OK Veeky Forums fags, time to prove yourselves.
Is anyone here capable to disprove that earth is flat ?
It has to be a valable argument that doesn't use physical concepts which already start by the fact that earth is round.
It cannot also be a media document since nasa and reptiliens are part of the conspiracy.
Other urls found in this thread:
google.dk
youtube.com
robinsdocksideshop.com
twitter.com
>Lie on the top of a hill.
>Watch the sun set
>jump to your feet
>watch the sun set again
Explain this with a infinite flat disk
If the earth was a flat disc and the south pole surrounded it, if you where on the ocean and there nothing but sea separating you from the south pole, surely you should be able to see it (with the aid of a telescope or other such device). Since you cannot see the south pole this way, it debunks that theory.
If you refuse to accept evidence then nothing can persuade you and no-one will feel any desire to attempt to.
According to round earth models, the earth radius is too big to see a curvature of the horizont from any hill.
This is not taking into account mirage effect that are due to diffraction and which is a phenomena that can be proven independently of earth shape
And what are the evidences then ? Give it to me please
A flat earth model isn't consistent with observable coordinates measured astronomically.
Flat earth threads keep getting deleted. Keeping an eye on this one.
Irrelevant. The experiment proves that the earth has, calculable, finite dimensions.
If the Earth was flat GPS systems wouldn't work and neither would any kind of weapon that works by firing in an arc.
Coordinates of what ? Measured by what ? By who ? In which condition ? In which date ? With which instruments ?
You're just telling some random bullshit, you deserve a special medal for "the guy who want to look smart but just says done random shit"
Which experiment ? Which dimension ?
Guys, if you don't know shit just shut the fuck up
According to what ? Your ass ? Why ? Why ? Why ? Stop telling some random bullshit if you're not capable to explain it
If the sun move like in the picture, it would never fall below the horizon when it sets. It would just disappear or seam to be a light dangling in the sky
You totally missed the fucking point on this one didn't you
The model of classical gravitation makes since and has successfully predicted undiscovered planets.
Describe the mechanics of flat earth. What makes things move in the way they do, and how can that knowledge be applied here on Earth and used to make predictions that can be tested?
If you have any flat earth material that actually makes arguments with equations and physical principles, I will look at it.
Anyone?
the fuck does that have to do with anything? He's not saying you can see the curvature, he's saying that if you can watch the sun set twice by watching it first while lying down and then again when you stand up, an easily replicated experiment that would not work if earth was flat.
What exactly is your scietific background. Also I know this because you need a 3D sphere for the equations used for positioning someone on a GPS and I have personally worked with someone who helped build these systems.
At least someone with a brain.
And what if the sun just move in a different way, unlike the picture ?
Common sense and ducking logic. How do you flattards explain why a ship seems to "sink" (dissapear mast last below the horizon) into the ocean as it travels away from a harbor (from the perspective of someone looking out from the harbour)
How the actual fuck would a giant glowing ball move in another way?
Observing that the sun does not dip below the horizon at the same time when observed from two different heights.
If you measured the the distance and time difference (observing the sun setting) between the two points and the angle from the points to the horizon you could use simple trig to calculate the distance to the horizon. Thus proving the earth is not infinite.
Therefore it would be really easy for you to explain for us why earth isn't flat. Still you just speak about your friend that work on gps but add no valuable argument.
If i tell you i worked with a guy who slept with your mom, would it be enough for you to believe me telling you your mom is a slut ?
That's all I'm asking too .
Explain the motion of the sun with equations and physics, OP. If you can do that, you just might have a theory that can be tested.
There was never a question of infinite earth.
Please develop, your argumentation is not enough, we're speaking of flatness not infinity
Sophism !
The earth has to be a sphere. There is no other choice because a sphere is the most divine of the sacred geometric proportions.
Nice dubs
His argument is that all of the equations and math that has ever been used to program a GPS system would not work if the earth was flat. In other words he is saying that GPS would not work on a flat earth because it has been made to work on a round earth.
What are the mechanics of flat earth op? How do you explain the motion of the sun?
