The most Sup Forumsiltically incorrect thing you can do is unironicly research the flat earth, and realize

The most Sup Forumsiltically incorrect thing you can do is unironicly research the flat earth, and realize
>pic related
is mathematically impossible

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing
livescience.com/33895-human-eye.html
youtube.com/watch?v=GDKc6X8TXNE
photontheory.com/Einstein/Einstein02.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_star#Historical
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheroid
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

where are you bible thumping catholics and christians that still think the earth is round?

So how would it look on a round earth?

Falling for the flat earth psyop

...

You mean to say the pole star should not be in the same place?

Imagine the trajectory of yourself trough space.
Consider earth rotating and flying in a big ellipse around the sun.

Not convincing enough.
I have yet to see an irrefutable argument.

The stars are so fucking far away that earth rotating on its axis and going around the sun makes no difference on the stars in the sky. The only thing making a difference is the rotation.

So i did what you said right and the first link thats not wiki is reddit. This is the first time ive ever been on reddit, i had no preconceived opinions on it. I now understand why people hate it so much. Its literally a hugbox, you can ban people for differing opinions. It perplexes me that people think this is ok anywhere.

Yes so the photo is as expected.

/pol is a hugbox too

You're not white if you buy the Jewish lie that the earth is round. Literally everything these science faggots think they know, is a lie.

so how do you know more than the "science faggots"?

Perfectly explains why Australia can never see Polaris.

>when a fucking leaf has more sense than the rest of the posters around the board.

>implying the word of god in a 6000 year old book is a psy-op
the one thing the NWO doesn't want you to do is be christian. you need more INFOWARS

perfect circles and the occasional straight line perpendicular to our horizon would mathematically not be possible

it really doesn't matter how far the stars are. moving in the patterns, the entire field of cosmology tends to indicate this is a non-moving plane of existence.

>falling for the stars are so far away meme)

hmm that looks like the exact opposite of what happened to me

Maybe an echo chamber at the worst, but this place is definitely not a hug box

After you accept that the earth is flat the round earth people look like retards. Round earth people are ridiculous brainwashed science worshiping horse toothed jackasses.

Wrong, we allow all opinions here, we would never ban anybody for their views either. Sup Forums are truly one the final bastions of free speech on the Internet.

FUCKING GLADLY

take a disco ball in the center of a room. the inner circle, or northern hemisphere stars spin one way. the outer circle, or southern hemisphere stars spin the other way, and are completely different.

also reproducible with a flat disco mirror.

now explain to me why when in the western US i can see the moon over Australia if I go high enough

explain to me why sea levels are rising in the western hemisphere, but are DROPPING in Australia.

this is simply wrong. flat earthers get banned here like pizzagate got banned on reddit.

dont you think this reaction is a little too pre-programmed?

FOLLOW MATTHEW TO GET TO PAUL. AMEN BROTHER

It's quite the opposite, Sup Forums is a hurtbox
>pic related

You people would all make excellent feminists.

I know that a lot of science faggots are liars

Nasa means decieve in hebrew, the moon-landing was faked which is why they haven't "gone back" aka make a new film

Science faggots are smug, because they think they know how the universe works just because they read some jew textbook.

how do you think it feels to talk to bible thumpers who refuse to see the helio centric earth as heresy to the bible they hold so dear?

because the science faggots have been lying for a few hundred years.

when i heard that the quran, the bible, and the ancient egyptians thought the earth was flat. I gave that a lot of merit.

science faggots don't realize gravity literally doesn't exist, and there is no way to prove curvature.

How do flat earthers explain the declination of the sun?

godly digits!

>perfect circles and the occasional straight line perpendicular to our horizon would mathematically not be possible

I'm convinced that the majority of you idiots are just memeing around, but my god you're a fucking retard if you're not. It's called frame of reference and it's about how the you move on the planet (which when you take out the fact that you orbit around the sun, your frame of reference is a nearly perfect circular rotation). Quit being such an edgy contrarian

No, we can experimentally observe gravitation of a large body on a smaller body and know that it acts in 3 dimensions. A large heavenly body like a planet will form itself into a sphere because that's the lowest energy state for its gravitational effect on itself.

