How would you prove the earth ISNT flat?

he's merely repeating flat earth comments my newfriend, we know that's not how season's, give us concrete proof as to prove flat earthers wrong

Brainlet question: Wouldn't I feel the acceleration of the earth moving upwards at 9.8m/s/s?

the earth would break in half if it was flat and accelerating

That does not answer the question

you would feel the acceleration and die instantaneously

you do feel it, your chair is probably 'pushing' you upwards right now and you feel this as pressure.
but if gravity wasn't real, and the earth would push us upwards, then jumping up would further accelerate you away from the earth and you would be lost in space.

Why don't you flatheads gather by the bunch, go find the domewall'' and prove us sphereheads wrong, once and for all. surely it is organizeable cmon comeon prove it prove it, yeah uhh yeah nipple proof

All of this and the shadows on earth. If the sun is up on a flat earth it will cast different shadows then one up on a curved earth.

no the earth velocity is constant, if acceleration was causing inertia which was felt as gravity the earth would have to be constantly accelerating. it also would have been accelerating at 9.8m/s/s for 4.6 billion years. We would not only be going insanely fast, we would be going impossibly fast.

Wrong. The earth would accelerate as you jumped. The problem is that the whole solar system would have to be accelerating at that same rate and the force felt is different on different planets. How would a flat earther account for the difference without gravity?

Another problem is that we can use gravity to measure the mass of the earth.

The crust would have to be much denser to fit that mass into a disc. This would cause problems with the geology of the crust, which we can observe.

Also, we could fly under the disc and see it, which hasnt been photographed.

>What argument would you present if you wanted to argue with someone who believes the earth is flat?

just ask them "what are the applications of the flat earth model?"

instrumentalism vindicates any theory, regardless if it is ((((true)))).

>Attempts to justify their arguments with the biggest bullshit

>What argument would you present if you wanted to argue with someone who believes the earth is flat?
You shouldn't argue with that person. The fact that you want to argue with them is a very bad sign. You should feel sorry for them and wish them well.

If anyone really believed that, it would not be possible to argue with them, because no evidence that you could present would matter to them. If they won't accept something as scientifically trivial as the world being round, then they also won't accept anything like gravity or telescopes or satellites, so you'll have nothing to offer them.

The good news is that no one believes the earth is flat. There are a couple of youtubers who pretend to believe it just because it gets them a ton of views, which makes them some money.

another flat earth denier posting a bait thread shilling for the "round earth theory"

The horizon. Just get to a tall building. Why can't you see the mountains in other states that are much taller than the building?

apparent retrograde motion of mars completely BTFO flat earth and is completely confirmable by anyone with a pair of eyes and a journal

>If anyone really believed that, it would not be possible to argue with them, because no evidence that you could present would matter to them. If they won't accept something as scientifically trivial as the world being round, then they also won't accept anything like gravity or telescopes or satellites, so you'll have nothing to offer them.
This.

This is pretty much the only discussion you can have with them. It always boils down to
>conspiracies
>THEM/SOMEBODY
>I dont believe in your "science"
and so on

becayse my eyes are not telescopes

>A myth based on false information
You can just reply this anything and be donebwith it

Has anyone ever considered that math doesn't actually prove anything? It just represents things. Math proves that the math works, it doesn't AT ALL explain the reality.

Easily we could be in a simulation or a flat universe with rules as such that our maths work out best when assuming space, and assuming, gravity, and assuming (insert all other things math assumes to prove by actually does not).

Maybe there is better math. Maybe math can't ever explain reality. I was real good at math and competed and all that and the more I really thought about it the less I had interest.

It's very useful for everything we do day to day and is obviously indispensable to science. But it doesn't do anything at all to prove what reality we are in.

Don't need arguments when there is plenty of physical and observational evidence that the Earth is round.

Measure the length of the shadow of a vertical meter stick througout the day at various latitudes.

Compare the minimum lengths of each latitude for a given day.

With some simple geometry, you can calculate the radius of the earth like that.

People have flown over the north pole multipule times, so there is no debate on AT THE LEAST that earth gets radially smaller at the top, and is therefore circular at the north pole.
Besides the fact that people have gone over and through the south pole, and satellites are a thing, the simple fact that it doesn't take 30 years to sail around Antarctica means that the earth must also be getting radially smaller at the south pole too, and the only shape that could fit this description is a 3 dimensional sphere.

