[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/x/ - Paranormal



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 1515564623088-x.jpg (73 KB, 960x720)
73 KB
73 KB JPG
Every Flat Earth thread that I have started has got over 300 posts within 1-2 days. Why is this?

I believe its because this is one of the few paranormal topics that has even a shred of evidence that you can verify and research yourself.

Why is there no visible curvature no matter what height you go to?
Why dont the tides or the phases of the moon match the alignment between the earth and sun?
Why is Antarctica off limits to explore unsupervised?
Why arent there any pictures of satellites in orbit? only CGI renderings
Why cant the aspects of gravity where large masses attract others be demonstrated in any other medium besides space interactions?

>To keep it fair I realize this isn't a perfect theory.
Why do the southern stars rotate the opposite direction?
How could the entire science community be fooled, or accept a lie when it's culture is based around truth and disproving opponents for your own merit..
>>
they are desperate to stop us
>>
>>20174822
because people like arguing
>>
>>20174889
Flat earth can't real.
>>
>>20174822
Why do you only ask questions where the only answer to them is "they don't"?
>>
>>20174822
the flat earth meme is getting old.
>>
File: 1506323045351.jpg (19 KB, 320x179)
19 KB
19 KB JPG
>>20174822
It's fun because it forces people to confront the fact that their conception of the world is entirely constructed for them by the high priests. You cannot argue against flat earth without appeal to authority, so some of the smarter among us end up breaking free from looking into it.
>>
>>20174822
the simple answer my friend is we live in an electric universe.

there is no physical, different frequency energy, time is the illusion created by the difference in amount of energy present in any system.
gravity is a result of the emission of EMR, it is the inverse force created purely through outward motion. this can be seen by comparing the equation for finding a "masses" gravitational constant to that of columns law being inverse of one another.
all bodies of 'mass' emit EMR its just things so small as human do emit enough to have an effective gravitation field.
>>
>>20174822
causes yous a dumbs nigger jews faggot queer
>>
>>20174822
You're totally right and you've finally done it the earth really is flat... cg

> now what?
>>
>>20174965
>> now what?
Is there are more depressing question than this? One more bloated with childish spite?
>>
>>20174935
>You cannot argue against flat earth without appeal to authority
You can actually, but since both flat earthers and non flat-earthers are morons in this board, they fail to use and understand the wonders of basic science.
>>
>>20174977
Sigh. Wow. You have to ASSUME that the frameworks of science are real and not made up to argue that the earth is round. Why is that hard to understand?
>>
File: 1515574685560-b.jpg (576 KB, 2677x1763)
576 KB
576 KB JPG
>>20174928
If there was another answer besides 'they dont', then someone would put it out there. They are only closed questions because nothing logically makes sense. Flat Earth makes sense logically, but illogically when you use ball earth theory

I ask because the questions shouldnt even exist in a true round earth
>>
File: 1515644044621-x.jpg (199 KB, 1242x1225)
199 KB
199 KB JPG
>>20174822
Jesus, I dont believe in Kek.. But all 4 of the threads on Flat Earth I have started have been dubs..
>>
File: 1515574604742-b.jpg (102 KB, 640x819)
102 KB
102 KB JPG
>>20174935
I think you hit the nail on the head. To step up to the authority, the big majority, is just too much for most people. When i ask my brother about this, someone who Ive always considered a genius, if not a little autistic: His only defense is that it doesnt matter what He, or even I think because we cant trust our own senses, or our own mind to be correct. We MUST depend on the science community because THEY are more smart, THEY have it all figured out! If you do the math and it doesn't add up, YOU are the retard.
>>
>>20175002
It isnt, but insulting someone feels good and makes people think theyve disproved something. Thats all Ball earth people do, is throw baseless claims and demeaning insults.
>>
>>20174822
But what about the other 90% of flat earth threads that get bumped off? And the other 5% that get flagged as troll threads?
>>
File: 1515641648937.jpg (94 KB, 746x1024)
94 KB
94 KB JPG
>>
>>20174822
>Why is there no visible curvature no matter what height you go to?
Have you never been on a plane?
>>
>>20174822
Shills keeping retards and pseuds busy.
>>
>>20174935
>gravity depends on magnetism
What?
>>
>>20175002
Do you really want to get into an argument about the philosophy of the scientific method?
>>
>Why do the southern stars rotate the opposite direction?
Is that really all you could think of?

Just off the top of my head:
Why do stars and planets move in different patterns if they are all fixed in the firmament? (e.g. Jupiter will be in different locations Jan 2017 vs Jan 2018 but the constellations won't have moved)
Why do the moon and Venus (supposedly just a light in the firmament) have crescent phases and how (specifically) are these controlled?
What force is holding the sun and moon up that doesn't affect anything else?
If density is what causes things to fall, what is it that gives density its force? Since density is a measure of mass divided by volume, and therefore not a force. Also, what gives density its directionality when solid objects held in air are surrounded by a less dense medium both below and above them?
If the sun and moon are within/below the firmament why can't we easily fly amateur rockets into them?
Why hasn't anyone flown an amateur rocket into the firmament with a camera facing up?
How does the sun speed up to travel around the tropic of capricorn once a day during southern summer?
Why are there videos of high-powered zoom cameras that fail to bring the bottoms of ships back into view, and if zoom is all that is needed to bring an object back into view because they only disappear over the horizon due to perspective, why can't the sun be brought back into view by this mechanism?
Why do pictures of the sun taken with solar filters show that it never shrinks to a dot while setting?

The flat earth model isn't simple and doesn't explain shit. When people start coming up with answers to questions like these, they come up with their own personal theory and that gets more and more complicated. Like saying the south celestial pole is a mirror image of the north even though the constellations are different, or that the sun and moon are held up by electromagnetism or static electricity
>>
File: 1512854981603 (1).png (284 KB, 539x595)
284 KB
284 KB PNG
par·a·nor·mal
ˌperəˈnôrm(ə)l/Submit
adjective
denoting events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding.
"a mystic who can prove he has paranormal powers"

Yeah this shit is not paranormal. These threads are literally cancer on /x/.

>saged
>>
File: whatis_x.jpg (184 KB, 1420x561)
184 KB
184 KB JPG
>>20175713
it involves a huge conspiracy theory, so it's very much /x/
>>
>>20175665
Yes I have, about 8 times, its flat from that height!
>>
>>20175721
>"outside of science's current ability to explain or measure."

Since science can explain and measure the Earth then this is not a conspiracy or paranormal. The only conspiracy here is whether the Flat Earth meme is a CIA psyop.
>>
File: Moon phases.jpg (14 KB, 480x480)
14 KB
14 KB JPG
also
>Why dont the tides or the phases of the moon match the alignment between the earth and sun?
The phases do match
>>
>>20175706
>the scientific method
Doesn't apply to the kabbalah, ie. "space and globes"
>>
File: moon shadows.jpg (19 KB, 690x798)
19 KB
19 KB JPG
hmmm
>>
File: moon shadow 2.jpg (66 KB, 1280x640)
66 KB
66 KB JPG
hmmmmm
>>
File: 7c521e8.gif (1.78 MB, 400x240)
1.78 MB
1.78 MB GIF
HERE'S PROOF OF ROUND EARTH. Mouthbreathing flat earthers shut your laptops
>>
File: 1514728007942.jpg (137 KB, 900x988)
137 KB
137 KB JPG
>>20174822
>>20174889
>>
File: Earth Chan is not Flat.jpg (150 KB, 849x848)
150 KB
150 KB JPG
>>20174822
baka
>>
File: 1512610237451s.jpg (4 KB, 125x124)
4 KB
4 KB JPG
>>20175784
>>20175792
>>20175795

Nice NASA shooped pictures anon. No real flat earthen mandingo would fall for this trash. Am I right flat Bros. Clearly you believe in this made up thing I like to call science's. Obviously the real redpilled among us know that the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old. And that also all your "scientists" plant dinosaur fosils and propigate the ball Earth. All you ballers disgust me.
>>
You can't argue round earth without appeal to authority???
1. Fly a plane to the arctic or antarctic, where the sun doesn't always set and takes an oblong path
2. Fly a plane and stare at the curvature.
3. Interview any of the thousands of people who have gone around the world as a pilot, oil tanker sailor, etc.
And using the "appeal to authority" argument, you can't tell me great white sharks exist, or Russia exists, or we have kidneys. What, you have to consult with someone who's seen a shark, who's been to Russia, who's operated on a body? Lol, appealing to authority, doesn't count
>>
>>20175763
the conspiracy theory is that science is lying. only the scientifically illiterate are able to believe in this theory, but it's still a conspiracy theory.

stop being a dunce, this is an /x/ topic no matter how stupid it is.
>>
and there they go, all flat earthers have retreated because they're w r o n g
>>
File: lake_ponchartrain2.jpg (244 KB, 1600x1066)
244 KB
244 KB JPG
>>
u want a pic of a satellite in orbit go outside and take a pic of the moon fag
>>
File: retro2003.jpg (70 KB, 600x392)
70 KB
70 KB JPG
>>20174822
>any image proof presented is just "cgi" or "camera lens distortion"
So much conformation bias, flat earth is possibly the most retarded conspiracy theory out there, worse than golf rumors and the grifter. I'm almost sure it's a psyop to make all conspiracies look nuts

Look dude, every time you post this thread I ask you: explain the retrograde motion of Mars. And you never do. Why not just say it's a hologram, because you can't explain it with a flat earth.
>>
>>20174822
>flat earth
>evidence
>>
>>20174822
looks curved to me.
>>
>>20174822
because shills, and larpers, and dumb faggot contrarians are everywhere
>>
Because flat earth is now a normie conspiracy
>>
>>20175819
>you can't tell me great white sharks exist, or Russia exists, or we have kidneys
Verified images of those things exist. There's no reason to believe any of the rest of the shit you said, except that an authority figure told you so.
>>
Verified images of round earth exist. You can't just decide what's fake and what's real because of the stupid rules your mind wishes were in place. If you don't believe any of the thousands of pictures and videos of the rotating globe, then why believe pictures of sharks? How do we know the government isn't lying to us about sharks so we don't swim out too far and find buried treasure? EXACT same logic.
>>
>>20176286
yeah basically this
>water is actually breathable, the government just doesn't want us to find atlantis
>all those people who supposedly drowned were NOAA shills
>do you actually KNOW anyone who has ever drowned????
>why do you think drowning has never been captured on film?
>>
>>20174822
Who would benefit off of by saying the world is round when its flat?

Why do you see a boat disappear bottom first when sailing long distances?

How come liquids and materials form a spherical shape in 0 gravity?
>>
Also

Where do meteors come from if there is a supposed dome around the flat earth?
>>
>>20176373
Oh boy, get ready guys. The flat-earthers always pull out their absolute worst arguments for these questions.
>>
>>20174822
> that has even a shred of evidence

What evidence?

The most concrete argument I saw was a picture of an object like 300 km away. Then I redid the guy's math and he was just a retard.
>>
>>20174822

>Why is there no visible curvature no matter what height you go to?

Except there are hundreds of photos of this. If the Earth is flat why has no flat earther stuck a fucking camera on a balloon and shown me a picture of a flat earth?
>>
>>20175986
I like how it goes toward the "vanishing point" and then the tops obviously curve instead of staying in a straight line like they say.
>>
>>20176393
They can't reasonably answer them.
I propose we make slang for flat earthers to annoy the shit out of them.