>tfw basic physics proves you wrong
must sting flat-earth fags

>declination

see picture

the sun rotates on an elliptical around the equator. this creates seasons, and explains the solstices and equinoxes.

it is much closer and smaller than NASA would have you believe. the story of Icarus ends up being a piece of non-fiction

you're just stupid

enjoy our MK ultra

nice pre-programmed response did you read that in a book by a person you've never heard about?

you must really like being told what to think

How does an eclipse work?

So the sun moves "inward" and "outward" somehow as to make it appear that it is moving 23 degrees w/ respect to the equator.

Could you explain to me why this happens? Or rather, what mechanism causes this to happen.

Also this

>nice pre-programmed response did you read that in a book by a person you've never heard about?
>you must really like being told what to think
No you fucking retard I looked at the equations formed from experimental physics done years ago and formed my own counter-argument as a quick way of dealing with contrarian schitzos like you. Of course when you have to think about math you curl up into a ball and die, fucking pathetic. The worst conspiracy with the worst conspiracyfags.

>flatearthcucks' and christcucks' minds are so simple they can't grasp the size of the universe
>hurr durr the earth is flat it says so right here in my 2000 year old book of stories hurr

fucking globies

what am i supposed to find when i look up "time lapses"?

GUYS ANYONE CAN DO A SCIENCE EXPERIMENT FOR KIDS IN THEIR OWN BACKYARD TO EASILY DETERMINE OUR PLANET'S SHAPE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE SUN

they apparently went back a bunch of times, but I never heard about it 'til recently: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing

Seems weird though. I figure I'd have heard about this earlier. Seems like some weird Mandella effect shit.

>muh made up jewish equations were equal to what the jews want me to believe

Wow, don't think too hard there, dumb ass. You're just a good goy who's gladly deceived just so he can say "HA, told you so!" to people who haven't delved into fake science.


But you have strong beliefs in it, because you wasted your time. So i understand, but stop spreading disinfo, fucking wake up.

Pic related is the actual shape of the Earth
Prove me wrong
Protip: you cant

"Da urf is a kruller??" - flat earther

So i guess the question is how does the earth being flat or round affect you? I can't be bothered to give any fucks about this at all. If you're pissed about space programs spending billions of dollars to tackle earth defense and exploration why don't you just look at it this way:

> Man is spending lots of money on R&D to defend against God.
> Man will probably win because 1, man was made in his image and 2. theres 7 billion of them

I never understood how if the earth is constantly spinning AND rotating, how you can look up and see the same constellations every night of the year. Like if we are constantly moving, how come the big dipper is always in the same spot in the night sky year round?

I'm not a sciencefag or a flatearther but it just seemed strange to me. is there a diagram/visual to show how this is possible on a spherical earth?

the sun and moon are in the sky, the earth is a flat and non-moving plane. its much easier for the sun and moon to be roughly the same size and to occasionally be in each others path, and actually mathematically possible rather than this flying through space bullshit.

yes, the sun moving inward and outward over the equator gives seasons

the tilt is a myth like gravity, or the flat disc might be tilted at 23 degrees

livescience.com/33895-human-eye.html

why can you see this mountain from 200 miles away when its suppose to be physically 1600 inches below the horizon because of the fictional curvature?

i validated the research before i i turned into a christian or even turned to the bible. I gave the flat earth thing a lot of merit because people who built giant 8 sided pyramids

you can find pretty compelling arguments on the jewtube
youtube.com/watch?v=GDKc6X8TXNE

if this 5 minutes doesn't convince you to look into it then you're just prideful in your belief system

>hurr durr people who built buildings and roads that last 2000 years are less advanced than people who build roads and houses that don't even last 10 years.

no you didnt. stop lying on the internet

see pic you don't need to be a science fag to call total bullshit

>non moving plane
we track the motion of the stars across the sky in longer durations across seasons and years

a day is shorter than any significant movement in any other direction, you can record the night sky over a year and it wont look like that and it'll instead account for the movement in every other direction

Aside from the failed apollo 13 mission the rest aren't talked about much.

