Hey guys. Ran into some flat earthers online today and now feel inspired to make a video proving the earth is round. Need some help brain storming what are some experiments I can do while being a normal everyday college student.
>>7681661
look at the moon
more specific please. I need something that can get through the hear of a conspiracy nut
>>7681667
Nothing.
>>7681667
Depleted uranium would be your best bet
Ok something that can get to their audience.
why does depleted uranium work
>>7681667
No such thing, anon. It doesn't matter how many proven facts you lay out, once you destroy every psuedoscientific rebuttal, you're either closed-minded, a shill, or an idiot. There is no reaching these people.
>>7681667
the shadow of the earth on the moon would be elliptic if the earth was flat
Is there a way that i can use a camera and mathematics to visually show the roundness of the earth because what they do is make videos of "experiments" without using mathematics or properly applying the scientific method
>>7681661
Ask them where the edge of the world is, then travel there.
>>7681682
it gets through stuff pretty efficiently
>>7681947
Sadly those retarded says the pace is antarticka, which for some reasons is not the best place to spend a weekend
>>7681956
Show them a video of a plane flying over Antarctica. I'm sure someone's done it.
You got trolled OP.
>>7681667
Basically a new narrative that would give the earther's life more meaning than fighting against "globehead lies." Also you have to get them to think they came up with it themselves. It's a lot of fucking work.
plz fucking stop replying i'm too autistic for this every day
didn't some guy prove this hundreds of years ago?
>>7681695
Sadly, no. It seems like the only way to prove this to them will be to strap them into a rocket a whip them around the earth in a polar orbit. Then, leave them there and let them think about what they've done.
>>7681661
Yet another one of these threads?
>>7683822
>strap them into a rocket a whip them around the earth in a polar orbit
"It's a simulator"
>>7681661
I came up with this when I was in high school.
>Sunny day with half moon
>Trace a line parallel to the visible side of the moon
>Then a perpendicular line from the first, and extend towards the sun
>Woot, it does not meet the sun!
>Why? Because the atmosphere is a curved lens, therefore the earth is a sphere
I always wanted to make a YouTube video explaining this, but you can use my idea.
>>7683826
Sadly, this is probably exactly what they would say.
>>7683848
>the atmosphere is a curved lens, therefore the earth is a sphere
"That's the dome that keeps the atmospere in"
>>7681685
Not necessarily. It depends where the sun is in relationship to the earth. I believe the earth is round but the shadow it casts is not proof its not flat because a 2d circle could cast the same shadow in certain circumstances
It's hopeless, OP. If you make a video proving them wrong, they'll either think you're part of the government or brainwashed.
>>7681661
Record yourself dropping a ball. Gravity pulls the ball (and the Earth) towards the two objects' combined center of mass, therefore, a flat Earth would be pulled into a ball. Even if the Earth was flat at one point for some reason, it most certainly is not flat anymore
You could try to refute some of the "proofs" that the earth is not a spinning ball.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
>>7683857
if it were a dome it would end at vastly different distances from the earth which it doesn't
>>7685185
But that's the point, anon. No amount of proof is enough for these people. If you refute all of their psuedoscientific bullshit, they just call you a shill, then call it a day.
>>7681974
how would you know it's not the artic?
>>7681974
How would you know it's not the attic?
>>7681661
What's the point? All of the evidence is there. If a nut tried then they'd have it all in front of them explained. But they won't try, because they don't look for proof - they are based 100% on faith. They just want to subscribe to some movement that goes against the mainstream.
Basically, the more retarded cultfags.
>>7681667
Just listen to >>7681676. There's nothing you can say.
Just ask the flat earth believers how tectonic movement works... they probably won't even be able to tell you how the continents got into their current positions.
>>7681661
>proving the earth is round
>to flat-Earthers
... like proving the Pythagorean Theorem to primitive aborigines. Why?
>>7681661
Wait a minute, isn't earth flat from the perspective of a particle moving at the speed of light?
>>7681661
>Hey guys. Ran into some flat earthers online today
Seriously, stop browsing /pol/
you guys know that flat earthers are trolls right
>>7683930
>a 2d circle could cast the same shadow in certain circumstances
The standard model the flat-earthers use has the sun always above the earth's plane. It would never go below the disk in order to cast a shadow.
The entire notion is absurd, and it's baffling that some people believe it.
>>7681661
Waste of time. If you prove the earth is round to them, nothing will be gained. They're an insignificant number.
Spend your time making a video on a better subject
>>7686141
Flat-Earthers are a staple of /x/, though. The only place people would be so dumb and distrustful of the established info, that they'd make up their own.
>>7686475
Wanna see something ironic?
Go to /x/ and post a flat earth thread and testable proofs.
Do it bitch nigga. Do it,
>>7685050
1:15, using the phrase "common sense".
Yep, this guy is an idiot.
see how no one can answer your question OP?
I don't say the earth is flat.
but you just can't easily prove it.
if you could then it would have been done thousands of years ago.
there is the bedford level experiment but it's hard to do and both sides just say it's light refraction.
This flat earth stuff just teaches you to doubt and that the world is controlled.
perhaps flatearthers just want you to get to this point without looking like /pol/.
you should do what Eratosthenes did to measure the circumference of Earth. google it.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=iDk5mlas_fg
>>7686823
thats assuming the earth has curvature. it doesnt.
Eratpsthenes test does not prove the earth is round. pic related.
>>7681661
I've had the same discussion, ended up with convincing him to buy a telescope and looking at the international space station, along with a bit of theory explaining how the only way it could exist in the sky is if the earth is round without some ridiculous flat earth explanation
>>7686497
No, seriously, flat-earth and geocentric threads pop up from time to time on /pol/, and a fair share of people there agree with those theories on the basis of "muh bible", "it's a jew conspiracy" and reply with "nice fedora, f.a.m." to anyone trying to dispute that. Not sure if they're trolling, though. I hope so.