We shall call them: Flat heads
>>
>>20174822
What i don't understand is why do people care?! The earth is round.. great. The earth is flat.. great. Whats the point of these threads? How does it change your everyday life whether or not we live on a sphere or a disc? Like woohoo you convinced some people the earth is flat, im sure you really changed their life OP...
>>
Well according to Einstein the earth is flat but the space is curved so it creates the illusion of curvature and roundness.
>>
Nigga, you can fly a fucking plane around the earth.
>>
File: 1515617497895-x.jpg (39 KB, 480x360)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
>>20176286
Show me the verified pic from someone besides NASA or another world government organization.. ANY independent source please? THEY have decided who is verified and who is not, and you have accepted their prescription, a smooth dosage.
>>
File: 1515554633281-x.jpg (29 KB, 329x333)
29 KB
29 KB JPG
>>20176373
>>20176373
>Who would benefit off of by saying the world is round when its flat?

Anyone who is monopolizing the land and resources on this planet, we basically know who these people are. What we DONT know is how many other resources and unknowns are further out on the plane.

>Why do you see a boat disappear bottom first when sailing long distances?

Its how our eyes perceive distance, same effect when looking down a long hallway.
If you watch the ship disappear over the horizon, then pull out a telescope or camera with zoom, you can bring the bottom back into focus. Look on youtube

>How come liquids and materials form a spherical shape in 0 gravity?

There's no such thing as zero or any gravity. All the shots youve seen like that were either CGI from nasa or a movie. Otherwise it was on a plane in parabolic flight.
Rain droplets are spherical too.
>>
>>20176436
Redbull had that dude jump out the balloon. You could see the Earth's curve on the live stream. Is redbull shadow government now? lel
>>
>>20176411
if you had a camera and stood from where this was taken, and you were to zoom in, all of those towers wouod come into frame. Our eyes and pictures percieve the world in a particular but incorrect way.
>>
File: longdistance.webm (2.97 MB, 854x480)
2.97 MB
2.97 MB WEBM
>>
File: 1515653244605-x.jpg (20 KB, 376x410)
20 KB
20 KB JPG
>>20176414
>>20176393
Trolls
>>
ITT: Actual autists, dipshits who don't understand simple science, & shills
>>
File: 1515582091551-b.jpg (47 KB, 635x820)
47 KB
47 KB JPG
>>20176425
Where do the lies stop? At what point is it acceptable. You sound like an uncle tom sheep lemming.
>>
>>20176449
watch the video, his camera on the outside is a fish eye lense. when you look at the shot from the inside of the capsule you can see that there is no curve
>>
>>20176461
Gee who would have thought that being at a high elevation would make it easier to see things very far away...
>>
File: 1515606274385-pol.png (470 KB, 954x768)
470 KB
470 KB PNG
>>20176461
Amazing, thank you for the video. Is there ANY response as to how you could look almost 300miles without a drop from curvature?
>>
>>20176474
You can check it yourself:

https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial

even when considering the height of the mountain it should be hidden by the curvature.

>>20176478
ripped it from a Eric Dubay video- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssWDiAZY9Hs&t=192s starts 1:15 and ios much longer than the part i ripped.
>>
>>20176474
That's not the point, pay attention. Using the description of the round earth, there should be 50,000 ft of drop in the image, but there is none.
>>
File: 1493282296047.webm (2.95 MB, 1280x720)
2.95 MB
2.95 MB WEBM
>>
>no pictures of satellites in orbit

Ive seen the ISS through my telescope with my own damn eyes, also seen it cross the disk of the sun
>>
>>20176557
Didn't they tell you not to point the telescope at the sun?
>>
File: 1500660541751.webm (2.95 MB, 1280x720)
2.95 MB
2.95 MB WEBM
>>
>>20174822
flat earth is one of the least likely paranormal topics to be real, inner earth is literally more believable.
>>
>>20174935
gravity doesnt depend on magnetism, you dumb twat. those are two different fundamental forces
>>
Taken using a full format camera with a 50mm prime lens. Minimal barrel distortion. Curve is clear. Things look in proportion for an orbiting craft at 400km above earth (radius of earth just below 6,400km).
>>
>>20174822
>Why is there no visible curvature no matter what height you go to?
There is visible curvature, and you can see it even at sea level if you have an unobstructed view.
>Why dont the tides or the phases of the moon match the alignment between the earth and sun?
I don't know exactly what you're getting at, but the tides react to the moon because it's much closer, meanwhile the sun exercises a much lesser effect because it is farther away. The phases of the moon are literally dependent upon where the sun is at in relation to the moon, and you can see it mattering with respect to the alignment of the earth and sun during eclipses.
>Why is Antarctica off limits to explore unsupervised?
Because you will fucking die. You can go there if you want to unsupervised, but you will not be able to survive unless you are well prepared. A government is not going to take you there just to fuck around and then let you go kill yourself.
>Why arent there any pictures of satellites in orbit? only CGI renderings
There are pictures of satellites in orbit, and you can find them with a quick google search.
>Why cant the aspects of gravity where large masses attract others be demonstrated in any other medium besides space interactions?
You're seriously asking why large mass gravity can only be demonstrated with large, massive objects which must be within space to work? I'm trying to take you as seriously as possible but this is legitimately retardation. We can't demonstrate those outside of space because the conditions that are required (Planet sized bodies of matter.) are only within space. Durr. How the fuck do you seriously expect someone to create conditions like that OUTSIDE of space? Do you realize that even within your own atmosphere you are technically just on a body in space? You are in space right now, you're just standing in a pocket of breathable atmosphere within it.
>>
>>20174924
Anything is possible, it just may not be probable.
>>
>>20174936
What
>>
>>20176447
>rain droplets are spherical too
Woops, anon?
>>
>>20174822
I am so happy you are here Eddie Bravo.

What you really need is. Flat Earth only Podcast
>>
>>20176549
Lmao
>>
There are a trillion photos of the curvature of the earth that weren't taken by NASA
and WHY THE FUCK DON'T NASA PHOTOS OR ANY OTHER SPACE PHOTOS COUNT? Flat earthers start their arguments by just taking all proof of round earth and saying it's fake. That's a bullshit pussy argument, it's entirely wrong, and even if NASA didn't exist, which it fucking does, we would have millions of photos of the horizon and from planes proving the earth has curvature. Also, see the gif of the non-setting sun early in this thread. That's proof. Shut the fuck up.
>>
>>20174822
>Why is there no visible curvature no matter what height you go to?

this is false. at around 30 km, slight curvature is visible. pic related.

>Why dont the tides or the phases of the moon match the alignment between the earth and sun?

i think this is representative of how flat earthers attempt to pole holes in the heliocentric model. your mistake is thinking that in the heliocentric model, the "bulge" caused by water would point directly towards the moon, or that it is caused primarily by the moon in the first place. tides are a products of the moon and the earth's spin. as such, since the earth is spinning, tides are shifted slightly.

>Why is Antarctica off limits to explore unsupervised?

no one will stop you if you fund your own expedition. the thing is no company will take you there and just let you roam about. it's dangerous, extremely foreboding, and you'll get killed. if you want to go there yourself, go ahead, it's just you're going to have a hard time finding someone who both has the equipment, AND the autonomy to actually do it.

>Why cant the aspects of gravity where large masses attract others be demonstrated in any other medium besides space interactions?

i don't understand why you think this.

>>20174889

it's just fun.
>>
>>20176456
nope. it doesn't work that way.

for some reason flat earthers tend to believe that zooming in on things brings things beyond the horizon back into frame.

the reason this appears to happen is for pizel based sensors, there is a minimum angular size something can be before it takes up less than a single pixel in the image. each pixel in an image is just the average color or all objects in that one area. as you can image, if something becomes less than the size of a pixel in the image, it would effectively disappear, horizon or not.

anyway, if you zoom in more to a sailboat when you can already see it due to zooming in you can clearly see that the point at which the water cuts off the rest of the boat does NOT move up and down relative to the boat. this proves that zoom does not modulate the horizon.
>>
>>20176436
spacex? they have lots of footage.

oh, i forgot, by your definition, anybody who has footage of the earth MUST be a government organization.
>>
File: file.png (111 KB, 2210x1907)
111 KB
111 KB PNG
>>20176484
>>20176478
>>20176461

the thing all of you are forgetting is refraction. this is a special sub-hobby in photography called non line of sight photography. the photographers know that technically there is no direct line of sight to the mountain, but they still manage to take a picture of it, how?

refraction. in long distance surveying, the general rule of thumb is the 1/7'th rule. AKA, the refracition of the atmosphere makes objects and line of sight behave as if the earth's radius were 1/7'th greater than it really is. if you take this into consideration, and use an earth radius of 7281 instead of 6371, the tip of the mountain is just visible, as is seen in the photograph.

funny enough, if the earth really were flat, refraction would make it seem very concave. and in order to appear to be flat, the earth would actually have to have the curvature of a sphere 7 times the radius of the earth.
>>
>>20176456
you're saying that if somebody took that picture with a camera it would look different than the picture that was taken with a camera? k.
>>
This is a CIA psy-op to further discredit "Conspiracy theorists" only people jumping on it are the lowest of the low in terms of intelligence.
>>
>>20174822
>Why is this?
Because this is a haven from logic
>>
File: kr6da29x8p701.jpg (62 KB, 640x785)
62 KB
62 KB JPG
>>20177644
Reading comprehension. ZOOM in with a camera.
>>
File: 1515057246113.jpg (192 KB, 960x1052)
192 KB
192 KB JPG
>>20177573
No, this is wrong. If you look with your EYES and watch the ship disappear, then use binoculars, the ship will come back into view. Look onto youtube to see this there are hundreds of videos now.
>>
let's fund an /x/pedition to antarctica
or a space/x/ mission
>>
>>20175986

How does this picture prove a spherical earth? On a sphere, the curvature should be seen in all directions, and yet the horizon is flat and not "curving" away in any other direction.

As another poster pointed out, this is just how perspective works, things get smaller the further away they are, giving the illusion of disappearing over a curve.
>>
File: img_0584-e1498526384490.png (450 KB, 1672x701)
450 KB
450 KB PNG
Somebody explain to me this.

If the earth is flat and theres some big conspiracy. Why does every country around the globe agrees to it?

America is fucking paranoid about Russia because of some tweets but they agree on this one thing? No fucking way. The country that disclosed a conspiracy as big as this one would have some pretty good ammunition against any rival.

Im all for conspiracy when its a country per country thing but when it gets global it becomes absurd. Every major power is trying to fuck the other one but they agree in this one to sell globes to schools?

Fucking retarded.
>>
>>20176411
I like how the dark colored bottoms of the towers disappear first, instead of getting smaller and smaller until it "disappears" as they say.
>>
>>20174822
Flat earth is the only reason you go on /x/?
Theres no evidence, youre deluded.
Watch a ship sail beyond the horizon, and disappear beyond the earths curvature.
Anyone with a plane can fly it around the globe.
>>
>>20178013
>Anyone with a plane can fly it around the globe.
no really??
>>
>>20178013
One of the most frequently used arguments against flat earth is that you can see ships disappear over the horizon when on the sea. However, even this can be explained quite easily. People have done experiments that show that a lens (which our atmosphere acts as) will cause the bottom of objects to disappear as they get further from the viewer.
>>
>>20174933
You know how i know you're a fucking millenial?
>>
>>20174822
I have made a series of 12 threads across the occult some years ago and they grew rapidly.

