I'm open minded, but I don't believe the earth is flat. Show me your best evidence supporting the flat earth theory.
>>17713387
there is none
There isn't any best evidence. All flat earth evidence is horribly flawed, because the earth isn't flat.
Same as you OP.
Now, as for the hollow Earth theory...maybe.
>>17713422
Agreed, the earth and the moon I could see being somewhat hollow.
>>17713423
Don't ask me how it would work, but just imagine with me.
What if there is a core, but the inside of it is hollow and is cool enough to have water. Just imagine that, a hollow core full of water that has life that evolved independently of the surface.
It may not even be "full" of water, or have to be the core. There is an even higher possibility of there being empty magma chambers and lava tubes that could sustain life like we fine in those gas vents under the ocean,
That's what I think.
You keep thinking it's impossible because you have many other notions that are false like
1. The Sun being far away
2. The Sun being much bigger than the moon
3. """"Gravity"""" existing (Electromagnetism is why we fall)
4. There are other planets
5. The moon is a sphere
6. Stars are large and far away
7. Stars are suns
etc
You need to understand that in the flat earth model, this ENTIRE plane is just the Earth the sky, the firmament etc
It took me two WHOLE years to even try to look at some of the evidence because of how retarded it sounds, but once I started looking at NASA "evidence" every day it became more and more obvious that they were liars.
>>17713438
If the Earth was flat, why would there even be a conspiracy to make people think that it was round? What would anyone gain by that?
Round earthers are right, actually it doesn't matter what shape NASA tells you it is just fucking believe it.
Its just like with operation fishbowl, they did tests with nukes at high altitudes and observed strange eletromagnic reactions to the explosions. Sure there was a lot of censured paper work that made it sound like they were expecting a barrier or done.
Sure there is a few more conspiracies around NASA, just shut up you goys and trust these guys.
Its not like the founding NASA rocket scientist was a Mossad agent.
The shape doesn't matter, just trust without question.
Just sit in your homes, stare at the screen of TV or Internet, or parrot what you heard in school by a teacher or professor.
Stop questioning.
>>17713454
This. Why would you manipulate evidence with so much effort without having a motive for it?
>>17713460
Dome*
Stop trying to use scientific method to what they say is law, just like global warning, round earth cannot be questioned.
And unless you are one of the elites and know it but keep it secret, you cannot consider it or try and prove or disprove it.
Just trust the law, pay your taxes and do whatever else they decide. You goys.
>>17713454
>>17713464
Mass in-b4 le jew boogyman.
>>17713460
>>17713467
>edgy
>>17713438
>electromagnetism is why we fall
So the earth is negatively charged and we're positively charged? Or did I get that backwards?
>>17713460
>the founding NASA rocket science was a Mossad agent
NASA was a development National Advisory Comittee for Aeronautics, which had been experimenting with things like rocket planes since 1946. Mossad didn't even exist until 1949.
Also: NASA isn't the only group that's been to outer space and seen that the earth is round.
Question more. Also, look for correct answers instead of making them up.
>>17713523
Trust this goy, you goys he gets paid good shekels to post from his cubical.
>>17713390
/thread
>>17713530
i need a job like that
>>17713523
Investagated for selling secrets to Israel, and being Israeli intelligence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons_(rocket_engineer)
Nazi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
This thread is now anti-Semitic, i am a jew and I have been offended by my own posts.
Shut it down.
Guys trust these shills, whatever they tell you just trust it. If you dont play nice with the secret, then you cant play in space.
>>17713454
>>17713464
>no motive for it
Are you fucking delusional???
Nasa gets Billions in funding for hardly any work that's gains right there
>>17713460
OK, I hear you. Sounds interesting and all. Alas, what does it benefit a man to know this truth? How could this possibly change my life in any meaningful way?
Knowledge just for the sake of it is all fine and dandy, but what does it benefit me?
>>17713545
here's a (you) for effort
>>17713539
Oh they do plenty of work.
Best way to think of NASA is a filter, between what you want people to see about space and their world and what can be seen.
The filter is used, and taken away as needed.
A filter is always necessary.
>>17713538
>Founding member of JPL and Aerojet Engineering Corporation
>worked as a consultant for Israel's rocket program
>falsely accused by McCarthy of being a spy
>No actual evidence and was later cleared
So, basically everything you said is proven false by a wikipedia article that you yourself posted. Did you read what I said about looking for correct answers?
>>17713539
So the government - which already has the money - lies about the shape of the Earth in order to allocate about .5% of their total revenue into a sham organization so they can...what? Get money? Money they already have?
>>17713387
the earth isnt flat. if you try to explain what seems to be gravity via the earth moving upwards then planes would never get off the ground because the earth would have to be moving real fast to generate a false gravity effect
the amount of pitch that can be applied during take off is to little
>>17713582
And this ignores the fact that MOST of NASA's budget goes to outsourcing work to private companies.
Why would they do this? Why support SO many businesses for no reason? How do they keep all these sat-com companies from revealing that all the satellites they are producing, maintaining, and making money off of are completely fake?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spacecraft_manufacturers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_communication_satellite_operators
I mean...ALL these governments and ALL these companies are in on it? It gets to the point where you are declaring everyone who doesn't believe the world to be flat as in on the conspiracy.
>>17713523
besides some lovely nazi's worked for em
>>17713531
There's a bunch.
Hold on... why the fuck does it matter again??
>>17713454
>>17713464
Because satan. Eric Dubay, that crazy todger, says it best but I can't find the video. Basically, if the earth is flat at the center of the "universe" and we are the best and brightest in the universe and the center of everything and there is a dome over us then that pretty much proves God. But if we're are just a chance occurence hurtling through space with no divine creator then we aren't special. Satan gives men worldly power. And men lie about the origin and nature of the universe to keep and grow that power. If you can no longer trust the bible and your own senses then you must basically suck the cock of your leaders for stability and comfort because they've succeeded in externalizing your sovereignty and actualization.
To say nothing of the fact that NASA is the biggest black budget organization in the world, getting billions of dollars for smoke and mirrors tricks.
>>17713460
Like we needed this board to sound any more autistic
>>17713551
I thought so too but then I realized space doesn't exist and NASA isn't hiding aliens.
>>17713627
>eric dubay
Is that the guy who says there's a dome over the earth and that's what keeps the air from leaking into the vacuum of space?
And that sunlight makes things hot, and the moon emits its own light but makes things cold?
>>17713547
>being sincere on 4chan
I now realize my mistake.
Perhaps I should have just shitposted. Instead I was wondering why would I sacrifice my reputation to defend a truth for nothing but the sake of making myself a martyr for an ideal, in this case truth.
I guess they never trained me to find truth that important. Honesty is another thing though, honesty is important but the truth is a sideshow.
Well, thanks for listening, and here is a (You) 4u.
>>17713539
So NASA exists to get money to make people believe that there is a reason they should exist, but they don't actually make any money since the government already had the money in the first place? Does that really make sense to you?
>>17713636
I don't know all he's said. The moonlight does make things cooler though. That's a proven fact. Don't reply if you disagree i'm not interested in a view point other than my own.
>>17713644
So far the process is
>lie about astronomy
>set aside part of your own money to convince people of the lie
>convince other world governments to do the same
>give said money to private corporations to make fake stuff to support the lie
>convince amateur astronomers and schoolkids to make their own "evidence" supporting the lie
>???
>prove no God
Truly I'm stumped here. I mean if the point is to prove there is no God, why wouldn't the billions be funneled into biology or physics where most of the atheists' proofs and evidence comes from?
>>17713627
Which Bible tho?
>>17713387
The whole flat earth thing is mostly an exercise in debate skills. You cand find logical explanations for the most absurd and ridiculous things if you look at them seperately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_W280R_Jt8
Only retards genuinely believe that the earth is flat
>>17713658
The original greek/hebrew bible.
>>17713655
>the moonlight does make things cooloer though. It's a proven fact.
This is nonsense, and lacks a fundamental basic science understanding of how light even works.
>>17713438
weak bait
>>17713662
Do you actually have one?
>>17713664
To be fair, in very specific conditions light can be used to cool things down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_cooling
>>17713655
>Don't reply if you disagree i'm not interested in a view point other than my own
/x/ in a nutshell
>>17713674
Yes, I'm aware of this. Completely unrelated to the issue at hand though.
That's so bullshit. If it would be true, where is the edge of the world? Wtf
>>17713655
Kek
>>17713670
Yes.
>>17713684
At the edge, silly billy. North pole in the middle, antarctica is the ice ring around the world, always away from the center aka south.
>>17713697
So how far does ice go?
Or does it go on for infinity?
>>17713702
I think it goes at least 300 miles. But it ends at the dome of the firmament which no one but god can undo.
>>17713460
NASA will soon fail. Maybe you're not high up enough to get this info, maybe they are still covering it. I suppose they do.
The reincarnation cycle is broken and your demon is gone. No more escaping your sins, no more lying and cheating hell.
Yes, they are waiting for you. Not sympathizing with hell, I still find this funny. You pissed them off for a long time running from them, thinking your protective demon couldn't die?
How could it not die, if used to hide truth?
Time to freak out now. Maybe some of you can repent in time, you'll know what to do.
>>17713703
LOL
And what material is the dome?
Are u guys fuckig stupid?
If there would be a dome, everyone would know.
>>17713714
If God exists, everyone will know too, right?
>>17713714
why don't you do your own footwork and figure it out. I've never cared to figure that out. That's a dumb question to me. Who cares what is made of?
Gee I wonder why everyone doesn't know. I'm a retard and can't think something through if it take more than 3 seconds to think through. It's not your fault that you were tricked along with everyone else.
>>17713707
is roleplaying fun for you?
>>17713720
so making an argument by comparison is RP to you?
>>17713718
so you decided to not care about things that debunk your little delusion. how convenient
>>17713725
it isnt. but that wasnt what you did
>>17713661
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_W280R_Jt8 [Embed]
BTFO
>>17713727
>debunk
But you don't. You made an argument that didn't convince someone.
"Debunking" is just a word used by atheists and narrowminded people trying to maintain their worldview. It doesn't mean anything else than "we are an echo chamber and can't really do anything but deny reality"
>>17713733
>I can't understand the comparison so it's RP
>>17713716
Uh, generally people that believe in God claim that he's invisible and intangible and lives in some far off place that nobody can actually get to. Which is pretty convenient, when you think about it.
But if there's a dome over the earth, then that would be a thing which people would be able to go too and touch it. They could measure it and see what it was. Not to mention it would trap all those lost children's balloons at the very top.
>>17713656
What I want to know is, if governments want people to disbelieve in God, why are churches tax free?
>>17713740
oh, now debunking itself is not possible. wow, thats even more convenient.
Earth is really made out of cheese. Your argument dont convince anybody and everything you say that makes this logically impossible is just screaming in an echo chamber
>>17713387
>this same thread in exactly the same format every time
Do you autism by any chance OP?
>>17713744
>But if there's a dome over the earth, then that would be a thing which people would be able to go too and touch it. They could measure it and see what it was. Not to mention it would trap all those lost children's balloons at the very top.