>>7686876
two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow. that does not happen. it's enough proof that earth has curvature, although it could be concave.
also do explain time zones in a flat earth while we're at it. or is it a timecube now?
How do you personally know the Earth is round? You've heard that there's proof out there, you may have even seen a picture of Earth from space or understood the various reasons why Earth HAS TO BE spherical.
But who has actually experienced, first hand, the spherical-ness of Earth? How would you go about doing so?
>>7686908
>two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow.
Flat earthers claim the sun is relatively close to the Earth's surface, thus causing the angle difference. It's stupid, I know.
>>7686909
I've never been to Japan, I've only seen it on TV. Still, I don't doubt its existence, as I can deduct it from presence of various works being made there.
Aside from proofs you can do yourself, sphericalness of Earth is pretty the same thing - you've never been to space to see it clearly, but there are tons of works about it and there's no reason to doubt this information. It answers more questions than flat-earth would.
I like to think that only on 4chan you can find people that either are having a laugh or are taking seriously the idea of Earth being flat. This points out how much of the userbase are teenagers, since it's mostly at that age, the whole hate the establishment and trust no-one (and nothing) stuff sells.
>>7686915
you can measure the distance using geometry (parallax)
>>7686915
did you test to see if the sun was millions of miles away or did you just believe it?
the beauty about mathematics is that you can scale down and up or shift paradigms and make completely different working models of the same reality through measurement. It is observation that can trump. Keep that idea fresh with you while you look at the sun rays poking through the clouds next time.
>>7686929
Syene (Aswan) is only 500 miles from Alexandria. You'd need a ridiculously close sun for this to work
>>7686145
Not all of them, there are religious cults propagating this.
>>7686823
>>7686929
>>7686985
>>7689610
... which always amazes me.
>>7689614
Some people appreciate the truth.
>>7689614
It's often videos linked to real political Activision/left videos, people like David icke, that fat american angry gun guy from infowars, taking people that have genuine concerns about the way the country is being run and leading them to believe in bullshit to discredit their arguments, I've had to deal with my dad believing in a flat earth and other bullshit conspiracy's after getting into politics a while ago relating to internal problems of the NHS, I try to keep him based in reality when he will accept facts without questioning their integrity, the uncovered bones of giants, pyramids and stone henge as ionospheric energy collectors, flat earth, the world only being 6000 years old, how were all connected and live in a universe we can change by will, so much bullshit
>>7681667
The fact that for some reason on a flat earth every airplane travels on a curve instead of a flat line for some reason.
>>7681664
/thread
>>7689806
kek
How very scientific of you.
Want to know about the earth, just look at the moon.
Do you suppose this method would work for other investigations?
Curious about how the microwave works?
Just have a look at the toaster.
They believe gravity is fake.
Yet you can see planets clearly with a mid tier telescope AND see that they are obviously spherical.
Examples such as the venus and mercury transit, and the obvious moons and rings of jupiter and saturn.
This is indesputeable.
Also, how come a boat sinks below the horizon instead of gradually shrinking? And how come when i pull out a telescope after it has disapeared i cannot see it?
Dont be surprised if these cuntnuggets say something completely fucking stupid like "optical illusions" (with no evidence of course)
>>7686145
No no no no my friend.
These schmucks exist, poes law is a cunt and it is hard to decipher the trolls, but if you ever had a discussion with one of these guys, you would KNOW that they are actually serious.
Fuck, i had a huge ass argument with this bitch on youtube known as KaRmA ZAF (go fuck his channel pls sci) and it when up to 500 comments.
Redpill time guys... a minority of flat-earthers are just retards who for their own reasons just wanna believe that. By far the majority are smarter-than-me-or-you-people who 'flat-earth' to hone their debating skills. I tangled with one here a couple of years ago (or was it /x/?) and it's really hard to trip them up, though they do contradict themselves occasionally if you pay close attention. It's a fun ride if you're up for it.
http://youtu.be/wtCBAtCSTYk Here you go /sci/ make mince meat out of these "200 proofs that the earth is flat" i bet if we work together, we can take this down.
This is the enemy, this is ehat we are dealing with.
We must strike with deadly force my brethren.
>>7689851
We are concentrating on the retards though.
for once, picking on the mentally disabled is fun!
>>7689856
Yeah, but no... if you win the 100m at the special olympics, you're still a retard.
>>7689753
>Eric Dubay
The video is garbage. The author is a con artist who gets ignorant rubes to follow and give money.
Rivers have to flow uphill because of the curvature of the earth - really?
>>7681661
just proof that the earth spins that way you also disprove flat earth
The Flat Earth Experiment is about gauging the success of the campaign.
You can't prove a negative.
For example, can you say with certainty that magic doesn't exist?
>>7686475
/x/ isn't dumb, they're one of the smarter boards when they aren't busy roleplaying and memeing.
>>7686909
Timezones, or rather the reason timezones have to exist.
How do flat earthers explain the length of days changing year round, or the seasons?
>>7681667
The only thing that should be going through the ear of a flat earther is a bullet
I personally believe that earth is shaped like a torus.
Earth is obviously rotating around the center in a circular fashion.
The sun is actually far smaller than the moon and it circles the surface of the earth in a corkscrew pattern.
Please try disproving my theory, it is impossible.
Oh, the ring is hollow too.
>>7690286
what is retrograde
get fucked
>>7690293
Explainable by the large size difference of the Earth torus and Mercury.
