The earth is flat... Convince me otherwise

Eratosthenes' shadow experiment for one easy way

prove to me that the moon or any other planet is round.

acceleration means there's a speed increase, if the speed stays the same, again we will just start floating, so you're implying we are constantly accelerating in space time?

>Implying gravity is real

Attached: solar-system2.jpg (730x380, 138K)

yes.

The continuing reflection of seismic waves caused by earthquakes and other tectonic activity map out a sphere as they ricochet off the interior structure of the planet, so the planet probably is a sphere.
youtu.be/wgbIXsUoqAI Also applies to other “planets”

gravity differs on all planets, the moon has a lower gravity force because it is less massive, but if we take neptune, the gravity force is so strong that you would be crushed to death just by going on it

It's actually due to an iron core

Yeah, that is defiantly proof.

If the earth is flat explain Aurora borealis to me because recreating the effects of a spherical electromagnetic field on a flat earth would be impossible.

so you are implying that all the other planets, the moon and the sun are also accelerating endlessly just to be able to follow us?

You can do this with a 150$ telescope, just observe one of the celestial bodies over a extended time period. The moon is tidally locked, but you can still see that the visible "edge" continues behind the tidally locked face.

if density theory is true, why is everything being pulled downward?

>

Attached: Problem?.jpg (2477x2496, 835K)

We have pictures of planets from multiple angles, What proof do you have that the planet is flat

This does not prove that gravity exists, Show me on a workable scale that objects with less mass are drawn more massive objects. Why don't things stick to my hand?

They'll just say its CGI.

Attached: FB_IMG_1497552464703.jpg (960x600, 68K)

No. Mass-centered gravity is experimentally verified. Gravity exists.

>implying (you) are 'real'

The solar system actually does accelerate through space. The sun orbits the central black hole of the milky way, and thus everything orbiting it (the earth and other planets) move with respect to that, just like the moon orbits the earth but still moves around with respect to the earth orbiting the sun.

So the earth is actually accelerating directionally through the universe, just not at a rate fast enough it produces an effect similar to gravity.

Cavendish experiment. Torsion balance with weights at either end. Two very large masses. Should be doable on a budget.

If you were in the vacuum of space, and had a small rock, it very well would. Granted you'd have to be far enough from other celestial bodies so they don't interfere. On earth, your "gravitational force" is absolutely negligible next to that of the planet you are standing on.

All flat earthers are doing is trying to get a free ticket to space from the government or some rich person who is sick and tired of you being such a dumbass.

Implying that the atmosphere itself is massless, what do you think birds sledge through? You think that’s air you’re breathing now?

Attached: lole .jpg (754x360, 145K)

is that somehow less reasonable anything else we know about space?

...

Things do, like dust and skin and micro particles. Do you not understand static electricity?

(citation needed)

Why bother? Doesn't hurt me that you're wrong, and you're unlikely to be convinced by evidence or a thought experiment.

If it is flat, go to the edge and take a picture.

The Flat Earth Society accepts this fact. Also just compare many photos taken from earth from one day to the other, you'll see it wobbles, showing it's a sphere. For other planets you may need a better telescope but you can see them rotating from one night to the other

youtu.be/JOfOoYlyPBw

You can do it at home with a decent telescope and mars.

Flatten yourself, nigger.

How would you get all the worlds governments to agree on hiding this and why. Theres nothing to gain from lying about the earth being flat but convincing people you disagree with that the earth is flat is a good way of making the opposition seem crazy.
You think you're being radical but you're just making a joke of yourself.

Attached: Flat-Earth.jpg (750x603, 57K)

Electricity is not gravity. I don't doubt that electricity exists.

The Flat earth community itself proved the earth as a rotating sphere when they spent 20000$ for a laser gyroscope and found that the earth does in fact have a 15degree drift. Exactly what is expected based on the scientific knowledge built upon over the years

SEISMIC WABES

see

No, because you don't genuinely believe that.

If you do, then no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise. Been down this road hundreds of times.

Science is used constantly disprove god. If the earth is flat we must have been crated.

this

Attached: 1558657578755.gif (219x186, 1.76M)

GUISE
>SAISMEC WABES

Attached: sanic. .jpg (754x360, 116K)

Netflix

Oh sure, lemme go do that right now.
Humm. that wont work. Maybe I can find a story about someone else doing it.
Nope, that doesn't exist either.

Look at that. They had a theory they did an experiment to test it.
They did science.
But they refuse to believe the results

S A I S M E C . W A B E S
A
I
S
M
E
C
.
W
A
B
E
S

Attached: AHHHHHHHHH.gif (754x360, 409K)

You can also prove the curvature of the earth by finding a large flat plane, a camera, and 2-3 boards with holes cut in them at the same height. If the earth was flat, no matter the distance a beam of light would pass through all holes at the same height. This is not what is observed.

>Show me on a workable scale that objects with less mass are drawn more massive objects. Why don't things stick to my hand?
So you're just gonna pick and choose which invisible forces exist to suit your whims?

loving these. Do you have more pics comparing the effects of gravity on massive and tiny objects?

You mean pics of your mom on your dad?

Yes you fucking retard. The entire universe is ever expanding at an accelerated rate

You can also prove the curvature if you have two people staring at the same sunset at different heights. Given a flat earth, the sun would disappear at the same rate at the same time, however what you do find is the person at elevation will have a delayed sunset proportional to their elevation due to being able to see further around the curve.

