That actually makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is how there are places on Earth that go on for hundreds of miles with little to no curvature despite there having to be if we lived on a sphere earth.

Bolivia Salt Flats: http://www.rainbowtours.co.uk/upload-files/product-tours-gallery/bolivia-highlights-plus-airstream-campers-on-uyuni-slat-flats_6_salar-de-uyuni.jpg

Still haven't heard an explanation for this. This is an argument that doesn't require balloons or cameras - just math.

there are places on Earth that go on for hundreds of miles with little to no curvature

[citation needed]

Yeah you can google it yourself and find thousands of real photographs but I'll do the work for you...

"As a result, the variation in surface elevation is less than 3 feet 3 inches over the entire 4,086 square mile area. There are few areas on earth that are as flat."

*Keep in mind you would HAVE TO see 8 inches of curvature every square mile on a sphere Earth.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3147.0

1. Photographs can be misleading.
2. Surface elevation isn't measured from some hypothetical flat plane, but actually is with reference to the center of the spherical earth.

But most importantly:

3 The very thread that you link thoroughly debunks the claim that you're making.

Does it? How much of that thread did you read?

Are you saying the claim that the water dissolves the salt and creates a flat surface is what proves we're on a spinning ball?

'Photographs can be misleading' Great so we can discard of those faked NASA images right out the gate.

There is an explanation in the thread that you linked to. It has to do with the fact that a salt flat acts more like a body of liquid than solid due to environmental conditions when it comes to curvature. It is basically a giant salt lake that gets smoothed over and flattened year after year.

How does it get flattened? Water remains perfectly level at all times correct?

How is the Earth round yet water remains at a level with no curvature?

What?... Gravitational pull... uneven seabeds... size and relativity...

Do you live near an ocean? If so, take a hot air balloon and hover above the beach, look out to sea, there's your horizon.

Sure, I'll just hop in my hot air balloon....

Seriously what the hell are you talking about. No is claiming they can't see a horizon.

You're talking about places on earth having little to no curvature to see, and then claimed that water remains at level with no curvature (which then I said, get a hot air balloon and overlook the ocean). The point is, it's extremely difficult to see any sort of curvature from sea level. It's very difficult to see curvature with the human field of view at that level.

If you have a camera with a larger field of view that takes in more of the horizon at sea level, you will be able to see the curvature more clearly.

This might help you understand better

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Fun fact - two places on opposite sides of the world can have the same elevation. This is because elevation is based on distance from the surface of a sphere, not surface of a flat plane.

How does a picture like that show anything? I fail to follow the logic in the OP there that the center of the picture is somehow supposed to be higher. The horizon is equidistant in all directions from where you stand (assuming perfectly spherical earth, rather than the oblate spheroid with elevation differences that it is).

Why would any 'dipping' be observed? Imagine looking in one direction x, then it sounds like that OP expects dipping on an angle to the left (y). But if you had originally looked at y, then shouldn't x be dipped using the same logic? They can't both dip relative to each other.

The formula for linear curve is, in a straight line, the square of miles distance * 8 (in)

Distance in miles squared x 8" = average drop from curvature on a spherical shape of the assumed given circumference.

has nothing to do with square miles (area)

The citation is in the comment

Chicago skyline from across Lake Michigan according to the Spherical Earth Theory even the Sears Tower should be hidden behind the curvature of the earth.

What? iIt's only 59 miles away 8inches per mile for 59 is not nearly enough to hide the sears towers behind the earths curvature.

It's actually 8 inches per mile squared. Using an eye height of 6 feet and a distance of 59 miles the shoreline should be roughly 2090 feet below the curvature of the earth.

Ah thanks for the info, did some research and apparently the image is the result of a mirage created by atmospheric reaction. http://www.abc57.com/story/28925566/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline

Yes, it's officially a "mirage"

Here, take this bullshit, open your damn mouth, and fucking eat it. It is a mirage. Say it you piece of shit!

(Mumbles)

Swallow first, dumb shit.

... (swallows) it... (now crying) ...it's a mirage!

That's right. Slaps face with sarcastic gentleness, good boy. Now go tell everyone it's a mirage. I'm giving you an Emmy nomination if you do.

Why are you getting so angry and cussing at people in these threads?

You still haven't answered my questions on this thread. I'm not trolling, I seriously want to know what evidence you think is compelling. I thought about it more and did some research looking at websites and youtube videos. I still don't find it convincing. Maybe you could give me a top 3 best knockdown arguments that you find convincing?

For me, it presents too many problems that need ad hoc conspiracies to wave them away. I also researched this Chicago skyline photo too. Based on this webpage http://www.abc57.com/story/31830937/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage, he was standing on top of Tower Hill which is 250 feet above Lake Michigan. Add 6 feet for his assumed height and you have 744 feet obscured by horizon just doing simple back of the envelope calculations. The height of Sears tower is 1450 feet so 1450 - 744 = 706 feet of tower that should be visible on a clear day and assuming no refractive effects of the atmosphere. If you have refractive effects, this fully explains the many images that people have produced. It is all explained here https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/chicago-skyline-looming-from-mi.html.

8 inches per mile squared 59x59x8 inches = 27,848 inches / 12 = 2321 ft.

2321 (ft.) / 5280 (ft/mi) = 0.44 miles

Angle of cityscape leaning away from viewer =0.854 degrees

Willis Tower (sears tower) height = 1450 ft. = 0.27 miles

Chicago skyline from across Lake Michigan ~60 mi. With a curvature of ~8 in. per miles squared the vertical distance hidden by the earth’s curve should be ~2166 . The Sears tower is 1,729′ tall at the tip. None of this should be visible. Earth Curvature Calculator

It shouldn't be hidden, it's not far away enough. If anything that picture is clear evidence for curvature since you clearly can only see the tops of some buildings.

As a side note, after reverse googling, this picture is not taken from eye-height, but from 'a dune', make sure to take that into your calculations if you want to determine which buildings should be visible.

Google earth only shows it above way more than 2000 ft. elevation. http://i.imgur.com/eHkx5zG.jpg http://i.imgur.com/HotAZHU.jpg http://i.imgur.com/x59DrUY.jpg

So? Google earth is not made to be some kind of perfect earth curvature representation device. The horizon there is likely artificially limited to some distance, with no relationship to curvature or altitude or anything like that. It's not like it's loading in the entire model of earth

http://i.imgur.com/jpsZr7T.jpg http://i.imgur.com/99p0E1t.jpg http://i.imgur.com/fjcsRja.jpg http://i.imgur.com/pJ51pnN.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Pkyafbe.jpg

So yes, there's some arbitrary mechanism that google is using. On one picture, the entire right side of the city disappears. While there's no obvious 'dipping' of the city. It just gets smaller over distance. They basically just use a flat-earth like representation in their model with some max limit at which they put their horizon.

Uhhh...do you realize that you can't see the base of those buildings because of the water? The bottom few floors of the Sears Tower are missing for sure.

The entire building should be covered by curvature if the earth is curved. Visibility over water is distorted by atmosphere and waves.

That picture is actually an great example of earth's curve. You just don't seems to know the difference between feet and meters. Or you're tolling just to be contrarian.

The earth is not a perfect sphere. There are mountains, and valleys, and large areas of flat surface. That doesn't in any way shape or form, mean that the earth is flat.

According to NASA, the Earth is a perfect sphere. Or pear-shaped as NDT likes to call it.

No one is claiming mountains and hills don't exist. We're talking about sea level here. Elevation caused by land doesn't apply.

Nothing you said is accurate.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/

Yes, it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTOE4Ar0Dfo

He isn't saying the world literally looks like this

Just that it isn't a perfect sphere

Can you prove the shape of the earth with some real science? That is, give us some test or observation that we can all repeat which proves the earth is the shape you claim.

Link to my previous comment with a way to test.

prove there is a god ... you can't

If there are infinite universes then there must be one in which god exists.

prove that there are infinite universes ... you can't

Irrelevant.

What's the evidence that the earth is flat?

Glad you asked. Observe the world around you. Does it appear to be a ball spinning at 1,044 miles / hour?

NASA photos are composites Don Petit - We Can't go back to the moon What is Gravity?

Chicago skyline from across Lake Michigan ~60 mi. With a curvature of ~8 in. per miles squared the vertical distance hidden by the earth’s curve should be ~2166 . The Sears tower is 1,729′ tall at the tip. None of this should be visible. Earth Curvature Calculator

Zoom on distant boat

Day and Night

Have a nice day!

NDT is not the sole representative of the scientific community. Why do you FE'ers always bring him up?

According to NASA, the Earth is a perfect sphere

No they don't. https://space-geodesy.nasa.gov/

Actually as water always remains level, this experiment is totally valid as the Salt Flats flood yearly and the water remains level, flat. Can you give me an example of water that does not seek a level. Bolivian Salt Flat

you think you can see the curvature standing at ground level?

Can you send me a photo of this?

Chicago skyline from across Lake Michigan ~60 mi. With a curvature of ~8 in. per miles squared the vertical distance hidden by the earth’s curve should be ~2166 . The Sears tower is 1,729′ tall at the tip. None of this should be visible. Earth Curvature Calculator

There is curve. You cannot see it because it is insignificant. 8 inches for curve every mile inches, or 0.04°. You don't even know the focal length of the camera used or post processing done. It is literally evidence of nothing.

Chicago from across Lake Michigan. At this distance even the Sears Tower should be hidden behind the curvature. Flat Earth Calc

Some of those buildings are 300-400m tall. Of course you can see the part of them..

You are mistaking feet for metres lol

You will notice that these are always over a body of water.

Cool air enhances atmospheric refraction :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#Terrestrial_refraction

Yeah, it's refraction until its time to trot out "the boat is disappearing over the curvature of the earth". That's never refraction.

What?

It happens over the ocean too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#/media/File:Refracci%C3%B3n.png

It explains why the sun looks how it does during a sunset.

That has nothing to do with ships eventually dropping down under the horizon...just like the sun does.

No, my point is that you cannot dismiss optical evidence with refraction while retaining other optical evidence. It's cherry-picking.

There isn't any contradiction though. Refraction is happening on the ship until it reaches the point where it dips over the horizon.

No, it doesn't magically cease at any point. And your statement really makes no sense. People do see things which ought to be hidden beyond the curvature. That might be as they say, refraction, a mirage, a play of the light. But it is beyond the curve, beyond the horizon, and occurring. This is regardless of the observer.

Regardless, you are still missing the point. The arguments usually go that some play of the light allows sight of otherwise unviewable objects, but the reverse is never true, that viewable objects cannot be seen when they should. They wish to have their cake and eat it, too. Although it could be the case that refraction always works towards the observer.

And your statement really makes no sense.

Right back at you.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

What objects should be seen but aren't because of refraction?

Well, close enough, I guess. Just that it's not me making claims about refraction, except that all else being equal, once allowed, it ought to affect all cases. Not just the cases which might tend to run in favor of flat earth.

Dude...

IT DOES

It affects all cases. There is nothing about a boat going over a horizon and disappearing from the top down that is contradicted in any way by atmospheric refraction.

All it does is artificially extend your horizon sight line out further.

As evidence by my boy Alfred's refutation of the infamous Bedford experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#Flat_Earth_wager

Sorry, You'll never get this if you don't understand by now.

There isn't anything to get, you just have a fundamental misunderstanding of what refraction is and what it does.

So far you have provided no explanation for what you are saying.

Like shit if I'm wrong please just explain to me what refraction has to do with the boat example. This shouldn't be difficult.

Theoretical mathematics proves nothing. It is important that the experiment be carried out over a body of water because water always remains level.

Please post an experiment or observation we can all repeat which proves the earth is a spinning ball. Thanks!

Funny you can't see the bottoms of those buildings...

Over the water? Waves? Plus atmosphere? On any given day in Miami the forecast's visibility is about 10 miles.

because the earth is so massive that if you were standing on the surface the horizon would seem flat. Its the human mind being confused by the sheer size of the marble we are walking on. Its very similar to why the human mind can not fathom infinity.

Actually the Earth is a little less than 25,000 miles in circumference so by using basic math we know the exact amount of curvature we should be seeing.

Math proves the Earth is flat. CGI images prove it's round.

then you should look up the term superior mirage, which debunks the idea that we should lose ships over the horizon. Hot air drives the image upward created a mirage above the actual object, creating the idea that we see a "flat horizon". And the biggest part. Hotter air is always above because heat rises. Now try again.

https://youtu.be/yfbvwqjITLg

If you think that is a mirage and not an actual city then I don't know what to tell you man.

Fata Morgana displays the same thing. Its a distortion of light. Unfortunately, the FE believers use their senses for their argument and not weather, atmospheric, or physical sciences to discern what is going on. Senses can be easily fooled and traditional mirages and both superior and inferior versions of them prove our senses fail us.

Also responsible for myths forming in most seafaring cultures of ghost ships floating above the water.

forgot that part, also i think at this point its falling on deaf ears that enjoy the echo chamber

Well also GPS, planes, ships, predictive patterns, weather, etc. All proving it's round.

The Earth is huge, to see the curvature at ground level is difficult because of our field of view and geological structures in the way.

To begin to see the curvature you need to increase in altitude, stand at the top of a mountain peak and you will see it. This is because compared to ground level, your field of view can see much more of the earth within the distance.

At ground level the horizon is around 5km away, at 30 meters the horizon is at 19.6km so on so forth.

The further away the horizon gets from you, the more land you can see between you and the horizon, the more you can see the curvature.

what tells you that there is little to no curvature?

That is a very poor example of lack of curvature. You cant even tell where the horizon is.

There are thousands of more pictures of the same place. Do your own research.

Do your own research.

I have. Im pretty active on /r/flatearth but have been banned by most of the other FE subs for asking and answering too many questions.

So yes Ive done the research and found no evidence.

We can all see the pictures. We're just having a hard time figuring out what point you think they prove.

Still haven't heard an explanation for this. This is an argument that doesn't require balloons or cameras - just math.

Alright, whats the distance to the horizon in that image? How far away and how tall are those mountains?

Kinda need those for your maths...

Then why can't you see Mt. Everest from there? Even a ball can have a flat spot. Why is there no place on earth that is the edge of the earth?

You will notice that these are always over a body of water. Cool air enhances atmospheric refraction : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#Terrestrial_refraction

So why are you adding to the number of stupid flat earth posts?

You're part of the problem.

Came here to say exactly this. Both sides of the debate are equally disruptive. I realize that even this comment I'm writing feeds that disruption.

If flatheads are going to AstroTurf and aggressively push this nonsense at every turn, then I'll be there to point out how retarded it is. If rational people don't respond to it, it will turn into a moronic circle jerk of stupidity. Then anybody can look at it, and say "hey, look at all these people talking about flat earth. They actually believe that crap!". Ignoring it makes the AstroTurf grow faster.

And yet I feel like people will see your post and say "look how he loves Big Brother, believing everything his government and indoctrination tells him, and not only doesn't question a single thing about the official narratives, but actually ridicules those who dare do question it, calling them stupid even!" And on it goes.

You can see the sheeple too?

Logic is a weak point for flat earthers, so here's a tip. Refuting flat earth nonsense does not in any way equate to "believing everything his government and indoctrination tells him".

The gap in your logical process is unsurprising.

They serve as a good litmus test. They only seem to hit the front page when this sub in on something juicy, or more often when we agree on something.

No shit, right? The only reason flat earth is on anyone's mind is because of these stupid "question" posts.

i really thought that was just known..

I just saw the stupidest video on youtube and it had 75-80% likes vs dislikes. That isn't possible without something being rigged.

Who would ever bother rigging YouTube likes of a flat earth video?

There's no need to rig/promote the flat earth idea to make CTs look bad, because CTs are claiming flat earth is a conspiracy against them.

You've got people here claiming the 9/11 aircraft were holograms, the Holocaust didn't happen, and nobody died at Sandy Hook.

If you think that FE is what is required for conspiracy theorists to look bad, I don't know what to tell you.

You just listed things that are plausible (to at least some degree, though the "holograms" thing is a really weird and unfounded claim) using technology we know exists and has been fully researched by science and engineered examples can be seen everywhere. Sandy Hook and the Holocaust are simply matters of evidencing crimes using available resources, and requires some (minimal) amount of human intent and intervention to become accepted fact. In other words, the existing facts are able to be contested/demonstrated through forensic methodology, and alternative, plausible explanations can be said to exist for all above examples.

The flat earth theory, however, has no scientific research to substantiate it. It guess against the grain of known scientific laws such as the law of gravity. It would therefore requires not only the known body of physical science, but also natural math and the number system to be a complete forgery. This has not been demonstrated successfully, and natural math continues to be the basis for discoveries in the physical sciences and the globe by people of diverse cultures and independently in many cases. There is no plausible and fully explained alternative that describes the movement of heavenly bodies like the currently accepted heliocentric model. There are pictures taken from anything from passenger jets to space agencies to private corporations that show curvature of the earth, pictures of the roundness of earth from space, etc etc etc.

In other words, the plausibility of the flat earth theory is of a far, far more vanishing degree than anything else you listed.

GTFOH, God is the ultimate mathematician. All his equations are perfect. You love pseudoscience like astro physics and psychology. That's your religion, you unoriginal faggot.

So what's your point, that the natural number system is perfect, or that God is just "faking us out" with the perceived order of the universe?

9/11 was an inside job, culprits include certain elememts of the US government, Saudi-Arabia, Isreal, Russia, and Europe. No holograms were used but explosives most certainly were.

The Holocaust definitely happened but they exaggerated the number of Jewish people who were murdered. Hitlers rise to power was mostly funded by hidden forces in the US and Hitler was a pawn used to rebuild the economy in Germany while simultaneously seeking to crush the Soviet Union.

Sandy Hook was a hoax. There is plenty of compelling evidence.

Of couse, this is just what I believe, I implore you to do your own research and form your own believes.

Was the Nazi movement grassroots though? As far as I know Hitler didn't star the movement, he was just elected to be the leader once it got big enough.

Germany's economy was in shambles after WWI. A small number of people in the United States had amassed a fortune though. These people were afraid of the spread of communism and the rise of the Soviet Union. They wanted to make sure nobody could ever take claim to their wealth.

These people went out searching for an extreme group to finance. Groups with very extreme ideologies thay would usually be ignored were given special attention. Soon they realized Hitler was their man.

They financed his Hitlers rise to power but not only that, they were eager to get the United States into the conflict because they saw an opportunity to profit off both sides of the war.

Measures were taken to spark Japanese aggression and we knew in advance that pearl harbor would be attacked. Defenses were lowered to result in maximum damage. Americans were outraged and immediately joined the fray.

These people really didn't care who won the war because at the end of the day they would be in control either way.

Germany's economy was in shambles after WWI. A small number of people in the United States had amassed a fortune though. These people were afraid of the spread of communism and the rise of the Soviet Union. They wanted to make sure nobody could ever take claim to their wealth.

These people went out searching for an extreme group to finance. Groups with very extreme ideologies thay would usually be ignored were given special attention. Soon they realized Hitler was their man.

They financed his Hitlers rise to power but not only that, they were eager to get the United States into the conflict because they saw an opportunity to profit off both sides of the war.

Measures were taken to spark Japanese aggression and we knew in advance that pearl harbor would be attacked. Defenses were lowered to result in maximum damage. Americans were outraged and immediately joined the fray.

These people really didn't care who won the war because at the end of the day they would be in control either way.

A quick google search tells me that Anton Drexler founded the party. But either way what you're telling me is that national socialism wasn't created by the cabal, and was just propped up by them? I ask this because communism was invented by them (Karl Marx).

Why fake a shooting or a terrorist attack though when it would be easier to just commit a shooting or a terrorist attack?

So you found people who didn't have the same beliefs as you and you automatically assumed they're either being paid or they're idiots?

You are not alone. I myself have thought this as well. Goddamn are those flat-earthers nuts. And we are nuts because they co-mingle many conspiracies. It sucks.

It's only nonsensical to you because youre American...

It's almost over stating the obvious.

No, but it people actually believe the flat earth theories in the face of so much evidence rejecting it, then yes they are idiots. And if supporters of the theory don't actually believe it what motivation would they have to pretend they do? Money is the universal motivator

Pussy is the universal motivator.

Power, money and game are merely tools to get access to, and adoration from, the most and hottest women.

and you automatically assumed they're either being paid or they're idiots?

If someone holds a belief that I think is completely idiotic of course I am going to assume they are an idiot.

It doesnt make you an idiot. It just means you fell for a lie. Not saying it is but it could be.

So you genuinely think you're smarter than any human being in the world on that subject, even if they know more than you. lol.

assumed they're either being paid or they're idiots?

no some are just pathetic and the flat earth makes them feel important. Id say pathetic in that case and not paid for or an idiot.

That would only be a counterpoint if it was something which isn't immediately disprovable. You can fly a plane in a spherical orbit around the earth, that wouldn't be possible if it were flat.

People can make arguments about NASA and space findings being faked, but the flat earth thing is demonstrably false.

Well, that's what a lot of people here go to when people don't agree with their politics.

You don't know if he's wrong. He most likely isn't. Aside from all the election newbs. Ffs.

Ftr, we don't gaf what anyone thinks.

Confirmation bias at work.

A "sphere earth believer" sees a flat earth link and says no thanks, I'm not even going to entertain that shit. Doesn't click the link.

A "flat earth believer" sees a flat earth link and says hell yeah, let's click that link and up vote it. If I add internet points to this video, more people will believe what I believe. Because internet points determine reality.

So that's where the like/dislike ratio comes from.

Because internet points determine reality.

Amazing how true this can be in some people's minds.

Thus we have bots/brigades influencing votes here on reddit. It influences the mind; "if most people (dis)believe that, then surely I must be crazy for thinking otherwise!" We tend to naturally want to adhere to the herd's mentality for social benefits. Even if we know something to be false, a lot of us will still overlook it and create an alternate reality in the mind that justifies everything so we can keep deriving the social benefits. And then reinforce it by turning to point and laugh in their circle.

Well put! Relevant username haha

Collectivism and Groupthink are another weaponized form of Cultural Marxism; the over-arching post-modern assault of western values.

If you disagree it is because you are a racist, homophobic misogynist; and no one wants that...

So enjoy the collective delusion, or be ostracized.

Groupthink has nothing to do with cultural marxism dude. Groupthink has existed as long as humans have.

I'll add that "Collectivism" has been around as long as any form of democracy has. They are somewhat inseparable, and thus they both play a deep role in most definitions of "western values" in the first place.

I wish people on this sub would read more than other conspiracy-theorists' comments.

True, true.

Western Values are based on the importance and divinity of the individual. Breaking that down into "Human Resources" is what Cultural Marxism's aim at "collectivising" and encouraging "groupthink" is what I meant.

Well, capitalism has a few things to say about "human resources" too...

But more importantly, I think you're missing something out of your western values. They contain both individualism and democracy (group/collective decision making and action). The entire history of "Western" thought is a balance of the two (traditionally traced to ancient Greece at least), you can't leave out the group/democracy part.

I will give you that the individual is sacred. Now, you can follow it with "the law of the jungle is the only law", money-talks, might is right etc (these are the only alternatives to popular law and democratized power) then I'm saying you've​ walked off the "western culture" reservation just like half of the right wing of the USA are trying to do.

I'd say responsibility is the meaning of life, which is the culmination of the Western Values...Not accepting the freebee of the nanny-state and becoming absolute slaves who worship degenerate cultural values.

Socialism with Might = 30 million dead in the Soviet Union from 1915-1950. Then there is Mao. Recently? Scope Venezuela.

Free market is what you want to give your kids.

I appreciate your viewpoint and I apologise for denigrating your opinion in my first post in this thread.

Personal responsibility is a major aspect of the human condition but I don't know if I would call it the meaning of life.

I know you would help your children and parents if they needed it, your brothers and their children... Possibly your cousins and their families... Some particular friends and neighbors... some extremely unlucky member of your community... But at some point along this continuum you would stop calling it your "responsibility" (perhaps right after the first hurdle). Me too.

But I want to live in a family/town/city/community/country/world where those who can help those who need, even if I do more giving than receiving. where there is a decent public health system, education for everyone, basic transport and infrastructure as standard, accountable law enforcement, collective fire department, national defense. Some things can work better on a group scale.

But note that I'm not saying all those things always work better if socialized. There are tons of examples of success and failure throughout history and the world, and you guys just love to pick the disasters and throw your hands up, claiming it can never work... ignoring all the cases where it does. Socialism + might is dangerous but the same can be said of pure free markets + might.

I think the "Nanny State" presents a moral hazard and the free market should be the basic engine of the economy. I believe in equal opportunity but I don't believe in equal outcomes. I believe in incentives for hard work, inventiveness, raw intelligence, risk-taking, but I don't think inherited wealth should stagnate and "sink up" to the top 0.1%...

How do you feel about "accepting the freebee of grandpa's millions??"

As far as "degenerate cultural values" I'm not even sure what you mean. I'd say the two top degenerate cultural values I know are "the church of the free market" (it works to solve some things so it ought to be applied to everything) and basic "Sod you, Jack, I've got mine."

No sweat; or need for apology good sir.

We are here in a meeting of the minds; but in no way did you offend me. Forgiven, because you asked. Cheers. :)

Degeneracy: Hollywood tells you how to live, Esquire Magazine tells you how to look, The Mainstream News tells you what is real; Facebook is where you share images with people you hardly know to feel worth and relevance. (Joe Blow, not YOU per se.)

