Well?
>>7738110
IF the earth was flat
then why can we sail in the opposite direction.
Why does astrology prove it's not.
Ayy. Lmao.
Then the earth would have edges which someone would have documented over the years, and the distance to travel between USA and Russia wouldn't take such a short time
//thread
Anyone posting below this line rather than reporting the thread, is a contributor to garbage troll threads and meta shitposting
_____________________________________
Then flat would be true justice
>>7738136
Except Antartica. Not saying the earth is flat, but "someone would have found edges" is a narrow-minded 4-year-old argument.
>>7738110
Then this would be a Terry Pratchett Novel (RIP)
(if you don't get that reference go read the discworld series now)
>>7738166
Show me the edge then fgt
>>7738110
gravity would unflatten it.
>>7738180
See the white part around the outside? You could try to see it for yourself by going to Antartica, except there's a treaty in place that prohibits independent exploration, and plus you would freeze to death trying.
>>7738201
If we lived in a flat-earth universe, then gravity as we know it would not apply. Saying gravity would un-flatten earth is like saying gravity would un-flatten the world in Minecraft. Different universes, different rules.
>>7738206
Except for a "dont pollute and fuck shit up"-regulation under the Antartic Treaty that regulates the tourism companies, there are no laws prohibiting you to travel there. Also, tourism including fly-over of the south pole is a big business. We are talking upwards of 40 000 people each season.
>>7738206
I said show me the edges retard, not a drawing of it. We made it to space and other planets ( which for some reason are spherical) So we have the photos of earth(which for some reason are also spherical) So show me the visual evidence of this edge or cuck off
>>7738110
What if
OP
was straight?
>>7738110
Then I'd be able to see the southern cross from North America. You know, unless there's some thing out there that bends starlight in a complex way, but I don't know how such a thing would work.
>>7738236
"All those pictures and all the video made by every government and independent entity on earth is just a conspiracy to keep us down and away from the truth that the earth is flat and run by giant reptilian overlords. " and so on
>>7738206
bruh, how do you know that earth is flat like a pancake and not actually a cylinder?
>my cylinder earth theory
>>7738236
So if I made a photo-realistic 3D rendering of the edge, then that would convince you? I doubt it.
The point is, you can't independently prove to yourself that the earth is not flat, any more than you can independently prove to yourself that other planets are real, because you can't build your own space ship and go to the other planets on your own.
Let's also remember that inability to engage in the hypothetical discussion is a sign of lower intelligence. It's an interesting mental exercise to try and prove the earth is not flat. It's harder than it seems.
WHY IS THE FUCKING MOON ROUND?
is it also a flat surface that always faces us?
explain the apparent motion of the planets?
was ptolemy actually a time traveller and to heal his butthurt he decided to travel to 2010+5 and post on an anonymous korean pottery board that he was right? is that why ptolemy? youre that upset you got it wrong?
>>7738262
Turtles all the way down. I like it :-)
>>7738267
> i have zero proof
> all i have is semantics and insults
thanks for playing :^)
>>7738273
>MOON...is it also a flat surface that always faces us?
The fact that the same side of the moon always faces us is clear evidence that it is a constructed satellite. Why don't we have photos from the dark side? The government even had Pink Floyd make an album so that when you image search for the dark side of the moon you only get their album cover. The cover up is bigger than you think.
>>7738110
>why do the mods let these threads exist
>>7738287
Waiting for your first-hand knowledge showing the earth is not flat...
>>7738299
Why would I bother disproving your theories when you can't back them up with a single evidence ? I can't debunk any of your proof because you've got absolutely none.
>>7738314
Well I would like to debunk your evidence that the earth is not flat. As truth seekers we should be able to argue both sides of the argument. I'll wait for your first-hand evidence, maybe some photos from your trip to the moon.
If the earth was flat gravity would just pull the edges towards the centre and it would become spherical?
/thread
>>7738321
You won't ever get anything done by asking people to disprove your theories. It won't make the earth magically flat.
> I'll wait for your first-hand evidence, maybe some photos from your trip to the moon.
I didn't go to the moon but I did fly from USA to Russia over 20 times in my life. Funny enough it only took about 11 hours, as where your 2D diagram suggests it should take like 30 hours.
