That would be so weird

The Earth part is flat

>it's a sphere made up of flat planes

How big the planet is if the "known" Earth is almost flat?

it's density mate. You know wood is less dense than water hence it flows upwards

Most scientists agree that it's far more likely that earth is an infinite flat plane, rather than a huge ice ball.

like surrounded by ice? Why don't we go explore the ice?

Antarctic Treaty prevents the public from exploring Antarctica. The best you can do is go on a "tour", which barely goes into Antarctica (pic related).

But who's going to physically stop an expedition. Just get together with your flat earther bros, hire a captain to take you out there. They won't waste the resources to try and stop you.

Many countries have military bases there. You have to get permission and there are no go areas.

>The gravity would be massive.

It LOOKS like ice, but it could just be Styrofoam.

Does Occam's Razor come into play in insisting the Earth is flat, then attempting to resolve all the contradictions that creates by coming up with a much bigger sphere to set it on? Because I think that Occam's Razor comes into play in insisting the Earth is flat, then attempting to resolve all the contradictions that creates by coming up with a much bigger sphere to set it on

Occam's Razor would conclude the earth is flat, there aren't any contradictions to this.

The globe model is the one that has to resolve all the contradictions (spinning, wobbling tilted earth etc being just the start of it).

>Many countries have military bases there.

Many countries have military bases in EUrope, what does that have to do with anything?

>You have to get permission

OK, do that.

>and there are no go areas.
Even if true, you are looking for a giant ice wall that stretches for many thousands of miles.

Or even just a quick glance at how the Southern circumpolar stars down there work would be sufficient. If there are not any, you prove your point. Hell, you could observe THAT from anywhere in the southern hemisphere.

>But... but... many countries have military bases in the southern hemisphere.

>Occam's Razor would conclude the earth is flat, there aren't any contradictions to this.

Wait, here's one!

>Those lovely, lovely southern circumpolar stars.

The motions of the stars prove we are not on a spinning spheroid.

Odd. You picture shows the exact opposite of what you claim.

The earth is supposed to be rotating on its axis, correct?

Imagine you were standing in that photo. Try to picture the earth rotating on its axis while the stars make those movements in the sky, does it add up? Or is something wrong?

Star trails at the equator also make impossible movements if the globe model is true.

>does it add up? Or is something wrong?

The first one.

Show how it makes sense to you.

No. Actually the earth's area is infinitesimal so that it is flat locally

Star trails over the equator are straight and around the poles are circular. This is exactly what one would expect to see on a spinning globe. Thanks for proving flat earth false.

The earth is supposedly spinning in one direction - which direction is it spinning to create these movements of the stars at the equator?

It's spinning as your picture shows. Again, that spinning means that stars above the axis turn in small circles while stars above the equator turn in large circles around the equator. This produces exactly the picture you posted. Star trails at the equator are shooting straight overhead, while at the poles they are forming small circles. A small child can understand this, so what exactly are you?

Stop being a brainlet.

The north and south stars should be facing opposite to each other, not side by side. Those movements are impossible on a sphere spinning in one direction.

You... do realize that's a panoramic photo, right?

>The north and south stars should be facing opposite to each other, not side by side.
They are. You can't see the stars directly above both poles at the same time (unless you use an extreme panoramic view). You can however see a lot of the stars because they are at least several lightyears away from you, so you have a wide angle that the Earth doesn't block.

>this Veeky Forumsentific board

it makes me laugh when people pretend Veeky Forums has quality content

No it isn't brainlet, it's a long exposure photograph, a panorama would ruin the long exposure shot because you have to move the camera.

Eh, you've ruined the suspension of disbelief that you're not just a troll, I'm gonna go now.

Provide a "real" photo of the equator stars movements, I'd love to see it.

flat earthers are actually cointel to distract from the real truth that the sun is flat
that's why they tell you not to look at the sun, it's all a conspiracy

>movement in a static photo
>photo
*video?

Ever heard of long exposure? Come on brainlet.

You sound like these all these other globe earth geniuses.

>Google panoramic star trail
>get millions of results

linchio.com/portfolio/panoramic-startrail/

earthsky.org/todays-image/360-degree-3-hour-startrail-panorama

Get fucked, loser.

y u mad tho

Panoramas show there's at least three circular star movements going on at the same time.

No, that's a 360 panorama, so it's wrapping around one of them.

Nope
This is 360 degree panorama

>at least three circular star movements

I count 2.
One visible, and other not visible below the equator. (north and south poles)

Utterly BTFO

How do flat Earthers explain GPS!??

Nope, the panorama has been edited, it should look like this.

has every panorama ever taken on the planet earth also been edited? This is a massive cover-up conspiracy you're unearthing. You must be something super special to figure this all out by yourself!

holy shit kys stupid faggot you can do whatever the fuck you want there as long as you don't contaminate or bring guns, that's the treaty

literally illegal to have a military base in antarctica

A 360 panorama on a globe would have two equator shots, you'll only ever find one.

How do you think the protected areas are protected? ats.aq/documents/recatt/Att004_e.pdf

This would be a perfect high fantasy setting if the ice was inhabited by some kind of lovecraftian entity

>A 360 panorama on a globe would have two equator shots, you'll only ever find one.
Once again you prove to be completely incapable of thinking coherently.

