Putin, mate, read up on Meteorology and how it would be impossible to forecast weather if Earth were not a spheroid.

He won't.

Nice contribution!

How would it be impossible to forecast weather? Gonna need some links for this. I'll be happy to read, if you provide. Not sure what/where you are getting at..

We're looking at Coriolis effect playing a key role in the generation of weather patterns - high / low pressure vortices, hurricanes, tornadoes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect#/media/File:Coriolis_effect14.png

The fact that we know that northern hemisphere sees clockwise vortices, and the southern - counterclockwise (or the opposite, if you reverse the way you look at the sphere).

If earth was flat / disk, and it was rotating, you would only see counter or counterclockwise vortices at all latitudes.

Copy pasta from last night;

While I do agree with you, that unless / until manned space travel is widely accessible, it will be very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what the shape of the Earth is, I think just by observing other planets in our galaxy, you can come to a pretty good hypothesis that our world is indeed round. Just by observing other planets, which clearly all appear to be round, to me, it's enough to assume our own Earth is round.

I agree fully, man. I was just asking for an honest discussion of each group so maybe we could opensource new ideas and actually evolve into something better...

"But the Bible says . . . "

And I'm not kidding. I've actually heard people referencing the Bible to explain the impetus for their questioning the official model. Oh and Nasa lies.

"Nasa lies, therefore Flat Earth."

I'm sorry, but this is one of those thing beyond 'Squatchin' for idiocy. If you don't think the Earth is a sphere, go launch a balloon and have a look.

You are not adding anything to the discussion. Weather balloons have been sent up to prove either or, we do not know.... Proof or GTFO... THX. Stay on topic here.. I asked for it... Also, do not bring religion in, that is a derail....

Send your own balloon up. Nothing is stopping you.

And no, religion is not a derail--well, maybe it is, but by those who want to derail real conspiracy investigation with nonsense. You should ask yourself why you are even talking about this. You didn't just one day say "Hey the Earth is Flat!" Someone did that for you.

Again, if you really cared about this you'd be posting in r/astronomy.

Thank you!

Antarctic summer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc-WlTaG7WY

Arctic summer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndlQNicOeso

That's all fine and dandy, but how does that prove a sphere?

Think about it. How many contortions do you have to go through to discount everything that has been posted here and elsewhere to show that the Earth is spherical?

This flat Earth "theory" is an op to make "conspiracy theorist" look like scientifically illiterate morons.

Your reading comprehension is dismal, and you are what make /r/conspiracy, worse. Read the fucking title and comments. You ignoramus.

The Earth is spherical. You can make some inane argument that it's not a perfect sphere (which astronomers have already said) or that it's some kind of concave or some other nonsense, but the Earth is clearly spherical.

As I said, this shit is a distraction.

Proof and evidence, as my OP states. KTHXBYE

It is not just a flat earth vs official spinning globe question. Consider how far objects are visible over water. In order for the official spinning globe model with a circumference of 25000 miles to be correct light must refract through the atmosphere downwards so that you can see around the curve. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLlNKy5j_O8 If light travels in straight lines then the earth cannot be a globe.

So then we must consider the question: how does light bend through the atmosphere? This video has some good discussion on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTGxoMppZM8

Can we measure how light bends through the atmosphere? Consider the experiment using theodolites described here: http://www.wildheretic.com/bendy-light-the-evidence/

Proceedure No.1. (The control) Two measuring poles were placed 1000m from each other. The dumpy level was placed in the middle of these two poles at the 500m distance. The built-in plumb line (spirit level) was then used to make sure the device was absolutely level to within 1 arc second, which is an accuracy of 0.5cm to 1km. Wilhelm then looked through the telescope and with the cross-hairs marked the zero mark on the measuring pole. He then turned the dumpy level around 180° and did the same for the other pole. These marks are now used as a control for the future measurements.

No.2. Wilhelm then positioned the dumpy level 4m from the left measuring pole and adjusted the height of the theodolite so that it was level with the zero mark made previously when the dumpy level was located in the middle of the two poles. The dumpy level was then turned 180° and the cross hairs on the theolite were used to find its position on the right measuring pole 996m away. This was 12 to 14cm higher than the zero mark in the control.

No.3. The exact same procedure as no.2 above was carried out, but this time moving the dumpy level 4m from the right pole, sighting the zero mark, rotating the level 180° and sighting the position on the left pole 996m away. The result was nearly the same as the other pole with a deviation of over 14cm higher than the zero mark.

This experiment was then repeated for different times of the day, on sometimes different days in the year, at the same location with varied results between 0 and 18cm higher than the zero mark.

