I need someone to explain the scientific benefits a flat Earth could possibly have. Does it affect resources...

Totally agree, those Greeks knew what the fuck they were doing. Sticks in the ground. Genius.

The shadow of the stick you dingdong

Yeah, it is just a coincidence that the Sun and Moon have (almost) the same angular size.
You're aware neither orbit is perfectly circular so apparent sizes vary? When the Sun is near and the Moon is far, we only get an annular eclipse.

We're living at a rare moment in history! Which is wasted on Flat Earthers.
The Moon is receding a few centimeters per year and pretty soon (just a couple hundred million years) there won't be any more total eclipses!

So what, does the water just fall off the edge? Is there an infinite amount of water on the Earth’s surface in this scenario? Why isn’t this harnessed for energy? What lies at the “end” of the Earth in these theories?

I think they're still working out the details of that.
Image is my favorite retort to the retards. None can deny the logic!

Same shadow effect would happen on a flat, stationary plane with a sun "orbiting" us.

>You're aware neither orbit is perfectly circular so apparent sizes vary? When the Sun is near and the Moon is far, we only get an annular eclipse.

Of course I am, it wouldn't be the heliocentric model without convoluted explanations (excuses).

>The Moon is receding a few centimeters per year and pretty soon (just a couple hundred million years) there won't be any more total eclipses!

Yet more sci-fi.

Allow free exploration of Antarctica and we can attempt to find out.

The scientific basis is considering delta a genuine natural physical state which simply wasn't just a thing in the preuniversal pseudotimespan what makes it possible at all whose assignment relies of personal belief

Welcome to the prehistoric age

...

>Same shadow effect would happen on a flat, stationary plane with a sun "orbiting" us.
No it wouldn't.

Oh, okay.

Flat earth means human perspective the earth looks flat to us because we are grounded and the idea we are on a sphere where everything is magically stuck to the surface sounded absolutely retarded to ancient people.

...

The benefit is that all of science is null and void. That is the only outcome of arguing for some conspiracy that includes that vast majority of scientists, every university, and every government on the planet.

And obviously undoing thousands of years of scientific advancements is only a benefit from the view of these retarded flat earthers

...

if gravity is real then why does smoke go up instead of down?

For more "ground level" evidence all you need is a time lapse of the south pole and it's 24 hours of sunlight which is impossible on a flat earth.

Smoke doesn't go up.
The ground, the buildings, and you are all accelerating downwards at 9.82 meters/second-squared.
Smoke doesn't go down as well because it's part of the Conspiracy to drive you mad!
So far, the Plan seems to be working perfectly.

We are talking about people who conveniently dont believe in the south pole....

Weird because people live there.
youtube.com/watch?v=-v2uF5CF6Tg

>are people actually this fucking retarded?
Oh, I'm sure people are actually this fucking retarded, but no, the whole flat-earth thing is bait.

Its density is low.

I certainly hope this is an ongoing joke that everyone is in on and people aren’t exerting time or effort to substantiate their claims of a flat Earth. I’ve seen too much to the contrary however. If it was a joke, it stopped being funny and started being stupid with how much people claim to believe it.

There are people who believe the earf is 7 thousand years old. There are people who believe that the clothes you wear effect the performance of your favorite sports team on TV. There are people who gamble their money away because "someone has to win which means I can win".

Exactly, there are plenty of people stupid enough to believe the Earth is flat, but the origins of the flat Earth meme are based on trolling, not stupidity.

Where did it originate?

>Where did it originate?
I honestly don't know, but I've heard claims it started as a debating exercise.
The idea was, "I'm so good at debating, I could argue that the world is flat".

That video has been debunked, although you've posted an edited version.

youtube.com/watch?v=42EqtxhwJ20

Samuel Rowbotham in 1800s
Samuel Shenton in 1950s
and Daniel Shenton (no relation) in 2004

>That video has been debunked
So they edited it to have a nice loop? Wow you really showed them. Must be fake.

Shhh, no tears, only dreams now

Modelling any space as an n manifold in other words locally flat or locally Euclidean let's you do some math.