There was not one mention of flat earth.
Let that tell you whatever it does.
>>
>>20178001
Because all governments benefit from it.
>>
>>20178007

The bottom is closer to the water, it will be the first thing to merge into the horizon. The water will also create a miraging affect that will obscure the bottom of the pylons.
>>
>>20177907
the same exact phenomenon happens with your eyes, ya dingus. cameras are actually better than your eyes.

if the ship's angular size is smaller than the size of a pixel (rods and cones) then it simply gets averaged in with the rest of the shit around it. when the ship goes "over the horizon" to your eyes or a non zoom camera, it's not actually going over the horizon.

however, if you zoom in on it, you can clearly see it going over the horizon. regardless, zooming in and out does not change how much of the ship is visible.
>>
Wtf I leave /x/ for 3 months and this flat earth meme is still going on? Fuck sakes you are all morons
>>
File: 1514892071238.jpg (168 KB, 747x1070)
168 KB
168 KB JPG
>>20178001
If I knew I would tell you but I have no idea. It could be a real estate thing, a resource thing, hell they might be pawns to some higher authority working on earth, and they might be coerced into perpetuating a lie. We don't know why the elite do what they do, even when considering the earth round.
>>
File: file.png (3.48 MB, 1734x2788)
3.48 MB
3.48 MB PNG
>>20175986
flat earthers will defend this.
>>
Proof earth is flat

1. My toilet
a. flat water
b. spins in a globe shape when i flush

2. my water glass
a. flat water
b. pisses out of my round balls

3. coconuts
a. coconuts can not float on a circle only flat water
b. coconuts leave the island flat and arrive the island flat

4. all planets are round globe
a. except earth
b. maybe planets are old stage props
>>
>>20177963
unfortunately you're wrong. a spherical 3d rendering shows that that's the exact kind of curvature you would expect to see on a globe.
>>
>>20178049

So the ship is not going over the horizon when looking with the naked eye - but it does go over the horizon when looking through a zoom camera? Isn't it more logical to conclude that the same illusion our eyes perceive of the ship disappearing is also happening to the camera?
>>
>>20176471
There were multiple cameras on the outside that were fisheye and normal. From inside of course you can't see the curve. The window is fucking tiny.
>>
>>20176668
And NOBODY is going to try to respond to this lol
>>
>>20176668
>>20178085
well, then it's settled
>>
Just look into it bro!
>>
>>20177545
Where is pic related?
>>
Threadly reminder that NASA pays artists to draw anime to discredit flat earth truth. Don't fall for it!!!
>>
>Why is there no visible curvature no matter what height you go to?
There is. You can fucking see it if you look at the ocean. There are even a few sniper rifles out there that require programs to account for the curvature of the earth because of how powerful they are.
>Why dont the tides or the phases of the moon match the alignment between the earth and sun?
Wat? The moon has a huge effect on the tides. The sun has a lesser effect because it is much farther away. The variation in effects comes from the fact that the earth is on an elliptical(vaguely oval-shaped) orbit around the sun and the moon is in an elliptical orbit around the planet, meaning that the pull of the gravity of both changes depending on how near or far we are to them.
>Why is Antarctica off limits to explore unsupervised?
Because you'll fucking die, either from snowblindness or the cold.
>Why arent there any pictures of satellites in orbit? only CGI renderings
They've taken plenty of pictures from the ISS when satellites were visible in orbit.
>Why cant the aspects of gravity where large masses attract others be demonstrated in any other medium besides space interactions?
....Are you retarded? it takes an enormous amount of mass to attract something else, so it has to be demonstrated utilizing things on a grand scale. Earth's mass would be much greater than anything ON earth, and as a result, EARTH'S GRAVITY WILL WIN EVERY FUCKING TIME you try to demonstrate gravitic pull on earth.

You have to have a massive lack of scientific education to believe that the earth is flat.
>>
File: foot.jpg (85 KB, 646x438)
85 KB
85 KB JPG
>>20178096
>>
File: whatcurve.jpg (391 KB, 1719x876)
391 KB
391 KB JPG
>>20178067

Also, the photo was taken over open water which will create a mirage affect, which is why the bottoms of the pylons are obscured first.
>>
>>20178073
>a spherical 3d rendering

Show this. And a 3d rendering huh? How scientific.
>>
File: bullshit.jpg (131 KB, 750x710)
131 KB
131 KB JPG
>>20178048
anything else you want to pull out directly from your ass?
>>
>>20174822
>Every Flat Earth thread that I have started has got over 300 posts within 1-2 days. Why is this?

If I started a thread on how there are actually little elves sitting in thrones controlling our bodies by remote control, and there were a few people who came to every one of those threads saying "prove it's not true!", those threads would be HUUUUUGE... because the idea is SO STUPID.
>>
>>20178126
I'll address your two main points. I can't help the opacity of the
>shouldn't it be tilted at an angle?
It is, but the diameter of the earth is so large it comes down to hundredths of a degree and isn't easily noticeable in a
>where is the curve in this direction?
Flat earners always seem to be under the impression that we're looking into the curve. You can infer the curvature going away in any direction because you are essentially "on top" and looking down on the sphere in every direction. If you could get a wide enough field of view you might be able to see a few hundredths of a degree of curvature, but it's just too big and we're too close
>>
>>20178172
>easily noticeable in a picture
>>
>>20176668
>>20176668

Be honest, does that look like a sphere to you?

That picture was taken when the camera was pointing down which the camera lens distorts creating a curvature. This gif proves the point. When the camera is parallel to the horizon, it becomes flat: https://i.giphy.com/media/xT9IgxXqnAoOxaQopO/source.gif
>>
>>20178172

If you can see the curvature affecting pylons a few miles ahead of you, then you should see this same affect on the water that is also going over this curve, and yet the horizon remains perfectly flat. That's completely illogical.
>>
File: circle_1.jpg (15 KB, 300x279)
15 KB
15 KB JPG
>>20178184
Your gif was clearly taken with a fisheye lens.
The funny thing, if you continue an arc you get a circle.
>>
The first image showing the earth's curvature was taken by Alexander Dahl at a height of 11300m on 31 August 1933 from the high performance (9.800 cbm) hydrogen gas balloon Bartsch von Sigsfeld.
>>
>>20178195
There's no reference, it's a single surface dropping fractions of degrees. The reason you can see this with the pylons is because each pylon serves as a reference to measure against.
A flat vanishing point would run as a straight line into infinity, there would be no discernable curving of the pylons
>>
>>20178201

A fisheye lens would distort the video much more than that.

You can see in >>20176668 that the camera is pointing down towards earth, rather than parallel with the horizon. I guarantee there'd be no curvature if it was.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8m1u2ORXmE
>when you zoom in on something on the horizon, it just gets bigger, you don't see more of it.
>>
>>20178213
Immediately to the right of your center of view you can see a rope curving slightly, then to the right of that, you can see part of the craft curving even more dramatically.
You can also see dramatic stretching and warping in the clouds closest to the edge of the frame which you don't see in >>20176668
>>
>>20178211

What reference do you need to see water curving? The water itself should be curving at the same steepness as those pylons in all directions.

>A flat vanishing point would run as a straight line into infinity, there would be no discernable curving of the pylons

Depends on the angle you're looking at. If you look at it from the side, it can give the illusion of going over a curve, but again it's just perspective, and in the case of the pylons, the ocean will create a mirage at the horizon line, which further adds to the illusion.
>>
File: similar.jpg (86 KB, 1112x365)
86 KB
86 KB JPG
>>20178242

When the cameras are pointing at a similar angle, they look pretty damn similar.
>>
Flat Earth shills are government agents testing the boundaries of social pressure and mind control, and on top of that discrediting other more likely conspiracies by convincing the public that all conspiracies share the same space as flat Earth tards.
>>
>>20178260

Boooooring. You don't need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to prove it, all it requires is real science.

People have no problem believing that we are living in a simulation, but the earth could be flat!? No way!
>>
>>20178245
The water is a visually solid mass. If the image was larger, you might be able to measure ripples in the water to discern the drop off, but there just isn't enough visual reference.

There's no curvature in your line of shots. They run parallel to each other and appear to converge at a single point down the line. Which isn't what you see in the image with the pylons
>>
>>20175916
Yeah, it's really not champ.
>>
File: Zb6pggN.gif (1.23 MB, 245x180)
1.23 MB
1.23 MB GIF
>>20176048
Oh I see it's just the illusion of a curve. Well that's it folks pack it up. Some guy decided that it's only a curve. Oh based on your observations there is curvature happening with the horizon it just looks flat because it's an illusion.
>>
>>20178302
>>20175986
>>
>>20178275

If the pylons are curving with the earth, then so must the water they are planted in. And yet the horizon shows no evidence of this from left to right. A sphere will curve equally in all directions, so you should be able to see this curve from left to right.
>>
>>20174822
>OP continues to furiously cut his wrists screaming “heaven on earth! heaven on earth!”
>>
>>20178309
>>20178172
>>
Have you fuckers ever watched a flat earther explain this on the YT? Even when I was buying into this shit, the F.E.’s come off as actual cultists. I couldn’t really convince myself it was real, even tho I followed all the steps. Huh that really was a cult. Do you know why they act so confidant? They think they can become immortal ether beings by getting “to the other side.” I shit you not people they are cultist, obsessed, and freaky. This one Tuber even said he used GALLONS OF HIS OWN BLOOD IN A RITUAL to “create” his insane ideas! Run away NOW! This is a front for something evil... something Anunnakian.
>>
>>20178356

I know right? Have you heard of the flat earth diet? They only eat pancakes, and then they season it with their own blood. Crazy.
>>
>>20178355

Do you, or do you not think, that perspective AT LEAST has an effect on the pylons looking like they're going over a curve? It's simply a fact, that things further away get smaller, but you seem to think they're getting smaller because of a curvature? You're going to have to explain that.
>>
File: 1509139102399.jpg (1.44 MB, 3000x1933)
1.44 MB
1.44 MB JPG
>>20178327

hehe
>>
File: DTV_Q_MXkAA4IlK.jpg (43 KB, 449x624)
43 KB
43 KB JPG
>>20176668
This shit looks fake as fuck man
>>
File: fPNGyYc.jpg (152 KB, 964x641)
152 KB
152 KB JPG
>>20177617
All those words to tell a lie, poetic.
>>
File: 1512951735445.png (23 KB, 406x388)
23 KB
23 KB PNG
>>20177579
Spacex is definitely in on it. Elon is one of the poster boys for this movement.
>>
>>20175798
that would work the same way on a flat earth model with the north pole being the central point

find one for the antarctic summer and you've got a better argument
>>
>>20178402
The pylons are getting smaller due to perspective. The curving of the pylons is due to the earth curving below it. Each pylon is the same size and is in a straight line, so why would perspective suddenly decide that parallel lines should curve?
>>
>>20178384
Everything I said was correct. Let that sink in /x/.
>>
>>20174822

>"guys look at the ice wall! "
>Posts ice shelf, a well known and documented geographic phenomenon that happens at both the poles
>>
>>20178466

Aren't you just confusing curving with perspective and the fact that water is creating a mirage which covers the bottom of the pylons beyond that mirage?