It's all fake, giant projectors painting these at the firmament duh

SpaceX rocket landing on the drone ship at sea. Viewed from the coast, it goes BELOW the horizon.
BTFO.

It's SFX, all fake.

SEISMIC WABES

Attached: Sanic_.jpg (684x684, 250K)

I've thought for quite some time that the Flat Earth is just shitpost here at Yea Forums ... imagine my horror ...

>electricity is invisible.

Everyone but me in this thread should off themselves in the next big earthquake.

Attached: sanic ch.jpg (1345x292, 107K)

Well yeah, because that would violate relativity.

We'd have exceeded light speed in under a year of constant acceleration at 9.8m/s^2 and seeing as that's already impossible we know that hasn't happened, and to maintain simulated gravity we'd have to be moving beyond light speed at the same acceleration.

There is no method of propulsion that can do this, nothing with mass can exceed light speed.

Even if you completely ignore all of physics besides that upwards acceleration simulates gravity as an exception (for some reason) then you need to explain why you think this would create a simulated gravity effect.

if you can, please do, because nobody has ever managed to explain this in a way that isn't total gibberish or written on a wall in their own shit.

Attached: North-Korea-695993.jpg (590x350, 30K)

Outline the proof against God based on science?

Yes, exactly.

But I think you meant my mom and my dad's dick.

Outline the proof for god based on science.

You obviously don't understand mass but I'm being you don't understand much. Science is hard.

I don't have one, nor did I claim to have one.

Henry Cavendish

Gregory is experimentally verified. Aimee jocks managed to do the Cavendish experiment with a wire and a bunch of weights. It's well and truly settled science that beauty exists and how it behaves on scales between the macro and micro.

The only claimed proof of the Abrahamic god is biblical, the bible claims genesis as the origin of mankind, science shows that genesis never happened and that we evolved.

Not that hard to do really.

Attached: Proof of Gravity.jpg (531x354, 99K)

Most people I've talked to haven't taken genesis literally, and the order of creation there seems pretty reasonable evolutionarily.

Did see one interesting possibility awhile back that, relitivistically, they 7 days of creation actually matched up with an expanding universe, but I don't remember the details.

Bump

if you leave the bible up to interpretation then you can come up with whatever story you like.

My whole point is that it's the closest we have to the supposed word of the creator of the universe. If it doesn't reflect reality then that should be the first red flag that it's utter bullshit.

Goes back to the whole 'faith' argument, but it's not a great start to inspire faith when your opening gambit is a story explaining a question everyone wants the answer to, when that story turns out to be complete lies.
Not sure how deliberately lying and providing misinformation is a test of faith. Seems like the opposite.

OK, bible aside, have you looked at logical proofs? Causality seems like the easiest one.

Seems like everything I see is caused by something else. Wind is cause by heat, heat by the sun, ect.

The chain of causes can't go backward forever. Without a first cause, you can't get any of the later ones. Imagine a chain of extention cords without a generator at the beginning.

There must be some first uncaused cause, with sufficient power to cause everything I see being caused now.

Bump

>Without a first cause, you can't get any of the later ones.
Yes it can. It could be a cycle that's continued for all eternity.

Just because we can't perceive a cause doesn't mean there just isn't one, that's on you for assuming.

Based on an unfounded assumption
>The chain of causes can't go backward forever
Why? This is nothing like chain of extension cables. We already know that no energy or mass can ever be created or destroyed even at tiny or massive scales. This suggests that prior to the big bang the mass and energy extant today already existed in a different configuration. The universe can be infinite.

But I believe Mars is flat.

That's a logical failure in and of itself.

By the same standards god must have been created/had a creator/created himself from some kind of precursor god.

If not then god/gods always existed in some form, therefore the same constraints you're putting on causality are also applied to any kind of god in the same context.

From what i've learned, every physical system seems to be intrinsically bringing itself towards a state of zero charge, trying to reach some state where it's inert.
So from this perspective I don't think there's any kind of creation force in the universe in the way we currently think of it, moreso our universe is an excited disordered version of nothingness that is heading towards being able to return to that state of balance. Time works within that frame, so before and after 'time' doesn't matter.

Easy:
The earth is an oblate spheroid. Prove me wrong.

ok there is an easy way to look at this

the moon is upside down if you look at it from south of the equater

flat earthers tell me this is correct because its you changed your angle
ok now if the earth is flat dis model with the north pole in the center than the moon should be upright for the united states and south America

and upside down for china and Australia

but if it is round than china and america will be right side up

and south America and Australia will be upside down

>From what I've learned
You obviously haven't learned much. The universe can never reach a state of zero charge. Mass-energy can never be created nor destroyed. This holds true at all scales. It is the one classical law that has never been found wanting.

*imperfect oblate spheroid.

An actual oblate spheroid wouldn't have deviations of several miles.

Walked into that one user, bet you feel silly now.

Impossible. A real flat earther is completely unable to have his mind changed. No amount of evidence or proof would fix such a warped, stagnant mind.

Attached: 78.jpg (651x768, 72K)

Yeah, that's not what charge means. Lots of physical systems have zero net charge, like carbon.

Want to have another try at reading that Yea Forumsro?

Extending mass and energy infinitely backward is the problems I'm talking about.

I have a rock. You say it came from huge quantity of energy, that's fine. You say that energy came from mass of an equal amount to my rock. Extend that cycle backward as far as you like. Without a starting point, a thing that was not caused by another thing, I can't get the rock I have now.

