The earth is flat

Prove me wrong:
Protip: you can't.
And reminder to the idiots out there: infrared cameras don't refract light.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Jfr1VcZ2uz8
youtu.be/ny-_lThmRqU?t=15m46s
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

anyone can go on one of these planes
i recommend you go on one

First and foremost you're a dumbass. Now that that's out of the way, you can always have fisheye cameras retard. Windows can also by convex so it appears the earth has curvature. Comprehendo?

like i said
anyone can go on one
here's another (no fisheye) :^)

...

You can realise the curvature of the Earth by just going to the beach. Last summer I was on a scientific cruise in the Mediterranean. I took two pictures of a distant boat, within an interval of a few seconds: one from the lowest deck of the ship (left image), the other one from our highest observation platform (about 16 m higher; picture on the right):

A distant boat seen from 6 m and 22 m above the sea surface

A distant boat seen from 6 m (left) and from 22 m (right) above the sea surface. This boat was about 30 km apart. My pictures, taken with a 30x optical zoom camera.

The missing part of the boat in the left is just hidden by the quasi-spherical shape of the Earth. In fact, if you would know the size of the boat and its distance, we could infer the radius of the Earth. But since we already know this, let's do it the other way around, and deduce the distance to which we can see the full boat:

The distance d
from an observer O at an elevation h

to the visible horizon follows the equation (adopting a spherical Earth):

d=R×arctan(2×R×h−−−−−−−−√R)

where d
and h are in meters and R=6370∗103m

is the radius of the Earth. The plot is like this:

enter image description here

Distance of visibility d (vertical axis, in km), as a function of the elevation h of the observer above the sea level (horizontal axis, in m).

From just 3 m above the surface, you can see the horizon 6.2 km apart. If you are 30 m high, then you can see up to 20 km far away. This is one of the reasons why the ancient cultures knew that the Earth was curved, not flat. They just needed good eyes.

enter image description here Cartoon defining the variables used above. d is the distance of visibility, h is the elevation of the observer O above the sea level.

But addressing more precisely the question. Realising that the horizon is lower than normal (lower than the perpendicular to gravity) means realising the angle (gamma
) that the horizon lowers below the flat horizon (angle between OH and the tangent to the circle at O, see cartoon below; this is equivalent to gamma in that cartoon). This angle depends on the altitude h

of the observer, following the equation:

γ=180π×arctan(2×R×h−−−−−−−−√R)

where $\gamma\ is in degrees, see the cartoon below.

This results in this dependence between gamma (vertical axis) and h (horizontal axis): enter image description here

Angle of the horizon below the flat-Earth horizon (gamma, in degrees, on the vertical axis of this plot) as a function of the observer's elevation h above the surface (meters). Note that the apparent angular size of the Sun or the Moon is around 0.5 degrees..

So, at an altitude of only 290 m above the sea level you can already see 60 km far and the horizon will be lower than normal by the same angular size of the sun (half a degree). While normally we are no capable of feeling this small lowering of the horizon, there is a cheap telescopic device called levelmeter that allows you to point in the direction perpendicular to gravity, revealing how lowered is the horizon when you are only a few meters high.

When you are on a plane ca. 10,000 m above the sea level, you see the horizon 3.2 degrees below the astronomical horizon (O-H), this is, around 6 times the angular size of the Sun or the Moon. And you can see (under ideal meteorological conditions) to a distance of 357 km. Felix Baumgartner roughly doubled this number but the pictures circulated in the news were taken with very wide angle, so the ostensible curvature of the Earth they suggest is mostly an artifact of the camera, not what Felix actually saw.

This ostensible curvature of the Earth is mostly an artifact of the camera's objective, not what Felix Baumgartner actually saw

