Flat earth theory

So basically it boils down to this:
>I can't prove the earth is flat therefore it's flat

This the worst argument so far.

You dense motherfucker !!! How dare you use a theory in which round earth is an axiom in order to prove round earth ? get the fuck out of this tread !

All crap, and it's not even argument, you're just telling "dude, do theories and measurement" get the fuck out of here

you can't prove a theory is right, but you can prove a theory is wrong, please learn to read people's argument before opening your mouth

read this
retrard

If the effect can be measured it provides evidence towards the axiom

Reminder: ironic shitposting is still shitposting.

Can you provide us with more data? Is this earth a half-sphere or is it flat like a plate? How thick is it? Does it have a mantle and a core?

I have an idea that would excellently prove the validity or invalidity of the Flat Earth theory: travel around the world in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere at an equal distance from the equator. If the Flat Earth meme is true, the distance covered in the Southern Hemisphere would be longer than the one in the Northern Hemisphere. On a sphere the distances would be equal.

Dude ! seriously ? you are fucking insisting on that ?

Ok let's do this. Coriolis effect is a correction to Newton's gravitation theory.
Indeed in a lab frame, classical mechanics work perfectly however scales that need a geocentric frame, it doen'st work anymore. Therefore was added coriolis and centifugals effects as forces, because in order to correct Newton's mechanics. This issue lead to the discussion of frame definition and an issue in gallileo's transformation.

Later general relativity and Lorentzian's transformation gaved a better description of those effect since it reconcilliate the presence of a force without the presence of a mass.
Still general relativity failed to agree with quantum theory, showing that relativity is incomplete.

Therefore something is missing in this theory, what if it is because one of the original axiomes, round earth, is wrong ?
Dude you just can't create an axiom in a theory and use the theory to prove this axiom, this is wrong.

Why is it flat? Is it because it's only 5 thousand years old and Jesus loves us?

I can call up a friend on the other side of the planet and ask if it's day or night. If the Earth were flat every continent would be in daylight at the same time.

When you see a ship sail towards you, it looks like it's appearing out of thin air, which is what you would expect if the earth was spherical. This was how the ancient greeks knew the earth was round.

Every flat earth op has ignored this post and you will too.

The horizon and ships appearing mast first over them.

Every flat earth thread should just end with this.

>disprove flat earth theory
I didn't know it was proven. What's the proof for it ?

I actually never though about this.
This is actually a really good argument, you nailed it. BRAVO.

Look this is how a scientific mind works, you fag.

There is also the proof by the moon observation, indeed the moon crescent orientation change with your lattitude, and therefore travelling on both sides of ecuador will give you a geometry construct which is possible only due to a round shape. (Aristotle demonstration)

That's an interressing argument, but I don't think this is enough.

The changing of size would depend of moon distance and size. But also of this trajectory. In a round earth construction we know how the moon move in order to explain what we see. However that's not because we don't know how moon move in a way that it agree with our observation that flat earth can be disproven by that. You cannot use the ignorance argument to prove a disprove a theory. You need to give a counter example, something that is not possible assuming the earth is flat.

>Ha, you believe things when you're shown empirical evidence that demonstrate they're true. What a retard.

You're moving into irrelevant fields that do not address the argument. Coriolis effect bus only valid in rotating reference frames , Coriolis effect is observed on earth. Conclusion: earth is a rotating reference frame. Implication: evidence towards a rotating sphere

What about the fact you see mountains that you're not supposed to see ? mirages
So why ships appearing mast first is not a mirage either.

This issue is actually the origin of flat earth society. The fact that mirages exist and that therefore observations of the horizons are not exacts and reliable.

By the way mirages are proven without taking a round earth as an axiom, so they it is perfectly valid to work with it and use it to doubt about it.

>Coriolis effect bus only valid in rotating reference frames
AXIOM
>Coriolis effect is observed on earth. Conclusion: earth is a rotating reference frame.
Use of a theory to prove theory's axiom

Faggot

Not really just use of experimental evidence to prove a theory. Then again you don't seem to have much experimental evidence.

Can you provide a similarly elegant theory explaining the effect using a flat Earth model?

Gyroscopes

you cant prove things to retards who refuse to except the simplest evidence and instead just believe in the next new thing because they want to be a special snowflake and different.

dude, since you know the coriolis effect, I assume that you study physics, or have studied it.

