Alright guys, sup. NASA/ISS skeptic dude here. I've been like 60 40 globe for some months now. I've been very open to either idea and completely put my bias aside, taking in the facts. I have learned about some wild schizo stuff, and I have learned some interesting and enlightening stuff. I watched flerfs get destroyed by angry triggered globies, and I watched globies drown in their copium denial tears trying to keep their world view alive. I always felt like the truth was somewhere in the middle, so this is what I think after a lot of research on both sides.I think the Earth is round and is rotating, yes. But I now believe our map is incorrect and that there is more land, maybe a lot, on Earth that the average person does not know about. And I do not think Antarctica is an ice wall for the most part, but there is something strange going on there and it is 100% part of this whole thing. I am convinced of this.What could be possible is:There could be a firmament.Stars might not be as far as they tell us.The radiation belt is a true threat, which could explain a potential fake moon landing.Now these are maybes but probably not, so hop off my nuts.I don't think there is water above us. Maybe at some point there was, and then the water from above was used for the great flood. The Bible could have also been referencing clouds as well.But yeah, I do believe there is hidden land or even continents we do not know about, including Antarctica. This could include underground cities and stuff, but not to the extent of a hollow Earth. And the reason it would be a secret is because of the implications of what is on those lands, and the elite could benefit from using secret land for resets. But yeah, maybe there are giants or mythical creators on these unknown lands. Dinosaurs. Aliens (doubt it). Who knows. The myths are all there. Valhalla, Tartaria, Atlantis, Agartha, and so on.Earth is a globe tho guys. Sorry. I respect your opinions.
>>41966097*sigh*Ok, just for the tradition I post this one.But I tell you: flat earth threads don't work here. Bots and shills will shit it down.
Just want to add I'm also completely sold and believe in Mudfossil University's theory.https://www.youtube.com/@mudfossiluniversityIf yall don't know about this shit you gotta give it a try.
>>41966105It ain't that deep lol>>41966119Oh I know, trust, I've
>>41966124One of the main things that did it for me was different stars at the poles, watching amateur missile rocket launches, Coriolis effect, and a couple more but can't think of rn.It's just 2 extremes going at it, not willing to give up anything but I think the truth is in the middle.
>>41966097Globe shill there's already a flat earth thread.
>>41966186I don't think we went to the moon, look at my name dud lol. The footage was faked at the minimum, and I would put my life on that.Yeah larger globe maybe a lil less pacific/atlantic oceans, maybe Antarctica isn't all ice or maybe it's a wall but not full 360, that's where I'm at.>>41966196I've been defending flerfs here in the past for the most part, but dw I'm a reasonable person... Maybe a year from now my opinion will change, but globe it is for me. And trust, I'm SUPER anti-establishment and authority. And I hate NASA. But I just can't fully get onboard with FE, but there are some good parts of the whole theory.
>>41966097Good thing youre a globetard and not a flerf. Look how much you use the words "me" and "I" in your sentences and how opinionated you are. I happen to be a flerf and glad you aren't on "my side". We got enough retarded flat earthers on our side here already.
>>41966377>I happen to be a flerf>flerfHello glowie. You're a globeshill pretending to be a flat earther.
>>41966377Yeah this is an opinion piece. Do u boo I'm chillin idc what your beliefs are, or anyone elses.
>>41966097>>41966119Keep it up, you're on the right track. You still have a lot to learn, such as the existence of “the little underground people” (''leprechauns'') or the tall people (with superior DNA, who don't even need to go to the bathroom), as well as the ancient history called Tartaria (which was actually the millennium of Jesus Christ). Investigate further, my friend, from the heart, you will succeed and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. It's time to move forward. Fight for the truth.
>>41967367https://www.youtube.com/@Libertalya/videoshttps://www.youtube.com/@ad54654/videoshttps://rumble.com/c/DivergentTruth/videos?e9s=src_v1_cmd
>>41967367On that Tartaria wave rn homie good looks :). And I hear you. Always from the heart and honesty <3. Thx for the kind words anon so rare here lol.>>41967401Dude I LOVE this shit. I've been on this vibe recently. It's crazy how deep this shit really goes, and I try to keep a reasonable mind on my shoulders and not just believe everything. This one is really good though.
>>41967433All of these issues are real, but since birth we have been programmed with lies and you're welcome, we should help each other. The value of truth is more important than diamonds. ;)
>>41967456I'm sure there are other channels on Rumble that say these things, but I don't know English and it's difficult for me. But the golden age (as Trump says) has arrived, evil has less and less power, and the TRUTH of things is coming to light. You should be happy, hehe.
>>41966097"I think the holocaust happened, just that it wasn't so bad"No, the holocaust never happened and the earth is still flat.
>>41966097I like your thread
>>41967433me again>>41967367>>41967401>>41967456>>41967477If you want friendship/ stay in touch, you should download uTox (it's like a chat app but private, no registration required, and simple). If you want, of course.
>>41967367Dude I just got fucked up about the millennium already happened... bruh WTF. TY for the gem mate. I believe.
>>41966097think of this and try to explain it on globe earth;moon moves at specific speed which is slightly faster than the sun.sun moves at specific speed across the sky.stars (whole background) move faster than the moon. since earth is a globe and spins at whatever speed explains sun going across the sky. moon has it's own orbit around earth which can be explained too... but how do you explain sky moving at different speed than the sun and the moon? I can explain it on flat earth, I can't explain it on globe earth
If it were a globe, the sun would not move into an earth's clouds. For a 98 million light year ball of fire, sure looks like someone is lying about the distance. https://x.com/FELibrary_/status/2022509764043763872?s=20the joke about flat earther being accused of being 4chan trolls to get top comment on youtube would be reversed.
>>41966119>Bots and shills will shit it down.You mean will ask questions that then the flerfs will pretend by merely being asked prove the earth is flat, because they have no answers for them.
>>41966097When the spinning ball-Earth is finally exposed worldwide for the 400+ year deception it was, Earth's entire population will suddenly be faced with the reality that every government, every space agency, university, secret society, religious organization, mainstream and alternative media outlet have ALL been duplicitous in propping up a monstrous manipulation to fleece and control the masses. The resulting mass mental exodus away from the control system is exactly what humanity needs. Once the flat Earth truth gets out, these lying politicians, spokesmen, reporters and teachers suddenly change from being heralded voices of authority to being ridiculed, shunned and denounced as they deserve. Once the flat Earth truth gets out, these governments, universities, media outlets and other entangled organizations which have long been hard at work weaving this multi-generational ball-Earth myth, suddenly and completely lose all credibility. Once the truth of our flat Earth gets out, so does the truth of these few elite families/societies who have kept this most important and fundamental reality from us for these hundreds of years! Essentially, once the flat Earth truth gets out, so does every other important truth by proxy, because this "mother-of-all-conspiracies" holds under its umbrella literally ALL of the other conspiracies, and exposes them.