>>7738356
If the earth was flat, gravity wouldn't work that way.
>>7738360
>it only took about 11 hours...it should take like 30 hours
I don't disagree with you, the earth is probably a sphere, but this kind of thinking is very closed minded and self-fulfilling, no different than saying the earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so. Saying the earth is a sphere because the spherical-earth-phsyics-model physics wouldn't work in a flat earth does not make much sense.
>>7738381
> ur close minded for not believing in something with zero proof.
You suck at this.
>>7738396
We are on the same footing so far
>>7738295
I really hope that's a joke but gdi I can't tell anymore
>>7738503
nothing surprises me any more
>>7738503
I'll give you a hint.
A group of JFK conspiracy theorists die in a bus crash and go to heaven. God greets them and asks if they have any questions. They ask, "Who killed JFK?" God replies, "Lee Harvey Oswald, lone guneman, single shot." The conspiracy theorists look at each other with eyebrows raised, and one of them says, "The cover up is even bigger than we thought."
>>7738295
But there are photos of the dark side, Soviet Luna 3 took photos in 1959 : http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/mission_page/EM_Luna_3_page1.html
and earth isn't flat and is spherical because of surface area to volume ratio
i mean really, what kind of pseudoscience is convincing you to believe that earth is flaT ?
>>7738549
You see, all those photos have been taken by "them". And we all know we cant trust "them", because they are a part of the conspiracy. This invalidates all your proofs.
What "they" would gain from making us believe that the earth is round , that I have never gotten a good answer on.
>>7738560
obvious troll is obvious, but i'll bite
first of all, who are "they" ? I mean if muricans staged a conspiracy by flying to the moon and orbited the moon and soviets took photogrpahs of the moon and oribited earth before muricans did, are the soviets in on the conspiracy as well ?
but what would you gain if "they" came out and said that earth really is flat and people have been part of the conspiracy since 200 bc when some greek dude calculated the circumference of the earth, which was pretty close to what it really is?
If the Earth was flat then it would gradually round itself with gravity pulling its matter as close to its center of mass as possible
If the earth is flat, why does the sun rises south east and sets southwest when on your flat earth it should set northwest and rise northeast?
>>7738580
before you get into that ; if the earth is flat, howcome one part of the earth is in daytime, while the other part is night and doesn't see the sun at all ?
>>7738576
Hmm, maybe i should have put a *sarcasm* tag on it. Was making fun of the flat earth/conspiritard line of thought. And as you pointed out
>first of all, who are "they" ? I mean if muricans staged a conspiracy by flying to the moon and orbited the moon and soviets took photogrpahs of the moon and oribited earth before muricans did, are the soviets in on the conspiracy as well ?
but what would you gain if "they" came out and said that earth really is flat and people have been part of the conspiracy since 200 bc when some greek dude calculated the circumference of the earth, which was pretty close to what it really is?
pretty much shows how crazy the flat earth conspiracy is.
>>7738582
Let me guess... FUCKING MAGIC LMAO
>>7738585
>since 200 bc when some greek dude calculated the circumference of the earth, which was pretty close to what it really is?
I do wish to point one thing out: Erastosthenes got that number by assuming the Sun was so far away that its rays were near-as-makes-no-difference parallel, and that light travels in straight lines between the ground and the Sun.
Erastosthenes' results could also be explained by a flat Earth and a very close, small Sun. Most Flat Earthers take this view - you'll hear figures for the distance of the Sun that would indeed make the numbers come out right.
Of course, this has its own problems, but usually the people who hold these views have spent enough time arguing about them that they've developed at least a small level of sophistication.
(Most Flat Earthers would also dispute the "straight lines" assumption; that's how they explain objects appearing to disappear beneath the horizon.)
>>7738621
Well, circumference and flatness aren't really a same thing now, are they ?
Also, he figuered that the Sun is so far away that Sun's rays are parallel to one another not parallel to earth if that's what you meant, hers a link describing his method : http://www.britannica.com/biography/Eratosthenes-of-Cyrene
>>7738621
The Erastosthenes experiment cant be explained by the flat earth since people near the pole would get higher values.
If the sun is 3000 miles up, latitude lines would grow exponentially instead of being completly uniform like they are on a spherical object.
Draw a set of right angles triangles that share the same baseline and which the apex angle differs by one degree.
