A group of the kids at the highschool I intern at were unironically arguing in favor of flat earth theory

>thinking k-12 teaches anything besides the earth is spherical cuz I said so. The topic of why the earth is a sphere and what evidence supports this isn't really able to be digested by individuals with just a high school education, which is also why it's not discussed in detail.

When I was in highschool flat earth was just a meme you did to force people to think instead of blindly accepting scientific facts, when did it become something you unironically believed?

>The topic of why the earth is a sphere and what evidence supports this isn't really able to be digested by individuals with just a high school education

There's a reason for that. Observation isn't enough. The clearest observation for why the earth is spherical is when a ship seems to go over the curvature of the earth and disappears into the horizon.

That is easily debunked by zooming into the same part of the horizon, the ship reappears in full view again. It disappears due to the vanishing point of our eyes, everything beyond it will merge into the horizon.

We can observe gravity as a pulling force in some direction, we can observe that other celestial bodies are at least circular, and it makes more sense for them to be spherical. That's pretty substantial evidence, albeit not proof.

Gravity is not fact. That "downward" force can easily be explained as density/weight, otherwise how do you explain helium balloons?

How do we know these celestial bodies are spherical, have you ever seen them rotate? We only ever see on side of the moon and the sun.

>That "downward" force can easily be explained as density/weight, otherwise how do you explain helium balloons?
This is just a description of Pascal's law, which includes gravitational acceleration. I don't think you have any alternative to Pascal's law, and I'd be very impressed if you could prove me wrong.

Weight is a result of gravity

You can thank the Russian Web Brigade for that shit. We are deep in the biggest pysop war in all of history and that's just one of many sides.

Everything that gravity describes is a property of physical objects, you don't need some external force to explain it.

I meant people like OP who believe flat earthers are srs. You might call them flat eartherers.

My boss does this shit. He spends hours at work debating flat earthers on Facebook. It's pathetic

The ones on Facebook usually believe it though. Not sure about Veeky Forums, but I'm pretty sure there are some /x/ cross-boarders in that camp.

By reading these, you misunderstand gravity, density, and weight at the most fundamental level. Gravity is not explained by weight, it's literally the other way around. Weight is defined by gravity which is exactly why acceleration toward the center of mars (mars' gravity) is less than earth's.

And we see one side of the Moon because it's tidally locked. We do not only see one side of sun, we see all "sides" of the sun many times every year. (it's a ball of gas anyway, not a solid object like the moon).

If you really believe everything you post, then you've been convinced by all of this by someone who is less intelligent than you and that's truly sad.

t. Aristotle

Occam's razor very, very clearly prefers the spherical Earth

Explain this

no they don't, come on man you can't be this gullible

What's the easiest way to prove the earth isn't flat ?

Clearly you haven't watched their videos.

>Not encouraging them to spread it
if you're retarded enough to believe it you deserve it

newton's law of gravitation with respect to the moon and sun, seasons and days are proof

>By reading these, you misunderstand gravity, density, and weight at the most fundamental level. Gravity is not explained by weight, it's literally the other way around. Weight is defined by gravity which is exactly why acceleration toward the center of mars (mars' gravity) is less than earth's.

Explain how helium balloons work.

>And we see one side of the Moon because it's tidally locked.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

>We do not only see one side of sun, we see all "sides" of the sun many times every year. (it's a ball of gas anyway, not a solid object like the moon).

Prove it.

>If you really believe everything you post, then you've been convinced by all of this by someone who is less intelligent than you and that's truly sad.

You've been taught everything you know via government education. Time to have another look.

Pretty obvious the water in the picture isn't very far away at all. The real horizon isn't being shown.

How about you get a telescope and watch Mars?

Eratosthenes figured it out by measuring the difference between the angles of shadows at two different lattitudes on the solstice.
Also you could measure really big triangles and see if the sum of the angles is greater than 180 degrees.
Also stars are fixed points in space that seem to move across the sky. Also if the earth was flat we'd be able to see both the southern cross and polaris from anywhere on earth. And it doesn't work like that at all.

Yeah, you're laughing until one of those retards becomes president and cuts science funding

>Explain how helium balloons work.
Buoyancy.

Impossible.

Buoyancy applies to fluids, and it doesn't require gravity.

Don't need to, flat earth is just one big meme.

nice blog. but next time post this on tumblr, not Veeky Forums

You base this theory because Eratosthenes assumed that the earth was spherical based on shadows. That's silly.

