This was a piece of "flat earth evidence" that caught me off guard, couldn't think of the correct answer by my own...

Yes. Roughly speaking, that's 360 + (360 / 365) degrees -- one extra rotation per year. (The true number is a bit subtler because a couple of complications apply, but it's very close to this.)

coz erf spin :)

The video evidence of this happening from space is abundant.

>videos from space

physics.gu.se/LISEBERG/eng/foucault.pdf

The globe model just has more intuitive sense, it's the occam's razor approved choice. Basically the earth is rotating at 1,070mph on a fixed, tilted axis, and it's orbiting the sun at 66,627 mph, but the orbit isn't an equal circle, it's actually an elliptical, so it actually moves around the sun faster when it's closer (although we don't feel this change in speed). But also, the earth doesn't orbit perfectly, and it actually makes one rotation a year

Oh and the sun is orbiting the milky way at 500,000+mph. I mean you'd have to be a fucking idiot not to believe that.

>physics.gu.se/LISEBERG/eng/foucault.pdf

Foucalt pendulums are nothing more than a toy. If you let the swing long enough they will start making all sorts of movements. It's 2017, show a 4k video of the earth orbiting around the sun from space.

Is this good enough? youtube.com/watch?v=RtU_mdL2vBM

I'm afraid not, that's not an actual live feed either. There's clear evidence of doctoring or covering things up. I believe they are above earth, but on a stationary weather balloon, but the clouds moving makes it look like they're moving too.

You're such a disingenuous sophist, is there really any point?

If pendulums are enough to satisfy your belief that the earth is rotating, you go right ahead.

We don't need to settle for that any more, just fucking film it!

please dont exercise your right to vote

Even if I were to, you would simply claim that I'd faked it. The only evidence that will satisfy your bias, is evidence you yourself create; though I'm sure you would simply put it down to government conspiracy.
Also, you obviously don't understand Foucault's pendulum so I implore you to read this:
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
And watch this:
>youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U
Note that even after such a length of time, it remains upon the promised plane.
Also, the Earth is at least spherical:
>astro.princeton.edu/~dns/teachersguide/MeasECAct.html
You yourself can also measure this, you can also perform the same experiment all over the globe (I will not take my time to do this for you, because you would simply say I have faked the result). The result means that, if the object you are standing upon has non-local curvature, it is a sphere.

I think this demonstration of the coriolis effect is pretty neat evidence for the earth's being round. It also can be done by anyone. youtube.com/watch?v=aDorTBEhEtk

Also, just in case you didn't notice, he measured his latitude the pendulum and you would only be able to do this, if the Earth is spherical.

>*latitude the pendulum = latitude with the pendulum

I will take this advice into consideration.

The point is that no one has filmed it or even tried to fake it. All we have are shitty animations and silly circus toys. The globe model should be filmed in all its glory. We love to document how nature works.

I'd imagine the main reason is that it has been and still is quite expensive to launch stuff into space, so funds are diverted towards projects that actually will reveal new knowledge rather than confirm a theory that's already has mountains of evidence supporting it.

Toilet swirl? Really? This has been a known myth for quite some time. It's just due to the design of the toilets.

I love how you don't respond to the standpoints that challenge (entirely countermand) your ideology.
You certainly are:
>a disingenuous sophist

No, not toilet swirl. If you had watched even 1 minute of the video you would've heard him say exactly what you just said: that toilet swirl is a myth. The video shoes water at a standstill in a circular pool draining toward the middle.

>inb4 they obviously have different basin designs in the US compared to Argentina :^)
youtube.com/watch?v=3iPJ-h1MiFo

>shoes
ouch. I meant shows. The 'e' key is located right next to the 'w' key after all :^)

This is a very arrogant attitude. The core of science is about observation, we have the ability to observe the rotation of the earth its orbit around the sun. If we could see real video footage of this, then the theory can be considered pretty much fact.

Why do we only have CGI when we could have the real thing? That seems extremely odd to me. It's not like it'd be very expensive at all compared to what going to the moon or mars would be.