Assume this is intended and has an agenda. Sketchy. How many people follow blindly; how many question?

Let's get everyone to question.

I knew what you meant.

Very well said.

In psychology, we call this normative influence. Look up Asch conformity experiments.

There's an episode of Black Mirror about just this. Season 3 I think

Yep. Almost makes me feel guilty for declining gold. Whoops.

It honestly is though. Humans are surprisingly easily manipulated by consensus.

It's not really a matter of "internet points determine reality". Or a matter of any given youtube video being universally good or bad. And you basically explained why.

If I'm looking for, let's say, a Howard Stern bit on youtube I know the likes/dislikes are given by other Stern fans. So if it has 90% likes I know it's gonna be good quality & the content I'm looking for. If it has 90% dislikes I know it's going to be shit but not because of Stern. It's be poorly titled or bad sound or something.

So a 70-80% liked flat earth video just means other flat earthers thought it was a quality video. If I were looking to see what makes these flat earthers tick I would start with a video like that.

I don't know, I thought this was a known approach to viewing likes/dislikes.

you could say the same thin about every atheist video

I don't watch them myself. Can't stand Dawkins. One might categorize me as atheist or agnostic though. But that's not even a thing, so I don't care for the category or attempt to box people into some kind of opposing non-religion. It's just not a thing at all.

Im with you. Im just saying your explanation is true about any other community. Especially atheists. Im atheist myself, but right now theres something far worst than religion itself. the SJW cult. I thought once we eliminate religion from earth everything would be almost perfect. How wrong I was. I prefer religion 1000x better than the SJW cult.

No assembly required. Whew.

Or, Shills are spamming flat earth nonsense in order to discredit the truth movement as a whole.

Guilt by association. We live in a time where some knowledge is taboo and questioning things is frowned upon.

However, some conspiracies indeed turn out to be fact; in light of this the Powers that Be cannot have a well educated critically thinking mass populace.

Thus, seed nonsense and use ad-hominem fallacy to discredit ANYONE who visits /r/conspiracy...

IE: "Conspiritard"

Echo chambers. Welcome to 90% of Reddit political subs.

Am I the only one that likes to watch flat earth videos? I find them hilarious.

Espsecially after this video series.

That was more awesome than I had hoped. So fucking funny man.

To be honest there are some pretty cool alien/flat earth theories on the youtube. I don't try to up vote them for others though.

Voice of reason.

Trolls.

I just saw the stupidest video on youtube and it had 75-80% likes vs dislikes. That isn't possible without something being rigged.

What?

Of course it is. The people seeking out and watching videos like Eric Dubay's are those who are fans of his.

Unless a video gets linked to somewhere else on Reddit or something for being stupid and a bunch of people dislike it then the videos of a FE video will be mostly likes by like minded individuals.

In general people are more likely to like something if they like it than unlike it when they don't

The problem comes when you tend to believe conspiracy theory as the default explanation for things. Just because you're not a flat earther or don't believe in other conspiracy theories that you find dumb, doesn't mean your belief in certain conspiracy theories are necessarily valid.

I'd guess Alex Jones isn't a flat earther, but he believes every conspiracy theory there is by default.

A lot of them do believe it is a conspiracy. They actually think that the Antarctic is a giant wall of ice no one can go beyond. And some think it is guarded by militaries so no one tries to go past it. And that NASA is conspiring by faking putting satellite into orbit, and the space station is not real. There are many conspiracies woven into the flat earth theory.

Another point is that it is incredibly easy to buy, likes, subscribes, views for whatever fake BS you want to propagate. Many many things here in cyberspace are "rigged" (as you say) and pushed into the sphere of public domain to control the narrative. Whether that be consumer trends in the form of amazon and yelp reviews, political and foreign policy as pushed by big media, or manipulating public opinion on conspiracy theorists by promoting flat Earth.

Read the comments, flat earth = God is real and is coming back. Essentially flat earthers are moved off the chess board as a threat. They all believe this has been foretold and the devil is trying to deceive them.

Why would you need to rise up and battle your oppressors when God is the only one who can, and will defeat them? Most of the comments are always something like "Jesus is coming, my eyes are open"

Religion and government are two sides of the same coin, they are both needed to keep the masses in check fearing their master.

This is all to keep people ignorant to the truth of how easy it is to just, well stop all this bullshit. If people were beaten over the head with how few people are controlling their entire lives and for the worse, and how easy it would be to just change it all and keep it changed... well we can't have that, so people must either worship God, or worship Government as the solution to the problem and not their own actions.

That isn't possible without something being rigged

you really think that people are spending time upvoting youtube videos? ...as a way to provide evidence that all conspiracy theorists are stupid?

...maybe you are just stupid dude.

Because the method of creating and upvoting youtube videos as a way to discredit all conspiracy theories is ridiculously inefficient and ineffective and stupid.

that's one reason why no one would think that they are even close to credible.

I don't know what to tell you other than you are being paranoid and delusional. You are finding patterns in nonsense and then making it out to be a conspiracy out to get you. If anything, you are discrediting conspiracy theorists more than shitty youtube videos that barely anyone watches.

Came here to say this.

I'm still seeing users all over Reddit who are totally unaware that internet shills are a proven reality on both sides of the political spectrum, and this has been reported on in the media for years. From time to time, even some people in this sub question whether or not shills exist.

There are plenty of people out there who are busy with other things and read other kinds of information, so they may not be aware that "guilt by association" or "black propaganda" is a common tactic manipulators use to discredit a subreddit, a worldview, or something else. I'm sure there are tons of people who believe all Flat Earthers are 100 percent serious.

All I continue to ask is for someone to offer me that job. Then at least when I was reading nonsense (like a lot of reddit is), at least I would be getting paid to do so.

Me too. I get called a shill all the time for pointing out the house of cards that pizzagate is, but sadly I don't get a cent for it. You'd think that the Government would be able to spare some cash for me, considering all the millions of dollars it must spend annually maintaining its coverups of 9/11, Sandy Hook, pizzagate, JFK, Roswell, Dulce, the moonlanding, alien abductions, the Illuminati, shape-shifting reptilian aliens, etc, etc. I mean, we must be talking hundreds of dedicated in-house employees, as well as the staff at other organisations such as NASA, FEMA, and NIST who have to be bribed. Then there are the resources dedicated to tracking the people investigating the coverups and murdering them, and the cost of paying people to post criticisms of conspiracy theories on the internet.

All the stuff you listed is actually relatively cheap. A couple dozen employees and a $7 million is all it takes.

Most of the process is automated, but the last step with the posting is semi-manual or else it'd get pointed out quickly. When you try to automate it is when you run into sloppy messes like Comcast and net neutrality.

I imagine a lot of it is various intelligence agencies who have a guy just say some dumb shit on different forums and on facebook for about 20 minutes a day. All you really need are a few instigators and then herd mentality kicks in and real people continue the work for you. Same thing with paid protestors. They're not paying thousands of people to riot. They're paying one or two guys to break a window and then the rest happens on its own. All you need is the catalyst.

They have software that makes it easy to switch between 10 or 20 accounts per worker. This software wouldn't exist if all they had to do was pay one guy for 20 minutes a day.

There must already be thousands of accounts on various forums using AI to decrease the required human input even further.

If not now, then real soon.

How do you get this job? I think I'd be good at it.

That's the point I'm making. I doubt they pay somebody to just shitpost full time. They probably just get some of their regular guys to do it as part of their daily work.

The people questioning if they exist are the shills...

Not only shills. There are people doing it for free!

My cousin believes the world is flat. He's not the brightest crayon in the box...

I have a friend who says he know such people. I have been itching to meet them. What's it like?

That just boosted my self esteem for some unknown reason.

Checking in from Eglin Base. The city with the most Redditors!

"guilt by association" … is a common tactic manipulators use to discredit a subreddit

It's also a common tactic used by conspiracy theorists. I've seen people use two or three degrees of separation to try to "prove" that someone is guilty of something: A met B, who knows C, and C is guilty of a crime, therefore A is guilty too.

How do you get a job as a shill? Being paid to shitpost all day seems fun.

Thirded

^ this

I became a "flat earther" simply to just have something easily refutable with empirical data to argue about on Facebook. I got a little jealous of the creationists and how they could keep pointless discussions going for days.

Definitely. Amongst others. So much information and disinformation out there intentionally to keep people picking sides and bickering so they can operate without issue is my guess.

I see it as a double whammy though. I think flat-earth theory also has this "credibility" because we live in an age where it so easy to prove that 99% of "trusted" sources are lying to you.

The public is developing major trust issues and our physical reality is already very weird and hard to explain.

I definitely have substantial evidence to support and then believe that the earth im standing on is a sphere, but to entertain the idea that it's flat isn't nearly as insane as many people might think at first glance.

Hell even the system of "belief" is illogical as fuck. When someone asks you "hey, does the ocean appear to be blue?" it's not like you go through the inventory of your life's experiences/research before answering - you just grunt out some subconscious (and ultimately pre-programmed) response with probably verrry little thought. I'm sure plenty of us have a long list of shit saved in our brain that's actually just flat out wrong, because it was saved wrong back when we "learned" about it. Blurr the lines a bit over some time, and suddenly this solid, defined 4D life we live is more like a complicated delusion than anything else.

The point I'm trying to make here folks is - we're all here learning together. Let's try not be too insensitive or egomaniacal when teaching each other, or discovering truths.

https://thenarrowgateweb.com/2016/11/29/23-destined-for-oblivion/

Enjoy your redpill.

I think it's a blend of 90% total idiots who have never left their home town, and 10% actual psy-ops.

I've flown around the world a few times as part of my work, even over Antarctica a couple of times, and I have seen that the world is a sphere with my own eyes.

Before I die I hope to go into space at least once too. With a bit of luck and if Elon Musk gets his shit together that will really happen too.

Bullshit. All of it.

Reality > absurdity

lying f#$@#%. no one sees curvature in planes and no one flies over Antarctica. nasa shill here....

Mate...just...like I have literally, actually done it. Fuck off. Who should I believe, you or my lying eyes?

you cannot see the curvature from a plane....this is a fact

Have you ever even been on an international flight?

No different than hologram planes, lizard overloards, etc.

Now I don't dispute for a second that we have millions of people in this country, so fucking gullible, they'll believe ANYTHING a little magic box tells them is true......hence why they vote democrat or republican......but there is NO QUESTION, that all of these smoke screen laughable "conspiracies" are being planted to make all conspiracies look equally crazy.

People are easily manipulated, some are taking the bait, others are trolling for fun, but this is absolutely being pushed HARD by those who want to smoke screen their real doings.

I call it "the balance" essentially, only so many people can become hip to the bullshit, or the machine stops, so when google searches for certain events with "hoax" or "conspiracy" start getting too heavy, it's important that a bunch of this wacked out shit is injected to make any normal, fairly sane person feel stupid for even thinking to watch or read more on it.

Yeah Shaq's entire basketball career was just setup for the flat Earth agenda..

same with the reptilian theory

The flat earth is made of AstroTurf, methinks.

And methinks the lady doth protest too much. What are they hiding? Why attack flat earth so much if it's so ridiculous? Why give it so much attention if it's a known psyop?

It's attacked because it's intellectual cancer. A crime against reason, logic, and simple observation. It only gets "attention" because most of the people who push this garbage are religious zealots who spam the crap nonstop, and they will not be reasoned with. They will ignore all contrary evidence, and will just repeat the same retarded nonsense over, and over, and over again.

What are they hiding? Lots of stuff. But nobody can hide the complete and utter stupidity of flat earthers.

Because you are soooo smart. So smart in fact that you utterly believe the theory of some ancient pedophile Greek faggot. Yeah you are real smart, bucko.

Thank you for this comment.

Staaaahp

YSK: PsyOps, Disinfo agents

You don't need Flat Earthers to make some people here look stupid.

Apparently r/conspiracy advocates questioning and challenging government and government narratives at absolutely every turn, except never ever question NASA and the shape they say the earth is, no that is too far!

It's almost like the evidence for space flight and satellites and basic optics stands in the face of the implication that the world is flat that most people already know that you're full of shit.

Strange world.

Hate to break this to you but there are definitely are that many stupid people on this planet.

The really sad thing is that average intelligence might not actually be very intelligent at all.

u/VocabKey

This is from the person who told me to take a hot air balloon to the ocean so I can find the horizon LOL.

You don't need a balloon and ocean to see a horizon buddy. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Flat Earth Theory is.

Theory

Theory implied it's true. Which it's not. It's a Theorem.

Theory is a working model what are you on about, you're literally on /r/conspiracy where all we have are "theories" since all our shit is hypothetical.

Theory : a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

If something is true at all times it's a "law", go back to high school science.

They are shills or trolls.

This should not be unexpected. All conspiracy sites are infiltrated even outside of reddit.

Infiltrated? You make it seem like you think the internet private forum. You know anyone can see this, right?

When I mean all sites, I mean all of them. Including private forums.

Reddit is for casuals anyway.

Ya think?!?!?!

Funny username!

The most unsung hero of the last hundred years in my opinion

I think?

I see more of these posts everyday than actual FE posts.

Believe it or not there is a lot of sketchy things when it comes to NASA and the apparent lack of curvature of this Earth and a lot of people like to look into it.

I've had discussions with people who genuinely try to explain and provide links - but most just like to comment and call everyone retarded. You're not smart for believing what everyone on earth currently assumes - just like FE aren't smart for going against it.

Idk man, one of my best friends works for NASA. I'm pretty sure if he felt like some sketchy things were going on at NASA regarding the validity of the curvature of the earth, he'd prbly tell me about it.

Then again I've never asked...

You should start out by asking him if we've been to the moon.

I'm sure he would just tell to stfu for asking such a stupid question.

Ive talked to him extensively about how global warming works. Dude travels all across the United States to measure its effects. Believe me if you had a chance to talk with him, people prbly wouldn't doubt global warming so much either.

Yeah, I have no doubt he's brilliant. I'd love to be able to ask a few questions.

Hard to do without coming across as rude though, I get it.

I know what you mean, hope I didn't come off rude myself. I just have 100% confidence that whatever science info he is feeding me is going to be as non-bullshit as it can possibly be. I know he doesn't have a hidden agenda or paid for by shills or just whatever the fuck.

I just asked him to give me the lowdown on global warming one day, and he explained it to me as thoroughly as he could. Explained to me what they do in order to test for these things and how they have basically direct correlation to global warming and manmade greenhouse gases, etc.

Anyways I'm not trying to go on a global warming tirade, but I think if the earth were flat, or we didn't land on the moon or global warming was bullshit. He'd tell it to me straight up, I've known him for almost 20 years. That's all I've got on that tho

Who needs independent thought when you have friends working for the government?

Oh my god this is the stupidest fucking reply.

That's like saying I shouldn't have trusted my Computer Science professor on the validity of data structures and their use purely because he gets a paycheck from the government.

Are you really so dense?

No, I just do my own thinking instead of making up friends that work at NASA to sound smart on reddit

Lol okay I get it. I understand being skeptic of some random person on Reddit claiming such a thing. Obviously I have no way to prove myself without doxxing my friend, which of course is dumb. So I won't fault you for that. But for whatever it's worth I'm being 100% honest, I have no agenda to push other than just the science as I understand it.

My buddy that works at NASA says that your buddy is full of shit

Hey man your loss, not mine.

In what way is it my loss that you make imaginary friends up on reddit?

Uh because I'd be happy to discuss the science with you and share the knowledge that has been shared with me via my friend who has happened to start working for NASA. Whether you want to retain that knowledge or not is whatever. But instead you refuse to even entertain the idea that maybe I'm telling the truth.

I mean I really don't care if you believe me, I'm just trying to do the right thing by sharing what I know. Like I said though that's on you, not me.

You don't have a friend that works at NASA. Show evidence

You need to stop saying "science" and focus on evidence. Science can be unproven theory just as much as it can also be verified facts. One must distinguish these of course.

Yes, that is very true man, luckily science doesn't claim to be absolute.

And I think the word you were looking for is "hypothesis". Which would be more like a prediction based on observation.

A "theory" is a rigorously tested, unifying explanation based on a varying set of proven factors.

What sketchy things are there about the curvature of the Earth? I'm not up on FE theories - is it they think Earth is flat and every other single planet ever observed isn't?

Yeah, and what is the 24/7 ISS stream?

Is that really generated fake footage in real-time 24/7? If so, how do they transition smoothly from fake auto-generated footage to live human-generated footage when events and missions are going on?

If so, how do they transition smoothly from fake auto-generated footage to live human-generated footage when events and missions are going on?

Dude, what? There's a dome there bro, nobody in or out.

Just don't ask me what the dome is made of, and who put it there. K?

What I meant was how would they transition from the 24/7 autogenerated fake content to the human-generated fake content of the (fake) missions?

:)

Hollywood level CGI fakery man, they can make pretty much anything appear real with the technology available today.

It doesn't show earth 24/7. At times is fixates on the floor for no apparent reason.

What we call "Planets" and "stars" are just flickering lights from our perspective. All "close up" pictures of these objects are CGI artistry created by NASA contractors. So essentially we have no proof that they are round solid objects either.

You can see the other planets in our solar system with a telescope. I've personally done this. How is that CGI?

You could very easily be looking at a hologram projection on the dome through your telescope. Just seeing lights through a telescope does not prove that planets and stars are physical objects.

Well just joined them by making yet another post about it.... Good Job !

What were you saying about stupid people ?

you will see "bursts" of FE posts when the actual news is getting interesting. You will also notice most of the posters have never been here or its a pretty fresh account. You will also see 3-5 posts within 10 minutes within 10 minutes from "different" accounts. Thats how i know something fucky is going on.

Keep up the critical eye

Have you not considered that those accounts could be made to spread disinformation and tarnish the flat earth topic?

Anyone could set up a fresh account and start posting stupid comments and pretend to be a flat earther. Saying stuff like ''flat earthers all around the globe".

Then it only takes someone like you to read their comments and not give any more insight.

i have and I dont believe that the case because of the strange timing of the posts

Tarnish the flat earther name? They do that themselves by being anti science.

Have you done statistics to verify this?

i using my personal experience and therefore my personal perception and resulting behavior. You can do the stats if you want to jump in the middle of a discussion and move the goal post.

The purpose of statistics is making sure what you're saying is true, especially if it's based on personal perception of one person. What goal post have I moved?

The earth is 28000 miles round. Therefore if you see buildings 60 miles away those buildings should drop over 2000 ft below sea level, yet that never happens, does it?

I don't remember the last time I saw a building 60 miles away on ground level.

I can & have, either this planet is waaaaay bigger than NASA's math or the fix is in.

Of course, I don't doubt your word.

my perception dictates my reality and cant be quantified because its an opion.

Because it is unbelievable to be this stupid to actually believe in a flat earth, I myself wondered why the fuck would such people think like that.. I think I might have the right answer now

Why is it hard to believe that we've been lied to through our education system and Hollywood? About almost everything we think is true.

True that.

look up the electric universe theory.. mainstream science doesn't like that theory because it goes against what they say... they do propose alternative theories about the universe and planets, but are they wrong like the flat earth theory, looking at their evidence and analysis, the electric universe theory makes more sense than mainstream science.

look up the electric universe theory

Certainly an interesting theory but has far too many gaps to replace the current paradigm.

lol ok

Because people figured this out thousands of years ago before Sigourney Weaver.

You just need to be inquisitive and maybe pick up a telescope.

I'd recommend a reflecting telescope - they are easier to use than the refracting ones.

Yes, but reflecting ones can't see space vampires!

It was actually EXTREMELY controversial when first proposed. It was heavily debated even has late as the 1890s here in America. Even the builders of the ancient megalithic structures, we tend look back at with awe, thought the earth was flat. They were masters of mathematics, celestial alignment, and obviously were advanced in ways we cannot completely replicate today... how could have they been so wrong?

Look at all the historic people who've proposed the heliocentric model and see if you can find a common thread. (Hint they all have ties to masonry just like many if not all of the NASA astronauts).

Except, you know, to tons of ancient peoples who's scholars knew the earth was round.

You are misrepresenting history.

Ancient peoples have known for a very long time the Earth is round. Look up Eratosthenes.

It's not. But that doesn't mean that whatever someone who isn't establishment tells you is consequently true, nor that everything someone in power says is a lie. Skepticism is healthy, but just opposing the powers that be reflexively is foolish.

I agree, the best thing anyone can ever do is find truth for themselves, and in regards to the establishment it is quite clear that they rule based off deception and divide and conquer. Their foundation at the core is bad and fraudulent so everything should be questioned.

Why is it hard to believe that everything we've been taught is a lie? Because what purpose would that serve? "Oh the government is lying to us about the earth being round, because..." there's really just no sense involved there. What possible reason is there to lie about this? And about most things we've been taught?

Why is it easy for you to believe this?

Of course they are.

Yup same as the "9/11 was a hologram/energy weapon/nuke" one-noters.

The real question is why is there more anti flat earth posts then there are pro flat earth posts?

An the antis are like white on rice the moment a pro-FE post is made. Even PG isn't getting that kind of immediate response lately.

I really don't have an opinion on the shape of the earth beyond enjoying the thought exercise.

I'm not sure of the shape of the earth. But I am certain someone doesn't want people asking questions. Maybe NASA pays them, I don't know, but as soon as a pro-flat earth post is made, they come out of the woodwork to ridicule or attack, sometimes reading off a cheat sheet. Some of them do nothing on reddit but comment on flat earth posts, and not a single thing else. Bizarre.

Yeah, it's weird. And they use similar shaming and humiliation tactics as pro-vax and pro-gmo dedicates.

It's going to have a kind of Streisand effect probably, and make people stop and look at it more and more as they see the evidence. Excessive shilling and blatant attacks online typically do not seem to have the desired result of whoever pays the shills. A bunch of shills calling me stupid will not make me stop commenting, and them telling me to pay no attrntion to the man behind the curtain is only going to make me even more curious of what's behind the curtain.

lmao I almost want to upvote all of you for showing OP et al. that you are serious people & of the same mind as them. Tinfoil bros are one idle thought away from being flat earthers; the latter is not some psyop except of course the garden variety that you are all constantly inflicting on yourselves

It's fitting that the globe earth you believe you live on is the same shape as the bubble you live in.

look at this shit OP

I don't think anyone needs to be paid to believe the Earth is a sphere. lol.

Nope. They just need a Houghton-Mifflin science book drilled into their brains. They need to tested on their knowledge of sphere earth, and graded on their memorization of the facts. Just in case anyone ever questions it, so they can be shame them with the facts they memorized in 4th grade. Who the hell is Houghton-Mifflin anyways? I want to know!

Very! It just makes me more interested in flat earth..or hollow earth more specifically!

200 Proofs, Eric Dubay

I would like some one to debunk all 200, good luck with that.

Here you go!

https://www.bing.com/search?q=eric+dubay+debunked

This is just a search page? Give me an direct link because most of them i watched are not that convincing.

This is just a search page? Give me an direct link because most of them i watched are not that convincing.

How many could you watch in 53 minutes?

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-eric-dubay-flat-earth-proof-13.t7827/

This dude is working his way through them

More:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzc1tY1StvY

Eric Dubay is fucking idiot who uses his ignorane of physics and distrust of experts/the government/ the jews to fool rubes into thinking FE has any credibility.

I also love how there is never ANY proof for FE just "proofs" against a round world.

So you must have something we can test or observe which proves the earth is a spinning ball; since you believe in science.

Chicago skyline from across Lake Michigan ~60 mi. With a curvature of ~8 in. per miles squared the vertical distance hidden by the earth’s curve should be ~2166 . The Sears tower is 1,729′ tall at the tip. None of this should be visible. Earth Curvature Calculator

Lol that picture is proof positive of curvature but I do love how it gets brought up often as proof of Flat Earth, very ironic.

Why are only the tops of buildings visible? Why are the bottom of the buildings blocked by the curve of the Earth?

Atmospheric refraction , especially over cool bodies of water, affects the math of how far and what you can see.

https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/chicago-skyline-looming-from-mi.html

Here is a great explanation with video evidence of the refraction as well as all the math involved. Flat Earthers have linked me the exact same image you did and all the math for curvature as well many times. It is thoroughly debunked. The picture you linked is a GREAT example of a curved Earth because much of the city is missing due to curvature, which is proven by math in the link I provided. As MinutePhysics points out, if the Earth didn’t curve and the horizon didn’t exist, when you looked at Chicago from across Lake Michigan, you’d be able to see the the Rocky Mountains.

Ah but I see from the other comment you just sent that you don't trust "experimental mathematics" aka completely valid and thoroughly tested math based on hundreds of years of testing and research on physics.

Like most Flat Earthers this confuses you because you don't understand therefore it is "experimental" yet you are willing to believe wholeheartedly in the the Earth Curvature Calculator and never take into consideration other factors (with equal mathematical and scientific backing)

Fair enough. Here are a multitude of experiments you yourself can do to prove the Earth is a round spinning ball:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/7-diy-experiments-b-o-b-the-earth-is-round/

I have done the Coriolis Effect one myself.

I also live right next to the beach and have watched a ship sail away with binoculars (no it did not reappear as FE's say it will) just slowly descended below the horizon.

A hilarious and cheap one if you got the time and gumption is :

1. You move in a straight line for a long enough distance

2. Turn right 90° degrees, walk in that same direction for the same distance

3. Turn again to the right 90° degrees and walk again the same distance

After this you'll end up at the starting point. This is not possible on a flat surface since you'd just be "drawing" a half-finished square.