If these trees were put in place of the pylons, the same effect would happen.
>>
File: 4pgoefvjx0zz.jpg (54 KB, 1080x1785)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
Has NASA been lying to us about tennis balls?
>>
>>20176474
A few months ago I debunked this picture. Guy who posted it said you shouldn't be able to see the mountain because the extra distance you see from being at elevation wouldn't reach that far.

The guy forgot that uhh....the elevation of the object you're taking a picture of factors in.

These shills aren't the best.
>>
>>20178126
>which is why the bottoms

Fails to debunk why the tops curve.

nice
>>
>>20178543

Haha, that's a great one.

You should post the one where there are oceans sticking the exterior of the tennis ball while spinning on its axis and orbiting the sun, and the sun orbiting the galaxy at 500,000mph.
>>
>>20178554

The tops are not curving, they're just getting gradually smaller and smaller like this pic of trees show >>20178533
>>
>>20178570
But the trees don't curve
>>
File: paste.gif (488 KB, 736x307)
488 KB
488 KB GIF
>>
>>20178593

Can you make the distinction between curvature, and objects getting smaller the further away they are?
>>
File: 20170722-105907-h6wr6.jpg (130 KB, 1178x692)
130 KB
130 KB JPG
>>20178699
We have multiple angles of these pylons, they're a standard size and consistently curve towards the horizon regardless of the direction they're viewed from
>>
>>20178699
Linking to more diagrams, videos and math
https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/
>>
File: mirage 2.jpg (85 KB, 1178x692)
85 KB
85 KB JPG
>>20178758

Can you not see that mirage?
>>
>>20178779
Yeah, I'm not debating the mirage effect, it's very pronounced in this image, but the tops of the pylons are still visibly curved downwards outside of the mirage.
This image also shows that the pylons are consistently sized from a second angle.
I don't see your tree photo curving in the same way even though the perspective should be similar
>>
>>20178765

This is pathetic. Just one image of Lake Pontchartrain which has already been explained due to water's miraging effects.

Show a photo of the curvature involving land only, no water. There should be millions of photos of this type of curvature.
>>
>>20174822
Isn’t it that earth is round but it’s actually a giant ice ball with a small portion melted which is where our continents are?
>>
>>20178600
oh shit jpg compression. how will nasa ever recover?
>>
>>20178790
>curved downwards

You sure? Looks like they're just getting smaller and smaller to me.
>>
File: 6780533836_71e0f564cf_b.jpg (265 KB, 1024x683)
265 KB
265 KB JPG
>>20178800
Alright, I'll shift the goalposts,
Visible curvature of the Bonneville salt flats.
>>
File: 20170723-074824-tczbq.jpg (92 KB, 937x597)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
>>20178808
>>
>>20178829

Is that curvature, or just the roads going down a hill and turning left away from the salt flats? The land beyond the roads doesn't seem to be affected by this "curvature".
>>
File: DSCN1522_thumb1.jpg (28 KB, 404x304)
28 KB
28 KB JPG
>>20178829
Here, have another
>>
>>20178841

What's that supposed to prove?

>>20178870

>Foggy, low resolution picture of roads going off in the distance. Where's the clear as day evidence?
>>
The fuck you talking about man? Anyone with a bit of common sense knows the earth can't be flat because that's not how gravity works.
>>
File: 20180112_140232.png (2.55 MB, 1440x1439)
2.55 MB
2.55 MB PNG
>>20178867
That's highway 80 passing through the salt flats, the mountains are high enough to not be obscured
>>
>>20178879
It serves the point well enough. Why is the road curving?
>>
>>20174822
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddFvjfvPnqk&index=3&list=PLDdyNrb2JYSpMnp5hkJL9n-ioxQBn1Zn9
>>
>>20178886

No one knows how gravity works. It's a purely theoretical term. Scientists love to ask "What gives objects their force of acceleration downwards?" because science tells us that if an object is exerting a force, there must be something else giving it that force.

But with that logic, if gravity is exerting a force on objects, then what's exerting a force on gravity? And what's exerting a force on that? And so on and son to an infinite regression.

In light of this, you have to conclude that the most logical approach is to ignore theoretical external forces, and focus on the physical objects themselves, which exert their own forces, no external metaphysical forces required.
>>
>>20178903

Which proves my point, the roads near the mountains are not on the salt flats, they are on uneven ground.

>>20178913

Curving around the earth or going down a slight hill off of the salt flats? What's more likely?
>>
>>20178920

Objects warp the fabric of space-time. If your body is displacing water in a swimming pool is it necessarily exerting a force on the water?
>>
>>20178026
>everything is a meme
>things 'get old'
>>
>>20176668
There you have it boys, let's pack it up
>>
>>20178949
Over 61 miles?
The Bonneville salt flats are one of the flattest places on earth. I'm offering the same visual effect as lake ponchetrain, but over land.
There's no hills, just curvature.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_Salt_Flats
>>
>>20178955
>Objects warp the fabric of space-time.

Remarkable imagination you have there. "The fabric of space-time", give it a physical sounding name and people will believe it's actually there.

Did you also believe WIMPS and SUSY were there too?

>If your body is displacing water in a swimming pool is it necessarily exerting a force on the water?

Yes, you are creating pressure, and the water exerts its force on you, and the water also exerts a force on its container, and the container exerts a force on the water, and so on and so on.
>>
>>20179002
>The Bonneville salt flats are one of the flattest places on earth

Therefore there is no curvature. You need to show an example of land going over the curvature, not land that is as flat as a pancake.

>There's no hills, just curvature.

No hills? What are those mountains doing there? A photo of roads going off of the salt flats is not proof of curvature, it's just proof of the salt flats being very flat.
>>
>>20178920
Friend, if you spent less time reading fiction, worrying about irrational subjects and actually got a real degree or educated yourself in a real frield of study you'd understand how gravity works. It hasn't been a secret since the 17th century. Scientists cannot explain why it exists, but they can explain where it orginites from and what sustains it quite accurately. I won't delve into elaboration seeing as you're at a stage of your life where no one can reshape your bold beliefs because you're too hard-headed to consider anything outside of your spectrum.

All I can say is, please start educating yourself rather than being an armchair opinionist with no substance.
>>
>>20179054
Jesus Christ, you're dense.
The salt flats are an uninterrupted stretch of land at a constant elevation, which shows the curvature with the highway curving down.
The mountains are beyond the horizon because the tops of the mountains are higher than the portion that is obscured by the curve.
>>
File: donosars.png (627 KB, 900x773)
627 KB
627 KB PNG
>>
>>20179078

Yeah, I hear this reply all the time. "Go read a science book before you talk". I have studied the theory of gravity and I consider it a non-existent metaphysical force.

You seem to think that theories are facts. As if they are immune to criticism and could never be rejected.

That's why science isn't progressing any more, we're stuck with bullshit theories that have road blocked any real discoveries. But we're all supposed to worship unproven "science". No thanks.
>>
>>20179081

Flat or curved? Pick one.
>>
>>20177900
you probably don't have a photograph to prove it though huh?
>>
>>20179141
Now you're just being a pedantic asshole.
The area is of a constant elevation and unobstructed so you can see the curvature, as visible in the highway curving over the horizon
>>
>>20179137
Science isn't at an impasse, I don't know where your getting this from. They're creating a grid to store your consciousness for all eternity as we speak. They're sending men to Mars. They're devising medicine to prevent cell decay. We are ever evolving, all thanks to science.

The fiction which you worship simply expands your horizon, it helps you to think outside of the box to a certain extent. But that's all there is to it. I wouldn't expect you to understand tho.
>>
File: bonneville salt flats.jpg (94 KB, 1000x399)
94 KB
94 KB JPG
>>20179158

Are the salt flats curved or not?

We'll even ignore the fact that salt flats can create mirages too (pic is one at Bonneville).
>>
>>20179141
please pick virginity, for the sake of our species' future.
>>
>>20179182
They're flat in the sense that they are a constant elevation.
You can see the curvature because it is a large stretch of constant elevation.
Mirages are very possible at Bonneville, but aren't present in either picture above
>>
>>20179162

Where are you getting all this science fiction from? A grid to store consciousness? Science doesn't even know what consciousness is.

Sending men to Mars? Show me a rocket working in a vacuum first. Explain how Newton's laws apply to objects in a vacuum.

>They're devising medicine to prevent cell decay

I'll believe it when I see it. I'm sure diet and exercise can do that anyway.

>We are ever evolving, all thanks to science

Theories do not evolve any more, they are rigid. They're about proving themselves right, rather than proving themselves wrong.
>>
>>20179183

You got it. And I hope you have many children to bless us with on this spheroid earth.

>>20179197

>constant elevation

What does that mean exactly? Are the salt FLATS flat, or are they curving with the earth? Can't be both.
>>
>>20179213
>Sending men to Mars? Show me a rocket working in a vacuum first. Explain how Newton's laws apply to objects in a vacuum.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/154-people-in-astronomy/space-exploration-and-astronauts/rockets/957-how-do-rockets-work-intermediate
you should really go to the library and start with some books on elementary grade physics and work your way up. worst case you will learn something
>>
>>20179229
It's curving with the earth, but you're trying to force me to say it's flat so you can say "ha! It was flat the whole time"
As a reference point, it is as flat as we can get
>>
>>20174822
>>20174822
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtU_mdL2vBM why is the solar panel curved?
>>
>>20179266
because they are filming with a gopro? makes sense since they don't weigh that much, so it is cheaper to get them there
watch this one instead at around 28 mins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvTmdIhYnes
>>
>>20179229
>constant elevation

that means the ground at all points in the measured area are the same distance above sea level. holy shit.
>>
>>20179250
>you should really go to the library and start with some books on elementary grade physics and work your way up. worst case you will learn something

Thanks for the advice, I've not heard that before.

I understand how rockets work on earth which has an atmosphere. It's a positive pressure system. Positive pressure acting upon other positive pressures to create motion.

Unfortunately, the vacuum of space is a negative pressure system when compared to positive pressure. Positive pressures repel each other, creating opposite and equal forces between each other, hence how thrust is possible. Positive and negative pressures however attract each other, they cannot produce the force of thrust with each other.

We can prove this by putting a balloon in a vacuum. The gas is attracted to the vacuum and equilibrates with it.

>>20179257

It's flat but it's curved...

And how much curve is there?

>>20179280

Which equals curvature?
>>
>>20179287
The horizon (in this instance where the salt flats and roads are no longer visible the mountains are beyond the horizon) is approximately 18 miles away. The bases of the mountains (as previously stated are beyond the horizon) are about 60 miles away. There is a drop off of about 1200 ft, which is why the other end of the salt flats and the bases of the mountains are not visible.
>>
>>20179350

You believe you're driving down 1200ft of curvature down this road?
>>
>>20174822
https://www.google.com/amp/www.astronomytrek.com/what-direction-do-stars-move-in-the-sky/amp/
>>
>>20178920
Are you the same guy who can't accept that objects with mass exert a gravitational force as objects with charge exert an electromagnetic force even though you can't produce a clear distinction between the two that makes one possible but not the other?

>>20179287
If you accept that conservation is conserved within a closed system, then would you like to explain what would happen to a rocket with 0 initial momentum expelling gas in space?
1. Gas moves, rocket stays stationary
2. Gas moves, rocket moves with equal but opposite momentum to the direction of the gas expelled
>>
>>20179371
It's less in that image since it was taken from the height of a person, let's say 6 ft high, but yeah
>>
>>20179383
>Are you the same guy who can't accept that objects with mass exert a gravitational force as objects with charge exert an electromagnetic force even though you can't produce a clear distinction between the two that makes one possible but not the other?

