the earth is flat. Prove me wrong, Sup Forums
The earth is flat. Prove me wrong, Sup Forums
Jackson Powell
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
earthsky.org
infoplease.com
planetfacts.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
nhm.ac.uk
antarctica.gov.au
timeanddate.com
dailymail.co.uk
telegraph.co.uk
antarctica.ac.uk
coolantarctica.com
youtube.com
xhamster.com
twitter.com
Lucas Bell
OP here!
Pickles/Banana's welcome!
Benjamin Gomez
STICK IT IN MY ASS
Carter Gutierrez
im ready for the 10 pages op
Dominic Bailey
FAKE ASS MOON LANDING
Juan James
...
Isaac Stewart
MOON LANDING TAPES DELETED
Andrew Collins
Bring it on over from the other thread.
I'm too tired to post this shit again, especially when he'll just ignore it in his glorified ignorance.
And here he goes... the same troll template from the last thread, starting with the "FAKE ASS MOON LANDING"
Nicholas Morgan
but not the same pictures please. i saw them last thread. i want to hear you out
Brody Butler
Explain solar and lunar eclipses
Isaac Taylor
...
Nolan Mitchell
this thread is literally a copy from last thread. including the dissenters, except me
Anthony Harris
>the earth is flat. Prove me wrong,
Impossible. If you believe the earth is flat, no facts can prove you wrong. You live in your own reality.
Owen Walker
>Page 1
A non exhaustive list of reasons why the Earth is a sphere and/or isn't flat.
1. The angular or apparent size of the sun in the sky does not change significantly. It changes slightly over the course of a year but not by
any measurable amount over the course of a day. The only explanation for this is that the diameter of the Earth is negligible compared to
the distance to the sun. If the sun is a distant object then all the light from it must be parallel. However, the angle of incoming sunlight
is known to change gradually over the surface of the Earth: there are time zones. The only explanation for this is that the Earth is round.
2. There are circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Their centres of rotation are always either due North or due
South respectively. The stars in between rise and set on the horizon much like the sun does. There is no flat Earth model which can account
for this.
3. In the summer in Antarctica the sun is visible 24 hours a day. At the same time it is dark 24 hours a day in the Arctic. If the sun is
following a giant circle above a flat disc it couldn't possibly be visible at all points around the edge of the disc while not being visible
at the centre of the disc.
Jayden Foster
How do they even record being space? There's no way to do that
Austin Collins
>Page 2
4. The sun rises due East and sets due West and is visible for 12 hours everywhere on Earth on an equinox. This is impossible on a flat Earth
but is explained perfectly by the Earth being round.
5. The sun sets. If the sun is following a giant circle above a flat disc it could never be seen to drop to an angle of elevation of less than
0 degrees. Also, its apparent size would change significantly over the course of a day and it would be seen to follow a radically different
path in the sky.
6. Ships disappear over the horizon at the exact distance from shore as you would predict them to do if you were standing on a sphere with a
radius of 4000 miles. Once they disappear the strongest telescope in the world won't bring them back into view. However, if you climb to
higher ground the horizon line moves further away and you can see the ship again. The only explanation for these facts is that the world is
round.
7. The curvature of the Earth had to be taken into account when building The Verrazano–Narrows Bridge.
8. The distance from the North Pole to the equator is about 6,200 miles. If the Earth is flat that would mean the equator was a circle with a
circumference of 39,000 miles. The equator has a circumference of 25,000 miles.
9. According to the flat Earth model with The North Pole at the centre; the Tropic of Cancer should have a circumference of about 29 000 miles and the Tropic of Capricorn should have a circumference of about 49 000 miles. They both have a circumference of about 23 000 miles. Coupled with the fact that the equator has a circumference of 25 000 miles, this overwhelmingly suggests that the Earth is a spheroid.
David Martinez
>Page 3
Expanding on point 1.