You can also fly to Burj Khalifa in Dubai. Watch a sunset then take the elevator to the top of the super high building and watch the same sunset again. You can do this with any conveniently located really tall skyscraper of your choosing. but it will work best with some real big bastards like 1WTC etc.

Planes have flown around the world many times :

https://www.didyouknow.cd/aroundtheworld/flight.htm

Here is footage from inside the ISS looking out the window at the Earth:

https://youtu.be/bhGydridbEA?t=847

But NASA is all lies . /s

Inb4 it's all CGI (it's not)

Okay, in one sentence you question what are only the tops of building visible and two sentences later you answer your own question : Atmospheric refraction .. affects the math of how far you can see

At 8 inches per mile squared not even the top of the Sear’s tower should be visible.

Your link including it’s theoretical physics proves nothing. Otherwise please explain in your own words what it proves.

And your claim that you should be able to see the Rocky Mountains is laughable for the same reason as stated above (i.e. Atmospheric refraction .. affects the math of how far you can see ). Why don’t you look at a forecast from Chicago or Michigan and notice the value for Visibility Here you go! - today the visibility is 10 miles.

you don't trust "experimental mathematics"

You’ve presented zero experiments. Only theory. Give us an experiment or observation that we can both repeat which proves the earth is a spinning ball.

The Earth Curvature Calculator is an approximation based on your theory. It is not created by a Flat Earther and all of the mathematics is there for you to see. Otherwise calculate it by hand and compare the results. You see the difference is you don’t have to believe in the calculator - it merely takes the official curvature 8 in/ mi ^ 2 and calculates it for you.

I have watched a ship sail away … descended below the horizon.

Post evidence. Here is mine.

Watch a sunset then take the elevator to the top of the super high building and watch the same sunset again.

Do you really believe this is anything more than pseudoscience? Lay on a flat sidewalk and watch your friend walk away from you. He will appear to get smaller and smaller until you cannot even see him anymore. Stand up and notice that you can see him from that new perspective. You are literally proving my point with this one.

Oh you’ve got a video of CGI ISS? I’ve got a video of Matt Damon surviving on Mars. I guess that is proof that Mars is a planet?

It's not experimental physics.

I.... Don't even know how to respond to such of fundamental misunderstanding of how science has discovered the laws of psychics.

All of that math is tested and verified.

You can clearly see in the video of the Sears tower how it over the course of the day depending on the level of refraction good from visible to not visible and back again.

If it was a flat Earth you wouldn't just see half the building.

The visibility numbers DEPEND on a big round earth for their math to work out and also take refraction into account!

You are the one cherry picking my man.

I can't give you an experiment because you don't believe or understand any of the underlying science behind them.

There is zero explanation for how changing your "perspective" on a flat Earth in height would allow you to watch a sunset again. That's not how perspective works at all.

Do you have any tests that prove a flat Earth because I've never seen one except for some outdated and debunked experiments from like the 1800s trying to measure the "firmament"?

This video which shows the multiple buildings when they should be obstructed by earth's supposed curvature? Yea that proves my point very well. Visibility is always affected by moisture so, yes near the water light is refracted but mirages do not as form as perfect replicas of a skyline in the exact position where they should be. Superior Mirages invert the image.

... over the course of the day depending on the level of refraction good from visible to not visible and back again.

You mean how it becomes visible when night falls and the buildings are illuminated. That is to be expected. Chicago Forecast : according to The Weather Channel is 10 miles today. I wouldn't expect to see anything across the Lake unless conditions are perfect.

neither boat not buoy are traveling away from the viewer

What? You've missed the point entirely.

1. The boat should not be visible from that distance.

2. What you claim appears to disappear from the bottom up is actaully just beyond your ability to see. Zoom in and the entire boat is visible nothing is covered by earth's curvature.

Please post a real photo of curvature obstructing anything at a distance.

The visibility numbers depend on the "experimental" round earth math to function dude, you use accepted science whenever it suits your worldview but dismiss it when it doesn't.

Nope visibility is an actual measure - it is testable observable and repeatable. Debunking pseudoscience is actual. Just the fact that you use 'accepted science' proves you are not scientist, sir. Science has nothing to do with democracy.

Again, please give us an experiment or observation we can repeat which proves the earth is a spinning ball.

Would you believe the earth was curved if you were the only man on earth and had never been taught otherwise? Does it seem like we are spinning at hundreds of mph? Does it seem like some of us are actually upside down, held to earth by a theoretical and unproven force?

Your last paragraph is the dumbest shit I've ever read.

Have a good day, I hope (for your sake) you are a troll but somehow I doubt it.

Not an argument. Good luck to you!

Not an argument

Correct I gave up because you refuse to accept reason.

I have no confidence you will ever be convinced by anything unless you go to space yourself.

gravity is one of the most proven theories of all time

Then prove it? No need for the personal attacks just prove your theory.

Is not my theory it's all of our theory. You are gonna respond with bouyancy and weight which is bullshit and I would love for you to prove that any bouyancy calculations work without plugging gravity into the equation.

It's proven everytime you drop a penny on the ground.

You also don't know what theory means in a scientific sense.

There is nothing left to tell you other than you have decided to live your life with your head buried in the sand created by adhereing to just "your senses".

I pity you.

Is not my theory it's all of our theory.

Lol. A theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something. Clearly this is not my theory.

[Gravity] is proven every time you drop a penny on the ground.

Oh? Then why is it still a theory? Neil D. Tyson doesn't know what gravity is and he is like a high priest in your religion of Scientism - Where nobody can prove anything they just accept theories base on Faith.

What can we prove? I can test and observe a magnetic field. We did an experiment like [this one](What is Gravity? in high school to reveal lines of magnetic influence.

We can test the earth's magnetic field against a local field and measure them both. Example

Fun Fact! Newton did not know about electromagnetism (officially discovered in the 19th Century).

So we can measure and prove the earth's magnetic field has an effect on other magnetic fields. We can measure and prove the magnetic fields present in all physical matter, including inorganic material.

We can control the buoyancy of a submarine, hot air balloon or helium balloon by changing it's density. Hoe Does a Lava Lamp Work?

Where is your experiment to prove gravity? That is to say, proof that mass inherently attracts mass? All mass is comprised of physical matter which produces electromagnetic fields. It is these fields that account for all attraction / repulsion of physical bodies. No 'Gravity' required.

I pity you.

What a pathetic response to my asking you to prove your theory instead of making personal attacks. You've got nothing and you are unable to admit you've been fooled.

Nice try. Good luck to you!

Lol. A theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something. Clearly this is not my theory.

It's more than that. You are thinking of hypothesis.

Scientific theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Gravity can be tested over and over and over again. Every archtect is factoring it in when designing buildings, every engineer when designing a plane, etc etc. Most of the good blatant easy proofs have to do with how we launch satellites, rockets, designing airplanes etc and the computations for those which ... lo and behold work every time but you wouldn't accept any of that as proof because you can't do it in your backyard...

Oh? Then why is it still a theory? Neil D. Tyson doesn't know what gravity is and he is like a high priest in your religion of Scientism -

Just because we don't know what gravity is doesn't mean we don't understand how it functions....we don't know exactly

Where nobody can prove anything they just accept theories base on Faith.

That is not how it works at all.

Where is your experiment to prove gravity?

You could set up a version of the Cavendish Experiments in your backyard if you got the gumption.

There is no explanation in your theory that electro-magnetism is behind all attraction/repulsion for why an object continues to accelerate at a constant rate over time. https://stanford.edu/~ajspakow/downloads/outreach/gravity-student-10-7-09.pdf you can do this experiment if you like.

As seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBIydqBHFes

You yourself are taking a big leap from "there is no test I can do in my backyard to prove gravity exists" (even if there is) to "I can see evidence of electromagnetism so that must be the sole force of attraction in the universe even if there are no valid tests showing that to be so".

We can control the buoyancy of a submarine, hot air balloon or helium balloon by changing it's density.

Buoyancy is a function of gravity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy

No buoyancy observed experiments or math behind them work out unless you take into consideration the constant of gravity.

What a pathetic response to my asking you to prove your theory instead of making personal attacks.

It's the truth I feel bad for you and your inability to see anything beyond what your senses tell you.

You've got nothing and you are unable to admit you've been fooled.

LOL

Holy shit. I got 5 minutes in and can truly say this man is an idiot.

Not an argument. Do you have an experiment or observation we can all repeat which proves the earth is a spinning ball?

Easiest experiment? Sit on the ground with an unobstructed view of a sunset. As soon as the sun goes under the horizon stand up and you can see the sun again. If the Earth was flat, sitting or standing wouldnt matter. (This one has been mentioned else where in this thread)

Harder experiment: Record sunrise and sunset one day and travel either North or South a significant distance (Im talking about Canada to Mexico distance ~1200 miles) and record again. You will find that the length of the day changes with latitude, and also what time of the year it is. A flat earth would have no day change based on latitude (or even the season).

Furthermore, I gave up in the video when i realize that Eric Dubay had no understanding of gravity whatsoever. He keeps talking about rivers traveling a long distance, and that if the earth was curved, they would have to travel up hill then down hill (up the curve then down the curve). He is imagining drawing a line between the start and end and saying from that line gravity is down. Either he really is an idiot (likely) or he is intentionally misrepresenting gravity to prove his point.

Sit on the ground with an unobstructed view of a sunset. As soon as the sun goes under the horizon stand up and you can see the sun again.

Lay on a flat unobstructed surface and watch a friends walk away. Once he is no longer visible, stand up and see him again.

No one is claiming that the length of day would be different - I'm guessing you haven't honestly investigated this theory, have you? Different latitude experience different lengths of day because the sun rotates near the earth and near the equator. The proposed model looks something like this.

I gave up in the video when i realize that Eric Dubay had no understanding of gravity whatsoever.

And you do? Prove the Theory of Gravity and win the Nobel Prize. Good luck!

Lay on a flat unobstructed surface and watch a friends walk away. Once he is no longer visible, stand up and see him again.

First of all, this isnt true. If you think its true, then you have never actually been somewhere flat.

The second one though... Good. God. Any tiny amount of critical thinking destroys that "model". How about we go through just a few of the reasons why that "model" is absurd.

1. According to this image, the sun only lights up the area below it. Clearly the sun is not round then, because if it was, then as long as it is above the "flat" earth you would be able to see it. You would have to have some edge to the sun that would be like a lamp moving around in the sky, but if that were the case then on off angles instead of being a circle it would become elongated (an oval). Except the sun is always round.
2. Next, if the sun is always in the sky directly above (as in the picture) it would never drop below the horizon. It would just be in the sky then suddenly gone.
3. In order for that map to work, everything in the southern hemisphere has to get stretched to make it lie flat. This in turns causes huge oceans to the south which are significantly larger than have been known for hundreds of years. Just compare the distance between the tip of South America to Africa and the US to Europe. They are roughly the same distance, but that map makes it almost 3 times farther. Shit, just look at the size of the Pacific compared to the Atlantic.
4. You could never go in a straight line either east or west, as you would have to keep turning otherwise if you went far enough you would be going south.

I could go on an on about the number of issues with this "model".

Lastly, your strawman argument about gravity. Did you even watch the video you linked? According to the video:

We can describe gravity. We can say what it does to other things. We can...We can measure it, predict with it.

I called Eric Dubay an idiot because he has no understanding of gravity, and he doesnt, because he is, in fact, an idiot. We know enough about gravity to predict how it interacts with something as small as an atom all the way to galaxies and the structure of the universe. Recently, scientists have even detected gravitational waves. You don't have to "prove the theory of gravity" (which i don't even know what you mean by that, and you certainly dont either) in order to understand gravity. And Eric Dubay doesn't even have a middle school knowledge of it.

Honestly though, all this thread and shown me is the completely and utter lack of critical thinking skills required to believe such a theory. Truly, I now know that those people are even more delusional that i first imagined, which also lets me know there is no point arguing with such people. They are so far into their delusion that nothing will change their minds. Thus, I'm out.

Except the sun is always round.

Round does not equal spherical. Do you have an experiment or observation we can all repeat proving the moon is anything other than round?

[The sun] would never drop below the horizon. It would just be in the sky then suddenly gone.

Atmospheric refraction. Ever noticed how the sun appears to enlarge as it ‘sets’ and becomes more distorted by the atmosphere?

This in turns causes huge oceans to the south which are significantly larger than have been known for hundreds of years.

Do you really believe that we have known the exact size of the oceans for hundreds of years? Your beliefs are faith-based.

You could never go in a straight line either east or west

A compass always points toward the magnetic North.

Yea i watched the video in which Tyson admits that he does not know what gravity is. Making predictions does not prove the model. For instance, predictions regarding lunar eclipse events are accurately made by believers in both flat and round earth model, for hundreds of years.

Ice cream sales at the beach seem to be strongly correlated to shark attacks at the beach. Do ice cream sales cause shark attacks? Of course not. Both share a commonality which is more people at the beach.

I called Eric Dubay an idiot because he has no understanding of gravity, and he doesnt, because he is, in fact, an idiot.

Neither do you. Prove the theory of Gravity and win the Nobel Prize.

Why does a helium balloon rise? Gravity? No, it is trying to reach a state of equilibrium where the environment is equally dense. Same with the apple that fell on Newton’s head - the surrounding air is less dense therefore it falls. No gravity is needed.

Science is about debate so, I'm sorry to here you're out.

I did NOT want to dip my toe into flat earth, I thought it was a psy ops too and I completely freaked out at people for believing something so stupid........but here I am, earth is flat, Tila Tequila is onto something in her YouTube channel, I am past pizzagate and the illuminati conspiracies, I have all of that figured out. Once you understand why the earth is flat, you are basically god in charge of your own reality. This is the most basic human way I can possibly explain the truth.

What do you mean they come out of the woodwork? Everyone agrees that the earth is round, with the exception of a tiny minority. How is it bizarre that they would say something? Why should flat earthers go unchallenged?

Personally I think it's because so many fields rely on the conclusions drawn from the heliocentric model. So for there to be a massive global conspiracy I must be part of it, every physicist I've ever worked with, the teachers and contractors and engineers and techs and business executives, all in the know and all dedicating there life to the cover up of a flat earth? I mean phones, airplanes, boats, cars, computers literally everything works using some aspect of the heliocentric model. I'd imagine anyone that has a deep understanding of one of those things might take offense at the idea that's he's part of a massive conspiracy. I might not comment a lot but if I come across someone questioning what I consider my life's work, I usually get offended and feel the need to comment.

Tbh, it's because the flat earth theory is ridiculous. And people like mocking easy targets.

It's because as many things in this world are still unknown when someone comes and challenges something very elementary such as the shape of the earth, they aren't just challenging our knowledge, they are challenging our intellect. I'm​ no scientist but I can use logic to understand the shape of the earth by using scientific reasoning: sunsets, roundness of horizon, timezones, watching a timelapse of the celestial bodies as the earth rotates, pilots and sailors circumnavigating the earth, etc..., all of which do not go against a round earth model. So when someone comes along and challenges that they are also challenging my ability to use logic and I must be some sheep just listening to our overlords. That's my take on why people are so defensive about this issue. Tell me Bush did 9/11 and I'll say prove it because I don't have evidence he did or didn't, but I do know the earth ain't flat.

watch the links, do the scientitic experiments your self (8 inches per mile squared) and you will see how easy it is to prove the earth is 100% flat. I would have never thought i would ever say something lie this, but if you actually look at it with an open mind (and with good understanding of the globe model) you will see it immediatly.

As you said, the attack on Flat Earth is very huge and organized, there is a good reason for that. Majority of Flat Earthers are NOT religious not cases, most of them examined the evidence themselves and were forced to accept that it shows the earth to be flat. This does raise the possibility of a creator (for me as well even though i was one of the biggest evolution and globe earth fans out there) but non of the thousands of flat earth friends on facebook i have will tell you its the same creator in the bible or quran or whatever. Only a few flat earthers do so because "the bible says so" and those are not better that people who blindly believe the globe with out investigating it first.

The History of Flat Earth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGl8I3l-5ac

200 Proofs Earth Is Not A Spinning Ball https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg

Why ISS Footage Is FAKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PST810eICoY

The NASA Hoax - Eric Dubay https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loIh1kz6_LE

21 Questions | Flat Earth Documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0xClWgidZU

OUR FLAT DOMED CLOSED SYSTEM EXPLAINED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RIBO7VB0VE

Nasa can't practice in vacuum because its "too dangerous" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARZo8SEeJp8&feature=youtu.be

Real footage from Airplanes over Flat Earth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKWPA_9c3ig

Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxMSL9h2ziY

No Curvature on the Flat Earth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcteYfOMgJg

Satellites can not be orbiting the earth as it is extremely hot in the Thermosphere which would melt any man-made spaceship. It is about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher. The governments track everything from these stations as they did since many many years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56WTtutQIf4 GPS Before the Satellite Hoax GPS = LORAN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RA_Y1lcK6I

Proof that the standard Heliocentric Model is In error: http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/

Prof. Eric Dollard The Sun is not what we wave been told.!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6bE5uvSA9s

The Flat Earth and its Advocates: A List of References http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/SciRefGuides/flatearth.html

+1200 Proofs The Earth IS FLAT AND STATIONARY: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=339839939746818

Thank you for sharing the links, that's s ton of info. I've seen some and will check out the rest, as I'm sure the flat-deniers will as well.

That's a good point about religion. I'm not religious but even when I believed in the Big Bang it seemed like a creator or creators set creation in motion like computer code, and it's still tough for me yo see how any of reality is accident or coincidence. Still, maybe a lot of hate for flat earth theories goes hand in hand with hate against religion, or that some scientific-minded people are conditioned to only believe in science dogma and shun any kind of creation theory. But creator or not, the earth appears to be flat for whatever reason, and after simple observation it's tough to deny that.

Great post!

Thermosphere

Shit post. Thermosphere is almost complete void. That's why anything go through without melting. Seriously, stop with the bullshit.

Or maybe ya know, it's just fucking stupid that the earth is flat lol. Didn't we figure out it was a sphere like thousands of years ago? These people are claiming this conspiracy stretches back that far. I jump on any flat earth post because it's fun to watch people defend their crazy viewpoint. Am I a shill? Can NASA pay me?

We knew the earth was flat centuries ago. Then we knew the earth was a sphere. What next? We'll know it then for sure, the science books will say so!

NASA has no need to waste a single red cent on the likes of conformists who parrot whatever the commonly held beliefs are. They know enough people accept their master's word, and will fight tooth and nail to defend that word against all common sense and their own observation, even if it changes back and forth. In fact, it's the other way around, you pay NASA! Just don't wait for a return on that investment.

Wow. I'm speechless.

This is my theory.

That there is a secret out there so big that if it got out it would completely change the entire world. Some powerful people know and they are taking every step imaginable to keep it a secret.

Whenever someone gets a little too close they go into full suppress mode.

And it's not just Flat Earth and PG, it's almost all of them (UFO's, Bigfoot, etc.). And I think they are all part of the same secret.

The secret? That our world history is a complete lie.

Flat earth is getting too close with all their interest in Antarctica,

I think you may be right. I can just feel it. I'll bet we aren't even touching on the actual secret stuff, but the first domino may be ready to fall which will eventually lead to the truth. The earth may be round, but flat earthers believe space is fake, and that might be the secret. Or there may be secret vast resource-filled continents beyond Antarctica, which, if exposed and people made a run for it, could wipe out world hunger and destroy the international economy, and that might be it. Or incredible technology or cures for all illness is hidden. Or like you say, the true history of life on earth could be revealed thanks to this kind of questioning.

Part of me is terrified of the truth. There is also a slight, albeit very minuscule, possibility that those in power have a benevolent reason for the great deception (that would go against everything we've seen from TPTB), such as keeping people from learning something that is forbidden knowledge, something aliens or other entities have forbidden for whatever reason. Maybe it's the hollow entrance to earth in Antarctica where terrible evil exists. Maybe just knowing it will change space and time! Of course that's taking it on a fantastical route, but truth is stranger than fiction, as we may well find out soon enough.

Because on its face, FET is bullshit, people get offended by the level of mental gymnastics required to believe it, and it requires you to question almost all established scientific fact and common sense?

People are appalled that something so ridiculous could be said or believed. Any time someone says something completely wrong there are people correcting them. And how can you not have an opinion on the shape of the earth? How do you think gravity works? Why are all the other planets and stars spheres? Why are the days longer in the summer? When you go on vacation how can the days be longer there?

A thought exercise requires the exercise of thought. If you just listen to someones argument and lack the capacity to analyze it in any way then there is no thought involved.

I generally am a fan of your work SC, but this is a psyop imhfo.

I understand. Ive never said I believe it is flat or round cause idk. I just know a lot about how it would work.

100% PSYOP! don't get sucked into commenting on such an idiotic claim. its the same with the shapeshifting reptilian Queen mother or the hologram planes hitting the world trade centre.

Just because there are more Alien are Little Green Men instead of Aliens are Monsters in Clown Suits posts. People don't like wasting their time with obviously ridiculous and easily dismissable ideas.

What claim is that?

Sure I'll go back though every post ever here and get the tally right quick. Should only take ummmm probably 2 years.

Theres no way I could prove that to you. Im obviously not the only one who notices what I'm saying. Don't believe me its not that important to me.

Because it is so easy to disprove.

Go on...

I have several times in this thread. Anything specific you are stuck on and need help with?

I think he's literally stuck on everything, but doesn't think he needs help with it. -> Typical flat-earther.

I think FE is actually bad for humans as a whole.

It promotes intellectual laziness and encourages people to make an assumption then find evidence supporting their assumption.

To be fair, that is how quite a few conspiracy theories work. Pick and choose what evidence to believe, throw all evidence to the contrary out.

Can you explain to me how it promotes intellectual laziness? I see saying 'the earth is a globe because these guys over here say it is' and giving it no other thought past that as intellectual laziness, myself.

Can you explain to me how it promotes intellectual laziness?

Reinforces solipsistic qualities in people. Do you believe computers are magic because you have never seen an electron move through a circuit? Or have you actually seen a CPU shuffle values through a gate?

Saying computers are magic is insane but you are taking the word of others if you have never those principles in action

I don't see my food go through my gut but I see myself shit everyday, what's your point? It doesn't promote intellectual laziness. If everyday people had the means to view an electron moving through a circuit they damn sure would do it and if something didn't look quite like it was presented would they be ridiculed for bringing those points up?

I don't see my food go through my gut but I see myself shit everyday, what's your point? It doesn't promote intellectual laziness.

It certainly does. If someone told you that when they eat food its broken down by shit elves and put into a furnace you would laugh in their face. To what lengths should you go through to prove its a normal biological process?

If everyday people had the means to view an electron moving through a circuit they damn sure would do it and if something didn't look quite like it was presented would they be ridiculed for bringing those points up?

My point still stands. A normal person doesnt have the technology to see an electron travel and a normal person doesnt have the technology to view exoplanets.

Why is one not magic but the other is?

I would also argue that with a little research into PCBs and how they function you could understand how it works without fancy technology. You can perform an experiment and see if the result at the end is what we would expect if an electron moves across the board.

Same with cosmology.

There absolutely are not. You very clearly never sort this sub by "New".

There are more posts about FE being a pys-op that hit the front page, but that is pretty easily explained by the FE theory being laughably ignorant

You obviously don't know me or what I do so stop talking that shit. I can prove there are more anti flat earth posts than pro flat earth posts.

Then do it, because my experience browsing under New is that there are tons of FE posts, they just get downvoted

Go to conspiracy, go to search, type "flat earth", see there are more anti than pro flat earth posts. 100%

K, just did that. Went through 2 pages. The grand totals:

6 posts simply asking about FE theory (along the lines of "what is the best argument for flat earth"), neither positive nor negative

10 Posts arguing against flat earth or arguing that it is a psy-op

17 posts either supporting flat earth or complaining that people are calling it out

Thanks for not taking your own suggestion and just investigating for yourself to see you are blatantly wrong and lying when you said "I can prove it" and instead making me waste my time.

I don't know if you are willfully being obtuse or if you are just lazy and arrogant

This is the first anti-FE I've seen on here, but seen plenty of flat earth nonsense recently. Just more of the anti-expert attitude that has been growing

Why are more people against drinking bleach than for it???

Government shills don't want you to purge the toxic fluoride out of your system with healthy bleach!

Because you aren't checking the "new submissions" tab.

Because, frankly, the internet (and places like Reddit) are places where the disenfranchised, the disenchanted, the dispossessed and the disbelieving have a voice.

Things that most people believe they are 'certain' about won't get posts on them, because they are the prevailing belief. This is true about anything.

You posted your question as a reply to it's answer dumbass.

Why does that seem curious to you? Would you expect it to be more balanced?

Fairly convinced at this point that they genuinely believe it. Some people reach a point where they stop trusting anything/everything being told to them by people in positions of power. I'm pretty paranoid myself though not at the 'flat earth level' quite yet, thankfully. Hoping to never reach this point tbh.

What I don't get at all is why such an earth would be enveloped by a gigantic dome. 🤔

If you do reach that level, you will never again believe you are on a spinning globe. I'm not so much sure of the shape of the earth, whether it is concave, hollow, flat or a massive, massive globe unlike anything we're told it is, so much that I'm certain something just isn't right (no curvature, water is always level, scientist after scientist ptoving we are motionless, the absurdities of modern science dogma, and on and on). The evidence is too much once you look into it, we're clearly being lied to about the most basic stuff.