>>7689843
>Also, how come a boat sinks below the horizon instead of gradually shrinking?
Perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ4A32Apgjc
>And how come when i pull out a telescope after it has disapeared i cannot see it?
I don't believe you have tried this for yourself.
(webm related)
You might also be interested in the following examples of things that can be seen at distances that are impossible given the globe model.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWLOT3Tqi-Q
>>7690286
>Earth is obviously rotating around the center in a circular fashion.
As opposed to a square pattern?
>>7690293
>>7690295
pls explain
all objects viewed from earth have a retrograde
suppose that there really was a corkscrew orbit about the surface of the earth, retrograde implies that other parts of the torus don't see the body at all which is clearly wrong.
You could make the argument that the torus is also moving, but then you have to consider fluid dynamics in the ring, which i'm willing to be doesn't agree with observed weather conditions.
>>7690305
>I don't believe you have tried this for yourself.
Show me a telescopic shot of the Spanish coast taken from the East coast of the US and I'll believe you.
>>7690134
Something like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R52_PdZlSq8
>>7690312
You can't see forever.
Air is not perfectly clear.
(pic related)
Notice how the mountains in the background appear foggy.
>>7690346
This guy brings up a good point >>7690312
Mirages and atmosphere account for why you cant see everything
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awCx5ob04ZY
whats cool is that we can see the moon with clarity through the thick atmosphere with a telescope from 300,000 miles away which is wonder, yet cant see mountains with clarity over 20 miles in distance.
If the earth is flat, how can it be night and day on different places ;^)
>>7681661
What about tides? PBS Space Time has a great and simple youtube video about it. They couldn't exist if Earth was flat.
>>7690358
if the earth is round why dont airplanes fly off into space >: ^D
>>7690355
Perhaps the moon isn't so far away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17gRmLLPxhU
I think we have just to look on the North West Passage , Russia cant crossed with America cause Russia on the Eastside if the earth Would be flat
>>7690361
that one is easy
water is diamagnetic. you can do tests to prove it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pauQitNEM0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMYUrtg2ItQ
>>7690366
Neither is the sun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QRCAynUaQA
So what are the motion laws for flat objects in space? Who did they form? How do they move? Are all celestial objects flat?
I mean do these people just try and disprove that Earth is geoidal or do they really try to propose a model for a flat Earth?
>>7690383
I meant "how" did they form
also what is on the other side of Earth?
>>7690366
This is getting way too stupid. Some of these posts belong on /x/.
>>7690373
That second video is fucking stupid. There's an explanation why don't rivers have tides
Just watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwChk4S99i4
>>7690305
>1447262570116.webm
it's obvious that the base of the buildings are hidden beneath the horizon. I'd like to know where that footage was shot, If there's a street view, we could compare the images.
>>7690406
>it's obvious that the base of the buildings are hidden beneath the horizon
I see you have missed the video.
Here let me post it again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ4A32Apgjc
>>7690406
>I'd like to know where that footage was shot, If there's a street view, we could compare the images.
You might be interested in the other video in my previous post.
Check the distances for yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWLOT3Tqi-Q
What's with all the flat earth threads all over 4chan lately?
>>7690412
>I see you have missed the video.
I specifically referenced the webm. I'll sit through a 10 minute video later (maybe) I've seen enough of these crap flat earth videos to know how lame they are.
>>7690420
It's just the world getting retarded
I would like to see the opinion of just one accomplished scientist who believes this bullcrap
>>7690425
>I specifically referenced the webm...
But your question is covered in the video.
It's perspective.
It's eaiser if you just see it for yourself, rather than have me try to type it all out.
teach this nigga some science >>>/b/654769712
>>7690444
Yes, the Flat Earth model has an explanation for disappearing over the horizon, but the Round Earth model has that as well. Are the equations that model this 'perspective' rate of sinking simpler or more accurate than their Round Earth counterparts? I'm assuming this hypothesis has some benefit over what we have already.
>>7690506
>Yes, the Flat Earth model has an explanation for disappearing over the horizon, but the Round Earth model has that as well.
fyi, to suggest the earth is round by observing the sun going below the horizon at ground level means that the earth is smaller than the official dimensions given by nasa. In other words, thats a huge curve.
This is interesting:
"Congress debated whether to retain and upgrade the LORAN-C infrastructure to become E-LORAN, a national backup to GPS."
http://www.gps.gov/policy/legislation/loran-c/
"Loran-C is a hyperbolic radio navigation system which allows a receiver to determine its position by listening to low frequency radio signals transmitted by fixed land-based radio beacons."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loran-C
GPS is based off of loran. So why would they need satellites if they can use loran as a backup GPS? Satellites are expensive to launch and maintain and it doesn't make sense to use them if they can just use land based radio and its much cheaper to maintain those.
>Place two sticks into the ground, each in flat ground a few miles apart.
>Use camera(s) to record shadow direction and length of both sticks at exactly the same time.
>set up the equation for the direction and length of the shadows, were the earth flat (using distance from the sun and corresponding angle at given time)
>compare data from hypothetical equation and real experiment
>>7690770
The rotation and gravity of the earth disc might bend the light.
>>7690720
Loran is far less accurate and can only cover where you can put radio towers. The US designed the GPS network to cover the whole world, so they can use it in say Afghanistan without vulnerable radio sites, or when they do covert operations around the world and they can't have a radio site.
>>7690786
Damn.... i guess the earth is flat after all. Fuck
>>7690932
Thing about this, as retarded as it is, it tells us one thing:
Occam's razor is not infallible, let alone anything but fallacious.
Ancient mariners already knew the earth wasn't flat.