>>41966097The best question to ask is...Why does it HAVE to be round? Ask yourself why you feel that the round shape and space dogma is necessary for its existence. Why does your mind latch onto that idea? In a vacuum, would you believe it so wholeheartedly? These are important things to consider. Abandon all you have been taught about this topic from the world, and start anew.
Bruuuuh you are retarded. Is the earth seriously flat in your view? I think you have to be playing some prank.
>>41968987Did you read his post? He said he was a globe believer still.
>>41968987It could still be round, but we're basically underneath another realm, another realm could be underneath us. Who knows. You can't also size up Antarctica in google earth. We know it's much larger than it is though. Or people using remote viewing looking though there since you get knocked out of there. Still the possibility of flat earth though. Always wondering if people can look beyond it, but they got those psychic soldiers in some hidden facility there.
Here's a list of arguments that DESTROY flatties, taken from the previous thread. If anyone needs pictures explaining any of these, I can provide.inb4:>you cannot measure celestial angles on a sphere earthAny angle to points in the sky mentioned below should be assumed to be measured in the following way which works on both flat and sphere earth: Grab a stone, lift it, drop it, see the line it moved along. Imagine a plane perpendicular to this line. Absolute vertical angles should be measured against that plane. Absolute horizontal angles should be measured against north. Relative angles can be measured anyhow. I will call this plane PP in the rest of my post.Two celestial poles: We observe stars rotating around two different points: Polaris in the north and Sigma Octantis in the south. On a flat earth with a dome, there should only be one point of rotation at the top of the dome.Consistent angular changes: For every 111km you travel north or south, the elevation angle to Polaris (or any star if you move towards or away from it) changes by exactly 1°. This linear relationship only works on a sphere.Flight paths and distances: Direct flights like Sydney to Santiago (12.5 hours, ~11300km) would require impossible speeds on a flat earth map where the distance would be over 25000km.No flat earth map: Flatties cannot produce a map with consistent scale that accurately represents all known distances between locations.Sunset below clouds: During sunset, we can see the sun lighting clouds from underneath which would be impossible if the sun were always above us and just getting farther away.Equatorial mount/armillary sphere: This ancient astronomical instrument tracks stars by rotating just one axis. It works anywhere on Earth when tilted to match your latitude which is only possible on a sphere.[cont]
>>41969055[cont]Constant solar angular speed: The sun moves at exactly 15° per hour across the sky all day. If it were circling above a flat plane and from our POV from and to vanishing points as claimed by flatties, it would appear to slow down near sunrise/sunset and speed up at noon.Elevation angles and celestial navigation: Celestial navigation using sextants only works because Earth is spherical. The "circles of equal altitude" for stars form actual circles on a globe, but bizarre non-circular shapes on flat earth maps.Ham radio propagation: Skip zones, gray-line propagation, and Earth-Moon-Earth communications all confirm spherical Earth and a distance of ~384000km to the moon. Radio operators worldwide independently verify these phenomena. Additionally radio signal attenuation at different distances from the transmitter is NOT explainable without a horizon interfering with the signal. The math is not complex, and it can be verified by anyone with inexpensive equipment. No flerf has ever provided alternative formulas that have the same predictive power but assume a flat earth. For example: to double your transmission range, you need to quadruple your power (distance is proportional to the square root of power). But this only holds until you hit the radio horizon. After this point increasing your power somehow doesn't make your signal reach further away like it did before. But increasing the height of your antenna DOES allow your signal to reach further away, and exactly by how much the horizon calculations based on a curved earth predict.[cont]
>>41969057[cont]Airplane pitch data: Planes maintain level flight by following Earth's curvature. Even though the plane's absolute orientation in space changes to follow the curve, the average pitch change reads 0° because it's measured against the PP that I mentioned above, which rotates with Earth's curvature if the earth is a globe. So the lack of 'nose down' data is 100% expected on both globe and flat earth models.Radar/radio horizons: Flatties claim naval weapons "painting" and hitting targets 50km+ away proves flat earth, but they use the wrong horizon. Radio/radar horizon extends 15% further than a visual horizon (Any ham radio operator can confirm this). From a targeting platform at 40m height, you can illuminate targets 55km away if the target is also 40m above sea level (like a building inland). And that is not even taking into account that often the illumination is done by someone else, closer to the target.
>>41968408Almost all of the angular speed of the moon is because of earth's rotation, not because of the moon orbiting around the earth, but both contribute to the angular speed you see.Sun's angular speed also a combination of the earths's rotation and the earth orbiting around the sun.The stars' angular speeds are purely because of the earth's rotation.>how do you explain sky moving at different speed than the sunThe starts on the sky move at only slightly different angular speed than the Sun. It takes a full year, for the Sun to move around the whole sky, and come back to the same position in relation to the stars. Which is exactly what you'd expect if your vantage point is a platform moving around the Sun once every year.>and the moonWell the moon is taking only 28 days to orbit the earth once, so it's moving differently from the starts too.Anon, why don't you just buy a program like redshift-live, or even just get Redshift 2 by Maris from archive.org and try to run it. It will let you simulate the solar system at any time and date, and then it will let you place yourself on any point of earth (or even on any point of any planet) and watch the sky from that point. Do it for enough points in time and you'll see that the sky you see above your house is exactly correct based on the positions of the sun, earth and moon.
>>41966097>Flat Earth - Final Verdictits a globe. evidence:>rent a boat and sail around the globeglobe proven.>use the globe map>does it work? are the distances and directions correct?>yesglobe proven>look at the ISS flying over your head at night>is it going straight? or in a circle?>straightglobe proven.its not hollow, either:evidence:>earthquakes in california can be detected in chinanon-hollow globe proven.there ya go, you can thank me now.quite possibly the easiest conspiracy theory to debunk.
>>41969069No one has ever measured sun or moon speed We do measure angles to stars which means earths is 100% objectively flat.>>41966969No fuck you faggot, you don't give a shit about flat earth. No one could care more than me, since I'm the Anon that points out elevation angles cannot happen on a fucking balltard.> DDDUUURUURURURUR YOU SAID THE WORD FLERF YOU WORK AS AN AGENT!!seriously fucking kys
>>41969772>We do measure angles to stars which means earths is 100% objectively flat.no we dont, who told you this?
>>41969932Who told you we live on a spinning ball good goy retard?
>>41969055>Falling objects means there's a center of gravity You're retarded. Please explain how you jumped from one hoolahoop to the other here. How did you arrive to this conclusion.Falling objects =/= gravity it's just another affirmation of consequent. You are really bad at this. The rest of what you posted also applies to formal fallacy if P then Q Q therefore P
who are the good youtubers for flat earth?
>It's not so hard anon. Just measure spherical geometry radius 3959 miles. Or horizon at 1.22 miles 1ft observer height.>Oh wait it was always measured flat from the beginning. Even astronomy the pseudoscience measures it flat for their calculations of their solar system Looks like flat wins. Glad we can finally move on with our day and enjoy it on our flat world
>>41970071Quantum Eraser is my all time fav. Nathan Oakley is a legend too but he's kinda a sperg and scammer who sell mics and advertises a book that he never releases
>>41970015I never mentioned gravity retard.
