Flat earth discussion

What's there to discuss?

typical round earthers, can't come up with an argument so they just try to silence you

The only thing you need to bring up is gravity

Explain what's on the other side of the flat Earth.
Explain the seasons.
Explain how you can have day and night when the disk faces the sun.
Explain how there can be two poles on a flat disk.

> (OP)
>Explain what's on the other side of the flat Earth.
We don't know
>Explain the seasons.
The sun moves in a circle above the Earth and during summer in the northern hemisphere it's orbit is smaller vice versa for winter (See image)
>Explain how you can have day and night when the disk faces the sun.
If you have a light bulb and you place it about a meter above a large field, the hole ground doesn't light up, does it?
>Explain how there can be two poles on a flat disk.
North pole in the middle, South pole on the outer ring. Magnets like this exist, you can check one of the circular ones sticking to your refrigerator

The Earth accelerates upwards with an acceleration of 9.8 ms^(-2)

How is it possible to see only half of the sun above the horizon? Where is the other half? Also, why doesn't it shrink when it goes off into the distance like everything else does?

> (You)
>How is it possible to see only half of the sun above the horizon? Where is the other half?
Perspective
>Also, why doesn't it shrink when it goes off into the distance like everything else does?
See image

Now, how do you trust NASA when they admit to photoshopping their images?

>The sun moves in a circle above the Earth and during summer in the northern hemisphere it's orbit is smaller vice versa for winter (See image)

In that model, light has to do sloppy-one-minute-in-Photoshop image related to explain midnight sun in southern summer.

This seems problematic.

1 of 2
This model, in general, could explain this image showing Norhtern circumpolar stars. It would be predicted by that flat model, or the globe model...

2 of 2

But, you guessed it, this image of Southern circumpolar stars, while predicted by the globe model, is impossible under that flat model.

Imagine a straight line overlayed on the flat Earth circle that intersects the center.

First pick two places on the line near the border of the circle opposite of each other. Call them A, B. Then pick one near the center on the same line, call it C.

Flat Earth would say A to B would take longer flight than A to C. Real life demonstrates A to B is faster than A to C. Because A and B are closer than A and C when the Earth is a sphere.

Either you reject flat Earth or you reject travelling by airplanes as a myth.

You didn't say where the other half of the sun went. Nothing about perspective says that the bottom half of the sun should be missing unless it's behind something, but it can't be behind something if it's not actually going below the horizon. The fact that that picture is taken from a high elevation further confounds it because in order for the sun to disappear behind something, that something has to be a much, MUCH higher mountain. That's to say, the highest clouds in the sky should never be dark at night even though they clearly are.

Also, if it's a spotlight, why isn't it turning into an ellipse as it goes off into the distance? Why does it always looks like it's pointed directly at you even when it's not?

Additionally, the sun in that image is not a shrunken version of what you see when it's directly overhead. If it did shrink into the distance, it would so so the same way that the trees do. In the foreground, you can see the forms of the trees, but out in the distance, they look so small that it looks like a smooth surface over there. Why doesn't the sun do the same and turn into a little speck?

No one said I trusted NASA. I just don't have a good reason to trust the flat earth model, either, especially when it seems like the model doesn't work. There's also the question of what drives the wind to move from west to east instead of over the pole, where the equipment goes after launching things into space, how zero-g anything has managed to happen for extended periods of time, why Google's satellite images are accurate even in the unmapped forests behind people's homes, why time zones are wedge-shaped instead of a shape that more closely fits the spotlight model, why places in the southern hemisphere like Australia and New Zealand aren't actually stretched out like that in comparison to places in the US and Europe, and for some proponents, this .

desu with all the evidence these people are providing I'm starting to doubt the round earth model myself.

That's because you're retarded and can't use basic reasoning, just like them

He's right though. Refute this, brainlet.

youtube.com/watch?v=NOWZGky6Rc0

As a qualifier, I do know you're just being facetious. I just haven't found counterarguments to these. It would be interesting to have models of different geometries of the Earth that also match our observations, but you don't get there without asking questions.

Donut Earth master race.