You don't seem to understand the meaning of "conspiracy".
It doesn't matter what exactly is up there. No, we wouldn't know it either way, because we are being LIED TO.
Saying that "if it's this or that way we would have the information" is very naive. Look up the terms "disinformation" and "misinformation."
Yes they originate in the sovjet union. They theoreticized this to use against people. It's a science in itself, the science of tricking people to their disadvantege, keeping them under control.
>>17713766
You can't be tricked out of not finding a physical dome. If there really is a giant dome up there then a group of people independent of any government conspiracy should be able to find it. The same thing with the ice wall, the conspiracy can't possibly police the entire edge of the world, someone should be able to find it if it's there.
>>17713749
So... you don't seem to realize what you are doing yourself?
Making arguments that don't convince someone, then blaming the low quality of the argument on the person you didn't convince.
Then talking to other people who agree with you, about how stupid that person is for not being convinced by your bad argument. How is that not an echo chamber? You're not openminded, that's called narrowminded.
>>17713387
It's not, you can't balance the earth on a ruby on a bull of a fish if it's flat.
>>17713727
No. IT never occurred to me to worry about something stupid like it occurred to you.
>>17713779
>then a group of people independent of any government conspiracy should be able to find it
There's your problem. No such group exists. There are no independant space programs.
>>17713766
>there's a real dome but it's impossible to go there because there's an evil conspiracy that prevents people
>Also these evil conspirators are invisible and intangible and live in an invisible fantasy world that we can get too and they hide all the evidence that they even exist
My goodness, how convenient.
>>17713792
Are you saying that the U.S. space agency and the USSR space agency were working together even though their governments were in a major cold war and could have caused WWIII?
>>17713714
If you care what the dome is made of, you figure it out. And then, if you like, tell us or don't. If you care then you should act. If you don't care then no one will know.
>>17713766
>because we are being LIED TO
even if thats true, I can make obsercations with my own eyes/telescope that confirm your bullshit as bullshit
>>17713793
>these evil conspirators are invisible and intangible and live in an invisible fantasy world that we can get too
Completely false.
They are in governments and scientific communities all over the world. They are humans. They make a lot of money from these lies.
just go the the edge, filmed, come back.
>>17713792
>There are no independant space programs.
There are though, look up Elon Musk and SpaceX. Also you don't need a space program to find the ice wall.
>>17713805
Not possible.
>>17713802
But if I try to go to the dome, they will stop me?
How come nobody has evidence of this if they actually exist?
>>17713799
The US and the USSR were allies during WW2. A little healthy competition is no problem.
>Could have caused WW3
How is that a problem? It would most likely be very profitable for those in control, they would come out even stronger after the war.
Think about all the reconstruction contracts.
>>17713782
the point is, calling an argument bad without saying why, wont convince anybody either. Spouting buzzwords is also pretty shallow
>>17713800
I don't believe such a dome exists. If it were to exist, it must be made of some magical material to not collapse in on itself.
You're claiming that the dome exists, therefore you need to explain what it is made out of.
Also it would be nice to know how meteorites work.
>>17713791
yeah, thats exactly what I said to you. you dont worry, because you just assume it is stupid
>>17713815
>They were allies during WW2.
Yes, and then after WW2, during the space age, they were enemies. They spent billions and billions of dollars and would have loved to discredit each other.
So why, if the earth were flat, both work together the round earth thing?
>>17713810
>But if I try to go to the dome, they will stop me?
Go on then.
Arguing online is not dangerous enough for them for them to stop you. Well, depending on how well you do it.
Actually fulfilling that plan without their support is a different thing.
So try it. See what happens.
>>17713829
>go on, try it
Why would I try to look for a dome I don't think exists? Again, you're the one claiming a dome exists, but you have no evidence for it. If a dome DID exist it would be possible for you, or anybody else to find evidence of it. So why has nobody done that?
>>17713822
Shit. I backspaced. Basically you're retarded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXSgIQhK098
>>17713670
>>17713694
Is that it? Got nothing else to say?
>>17713809
>Not possible.
giving up so easy?
>>17713829
The ice wall should be much easier to find, all you would need is a boat. How could the government conspiracy stop everyone from finding it?
>>17713847
You're not very bright are you? I just gave you a visible representation why it is not, but it does not refute anything.
>>17713828
The sovjet union was communistic and atheistic. Hiding the truth was their nature, they don't even need a reason.
As for the US, they've been infiltrated by atheists, darwinists and liberals.
It was pretty well done from the beginning, arguing that slavery was ok because the bible tells slaves to accept their position. Of course this was aimed at the slaves themselves to be good christians, it wasn't meant as a justification for slavery, the slave owners are not good people.
>>17713808
He receives copeous amounts of funding from the US and US agencies don't be a fucking idiot
>>17713842
>You're retarded
>says the guy who thinks there's a dome over the earth
>>17713822
If I tell you that a touchdown is when the person with the ball reaches the opposings team's end zone, I then I might at maxiumum deign to prove that is true. I wouldn't be obligated to look up for you the standard measurements of a standard league endzone or tell you the chemical composition of the paint they use to draw the team's logo. That's you're jizz. Shit, I don't even have to prove that that's what a touchdown means. That not how I communicate. I can tell you or not tell you whatever I want whenever I want because I'm my own boss and you are not the boss of me.
>>17713852
There are many many pictures of this. From space and from the water
Y'all motherfuckers need science.
>>17713387
There is a world of difference between "open-minded" and "credulous."
The Earth isn't flat, that's not how gravity works.
>>17713859
>>17713865
Where are these pictures of the ice wall?
>>17713835
I'm the one who said it doesn't really matter what is up there, we wouldn't know either way. The dome claim was posted by someone else.
I'm talking about the fact those with the real information are keeping it from us, and telling us lies. If there is a dome we still wouldn't know, just as we can't know if God is up there either, as long as "science" is a tool controlled by politicians with no interest in the truth being known.
>>17713858
I'm not asking for a reason why they'd lie to their people. They were pretty well into pseudoscience themselves, particularly with biology.
But you're ignoring they would have a much better reason to prove the earth was flat. If the U.S. had said they sent men to the moon, and posted photos of the earth being round, all the U.S.S.R had to do was prove that the U.S. had never been to the moon, and publish pictures of the earth being flat. These were rival agencies and they were in direct competition with each other.
Unless you'd have use believe that in addition to the earth being flat, and there being no moon landing, the Cold War never happened either? Is that what you're saying?
>>17713843
Good shit. That guy became transparent because of graphic manipulation. I've never seen something that advance either. That's cutting edge movie magic.
>>17713860
You're retarded too. Kill yourself you waste of space. I wish you were never born.
>>17713864
so you know shit about the dome, but it exists
>>17713864
If you wanted to describe to me what a touchdown is, and I were skeptical, all you'd have to do is link a youtube video of a player scoring a touch down, and hey, there it is. Clear as day for everybody to see.
When you start claiming really retarded shit like a dome over the earth, you need to deal with the consequences. People thinking you're stupid is the biggest one. But also the actual consequences of what your suggestion would actually mean. Like what is it made of, and how come nobody has actually touched it, or how come there aren't a bunch of balloons stuck at the top.
>>17713865
post em
>>17713892
We don't know shit about gravity black holes or quantum mechanics but apparently those things exists too am I rite
>>17713893
there are people walking on it
>>17713893
How do I know that this isn't fake like the NASA space pictures?
>>17713903
but we know. and yes, they apparently exist. gravity for example is pretty easy to observe
>>17713877
Your comparison to god is absurd.
If somebody asked what God looks like or where does he live, the believer could always say well he's invisible and all around us and also in heaven and you won't see him until we die.
A dome over the earth is a completely different thing. A dome over the earth, hypothetically given it were real, would be an actual physical thing. It would be something that people could go and touch and measure.
>>17713905
What's your point.
>>17713843
Hey it's Chris Hadfield what a cool guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poZCINzxzrQ
>>17713913
thats just the edge of an ice shield somewhere
>>17713879
During WW2 the shape of the earth was still a debated theory. You may think otherwise but the nazis didn't believe in the round earth theory.
They were pretty deep into the hollow earth worldview. They wanted to use telescopes to look through the clouds and behind the stars to spy on the US. Supposing the earth was actually on the inside of a sphere, not only could you see other continents, you could also send missiles directly at them, it would seem like missiles from the sky when they arrived on the other end.
It's even possible this is one of the reasons why Germany had to be hit so hard, they didn't conform to the "outside of sphere" worldview.
>>17713903
There's a great deal of evidence for those things.
There is no evidence of a dome. On the contrary, there is a wealth of evidence that there is no dome. For example: space probes and meteorites.
>>17713919
whats yours? your picture shows nothing extraordinary
The God argument is pointless on both sides.
The burden of proof lies with the person claiming something does exist not the person claiming that it doesn't, because you cannot prove non-existence it's a logical fallacy.
On the other hand if one could prove God exist, then doing so undermines the idea of faith and belief. Which is the entire point of religion and spirituality in the first place.
>>17713926
>not only could you see other continents
no you couldnt. they really tested this and failed
>>17713926
>during ww2 the shape of the earth was still a debated theory
No it wasn't. The globe had been settled thousands of years ago, and even measured thousands of years ago.
There were no credible, intelligent, or mentally fit people who believed in a hollow earth in the 30s and 40s, any more than there are now.
Germany, before Hitler took power, was one of the leaders in the world when it came to science. You don't do that while subscribing to hollow earth theory.
>>17713927
How many mediorites have touched earth? Show me a physical medior that wasn't proven to be fake. Also, how easy would faking deep space probes be? Ever pic of a planet you see nasa has admitted to be an artistic rendition. What deep space probe? Do you believe we went to the moon? Why hasn't a single human gone even half of the distance? Isn't it strange how every space agency keeps people in low orbit?
>>17713929
You asked to see the ice wall and here it is. I never claimed it to be extraordinary. It just is. No human has ever traversed past a few miles on the top. And your wondering where the dome is? Perhaps it is where no human has ever gone
>>17713661
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_W280R_Jt8 [Embed]
lol 2 minutes that all the falt earth retards ITT seem to ignore
>>17713929
I want to smack the shit out of your face, fool.
>>17713923
My little brother that was born in 2002, thinks that this looks very fake.
But he thinks he sings very pretty.
I have finally understand you flat earthners.
You were overexposed to CGI and lies.
Hoollywood and the gov't fucked up, and now you can recognize reality.
>>17713915
>the believer could always say well he's invisible and all around us and also in heaven and you won't see him until we die
I don't personally like this view, it's new age speak, they're in one way just enablers of atheism.
The most convenient view is the physical worldview, in which the earth is flat, heaven is above and hell is really deep down underground.
A person dying will lose his body and as a spirit will align with the place of his moral character, falling through the ground to the fires of the underworld if he was sinful.
Reaching heaven would be impossible for an atheist, even with a spaceship, simply because his spirit can't leave the earth. Being too heavy with sin, a spaceship with sinners who want to disprove God, could never go up there.
Only someone with faith could travel there even in body.
That is the reason noone will go to heaven and disprove God.