But you have a serious issue here. You cannot use a theory to prove the theory's axiom. If you keep thinking like that, well, if you're still a student, this will represent a serious issue in your formation.

Let's take the example of the ultraviolet catastrophe. Planck solved this issue with a discrete mathematical approach introducing discretes energy exchanges. He ended up calling that the quantum of energy.

The question is, did the black body radiation have proven that matter is discrete and therefore made of atoms ?
Well it didn't.

Ultraviolet catastrophe have disprove the vision of a continuous matter. This doesn't mean that atoms exist, even if this was an observation validating this axiom.

Why ? because, you cannot prove a theory, however you can disprove a theory. A valid theory is a theory that haven't been disprove yet. And if you want to disprove a theory, you have to use the theory and his axiom to show that observation doesn't match it. This is why the black body radiation was called the ultraviolet catastrophe, because a continuous matter approximation don't work in ultra violet.

With this same example, if you want to disprove flat earth theory, you must use his axiom and look for an observation that doesn't agree with this axiom, You cannot use a theory having a different axiom to prove that your first theory is wrong.

You are using the proof by ignorance !

"you cannot disprove that the pyramids were build by aliens because you don't have a theory for their construction without aliens, therefore pyramids were built by aliens"

Dude, you're a serious piece of shit, I don't respect you anymore.

You keep going on about axioms but the Coriolis effect but the only axioms are basic mechanics.

He's talking about eclipses....

>Artificial satellites orbiting the earth right now, providing you with shit like GPS and television
>Literal photographs of the spherical earth
>Gravity, which works incredibly well and has a whole spectrum of more evidence for you
>Coriolis effect and weather patterns
>You can fucking travel around the earth and it has been done countless of times
>You can actually see the curvature of the earth in a lot of places (i.e. towers across a large lake will appear cut off)
>Radio transmission, which happens to have finite range
>Echoes of seismic waves which clearly show that earth is a spherical body

Are flat earthers always this dogmatic? It's a bit disgusting really

OK so now that you are changing the orientation of your arguments So let me go back to my initial argument.

The axiom of coriolis effect on earth is the fact that earth is round.

Indeed, Newton's mechanics work perfectly in a lab frame. Indeed you'e only axiom is to introduce g as uniform.
However to explain coriolis effect, you need to use a geocentric frame, therefore g is not uniform anymore and you assume a spherical geometry. Therefore a round earth become your axiom.

By the way a flat earth rotating around a center would still have a coriolis effect, when you calculate the coriolis effect in a round shaped earth, you always make a projection of the earth rotation anyway.

You just don't want to admit that your argument is bullshit.

Flat earth is a silly distraction from science's real problems which are mainly that what gets awarded is not finding new truths but what looks fancy for the publishing business and sells well.

...

Please take your medication, OP.

Your schizophrenia is flaring up.

seriously dude ?

>that what gets awarded is not finding new truths but what looks fancy for the publishing business and sells well

Tell me, which scientific publication did you read ?

The flat earth movement is actually to be taken really seriously, it shows a real issue on science in media.
The example is here, only one dude was able to give a valid argument to disprove flat earth theory.
The rest of the replies were either arrogant invalid argument like "dude modern science sattelit and shit" and people like you who didn't read anything here and just started complaining about "flat earth believers"

I think the true problem is that science is too apologetic for degenerates such as those "diagnosed" with gender dysphoria and schizophrenia.

How can you tell it's your friend you are talking to?

You seem triggered. Have you presented your evidence for why you believe the Earth is flat?

Using only arguments is philosophy. You use measurements to disprove theories, not arguments. Alternatively you try to show to what extent - or degree of certainty you are unable to disprove the theory.

>has never seen a satellite

Go outside more

Made-up things are discussed to a larger extent than real issues. It drowns the real valid parts of criticism in a literal flood of horse shit. Far too many respond to the horse shit instead of just ignoring it or calling it out for what it is.

>Who can give me a valid argument to disprove flat earth theory ?
just the fact that none of the "flat earth theory" makes any sense physically, mathematically or geographically

What the fuck are you babbling about? The Coriolis force is derived from Galilean relativity and Newton's laws. It has nothing to do with gravity or shape of Earth.