>people who conveniently dont believe in the south pole....
Literally reptilian disinfo to hide the entrance to the hollow earth, which unlike a flat earth, is 100% not at all bullshit.

Oh, that’s all? Just need to travel to the South Pole.

How do I verify for myself the earth is not flat?

You take a flight going over the South Pole.

What does it evidence?

Go to the north pole and see if there's a gravitational point charge asymptote.

On a flat Earth, the Moon would need to travel in circles above the Earth to create Moonrise and Moonset. This would mean distance between an observer and the Moon would change massively hour-by-hour
Go outside during a full moon. By holding a ruler at arms length, you can use it to measure the apparent size of the Moon. If you make several measurements over the course of the night, you'll see that the Moon doesn't change in size. As the Moon isn't changing in diameter, the observer-moon distance isn't varying significantly over the course of a day.
Therefore the Earth isn't flat.

Whether or not the Earth is a sphere since the same land masses will reappear.

>Occam's razor in full effect.
Look at the Geocentric model of the solar system and then the Heliocentric model.

Then apply Occam's razor.

in two different places at the same time?
Look up shit you try to debate you retard.
This is thousands of years old

Look at the night sky.

The night sky confused ancient civilizations but once we put the Sun at the center of our solar system everything became much simpler.

>Allow free exploration of Antarctica and we can attempt to find out.
Go on one of the tours to the south pole.
Take your own compass and any other navigation equipment you want so you can assure yourself the guides aren't pulling the wool over your eyes.

For a shade under $64k you can verify it for yourself. What are you waiting for?

If the Earth isn't flat, how do satellites remain in the sky without falling to ground?

by the power of pure rape
someone's raping someone right now, keeping the satellites in orbit

Don't wanna a guided tour at rip off prices thanks. No one (supposedly) owns Antarctica so free exploration should be a right.

Ask planes, drones and weather balloons.

>No one (supposedly) owns Antarctica so free exploration should be a right.
Sure, but only if you'll accept no one coming to help you if you get into trouble.

Neither do people who climb Mount Everest who freeze to death.

And Everest is far less remote than Antarctica.

Let that sink in a little. Everest is in a populated country and people freeze to death trying to climb it on their own. Antarctica is a frozen wasteland basically devoid of life aside from the edges and under ice sheets.

If you're that desperate then buy your boat and go there. There's no wall of patrol boats preventing you from reaching Antarctica. Or are you expecting people to take you there for free so you can explore?

But it's their right to attempt it. It'd be easier to survive in Antarctica than it would climbing Everest, far less physically stressful.

You cannot freely explore Antarctica, there is a treaty preventing this. If it was possible, we'd see evidence of it happening all the time. Instead we get silly tours and sponsored expeditions that barely go into Antarctica at all.

>It'd be easier to survive in Antarctica than it would climbing Everest, far less physically stressful.
Holy mind numbingly optimistic there.

You can try reading the treaty yourself instead of claiming that you read it.

It can happen if you agree to two assumptions:
The sun is a lot smaller than the radius of this hypothetical flat earth.
The sun is very close to the earth.

You know, Inuits and Eskimos already have a difficult as fuck time living in their arctic hellhole. What makes you think that it's going to be easier especially when it's far from human civilization and the only food source are penguins and seals?

Antarctica would be easy to explore with the right transport and clothes.

I have read it. Wanna know who really owns Antarctica? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_the_British_Antarctic_Territory

Inuits and eskimos

Yes, which is what we observe: youtube.com/watch?v=eN8yhUzqLCA

It's just a sector that isn't even more than half of the entire antarctic

From what I gather, I see two restrictions:
(1) There are 72 protected areas that require permits. (Can't let the plebs disturb the shoggoths.)
(2) Countries have to notify other countries of any expeditions, so as to make clear that these aren't military operations (which are forbidden). Therefore, in turn, countries require notification from their own citizens of any planned visits. Tourist operators presumably have standing notifications.

Which proves what? Humans can live and breed in cold climates without 21st century advancements?

You gotta remember that seals and penguins only exist on the exterior of Antarctica.

On the interior there is nothing. Nothing at all.

>Antarctica would be easy to explore with the right transport and clothes.
And if you have the money required to fund that yourself you should have no problem getting your permission to make the trek.

