensing to play a role
>obvious heat shimmer apparent all over the video
at least put a little effort in, fag

[Anonymous No.9907406]

>>9907352
>I'm trying to work out how much curvature the terrorists had to account for when flying into the WTCs, because it'd be much different flying at a low altitude than a high one.
HA. HA. HA.

[Anonymous No.9907500]

>>9907352
>I'm trying to work out how much curvature the terrorists had to account for when flying into the WTCs, because it'd be much different flying at a low altitude than a high one.
now THIS is some quality content