But you've got it the wrong way around to current scientific belief. Gravity exerts the force, not the object itself.

>If you accept that conservation is conserved within a closed system, then would you like to explain what would happen to a rocket with 0 initial momentum expelling gas in space?

The gas will move, and the rocket stays stationary. This is because the gas is not able to push off the rocket when it comes out. The gas wants to find a way out with least resistance. With a rocket on earth, the only way out is through the nozzle, but it must battle against the denser air of the atmosphere in order to push against the rocket simultaneously.

Gases in a vacuum face no resistance, therefore they cannot provide a pushing force in the opposite direction.
>>
>>20179396

But you can see the bottom of the mountains?

What does your common sense tell you?
>>
>>20179411
>Gravity exerts the force, not the object itself.
Wow, what a cool idea to make something up and then point out how stupid it sounds. I guess all the ideas behind gravity in this screenshot aren't what we are taught at all.

You know that scientists haven't ever been able to explain how electromagnetism exerts force? They still haven't figured out what exerts the force on electromagnetism, so it's probably not real.

>The gas will move, and the rocket stays stationary.
And here you admit that in your fantasy land rockets can create momentum out of nothing. How does a rocket containing air with 0 momentum suddenly go to having an overall backwards momentum?

This is what happens when you don't really care about physics until you see another flat earther online use their fantasy physics to make an argument against the Earth model you don't agree with. Instead of applying what you learned at school to explain how propulsion and flight works, it's suddenly all about how planes and rockets "push off air" which is never how it's taught. I guess that's how it really works, and they just don't teach it because then everyone would figure out the truth huh. So I guess the immense force that is recoil is generated by an aerodynamic bullet pushing on air too? Ebin

But before you get distracted by the long paragraph I wrote, explain first how this rocket+air system is generating momentum out of nothing in your answer
>>
>>20179422
I don't know what the distance to the base of the mountains is in your image, so I can't do the math on it. There's some drop, but I couldn't tell you how much
>>
File: globe.jpg (402 KB, 1748x1026)
402 KB
402 KB JPG
>>20174822
>>
File: pathetic.gif (2.41 MB, 330x166)
2.41 MB
2.41 MB GIF
>>20174822
>2018
>still falling for flat earth meme, ignorant to half-earth theory
>>
>>20174822
flat earth came up in class today and was noted as an "increasingly popular" theory. i'm seriously starting to think it's some psy-ops shit to see how stupid/gullible the population really is. with some hard work, they could push the peasants back into the dark ages while they travel the stars.
>>
File: forces.jpg (75 KB, 1117x377)
75 KB
75 KB JPG
>>20179451
>Wow, what a cool idea to make something up and then point out how stupid it sounds. I guess all the ideas behind gravity in this screenshot aren't what we are taught at all.

So the object itself exerts the "gravitational pull"? Is the object the force then? Mass = gravity? Newton stated that gravity was a force acting upon objects, would you accept he was wrong?

>But before you get distracted by the long paragraph I wrote, explain first how this rocket+air system is generating momentum out of nothing in your answer

Just because you have momentum in one direction, doesn't mean you can create thrust. Ask yourself, how do gases behave in a vacuum? Gases on earth want to separate equally, they are the most fluid substances we know about, but with enough pressure you will create thrust with them.

Gases in a vacuum won't need to even try and separate, there's no resistance in any direction. Prove a rocket can work in such an environment.
>>
>>20174935
>gravity depends on the theory of magnetism
when did /x/ get taken over by such retards?
they pretend they know anything and every single thing they say and post is full retard
Gravity is a fundamental force created by the boson particle called a graviton and is attached to everything. Absolutely nothing to do with magnetism.

You're a retard who had shitty science teachers. Just like the rest of you flat earthers you don't have a clue of what you're talking about and your head is stuffed with shit.

..and I don't have time to teach you, use google more.
>>
File: thumbshowmecurve.png (960 KB, 1600x929)
960 KB
960 KB PNG
>>20174822
>>
>>20179564
If your argument against gravity is that it acts on objects, then every force in that screenshot is fake. Well done, we live in a world without forces now.
>Newton stated that gravity was a force acting upon objects, would you accept he was wrong?
No retard, because it is objects that are exerting the force on other objects. Obviously objects will also be acted upon by the force of gravity. Electromagnetic force is also exerted by and acts on objects.

And you still haven't explained how your system is generating momentum out of nothing. The rocket can be expelling a solid, a liquid, or a gas and the result will still be the same. Tell me how the expelled substance gains momentum out of nothing when momentum is conserved.

The way the rocket works is that the change in momentum in the air results in an equal but opposite change in momentum of the rocket, meaning that there is no net change to total momentum in the system. This is what it means to conserve momentum. In the end this is just going to boil down to you not believing in the conservation of momentum, I'm guessing.

Here is how thrust is taught:
"Thrust is the force which moves the rocket through the air, and through space. Thrust is generated by the propulsion system of the rocket through the application of Newton's third law of motion; For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action. In the propulsion system, an engine does work on a gas or liquid, called a working fluid, and accelerates the working fluid through the propulsion system. The re-action to the acceleration of the working fluid produces the thrust force on the engine. The working fluid is expelled from the engine in one direction and the thrust force is applied to the engine in the opposite direction."

not your "rockets push off air" fantasy
here are some Google results for "push off air" that are talking about rockets. They're always flat earth shit
>>
>>20179614
looks fake
>>
>>20179613
>Gravity is a fundamental force created by the boson particle called a graviton and is attached to everything
Holy shit, you just proved the point. You stated that as fact but it is simply an hypothesis, extrapolated from unproven/unprovable assumptions, handed to you by your high priests.
>>
>>20174822
>why do I get so many replies when I make claims that are dumb as fuck

bc people want to help you unfuck your brain, I for one want you to be stupid so when I spot your kind irl I can laugh in your face
>>
>>20179613

I'm sorry but the "Higg's Boson" isn't what you think it is.

Modern particle physics is wrong, the LHC has been the final nail in the coffin. Many "particles" that were predicted to exist, don't.

>>20179618
>If your argument against gravity is that it acts on objects, then every force in that screenshot is fake. Well done, we live in a world without forces now.

>And you still haven't explained how your system is generating momentum out of nothing. The rocket can be expelling a solid, a liquid, or a gas and the result will still be the same. Tell me how the expelled substance gains momentum out of nothing when momentum is conserved.

If you shake up a bottle of champagne and then pop the cork, is the champagne bottle going to travel in the opposite direction and at the same speed the champagne is coming out?
Do physical objects act upon each other, or do they need some magical force to explain it?

>The re-action to the acceleration of the working fluid produces the thrust force on the engine.

And that re-action is caused by what? An external positive pressure that can be repelled against.
>>
>>20178430
and your proof is... ?

i'm waiting. if you can't disprove anything i said i'm afraid you're wrong.
>>
>>20179622
Just like a flat earther. Confronted with the truth and all you can say is "fake".
>>
>>20178077
>
So the ship is not going over the horizon when looking with the naked eye

is is, but that's not the reason you can't see it. the bottom is obscured, but the reason it's effectively invisible is because it's too small for your eye to pick up. when you zoom in, you bring it back into view, but not back over the horison. no matter how much you zoom in or out the boat will still be cut off by some amount due to the horison.
>>
File: lebrainlet.jpg (295 KB, 3128x1084)
295 KB
295 KB JPG
>>20179667
I wasn't even talking about the "higgs boson" brainlet, but yes that particle has been proven too.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/06/25/confirmed-definitely-higgs-boson-found-lhc/
>>
>>20179667
>
Good response to the point you just quoted. So you're agreeing that your argument against gravity actually applies to every force that exists and rules them all out as fake?

And when are you gonna actually answer this question I've been posing in every single reply I've posted to you starting with the second:

If the rocket remains stationary after expelling air, how is your system generating momentum out of nothing? It starts at 0 momentum and ends up with a net backwards momentum. Explain how this is possible if momentum is conserved.

Oh, your answer is a fucking question. How retarded as usual. And look, you even replaced "momentum" with "speed" because you don't understand the difference. And you replaced a rocket in a vacuum with a bottle of champagne held in someone's hand. But I'll answer your question with some changes since you never specified the conditions of the bottle.

>If you shake up a bottle of champagne, glue it sideways onto a frictionless skateboard and then blow off the cork, is the champagne bottle going to travel in the opposite direction with the same momentum as the champagne being forced out?
Yes.

>And that re-action is caused by what? An external positive pressure that can be repelled against.
No.

Stop dodging everything please, arigato.
>>
I have been at the South Pole.
Believe me: it's not what you think.
The Earth isn't flat, our life is much simpler than you thought.
Please, stop BEING STUPID, for God's Sake!
>>
File: file.png (91 KB, 1732x1612)
91 KB
91 KB PNG
>>20179287

>It's flat but it's curved...
>And how much curve is there?
>Which equals curvature?

a level body of water is always curved on a sphere.
>>
>>20179287

>I understand how rockets work on earth which has an atmosphere. It's a positive pressure system. Positive pressure acting upon other positive pressures to create motion.

evidently you do NOT understand how rockets work. you have a weird, misconstrued idea of how thrust is generated.

say you have a 10 pound weight and you throw it backwards really hard, while sitting on a skateboard. say you throw a ten pound weight 10 mph backwards. you expect that you would thusly be thrown in the opposite direction, right?

now, throwing a ten pound weight 10 mph will generate the same amount of force as throwing a 1 pound weight 100 mph.

how imagine that you are somehow carrying fifty ten pound weights, and you have a gun that can shoot them backwards really fast so you'll go forwards. that's how a rocket works.

a rocket will be throwing hundreds of pounds of gas out it's read end, at THOUSANDS of miles per hour. regardless of pressure, that's a lot of force. it doesen't matter what the heavy stuff is made up of. gas is still heavy if you have enough of it.

>Unfortunately, the vacuum of space is a negative pressure system when compared to positive pressure.

there's no such thing as negative pressure. space doesn't suck. it's a common misconception.

>Positive pressures repel each other, creating opposite and equal forces between each other, hence how thrust is possible.

not how it works.

>Positive and negative pressures however attract each other, they cannot produce the force of thrust with each other.

REALLY not how it works.

i would follow the other anons advice and hit up the children's section of the library.
>>
File: b72.jpg (237 KB, 701x900)
237 KB
237 KB JPG
>>20174822
Why do people even argue with flat-earthers. I mean, everyone should have at least some intellectual dignity, especially when all this pseudo"""""""""science""""""""" can be debunked by simple observations of the position and movement of celestial bodies, objects disappearing beyond the horizon and basic geography.
>>
>>20179699

And this is the problem with particle physics. The Higg's apparently gives objects their mass, and gravity either acts upon mass, or is exerted from mass. And yet the Higg's is a separate thing to gravity. But it also doesn't actually exist because the particles it's supposed to "make up" don't exist either.

>If the rocket remains stationary after expelling air, how is your system generating momentum out of nothing? It starts at 0 momentum and ends up with a net backwards momentum. Explain how this is possible if momentum is conserved.

Gases are attracted to a vacuum. Inside the rocket is pressurised, outside the rocket is the opposite. The gas can release its pressure without resistance, without needing to create thrust.

>If you shake up a bottle of champagne, glue it sideways onto a frictionless skateboard and then blow off the cork, is the champagne bottle going to travel in the opposite direction with the same momentum as the champagne being forced out?

