Prove to me the Earth is a sphere...

It is flat and independent high altitude balloon footage proves so along with ground measurements.

>It is flat and independent high altitude balloon footage proves so along with ground measurements.
Prove it

This thread is about you guys proving to me it's a sphere but if you insist/

You can see Toronto across 30 miles of lake Ontario at sea level (0 feet elevation) which would be impossible on a curved sphere earth because it would be hidden under 600 feet of curvature with most of the buildings hidden except for the tops of a few. There are literally hundreds of confirmed examples like this all around the world going back hundreds of years.

Independent high altitude balloons without go pro lenses show it's flat.

So what do you believe gravity is?

No you fucking retard. You also have to take in account of OBSERVER HEIGHT. Meaning you'll have to use the Pythagorean theorem to figure out how much should be hidden, not even accounting refraction.

Einsteinian/ Newtownian gravity is an unproven theory. The force of gravity does exists but what is called into question is the source of it.

Main stream science attributes gravity to the warping of the space fabric by massive objects but there is no proof of this.

You realize that image shows the buildings shorter than they would be naturally and also with many shorter ones missing because of the curvature. It literally refutes your point.

Also what about the moon landings?

What about Ferdinand Magellan and his many fellow ship-men who experience the curvature of earth every day?

Why would you trust one photo from a balloon when you don't trust others?

No you fucking retard. You also have to take in account of OBSERVER HEIGHT. Meaning you'll have to use the Pythagorean theorem to figure out how much should be hidden, not even accounting refraction.

What causes gravity?

Objects accelerate when they fall. Meaning there must be a force that was acted upon them in order to cause the rate of change of momentum. Plus experiments like the Cavendish prove gravity to exist.

Mercury is a sphere
Venus is a sphere
the Moon is a sphere
Mars is a sphere
Ceres is a sphere
Jupiter is a sphere
Jupiter's larger moons are spheres
Saturn is a sphere
Saturn's larger moons are spheres
Uranus is a sphere
Uranus's larger moons are spheres
Neptune is a sphere
Neptune's larger moons are spheres
Pluto is a sphere
Charon is a sphere
Eris is a sphere
Makemake is a sphere

All of these objects are visible by telescopes. They show phases just like the moon does, a known sphere. Many of them have been visited by probes and mapped showing they're spheres. Earth is the largest rocky planet by mass. Why would it not be a sphere?

Of course you do and the majority of flat earthers do take viewer height into account. It's only the rare ill informed flat earther that will not do this and people like Neil Degrasse Tyson will see it as an opportunity to call them out on twitter while also saying he doesn't want to debate flat earth the whole time.

Also an additional point pic related, train tracks, bridges etc were and still are built with 0 consideration for the curvature of earth

Photographic phases of Venus

Not only does your post not take in account of observer height, bit it doesn't take in account the relative height between you and the CN tower.You also need to know how high the ground is right below the CN tower, there's really a lot of things you need to consider before you go off saying the Earth is flat.

And if the gravity acts perpendicular to earths surface, what would you need to consider anyway? If you lay a bunch of tracks on the curved surface, the tracks will curve with the earth.

Photographic phase of Mercury

More phases of Venus, the easiest to photograph from Earth means there's a lot more images of Venus in phase

In b4 all the water/trains will be constantly going downhill on a sphere.

Not to mention that the tides and other phenomena attributed to the moon's orbitation need to be explained if gravity doesn't exist.

The tendency for a mass to compress into a sphere is the most efficient method of storing energy and releasing said energy. Take a shitload of magnets and break them into bits and pieces and they will all form a denser and denser sphere. To make a sphere rectangular or a different shape would mean that an outside force would have to compress said sphere into said rectangular shape. That is more energy added to the equation, something that Occam's razor does not agree with.
Diamonds are flat, compressed and strong, but only in terms of a steady increasing pressure strength. Because of this they're also brittle and will shatter because it cannot store the energy of a strong change in force from multiple directions. Any faceted side will eventually wither down to a sphere and nature takes advantage of this law and uses the sphere to minimize energy loss. The faster it spins the more energy it loses and the flatter it becomes, like turning and throwing pizza dough.
This fact alone is why the earth and every goddamn planet is more or less a sphere. It's the most efficient way mother nature works.

Mars in phase. Mars is more difficult to see in phase because it's an exterior planet to our own.

>with many shorter ones missing because of the curvature.

That's where you're wrong kiddo

This is a known phenomenon of atmospheric distortion caused by the rising water molecules at differentiating temperature levels. Much like you see waves over a desert rose that cuts off images the same effect happens over water.

Durthermore you can see far more of the buildings than that should be hidden. Only the TOPS of a handful of buildings would be visible

>Also what about the moon landings?
Clear fakes

There is no dust on the moon landing pads yet in their very own images there are footsteps in moondust caused astronauts only inches away from the thrust engine

>What about Ferdinand Magellan and his many fellow ship-men who experience the curvature of earth every day?

