Does this look like the view from a ball Earth spinning at 1000mph

Yeah, it does.

well yeah, you would expect to see that when you point your camera towards the North.... it isnt called the POLE star for nothing. And guess (again) which axis the earth spins around.

now point your time lapse camera to the west/east and watch again

guessssss what you are going to see now?

Welcome /u/De-fragmentation. Right on time, we have our new account, having never previously posted in /r/conspiracy, showing up to ardently defend the spherical Lie in a Flat Earth thread downvoted to zero in /r/conspiracy/new.

Can you list 3 conspiracies that you believe in, and a brief explanation as to why, so the regulars of this sub-reddit can get an idea of where you're coming from?

really? new account? i just don't post a lot, but go ahead, call me a secret government infiltration account devoting all my precious expensive time (your tax dollars that would be) to irritate you on the interwebz....

the fact that i haven't posted YET in conspiracy (allthough i like to read a lot and absorb information) says nothing. or is no one allowed to post his first post in conspiracy? thats like going to your first job interview and getting the remark "you have no experience, get a job first"

but, since I am a fan of beautifull time lapses, here is another one, enjoy

https://youtu.be/F_NZy7ov7aA

So, no?

9/11: pancake theory is false, preservation of energy does not occur, the entire collapse cannot happen as stated by NIST

ISIS: waswas created, and armed by governments to create a common enemy and fear of turrurism.

Geo-engineering/HAARP: it is happening, and now we are conditioned to even accept it (coral reefs could be protected when we inject enormous amounts of chemicals into the atmosphere they say)

why do you ask?

So what does that imply about 9/11?

ISIS was created by whom?

I was under the impression we were discussing your flat earth hypothesis here...

Not my shillness factor

convince me

Pretty easy to show that you aren't here for a discussion but an interrogation.

I'm not here as a politician or salesman, but as a real person. If you can't engage me like one, I won't respond to you.

don't quit now... Neither I am here as a policeman or investigator, but a curious person that wants answers before he will accept a thesis. YOUR thesis, which if you truelly wanted me to accept as truth, needs a lot more convincing.

"You're asking me to explain too much, and I don't want to."

This dude just comes here to spread a lot of disinfo, amongst some interesting links, I admit.

Lol, way to deflect and go with the shill tactic. Which is reportable, by the way.

so, here is what I never get an answer on out off all the youtube videos about flat earth.

if or when the earth is flat, explain to me, in technical terms:

• satellites and communication/GPS
• north/south pole temperature drop (sunlight angle/energy)
• coriolis effect in sniper rifles

These answers are for the audience, to prove that I can answer these questions, and not for you, because I'm done having a conversation with you.

• Satellites are a heliocentrist hoax, GPS is done via repeater towers. Which is the more likely source of the signal, something dozens of miles away at most that is powered off of a grid with enormous capacity, or something that is hundreds of miles overhead with a self-contained power source of much less capacity?

• The extreme differences between the north pole and the 'south pole' in terms of climate, weather, flora, fauna, etc, along with unique differences such as the midnight sun in the Arctic and Polaris the pole star, all serve to disprove the heliocentric model. If the sun were the source of all these phenomena AND almost 100 million miles away, then the few thousand miles in difference between the equator and the 'poles' could not account for these massive differences. Instead, a Flat Earth model matches these observations much more closely, wherein the sun rotates around the equator, moving from the tropic of cancer to the tropic of capricorn. The summers in the Arctic are warm and you can see the midnight sun for 3 days; the summers in Antarctica are cold and the sun is visible for only a few hours, which is explained by the Flat Earth model.

• Coriolis Effect: This does not exist. The rotation of small scale liquids in opposing hemispheres is identical. Here you can view many useful datasets on different map projections, comparing them on a spherical (orthographical projection) and flat (azimuthal equidistant projection) model. Here is someone showing you some examples of how the data fits a flat model more cleanly. The patterns that heliocentrists claim as proof of a coriolis effect in large scale bodies of water look much more realistic when viewed in a flat instead of spherical projection.

well you are certainly quick about being done with having a conversation.... it still must become dinnertime in your timezone I guess... but to reply on your explanations:

• explain to me functioning GPS navigation in the Sahara desert if there are no repeater poles nearby.