>pic related
Distances dont grow that way so It cannot be flat.
>Most Flat Earthers would also dispute the "straight lines" assumption; that's how they explain objects appearing to disappear beneath the horizon.
So they made up an ad-hoc explanation of an unknown mechanism/property of light that makes thing appear "round" instead of "flat"? I think is safe to use Occam Razors and assume they fall in straight lines.
It would self gravitate back into a sphere
>>7738220
Then what would pull us doen to earth?
The only argument ive found is one where inertia is also a myth
>>7738678
I have heard that it is electromagnetism or the earth is accelerating upwards.
Of course both are wrong, the gravimeter buttfucks the accelerating earth and electromagnetism is the attraction of charges, not masses.
>>7738686
>the gravimeter buttfucks the accelerating earth
How exactly?
>>7738705
If the earth is accelerating 9.8 m/s2, this would imply that the gravitational field must be perfectly uniform everywhere. The gravimeter has shown there is a variation in acceleration on some parts of the earth surface. And if gravity is not due to acceleration, then the planet cannot be a flat disk.
>>7738645
Yes, that's what I meant by "this also has some problems." I was understating sarcastically. As soon as you have more than two points of observation at different distances, it falls apart. Also, if the Sun is that close, it should appear substantially smaller when it's lower in the sky
Also, the bendy light is usually supposed to be atmospheric refraction (a mirage), not weird physics.
>>7738761
>I was understating sarcastically. As soon as you have more than two points of observation at different distances, it falls apart. Also, if the Sun is that close, it should appear substantially smaller when it's lower in the sky
Yes, the angular size of the sun is constant all day and almost all year at 0.5 degrees. They often confuse the sun's glare getting scattered as "increase in size". Perspective is also useful here: the farther away an object moves from you, the slower its velocity appears to be relative to you but the sun crosses the sky at an evenly speed...
You also forgot that its angle of elevation can never become cero, it geometrically impossible.
>Also, the bendy light is usually supposed to be atmospheric refraction (a mirage), not weird physics.
Thats depending on the weather, It would not remain constant at all. There could be some days where the sun's angle of elevation at noon would vary from day to day.
>>7738804
>You also forgot that its angle of elevation can never become cero, it geometrically impossible
That's where the mirage is supposed to come in, yes.
>Thats depending on the weather, It would not remain constant at all. There could be some days where the sun's angle of elevation at noon would vary from day to day.
And that's the other big problem.
>>7738817
>That's where the mirage is supposed to come in, yes.
I dont know of any mirage obscuring or even hiding an object, are not they supposed to only change the apparent position of an object? I think the light rays of the sun will always be above the surface unless there is something blocking the view and its obviously not the horizon since it is 3000 miles up.
>>7738836
>I dont know of any mirage obscuring or even hiding an object, are not they supposed to only change the apparent position of an object?
Yes. There are actual, real mirages which can change that apparent position to "below the horizon." Inferior mirages bend light such that sky appears where a solid object should be.
They are also unstable, wavering, and Flat Earthers constantly get terminology confused and claim that the phenomenon is a "Fata Morgana" - a *superior* mirage which, in actual fact, causes images to appear *above* the horizon.
>>7738847
>Yes. There are actual, real mirages which can change that apparent position to "below the horizon." Inferior mirages bend light such that sky appears where a solid object should be.
You can see on inferior mirages the line of the horizon between the object and its image refracted on the ground and disappears from bottom first...
>They are also unstable, wavering, and Flat Earthers constantly get terminology confused and claim that the phenomenon is a "Fata Morgana" - a *superior* mirage which, in actual fact, causes images to appear *above* the horizon.
Yes, but they forget that a mirage on a flat earth would show the whole object, not just a portions of it which are obviously obscured by the horizon. The optical illusion is only capable to rise the image until a certain point.
>>7738321
The horizon
>>7738363
But we've done experiments to show that gravity works that way. Like with actual metal balls and stuff, not just by looking at planets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
>>7738924
Exactly. On a flat earth there would not be an horizon at all.
I don't think the earth is flat, but some of the flat earth "debunking" going on is getting into head injury territory. Come on guys, use your brain. Stop saying stupid shit like how gravity is going to do something. If the earth is flat, EVERYTHING CHANGES. Our physics models are out the window and therefore no longer usable in logical arguments to invalidate the new model which we don't yet understand.