Look into it, it'll blow your mind.

Do you have a dick? Has anyone ever seen it? See I can do that too and it doesn't add any value whatsover. We could go back and forth ad infinitum with idiotic insults or we could realize there are better things to do, to either actually debate or move on.

I can barely see my dick :⁾

No curvature, water always level? Umm... 1 word. Spaceflight. Or, ISS. Or, satellites.

Holy shit, OP is right. You Are brainless And you Make the people of this sub seem Bad.

Well I certainly don't want to make the people of this sub seem bad! And you said far more than one word, but who's really counting. Spaceflight: all evidence points to all of NASA being complete fakery (bubbles in the water of "spacewalk" videos, green screen and astronauts hanging on wires on ISS, ISS videos showing no clouds at all at night, too much curvature of the earth, or sometimes forgetting to put lights on the night, satellites and ISS is made of material which should melt where they are, video of the spinning globe but no moving clouds at all, the photoshopped word sex written in clouds in official NASA photos of the earth, Moon Landings: Ha, don't get me started!)

Satellites are unnecessary and might not exist. Why have none of the 10,000 satellites in orbit ever seen in ISS video? Everything a satellite is supposed to do can be done by planes, cables and towers.

Everything a satellite is supposed to do can be done by planes, cables and towers.

not a single piece of that is true or accurate. Just because NASA might fake some shit to make pictures look good or create a flashy website, does not mean that nothing has ever left our orbit. Why should satellites and ISS melt where they are? Do you truly believe that satellites dont exist? How does Direct TV work? GPS units?

NASA's website designers may be the same people who design the images of outer space. There never seems to be a single untouched picture published by NASA. Can uou see the problem? We have no way of knowing if it's all completely faked. It's all complicated because NASA may be a scam, and the earth may still be a globe, or the earth may be s globe but thry csn't leave LEO for some reason so thry hsve to fake everything, or outer space is not what they say it is, so they fake everything, or the earth is concave but space travel is real...we have no way to be sure if any of this is true.

The temperatures supposedly can reach up to 4000 degrees where ISS is, thousands degrees hotter than the melying points of its materials (aluminum, titsnium, etc). The ISS may even be up there, but people can't survive on it. DirectTV could easily be just signals pointing to towers which repeat the signal, just like radio communications. That's why dishes aren't pointing up as you would think: they point to the towers. There is also an idea that the government figured out how to interact signals with thd dome, exactly how satellites are supposed to work. Did you know an author came up with satellites as fiction, and they supposedly became fact only two years later? Hmmm....

Heat is essentially the activity level of matter. It's "hot" where the ISS is, but there is so little matter there that it does not transfer heat to solid bodies in a meaningful way, so it's not hot in the conventional way. E.g., if your arm was exposed to space it would hurt from the low pressure but not feel hot.

P.s., just don't try it with a hot potato inside a ball of tinfoil.

Or do depending on your level of sadistic.

What's the ISS made out of? Tin?

All sorts of things. In the oven and tinfoil example, the ISS would be you/your hand, the tinfoil is space. The tinfoil can't transfer enough energy to make a big difference and burn your hand.

Oh. Really? I didn't know that. So why can the sun heat up the earth or Venus through space?

Radiation, which is different than temperature.

TIL

The planets' gravity helps to create an atmosphere. Energy can travel through a vacuum. If an atmosphere is close enough to an energy source, when the energy hits the atmosphere it transfers to the matter in the atmosphere and you get heat.

But death is not instantaneous. For example, one 1965 study by researchers at the Brooks Air Force Base in Texas showed that dogs exposed to near vacuum—one three-hundred-eightieth of atmospheric pressure at sea level—for up to 90 seconds always survived. During their exposure, they were unconscious and paralyzed. Gas expelled from their bowels and stomachs caused simultaneous defecation, projectile vomiting and urination. They suffered massive seizures. Their tongues were often coated in ice and the dogs swelled to resemble "an inflated goatskin bag," the authors wrote. But after slight repressurization the dogs shrank back down, began to breathe, and after 10 to 15 minutes at sea level pressure, they managed to walk, though it took a few more minutes for their apparent blindness to wear off.

So sick!

DirecTV dishes are pointing to invisible miles-tall towers?

Some say satellite technology is really just signals bouncing back and forth off the dome, if there is one. It's possible.

Speechless. Back to the middle ages with you, you might find people on your level there. Not in modern world though. Its lunatic idiots like you who give conspiracy theorists Bad name. My phones GPS is enough to prove toi wrong.

Santa, easter bunny, flat earth...

Says "speechless"...then speaks a lot

Please remain speechless if your speech is nothing but attack and of no value. P.s. GPS is real, satellites likely are not

uses the word likely completely inappropriately

I guess it's just more likely that the government is lying about the shape of the Earth for no reason whatsoever and for absolutely no benefit. HAHAHHAHA

Go kill yourself.

Go kill yourself, retard.

You seem so much more intelligent then all of those flat earthers you talk shit about.

Thanks.

Umm. GPS works through satellites. Just saying.

Radio towers. Like your phone, internet, television....

Yep. Hidden radio towers installed underwater and underground every few dozen miles across all oceans, deserts, tundras, and forests.

why are satellites likely not real?

Do you think everyone at boeing, lockheed, or spaceX is a shill? I've watched the '200 proofs the earth is flat' video, and its literally the same misunderstanding of basic science 20-30 times. Go get a degree in mechanical engineering. Study combustion, or maybe EE and do satellite communication. TEST what they teach you on your own, don't take any of it for granted. Use your own findings to convince yourself. Don't live in a reality where you are question basic things that you can test yourself. There are so many things we have to question, and so many others that can be answered with just introductory knowledge of math and physics. Or maybe astronomy: get a decent telescope, and learn the constellations. Watch as they change seasonally. Then go down to the southern hemisphere and see new ones! We live in a world of physical, natural realities that we can understand, and perhaps super-natural realities that we don't.

I think, aside from the scientific illiteracy of the flat-earth dogma, the thing that bothers me the most is how they are wasting their time on something so TESTABLE, when there is so much more interesting and enigmatic things to consider .

My problem with the conspiracy theorists vs flat earthers debate is illustrated in your comment. /u/dandroid1_0 posted some videos explaining certain parts of the FE theory that they find intriguing. Instead of this generating any kind of debate it instantly devolves into name calling and negativity.

When we outright dismiss nonsensical conspiracies without doing our own due diligence and research then we are no better than the masses who accept what Fox and CNN tell them at face value.

Didnt see any videos. Though everyone on their right mind (or who has travelled, americans usually havent) knows how stupid flat earth theories are. There are some facts you cant challenge without looking like a potato. Its good to Be sceptical, its Bad to Be paranoid And stupid.

Well I see you deleted your original comment. Again, you illustrate my point by devolving to name calling. Innovative and original ideas are usually labeled as stupid at first. Astronomers were persecuted by their governments and churches for spreading blashemy and false information. When we accept science's theories at face value without performing our own research then it is no better than religious dogma.

http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/533/copernicus-galileo-and-the-church-science-in-a-religious-world

Didnt delete anything, its still there.

Some idea a thousand years old is not innovative.

See for yourself https://imgur.com/a/NThvb

Didnt delete myself and on my phone I could still see the original comment, when I posted I didn't delete anything. Atleast on purpose, since mobilereddit and me dont go well together and I usually reply on the OP instead of comments and have to delete them so theyre not out of context.

Maybe a mod deleted it cause I was being rude, dunno.

http://imgur.com/l574o6q

I can still see it.

Americans travel all the time. I'm American, I have been all over Europe, all over north America including Canada and Mexico. I have been to Japan and have been in the middle east. I'm only 25. Please don't say bullshit like "Americans usually don't travel". Do you not know how big the U.S.A is? You have people in Britain whom have never even left their tiny little island. I can get in my car and pretty much go any direction for hundreds and hundreds of miles.

Why don't you weigh less at the equator than at the pole?

Why would you?

You move around 1000 mph at the equator, and just spin at the pole (relative to earth).

The spin of the Earth has nothing to do with weight or gravity.

If I type an essay about why I think unicorns are real that doesn't automatically entitle me to be taken seriously.

Flat earthers are simply idiots who will never be convinced by a Reddit comment.

Why does everyone who disputes FE always resort to name calling? Using your unicorn example, I would argue that the narwhals existence could be linked to the myth of unicorns. Narwhal horns that wash up on beaches where wild horses roam for example could have been interpreted as evidence of unicorns in ancient times. Turns out there actually is a sea-unicorn. My point is not that I believe in unicorns or a flat earth, but that we should stop outright dismissing even the most outlandish claims. Usually there is a nugget of truth buried very deeply. Experiments and discussion can sometimes help coax that truth out, but dismissal, aggression, and negativity only serve ignorance.

Because flat earthers are idiots who will never ever be convinced by a Reddit comment.

Feel free to waste your own energy.

Circular logic. I love it.

Just think about how many hundreds of thousands of people around the globe would all have to be in on it, every single government, every scientist, every space agency, every company claiming they put satellites into space, aerospace engineers, private companies like Space-X. The Russians, Chinese, Japanese, English, Australian, U.S... all on the same page, all agreeing to keep this lie going... and for what purpose?

fake moon landings or NASA space walks doesn't mean that we are living on a flat earth mate. get a grip.

yes of course A LOT of science is controlled by tptb, and they control many of the dogmas in science.

but NOT EVERYTHING they tell us is a lie either.

bubbles in the water of "spacewalk" videos

Dust reflecting a light source. Notice in all of those "bubbles" videos that the "bubbles" never travel in the same direction, they seem aimless.

green screen and astronauts hanging on wires on ISS

Never seen a credible instance of this.

ISS videos showing no clouds at all

I have also never seen an instance of this. At least regarding to what youre talking about.

sometimes forgetting to put lights on the night

I honestly dont know what this means. Im not sure its grammatically correct.

satellites and ISS is made of material which should melt where they are

Ive heard this one before! So the upper atmosphere is actually really hot, way hotter than one would think. Like 2500C in the thermosphere where the ISS sits. What you are forgetting is how little gas there is.

So if you have a handful of molocules per square foot even though they are at a high temperature there isnt enough of them to feel it.

It would be like having a grain of rice 2500C and tossing it in with sand. The sand wont rise to 2500C

video of the spinning globe but no moving clouds at all

Clouds move quickly but the distances involved are so large that it appears to be not moving or moving very slowly. You also have to remember the atmosphere is moving with the planet

the photoshopped word sex written in clouds in official NASA photos of the earth

Cheeky composite artist. NASA never denied it shopped composite images together. Because satellites dont fly that high up when they take a photo its only of a very small part of the earth so after a dozens of passes the satellite has piece by piece taken photos of the whole planet. Now the clouds wont line up because they are in motion so they edit them to give the best images possible and never once have they lied about it being edited.

Look up the DSCOVR-EPIC satellite. These are unedited whole Earth photos.

Moon Landings: Ha, don't get me started

How did we get a mirror array on the moon? I know it exists because we bounced signals off of them in college, we actually were able to calculate the distances involved!

Why have none of the 10,000 satellites in orbit ever seen in ISS video?

What makes you think you can see a non reflective fridge hundreds if not thousands of miles away?

Everything a satellite is supposed to do can be done by planes, cables and towers.

Nope. Without getting into too much detail the company I work for rents time on a satellite and I can say for certain the topographical data we get cannot be recreated by using towers or planes.

How did we get a mirror array on the moon? I know it exists because we bounced signals off of them in college, we actually were able to calculate the distances involved!

Nice comment. I don't want to fuel the 'flat earthers', however I do disagree with this statement. Russia is known to also have two mirror arrays on the moon; clearly they had no manned missions so I don't think you could use that as evidence to support man landed. That is all :)

I used the royal we, as in mankind.

It's cool, I'm a moon hoaxer so just wanted to clarify as I hear it allot from people who support manned landings. It's kinda irrelevant anyway as even if man did land it doesn't make the earth flat.

Why is is unbelievable that man went to the moon? If objects can make it, why not people?

If not obvious, catering for man is an order of magnitude harder then sending unmanned. For a start, you have to get man back. period.

We need air, food, water, warmth, protection from radiation and long term affects of Zero-G on the frail human body. A spaceship that can cater for these needs are going to cost and weigh considerably more than an unmanned lander, meaning lots of fuel.

And that is just the plain old facts. Just look at the US unmanned failures. We couldn't even crash a robot into the moon properly until 28 July, 1964. 5 Years later no single failure of all manned and return missions. I'm not buying it.

But why is it so hard? At the end of the day it's just a bigger ship.

Air is sent anyways. Rockets need Oxygen to burn.

Food doesn't need to weigh that much.

Water does weigh more. Although is still just a bit more weight.

Warmth isn't an issue as much as cooling is. Heat doesn't spread out easily in space.

Radiation isn't a large concern for a simple moon trip.

0-g isn't going to be a huge concern for a week. Keep in mind the record is over a year.

Yes, 5 years prior they had issues, and then fixed the issues. The math was improved, and suddenly it wasn't that bad.

Yes, the ship would cost a lot. And it did. Weighing over 6.5 million pounds, it could put a load of 310 000 pounds into orbit. Including the fuel. And once in orbit you're done the hard part.

I wouldn't know where to begin addressing the errors in your comment. Conspiracy aside, I think you might want to learn a little more about space flight and physics in general.

Start at the beginning.

It all boils down to simple math. The Saturn V had the power to put a lot in orbit. And it did.

Alos, the were doing this experiment with very similar results before we ever went to the moon.

How did we get a mirror array on the moon? I know it exists because we bounced signals off of them in college, we actually were able to calculate the distances involved!

China also has a mirror array on the moon, and they have never sent a human there. Just saying. I'm enjoying the rest of your post.

its grammatically correct

*it's

Touchay

Google search for ISS tracker, see when it's gonna be over your city, then when it is go outside and see for yourself if it exists.

It'a an airplane much closer than you think. Or a hologram on the dome. Think of how easy it is to fool people. You'd take one look at it and say cased closed, take that conspiracy theorists!

What's the dome made of? Who or what made the dome? And why us? Why aren't the other planets flat and under domes? I'm not trying to be a dick here, I'm trying to understand your perspective because I'm not very well versed on flat earth theory.

Tl;dr: I don't firmly believe any of this as of yet. These are just ideas, and I only speak for myself. I'm curious as to the shape of the earth and the nature of reality. I'm not sure what shape earth is for certain, but most signs point to it being far different than what mainstream science and the governments that control it say it is. I know the theories, and believe some of it and have problems with some of it. You'd have to watch the thousands of videos out there for a grasp of commonly accepted flat earth theory. But what I would start with, is seeking answers to the problems of your commonly accepted world.

Fermi's paradox: where is everyone? There should be someone else, but there isn't. Why? This all could be a hologram projected from somewhere else, another dimension maybe. Or a zoo, or petri dish. A domed earth could be a place for safe-keeping of life, by someone out there, whatever out there is.

When you look at stars through a telescope and ignore the official science book pictures, the stars appear to us as though they are behind glass and within water. Sonoluminescence is light from frequency vibration in water, and those little mini-stars they can make with sound in a bubble in water in labs actually look just like some of the stars we see in the sky.

Who made the earth and/or dome? That's like asking what existed before the Big Bang or why the Big Bang happened, there are only theories. I don't know, but one theory of mine is that we are put here not by creators but by preservers of sorts. Something surely created them, but that's another story. In every direction, if the earth is domed, we are held back, kept from escaping, which means we may have been put here for observation like a zoo, or a type of ark. We have only ever dug 8 measly miles into the earth, because the molten rock keeps us from digging deeper. If you go up, you can't breathe, hit deadly radiation, hit the dome possibly. Try to venture out, salt water and stormy seas are a barrier, then you get to ice and stormy weather and deadly cold, again thin air you can't breathe at high altitudes and then possibly the dome. It seems something put us here. It could have all happened by chance, a one in a 10 to the 40th power chance for life alone, and that's to say nothing of the chance of the universe forming how it did, and how it led to life being possible, or it could all be an experiment or remnants of a previous dead intelligent life out there, a repeating program to keep something of themselves around before the universe collapses. Or god(s) only knows.

In our reality, we exist in exactly the right conditions for life against all incredible odds, there are signs of repeating code, patterns all over the place, signs this was all created. Maybe there was no purpose, maybe the creators were crazy. We may never know. But time and technology have led the human race to a point where we wonder why we are here and test boundaries in every direction. The U.S. government's Operation Fishbowl may have tested the dome, and satellite technology (bouncing signals off the dome?) came soon after. Someone may know the truth, and no matter if the earth is flat or concave or something, that someone doesn't want us to ask questions for some reason.

Why aren't the other planets flat? Merely observing things in the sky is no proof of the shape of our own earth. They can theorize that gravity makes balls of matter at that scale, but that is only a theory, and one possibly made to keep up with the narrative of a spinning ball zooming through space at a ridiculous 600 million miles per hour, spinning 1000 miles per hour. The stars may be very close, and they may be something totally different than science books say. Add to that the possibility of a dome, and as I said, another barrier to keep us here, creators or preservers may have put an infinite hologram on it, so you'll only ever see mostly empty space no matter where you look.

Also tl;dr: the earth may or not be flat, or may be curved, but is not the size if not the shape that science teaches for sure. What it is and why we are here can only lead to speculation.

OK, thanks for the in depth reply. I have a bit of a better understanding now, but unfortunately I'm not convinced due to fundamentally differing opinions (beliefs?) I have in regards to the science and other points you brought up. I don't have the time to produce as detailed a counter reply as I'd like to right now since I'm at work. If I get some time over the weekend I could though, if you're interested in a bit of good ol' fashioned healthy debate?

Thanks for reading. I don't have concrete beliefs in any of this yet, and I admit there are problems in both models, flat or globe (maybe it's concave of course, which probably has its own problems). Going back before one month, you won't even find anything flat earth in my reddit history so I am new to this. Before that I was firmly believing in the globe earth. Things change, and I have to look at all the evidence, of which there is a vast amount of, on youtube and other places. Either way, there is much to learn.

Have you read much into hollow, honeycomb or toroidal earth? Certainly interesting to say the least

...Satellites don't exist? You can see them from the earth... How does GPS work in your world? And all the people who have sat phones are in on a huge lie?

Ive had people tell me they are actually all weather balloons, no joke.

You can see what they say is ISS, but some people just believe what they are told. Some people claim to see a satellite occassionally, but more people have seen UFO's (I'd argue thry are UFO's more likely). And if there is a dome, you can't image they'd make use of it to bounce signals off of for GPS? Most people are not liars, they are dupes. My earth is the same as yours, I just don't believe what they say it is. What it is entirely I don't know.

Have you ever used a GPS?

Explain how they aren't satellite based. Works with or without cell coverage, so it can't be towers. Needs to be stationary relative to earth, so it can't be planes/drones.

Next time turn on your gps in an aircraft and see it yourself. Why it doesn't work when you are much closer those "satellites"

I've gotten GPS to work multiple times from window seats, so....

So which answer true? Bond's or yours?

Bond's statement is true but doesn't apply to airliners because the GPS speed limit is mach 2. They don't work in airliners because GPS signals don't penetrate the body of an enclosed metal tube well enough for the weak sensor of a smartphone to pick up. I've had the same problem inside a train. If you push the phone against a window, you might get enough signal.

How does it penetrate at airport when you are inside metal tube?

You mean buildings? Because buildings have windows, much larger windows than a plane or a train. Because some buildings are primarily constructed of materials with low EMF shielding. And plenty of buildings do block GPS signal when you're in a windowless room, or even in a windowed room. I work in a room with floor to ceiling windows and I still lose GPS when I get more than 20 feet from the window.

GPS doesn't work when going to fast, or when to high. This is to make it harder for people to make missiles.

Which use military grade GPS.

Ok :)

You need to understand the issue is not the height, but the speed. GPS location uses 3 different signals from different satellites to triangulate your location. It does this by having the satellite send what time it is by radio. Knowing the satellite is in a fixed geostationary orbit, and knowing their time is correct due to an atomic clock, your phone can do math to figure out where it is.

Saying that you're closer to the satellites is pretty stupid to. They're 35786 KM away from the earth. 12 kilometers doesn't make a difference. But the speed does, since your phone can't do the math fast enough.

You seriously don't know the first thing about GPS.

Are you gps engineer or something or just googler? You are saying different things with other guy. Ok then google again and see at same google some people see gps signal? How? Why? And how much speed? You dont know anything about signals. You ans other guy completely unrelated ideas and you two are sure what you are saying. He mentioned metal tubes.

I assume you're talking about me? I'm not disagreeing with him. He just made the mistake of trying to answer your premise (that GPS doesn't work on airplanes) when the premise is false. There's a firmware encoded speed and altitude limit in civilian GPS receivers set by the military, which aren't reached by airplanes. But below that limit, higher speeds still require clearer and more consistent signal than when stationary. If you're stationary in a vessel with no GPS reception, you get no GPS. If you're going 500 mph in a vessel with no GPS reception, you also get no GPS. If you're stationary in a vessel with poor GPS reception, you can eventually get a lock because the software can piece together a triangulation from intermittent signal pickups from multiple satellites. If you're going 500 mph in a vessel with poor GPS reception, the software may not acquire a lock because the distance you've moved between signal pickups is too great for the software to reliably gauge accuracy.

Now it's your turn to explain Flat Earth theory, since you seem to be saying different things from dandroid1_0, who is saying GPS does work everywhere (even on a boat in the middle of the ocean) because there's either secret radio towers everywhere or because radio towers transit a lot farther than we think due to it bouncing off of some dome that covers the earth.

I have working knowledge and have worked in satellite dish installation for Xplornet.

Nothing we say directly disproves the others. I state that a phone isn't powerful enough to understand the signals at high speeds, and he points out that the metallic shell of the airplane would block it out regardless.

Ok man really. Really man. Not "Powerful" enough to understand signals when high speed? High speed like 800 km/h? Stop it. How do you depict radiowaves in your mind? How do you depict signal receiver in your mind? "Omg i cannot catch those signals because i am very fast like 800 km/h." I can use gps at airport inside a plane ok? So "metallic shell" theory is garbage. I am not sure which one is more garbage actually. Yours or him?

Not "Powerful" enough to understand signals when high speed?

To an extent. Mobile phones do use assisted GPS, not pure GPS. well, most of the time. This is because the GPS in your phone isn't exactly quick. Ever missed a turn, or taken a wrong exit while running google maps? It shows you following the route for a little bit because it's assuming you'll be there. After seeing you haven't, it takes your new position, and takes a little bit to re-calibrate to your new position, plus the route of course.

At a high speed, with only GPS, a mobile phone will have a hard time getting a lock. Yes, in theory it should work well. However some planes do have connectivity issues.

I can use gps/cell at airport inside a plane ok? So "metallic shell" theory is garbage.

I used to have a dedicated GPS before I had a cell phone. it was a piece of shit. I had to be outside or in my car while setting a destination, not in my house. Otherwise it wouldn't get a signal. Cloudy days caused signal loss. Driving down streets with tall buildings even caused signal loss. Not having it on my dash, caused signal loss.

Just because you know your location doesn't mean the actual GPS chip is in use. WiFi, Triangulation, and even data collection can be used to figure out where you are.

I am not sure which one is more garbage actually. Yours or him?

Still better than a flat earth.

The signals could be bounced off a dome if a dome exists. There is speculation that the U S government was testing the dome during Operation Fishbowl (strange name, isn't?). Science fiction writer Arthur C Clark came up with stationary sstellites, and then voilà, science fact. They could have learned to bounce signals off the dome, and satellites could have been the excuse.

.... No. Just fucking no.

First, sci fi becomes reality all the time. Star trek had a tablet computer before the first tablet computer. Doesn't mean shit.

Secondly, for there to be a dome as a result of an American it would have to be huge, global even. So it wouldn't be a dome, but rather a shell over the earth. But where the fuck do you get that much material? And how did they get it up there?

I'd also like to point out that every satellite TV and internet company would need to be in on it, since they're paying to launch satellites.

Also, either meteors and asteroids keep breaking the dome, or this theory is way to wild to make any kind of sense.

this theory is way to wild

For some people.

No. It is.

The dome would need to be over everything. So where did the material come from? Why can we still see through it? Who got the material? Who built it? How'd they get it that high... Why?

Even reptilian overlords are more believable

About the moon landings - why do you think that the Soviet Union never challenged the USA's claim to have gone to the moon if they had every incentive as well as the means to do so? Also, where did Saturn V go, if not into space?

If the whole point of the space race was for public opinion (it's not like they really wanted the Moon for anything, they don't use it all, haven't been back in decades), then how would look to be the 1st place loser and a sore loser as well, by claiming it was fake? At the time, look how stupid and gullible the public was, so maybe USSR was just as duped. The rockets always arc out of view, and into high altitudes. Do you really think anyone left the van Allen belt and survived in that tinfoil wrapped thing? How about the lunar Module? So many wrecks, explosions and fatalities in rocket and air travel history. What incredible luck that not a single thing went wrong in thst mission, and they went to the Moon and bsck in one try! Not likely.