>>41969772>No one has ever measured sun or moon speedI said angular speed. Learn what angular speed is first.>We do measure angles to stars which means earths is 100% objectively flat.No it doesn't mean that. you can measure angles to starts using the PP plane I described in my post, whether you are on a flat earth or on a globe.
>>41970015No seriously do you have trouble reading? I never mentioned gravity, I never mentioned a center of gravity. I EXPLICITLY said that the method of measuring angles to stars works on BOTH a flat earth and on a globe. Nothing in my method requires the earth to be a globe or to be flat. It only requires you to be able to drop an object and have it fall for a moment. Unless you deny that if you drop a stone it fall to the ground, then you should have no issue following the steps of my method regardless of whether the earth is flat or a globe.
>>41970015>The rest of what you posted also applies to formal fallacy if P then Q Q therefore PYou'll need to do more of the work and tell me in each case what's Q and what's P.
>glober says angular speed now>angular>angleWelcome to flat earth. We can finally move on with our day now I'm glad. Flat wins
>>41970284You'll need to do more of the work and Measure earth geometry at your claimed radius
>>41970306Too bad for you:1) Angular speed doesn't require absolute angles to measure, you can literally just look at where the sun is now, point a stick at it, wait three hours, point another stick at the sun, and use a protractor to measure the angle between those two sticks. This works on both flat and globe earth.2) EVEN IF you needed absolute angles and not relative angles, I already gave you a way to measure angles against the PP plane, which works again on both flat and globe earth.So in all cases, your moronic argument that using a protractor means the earth is flat, falls completely flat.
>>41970313>You'll need to do more of the work and Measure earth geometry at your claimed radiusWhy would I do that? You are the one who claims I commit a fallacy of assuming P=>Q means Q=>P. Show how I did so or accept my arguments.
>>41970306Why is the ship flying above the sea? The ship is on the sea, the horizontal line against which the angle is measured is the PP plane I defined in my post >>41969055 which is defined on both a flat earth and on a globe earth, equally easy, by simply letting an object fall down. Doesn't matter if gravity exists either. As long as a rock falls, that is enough to define the PP plane, and to measure angles against it.
>>41970345>Show how I did so or accept my argumentsThere is no argument to begin with, can't argue against something that isn't an argument. We have elevation angles to stars
>>41970654Typical flattie behavior: Someone comes with arguments against their theory, the flattie simply decides those are not arguments, refuses to elaborate when asked, and continues sticking to his theory. Denial is an amazing thing lol.
>>41968665>https://x.com/FELibrary_/status/2022509764043763872?s=20How would you know that the clouds are at any point going behind the sun when most of the disk is already so bright that it saturates the sensor of the camera? Here is how to recreate the illusion of something going behind a light source in your own home:1) Get a super bright, disk shaped or spherical, light source and point your camera at it. It must be so bright that all the pixels INSIDE the disk are basically oversaturated (burned out) and should show up as #FFFFFF even if you were to lower the camera saturation quite a bit, while the background around the disk should not look completely black in the camera but should be a little bit illuminated from the light source say something around #555555 for your camera.2) Cover the bottom 1/3 of your view with something opaque enough that it drops the value of the source from #FFFFFF to something darker, say, #888888.3) Cover the middle 1/3 of the view with something that is transparent enough to lower the brightness of the light source to the visible eye, but not opaque enough to lower it so much that the pixels become normally saturated, so the camera still reads them as #FFFFFF.Well now the top 1/3 of the disk source and the middle 1/3 will look exactly the same in camera, while the bottom 1/3 will look darker even in camera. At the same time the top 1/3 OUTSIDE the disk will look as bright as before you added any filters, while the middle 1/3 OUTSIDE the disk will look DARKER than the top 1/3. This will create the illusion that the middle 1/3 filter is actually going BEHIND the light source, since its effect is visible on the left and on the right of the light source but not INSIDE the light source, because despite it having an actual effect even inside the disk, the saturation of the camera does not allow you to distinguish the effect as everything there still reads #FFFFFF because of how oversaturated it was in the beginning.
Right now there's a program called Stellarium that you can get on your smartphone even which I use to find where anything is, from any point I've traveled, and it is VERY accurate, everything is always exactly where it says it should be.So if flat earth is true, wouldn't that mean that Stellarium is actually using flat earth models inside it to predict the position of everything in the sky with accuracy? If that's the case, why not inspect the code of Stellarium and show to people that it's using a flat earth model? It's an open source program so they cannot hide anything, you can compile the code yourself and see if it still makes the same predictions as the released version.
Oh yes I forgot to mention that I love sucking dicks and being a faggot and having dicks in my butt and being gay all the time because that's what namefags do
Snapped two pictures tonight of the Leo constellation with my phone, one where it was near the horizon to the east and the other 5.5 hours later when it was almost near the meridian.Why do stars appear near the horizon when they rise and set if the earth is flat?>Durr it's due to perspective!Then why doesn't the angular distance between the stars get smaller?>...>Shill!>Glowie!>The Earth measures flat!It's that easy to prove that we live on a sphere.
>>41971042kys, tranny.
>>41970000nobody, it took me 5 seconds to figure out myself that its a globe..its very important to think for yourself.
>>41971326>all you have to do to prove the globe is leave the basement and go outsideyou expect too much from flatties.
>>41971326Totally bagged them.I bet they'll come back with some answer like "stars are not physical objects so they do not behave as you expect". Which:1) Perspective works the same way for anything visible, it doesn't require anything to be a physical object.2) That answer is basically them admitting they don't know at all why perspective stops working.
>>41970000>0000That's how many reasons there are for the earth to be flat.
>>41971417>FE: posts X video of someone tiktok-finger-pointing-up to an overexposed video of the sun.>GE: Writes a 352 word, detailed, technical reply explaining how to recreate this illusion in your own home.>FE: kys, tranny.A fairly typical attempt at discussion with a flat-earther.
After 24 hours, my three posts ( >>41969055 >>41969057 >>41969058 ) that contain at least 11 points against FE and/or against common arguments of flat-earthers, have still received no actual reply.The only replies I received either misrepresent what I said, like assuming any of my arguments require gravity or a gravitational center to be real (which they don't require at all), or they completely miss the fact that angular speed is not the same as speed. Or they miss the fact that angular speed does not require absolute angle measurement as merely relative angle measurement is enough to calculate angular speed: simply pointing straws at things in the sky and then using a protractor between those straws is enough to measure angular changes, and combined with a stopwatch you can measure angular speed.I was also accused of committing a fallacy, specifically that I assumed that if P=>Q then Q=>P, but when I asked which statements from my posts do Q and P refer to, I got no explanation.I also received the expected, plug-your-ears-and-shout-la-la-la answers of simply dismissing all my points as "non arguments" as "there is no argument to be had because we have elevation angles", even though I never mentioned "elevation angles". I described a specific angle measurement methodology that works both on a flat earth and on a globe earth. If you believe my angles are actually the same as elevation angles, and you believe it is impossible to measure elevation angles on a globe then I challenge you to explain which step of my method for measuring my angles does not work on a globe earth. Go through the steps of my process, tell me which step would not work on a globe.
