Official flat earth thread

1) Show a few of them and I'll point it out
2) Your incapability is irrelevant
3) wow. Atleast the other flatcucks knew physics101. Let me know when you graduate highschool

7) Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature.

8) The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.

9) Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”

neither of us is good as physics.

I'm giving some food for thought. These arguments are not mine, if you prove me wrong no problem.

I just want a final discussion on flat earth to solve this forever. Make me believe in round earth.

11) A surveyor and engineer of thirty years published in the Birmingham Weekly Mercury stated, “I am thoroughly acquainted with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are INCAPABLE OF ANY PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION. All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as TRUE LEVELS or FLATS. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, COULD NOT BE WORKED BY ANY ENGINE THAT WAS EVER YET CONSTRUCTED. Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the platforms are ON THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL. The distance between Eastern and Western coasts of England may be set down as 300 miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities. If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train. We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical curves. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough, vertical curves would be a thousand times worse, and with our rolling stock constructed as at present physically impossible.”

12) The Manchester Ship Canal Company published in the Earth Review stated, “It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowances for the curvature of the earth

13) In a 19th century French experiment by M. M. Biot and Arago a powerful lamp with good reflectors was placed on the summit of Desierto las Palmas in Spain and able to be seen all the way from Camprey on the Island of Iviza. Since the elevation of the two points were identical and the distance between covered nearly 100 miles, if Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the light should have been more than 6600 feet, a mile and a quarter, below the line of sight!

> not being able to comprehend the vast size of earth
this thread...oh god...

14) The Lieutenant-Colonel Portlock experiment used oxy-hydrogen Drummond’s lights and heliostats to reflect the sun’s rays across stations set up across 108 miles of St. George’s Channel. If the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Portlock’s light should have remained hidden under a mile and a half of curvature.

The fact that there's a horizon at all proves curvature.

see this
6 feet dip every 6 mile is accountable

how? The horizon is at eye level. It stretches until where you can see.

I stopped listening to you when you said gravity is a force that pulls us "down", whatever that means.

15) If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute! Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.

In the case of a flat earth, the earths gravity would pull you straight down provided that the mass of the earth underneath your feet has an average amount, wherever you may stand.

16) The experiment known as “Airy’s Failure” proved that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around. By first filling a telescope with water to slow down the speed of light inside, then calculating the tilt necessary to get the starlight directly down the tube, Airy failed to prove the heliocentric theory since the starlight was already coming in the correct angle with no change necessary, and instead proved the geocentric model correct.

Gravity affects planes too you dumbass

Too bad thats now how gravity works. I can't converse with someone who doesn't know elementary physics. I guess they are NASA lies too right ?

17) “Olber’s Paradox” states that if there were billions of stars which are suns the night sky would be filled completely with light. As Edgar Allen Poe said, “Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us a uniform luminosity, since there could exist absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star.” In fact Olber’s “Paradox” is no more a paradox than George Airy’s experiment was a “failure.” Both are actually excellent refutations of the heliocentric spinning ball model.

>3) On the contrary, if the earth was flat, the center of gravity would pull the water to the center sinc that's where the average mass is going to be
in what model of gravity ?

Why do we have literally thousands of photos of the Earth from space which show it as a ball yet not a single photo of the supposed "edge"? also you can use a telescope and see that the neighboring planets are spherical, as well as our moon. Why would we be any different?

Why does the spherical Earth model fit perfectly within our model of the Universe, and yet not one flat Earth propasal does?

The rotation

Then I suppose you with a powerful enough pair of binoculars and a sufficiently flat plane could look at the horizon and eliminate it all together just by adding magnification, you could see the infinite expanse of the earth, or maybe... just maybe, you could be the hero who discovers the edge of the world.

The fact that even at altitude the horizon appears to be the same lends to curvature, as a flat surface looked down upon would stretch outward actually making the horizon appear to rise because with a flat object the horizon is not where the curve begins but merely a limit of what you can discern at a distance.

