If Earth really is round, how come the penguins in Antarctica aren't falling off the planet...

It's actually visible in most of those

Is that meme fucking serious? Do people not understand how long it actually takes for anything at the macro level to do shit?

Also, do they understand that everything in the Local Group (more than one galaxy) is bound together for all of eternity, whilst other objects are moving away from us?

Fuck of shills. Go back to worshiping NASA.

Have you ever noticed that every "picture" of a satellite you see is just a drawing?!

NASA shills BTFO

It's alright. There are schools that cater to your "special" needs. And when you get too old for that, the state will take care of you.

...

Almost picture perfect

So OP, what would it look like if the Earth were round?

Like the sun, of course, except that the sun is a disk instead of an infinite plane.

Oh, you're *so* persecuted!
We've never seen any of these posts before. How could people that you call stupid shills be so *mean* to innocent little you?
And here you are, just trying *every single day* to post your fantasy, and acting each time like it's the first time you're ever posted this, and we have no idea that this deranged concept resides in your woefully inadequate brain?

YEAH WHY DON'T THEY SEND UP CAMERAS?

same reason you don't.

>posting in a b8 thread

>ISS038-E-056389 (25 Feb. 2014) --- A set of NanoRacks CubeSats is photographed by an Expedition 38 crew member after the deployment by the NanoRacks Launcher attached to the end of the Japanese robotic arm. The CubeSats program contains a variety of experiments such as Earth observations and advanced electronics testing. International Space Station solar array panels are at left. Earth's horizon and the blackness of space provide the backdrop for the scene.

Do people actually believe this or is it all bait and shitposting?

Both types post. A master baiter makes it hard to tell the difference.

For what reason would NASA have to lie?
It would have to be some secret to the universe that we couldn't even comprehend.

Also, "we lose signal every day for trivial shit, yet we expect a signal to bounce off from (((sattelites))) in space."

I still can't tell if people claiming to be Flat Earthers are genuine or just trying to get a rise out of people.
On one hand I have a hard time believing anyone could be that stupid, but on the other, I've seen some proponents argue for HOURS with people telling them they're retarded. Trolls seldom last that long, they lose interest.

Control.

nice shop. i should have saved the .jpg showing how pearl harbor never happened. no way the japs could fly planes across the whole map.

The whole flat earth thing started as a joke to poke fun of how stupid people can be. Yet I'm starting to think there are people who believe it's 100% legit and true. Are the vast majority of people out there stupid enough to believe anything they're told? I mean, I know they're trained to be this way because it's literally how our education system works. They're told in school what to think and believe and believe it. It only makes sense that they'd keep it up and long into adulthood and believe complete nonsense that's meant to be a joke but come on.

Do we need to redefine how our education system works to eliminate this side effect of people who just believe what ever they're told? How would we rework the education system?

>>Someone was mean to me on the Internet

Ya forgot to shop in the stars.

>meme parentheses

you were trained to believe in a ball earth

>8584512
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Except there are things you can to measure if the earth is round or flat. Hell you can even measure it's size with a little effort. They did this shit over 2000 years ago. If you don't believe it try it yourself.

>Daylit Earth is visible
>Stars
Go outside during the day and look at the sky you twit.

Control of what? There are much easier ways of controlling societies than inventing an entire false cosmology and system of physics.

Fedora propaganda, obviously. In the """science""" world it is a war against god.

Who teaches you this?

Why is Antarctica considered to be down?

Does it matter? what matter is that I know the truth, and you have much to learn.

Go on Google Earth and see how far you can zoom out before you see the curvature of the horizon. It's pretty far.

Did you make those graphics? They're pretty well done.

But it does matter as I'd like further insight into who is teaching this and why.

4U
>Using poetic part of scripture as a literal truth
>In any context
>ever
I swear to God, catholics fucked up by not burning every single protestant

constelations have changed
look at horoskopes the actual constelations are circa 1 month different as the horoskopes
the horoskopes were made like 2000 years ago

>first year of our Lord Trump
>still being a spherecuck

>burning every single protestant

That's ridiculously harsh. Besides the reason Protestantism was started was because of corruption in the Catholic church.

>the picture
I actually laughed.