If you spot a ship from a long distance, you'll only initially see the top of its mast. As you move closer you'll start seeing the remainder of the ship.
If the earth was flat you'd see the whole ship right from the start.
>>7690786
>gravity of the earth disc might bend the light.
It takes objects far more massive than the Earth to cause any appreciable gravitational lensing.
But because the entire flat earth-disk model consists of made-up physics anyway, I guess anything goes.
>>7690944
Yeah but I'm not an ancient sailor, I'm a mentally ill degenerate who spends all day every day trying to convince stupid people to believe conspiracy theories.
>>7690917
>Loran is far less accurate and can only cover where you can put radio towers.
mobile tracking or GPS works by triangulation of ground radio.
"Localization may occur either via multilateration of radio signals between (several) radio towers of the network and the phone, or simply via GPS."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_tracking
but lets just say that you are write about GPS satalites being better than ground radio, there are consumer reports complaining about dropped signals from market GPS. You can look up the tech sites of how frequent it is. Just search for garmin lost signals.
https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?25673-Lost-satellites-broken-GPS-receiver
https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?36886-Edge-800-losing-GPS-signal-on-a-trip
https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?27687-lost-satellite-reception
>>7681661
>Ran into some flat earthers online today and now feel inspired to make a video proving the earth is round.
Won't work. Proving them wrong will only reinforce their beliefs.
>>7686855
Nasa no reason to fake it? . And in the trash it goes . Nasa gets your tax dollars for space exploration. trusting nasa is like trusting a criminal to give evidence to the police, to proof that he is guilty.
>>7690428
or the world is waking up einstein had some quote negative about college books . but yet he was smart . how many einsteins could live today. . the expirement to proof that the world rotates is Foucault pendulum and is debunkt by the alais effect
>>7691890
>if you zoom in, you can still see it.
Yes, the top of it, because the lower part is beneath the horizon!
>PS
I'm about done with this Gish Galloping.
>>7691898
And, as previously stated, you can't see forever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_point
>>7681667
Teach them how to fly and then arrange a completely VFR flight from one side of Antarctica to the other.
>>7691905
The bottom of the ship vanishes and the top remains visible? That's stupid.
You know nothing about perspective.
>>7691418
>ignoring the 2nd half of his post entirely
>>7692099
BUT MUH VANISHING POINTS
>>7690786
If the gravity of the "earth disk" is high enough to bend light the entire solar system would be obliterated and a black hole would form.
>>7692099
Or like the bottom part of the sun disappears behind the horizon during sunset. Nothing to do with vanishing points. The notion is absurd.
>>7691806
>trusting nasa is like trusting a criminal to give evidence to the police, to proof that he is guilty.
Semiliterate hayseed detected.
>>7692122
on the contrary, to assume that the sun is going below the horizon at ground level observation means that there is too much of a curve.
>>7693365
That makes no sense.
>>7693365
Let me see your math....
>>7690346
>You can't see forever.
>Air is not perfectly clear.
If the atmosphere is clear you can see to the horizon.
Video related, shows ship disappearing over the horizon over the course of about an hour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV0h68YU0iQ
Furthermore if the earth were flat you would be able to see bright lights such as lighthouses, cities, explosions, etc from across oceans.
>>7693418
Imagine standing on the Mt. Everest of a flat world
>>7681661
>now feel inspired to make a video proving the earth is round
You've already lost
>>7693642
Exactly cause its flat :^)
Are flat earthers the new 9/11 truthers or are they the same people?
>>7693646
They're the same people, along with the climate change "sceptics" and moon landing conspiracy theorists
>>7689823
If you wanted to know the shape of the microwave, you could look at its shadow relative to the toaster.
>>7693673
I suppose you could.
The only problem is a flat disk casts the same shadow as a sphere.
And since we are trying to determine whether or not the earth is a flat disk or a ball, this method is inconclusive.
I still recommend that you test for the curvature yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqn9FlrIWus
Why is it that no one on a science board wants to do any actual science?
>>7694006
This test needs atmospheric effects factored in to work, which vary depending on humidity and temperature.
>>7694006
>The only problem is a flat disk casts the same shadow as a sphere.
If the sun passed beneath the Earth's disk to cast a shadow on the Moon, it would be night everywhere at the same time, in the flat earth model.
>>7694006
If light is from a certain angle, the shadow of a disk would be an ellipse
>>7694006
>Why is it that no one on a science board wants to do any actual science?
Because it's already been done many times and conclusively proven the curve exists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
Also, the math in the video is wrong because he doesn't take into account the height of the observer and the angle of the object. The "curvature" figures he shows assume an observer height of 0 and that the object being observed is perpendicular to the line when it should be perpendicular to the curve of the ground its sitting on.
Let's create a real formula for this experiment. Let's assume a perfectly round earth with radius r. Observer has height h and is distance d away from an object of height H.
Then the angle between the observer and the object is the ratio of the distance between them to the circumference of the earth in radians is
d / (2 pi r) (2 pi) = d/r
The observer will see the horizon where his line of sight forms a right angle with the radius of the earth. So the angle between his body and that horizon radius is
arccos( r/(r+h) )
And the distance from the observer's position to that horizon is
r arccos( r/(r+h) )
This means that if d < r arccos( r/(r+h) ) then the object can be seen. If d > r arccos( r/(r+h) ) then the horizon is blocking at least part of it. If that is the case then the angle between the horizon radius and the object is
d/r - arccos( r/(r+h) )
This means that we can calculate
r/(r+H) = cos( d/r - arccos( r/(r+h) ) )
H = -r + r/cos( d/r - arccos( r/(r+h) ) )
>>7694006
>>7694486
Continued
Now we can plug in some values. Let the radius of earth be 3963 miles or 20924640 feet. Let d = 3 miles or 15840 feet. Let h = 5.7 feet
First we can see the distance to the horizon
20924640 arccos( 20924640/(20924640+5.7) ) = 15444 feet = 2.9 miles
So the horizon does in fact block some of the object since it is 3 miles away. This also shows that our math is coming up with good answers because 3 miles is commonly given as the distance at which the horizon drops away.