What standpoints? A pendulum does not prove the rotation or shape of the earth, that's a bizarre claim. If you want to prove that, then show the earth rotating!

But this is just more pseudo-science. Why would the water swirl at all if everything is rotating with the earth?

First of all, the weight of the pendulum spins in accordance with the hemisphere and the very fact you can use it to measure latitude (accurately), clearly you didn't watch the video or read the article:
You also avoided:
>astro.princeton.edu/~dns/teachersguide/MeasECAct.html
And:
>youtube.com/watch?v=3iPJ-h1MiFo

Do non-metal pendulums work?

>But this is just more pseudo-science
It's actually a very simple geometric fact, that is literally proven in the mathematical sense. I'm not the best explainer, so I'll just leave this video that explains it pretty nicely and intuitively: youtube.com/watch?v=XHGKIzCcVa0

skip to 12:08.

Also, you want a camera to record earth's orbit right? Is something like pic related what you envision?

Why does that matter?

Are flat earthers really serious or is it just satire?

Oh great, more pseudo-science drivel and CGI. These convoluted and theoretical explanations wouldn't be necessary to prove the spinning of the earth if you could just show the earth actually spinning.

Because you have to factor in other "forces" that could be at play, one being electro-magnetism.

It's not convoluted at all. It's pretty simple geometry that a 6th grader could understand. It also allows for testable hypotheses, that have actually been confirmed, like in that swirl video. Anyway, how would you propose to record the earth spinning. Like the diagram in my previous post?

You mean Earth's magnetic field? You know, that would still prove that Earth is sphere right?
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field
And yes, it just needs to be a weight.

If it's so simple, why couldn't you explain it? Enough with the CGI.

You'd have to orbit the same speed of the rotation in the opposite direction. Or put a camera on the moon that film the earth and sun from its perspective, that would be enough to prove the helio-centric model.

All of the illustrations are using a flat, circular plane. Show this magnetic field on a 3D sphere.

Actually read this:
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field
And this:
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field#Physical_origin
And then this:
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory
And then explain how you would operate the same mechanics on a disk.

Also pay attention to this:
>See picture.
As I've already proven, we're on a sphere and this proves its rotation:

Ok, the water at the edge of the pool is moving at a different velocity than the floor of the pool near the center. So when that water with a greater velocity approaches the center of the pool, the discrpenacy in their velocities will make them diverge, causing a swirl effect.

Also what you're asking for sort of already exists. For instance the "pale blue dot" photo (pic related). Also more distant images from voyager 1. Granted these are just photos not video. But the scale of things makes it impractical anything. In pic related you can barely see the earth and the sun still isn't in view. Also recording from the moon wouldn't really be good evidence. It's no different than satellite footage.

Why do you even argue with flattards? It has reached a point where even /x/ doesn't want them anymore. We've had this thread 10,000 times already and nothing changes- all evidence is completely flexible and irrelevant yho them.

>yho
*to

To keep me sharp, I guess?

If you take the view that it is the universe revolving around us, then it makes sense. The North and South poles have stars that rotate in opposite directions over them. Opposite poles, opposite rotations.

When you're in the northern "hemisphere", you can only see the stars that are above you in that area, you cannot see beyond the vanishing point anywhere on earth. If you fly to the souther "hemisphere", you will be looking up at a different part of the sky, and will see different stars rotating in a different direction. It's pretty simple.

At the equator, you can see the stars rotating in different directions around two fixed points in the sky. If the earth was spherical, you would have to look north or south stars rotating in different directions, not how the pic shows.

What are you even going on about?

He's not a flat earther, he's a earth-is-the-center-of-the-universe'er

Dear sweet God.

Also, it shows me that he didn't read any of those articles, or understand (or see) and if he did? Well then, his IQ is probably lower than your average potato.

Because the 24 hour day was defined as the period between the sun reaching its apex in the sky, not the amount of time it takes the Earth to rotate 360 degrees.

The sidereal day is approximately 23 hours 56 minutes and would result in a 12 hour shift relative to a 24 hour day over a half year ((4/60)* (365.25/2) ~ 12).