Did they really? You do realize you can travel around a flat earth too right? You do realzie that these explorers never went point A to point B around the earth but had countless stops and reorientations zigzagging around the earth which is possible on a flat earth.

>Why would you trust one photo from a balloon when you don't trust others?

There's 10s of different of independent balloon launches showing no curve. Flat earthers never tried to lie to me or deceive me but NASA has and scientists tell me unproven facts about the universe are facts while also claiming science and going against their own scientific standards. It's fraudulent.

I don't know perhaps bouyancy and density in combination with electromagnetism

No they appear to be spheres but flat objects can be spheres too. I don't believe they are flat though and likely are spheres but do you get the point I am making?

Also just because every ball on a pool table is a sphere does that make the pool table flat? No. Every light bulb in your room is high above and is a sphere but does that mean the floor is flat? No.

Any body sufficiently large will form a sphere. Why is Earth an exception?

There are innumerable proofs based on solid science and mathematics. Literally everything takes it into account, and strengthens it in doing so. I couldn't even list all of them, it'd take years. Not to mention pics and a livestream.

>There is no dust on the moon landing pads yet in their very own images there are footsteps in moondust caused astronauts only inches away from the thrust engine

On wet beach, would a large plate leave an imprint on the sand, or would a needle leave an imprint? The fact that you don't know how weight distribution over surface area (pressure) works is pretty disturbing.

>Flat earthers never tried to lie to me or deceive me
How would you know if they did? You have no degree and dropped out of high-school.

Okay where did I say other planets are flat though?

How does mercury or venus scientifically prove that the earth is a sphere.

I'll wait

Okay so what happens when I post something that has an observer height of 6 feet and you see the same thing and even more? Will you admit your fault?

Bridges 100% should take easrths curvature into consideration. The lonegest bridge is 102 miles long with 0 compensation of curvature.

I have no attribution to what causes the moons tides. Not al lthe answers can be known but it could be the moon on flat earth too or something else.

The official story says moons gravity doesnt effect small bodies of water because it needs more space to build up. It's all ad hoc theory based on models based off of false proof of sphere Earth though. I can go into further detail but it does come back to ad hoc theories for mainstream scientists.

Where's your proof of gravity forming celestial objects into spheres? Everything you said was unnecessary rambling of known concepts but none of it proves that gravity shaped the earth into a sphere. Where is proof of objects forming spheres even (inb4 you post something i'm going to easily debunk that you think is proof)

...

>How does mercury or venus scientifically prove that the earth is a sphere.

Damn.
I'd REALLY like to head some arguments as to why Earth is the only planet that isn't roughly testicle-shaped..

>Okay so what happens when I post something that has an observer height of 6 feet and you see the same thing and even more? Will you admit your fault?

Also post GPS coordinates and relative humidity at time of day. Try to actually thorough and not an intellectually dishonest normiefag

youtu.be/JUjZwf9T-cs

Op here accidentally unplugged my laptop and since im poor my old battery doesnt hold any charge so now i turned it on and its doing the long updates right now. Ill be back later tonight to debunk ypur posts. Postinf from phone right now.

>Where's your proof of gravity forming celestial objects into spheres?
Where is the proof of gravity to begin with? I used the example of magnets for a reason.

Everything you said was unnecessary rambling of known concepts but none of it proves that gravity shaped the earth into a sphere. Where is proof of objects forming spheres even (inb4 you post something i'm going to easily debunk that you think is proof)

Fucking magnetism. You are not going to debunk the known forces of magnetism for it is the very reason you're posting on this device currently.

>Where is proof of objects forming spheres.

Okay okay, self replicating self-similar holographic toroids, Jesus.

>Where is the proof of gravity to begin with?

The Cavendish experiment

See

...

Density isn't a force. If "density" caused stuff to fall, then a feather and a rock should fall at different rates in a vacuum. They don't. Plus what you're describing is buoyancy, which is a force that can't exist without gravity.

http://
weather.cod.edu
/satrad/exper/?parms=global-fulldiskeast-truecolor-48-1-100

...

Brian Cox edited the feather bowling ball vacuum chamber experiment didn't he?

Is there an unedited version of the experiment I can watch?

I m gonna go look...

If the Sun and Moon can be proven to be local, what about gravity then?

youtu.be/Efh4bu4rcbs

You don't have to just see Brian Cox's. Theres a bunch of other videos of shit being thrown in vacuums, and you could probably do it at home too. Or just take something thats aerodynamically similar, but with different densities. It will still fall at the same rate.

Sun and moon aren't "local". You can prove moons distance using parallax. And gravity depends on the inverse square law.