>>17713948
>No human has ever traversed past a few miles on the top
but thats wrong. and it isnt a wall, it is the shore.
There is a station literally located on the southpole
>>17713937
Hitler thought great artifacts could bring him power. That kind of mythology is right in line with flat earth. I don't think your post makes any point
>>17713915
You can't go and touch it because of the International Antarctic Treaty of 1963 signed by 50 nations barring any non-military and approved scientists from even approaching antarctica. Look it up and educate yourself why don't you.
>>17713954
good argument.
>>17713964
Thank you.
>>17713644
The Goverment doesn't have the money you cuck.
It steals the money from TAXES.
>>17713958
A lot of flat earth relies on observation. I showed you a wall, you see a shore. I say no one has traversed the entire width of the ice wall, you say we have a base on he South Pole, which ironically, isn't far from the shore at all due to the convenient shape of "Antarctica"
Flat Earthers: how does the horizon work if the earth is flat? When I go to New Orleans, I have to drive across the causeway, one of the longest continuous bridges in the world. I cannot see the skyline from the far side, but as I get closer to the city, the skyline slowly rises into view from beneath the horizon. I also can't see the far sides of the banks o the lake. If the earth was flat, this would not be the case. How can you explain this?
>>17713958
Please see
>>17713963
>>17713975
>isn't far from the shore
but it is
>>17713976
Round earthers: why isn't the horizon rounded? Why is it that no matter what the altitude, the horizon always rises to meet your eye? And always appears as a totally flat plane?
>>17713982
yeah I saw it. Its bullshit and doesnt debunk my points in the slightest
>>17713986
It's getting very tiring having to do all the googling for you.
>>17713976
The skyline doesn't rise. The horizon is always at eye level. The high structures seem to grow only because you are getting closer to them gradually. Small flat building wont be noticable from a long distance, while vertical high buildings will. That is why it seem something was hidden behind the horizon.
It wasn't - the height of the normal houses was too low to be seen from the distance where the skyscrapers appeared.
>>17713989
it doesnt
Why is there even a horizon, if the earth is flat?
>>17713992
It does actually. It shows that only a small group of people are allowed to go to the South Pole. If it existed as its claimed, anyone would be allowed to go and observe for themselves. Are you stupid or just not doing to well with the cognitive dissonance ?
>>17713995
yeah, thanks. this clearly shows bases being far from the shore
>>17713999
Why wouldn't there be a horizon on a flat earth? Bring a piece of paper to eye level. The counter points are getting stupider and stupider no offense
>>17713815
>how is WW3 a problem
Look up mutually assured destruction. Your conspiracy starts falling apart here. We were minutes away from nuclear destruction several times throughout the Cold War.
>>17713975
There are dozens of research stations in Antarctica.
Most of them are on the coast because, surprise, most of them use boats to get people and supplies back and forth.
There are also a few research stations well inland. Including one at the south pole. This station is about 600 or 700 miles away from the ocean. If the entire Ross Ice Shelf melted, it would still be about 300 miles or so from the ocean.
>>17714000
so the most likely reason that not everybody can just visit antarctica is, that the evil world government doesnt want us to touch the dome. roger
>>17714005
You said the base is at the South Pole. The South Pole is conveniently very close to one of the shores. Only a couple hundred miles. I proved my point and you have yet to say anything of value. Either you are blind or daft.
>>17713989
>no matter what the altitude, the horizon meets the eye
False. The higher you go, the more earth drops beneath you.
There are photographs of this, but you would claim they were cgi. Even though some of them pre-date cgi.
>>17714006
>Why wouldn't there be a horizon on a flat earth?
Do you know how visual perspective works? It's based on straight lines, you even use a ruler. All the 3D computer games you play are based flat earth maps.
Why do they have a horizon?
>>17714006
if the earth was flat, I could see across the ocean
>>17713989
Round earth posits a flat horizon. It is a cross section of a sphere you are standing on top of. Please explain these directly observable observations.
>>17713998
That is absolutely not what I directly see when I drive across the bridge. you see the very tops of the tallest buildings first, and they slowly rise from beyond the horizon. if it was because they wouldn't be noticeable from a long distance away, you would be able to see the entire shillouete of the skyline gradually grow more distinct. this is not what I see when I drive across the bridge. Also why would I not be able to see the banks of the lake from the bridge if the earth was flat?
Quick question to the Flat Earthers:
How big is the circumference of the Earth disc? Flat Earth Society has it listed as 72,000 miles but I know a lot of you consider that a troll site.
So has anyone calculated this?
>>17714014
Your posts have no substance. Someone earlier was saying if there's a dome, why don't we go and touch it? The fact is, if there is a dome, the entire might of NATO would be the one stopping you from seeing it.
>>17714019
buy some binoculars and go on holiday to the south of spain and look at africa
>>17714015
and the other bases? they dont really exist, right?
>>17714018
Programmers have to manually add in draw distance to create a false horizon. If they didn't put draw distance in games, you'd be able to see clear across the map until something blocked your view. We have to artificially create a horizon because they use flat maps instead of curved ones.
>>17714017
The experiments have been done countless times. I'm not going to disprove something so easily refuted by google
>>17714009
>Look up mutually assured destruction
It's not a problem when you control both sides of the conflict.
Why do all of you conspiray deniers seem so ignorant to what you are arguing against? At least try to understand what you are denying.
>>17714018
I was thinking about video games a few days ago and why nothing looks wrong with their horizons even though everything is flat
this was actually before I came to the conclusion that the earth was flat, or was even really thinking about it being flat much
>>17714018
You've failed to make a point here
>>17714026
no shit. But if the earth was flat, you could see across the atlantic ocean and shit
>>17714017
>The higher you go, the more earth drops beneath you.
No it doesn't
>>17714018
>>17714024
I don't know, I haven't checked?
>>17714028
They are close to the shore? Not deep into the width of the wall. Why couldn't they exist? Show me the mainland base above 500 miles into Antarctica
I´ve been observing this viral conspiracy of the flat earth for since it has basically begun.
And i stood in amazement with the great quality docs, explanations , presentations wtv. Really well done.
At first i put it in to the realm of possibility. Yes it is maybe possible this is all flat. But not 100% sure.
Like ALL people who believe this theory, i also started to believe it because of the final evidence that everyone uses that NASA is liar.
Yes, they lie. But not at this extent.
This explosive Flat Earth theory is the major proof of a psyop in latest times.
Yes NASA lie, but not on this, they hide a secret space program. Antartica is hidden yes, but because it´s a wall, but because there is more there than what we can imagine.
The flat earth theory is a psyop to divert attentions and further discredit conspiracy theorists.
>>17714009
>someone pays him good money for these shitty comebacks
How into masonry?
>>17713963
>The International Antarctric Treaty bars non-military and approved scientists from going to Antarctica.
The only thing the Antarctic treaties is prevent Antarctica from being used as a military testing ground for nuclear bombs and such. And they state that no country can claim Antarctica as there territory.
There is no law or treaty barring travel to Antarctica.
In fact there are tourist companies that specialize in sending people to Antarctica, and the south pole itself.
http://wikitravel.org/en/South_Pole
>>17714039
You must have good eye sight :)
>>17714044
see:
>>17713995
They are close to the shore?
no. not all of them. most of them are at the coast because of infrastructure
>>17714029
>>17714037
The horizon exists because things look smaller the greater the distance, until they turn into a line.
How little do you people understand? It's just amazing.
You can see any distance, and it looks like a line because things are so small you can't see them. With a binocular you could see any distance by magnifying the objects.
>>17714045
It´s has been implanted on the internet to cause division and confusion.
PSYOP.
>>17714040
It does. If the earth were flat, you'd be able to see Mount Everest from every point on the earth, and vice versa.
>>17714055
that has nothing to do with it
People who believe in a flat earth don't know what the fuck they're getting into. In order to posit that the earth is flat you must systematically deny almost every single principal and theory that underlies our scientific understanding of reality.
Theory of gravity? Must be adapted to fit a flat earth.
Standard Model? Must be adapted to fit a flat earth.
The entirety of modern Cosmology? Must be completely thrown out the window.
Every scientific principal or theory which derives from these theories has to be reappraised. It has far reaching implications for biology, meteorology, geology, anthropology, etc, etc. To claim the earth is flat you must reconcile your theory with all of this.
You can't say the earth is flat without virtually all of modern scientific knowledge falling apart and, to defend your flat earth theory it would fall on you to put it all back together piece by piece.
>>17714045
>yes NASA lie
Can you give me a good example of NASA lying?
>>17714062
>>17714059
>The horizon exists because things look smaller the greater the distance, until they turn into a line.
> How little do you people understand? It's just amazing.
> You can see any distance, and it looks like a line because things are so small you can't see them. With a binocular you could see any distance by magnifying the objects.
Do I have to read my own posts for you too?
>>17714059
Ok so why does the city skyline come up from beneath the lake instead of just getting bigger when I drive to New Orleans? Like, this is directly observable every day I go to and from work.
>>17714051
That's wrong. If you try to enter antarctica without some govenment's sanction then the navy of one of the fifty nations will turn you away at the border or arrest you. You cannot go to antarctica independently.
>>17714064
>People who believe in a flat earth don't know what the fuck they're getting into. In order to posit that the earth is flat you must systematically deny almost every single principal and theory that underlies our scientific understanding of reality.
None of which effects my everyday life at all. However, it does make me wonder what all those tax money are used for when the space pogram is fake.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/137867-the-best-photos-and-videos-of-felix-baumgartners-record-breaking-skydive
So what flat earthers are saying is that this is fake as well? Because in these photos you can clearly see the curvature of the earth.
>>17714068
>The horizon exists because things look smaller the greater the distance, until they turn into a line.
but thats wrong you retard. it exist because of the curvature of the earth
why would it form a line?
>>17714045
I used to beleive flat earth was a psyop until a few days ago when I actually LOOKED at the evidence
I thought it was retarded for years until I looked for my self
>>17713963
https://www.google.com/#safe=off&q=antarctic+cruises
There are fifteen separate companies that run trips to the Antarctic on the first page alone.
>>17714041
The reason I ask is thee are multiple people who have circumnavigated Antarctica.
For instance, Jon Sanders has done it multiple times - including a triple circumnavigation that took two years.
http://john.curtin.edu.au/endeavour/circumnavigation.html
His path is pic related. If the Flat Earth model were correct, then he would have had to reach and maintain speeds around 750 mph to make that trip in the time he did.
And he's still alive. He's STILL circumnavigating the Antarctic. If anyone cares, they could contact him and ask him about it.
http://www.oldsaltblog.com/2015/02/jon-sanders-sails-home-to-perth-after-ninth-circumnavigation/
Or we can look to other sporting events, such as the Vendee Globe - a yacht race around the Antarctic. Their path is in the wiki article, and again would take massive amounts of time if the FE disc were accurate. Yet the race usually takes less than 200 days.
Can anyone explain?
>>17714051
The south pole is a buried magnet.
>>17714072
That has nothing to do with anything. Why would that not be the case. THINK maybe.
>>17714080
Then you became retarded instead.