Protestantism began large only because Luther was so incrediblly buttblasted that 41 of his thesis were fucking heresies, so he said to his protage "Hey, I make up my mind! We do not actully want to reform anything. We will start a new church with no apostolic foundation that I admired myself literally a few years ago. Chatolic Church? Nah they are litterally Antichrist you can totally rape nuns, burn churches and steal evrything for them! We wuz true church ". And so Protstantism was born.

If you want real reformation look up St. Francis.

>Wanting the world to suck the Pope's cock

>Ignoring that God himself appointed Peter as a Pope
Shameful

Wait a minute... you FEs tell us that when we see Earth's curvature from an airplane, that it's because the windows warp at high altitude to make the horizon looked curved (and explains why buildings, etc. look straight when on the runways).

So how could these photos be showing a flat horizon from altitude?

You're lying at *least* once.

>(((sattelites)))
Wait, so sattelites are actually living Jews orbiting the earth?
I have to report this to /r/RedPill!

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.

Lastly, if it were a "close" Sun and Moon passing overhead, there would be an obvious change in the apparent sizes of the objects as they approach, pass overhead, and head off again. Again, this is not what we see. The Sun and Moon stay the same angular size throughout their pass. You can experiment and prove this by taking photos of them during rise, then again five or six hours later when they are at their highest.

Constellations have not significantly changed within the history of humans. You're referring to the precession of the equinoxes, caused by a rotation of the Earth's spin axis around the north ecliptic pole over a 26,000 year period. This causes the apparent drift of the seasons when the Sun reaches the same location among the stars. And yes, that is now about a month off, because astrological signs were defined 2,000 years ago with no accounting for precesson.

>>Daylit Earth is visible
>>Stars
>Go outside during the day and look at the sky you twit.

You're both wrong.

If the Earth had no atmosphere, your eyes would see stars during the day, as do 'nauts in space. It is the atmosphere which is brighter than the stars that obscures them.

The FE idiot doesn't understand that in casual photography, dynamic range does not yet allow for an exposure set for the brightness of a sunlit Earth to pick up the dim points of light of stars. If stars were showing in that image, it would be a sure sign of editing.

>God himself appointed Pete

Your evidence for this?

APPARENT RETROGRADE MOTION

>it's just a projection!

>Fuck off shills

>go to m̶a̶t̶h̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶b̶o̶a̶r̶d̶ anywhere
>propose something the general public would consider ludicrous
>get called an idiot
>somehow we're the shills

Ok ill bite, Why would everyone in the would want to make us think the earth is round? What possible outcome could come from this secret?

>flat earth threads

You need to just stop.

Posts like these tend to get completely ignored by those proportion given a flat earth. I wonder why.

Wait, I know. They literally cannot argue at that point.

everyone knows there is no real picture of the earth, as proven by different gravitational fields.

the earth is flat.

how horizons work:
youtube.com/watch?v=fYbuvIqnJ3c

200 PROOFS THE EARTH IS NOT A SPINNING BALL
youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg

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, and they post almost every day. They have the freedom to make shit up (lie) because truth and understanding are not their goals, and they end the arguments with "prove me wrong." This subtlety places the onus on you to spend your precious life's time to provide information already available that they won't consider. By disavowing any science or proofs put forward and continuing to make shit up, they "win" by eroding your patience. It is simply impossible to keep up with having to explain away the barrage of the violations of the most basic principles of geometry, math, science, and logic. They aren't interested in critical thinking or putting in the requisite effort to do the science. They regularly refuse to respond when they can't fabricate anything that would pass even their own red-faced test. They are blind to 3D visualization. They concentrate on believing
what their leaders tell them, and will not allow any sense to mar their fractured perception of the universe. They believe they are right, and they want you to become as stupid as they. There is simply no arguing. Like trying to paint over mud, you just end up with a dirty brush.

>literal Bible interpreters
why does everyone put Christianity at the top?

literally every culture knew the earth was flat
youtube.com/watch?v=fDBRhxryfZM

>why does everyone put Christianity at the top?
I don't recall saying anything about Christianity.
In fact during the space race of the '60s and '70s, virtually everyone was Christian. Devoutly. Buzz Aldrin was allowed to bring a little holy water and a tiny chalice to bless the landing.

It's you idiots who believe the Earth is flat that are the problem. I don't care what religion you are.