It's because those stars are so far away user. they are also circumpolar stars, which means they never go below the horizon. and the big dipper is not always in the same spot, it appears to circle around the pole star, in fact you can tell time by it.

You don't see every constellation throughout the year. For example, you won't be seeing orion closer to the summer time because then the sun will be in that part of the sky, making it day when it should be visible.

As for the big dipper, it is close enough to the north celestial pole that the sun never goes to that part of the sky, so people in the northern hemisphere will always see it.

Because the universe and even our tiny (relatively) and insignificant (again, relatively) galaxy are large. Quite large in fact. So very big, your obviously puny intellect cannot even grasp it.

Here's a little example that I hope helps. Light travels fast. REALLY fast. 186,000 miles per SECOND. It takes light from the Sun hours (I think, I'd have to double check), if not minutes to reach the outer edge of our solar system.

So, consider the fact that the distance to the closest star to our solar system is measured in LIGHT YEARS. That's how far light can travel in a whole YEAR. (186,000 miles per second, 60 seconds a minute, 60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day, 365~ days a year) That's pretty fucking far. So consider that that is the CLOSEST star to our solar system. All the constellations you're seeing? Those are much, much, much, farther away.

TL;DR the universe is big and we are small and insignificant

Sure. The constellations that shift as the year progresses are oriented towards the plane that the earth revolves around with respect to the sun.

If you were to lay on this plane and look straight up you could always see the big dipper, because it's oriented towards the "top" or the north pole of the earth (it points to the North Star) It's why it's not visible in the southern hemisphere.

For reference, I included a 3d coordinate plane on the sun with 3 perpendicular lines, in case you were wondering what that is.

>yes, the sun moving inward and outward over the equator gives seasons
>the tilt is a myth like gravity, or the flat disc might be tilted at 23 degrees

You misunderstand. I mean to ask from your model, what causes the inward and outward movement of the sun?

We make one revolution around the sun in a single year. Because the earth is at different points in its orbit the constellations abled to be viewed at night change as the pic will show you. The north star and thus the dippers are also about as directly over the north pole as it can get. This placement means that no even though different constellations may be viewed the ones directly above the pole will remain visible. They are not visible in the same orientation. Their orientation also does a revolution throughout the year. Hope that helped

but the sun rotates around the galaxy so how could the big dipper be in the same spot when its in a different place in the galaxy

This is a mathematical model. Do you understand any of the mathematics in this model or did you just read the highlighted bits?

Look up how slowly we go around the milky way

Hint: really fucking slowly

Okay flat earther tards lets say you're right

What's the difference?

It's fucking weird though. I was under the impression that there was only one mission. And seemingly so was the OP (but then agian OP is retarded so maybe it doesn't count)

we landed on the moon, and faked the footage.

there really is a moon base, but they're lying about how we leave space, you need technology that can go past the firmament which is historically recorded in scriptures.

the moon landing was designed to be a compelling argument on both sides.

this sentence is a complete work of fiction

its own free will? the sun, moon, and rest of the planets are wandering stars, or angels that do stuff of their own volition or gods will.

>Here's a little example that I hope helps. Light travels fast. REALLY fast. 186,000 miles per SECOND

nope, all star light is instant. light travels in the other 6 dimensions to get here before slowing down in our 4 dimensions. take a look at older galaxies and compare then to newer ones. you'll find older galaxies have more "spin" than the new ones meaning that the old ones had to emit their light BEFORE the new galaxies, which also means its light had to have gotten to earth first.

our earth goes out as far as our finite universe does.

string theory is 10 dimensional, there are 7 heavens.
the first 4 dimensions of time, length, width, and height make up the first heaven, and are unattached to the 6 other heavens, or 6 other dimensions. we are at the bottom of a 10 dimensional universe

The entire galaxy rotates. If everything is moving in roughly the same direction you wouldn't see much of a change.