>>17714072
The water is closer to you, so it is what you see, while the other shore is beyond there point where you can distinquise anthing but a line.
>>17714081
And they are all government approved. You can't take a boat and go to antarctica and just roam as you want in any way shape or form. You can only follow the lines the particular company you are paying says you're allowed to follow.
>>17713661
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_W280R_Jt8 [Embed]
Flat earthers cant explain this
>>17714072
The buildings also come up straight up, not at any type of angle
The earth is flat as opposed to a sphere but there is still uneven terrain
>>17714082
Please explain how this direct evidence that matches a round but not flat model "has nothing to do with anything."
>>17714081
>he said she said
>>17714085
But the other shore is higher than the water. It should be up above it as a smear or something instead of the sky and water meeting.
>>17714093
that doesnt answer it. they still come up when you come closer from a lower terrain
>>17714075
No, it all affects your every day life.
The wind currents that blow your hair when you leave the house would have to be re-evaluated to explain a flat earth. How do you redraw global wind and ocean currents that make any sense on a flat earth?
The theory of gravitation which keeps you from hitting your dumb head on the ceiling would need to be re-evaluated to explain a flat earth. How do you explain the phenomenon of gravity that works alongside a flat earth?
How does a compass work on a flat earth? You'll need to re-evaluate the theory of electromagnetism, the same theory on which the computer you're using right now was assembled with.
This goes far, far beyond just seeing a flat horizon when you look out the window.
>>17714078
>but thats wrong you retard. it exist because of the curvature of the earth
>why would it form a line?
Not an argument, you're just throwing words by now.
It forms a line, because the uneven parts of the landscape are not visible from a long distance.
Even a piece of paper will look like a mountain line of looked at in a microscope, but you can't see this with your eyes alone.
When all things are smoothed out, the horizon forms a line, because the earth is flat.
BTFO
>>17713943
>how many meteorites have touched the earth
In history? Billions. In collections? Thousands. In museums that you can go and touch? Hundreds.
>show me a physical meteor that wasn't proven fake
Try your local science museum. They're very popular displays. Or maybe a local university geology department? Rock hounds love to collect them.
>Also, how easy would faking deep space probes be
It would be very, very hard. They broadcast radio waves, which you can track, and they're millions and millions of miles away.
>ever seen a pic of a planet that NASA has admitted to being an artistic rendition?
Sure, NASA. And lots of other things like National Geographic do artistic renditions of planets. Why is this a bad thing? Gives you an idea of what a planet might look like even if we haven't been there yet.
>what deep space probe
Well, Voyager 1. Voyager 2. Pioneers 10 and 11. New Horizons. Cassini. Galileo. Shit, here's a big list of them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_probes
>do you believe we went to the moon
Of course, I'm not a retard
>why hasn't a single human gone even half the distance
Well first off, I believe it's 18(?) men who went to the moon. Second, why would somebody go just halfway to the moon? There's nothing there, it's empty space?
>isn't it strange how every space agency keeps astronauts in low orbit
No. There's no need to go into a higher orbit, and going into higher orbit is impractical, you need a lot more fuel, etc.
>AN AREA ON EARTH HAS A FLAT SURFACE XDDDDDD HOLY SHIT THAT MEANS ENTIRE EARTH IS FLAT! I MEAN WHAT IS EVEN HOLDING US TO THE GROUND!
this is logic proved wrong about a century ago
BTFO flat earthers
>this is an honest days work for a mason
>>17714092
>1. All the other planets and stars are round and there is not reason to indicate that the earth is different
Earth isn't a planet.
>2. Time zones
The sun is low and small. It doesn't illuminate the whole earth are once just like you camera phone can't illuminate your whole house at once when you put it on flashlight function
>3. The coriolis effect
Is bullshit.
>Triangles walk 10,000km one way, 10,0000 another and 10,000 another you arive at the same place.
That isn't true.
>Measure the shadows
If you seek to prove the earth is a sphere like this, then you will get a measurement for the sphere. If you seek to prove the earth is flat, you will get a measurement for the sun. That doesn't prove a globe.
>The stars change north or south
Take a picture of a car. hold it above you head so the car appears upright. Then, without turning it, have someone move it behind your head. Turn aroudn and now it's upside down.
>Magellan went west and ended up in the same spot
As he would on a flat earth where the north pole is the exact center. Travel east or west in that model and you go in a complete circle.
video is dumb as shit.
>>17714115
If you don't like to argue in good faith there's another board which might be more suited to you. It starts with a 'p'...
>>17714074
I guess you better tell all those travel agencies that are sending tourists to the south pole.
Shit, they're even making travel shows about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOZpe2heDOA
>>17714082
>the south pole is a buried magnet
You're confusing the south pole with the south magnetic pole.
>>17714094
Figure it out.
>>17714112
>Something no one said
>bahahahaa yoou guys are stupid for believing this reason I just made up for you believing what you do.
>>17714119
You tell them.
>>17714121
So it's not even the magnetic south pole. It's just ice that you're told is the south pole. That's makes your viewpoint even foolisher.
>>17714097
>But the other shore is higher than the water.
That small distance between the water level and the shore won't look like anything but a line form a long distance still. For it to be visible you'd have to be looking at a highland. If there is a rise of 200 meter from the water level it can of course be seem from some distance. But if we are talking about a sea, it will still not be visible because 200 meters seen from that distance soon turns to nothing still.
It's such a small thing you're looking for.
Think about running 100 meters, then imagine a person doing this, it takes a few seconds. Can you imagine seeing the person travel this distance and see a movement from the distance you are watching this? Say he was using an elevator that moved just as fast. How close do you need to be to see it as anything at all.
There's an antenna 18 kilometers from where I live, it's a few 100 meters high and just barely visible at night, only because there is a light on top of it. The antenna itself is not visible, and the light is just above the horizon.
>>17714128
Hey dude, you clearly didn't know the difference between the geographic south pole and the magnetic south pole 30 seconds ago. Maybe it's time to do the mature thing and admit that you're out of your depth.
>>17714118
>a sand nigger nigger visiting pol
you have me mistaken
you son of a mason
>>17714122
I figured it out: it's because the earth is round. Thanks for agreeing with me!
>>17714116
>If you seek to prove the earth is a sphere like this, then you will get a measurement for the sphere. If you seek to prove the earth is flat, you will get a measurement for the sun. That doesn't prove a globe.
If you assume the suns rays are parallel, then you prove the earth is round. If you assume the sun is small and close, it could correlate to a flat earth.
Then question then becomes, are the sun's rays parallel?
And it turns out yes, yes they are. It's something that Erastothenes could show before he ever made his famous measurement.
>>17714119
>tv shows
Do you think Star Wars is evidence?
What about the very noticeable curvature of water down from the horizon on the open ocean? Why is there a horizon on the sea? Shouldn't you be able to see to the next shore?
>>17714103
Without re evaluating anything I can still fell the wind, use a compass and stand on the ground.
Theories that never explained anything to me are easy to discard. I never had the question in my mind: why is there wind? Why do things fall down? etc
When it comes to stuff falling, it's because someone dropped it. And the wind, I guess it must be spirits or wind gods. What else do you need? I don't care, never have.
>>17714142
Yeah, literally anyone who believes that the earth is flat can prove themselves wrong with two long poles, a grade school understanding of geometry, and a pleasant car drive on a sunny day.
>>17714128
It's the true pole. The axis of rotation. You can go there and set cameras up and watch the stars and sun precess around you.
In fact, because the whole thing is on a moving glacier, they have to move the pole marker every year to keep it up to date.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbEOGtf4hv8
>>17714133
Except the city isn't a small thing at all, is definitely more than 200 meters above the surface of the lake. And doesn't rise into view until you are quite close to the far shore. The bridge is 38km long.
>>17714139
You don't know what you're saying.
>>17714141
Whatever dude. You do you just leave me out of your life. I'm not an extension of you. I won't do work for you.. OR spoon feed you or answer your hypothetical questions so you can fuck right off.
>>17714142
The sun's rays are not parallel. Holy shit. I didn't even have to google anything flat earth related I just searched for "sun through the clouds." Do you believe us now?
>>17714145
No.
Do you think The Bible is evidence?
>>17714151
>When it comes to stuff falling, it's because someone dropped it.
Why does it fall down and not in any other direction?
>What else do you need? I don't care, never have.
You might not, but engineers and architects do. These are very important concepts to things as routine as building bridges or shipping things by sea or plane.
>>17714159
Did I already now that? Did you already know that? What do I know? What do you know? Who am I? Who are you? Tell me the truth.
>>17714142
WHAT??
How don't the rays go past the moon then when there is an eclipse?
The sun is much larger than the moonis "smaller", the sky should still be illuminated...
>>17714167
>The sun's rays are not parallel.
Have you ever seen a shadow of anything ever? Shadows clearly do not converge. Refraction through clouds doesn't prove that the sun is small and moves around the earth.
>>17714181
He already proved you're full of shit.
>>17714148
Perspective.
Also you can see shores from places where the curvature would make it impossible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JncjkW6ovNo
>>17713962
>Hitler thought great artifacts could bring him power.
Actually this is false. Hitler only very grudgingly joined the organization in Pre-WWI germany that did that kind of stuff, and as soon as the war broke out, diverted money and resources into engineering projects.
And the organization as a whole didn't look for artifacts to "bring power" in a literal sense; they were trying to prove that Aryans were behind many great or legendary civilizations throughout history. They weren't looking for ghost spears to kill tanks, they were looking for shreds of proof that white people ran ancient egypt instead of, y'know, egyptians.
>>17714169
No the Bible is not evidence to me...
>>17714180
I can easily answer your question but first you need to understand that the only reason you "know" the sun is bigger than the moon is because scientists told you that. These are the same scientists who say that the earth is round. Why have you specifically chosen to disregard one thing you've been told and not another?
The sun appears to be smaller in the sky than the moon so, unless you listened to a scientist and believed what they said, how would you know that the sun is larger?
>>17714091
You miss my point. First, the yachters NEVER set foot on Antarctica. They have nothing to do with governments at all.
My point is that IF Antarctica is actually a giant ice wall around a disc - then these people have sailed the ENTIRE EDGE of this disc in unbelievable times.
Look at this pic: the path of the Vendee Globe race. If the globe is round, this path is roughly 25,000 miles. The fastest that's been done is in a little over 109 days. Let's say 110 to make it simple.
So 25,000 miles in 110 days, or an average speed of about 9.5 mph. That's pretty good for a sailboat.
But if the FE model is correct - and since no one has a calculation, I'm going with the FE Society's 78,500 miles - then this yacht crew went from France to below the tip of S. America (7800 miles), then traveled 78,500 miles, then back to France, all in 110 days.
So we have 94,100 miles in 110 days. that's 36 mph. Which might not seem like much, but consider the fastest average speed over 24 hours for a sailboat is currently 37.8 knotts (roughly 43 mph), and you get the ludicrous notion that the fastest win of the Vendee Globe maintained speeds rivaling the top speed records for over 100 days nonstop.
>>17714096
The telemetry is recorded and real. Both his and the many MANY people who also have circumnavigated Antarctica.