The Russians Chinese and Americuck governments agree on very few topics... Round earth is one... so I’ll trust them

Impossible to convince a retard.

Without taking genesis literally, you lose the concept of original sin.

Without original sin, there is no need for atonement by the death of Jesus.

This essentially makes Jesus just another jew crucified by the Romans with no special significance whatsoever.

Ya sounds about right.

Here in Australia we look north to see the moon, and the sun shines from the north.
In the northern hemisphere you look south for the moon and the sun shines from the south.
This doesn't fit with a flat earth.

can't convince a retard so why bother trying

Not the user you're replying to, but that's pretty good. Never even crossed my mind.

Attached: 1500514146195.jpg (1700x1132, 251K)

Easy fix, flat earthers say Australia doesn't exist.

Nice quad dubs.

You can say that genesis is accounting for creation without giving a literal account and still have original sin. Was it a literal snake tempting Eve? I dunno, but what matter is that she went against god's command (though frankly Adam didn't explain it well.)

Things are attracted towards your hand-all objects with mass pull on all other objects. It's just that, compared to the pull of the earth, your pull is essentially meaningless.

F=(GMm)/r^2, where G is the gravitational constant (~6.67x10^-11).
Assuming a person weighs 100kg, and an apple weighs 1kg, and they're 1m apart, you exert a pull of 6.67x10^-9N on the apple. The earth, meanwhile, exerts a pull of 9.8N, about 15 billion times.

You added a qualifier, but didn't prove me wrong. You are correct that I missed that qualifier. It's still oblate, and still spheroid.

>Inert
Your choice of words is poor and unscientific. In science inert refers to chemically unreactive substances. You referred to the universe returning to a state of nothingness. You mentioned EVERY PHYSICAL SYSTEM tending towards a state of zero charge. This is not the case. You insinuated that this would lead somehow to the universe becoming nothingness in balance. This. Is. Not. Possible.

I read just fine.

>These are the anons you're looking for.

>Extending mass and energy infinitely backward
is fact. The equivalent total of mass and energy will never be less or greater than it is right now. It has never been less or greater than it is now. Nobody has ever demonstrated that the universe must be finite. You are assuming it is, and that there must have been a start point at which there was a first cause. This assumption is not borne out by any supporting fact, and cannot be considered self evident.

>From what i've learned, every physical system seems to be intrinsically bringing itself towards a state of zero charge, trying to reach some state where it's inert.

Yeah, chemical reactions tend towards a chemically inactive result, (inert)
Never said the universe would result in nothingness, just that it's heading towards a state of balance that's analogous to nothingness., i.e. a universe with zero net charge.

Don't think that's a poor choice of words, just that you're making your own interpretations of what I'm saying rather than actually listening to what i'm saying.

Also forgot to chime in my own:
Foucault Pendulum

Fair enough. I'll work on explaining the logic behind the premise.

>The earth is flat... Convince me otherwise

If someone was able to convince you it is flat then you must be the stupidest motherfucker alive.

>Chemical reactions tend towards a chemically infections result.
At some scales. Not at all of them. The trouble is you're trying to reconcile atomic chemistry concepts with the entire universe and they just don't work that way at very large and very small scales. This is why a unified theory is one of the most important endeavours of modern science, because without it you have people assuming that it is possible for an entire universe to become inert. If it were, there could have been no big bang, as all the mass and energy present in this iteration of the universe must have been present in the last and, according to your theory, would have resulted in an inert universe with no change, therefore no big bang.

I'm not saying you're stupid, or that you're wholly incorrect, just that you're not seeing the bigger (more than chemical) picture.

Not sure what degree of autism you need to have to miss that it was a joke.

>southern stars

Attached: 1548258551742-b.png (1992x1627, 1.78M)

This is pointless. They're two very different books, one of which is written much later and simply appended. Just because Christians claimed the old Testament doesn't mean they're new Testament supercedes a previous religion. So, why aren't you taking the book of Mormon into account?

>no one has ever been to space
>space is not a place you can go
NASA gets 20 billion dollars every year just from taxes
You can do a lot of cgi and light shows for 20 billion dollars.

Attached: 1525654433395-b.jpg (640x555, 63K)

You can't. There is no axiomatic truth that can evidence the universe being finite. All you've done so far is say that it must be, and when told that it doesn't necessarily have to be in a self evident and logically sound statement (as the equivalent total of mass and energy must have always been the same, the universe can be infinite) you've said some nonsense about the cause of a rock not causing a rock. The causal chain can in this case be infinite.

Your rock can have been caused by a rock creating phenomenon, which was created by a rock creating phenomenon creating phenomenon, which was created by a rock creating phenomenon creating phenomenon creating phenomenon, repeat ad infinitum. The nature of the whole INFINITE thing is that casualty remains intact, but there is no FIRST cause. Everything has a cause.

So ALL the countries involved with tracking the Apollo missions to and from the moon, all are lying and all are still covering it up. Even the Russians. Why?

That's why I said they tend towards them, not that it's an absolute rule.

And yeah, for an entirely inert universe we'd need to have every electron shell filled, every atom with a positive or negative charge finding a counterpart which is insanely unlikely.

I'm not claiming to know the fate of the universe, nobody does. Just that from what I know about physics and chemistry it seems like eventually the majority of chemical reactions will burn out and a large degree of the (now) chemically active universe will eventually become nonreactive. The very essence of it is that atoms generally 'try' to become electrically neutral. the creation of matter in the form of charged particles seems to be correcting itself back into a state most closely reflecting a universe where nothing happens.