The angle of incidence of sunlight changes gradually over the face of the Earth. If you happened to be at a location where the sun is directly
overhead, 500 miles away in any direction its position will have changed by about just 7°. That's an empirical observation that even flat
Earthers accept. There are two ways of explaining this. Either the Earth is flat and the sun is a few thousand miles overhead or the Earth
is a sphere with a radius of a few thousand miles and the sun is a distant object. Now, lets consider which model fits with other facts.
It is also an empirical observation that the angular or apparent size of the sun in the sky is almost constant. It changes very slightly over
the course of a year. On any given day its size doesn't change by any measurable amount over the course of a day or at different locations.
The angular size of an object determines how big it appears in our visual field. It is the angle that the object subtends at the eye.
As something moves away this angle becomes smaller and the object looks smaller. This is an optical property of the eye, the eye is a lens
focusing light onto the retina. The smaller an angle the object subtends at the eye the smaller the image formed on the retina. There is no
reason whatsoever to assume that this shouldn't apply to the sun. It doesn't matter what the sun is; if we can see it that means that it is
either radiating or reflecting light. That light enters our eye and forms an image. The size of the image is determined by the angle the sun
subtends at the eye. The angle the sun subtends is 0.5°. This, as I said, is almost constant.
Luke King
AMEN Sup ForumsROTHER, AMEN!!!!
Benjamin Perez
>Page 4
It is perfectly reasonable to conclude from this that the distance to the sun does not change significantly for any observer on Earth. If an
object is moving around in your visual field and its angular size isn't changing, it must be moving in a circle around you. The distance
between you and the centre of the circle must be small compared to the radius of the circle. Therefore, the distance between any observer on
Earth and the centre of the circle that the sun is moving in must be small compared to the radius of the circle. The upshot of this is that
the diameter of the Earth must be very small compared to the distance to the sun. Even if the sun's size changed by about 10% it would have
to be about 80 000 miles away. It doesn't change by a measurable amount. It is a very long way away. If the Earth was flat all the light
would come in at the same angle, there would be no time zones.
On the other hand, if the sun was about 3000 miles above a point on a flat Earth moving in a giant circle centred at the North pole then
what would we see? Over the course of a day its size would change significantly, it would follow a radically different path in the sky and
it would never get down as low as the horizon anywhere on Earth.
The flat Earth model isn't just not very good, it's catastrophically wrong. It can't account for even the most simple observations.
Adrian Miller
>Page 5
More support for point 1
Watch for the following video.
youtube.com
There are two very important features to note. The first is that the apparent size of the sun doesn't change and the second is that its
speed doesn't change as it moves across the sky.
If you were standing next to a straight railway and a train went past, when the train was near you it would be moving very fast in your
visual field. As it moved away it would appear to slow down. When it was in the distance it would hardly look like it was moving at all.
On the other hand, if a train was moving around you in a circle and you were close to the centre of the circle, it would look like it was
moving at the same speed all the time.
Also, on the straight track the train would look much smaller in the distance. However, the train moving in a circle would look the same
size to you all the time.
The constant apparent size and speed of the sun in the sky suggests very strongly that its movement is due to rotation rather than
translation. Either the Earth is turning or the sun is moving around it in a circle. Although these two scenarios are physically
distinguishable, they are geometrically equivalent. Considering the fact that the sun is the same apparent size all over the Earth, this
would suggest that the circle the sun is moving in from our perspective has a radius many times larger than the radius of the Earth.
The obvious conclusion is that the sun is a long way away. However, if the sun is a long way a way all the light from it must be parallel.
On a flat Earth the angle of incidence of sunlight would be the same everywhere. There would be no time zones. The only way of accounting
for the fact that the sun is a distant object and the fact that the angle of incidence of sunlight changes gradually over the surface of
the Earth, is that the Earth is a sphere.
Ryan Harris
...
Thomas Russell
>Page 6
Expanding on point 2.