Again - this is becoming "everyone who doesn't believe is lying and in on the conspiracy."
>>17713989
>Round earthers: why isn't the horizon rounded?
Well, it is. Because the earth is round.
>Why is it that no matter what the altitude, the horizon always rises to meet your eye?
>And always appears as a totally flat plane?
It doesn't. Have you never been on a plane? Forget proving it with geometry and shit, taking a cross-country flight will clearly show you that shit's round, yo.
Actually, there's a good question for flat earth theory -- why do 2d maps of the earth never quite line up to high-altitude aerial imagery?
Another question -- when you take a plane, why do they take curved paths from place to place if not because it's a straight line along a globe? Surely, going in a straighter line above the flat earth would save massive amounts of money on fuel and time.
>>17714142
>Then question then becomes, are the sun's rays parallel?
There's a funny thing about light. It supposedly travels in straight lines, but... it doesn't
There's an experiment that shows this. Light particles are sent at surface with 2 springs, but on the other side the light shows 3 lines.
Why does it do this? When testing this to determine how this is possible by placing detectors by the springs, the light on the other side stops being 3 lines and shows 2 lines.
BECAUSE YOU ARE WATCHING.
I don't remember if there is a name for this experiment but it's definitely legit. It's part of the argument that lead up to the Shrödinger's Cat thought experiment.
The cat is dead and alive at the same time until observation, because particles behave as line until observed, then they are observed as a point.
>>17713611
Oh fuck off no there isn't.
>>17714076
>that fisheye lens
KYS
>>17714197
I don't know the sun is larger...
I'm saying that IF the sun is large and has parralel rays then how the fuck does the moon blot it out
>>17714203
It's called the double-slit experiment. You seem to be a little fuzzy on the details but the gist is that light moves as both a particle and a wave.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
However, this is a little above the level of a bunch of flat earthers who are having trouble grasping basic geometry. Let's take this one step at a time.
>>17714162
>The bridge is 38km long.
Going by what I used as an example, that tv antenna is 331 meters high. The top light is just barely visible above the horizon from 18 kilometers.
From your 38 km it may not be visible at all. how tall are the buildings there? Very few skyscrapers are so high that they would be visible if they had lights, and consider then that buildings are not very thick. You have to actually see the things that are up there, even if they are high that may not be enough. This is also assuming there is nothing blocking your view, like trees, hills etc.
>>17714203
When the ENTIRE INTERNET is available to you, how do you get so confused
>>17714224
Because it's much further away than the moon. If you look up into the sky with your own two eyes on a day where the moon is out you can see that the sun appears to be smaller than the moon. This is because the moon is about 250,000 miles away and the sun is about 93,000,000 miles away.
With an understanding of trigonometry you could more or less figure out these same numbers completely on your own, without having to listen to any scientist.
>>17714076
An hero is born
Here you guys go!
Now we can ALL go and take a 78,000 mile trip in just 30 days! Imagine all the lovely sites you'll see as the cruise boat speeds along at a constant, 24-hour speed of 109 mph!
http://www.victory-cruises.com/antarctic_circumnavigation.html
>>17714203
>The cat is dead and alive at the same time until observation,
thats literally not the conclusion of the experiment, the famous light slit experiment is actually a high school level one that DOES prove that light travels in sensible geometric ways, and the one you're thinking of with detectors and super fine holes was to do with the physical structure of atoms, not the pathing of light
holy fuck
>>17714216
it wasn't a "conspiracy theory" at all, it was just considered to be incorrect to say, as if you had said that japan shares a land border with china.
there's honestly more "conspiracy theory" stuff concerning projection of the globe onto 2d maps -- people getting mad about the lengths of coasts on 2d maps, how it's totally a power play to make certain countries look larger or smaller than they really are, etc.
>>17714236
I know it's farther away, but the rays should be PARALLEL making the rays LARGER than the moon regardless of distance
>>17714224
>If i put my hand up i can block the sun
>my hand is bigger than the sun
Call NASA /x/ has made another discovery
>2016
>not realizing the earth is a tetrahedron
guise...
>>17714170
>Why does it fall down and not in any other direction?
Stupid question. That's like asking why up is up and down is down. Why isn't down up and left right?
This is tumblr tier. Why not start asking why men are men and not women.
>inb4 that's what gender science is doing and that's the reason society is going to shit
It's irrational to ask these things.
>>17713636
kek
>>17714240
that's the cheepest and crepiest site in a while
>>17714233
>point camera at ground
>surprised ground is there
do you even have a neck, man
tilt your head up right now
>>17714243
I dont say this often, but i hope you're on mind altering drugs
Man, these guys did it in 28 days!
>Gunnar boarded once again the icebreaker Kapitan Khlebninkov in Ushuaia last December 17, 2004. This time he has completed the Full Circumnavigation of Antarctica, sailing south of the Antarctic Circle.
>The big event this time, it was to set foot on top of the famous iceberg B15-A and to celebrate with a cold glass of champagne. The full circle was completed by disembarking in New Zealand on January 14, 2005.
Someone should really tell the Navy about the incredible speed and tech of these cruise ships. They're making the top speeds of destroyers look pathetic.
>>17714224
>I'm saying that IF the sun is large and has parralel rays then how the fuck does the moon blot it out
Hold your hand up to your face. How can your hand, such a tiny object, blot out the sun?
>>17714254
Oops, forgot link.
http://www.antarcticacruises.com.ar/english/we.html
>>17714244
but you can't block out the fucking LIGHT can you????
When the """"small"""" moon blocks the sun the WHOLE sky becomes dark
when you block the sun with your hand it's still light outside you fucking troll
>>17714243
No, this isn't how geometry works friend.
Things that are further away have a smaller apparent size. When things move further away their apparent size decreases, which allows closer, but smaller, objects to occlude them.
>>17714263
it's light outside because of the reflections of sunlight you aren't blocking. If the whole earth is in shadow, like in an eclipse, there is nothing to reflect. The moon doesn't "turn off" the sun. It just blocks our view of it essentially. Not sure what you're not grasping
>>17714243
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS12p0Zqlt0
>>17714263
This is because the atmosphere diffuses the light of the sun. The sun's rays hit the atmosphere and it scatters it around, just like how if you shine a flashlight or a laser pointer into a glass of water the light gets scattered around.
The moon casts a shadow over a large portion of the earth, so a large amount of light is blocked. Your hand only casts a shadow on your face.
>>17714269
I know it blocks out view, because they are close to each other and a similar size
>>17714247
>Why not start asking why men are men and not women.
But that's an incredibly good question. Men are not women because of a whole host of factors having to do with the development of a child in a mother's womb, stemming from the fact that we reproduce sexually as a species. Genetics, and shit.
Why are men men and women women? Why are snails both? Why are amoebas neither? These are real questions with real answers rooted in physics and chemistry.
>>17714263
Good news, I've reverse engineered your confusion. The missing link in your understanding is that the ENTIRE earth is not dark during a solar eclipse, just the portion covered by the moon's shadow. I understand what you mean about the "parallel rays" not being completely blocked by the small moon, and that is correct. Solar eclipse is a localized phenomenon, and people will travel around the world to observe them
>>17714281
Now you're just saying "no, you're wrong."
We're trying to *explain* to you how an eclipse works and you are saying "no, you're wrong."
If you don't want to have a discussion, you shouldn't ask questions on a discussion board.
>>17714254
>>17714259
>>17714240
I don't understand your argument. 109mph is pretty fast for a boat, but it's not exactly impossible. I don't know how long the seaways are around antarctica and have a bad sense of scale with imperial measurements. Are you saying it's too long, or too short, or what? Spoonfeed me, here
>>17714167
It's not a hypothetical question, dude. I literally see it with my eyes every day when I go to work. If you have some way to explain it, I'd be glad to hear it.
>>17714273
I know but the RAYS are still Parllel
>>17714293
>the city of me
This is the only explanation that understood my point, thanks
>>17714281
No they arent.
You can use your thumb to block a distant skyscraper from your vision. The sun is millions of times larger and thousands of times farther away than the moon.
>>17714282
No, men are man because that's the definition of the word. Women are women because the word means what it does.
But some people who want to confuse people are trying to destroy language itself, to create a language where only their own definition is allowed.
Ring a bell?
A "woman" is now possibly a man who chooses to call himself just that. Can this be ok? No it can't.
Words mean what they do, and trying to destroy logic and reason by changing the meaning of words is one of the vilest tactics used to confuse people.
Why do things "fall" to the ground?
Why do they not "fall" up?
Because "falling" means to move towards the ground. You can't fall up, that would be called "flying".
It's a sinister thing, what you are trying to do.
>>17714293
an example of this is when scientists wanted to test Einstein's conjecture about gravity bending light, they had to observe the stars behind the sun during a solar eclipse which involved a great deal of planning and TRAVELLING depending on where the eclipse would be seen
>>17714303
Do you realize that the only reason you can see any object is because that object is emanating (reflected) light rays? The sun isn't any different from a cow in this respect.
>>17713539
I dont understand why a space program couldnt exist under flat earth theory. No reason for nasa to lie about round earth.
>>17714180
Most of the suns rays do go past the moon.
That's why the a solar eclipse casts a shadow on just a part of the earth. People on other parts of the earth see only a partial eclipse, or no eclipse at all.
On the other hand, during a lunar eclipse, the entire moon is covered by earths shadow, as the earth is much larger than the moon.
>>17714311
I-- what
You appear to be confusing words with the things they actually reflect.
It doesn't matter what sounds we make or symbols we use to describe that things fall down; they still fall down. And that they behave in this manner is very important to how we design, build, and move things. Understanding reality is very important to predicting it, so that we may work and play effectively.
What about this are you not grasping?
>>17714314
his whole point is that the moon can't block the sun across the whole earth unless it's larger than the earth and he is correct. it is smaller than the earth and therefore it does not put the whole earth in shadow
>>17714234
Shouldn't they be visible if they had lights no matter the distance? Also, on some days you can see the city from further away. Round earth says this is due to atmospheric lensing, which requires specific conditions and makes the city look wavy, like a mirage, before t becomes actually visible. Also, like I've said before, when you drive across, the skyline comes up from underneath. It does not resolve uniformly from a straight line. There are no hills and valleys. It's a bridge over water with level streets on the far side.
>>17714328
thank you :)
>>17714324
>No reason for nasa to lie about round earth.
This. There's still an "up" direction, and visible objects outside of earth to go shoot rockets at.
And even if NASA is lying about it, why don't european or canadian or chinese or japanese space agencies say anything about the earth being flat? There's also tons of private companies that launch satellites for aerial imagery; why haven't any of them revealed that all their data suggests that the earth is flat? There's even private spacefaring corporations now; why haven't any of them gone "shits flat senpai"? Or even people like private pilots or shipping companies; surely one of them would have noticed by now that they don't need to yaw gently to get a curved path from airport to airport to get there the fastest; wouldn't the fastest way along a flat earth be to go in a straight line? Why do pilots and sailors curve their crafts, then?
>>17713631
No, John, you are the aliens.
>>17714296
>109mph is pretty fast for a boat, but it's not exactly impossible.