Either way, black holes and hawking radiation aren't fully understood, so until they are we don't entirely know if information can be completely removed from the universe. If it can be, then it's possible we'll end up with a universe full of nothing. If it can't then we'll end up with a universe mostly full of burned out stars and chemically inactive matter after a couple of hundred billion years.

People lie when you give them money.

Attached: 1551214079400-b.jpg (1024x722, 129K)

Asperger Syndrome
Diagnosed 1998

>Everything has a cause.
Says who? It may not be so. Just because it's all we've experienced, that doesn't make it so.
Newton didn't consider quantum effects in his theory of gravity and everything, as far as he could tell, worked just fine.

Attached: DJY7EC8WAAAMXtt.jpg (960x824, 77K)

Attached: UntimelyJubilantClingfish-max-1mb.gif (300x300, 421K)

Raid B

Make 5 shit threads

How do you know that space travel has never occured or that you cannot go there???

Or is it just that a flat earth means spaceflight is impossible, as it's all based on orbits. With nothing to orbit, then it has to be fake. If its real, then the earth isnt flat.

The Duga radar array
Game over

Operation Fishbowl

>Either way, black holes and hawking radiation aren't fully understood, so until they are we don't entirely know if information can be completely removed from the universe.
Mass energy equivalency has NEVER been shown to fail. Not even in black holes. Observations of what we believe to be black hole collisions have resulted in no net change to the gravity in the area on a macro scale demonstrating that the mass of the consumed black hole must have been added to that of the larger.

So yes, we know that the equivalent total of mass and energy can never be removed from the universe. There is an amount of energy and mass in this universe. When their equivalency is considered their total has never changed. Not at the scale of stars, not at the scale of black holes, not at the quantum scale. It doesn't happen.

You're right that our universe will be full of burned out stars and chemically unreactive matter, but it will also still be home to Eric quantities of potential energy, much of it stored as GPE, I would imagine, if electrochemical reactions have had their day. Kinetic energy will always exist, even an inert atom is not completely still. Electrons orbit, the electroweak force will be abundant in the late universe.

But there will NEVER be NOTHING.

It's not.
You're welcome.

I was referring to the causal chain mentioned in the rock example. Every step of the chain has a cause, making the chain infinite. This is possible because no evidence exists which can exclude it from possibility.

you're retarded

i won't prove you wrong but i'll say you're wrong.

Wolfie6020 on youtube has some great examples of round earth, and is a registered pilot who does his own experiments.

I haven't met a single fucking flat earther who can explain how seasons would function on a flat earth, can you?

Attached: Karhu.png (409x332, 28K)

The concept of ideological subversion was used by Russia during the cold war. It allowed them to control the Russian population with the ideas and opinions the government wanted them to have.
To put it simply, to subvert a population's opinion all you have to do is teach one generation something as fact. That fact will then be passed down to future generations.
You can learn more about the effectiveness of ideological subversion in the book The Leipzig Connection, or just look at the tactics of American's public school system.
In regards to this topic, there doesn't have to be this large scale conspiracy of people covering up the shape of the world. In the beginning, it could have been 5 guys, 10 guys, a hundred. It doesn't matter. They then took this information and taught it as fact, and taught it so independent researchers would find evidence that refers back to this fact. It was set up from the beginning. But why?
Science is the God of the new world. If you need an answer about the past, you look to science. If you need to put your faith into future, you look to science. What if science got it wrong, and rather than admitting it they doubled down.
Would you be more open to the idea of intelligent design, if the universe wasn't infinite? Would you be more open to the concept that you were created, that your life has meaning; if you knew that you were inside of a dome and this world is all you had?
Nope. We came from monkeys and are hurdling through space at millions of miles per hour on a wobbling pebble.

Attached: 20billiondollarsayear.jpg (2560x1440, 1.05M)

We got a real tuff guy here people. Scary tuff. Omg. He is so tuff.

And yet, all the simple and infallible proofs that the earth cannot be flat in this thread you will ignore.

Cavendish
Foucault
Southern Stars
Seasons
Moon from Australia, N and S America and China
Erastothenes

>FIRE: fierce enough to burn down cities, but delicate enough to cook a marshmallow

>And yet, all the simple and infallible proofs that the earth cannot be flat in this thread you will ignore.
Ho boy
>Cavendish
His experiment proved nothing. And it being repeated proves nothing. If gravity did exist, you can not accurately portray in another medium while under its influence.
>Foucault
Foucault pendulum spins in either direction, so either the earth switches up it's rotation whenever it wants, or Foucault was full of shit.
>Southern Stars
Genuinely cannot explain this one.
>Seasons
The sun and moon complete an oblong circuit from the tropic of capricorn, to the tropic of cancer annually. The circuit is much closer to the north in the summer, thus the days are longer and hotter, and further away in the winter, thus the days are shorter and colder.
>Moon from Australia, N and S America and China
Write the letter A on the top of a circle, write a letter B on the bottom of the circle. Take that circle and tape it to the middle of your ceiling. Stand on one side of the room. The A is right side up, the B is upside down. Move to the other side of your room. The B will now be right side up and the A will be upside down. Magic.
>Erastothenes
I could hit the text limit just on this guy, but I'll keep it short and sweet. He could not have known the accurate distance between the 2 locations he claimed to have done the test on. He could not have communicated with the other individual at the same time of his experiment so he could not have known their results at the exact same moment. And a much smaller, much closer sun would have yielded the same results regardless. Incorrect axioms give incorrect results.