Directly above both the North and South poles there are circumpolar stars. These are stars which rotate about a point in the sky, never
go below the horizon and are visible all year round. In the North they rotate anticlockwise and in the South clockwise. They are always
due North and due South at any location on Earth. At the North pole the centre of rotation of the Northern circumpolar stars is directly
overhead. As you move south its position drops in the sky, by the time you reach the equator it has reached the horizon. At any point on
the equator, if you look due South you can see the centre of rotation of the Southern circumpolar stars on the horizon. As you move south
its position moves up in the sky, at the South pole it is directly overhead. Also at the equator, you can see stars rising due East on
the horizon and setting due west on the horizon.
If we were on a rotating sphere with distant stars randomly distributed in the surrounding space. What we would expect to see is the stars
lying close to our axis of rotation to be circling round it, above and below the poles. We would expect the stars in between to be obscured
part of the time by the sphere due to the sphere rotating. In short, we would expect to see exactly what we do see.
See the following links for more information.
earthsky.org
infoplease.com
planetfacts.org
This is a purely geometric problem. It is geometrically impossible for the Earth to be flat.
Watch the following videos. They expand nicely on the circumpolar stars issue.
Nolan Mitchell
...
Bentley Perez
>Page 7
In support of point 3.
nhm.ac.uk
antarctica.gov.au
timeanddate.com
There are dozens of independently written articles, from personal blogs to news paper articles, that refer to the 24 hour sun in antarctica.
If you are seriously going to suggest that these have all been written by a conspiracy then you truly are ridiculous.
The sun is visible 24 hours a day in Antarctica while it is dark 24 hours a day in the Arctic. Do you really need me to spell out for you
why this is impossible on a flat Earth?
Before you give me the paranoid schtick about how visiting Antarctica is restricted, up until a few years ago up 40 000 tourists a
year were visiting antarctica. To preserve Antarctica and reduce the environmental impact of human visitors, restrictions were
placed on visiting. It's not a sinister conspiracy.
antarctica.ac.uk
coolantarctica.com
Gavin Rivera
>Page 8
Related to point 4.
If you were on the equator at midday on an equinox the sun would be directly overhead assuming a flat Earth. It would be 4,000 miles away.
According to the flat Earth model; at 6pm the sun should be North West, be at an angle of elevation of 24° in the sky and be 9,700 miles
away. Since it is over 2 times further away than when it was overhead we should expect it to look 2 times smaller in the sky than when it
was overhead.
In reality at 6pm at the equator on an equinox the sun is due West, is setting on the horizon and is the exact same angular size as it
was when it was directly overhead.
At 12 pm according the flat Earth model; the sun should be due North, at angle of elevation of 18° in the sky and should look less
than 3 times smaller than it did when it was directly overhead.
In reality the sun set 6 hours previously.
The flat Earth model isn't just not very good, it is catastrophically wrong. There are plenty other problems.
Michael Rogers
AMEN Sup ForumsROTHER, AMEN!!!
Adrian Price
Oh look a trump supporter
In before being called a liberaltard and hillary supporter because lets face it, that the only comeback his supporters can throw.
Brayden Brooks
We all know that the earth is flat, let's talk about something else now
Thomas Moore
>Page 9
Support for point 5.
If the sun is 3,000 to 4,000 miles above a flat Earth, to get down to an angle of elevation of just 10° it would have to be above a point
on the Earth 17,000 to 23,000 miles away ( 3,000/tan10° 4,000/tan10°). The sun is always directly above a point on the Earth and there are
no two points on Earth more than 12,450 miles apart.
The sun is seen to drop to an angle of elevation of 0° which is impossible on a flat Earth. To get down to an angle of elevation of 3°
it would have to be 57,000 to 76,000 miles away.
Related to point 8/9.
Qantas fly a direct flight from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile. It takes 12 hours 40 minutes.