• the Antartic is a land-mass and much less influenced by the oceans as the Arctic region is. drop an ice cube in a bath tub of 5 degree celsius water, and drop a second one on the bathroom floor that has the same temperature. See which ice cube has dissolved first.

• i was referring to sniper rifles where the rotation of the earth influences your bullet path.

Don't expect an answer, that dude's only purpose here is to spread disinfo.

The rotation of small scale liquids in opposing hemispheres is identical.

Really? How fascinating.

By the way, here's an experiment (one that you could do yourself) that proves you dead wrong.

• Video 1

• Video 2

(You have to watch them both at the same time to get the full effect)

If Earth were a spinning globe, all of the water would have migrated long ago from the poles to the equator to sit in spinning equilibrium with the systems "gravity".

You've never taken a high school level science class, have you? Because physics actually doesn't work like that.

but hey - lets have fun. Where did the experiment in that video wrong go wrong? If they had a flawed experiment, please - peer review their work and refute it.

By your model, people in Australia should see Polaris.

Turns out that's impossible.

IT has often been urged that the earth must be a globe, because the stars in the southern "hemisphere" move round a south polar star; in the same way that those of the north revolve round "Polaris," or the northern pole star. This is another instance of the sacrifice of truth, and denial of the evidence of our senses for the purpose of supporting a theory which is in every sense false and unnatural. It is known to every observer that the north pole star is the centre of a number of constellations which move over the earth in a circular direction. Those nearest to it, as the "Great Bear," &c., &c., are always visible in England during their whole twenty-four hours' revolution. Those further away southwards rise north-north-east, and set south-south-west; still further south they rise east by north, and set west by north. The farthest south visible from England, the rising is more to the east and south-east, and the setting to the west and south-west. But all the stars visible from London rise and set in a way which is not compatible with the doctrine of rotundity.

Read the rest of the section. "Motions of Stars North and South" from "Earth, not a Globe"

And everyone should be able to see the Sun at night...somehow.

And the moon would always be full, and there would be no eclipses.

You can see Polaris up to 23.5 degree south latitude, which would be physically impossible on a ball.

That you can't see it further south than that is because of perspective: our view doesn't reach infinity but is occluded eventually by the phenomenon of the horizon. When the sun 'rises' and 'sets', it is moving into and out of your current field of vision.

Not if that ball has an axial tilt of 23.5°... and if it's the right season and your at that southern latitude (the Tropic of Capricorn) Polaris will be right at the horizon.

You can see objects really far away. And I mean really far away. They're called stars. Only reason you can see that far is due to their size and output of energy - light packed into photons. There's a delay, though, because light has a finite speed.

This has been proven time and time again by people way smarter than me and you. The results are reproducible.

Not if that ball has an axial tilt of 23.5°... and if it's the right season and your at that southern latitude (the Tropic of Capricorn) Polaris will be right at the horizon.

You can see Polaris up to 23.5 degree south latitude throughout the year. If an axial tilt of 23.5 degree explained it, then it could only account for six months of view at most and not the entire year.

You can see objects really far away. And I mean really far away. They're called stars.

The only proof that they are as far as the heliocentrists claim is... nothing. Their entire model depends upon assuming a ball Earth of 25,000 statute miles in circumference, and using that to calculate the distance to the sun. Everything falls apart when you disprove that assumption.

Ok.

Can I ask you a question though?

You've posted pictures explains the model of how the earth is shaped and how the sun and moon orbit in a circular plane above.

What about a flat earth star map? There are 88 constellations. Not all are visible to people standing on earth.

If the earth was flat, how would you map the entire celestial dome for the world. All of your models look down on the earth. What about looking up?

There are many different sky maps, charts, and viewers.

dome

That word has so many implications; why is it the one you chose?

Those links you provided don't really answer my question. If anything, those particular links support the globe model.

Place Polaris at the North Pole. How does the rest of the night sky pan out in a flat earth model?