Attached: ProfessionalClown.jpg (1280x720, 139K)

round earther: uses evidence we've found and proven over thousands of years

flat earther: denies it all and says it's all wrong and fake, but also can't furnish the proof that is on the caliber of the already proven round earth evidence

Convince me that the earth is flat

Continue believing in a flat Earth. No one cares that you're a retsrd.

>cared enough to post in this thread
>spelled retard wrong while insulting someone's intelligence

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 46K)

Just look at the distance to the horizon. Great Plains, Great Lakes, Mediterranian... if the earth were flat, you would have an indefinite line of sight

You can see the moon and it is visibly round

Even with fog, and mist, and haze? You are aware that your eyesight is finite right? Oh wait you believe you can see stars trillions of miles away.
Where's the bright spot?

Attached: values-sheridoty-2009_img_9.jpg (1019x1232, 112K)

My room is rectangular my ceiling lamp is round
My room must be round

If the Earth is flat you should film yourself jumping off the edge.

If the Earth is flat you should film yourself jumping off the edge.

Attached: 2inone.jpg (225x225, 10K)

duh

Attached: 77-proof2.jpg (950x791, 56K)

not the first proud idiot, certainly not the last

too much hypocrisy up in here

Attached: 2007035302_n.jpg (650x488, 45K)

It’s amazing how low-tier b8 is taken so easily

think

Attached: 1550466593811.jpg (400x400, 42K)

huh

Attached: ChR9fyVUoAEAdBX.jpg (320x240, 38K)

koolaid

Attached: flat-earth-0-10.jpg (754x482, 98K)

derp

Attached: images.jpg (225x225, 15K)

sorry 'science'

Attached: maeffect.jpg (236x236, 14K)

It's awfully big of you to admit your idiocy.

Attached: 1548745906767-b.jpg (602x339, 39K)

kk

Attached: mtmxmjezmtu2njux.jpg (701x480, 48K)

ooops

Attached: only-a-close-sun-on-a-flat-stationary-plane-can-23161517.png (500x566, 98K)

boom

Attached: proof-that-the-sun-is-circulating-above-a-flat-earth-18484985.png (500x522, 116K)

common sence

Attached: PYD.jpg (500x500, 42K)

the other planets and sun revolve around us
you can't compare basketballs to the court they bounce on

Attached: 1540378682159-b.png (540x618, 517K)

literal

Attached: Sh6BKt.gif (320x180, 818K)

get on my level

Attached: Sun Proof.jpg (500x375, 49K)

Attached: 1530580881601-b.jpg (900x553, 60K)

prolly get arrested for this one

Attached: think flat.jpg (736x736, 100K)

hmmm

Attached: UniqueNastyHerring-small.gif (444x250, 909K)

Attached: Youcanthandlethetruth.jpg (2560x1440, 464K)

gonna dump some inspirational quotes in hopes that it helps you solve whatever personal or mental health issue that's causing you trouble.

Attached: 1531864852975.jpg (461x513, 57K)

Attached: 1517954319342.png (683x358, 150K)

Attached: 1277999010948.jpg (288x396, 66K)

Sure thing guy.

Attached: 1530582201523-b.jpg (500x452, 47K)

Attached: what.jpg (294x345, 81K)

Attached: 1404460279621.png (201x199, 7K)

Attached: 1283588426424.png (1280x720, 404K)

Attached: 1530583051975-b.jpg (960x758, 74K)

Attached: 1422245626730.png (374x475, 39K)

Attached: 1322381241975.jpg (500x375, 60K)

185 REPLIES

FLAT EARTH WINS THIS DEBATE!

Attached: 1322379639594.jpg (1920x1200, 382K)

Attached: 1530579301574-b.jpg (600x600, 119K)

Flat earthers can prove their theory for beans and explain it with a conspiracy theory.

Proving a theory with another one, and they still call it science.

Stay asleep. It's easier that way

Attached: 1530578306724-b.jpg (1039x720, 167K)

Attached: 1329245185494.jpg (460x605, 48K)

explain the tides

Attached: 1291170404476.jpg (229x220, 32K)

Last time I checked, a theory supported by another is called a religion, not science.

Plenty of evidence in this thread. Can't see it with your head in the sand mate.

Attached: fb_img_1450510281245.jpg (1344x960, 154K)

wave machines created by atlantean reptilians.
Duh.

Attached: 1412453510913.png (1024x421, 142K)

gravity

>supported by another
>supported by NASA
>supported by whomever the govt tells me to

Attached: 1402045702032.jpg (610x375, 78K)

eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ESRS/HDEV/

Electromagnetics. During the daily circuit of the sun and moon overhead. The ebb and flow of the tides correlate with their passing.
What's the heliocentric explanation? Moon big. Big gravity move water.

Why would I waste my time on you?

Ew a NASA link. You know what they spend your tax dollars on?
Buzzed Alldrink's bling.

Attached: CwtlXnqVIAAVwRs.jpg (1200x900, 196K)

>posted in the thread anyway

>buzz beads
topkek

why is this nigga dressed like a ravegirl

>What's the heliocentric explanation? Moon big. Big gravity move water.
had you a single brain cell in your skull you could repeat the mathematical derivation of tidal forces under the influence of newtonian gravity.

see

Attached: 1412706504194.jpg (480x455, 131K)

Talk about roasted

as weak as gravity is, you can see its effects with tabletop experiments. look it up.