Not to mention you are basically contradicting yourself. You admit yourself you need to be properly equipped to explore Antarctica. So its not easy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Antarctic_Territory
Nice.

>(1) There are 72 protected areas that require permits. (Can't let the plebs disturb the shoggoths.)
Presumably areas scientific experiments are taking place or planned to take place, also wildlife habitats.

Can't have the plebs blundering into years of research and ruining it.

>flat earther thinks retarded video makes him win despite lack of any explanation or context
typical

Their living conditions are harsh. I used them as an example to refute your retarded optimism about the ease of exploring antarctica. Those guys are close to civilization and some food. At least the arctic has relatively more life than the antarctic.

The Queen owns the majority of countries that have claimed parts of Antarctica, so yes Britain does own it really. They've named a part of it after her: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_Land

>And if you have the money required to fund that yourself you should have no problem getting your permission to make the trek.

You have to be under military supervision at all times and you cannot go where you wish which is odd considering there apparently isn't a government that can dictate such things.

Does this make all of the Argentines born in Antarctica, British Subjects?

The sun is clearly not 93 million miles away: youtube.com/watch?v=7aA0yfQkfqw

We've been able to explore it before, but after Admiral Byrd's expeditions where he said there was more land, no more free exploration has been allowed since.

>Queen Elizabeth Land is portion of mainland Antarctica named by the government of the United Kingdom and claimed as part of the British Antarctic Territory
Oh, so it only a portion of that tiny slice.

>You have to be under military supervision at all times
That's bullshit and you know it.

Also, as a typical American you have no idea how the royalty works at all. While she has power on paper it's really just lip service.

Without even listening to the audio I can bet he is arguing that "the sun is reducing in size as you would expect from it getting further away from you". Of course, there is also the possibility that as the sun was obscured by clouds and then the horizon that the reduction in light resulted in less flaring, but to prove that for sure he would have to use a sun rated filter in order to observe the true disc of the sun on camera.

This is the main problem. People explaining why the earth is not flat lack imagination. They always start with some unnecessary requirement of flat earth physics, like how the moon must travel this way, and it doesn’t so the earth is not flat. If the flat earth has a dome over it, instead of your proposal, then your method would delude you into thinking the earth was not flat.

As mentioned, she owns all Commonwealth counties that have claimed parts of Antarctica.

>That's bullshit and you know it.

Prove that Antarctica is some free and open place that you can explore without permission or strict rules.

>the sun was obscured by clouds and then the horizon that the reduction in light resulted in less flaring

There were no clouds in the way obscuring the light.

Why do you think a solar filter shows the "true" size of the sun? All they do is filter out 99% of light.

>Prove that Antarctica is some free and open place that you can explore without permission or strict rules.
That I can't prove, but you made a claim that you would be under military supervision at all times, which is bullshit.

>There were no clouds in the way obscuring the light.
There is a line of cloud just before the sunset that obscures almost the entirety of the sun just before it sets behind the horizon. The sun was miraculously several times the width of that line of cloud immediately before being almost completely obscured though.

>Why do you think a solar filter shows the "true" size of the sun? All they do is filter out 99% of light.
No shit, because the sun is REALLY BRIGHT.
Just like if someone shines a torch at your face the source of light looks much larger than the torch, the same is true with the sun.
If you have a sufficient filter in front of your eyes, though, you will see the true size of the torch.

If you aim a camera at a light source, there's going to be glare that looks bigger than the bulb itself

It's pretty obvious that Antarctica is heavily protected and you would not be able explore without supervision.

The sun clearly gets bigger and smaller, you can try to blame clouds as much as you want but the evidence is as clear as day.

What is the true size of a torch light?

Is the bulb the "true" size of the light?

>What is the true size of a torch light?
The size of the torch.
>Is the bulb the "true" size of the light?
Yes.

If you argue no then you're basically arguing that the sun may not be getting further away, so be careful.

>It's pretty obvious that Antarctica is heavily protected and you would not be able explore without supervision.
That's not obvious at all. In fact, you've pointed to nothing that even suggests that.
You're just assuming it because it's required for your ridiculous conspiracy theory.

