In all seriousness,
how come it isn't possible to produce the most definite and undeniable proof the Earth isn't flat?
In all seriousness
Mason Anderson
Other urls found in this thread:
Thomas Cox
you got it backwards friend. The earth is roughly spherical, lots of evidence for this fact. Since you insist that your conspiracy theory is real the burden is on you to provide actual proof that the earth is flat.
Pro Tip: you can't, because it isn't.
Luis Diaz
Because when ever you do they just scream that it's fake.
>Tell them to look at the pictures.
"FUCKING NASA SHILL"
>Tell them to calculate the moment of inertia of a sphere and then compare it to experiment
"Fuck you that sounds hard, besides it's just a model you can make all kinds of shit up.
>Point out all the other planets are round
"Well the earth is special"
>Ask them to come up with a complete and working cosmology
"Well it's a work in progress, besides its not like mainstream science has a complete and working theory of quantum gravity"
>Tell them that a flat earth under gravity would either break apart of form a sphere
"Oh yeah? Have you ever seen that happen? No you've not"
Or
"Gravity isn't real anyway"
There is literally no arguing with them. No reason, evidence or explanation can counter outright delusion and blind faith.
Bentley Perez
apparent retrograde motion of mars and seasons completely BTFOs flat earth
Isaiah Cooper
buy a drone with a camera, go to the beach, wait for sunset, take a photo as the sun is setting, fly the drone up as high as it can go and take another photo, double sunset.
earth is round, done.
Noah Green
if you try to launch a satellite to take a picture they'll crash into the sky
Ian Evans
Take a long exposure shot of the night sky at three different latitudes. If the flat earth theory was true, the north star should be visible from all latitudes and should be the center of rotation from all latitudes. It isn't.
Owen Gomez
The earth could easily be the outside edge of the universe. In fact it is. In fact every single point is the outer edge of its own version of the universe. It's like a FISH EYE LENSE.
It doesn't really matter but this inside out way of thinking is what gets people inspired to believe this nonsense. Mathematically it makes more sense. You go far enough in one direction in the universe and you'll end up where you were because there is no edge to the universe. We exist within some sort of 4 dimensional bubble type shit. To move outside the universe would be to move beyond the 3 dimensions. So the earth is round but in the fourth dimension it is flat. But we do get some affects from the 4th dimension such as quantum type nonsense. It's pretty simple really
Aiden Richardson
Because throwing every denialist into orbit is a little too expensive. Even if we bother with them actually landing.
Nathaniel Kelly
Jose Morgan
It is impossible to produce undeniable evidence for any proposition, because the human capacity for denial is infinite.
Grayson Jenkins
We would have to send your little faggot ass to space, and no one cares that much what you think.
Jonathan Lewis
so... are you going to present the proof or not?
Jason Mitchell
Ships appear mast first over the horizon
The sun doesn't get smaller towards the end of the day
There are photos of the earth being round and stuff
Adam Torres
Let's also not forget that there is literally no good reason for any sort of conspiracy to conceal the earth's flatness.
Charles Garcia
Get someone in Australia to take a picture of the moon.
It's upside down.
Adrian James
The earth is round, neither is is flat. The truth is the EARTH IS FAT!
The earth is a ball bulging at the equator. The earth isn't ashamed of this in the slightest. The earth has curves!
Jonathan Long
Gravity.
Rotation of the planets and other celestial bodies.
Logan Powell
that we know of
Grayson Wood
You cannot "produce the most definite and undeniable proof" on anything at all because the only such proof is direct experience. Hop on a spacecraft.
Any other proof is bound to be questioned in any of a number of points, and yeah, damn right, it's all a model and you can always make up reasons as to why the model is not "sufficient", again, proof remains in the pudding. As long as you see a flat ground in front of you, sensory proof that the earth is flat remains.
All proof is incomplete by nature, but if you take the bulk of proof that is available without dirfect experience, it's hard as fuck to make a consistent argument as to why all the evidence is misguided, let alone make an alternate model that actually works and has some better explanation.
Flat-earthers work around every bit of evidence about the roundness of earth, making up models of their own creation to explain the perceived phenomena, but if you put them together, they are all fractionary and hardly make up for a consistent model. Essentially, they're trying to make an argument as to why each piece of evidence is insufficient to prove that the earth is round, and they limit themselves to that because, at least for us who are not or have never been in a spacecraft, it's impossible to know for certain that we aren't being deceived in one way or another, given the lack of direct experience. We are bound to, either go for the option that makes more sense, or stubbornly stick to learned preconceptions taught by people who are just as ignorant.
The earth may as well be a torus, or we might be on the inside of a sphere, rather than the outside. Indeed, you could devise a mathematical model in which the latter (inside out spheroid) is indistinguishable from the standard spheroid model.
Hudson Richardson
Conveniently ignoring
Hunter Nelson
[cont]
For one thing, consider that flat-earthers claim to be holding an essentially scientific attitude in questioning the validity of a widely accepted claim, while in parallel holding an idea based purely on belief.
Second, for a comparison, take a look at geo/heliocentric models that were held in the past and how the planetary motions in the geocentric model were overly convoluted while the heliocentric model explained the movements in a unified and consistent model. The geocentric model for the motions of planets relied on all sorts of workarounds that'd introduce all sorts of hypotetical forces and arbitrary variables to make up for the model, while the heliocentrical model not only explains the motions of planets but also takes part in the general model of celestial mechanics as a whole.
Joseph Parker
> how come it isn't possible to produce the most definite and undeniable proof the Earth isn't flat?
Flat-earth-ism is just a matter of denying whatever needs to be denied. If you didn't make the observation yourself, you're just relying upon hearsay. If you did make the observation yourself, well the flat-earther didn't make it themselves and they aren't going to take your word for it.
It's basically the same scam as moon landing hoaxers (or Donald Trump). Start from the desired conclusion, anything which contradicts it must therefore be false, anything which supports it must be true.
Gavin Davis
>humans in ancient time could deduce that the the thing they lived on was round
>there are still humans in 2017 who don't get it
It's really fascinating how some humans can be so exceedingly stupid while others are impressively intelligent.