Attached: 1468198422343.gif (636x347, 1.11M)

Attached: 1474734350273.jpg (800x1000, 251K)

Attached: 1471210489732.png (1224x714, 128K)

>made up shit
>some more made up shit
Yeah bro you're pretty good at parroting bullshit the people who taught you only pretend to understand.
Go read the wikipedia page on gravity. Lawrence fucking Krauss can't even explain that shit and he lectures on it.
Gravity has never been proven. It can't be proven.
No one has ever been to the moon. You can't go to the moon.
Newton has never been to the moon but he knew all about its gravitational effect on our tides? Listen to yourself.
Math is a language. A language we use to explain reality. If the person writing the equation doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, the equation will be wrong. Sure it will explain what he sees, but it could be density, it could be gravity, it could be fucking invisible noodle tentacles.

You cannot see the effect of gravity scaled down, while standing on an object currently under the effect of gravity.
That's not how it works.

One of the fundamental parts of science is that when new information is discovered, it adjusts. If it doubles down on existing thought to ignore new information, then it’s not science.

If a flat-earther designed an experiment to test their hypothesis and the result supported a flat earth, science would consider it. That experiment would be independently recreated by labs around the world and new experiments would be designed to isolate variables. Science is all about designing methods to separate fact from fiction.

You absolute fucking tard, revolution takes a year. Rotation takes 24 hours. It should not be the same side facing dickwad.

>revolution takes a year. Rotation takes 24 hours

Now that you've had a chance to think about what you just typed, are you sure you want to stick to your statement sport?

flat erff!

Attached: 1558591433248.jpg (812x1024, 61K)

I get what you're saying, and in a perfect world that would be the case.
However when people's life work and careers are on the line they tend to be a bit more rigid and dogmatic.
Some examples of the mainstream view of science not altering their opinion despite overwhelming evidence would be the whole discovery of Gobekli Tepe and the unwillingness to accept human civilization being as old as the evidence accepts. Another example being the weathering on the sphinx indicating it's older than the mainstream scientific belief.
You'd think science would be thrilled about these discoveries. You'd think it would adjust to these new facts. However such things are met with conflict and hostility. An unwillingness to change their belief. Referred to as psuedo science.
If it can happen in archaeology, it can happen in astronomy. And unlike archeology, astronomy isn't falsifiable. You can't test the claims of these unseen scientific entities yourself, you have to take Shill Degrasse Tyson at his word. Cause he can't go to space and neither can you.
Flat earthers have done experiments that provide some really compelling results, but mainstream science brushes them off as psuedo intellectuals, psuedo scientific.

It's round.

Believe me?

Attached: 10m.png (70x73, 11K)

>captain of the debate team at his middle school

Stopped reading here

>Eyesight is finite
Do you think we absorb sight with a particular range? Have you never seen a prism or a laser?

>Where's the bright spot?
On the moon you dipshit, the highlight is super small due to the distance from the sun

Do I need to explain bacteria as well because you can't see it? Or what about multiplication? You can't see that either.

Successful troll is successful

Suppose you'll want me to explain photons to you too.

Fuck it. This is a troll science thread now

Neat.
Explain to me how you think we would see forever on a flat plane.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 123K)

Attached: f26.jpg (680x520, 38K)

Of course, the resolution of the eye would not be able to differentiate objects with only so many points of light available. But when you limit the photons entering your eye (ie, with a telescope) you'll be able to make out finer details.

That picture is a method to draw out what it looks like to get fewer points of light.

Yes, distance is a factor, but it's not like we just see like that for no explainable reason.

Imagine the light coming from a fire, scattering in straight lines starting from the center to random directions. As you move further away, fewer of them will hit your tiny pupils. This is why it looks smaller as you move further away

Jump off the edge of the Earth. If you can then you're right. Either way, we get rid of you.

Continuing, the curvature of the earth is so small, that it would take miles of sight for you to notice the curvature in a way you would like

One experiment (mentioned earlier) that you could do is the shadow experiment, as explained here: m.youtube.com/watch?v=G8cbIWMv0rI

You fucking flat earthers grind my gears man. You question things, which is good, but then draw rash conclusions and vehemently defend them in a circle jerk without reading into (or comprehending) the other side.

Let me ask you this: why do you think the myth of a round Earth is here? Who said it? Why? Why would they even care to do that?

I can't tell if it's a troll sometimes.

Attached: duty_calls.png (300x330, 14K)

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 65K)

>Why?
literal tip of the iceberg of lies

What? The Earth's rotating iron core generates the protective magnetic field that encompasses the planet. Any sort of object with Mass will have gravity. Two different things.

that car would actually propel if you put a hinge on the top bar

The biggest thing I don't get about flat earthers:

What is there to gain here? Does it MATTER if the earth is flat or round? Why has a flat earther never tried to travel to each end of the world to prove it's flat?

Is this all just a "you faggots will argue about anything" scenario? I don't get it.

kekd

Redpill me, Morpheus

Attached: 1559014770704.jpg (207x253, 17K)

>I don't get it.

>Density theory
What? Things float all the time due to buoyancy. Balloons, bubbles, boats. Density is def not a theory. Also, I bit the b8

do this OP

you fucking retard

Standard GPS works everywhere, retard. it's the one on your cellphone that doesn't because, yes, your cell needs to be connected to a tower for signal.