>>7738999
Then do you agree with geometry as a valid tool to find out the shape of an object?
>>7738999
Oh, or using photos of the Earth from space to prove it's round! Protip: Since orbit is physically nonsensical in the universe Flat Earthers think they live in, anybody who believes the globe is a hoax automatically believes, as a prerequisite, that satellites and space travel are a hoax as well.
>>7738262
It's a torus, like the maps in starfox 64.
>>7739020
It's a good tool as long as the assumptions it's based on hold. If those change, it could change drastically or become useless.
>>7739042
Satellites could exist. Space flight could exist, depending how high the ceiling goes. That's what I mean. People make some really, really stupid ass assumptions about how physics would work if the earth were flat. Most of our observations would still be true, but if all of those observations led us to the wrong conclusion, we have huge holes in our model. Seriously, listening to these reasons why it can't be flat are like watching a child choose 10 pennies instead of a quarter, because the ten pennies are "more". It's incredibly immature thinking. If the earth is flat, all of our paradigms change, massively. I'll say it again, I do not think the earth is flat, but there is absolutely no way I can prove that to myself or anyone else.
>>7739117
I think they hold good enough. Our modern life confirms it and it works so far. A flat earth should not be an exception to it.
>>7739138
> I'll say it again, I do not think the earth is flat, but there is absolutely no way I can prove that to myself or anyone else.
Go south of the equator. That would be enough.
>>7739150
What does it prove?
>>7739162
You sure are new
>>7738157
Underated post.
>>7738166
I'm pretty sure we've sailed around Antarctica.
>>7738736
Couldn't that be explained by the non-uniform density of the earth causing time dilation?
>>7739508
The fact that you have not spent enough time thinking about the problem to conceptualize how this might happen on a flat earth is not evidence against a flat earth. This is the kind of 4-year-old debunking that needs to stop. I don't think the earth is flat, but your point is without merit.
>>7738295
you made my day
>>7738110
Look at a lunar eclipse, think about how it works, and come to the conclusion that the earth is round
>>7738110
>Why don't people accept that the Earth is flat
ftfy
>>7738110
OP is le epic troll xD
friend pls post more funny memes
>>7738110
Then we'd have autistic fucks making threads in /sci/ and /x/ with "What if the Earth was round?"
>>7740981
Why does lunar eclipse suggest round earth? If the earth is flat and the sun and moon are fake projections or lights or whatever, why could the eclipse not also be faked?
>>7744456
So then you can reduce everything to.
>Muh false simulation.
But then your simulation is a simulation of your simulation and it keeps going.
>>7746656
>concave
No it wouldn't. The horizon would be fucked up
1. gallium arsenide is what the solar panels are made of. They would lose integrity in the upper thermosphere where temperatures reach 3000 degrees and higher. The rest of the structure is made of mixture of aluminum and ceramics and it literally an oven and would not be ideal to case electronics. This is why all earth photos are not real and are artist rendered. This is also why we cannot go to the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium_arsenide
2. 99% of all communication is land based and gps works with radio triangulation. transatlantic cables are vital for the flow of information to other continents.
http://www.newsweek.com/undersea-cables-transport-99-percent-international-communications-319072
3. google earth maps are made with using high altitude aircraft for areal photos, no satalites. Infact, the us military uses high altitude aircraft for reconnaissance missions. If spy satellites were real, due to the nature of space and radiation, they are not reliable.
https://www.rt.com/usa/google-buys-drones-titan-aerospace-488/
4. the satellite trackers and parroting of seeing satellites can be many other things, drones, weather balloons, high altitude aircraft, and lighter than air vehicles. Infact, there are drones that can stay in the air for months and perhaps years.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/06/apple-google-using-military-grade-spy-planes-to-make-new-maps-says-senator/
The earth is not a ball. based on fake images from NASA and my above references. It mathematically cannot be if for than 50 percent of the earths surface is flat.
"An abyssal plain is an underwater plain on the deep ocean floor, usually found at depths between 3000 and 6000 m. Lying generally between the foot of a continental rise and a mid-ocean ridge, abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface.[1][2] They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain
also there are no real pictures of Antarctica from space.
they are completely rendered and cgi.