>tl;dr you need to study perspective.

all of the physics and science laws seem to be true. If you accept the flat earth theory it doesn't mean you don't accept physics. but you ll have to reconsider astronomy, astrophysics etc..

Most of these arguments use scientific explanations.

How does this refute the argument? Also, please do not flame! Thanks.

youtube.com/watch?v=eDa7egFqaiI
My excuse for falling for the bait is that this channel has some fucking awsome music

There are many beliefs that these photos are CGI, You can see obvious changes in the colors of the water and continents as well changes in the shape of the continents between the photos NASA published. Don't forget that only NASA has ever published photos of earth (taken outside of earth)

Also there is a chance the model of universe is built to conform to a spherical earth concept?

The sky is different whether you live in the South or North Hemisphere.

Boats disappear bottom first when sailing away.

The fact that you can watch two sunsets if you change altitudes.

And these are just a few intuitive pieces of evidence.

Every other celestial body with enough amount of mass is round.

The main problem with the Flat Earth model is that it leaves so many things unexplained that it can't even be called a theory.

Flat Earth doesn't explain seasons, why the poles are cold, why the Equator is warm, how winds form, earthquakes...

Just talk to a seismologist, they will beat some sense into your flat skull. Seismology monitors hundreds of earthquakes a day and they do so by using techniques that would only work on a oblate Earth.

Stop.
You're wasting your time, and chasing shitty bait.

But it says NASA.

It seems you are not following the thread.

To accept the flat earth model you must accept that NASA is part of the round earth conspiracy along with the other space agencies.

18) The Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to Earth’s assumed motion through space. After measuring in every possible different direction in various locations they failed to detect any significant change whatsoever, again proving the stationary geocentric model.

19) Tycho Brahe famously argued against the heliocentric theory in his time, positing that if the Earth revolved around the Sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months orbital motion could not fail to be seen. He argued that the stars should seem to separate as we approach and come together as we recede. In actual fact, however, after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars, proving we have not moved at all.

Who cares? I'm a NEET with nothing to do and I'm out of alcohol at 10 am already. It was this or /b/

22) If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, during the Red Bull stratosphere dive, Felix Baumgartner, spending 3 hours ascending over New Mexico, should have landed 2500 miles West into the Pacific Ocean but instead landed a few dozen miles East of the take-off point.

Please do not respond to these threads. You are giving Flat Earth trolls the ammo they need.

23) Ball-believers often claim “gravity” magically and inexplicably drags the entire lower-atmosphere of the Earth in perfect synchronization up to some undetermined height where this progressively faster spinning atmosphere gives way to the non-spinning, non-gravitized, non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space. Such non-sensical theories are debunked, however, by rain, fireworks, birds, bugs, clouds, smoke, planes and projectiles all of which would behave very differently if both the ball-Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards at 1000mph.

That's the thing, none of these "beliefs" are proven, just widely inaccurate assumptions based on little to no evidence. Pointing your finger and yelling FAKE! does not make it so, and there are software programs that could show whether it's fake or not.

Our model of how things work makes absolute sense, and is consistent with our observations. This is not true with the Flat Earth conspiracy, it creates way more problems and questions than it answers

Im not trolling. These arguments Im posting have citations as well as logical explanations.

Stop flaming my thread.

these are good counter arguments. I have never seen a boat disappearing with my own eyes.

The two sunsets i cant explain though. Are you sure when you watched the two sunsets the sun was not dipping behind a mountain or other object?

I for one, have never experienced double sunset on a flat horizon like sea, or desert..

But why would they do that? For what purpose would the government lie about the shape of the planet? Why does it benefit them? Why would a group of highly trained scientists and engineers who have had the scientific method engrained into them in their education and at NASA be ok with this?

...

Imagine what you could do if you put this kind of compassion and effort into something real

It's almost sad, if you were just a bit more intelligent you could almost be a genuine scientist's assistant's assistant

If long term powers that be wanted to control world knowledge, to make the every man, women and child think and feel insignificant, and not hold the thought of a “Kingdom of God Within”, you would tell him he is only a very, very, very small part of a much bigger whole that he cannot possible comprehend or understand.