>i dont trust your "geometry", illuminati shill

youtube.com/watch?v=ddFvjfvPnqk

>If you're at a beach and you watch a ship disappear into the distance, the mast will disappear last as the ship moves past the horizon.

Yeah, but masted ships are unlikely to be that common where you go to the beach -- use this one, it works anywhere...

The sun sets every day due to the rotation of the Earth in the real world. The sun visually rops below the horizon as the Earth rotates and our view of the sun is blocked by the world being in the way -- the sun does not move away from us, it stays the same size as it appears to set.

Flat Earth models have the Sun being much smaller, closer to Earth and circling over the Earth so that when it is over the US, it is day here but night in China, and vice versa.

If that were the case, the sun would not set below the horizon -- it would just move away to the west, further and further, until it faded out of sight -- always above the horizon. Further, as twilight and then night came on, the sun, as it moved off into the distance, would get smaller and smaller.

Now go watch a sunset together, observe what happens in the real world. Accept their congratulations for being right.

>>Satellites
>They don't work the way you're told they do. The truth is covered up by conspiracies.

Extraordinary! Evidence? It needs to be extraordinarily good, by the way, to watch the extraordinariness of the claim.

>>ISS
>Doesn't exist
Evidence? Thi will need to be good -- I've seen it several times, you can find out when it will be passing over you and visible, according to its orbital parameters and times when it will still be in the sun while you are in the shadow of the planet (early evening, or just before sunrise.) Both sets of criteria that determine if it will be where they say it will be are based on the Earth being round.

>>Gravity
>A myth based on false information
Evidence? They never have any evidence/

>>Seasons
>The sun moves closer and farther away as it moves clockwise above the Earth over the course of a year.

Then it would appear much smaller in the winter. It does not.

>>Our water is still here
>There's a wall of ice around the outside edge of the earth, known as Antarctica which keeps the water in

That whole evidence thing...

>>Flat earth would crumble due to gravity
>Gravity is a myth. Actually the Earth is just accelerating upwards. You're held in place due to inertia.

Yet calculations using gravity predict not just things that happen on Earth, but the movement of the planets as observed against the background of stars. So the theory makes predictions that can be tested, and the tests support the theory.

>>We would know already if it was flat
>Unless SOMEBODY was covering it up.
But that's no argument- What if somebody is trying to cover up that it is round, and you are the only one dumb enough to not see through it.

>>Structurally unstable
>Again, you are assuming gravity. In the flat earth model, gravity is a myth
But see above -- it predicts motion of objects in the sky that anybody can observe.

I understand you are DAing -- just answering your points as I would if you were an actual conspiritard or moron.

ive literally traveled around the world, how does that happen on flat earth?

why didny i hit the edgr, dummy?

>give us concrete proof as to prove flat earthers wrong

It has already been more than adequately proven. It is up to flatists to offer proof that their theory is correct -- not just alternative "but what ifs" and hand waving that try to explain phenomena as observed, and do so partially and weakly. They have to prove their case

Here you can give this to them. ISS and round earth all in one shot. Two birds with one stone: The truth is, with this much evidence, if someone doesn't want to believe, they aren't going to. There is some other reason for them disbelieving. At least, I think that's what it possibly is.

Measure shadow lengths at different locations on the planet.

You can calculate the curvature of the Earth using the difference in shadow lengths. Fucking Greeks knew the planet wasn't flat for Gods sake.

>What argument

>argument

>singular

The truth is, you can't. Any single observable phenomenon you give can have an adjustment to flat earth theory so that it matches those observables. A single thing will have some explanation to reconcile the theory.

The key is to present multiple arguments. That's where the whole thing falls apart. There are conflicting observables that don't have singular modifications to flat earth theory. One change literally causes the other observable to now not be tenable.

Just for the record, as someone who can't believe in a flat earth because of the insane amount of evidence, I still actually really enjoy and appreciate the thought experiment of many flat earthers.

They make some really enjoyable videos, thoughts, etc. much like reading a novel or playing a game of DND.

It's sort of fun to go that in depth into a fantasy and immerse yourself. Am I the only one who feels that way?

Lmao!

Educated ancients even knew that the world was a sphere. The earth casts a shadow on the moon from the sun. The only 3 dimensional shape that always casts a circular shadow is a sphere. QED, the earth is round.

you're really not. A part of me really enjoys getting into conspiracy / fundementalist mindsets and trying to see the world through their eyes.

Then I must slowly claw my way back from insanity back to my comfy science.