But again you go and misread, because you saw what you wanted to, not what was said.

>Go to Veeky Forums to find intelligent life on Veeky Forums
>find this thread among the climate deniers threads
>search continues

- Over 2 hours of video!

What I've got so far. Actually didn't get them all but I'm tired.

bet you dont have a flat earther with actual sources from science.
From the USGS, that is the United States Geological Survey, CMG InfoBank: Causes of Earthquakes:
"Radioactive decay generates the heat, energy, which ultimately powers movements of Earth's rocky tectonic plates.
The friction between the rough edges of these slowly moving segments of the Earth's lithosphere results in a series of jerky starts and stops, which is the direct cause of most major earthquakes.
The same heat engine that produces earthquakes is the driving force raising the world's great mountain ranges.
If this uplift did not take place, the relentless force of erosion would reduce the Earth's landscape to a single flat plane.
Without the present range of elevations, rivers would lose their principal sources of water.
The land would ultimately erode down to tide level, and most of the diversity in the world's flora and fauna would disappear.
And yet, while there are indirect benefits to living in a world with earthquakes, it's the capacity of tremors to violently disrupt human activity that commands our attention."

Let me green text that for you
>The same heat engine that produces earthquakes is the driving force raising the world's great mountain ranges.
>If this uplift did not take place, the relentless force of erosion would reduce the Earth's landscape to a single flat plane.
>If this uplift did not take place
>he relentless force of erosion would reduce the Earth's landscape to a single flat plane.
>reduce the Earth's landscape to a single flat plane.
>single flat plane.
>single flat plane.
>single flat plane.
walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/programs/html/school/moviepage/08.01.03.html

abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface.[1][2] They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth.[3]
> cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface.
>They are among the flattest regions on Earth
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain

>inb4 that's just relatively flat because plate tectonics are small and the earth is alot bigger

assumptions of seeing curvature at eye level and seeing the sun set below the curvature means that the earth is mathematically a lot smaller which is not sound according to official claim of the circumference and diameter.

I feel bad for you and hope you seek help soon

you can go ahead and continue believing that the earth is round but don't get butt hurt when more people start to look into it and figure out that its not.

Gravitationally flat.
Jesus christ.

Doesn't really work for rotation. We can measure the effects of the rotation, we weigh less depending on our position closer/farther from the equator.

You need two inertial reference frame to not be able to say which is *correct*. A rotating frame is not inertial.

I mean OP is still a retard, but don't equate the two concepts.

>I know the bible is the word of God because the bible tells me so, and you can trust it because it's the word of God.

>you can go ahead and continue believing that the earth is round
It's not belief. That's what you have in your book. We have evidence. You just can't see it because it scares you. Live in fear. Nice god you have.

>implying Sola Scriptura
>Ever

Holy shit I hope that was not a serious question!

>it's another "THE EARTH IS FLAT!!!!" thread

...

cause the const are moving too

any flattard that can explain me why would the UN spend millons of dollars in making the world's largest navy to make sure no one get to the antartica? and why no one made that before the UN set up that patrol?
>inb4 Ernest Shackleton was a former flattard

If this were true, the astronauts who landed on the moon would've been able to see stars.

Did you never learn about how to read according to context? A geologist or suurveyer is not going to use "flat plane" in the same sense a physicist would. due to the magnitude of the circumference of the earth small portions will look "flat" so a geologist or surveyer would call them "flat"; this doesn't mean they are flat. Context, user, context is very important.

I hate you.

You are actully fucking retarded

>trying to debunk a post about people not understanding exposure in photography, by not understanding exposure in photography.

If a sunlit Earth is too bright to allow enough exposure to see the star field, what makes you think a sunlit moon wouldn't be that bright as well?

How long does the light from another star group take to get to earth? would we be able to notice a super duper catastrophical event like an alien war detonating a star with an advanced antimatter weapon?

Whilst that would be incredibly cool, a really long time.

Poes Law

how much? millions of years?

Well, how far away do you want these aliens to be?

have a look for yourself

youtube.com/watch?v=JlYYUdbDZYo

youtube.com/watch?v=JlYYUdbDZYo

youtube.com/watch?v=JlYYUdbDZYo

youtube.com/watch?v=JlYYUdbDZYo