There is a very tidy theory that seems to explain it very well, even though it's only an approximation. It's called classical gravity.
So i come to you to disprove that earth is flat and you tell me to prove that earth is flat first ?
In a scientific approach argument to prove a theory are not enough, the only way a theory is valid is if it can stay irrefutable indefinitely
The calculated distance to the horizon will be the (mostly) same no matter where you measured it. The only geometric shapes that allow this are spheroids.
Actually, the Sphere is often present in nature because it is the form that reduce to minimum the surface for an determined volume. This is the minimal action principle
Calculated distance from the horizon relatively to what ? How do you measure it ? This doesn't seems really convincing
And where are the math ? You just believe him because he told so ? You're a pleb
>So i come to you to disprove that earth is flat
I can't disprove something if you make no concrete claims (ie equations). Make a concrete claim, and we can explore that claim, it's consequences, and see if it matches observation.
You know, science.
My claim is that the classical theory of gravity using only Netwon's law
[math]\vec{F} = m \vec{a}[/math]
and the classical gravity force law
[math]\vec{F} = G \frac{m M}{R}\hat {R}[/math]
Is sufficient to describe mechnics of not only the motion of the earth and sun relative to each other, but also the motion of all bodies in the solar system to good accuracy.
Now it's your turn to make some concrete claims.
If the Earth is flat, then why do we need satellites or more than one antenna to send a radio wave over long distances?
In theory, if the Earth was flat, there would be nothing stopping us from sending a radio wave from the UK to Australia, but you couldn't do that with just one radio antenna, because the curvature of the Earth physically blocks the signal.
>t. electrical engineer
Here's a few objective arguments:
1. No model of the flat earth has made a successful prediction about the position of the moon or the sun, as they would both be visible anywhere on earth at all times
2. Flat earth doesn't make sense with Newtonian gravity
3. The "upwards accelerating flat earth" model of gravity would imply that the earth is moving at a significant fraction of lightspeed, and that's just if it's at least 5000 years old (hint: it's about 1000 times older than that)
Here's some appeals to intuition:
1. Every other planet is round. Every star is round. This is well explained with gravity. The Earth being flat as an exception defies any logical explanation.
2. People have taken photographs of the earth from space, and it is round. (note: "muh fisheye lens" wouldn't hide the existence of an enormous ice wall surrounding a disk planet were it actually there. lrn2optics)
3. Nobody has taken a photograph of the enormous ice wall that surrounds flat earth
4. Satellites are in use. Is GPS a lie that runs on jew magic?
5. A lot of money goes into space travel and research. Is this all a front to hide the secret jew conspiracy?
6. If the Earth is flat what's on the other side of it?
user told you how to measure it , then apply trig.
From any vantage point south of the equator, the Sun and Moon will trace a path centered around a point in the southern sky. The altitude of this pivot point (the south celestial pole) will be the same as the absolute value of your latitude. Thus, the farther south you travel, the higher the pole will be in the sky.
Pic related, star trails as seen from the equator.
Because your wave lose power/m2 with distance. Dummy, shape of earth doesn't change anything about that
So apparently there is NO math involved in calculating where you are on the earth.
>Are you actually fucking retarded
If you still dont believe me, then here google.dk
Can you explain what "Wave lose power/m2 with distance" means? Define power of a wave?
You're not a clever man
>relative to what
The point you are measuring from.
>how do you measure it
A known distance and a known angle. Did they not teach trig at bible school?
You do know how powerful radio antenna are now?
Even if you used a HUGE radio antenna, the signal would still be blocked by the curvature of the Earth.
i think he's attempting to describe the inverse square principle
That's because of the curvature of the Earth, you retard.
Literally not an argument, we've told you how to measure it (like other people have).
Study the composition of the earth and its proportions (or whatever you THINK they are).
Study the laws of gravity and materials physics. Make a model if what would happen to a disc make of rocket using our current understanding of gravity.
Ok, you showed that sun and moon don't move according to the first picture.