You know that people traced the rocket's exact path, right? It's not like anyone lost sight of it ever. Also, the Soviet Union would absolutely have rather shown the United States to be untrustworthy and liars than just let them have a huge victory in prestige. Also, again, given that the Soviets had every incentive to prove them wrong so that they could show the world the superiority of Soviet technology and how the Americans were liars, they would have been monitoring the flights very closely, the whole way through. The Soviets had also penetrated the American bureaucracy thoroughly, and would have known if there was any attempt at a conspiracy, especially one involving literally hundreds of thousands of people.

literally hundreds of thousands of people

Like today, only a handful of people need to know. Anyone who knows and starts making noise at the preposterousness of it gets taken out in a fiery accident, like Vitgil Grissom. Again, think of all the people today who think the Moon Landings were real, even with all the pictures and video and endless anslysis which they did not have in the 60s, and you can see how duped they all were then, governments included.

You are making people dumber by your mere existence. If I was your mother, I would drown you.

Removed. Rule 4.

Funny thing is, you're using satellites to talk to us right now.

Here is a 25 minute uninterrupted and unedited tour of the ISS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhGydridbEA

No bubbles, no cgi and defintiley not a parabolic flight

Satellites are unnecessary and might not exist. Why have none of the 10,000 satellites in orbit ever seen in ISS video? Everything a satellite is supposed to do can be done by planes, cables and towers.

This is so so wrong. How come I can still use my GPS on my phone in areas where I don't get call service?

Well they sure do buy a lot of hairspray with a bit of that 25 billion they get from us each year. Why would they spray her hair up like that? What a joke. Of the 25 billion dollars per year, they make everything you see look somewhat, but not quite, real, then they pocket the vast leftovers. That's Hollywood production for you. But, just like Hollywood, there are plenty of bloopers...

https://youtu.be/WjeazbLI3dU

Hair spray?

Smh that's zero g dingus.

25 billion is a drop in the bucket of the US budget.

They have much better and more effective ways of swindling the American public than elaborately faking space stuff.

scientist after scientist ptoving we are motionless

Huh?

Look into the Michelson Morley experiment the Sagnac experiment, and Airey's failure. Michelson and Morley proved that earth is motionless by measuring light pointed in different directions, but Science declared it false by decree. Airey's failure is where a scientist proved that the stars move, not the earth moving, by measuring the tilt of his telescope required to see the light of the stars coming in. The Sagnsc experiment is similar to the Michelson Morely experiment. Videos can explain it better.

I dont have the time to break this down now but I encourage others to NOT watch youtube videos on these effects, most of them are slanted towards flat earth and leave out a bulk of the information.

Read into it on your own, go read the actual experiments and their results. Aireys and MM are both over a hundred years old and were attempting to find evidence of aether.

The Sagnac experiment is a really interesting one and we to this day use the sagnac effect in gyroscopic lasers to detect inertia. This does not break special relativity and is worth a few minutes of looking over.

that because those experiments don't understand relative perspective.

we have video footage in 4k high definition of sphere Earth from the ISS.

If that's not enough to evidence to convince you that Earth is a sphere I don't know what else would or could be.

there's also the evidence of gravity.

Which isn't itself it's own entity, but is a description of acceleration towards a point.

this is accepted due to multiple experiments.

such as using pendulum clocks at different altitudes and measuring time differences.

we have speed test with airplanes too that have time tests too.

as far as density and buoyancy that the flat Earthers preach is gravity can be tested and fails miserably because if everything was that, then everything in the water atmosphere etc would simply even out unless constantly mixed. what could possibly be mixing all the matter together?

the flat earth movement is nothing more than a bunch of ignorant people using wit to convince other ignorant people of an idea.

its the same tactic propagandist use to convince people to buy a product.

we have video footage in 4k high definition of sphere Earth from the ISS.

Sure do! Some great new stuff just came out too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NE96oJsQRA&feature=youtu.be

I'm not a flat earther, but the camera being used in that footage has a fisheye lense which damages the point you're trying to make. Here's a better example.

Great footage. And ya, you don't have to convince me. :)

So, where are the 11000 satellites in the ISS cam feed?

Not in view, and you wouldn't see them from that kind of camera.

How big is a satellite compared to the field of view? How big do you think they are? You wouldnt be able to see a satellite on the ground while flying over it in a plane. Use your head mate 😂

I am talking about the ISS feed. Nary ONE satellite.

Nary one?

Nary "A" one yes. Find me one and I will pay you 1000$ US immediately through paypal. But you won't be able to find one. Please prove me wrong...

Are you really that stupid? How big is a satellite? Please look it up! Now compare the size of the satellite to, lets just the the surface of earth. Since we are in space it's a bigger diameter but you can have that in your favor. Now point it All Black and try and find 11.000 satellites from the hight of a flying air planer, scattered across the earth. Im pretty sure you wouldnt find a single one 😉

I am that stupid, yes. I won't call you names tho, the programming didn't work out so well on me I guess. Find me a picture that doesn't use a fish eye lens on a 60 mile pic that proves the math, you won't. What I can link you though are hundreds of independent pictures that show no horizon curve whatsoever, all around the "globe". Call me stupid all you like, I would rather talk about what we "think" we know, otherwise I'd say 'you're a retard because blah blah blah'

http://giant.gfycat.com/InexperiencedQuestionableAegeancat.gif have you seen this?

To aid mobile users, I'll fix gfycat links to spare bandwidth from choppy gifs.

~29.2x smaller: http://gfycat.com/InexperiencedQuestionableAegeancat

Original submission (100.0 Karma): Stabilized sky

^{I am a bot | Mail BotOwner | v1.1 | Code | Ban - Help}

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Around 1.15 you see the reflection of another satellite

One out of 11000 + umm, sorry that's not proof. Mathematically we sold see at least 10.

How many cars did you see? A satellite is like the size of a car, so "mathematically" you should have seen 1000's?

Funny enough I saw nary a one. Do we want to keep going with the he said she said? Not one reflection to be seen off your 1000 car size satellites that have the same sun shining on them...

What would make you believe the earth is round?. What proff do you need?

Mate?

Whoa can someone explain to me what comes into frame at 1:37?

I know it's not aliens but I want it to be aliens.

Looks like a solar panel of the ISS, from which the video is being filmed. Secureteam10 on YouTube has some good videos that cover ufos recorded from the ISS though. Also I believe Tyler, who runs the channel, is gonna be doing an interview with Dr Steven Greer very soon! Exciting stuff!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora

then everything in the water atmosphere etc would simply even out unless constantly mixed. what could possibly be mixing all the matter together?

Well, why hasn't gravity done that? What makes it the case that there can be mixing with gravity but not density? Esp when density is also well known and true with gravity.

because every particle has a description of a gravity field that interacts with other gravity field particles

Interesting. Will look into this when I have more time

How do you account for polaris, the north star, which the stars appear to "revolve around"? This is exactly the type of phenomena you'd see from the axis point of a spinning globe. The way the stars move, the way polaris is fixed, this is exactly what a spinning Earth would produce.

The stars appear to revolve around above us, as well, instead of the other way around. They have appeared in their paths around Polaris for millennia, never changing despite a constant 600 million miles per hour trajectory through space.

Put a sticker on the ceiling. Now stand directly beneath it. Now spin in place. What do you notice about the room surrounding you? Now Look up. Still see the sticker? Do you understand?

The night sky could also be moving, as if it's on a giant disk or dome. Polaris would still be at the center, and all the stars would move around it in predictable circular paths, just like we see. You might have to watch animations to understand. This video explains the stars' movement on a flat earth:

https://youtu.be/ahNfU7zYlmY

Do you accept this theory?

I accept its possibility. This whole globe/flat debate is here because so much of what we know about the universe could exist in either model. There are problems in both models, but from what I've seen, there are far more problems with the heliocentric spinning globe theory, and that's why people are asking questions.

flat earth theory is too self centered. The axis wobbles, further the sun sets over the horizon. That wouldn't happen due to "perspective" as people claim. If that were the case the sun would gradually get smaller and smaller in the sky until it disappears. This clearly doesn't occur. The Sun remains a constant size throughout the day, from sunrise to sunset. The theory is not observable

BUT THEY HAVE CHANGED, you retard. In a few thousand years Polaris will no longer be the North Star and​instead Vega will be. Polaris wasn't always the north star either.

Huh? Galileo disproved that five hundred years ago

But not for really stupid people. And today, we have a whole lot of really stupid people.

Stupid people have no idea what proof consists of. Galileo offered a hypothesis. Galileo proved nothing about it. Only actually going into space proved it. People like you calling others stupid is pretty pathetic.

(no curvature)

Plenty of curvature. Just ask an SR71 pilot.

water is always level

No its not. Watch a boat move away from you when youre on land, it will eventually disappear bottom first as it goes over the horizon. The only exception is very particular circumstances dealing with refraction. You may have noticed the effect when hot pavement looks like its shimmering.

scientist after scientist ptoving we are motionless

A handful of tests from the 1800's which have all been debunked.

Flat Earth is intellectual laziness.

SR-71 Pilots have mentioned cruising at 2000 knots, although the actual top speed is classified. This is roughly 2300Mph. If a distance of 2300 miles can be traveled in one hour, it would have to accommodate for 667.9 miles of curvature in that distance (2300x2300x8÷12÷5280=667.9) or 1.85 miles every 10 seconds. It would be extremely noticeable and I'd imagine the g-forces would be more than a human could handle.

^{Mouseover or click to view the metric conversion for this comment}

If a distance of 2300 miles can be traveled in one hour, it would have to accommodate for 667.9 miles of curvature in that distance (2300x2300x8÷12÷5280=667.9) or 1.85 miles every 10 seconds.

I think youre forgetting an SR71 cruises at about 90k feet. Remember curvature calculations do require an elevation calculation. Besides Im failing to see how curvature would be an issue for a plane, just maintain altitude and fly. Can you explain why you mention this and why its relevant?

It would be extremely noticeable and I'd imagine the g-forces would be more than a human could handle.

Can you explain why you think the G forces from... Acceleration (I guess) would be too much? Where do you think the G forces are coming from and what G force do you think it is and why wouldnt a pilot be able to handle them?

Don't waste your time engaging them, man. They're the type of people that will insist that trees aren't real, then when you show them a tree, they'll claim it's a fake.

Its not completely about them.

There might be users here right now who are thinking about FE and are unsure. I dont want them to see shitty points go unchallenged.

Good on you then. I just it like arguing with a toddler.

2300Mph?

So v = 2300Mph

Centripetal Force = m a = m v² / R

The masses cancel,

a = v² / R

Radius of Earth = R = 3959 mi

Since the mass, m, of the object (plane) doesn't change much, and so the net acceleration, a, caused by bending a trajectory around a curve of radius R at speed v is,

a = v² / R = (2300Mph)² / (3959 mi)

a = 1336 Mi / hr² = 0.5444 ft/s²

Acceleration due to gravity,

g = 32.2 ft/s²

So the Number of Gs generated is,

of G = a / g = (0.5444)/ (32.2)

of G = 0.01691

Using purely classical mechanics, the G-Forces generated by a plane travelling that speed close to the surface of the Earth is about 2% of gravity; i.e, ~0.02 Gs.

Since the calculation is dependent on 1/R, if one were to fly higher than the surface of the Earth the G-Forces would decrease. At 3 mi above the Earth (R = 3962 mi) the Gs become,

of G = 0.01689

But..but...but I feel like the earth is flat!

You just mathed the shit out of that guy. Kudos.

Cheers mate.

Thank God for people who still think.

Centripetal force, the source any G's they'd experience is given by: F=mv^2/r.

So lets take "v" at at your value of about 300m*s and "m" at the mass of a 727 (since SR71 mass in unpublished), which is 40000kg.

Then we divide by "r", which is the radius of earth at 6.3 million meters. We wind up with: F=571 Newtons.

Now look at what "1 G force" is on the same plane. 1 G = ma where a is the gravitational acceleration on earth of 9.8m/s² and "m" is again 40,000kg. 9.8m/s²40,000kg = 392,000 N.

In other words, the force of acceleration due to earths curvature is 0.001 G

Let me guess you don't think gravity exists either?

I'm here for you, dandroid. Some of the people in this sub aren't ready for it. All of the flat earth info out there is scientific, and repeatable. When you're ready...you'll see the truth. Most flat earthers laughed at the idea at first until we looked into it. We all have our own path.

Thank you, and I agree, admittedly it all seemed so silly until I actually looked at the evidence. We all have to take our own "red pills" on our own time, and not before. Though, I feel bad for those who haven't yet woken up to the idea of an earth shaped so differently than they were taught, because it's quite a thrill, mind-blowing in fact.

no curvature, water is always level,

Have you never been to the ocean? How do you explain the fact that as a boat goes over the horizon, the top is the last part to go out of view?

Those same boats, when zoomed in on with a good camera, can be seen again whole, even though they have "disappeared" completely over the horizon.

No, they really don't. No good camera shows that.

Yes, they really do. Whether the earth is spherical or flat, the #1 proof of a so-called globe earth is that ships disappear over the curved horizon, which is faulty. Since we know now that these ships can be brought back with a camera zoom, we know that they do not disappear over a curve. Bringing them back in a zoom would be impossible if they went over a curve.

https://youtu.be/ql_TTguKxnE

If you pay attention when they unzoom, neither the ship nor buoy sinks below the horizon when they unzoom meaning they aren't past it and the camera isn't bring them back. It just means that camera has a hard time seeing them when they aren't zoomed in.

[just] Look into it

I just want to point out that basically every single flat earther I've talked to or whose messages/posts/whatever I've read, without fail, say this exact phrase or a slight variation. It's kinda funny.

If you looked into it, you wouldn't say that. But do as you must, it makes no difference to me.

I DID look into it exactly for that reason, because everyone keeps saying it. Wasn't convinced at all.

This topic is surely here to stay, much to the disappointment of the mods. Those who disagree, disagree vehemently, and those who are for it can't stop talking about it. To each their own.

I never said the topic shouldn't be discussed?

Yeah I know a guy that just doubts all stuff to the contrary of his viewpoint that the earth is flat. He's just too locked in.

Like the op with believing NASA ?

I know a few people that if all the world leaders together announced that Earth was actually flat, they'd go back to being "globists" because it is clearly a move to secure more power by "TPTB".

TPTB ?

The powers that be

"The Powers That Be". Also known as, "The Man".

lol what, Satan?

The enlightened ones.

illuminati? doesn't inform me of much.

If I say its "the 1%" would you know he means a small group of elites?

No. The 1% aren't elites, they are the most competent people.

My idea of competent people are those who act compassionately, not those who are good at making money. Empire seekers are mostly less advanced, and less competent humans.

Empire seekers are mostly less advanced, and less competent humans.

How'd you figure?

My idea of competent people are those who act compassionately, not those who are good at making money.

Fuck that guy

Yeah, stick it to 'em!

Sorry, not into guys myself.

Woah, woah. Stick it TO 'em, not stick it IN 'em.

Oh, well then, carry on.

how could you not believe it . Ill summarize for you. Water doesn't curve, it finds level.

^{Find an experiment where you can make water curve like the oceans would around the globe.}

http://wallpaper-gallery.net/images/water-droplet-wallpaper/water-droplet-wallpaper-15.jpg

This is honestly the stuff people have to come up with to prove the Earth is round.

Your 'wallpaper' is completely irrelevant to 2pac's question.

No that's what the Earth as a while should look like. A sphere. Because that's the way it will naturally disperse.

Have you ever seen water in zero gravity? It will always start to form a sphere.

Nah man, I just thought it was funny that he thought water can't be round. It's a pretty absurd thing to believe. A better example would be a water droplet falling through air. Although no analogy from the scale of every day life is perfect because gravity is responsible for the shape of the earth, whereas a water droplet has that shape because of surface tension.

Meniscus you uneducated fuck.

Why does it find level? Because of gravity, which pulls it toward the center of the sphere. When does water curve? Literally all the time. Put water in a narrow tube and look yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meniscus_(liquid) This just takes basic every day observation.

And what's worse is these exact individuals are being specifically targeted by this psyop. Engineered to capture that exact audience.

Well you're just a little gift aren't you?

In what sense? Hahah.

A majority of the FE people I have met absolutely NEED to believe it's true due to their religious beliefs. It allows them to believe that the reason they are being lied to by the governments of the world is because Satan himself is controlling them and keeping the truth from us. I have a coworker who, no matter the evidence I've provided to him, refuses to believe the Earth is a globe because "The bible says the Earth is flat, and we could never leave the Earth because of the firmament.". There is no reasoning with them. They could be taken to space and shown the Earth from orbit, but they would claim they were being deceived in some way or another. It's absolutely ridiculous.

That's insane. It must be so frustrating to talk to someone like that.

"It's difficult to argue to someone who is smart. It is impossible to argue with someone who is stupid."

Ahgreed.

....Get new friends. Your world is fucked up.

It's just one coworker that I know who seems that deep into it. My friends do not believe FE, and we often discuss the absurdity of it all. I am in the South East, and there are quite a few people here that are deep religious. I'm actually not comfortable stating that I am not religious, and telling someone you don't believe in god is essentially telling them "Fuck you and everything you believe". There are still plenty of people who don't buy into the whole southern baptist lifestyle, but the older generations see us as misguided people.

Have you been to space and seen earth from orbit?

why not just show them one of the hundreds pf photo's of earth from space. from all them satellites up there must be a few good pictures....right?????

Fake. We never went to the moon, in fact we can't. The Earth as we know it is a disc traveling upwards through the heavens causing what we know as gravity, but that's also fake. It's just the force caused by our acceleration through the heavens. Satellites are high altitude planes, if anything. Space station isn't real. Sun travels in a circle around the plane of Earth at 3000 miles above its surface. The firmament is the barrier between Earth and The Heavens. Stars are balls of energy pulsing within the firmament. The planets are the same, but closer to our vision. I could go on, but it hurts my brain...

You have to have not traveled overseas to believe in a flat earth. The earth is undeniably massive and the idea of this place being a flat disk is so wild. It also brings on questions you will not get a good answer from a flat earther like. What is outside this dome and is it infinite of finite. If it is finite what is past the finite barier and is that space infinite. What is above and below. Why bother with things like the sun moon and stars that appear to be spheres. If in fact you want people contained onto a platter wouldn't it be better not to give them the impression of a infinite universe around them?

No matter what you say, the flat earth cannot be denied. This is my hell. Welcome.

Earth is flat. I'm 90% sure. I'm 100% sure it is not a globe.

More of a REALLY big rock honestly.

I don't think your coworker read the bible properly.

I can't find it but off the top of my head it says in Isaiah that the Earth I'd a circle, the translation can also be read as sphere. And in Job is says it rests on nothing.

The bible is a complex, well written bit of allegory it bugs me when idiots misinterpret, take it too literally or misrepresent it. It leads to crusades and Munster rebellions.

Ask them how GPS works.

In my experience the true believers are radical bible literalists.

Although it doesn't specify in the Bible that the Earth is flat... I'm a believer, born again Christian.

I just know that with my old high school friend that went flat earther, he would attempt to make all these scientific claims but it always came back to god said it was so. Obviously they're interpreting it differently.

Or that is what is intended to be perceived by whoever is running the disinformation campaign.

Just because some people organically came to believe flat earth, doesn’t mean it isn't a PSYOP.

What I don't get at all is why such an earth would be enveloped by a gigantic dome.

If we exist in a simulation, as various philosophers and an increasing number of physicists have posited, then the creators of that simulation may have not felt the need to extend the architecture of that simulation beyond what we would call Low Earth Orbit.

Nothing from within our simulation would be able to travel beyond a certain point, because there is nothing beyond that point, at least not a reality that we would be able to experience. And yes, this would mean space travel is impossible, because space is not part of our simulated universe. The movement of the sun, moon and other stars and planets is nothing more than a 2d projection on that "gigantic dome". And of course NASA and other space agencies would be very well aware of this limit to our simulated world - it is one of "truth's protective layers" as Neil Armstrong cryptically described it in a rare public appearance 25 years' after the Apollo 11 mission.

And if we are living in a simulated universe, then perhaps the certainty that we are living on a sphere hurtling through space (as opposed to a flat earth) is misplaced and ultimately irrelevant, because we aren't "living", period.

The movement of the sun, moon and other stars and planets is nothing more than a 2d projection on that "gigantic dome".

If we were living under a dome that doesn't extend beyond LEO and is merely a "2d projection" then how would you explain lunar occulations of stars and planets that are only visible in certain parts of the world and not in others?

The "dome" is virtual spherical projection screen which encapsulates our virtual planet.

The simulated Earth was designed to behave exactly like a sphere, appearing to revolve on its axis every 24hrs, appearing to orbit the simulated sun every 365.26 days. From our intra-simulationary perspective, it is indistinguishable from a real planet (until you try to leave the reservation, so to speak).

This means the heavens will appear different (but always "astronomically correct") depending on your location and the time at which you are looking at the sky.

A lunar occultation of a planet or star which is only visible on certain parts of the planet would be physically impossible with a 2d projection on a spherical dome.

If we are living in a simulation, the artifice of that simulation may not coincide with our understanding of reality. The observer perceives precisely, and only, what they are supposed to perceive.

The movement of the sun, moon and other stars and planets is nothing more than a 2d projection on that "gigantic dome".

Except for the fact that what you initially claimed is physically impossible ...

I was specifically addressing the fact that what you initially claimed is physically impossible ...

I suspect (our conventional understanding of) physics would deem many aspects of a simulated universe theory "impossible". The laws of physics may actually only apply fully in the universe/dimension which created the simulation that we inhabit.

Regardless, it's physically impossible for a 2D projection on a dome at LEO orbit to exhibit certain phenomena that we observe.

Whether or not there is any merit to the simulation theory, the notion that there is a 2D projection on a dome at LEO orbit is still blatantly incorrect.

It doesn't match observation, period.

Well, if observation of light and matter is subjective at the quantum level, and what you see is, in part, determined by what you're looking for, then what you observe at the other of the scale (the perimeter of our simulation) may equally defy the laws of conventional physics...and/or optics. The simulation designers are not bound by our laws, or by what you think you are obverving.

Still doesn't make what you suggested any more plausible ...

You do realize that every conspiracy theorist and new ager and religious person and EVERYONE ELSE uses quantum mechanics as their crutch right? People who don't understand it at all and just read a few nifty tidbits on the web to support their own agenda driven theories because it's sciency and mysterious sounding.

Have you ever played a video game though? You can make the sky look and do what ever you want while designing the game.

The biggest issue with that logic is it allows for limitless rationalizations. How would we even be able to prove we're in a simulation if the simulation is that complete? It's a fun mental exercise for sure but it could never be a valid scientific theory.

The biggest problem I see is that: why bother simulating flat Earth that pretends to be sphere if you could just simulate sphere?

Satan likes doing things the hard way obviously.

In a multiplayer video game, each player's viewport (i.e. camera and screen) is rendered independently. For a 2D projected sky to work correctly in that it appears differently depending on your location, it would also have to be rendered independently for each person, meaning each of us would actually have to be living in our own isolated simulations.

I've always thought more along these lines

From one persons perspective. The point is that people on different sides of the globe should be seeing completely different skyboxes. The dome shit is stupid. Why make the simulation flat, do you really think simulating a spherical adds more computational complexity than simulating a flat world whose sky behaves like a sphere?

Still doesn't mean that a 2d projection on a dome is capable of explaining what we observe ...

2 questions.

Where do meteors come from? & Why hasn't some God fearing Nasa scientist leaked any of this to save the world from Satan?

Where do meteors come from?

Do they need to come "from" anywhere? If we're in a simulation, they're just part of the illusion to make us believe there is matter beyond the perimeter. But the true illusion is that there is no matter inside the perimeter, either.

Why hasn't some God fearing Nasa scientist leaked any of this to save the world from Satan?

Who knows, maybe learning the truth of our artificial reality convinced them there was no such thing as God (or Satan)? Why didn't any of the 100,000 individuals working on the Manhattan Project blow the whistle that they were creating a weapon that could destroy all of humanity?

My 8th grade english teacher had a relative that helped develop it. She says he didnt know what he was working on until it was too late.

Correct - compartmentalization. Only a tiny handful know the big picture, and that applies to organisations like NASA, the CIA etc.

I see this argument brought up over and over trying to defend statements about why didn't anyone leak something about whatever, and it is always called out as bull. The Manhattan Project had spies and leaks in it and was not some super secret surprise to the world. I think the only surprise was that we actually used it on our enemies. The Russians had pretty good knowledge about what was going on with it throughout it's development.

Nice! This is an excellent point I haven't seen brought up. Meteors. This has not been addressed by any of the theories I've encountered. Thank you for bringing this up.

Whoa! Don't bring intelligent opinion into the thread, the op will get mad!

Why the hell would space just not be part of the simulated universe? They lack processing power?

Good question. Maybe that's another level in the simulation and we have completed the first one yet...

I think it's a border collie herd em up stimulate the imagination and poison the skeptical well forever game meant for black people .. why would rapper B.o.B., Kyrie Irving, and 33rd degree mason Shaquille O'Neal be used as voicepieces for this otherwise?

These psyop memes are designed so that they will appeal to least credulous fringe of the community. After they are pushed hard, these people find the flat earth true religion and then continue to discredit truthseeking as a whole, for free

Fairly convinced at this point that they genuinely believe it.

It wasn't always that way. I remember first stumbling on the flat earthers in the late 90's or early 00's, and most if not all of them were basically trolls. It was just a few dozen people at the time, and it was almost like an intellectual exercise, like defending the indefensible. They enjoyed trying to plausibly explain away the plethora of evidence that the earth is round. Sure, they played it off as if they were true believers, but they were all winking amongst themselves.