See the link for more. The results suggest that in fact light bends upwards through the atmosphere. This result indicates a CONCAVE earth. Concave earth lacks the Southern problems that flat earth has. The rectilineator is a mechanical device used to measure the curvature of the earth. This experiment can be read about here: http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/6/ or video explaining the experiment here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmIFmVdjD4A This experiment needs to be repeated with as much verification as possible.

A very interesting topic. People who dismiss the question of the shape of the earth without looking are missing out.

This is the comment I'm seeking. Thank you, I've seen you around. This quality! Cheers! It's amazing all the ass holes coming into this thread, I made it clear. Prove your case. Some people just wont/can't...

Thanks. I appreciate your contributions to this subreddit.

I am looking into this. Can you explain this a little more

Concave earth lacks the Southern problems that flat earth has.

Is it the fact that you can see the sun not set below the horizon in some months? What else does it explain better?

When I say flat earth 'Southern problems' I refer to two things:

1) The distance at which the sun is visible. For the standard flat earth model the sun revolves around the North pole, parallel to the ground with the radius of the path changing to give seasons. The longest summer day at the tip of South America is around 17.5 hours. That means for 17.5/24 of the largest radius path the sun must be visible at this location. If the sun has a constant viewable distance then this distance must be far too large to fit this observation. It would make for day lengths that don't work for other locations: http://imgur.com/taP5Va8 http://imgur.com/2CI8oGA

This means that the sun cannot be modeled as a spotlight on a flat earth. So for the earth to be flat the sun must work differently. In this video, MrThriveAndSurvive discusses the possibility of the light that reaches us from the sun being reflected off of a dome overhead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tafd1p7MBHc

2) The second 'Southern' problem is star trails. How can we account for the observation of stars near the South pole? For the flat model if we have two people far in the South at opposite sides of the earth, standing facing South (ie their backs are too eachother and the North pole is between them) and they both see the same star, how does this work? They should be looking in different directions? This requires a similar type modification to the flat model as in part (1) in order to account for this observation. Here someone gives a possible explanation under the flat model (again with a bowl dome affecting the light): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ryWArr82SE

But both of these problems get back to the properties of light. When light reaches our eyes the photons contain no information about their path to get to us. No matter what measuring device we use for light we are only measuring the destination result, not the path or origin. This means that if we are going to use visual evidence we must understand how light is bending in order to interpret it. The experiment I referenced in my first message about Theodolites shows that light bends upwards through the atmosphere which gives earth a flat appearance while actually being concave. This video I linked in my first message has good discussion on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTGxoMppZM8

I suppose a third 'Southern problem' for flat earth is Southern flights and shipping routes. For the flat earth model there is a lot more area down there. This one is harder for me to verify myself so I haven't really formed a conclusion on this point.

Totally.

The thought that the earth is round as a marble is crazy, it's been impacted many times by huge and small rocks, it's erupted, heated up and cooled down.

I would say that the shape would be more of an ellipsoid The earth is spinning at roughly 1600 km/hr at the equator, and that speed goes down a little the closer north you get. It's about 70,000km wider at the equator than the poles, which is due to centrifugal force created by the earth’s constant rotation.

Our planet is in constant motion, gravitational fields affect the sea floor, and constantly moving tides are not the same height everywhere you go. The movement of tectonic plates, and the shifting of the crust all can affect the shape of the planet.

If you're interested in Geodesy the NOAA has a Geodesy Survey, tons of good reads.

Thanks for the response and links. One thing I want to know though, is, if the Earth is sphere-ish is how does the water does not fall out in space? Surely you know gravity does not exists in a vacuum (that we call space).

Gravity as they say, does exist in space. Water is explained to cling to the earth because of the gravitation pull of earth. I don't think this is a valid reason against globe earth, or am I understanding you wrong?

Gravity doesn't exist in a vacuum. Look it up homie.

I found this link http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/177049/does-gravity-exist-in-a-vacuum - that doesn't give a straight forward yes or no. They say in classical physics, the effects of gravity does exist across vacuum (as we explain astronomy), but in quantum, vacuum can't theoretically exist. Do you have any links to the contrary?

that doesn't give a straight forward yes or no

That is the point. From my research, no one can say for sure. Yes, there is quantum physics/etc to explain x,y,z. But it's all relative to Earth (and mostly theory). How old are you on Saturn? Google it :). Something is fucky and they are hiding something, just like religion. That is all I'm saying....

edit: direct link: http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/age/, because I like you.

I think the age on Saturn is different because their revolutionary period is different. Say if it takes twice the time the earth takes to revolve around the sun, your age in Saturn would be 10, if you were 20 on earth. I don't think that has to do anything with gravity. I do agree science is like religion as in you are supposed to believe scientific authorities for things you cannot prove yourself, and that they start with their brainwashing early on in school, but I have different arguments than you for the shape of the earth. See my comments in this thread.