>>41970071Jeranism post Antarctica.>inb4 he's a government agent
>>41969055>Consistent angular changes: For every 111km you travel north or south, the elevation angle to Polaris (or any star if you move towards or away from it) changes by exactly 1°. This linear relationship only works on a sphere.>Equatorial mount/armillary sphere: This ancient astronomical instrument tracks stars by rotating just one axis. It works anywhere on Earth when tilted to match your latitude which is only possible on a sphere.Nice that you included my points from the previous threads. Saves me the effort of writing them again.
>>41969057>Constant solar angular speed: The sun moves at exactly 15° per hour across the sky all day.It's not always 15° per hour. It varies between 13.80° and 15.04° depending on the Sun's declination which changes with the seasons. The angular speed is pretty much constant throughout a single day though so the argument is still the same. I just wanted to point that out.
>>41973987Ah yes you are right! It's the azimuth of the sun is changing by 15 degrees/hour. But the actual angular speed may be a bit slower depending on how long is the actual path that the Sun needs to move around in one day in the sky.But as you correctly pointed out, the problem here is the constant speed throughout the day, whether 15 or 13 degrees per hour, and why that speed does not greatly change near the supposed vanishing points at dawn and sunset.
>>41973536your just a faggot nigger with jew science that no one cares about. Heres a little simple logic that beats your gay posts. In much the same way the sun could be far away and HUGE OR really close and SMALL. The sky COULD be like you say, OR we could be in a snow-globe. There is no difference from our perspective nigger. Every equation works the same because its just the inverse or the other side of the equation.
>>41973226It took me 5 seconds to figure out we measure elevation angles to stars and thus measure the earth flat objectively 100%. You fucking asshole>>41973273>Niggas mad because I scored quads>>41973287>that contain at least 11 points against FE11 points that were all affirming the consequent fallacies and zero measurements of earth sphere geometry>I specifically asked where I committed the fallacyIn all the instances you did not measure your earth curveMoving on with my day on this beautiful flat earth. Retards still want to have arguments for something that isn't an argument
>>41974191>It took me 5 seconds to figure out we measure elevation angles to stars and thus measure the earth flat objectively 100%. You fucking assholeKeep ignoring the fact that I've described a way (>>41969055) which works on both a flat earth and a globe earth to measure absolute angles to stars that can work in place of everything you call an elevation angle.>11 points that were all affirming the consequent fallacies and zero measurements of earth sphere geometryIf you think you have ANY idea about what you are talking about, take a few of these points, and describe which is the P and which is the Q.>In all the instances you did not measure your earth curveWhat does this have to do with anything. Where in my arguments is a measurement of the earths "curve" need to be measured? Explain how the measurement you keep asking is relevant to anything of what I said in my three posts.>Retards still want to have arguments for something that isn't an argumentThis shows how clueless you are. You are merely dismissing arguments as "non arguments" without explaining why they are not. You made vague claims of people affirming the consequent, despite not showing what's the P and Q as you described them before. You keep asking for a measurement which is not relevant to the points being made, and when asked to show WHY it is relevant, you deflect and simply refuse to answer. You are so obviously clueless.
>>41974182>your just a faggot nigger with jew science that no one cares aboutQuality argument sir. I bet everyone is convinced the earth is flat now that you admitted that the things I'm talking about fly over your head.>In much the same way the sun could be far away and HUGE OR really close and SMALL. The sky COULD be like you say, OR we could be in a snow-globe.How is any of this relevant to any of my arguments? Explain the connection. Pick just one or two of my 11 points, and explain how it connects to what you just said.
>>41966097there's confirmed land beyond antarctica from this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxYr7VzB5EY
>>41968408The Earth rotates from West to East and one rotation takes 23 hours and 56 minutes.This causes all celestial objects to rotate from East to West from our point of view.But after one rotation the Earth will also have orbited the Sun by 0.98° (average value) which will cause the Sun to have moved 0.98° along the Ecliptic in an Eastern direction since we orbit the Sun in an anti-clockwise direction (if we look down on the north pole).The Moon orbits the Earth from West to East so when the Earth has rotated one revolution the stars will have returned to their previous location but the Moon will have moved 13.14° (average value) along its path in an Eastern direction. This path is almost along the Ecliptic but not quite. The Moon's orbit is tilted by around 5° in relation the Ecliptic.Theoretically if the Moon's orbital period was shorter than Earth's rotational period we would see the Moon rise in the West and set in the East. This happens on Mars with its moon Phobos which has an orbital period of just under 8 hours.
>>41974191>>Niggas mad because I scored quadsThey were impressive not gonna lie.
>>41974163>Ah yes you are right! It's the azimuth of the sun is changing by 15 degrees/hour.I'm gonna sound like a pedantic faggot but the azimuth is not constant unless you're on either the north or south pole.Here's a GeoGebra file that I put together to demonstrate this. I put the Sun on the Celestial Equator (Spring/Autumn equinox) so its angular speed is 15° per hour but as you can see its azimuth is not constant.>But as you correctly pointed out, the problem here is the constant speed throughout the dayThis again.
>>41974307>What does this have to do with anything. Where in my arguments is a measurement of the earths "curve" need to be measured? Explain how the measurement you keep asking is relevant to anything of what I said in my three posts.The subject is about earth geometry. You'll need measurementsSorry a measurement isn't an argument it's a description of reality. You don't have an argument, and you don't have measurements
>>41971326I was looking through the images that I took and I noticed two satellite trails in one of them that were really close together so I got curious and identified them using Stellarium.The two satellites were NOSS 3-7 (A) and NOSS 3-7 (B) which were launched together and have a similar orbit.This is all the information Stellarium uses to predict where those two satellites are in the sky from a given location on Earth:NOSS 3-7 (A)1 40964U 15058A 26045.86285667 0.00000000 00000-0 00000-0 0 002 40964 63.4334 25.6637 0206655 358.7603 1.2397 13.40995567 04NOSS 3-7 (R)1 40981U 15058R 26045.86293949 0.00000000 00000-0 00000-0 0 012 40981 63.4348 25.8848 0205668 358.5676 1.4324 13.40995022 03These lines of numbers just describe the shape and orientation of the orbit and nothing more and Stellarium is able to use that small amount of information to predict where a satellite is. How? By assuming that the Earth is a sphere and that orbital mechanics works.
>>41976237But I was photographing towards the East and the Sun hade already set quite a bit so how can the satellites still be visible!? Shouldn't they be in Earth's shadow!?I fired up Space Engine and placed myself at the location of the satellites and as you can see they were still in sunlight.