>for as long as anyone can remember, humans believe entire planet is giant iceball with the only livable area is at one of the poles, heated by geothermal vents or volcanic activity
>legend tells anyone venturing into icy planes is snatched up and eaten by gigantic beasts
>land is limited, and tho nobody wants to talk about it resources are running out, and the population is growing too large
>later an explorer discovers, most of the planet is green and lush and perfectly inhabitable, except it's over run with giant carnivorous Cthulhu beasts
>the perilous ice belt near poles is only thing preventing the beasts from finding, eating and rendering all humans on the planet extinct, but every now and again a desperate/hungery/weakened giant predator wanders the ice out of desperation, picking off any human explorers
>the explorer who made this discovery of the entire planet being inhabitable, accidentally leads a beast to the human sanctuary
>more beasts follow
>entire human civilization must now flee the sanctuary, cross the perrilous frozen wastes, and make settlement in the lush habitable lands currently occupied by tons of Godzilla/Cthulhu sized monsters

The absolute state of Veeky Forums. Just delete this board already.

Just delete the entire fucking website. It's not making a profit. It's not making the world a better place. Just kill it.

Blame! is better.

What the fuck

Clearly all computers are part of the conspiracy and the signals are actually broadcasted secretly from normal cellphone towers. They use the same "explanation" for satellite tv.

this desu

They actually claim that it would be cheaper/easier to do TV with cables than with a satellite.
As if they have actually priced up wiring an entire country.

Flat Earth on an Icy ball? Lmao.

Just because you're a newfag, doesn't mean that every board is like /pol/ or /b/

Please fuck off

The stars aren't moving (obviously they are, but not by enough to make a difference), we are. That causes the stars to make that circular motion. That picture is taken at a pole, yes? So what's the issue?

It would be possible to have a sphere and then shave off a bit to make a flat spot.

It adds up. Why do you think it does not? If it's just "I don;t understand it," your ignorance is not data.

I doubt this is a real conspiracy theory since it just jams all the "what if earth was x" theories together.

I did not think it was physically possible to come up with a more retarded theory than flat earth and yet again OP has shattered my expectations.

One nice thing about the regular ice wall theory is that it's an easy resolution to the question about where all the water went after the flood. It could simply have been turned into ice and added to the ice wall.

Also, people always say that "flat earth can't work because you'd fall sideways when you go south", but that's nonsense. Anyone can tell that gravity work downwards, not sideways. Gravity is the same everywhere, no matter where you are, it falls straight down, not sideways.

yes, but for flat earth to work, gravity would have to be something different than a force attracting toward massive objects. If earth is like a checker board, then gravity would be heavier near the center of the board, where it's closer to the most mass, while at the edge of the board the gravity would appear to be at an angle, attracting toward the center of mass.
Unless gravity is caused by attraction toward an extremely massive object far distant beneath the flat surface making it appear that gravity is parallel.

Why do you assume gravity works towards mass? Your own experiences should tell you gravity works downwards. You have no personal experiences that tell you gravity works to mass, all your experiences tell you it works down. Why can't the people criticizing flat earth theory free themselves from the ideas they have been taught about gravity?

The "gravity = buoyancy" hypothesis doesn't work. Objects floating to the surface of water only happens because of gravity in the first place. You can't replace gravity with buoyancy, because buoyancy IS gravity.

yeah it works downward toward the big mass. And it works for calculating the motion of the moon around the earth. and worked for calculating gravity assisted slingshots of Voyager 2 in the Grand Tour
What otherwise makes "down" the magic direction for gravity?

>Why do you assume gravity works towards mass?
Because people have done experiments.

...

0 countries have military bases in Antarctica, don't lie

Not gonna lie that is an interesting picture. How could you get that in montana? Astronomy is a little demanding on the brain but I would assume you'd be able to see the swirl for the north pole, but I'd expect to just see one massive swirl that just gets bigger until it's at the equator and starts swirling toward the south pole. Not a flat Earther but yeah it's interesting at first glance

What if I was to say 'gravity' was a synonym for 'buoyancy'?

Are there military personnel there or not? Don't lie.

Then you would be retarded.

Buoyancy is a repulsive "force" and gravity is attractive.

The stars could not make those movements if the earth was a spinning globe orbiting the sun, and with the sun orbiting the galaxy all at once, year after year.

Gravity cuck

>sun orbiting the galaxy all at once, year after year.
>The galactic year, also known as a cosmic year, is the duration of time required for the Sun to orbit once around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. Estimates of the length of one orbit range from 225 to 250 million terrestrial years.
The orbital velocity differentials of other star systems around the galactic center are quite timid, and the distances involved between them means there is extremely little apparent change in the short term. The heavens will not look the same after a full revolution around the milky way, but considering that you'll have to wait a quarter of a billion years the changes aren't going to be overnight. Humanity's more detailed observations of the stars has been limited to the last millennium, the most advanced being within the last couple hundred years. That's peanuts compared to cosmic time scales.

I hate these threads simply because of the false information regarding visiting Antarctica etc.

t. USAP expert / Antarctica enthusiast

Inside the ice ball

could be hollow like a balloon,
so gravity would be lower.

or it could be filled with some lightweight liquid or gel (less dense than rock or magma)

The continents are solid & dense but could float above the liquid just like Ships in Water.

Because the continents could be a porous rock filled with air, so they float above a less dense liquid/gel just like ships float in water.

Seismology proves the Earth is not any of those things.

Unless you believe seismology is part of the conspri- of course it is.

>don't bother me while i move this here goalpost

>Styrofoam
oooohhhh.... the styrofoam earth theory, that makes sense

The arrows at the celestial equator are pointing in the wrong direction.

...

the final redpill

Where do military personnel stay? That's right, a military base. You are the one moving the goalposts.

Now add the sun to this picture, how can the sun make the movement it does across the sky east to west?

>This would be a perfect high fantasy setting
I mean isn't that pretty much pic related, adjusted for scale?

The planet is rotating west to east so the stars and Sun seems to move east to west from our point of view.