Yeah, try that in a chamber-less vacuum. The champagne will be pushing off the external solid surface of the floor. A rocket has no such luxury in a vacuum.
>>
>>20179752
Enjoy having him come up with his own wacky theories of how gravity and thrust work and then claiming that he's merely repeating what is taught in school as he repeats flat earth arguments that are copypasted all over Youtube and Facebook.

>say you have a 10 pound weight and you throw it backwards really hard, while sitting on a skateboard. say you throw a ten pound weight 10 mph backwards. you expect that you would thusly be thrown in the opposite direction, right?

Just like recoil generated by bullets (which he never addressed), he'll probably claim that the miniscule friction experienced by a curved sphere (or an aerodynamic bullet) travelling through air is what provides the thrust and not the reaction force which apparently requires "an external positive pressure". Who knows where he got that idea from. I guess he gets points for being original.

tfw learned today that gravity is not itself a force, but something that exerts a force
and that all forces are fake because they "Act on" objects which rules out that they are exerted by objects even though the two aren't mutually exclusive
>>
>>20179774
It's sad because there are psuedo-sciences that I actually like, like the Akashik field theory or synchronicity for example. They're pretty interesting subjects are to prove or disprove, but these sort of retards give psuedo-sciences an even worse name. Idk I just sage, call them retards, and move on... what can you do
>>
>>20179785
what does the champaigne push off of to get to the floor in the first place?
>>
File: hole.jpg (224 KB, 1218x1015)
224 KB
224 KB JPG
>>20179785
What the fuck, why are you replying to another post while quoting (only parts of) mine


>Gases are attracted to a vacuum. Inside the rocket is pressurised, outside the rocket is the opposite. The gas can release its pressure without resistance, without needing to create thrust.

Still dodging the question, so let me me dumb it down for you:
start momentum = 0 kg m/s
momentum after air go out: >0 kg m/s
conservation of momentum -> violated
How air get expelled but momentum still conserved??

>Yeah, try that in a chamber-less vacuum.
Sorry, we were trying this on Earth but now you wanna do it in a vacuum.
If we did it in a vacuum, the answer would be: Yes. The champagne bottle moves in a direction opposite to the champagne being expelled with equal momentum. No wall required. Where did you learn this stuff? Neither of us have actually experimented in a vacuum, so you're basically pulling this all out of your ass as much as I am. Except the shit you're saying is stuff that isn't taught anywhere, can't be validated and that no one agrees with.

Now answer the question. HOW ARE YOU GENERATING MOMENTUM OUT OF NOTHING?
>>
>>20179785
>ends up with a net backwards momentum
are you talking about the gravity the rocket is trying to escape? Gravity is a debt we have to pay to escape, but technically everything is pulling on everything a little, that's how graviton forces work. Gases aren't attracted to a vacuum perse they just diffuse to a lower state like entropy and sometime the lower state is enough to push it away from gravity.

As for the champagne yea it kicks off the fluid leave the bottle it doesn't need to hit a surface. The vacuum would only lower the resistance.
>>
Ok flat earthers. Can you explain to me how the earth has a geological structure? A crust, mantle, outer core, inner core ect... And bearing in mind we can actually use seismographs to measure the waves created from TECTONIC PLATE movements. How would that work on a flat surface? Imagine taking a sphere and applying a force to it, to create a shockwave of sorts. As it is a sphere, the ripples can move through the centre and create measurable vibrations on the other side of the sphere. Now, apply this same force to a flat surface. How the fuck would the shockwave in a random location appear (say, the left corner) appear in the right corner without crossing all points along the surface?
>>
File: map_edited.png (474 KB, 1286x548)
474 KB
474 KB PNG
>>20179836
Also, here's an illustration of the sphere vs flat earthquake
>>
Even reddit is smarter than you "rockets can't work in space" girls
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2760hl/eli5_how_can_a_rocket_propel_itself_in_space_if/
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2p37w9/eli5how_do_rockets_fly_through_space_if_they_have/
>>
>>20179735
>a level body of water is always curved on a sphere.

Level = curved. You learn something new everyday.

>>20179752

>say you have a 10 pound weight and you throw it backwards really hard, while sitting on a skateboard. say you throw a ten pound weight 10 mph backwards. you expect that you would thusly be thrown in the opposite direction, right?

You are forgetting that the skateboard and the ground are exerting forces on each other. The ground is too dense for the skateboard to sink into it, so it must react with the force in the opposite direction to where the weight was thrown.

If you try doing the same thing while falling through the air, you'd have a much tougher time. Then in a vacuum? Nope.

>there's no such thing as negative pressure. space doesn't suck. it's a common misconception.

What would happen to a gas in the vacuum of space?

>not how it works.

Very convincing.
>>
>>20179853
why do people pretend to be retarded like this?
>>
>>20179843
It's kicking off of the matter leaving is all. It's pretty simple. Shoot a gun and you feel a kick. The fuel of a rocket is like lots of little bullets. It moves even easier in space because there is extremely low resistance from the vacuum and very little gravity effecting it. That's how they get the probes to go 10 miles per second up there.
>>
>>20178302
Thats the exact same logic the flat earthers use themselves

>Well that's it folks pack it up. Some guy decided that it's only flat cause that's all we can see.
>>
>>20179853
Not that guy, but air in space would expand because the pressure of the air pushes it outwards with nothing in space to push it back into place. A similar mass of air on Earth would not expand because surrounding air would push back on it.

Now I'm gonna try to decipher this retarded sentence:
>You are forgetting that the skateboard and the ground are exerting forces on each other.
Yes, they exert weight and normal force on one another.
>The ground is too dense for the skateboard to sink into it
Yes, but even if it were less dense than the skateboard the skateboard wouldn't sink into it. That's retarded. By that logic metal should sink into wooden floors. Just say "The ground is solid", retard.
>so it must react with the force in the opposite direction to where the weight was thrown.
No, the weight of the skateboard+person acting on the floor and the normal force acting on the skateboard act independently from the force of the person throwing a ball on top of it. The density of he skateboard and the floor are also irrelevant, for instance:

Someone could be freefalling and throw a bowling ball and still be accelerated backwards. They could shoot a gun and be accelerated backwards. They could launch any mass forwards in any way and they will be acted on by a force in the reverse direction. Note how you don't need to be less dense than the medium you're in to achieve this effect. It's irrelevant, and your argument makes no sense not because it's too complicated to understand, but because it does not follow any logic and does not agree with what science actually teaches. Stop being a retard, please.

I've seen flat earthers smarter than this. Can any flat earther come in and agree that solid objects not sinking into the floor has nothing to do with recoil?
>>
>>20179822

The air creates resistance so that the champagne pushes off the bottle as it comes out, but the majority of the pushing comes from the champagne pushing off the solid floor.

>>20179823

>Still dodging the question, so let me me dumb it down for you:
>start momentum = 0 kg m/s
>momentum after air go out: >0 kg m/s
>conservation of momentum -> violated
>How air get expelled but momentum still conserved??

Conservation of momentum requires a collision between two external objects. A vacuum cannot be collided with, so the law is not broken.

>>20179830
So diffusing in a vacuum can create thrust?
>>
>>20179916
The two objects are the rocket and air. You don't need a THIRD object/medium.
>Conservation of momentum requires a collision between two external objects.
You just made this up. Find a source or fuck off. Show me where it says momentum is only conserved in a medium.
>>
>>20179890
>Not that guy, but air in space would expand because the pressure of the air pushes it outwards with nothing in space to push it back into place. A similar mass of air on Earth would not expand because surrounding air would push back on it.

So is that an argument against rockets working in space?

What will create an opposite pushing force? Jumping off of dust floating in the air, or jumping off a brick?

>>20179956

The conservation of momentum states the total amount of momentum is a constant or unchanging value, that means everything has to be able to react with everything else, all of the time, otherwise the momentum can't be passed on and distributed as a constant. A vacuum cannot conserve momentum because it cannot have momentum itself.
>>
>>20180017
>The conservation of momentum states the total amount of momentum is a constant or unchanging value
Yes.
>A vacuum cannot conserve momentum because it cannot have momentum itself.
Yes.
No one claimed the vacuum has momentum.

Here is the situation again:
Momentum of system (rocket + air) at start = 0 kg m/s
Momentum of system after expulsion of air > 0 kg m/s

Now read this again from your own post:
>The conservation of momentum states the total amount of momentum is a constant or unchanging value
Now read this again:
> 0
> >0
>>
The Earth is huge the sun is behind the moon the only cameras in space are huge
>>
>>20180017
>What will create an opposite pushing force? Jumping off of dust floating in the air, or jumping off a brick?

If you push any object it will produce a reaction force, regardless of whether it is a dust or a brick. So both. If you're asking this question, you must really be lacking some basic education or thinking skills.
>>
I have a theory that we live on a dome inside a flat ice plane.

Round earth and flat earth are both right / wrong
>>
>>20174822

everything is "flat"

what we perceive as 3-dimensional reality is actually 2-dimensional informational space with an infinite data "depth" (density) at any given point

third dimension is thus a holographic illusion (whereas time is a non-euclidian, unsmoothable 4-manifold)
>>
>>20176461
lol
>>
>>20178160
>there are actually little elves sitting in thrones controlling our bodies by remote control


WTF

spill the beans motherfucker
>>
File: 1508395877052.jpg (109 KB, 1534x937)
109 KB
109 KB JPG
>>20180084
this. i wish to know more about the throne elves.
>>
>>20176461
Refracted hidden = 3721.4 m
Height of Barre des Écrins (the target) = 4102m

Standard refraction occurs due to the fact that air decreases in density with altitude. Light travelling through media of different densities refracts. Some amount of refraction is always present due to the gradual decrease in air pressure.
Now fuck off and don't post this again.
>>
>>20180028

The conservation of momentum requires a closed system to work as we see it on earth. The vacuum of space is not a closed system, so the physics change. It's not breaking any physical laws, this is what physical laws suggest.

>>20180045
Yes, if you push an object external to yourself, a reaction occurs. The gas of a rocket must push off an external source to provide thrust, it cannot provide a push to the object it is coming out of, without it itself pushing off of something external to itself.

You cannot isolate physics to just two objects, you have to take into consideration everything else that is part of this closed system, because momentum requires this to remain constant.
>>
>>20180130
isn't the rocket an external object to the gas or are you saying that the gas and the rocket are somehow the same thing?
>>
>>20180130
>it cannot provide a push to the object it is coming out of
Why not
>>
>>20180160
The gas inside the rocket can only become an external force, when the gas outside the rocket meets resistance, otherwise you're just pissing in the wind.

>>20180194
Because the rocket itself isn't providing a pushing force on the gas, the gas is moving through its own volition, the pressure outside is more attractive than the pressure inside, no pushing involved.
>>
>>20180353
wait so an object can actually become a force?

if you're pissing in the wind, you're getting air resistence so i don't know what you're trying to say here.
>>
>>20180353
The air is generated and under high pressure, so it should be pushing in all directions around it. This means that it'll push against the rocket, and also push the air out of the rocket.

>the pressure outside is more attractive than the pressure inside, no pushing involved.
guess you don't

Again, the air ends up starting stationary and then ending up having momentum. You said yourself that total momentum is conserved. As I said, in the end it just came down to you not believing in the conservation of momentum under certain circumstances.

