Be flat earther

>It is impossible for vanishing point to cause this as that would mean the entire boat vanishes.
Not until the rest of the boat moves far enough past the vanishing point. It's not an event horizon come on now.

30 miles if you got balls.
It can not be done

The rest of the boat is the top. It's at the exact same position as the bottom of the boat, so should scale the same. You're not making any sense.

>30 miles

youtube.com/watch?v=U60iUp1f7SU
youtube.com/watch?v=f_-k6SzoIAI

I think we're misinterpreting each other because you're not making any sense to me right now either.

why do people give flat earthers the time of day? once their bullshit pseudoscientific arguments are deconstructed (which they always are) their arguments are shown to be set atop a ridiculous conspiracy involving nasa or something equally retarded.

>physical experimentation = pseudoscience
Modern "Scientists" everyone!

When I first heard about Eratosthenes aka OB (original beta) I was blown away. It is really humbling for modern man, you realise, that people were always super smart, but today we just get lazy out of comfort.

Well at least he's trying.

The question can effectively be reformulated as
>How far away do I have to travel to no longer see a light?

I get the the amount of "drop" (ie how much is hidden by the earth) to be about [eqn] h \approx \frac { L^2 } { 2 R } [/eqn] This assumes that you're keeping you distance from the object, [math] L [/math] to be much less than the radius of the earth [math] R [/math]. So given the height, [math] h [/math] of the laser being [math] h \approx 1.68 m [/math] then it should disappear after [math] L \approx 3 ~ \text { miles } [/math]. So why doesn't it? Well I suspect a couple of reason, one theoretical, one practical:
>I assumed that the height of the guy with the camera was negligible.
That probably won't be the case
>No refraction by the atmosphere
Which could be significant, I remember reading that during the Bedford Level experiment a correction for refraction needed to be made.

I sailed for the navy for 10 years. I know the earth is round. But you flat earth freaks don't did that well at school. Just like most religious people you are just a bit simple and not to bright.

>the earth is flat
score one point off this retard

youtube.com/watch?v=GBhDFO4NMrw

So why can't I find a single video of someone proving the curvature with a laser?

You keep falling back on what you're TOLD to be true instead of what you can prove for yourself.
>not to bright.
2/10

>CONCAVE EARTH

Earth is twice the reported size, Antarctica is a ring of ice that separates the two

tools like you who knows enough to pretend to be reasonable but are actually complete fucking idiots are ruining the world, you should be put down.

So what, I am Dutch, bite me.

>Looming
>friggin
>Refraction

>mfw globecucks know just enough to be smug but not enough to realize they don't know anything

>So why can't I find a single video of someone proving the curvature with a laser?

Probably because their experimental setups aren't taking into account the problems I raised when doing my own theoretical derivation. They, like I, are using an idealised model and that (unsurprisingly) isn't reproducing real world results.

the vanishing point can't be below the horizon, as the horizon is a series of straight lines converging at a point. that point being the vanishing point

yeah convergence of parallel lines projected along a spherical surface, or divergence of a straight line and a spherical surface

a misleading video. in the attached image you can see the ratio of distances of the peak of the tower and the bulbous end and the peak to the apparent base is different from the few mile image and the 30 mile image. this is obviously because the base of the tower in the 30 mile image is obfuscated by the horizon (this means teh earth is curved)

Even what? This babbleshit jesus freak deserves to be laughed out of town. Why the fuck are flat earthers so fucking ignorant.

Can one of you flat earthers post that info pic on how you think the sun works? Because it doesn't work that way.

I am more interested about the edge of the earth. Where is it?

Out side Antarctica. It's actually just a giant ice wall. Or something like that, idk flat earthers are on another level with their imaginations.

>Where is it?
lmao you can't go there dude, the Illuminati lizard space Jews operate a shoot-to-kill policy.

Eratosthenes assumed the Earth was a sphere and that the sun was so far away that it's rays could be considered parallel. A flat Earth with a close sun would have resulted in the same measurements for example.

Just a reminder that flat earthers really believe that there is a massive ice wall that keeps the oceans from flowing over the edge of the "flat earth".

This isnt a problem. Use the 1st two points too find the distance from the sun to the earth then do a new measurement at a new distance. If the earth is flat then the new measurement should find the sun at the same distance as the first measurement. Ofc refraction might mess a bit with the observations but shouldnt make a too large divergence.

by some actual science do you mean ""some actual science"" or (((some actual science)))?

>>present findings
>>get made laughed out of to

Pic related, and straw man. If you find evidence to support a flat Earth with a rational hypothesis to accompany it, it will be examined.
The straw man is, you're saying it'll just be laughed at. Some may, but you make it sound like everyone would. But keep in mind, this hypothesis would have to counter everything else that supports a non-flat view. Lastly, you still have to prove your evidence against a falsification test.

There has never been, and never will be, any hypothesis that uniquely explains any observable phenomenon relating to the overall structure of the Earth. Not one single piece, ever. Nothing.

>Not until the rest of the boat moves far enough past the vanishing point.
That's impossible. In perspective, the vanishing point is at *infinity*. It's an imaginary construct.