And his guy at 10 min mark
youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg

Here's the deal: there are three types of Flat Earthers who regularly post to Veeky Forums: prankster intellectuals who troll to test your knowledge and debate skills, literal Bible interpreters, and most recently and proliferately: the juvenile-level troller.

None of them provide any evidence of phenomena that require a flat Earth model to explain, but rather place the onus on you to prove the round Earth (again, and again, and again, ...) while disavowing any science or proofs put forward. They will post memes that ostensibly 'prove' some flaw in the round Earth model, but containing geometry, maths, logic, and facts so absurdly wrong that you are compelled to display your superior intelligence and knowledge. By responding, you've taken the bait.

Trolls await your posts (reasoned or prefereably emotional) and meet them with insulting or provocative responses. If you reference web-based information (that they could have looked up, had they interest) they will accuse you of being a shill for some absurd conspiracy.

They don't care whether the Earth is flat or round. It's about the lulz from getting you to respond. It is simply impossible to keep up with having to explain away the barrage of stupid posts, and the anonymous nature of Veeky Forums makes irresponsibility a tool of the prankster. Arguing is akin to painting over mud - you just end up with a dirty brush.

After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted, “There are stars seen in Egypt and…Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained if humans were viewing the stars from a round surface, Aristotle continued, claiming that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2-10)

The farther you go from the equator, the farther the "known" constellations go towards the horizon, to be replaced by different stars. This would not happen if the world was flat.

Op, there is no scientific experiment nthat can demonstrate and prove that a body of water, such as the ocean can maintain a convex shape.

If water is flat and the Earth is 70% covered in water then Earth can t be a sphere.

If this wasn't t true then why would Metabunk.org be trying to pass 2 dimensional CGI towers as a proof of curving water?

If I take a real stock image of those towers and compare it to Metabunk/Soundly's image the curve is gone and it returns to normal perspective

Perspective
But I still think this part of ityoutu.be/uLSy0WgpLk0

Only because you're either blind to evidence, or a liar.You don't see the gap beginning to appear and even increase at the left edge?

When a ship is at the horizon, its lower part is obscured by the Earth's curvature. This was one of the first arguments favouring a round-Earth model.

It has been suggested that seafarers probably provided the first observational evidence that the Earth was not flat, based on observations of the horizon. This argument was put forward by the geographer Strabo (c. 64 BC – 24 AD), who suggested that the spherical shape of the Earth was probably known to seafarers around the Mediterranean Sea since at least the time of Homer, citing a line from the Odyssey as indicating that the poet Homer knew of this as early as the 7th or 8th century BC. Strabo cited various phenomena observed at sea as suggesting that the Earth was spherical. He observed that elevated lights or areas of land were visible to sailors at greater distances than those less elevated.

Claudius Ptolemy (90–168 AD) lived in Alexandria, the centre of scholarship in the 2nd century. In the Almagest, which remained the standard work of astronomy for 1,400 years, he advanced many arguments for the spherical nature of the Earth. Among them was the observation that when a ship is sailing towards mountains, observers note these seem to rise from the sea, indicating that they were hidden by the curved surface of the sea.

TL;DR this shit was figured out a long, long time ago

Wasn't Aristotle or some other relatively famous Greek philosopher the first to ever suggest the Earth was round?

Please explain how 'perspective' addresses this issue.

*Grabs popcorn*

Metabunk/Soundly's towers are 2 dimensional CGI copy pasta
There 50 years of real pictures of them on Google images.
The videos look worse than the stills.
They re missing half of the metal structure.

Earlier than that. Probably the Phoenicians.

No is what I was talking about

Just answer the question.

Why does changing latitude occlude some constellations and reveal others?

>62 replies
>nobody has mentioned the Foucault Pendulum
OP google this and you'll get an idea of why this demonstrates the Earth is a sphere rotating on its axis.

If you can somehow demonstrate this pendulum can behave this way on a flat Earth I'd be willing to listen

>Foucault Pendulum
I think it's a good demonstration but with flat-tards you have to make it real simple. Like stuff the ancients could've figured out. And, surprise surprise, they did.

Prove that water can maintain a convex shape. You can t. Water finds and maintains a level surface. Earth is 70% covered in water. It has to flat. That's before crunching the curvature numbers for the supposed ball Earth, which are ridiculous and I m sure we ll get into that later.
Aristotle should have caught on to flat water, if he wasn't t bullshitting people.
Same goes for Erostathanes.
Stars are explained in the video I posted along with the chart.

Also Polaris youtu.be/5WtSTPodQ60

>Stars are explained in the video I posted along with the chart.
I don't see an explanation anywhere. Second video is literally just a time-lapse.

Why don't you just tell us? What's wrong? Too difficult? Non-existent?

...