>>41968967This is all well and good, but what's BEYOND this place? I'd assume that surely there's an infinite cosmos beyond this little closed system. Yeah, summerland sounds peachy keen, but I don't feel like chillin in Saturn's limited little "heaven" for all eternity. I want to explore the cosmos, travel to other realms, and acquire cool anime powers.
>>41975129You still talk but do not connect anything that you say to any of the arguments I made. You are just handwaving my arguments away as "non arguments" by trying to ask for unrelated measurements and hope that nobody notices your cluelessness.
>>41974935Oh you are right again. It's good to be pedantic in this cases. I don't want to repeat wrong stuff. Also, very nice and easy to understand geogebra demonstration.
>>41976237>These lines of numbers just describe the shape and orientation of the orbit and nothing more and Stellarium is able to use that small amount of information to predict where a satellite is. How? By assuming that the Earth is a sphere and that orbital mechanics works.Some flattie should show how the fuck to do the same on a flat earth model.
>>41975129And just to drive my point home for anyone still doubting that you are clueless:The equatorial mount works, whether I measure the radius of the earth or not.Moonbounce radio propagation takes ~3 seconds for the roundtrip whether I measure the radious of the earth or not.The radio horizon works as modeled by known formulas, whether I measure the radius of the earth or not.Star angles will go up 1 degree if you view them from a place on the earth 111km towards the stars direction, whether I measure the radius of the earth or not.Those are just 4 of the at least 11 points I made, not having to do anything with the challenge you issues.So, to summarize, you're full of shit, you answer to none of the arguments, you throw false accusations about me "assuming if P=>Q then Q=>P" without EVER answering to me what's my P and what's my Q, and when pressed on your bullshit you issue a challenge that has nothing to do with my arguments, and which obviously only aims to buy you time now that you are exposed as a clueless fraud.
>>41977889>You are just handwaving my arguments away as "non arguments" Because like I told you for the 10th time now, the subject isn't a fucking argument it's about earth geometry, THUS ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT TO BE AN ARGUMENT Theres no way in hell you're this dense I'm definitely talking to a damn bot>>41977916>More If P then Q Q therefore PYou just did it again dumbfuck, in every claim of this post you committed the fallacy again.And before yes you did commit affirming the consequent fallacy, in every case you did not measure earth geometry
>If the earth is a sphere my equitorial mount will work>My equitorial mount works, therefore earths a sphere>If P then Q Q therefore P >If earths a sphere the stars will be measured this degree from this distance >They are, so earths a sphere >If P then Q Q therefore P It's so damn easy to apply the P and Q to everything you said, not difficult at all. So I wont be wasting my time pointing out every Q and P you made.You measure an elevation angle to a star which measures earth flat 100% objectively and factually. Please don't speak anymore cornball
>>41974935>but the azimuth is not constant unless you're on either the north or south pole.And this is the reason why an equatorial sundial that is properly aligned with the celestial poles show that the shadow cast by the gnomon moves at a constant rate of 15° per hour.On either the north or south pole you can create a simple sundial by just sticking a vertical pole into the snow and the shadow will move at a constant rate no matter the season (unless it's polar night of course). So when you align a sundial with the celestial poles you are orienting it the same way as if it was placed vertically on the geographic poles.Flattards claim that sundials can only work on a flat earth but I have never come across one that was able to show how this sundial can work on their pizza model and I have zero hope that any of you will be able to either.The sundial works everywhere on Earth. All you have to do is point the gnomon towards either pole and rotate the sundial around the gnomon to set the time zone (optional).
>>41978546>Measure shadow elevation angle with flat shadow baseline>Measure earth flatEveryone can see right through your bullshit, not sure what you're trying to hide
>>41966097>I don't think there is water above us.there used to be a youtube account of a guy recording satellite feedsat the time the feeds were not meant for public consumption but he had the hardware and used itlots of it was space views, other stuff was like clinton acting like a zombie while being made upanyway the space views looked like water, some (huge, at scalme) shapes were moving that looked exactly like water stuffthey were mostly space station related footagethe guy had like hundreds of hours on youtube of this stuffhe didnt make much claims btw, just provided the recordings of life feeds
>>41968931nope that's not what bots and shills doprecisely notgood catch!
>>41969069>>41973536
>>41978546>The sundial works everywhere on Earth. All you have to do is point the gnomon towards either poleHere's an animation for those who can't rotate an apple in their head like this retard >>41978564The camera is set to orthographic projection and it's pointed at 23.44°N and 45°E so that you're viewing the Earth from the Sun's perspective on the Summer Solstice and when the Sun is 3 hours before the prime meridian.As you can see it doesn't matter on what Latitude I put the sundial at, it still reads 9 o'clock in the morning.I should point out that in reality the sundial would not be visible on the most southern latitudes but as you can see I made it gargantic so that we could actually see it on this scale.
>>41979193>I made it gargantic so that we could actually see it on this scale.This is trivial but there are dumb dumbs in this thread so I also have to point this out. The size of the sundial has no effect.
>>41978538>Does an equatorial mount work on a rotating sphere or a stationary sphere that has the stars rotate around it?Yup>Does an equatorial mount work on a flat earth with a rotating dome centered at the north pole?NopeHmm I wonder what shape the earth could be?