>pic of a 3d disk
can you be a bigger faggot OP?
I wonder if you actually took one of these people to the south pole by foot like I mean actually stand on the south pole if they'd believe the earth was round. If you walked all the way across to the other side and then sailed to australia if they'd believe it. If you circumnavigated the globe by yourself no government built planes with holograms projected in the windows but on your own ship if they'd believe it. Get help you batshit crazy fucking people. Seriously you have a fucking problem.
>>7746999
your post is just conjecture. its full of "ifs", "wonder" and ad hominems. proving the earth is not a ball is easy.
there are no pictures of Antarctica from space. google earth it and its smudged as hell.
WE OBSERVE EVERY OTHER PLANET IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM AND BEYOND (WE'RE TALKING MILLIONS OF OTHER PLANETS) TO BE SPHERICAL. TELL ME WHY WE SHOULD BELIEVE OURS IS DIFFERENT.
>>7738206
>treaty that prohibits independent exploration
Oh that's rich cuz
>>7746941
>Do you really trust NASA?
What, as opposed to a basement-dwelling neckbeard like that person? Yes
>>7746939
>They would lose integrity in the upper thermosphere where temperatures reach 3000 degrees
The thermosphere has a very high temperature (average kinetic energy per molecule), but it's not actually very *hot*. Because the density of the thermosphere is extremely low, the rate of heat transfer is likewise extremely low; it's effectively irrelevant compared to radiative balance. (To derive this: Find thermosphere density at LEO, multiply by the temperature divided by the heat capacity to get J/m^3, multiply by 1 m^2 for approximate satellite profile area and 7.8 km/s for orbital velocity at LEO to find total thermal power delivered by encountering particles in the thermosphere.)
If you took a spacewalk into the thermosphere at night, it wouldn't even feel a little toasty.
Average equilibrium temperature for an ideal satellite is on the same order as the average equilibrium temperature of the Earth - 20 C or so, although it varies significantly between when the satellite is in full sunlight and when it's in shade, and the emissivity, absorptivity, and waste heat of the satellite. This makes sense - after all, the Earth itself is an orbiting body illuminated by sunlight at 1 AU distance!
http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/
BTFO
>>7747038
your theory would work if satellites were made of something other than atoms. But the sun heats up objects, the sun heats things up with radiation.
therefore, satellites heat up to 2600 degrees or more because of the sun. doesn't matter if there is few air particles around or not. Its the sun heating up things with no way of cooling.
>>7747054
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApXQ1u2mg78
>>7747069
I see somebody doesn't understand heat capacity.
The Sun doesn't emit temperature. The Sun emits *energy*. The temperature that energy comes out to depends on the relationship between energy and temperature (the "heat capacity") of the thing heated.
A quick napkin-math calculation tells us that the thermosphere has 0.003 Joules of thermal energy per cubic meter.
A block of aluminum with the same thermal energy per volume would be at 1.3 billionths of a Kelvin.
I think this speaks for itself pretty well.
>>7738110
This is what Minecraft has done to the world.
In order to prove a flat world theory you must first completely reinvent all maths and sciences related that were used to prove the world is round.
Why?
Because all of those maths and sciences were created with proving a round world exists. If you use those maths and sciences, you'll always find that the Earth is round.
If the earth was round, it wouldn't have life in here. The other planets are round and there isn't life on them, so the earth is flat.
>>7747493
>>7747591
Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation. The sun heats shit up. IF you stand on the beach on a sunny day you get burned. thats because the suns radiation is harmful. Imagine that many miles up with no atmosphere to protect you.
>>7747535
what makes you think mathematicians cant make a duel working system. Math can be scaled to do all sorts of things. Also curvature does not exist.
>>7747493
the sun heats things up. you die if you are exposed to the radiation unprotected.
>>7746939
You are mentally ill.
Also
>/b/
>>7747631
>up to 2600 degrees
You seem to think the sun gets exponentially hotter every foot closer you get. Between the earth and the moon the sun's temperature impact on our region of space stays relatively the same, around 130° C to -130° C when not in the sun's LOS. That means 300.000 ft above ground is practically the same temperature as boiling water, which is nowhere near the temp required to melt metals and it gets about 4x colder than Everest when not in the Sun's view. None of these values are enough to destroy electronic equipment in space under the right environment (which is why aeronautics engineers go through so much trouble to design shuttles and spacesuits the way they do). I don't know where the fuck you got 2600 degrees from, if sats reached that temperature they would melt down within seconds.