I feel like its a good application of skepticism. Especially when, after applying said skepticism to everything, to come back around to science.

My people.

The reason that hurricanes/cyclones never cross the equator is because of the Coriolis effect. Furthermore, such storm systems never form at the equator because the Coriolis effect is negligible at latitudes near the equator, and the Coriolis effect is what enables the formation of cyclones in the first place. This, coupled with the fact that the Coriolis effect is flipped on the Southern hemisphere, proves that the Earth is spherical.

Only two in the south Atlantic? Why would that be? I understand historical records will be more complete for a longer period in the other oceans, but still.

Also, both tracked TOWARDS the equator. That just seems really odd.

Source of that image? Google image search is of no help.

Honestly, I feel like Flat-Earthism is just an exercise in contrarianism

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 nefariously places the onus on you to spend your precious life's time to provide information already available that they haven't and 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 while calling you a "sheeple," 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.

jesus OP did you have to trigger the round earthers like this?

>8680907
>ISS
>Doesn't exist

well executed troll post

Is easier ask them... how do you prove that earth is flat. Most people that believe in this lacks basic education and understanding of nature.

Still if you want to laugh, just go to

Lunar eclipses are impossible on all flat earth models

\thread

You just made a lot of assumptions, one of the most obvious being that you appealed to intuition, i.e. to the intuition that the sun will get smaller as it moves away.

Even if you anchor this in some mathematical geometry model, this model in itself is anchored in assumptions. Even more, the fact that a theory is consistent does not prove that it is an accurate representation of reality.

What I'm getting at is that at the end of the day, the only ostensibly tenable position for a flat earther is that of epistemological nihilism, which makes any attempts of discourse moot, not to mention that their very arguments aren't compatible with epistemological nihilism in the first place.

TL;DR: Give up and move on.

>You just made a lot of assumptions, one of the most obvious being that you appealed to intuition, i.e. to the intuition that the sun will get smaller as it moves away.

Please explain how this is an assumption, and what kind of geometric mechanism could create a reality in which a more distant object would appear to be the same size as when it is closer.

underage faggot or braindead autist
you are one or both of these things

You assumed very many things, as one has to do to even make an argument.

This specific assumption contains several assumptions, including but not limited to:

1. The assumption of universality. Maybe the sun doesn't fit into the same distance-size paradigm that things here on earth do.

2. The assumption that the size of the sun is constant. Maybe the sun grows in size the further away it gets. I'm not going to bother going into the calculations of this to see if there is some distance configuration that makes this even slightly feasible with respect to the problem of the sun's size fluctuating depending on your position on earth. This problem can be hand-waved away by assuming that the apparent size of the sun (through any number of ridiculous assumptions) is constant anyway.

Also, just because a model can accurately predict reality doesn't mean that it's right. It might just be pure coincidence.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that a flat earther must either alter or discard most if not all theoretical frameworks in order to render their position tenable.

Welp, covered your bases at least. Maybe next time you should try reading the post you're replying to.

I've found that the most prominent proponents of flat earth tend not to be literal Bible interpreters, and it at least seems like the vast majority of literal Bible interpreters, even those who believe in young earth, don't believe in a flat one.

If the Earth is flat then why can't you see the whole world from Mt. Everest?

The onus is on you to prove a spherical earth is not merely a distorted interpretation that billions of simpletons believe (fake news) because they are shallow.

>you can't prove a negative" means you cannot prove beyond all possible doubt

As in people are not perfect: but they are susceptible to delusions, ignorance and fake data.

>Anyway, the point I was trying to make...
Fair enough, but...

>2. The assumption that the size of the sun is constant. Maybe the sun grows in size the further away it gets....

Even if that were true, the Sun would only be moving away from one observer, say in London. Simultaneously, it is moving closer to someone in America. You would have to explain how it grows for one observer but not another.

So... classifying phenomena like:
a salt crystal will dissolve in fresh water at standard temp and pressure;
the Sun will rise every morning (even though I rarely see it through our weather); and
an object will shrink in angular size as it recedes,
may be pedantically correct (and I'm not even sure that's true), it would be exceptionally foolish to assume otherwise. Also, being so reticent about accepting the proven, and insisting on everything being assumptions will leave your thoughts and life paralyzed.

Will I make it to work, or will I get killed by a truck? Can I eat this, or was it poisoned by ISIS? Can I phone my friend, or will dialing his number connect me to the Kremlin? That sort of useless stuff.

(bumping for later)