A constant speed of 109 mph for 24 hrs a day for 30 days? And this is supposed to give tourists a nice, scenic cruise? That sounds plausible to you?
I'm saying the trips around Antarctica would be impossible in the times given if the distance was as long as a FE model predicts.
Look at the comparison here. One of these paths says a sailboat held an average speed of 9 mph to complete. That includes whenever they had to stop for rest or repair or whatever. The other path says the sailboat had an average speed of over 30 mph. Average speed.
And again, doesn't sound like much, but here's the vid of the same type of sailboat breaking the record in 2008 for fastest average speed in 24 hrs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6eCjBCEdMs
His average speed? 20 mph.
>>17714345
>no reason
>>17713644
Don't argue with delusional morons, it's a waste of effort. They've decided their unfounded claim is correct, and silly things like "evidence" are elaborate hoaxes to mislead the sheeple.
>>17714354
Pretty sure he stopped arguing as soon as he got the answer for his question.
>>17713744
Invisible magic, mysterious ways, et-fucking-cetera.
>>17714311
Completely off topic but since I'm a logophile:
"Fall" has lots of meanings and directions associated with it.
You can fall in, fall out, fall away, fall toward, and GUESS WHAT?!? People have decided that yes - you can absolutely fall up things.
fall up
The act of tripping or falling up something. Usually it pertains to tripping on stair steps or other vertically aligned structures.
Here's a video describing what "falling up" looks like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AXZ8nYZrSw
>>17714351
>A constant speed of 109 mph for 24 hrs a day for 30 days? And this is supposed to give tourists a nice, scenic cruise? That sounds plausible to you?
Look man, I believe the earth is round and fuck if I followed any of the garbage links ITT.
I'm just saying that it's actually not outside the realm of possibility for a boat to go 109mph, remain comfortable, and maintain visual watch on things. If the sea state isn't too bad and your ship is very large (as most cruise ships are) you can go pretty darn fast and chill out just fine.
>>17714363
What is even your argument anymore? Are you insisting that things can't fall, or that it's possible to fall "up" because gravity isn't real due to stairs or something?
Are you autistic, schizophrenic, or just a stupid hick?
>>17714366
>not outside the realm of possibility
It's absurd, so we can dismiss it.
>>17714372
OK. I was just wondering what you were getting at. It wasn't clear that your figures were coming from this ice wall theory; I figured you could have just as easily meant that antarctica is too large on a conventional map to circumnavigate, so the people who say they did were liars or something. That the speeds presented are impressive but not actually impossible just furthered my confusion.
>>17714366
http://www.cruisemapper.com/wiki/762-fastest-cruise-ship-speed
>The Cunard's Transatlantic liner rms Queen Mary 2 weights almost 151,500 tons, with cruising speed of over 29 knots (33,5 mph, or 54 kmh).
That is the fastest cruise ship in the world. 33 mph.
The listed top speed of a Navy Destroyer is 40 mph (though I bet that's less than half what they can really put out).
109 mph is INSANELY fast on the water. And to say a boat kept that speed constantly for 24 hrs for a month is beyond stupid.
ITT: Gravity is magnets and we live in a magic dome that God and the Illuminati keep us from finding out about
>>17714370
My argument was predicated by the first sentence. It had nothing to do with the Flat Earth shit.
Anon was lamenting how people misuse words, and gave "you can't fall up" as an example. I showed how you can fall in lots of directions, including up. Because that's the beauty of a living language.
>>17714374
Flat earth have this model of the earth where the north pole is at the center, and antarctica, instead of being a continent, is this huge ring that goes all the way around the circumference of the map.
So irl Antarctica is fairly easy to circumnavigate (minus heavy seas, etc.) But according to the flat earth model, it would be ridiculously absurd to circumnavigate it in a timely manner.
>>17713387
How do the flat earth idiots explain how sunset is different in Miami than it is in New York?
>>17714377
>gravity is magnets
If this is true, how come you can't turn something upside down and make it go flying up in the air?
Magnets both attract and repel, depending on the pole. Gravity only attracts.
>>17714384
Gravity is the mythic magnetic monopole. Duh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole
>>17714382
How do the ball earth idiots explain how the atmosphere doesn't get sucked out by the infinite vacuum of space?
>>17714388
Fair enough. But then why do objects with no magnetic field fall toward the earth?
>>17714384
I'm mocking the idiot who said that it's electromagnetism, and not gravity, that keeps us on the ground.
>>17714379
Are you false-flagging yourself? You can only "fall up" in that you fall while moving up. You still go downward during the maneuver.
>>17714391
gravity
>>17714391
Gravity. The air has mass. It's attract to the earth the same way water is and rock is.
It's why the atmosphere has any air pressure at all. All those air molecules trying to get close to the earth. In fact, it's the reason why air pressure is greater at sea level than it is up high on a mountain.
On the other hand, if gravity weren't the explanation, and there were a dome holding it in, then air pressure would be the same at all elevations.
>>17714391
Centrifugal force, dipshit, also helps that space doesn't "suck" anything.
Why the fuck has this thread reached 300 posts? What the fuck are you doing?
People. The Earth is a sphere. It's obvious. You cannot win an argument with a Flat Earther because they are actually crazy. They refuse to accept basic scientific facts. They deny ALL photos taken of the Earth as lies.
You cannot win an argument against an idiot.
So why bump this to 300 posts?
>>17714392
It's not fair at all. Recognize sarcasm. Gravity works nothing like electromagnetism.
>>17714400
The physical motion is irrelevant. I am responding to this:
>Words mean what they do
and this
>You can't fall up
And I have clearly shown that you absolutely can "fall up."
I can't believe this is even a topic for discussion! How fucking STUPID are you?
Get a grip on reality you FUCKING MONGOLOIDS
>>17714413
I don't expect to win an argument with a flat earther, but I think sometimes it's fun to watch them flail. I don't think they're technically crazy, just very stupid and with some bad personality issues.
>>17714380
If we went by the "ring of ice around the edge" model, it would be literally impossible to circumnavigate.
>>17714421
>"fall up."
If you're an idiot who doesn't understand context of words
"fall up" doesn't mean you're not moving downward in some sense, it means you fell as part of an action where you should have gone up something, and didn't BECAUSE YOU FUCKING FELL
>>17714424
This is /x/. Where aliens built the pyramids and contrails are evil secret chemicals.
>>17714429
Is there a nautical term for sailing around the interior circumference of something? I wouldn't think so, but I hope you got what I meant.
>>17714404
>he fell right into my trap
amazing how the centrifugal force is equal along the equator (where the spin is much faster) to anywhere else on earth :^)
>>17714413
This is /x/ we like to speak with crazy people, we call them friends.
>>17714430
Alright, let's dig deeper.
If I go from standing to prone on Earth - voluntarily or not - I have fallen down.
If I go from standing to prone on the Moon - have I fallen up or down?
In the first case, my head has gone from further to closer to the surface of the Earth. In the second, my head has gone from closer to further away from the surface of the Earth.
Is "down" in completely opposite directions, or is one of these cases falling up?
>>17714413
>all photos
there aren't even many official photos that aren't composites
last time I checked there weren't even 10 that weren't composites
the ones that I've seen all contradict each other
>>17714444
those doubles
>>17714444
Checked!
>>17713387
>flat earth theory
Oh my. I do think I landed in just the right thread.
>>17714421
>Gravity works nothing like electromagnetism.
kek. u wot m8? are you certain?
>you absolutely can "fall up."
u wot again mate? the anon you replied to is a dipshit, but..
>fall up
No. Don't argue with idiots, dude.
As for gravity and em, their effects are quite similar. "works nothing like" is wrong. Again, you're arguing with idiots. Don't. You'll end up an idiot.
>>17714424
At least it isn't another "AAAAAAH, SOMETHING IS SPELLED DIFFERENTLY THAT I REMEMBERED IT!" thread.
>>17714458
>are you certain?
Quite.
>u wot again mate?
The vid is still in the post. Go watch people fall up.
>As for gravity and em, their effects are quite similar.
>Don't argue with idiots, dude.
Taking your advice, I shall not pursue this any further.
>>17714424
get over yourself, as a Flat Earther I feel people are at least being civil in this thread as opposed to youtube
>>17714454
Do you think all photos that show a spherical earth are lies?
>>17714455
Those trips
>>17714454
What's wrong with composite photos?
You can put together composite photos of things and they're still quite real.
>>17714467
If they weren't lies they would match up to each other and not have evidence of blatant clone tool use on them
>>17714458
>quite certain?
Not him, but it's pretty obvious to anybody who has studied either.
The earth was proved round by the Ancient Greeks, and since then has been agreed as true.
So for thousands of years, literally hundreds of thousands of people who work in Physics, Astrology, Geology, Satellites, Private Space Companys, Explorers and government worker have all kept quiet about what would be the largest discovery ever, and for what reason? How has the almighty powers that be hidden this information but not countless other discoveries?
>>17714484
Astronomy* fuck
>>17713387
>evidence
Ha! As if.
What if I told you the Earth was both round and flat?
>>17714220
And so.
>>17714475
>they would match up with each other
You're probably referring to composite images from satellites which do distort the sizes of continents and the curvature of the earth due to various photographic reasons. Most satellites do not go high enough to get a good shot of the earth in a single frame.
Those few spacecraft that do go high enough get some pretty great pictures. This famous one, for example, from Apollo 17. Keep in mind, this photo was taken before Adobe photoshop existed. There are many reprints, with different levels of color saturation, and so on, but the photo is quite legit.
>>17714484
Obviously, the ancient Greeks were in on the conspiracy.
Who else thinks that there'll still be flat-earthers around once commercial space flight is a thing? I find that mental image hilarious.
>>17714502
Yes, those would be one of the composite images from a low orbit satellite that I mentioned.
>>17714496
>>17714518
Page froze. 1/2 NASA says this image is stitched together from pictures from several satellites over several months. It's photoshopped though, not composited. Cloned. Owned.
>>17714513
That will never happen.
>>17714531
And? These things happen when you make composite images.
>>17714329
>It doesn't matter what sounds we make or symbols we use to describe that things fall down; they still fall down. And that they behave in this manner is very important to how we design, build, and move things. Understanding reality is very important to predicting it, so that we may work and play effectively.
>What about this are you not grasping?
There is no need to ask "why do things fall to the ground?"
It's enough to see that it happens and act accordingly.
If you want to call this "gravity", ok, but there is no need to go and explain anything. It doesn't help anyone with anything.
Why are men and women drawn to each other? This is called sexuality. There is no need to understand anything more than that.
Label it and use it. Everything else is either confused and irrational or a scheme meant to confuse and obscure.
I'm not a muslim but they have this part right. Modern science is carving into fish to study them, but why? All you need to study is the Quran, just cook the fish and eat it.
I'm not saying you should study the Quran specifically, that is up to you, but in principle this is right on.
>>17713591
It'd actually be moving very slowly. How high is the highest you can bounce on a trampoline? The time it takes you to return to the ground measures the velocity of the Earth. You seems to have confused general relativity's notion of acceleration for the old idea of velocity.
>>17714116
>That isn't true.
It can be! With the right series of gates, of course.