>>41979690Another affirmation of consequent fallacy. It's like you are doing this on purpose or enjoy being a retard.Explain how the mount thats aligned with Polaris means we live on a ball. You're jumping to conclusions that make zero sense
>>41966097If the earth was a spinning ball they could prove it but they won't Instead we get "You know it's real because it looks fake"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h6FVfsVk2g
>>41978497>the subject isn't a fucking argument it's about earth geometryImagine being so retarded that you can define "the subject" as a non-argument. You are just evading answering to my argument by calling them non-arguments. Nice try but it's obvious.>THUS ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT TO BE AN ARGUMENT>YOU CANNOT WIN THIS ARGUMENT, I AM IMPERVIOUS TO ARGUMENTATION BY REFUSING TO ENGAGE WITH ARGUMENTS.>You just did it again dumbfuck, in every claim of this post you committed the fallacy again.EVERY CLAIM you said?>And before yes you did commit affirming the consequent fallacy, in every case you did not measure earth geometry>= you assumed if P=>Q then Q=>P because you did not measure earth geometryWhat the fuck does "not measuring earth geometry" have to do with those Ps and Qs? What is the P and what is the Q you salty loser faggot?>>41978538Oh finally some attempts to assign something to P and Q:>If the earth is a sphere my equitorial mount will work>My equitorial mount works, therefore earths a sphere[cont]
>>41983412[cont]My list of arguments like I said:>list of arguments that DESTROY flattiesis intended to show that flat earth does not work with these things, how can an equatorial mount which was designed assuming the stars are points on a spherical dome around earth, and that go under the horizon for half the day, work on a flat earth? An equatorial mount DISPROVES the flat earth, rather than PROVES the spherical earth. BUT a spherical earth is the simplest explanation for why it works. If you flatties have another explanation to explain how a machine with the stars on a literal sphere mimics perfectly the positions of starts above a flat earth then show your explanation. Till you show it you got nothing, the simplest explanation remains earth being a globe, and being flat with a dome above it simply doesn't work because vanishing points would destroy the perspective of constellations by tilting them, which as shown by this guy here >>41971326 does not happen. Explain how all these work on your model.>If earths a sphere the stars will be measured this degree from this distance>They are, so earths a sphereListen faggot. When you are supposed to be quoting other to prove they said something, you better ACTUALLY quote real text they wrote. I never said "If earths a sphere the stars will be measured this degree from this distance" and I don't even know what the fuck this sentence is supposed to mean or which argument it even relates to. Explain what the fuck you are supposed to be quoting by ACTUALLY copy-pasting REAL text from my post instead of how the text sounds in your vacant mind.>It's so damn easy to apply the P and Q to everything you saidReally? That easy? You quoted 1 of my arguments, maybe 2 if you had actually quoted something in the second. Try applying the P=>Q thing to The following arguments where I made NO CLAIM AT ALL that I conclude the earth is a sphere, I only show that it cannot be flat:[cont]
>>41983414[cont]1) Two celestial poles2) Flight paths and distances3) No flat earth map4) Sunset below clouds5) Constant solar angular speedOr just convert even the other arguments into ones that don't try to support spherical earth, into arguments that simply disprove the flat earth, and you have again an extended list of at least 11 that you still have NOT answered to, and are still evading by any means possible.>You measure an elevation angle to a star which measures earth flat 100% objectively and factually.No I don't you stupid faggot. I gave a VERY specific method on how to measure absolute angles to stars, and I explained that ALL STEPS of the method work on BOTH flat earth AND on a globe. Tell me which step does not work on a globe if you still insist on claiming you cannot measure angles to stars. Tell me. Also, separately explain how the arguments that do NOT rely on absolute angles still destroy your flat earth model (if you even have one cause you still have not even provided a map, you fucking clueless troll).>Please don't speak anymore cornballHa. Ha. Yeah I'm not letting you get away with your completely bullshit evasions so I'm sure you'd love me to shut up.>>41979204>The size of the sundial has no effect.This was the best inb4 I've ever seen. But I think you forgot another one, let's see if the retards will jump on it.Side note, I wonder why not a single flattie has ever produced a video showing why sundials work on a flat earth, like actually show the angles from the sun on sundials in different parts of the world. It's crazy how globe-earthers do all the work on the obviously harder to work with spherical earth, but flatties that only have flat planes to work with, just don't do it. All I can find are memes saying "sundials are based on flat earth" but literally no animation or even static image showing them in action on a flat earth, showing the correct time, with the sun being in its supposed position above the earth.[cont]
>>41983420[cont]They should at least be able to show the position of the Sun every 1 hour, and then two or three sundials in 3 different positions on earth all showing the correct time, which should increment by 1 hour every hour on all these three places using the same Sun position for all of them. It should be VERY simple to make, but I cannot find it anywhere.>>41981138First, I note that you do not deny that the equatorial mount (I assume we mean the armillary sphere here) DOES work on a spherical earth. That is indeed not proof that the earth is spherical, but it's safe to assume so until someone comes with another model that fits. You claim a flat earth would also fit. Great. How about you make a diagram that shows on a flat earth, how the equatorial mount works? Show the flat earth, place the mount on four random locations (Pick four random villages across Europe, east Asia, north and south America), and explain how the armillary sphere works. Specifically explain where the stars are on the dome above the flat earth for them to be able to be predicted by the sphere they are imprinted on inside the instrument and how the perspective of constellations never really changes (you never see a flattened out Orion for example). Just show a 3d diagram please, all your flatties have conferences and spend money on shit like that but cannot spend money on hiring someone who knows how to operate geogebra to make this animations for you? Or you cannot learn to operate it yourselves?[cont]
>>41983425[cont]>>41981138If you keep pointing out that our arguments who disprove flat earth DON'T prove the globe earth, then you are not really a flat-earther. You are more of a globe-sceptic. You have NOT yet shown HOW an armilary sphere works on a flat earth. You have NOT yet shown how Stellarium works so precisely on a flat earth even though it uses globe earth geometry to decide what's visible on the sky. Just pointing out that these don't prove a globe either, is not the argument YOU as a supposed flat-earther should be making. Are you really just arguing "yeah flat doesn't work but globe isn't proven beyond doubt yet"? Is that it? Do better, I'm expecting some actual arguments from flatties, and you are a disappointment.If there's someone who knows how to operate geogebra, and wants to make an animation showing any of these things working on a flat earth, talk to me, convince me you know what you want to show and I'll actually pay you in crypto to make it.
>>41983430You wanted to debunk the flat earth you would have to go by deductive reasoning, such as modus ponens or modus tollens. Deductive reasoning is needed if you want ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY of something.The black swan is modus tollens. All the measurements of earth are modus ponens. In every case you attempted to debunk the flat earth ended up being affirming the consequent, the logically fallacious form of P/Q claims. There isn't a single globetard argument that doesn't do this.They're just constantly being lazy and saying ships disappear over the curve or that their map projection of the globe has the only sufficient distance measurements. Plus all your dumb claims you made that aren't deductive reasoning at all>Still thinks he has arguments
>>41984262NTA, but stop worrying about semantics and logical structure. You're tangling up simple arguments to make them more complicated so you can drag this out. 99.9% of people use the globe model, to counter it all you have to do is provide a map/model for your flat version. It needs a scale, current shipping/flight paths have to be viable across it and it can account for natural phenomena like sunsets. You'll notice you have no such model and that's why we're suspicious of your claims.>INB4 no one really knows what shape the Earth is
>>41971326Almost 3 days later and flatties still have no answer :(
>>4198447499% of people use a Cartesian coordinate map or AE map projection that is then wrapped around a dipole, but they certainly aren't using a dipole to navigate that came from those map charts/map projections. Not that I've stated it multiple times in these threads. I don't have to appeal to a AE map projection model, elevation angles killed the globe, shot down dead forever
>>41984262>You wanted to debunk the flat earth you would have to go by deductive reasoningI did.>such as modus ponens or modus tollens. Deductive reasoning is needed if you want ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY of something.OK>The black swan is modus tollens.Are you referring in general to the concept of a black swan? Then yes. If you are referring to the shitty example of the beyond the horizon visibility of an oil rig from the previous flat earth thread, where you were refusing to accept that refraction happens on gradually changing refraction indexes too, like in these optic fibers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graded-index_fiber then that's neither deductive nor any kind of reasoning, it's just wrong.>All the measurements of earth are modus ponens.Modus ponens means if P=>Q and P is true, therefore Q is true. Stop speaking like a retarded oracle and actually substantiate what you say by explaining what the fuck is your P and Q.>In every case you attempted to debunk the flat earth ended up being affirming the consequent, the logically fallacious form of P/Q claims.You never showed jack shit about this. You keep insisting that all I am trying to prove is that the earth is a globe beyond any doubt when I explicitly started my list of 11 points by saying those destroy the flat earth model. Do you know what I meant? That they prove that the earth cannot be flat. For example the armillary sphere is constructed assuming that the stars are actually going below the horizon (you can see how much below they are), and it assumes that the stars are visually on a sphere, with two rotational poles, and the location of the poles depends exactly on your latitude on a sphere earth. If the earth is flat, then how the hell can this machine work? But it does work, (like Stellarium does too) so the earth cannot be flat. Does it need to be a globe? Maybe not, I'm all ears if you have an alternative model where it works. [cont]
>>41985923[cont]Your claim about star angles doesn't even make sense at all because you talked about measure "degrees from this distance" What the fuck does it even mean to measure angles from a "distance"? I also don't even know which of my arguments you are referring to because you're a fucking fraud and you refuse to quote actual text and you keep quoting your own misrepresentations of my text.>Plus all your dumb claims you made that aren't deductive reasoning at allLike I said, they are, they deductively prove that the earth cannot be flat. I am not currently attempting to convince you that a globe is 100% the only model that fits (though it most likely is). I am showing you that there is no way for the earth to be flat. You could show me where I'm wrong by simply providing a model that explains all my arguments using a flat earth, but you haven't, and you won't, cause you cannot.>>41984755>elevation angles killed the globe, shot down dead foreverLet me copy paste from my original message, and this time you explain to me which step of my method is impossible to do if the earth were a sphere:>Any angle to points in the sky mentioned below should be assumed to be measured in the following way which works on both flat and sphere earth: Grab a stone, lift it, drop it, see the line it moved along. Imagine a plane perpendicular to this line. Absolute vertical angles should be measured against that plane. Absolute horizontal angles should be measured against north. Relative angles can be measured anyhow. I will call this plane PP in the rest of my post.