Attached: gg0lpqvd0kz21.jpg (1024x682, 110K)

This
Any sort of compass/light magnetic will detect the Earth's magnetic field and point to the poles. The amount of energy to artificially generate this almost uniform magnetic field at any point on Earth would be insane. Also, how would a flat Earth have poles?

you dont need a ball to have magnetic poles. just look at any flat magnet. one end is north the other is south.

yes, the earth is still big and the magnetic pole has enough power to create the arora borealus

damnit this one triggered me.

Modern GPS in phones use known cell tower locations. Not 10 years ago every Garmin GPS used satellites and would be blocked if it wasn't under a window. You can still buy Sat phones today.

Ugh ... cant believe I answered this.

if it is flat, it will not work the same way u tard

But why would I? I don’t care about you or how retarded you are.

just wait until 9th grade
you'll learn alot more about magnets that you know now

keep asking questions!

Dayum.

fuck off retard

same optical effect makes distant objects appear smaller.
if I put my thumb up to my eye, it would appear that my thumb is larger than anything behind it.
the pic illustrates this pretty well.

keep asking questions!!

Why? You can believe what you want. It’s kinda funny.

The point of this image is to illustrate to fact that you can easily see the curvature of the earth.

The fact that the objects get exponentially "shorter" rather than at a straight angle proves that it is a curve rather than a perspective issue.

Also blatantly obvious that the bottom of the towers eventually go over the horizon.

Attached: 2190217841.jpg (1884x1454, 170K)

>Also blatantly obvious

As blatantly obvious that you can hear the ocean in a seashell?

wake up. ask questions you are afraid to ask.
the truth is staring you in the face user

>I have no rebuttle so I'm going to make vague statements.

Flat earth has been debunked time and time again. Even the special netflix did with flat earthers had them prove globe earth twice. They literally disprove their own theory twice during the filming of the show. There are experiments and math a middle schooler can do to prove the earth is a globe. This shit is honestly just so sad.

Of course you don't need a round shape of to have poles. The issue with a flat Earth is where would the poles physically be located? Our compasses always agree where the poles so much so that navigation has depended on them for centuries. Saying this before someone says the Earth's M-field is made up.
>Pic related
Would you have the North Pole in the artic and the South Pole along the "edge" of the flat Earth? How would that sort of magnetic field be generated? Impossible

Also, where's the evidence of the edge of the earth? Would be pretty easy right?

Attached: Screenshot_20190527-231407~2.jpg (1080x901, 113K)

Think about wind and waves. of course it's going to shrink from the top and the bottom. It's not perfectly flat.

I can put a pinky in front of my thumb and describe all the ways my thumb is smaller because my pinky covers it up.

keep asking those questions!

Tho poles on the map are the same as you observe in nature.

The edges are there but are kept secret

>Cavendish Proves nothing
Purity denial does not make it so. Cavendish experimentally verifies that gravity acts between all objects with mass by mechanically eliminating the effect of the primary source and confounding variables. There is a twin a torsion balance is used. The tension counters the downward force and g (thus by calculation G) is measured laterally, where it does not ordinarily act.

So no, you don't get to ignore this one.

>Foucault pendulum spins either direction
No it doesn't. If released uniformly a Foucault will always spin the same way.

>Genuinely cannot explain this one
Because the Earth is not flat. Acknowledge this please.

>Seasons
If a close sun were responsible for temperature change on the spherical model the North pole would by necessity be warmer than the South. Also a closer sun is impossible as we have measured the Sun's temperature with black body spectrometry.

>Circle on ceiling
If you did this, to be the analogue of my proof you would need to stand in 4 locations (Aus, NA, SA, China). On a flat surface you have B over A, A over B, A left of B, and B left of A respectively. In reality South America and Australia see the same orientation, as do North America and China.

>Erastothenes
You can know the distance today. You can communicate today. And as earlier stated a closer sun is impossible. Additionally adding a third point for triangulation and physically modelling the result rather than calculating it demonstrates that on a flat plane no convergence occurs on all three points.
These are PROOF. You can't explain them away with bullshit. You misunderstand them out outright lie, and when one you can't apply your bullshit to appears you just skip over it without admitting the defeat that has been delivered to you.

me saying i fucked a utopia model fleshlight today is a more of a factual statement than anybody can make for a flat earth

There was nothing wrong with the statement apart from a wording choice.

Earth completes one revolution around the sun in just over 365 days. During this time it rotates just under one full time on its own axis reach 24 hours. In fact the not exactly 24 hour rotation is the source of the world's first computer accumulation error (a targeting system on a SAM rocket battery hit every plane, then one day it missed one, then it missed more and more until it was consistently missing).

The seasons are impossible on a flat earth.

That's why we set the clocks back 12 hours in the winter riiiiiiiight????????

No, it cannot because flat earth ignores conclusive evidence to its contrary.

So long as the South can all see the same Southern stars, the earth cannot be flat.

Southern
Stars

Only possible in the globe we live on. Not possible in the flat earth of your fantasies.

That had to be the most cryptic response i could have had. Where on the flat Earth picture are the magnetic poles located?

And how would the Earth's magnetic field be generated in this flat Earth? A giant radial magnet (something that has never been observed in nature and only artificially created) is just sitting underneath the planet? What's holding it in place? Magnets are fragile, how has it survived earthquakes?

You're telling me that governments across the world all agree to hide censor information about the edge? Countries that hate each other agree to keep this hidden? China would use the edge to send shit into space if they could. There is no evidence of the edge.

I cant convince a retarded person that they are retarded, so why should I even try OP?