>quotes a sentence which uses a deliberately simplified model AND EXPLAINS WHY IT'S SIMPLIFIED AND NOT REALISTIC BY REMOVING THE EFFECTS OF THE EARTH'S ROTATION AND THE DEVIATION CAUSED BY THE CURVATURE OF THE EARTH
You're something special, aren't you?
The line "in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, nonrotating earth" is meant to explain that the equations and models above are removing the complexities of factoring in the curvature of the earth in regards to the plane's exact positioning over a certain height and the minute accelerative forces caused by the rotation of the earth on the plane's total velocity.

>Globies actually bought into the "science" maymay

They literally don't know shit about space, but you globies will just slurp up whatever disinfo they want you to believe about our existence.

Get the fuck out, globies.

do you understand that reducing the earths movement to 0 and making it a flat plane probably means there was never even any movement to account for in the first place?

photontheory.com/Einstein/Einstein02.html

>While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun.

While I was writing this, I came to realize that all the natural laws except the law of gravity could be discussed within the framework of the special theory of relativity. I wanted to find out the reason for this, but I could not attain this goal easily.

(doesnt exist

Concerning my work after 1915, I would like to mention only the problem of cosmology. This problem is related to the geometry of the universe and to time. The foundation of this problem comes from the boundary conditions of the general theory of relativity and the discussion of the problem of inertia by Mach. Although I did not exactly understand Mach's idea about inertia, his influence on my thought was enormous.

because he tried to reduce us to a 3 dimensional existence when we live in a 10 dimensional universe, but had to gimp the 4th dimension to deceive people.

light DOES NOT travel in our 1st 4 dimensions, it travels in the other 6

>leaf
Made up jewish equations based on experimental fucking science, duplicate the experiment and come up with contrary results or shut the fuck up retard.

>simplifying the situation to make the math easier
>FLAT EARTH CONFIRMED
Kill yourself retard
>checkmate.jpg
Fucking lmao. Sad!

see >do you understand that reducing the earths movement to 0 and making it a flat plane probably means there was never even any movement to account for in the first place?

The vast distances and relative movement between other stars and our own stars make apparent change rather slow. You have to remember that the North Star is "in front" of our sun is also moving, but our relative movements are very slow from our perspective. Previously, as in thousands of years ago, Polaris was not the North Star. Read this for historical perspective: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_star#Historical

A Greek navigator noted that there was no pole star in 320 BC.

I've also updated the diagram, for what it's worth.

>our own stars
star*

That is, the sun.

>Made up jewish equations based on experimental fucking science, duplicate the experiment and come up with contrary results or shut the fuck up retard.

relying on jewish einsteins equation to hold on to your pride that you think you're so much more advanced than people from yesterday because you can see something on TV. when any old idiot can go outside and see that the earth is flat and goes as far as the eye can see

Can any round earther explain why the atmosphere sticks to the earth, and does not move to the sucking vacuum of space? Gravity is very weak.

You realize that these images were all taken from a different distance, right?

Earth does lose atmosphere, slowly. Gravity is in fact what keeps the atmosphere on Earth.

Tell me, do you know what the concept of escape velocity is?

...

more like they were all Photoshop

I'll say it again: present evidence that gravity doesn't exist or shut the fuck up. You have no leg to stand on.
>goes as far as the eye can see
So are you implying that with enough magnification you could see from your house in Sisterfucker, WV to Dubai? Why don't you try that champ, seems more your speed in terms of critical thinking.

Ok explain the land masses at the poles. Centrifugal force in a round spinning Earth would make the land mass gather at the equator

Yes. Trying to turn a sphere in to a flat map is pretty challenging.

yes. Does the atmosphere on the ground move with the same speed as that on say 400 km?

It's because the "atmosphere" is like a dome made of jelly/plasma

It was put there on purpose, god is watching us.

Retard with rabies.