Over time they started picking up gullible people who were not in on the troll, and now it's just embarrassing. No doubt that there are many true believers today, but I think there are still plenty who know better but are enjoying trolling the idiots who don't.

I don't think they were trolls, for the most part. I remember the flat earth society as a group that would challenge people to not accept what they were told. They wanted people to use common sense and their own experience to reach an outcome, rather than just believe what they were told to believe. I think the vast majority didn't believe that the earth was flat, but they wanted to point out all the fallacious reasons that people believed that the earth was round.

I agree with you that it has turned into a shitshow now. I miss the days when flat earthers were just people advocating that we all needed to do more critical thinking

Over time they started picking up gullible people who were not in on the troll, and now it's just embarrassing.

So basically like religion

Religion exists in every culture without fail regardless of who says what. So no not really.

It was just a flippant joke, don't over think it. I don't have anything against most religions.

What I don't get at all is why such an earth would be enveloped by a gigantic dome. 🤔

It isn't, the concept is disproven by lunar occulations of stars and planets which can only be viewed in certain places on the globe.

I think flat earth requires a religious sense to really believe it. Most of the videos I have entertained that deal with it reference god, the end times, or satan.

The things is, it's not about what they're told. It's about plane departure and arrival times, summer and winter, sunrise and sunset, and nigh universal international communication confirming all of that all of the time, directly, for every individual who ever lifts a finger to check.

I get that. I've looked into all of that. But I don't understand how someone who's not religious/hasn't read the bible can believe a giant dome encompasses the earth. This is the part that leaves me scratching my head.

I think the beliefs that the idea historically ties to are what cause that idea. But what you were saying about not trusting anyone, I feel like thats starting to be me. At first when I was younger I watched a lot of Jk assassination type conspiracies. That was more supported as being a conspiracy. But now im at a point where I just google anything and then conspiracy after it. I guess its like, well if they are willing to lie about this, why couldn't this also be a lie?

Exactly. I'm at this point too. I always think everyone has ulterior motives or malicious intent for everything they do. Or that they're completely fake and being paid to push some kind of narrative. I even have a hard time trusting people like Snowden and Assange now because I can't tell if they're compromised. But once you're at this point I guess there's no going back. I don't think we're in the wrong for thinking this way but it definitely doesn't make things easy.

You're not supposed to get it that's why they tell us it's a sphere. Duh.

I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not, lol.

Unfortunately the rabbit hole goes through flat earth. Keep digging and you will see. Start with nasa or moon landing hoax. It is almost to the point where they are mocking how ASLEEP we are!

Look, I'm definitely open to it. The thing is, I just do not understand why the earth would be encompassed by a giant dome. Do all flat-earthers believe this part too?

I've seen videos of rockets getting lodged in the firmament. Yes, i think the dome is part of the theory.

This post is full of FE info: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/691x7v/flat_earth_compilation/

Do all flat-earthers believe this part too?

No.

You are stupid

Woah, nice one!

I don't believe anyone would genuinely believe this theory, doesn't seem more like a brain exercise. It is just beyond stupid to believe this. Just trolls, nothing else

I never said I believed it? In fact, I'd said that I hope I never reach this point of paranoia.

Also there are people who literally do believe this theory. They actually exist. It's a thing whether you and I like it or not.

If that is true, humanity is really unfortunate

I wanna know what else they believe in so we can all have a discussion and learn from their knowledge. maybe that's the biggest disservice were doing is shutting them aaay2.

Most rational people dont. But most rational people can also look at the arguments and understand where the ideas originate. Believe it or not, many of the arguments that the FE crowd make, genuinely apply to both a flat and a spherical model.

IMO the evidence for a spherical model far outweighs the evidence for a flat earth but that doesnt mean their evidence should be ignored. Infact it may (conjecture obviously) point to a larger sphere than previously thought.

They are, and a large group of members here (myself included) have been saying this for over a year.

Yeah I remember when flat earth first hit the scene in this sub it was debunked

I think this has always been the case. Don't they call this controlled opposition or something like that?

Thought this guy gave a great reason: "It has people asking questions..."

Vid runs six minutes but he gets to it fast. This is the second vid I've watched from him in the past 24 hours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR3G90othzc

Haha, a "flat earth" post not insta-downvoted into controversial. Nice job, mods! Must be attacking flat earthers, so it's allowed even though it breaks a sub rule. More of divide and conquer.

Exactly. They're in on it too

OP is here to make as all look stupid by association

My favorite is the guy who makes posts asking flat earth questions claiming he doesn't believe but is just curious. Then he will go on defending flat earth and pushing the flat earth narrative extremely hard. Then when people call him out he will say "I'm not a flat earther". It's becoming a daily routine

Lol. I really do it just because I am curious about it. And I dont believe it either. My mind can entertain and be open to all possibilities without picking and choosing anything to be the real reality. The amount of hostility and attacks that anyone speaking about flat earth or asking questions about the globe earth or just investigating into it gets here seems absurd. Everyone shouts its a psyop and more posts that attack it get upvoted to the front page than there even is discussion about it here.

It would actually be nice to discuss about it in a neutral manner without everyone being so rigid and dense.

It's hard to be neutral when the sides aren't even. There is a point where pretending both sides of a debate are equally valid is intellectual dishonesty.

Usually the discussion about flat earth here is just name calling and such nonsense.

Not really addressing the point I was making but sure, I agree we shouldn't name call.

By neutral I mean not resorting to name calling or such. Not being emotional.

No shit, Sherlock.

There's a lot of people here that believe 9/11 was a conspiracy. If they would lie about that, why wouldn't they lie about a round earth?

Do you honestly believe the sun is 93 million miles away? What makes you so sure?

Why is the sun the exact same size as the moon in sky? It takes a lot of mental gymnastics for me to consider that a coincidence.

the exact same size

They aren't where I live.

They should be. The moon is 400 times smaller than the sun but also 400 times closer to the earth, so the sun and moon should have the same apparent size in the sky.

That's not how perspective works. It's not always linear, and it's not always a straight angle.

How is that not how perspective works? If you take a 1 cm object and a 10 cm object and hold the 10 cm object 10 times further away, under what conditions would the two objects not appear identical?

If they are not on the same plane. Imagine an object 15 degrees to your left, and another 20 degrees to your right. Even though one is technically 10 times further, the angle of view makes the planar distance more or less, using the law of cosines. For things to appear linear in Perspective you'd have to be fully aligned with both objects

I'm almost positive the sun is significantly more than 400 times the size of the moon lmao

Or anywhere depending on the time of year.

Same size cause one is closer even though a lot smaller. I would understand having to explain these things to My 8 year old son, but a grownup not knowing this just blows My mind. Special kind of stupidity.

Ummm because one is a deception they can control, kinda hard to keep billions of people in the dark about the shape of their home. Yes, simple physics can determine how far it is. Math does not lie. Finally, they're not the same size in the sky? But even so, that's an idiotic argument. Why does the mountain miles away look the same size as the tree 20 yards away?

No, they can't do it nearly as well anymore. These people bombed buildings in broad daylight and said planes were bombs. They say you are a monkey's offspring. They say they are going to colonize a red light in the sky. They say they went to the moon and took dune buggies in suitcases. A camera waited for them to snap a picture of the landing. They say they have bombs that destroy whole cities, and show you video of model train sets blowing up to prove it. The camera is impervious to the blast? Wake up. They show you CGI of a spinning ball over and over. And we believed this shit, all of it, like the fucking morons they took us for. Not anymore, not me. Question everything they pound in. Don't watch the "news". Don't attack the craziest conspiracy theories. It may just be true.

As a flat earther. People will defend their round earth globe just as faithfully as a religious person will defend their god. Some people are just not ready for the idea.

There's is literally so much evidence but there is one problem... Most people I speak to, I say to them ''how can I prove Earth is flat to you". To which there reply is that they don't know.

How can I prove something to you when you don't even know what evidence you are looking for? So many people are quick to point out that you can see ships at sea going over the curvature. But when shown high altitude balloon footage showing a flat horizon then go on to claim that you are not high enough to see the curve.. These people will constantly move away from facts and enforce their own beliefs when you clearly show things that contradict their argument.

As a flat earther. People will defend their round earth globe just as faithfully as a religious person will defend their god. Some people are just not ready for the idea.

Its a poor analogy because there is overwhelming evidence the Earth is a globe.

It just requires an inquisitive mind and maybe a telescope.

Buy muh holograms.

I think you are just arguing for the sake of being argumentative.

how can I prove Earth is flat to you

show me the edge of the earth.

How can I prove to you that the earth is round?

they cant bro, darn unified governments won't let you go to the edge, they got enough military to always guard entire ice wall that surrounds the earth.

No offense, but this is so stupid, I'm sure you're trolling.

which is why i said "bro"; but yeah this is what they believe

My bad, always hard to tell who's serious about this insanity and who's just making fun.

Who said there has to be an edge?

....then where is the end? What does the end lead to? If it's flat it has to end somewhere.

Lol

So why does the ship disappear from the bottom up as it goes over the horizon?

Inb4 "laws of perspective"

Please explain to me using FE theory the date/time of the next lunar eclipse, and over what part of the earth it will be visible. Heliocentrism does this with stunning accuracy, decades into the future. As far as I know, FE can predict NO future cosmological events. so it is a markedly less stable framework to build a model of the universe out of.

Are you that uninspired that you cannot do it for youself? And you rely on internet strangers to explain to you? Clearly you are a free thinker /s.

Look in to Geocentrism.

Its not "inspiration" that keeps someone from doing this, its lack of a viable mathematical model. I mean, with Halleys comet, we have a model and theory that match up with primary observation perfectly. where is the FE model/theory (other than the untestable, evidence free theories claiming its a tiny rocket launched every 76 years/hologram/masonic plot) that explains it thru primary observation? As for the earth spinning, I think precession of the equinoxes (again, confirmed thru primary observation) shows that something is going on..

There's no point in arguing with flat earthers. The ancients literally figured out the earth was round thousands of years ago. Half these people just think the earth is flat because it confirms religious biases.

tell us how this ties into your religion?

Actually, according to NASA the universe isn't heliocentric anymore. Or you haven't heard?

The sun, galaxy, earth, and moon are all flying through infinite space according to the 'rocket scientists'.

Um, nobody ever claimed the universe was heliocentric. Just our own solar system. Heio (sun) centric (centered).

Bruh you think flat earthers know the difference between the solar system and interstellar space?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This is elite stupid

There's a lot of people here that believe 9/11 was a conspiracy. If they would lie about that, why wouldn't they lie about a round earth?

Literally millions of people would have to be in on the hoax.

Do you honestly believe that the sun is 93 million miles away? What makes you so sure?

Parallax. Cassini figured it out in the 1500s.

Why is the sun the exact same size as the moon in the sky? It takes a lot of mental gymnastics for me to consider that a coincidence.

Yeah its an amazing feature of our planet and we are lucky to be around while it lasts. In a million years this wont be the case, we are losing the moon very very slowly, she gets a few inches further away every year. Its not impossible its just improbable.

I'm pretty sure the moon is getting closer. Tidal drag is slowing it down.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/37-our-solar-system/the-moon/the-moon-and-the-earth/111-is-the-moon-moving-away-from-the-earth-when-was-this-discovered-intermediate

The Moon's orbit (its circular path around the Earth) is indeed getting larger, at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year. (The Moon's orbit has a radius of 384,000 km.) I wouldn't say that the Moon is getting closer to the Sun, specifically, though--it is getting farther from the Earth, so, when it's in the part of its orbit closest to the Sun, it's closer, but when it's in the part of its orbit farthest from the Sun, it's farther away.

Tidal drag just affects the rotation which is why the moon is tidally locked.

FTA: Because the Earth rotates faster (once every 24 hours) than the Moon orbits (once every 27.3 days) the bulge tries to "speed up" the Moon

So tidal drag does affect it.

Why is the sun the exact same size as the moon in the sky? It takes a lot of mental gymnastics for me to consider that a coincidence.

No offense man, but this is literally the stupidest fucking thing I've read on Reddit in awhile. I normally don't like to be so blunt, but shit man you're not giving me much to work with here.

I think if mental gymnastics was an Olympic sport, Flat Earthers would probably sweep the event every single time.

The sheer amount of people.

The crews of large ships can use their height and math to estimate the distance to a ship using math, because of the curvature.

Plane pilots and flight planners use the curvature of the earth to get to their destination quicker.

Every satellite internet, and TV installer and provider.

Among many other people all need to be in on it.

Everyone that has been to Antarctica, or the north pole. Or those that have sailed across the world.

Seriously. You're daft to think that they can't fake videos, but can keep a lid on this.

They would lie about the one because people stand to gain from it. How does anyone gain from misrepresenting the shape of the whole earth?

I honestly do not know if the sun is 93 million miles away, but I don't have any reason to disbelieve it.

"exact same size" - pretty close, but I remember seeing for myself with my own eyes an annular eclipse, and the sun behind was bigger than the moon in front.

Why is the sun the exact same size as the moon in the sky? It takes a lot of mental gymnastics for me to consider that a coincidence.

They appear similarly sized based on our location and distance between the two from us. You can replicate this by taking two balloons of different sizes and holding them on strings until they are equal sized to your eye.

You're a special kind of stupid.

Removed. Rule 4.

9/11 vs flat Earth

Both are dumb but one would involve a conspiracy between a small number of people in the know. The other would involve basically every scientist.

93 million miles

Without getting into details, a tremendous body of science and evidence, including repeatable experiments.

Exact same size

Not at all true. Similar size. Not exactly the same. And the moon is a different size depending on where we are in it's elliptical orbit. Technically true for the sun as well with our orbit but far more subtle.

FE is a candy conspiracy, 911 is the real shit.

Gee, ya think?

Actually the flat earth model does hold water due to the surround Antarctica ice wall. The spinning ball model does not hold water.

Explain why other planets that we can plainly sees in the sky are round. Look at saturn, you can see the rings. Why would our plant be any different. Gravity holds down the water, not some made up ice wall.

Who said the Earth wasn't round?

...what ice wall, and how does that make the theory hold water?

The spinning ball (oblate spheroid) model is verified constantly by a tremendous number of experiments and observational data. Every single day we rely on that model in our day-to-day life.

Ice wall

Oh okay.

So tell me - do you think humans built this ice wall?

This ice wall is around the entirety of Antarctica, right? Which in the FE theory would be essentially the outer perimeter of the Earth, right? How many miles long would that be? How absurdly expensive would it be to build that wall?

More importantly: to what fucking end?

This looks to me to be a damn cliff. Those exist everywhere. And how does a wall actually stop anyone with sufficient gear to scale it?

Its a natural ice wall because the sun's circuit keeps it away from the frozen edges.

https://imgoat.com/uploads/0efdf2ec9b/16078.PNG https://imgoat.com/uploads/0efdf2ec9b/16079.PNG

Okay at least you think it's natural and not manmade.

Explain to me why the sun's circuit would cause this phenomenon? Such a sharp edge? That's not how any heat source I've ever observed behaves.

More importantly than that you need to explain how the sun's circuit interacts with observed reality. Most significantly: explain a fucking sunset.

There are rivers running out from underneath the ice.

This should answer any questions on sunsets

There are rivers running out from underneath the ice.

...And? What the fuck is your point?

This should answer any questions on sunsets

Oh, gotcha. So just made-up shit with no factual or experimental basis. Now I believe FE.

I guess you weren't actually interested in having your questions answered. Keep your head in the sand.

LMAO OK.

I was interested. I wanted you to at least attempt to have substance to your answers. Maybe more than thirty or so characters at a time to contradict centuries of science.

But you don't actually have substance, do you? Because your FE arguments are incredibly weak and based on nothing other than idiotic anti-intellectualism and unwarranted self-confidence.

They may very well be, but I know people in real life (well, one person) that actually believes this shit. Even after I explained to her that I have personally seen the curve of the earth (jumping out of a helo at 3500 agl), she still entertains the notion that the earth may not actually be round.

At this point I see more people talking about people who believe in the FE then people who actually believe in the FE.

Regardless its a fish net of sort that catches people who start realizing how untruthful some groups can be so they assume everything is bunk.

Why all the flat earth hate lately?

Let the discussion flow, but positively

we are a think tank of critical thought

As a FE person for math to backup their ideas and watch how quickly they stop thinking critically. They just know. Fact really don't matter.

Just curious what maths you'd point them to?

Since most appear to not believe gravity is real anything involving physics and gravity.

I would love to see one of them explain mathmatically what gravity is. And no a constant unexplained accelleration up at 9.8ish m/s isn't an explanation.

demands explanation

rejects explanation immediately

Ask a RE person for reason to reject explanation and watch how quickly they stop thinking critically. They just know. Fact really don't matter.

Look above in this thread. There was just a guy claiming supersonic flight on a round earth would be impossible because the G forces from the centripetal force would kill the pilot. He did 1 line of algebra to "prove" this, which simple calculated how much curvature would be experienced per second. The actual math:

Centripetal force, the source any G's they'd experience is given by: F=mv^2/r.

So lets take "v" at at your value of about 300m*s and "m" at the mass of a 727 (since SR71 mass in unpublished), which is 40000kg.

Then we divide by "r", which is the radius of earth at 6.3 million meters. We wind up with: F=571 Newtons.

Now look at what "1 G force" is on the same plane. 1 G = ma where a is the gravitational acceleration on earth of 9.8m/s² and "m" is again 40,000kg. 9.8m/s²40,000kg = 392,000 N.

In other words, the force of acceleration due to earths curvature is 0.001 G

Dude, all of the FE math is extremely hand-wavey.

They take a single result from a single experiment and re-interpret it through their own way.

Half the arguments about plane-flight from one point to another don't take into account that atmosphere moves with Earth.

Half of the arguments don't take into account atmospheric refraction.

This video is what the sun, moon, and stars would look like rotating around a flat earth.

Many of the rebutalls of heliocentric have no replacement.

Ask them what stars are - "I don't know, but they aren't stars. They are lights". Ok dude.

Where are these mythical pro posts that are everywhere? The only ones I see rise are the negative ones.

Who made you the li-king?

You are good at being the lie king.

because too many people are waking up to the truth.

It is too hard to ignore when so many people claim to believe it.

Because its fucking stupid.

Is abhorrent!

Can someone here give us and experiment or observation which we can all repeat to prove the earth is a spinning ball?

Some guy did that 2000 years ago.

Noice experiment

He actually proved nothing because his calculation was not based off of a actual observable evidence.

So how does this prove a globe model?

Who was that?

How? A ship still disappears over the horizon when watched with binoculars.

ow? A ship still disappears over the horizon when watched with binoculars.

Actually binoculars make it far easier to see.

This x 1000. Also, try doing a long-haul flight between Australia and southern Africa. Qantas has one, I've been on it a few times. If the earth was flat they would fly direct. But it's not. So they fly over Antarctica to save fuel. Pure economics dictates this, and I know that Qantas wouldn't spend millions of dollars a year on extra fuel (and possibly rule out the flight being profitable all together) if it wasn't for the simple fact that the shortest distance between those two points is around the BOTTOM of the sphere, not across it's circumference.

Thus was experimentally proven false

I'm curious. How?

I've watched countless videos of people using high magnification video cameras zooming in on a ship that wasn't even visible to the naked eye, with every part of the ship in plain sight (not just the upper portion).

I'd like to see a video filmed on a cold day in winter. On a warm day you can have mirages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_%28mirage%29

Also, look at this video of Airy's Failure, a simple scientific experiment that proves that we are in a geocentric system. This experiment is banned from universities and is ignored by many physics classes.

https://youtu.be/87M2i61N1cU

Refraction, lol.

FE theory has no ability to predict future cosmological events. (eclipses, etc.)

It does actually

Somehow the mayans worked it out.

False. People predicted such events long before the earth was believed to be a spinning ball.

Stand on the beach and tell me if you see the next continent.

WOW.

And these are the people calling everyone else idiots.

It's the goto argument for globers. If the earth is flat why can't we see infinite?

Fog? Have you not played minecraft?

If the Earth was flat, the Sun would never set. Period. It's basic geometry.

Yes, I know the "vanishing point" excuse that the Sun sets because it's too far away, then why is it that the Sun never changes in angular size nor speed over the course of the day when viewed through a solar filter?)

Perspective? If you're going to debate flat earth theory at least do it intelligently. You're looking really dumb here man and not helping at all.

Lol globers? You mean functioning humans?

If you can see stars billions of lightyears away why not Mt. Everest or another continent or skyscrapers? So yes, FE are idiots.

If you're going to debate flat earther please do so intelligently you're not helping at all.

Explain away. I would love to hear your excuse.

Holy shit, I haven't laughed that hard in awhile. You're alright internet stranger.

Open up the forecast for any coastal city and notice the value for 'VISIBILITY.' Currently in Miami visibility is 10 miles.

So..?

http://www.windows2universe.org/citizen_science/myw/w2u_eratosthenes_calc_earth_size.html

Here you go

Eratosthenes' calculation works exactly the same on the flat earth model. Shadows are cast at the same angles.

No it wouldn't. If the sun is a very far way away (like in the round earth model) then the shadow would be the same everywhere. If the sun is close (like in most flat earth models) then the shadow would depend on how close you were to it, but you definitely wouldn't get the same results on a flat earth as you would on a round earth.

To illustrate, on a round earth the sun would cast no shadow on the stick at the equator at noon, but if you were at the north pole the shadow would be very long because the light rays would be near parallel to the ground. If the sun was directly overhead on a flat earth it would also cast no shadow but no matter how far you moved away from that point (even if you went all the way to edge of the disk) you would never see the super long north pole type shadow. That's an extreme example, but the difference would be apparent even at normal distances.

Eratosthenes' experiment depends on the sun being very far away but it is not.

In this picture you can see that the people share a common light source, yet their shadows are different lengths, yet they are on a flat surface.

You can do this experiment yourself. Just stand under a street light at night. As you move away the shadow you cast becomes longer.

Obviously, but the point isn't just to notice that the shadows have different lengths. If you measure the exact lengths, the distance between objects and the angle of the sun in the sky, you can calculate the curvature of the earth. A flat earth and a round earth won't produce the same results.

I've already disproven this and you're just being stubborn. The angles of the shadows cast are determined by their position relative to the sun in both models. You are merely extrapolating to prove your own beliefs. Tell me, when did you start believing that the earth is a spinning ball?

NASA photos are composites

Don Petit - We Can't go back to the moon

What is Gravity?

Day and Night

Not the spinning part, but for the sphereness/not flatness:

1. Watch sunset at the beach lying down.
2. Just as the last sliver of the Sun fades, stand up.
3. See that the Sun is visible again for some half a minute.
4. Conclude that Earth is not flat.

1. Watch your friend walking away from you as you lie flat on the beach.
2. Just as he vanishes beyond your perspective, stand up.
3. See that he is visible.
4. Come up with an experiment that proves the earth is spinning or spherical

Check out Foucault pendulum for an experiment of Earth's rotation.

Debunked pseudoscience. Different pendulums simultaneously spin opposite directions from the same hemisphere. Furthermore, it is impossible to set into motion without a degree of angular momentum.

Buy a telescope and observe the planets in our solar system. They are all round.

Enter the sailing race that circumnavigates Antarctica.

Does the moon appear to be round. Of course, the question is whether or not they are SPHERICAL. Ever seen anything but one face of the moon?

I believe you can absolutely circumnavigate Antarctica, it has been done before. This for instance may be the actual shape of the earth with Antarctica at the perimeter.This is the U.N. flag - where is Antarctica? The real trick would be to circumnavigate the earth North / South.

Does the moon appear to be round. Of course, the question is whether or not they are SPHERICAL. Ever seen anything but one face of the moon?

There are other planets in our solar system that you can view with a telescope. Its not unusual for a planets moon to become tidally locked (I think its like 20 or 30% of satellites are locked).

If you wanted you could go watch Jupiter or mars and observe their moons. We can see more than 50% of their moons surface. We can even observe a moon moving behind its respective planet.

So if every planet and satellite in our solar system is a globe what proof do you have that the Earth and its satellite is different?

You first image is again pretty easily refuted. The company I work for rents time on an imaging satellite for topographical stuffs. Look at how warped those continents would have to be for this to work. There is no way that has gone unnoticed by everyone. I mean you think the Japanese would bomb Pearl Harbor in secret but behind closed doors every military is in on this?

As for your second image, the UN map not showing Antarctica doesnt prove much of anything.

Its not unusual for a planets moon to become tidally locked (I think its like 20 or 30% of satellites are locked).

How do you know that? I agree that you can see so-called planets as I've viewed them since I was a child in the Young Astronauts Club. However, they simply appear to be bodies in the sky. How do you know they are spherical? Can you prove that one is orbiting another or is that just the interpretation that you have accepted?

So if every planet and satellite in our solar system is a globe what proof do you have that the Earth and its satellite is different?

Wait, you have proven nothing.

The image I posted as a model is an illustration and I think that should be apparent to anyone who is honest. I don't present that as photographic evidence, it is merely meant to enlighten those who don't understand the first thing about the FE theory and therefore believe things like you can't circumnavigate the flat earth.

I mean you think the Japanese would bomb Pearl Harbor in secret but behind closed doors every military is in on this?

