Prove to me that the earth isn't flat

...

>tfw Sauropodomorphs were tall enough they could see off the edge of the earth

Why the fuck do people still respond to these threads

Do you even know how to google?

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 towards you (foreshortened) and southward (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 during 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.

Continuing south during an equinox, a flat-Earther would still see the Sun appear from the NE, approach but curve left to due north at Noon, then continue left and away to the NW, fading away. In reality, the Sun still rises in the E, moves up and left to north at Noon, and then set again in the W. This motion (also traced by the stars at night) clearly shows there is an axis of rotation that rises up from the southern horizon and extending up and way south to project a south celestial pole on the sky. A Sun (and stars) moving around a disk cannot behave like it is revolving around two poles simultaneously.

Furthermore, 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. Light intensity varies by the square of the distance from the source. This means the intensity of the light from the Sun (and Moon, and stars) would continuously vary all day, and most radically just before and after Noon. Again we see differently, the Sun remains 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.

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 yourself by taking photos of them during rise, then again five or six hours later when they are at their highest, and maybe again as they set, just for added data. Measure their sizes in the photos. They're the same.

Air travel. You can look at the flight times of many flights. This only works on a round Earth. It would require an active conspiracy of literally every pilot who has ever lived, which is absurd.

>You're a "smart" person
I'm your lizard overlord, quit posting these we don't want more to know.

>You're a "smart" person.

For you

(((YOU))) Not know the truth. Leo

Walk outside

Radar beam height with respect to distance is a non-linear function. This is due to the earth's surface curving away from the beam. If the earth was flat, the beam height would be linear, and would not increase in altitude at the -.5° elevation scan.

Now stop making these threads, even if the bait is tasty.

son moon cycle

/thread

Going to repost this.

...

Coriolis effect
Check mate

youtube.com/watch?v=ddFvjfvPnqk

...

And as usual, fpbp
It can at the very least be said we're nothing if not consistent
Incidentally, I came here to post this but was beaten
Also checked

This

>(((global warming)))

>Take a pendulum
>Measure local g at a pole
>Measure local g at the equator
>[math] \Delta g = g_{ \text { pole } } - g_{ \text { equator } } \approx 52 ~ \text { mm s} ^{-2} [/math]

Where contributions come from angular velocity and the oblateness of the earth.

>Muh tides

>Estimate the moment of inertia of the earth (I estimated it to be about [math] \approx 10^{38} [/math], measured values put it about [math] 8 \times 10^{37} [/math]
>Model the earth as a disk
>Model the earth as a sphere
>Compare the two models
>Take the closest model to the measured value (pro tip: it's the second one)

This one is probably the easier one to do at home, since it requires nothing other than to google some values.

Finally:
>Just fucking look at the pictures.

>instrumentalist
Interesting. I didn't realize that was the term for it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

>>denialism

Give me a solid theory with as much evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) that goes with it to convince me how gravity, global weather systems and animal migratory patterns work with a flat Earth, and then I'll bother

Global warming as a phenomenon is a thing that is real, it's just not solely being created by humans

How do I calculate the moment of inertia of pic related?

Unfortunately nobody ever replies to the knock out punches because theyve been BTFO. Giving you a (you) because I've too often written long paragraphs that shoot down flat earth arguments that went completely ignored in a thread with 200+ replies.

Prove to me that you can greentext.

>I'm proud of replying to bait, but mad I don't get attention for it
kill yourself faggot newfag

Fool flat-earthers

Flat Earth OPs aren't actually flat-earthers mate, they just want to cause butthurt
I just find FEs entertaining since they never will prove everyone else wrong

Curvature is non-local and observable over the entire face; must be a spheroid.