>Prove to me the Earth is a sphere
tell me why i should "prove" it. assuming the earth is a sphere is incredibly useful because the math works out pretty nicely for a shitload of applications.

even if the earth were flat, the actually applicable empirical evidence would still suggest that using a spherical model is superior. you mistakenly think that science is the arbiter of absolute truth, when in fact, that is the domain of philosophy and religion.

stay BTFO tho.

>Prove that water can maintain a convex shape. You can t. Water finds and maintains a level surface. Earth is 70% covered in water. It has to flat.
youtube.com/watch?v=7nUFLLUahSI

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Measurement_of_the_Earth's_circumference

On flat earth shades would be same length though

Are you joking? The bottom picture clearly also curves...

wtaer droplets
btfk

>Prove that water can maintain a convex shape. You can t. Water finds and maintains a level surface
Quote:

Why did sailors and ship builders need to invent the crow's nest at the top of their masts, or risk their lives climbing up into the rigging to get a better view of objects in the distance?

If Earth were flat, then sailors and ship builders would have never had a need to invent and use the "crow's nest" to allow them to see further over the horizon. On a flat ocean, there would be no advantage to going higher up to get a better view. You would be able to see just as far from the deck as you would at the top of the mast.

It is very unlikely that sailors and ship builders have been wrong and been building unnecessary and expensive features into their ships, for thousands of years, if there were no real advantage to it.

Unless the Earth is spheroid, there is no advantage to a ship having a crow's nest, and the need would never have arisen to invent them.

Therefor, for thousands of years, ships have been adapted to take the curvature of the earth into account, by adding a crow's nest to the top of the mast for distant observation. This is practical evidence that the Earth is in fact a spheroid. If it wasn't, the crows nest would never have been needed or invented.

The crow's nest exaggerates the movement of the ship on rough seas, and is not a good place to be in bad conditions. Masts have been known to snap off in rally bad storms too.

The purpose of the Crow's nest is to see further over the horizon to give you more time to find or avoid an enemy, or to see reefs and low lying islands before you run into them.

>Prove that water can maintain a convex shape. You can t. Water finds and maintains a level surface. Earth is 70% covered in water. It has to flat.

Why the homophobia?

why the homophobia, faggot?

What s the scientific experiment that demonstrates and proves that a body of water, such as the ocean, can maintain a convex shape? Did the ancients have water to study? Yes. Did they have Google? No. Google up some proof of convex water for us. Why do you think Metabunk.org is using 2 dimensional copy pasta CGI towers to prove convex water? They trying to keep the fake ball Earth spinning. And if they re fake towers were really demonstrating what they claim, you can see the curvature near the ground but then the higher you go it s no longer observable?

Point out the 380+ foot apex in the middle of the same body of water Metabunk/Soundly claim is convex.
The bridge was built 15 feet off the water.
It s not there. Water finds and maintains a level surface.

If the ball Earth is

I was just about to write a slightly long one, but I dilly dallied and now this guy's ranting's ruined the symmetry.

youtu.be/ql_TTguKxnE

Also convergence. I ll get a link

>What s the scientific experiment that demonstrates and proves that a body of water, such as the ocean, can maintain a convex shape?
What are you trying to argue? I mean really?

Are you saying gravity doesn't exist? Literally all of science is wrong? What's the point of this conversation?

I'm pretty sure he said earlier he doesn't believe in gravity, I can't really be bothered to check, though.

>posts "flat earth proof"
>lower part of ship disappears below horizon
>video proves curvature of the earth
>classic
lmao

This almost 1/1000 the circumference of the ball Earth. Missing 380+ curve apex.
See How many flat level surfaces does it take to make a sphere?

youtu.be/w24KqhKjHxY

Take your pills, user. What are you trying to show with that image?

Prove to me that you are not an obvious troll. Protip: You can't.

>What s the scientific experiment that demonstrates and proves that a body of water, such as the ocean, can maintain a convex shape?
Like any other liquid, water readily curves under the influence of forces. You know, like the Van Der Waals forces, or gravity.

See

>places soldiers behind floorboards
>films unlevel terrain
Congratulations again, faggot.

You can t post it
It doesn't exist
So they made up 2 dimensional copy pasta towers to buy some time

>tfw you have no idea how geometry works

>What s the scientific experiment that demonstrates and proves that a body of water, such as the ocean, can maintain a convex shape?

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that apparently you can firmly correlate (I mean obviously correlation=/=causation) the inability to imagine 3D shapes, (or maybe it was images at all) with belief that the earth is flat.

Are you suggesting they should have built it straight into the air rather than follow the curvature of the earth?

>Ships going over horizon
>Horizon it went over is horizontal as far as can be observed
>One way curved water disappears in aerial photography
>I can go to the ocean, observe and measure the flat horizontal horizon the non convex water makes. It s 30 miles. >Missing curvature apex 600 feet.
>Sphere Earth is impossible

cilinder?

>cilinder