What minimum height does the object need to be for us to see it over the horizon?
-20924640 + 20924640/cos( 15840/20924640 - arccos( 20924640/(20924640+5.7) ) )
0.004 feet
Notice how this is a lot smaller than 6 feet. This shows you how wrong their calculations were.
Now let's look at the case of the laser over the lake. The only difference here is that d is 4.07 miles instead of 3.
-20924640 + 20924640/cos( 21489.6/20924640 - arccos( 20924640/(20924640+5.7) ) )
0.87 feet
So as long as they were holding the laser more than 0.87 feet off the ground, it's no surprise that we can see the laser.
Relevant thread
https://8chDOTnet/sci/res/2337.html
>>7694498
>What minimum height does the object need to be for us to see it over the horizon?
>0.004 feet
I thought you just gave the hight at 5.7 feet.
>Let the radius of earth be 3963 miles or 20924640 feet. Let d = 3 miles or 15840 feet. Let h = 5.7 feet
And that puts the horizon at 2.9 miles.
>20924640 arccos( 20924640/(20924640+5.7) ) = 15444 feet = 2.9 miles
It looks to me like you are using some advanced trickanomatry.
Abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface.They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain
welp the earth is flat. case closed.
>>7681661
Gravitational weathering. this cant be possible without a round earth
>>7695321
just because things fall down doesnt mean that the earth isnt flat.
why would you assume that gravity wouldnt work on a flat earth?
>>7695321
thats just the law of density. doesnt prove the earth is round.
>>7695321
Gravity is simply density and buoyancy.
People argue that things with different densities fall at the same rate through air. However, that is because both items have reached critical density in relation to its medium: air.
If you were to change the medium from air to say, water or liquid mercury, the critical density to achieve the same rate of falling would increase significantly.
Critical density is directly proportional to the medium density. Thus the denser the medium... The denser the objects would have to be in order to achieve the same rate of falling.
A basketball and a rock might fall at the same speed in air. However... Drop them in a thicker medium like water... And they will not fall at the same rate. That is because critical density has not been achieved by both the rock and the basketball, in water as its medium.
In a vacuum... Critical density is zero and is the reason why objects of any density fall at exactly the same rate. Any medium denser than a vacuum has a greater critical density than zero... Thus the reason why objects that haven't attained critical density fall slower in certain mediums.
Critical density variation is "gravity."
>>7686745
>if you could then it would have been done thousands of years ago.
But it was done thousands of years ago you asshole.
OP, just ignore them. Flat Earthers must have some extreme form of narcissism which makes them believe in completely false, easily disproven bullshit for the sole purpose of being able to feel superior to others. There's no way to change their minds, they've seen all the evidence you can throw at them and still reject the truth, and if you say otherwise and argue them into a corner you just become part of the conspiracy of people out to get them too. They just have to be the center of their own universe no matter what mental gymnastics it takes.
>>7695620
His explanations threw my sides into orbit!
>>7695537
This is pseudoscience, this critical density you're spouting about doesn't exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_density
Only the density of matter in a spatially flat universe, the density of a substance at its critical point in thermodynamics or something to do with plasma.
Fuck off.
>>7681974
they'll just tell you it's doctored
>>7681667
They're just like the moon landing conspiracy theorists. They present bullshit and aren't willing to accept new information or "mainstream" information. Just like this hippy guy I know who is anti-vaccination and believes in Dr Emoto's wacky bullshit without having looked into how flawed his experiments were. I really wouldn't worry too much about it if they aren't willing to listen and think.
>>7695528
Because gravity on a flat Earth would have pulled Earth into a ball.
>>7696310
There is no such thing as gravity. Dark energy reacts against mass pushing down on the surface. Thats why the earth is flat.
>>7681661
Has no one bothered to mention the way planes travel?
have a look at the da vincis demons way
He explained it like this
*place apple on table*
When you look to the horizon and see a mountain which part do you see first
Answer: the top
*moves persons head to table*
What do you see first here?
Answer: the bottom of the apple (mountain)
*placed bowl on table*
*moves apple (mountain) from the back, upwards*
What do you see first?
Answer: top of apple (mountain)
Hope that makes sense and isnt just nonsense dribble as im not good at explaining shit like that
>abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface
>They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth.
>abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface
>They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth.
>abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface
>They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth.
>abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface
>They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth.
>abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface
>They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth.
>abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface
>They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain
>Weaver; J. Thomson; P. M. Hunter (1987). >Geology and Geochemistry of Abyssal Plains >(PDF). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific >Publications. p. x. ISBN 0-632-01744-9.
>http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/31/1/local/front-matter.pdf
>abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface
>They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth.
This is the only thing you need to know and everything else will fall into place in explanation of why the things are the way they are.
>>7681661
1) Horizon Line. Ships "sink" with distance.
2)The altitude of Polaris is equal to your latitiude in the Northern Hemisphere. Polaris is not visible from the Southern Hemisphere.
3) Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is curved.
4) Measurements of your weight at any location on the Earth's surface.
flat earthers: 0
jews: 0
dank memes: 1
pictures of the horizon from Everest's summit shows curvature.
>>7695302
>the earth is flat. case closed.
>>7696462
>There is no such thing as gravity.
I'll just leave this here.
