Prove me wrong

OP, how come when I'm in new york and can see certain constellations, my friends in Australia can't see those same constellations?
if the earth were flat, we should be looking up at the same stars, no?

The stars in the night sky rotate around common barycenters above the earth just as the sun and moon do. From a location on the earth's surface the stars in the sky might seem to scroll across the night sky with Polaris at the hub. The underlying cause for this rotation is due to vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of mass - an imaginary point completely compliant with the Newtonian system. This is an extrapolated and more complex binary star movement.

Each star in a cluster is attracted to one another through gravitational vectors. Formation is created through gravitational capture - at least three objects are actually required, as conservation of energy rules out a single gravitating body capturing another. The stars maintain their movement over the years through Newton's first law: An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

The stars in the night sky trace almost perfect circles around the hub of the earth because by necessity the mechanics of a multiple system rely intimately on the movements and vectors of every member body. Circular movement is the most perfect, stable movement. If one celestial body is out of place or moves in a different fashion than the other bodies of the group the entire system becomes inherently imbalanced. Eddies will either leave the system entirely or are compelled by the stellar system to move back into its locked pace and apogee. This is why there are no elliptical orbits.

Instability can be avoided if the system is what astronomer David S. Evans has called hierarchical In a hierarchical system.

Reminder that no one has ever crossed the Antarctic in a straight line

So, wait a second
is the Earth the only object that is flat? or are those stars that we are seeing also flat?

>33 km !!!!!!!

>23 miles!!!!!!

You need to get way higher for a significant curvature and/or you need to get more of the earth in the picture frame.

even from ISS camera the curve isnt as spectacular as you might think

ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream/theater

>ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream/theater
this must be another government conspiracy

>CGI
Implying NASA doesn't have the super computers to render in real time at that quality
You could probably do that good on a damn desktop computer these days

See
After you've answered then you may ask a question

MODS

flat earth threads are permabannable

youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs

How come we never see the shadow from satellites down here on the surface? Since they are much closer to the sun than us they should cast a quite large shadow

you're cucked by THIS guy? really?

>the sun is only 32 miles across

Nice credible source

Someone doesn't understand how light works

>gravity doesn't exist, the flat disc earth is accellerating up at 9.2m/s

brainlettes don't consider that for there to be an "up", or accelleration, or direction at all for that matter, that there must be gravity

the next time you try to debunk the last 5000 years of accumulated mathematical knowledge, at least have a more convincing argument

Then explain it if you do buddy I'm an engineer

No I just wanted the video here is the original
youtu.be/WwimocU0IIc

you make me so mad !!!!!

>government conspiracy
I think they would have the images up 100% of the time if that were the case

/thread

youtube.com/watch?v=JlYYUdbDZYo

if you understand this, congratulations, you understand what an integral is and you should learn differential calculus

b-but I can see the curve even from that shitty screencap

That's nice and all but do you have the math to back that up? It's no secret that zooming in on a sphere will have that effect but can prove that is to scale?
Also flat earth doesn't been completely flat, see pic
Also see this video where there is a convex effect from being in the lowest point on that picture
Go to about 52 mins and see that is convex
youtu.be/R77j9rUuky4

It's not looking directly at the horizon. It's looking at the horizon at an angle on the x axis. Hold a piece of round paper up to your face and rotate it

Light diffraction. At night, only with artificial light, lift a small object from the floor towards the light source. Watch how the shadow turns less dark.

ROFL what the fuck
How do we at south america not see north america somewhere in the sky then, what the fuck

That variation is even more retarded

doesn't explain how its higher in the center and lower on both sides

Source?

See
Meant to say a sight cone

k, i have a bachelors in mathematics, and i'm gonna trust trigenometry over you.

people have had the common sense and proof that earth is round since antiquity. why? beacuse they actually think. they use their minds to think about the problem, instead of clinging to false hope, and ignoring contrary proof.

btw, evidence =/= proof. only proof is proof, and the language of proof is mathematics.

Idk what is anyone implying but the existance of a curvature or not in the horizon of those kinds of shots wouldn't prove anything for either side, since it could mean we are just sitting atop a disk seeing its circumference or atop a quasi-sphere seeing an approximation of the circumference of a disk, since our line of sight aka horizon would be the crossing point of infinite tangential lines from the respective limits on the horizon.

With that being said, from the videos we can actually take out the fact that you CANNOT see the entire earth. Hell, you can see a fucking limit. You should be able to see, although some small, every part of the entire disk.

trigonometry.

and i made a typo, i'm not a retard who can't spell the name of one of my own tools

>source
You're probably american, just try it out right now.
Either way you can try reading the entire Serway physics textbook to see if you can get something out of it.

gee, you really think someone would do that?

just go on the internet and tell lies?

youtube.com/watch?v=_8KtRVWYoT8

My horizon is always 6feet below eye level. What are you 0 feet tall?

Getting quite tired of these straw men, will be back shortly

ITT: people who haven't learned basic geometry, or have any clue what a vector is.

/thread

ban prove me wrong threads

Surely there is something that you can link to that is publicly available?

>sitting atop a disk seeing its circumference
That would mean that the earth is not only flat but also no bigger than Australia

>Can't spell a word you supposedly use on a daily basis
>Much less provide a valid mathematical proof that you keep talking about

>to teh Edge of teh Space
balloon is floating at 33km altitude
>floating in what?
...errmm, in teh Air?
>not even close to teh Space

Wtf why do planes not do this?

>makes a fool of himself in public on a daily basis

Can you like try the fucking experiment? Physics needs theory (which you will find well explained in some high school physics textbooks, no less) but an experimental proof might satisfy you.