Imagine you were directly on the equator line on a spherical earth. The pole star's positions are at opposite ends to each other by being above the north and south poles.

Would you be able to see nearly see the north and south pole together at the same time on the equator by looking in one direction? It would be impossible.

As tempted as I am by your redirection, we're not finished here:
Or here:
>
So, are you going to admit that you were wrong and that not only is Earth spherical, but that it is also spinning?
If not, we're not moving onto or , because you've been ducking out of far too much.

No where do I see a sphere.

Look at the red box in the full infographic I posted, you disingenuous (hardly even a) sophist.

Quite the coincidence that the direction of the field matches that of the stars...

Another misdirection, you no longer qualify as a sophist:
>a person who reasons adroitly and speciously rather than soundly.
You are not adroit, you are a buffoon.

You're obviously completely closed off to new ideas and theories. That's not how science progresses.

Well, one we have evidence for, the other we do not. By the scientific method, one is automatically more valid than the other.
So, to borrow a phrase from an idiot I know:
>That's not how science progresses.

Any time you lose relative to the background stars in 6 months, you gain back in the next 6 months.
Any timeshift you would notice is also lost due to the tilt of the earth to the ecliptic which eats time in the morning and at night. If the earth had no tilt with respect to its orbit you would notice the lag then the lead in sunrise and sunset with respect to sidereal time.

The twelve hours difference you lose relative to an arbitrary starting point shows up in the difference between the time lost or gained in the morning or the evening which is only even twice a year.
If we weren't going around the sun, the shorter then longer days from the tilt of the earth, (or from a flat earther's - earthcentric perspective, the change in path of the sun) would be equally losing time in the morning and at night.

So the answer is we do lose 12 hours, but we gain it back, and that shows up in the uneven shrinking or lengthening of our days between the sunrise time lost or gained and the sunset loss or gain.

So you should have no trouble explaining how you can see the stars rotate as they do at the equator if you're on a sphere.

physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/StarMotion.html

I mean come on, they even use a flat plane with the stars revolving around the earth to illustrate the movements. I'd love to see them animate it with respect to the earth's other movements such as the orbit of the sun, and the sun's orbit around the milky way.

Because it's for reference. What else would they reference?
Considering I've already proven we're on a spinning sphere and that.

>What else would they reference?

A sphere.

Ah yes, because that would make total sense with the perspective we have due to gravity, sure.
You Flatards really have some bizarre criterion.

Someone in Australia looking up is different to someone in Canada looking up. The universe is 3 dimensional, so in every direction you will look at different parts of the universe. You cannot reference a stationary flat plane if you want to model a spherical earth.

Did you even bother to read the article?

>12:00 pm
tf you talking about

Just rotate it and paste it on a huge ball.

I want a working model that incorporates all movements involved in the heliocentric model.

>I want a working model that incorporates all movements involved in the heliocentric model.
Nobody can give you a model like that if you're not going to read how it works.

Hopefully this explains it better. If not, then I don't know what I can do for you.

spaceengine.org/

It's free.

In no way shape or form does that map to the reality of what we see when we look at the stars.

Already got it thanks. It's useless.

>agricultural
Nigger you fucking dumb. It was invented in WW1 so the civilian population would use fewer resources during the day.

>In no way shape or form does that map to the reality of what we see when we look at the stars.

But it does. Your latitude will determine the position of the celestial poles.
Stand at the North Pole at 90°N latitude and the North Celestial Pole will be 90° above the horizon which is straight up. The stars will never go under the horizon at that latitude and will seem to rotate counter clockwise around the Celestial Pole.

Stand on the Equator at 0° latitude and the North Celestial Pole will now be 0° above the horizon to the North and the same goes for the South Celestial Pole but it will be to the South. The stars will rotate counter clockwise around the North Celestial Pole and clockwise around the South Celestial Pole. Stars Rising in the East will seem to make a big arc towards the West.

Stand at the South Pole at 90°S latitude and the stars will behave like they did on the North Pole except that they will rotate clockwise instead of counter clockwise. The stars will never go under the horizon here as well.