And yes, if the Earth was flat then you still could observe the Coriolis effect. But if you would fly directly up from flat Earth, the Coriolis force would vanish. Which not the case in reality.

Has anyone mentioned time zones?
Time zones.

I can see the sun when people on the other side of earth cannot.

Is that simple enough for everyone?

In case a flat-earther says "the sun shines like a spotlight": if that was the case, it wouldn't disappear at the horizon, but appear/disappear above the horizon at dawn/dusk.

The Coriolis effect is a consequence of the spherical geometry of the earth and its rotation. No rotation, no Coriolis effect.

The thing about flat earthers is not that they don't believe in certain aspects of physics, they don't believe in physics nor science. Arguing with them is pointless.

Are you doing the entire field of classical mechanics?

The eötvös effect numbnuts, how do you explain that

>something that is not possible assuming the earth is flat
The fact that the moon always looks about the same size no matter where you are on earth

Cant believe nobody mentioned analemma.
Fucking brainlet neets.
/thread

They somehow believe that the earth "curves downward" at 8 inches per mile which gives the earth a radius of like 1200 instead of the known 3900.

They flat out deny that other planets, satellites and orbiting things exist and theres absolutely no proof to any of their statements like "we know theres an edge but no one has ever observed it"

>Doing
*Doubting

And still it is being babbled about. So back to logic... What other reasons could remain for someone to keep babbling about it if those you mention are ruled out?

when someone doesn't believe in normal logic or ways of reasoning to the point that they flat out deny certain aspects of their own physics and shit its impossible to argue with someone whose so convinced they're right that they'll deny your explicit proofs, evidence and extensions of reasoning even using their own reasoning its completely fruitless

Don't forget solar eclipses

or the fact that all the other planets are round

Actually, you can. And it's called burden of proof. We have already proven the globe earth. If you want to prove your flat earth model, you're going to have to provide proof. so, let's hear it.

There are some reasons why they could be doing that you are just looking in the wrong places.

Let us assume they have no intent on making sense. What other objectives could they have?

They wouldn't because if their intent doesn't make sense their prose doesn't make sense and their objective doesn't make sense

No amount of reasoning, evidence or anything will prove a senseless person wrong and convert them

No. You don't prove theories - that's not how science works. You instead try to show that they with some certainty can't be disproven.

Maybe their intent is not about being correct about science at all. What else could it be about?

That's called proof.

I don't know man you just tried to ask what else would prove to a guy who rejects and denies anything that would disagree with their previous notions even if none of it made sense

>a valid argument to disprove flat earth theory ?
I've seen the curvature of the earth
I've sailed beyond sight of land and then turned around and sailed back to watched the buildings on shore rise up from the empty horizon.

Any legitimate theory is falsifiable. Tell us, what evidence or reasoning would indicate for you that the earth is _not_ flat?

I think they don't want to make any sense, they just want to confuse and mislead people.

You would need to define flat first so we know what we are talking about. If we agree that light travels in straight lines and "flat" means "lying in the same plane". Then we can conduct optical experiments. Fly something with a mirror, shoot it with a laser and measure where on the ground the reflection hits.

But if you question the earth being round you probably question much science which came afterwards, including almost all the theories of light and electromagnetism.

Is it Down Syndrome or Autism OP?
Probably Schizophrenia.

We can solve this once and for all if we just measure it ourselves.

Yes, that is a better example than I proposed here But it still assumes gravity points downwards at each point and that light travels in straight lines.

If the Earth was flat and the Sun hovered above it and moved in a great circle around the N pole, you would see a difference from reality in motion most marked at times of rise and set. Place yourself on the equator during the equinox. At rise, the Sun would appear somehow and from north of the equator (left), with slow movement (foreshortened) to the south (right, as it follows its circular path). Its horizontal motion diminshes over the course of the morning as its direction loses an X-component. As it reaches overhead (Noon) it would be moving most quickly and almost straight east-west. After Noon it would appear to slow down and begin its drift right (north), and farther along it loses the vertical movement (yet never set) while gaining the drift to the right and magically disappearing.

That of course, is not what we see at the equator at an equinox. The Sun rises due east, transits straight up, and sets due west all at a constant angular speed all along its path, which is apparently straight up, over, and down, because in this geometry you (not a distant pole) are at the center of a circle it appears to trace.