>>7747642
No shit, but he's not wrong. The temperature of something depends on both the energy being emitted and the capacity of the thing to retain that energy. It's the reason why manufacturers squirt special semen all over your CPU so you can shitpost without your 2.2 Mhz single-core AMD melting to pieces between posts
>>7747677
>I don't know where the fuck you got 2600 degrees from
He got that figure because it's the actual maximum temperature of the thermosphere.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
>The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day.
>>7747717
Wow so did he conveniently forget to read the next line?
> Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat. A normal thermometer would be significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact
The point remains the same, the typical temp that actually _would_ be felt in outer space in our region sits between 130°C and -130°C. As matter of fact, other anon already covered this point about temps
>The Sun doesn't emit temperature. The Sun emits *energy*. The temperature that energy comes out to depends on the relationship between energy and temperature (the "heat capacity") of the thing heated.
>>7747717
That's not the temperature of the thermosphere though. That's like saying the temperature of the surface of the Earth is 100s of degrees C because there are a few objects on the surface that are 100s of degrees C.
>>7747631
>IF you stand on the beach on a sunny day you get burned. thats because the suns radiation is harmful. Imagine that many miles up with no atmosphere to protect you.
I hate to break it to you, man, but air is transparent. The atmosphere blocks only a small fraction of the Sun's emissions - ground insolation's 1 kW/m2, top.of atmosphere is about 1.3.
The portion of radiation absorbed is the dangerous, high-energy range - extreme UV and X-rays. But though the individual photons are quite energetic, the actual amount of such emissions are small, and so they constitute only a small portion of the Sun's actual power output.
You can understand this pretty easily - the Sun emits basically the same frequency spectrum that any other hot object emits. Hot iron, incandescent bulbs, whatever.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
>For the Sun, T is 5778 K, allowing the percentile points of the Sun's radiation, in nanometers, to be tabulated as follows when modeled as a black body radiator, to which the Sun is a fair approximation
>[this shows that], only 1% of the Sun's radiation is at wavelengths shorter than 251 nm, and only 1% at longer than 3961 nm
You don't need much ionizing radiation to be harmful, but it's not harmful because of the heat.
>>7747677
Oh, but they DO get exponentially hotter. The density of energy (light) emitted from the sun is much greater at 2 feet away from the sun than 1 au.
>>7747677
how do they arrive at those temperatures then if you say its at a constant boiling temperature?
either you are bullshitting and BTFO on common sense or the science institutions that put out the facts are lieing.
You honestly believe gas particles are the source of heat?
>No, never
Why do you even say this? You're one of those people who will be BTFO in history
Can't wait to put your name here
http://www.rinkworks.com/said/predictions.shtml
http://longbets.org/
Put your money where you mouths' are. You faggots.
>>7747728
>>7747730
>>7747734
> Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat.
Yeah that's a huge contradiction on their part but you are a chump for believing it and not seeing the actual picture.
This is what its actually telling you:
you are safe because you dont come into contact with those hot little particles of gas, never mind the source of heat which is the huge ball of fire that heats everything up. ITs not like you are made of particles that absorb heat too, it only affects things that are not you or any NASA made material! ;^)
>>7747069
>no way of cooling
Not heard of thermal radiation I take it?
>>7738110
NO.
you can see chicago from michigan all the time. so theres no curvature there.
>>7747747
Yes yes man, tell me more about how I'm wrong about basic science and how the Earth is flat etc
>>7747777
>This is what its actually telling you:
>you are safe because you dont come into contact with those hot little particles of gas, never mind the source of heat which is the huge ball of fire that heats everything up. ITs not like you are made of particles that absorb heat too, it only affects things that are not you or any NASA made material! ;^)
>>7747734
>>7747493
The Sun's radiation isn't particularly intense, even outside the atmosphere. The thermosphere is just very easy to heat up.