>Also you could measure really big triangles and see if the sum of the angles is greater than 180 degrees.

What on earth are you talking about?

>Also stars are fixed points in space that seem to move across the sky.

Yeah, they rotate around us: youtube.com/watch?v=tp6UkqIwVfk

>Also if the earth was flat we'd be able to see both the southern cross and polaris from anywhere on earth. And it doesn't work like that at all.

Distance matters on a flat earth, you can't see everything everywhere on earth, all things will disappear the further you get due to the vanishing point of the eyes.

youtube.com/user/MrThriveAndSurvive/videos
youtube.com/channel/UCe7FBDnfm0-XOFIA0CXSrjg/videos
youtube.com/user/SecretCherryKiss/videos

Convince me that these people are epic pranksters, like , rather than absolutely bonkers.

>stereotypical clickbait titles
>flashy BREAKING NEWS thumbs
>crank-tier argumentation
It's pretty obvious these are just in it for the attention.

This is why rappers and other NOI fags need to be physically removed. Impressionable young minds are being tricked by people like B.O.B., who have no argument other than "schools teach that the white man sailed across the ocean, therefore all science and history is wrong".

>crank-tier argumentation
Isn't it possible that this is because they're cranks?

I'm not pranking. Watch this demonstration and think about it for a second: youtube.com/watch?v=mzh3AiIIZi4&feature=youtu.be&t=5m31s

Nah, you can't believe it's impossible to watch Mars. You can see it with the naked eye.

The public don't have access to telescopes powerful enough to truly watch "mars". Telescopes available to the public create the images themselves, they are never manual.

Build one?

Scientists used to, not any more.

most cranks don't believe their own shit either

I kinda feel like all this flat earth bullshit might be a psyop to preclude thought about the world being an endless fractal plane (which could easily have that sphere-like curve the Greeks figured out while being non-euclidean), like the kinda shit Tesla was ranting about before he died.

I mean, I dig space science and I've flown all over including near the arctic and it sure seems like a globe. But solipsistically, I don't trust you niggers.

The evidence does point to earth being an infinite plane because the horizon always remains at eye level no matter the height you are at.

The question that needs to be asked is who does the globe theory benefit, and who does the flat plane theory benefit? These theories could easily be proved true or false based on public observations. If the public were allowed to access "space" or antarctica then this wouldn't be an issue. The fact we are not free to do this should should us something. Even private business can't do it, Elon Musk and Richard Branson haven't had much luck have they?

>the horizon always remains at eye level no matter the height you are at
post proof

Plane window view: youtube.com/watch?v=DVu5jTE-PF4

Weather balloon from space: youtube.com/watch?v=ZCAnLxRvNNc

How am I supposed to tell from these vids if the horizon is at eye level? You'd have to measure the angle between two opposing pieces of horizon using a sextant or something, and then it should be exactly 180 degrees even at high altitude.

The only way you could truly know is by going to space yourself. Something we still seem to be incapable of doing despite apparently going to the moon a bunch of times with 1960s technology.

You just posted videos of a weather balloon, claiming it's evidence, and now suddenly a weather balloon isn't good enough and I need a rocket?
At least be self-consistent when you're trolling.

If you wanted to really test the theory that the horizon always stays at eye level, you'd need to go as high as possible. I don't have any reason to doubt the videos, but if you want raw observable evidence then you will need to observe it yourself.

it's perfectly acceptable for a teacher to correct kids who say something scientifically wrong within earshot

Stars thousands of light years away clearly visible to the naked eye, but become "too far away to see" because of a few hundred miles difference between north and south of the equator?
Do you have any of that reefer left to sell?

>it's perfectly acceptable for a teacher to stop kids from thinking for themselves when they stray from theoretical dogma

>Stars thousands of light years away

Your argument is already based on a false assumption. Based on how perception works and the vanishing point of our eyes, stars are not billions of miles away, that's fantasy.

Literally the entire point of a history teacher is to inform kids of the current accepted "dogma" of reality based on current popular consensus

Teachers are there to teach, not to just sit on their thumbs while uneducated kids spout whatever stupid shit they saw on twitter

Are they as close as the horizon?

Don't get me started on history (his story).

History is extremely easy to make up. Look at Jesus for example, plenty of people believe he existed because it was written somewhere at some point. It's a joke to think we really know what the fuck has been happening in the majority of the past.