Also, a close-proximity Sun would increase in brightness from invisible at "rise" to its brightest at Noon and back again to invisible at "set" in the course of one day. The graph of the intensity of the received light would vary by the square of the distance of the Sun. This means the increase/decrease in brightness would vary most radically around Noon. Again, we don't see that. We see the Sun remain more or less constant in brightness during the day, with a good accounting (and weather-dependent) for its dimming when near the horizon due to atmospheric opacity.

Furthermore, if you are *anywhere* south of the path of Sun on a flat Earth, then you would see the Sun appear from the NE, head towards a spot above but always north of you, then move away again to the NW. In fact, between latitudes 23°S and the equator between Sept-Dec-Mar, you can watch the Sun rise in the SE, move up over your head and depending on the time of year and your latitude, see the Sun south of you at Noon, and then set in the SW. This means the Sun is moving around a pole that is above the southern horizon. A Sun moving around a disk will not behave like it has two poles to orbit.

We know for a fact that light travels in straight lines (or at least straight enough for out purposes). and we know for a fact that gravity accelerates objects downwards based on the fact that gravity defines what direction downwards even is.

The earth is completely flat, flatter than a pancake. Hills and mountains are not actually real, they're just abnormalities in gravity,.

...

Here's the deal: there are two types of Flat Earthers: trolls, and literal Bible interpreters. Somewhat surprisingly, we usually encounter the latter on Veeky Forums. There are a few passages in the Bible that transliterate into English with an implication the Earth may be disk-like, or even square. This *human* interpretation is then presented as gospel by their chosen or inherited ministry. There must be no explanation or evidence to the contrary allowed, or the ministry will be shown to have a fundamental flaw.

The first confusion here is that the flat-Earth religious zealots put the onus on *you* to prove the current description of the Earth as oblate spheroidal ("round"). That's not really necessary, because evidence and explanations are available in schools, libraries, museums, from astronomers amateur and professional, on the web, and even dumb old TV. They have no interest in knowledge. They're here to argue to convince you that you're as stupid as they are, and should believe the same crap they do.

They have the freedom to make shit up because truth and understanding are not their goals. They believe their arguments are good enough to sway you, because they themselves don't think. By disavowing any science put forward and continuously prevaricating, they can argue forever by simply accusing you of being wrong, and still be perfectly happy that theirs is God's work. They concentrate on parroting their leaders and may project onto you the moniker "sheeple" as they sarcastically try to prevent your explanation from marring their fractured perception of the universe. They bear false witness, do not recognize that they behave as agents of the devil with lies and confusion, conceal truth, and are missing out on the beauty and wonder of God's creation.

Simply, there is no arguing. It's like trying to paint over mud. You just end up with a dirty brush.

As you move to the edges the gravity would become stronger,travelers would fall off the earth,even ancient greeks proved the flat earth is unlikely,there aren't any flat planets.Prove me wrong here Veeky Forums.

But does it have to be Ecuador?

Why not Peru?

If arguing with someone who questions the roundness of the earth one can probably not be too careful in double checking all assumptions of the experiments.

That there could exist something like laser and that it is light wasn't even considered until around 1900 for example. Gravity and force was Newton, even that was a few hundred of years after Galileo and Copernicus.

>Who can give me a valid argument to disprove flat earth theory ?
First if you give a good argument in favour of it. Since (you) are challenging an established theory, the burden of proof is also on you.

And as an argument of how the Earth is round, I'd say daylight time.

The fact that equator gets 12hours of sunlight every day, no matter the season, but the North pole lives in the Arctic night/Arctic day can only be explained if the Earth is round.

>who's a real scientific here

clearly not you

>I don't know how are produced lunar eclipses
>provided with requested evidence, does not understand it, dismisses it on the basis of not understanding it.

This is why you fail

Why can't we see the same stars all over the earth?

if the sun and moon traveled as you suggest they do in that picture, the would not rise from under and fall beneath the horizon. they would fade out of view above it

...

Do you have evidence to show that gender dyphoria or schizophrenia are imaginary?

Get back to .

Coriolis effect

Please take your non-scientific hypothesis elsewhere or kindly take your autism medication.