i'll be awaiting your scholarly response

Of course it isn't how we were taught because I am saying we were taught false axioms and incorrect equations. It is a deception do you get that yet? Deception? It isn't very deceiving if they teach the real way to measure the curve is it? Listen carefully… maybe you'll do some research… According to all you… it is better if we simply accept the doctrine set forth by those who set out to deceive us? The entire reason for non-euclidean geometry and geodesics is to explain away reality. Should I just be brain dead, throw in the towel and accept that all spots on the surface of this super huge ball are level because they are all equal distant from the center and pay no attention that what they did is mentally lock you in a belief that cannot be falsified? Look at geodesic curvature first, "Let M be the unit sphere S2 in three-dimensional Euclidean space. The normal curvature of S^{2} is identically 1, independently of the direction considered. Great circles have curvature k=1 , so they have zero geodesic curvature, and are therefore geodesics." =did you catch that? By definition- no curve and yet you cuss me out and protect the deceivers. Should we not read the book that called The Euclidean Postulate by simply stating, "The thing consists briefly in this: the formulas of spherical trigonometry coincide with the formulas of plane trigonometry, if the sides of a spherical triangle are accepted as reals, but of a rectilineal triangle as imaginaries, so that, as to trigonometric formulas, the plane may be considered as an imaginary sphere, if for real, that is accepted in which sin rt. Z=1. Even after the author stated, "But beware lest you understand to be supposed, that the system itself may be varied (for it is entirely determined in itself and by itself); but only the hypothesis"? Do you realize that this means it depends absolutely on its logical consistency? Using a non-Euclidean system could be like flying an airplane at night, when you can’t see. And so you simply trust and depend on the instruments. The assumption of the non-Euclidean system, however, is that the space in which the airplane is flying does not match our ordinary spacial conceptions. It is like always flying on instruments at night, no daylight, always in the darkness, always depending on the instruments. But everyone is too afraid to ask, What if the airplane had a faulty computer software running the instruments and running by the instruments at night, and the logic of the software was seriously flawed? You people are sheep.

>>>/brownpill/

Who is benefiting from this deception? How?

This is the only proof you need of a round earth.

...

The ones in power that's who. Knowledge = power. And as we all know power is easily corruptible. They don't want us to know that this would lead us to us believing in some form of creator. That would make us feel that we aren't insects in some vast infinite space, like they want us to believe. And that is the last thing the worm eating minds above us wants.

Welp, that was the answer I needed. Gonna leave your thread now.

Atheists btfo.

How have you arrived at this conclusion?

How have you arrived at this conclusion?

You and I both know where you need to be. Go forth OP, your people await you.

You can arrive at the same conclusion behind the big bang (there being a creator involved) that you did with the flat earth.
Circular reasoning makes your argument null and void

Strawman. Nice. Now I know I am talking to a fool.
Protip: Never said I didn't believe in a deity. I was asking why you thought a deity and a flat earth have a correlation. But thanks for giving the atheist further ammunition that all theist are stupid.

Next you're going to say everything in space revolves around the earth

You implied it. It was obvious how you used sarcasm and all, ;^)

No sarcasm. A round earth could prove God just as much as a flat one would.
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth

Ya but what if it's a flat circle

if the earth tilts at 23.4 degrees, why is the equator the hottest part of the planet?
why can't the smartest scientists prove gravity exists?
why does the moon give off cold light?
if the earth is a ball then why are there only 180degrees of constellations?
if there is no up or down in space, why do we always see shooting stars coming down and never up?
if the moon reflects the suns light, then why do we see on certain evenings the face of the moon lit when the moon is in the south west sky and the sun is in the north west sky 92.7 million miles behind it?
why have there been only east/west circumnavigations but not any south/north circumnavigations?
why are all of nasas photos, with the exception of one, admittingly computer generated images?
how did astronauts get to the moon when today nasa admits no one can go through the van allen belt?
why does polaris, a star billions of miles away, stay relatively fixed above the north pole if earth is moving,spinning,spiraling, as fast as it is?
why is there no dust crater on the moon where the lunar module landed yet there are footprints of the astronauts?
if meteors created the craters on the moon, why are they all round and none teardrop/oval?
why are we told that when a ship descends below the horizon that it is due to the curvature yet when looked at through binoculars/telescope/zoom camera the ship comes back into view?
if the sun is 70/30 hydrogen/helium moving 483,000 miles an hour, why doesn't it have a tail?
has the sphere earth sharpened or dulled your common senses?
why are there days and nights where we can see clouds behind the sun/moon?
does the government love you and want you to prosper and grow? are the powerful corrupt?
have you done any of the research/experiments yourself or do you repeat your authoritarians?
if the earth isn't a spinning ball.. if it isn't … would you want to know it?

why do people waste time on this absolutely and utterly useless theory
there is literally no way the status quo benefits from suppressing this information from you unless they are truly reptilian humanoids

Last I checked the space programs were a multi billion dollar industry….

In which they need government funding for and need to produce results and show progress to achieve. They are not going to give a testimony to congress and lie about the shape of the earth when there are hundreds if not thousands of satellites in space that take pictures daily of our solar system

What? You mean cartoons of our solar system? LOL NASA admits that they are all composites. Also, they have to keep propagating the lies, otherwise if people would know of them an uproar would come from the masses and would ultimately have them questioning many other things.