If you got far enough away they would. The roof of your building is above you but if you travelled far enough away it would eventually vanish into the horizon.

>parallax
>How does it work?
For real, can I get some of that pot?

No it fucking doesnt, you mongoloid. Go out and buy a telescope, go to the coast and use it on a fucking ship, instead of spreading misinformation, you mouthbreather.

High school history classes are generally very secular and only talk about subjects with extensive contemporary documentation or a lot of research to back up the fact, unless it's a private religious school. Especially in the US public schools try to avoid religious topics as much as is feasible given the subject matter.

Overall I would say that, looking back on my highschool history education, the only major flaw was that everything taught had an incredibly strong "pro-america" bias, where the USA always was the winner, morally right, and the best at everything.

No, I mean, is the distance from you to a star no more than the distance from you to some object on the horizon? Otherwise you'd be seeing the star beyond the horizon.

"Parallax" has nothing to do with the argument, we're talking simply distance, not movement. The parallax effect only works when moving from side to side, not when you spin 360. If you want some weed go buy some.

What's this then? youtube.com/watch?v=ql_TTguKxnE

>only talk about subjects with extensive contemporary documentation or a lot of research to back up the fact

Like religions have? All this shit can be made up, it's not hard. You've already noticed how the history is skewed towards your country, so how can you trust the rest of it?

The stars (whatever they are) aren't very far away at all based on how perception works for everything else.

>The stars (whatever they are) aren't very far away at all based on how perception works for everything else.
But nearer than, farther than, or just on the horizon?

Seasons and eclipse.

>I don't have any reason to doubt the videos
The videos don't show the horizon being at eye level. It's simply impossible to tell from just looking at a single portion of it.

Wherever your eyes are pointing, is where the horizon will meet, so if you look up and you can see lights, then those lights are not in the vanishing point (the horizon).

But when both the cameras are pointing straight, the horizon is on the same level. You are correct that it's very difficult to tell with video, but that's because video cameras are not the same as eyes, they remain rigid.

nigga, it will always be possible to point a camera in such a way that the horizon is in the middle, even if it's actually spherical.

Okay, so just to be clear: during a sunrise/sunset, the sun sits somewhere between you and the horizon?

>we can't let kids play around with ideas that's too dangerous!!!
>if people believe the earth is flat science will fail!!!!
when did this board become reddit?

Not true if the planet is a finite sphere. The horizon would get smaller and further away the higher you got.

Yes, sunrise and sunset is the sun moving closer and further away.

>of reality based on current popular consensus
>implying reality IS based on popular consensus
BRAINLETS GTFO REEEEEE Relity is objective, and depends on evidence, not ad populum
>mmm you see? They are defending a factical truth, they are so dogmatic.
GTFO flath earther.

>history (his story)
history comes form "historia", absolutely nothing to do with "his", that comes from germanic.
The rest is true, though

>mmm you see? They are defending a factical truth, they are so dogmatic.
>GTFO flath earther.

A factual truth? (as opposed to a factual falsity)

I'm afraid you're going to need some extremely compelling observational evidence to prove such a thing (that isn't from, or funded by, government institutions).

>Parallax: used to measure distance
>Has nothing to do with distance
You're just boring the shit out of me now. Enjoy this last (You)

Children have difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction. This is why age ratings on media exist.

Parallax is just an unnecessarily complex way to explain how perception works. The further something is away, the smaller it becomes, and the closer it becomes to merging with the horizon. The horizon represents as far as you can see, so the closer an object gets to it, the more it becomes part of this horizon. It's almost paradoxical, the smaller something gets in the distance, the longer it takes to move past it (if you're going in one straight direction).

Yes, all the ones that were used to show it in the first time. fucking retard. Read about the greeks and the Renaissance experiments. Then proove them by yourself and see.
Literally no evidences were given by the government. Also there is not poijnt in doing that

and omen/numales, this is why they believe jew WWII/etc movies are true and become sjw

This is correct.

No, it's not.

it's real you earth disc denying faggots youtube.com/watch?v=XWBogOIeXMw

Nah all you need is high IQ and acceptance of truth.

So I have to watch Rick and Morty?

Why is the oceans salty and the sky blue?

>If the Earth is round why don't people fall off!
Really?

Are you most cranks?

ITT shills trying to cover up the truth of the flat earth theory.