And this as well.
>>7698379
No idea what your point is here. They're called Crepuscular rays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crepuscular_rays
>>7698382
>implying wide panoramic views of horizon somehow provide evidence that the earth overall is planar
Please kill yourself.
>>7694305
Assuming spherical celestial bodies, sure. You can get creative and assume the sun is more like a projector and the earth is film that self-cycles, though. If we're assuming the earth is flat why model the sun as an isometric point source of light?
>>7698382
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nUFLLUahSI
>>7681661
>now feel inspired to make a video proving the earth is round.
So OP, did you make your video? Are you still here?
>>7698112
gravity is hypothetical
"In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless (because the gravitational force appears to have unlimited range) and must be a spin-2 boson."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
>>7681661
Don't waste your time. Our species is splitting int 2. Make sure you pick your mate well, otherwise your children might end up the slaves
>>7681661
Half of them are Amerifats. Ask them why Colombus didn't fall off the edge. If they say he went the other way, ask them how he missed Australia. If they say he was too far from the shore. Tell them to ask any navigator. If they still aren't convinced, tell them to pick up a history book, if they're still not convinced, blow your brains out, after realising you share genetic material with these sub humans
>>7681682
Uranium is a pretty hardcore element.
While you're at it you can also prove the Earth is over 10000 years old.
>>7699662
>claims gravity is hypothetical
>links to article about gravitons
Did you notice those words are spelled differently? That's because they refer to 2 different things.
"Gravity" is the phenomenon we experience every day. A "graviton" is a possible explanation for it.
It's kind of like saying water wasn't wet before they discovered the H2O molecule.
>>7699662
What "it" or its physical embodiment is theoretical. But it's affect is for all to see and all to obey. It's"force" is NOT theoretical. It's a natural LAW
>>7699969
>>7700064
yeah, no doubt the law of "what comes up must come down" is real. im not arguing about that. but seeing gravity as proof the earth is round is absurd.
heres why:
1. gravity has to be strong enough to keep all mass from flying off the surface on a round object. and strong enough to have the moon in orbit
2. yet, gravity is so weak that birds and leafs are able to move around freely.
3. The suns gravity has to be strong enough to keep the planets in orbit over a very long distance
4. Yet, the earth is in a comfortable spot and none the planets have eventually collided into the sun over 4 billion years.
AS you can see, gravity doesnt work on a heliocentric model.
http://ncse.com/rncse/27/5-6/gravity-its-only-theory
Maybe look at the attenuation caused to radio waves by the curvature of the Earth.
>>7700304
>gravity has to be strong enough to keep all mass from flying off the surface on a round object. and strong enough to have the moon in orbit
>yet, gravity is so weak that birds and leafs are able to move around freely.
It's almost like the moon is heavier than a bird.
>>7700304
No, gravity does work on a heliocentric model. It's literally the reason we even came up with that model.
0. Even if gravity is magic fairy dust, you say the law of "what comes up must come down" is real. Would you agree that that would imply a downward acceleration for any particle not located at the center of the Earth? Because that's what would make something going up come down. The Coriolis force is easy to prove from here. It's a fictitious force that could exist, but wouldn't have the correct properties on a flat Earth.
And to answer your other groundbreaking discoveries:
1. Gravity is mathematically governed by an inverse square proportion GMm/r^2. This means things that are farther away will have less pull. It also means more massive objects will be pulled with more force (same acceleration though) than less massive ones.
2. So for birds and leaves, the force is small because that second "m" term is much smaller than it would be for the moon. By a lot, the moon is pretty big next to a bird.
3. Do you even know how big the sun is? It's also very dense, meaning that its mass is even bigger.
4. The planets follow elliptical orbits, sure, but they have extremely low eccentricity. This is due to the motion of the sun in the galaxy itself, and can be easily proven with classical mechanics. Earth just happens to be in a comfortable spot, that has nothing to do with gravity. The fact that the other planets haven't collided is no miracle. They are rarely drawn to scale. There's a whole lot of space between them, and the eccentricity of their orbits won't cross. Ever. They are too far apart. This is because of the process which we think formed the universe, in which larger orbiting debris collided to clear a path where the planets now exist. Planets can't be close to each other because if they were, then they probably already collided during the early solar system (there is strong evidence that the moon used to be part of Earth).
>>7681998
Basically inception
>>7684176
Flat Earthers don't believe in gravity. They think the Earth is accelerating at 9.81 m/s/s and they user Einstein's GR to prove why that's okay because you can accelerate forever without reaching light speed.
>>7686024
Everything is. A particle moving at the speed of light has no perspective, because by the time it "sees" anything, the universe has ended
>>7689979
Go back to /x/, get away from our /sci/ence board you tinfoil hat hippie.
>>7686909
I've been in space. So yes, I've seen the curvature of the Earth firsthand.
>>7689959
That's actually a damn good theory.
>>7690286
That's way easier to disprove. That would fuck up almost every map.
>>7690375
>Clouds "behind" sun
>But for some reason, they are distorting the sun
Could it be atmospheric lensing???
>>7690305
the ocean doesn't have hills
>>7693418
that video is perfect, undeniable proof.
you know you got trolled hard when you argue with "flat earthers"
>>7700304
You replied to me. I hope you read my whole comment, pondered it, then composed a thourough response and typed it out. Because I didn't even get past your first sentence. You don't deserve my time and thought
Looking at youtube videos of earth spinning and all of that, a lot of videos with something like 1/4ths dislikes
are there really that many flat earthers or do they all congregate to youtube for attention?
>>7681954
shhhhh we're undercover /k/
>>7700469
time to prove this excessive statement, mr. astrofart
Has Opie delivered yet?