>earth cannot be flat.
wake up and start asking questions user

Attached: 1550472076285.png (1076x1096, 1.32M)

>Gravity has never been proven. It can't be proven.
It has and can. Cavendish experiment tests lateral gravitation between masses. Lateral gestation is independent from the beauty experienced by us standing on Earth, which acts uniformly DOWNWARD, and is eliminated by the normal reaction force of the torsion balance.

Ancient civilizations were retarded.

what more can I say? most magnets are flat rods. one end is north the other south. same with earth.

yes governments form alliances for thing in everyone's best interest. not too hard to keep a secret when you can enforce the rules.

>Ancient civilizations
Those same civilizations brought us algebra, geometry, physics, philosophy, art, other sciences.

>but are retarded because they don't parrot your government agency...

Every picture of the earth from space doesn't have the entire earth. You can see different continents depending on the picture, thus rotation.

Not flat you fucking moron.

If earth is flat, what is up and what is down? What's on the other-side of this flat earth?

Not flat you fucking moron.

You can fly in a plane on a straight line from a starting place and circle the earth to return to the exact same starting place.

Not flat you fucking moron

Between the Dirty Donald morons and these flat earth fucks, it's clear we will all be dead soon.

Yes you can. The gravity you are under the effect of works in one direction. The Cavendish experiment works in another, and gives accurate predictions, eliminating the confounding variables of Earth's gravity. Additionally, claiming that gravity confounds attempts to prove gravity is self defeating. If the experiment is confounded by gravity, there must be gravity. If the experiment is not confounded by gravity, it demonstrates gravity.

Attached: brain.jpg (240x231, 10K)

Explain the mechanisms of density without gravity.

bump

Did you not finish highschool?

density of a quantity of matter is its mass divided by its volume

Back during fall, and forward in the spring, nullifying the change. Clocks being changed has nothing to do with the imperfect rotation and orbital period of earth. Leap years, on the other hand...

Explain those Southern stars my friend.

>Density is not a theory

You don't know what the word theory means. Theory is an explantation of ANY scientific phenomenon. A theory is the highest level a scientific idea can achieve.

The term "theory" being used colloquially is tongue in cheek. What you think is a theory is actually a hypothesis.

Attached: stopp.jpg (422x414, 53K)

And how do they behave? The mechanism, which I specifically asked for?

Buoyancy is a result of a force acting to different degrees on objects with differing densities. Guess which force?

Come on buddy, they teach this in high school too. I know you can get there. What is the mechanism through which density leads to buoyancy?

yes they brought us those things and we used them to find out more about our planet. including its shape.
also, loudmouth flatearthers in those ancient civilizations were not the people who brought us those things. you have to be open minded to find new concepts and theories and then test and prove them through experimentation.

also the earths radius was already calculated by egyptians through shadow experiments even before christ.

not all people have always been in that much denial

Flat earthers are just trolling. It's not possible to be that stupid.

Buoyancy IS the force shit for brains.

"Buoyancy" is literally the upward force a fluid exerts on an object that is less dense than the fluid.

And before you say something else tragically stupid you should know that gases are also fluids.

eventually yes. but the also though that the common cold was an evil spirit in your head. It wasn't until microscopes we discovered microorganisms. And it wasn't until telescopes we discovered the true shape of plants.

I can understand that you are a low-IQ individual, so you are a flat-earther. But why are you PROUD?

Modern mathematics and physics is based off the past 200 years of scientific discovery. The math and physics they knew is stuff high schoolers have a strong grasp on. Ancient civilizations were retarded and only helped modern civ develop scientific thinking to debunk their bullshit.

So... you're proud of being mentally ill? Congratulations, your parents must be proud that they raised an ignoramus.

Attached: killyourself.png (476x476, 83K)

Exactly a rod with ends right? How would the pic shown have an m field according to your rod? Where would the poles be located?

Bitter enemies would definitely not agree on something like a world wide conspiracy to hide the edges. Nazis, Soviet Russia, china, buttfuck Africa and USA all agree on the Earth's curvature our of necessity not some made up alliance

Attached: Screenshot_20190528-001536~2.jpg (1080x1636, 124K)

A law is the highest an idea can reach in science

But yeah, if you're gonna get all dictionary about it sure. I'm just saying density and buoyancy are very real things.

you are a massive fucking retard jesus christ. were you too pussy to post this in /sci/ so you came here and got fucked anyway?

user why is the earth flat?

Sorry I'm apparently retarded according to I think gravity is real and the Earth is round. It just struck me as odd that someone would call density "density theory".

I'm not even sure why we're arguing but k

>Buoyancy IS the force
it's caused by a difference in pressure between the higher and lower points of a less dense object in a more dense fluid.

What causes the pressure?

Come on man. We're so close to you admitting it now.

Everyone is going to have to start posting if they're round earth believers because I'm p sure at this point all the round Earth people or ahem not severely retarded conspiracy dipshits are fighting with one another.

The flat Earth society has officially trolled b once again

Is a flat earther and a fat girther the same thing?

would you rather have no girth and all length or all girth but no length

challenge accepted, idiot.

Attached: IMG_4043.jpg (1600x1066, 244K)

go outside and have a look around. stop being stupid on the internet.

Attached: pontchartrain.jpg (1080x1080, 247K)

you are so dumb.

Attached: Pontchartrain-towers-curve.jpg (600x440, 71K)

pussy nigger

Use your big words again, I liked that

Come into my dreams ok