>The sun clearly gets bigger and smaller
No it does not. You can actually measure it's apparent size.

What are you really measuring? The sun itself or the diameter of the glare that it produces?

The sun's apparent size is roughly a pea held at arm's length. You can take a pea, hold it at arms length from the camera and zoom in and out all you want and the sun will never grow larger than the size of the pea.

The pea appears bigger and smaller in camera... Does that mean it is physically growing or shrinking?

The torch light is the size of the torch? So a flame of a candle is the size of the candle?

Read about Jarle Andhoy sailing to Antarctica, his ship and shipmates were killed and he's been arrested numerous times for sailing there youtube.com/watch?v=87uGhHeXScw

As the sun get closer, the glare enlarges, and the sun gets further away, the glare decreases.

There's a difference between permision and supervision.

>his ship and shipmates were killed
No.

>Jarle Andhoy's been arrested numerous times
From wikipedia:

>In January 2012, the New Zealand Customs Service mounted a search for the sailing yacht Nilaya, after the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs notified the Antarctic Treaty parties that it suspected that Andhoy and Massie would again sail to Antarctica illegally. Andhoy had told the Norwegian Ministry of his plans but had not obtained the required permits from Norway. According to the authorities, Andhoy had also entered New Zealand illegally on his way southwards because he had not declared his previous deportation from Canada. It was also illegal to leave New Zealand waters as he did without customs clearance. Also on board were Samuel Massie, a Russian, an Argentine and an unknown New Zealand "stowaway". It left Auckland New Zealand on 23 January 2012; New Zealand Customs attempted a search.
>The New Zealander turned out to be Busby Noble, an undocumented Maori man in his fifties who claimed to be on board by accident, and who later performed a "karakia" or prayer for the men lost on the 2011 Berserk voyage. The Nilaya successfully reached the area where Berserk was lost, but after a fruitless search, Andhoy set course for Argentina to avoid consequences in New Zealand.
>After sustaining minor damage the vessel headed back into Antarctic territory to seek help with repairs, and fuel. In Chilean waters, the Nilaya was then detained by the Chilean Navy because she gave a false name when contacted by radio. Chilean authorities were also aware that a "stowaway" New Zealand citizen lacked a passport, and it was unclear if he was there of his own free will. The crew presented the vessel as being both Russian and Norwegian flagged, and she was flying a pirate flag when she was detained.

Yeah, I can't see how he possibly could have been arrested for something like that.

The glare stays the same size on the lens, but the lens magnifies the flare on the sensor. You can obscure the sun with a pea at arms length to completely remove the glare, or you can put on a sufficient solar filter (solar eclipse glasses will work, just hold them far enough away to cover the entire camera lens) to also complete remove the glare. The glare is simply a visual artifact of the camera, it changes when the camera lens is moved (zoomed).

I hate this shit. Come up with some bullshit impossible idea, get it named after you + a Wikipedia page just because you're some big shot professor.

>You can obscure the sun with a pea at arms length to completely remove the glare, or you can put on a sufficient solar filter (solar eclipse glasses will work, just hold them far enough away to cover the entire camera lens) to also complete remove the glare.
You could do all that if you really want, but it'd be easier to make a cardboard pinhole camera and photograph the image.

Sure, but make sure user knows the image will be flipped.

It's an image of the sun. How much difference does that make?

If he doesn't take into account the flip then he will see the sun terminate into a flat line from the top down instead of from the bottom up as it sets. He will see it set "up" in the flipped image.

Shouldn't need a permit to go to Antarctica because no one owns it, simple as that.

Show evidence of a sunrise through a solar filter, where the sun doesn't change size throughout its journey.

>show evidence of a sunrise through a solar filter, where the sun doesn't change size throughout its journey
Literally every sunrise anybody has ever seen, user.

youtu.be/cGvJqzUgWDI
First result I found.

You have yet to show one where the sun changes in size, btw.

>Shouldn't need a permit to go to Antarctica
Too bad.

>no one owns it, simple as that.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_Antarctica

>Show evidence of a sunrise through a solar filter, where the sun doesn't change size throughout its journey.
You need some cardboard and a ruler. Do it yourself.