"the total momentum of a collection of objects (a system) is conserved "
You have to disagree with this in order to agree with your own position. That's all.
>>
File: 1515737579348-pol.jpg (64 KB, 750x422)
64 KB
64 KB JPG
>>20180057
I've had this thought before, My idea is that we are in some sort of giant petri dish, the ice being the natural state of this plane, and sun/moon are artificial constructs creating and maintaining the climate here on 'earth'
>>
File: 1515621472589-x.gif (469 KB, 512x807)
469 KB
469 KB GIF
>>20180100
>Any image showing long distance without a curvature
>It was refraction
>>
>>20180558
>what is standard refraction
oh wait, I already told you
and since all the mountains are cut off at the bottom, it still actually shows curvature
>>
>>20180057
>tfw when live in a drop of water on a plate of glass
>>
>>20180360

The objects themselves are the force(s). They are not separate things.

>>20180392

Gases do not need to push off of things to move, especially in a vacuum. Boiling water doesn't need to push off anything to evaporate, but if you put a lid on the pan, the pressure will increase and the vapor will push the lid up.

>>20179836
You can only ever show illustrations of this supposed inner structure of the earth. The deepest anyone's dug is about 8 miles into the ground. Where's the substance to this theory? It's pure conjecture.
>>
File: 1515807869675-v.gif (1.06 MB, 360x270)
1.06 MB
1.06 MB GIF
>>20180571
It might sound biased but I dont believe you. I understand how refraction works but I dont think thats what we are seeing. Whats the limit of refraction, if I had a powerful enough lense, could i see the back of my head from around the globe? Sounds ridiculous but I'm curious what the limits are
>>
File: 1515561748050-pol.jpg (69 KB, 1280x720)
69 KB
69 KB JPG
>>20179836
>>20179840
Its impossible to know without testing, but my theory is that when a quake is triggered it spreads out from the epicenter, and can cause reactionary tremors from other susceptible locations. No need for the waves to ping to the center of the liquid but magically magnetic core.. I might be mistaken did they change the model to a solid iron core?
>>
File: 6394252219_a2380ef026.jpg (123 KB, 500x333)
123 KB
123 KB JPG
>>20174822

See the curvature.
>>
>>20180684
No.
Light is scattered by the atmosphere over large distance, otherwise you're admitting we'd be able to see other continents across the ocean with a telescope.
Even with some refraction, there is a horizon that is always at a certain distance depending on your height. In the screenshot I posted there's also a refracted horizon distance that is really large because the viewer is on a >2km mountain.

Apparently you think standard refraction is some magic shit that would just bend light all the way around the Earth, so you don't understand it at all.

In your world, you accept that light refracts, but it is not allowed to refract through different densities of air even though you probably also accept that air density decreases with height. Selective refraction.
>>
>>20180735
(I posted the picture)

And don't say that it's the angle or anything like that. the horizon curves.
>>
>>20176655

What causes gravity then? Explain it
>>
>>20180784
what causes magnetism?
>>
>>20180784
Gravity is a fundamental force. To the best of our knowledge It's not really "caused" in the sense of being a consequence of a more fundamental phenomenon. (eg: a rainbow is caused by water droplets scattering light).
>>
File: 1943 Alcoa.jpg (662 KB, 2151x1539)
662 KB
662 KB JPG
>>20175798
this proves flat. happens at the north pole (center)
>>
File: noaasat2.jpg (324 KB, 1416x1965)
324 KB
324 KB JPG
sats are just high alt balloons airplanes and drones
>>
File: 2018 Sat Balloon2.jpg (271 KB, 1360x1686)
271 KB
271 KB JPG
>>20181172
research Antartica, thing get real strange 1957 around the treaty, NASA, and Einsteins theory
>>
File: ant.jpg (210 KB, 1280x844)
210 KB
210 KB JPG
>>20181175
>>
File: antlarp1.jpg (214 KB, 1280x853)
214 KB
214 KB JPG
>>20181177
>>
File: 80c.png (77 KB, 645x729)
77 KB
77 KB PNG
>>20181172
>says in literally the next sentence that geostationary satellites operate at 23000 miles
>>
File: 1976MarsRedpill.jpg (1.53 MB, 3279x4158)
1.53 MB
1.53 MB JPG
the psyop is still going, 5 trillion $ into space programs around the world
>>20181172
>>20181175
>>
File: Nasa.jpg (624 KB, 1928x1530)
624 KB
624 KB JPG
>>20181187
provide pics from only the 500 mile one and cgi everthing
>>
File: marsisfakefag.jpg (318 KB, 1920x1080)
318 KB
318 KB JPG
mars lulz
>>
File: nasapropag.jpg (551 KB, 2037x1539)
551 KB
551 KB JPG
they've been brainwashing you since you were a child, they admit they photoshop the pics and they cant take a real picture of earth, look up raw photos of venus they released this week, not the cgi clouds painted in, the raw photos.
This guy is one of the cgi painter, he talks all about it, he uses the raw data from nasa that is flat circles.
https://twitter.com/kevinmgill?lang=en
some more of his work
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrDiBKfkrGM&feature=youtu.be
>>
File: OneWorld one War.jpg (386 KB, 3143x1385)
386 KB
386 KB JPG
you can project a map into any shape (even a sphere) as long as you have long and lat coords with a scale. What does it measure in real life. Horizon rises to eye level no matter how high you go. Doesn't get any simpler than that. There is clearly a celestial sphere
>>
File: 1500884734777.jpg (93 KB, 554x720)
93 KB
93 KB JPG
>>20181261
Map projections are what ultimately destroyed the flat earth argument. If the flat earth map cannot be used for navigation and cartography then what good is it?
>>
File: 1943 Owens.jpg (387 KB, 1145x1544)
387 KB
387 KB JPG
whats the drop per square mile if its a sphere, if they really were in space they could disprove flat earth very easily
>>
File: antarticasurroundsus.jpg (1.65 MB, 5733x1544)
1.65 MB
1.65 MB JPG
>>20181275
sure it can, its been suppressed since 1958
>>
File: 1514321548410.jpg (217 KB, 1280x720)
217 KB
217 KB JPG
>>20181285
You should learn how to read a map. You can't suppress the shape of the world when international travel and trade is commonplace. You can't hide 14,000 extra miles for every boat and plane traveling from South America to Australia.
>>
File: 1587-map.jpg (636 KB, 1900x1902)
636 KB
636 KB JPG
>>20181275
>>
>>20176655
Wrong, Magnetism is Coherent, And Gravity is Incoherent. Its the same force. Thats like saying Ice is one thing and Water is another thing, when infact they are the same
>>
>>20181172
>Satellites are i the atmosphere, so they must be balloons.
That makes no sense. Firstly, have you looked at what the atmospheric density is at 500km? A balloon at that hight couldn't possibly support it's own weight, let alone that of any instruments.

Secondly, as these satellites are clearly visible to the naked eye, the rate they pass overhead is also visible. If you accept the altitude NOAA gives you, then simple maths will tell you that those "balloons" are traveling at orbital velocity (and by definition, satellites).

>>20181177
>>20181180
Where did you get those images from? I can't find any official source.

>>20181175
>NASA admits they launch balloons
Atmospheric research is part of their job. Balloons are good at that.

>>20181189
>>20181192
>>20181193
>>20181222
What am I supposed to be looking at? Those are just collections of random images.

>>20181222
>they admit they photoshop the pics and they cant take a real picture of earth,
I think you're confusing a bunch of different claims. They can and have taken complete pictures of the earth, although composites are more common.

>This guy is one of the cgi painter, he talks all about it, he uses the raw data from nasa that is flat circles.
Wait, Are you getting hung up on "colorization"? A bunch of NASA's images aren't taken using viable light, so they pick arbitrary colors for the different frequency bands. Calling that "fake" is a bit misleading.
>>
File: 2000 Sat Balloon1.jpg (253 KB, 1041x1528)
253 KB
253 KB JPG
>>20181307
>Satellites are i the atmosphere, so they must be balloons.
That makes no sense. Firstly, have you looked at what the atmospheric density is at 500km? A balloon at that hight couldn't possibly support it's own weight, let alone that of any instruments.

Secondly, as these satellites are clearly visible to the naked eye, the rate they pass overhead is also visible. If you accept the altitude NOAA gives you, then simple maths will tell you that those "balloons" are traveling at orbital velocity (and by definition, satellites).
>>
>>20175024
Checkd and kekd
>>
File: 2000 Sat Balloon.jpg (285 KB, 1053x1535)
285 KB
285 KB JPG
>>20181320
>>20181307
>Satellites are i the atmosphere, so they must be balloons.

wrong pic
>>
File: you tried.jpg (163 KB, 1570x1037)
163 KB
163 KB JPG
>>20181298
That map forms a sphere
>>
File: terminalradome.jpg (336 KB, 1704x1850)
336 KB
336 KB JPG
>>20181325
circumnavites the outer perimeter of earth at 77-80 they have recon teams, large ones
>>
File: sorryitsflatasfuck.jpg (355 KB, 1607x1891)
355 KB
355 KB JPG
>>20181332
they mapped it onto a sphere for plebs and it distorts it, and maps dont prove reality, go measure the curve with a laser and altimeter
>>
>>20174822
Flat earth is a distraction topic, a psy-op. Pay no attention to how poorly the country is run, how you're being ripped off.
>>
>>20181358
if flat earth wasn't here, we would be paying attention to something else equally retarded. it's not like large swathes of the population are jumping onboard flat earth theory. i've never met anybody in person who would take this seriously.
>>
File: 1500238019906.png (1.06 MB, 1500x1500)
1.06 MB
1.06 MB PNG
>>20181353
>maps dont prove reality
They do because they are measurements of the Earth and are used daily in transportation which confirms their accuracy.
The map you posted is a projection of a sphere hence the jagged edges form the bottom of the sphere.
>>
File: junoprobe.jpg (217 KB, 1588x1900)
217 KB
217 KB JPG
>>20181307
>Wait, Are you getting hung up on "colorization"? A bunch of NASA's images aren't taken using viable light, so they pick arbitrary colors for the different frequency bands. Calling that "fake" is a bit misleading.

The "RAW" images directly from the telescope, i mean probe are hard to find. They look nothing like attached picture, also who took this picture
>>
File: polesat.jpg (522 KB, 3001x2011)
522 KB
522 KB JPG
>>20181372
whats your source on the flight times or distance some shill meme with skewed data
>>
okay so hypothesize that flat earth exists. Where does it end? Where are the photos of the ends of the earth? Also, in a scenario where the earth is flat, there would have to be an edge to it right? Well because the edge contains significantly less area than the faces of this flat earth, then daytime would be affected because the sun exposure on these surfaces would be severely limited. Also explain the 67 days without a sun and 80 days of straight daylight in Alaska.
>>
>>20181418
The source is any airliner offering a non-stop flight from Paris to Istanbul and any non-stop flight from Aukland to Sydney. It's traveled everyday and both flights are 3.5 hours. You should learn how to read a map.
>>
File: feperspective2.jpg (48 KB, 444x384)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
>>20181432
planes still fly on flat earth, did you see horizon rise to eye level on the plane or did you have to look down to see the ball
>>
>>20181446
you've never been on a flat planet before, how would you know?
>>
File: 1500339873667.png (414 KB, 543x543)
414 KB
414 KB PNG
>>20181446
Even the flat earth maps make a sphere.
>>
File: nasa photog.jpg (129 KB, 960x640)
129 KB
129 KB JPG
earth is round this guy said so and he's in space he would know
>>
File: map projection.jpg (1.15 MB, 3950x1552)
1.15 MB
1.15 MB JPG
>>20181457
maps are not reality, you cant take map measurements and claim the earth is that shape, go measure the curve outside and get back to us
>>
File: teachinlady.jpg (66 KB, 446x597)
66 KB
66 KB JPG
earth is flat this guy said so and he would drink 36 beers a night if he had a job he would know
>>
>>20181469
so you want him to go make a map? kek.
>>
>>20181320
>>20181325
I'm not sure why you think that image is relevant; It's just a document describing the use of a research balloon.