Actually yea Ever heard of the Lusitania? We instigated the Japanese into conflict by imposing embargoes so as to force an attack in order to sway public opinion in favor of entering the war. WAKE THE FUCK UP EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE IS A LIE.

Regarding the Lusitania, we were warned that U.S. vessels would be attacked in the atlantic but we sent the Lusitania anyway as bate.

How do you know that?

Telescopes. You can purchase one for rather cheap.

I agree that you can see so-called planets as I've viewed them since I was a child in the Young Astronauts Club. However, they simply appear to be bodies in the sky. How do you know they are spherical?

The telescope Ive had the chance to use you can very clearly see they are round.

Can you prove that one is orbiting another or is that just the interpretation that you have accepted?

Im not sure how to phrase this more clearly than I have. I have friends who own telescopes that have a high enough resolution to see clear details on planets in our solar system. Clear enough to see them "spin". For example there is a very large "scar" on Mars. If you watch Mars over a long enough time you can see that scar turn away from you. This shows at the very least Mars is a globe and spins.

If you get a fancy enough telescope you can see moons orbit their respective planets by going in front of then behind them. This is getting into pretty pricey territory for a telescope but not impossible.

Wait, you have proven nothing.

So you accept telescopes are real right? If every other celestial body we observe is a globe then what evidence do you have that Earth is unique in that regard.

I don't present that as photographic evidence, it is merely meant to enlighten those who don't understand the first thing about the FE theory and therefore believe things like you can't circumnavigate the flat earth.

Im very active on FE subs I understand your map. At no point in time though has any sailor, any navy never noticed that projected paths on a globe do not line up perfectly with projected paths on a FE? Unless every single worlds navy and long distance sailor is in on it then you havent proven anything.

We instigated the Japanese into conflict by imposing embargoes so as to force an attack in order to sway public opinion in favor of entering the war.

So we can provoke a country to attack (Honestly think we are veering off course here) but all the while every country is complicit in this hoax?

WAKE THE FUCK UP EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE IS A LIE.

Do your own research like I did and come to your own conclusions.

The telescope Ive had the chance to use you can very clearly see they are round.

Round does not equal spherical. Big difference.

This is getting into pretty pricey territory for a telescope but not impossible.

Please just show us what you have seen that proves round bodies in the sky are actaully huge sphere very far away.

So we can provoke a country to attack (Honestly think we are veering off course here) but all the while every country is complicit in this hoax?

No they were not complicit, they were provoked like I said. Research the Gulf of Tonkin which was a false flag just like 9/11. I mean if you aren't even to that point then I totally understand why you experience cognitive dissonance. Research the Antarctica Treaty where world powers have cooperated despite supposedly being at war with one another.

Round does not equal spherical. Big difference.

But if they rotate, which we can observe by watching marks on the planet, like the scar I mentioned on Mars that means we see more than 50% of the surface. How would this mean they arent globes?

Please just show us what you have seen that proves round bodies in the sky are actaully huge sphere very far away.

As I have said previously through observation with a telescope you can observe the planets showing us different faces, they do this in a very regular fashion meaning they are globes. You could project a radio signal at the planet and see how long it takes to return to you.

You could use parallax to determine how far planets are. Set up two different viewing points on the planet and then determine the discrepancy between the two results to find approximate distance.

You could finally observe the impact the planets have on the objects around them. regardless of whether or not you believe gravity we know for certain that planets project influence of some kind on the objects in our solar system. Because we have so much data about gravity and can very accurately model these interactions we can determine the mass and gravitational influence these planets project.

Do you know of a model that can be that accurate?

No they were not complicit, they were provoked like I said. Research the Gulf of Tonkin which was a false flag just like 9/11.

Again not sure if this is the appropriate sub to be discussing conspiracy theories not related to Flat Earth.

Research the Antarctica Treaty where world powers have cooperated despite supposedly being at war with one another.

Im very familiar with it. It doesnt bar people from going to Antarctica. A man died there last year recreating an old expedition. Flat Earthers could do this if any of them had the desire to.

Like I said, please just show us what you have seen that proves round bodies in the sky are actaully huge sphere very far away.

Parallax from earth? Do you really think this would work if the planet is as far away as you claim? Have you done this?

Because we have so much data about gravity and can very accurately model these interactions.

And yet the priests of Scientism don't even know what Gravity is : NDT: What is Gravity?

World of Warcraft creates an elaborate model of a Fantasy world - does that mean dragons and orc actaully exist?

Like I said, please just show us what you have seen that proves round bodies in the sky are actaully huge sphere very far away.

I'm not sure how much more proof I can give you. I gave you steps to self verify, I don't have a camera attachment for my telescope. Can you please explain the fault with my method other than you can't or won't test it yourself?

I think you're lazy. At least intellectually. You have all the resources to test this but you won't. I could show you images of a planet spinning and you wouldn't accept it.

Parallax from earth? Do you really think this would work if the planet is as far away as you claim? Have you done this?

Yes, it's not the most accurate but will give you a good approximation. Can you tell me why it wouldn't work?

And yet the priests of Scientism don't even know what Gravity is : NDT: What is Gravity?

The model works perfectly. We can very very accurately describe how an object interacts with gravity. Can you present an alternative model with such a level of accuracy? If you can I would like to see it.

World of Warcraft creates an elaborate model of a Fantasy world - does that mean dragons and orc actaully exist?

Im not big in video games or false equivalence.

You have disproved anything all you have proved is you are lacking in basic knowledge.

I have no ability to test this, but since your friends do, I'd like you to ask them to film evidence suggesting 'planets' are in fact distance rotating spheres.

I think you're lazy. At least intellectually. You have all the resources to test this but you won't. I could show you images of a planet spinning and you wouldn't accept it.

Yea I'm so lazy I've spent hundreds of hours researching both theories since I was a child and I spend even more time debating people online. Not an argument.

'The model works perfectly' - And yet the Theory of Gravity remains unproven. Otherwise give me an experiment or observation which proves mass attracts mass and I'll hand you a helium balloon. Let go of the balloon and watch as raised to the altitude where it's density is at equilibrium with the atmosphere around it. Drop an apple and watch is seek it's density equilibrium, falling through the less dense air around it.

You see models are not proof. They only model your theory. Ancient peoples were able to predict lunar / solar eclipses, yet no one ever told them to believe the earth is a spinning ball. Yet, I don't believe their models are scientific gospel.

NASA caught faking distance to Moon

I have no ability to test this, but since your friends do, I'd like you to ask them to film evidence suggesting 'planets' are in fact distance rotating spheres.

I mean this has been d one before, and why cant you verify this? If you think the whole paradigm is incorrect why not spend a few bucks on actually verifying it?

Yea I'm so lazy I've spent hundreds of hours researching both theories since I was a child and I spend even more time debating people online. Not an argument.

But you dont own a telescope and you arent familiar with very basic cosmological events.

Heres a video from the kirdistan planetarium (Not affiliated with NASA) of Mars rotating. Now they have a very nice setup and you can see a lot of detail. Higher end home telescopes can make out a little lower level of quality. If you had the desire you could verify this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP2SDbhFbXk

Heres a little more amateur time lapse

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzIzF-LIi7WOal0vgNyBKSw

See how if you observe a marking on the planet, pick any it rotates away from you?

'The model works perfectly' - And yet the Theory of Gravity remains unproven.

No, the mechanism is unproven. Even then there are some very compelling theories and it is a matter of time before the mechanism is definitively proven. The model of gravity works fine. As an aside you were never able to provide an alternative, can you explain what you believe and why its superior?

Let go of the balloon and watch as raised to the altitude where it's density is at equilibrium with the atmosphere around it. Drop an apple and watch is seek it's density equilibrium, falling through the less dense air around it.

You cant have density without an attracting force... like gravity. I dont believe you ever challenged the point I raised a while ago about mixing oil and water in zero gravity, they will not separate. So why will they separate when near a large object with gravitational potential? Helium is less dense but only if there is a force pulling all the gases at an equal rate. You have not explained or given an alternative to gravitation.

Why will you not?

Ancient peoples were able to predict lunar / solar eclipses, yet no one ever told them to believe the earth is a spinning ball. Yet, I don't believe their models are scientific gospel.

Not many ancient people believed that... At least as of about 1800 years ago. Look up the mayans and their incredibly advanced cosmological calendar. Eratosthenes figured out the circumference of the Earth in 300 BC. The idea ancient people honestly believed that is disingenuous.

You're absolutely right about me not having a telescope. I had a very simple one as a child and I did use it to look at what I was told are Venus and Mars. However I was never able to actually see anything like this - Which looks like a screen saver from 2001. The reason I'm asking for your first-hand video or photo is because I while I plan to conduct this experiment myself, I think you may be able to do it sooner and I actually do trust you to post authentic evidence if you can obtain it.

You cant have density without an attracting force... like gravity.

No. Density is merely the amount of compactness in a substance.

Consider this: When Newton developed his theory of gravity he was unaware of the magnetic force. Today we know that every body, where it be organic or otherwise, has a magnetic field. Both of our models agree that earth itself has a giant magnetic field with a pole at the north. Magnetic fields are absolutely observable and testable. Even in public schools we revealed magnetic fields by pouring iron shavings over a magnet which then aligns the shavings in a way that outlines the influence of the force which is otherwise invisible. So we can prove that magnetism has the ability to attract and repel objects and energies.

In addition, we see that as in a lava lamp density / buoyancy affects the relative position of the liquids. A hot air balloon controls it's buoyancy to reach a new state of equilibrium at a different altitude.

All of the forces which we can actaully directly test are explainable through electromagnetism and density (which is really another expression of the electromagnetic force acting on the very small). We only need gravity to prove the theoretical.

I dont believe you ever challenged the point I raised a while ago about mixing oil and water in zero gravity, they will not separate.

Prove it. Do the experiment. If you really need me to challenge that specifically then you've missed my larger point.

Eratosthenes' experiment is pseudoscience and works on both models. Just think about it: Two six foot tall men stand under the same street lamp with no other light source. When the light hits them from the same angle they cast shadows of equal length. When one of them moves away, the shadow becomes longer. What Eratosthenes did was calculate the amount of curve required to cast a given shadow given that the sun is a very far away. He did not prove that model to be correct, he only calculated the curve for that model.

You're absolutely right about me not having a telescope.

This is one of my main issues with FEers. You really believe the Earth is flat but you dont put forth a single ounce of effort beyond youtube videos. If you really believed this you would at the very least get a damn telescope.

Which looks like a screen saver from 2001.

Your opinion. Get a really nice new telescope and try again. In that example it is probably a very nice very expensive telescope.

The reason I'm asking for your first-hand video or photo is because I while I plan to conduct this experiment myself, I think you may be able to do it sooner and I actually do trust you to post authentic evidence if you can obtain it.

Just to get this straight. You are asking me for personal video of the planets, of which I told you I dont have the ability to do, and you dont trust any other images or sources out there but you will trust me... Dude this makes no sense. Get your own telescope, do your own research. Im not here to hold you hand, all I can do is share the knowledge I know.

No. Density is merely the amount of compactness in a substance.

And in zero gravity what is the density of an unknown object, how would you find it? For objects to separate according to density there must be an attracting force. As I have said before mix oil and water and leave them in zero gravity (Whatever) even though the densities are different they will not separate.

Consider this: When Newton developed his theory of gravity he was unaware of the magnetic force. Today we know that every body, where it be organic or otherwise, has a magnetic field. Both of our models agree that earth itself has a giant magnetic field with a pole at the north. Magnetic fields are absolutely observable and testable. Even in public schools we revealed magnetic fields by pouring iron shavings over a magnet which then aligns the shavings in a way that outlines the influence of the force which is otherwise invisible. So we can prove that magnetism has the ability to attract and repel objects and energies.

Now consider this. Newton was brilliant but a little nutty. We can prove that magnetism attracts objects of opposite polarity. Lets run a very simple experiment to prove this.

Build a box that is EM shielded. These are pretty easy to make. Put an object in the box and measure the objects weight. An item in an EM shielded box behaves the same way as if it werent in that box. This means there must be a force attracting that is immune to EM shielding.

We can even take it a step further. Make this EM shielded box a vacuum. So we have no density conflicts and we have no EM therefore the item in the box should be weightless. Is it? No, again you could run this experiment yourself if you had the desire to do so.

In addition, we see that as in a lava lamp density / buoyancy affects the relative position of the liquids. A hot air balloon controls it's buoyancy to reach a new state of equilibrium at a different altitude.

A lava lamp will not work in zero gravity (whatever). So lets put a lava lamp in an EM shielded box, what happens when the attracting force is removed?

All of the forces which we can actaully directly test are explainable through electromagnetism and density (which is really another expression of the electromagnetic force acting on the very small). We only need gravity to prove the theoretical.

No you do not understand even EM. Why arent magnets heavier than other metals of the same density? Show me anywhere where there is a model of EM that models our solar system. Seriously if you are so certain this exists then show me where you found your evidence.

I can give you volumes of info on how gravity works, its all right there for you. You cant say the same about EM.

Prove it. Do the experiment. If you really need me to challenge that specifically then you've missed my larger point.

Its been done... Many times

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n53U024JMo4

he only calculated the curve for that model.

Of which has not been disproved. If you can disprove that model you are fucking brilliant and will win many prizes. Again dude Im not sure how knowledgeable you are on this.

Can you? Please do.

You are asking me for personal video of the planets, of which I told you I dont have the ability to do, and you dont trust any other images or sources out there but you will trust me?

Yea. Since neither one of us have a telescope personally, I’m just asking you to capture it yourself. If you can’t and I can’t then we just don’t have proof until we document it. I’m looking for something of this quality not an animation. We know for sure that the videos that you submitted are at least sped up because their is no way you are suggesting Mars spins that fast. I believe it is an animation similar to how NASA photos are composites. I’ve got to ask, do you really believe THIS is real?? No there are no real photos of the earth from ‘outer space.’

And in zero gravity what is the density of an unknown object, how would you find it? For objects to separate according to density there must be an attracting force.

Yea we are already in ‘zero gravity’ - welcome! The electromagnetic force is the only force. I can give you experiments and observations proving and measuring the magnetic field of the earth and all physical bodies. But I’m sure you’re already aware of those simple experiments. No ‘Gravity’ required.

As I have said before mix oil and water and leave them in zero gravity (Whatever) even though the densities are different they will not separate.

In the video you link, how close do you think they are to the electromagnetic source of earth? 40,000 feet? 50,000 feet? As we move away from the earth, It’s influence decreases.

Show me anywhere where there is a model of EM that models our solar system.

Are you really asking me to show you a model of the ‘solar system?’

Yea. Since neither one of us have a telescope personally

No I own a telescope but you cant just put your cell phone up to it and take a pic.

If you can’t and I can’t then we just don’t have proof until we document it.

You have plenty of proof you just refuse to do the research.

I’m looking for something of this quality

Your local planetarium should have nights where the public can come in. Again though this will require effort on your part.

We know for sure that the videos that you submitted are at least sped up because their is no way you are suggesting Mars spins that fast.

Duh... Its basically a stop motion film.

I’ve got to ask, do you really believe THIS is real?? No there are no real photos of the earth from ‘outer space.’

Yes thats real from https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/dscovr-deep-space-climate-observatory

How do you know its not real? Show me the math showing that the moon and Earth wont look like that. You must have done the maths if you found an error you will blow the lid off of this!

So just show me how an object 900k miles away taking a photo of an object 700k miles away in front of an object 900k miles away would appear if this werent fake?

Can you? Can you even begin to explain to me why you think its fake?

There are plenty of non-composite images of Earth but you are too lazy to look it up.

I can give you experiments and observations proving and measuring the magnetic field of the earth and all physical bodies. But I’m sure you’re already aware of those simple experiments. No ‘Gravity’ required.

Please do explain. Also note Im not arguing that EM doesnt exist Im arguing its not all encompassing and doesnt explain certain phenomena. Why does time slow down when near an object with a large gravitational field? Can you show me how EM explains that? No has yet so if you have pertinent information you should really share it because you will be a millionaire overnight for disproving Special Relativity.

No seriously explain yourself.

I would also like to remind you you skipped over my example of an EM shielded box. Why?

In the video you link, how close do you think they are to the electromagnetic source of earth? 40,000 feet? 50,000 feet? As we move away from the earth, It’s influence decreases.

Again please explain the EM box example I gave to you. There is a reason you are ignoring it and it has to do with intellectual dishonesty.

Are you really asking me to show you a model of the ‘solar system?’

No Im asking you how you know EM is the solution. What evidence do you have? You dont answer questions that you cant answer. You are stumped in several ways and you ignoring a few important points shows you have massive gaps in your understanding.

Can you calculate for me how much EM influence a 300 ton object has? Now how much will that 300 ton object a 5lb object? Gravity can answer this down to millimeters over very large distances. EM cannot.

Why did you ignore my magnet example?

It wouldnt be hard to do one as a community spread out over so much distance. We can duplicate Carl Sagan's explanation of Socrates' experiment.

Get 2 or more people from different places where it is daytime for all. Everyone use sticks that are all the same length. Have a precise measurement of the distances between everyone. Measure the shadows and shadow angles. Do all this simultaneously via skype or etc. The data you receive can be plotted on a flat plane map or a globe. See which medium the data supports.

This, like the experiment of Eratosthenes work on both sphere earth and flat earth models. One Flat Earth Model shadows still cast at the same angle but the sun is much closer in the flat earth model.

Go on vacation to someplace warm. Notice that the days are not the same length. Same planet. Different length of day.

That is the dumbest "experiment" ever. Please never comment again. You clearly don't understand how to set up an actual scientific experiment that proves anything.

'Same planet. Different length of day.' - What do you believe this proves? This works on both models. Flat earth model, UN Flag Have a nice day!

There is no way for the sun to transit a flat plane at different speeds with respect to the same plane. It proves the earth is a sphere.

There is no way for the sun to transit a flat plane at different speeds with respect to the same plane.

Did some one claim this? What is your point?

Use a laser gyro.

http://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZPSB&pc=MOZO&q=laser+gyro+spinning+earth

Look at the earth's shadow during the next eclipse?

Go outside, watch the sun go down. Now call someone that you know that is several timezones to the west and have them send you a picture of the sun. Boom. Round earth.

Proving the earth is moving is much harder. Need a Foucault's pendulum.

O my... please at least entertain the flat earther's theories and rebuttals before you start trying to debate with them. You're just making yourself loom dumb.

Oh, I already have. I've rather acquainted with them. I could bother typing out the actual argument revolving around sunsets, but I'm tied of doing so and the person I'm talking to just ignoring it. Simply put, sunsets as they are observed cannot occur on a flat Earth. The only explanation is a spherical or cylindrical shape.

Foucault's pendulum is not even pseudoscience. Different pendulums spin opposite direction from the same hemisphere. Furthermore, it it impossible to start on swinging without angular momentum.

The sun appears to set because it is much closer to the earth and it goes beyond the vanishing point, just light a street light.

Wrt the pendulum, if you think the initial swing is enough​ to explain the behavior of a Foucault's pendulum, I would like to hear an actual explanation as that seems preposterous.

Wrt your sunset comment, I'll copy paste myself:

The numbers referenced are taken from the flat Earth society wiki, or calculated using those numbers.

The flat Earth model relies upon "perspective" to explain the sun and sunsets. I put that in quotes because they just don't understand perspective, yet reference it constantly to hand wave away issues.

The common flat Earth model has the sun orbiting in a circle parallel and above the plane of the earth by some 3-4000 miles (it really depends upon who you talk to. There's no real consensus and challenging them on a particular point results in a pivot of the argument)

This has several problems. The first being that the sun, being higher than any object on Earth should always be visible from anywhere on earth. At 3000 miles up, and, to put it as low in the sky as possible, a full circumference length of the round earth away (so basically standing on one edge of the earth and looking at the sun above the far edge of the earth opposite you), the sun will still be 6.88° above the horizon, and the angular size of the sun will be .07268°, just the tiniest dot, whereas directly above you, its angular size would be .61°, 8.39% larger, which is slightly larger than the angular size, .53°, listed on Wikipedia.

The second being that because the sun is never below the horizon, if your view isn't obstructed by any foreground object with an angular height greater than 6.88°, then the sun should be visible.

Flat earthers have a variety of explanations for this, including the sun being a giant spotlight that doesn't shine on some parts even though it should otherwise be visible. As the sun is always a circle, even when setting, this is clearly not the case. Add in the sun still illuminating the sky well after it is no longer visible and the argument just falls apart.

Regardless of the shape of the sun being a sphere or a circle, it maintains a consistent size, with some variation for atmospheric effects, and being perceived as larger when near the horizon due to there being something to compare it to.

Frankly no self respecting flat earther would accept the results of any cartography expedition, as it is too easily manipulated by whatever sinister forces are responsible for the deception. This is a very simple argument that anyone with two eyes and the ability to apply basic reasoning can understand.

Foucault's pendulum, I would like to hear an actual explanation as that seems preposterous.

Such a pendulum is merely a ball and socket joint connected to a pendulum. Ball and socket joints facilitate circular momentum. The pendulum is set into motion by lifting and releasing the pendulum, however it is impossible to release it in a 100% straight motion. Over time this results is a slight circular motion. Moreover, pendulums rotating in opposite directions from the same hemisphere.

The Flat Earth Society is a shill organization meant to mislead people who only do superficial research into the subject by making claims such as : gravity is cause by a constant upward motion by the earth I'm not here to defend there claims.

The first being that the sun, being higher than any object on Earth should always be visible from anywhere on earth.

Here we see a row of street lights on a roughly flat road. Does light furthest from the observe light the ground beneath him? Does it disappear beyond the vanishing point? This is a crude example but it proves a point. Here we see a boat that is the highest point for miles around yet when we zoom out it becomes invisible to the naked eye.

Pièce de résistance - Day and night from the same perspective.

This is a very simple argument that anyone with two eyes and the ability to apply basic reasoning can understand.

LOL have a nice day!

My best experience for knowing the earth was a globe was taking a red-eye flight from New York to Moscow in the summer. I saw the fucking sun on the other side of the planet. Not to mention the curvature you see at 30,000+ feet.

Any photographic evidence? I think we've all been in planes and I've never seen curvature.

That it spins? Film the star Polaris, in the north, playback at x25.

That it is a ball? Travel to anywhere in Antartica, and try to find the star Polaris in night sky.

So the stars apparently rotating over us are actually evidence that the earth is spinning?

Try to find Polaris from Antartica? Try to find a street lamp from seven miles away on the same street.

I would say that the stars provide evidence that our planet does rotate.. but that is only if you believe that the stars arent just some illustration on a dome, but are physical objects which sit millions of light years in the distance

Yep. When did you start believing that stars are millions of light years away?

Go to r/science and you'll get a better answer. You're asking a bunch of jabronis that believe in a pizza related pedophile conspiracy

'jabronis?' - Love it. Trust me I've had this discussion with people on many subs including those dedicated to debunking the subject. I'm only interjecting here because r/conspiracy is the one sub I still read on this god-forsaken site and I thinks it's hypocritical to denounce the theory since most people here don't even understand what that theory proposes. For instance most people think that you cannot circumnavigate the earth according to the FE model.

Foucault's pendulum is one.

Foucault's pendulums - different pendulums swing in different directions from the same hemisphere. It is impossible to set one in motion without angular momentum. Think about it, it's just a ball and socket attached to a pendulum. You swing it and any angular motion is proof that the earth is a spinning ball?

Jump on your choice of flight tracker website, and look for flights within the southern hemisphere to destinations also within the southern hemisphere (YSSY (Sydney, Australia)to SCEL(Santiago, Chile) is the most obvious, but I'm pretty sure any flight of a reasonable distance will show it), and look how the tracked data shows the flight line curving toward Antarctica. On a flat earth model, the shortest line between those two points would be North, going over North America.

Have you done this yourself? Please provide evidence because I've heard others suggest the exact opposite.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA27/history/20170512/0135Z/YSSY/SCEL https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA63/history/20170514/0050Z/YSSY/FAOR

Please take the flight. Lets see how long it takes.

Actual departure and arrival times are on that page. I'm not going to spend roughly a grand in airfares that wont prove anything not shown on that page.

You millennials are the dumbest generation. With all the technology at your fingertips you would think that, there would be more critical thinkers.

But nope. You faggots rather stream 30 season of Doctor Who in a weekend than look at the world around you.

What is even funnier to me is that so many of you believe the Government carried out 9/11. Killed JFK. Covered up Roswell. You believe the Government is capable of these horrible things (and they are), yet if you hear the entire Government has been lying to you about space, your pussies get all chaffed.

Because you all are still kids. You all still dreaming about wielding a lightsaber and going pew-pew-pew at asteroids. Wake up and ask questions like why can't NASA stream an uncut space entry with the astronauts leaving the air dock and going into the vacuum. Well they won't.

You can see the most amazing Hollywood special effects but think an entity with unlimited resources and funds can't make anything look real. You all are so dumb and trusting. They are going to use you stripping you stupid fucks for stem cells.

Almost nothing is so definitely a "fact" that anyone who questions it is automatically a "denier".

That line of thinking is only reserved to religions and recently to scientism when trying to promote and preserve their belief systems.

No because density also explains why things fall and rise.

No one is arguing density doesn't exist.

No because density also explains why things fall and rise.

Cant have density without a force pulling on it. What is that force if gravity is a myth?

If I mix oil and water and dump it out into a zero gravity vacuum it wont separate even though the densities are different. They will however separate on Earth because there is a force pulling them down at the same rate.