But what about the shape of earth (assuming that therefore sun and moon just move in another way)
Electromagnetic waves can travel really really really really really really really fucking far
Kys with this argument
The earth blocks waves that try to go through it (why you can't see things below the horizon)
Radio waves are just low frequency light wavea
>(assuming that therefore sun and moon just move in another way)
Whoa, so concise, everyone is giving observable argumentation and you're giving fickle speculation.
Well, if jumping doesn't blow your skirt up, try noctilucent clouds above you.
Weather-dependent, conditions may exist where you may witness the Sun having set, while the clouds above you are still in full sunlight. Barriers are not an issue, as this is also seen where the Sun sets below an oceanic horizon.
I told him essentially the same thing and he ignored me
>don't hold your breath for a response
Pretty sure we're just being trolled, no one can actually be this stupid and ignorant in the face of such evidence, right? Right?
The power = energy per time
You radio antenna produce a wave of a finite power E
The front of the wave produced by your antenna is spherical, therefore the more it propagate the bigger is the the surface, so the less you have E/m2
Therefore the power of the signal of the reception antenna will diminish according to the distance of the emitting antenna
it's official, boys
we're being trolled
How can you measure the angle of a non dimensional line that virtually separate ground from sky ?
Yeah, I forgot the square, but you know the equation.
Now, it seems you accept it. Good.
A consequence of this equation is that we can look at the size of orbits and calculate the masses of planets. Using only Newton's law, the gravity law, and kinematics, we can deduce that Earth has a mass of 5.972 × 10^24 kg.
Since all physics should apply equally well no matter where you go (otherwise, you haven't fully explained your physics), we can apply the gravity law to use on earth.
Assuming that earth is sphere, the gravity equation can be simplified (a volume integral reduces to the attraction between two point masses) and experimentally verified. You can measure the gravity constant with a torsion balance. You can measure your mass with a mass balance, and you can measure the force of your weight. This constrains what the radius of earth should approximately be.
When you check all the numbers, they seem to work. It's a simple theory, but seems to explain a wide range of phenomenon. It also has predictive power.
Now, assuming this model is pretty good, I need you to put forward a theory for the goemtery of earth. Then we can apply superposition to see if the gravity field predicted by your shape matches observation (roughly the same everywhere).
I do know that an infinite sheet of mass will produce a constant gravity field, but our gravity field seems to attenuate, meaning we can't live on an infinitely flat sheet at the very least.
>I've ignored everything else.
You do know we use radio waves for astronomy right, retard? Do you know how big those distances are?
Even with a flat Earth MUH SKYBOX, those distances that radio waves travel would still be great enough to broadcast to Australia from the UK, but it doesn't work. Why?
>Curvature, moron.
>non dimensional
>Ok, you showed that sun and moon don't move according to the first picture.
If you cannot provide an accurate model of the mechanics governed by a flat Earth, then your question is specious and disingenuous, and you're just trolling.
Do you even understand the words you're cobbling together?
Ok so you have no argument for the shape of earth ? Cause until now all the arguments were crap.
The best things i saw are people staying about sunset, they're almost on it and I'm just asking a little more.
I've actually given three, those you've either ignored, or giving a fallacious, erroneous and often nonsensical arguments.
Very nice one.
Well ok earth have a curvature, this doesn't mean however that it is round it could be flat and bended.
Do you have an argument against that ?
Because this can observed at any point on Earth, so where actually is this bend? In another made-up dimension like the rest of your bullshit?
you divide the phi rato by the square of an imaginary sin axis. Substituting In the measured values you can solve for the non binary phase space. And bam
Are we doing a homework assignment for you?
>New evidence comes along that does not agree with you
>"Its not true and its not real because e^√-1*π show there are not inter dimensional non binary retard monsters"
>When Making a point, show some evidence at least
>And accept all evidence even if it does not agree with you
>What's our evidence: Thousands of years of observation and science
>What's yours: "Your evidence isn't true"
The tf do you think knows what their talking about
>Some bible loving, sister fucking country bumpkin
>Some people that have degrees or at least consider evidence before being retarded
I think we are being trolled
Made possible with Rockwell Automation's Retro Encabulator.
youtube.com
Wow ! How did you relate the fact that radio signal need to be amplified to all this crap you just told me ?