Relativity ;)

Everything is relative!

Tis. Makes you think.

Why are you posting this here? I always see people saying "Why is this here? It's not a conspiracy theory". In this case they'd be right. This is an astronomical issue and you should be posting about the lack of gravity in a vacuum (LMAO) in r/astronomy not in r/conspiracy where it makes the place look like a madhouse.

Because I'm a member of the community and am asking others who are more intelligent/well read/have alternative views than I do. Haven't seen you around. I frequent this sub (contribute), and you, well you seem like an outsider. Shall I say, fuck off?

where it makes the place look like a madhouse.

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

-Jiddu Krishnamurti

Sorry, but I don't buy it. If you are really this scientifically illiterate go the r/physics or r/astronomy. This is an obvious scam.

Do you frequent this sub? That nice. Now how about going to a science sub and learning something before posting nonsense you didn't bother to check out even a little.

No gravity in a vacuum? Really, homie?

I don't like religion, I'll pass. I have an old book I got from a friend smuggled from the crusade years (~600 hundred years old in Latin, just need to learn Latin :) ).... Have fun with your "science"!

What they told you about masts of ships descending below the horizon in school is WRONG. The reason you can't see things beyond the horizon is actually because of the vanishing point and because things getting fainter, the farther away from you they get (atmospheric effect). Take a look at this 4 min video that demonstrates this well.

https://youtu.be/7nUFLLUahSI

That's atmosphere, not a globe earth.

What is? What do you mean that's atmosphere? Objects farther away? That is my point. Atmosphere makes far off things fainter and the vanishing point explains the horizon.

It still doesn't explain a sphere. Go to a lake an observe a ship with a telescope. You will see it. Unless atmosphere get's in the way. That is my point. I've done it, do it yourself, seeing is believing..... I'm the most neutral you can get here.

I think we are saying the same thing.

I also wonder why we cannot even feel the earth spin and why it doesn't have any physiological impact on us - even though they use it to describe the ellipsoidal shape theory. At the equator you are purported to be travelling at 0.5 km/second. But when you get closer to the poles, or at the pole itself, it should be 0. Yet you can not feel the difference (in spin or gravity) nor can any physical tools detect this. Nor can we feel the gravitational pull of any other bodies, for example when the earth is closer to the sun vs when it is farther, or the cumulative forces of Jupiter/Saturn/Mars when they are closer to earth. We cannot feel this astronomical motion of the earth at all. Anybody if they weren't fed the stories of globe earth and the universe in 4th grade, would tell you that we are stationary, because that's what we honestly feel - unless brainwashed by the school system - at a very young age.

Back in my day we called it acceleration. You don't feel it because you've been a part of the Earth from day one.

When you push the pedal down on your car, you will be pushed back in you seat from acceleration. Once you reach cruising speed that feeling subsides.

Yes but that is just a simplistic explanation that stops all further enquiry. You know when you're moving or if you are moving faster than before in a car or a plane. At the poles you are supposedly moving slower (fastest at equator). But can you feel the difference at all? Nope. Do we have tools that detect even slightly, the difference in spin speed? Nope. Also no tools to detect the varying force of gravity exerted by other planets/suns/galaxies that are at varying distances from earth. Neither do we feel any of these varying effects. Only the tides are explained to be caused by the moon. But even that is questionable and undetectable by physical experiments. Technically the ocean should "bulge" when the moon is directly above. If the moons gravity can exert the force on oceans, why do we not feel it at all. Clearly something is off.

This resembles a rollercoaster, explain it.

Well what about atmospheric pressure? It's enough to crumple a can of soda filled with vacuum yet we can't feel the pressure or force acting?

Pretty sure the earth is more like a doughnut .

http://imgur.com/av43PZm

Here is a direct link to that image for the benefit of mobile users

^{Feedback | Already a direct link? | Why do I exist?}

This post is 20 days old. Why are you commenting and how did you find it, if you weren't stalking my post history?

lol someone in another post said you were a troll and it didn't really add up so I had to double check. I liked this post and have been thinking about this same idea. I legit think the earth is like a doughnut. Sorry if this is creepy. I try to leave shame at the door when I come here.

lol someone in another post said you were a troll

Interesting, got a link?

i do indeed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3wgdwi/i_want_to_talk_about_this_particular_nsa_slide_on/

lmao, thanks, mate.

mmmm doughnut

Gravity as they say, does exist in space. Water is explained to cling to the earth because of the gravitation pull of earth. I don't think this is a valid reason against globe earth, or am I understanding you wrong?

The Earth is spherical. You can make some inane argument that it's not a perfect sphere (which astronomers have already said) or that it's some kind of concave or some other nonsense, but the Earth is clearly spherical.

As I said, this shit is a distraction.

Nice contribution!