>>17714142
>If you assume the suns rays are parallel
>what is "gravity" (per general relativity)?
And if we don't assume that? Science already says gravity can warp light's path, so why can't we assume that light bends in any number of situations?
>>17714263
>the sun the WHOLE sky becomes dark
Except it doesn't. The light may get dimmer but it won't become outright dark the same way the night is dark.
>>17714235
>ENTIRE INTERNET
Don't flatter yourself; navigating this nightmare is no simple task.
>>17713751
I think you accidentally a verb there.
>>17714244
>Went outside and did this
>Put my hand on my dick
>Same size
My dick is bigger than the sun, guys.
>>17714337
>the skyline comes up from underneath
No, it can't do that. The horizon IS ALWAYS at eye level. What you are seeing is the relative distance to far away object shorting, making it look like they moved away from the horizon downward, or the horizon moving up. The only thing moving is you. The horizon is in itself a relative concept, it is not the same object or place, it keeps moving in front of you when you move forward, keeping the distance even.
The distance to the horizon is always the same, you can never catch up with it, it can't rise or sink.
Even if you climb a hill or mountain, or use a balloon, you are never looking down on the horizon.
What you are talking about lies in your perception of it.
Is the bridge flat? Or does it rise? Something is making you think you are facing a direction parallell to the ground when you are actually lookin a bit upward, that may create an illusion of looking down at the horizon.
>>17714537
Says you.
>>17713422
>hollow Earth theory
Ugh. Hollow Earth is just another fiction meant to conceal the truth about The Flat Earth.
>>17713423
The moon is hollow. It's also not a(n organic) moon.
>>17713429
Geothermal life is no myth.
>>17713438
>liars
Be careful anon; the most deceptive liars learn to tell the truth.
>>17713454
>What would anyone gain by that?
A discrete sense that the world is finite.
It's an attack on free will and the freedom of belief.
>>17713464
>manipulate evidence
Oh no no. People are just stupid.
Rarely is scientific evidence ever directly changed.
>>17713456
Inside-out Earth would necessarily illuminate the entire surface of the Earth at once. (Unless you build a sort of reverse-Dyson-sphere to maintain a day/night schedule.)
>>17714363
>fall up
>The act of tripping or falling up something. Usually it pertains to tripping on stair steps or other vertically aligned structures.
Twisting words to confuse further. At least you guys are consistent, you just confirmed what I said. Ruining language and using tricks to turn right into wrong.
What your argument Newton should have asked "why do apples fall down and people fall up or down?" Must be because of an incostent force that can't be called gravity becaue you can fall in conflictin directions.
Great you just debunked your own argument, gravity isn't real.
>war is peace
>freedom is slavery
>ignorance is strength
>>17714553
>And if we don't assume that? Science already says gravity can warp light's path, so why can't we assume that light bends in any number of situations?
Well yes, gravity can bend light. And the earth's gravity is not nearly strong enough to bend the light in any measureable degree in order alter Erastaothenes results.
>>17714404
>Centrifugal force,
Right. Have you ever tried to put something on a wheel and set it spinning?
Do things get pulled into the middle?
How do you think centrifugal force works in a washing machine? By pusing the laundry into the middle of it? Why don't we put clothes on the outside of a cylinder and set it spinning to dry them?
Centrifugal force would make everything fall off the earth at once unless we nail it to the ground it would make things move away from the ground.
Jeez, you people
Sorry but I'm not dropping this:
Listed top speeds of US Navy ships:
battleship - 35 knots
nuclear aircraft carrier - "excess of 30 knots"
destroyer - 30 knots (Fletcher class in WW2 could do 36 knots)
nuclear sub - 20 knots on surface, claimed top speed of 25 knots submerged, estimated true top speed approx. 30-35 knots
Sailboat records:
2008 fastest sailboat in the world - 47+ knots top speed, record set at 42 knots
2008 Open 60 24 speed record - 18 knots
The new record set in 2013 for the Vendee Globe race was 78 days, 2 hrs.
If the FE model holds, then this boat sailed 94,100 miles in 1874 hours. That would mean an average speed of 44 knots.
So this boat - which was only 3 hrs ahead of the next boat - was either traveling at a constant speed over the fastest record set 5 years ago for about three months. Or it was sometimes traveling at speeds far exceeding this world record.
>>17714621
Where are you getting the 78,000 miles from? Is that the alleged length of the circumference of the flat earth in their model?
>>17713582
>which already has the money
I'd like to see evidence of this. Taxation is cancer if you don't know where it goes.
>>17714628
No FE mathematicians wanted to try their hand at calculating the circumference, and I don't care enough so I looked on the FE society website.
It's not that hard to calculate unless you think the distance between the poles is a lie.
C = 2r(pi)
= 2(12430)(pi)
= 78099.993...
= 78,100 miles
I am then adding in the distance between France and Cape Horn for the Vendee World Cup, as the race begins in France, goes to the Cape, then travels around Antarctica, then back to France. From the city it starts to Cape Horn is roughly 7800 miles.
So 7800 to get from France to Cape Horn, then 78,100 to travel around the Antarctic wall, then another 7800 back to France.
Actually, I suppose I should be using 93,700 for my calculations, but then the speeds get even sillier.
>>17714636
This makes no sense.
The whole premise is that NASA is a government lie to get money. But the money NASA gets is FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
Now you ask if taxes go to the government? Even if that were false, it wouldn't matter because that would simply mean the money the govt. gives NASA isn't being taken from you.
>>17714345
NASA had been as fooled as anyone else has. It's an attack on free will but it isn't human in origin for once.
>>17713552
Can't have reality bleeding out now can we?
>>17713615
Because free will matters.
>>17713627
It's magic, after all.
Look, the most recent winner of the Vendee Globe had his trip all logged and you can read about it.
http://www.thedailysail.com/offshore/13/63828/0/francois-gabart-wins-the-2012-3-vendee-globe
>During the race MACIF sailed 28,646.55 miles at an average speed of 15.3 knots (the direct route for the race is theoretically 24,393 miles). This compares with Michel Desjoyeaux's 'real' average speed of 14.02 knots, Foncia having sailed 28,303 miles.
>Longest distance covered in 24 hours: 10 December, 545 miles at an average speed of 22.7 knots.
>Days spent leading the race: 44 days 20 hours
Les Sables to Equator: 11 days 00 hours 20 min (Jean Le Cam’s 2004-2005 record: 10 days 11 hours 28 min)
>Equator to Good Hope: 12 days 03 hours 25 min (JP Dick’s record: 12 day 02 hour 40min)
>Good Hope to Cape Leeuwin: 11 days 06 hours 40 min (new record)
>Cape Leeuwin to Cape Horn: 17 days 18 h 35mn (new record)
>Cape Horn to Equator: 13 days 19 hours
Equator to Les Sables: 12 days 01 hour 37 minutes
So either the winners, the rest of the competitors, the race creators and everyone involved in this endeavor is completely lying about it. And have successfully continued the lie for 28 years.
Or the Antarctic is NOT a giant ice wall stretching around the edge of a disc.
>>17713682
>is example of light cooling
>Completely unrelated
That's not how logic works.
>>17713680
If you track down the source of all posts that say that exact phrase, you can actually find and nullify the one entity responsible for all shill behavior on /x/. That anon will also be the one that spams so many reports that the mods end up deleting legit paranormal topics.
>>17713670
They've all been destroyed.
>>17713684
>the edge of the world?
That's the greatest myth ever told.
>>17713697
>middle
>center
Centerists don't help matters.
>>17713702
>does it go on for infinity?
Have you ever been to the ocean's edge?
Why do you think pirates fill your story books?
>>17713805
>INB4just a cliff
>INB4there's no bottom so we can't conclude that there is no bottom
>INB4fake and gay
>INB4shils invent new (wrong) explanation to discredit the video
>INB4mods delete it because they couldn't into belief
We already know your answer, anon.
>>17713843
First clip is CGI. I don't know where the other clips come from, but if it's NASA official then that's kind of a problem.
>>17713885
Blatant post corruption evident. Also note how few replies that post got.
>>17714713
>apples and oranges are both fruit
>therefore apples and oranges are the same thing
I'm sorry, but no. You can use lasers to force cooling in certain objects under certain conditions. Technically the lasers heat the object first, putting it in a state where it's more conducive to cooling on a quantum mechanical scale.
That is wholly different from moonlight cooling things.
>have you ever been to the ocean's edge?
Yes, we call it a "beach"
Not to mention the Vendee Globe isn't the ONLY race around Antarctica. It's simply the most grueling because it is solo, non-stop, and unassisted.
Here's the Volvo Ocean Race, where everyone involved needs to lie about the distance from Aukland to Cape Horn.
>>17713843
>who's moving his helmet?!
He is? With his neck?
And the Velux 5 Oceans Race. They claim this route is only 30,000 miles, those dirty NGO co-conspirators.
And the Clipper Round the World Yacht Race. Since this race spends half the time in the Northern Hemisphere, I suppose we can forgive these sailors for not noticing three legs of their journey take 3-5 times longer than what their navigational maps tell them.
>>17713906
By going there yourself. Only seeing is believing.
>>17713931
>undermines the idea of faith and belief
No, just faith. Belief isn't what you think it is.
>>17714035
>>17714029
>>17714018
>>17714006
>>17713989
>>17713976
Your eyes are round. Play with your peripherals a bit if you want to see the fisheye effect in action.
>>17714019
>if the universe was filled with empty space
>we could just see across it
Distance is still a thing.
>>17714017
CGI is rarely the culprit.
>>17714202
>save massive amounts of money on fuel and time
Maybe, just maybe, planes don't go all that fast. But because altitude warps space, as you would expect of any hyperbolic geometry, their distance is lessened significantly, making the journey short.
What makes you think the lines you draw on your maps have any bearing on the actual reality on the ground? You can't flatten non-Euclidean spaces.
>>17713998
I kind of expected the response you got there.
>>17714025
>the entire might of NATO would be
Your fear of the idea stops you more effectively than any international treaty ever could. The reality is that most people don't actually care to explore it.
Whether it be the internet, Google, or the world in front of you, few will ever explore its depth. So few ever really care what they believe about the world.
>>17714020
>if the earth was flat?
Mountains aren't an argument against flat Earth theory, and for the same reason, the lake might be able to bulge in the middle for ~reasons we don't yet fully understand~.
But who can believe that such a reason might ever exist just beyond the periphery of our 'knowledge'?
(I'm not saying you should believe flat Earth, round Earth, hollow Earth, inside-out Earth or anything else. Your beliefs are your own, much as your experiences themselves are.)
>>17714753
>most people don't actually care to explore it
I'm sure most people don't care about going to antarctica.
But anybody who went there and found the dome of the sky would prove every scientist for thousands of years wrong and would get the nobel prize and become rich and famous.
And there are tons of people who want to be rich and famous.
They don't do it because it's not there.
>>17714024
>the Earth disc?
>centrists still think there's a core
Disc theory is the lesser form of the round Earth. It gives the same exact sense of circular finiteness, and while it lessens the effects of the attack on free will, it doesn't do anything to stop the damage already in place.