Look up the Serway Physics textbook in, i don't know, libgen? I've got it on paper so I can't link it.

lol, go ahead and believe the earth is flat. your life will be better.

Post the fucking mathematical proof if you're so smart shithead cunt

youtube.com/watch?v=3EspZtA7C3o

So you're saying that you can't explain it even tho you claimed to understand it?
I will check out that book when I get the chance but why can't you explain it in your own terms?

oh, i get it now. flat earth is the meme all the contrarians are currently fucking with.

wew, what will they gravitate towards next?

That video did not contain a mathematical proof, only anecdotal proof

they won't gravitate towards anything because they actively rebel against the idea of gravity. it's just too mainstream.

No I can't cause I suck at explaining things in English, since it's not my native language. I could, however, gladly explain it to you in Spanish.

you didn't even watch it because i've been watching it since i posted it and it's still not over.

get fucked loser, i have real math to do, it's not my job to make a 70 IQ fuckwit understand this shit

Gravity works in vectors

Hahahhahahahauhahhahahha the excuses just keep coming don't they

inb4 100 replies and 20 image posts omitted

yall niggas posting in a b8 thread. nobody here is actually this stupid.

I went through it to see if there was mathematical proof, that is all I require. I didn't bother watching it because there was no proof

Evidence =//= proof. Proof is proof, and the language of proof is mathematics

>noone here is actually that stupid
>Veeky Forums
>niggerchan
>the internet

I'm pretty sure you haven't tried the thing, either way.

What?

bait thread.

>Global Rules

>You will not post any of the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text (example: "lol u tk him 2da bar|?"), anthropomorphic ("furry") or grotesque ("guro") images, post number GETs ("dubs"), or loli/shota pornography.

This

doesn't rule out the possibility of the earth looking like this
you see, it has curves but it's not a sphere

For fucks sake inertia

>not being able to see that shape from any of the previous videos

>Not being able to provide any objective proof of that shape

every video provided so far has been doctored
the only ones that show any kind of clear circular shape have all been produced by governments

Disinformation shill

G E E T H A T ' S A S H A R P E D G E Y O U ' V E G O T T H E R E M A T E Y

During a lunar eclipse, the shadow of the earth on the moon is always circular no matter where the eclipse takes place. The only shape to always have a circular shadow at all angles is a sphere. QED.

>I trust the Russian and American governments!

The sun always passes directly infront (center) of the flat earth during an eclipse, that is why there is no variance in the shadow shape. If it didn't pass directly infront then it would not be an eclipse.

I got another question not from a scientific but from a social point of view.
Let's say the earth is indeed flat and we have been fooled. That means
>Millions of hours spent on editing images and video footage
>countless faked events (rover exploration, satellites, ISS)
>everyone on NASA is in on it, not only NASA but amateur astronomers too
>gravity itself is not viable as a force we understand which means most of the laws of physics are made up
There's alot more but you get the point.
All of that effort and for what? To trick us peasants into living on a ball instead of a pancake? I don't find any logical reasons how this would benefit any parties

The answer lies in Antarctica

it's not as much as you think
Since most of those space "missions" were faked, NASA obviously doesn't have to be as big an organization as they claim to be, it's just a front. Therefore "everyone in NASA" is not that many people.
and there is no gravity; the earth is simply accelerating upwards

aerosavvy.com/etops/

Meniscus is emergent from the viscosity and surface tension of water. Water in the quantities present in lakes and oceans has virtually zero viscosity and zero surface tension when considering the scale. Your argument doesent hold up.

They're barely any closer to the sun than they are, and on top of it, even if they were not only would the shadow barely ever cross the surface of the earth, but it would be extreemly dim due to how close it is to the light source. When an extreemly small obstruction is placed close to a large light source the shadow becomes 'out of focus'

The stars actually have a slight measurable shift in position per year due to the earth's the gyroscopic precession over the course of around 20000 or so years. Not only is this precession observable, but it's also calculatable, and fits with the scale of the earth. This system would only be feasible with a round earth model.

It is pretty clear that 'up' for the purposes of the flat earth model Is perpendicular to the plane of the earth, should it be flat.

You're the real brainlet here dude. Anybody with any smarts at all is able to reason through the fallacious arguments of the flat earth model.

Because it's expensive, dangerous, and completely pointless. If people from South America want to go to Australia they're just going to have to settle for a connecting flight to Dubai or something. There simply isn't enough of a population on those lower latitudes to support a full route.

by what mechanism? where is it accelerating to?

ITT strawmans with zero proof

>33km and the earth is flat

As gleaned by a quick and dirty look-over from some unsourced photo without controllable altitude values or camera specs? How about actually *measuring* the curvature, including possible error sources, and comparing it to precalculated values for a given radius and observer position?

But that's just too much work for FE trolls, I guess.

If it were a sphere it wouldn't be hard to figure out the altitude based off some simple trigonometry

Here's what a simulation of a spherical Earth looks like from 33km. Hmmm...

kek. When you jump verticaly you just follow the earth spin.

>fly a route with several major airports along the way in case emergency landings are necessary, along with detailed and accurate weather reports
>fly a route over a completely uninhabited land with no safe areas to land and scant weather reports
which one would YOU choose if you wanted to arrive at your destination alive?

Neat. Did you write that code? Care to break down the mathematics behind it instead of posting a literal CGI picture?

Implying flying over the Antarctic would be any different than flying over the Pacific if you started around SA and ended around NZ

>What is air resistance