So you can't be bothered to do a proper experimentation, and your response is to "put down" those who question it? Maybe you should stick to /pol/

Can flat Earth explain the Coriolis effect?

I looked at the ground 100 times and 100% of the time it was flat

I'm not sure what you mean by distance. In the pic I show Eratosthenes experiment assuming a flat Earth and a nearby sun (no parallel rays). The measurements used by Eratosthenes were what is x in the picture and the angle at the post. I don't see how making more of these measurements disproves the flat Earth model. Just as a contrast, here is the experiment assuming a spherical Earth: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eratosthenes_measure_of_Earth_circumference.svg . Also here is someone "disproving" the flat Earth theory (number 5 in the list): popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round#page-4 . But notice that the author assumes parallel sun rays, while my model doesnt.

Lol if the earth was flat and the sun was close there could be no night. If you travel far enough on the globe then everything is in shadow while if you travel the same distance on the flat earth the shadow cast by an object just gets longer.

>.m

What the fuck is it with phoneposters? Why do they shitpost?

I think they deny it's existence

under this flat-earth-near-sun model, how do you account for time zones? how is it different times of day at different longitudes?
and for that matter, how do you explain the fact that all observers see the same face of the sun? sunspot patterns confirm that a Chinese observatory and an American observatory both look at the same hemisphere of the sun; if the sun really WERE near, they'd be looking at different sides.

what he's saying is to use the measurement to derive the distance of the sun (under your model) and then repeat the measurement at different locations. the calculated distance to the sun, under your model, should be the same.

The *rates* at which shadows grow/shrink in relation to the Sun would be very different. You would need three properly-placed points (for example, *not* radially around the Sun's geocentric point) to show a change in rate.

But to reiterate: the Earth was assumed round, and the experiment was meant to find size.

>what he's saying is to use the measurement to derive the distance of the sun (under your model) and then repeat the measurement at different locations. the calculated distance to the sun, under your model, should be the same.
Do you mean 'h' in the posted image, because that would be different. I don't see where this is going... Also, I don't actually believe in flat earth. I just wish there was an elegant proof that the Earth is a sphere, but Eratosthenes' experiment is not that.

>It's awkward to explain but it's an integral part of graphic design/drafting when dealing with perspective.
If you can't explain a mathematical concept with math, you don't understand it.

The vanishing point concept is a useful approximation for drafting, but it does not apply to the real world. There is no unique vanishing point. It's not a physical concept.

No in your image it would be to confirm that when you choose a new location you get the same [math]y[/math] if the earth is flat then you will get the same y as you did from your first measurement but else you will get a different one. Obviously the sun being at 2 different heights (at approximately the same time) would be quite retarded.

So have literally zero flat earthers flown in a plane

Yeah, after looking at it more closely, the measurements would only support at most one of the models, so assuming the measurements aligned with the globe model, then that would rule out the flat Earth model in the picture.

How can the earth be flat if the sphere is the shape with the lowest gravitational energy?

Flat-earthers don't think gravity is real.

Gravity isn't real. The Earth just sucks.

i think they assert that the earth is accelerating at g "upward", giving the appearance of gravity. except they also say gravity is real because of tides. flat earthers are retarded, trying to argue with them is a waste of time

A flat plane has the lowest gravitational energy, you fucking moron. Gravity pulls everything down equally until it's flat. That's why when you look at the ocean, it's flat. You fucking retard

Something something atmospheric lensing something something optical illusion.

>physical experimentation
>flat earth
How does gravity work in the flat earth model?

if the apparent flatness of the surface of the Earth is due to gravity causing everything to settle downwards, how come the landmasses (ρ=2.75) are higher than the oceans (ρ=1.03)?
checkmate flatheads

>three experiments
>they all "confirm" Earth "flat" to 7.5 miles
>not 8 or 8.5

I wonder why.

The further we get from any given reference point, the more elongated our bodies and measuring devices become. This makes it impossible to perceive any change in laser height.

>tfw no one replied to your perfect refutation from 10 hours ago
come on guys. i know you're just shitposting for fun. you could at least have given me a (You)

Genuine question to the psychologyfags here. What do you think the average IQ of a flattard is? There's no way it'd be over 85, right?

it doesn't LOL

Live footage from the international space station:
youtube.com/watch?v=qzMQza8xZCc

Idk about you, but the earth looks like a sphere to me

google cavendish experiment

>A flat plane has the lowest gravitational energy,
Bullshit. The center of mass of the flat plane would have the lowest gravity, whcih would be at the hub. That means as you move away from the center of the disk, you'd feel a pull with a growing x-component as well. When you reach the edge of the disk, you could basically step over to the edge and stand straight up on that.
Gravity does not work on a flat disk.
In fact, *nothing* ever claimed bay a flat-Earther works uniquely on a flat disk, and all things fail altogether when explored to any depth.

You know, mathematics demonstrating claims is a lot more convincing than words asserting claims.