Ok let's follow your shit, let me ask you one thing :
Assuming that Newton laws are exact, how would you calculate earth mass ? Did you already ask yourself this question ?
If you want to use earth mass value don't you need to be able to prove it back ?
can you answer these:
You're really doing a shitty job as a troll and an OP, if this is ll flat Earthers are, then you truly are a pathetic bunch of morons.
We receive radio signal from Stars which emit it with a power in a totally different order than what our tiny antennas are capable of.
And we use telescopes to focus all the energy received on a big area to a small detection antenna.
Sorry to tell it to you dude, but physics ain't your thing
>Coordinates of what ?
Two points along the same line of latitude.
>measured by what?
A sextant.
>By who?
Any observer. Perhaps a cartographer. Perhaps you.
>In which condition?
Any condition in which you can see the stars
>in which date?
Any date.
>With which instruments?
A sextant. A compass. A star chart.
>You're just telling some random bullshit, you deserve a special medal for "the guy who want to look smart but just says done random shit"
Have you ever considered that someone else might know something you don't?
robinsdocksideshop.com
Both a flat earth and a round earth model can use a coordinate system. The difference is that they imply different things about how distances relate to coordinates.
Take two sets of coordinates. Find the distance between them on a flat earth and the distance between them on a round earth. Find out what the distance actually is in real life. Which of the two models match reality? So far, everyone who has done this has found the round Earth model to match reality.
Says the one not capable of defining what he is measuring.
You do know we have broadcast radio waves in to space right and that they would travel for a distance far greater than from the UK to Australia even with atmospheric absorption? Or are you just being intellectually dishonest?
>Because this can observed at any point on Earth
Congrats, you're the first Veeky Forums fag capable of giving a reason of why earth is round
But we have, you dullard.
Not me. And we are measuring distance in meters and angles in degrees.
I didn't have given any erroned or fallacious argument
So you concede defeat? Wonderful. Time for tea.
Phases of the Moon.
Why would the moon have phases in a flat earth scenario?
You can see the curvature when the moon is waxing/waning.
Ask the majority of people in this thread, they'll say you have and defintions are drawn and vindicated from the majority, therefore, by definition of a definition you have.
OP needs to die
>by jumping off of the edge of his flat earth
See
I've found your majority:
You have officially now made:
>"erroned or fallacious argument"
Congratulations are in order.
Isn't that a lot more consistent than the crappy answer you have earlier ?
Have you ever considered that someone else may not know what you know and therefore don't give a shit about an argument with no fucking explains ?
>I need everything spoonfed to me, because I'm less intelligent than a sailor.
Please IGNORE EVERY PEICE OF FUCKING INFORMATION GIVEN TO YOU SO YOU CAN ATTACK SOMETHING ELSE
Signal sent to space on high distance are collected by telescopes that still need to be oriented to the source of the signal. This has nothing to do with the previous radio communication on earth you were speaking about.
"I dont understand therefore its wrong"
It's still a radio wave, you moronic fuck.
If my initial reply wasn't clear enough, you've got some problems you need to work out.
Also, the radio waves you send aren't sent from telescopes, otherwise we couldn't call it a telescope it would be an antenna (or parapolic projector).
Defeat ? You're getting me wrong here boy. I never said i was in agreement with the flat earth society, just asked for someone to give a valuable disprove of it.
It's not my fault if the big majority of the people here are not capable of having a real scientific kind.
Honestly it does because we were talking about how radio waves are not powerful enough to reach Australia from the UK
He just stated that we need to send radio waves into space, further than UK to Australia.
Ergo
Your point was debunked and you cannot understand that
>He came on here to see if Veeky Forums had what it takes to explain how we know the Earth is round and laugh at everyone who couldn't
>Instead he found out that he is actually the retarded one
>Why would the moon have phases in a flat earth scenario?
Why not ?
>You can see the curvature when the moon is waxing/waning
Yes, this would prove a curvature.
But what if earth is just flat but bended ? Curvature doesn't necessarily mean round
It's not my fault if the majority of the people here only knows approximative physics