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1771365884344864.mp4
If there is a dome, then everything is possible, because the dome technology is Warhammer 40k level technology.
>>41984583what does this video suggest
>>41985923Thanks for bringing up pasts posts that were already refuted long ago.You don't have Refraction A flat measurement of earth means earths flatWe measure earth flat therefore it's flatIf P then Q P therefore QNone of your fallacies have debunked the earth being flat. I don't care about flat earth models, I don't care how many map projections you want to falsify in some autistic way.You don't have measurements of earth curve.>>41985927You cannot measure angles to curves, this has been told to you multiple times already. Stop attempting to redefine axiomsYou fallacies are not deductive reasoning they are fallaciesIf you're talking about falling objects you have established a vertical, you haven't established a zenith/vertical towards the center of a sphere, that would be presumptuous. You know, the very sphere you're trying to prove.Vertical or zenith or plumb is in respect to a flat plane, those don't work on spheres either
Let's also mention that these supposed anglar measurements to stars on a ball is another presumption of the solar system and the sun being 93 million miles away aswell as claimed distances to planets and other stars/galaxies.They all come from Astronomy and Astrophysics who took eratosthenes measurements of shadow elevation angles.
THe theory I heard about this was, it started as a kind of joke and if you could argue the earth was flat then you could argue about anything and sharpen your debating skills. Then in internet got hold of it and it snowballed from there. The 2 main things I think aboutt his is, what the fuck does anyone gain from lying about the world being flat? and Who gives a fuck? As long as all the maths, physics and other shit that would make a difference are true, does it even matter? Some guys dedicate their lives to this, which I guess keep some of the nutters busy but at the end of the day can you feed yourself and sleep well at night? If it did come out the world was flat, it probably wouldn't effect my life in the slightest. I'd still have shit to do.
>>41986698So now options are either A: stick our heads in the sand and not expose government liesB: pick and choose the lies we expose, just not the globe because that would be a "waste of time"There's nothing wrong in stating what the earth is, flat and stationary. Welcome to reality Welcome to flat earth
>>41966097No idea really on flat earth, does it really matter either way to any of us?One thing is weird though, I used to work for a tunneling contractor. We were doing a tunnel in Austin 4 miles long. The city surveyor came and told us we would not hole though the next shaft correctly because we were way off track and needed to correct. Our surveyor told them to fuck off. They were using a curved coordinate system with the earth’s curvature built in. We are using a flat grid. They said we would be 4’ off or so in each direction, we came in 0.02” off or something, basically perfect. This surveyor dude built the CERN tunnel in California, he knew his shit. The tunnel was guided by laser system all the way to the home point and guide the TBM with zero fucks given to the supposed curvature of the earth.
In flat earth theory, what is the moon supposed to be? It's pretty obviously spherical, you can see the shadows of the craters change over every lunar cycle.
FE got btfo so bad FE Dave was on stream coping about how they faked the 24 hr sun when his peers visited Antarctica KEK
>>41987494The earth map. Said it shows our world and the ice wall, and many new lands beyond our own. And the magnetic anomaly that screws with our compasses: The Black Rock.
>>41986296>You don't have RefractionWe do. I already told you about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graded-index_fiber which work by a gradually changing refraction index across their radius, and refraction does happen in them. And refraction can be understood and predicted by extending the typical two material formula using calculus: https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Optics/Geometric_Optics_(Tatum)/01:_Reflection_and_Refraction/1.08:_Differential_Form_of_Snell's_Law>A flat measurement of earth means earths flat>We measure earth flat therefore it's flatThese two sentences are intentionally vague and I've seen your flatties FLIP on their meaning at least once in the last thread. Sometimes you say it and you mean that you measured something and that measurement when interpreted brings you to the conclusion that the earth is flat. Other times you say it and you mean that you first assume the earth is flat just to be able to START measuring something. As I already said, stop talking like retarded oracles, be precise in what you mean and explain yourselves.>If P then Q P therefore QMy 11 points aim to show that the earth is not flat, I do not aim to show that it's a globe (although it is but that's neither my P nor my Q and you have not shown so by quoting my ACTUAL text, you keep quoting your interpretations of my text which are literally different text that came out of your mind. You love attacking strawmen).>None of your fallacies have debunked the earth being flat.You can keep repeating this without actually arguing against them, they will continue proving your theory wrong until you actually have an answer to them.>I don't care about flat earth modelsThis sums up pretty well the denial on your side: Refusing to even SHOW how simple geometry works on a flat earth.>I don't care how many map projections you want to falsify in some autistic wayDid I mention any map projection? No. Once more you keep attacking strawmen.