Too bad no flatter has ever put forth a mathematical description of gravity, nor taken their non-existent model to it's logical conclusions. It really would expedite arguments.

Anyway, the classical theory of gravity, which is sufficient to explain the shape of Earth, is just

[eqn]
\vec{g} = G \int \frac{dm}{r^2}\hat{r}
[/eqn]

Where [math]\vec{g}[/math] is the gravitational field, such that

[eqn]
\vec{F} = m \vec{a} = m \vec{g}
[/eqn]

Within its realm of applicability, what exactly is wrong with this theory flat earth people? What are your objections?

>cavendish experiment

Because it's a waste of time.
Easily disproved without the use of any science. Use a basic fucking telescope during certain times of the year and you can observe round planets. Also flat earth can't really explain different times of day. Also why the fuck would we lie about the earth being round you spastic retards.

Very smart explanation.

And yet so fucking stupid for:
1) Presenting physics to flatearthers
2) Using latex to present equations to flatearthers
3) Wasting time presenting anything logic-based to flatearthers

I have just one simple question:

W H Y?

The common answer is "To subvert thinking so we disobey God" or something like that but even if we all knew the world was flat, so fucking what? We could stop spending so much fucking money on this ridiculous charade, work on shit that matters, and even then, would God be self-evident? Just because the Bible says it doesn't mean it's true, and even if its model of the world was real, that doesn't make any of the other shit real.

Round Earther's will only ever abandon their theory when pop scientists begin to spread word of the truth. They are truly lost souls who can't find the path to truth without these Science guys.

That's not the norm. Most of them just say there's an up and a down and things fall down cos God said so. Also "down" is a universal direction, not towards the centre of gravity.

this guy asking the real questions here.

Too lazy to do it but look up "inventions due to nasa" and click whatever wikipedia link comes up, and make your judgments from there.

Here's the deal: there are three types of Flat Earthers who regularly post to Veeky Forums: assholes who troll for spite, asshole intellectuals who troll to test your knowledge and debate skills, and literal Bible interpreters (LBIs). They all 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 violations on the most basic principles of geometry, math, science, and logic.

They aren't interested in critical thinking, refuse to put in the requisite effort to do the science, are blind to 3D visualization, and regularly refuse to respond when they can't fabricate anything that would pass even their own red-faced test. LBIs concentrate on believing what their leaders tell them while ironically 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. The trolls will simply post sillier arguments and regularly resort to insults and taunts to keep you posting.

In any case, there is simply no arguing. Like trying to paint over mud, you just end up with a dirty brush.

>asshole intellectuals who troll to test your knowledge and debate skills
I think this is seriously almost all of these threads. There's the rare thread that is CLEARLY made by a schizophrenic who's making word salad, but almost all of these threads read and play out like somebody playing devils advocate for shits and giggles

Southern.
Celestial.
Pole.

this.

>So why can't I find a single video of someone proving the curvature with a laser?

Because there's no need for it?

>picks apart the way he talks
>cant refute anything he's said

I think so to. Although I think the guy who didn't want to believe in satellites a day or two ago was a legit crank.

There's a german on /pol/ who's made close to 30 threads of the same copy pasted babble about the earth being hollow and the nazis living in the hollow part. It's pretty fun to make him sperg out.

Snipers certainly don't.

This part is correct:

dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=7.5&h0=5.5&unit=imperial

Believing the earth is flat should be illegal.

7.5 miles long is no where near the length needed to represent the proposed curvature of the earth. 250 miles would definitely prove your point. Go to the Atlantic ocean and do this instead.

For a fun little shit on your test, if you didnt see the laser 7.5 miles away, it would make the earth approximately 1/16th its actual size. Your test might not even prove that the moon is flat.

as a non flat earther i found this helpful information sooooo

B-B-B-BUT THE SKY IS AN LCD SCREEN CONSPIRACY DOME

>assholes who troll for spite, asshole intellectuals who troll to test your knowledge and debate skills, and literal Bible interpreters (LBIs).

Actually a guy I know has two very strong belief systems. The first is atheism, the second is in flat earth.

I don't bother debating because he just calls me a "sheeple" and ends the conversation.

Pic related, it's his explanation for gravity.

People who operate on beliefs need to be shot.
Entertaining the possibility of a thing is alright, believing in anything in general is fucking moronic and I detest people who come to me saying they do or don't BELIEVE in something.
Just tell everyone who does this near you to fucking hang themselves.

Isn't this David Wolfe?

>Set up laser on Everest
>Point it at sensor on Kilimanjaro
>According to flat earth hypothesis, nothing but air between them
I think when the round Earth is supposedly 40000km around, a 6500km sample holds a lot more value than a 12km sample

>have traveled around the earth
>have sent up weather balloons with cameras
>some retard tries to tell me the earth is flat with some half baked theories
>he gets mad because people don't take him seriously

It's a David Wolfe quote he keeps posting on Facebook along with comments about how it "explains" physics yes.

Alongside that thing about how in the 50's everyone knew gravity was a force you could displace and manipulate until the Government banned people flying or something.

>I doubt that guy's an atheist.