~ 200 BC.

How does it feel to be this dense?

Cameras aren't perfect and are subject to error from time to time. Just take a picture of something with a very bright light near the object, you won't get an accurate shot of it.

Next question please this is easy

28) If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, then clouds, wind and weather patterns could not casually and unpredictably go every which way, with clouds often travelling in opposing directions at varying altitudes simultaneously.

30) In his book “South Sea Voyages,” Arctic and Antarctic explorer Sir James Clarke Ross, described his experience on the night of November 27th, 1839 and his conclusion that the Earth must be motionless: “The sky being very clear … it enabled us to observe the higher stratum of clouds to be moving in an exactly opposite direction to that of the wind--a circumstance which is frequently recorded in our meteorological journal both in the north-east and south-east trades, and has also often been observed by former voyagers. Captain Basil Hall witnessed it from the summit of the Peak of Teneriffe; and Count Strzelechi, on ascending the volcanic mountain of Kiranea, in Owhyhee, reached at 4000 feet an elevation above that of the trade wind, and experienced the influence of an opposite current of air of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition … Count Strzelechi further informed me of the following seemingly anomalous circumstance--that at the height of 6000 feet he found the current of air blowing at right angles to both the lower strata, also of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition, but warmer than the inter-stratum. Such a state of the atmosphere is compatible only with the fact which other evidence has demonstrated, that the earth is at rest."

31) Quoting “Zetetic Cosmogeny” Thomas Winships states: “Let ‘imagination’ picture to the mind what force air would have which was set in motion by a spherical body of 8,000 miles in diameter, which in one hour was spinning round 1,000 mph, rushing through space at 65,000 mph and gyrating across the heavens? Then let ‘conjecture’ endeavor to discover whether the inhabitants on such a globe could keep their hair on? If the earth-globe rotates on its axis at the terrific rate of 1,000 miles an hour, such an immense mass would of necessity cause a tremendous rush of wind in the space it occupied. The wind would go all one way, and anything like clouds which got ‘within the sphere of influence’ of the rotating sphere, would have to go the same way. The fact that the earth is at rest is proved by kite flying.”

That shit is really impressive. If he'd been somewhere within and order of magnitude of right it would have been cool, but to use a sick, some shadows, and pacing to measure the Earth to within a few percent is fucking outrageous.

Two cameras can take different-looking photographs of the same scene without either of them being wrong.

34) Ship captains in navigating great distances at sea never need to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their calculations. Both Plane Sailing and Great Circle Sailing, the most popular navigation methods, use plane, not spherical trigonometry, making all mathematical calculations on the assumption that the Earth is perfectly flat. If the Earth were in fact a sphere, such an errant assumption would lead to constant glaring inaccuracies. Plane Sailing has worked perfectly fine in both theory and practice for thousands of years, however, and plane trigonometry has time and again proven more accurate than spherical trigonometry in determining distances across the oceans.

Excuse me but religion is in charge od belittling the human being and it's nature. I was born in a catholic family and I went to a catholic school. Not once they stopped saying that I was unworthy and insignificant, I should devote my life to God and give up on my own understanding because God and His creation are beyond the limits of the human mind. Now you come along and have the NERVE of saying that science is a plot to make me feel small and unimportant by presenting me to the vastness of the universe. Unbelievable.

If anything, just by thinking that the atoms in my brain, that are responsible of writing this very post, where forged in the core of a star is actually empowering and it makes me feel alive like no god ever could.

Our existance is the Universe's way of experiencing itself.

35) If the Earth were truly a globe, then every line of latitude south of the equator would have to measure a gradually smaller and smaller circumference the farther South travelled. If, however, the Earth is an extended plane, then every line of latitude south of the equator should measure a gradually larger and larger circumference the farther South travelled. The fact that many captains navigating south of the equator assuming the globular theory have found themselves drastically out of reckoning, moreso the farther South travelled, testifies to the fact that the Earth is not a ball.

Explain this then.