>>20181373
>The "RAW" images directly from the telescope, i mean probe are hard to find.
They're literally available on the NASA website. Last I checked, there was a link called "Gallery".

>They look nothing like attached picture, also who took this picture
Please learn to read:
>This illustration depicts...
It's an illustration, not an actual picture.

>>20181446
>Why the earth size difference.
Because that's how cameras work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length#In_photography

Also, "Earth" is a proper noun.
>>
File: juno.jpg (227 KB, 2734x1911)
227 KB
227 KB JPG
>>20181479
>>>20181373 (You)
>>The "RAW" images directly from the telescope, i mean probe are hard to find.
>They're literally available on the NASA website. Last I checked, there was a link called "Gallery".
>>They look nothing like attached picture, also who took this picture
>Please learn to read:
>>This illustration depicts...
>It's an illustration, not an actual picture.

raw ones look just like the colored ones, nasa is pro larp
>>
File: spacescam.jpg (135 KB, 1153x1481)
135 KB
135 KB JPG
>>20181479
>>>20181446 (You)
>>Why the earth size difference.
>Because that's how cameras work.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length#In_photography
>Also, "Earth" is a proper noun.
correcting grammer on 4chan, def a shill, and the camera is not going to make the earth 500x bigger when its supposedly 236000 miles away or whatever they changed it to now
>>
File: laughinglargeman.gif (2.67 MB, 435x246)
2.67 MB
2.67 MB GIF
>>20181496
>the government hire actual grammar police to correct people on the internet
>>
File: Mars Size 1969.jpg (869 KB, 3340x1493)
869 KB
869 KB JPG
NASA runs ATC monitoring so any data from them is BS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoS3pe94qMk
>>
>>20174822

this is due to the implications of such a situation. If were indeed to be living on a limited plane of existence, this would not only pose questions on who put it here, but also why people are trying to conceal it so vehemently. The whole world of modernism and technology makes little sense in a finite world the size of the earth. What else is finite if this our only world, and what options this leaves us with?
>>
>>20179774
People rejecting Real Earth always tend to insult. It might be that they subconcioualy know the truth but are afraid of foghtong back the world's biggest secret.
>>
>>20181524
everybody on 4chan tends to insult
>>
File: departure_movie_PJ09-rgb.png (2.28 MB, 1648x6912)
2.28 MB
2.28 MB PNG
>>20181496
>raw ones look just like the colored ones
I'm not sure what you mean - most of the images taken by Juno are visible light images.
The raw images are pretty obvious.

>>20181496
>and the camera is not going to make the earth 500x bigger when its supposedly 236000 miles away
Yes it is. Again, this is how cameras work. You can make objects at different distances look any size, depending on the focal length you use. You don't have to take my word for it, go grab a DSLR and take photos of shit.

>>20181505
>NASA runs ATC monitoring
ATC is broadcast radio. Anyone can listen to it.
>>
File: rawjuno.jpg (335 KB, 3109x1911)
335 KB
335 KB JPG
>>20181558
you can get a similar image from my high powered telescope on earth, if we have a probe there couldnt we get better pics see the comparison between the cgi and raw HUGE
>>
File: nasaglobe.jpg (161 KB, 2269x1710)
161 KB
161 KB JPG
>>20181558
>>>20181505 (You)
>>NASA runs ATC monitoring
>ATC is broadcast radio. Anyone can listen to it.

the literally control air traffic control data and navigation not just monitoring
>>
File: 15154333104121.jpg (10 KB, 221x201)
10 KB
10 KB JPG
This fucking thread
>>
>>20181591
Another globehead with no argument whatsoever.
>>
>>20181579
>you can get a similar image from my high powered telescope on earth
How exactly are you going to get a half-lit image of Jupiter from Earth? We only get to see the sunlit side.

>if we have a probe there couldnt we get better pics see the comparison between the cgi and raw HUGE
Those images were taken at very different altitudes. Juno is in an highly eccentric orbit of Jupiter.

Also, Juno's camera is kind of shit.

>>20181587
>How big is America
Again, please learn how cameras work.

>the literally control air traffic control data and navigation not just monitoring
No they don't. They were involved in developing some of the systems involved, but they don't run anything.
The decisions are made by air traffic controllers, who report to the FAA.
>>
>>20181635
>How exactly are you going to get a half-lit image of Jupiter from Earth?
Great, even more excuses.

>Again, please learn how cameras work
The burden of proof is on you to show that America can apparently shapeshift under a camera.
>>
File: un.png (38 KB, 1280x853)
38 KB
38 KB PNG
>>20181635
>>>20181587 (You)
>>How big is America
>Again, please learn how cameras work.
america landmass grew in size that much, all nasa is fake once you realize this you can start to heal, its a good larp but disproven many ways, gravity is a theory,

>show me a real picture of earth since we've been to the moon so many times
>>
File: 1986 Planetary Society.jpg (1.15 MB, 2744x1793)
1.15 MB
1.15 MB JPG
mars in 1976 and said there was no life or water ok, you guys are retard
>>
>>20181639
>Great, even more excuses.
It's not an excuse, it's basic geometry. Earth is much closer to the Sun than Jupiter, so we only ever see the sunlit side. So if Juno's taking pictures of Jupiter that are lit from the side or the back, then Juno can't possible be on Earth.

>The burden of proof is on you to show that America can apparently shapeshift under a camera.
Take a DSLR camera and one of the school classroom globes. Photograph the globe from several different distance. I promise you, the continents will change in apparent size.
Hell. this is perspective. You can demonstrate the effect with a pencil and paper.

>>20181647
>all nasa is fake once you realize this you can start to heal
You're not arguing against NASA, you're arguing against basic geometry.

>show me a real picture of earth
Here: http://jda.jaxa.jp/result.php?lang=e&id=c0e37f68a83f9dd98a521f59ee1fb47c

>>20181677
>mars in 1976 and said there was no life or water ok
And?
>>
File: Lapie 1828 Celestial.jpg (439 KB, 2509x1720)
439 KB
439 KB JPG
>>20181688
>>show me a real picture of earth
>Here: http://jda.jaxa.jp/result.php?lang=e&id=c0e37f68a83f9dd98a521f59ee1fb47c
This looks real to you, im sorry, does nasa pay well

You are telling me data given to you by proven liars is your proof. Every answer you have is NASA.

Celestial sphere exists it can be seen, doesnt mean we are on a sphere
>>
>>20181707
>This looks real to you, im sorry, does nasa pay well
It's not even a picture from NASA. It's from the Japanese Michibiki-1 satellite.

>You are telling me data given to you by proven liars is your proof.
Since when was JAXA "proven liars"?
>>
File: AntarticBaseMcMurdo.jpg (659 KB, 3839x2153)
659 KB
659 KB JPG
>>20181722
the nasa larp started after WW2, operation deepfreeze and highjump. Started setting up bases around the world, antartica. That story continues through today, All countries with space programs are in the antartic treaty. They are all in the know. They admit now they cant penetrate the "van allen radiation belt" they call it. Maybe they found something there with all the nazi antartic info that has surfaced. There are massive bases there and round the year shipping and military traffic
>>
File: polebutdifferent.jpg (438 KB, 3259x1167)
438 KB
438 KB JPG
>>20181749
the pole but different
>>
>>
File: geographicSP.jpg (286 KB, 3827x2143)
286 KB
286 KB JPG
>>20181758
At the peak of the cold war the same time stanley kubrick landed on the moon. Masons run nasa
>>
>>20181749
>They admit now they cant penetrate the "van allen radiation belt" they call it.
No they haven't. There's a video talking about Orion that a bunch of Moon landing hoaxers misinterpreted as NASA admitting it, but they've never actually said that.

>Maybe they found something there with all the nazi antartic info that has surfaced.
Maybe you're just throwing around conspiracy theories now.

>There are massive bases there and round the year shipping and military traffic
Those are research bases.

>>20181753
>the pole but different
Why would you expect it to look the same? Antarcica's a continent.

>>20181763
>Masons run nasa
Oh boy.
>>
>>20178096
I'm convinced
>>
>>20181749
the moon is meant to be underneath the dome in your model, so I'm not sure what your point is with the van allen radiation belt since there would be not belt and we'd be able to fly into the moon on your retard model
>>
>>20181222
>they cant take a real picture of earth
see >>20178206
>>
>>20181749
>>20181753
McMurdo isn't a polar station
>>
File: 1478887096886.gif (1.28 MB, 185x175)
1.28 MB
1.28 MB GIF
>idiots still don't realize there's only ONE fundamental force
That would be electricity.

Everything else is an electric phenomenon. Gravity being electro-magnetism.
>>
hahahahaha
"verified images"
this guy believes those CGI fakes
who verified them, your false prophet NatGeo?
>>
>>20175819
>>20182492
Why didn't you just link the post?
>>
>>20181587

do you honestly not understand focal length?
>>
>>20181609
i agree with him, no argument needed.
>>
>>20176564
YES!! What the fuck is this!? And all those videos where the astronauts fade out...
>>
Personally i'm not so convinced by the flat Earth theory. However, there are a lot of 'fishy' things about NASA in particular and a lot of space agencies. I wouldn't be surprised if we spend a lot less time up there than is being advertised and instead the money is going somewhere else. I mean, if you really think about it, what is the point ATM? It costs far too much to do far too little. The world is run on a capitalist system and space travel just does not make sense right now with the science we have.
>>
File: mcmur.jpg (162 KB, 912x1209)
162 KB
162 KB JPG
>>20182283
do you even google, any arguments against flat earth are just REEEEEEEEE NASA said so
>>
File: THENOW.jpg (1.14 MB, 2016x1512)
1.14 MB
1.14 MB JPG
>>20181915
i never said there was a dome, i just said the moon landings were fake, so NASA and other space programs are fake, their sat images are from inside the atmosphere or cgi, the juno pics are fake, everything is fake from them, einstein theory relativity is just a theory, the futher you are from earth time does not move slower for you, time is only a human construct in your mind, there exists no past nor future, these are just theoretical constructs, in reality there only exists the now, maps are not reality, cgi pictures are not reality, unmeasurable curvature is not reality.
>>
>>20182879
so there really is no reason we shouldn't be able to reach a local moon then
>>
File: Sun.png (291 KB, 1543x726)
291 KB
291 KB PNG
It's a weird Sun on the flat earth.
>>
>>20183004
why wouldnt we have 24/7 live feed cam on the moon if it were possible
it looks transparent sometimes so you probably cant land on it.
>>
>>20183027
Why would you want a 24/7 live feed cam specifically. To look at what? We already allegedly have satellites pointed at Earth, and we also have the hubble space telescope pointed outwards. All you'd get with a live feed on the moon that we can't already have would be the surface of the moon, which we can already see from Earth.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.