I guess you believe everything you hear about "science" go fucking sit on neil degrasse tysons dick and bounce around you fucking globie.

You just buy into all this bs to try to sound smarter than people, but you've never done any experiments yourself. Stop buying into other peoples lies, fucking smug bitch boy.

>do you understand that reducing the earths movement to 0 and making it a flat plane probably means there was never even any movement to account for in the first place?
Do you understand that removing the rotation and movement of the Earth is common practice in modeling physics ON Earth? When you're talking about near-orbit, orbital, or beyond orbital movement in regards to the Earth, THEN you factor in the Earth's movement because even the subtlest of movements can vastly change the position of a calculated body in respects to the Earth.
>quoting Einstein without understanding the fucking context
Optical equipment on Earth cannot detect the movement of the Earth. Why? Put it this way, if you're in the cargo area of a truck moving down a perfectly flat and smooth highway, no optical equipment you can use can detect the motion of the truck without looking outside the truck as a point of reference. If you bounce a laser off the back of the truck to track its velocity in regards to you, it will always be a 0m/s because you're moving at the same velocity and will always be at the same velocity until you start moving inside it. You have to bounce the laser outside of the truck in order to tell whether or not the truck is in motion. The same principles apply in Einstein's quote, where he says we can not use optical experiments within Earth's frame of reference because there is no motion relative to use because we move at the same velocity as it rotates even if we stand still. The whole point of that quote is to explain how to measure motion from inside a moving object within the moving object (which you can't).

The earth does bulge at the equator.

Land mass is greater at the equator. The earth is an oblate spheroid. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheroid

Do you mean at 400 km altitude? I assume that's what you mean. If so, no, quite clearly not. However, the speed difference at that altitude isn't enough to achieve escape velocity.

Oh my fucking god, you are retarded. Tell me, how the fuck is a computer screen or a 2D printed medium SUPPOSED TO DISPLAY A 3D FUCKING OBJECT?

its called buoyancy. anti gravity technology is a matter of buoyancy and atomic density. in an atmosphere thick enough i can flap my arms and fly. in a thin atmosphere atomic you based on your density.

>So are you implying that with enough magnification you could see from your house in Sisterfucker, WV to Dubai? Why don't you try that champ, seems more your speed in terms of critical thinking.

yes, thats exactly what I'm saying. points of convergance are not points of curvature. when you think you see boats sink below the horizon to the curvature you can bring it back up with a telescope you ignorant fuck

gravity literally isn't calculated in astrophysics

>I'll say it again: present evidence that gravity doesn't exist or shut the fuck up. You have no leg to stand on.

gravity isnt even a leg thats accounted for in astro physics.

If the earth is a disc/plane why we don't get thrown away bi centrifugal force?

calm down ladies your all ugly and even your creepy uncle wont touch you

So why haven't you jumped into space if it's so weak?

you have that backwards.

the entire field of cosmology

ignorance and pride. die in a fire.

its called buoyancy. anti gravity technology is a matter of buoyancy and atomic density. in an atmosphere thick enough i can flap my arms and fly.

Is it possible to convince Trump there is legit science to this?

I'm currently studying astrophysics

We use gravity

That is a nonanswer, refute this very dumbed down example I provided for you here:

>leaf
If your ideology is so sound show me the experimental data, I'll wait, disprove gravity, just fucking try. Oh wait you will never do that because you're an inbred retard.

>implying I jerk off an athiest click-baiting epic facebook science man who lies about education statistics.
Epic strawman leaf but I'm just one non-retard on the internet proving you wrong with first-year physics.

>gravity isnt even a leg thats accounted for in astro physics.
I was going to call you retarded then I saw the artifacted .jpg and was convinced, go get em champ.

>you have that backwards.
If the earth was flat why would it be hard to create a flat map?

Can a flat earther explain why there is a measurable increase in gravity at the equator compared to the poles?

have you been to a beach user?

No it isn't, Central America is at the equator it's only a few miles across

its hard to create a flat map according to the round earth theory you fucktard

>using satellite data