36) During Captain James Clark Ross’s voyages around the Antarctic circumference, he often wrote in his journal perplexed at how they routinely found themselves out of accordance with their charts, stating that they found themselves an average of 12-16 miles outside their reckoning every day, later on further south as much as 29 miles.

all i see is that the seismic shock time delay is proportional to the distance of the epicenter, but in no way this infographic proves the round earth.

These results could also apply to a flat earth.

Yeah that was the point I was making

39) Practical distance measurements taken from “The Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” state that the straight line distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1550 statute miles. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety would measure 25,182 miles. This is not only larger than the ball-Earth is said to be at the equator, but a whole 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions.

>what is relative velocity

40) From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 10,500 miles, or 143 degrees of longitude away. Factoring in the remaining degrees to 360 makes for a total distance of 26,430 miles around this particular latitude, which is over 1500 miles wider than Earth is supposed to be at the equator, and many more thousands of miles wider than it is supposed to be at such Southern latitudes.

Spheres don't have circumference, they have surface area. Come back when you've passed middle school math.

see this
41) Similar calculations made from the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa to Melbourne, Australia at an average latitude of 35.5 degrees South, have given an approximate figure of over 25,000 miles, which is again equal to or greater than the Earth’s supposed greatest circumference at the equator. Calculations from Sydney, Australia to Wellington, New Zealand at an average of 37.5 degrees South have given an approximate circumference of 25,500 miles, greater still! According to the ball-Earth theory, the circumference of the Earth at 37.5 degrees Southern latitude should be only 19,757 statute miles, almost six thousand miles less than such practical measurements.

Do you mean photoshopped? CGI is nowhere near that realistic.

42) In the ball-Earth model Antarctica is an ice continent which covers the bottom of the ball from 78 degrees South latitude to 90 and is therefore not more than 12,000 miles in circumference. Many early explorers including Captian Cook and James Clark Ross, however, in attempting Antarctic circumnavigation took 3 to 4 years and clocked 50-60,000 miles around. The British ship Challenger also made an indirect but complete circumnavigation of Antarctica traversing 69,000 miles. This is entirely inconsistent with the ball model.

Gravitational force bitch

spheres have surface area and circumference too!

Yes.. Or whatever other photo editing software they use.. maybe in the past they didnt even use computer software because it didnt exist!!

43) If Earth was a ball there are several flights in the Southern hemisphere which would have their quickest, straightest path over the Antarctic continent such as Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia. Instead of taking the shortest, quickest route in a straight line over Antarctica, all such flights detour all manner of directions away from Antarctica instead claiming the temperatures too cold for airplane travel! Considering the fact that there are plenty of flights to/from/over Antarctica, and NASA claims to have technology keeping them in conditions far colder (and far hotter) than any experienced on Earth, such an excuse is clearly just an excuse, and these flights aren’t made because they are impossible.

44) If Earth was a ball, and Antarctica was too cold to fly over, the only logical way to fly from Sydney to Santiago would be a straight shot over the Pacific staying in the Southern hemisphere the entire way. Re-fueling could be done in New Zealand or other Southern hemisphere destinations along the way if absolutely necessary. In actual fact, however, Santiago-Sydney flights go into the Northern hemisphere making stop-overs at LAX and other North American airports before continuing back down to the Southern hemisphere. Such ridiculously wayward detours make no sense on the globe but make perfect sense and form nearly straight lines when shown on a flat Earth map.

by saying "Gravitational force bitch" you are not explaining anything to me and the Veeky Forums fellows.

45) On a ball-Earth, Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia should be a straight shot over the Indian Ocean with convenient re-fueling possibilities on Mauritus or Madagascar. In actual practice, however, most Johannesburg to Perth flights curiously stop over either in Dubai, Hong Kong or Malaysia all of which make no sense on the ball, but are completely understandable when mapped on a flat Earth.

Gravity is the attraction of matter towards each other, it's not matter going "down" whatever "down" means. If you disagree with it, there is really no point arguing with you.