![flat-earth-3[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/9NhBNhi.jpg "flat-earth-3[1].jpg")
Here are some problems with a flat Earth theory like OP's pic, just off the top of my head:
> Why is there ice in Antarctica?
This is well explained in a spherical Earth model (high incidence angles for sunlight), but latitudes receive equal insolation conditions in the flat Earth model. So we have a problem with energy balance.
> Distances in the southern hemisphere
In a spherical Earth model, traveling around a line of latitude is the same distance at 30 N and 30 S. In the flat Earth model, the distance is much greater at 30 S. For practical navigation, only one can be correct.
> Curvature of Earth is visible from weather balloons.
This is a more extreme version of the horizon argument earlier in the thread. You don't need a satellite to get high enough to see the curvature of the Earth, and plenty of non-government institutions and even private individuals have taken pictures from >100,000 ft. You can do it yourself for a couple hundred $.
>>7747854
>You can do it yourself for a couple hundred $.
Except that all commercially manufactured cameras have an elevation detector that will autmoatically switch on an embedded wireless reciever component that requests fake curve footage from the nearest ball cgi production facility to place over the real footage. Nice try nasa.
>>7747876
Funny enough, I do work for NASA (well, on a sub-contract; I"m not a civil servant).
Still, you could just use a film camera, right Like everyone did up until 15 years ago?
>>7747854
>>7747876
>>7747889
weather balloon and ISS uses go pro.
This one seems to illustrate that the earth is flat well enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg
also, look into it before posting. alot of the write offs of proofs of a flat earth are due to people assuming what it is rather than looking into it.
>>7747007
I'm using ad hominem because it is absolutely ridiculous to seriously to debate this topic. Really get a load of yourself. Look in the mirror. Figure yourself out. Go on youtube and look up videos of gangstalking and compare yourself. Honestly compare yourself to those people. Detail by detail, write it down if you have to. Come back then and write me a reply. Analyze your life and your decisions and thoughts. Tell me if you find something wrong. It is your mindset that is creating this viewpoint, there is no valid evidence a flat earth exists.
Respond to this at least this before you dismiss my valid arguments because I'm a little harsh.
You get in a plane and fly through the south pole from South America to Australia. What are your thoughts on this situation. I really want you to reply to this. I genuinely want to know what you think of this topic. You say my post is conjecture? You dismiss those thoughts? How are your posts not conjecture? They're chock full of it. I mean bursting with the stuff. Immense oceans of information that you refute in any way possible. Why? Why are you even interested in the earth being flat? Why is it more important than atoms not being real? Don't you realize how ridiculous this sounds? There is so much about physics that we will never personally understand that is far more open to this kind of debate. Why don't you dismiss the claims of physicists who say things that are far more outlandish than a flat earth. Do you argue about those topics?
>>7748009
You do know that science denial is real right?
Germany paid fake experts, scientists, and lawyers to prove that cigarettes do not cause cancer. Any real evidence would get scoffed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22345227
What makes you think the same practice isn't employed by other areas today?
Fields of view wouldn't increase if the earth was flat, and ships coming over the horizon is another good one. If you want to test it, just stick something into a ball and roll it.
>>7738135
Astronomy*
Cretin
Liquids on the ISS released into the open form into spheres.
The earth would form into a sphere any way you imagine it, because we have gravity and stuff.
>>7748023
I know about and believe wholly in science denial. I've seen many examples for many different reasons. I'm not talking about science denial, which has very good incentives and motivations. I can believe and talk all about fake drug studies cigarettes whatever but a flat earth is out of the question. Only in the most abstract of discussions would I consider it.
Answer my question. Respond to that situation. I don't want to talk about anything else. Just think about it and give an answer. Don't run around the bush, don't make excuses, don't talk about something else. Please just do it.
>>7747969
I was thinking of the folks who used cell phone cameras, not GoPro.
And I have looked into it, thanks for making sure. I can actually think independently, instead of just casting aspersions without real evidence.
>>7738135
the earth is big enough for gravity to have an effect, if gravity did not behave exactly how we think it does than the earth could indeed be flat and nasa and russia could be denying it is for some reasons.
>>7748037
Circumnavigation works on a flat earth too. There are no direct flights in the southern hemisphere.