The fact that the celestial poles elevation matches your latitude is proof that the Earth is a sphere. It simply can't work on a flat plane and feel free to prove me wrong.

Why do the north and south star constellations appear side by side at the equator, rather than at opposite ends of the earth, opposite each pole?

Unless you have 180 degree vision, you should not be able to see that, you would have to look left to see the north stars, and turn 180 to see the southern.

>Unless you have 180 degree vision, you should not be able to see that, you would have to look left to see the north stars, and turn 180 to see the southern.

Exactly, and that's what we see.

Typically their arguments hold that there has never been a legitimate expedition to the north pole. The south pole also obviously can't exist so nobody has ever been to it either.

The stars often considered to be some image from the firmament. People actually take photos with their smart phones and consider these images more accurate than any telescope.

There isn't reasoning with this crowd. They swallowed something from youtube, something that starts with a legitimate doubt of government, and grows to a cancer of its own.

How could you possibly see the stars making these movements when looking from the equator of a sphere that is rotating in one direction?

1) That photo isn't from the equator.
2) It is using a very wide--angle lens.

You dont, thats either a wide angle lens or a composite photo

I don't understand how flat-earthers think the stars work... Even if there was some credibility for a flat earth, it just results in a universe that makes no sense

Also, this image probably isn't at the equator and it's probably a wide angle lens

Earth rotates West to East so the stars will seem to rotate East to West. Stars will rotate counter clockwise around the North Celestial Pole and clockwise around the South Celestial Pole.

It's not a hard concept to grasp. You'll probably figure it out eventually.

So, is the whole Flat Earth Movement actually just a stealth "Educate Regular People About Cosmology" movement or something?

Because while their stupid bullshit never really makes any sense, it makes me want to actually go study space shit.

I had no comprehension about how the sun analemma forms until people started mention it in flat earth debates which propelled me to think about it and now I understand it.

>1) That photo isn't from the equator.

The sun is in the middle setting at Equinox (the equator).

>2) It is using a very wide--angle lens.

That still wouldn't produce those star trails.

Are these all composites too? youtube.com/watch?v=8CyG2zc8HkU

The universe revolves around us, it's a much simpler explanation.

When facing east or west, think about where the north and south pole stars are in relation to you. They're directly north and south, you should not be able to see the movements they do on a spherical earth.

actually, it's not.

the field aligns it'self with the earth's spin, as it is created by the earth's spin.

the spin of the stars is also caused by the spin of the earth.

so, not a coincidence at all, actually.

why is it useless? it's litterally a shot for shot simulation of the heliocentric model.

do you not like it just because it proves you wrong?

>Unless you have 180 degree vision
which you do
>you should not be able to see that
which you do
>you would have to look left to see the north stars
which you can.
> and turn 180 to see the southern.
which you can.

you have a table to your right and a couch to your left.

you can see both the couch and the table if you just look such that the couch can be seen on the left side of your vision and the table on the right side. you don't have to pick either the couch or the table to look at.

>Are these all composites too?

he said wide angle OR composite, retard. what are you even getting at?

>The sun is in the middle setting at Equinox (the equator).

The image was taken near Teide Observatory at the Canary Islands which is around 28.3° North latitude so the North Celestial Pole is 28.3° above the horizon to the North and you can clearly see that the celestial pole is above the horizon in the image. If the image was taken at the equator the pole would be touching the horizon and it's clearly not.

Also, equinox does not mean geographical equator. It's the time of year when the Sun is located at the CELESTIAL equator which results in equal day and night all over the globe. The Sun will also rise exactly East and set at exactly West no matter your latitude.

You have a cloudy understanding of all this.

Non-metal pendulums work fine.
I used to watch this one when I was a kid.
fi.edu/exhibit/foucault’s-pendulum
Bob must weigh several hundred pounds and no trivial force was going to disturb it. Losses due to air resistance were unnoticeable over the course of each day.

>When facing east or west, think about where the north and south pole stars are in relation to you. They're directly north and south, you should not be able to see the movements they do on a spherical earth.

Why?