>>7701486
>if the earth were curved, why dont planes fly into space since they fly straight ?
They don't fly "straight". They follow the curvature of the earth.
Any other brilliant challenges?
>>7701709
No, they follow the curvature of space. They are flying in a "straight" line.
>>7701486
>besides if the earth were curved, why dont planes fly into space since they fly straight ?
If the earth were flat, why can I climb a hill?
>>7701710
So you're agreeing that a plane won't fly in a straight line into outer space?
>on 4chan you have no idea who you're replying to
>>7681661
Coriolis force.
>>7702898
That is an effect, not a force.
Also↓
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phj7RUP9oyY
>>7702920
>That is an effect, not a force.
It's a fictitious force. Calling it a "force" is both common and intelligible.
>Also↓
>Video by someone who has no idea what the fuck they're talking about.
No. That's stupid.
>>7681661
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs_gha9Y-aM
I argue with them all of the time because I have no life. This video usually trips them up, because according to their model it should never go below the horizon. According to them, when the Sun sets, it just gets farther away, so why isn't it shrinking in this video?
>>7694665
His calculations are correct
Were any of you guys there when Eric Dubay's facebook group got hijacked? Massive lulz were had
>>7703028
I know, but he was trying to say that something .0004 feet high could see past a 2.9 mile horizon, which is wrong.
But yeah at 3 miles you get 6 feet, or as he worked it out, at 2.9 miles you get 5.7 feet.
Pic also related.
>>7702960
>>Video by someone who has no idea what the fuck they're talking about.
>No. That's stupid.
What makes you say that?
What is it that he is saying that is wrong, and how is it wrong?
>>7704158
If you think the Coriolis has something to do with toilets, and the trade winds are driven by the ether, you just need to shut up about physics.
>>7696275
I find them a lot worse. At least there is a good reason for america to fake the moon landing.
Why the fuck would all the governments of the world (Plus all tellecomunications and all aerial transportation enterprises) lie about the shape of the Earth?
>>7681661
Get a powerful laser, like 10 watts or some shit. and a really precise level. Shine the laser towards the horizon. Drive off some distance and measure the distance to the ground, repeat several times. For extra credit do it over a large, calm body of water.
>>7694665
>I thought you just gave the hight at 5.7 feet.
Huh? The height of the observer is 5.7 feet. 0.004 feet is the minimum height required for the observer to see the object (because the curve of the earth will block from view anything below that height)
>>7704152
>I know, but he was trying to say that something .0004 feet high could see past a 2.9 mile horizon, which is wrong.
No I did not, read my post again. I calculated that an observer with eyes 5.7 feet from the ground can see an object which is positioned 3 miles away as long as it is more than 0.004 feet high. This also means that if your eyes are 0.004 feet off the ground you can see an object 3 miles away as long as it is higher than 5.7 feet. Objects that are tall enough will appear above the horizon, which is why you can see ships sinking under the horizon.
However it should be noted that this is a simple model which does not take into account the slight oblation of the earth, making it more curved at the equator and less curved at the poles. More importantly though it does not take into account refraction, which depending on weather conditions can significantly decrease the apparent curvature of the earth and allow things to be seen that would normally be hidden under the horizon. This is caused by light being deflected around the curve of the earth by water vapor.
>But yeah at 3 miles you get 6 feet, or as he worked it out, at 2.9 miles you get 5.7 feet.
No, 5.7 feet is just a chosen variable, the height of the observer. It was not calculated at all in any way. The picture you are posting is essentially useless for determining at what distances and heights objects are visible because it assumes an observer height of 0 and does not calculate heights that are perpendicular to the earth. I already explained this in the long two posts you replied to. Read them again.
>>7705131
Again, their math is wrong.
For the first video, 5 miles away at an eye level of 2 feet means that you can see anything above 7 feet high, not 16.7 feet. They also ignore refraction.
For the second video, looking out 100 miles away from a height of 1465 feet, objects 1882 feet above sea level can be visible, and more can be visible due to refraction. It all depends on the weather conditions.
>>7705169
nah. their calculations are correct.
from the beast itself:
www.space.com/17638-how-big-is-earth.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZPoKCWwc4w
>>7705182
I just proved they're incorrect AND posted the correct calculation. Your response is "nah". You lose.
>>7698421
Because if we're assuming that then we might as well go full retard.
>>7705169
>looking out 100 miles away from a height of 1465 feet, objects 1882 feet above sea level can be visible
Thats odd, because even according to your maths, the curvature at 100 miles is 6310 feet.
1465+1882 is 3347
What happened to the other 2963 feet of curvature?
>>7705209
>Thats odd, because even according to your maths, the curvature at 100 miles is 6310 feet.
First of all, I did not calculate curvature. Neither did the person in the video. Curvature for a circle is the reciprocal of the radius. I calculated the height at which an object needs to be to be visible over the horizon.
Second, 6310 feet is for an observer five feet above sea level, which would be a person of average height standing on the ground. 1882 feet is if you are at the top of that tower, 1465 feet above sea level. Learn to read.
>>7705209
Also, why are you adding the height of the observer to the height of the object and then calling it curvature? This is just nonsense piled on nonsense. I suggest you attempt to learn basic geometry before trying to pretend you know what these numbers mean.
>>7705221
>Also, why are you adding the height of the observer to the height of the object and then calling it curvature?
Because that's how it works.
Think of a teater toter.
If you bring one side down 3 feet the other side goes up 3 feet.
Same with a flat line on a ball earth.
If the total curvature at a given distance is 10 feet.
A line paralell to the middle of that distance will be 5 feet on each side.
If you tilt it one way or the other both hights will change, but they will add up to the 10 feet.