...

checkamte

You do realize that mountains and hills existing (on a ball) shouldn't exist at all right? Shouldn't it be all smoothed out after (supposedly) trillions of years of spinning?
Checkmate.

plate tectonics

Plate tectonics doesn't explain it. Plate tectonics can also exist on a flat plane.

There's amateur rockets on youtube that go up to the stratosphere. I cant be bothered to look for one because attempting to debunk Flat Earth is pointless.

fuck off shlomo, it's hollow

cuz the angle of sunrays is the highest most of the time.
The force pulling objects with mass together is gravity. F=G e / [(m1 m2) / r^2]
It dosent. That cartboard blocked the wind
What?
Cuz they fall towards the Earth
Cuz the Suns light isnt blocked by the Earth
The first surface circumnavigation via both the geographical Poles was achieved by Sir Ranulph Fiennes and Charles Burton (both UK) of the British Trans-Globe Expedition. They travelled south from Greenwich, London, UK on 2 September 1979, crossed the South Pole on 15 December 1980, the North Pole on 10 April 1982, and returned to Greenwich on 29 August 1982 after a 56,000 km (35,000 mile) journey.
If theres an exception, it already disproves your flat earth. The rests r composites - cameras sent up had low resolution, so its better to take lots of small pics and combine them for better detail.
Van Allen belts has been crossed. On the way to the Moon. 9 times. Is your source your ass, just like with circumnavigation?
Cuz its far away. The same reason why moon stays relatively in the same place, when u take 11 steps to the left, or right
wtf is a dust crater?
Cuz the impactor wasnt skipping. Impacts that scale just destroy the asteroid.
It doesnt. U can see the ship going beyond the horizon WITH the telescope, birdwatchers.
A tale of what? How would it happen? What would the Sun be smashing against, leaving a trail?
Why r u retarded?
There arent. Is your source your ass?
Government is elected to protect its citizens, by employing regulations agreed upon by the community. No, the powerful corrupt others.
have u?
it is, so i already know

Ah yes, I've heard of the Rectilineator experiment. It's still inconclusive imo. But I am open to it. Just because some kikes in the past believed the earth was flat doesn't mean anything. That's like saying a jew liked apples, therefore if you like them it makes you a kike. That's flawed logic fam. Also, this fall we're having Force the Line experiment. Which is going to be similar to the rectilineator, in fact it's inspired by it. The experiment could also reaffirm the earth being concave. I suggest you look into it:
youtube.com/watch?v=Jfr1VcZ2uz8

why not both?

how big an how far away is the sun and moon and how do u know?
Why does light just stop and creates a night on the other semicircle?
why wont the sun and moon fall down on Earth?
What is a surface?
if theres no gravity, how come Pluto has a moon and no atmosphere? How come our own moon has a moon?
If Earth is flat, how come ancient greeks discovered its spherical by the shadow on the moon?
How come only earth is flat, but nothing else is?
How do seasons and polar days work?
Why dont planes constantly turn to the side to compensate for flying in circles?
Why is equator the longest longitude, instead of any next?

...

You are living proof that intelligence =/= education.

Nice grasp of the scientific method, brainlet

The sun is about 33,000 miles away and about 34 miles in circumference. Vid related.
I don't understand what you mean by that…
A formula doesn't prove gravity, that's like saying a formula proves the big bang theory, WRONG.
That's just a plain fucking fact. Are you a moron?
If it was a sphere it would also have comets seemingly coming up from the earth, moron.
Huh. I think I'm losing more IQ points by even continuing. Bye.

Maybe that had something to do with the fact that they didn't go in a STRAIGHT LINE around the earth you moron

Then it's not CIRCUMNAVIGATING. In order to circumnavigate you have to go in a straight line. You are a fucking moron. Go jump off the nearest bridge you fucking dumbass.

He means for you to hop on one, go way up, and see with your own eyes. How are you so fucking stupid?

Now I think it's obvious you're baiting. You can't be this retarded. there is nothing incompatible with calling sailing around the world circumnavigating when you have to dodge huge land masses because SHIPS DON'T SAIL OVER LAND

youtu.be/ny-_lThmRqU?t=15m46s
WOW he even got off the boat. You do realize that disqualifies him automatically right?

Fucking retards, read a book

How can someone believe in Rotating world? Do you feel Rotating? Did you ever see a real video of world rotating? Did you see from a plane that world is rotating

I can confirm I fell off the edge of the world in a boat once, was very scary.

...

u r losing your iq? So u r in the negatives now, i take it.

heres why the vid is shit an everything u say is shit.
this pic proves why nothing u say matters. On top of explaining why did u skip half of the questions