Sydney and Santiago are both at a latitude of roughly 33° South. The distance from the North Pole to the South Pole/Ice Wall is about
12,450 miles. On a flat Earth this means that the circle centred at the North pole which passes through Santiago and Sydney has a radius
of 8,500 miles and a circumference of 53,500 miles.
Sydney is at a longitude of roughly 150° East and Santiago is at 70° West. Assuming a flat Earth; travelling East from Sydney along the
circle centred at the North pole, the distance to Santiago is 20,800 miles. The direct distance on a flat Earth between Sydney and Santiago
would be 16,000 miles. I can show how I made these calculations if anyone is interested.
Joseph Torres
Soyuz need you
Cooper Johnson
>Page 10, Final Page
If you fly from Sydney to Santiago along the circle the average speed is 1,640 miles per hour.
Flying direct the average speed is 1,260 miles per hour.
So, a plane flying from Sydney to Santiago on a flat Earth would have to fly at somewhere between 1,260 and 1,640 miles per hour. A Boeing
747 flies at a maximum of about 600 miles per hour.
On the other hand, the distance between Sydney and Santiago on a round Earth model is 7,060 miles. This gives you an average speed of
560 miles per hour which is what we would expect.
Unless the distance between the North pole and the South pole is, at most, about a half of what we are told it is, this just doesn't work.
Is it really feasible that the distance between the North Pole and the South pole is only about 6,000 miles?
The other possibilities are that planes fly at up to 3 times the speed we are told they do but only in the Southern hemisphere
or the longitudes and latitudes for locations on Earth are totally wrong.
The flat Earth model is geometrically totally different from the round Earth model. If this was 500 years ago they might have gotten away
with a lie like that. However, we live in a world in which thousands of planes fly all over the world every day and ships sail everywhere.
If all the distances were out by massive amounts then navigators and pilots would realise because they would be constantly flying and sailing
to the wrong places.
If the Earth is flat there must a conspiracy of unlimited power and resources to make sure planes and ships arrive at the correct locations without anyone
noticing that the whole thing doesn't make sense.
Deny it -> Deny evidence -> Claim evidence is wrong -> Claim it's not caused by humans -> Invent wrong science
Isaac Howard
I don't know why you would make up a scientific explanation why the earth is flat and not just see the fax
Carson Cooper
Must... close... shut... the... jaws... of... Oblivion.
Andrew Price
TRUTH
Zachary Smith
#6 is bullshit. The only explanation is that the world is flat. You can only see so far with your eyes.
Brayden Martin
mountains
Aiden Morgan
>someone posts something stupid
>"oh look a trump supporter" every single fucking time
>trump supports have no comebacks
>gets called out
>never replies or calls trump dumb racist
>can never defend accusations
Irony.
Angel Anderson
flat yea.. but not like in this pic mate
Connor Perez
Okay, let's give you the benefit of the doubt, without all of the mathematical mumbo-jumbo.
Please "disprove" the other 8 points.
Evan Peterson
...
Jaxon Anderson
I just don't even like arguing with people about this you can believe whatever nonsense you want
Andrew White
the real NONSENSE is that the earth is ROUND, even though there is ZERO PROOF of that
Matthew Hernandez
Why wouldn/t the sun be flat?
Bentley Morris
the sun IS flat as is the moon. Both are discs and are 32 miles in circumference.
Julian Martin
Jack Butler
I feel it's flat show me a photo of the edge
Cooper Hall
Go to Australia and take a picture of Polaris, cunt.
Nicholas Johnson
...
Jaxon Butler
Almost every night I see the moon in the sky because it reflects the sunlight
Isaac Hall
Yup, still flat. I'm actually glad that President Trump is ending scientific funding and educational public television.
UNITE BOTHERS!!
Liam Reyes
they are all FREEMASONS
Jayden Smith
the earth is not flat. prove me wrong OP
Josiah Myers
no, the onus of proof is on you.
Christopher Young
Christian Sullivan
...
Owen Torres
...