>>7705234
>Think of a teater toter.
>If you bring one side down 3 feet the other side goes up 3 feet.
Completely false, and we already have the data to show that this is wrong.
A man standing on the ground at sea level has an eye level of 5 feet and can see only see objects more than 6310 feet high 100 miles away. If he then climb up the tower, increasing his eye level by 1460 feet, he can no see objects more than 1882 feet high. So going up 1460 feet reduced the minimum visible height by 4428 feet, not 1460 feet. So already in the example I gave you you should have seen that adding these heights is meaningless. It's not a seesaw.
And again, stop calling it curvature. Curvature is dependent solely on the size of the circle, it has little to do with the visibility of objects standing on the circle.
>>7705204
The point is to make a video for full retards though.
>>7705260
LOL, nice retort. I guess basic math is too hard for you. MAybe when you finally pass high school trigonometry you'll understand.
Oh and the reason it's not a seesaw is because as you increase the height of the observer, the horizon point - which is analogous to the pivot of the seesaw - actually gets farther away. On a seesaw the pivot doesn't move, it's always the same place. But on the Earth, the "seesaw" or sightline is actually rolling along the curve of the earth as one side goes up and the other goes down, leading to sinusoidal change in visibility, rather than linear as you're proposing.
Actually this is another reason why we know the Earth is round, because as you get higher up visibility increases, just as my model shows.
>>7705266
Dude, just stop. They're either trolling or super-delusional.
>>7705273
Don't you think I know that? I'm not doing this to convince retards, I just find it entertaining.
>>7705266
Go get a basketball and a ruler, and check it out yourself.
Place ruler on basketball.
Bring one side down.
Notice the other side goes up.
Notice also it goes up by the exact same ammount as the first side went down.
Further notice the ruler does not bend, nor does change in length.
>>7705266
Heh, as a lurking /k/omando horizan changes are incredibly important to SAM systems and the like.
Its why AWACS are such a game changer because they effectively have no realistic radar horizon and why SAM systems are very dangerous to bombers but general get smashed by nap of the earth flying wild weasels (SAM hunters).
Also why naval systems are OP as well. (High radar mounts and a true horizan sans littoral waters)
>>7705284
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJOB0vcZ4NI
>>7705297
>almost 2 hours long
No.
The only missle that would treat the earth as flat is the TLAM as it uses TERCOM navigation. (The missle knows where it is because it knows where it is not).
Radar horizan is a big deal.
>>7705282
>>7705282
>Notice also it goes up by the exact same ammount as the first side went down.
Not only is that wrong, it's not even equivalent to what we're discussing. We're talking about the land distance from the observer to the object staying constant, not the sightline distance staying constant. But anyway, if you hold the end of a footlong ruler horizontal to a basketball, the other end will be sqrt(1+r^2)-r feet from the surface of the basketball, where r is the radius of the basketball. If you then hold the ruler so that the middle is touching the surface, each end will be sqrt(1/4+r^2)-r feet from the surface. So if you are correct that the sum of these distances is constant
sqrt(1+r^2)-r = 2(sqrt(1/4+r^2)-r)
This is only true when r=0, so unless your basketball is infinitesimally small, you're wrong.
>>7705303
Like this.(pic related)
If you bring left side down say 1 inch, right side will go up by 1 inch.
It really happens.
>>7705306
>(The missle knows where it is because it knows where it is not).
kek
That's retarded.
Instead of knowing one location, all you have to do is know all the others.
I know I'm at my house.
Because I'm not at the store, or at my friends, or at the movies, or at ever other possible location.
>>7705331
Are you sure you're a missile? You don't sound like any missile I've ever met.
>>7705333
>Are you sure you're a missile?
Never claimed to be.
It just seems impossible to calculate everhwere your not.
>>7705331
Its actually not and highly accurate.
The missle has no self awareness, and works on a NOT system.
http://youtu.be/bZe5J8SVCYQ
The earth is quite clearly flat. We perceive it as rounded due to the semispherical nature of our eyes and gravity bending the light from the sun.
>>7705338
lol
Don't know where you are?
Just calculate where your not, and where you used to be.
It's simple really.
I just have one question.
How will you know when you get where your going?
>>7705336
I'm kind of intoxicated, but that brings to mind something I've never delved into. One's awareness of their location. What allows you to decide where you are, and at what point does your mind have the confidence required to assume it's correct? You require an initial entry point.
A lot of our knowledge about location, context, some parts of expectation, etc are generated via a relatively gradient of change. You see where you're traveling, you think you know where you are, you know the general geometry and layout of the spaces you're translating about in. You even know what you don't know and can calculate a confidence about any interpolation / extrapolation you might perform to patch it in.
But still. The entry point. The initial faith after birth when you make something "real" and "present". And even the faith that what you're seeing is real, and correct. Say you get drugged. Typical anaesthetic. You wake up somewhere else. It looks your room... but is it? How do you know without any familiar anchor point? You were just moved somewhere. You look around and objects seem familiar, the physical space doesn't differ in a way that might alert you. That's the basis of the heuristic. And it can be fooled. Because the gradient of awareness was sharply disrupted. This gradient also ties in with the way information is incorporating into existing "knowledge".
I'm stating the obvious. Of course you never know. It's just interesting to plot out mechanically. How is the mind's machinery actually handling this. What affords it the ability to do so.
>>7705348
Yeah a philosophy board would be nice.
>>7681667
>more specific please. I need something that can get through the hear of a conspiracy nut
Proving the earth is not flat is simple:
How to do it:
1-Dig a hole
2-Look inside this hole
3-You wont see outerspace but more places to dig
4-This proves the earth is not flat