>>7748049
Gravity is density and boyancy on the flat earth. Gravity on the heliocentric model is largely still a phenomenon, not measured, assumed and unexplained and there are many theories to which the particle that creates it is pury hypothetical. With gravity on a round earth, in origin, it comes to a chicken before the egg problem.
>>7738267
Good comment - and the reason i like these flat earth threads, it challenges logic, reasoning and debating skills.
>>7749037
Nah the earth is definitely not round. People can see up to 50 miles from eye.
The gravity question is answered by using the dark energy model. The same force that is causing our universe to expand by reacting against matter, causes our 'gravity' by reacting against the flat disc. Variations in the constant are explained by different thicknesses of the disc.
so why is there a reason to cover this up huh?
Why go so far to as create fake working physics and math.
Dont bring in trivial matters as power and control it doesnt even make sense in this context, the more you learn the more you can understand that humans are incapable of such a large scale control we are too fucking stupid, maybe not as a individual but as a group as a mass we are so fucking idiotic that its sad. An individual cant achieve this without becoming a mass or a group and as soon as it becomes that, its incapable of such control.(that sentence was utter bullshit, but i just added it here do debunk your stupid ass shit).
Now youre gonna bring in " AAAAliens" sure they might be capable of it, but why the fuck would they, the universe is so massive that for them to stop here and start fucking with us just for the lulz isnt simply possible,
now here come the "hurr burr the universe is a lie, thats what they want you to believe, rides rides on a giant space turtle in the endless void" well fucking shit can you even comprehend how fucking stupid that is.
Now again why the fuck would "they" even give a single god damn fucking shit about us, i certainly dont give a single shit what a twat in the US in his basement is doing.
So the final question remains as to WHY all this flat earth would be true and covered up. A single fucking logical reason that is actually fucking logical. And how the fuck do you create working FAKE math and physics so to just make people believe that the universe is like its shown to us.
Also let me ask you this, does an insane person know hes insane?
Ask yourself "am i insane?", keep asking yourself that and start taking notes of your personality and how you act, and then maybe if you dont start blaming aliens and other entities that care about you so much for no fucking reason you can face reality and break out of your little shell you tiny worthless human.
>>7740120
On a flat earth that distance would be greater than any other. It is not.
Anyone here ever flown in a jetliner?
You can see the curvature of the Earth when you are really fucking high.
Also, you can just slap a GPS locator beacon and digital altimeter, on a GoPro and attach it to a weather balloon. Let it float up until it expands so much it explodes, retrieve the camera and see how much the earth is curved or not. But, you have to get extremely high for that. Like way past 100k feet.
This is within the budget of most of the people posting ITT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2tPCNjFIo4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EABQ5psUz70
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95NDkABAsSk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCAnLxRvNNc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hc38-VHIX8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnzUgKZ8m2k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZw_LySNNzM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqPqtQrtn5Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_00eZtsuJ9M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRkQE0I4NZw
And tons more on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvbN-cWe0A0
Don't be confused by lens curvature/lens distortion either. That can be calculated out in still images.
http://paulbourke.net/miscellaneous/lenscorrection/
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/correctinglensdistortion.htm
>>7749070
power and control over masses into removing any knowledge of the existence of a creator. The push of space fiction entertainment and the push of aliens being real in popular science is part of achieving that goal.
It wouldn't take a lot of people to fool everyone considering that compartmentalization works really really well and any whistle blowers that have been saying for years about it were scoffed at. The general population is too worried about other things or have too many distractions living in the system, this is why many things get written off until its put out there, see Edward Snowden, even then people dont care.
You grossly underestimate what a few very smart people can do to a population with the power of money. With enough money you can push for fluoride being safe and into the city water, which has been known to cause neurological damage in children based on a recent Harvard scientific study.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
>>7749262
you can debunk that the earth has curvature on ground level.
this debunked that wives tale of a ship disappearing. What you see is a mirage which only happens on flat surfaces.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdwIMtz8owI.
>>7748703
Jesus christ you came up with nothing. Rip
>>7749299
hello
>>7749286
You can't see the curve on the ocean though. Thinking you can and debunking it is completely moot in the first place. The Earth isn't a perfect sphere like that and trying to measure curvature over water is futile.
>>7749323
>le xD
this proves nothing.
most of these flights make stops in between - the noticed ones in that image being NY and LA.