>>41987464hands way too long for me
>>41988548[cont]>You don't have measurements of earth curve.Every 111km you move north happen to raise Polaris by 1 degree without changing the perspective of constellations. That's literally a measurement of curvature. And it's the same EVERYWHERE on earth where polaris is visible. In the south of the equator every 111km you move south raise Sigma Octantis be the same 1 degree, again this happens EVERYWHREE on earth. This is literally a measurement of the curvature of the ground. If you don't believe so, please show HOW this phenomenon can happen on any model of the earth OTHER than a globe. Again, not my intention to prove the globe, but since you mentioned it, go ahead. I'm waiting for the model.>You cannot measure angles to curves, this has been told to you multiple times already. Stop attempting to redefine axioms1) You can measure angles to tangents of curves.2) I am not even doing the above, I gave you a SPECIFIC, DETAILED step-by-step method on how to measure what you keep calling "elevation angles" which involves NO CURVES. I've asked a million times, you've completely evaded the question EVERY SINGLE TIME: What step of my method is impossible to do on a globe earth?>You fallacies are not deductive reasoning they are fallaciesYou keep making accusations without any basis. Most of them are deductive reasoning proving the earth cannot be flat (if they show it's a globe that's an extra, I even don't care about it I just want you to show me how they do not disprove flat earth with 100% certainty). If you think they are wrong, all you need to show is how these things can happen on a flat earth.>If you're talking about falling objects you have established a verticalYes, they establish a direction and a line. If you chose to call it vertical fine by me, I don't need to call it anything.[cont]
[cont]>>41988562>you haven't established a zenith/vertical towards the center of a sphere,1) Zenith is simply the point in the sky where the upper side of the vertical line we defined vanishes to.2) Whether the bottom of this like crosses the center of the sphere seems irrelevant to the 11 points I made. My method is used to measure the angle to stars. Whether it passes through the center of the sphere or not is irrelevant, you CAN measure an angle, and my arguments should be read as if THAT is the angle to any point in the sky.>that would be presumptuous. You know, the very sphere you're trying to prove.How would you have felt yesterday evening if you hadn't eaten breakfast or lunch? Do hypotheticals trouble you? Let me explain again like you're 4 years old:I gave you a method that doesn't make assumptions about the shape of the earth and allows you to make measurements of the angles of starts. Now, in square brackets I will put the hypothetical part of the sentence. A hypothetical doesn't need to be true. I am not claiming it is true, I am just saying "if it is true then something else happens". Let's go:1) [If the earth is flat], then the vertical line we defined by dropping a rock is a perpendicular to the surface of the planet, so the PP plane I was talking about is parallel to the ground everywhere, and we can measure elevation angles towards it.2) [If the earth is a globe and the objects fall towards the center of that globe], then the vertical line is indeed passing through the center of the globe, the PP plane can be used to measure angles to stars.3) [If the earth is a globe and the objects do not necessarily fall towards the center of that globe], then, like before, we can still define a PP plane and measure angles to stars against that one as well, just like in the previous case.See? No presumption about anything, those are hypotheticals. My method for angle measurement works on all three cases.[cont]
[cont]>>41988567>Vertical or zenith or plumb is in respect to a flat plane, those don't work on spheres eitherYes you fucking retard it's against the PP plane that I defined, not against a sphere. Are you literally senile? It's right there in my post and a PP plane can be defined on both a flat earth and a globe, and it doesn't even matter where the items fall towards.>Let's also mention that these supposed anglar measurements to stars on a ball is another presumption of the solar system and the sun being 93 million miles away aswell as claimed distances to planets and other stars/galaxies.Literally NONE of these were mentioned in my list of 11. Keep attacking strawmen. And the method I gave you for measuring angles does not need to assume anything about the solar system, what the fuck are you even talking about?>They all come from Astronomy and Astrophysics who took eratosthenes measurements of shadow elevation angles.True but since then we've made way more accurate tools to measure the same angles, and not just from two places like Eratosthenes did but literally from every place on the planet: Stellarium can somehow predict the exact angles to everything in the sky above your house and above my house, at the same time, no-matter where we live on the planet, and it does so assuming the earth is a globe. When will you make a program that can do the same using a flat earth model and a dome of stars near the earth or whatever you people believe (it's not like you've taken ANY position on the exact location of stars or the moon or the sun, you keep avoiding showing an actual model that agrees with any observations).
>>419859891) Refraction happens exactly as predicted, it's visible in his photos here >>41971326, and it's replicated by the software here exactly the same >>419845832) The stars move at a predictable constant angular velocities, explainable by programs like Stallarium which work without assuming that the stars are on a dome above some flat earth, and instead place the stars on a sphere around earth, which rotates around a globe earth. Additionally they model your latitude and longtitude as a position on said globe earth, and use them to predict which part of the "celestial sphere" will be visible to you exactly at any point in time from any place in earth.I can't wait for flatties to finally create software that has the same ability to predict reality while using their non-existent flat earth model that they REFUSE to even show because the moment they show any model, it's obvious it cannot explain half of the things I listed here: >>41969055 >>41969057 >>41969058
>>41987464>They said we would be 4’ off or so in each directionWhat do you mean in "each" direction? Why would you be wrong in anything but the final height?
>>41986698My theory about the demographics of flat earthers is this:Very few of them are mid to high IQ grifters. Those just collect their Patreon, sell their books, etc.A tiny tiny portion is just schizos.The bulk of them is low IQ to the point where they simply cannot model things in their head. You've met such people: You talk to them for anything even remotely complex in the world and you realize that their brain has no internal model of the world. Their thoughts are basically whims based on a set of random phrases and factoids they remember. There's no integration of information going on in there. You won't see most of these other than in the occasional single sentence comment under a video. This type of person explains the popularity of low quality videos and images in FE circles: literal slop slideshows and collages made in pbrush.exe. Meanwhile GE gets random anons making 3Blue1Brown-quality stuff like >>41979448 and >>41974935 just to make an argument in fucking 4chan.The final portion of them are midwits. Those are the ones you see here trying to argue. They likely had the globe model in their head until some point in their life, then they got in a rabbit hole of lies and they gave up on that model. They still don't have a comprehensive and consistent flat earth model in their mind yet, which is why you will never see any of them posting any actual graphics showing how the whole thing works. They currently think that they will eventually work it out as they complete their journey of learning. The end result for them is either that they will eventually realize that they are still not getting closer to a consistent model in their heads and silently leave the cult, or they if they enjoy the sense of superiority that denial can give them will continue their half-assed arguments forever, falling deeper and deeper into games about semantics, and avoiding making actual arguments by choosing to engage in meta-argumentation instead.
>>41985947How does a Warhammer 40k dome above a flat earth explain this:>to double your transmission range, you need to quadruple your power (distance is proportional to the square root of power). But this only holds until you hit the radio horizon. After this point increasing your power somehow doesn't make your signal reach further away like it did before. But increasing the height of your antenna DOES allow your signal to reach further away, and exactly by how much the horizon calculations based on a curved earth predict. -- >>41969057
>still no map
>>41988782Didn't you hear? They defined flat earth as a "measurement", so it's by definition no longer a theory. So by definition they won the argument and no longer need to explain why things happen as they happen. Apparently it's also very autistic to have a model that explains observable phenomena:>>41986296>I don't care about flat earth models, I don't care how many map projections you want to falsify in some autistic way.