And the word "dome" is a proper frame of reference. No matter what model you use, flat earth or conventional, the sky still looks like a dome. Your zenith is directly above you with right ascension and declination as the "latitude" and "longitude" of the sky. With the ground underneath you, the sky has depth and gives an appearance of a dome. Unless you're so afraid of anything with curves I see no problem with using the word dome.

edit: Maybe I should put it this way... mathematically a circle has infinite number of points surrounding a center point at a defined radius. The radius would be the distance to the horizon. This would also be your surroundings if you are the center of this supposed circle. Now apply a z-axis, you now have a "dome" of what you can see around you, flat earth or not.

/u/high-priest-of-slack never answers difficult questions, he's just here to spread disinfo.

Sorry, but you can see the rotational axis. I personally think it looks kinda like a giant ball of matter.

I'd be far more interested in flat-earth theory if someone could come up with a gravity theorem that would mathematically explain how a flat disk gives the same gravity at any distance from it's center point.

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.

If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension TamperMonkey for Chrome (or GreaseMonkey for Firefox) and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

Sorry, but you can see the rotational axis.

Yes, all the constellations rotate around Polaris, the pole star. This is indisputable proof that the ball Earth theory is false.

I'd be far more interested in flat-earth theory if someone could come up with a gravity theorem that would mathematically explain how a flat disk gives the same gravity at any distance from it's center point.

There is no 'center point' around which gravity needs to revolve. In fact, the capital-T Theory of Gravity is just the pseudo-science attempt to explain how anything would be "stuck" on a ball surface, when that is counter to every single observation of a sphere we can reproduce. We have never been able to reproduce the gravitational attraction of the Theory of Gravity in a laboratory, no matter how many times we put a massive dense object next to a miniscule object.

On the other hand, in every medium, objects that are denser than the medium sink, while objects that are less dense rise. This holds for every medium and explains our physical observations, without any clunky capital-T Theory necessary.

no matter how many times we put a massive dense object next to a miniscule object.

Well, that would probably because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but I'm not a theoretical physicist.

I've never really had this explained to me though: What does a person gain by tricking others into believing in a spherical world? Almost every viable conspiracy theory I've heard has a clear benefit for the illusionist.

I'm pretty sure we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm certainly not saying your theory of world-form is impossible, but I'd have to dismiss most all of what I know to be true within mathematics to rectify the inconsistencies.

In short, I need to see a new school of math before I can feel good about dismissing my current school of math.

In short, I need to see a new school of math before I can feel good about dismissing my current school of math.

Then the book you're looking for is Kings Dethroned: a history of the evolution of astronomy from the time of the roman empire up to the present day; showing it to be an amazing series of blunders founded upon an error made in the second century B.C. by Gerard Hickson.

Where does the sun go at night, according to flat earthers? Where does the moon go during the day, according to flat earthers?

If you had looked at the model in the OP, I'm sure you could answer this question for yourself, but you aren't here to have your questions answered.

No, I am here to have my questions answered.

According to your model in the second picture, the sun and moon just get to far away and that's why we can't see them. Apparently the sun is never directly overhead, even though it looks that way sometimes. That's what you're going with?

How do eclipses happen? Why lie about a spherical earth? What is under the earth? Do you believe in the giant wall located in Antarctica, like many of your colleagues do? What are world governments hiding behind this wall?

How does your model account for polar night (the periods of 24 hour darkness and 24 hour daylight experienced during summer and winter nights at the north pole?

The extreme differences between the north pole and the 'south pole' in terms of climate, weather, flora, fauna, etc, along with unique differences such as the midnight sun visible at many places in the Arctic, all serve to disprove the heliocentric model. If the sun were the source of all these phenomena AND almost 100 million miles away, then the few thousand miles in difference between the equator and the 'poles' could not account for these massive differences, nor would a 3 day midnight sun be possible. Instead, a Flat Earth model matches these observations much more closely, wherein the sun rotates around the equator, moving from the tropic of cancer to the tropic of capricorn. The summers in the Arctic are warm and you can see the midnight sun for 3 days (when the sun is rotating around the tropic of cancer); the summers in Antarctica are cold and the sun is visible for only a few hours (when the sun around rotating at the tropic of capricorn, moving at a much faster speed), as explained in the Flat Earth model.

Having been to the arctic, I can assure you that the polar days in the summer are much longer than 3 days, as are the polar nights, even close to the arctic circle.

If you had looked at the model in the OP, I'm sure you could answer this question for yourself, but you aren't here to have your questions answered.