Earth, like all else, is a hyperbolic surface. Not in the sense of hyperbole, but in the mathematical sense of the term. If anything that isn't physics is ever able to achieve even the slightest bit of sway in the reality equation, then physical reality loses the structure of its own meaning.
It's all about free will and infinite possibility.
>>17714062
>not if other mountains are in the way
It's like you don't think distance is a thing in the flat Earth models.
>>17714083
>became retarded
But anoooon, if retardation is contagious then how do we know oppressed minorities aren't suffering from biopsychic warfare? It seems to me that no matter how you try to interpret reality, the government is trying to control everything using a variety of different types of violence. Now why could that be?
>>17714067
Best to make a thread about it if you really care to learn the truth. The Flat Earth extends far beyond the trite trivialities of a meager government organization. I'd like to see these threads discuss actual metaphysics at some point.
>>17714337
>atmospheric lensing
>requires specific conditions
>the city look wavy, like a mirage
>before t becomes actually visible
This is due to the properties of light, not the properties of relative flatness. Questions about the nature of light have nothing to do with flat Earth theory except insofar as flat Earth theory disagrees with round Earth theory on the matter.
If this were a round Earth theory thread, the properties of light would be relevant. But it's not so they aren't.
>>17714064
>our scientific understanding of reality
There is no such thing. Any rational scientist... No even /sci/entists will tell you that we don't know everything there is to know. True researchers exist only because they know exactly where the gaps in human understanding are. Science is the pursuit of that which we have yet to understand, not a new method of dictating dogma. Even flat Earth can be scientifically pursued, so long as you follow the scientific method. /sci/ has their share of these threads too.
>Every scientific principal or theory which derives from these theories has to be reappraised
It's a good thing that you actually recognize this. Yes, that it precisely how science works. When it fails to predict things, it throws everything back in the wringer for reappraisal.
>>17714064
>it would fall on you to put it all back together piece by piece
No, it falls on science to process all of that. Trying to shove it onto each individual in turn is the very form of abuse that I sought to erase when I gave you the scientific method. Learn to use it or leave. We don't need a new belief system if nobody has a preference about the shape of the world to begin with.
Science that can't admit fault is not science. It's a farce perpetuated by fools who don't know humility to be a scientific principle.
>>17714075
You should know where your tax money goes no matter who represents you. Failure to be know the properties of your tax infrastructure is a direct way to attack the planet. Every time your pay taxes, it means that some reality becomes doomed in that very moment. Every king throughout history shows this abuse to be standard practice when citizens aren't given a full understanding of their economic local infrastructure.
>>17714103
>wind currents
Perpetual motion.
You may have heard of an up-and-coming new way to develop FREE energy call wind farming. This is an obvious choice for any thinking, rational being. Such as is apparent by the fact that farmers used to have these things called WIND MILLS.
GEE, WHO COULD MAKE MONEY FROM THIS?
Are you going to tell me wind mills are a myth too?
>>17714091
As much as I don't want to denigrate their work, I'd challenge anyone here to maintain their sense of direction in the middle of the ocean. Take a cruise some time, try it out. You can't pay a company to give you the truth when they make more money by hiding it from you. I'm not saying that's the case in terms of this particular project, but not all journeys lead to the real paths.
>>17714122
>dubs
>>17714141
>fairy dubs
Try to avoid responding to people that refuse to be a party to the discussion at hand. These attempts to pose as different sides of the debate are terrible.
>>17714167
>I won't do work for you.. OR spoon feed you or answer your hypothetical questions
Then leave this board forever and never return. We don't need false pretense, pretense of truth, or any of the unconstructive shitposting you've offered us.
>>17714297
That anon is clearly trying to stir shit via pretense. They have nothing to offer you and there's no need to be polite to them. They do not represent anyone on any side of anything, flat, round, or otherwise.
>>17714200
>since no one has a calculation
That's not how logic works. You can't refute some model by supplying made up data and showing that the (partially) calculated result is amazing. It's nonsense science and you know this.
Additionally, the disc model is wrong too. It's all a hyperbolic surface. Consult /sci/ on hyperbolic geometry if you're unfamiliar with the idea.
>France to below the tip of S. America (7800 miles)
As measured by what map? A round Earth map or a flat Earth map? Again, seeding the equations with wrong data will produce wrong results. Don't be alarmed by wrong results but don't use them in your arguments either.
>that's 36 mph
>fastest average speed over 24 hours for a sailboat
>37.8 knotts (roughly 43 mph)
Then that's 36/43rds within the realm of possibility.
>>17714200
>everyone who doesn't believe is lying
No. The point of that post was that hearsay isn't a valid source, regardless of the beliefs of everyone who participated in the circuit. It's like a big game of telephone; anyone can ruin the game at any point.
>>17714382
Different how? I'm not exactly going to poof myself through time just to check on what some random anon was saying.
>>17714937
If you really wanted to, you could carry a compass to keep your sense of direction. And you could add a watch and a sextant to measure your exact location, provided you're paranoid enough to think gps systems are in on the conspiracy.
No need to rely on the company if you don't want to.
>>17714966
>different how
Well according to this model:
>>17714351
The sun would never set, and a person any where on earth would have a clear line of sight to it at any time.
>>17714413
>cannot win an argument against an idiot
Yes... You can. That's what separates the wheat from the chaff. If you can't reason with someone well enough to get them to see the flaws in their logic, then you aren't very intelligent. Chances are you're screaming authoritative nonsense as if there is some reason to believe a random anon. There is no such reason and you have no such authority.
>>17714426
And you should know better than to think everyone from a given belief system has the same psyche. Belief systems are not hive minds.
>>17714421
>Gravity works nothing like electromagnetism
There goes any hope for a unified field theory. But, yes, you're right. (Except when the magnets share proximity and polar alignment.)
>>17714453
>have I fallen up or down?
Depends on which side of the moon you were on.
>>17714424
>a grip on reality
Don't mind if I do...
>>17714435
>are evil secret chemicals
>what was "DDT"?
>secret
>>17714435
>the interior circumference
In geometry there's inscribing and circumscribing, so... Innavigation?
>>17714484
Get a catalog of discoveries and ask yourself how each of them robs the mass of their free will. You'll find a lot of reasons.
>>17714496
How high are those clouds?
>>17714513
It's a certainty. This is what happens when you get your economy out of alignment.
>>17714502
>has a shine on the front
That's not how planetary optics works.
>>17714531
Source of that image?
>>17714539
Show source images and composition algorithm or don't bother explaining what's arbitrarily "possible."
Photoshop exists too, so the question is which type of software made that image, not whether or not it's the result of stitching composites together.
>>17714543
Practicality falters when applied to the living. They are well within their right to decide how they ought to react.
>>17714609
I meant that in a more hypothetical sense. If the model science created says that light can bend under such and such force, then why can't other models exists where light bends under such and such conditions? If gravity can do it, then why not anything else? If the argument that the Earth is round depends entirely on rays of sunlight always being perfectly parallel, and that model of a round Earth is then used to tell a grand tale of a system of orbiting bodies, and then Mercury and Einstein get together to decide that light must bend for the observed orbital velocity of Mercury to make sense per Newtonian astrophysics, then why not reverse that chain of reasoning all the way back to before we assumed the Earth was round based on the apparent but false notion that light rays never bend?
Science accepts that Newton's model was wrong, so why not reject the ideas that caused Newton to get it wrong in the first place? Why regress by the one factor when a hypothesis chain breaks? Why not reassess the entire chain of hypotheticals?
>>17714620
That was obviously a troll. Don't let the bait deceive you; some people actually believe round Earth is a self-consistent model.
>>17714621
>If the FE model holds, then this boat sailed 94,100 miles in 1874 hours.
No, if the DISC model holds, then the boat sailed some distance we don't necessarily know based on a round Earth map. Using measures from conflicting models of reality will generally produce weird results.
I'm not saying you should drop it or anything else. I'm just saying your logic isn't sound if your logic was meant to apply to reality modeling.
>>17714628
Alleged length of the ice wall in the DISC model.
>>17714662
>calculating the circumference
You can only calculate the size of the Earth under the round Earth model. Outside of the Earth being a sphere, you'd need to do an actual survey over the entire surface of the Earth to get a measure of any Earth-sized body. We can't just make one up because you want to perform a speed calculation.
>>17714677
Nobody has ever lied to the government to get money out of it. Right???
>>17714710
>for 28 years
I've seen lies that stood centuries. All it takes is a single fool who won't give up their beliefs. Trick the right person and the rest will fall in line. An honest lie can go a long way. Especially if an honest type believes it.
Granted, I'm not saying their voyage was founded on a lie or that they didn't travel the distance they think they traveled.
>>17714727
>therefore apples and oranges are the same thing
But they are; they're both fruit. Just like you and I are both "the same thing" in being conscious, able bodied organisms. What you mean to say is that apples and oranges lack continuity of being, which you and I also lack or we'd have the same thought patterns. For that matter, one orange and another orange can lack continuity of being.
Also: I didn't know about lase cooling. Thank you! I doubt I'll ever have any reason to make the moon emit cooling beams but I've been wrong before!
>>17714738
That's not how space suits work but that first clip was obviously CGI either way.
>>17714749
>not noticing
Consciously noticing time dilation is very rare, yes.
>longer than what their navigational maps tell them
Can you show one of their navigational maps? Will it give us a time approximation or just a distance?
If you're measuring your journey by days, that means you're measuring it by the presence of the sun, which, in non-spherical models of reality, may not follow time as linearly as globalists insist. Remember that ALL theories have to be rethought before an alternate physics hypothesis starts to make sense. As it stands right now, the rotation of the Earth is the only reason you have to believe that the sun follows time linearly. Without rotation, any time-based logic, reason, measure, or reality is liable to give weird errors/results.
>>17714763
>because it's not there
Almost!
They don't do it because they don't believe it.
Show me the rich and famous person that made a point of doing things they didn't believe in.
And, well, they only get rich and famous if they do make it back alive and bring back enough evidence to change everyone else's beliefs. It's the belief that's the problem, not the reality behind it.
>>17714967
>a watch and a sextant
How many people alive today, by your best guess, are able to use those instruments well enough to feel like they'll know where they are in the middle of the ocean on any given day?
Now tell me how likely that exact demographic is to care about nonstandard models of reality. I don't think this is actually going to get seriously tested by any anon on this board any time soon.
>>17714982
The sun just doesn't follow the same logic in round Earth theory as it does in the other non-Euclidean theories.
>>17715047
I really hope I get a serious reply to the last part of this post.
General science and logic: >>17714859
Gripes: >>17714901
Adding >>17713387
>flat earth
to my autowatch filter.
And on a personal note...
>>17714996
>>17713394
Why is this such a popular thought all of a sudden? Even pro athletes are claiming flat earth like wtf is happening
Itt: total retards. All planets are round. Why would earth be any different
>>17715679
Me! I tend to sway things a bit.
I miss Pterry.
>>17715047
>that's not how planetary optics work
It is what NASA says is real. Are you to know they are deceiving?
>>17715689
A question is not a statement. It is different. Prove it isn't.