46) On a ball-Earth Cape Town, South Africa to Buenos Aries, Argentina should be a straight shot over the Atlantic following the same line of latitude across, but instead every flight goes to connecting locations in the Northern hemisphere first, stopping over anywhere from London to Turkey to Dubai. Once again these make absolutely no sense on the globe but are completely understandable options when mapped on a flat Earth.

xx) I can copy and paste bullshit allegations all day, but if I don't list sources, they have zero credibility.

youtube.com/watch?v=W5lHUcZQyLE

Debunked without even using science.

what sources. These are logical arguments, they dont need sources. The sources for the citations, numbers and facts these arguments are based on, you can find them with a quick google search.

Don't be lazy!!

47) On a ball-Earth Johannesburg, South Africa to Sao Paolo, Brazil should be a quick straight shot along the 25th Southern latitude, but instead nearly every flight makes a re-fueling stop at the 50th degree North latitude in London first! The only reason such a ridiculous stop-over works in reality is because the Earth is flat.

More

youtube.com/watch?v=Zc-WlTaG7WY

48) On a ball-Earth Santiago, Chile to Johannesburg, South Africa should be an easy flight all taking place below the Tropic of Capricorn in the Southern hemisphere, yet every listed flight makes a curious re-fueling stop in Senegal near the Tropic of Cancer in the North hemisphere first! When mapped on a flat Earth the reason why is clear to see, however, Senegal is actually directly in a straight-line path half-way between the two.

pic related is a normal flight from Sydney to Santiago. It never goes past the equator.

No they're not, and you're not using them as a person who is genuinely interesting in discussion would. You're just vomiting point after point of some other lunatics pointless work hoping for the one thing that nobody can dissprove. So far you have been unsuccessful.

You are not interested in debate, you just want people to hear you yell, like a child would.

>our existence is the universe's way of experiencing itself

a ticket booking site that writes reviews about the specific flights sounds very fishy to me.

Have you ever bought a ticket like this yourself?

I couldn't find a flight that took me to the UK, Sweden, turkey or Dubai on my way to Cape Town.

I answer to counter arguments as fast as i can.
Anyway im gonna stop posting new arguments . im gonna get to 50..

So we can discuss these i have posted.

Using incorrect information to explain incorrect information makes you a faggot.

49) If Earth were a spinning ball heated by a Sun 93 million miles away, it would be impossible to have simultaneously sweltering summers in Africa while just a few thousand miles away bone-chilling frozen Arctic/Antarctic winters experiencing little to no heat from the Sun whatsoever. If the heat from the Sun traveled 93,000,000 miles to the Sahara desert, it is absurd to assert that another 4,000 miles (0.00004%) further to Antarctica would completely negate such sweltering heat resulting in such drastic differences.

This is the last i post. If anyone is interested there are 150 more arguments as to why earth is flat.

>Veeky Forums
>official flat earth thread

oy vey

Ok, if you could please for the sake of justifying any further effort, pick a fucking projection and stick with it.

did u even read the argument?

It says there is no direct flight. These stops explain the flat earth model.

You've spent more time vomiting more points which will just produce more counter arguments than you can keep up with. Why not keep it to a few and keep it simple? Not to mention it's pretty evident you don't want to acknowledge any of the irrefutable points myself and other anons have brought up, so why even post?

Also, do you believe this picture is a fake and if so how? It was taken from a live video btw, which you can view whenever the ISS is on the light side of the planet

OP here. Sadly i have to go!

If you can disprove any argument go ahead. Ill read it later.

Also an user seems to have found a flight that disproves one chart. This is good, because I want to believe in a round earth too.

Help me believe Veeky Forums!

bye

>flat earth thread
>it's just impossible the speed is too high
>the horizon is flat even though it isn't
>fish eye lenses
>nasa lies
>look the flight route isn't a direct flight
>look some faggot did an experiment with funny assumptions like ether and it failed FLAT EARTH
>look some faggot apparently measured something x years ago and earth is FLAT (forget that our current measurements say different thing and some fucking Greeks knew Earth isn't flat with just math)