Well, I'd say the difference here is that literally everyone can experience gravity on his own. Hell, just jump and watch yourself get pulled donw. FE theory, on the other hand, cannot be disproved without a)some convoluted experiment that is easy to ignore/dispute, b) actually going up into the space and looking down at earth. And since nobody here can do the second...

Or possibly you experience a different force. Scientist are trying to accurately model it. It doesn't make sense with current models. Not on flat earth or any earth. It's just a miscommunication when you you say you can experience gravity. Something holds us down but smart people are researching it. So you just can't dismiss someone who suggest a different idea. Most likely they are wrong but you don't know for certain either.

Yeah, but the point is you can't just say "gravity does not exist". There's some force that holds us down(no pun intended), and we call it gravity. It will still exist, even if it caused by completely different reasons that we believe in right now.

No such thing with flat/spherical Earth, unfortunately.

No one said gravity didn't exist. But it may not. It could be electromagnetism and spacetime interacting or it could be inter-dimensional.

Electromagnetism + spacetime.

I guess Im not understanding how electromagnetism affects density.

Again refer to the example I gave above. In zero gravity two different liquids will not separate.

It's that there is a theoretical possibility that electromagnetism and space time could explain gravity. I haven't done the math, I just saw that pointed out one time last week and today. But gravity is a problem to explain, scientist know that and are trying to figure it out. It's doubtful it's that simple but I mean it's worth looking at. Can it be made to work?

The problem with electromagnetivty as a reasonable solution is it might be the answer in a few cases but when asked if electromagnetism can simulate what we assume to be gravity thats a big no.

EM cant explain orbits or time expansion with SR being close to a gravity well.

Lol but just notice how the conversation started. Take an active participation in solving the problem if you want and if you don't want just don't shut it down.

Lol but just notice how the conversation started. Take an active participation in solving the problem if you want and if you don't want just don't shut it down.

Im not sure what you mean.

Here is an easy test to throw out electromagnetivity as the source of attraction between bodies.

Build an EM shielded box, we know how to do this. Hell build one as large as a stadium and notice that you are still being attracted to the ground.

That is an interesting idea, so that helps. But I'm imagining the force running through the earth from pole to pole, that's where the "gravity" force would be so basically the same. So if you're pulled toward the center then does the box effect that?

That's not what gravity is.

Almost nothing is so definitely a "fact"

2+2=4

that anyone who questions it is automatically a "denier".

You cant deny that 2+2=4, you could but you would be wrong.

FE is an extension of this idea. You are surrounded by evidence that the world is a globe orbiting the sun and you literally have to deny certain "facts" about your world to believe FE.

which facts must be denied?

Off the top of my head

• Every observable planet is round and if they have satellites those moons orbit their planets.

• Not being able to see northern hemisphere constellations from the southern hemisphere

• Constellations appear "upside down" from the southern hemisphere.

• You can circumnavigate Antarctica. There is actuall a race around it every year

• Satellites and the ISS

• There are unedited full photos of Earth

• Boats disappear bottom first over the horizon.

• The Coriolis effect

Show me some of the alleged unedited photos of Earth.

https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

DSCOVR EPIC is a satellite that sits at a Lagrange point about 900k miles away. The Chinese also either are launching or have launched a similar satellite.

Famous picture from the EPIC satellite. The word SEX is photoshopped into the clouds.

From the same satellite, EPIC View of Moon Transiting the Earth

See the difference? http://imgur.com/a/xxhZP Which one is correct?

If these are real photos what are Neil Degrasse Tyson talking about here?

The word SEX is photoshopped into the clouds.

I think you have the EPIC image confused with an older composite image.

From the same satellite, EPIC View of Moon Transiting the Earth

Two things to add, whats the focal length of the lenses involved? The distances involved are also misleading. So that apollo photo showing a "small" earth was taken from 200k miles away from the moon itself using (Im pretty sure) standard old school 70mm film, Im not sure about the lens.

Now imagine that EPIC is nearly 1 million miles away taking a photo of the moon at nearly 800k miles away, the Earth is "only" 200k miles from the moon in that instance.

Heres an example http://imgur.com/a/8XEbF

I dont have audio at the moment so Im assuming this is the oblate spheroid thing?

It technically is... The center is slightly enlarged from the tidal forces, its not a "perfect" circle.

Thank you for this comment.

About the Neil Degrasse Tyson thing, you are misunderstanding what he means. He doesn't mean it's literally the exact same shape/proportions as a pear. He means if you look at the tropic of Cancer vs the tropic of Capricorn you would see that the earth is ever so slightly wider at the tropic of Capricorn than the tropic of Cancer. It still looks pretty spherical at a glance, because the variance is relatively small, but when you measure it then you do see it there.

You will argue that every photo shown to you is doctored because they weren't taken by you or the poster. FE's are the same as religious folks. They believe something because it can't be disproven to their satisfaction and everyone attempting to disprove them is using falsified evidence.

This is cool, from NASA. It's changing they say!

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/earthandsun/earthshape.html

Why does NASA say it's not a globe or sphere? Or any scientist really. Academics research this, look up Geodesy.

Why does NASA say it's not a globe or sphere?

Because of the combined effects of gravity and rotation, the Earth's shape is not quite a sphere but instead is slightly flattened in the direction of its axis of rotation. For that reason, in cartography the Earth is often approximated by an oblate spheroid instead of a sphere. The current World Geodetic System model uses a spheroid whose radius is 6,378.137 km (3,963.191 mi) at the equator and 6,356.752 km (3,949.903 mi) at the poles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheroid#Oblate_spheroids

Its not a perfectly round sphere it bulges slightly in the middle.

I'm not tying to be a dick, but you linked me to a page for a spheroid, which is a model that can be used to represent the Earth. There are a few models for the Earths shape. So if someone tries to prove the shape based off of the model, it can be done. Is that the source of the confusion? If it is then every post in here that's mocking flat Earth needs to have a reality check. You would see that you don't know science, because if you see someone proving a model wrong then it tells you that the model isn't 100% correct but nothing more. So one says flat the other says sphere, both models can't be totally right. There is an academic discipline studying this.

My main point is the amount of people who mock and call crazy someone when they don't know what the person is even saying. I mean people are saying "round" but flat earth thinks round. So mocking someone and calling them crazy for drawing the wrong conclusion from a model, shows that no one understood the other. I mean who knows what someone could figure out if we did science together.

There are a few models for the Earths shape.

But not all models are equal. If I told you the earth was shaped like a bicycle you might have the urge to ask me why I think that.

Also dont project on me, I havent called anyone crazy.

No curvature? Water always level... Wait what?

Gotta agree with op, you sure seem brainless.

This is my assumption as well. Top Minds of Reddit / Conpiratard trolling hobby to come here with alts and spew dumb shit like flat earth and exaggerate real concerns into nonsense, like taking 9/11 and twisting it into some hologram nonsense, or taking Zionism concerns and twisting it into blatant antisemitism, or taking weather modification concerns and twisting it into I don't know how contrails work herpa der chemtrail nonsense, or taking specific vaccine concerns and driving the narrative into nonsense backed stereotypical autism stuffs.

Same size cause one is closer even though a lot smaller. I would understand having to explain these things to My 8 year old son, but a grownup not knowing this just blows My mind. Special Lind of stupidity.

Another globie shill thread. Disgusting.

do they launch them from the underside?

I need to align the dish to the satellite to pick up the signal.

No, you need to align your dish and tune it to a radio signal. A radio signal which can come from a tower, or reflected off the atmosphere.

The fact you use a radio antenna dish is not proof of "satellites orbiting the earth".

Yes, and this would be true for receiving radio signals from towers and atmospheric reflections as well

reflected off the atmosphere

I... what? That's not how radio waves work at all.

Also, I'm honestly curious do you actually believe that al our rockets are a scam to... um. Do what exactly?

That is exactly how em waves work. Various frequencies of electromagnetic waves behave differently in different mediums.

Rockets are a scam. They are primitive technologies representative of primitive levels of conciousness.

The explosions and light shows from rocket launches mesmerize the ediotic populace.

Silently levitating air craft are reserved for more elevated beings. They pass overhead of the barbaric hoards, unnoticed.

Keep getting raped in the ass by oil cartels and energy monopolies. The banks and governments aren't going to give up their power. And they don't have to try hard when people are so stupid.

Lol. Internet through Satellites.

Even if it were possible it would be supremely inefficient and require massive amounts of energy.

My god you people are stupid.

The internet is brought to you by very powerful ground based radio transmitters and trans oceanic cables. The shit is not even up for debate. Thats how it works.

You know why I love these threads? You get a chance to see just how fucking stupid people are when it comes to the things they think they know.

What are stars? Why do they rotate around Polaris? Why are there different constellations in Autumn than in Spring? Why do you see the opposite season's constellations during an eclipse?

globie shill thread

This place is a fucking cesspool.

You guys always seem to dismiss the fact that the globe model has been established loooong before space industry and NASA existed.

And even today space industry is (by far) not the only branch involved in depending on the shape of the earth. What about sailors, cargo ships, pilots, geologists, civil engineers, geophysicists....? They can't be all in it, impossible. There would be more people in it than not, so it wouldn't be a conspiracy anymore.

So let's say all those people are clearly not in it. To believe in globe earth when in reality it's flat, all of them would have to be fucking stupid not to see how their results differ from reality, every day and in every single detail. And still no one ever raised their voice about it? I think we can agree that's impossible, too.

So I hope you can draw your conclusion from that by yourself. Otherwise I'm glad to help.

I'm downvoting each and every mention of flat earth on either side of the argument for the exact reason in OP's title. So, downvoted.

Instead of insulting people why don't you just show how it is that you know the earth is round?

This is an outright lie.

What drone did you use? What camera did you use?

Lol! Not even Felix Baumgartner could see a curvature. You are telling me your drone went higher than the stratosphere?

Maybe he had a wide angle lens. A lot of cheap / lightweight / compact wide angle video cameras pointed at the horizon will show a distinct curve. My drone camera looks crazy AF but unless you know what you’re looking at you could easily mistake it as "curvature of the earth"

Seriously? Go to the ocean and hold up a straightedge.

I hope for your sake this is a joke. If not... oh my...

Have you never looked out the window of a plane? You'd have to be blind not to see the curvature.

Please go see a doctor.

So you're saying you can't see the curvature of the earth from a plane? Thanks for the downvote btw. Forgot that's the "disagree" button.

No and neither can you.

Lol, ok. Don't even know why I waste my time.

You can't really though. I'm not a flat earther. But this argument does not help in debunking it.

Man, it's threads like these that make me realize lots of people on this subreddit are way more far gone than I thought.

FE do not board planes

Uh, what?

Lol, that is a fish eye lens. Look at the shot from inside the capsule and then compare it with the one from outside.

You think a fish eye lens is going to cause that much of a curve? Notice how the capsule is straight right through where the earth curves? Thats not from the lens.

Do some research. Do you not realize how high above the earth he would have to be for that kind of curvature? Not even the ISS sees that kind of curvature. Again, I'm not arguing for the earth being flat but for you people (FE and non FE alike) are using shitty examples.

You cant see the curve from whatever height your drone can fly. Its even debatable what altitude people can/have seen the curve, with numbers ranging from 35,000-60,000 ft. Even at those altitudes its so subtle that its questionable. This is a big supportive argument for at least being open to flat earth as a thought experiment. Theres a lot that we think we see because its what we expect to see, when in fact we are not seeing it. Part of the FE thought process is the Zetetic Method, which relies on personal observation as opposed to trusting the theories and data previously laid out for us. In other words, most people only "know" the earth is round because its what theyve been taught, but have never questioned or examined for themselves. Its a valuable approach, as we're taught so many lies and manipulated by them. I respect that about FE inquiry. But FE theory is so flimsy and unable to answer certain questions that it doesnt hold up in the end, and I lose respect when members of that community are in denial about that part of it.

I think the best argument against flat earth is the fact that the Heliocentric model has the ability to predict the future with stunning accuracy. Ask a FE believer to tell you, based on his model, when the next lunar eclipse will be, or the date and time of the next transit of Venus, or even the year when Halleys comet will return. they have nothing.

That argument wouldn't work for flat earthers because they cannot describe the mechanism by which celestial events occur. So under a flat earth model, you could have all the same observable phenomenon and that wouldn't necessarily mean that the round earth model is automatically true.

what lol?

I'd also like to know what this person means

That's the magic of math though you can create models that work for both. To be fair the heliocentric model has had to admit that the distances involved are much further than when it was first proposed. In fact they've pushed the distances of our sun and the stars back farther and farther to make the model fit correctly.

That's the magic of math though you can create models that work for both.

Oh yeah? Then I'm sure you have some math to show us, right?

Explain GPS.

Cell tower triangulation. I still lose my gps signal when traveling through secluded areas of Georgia.

Cell tower triangulation requires 3 towers. My home town only has one. Yet GPS works here.

Not to mention pure GPS units that pre date cell towers.

If losing a signal breaks your GPS, the issue is the map, not the GPS signal.

Radar based positioning systems were accurate up to 60 miles away in the 1940's. The gps signal likely transmits much further than your internet data signal.

And now my phone is accurate to a meter, and is smaller than anything they were tracking in the 40s.

This theory doesn't add up. Whereas GPS positioning is rather simple.

I took the time to actually read the entire Wikipedia page, every section, on GPS. It always, and I mean always, leaves room for 100% ground-based positioning. It states ground-based are far superior. Why even use satellites then? Only, I guessed, where ground based antennae are not feasible. So I looked. And guess what! These places, large swaths of ocean, desert, and tundra have no GPS signal! Look at the Malaysia airlines example. Look at the giant tower "masts" along the shipping lanes. There are no GPS or any other satellites in "orbit".

I took the time to actually read the entire Wikipedia page, every section, on GPS.

/r/iamverysmart

It always, and I mean always, leaves room for 100% ground-based positioning.

No it does not. The amount of towers needed is astronomical. The deadzones would also be astronomical, as dense urban centers can hide the signal. Or just hills/valleys.

It states ground-based are far superior.

And? The civilian based technology is the same as the DoD. If it was superior, we'd notice. People don't state a technology in use is superior to a technology that isn't in use.

Why even use satellites then?

Global coverage.

These places, large swaths of ocean, desert, and tundra have no GPS signal! Look at the Malaysia airlines example.

Except they do. GPS works by reception only. We don't know where planes go because they can't communicate to the outside world. Seriously, go to the coast and get into a fishing boat. How the fuck do you think large shipping liners, commercial fishing boats, or even smugglers, travel the seas? I'll wait. Yes, the stars are an option, but not perfect. And not viable on cloudy nights.

Look at the giant tower "masts" along the shipping lanes.

What about them? Also, source? I can't find shit. Or are you talking about Radio communication towers? In which case, what about them?

Also, you do know the ocean is huge right? If you claim that inland there's GPS loss. And the world is 3/4^th ocean, how the fuck is there any GPS in the ocean? Or let me guess, every crew on every boat ever is in on the conspiracy. Same with Pilots, smugglers, etc. They just claim to use GPS, while actually are rocking sextants?

There are no GPS or any other satellites in "orbit".

Except you're wrong?

Lets look at historic examples. Sputnik 1. The first satellite. It was visible by over 150 watch stations, and even more civilians. Detectable on short wave radio. It managed to do 1440 orbits, transmitted for 21 days, and was visible for 3 months.

Before you say plane, it was moving at 29 000Km/h, 8 times the speed of the SR-71 blackbird. and did an orbit every 96.2 minutes.

What's your explanation to this?

Satellite Internet packages can have somewhat decent speeds. Comparable to DSL. However, the Ping is garbage. Strangely enough, this ping is, somehow, just over the amount of time needed to send a signal ~71000 Kilometers. Half the height of a geostationary satellite's orbit height. Go to any farmer, or small town that only has Satellite internet packages and see for yourself. http://openspeedtest.net will give you ping. Unless you think that website designer is also in on it.

In a few years, Elon Musk will be doing global WiFi coverage with a mesh network of low altitude satellites. What'll be your excuse there?

Elon Musk is a player in the fake space game.

On a flat plane, signals of tower masts have demonstrably shown that they carry farther than your beloved CGI spinning ball would permit.

Beneath a firmament dome, signals would reflect, as does thunder, yet the opposite would be observed if the CGI or painted sphere were real.

Gps coverage, if space were real, orbits, and satellites too, would not be out of service in political hotspots. The satellites wouldn't avoid those areas. Look below:

http://www.rigstat.com/SiteAssets/RigStat/media/data-coverage_map_lg.jpg

You, my friend, are defending a ridiculous lie, and don't even know it. How can orbits not decay? If they do, how are the space station, and Hubble telescope, being so heavy, to remain at altitude? You are under a spell, and will pull an answer from the same place the Moonwalking Astronauts pulled a Dunebuggy out of. Unless you grow weary of being lied to, and begin to question your handlers. It's not that everyone is in on it, it is that everyone starts life under it - stacks and piles of falsehoods. It takes a while to muster courage to be skeptical. Like I said, give not a shit what fucking shape I live on. But I don't care to be misled, and am suspicious of professional liars like the ISS crew on their harnesses in front of their green screens. I'm suspicious when a continent is off limits. When a plane goes missing so easily in the southern latitudes. When nobody has circumnavigated north-south. When flights only cross north of the equator to refuel and back, never south to north and back. When the U.N. flag 100% matches the flat earth society map. The Antarctic barrier, and all the "southern hemisphere" flight route inconsistencies suddenly make sense. There is much more, too. More of what should be undeniable cause for serious inquiry. Sources matter a lot when, considering the evidence, and the demonstrable intelligence of real people like me who are telling you to wake up. When you see others viciously attack the messenger as if they are Kidnapping and raping kids and whatever the real global elite reportedly tend to do now and in much of history. All I'm saying is, the Earth is flat, based on my own investigation. It began after seeing the ISS is a lame hoax, and endless lies and fake shit from NASA. They insult our intelligence, but get major respect while I am told to commit suicide for broaching this topic from any angle to lend credence to the long-held traditional and orthodox view of all our ancestors. Flat earth is so despised, so reviled, so under- and mis-represented, it should be the first thing for anyone to want to debunk. And if so easily debunked, a map of the Flat Earth ought to be the last thing for powerful, mind-manipulating institutions of the world leaders to struggle against, get emotional about, and edify on their own flag. http://i.imgur.com/h5vOvkL.jpg http://i.imgur.com/SgqZMfO.jpg

Sources matter a lot when, considering the evidence,

I agree, and it also helps to understand what the source you're talking about means. The image you linked to is displayed on this webpage http://www.rigstat.com/Asset-Tracking-Service. It is a company that sells remote sensing products. These products collect data and GPS coordinates and then satellite phone that data to a server for logging. That map is showing their remote sensing systems data coverage capabilities. The map you linked is for the GlobalStar data service. There is also another map on that page for the Inmarsat's data service coverage which offers more coverage than GlobalStar. The map you linked in no way demonstrates the limits of GPS coverage to determine your position. In fact, I have been hiking in remote locations where under your assumed model of land based GPA signals reflecting off the firmament dome would still be impossible to receive a signal to determine location, yet I had more than 4 satellites available on my GPS unit and was able to safely navigate my waypoints.

and the demonstrable intelligence of real people like me who are telling you to wake up.

I've seen no such demonstration so far. I'll also add that being intelligent in no way leads one to come to correct conclusions. The process, the scientific method, is what's important. In fact, intelligent people can be better at convincing themselves of irrational beliefs. So far, I've only seen you try to come to a predetermined conclusion on weak and poorly understood evidence. It looks like you started with a conclusion you wanted, googled it, and found an image that confirmed what you wanted, then your search stopped there with no further critical inquiry. You didn't even take the time to understand what you were looking at.

You, my friend, are defending a ridiculous lie, and don't even know it.

It takes a while to muster courage to be skeptical.

So far, you haven't demonstrated it's a ridiculous lie or that you're engaging in skepticism. I've asked in another thread for your best top 3 arguments but haven't heard anything. YOu said you had some scientific and engineering background, so I'm interested in this thread and how you became convinced of a flat earth. But, so far I'm unconvinced that you know what conducting science even looks like or how to be a skeptic. Being skeptical means questioning evidence, but it also means being aware of poor thinking traps humans fall into. You must be aware of logical fallacies and reliance on negative evidence humans are prone to do. So far, you have only offered negative evidence. I don't understand orbital mechanics, therefore flat earth. Negative evidence and a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. The ISS seems fake, therefore flat earth. Negative evidence, argument from incredulity. I can't travel to Antarctica, therefore flat earth. Appeal to conspiracies. By the way, you don't have to be a scientist to travel to Antarctica, they require many support staff for the facilities that house the scientists to do their work. You could certainly take a temporary job there if you wanted to investigate for yourself. Continuing..., I don't understand how a plane could go missing over an ocean, therefore flat earth. Appeal to ignorance. Nobody has circumnavigated north to south, therefore flat earth. Negative evidence. Flights only cross north of the equator to refuel and back, therefore flat earth. Negative evidence. The UN flag matches the flat earth map, therefore flat earth. Appeal to coincidence.

how are the space station, and Hubble telescope, being so heavy, to remain at altitude?

Orbital mechanics and an occasional orbit boost. You can watch an orbit boost on ISS here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI8ldDyr3G0.

suspicious of professional liars like the ISS crew on their harnesses in front of their green screens.

This is an argument from incredulity. Besides, you can spot ISS yourself with the naked eye, cheap binoculars, or if you're skilled, a cheap telescope. https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/. Others have done it and even produced photographs. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/28/ridiculously-awesome-pic-of-discovery-and-the-iss-taken-from-the-ground/#.WRb-y_nyupo.

Gps coverage, if space were real, orbits, and satellites too, would not be out of service in political hotspots. The satellites wouldn't avoid those areas.

Again, it's not been out of service where I went. Even in deep canyons where ground based signals would not go. So, I'll also note, there is a thing called satellite TV. What is my dish pointed at?

All I'm saying is, the Earth is flat, based on my own investigation.

All I'm saying is, you have done a poor investigation. I want a better explanation and evidence, but you've ignored all my other posts and questions.

Elon Musk is a player in the fake space game.

of course you're going to say that.

On a flat plane, signals of tower masts have demonstrably shown that they carry farther than your beloved CGI spinning ball would permit.

How so? Atmospheric bouncing is a well known effect that amateur HAM radio operators use and understand. As well as signal penetration.

Beneath a firmament dome, signals would reflect, as does thunder, yet the opposite would be observed if the CGI or painted sphere were real.

uhhhh what?

Signals do bounce. Again, and radio operator anywhere can tell you this. Thunder is a sound wave and eventually just loses energy.

thunder sounds ripply due to the sound reaching us at different times, and can travel 16 kilometers away.

Gps coverage, if space were real, orbits, and satellites too, would not be out of service in political hotspots. The satellites wouldn't avoid those areas. Look below:

So I needed to do some digging on that coverage map, since you were an asshole and linked directly to an image.

here I found the map in a PDF document. "Globelestar LEO network" Perfect, now what is GlobalStar?

lowspeed data communication. It's not GPS. It's also data communication. That's why there's the little images of satellite dishes on the map, the satellite in LEO picks up your signal, and passes it on to a ground station. This isn't GPS, it's satellite phone/tracking.

GPS is a receive only technology, and is global.

You, my friend, are defending a ridiculous lie

From the guy with a map that isn't true.

How can orbits not decay? If they do, how are the space station, and Hubble telescope, being so heavy, to remain at altitude?

They do?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_station-keeping

The Russian space station, Skylab, was it? When that was abandoned it fell into earth due to a decaying orbit. The ISS does make regular burns to stay in orbit.

Why do you think they must fall? Going from ocean level to the top of a mountain has a noticeable air pressure differance. As such, eventually, there would be no air. Or are you now saying everyone that's been to the top of a mountain is in on the conspiracy?

You are under a spell, and will pull an answer from the same place the Moonwalking Astronauts pulled a Dunebuggy out of.

A Saturn V rocket? Why do you think it's so hard to get something under 500 pounds on the moon? it folds.

Unless you grow weary of being lied to

i am, your ignorance and onslaught of misleading facts is weary. But I pull through, I must help the ignorant.

It's not that everyone is in on it, it is that everyone starts life under it

No. Everyone must be in on it for it to make sense.

Plane routes are curved to save fuel. So essentially every pilot, crew member, and then everyone above them in the company is in on it. The management at every Satellite based ISP, and TV service would be in on it to. Since they spend money on satellites.

It takes a while to muster courage to be skeptical.

This isn't being skeptical, it's being stupid.

But I don't care to be misled, and am suspicious of professional liars like the ISS crew on their harnesses in front of their green screens.

Except harnesses won't give you a full 0g look. You'll still be pulled towards gravity.

Also, why mislead people? What's the point? Your conspiracy lacks evidence, reason, and purpose. 9/11 at least was a precursor to war. But flat earth?

I'm suspicious when a continent is off limits.

Antarctica?

http://www.intrepidtravel.com/us/antarctica http://www.alci.co.za/

You can go there mate. So, that's a lie.

When a plane goes missing so easily in the southern latitudes.

Because, as your map shows, satellite communication is not there. As such they can't relay their position to a safe place.

When nobody has circumnavigated north-south.

You want the far north, or far south? People have trecked across both.

2012 — Felicity Aston becomes the first person to ski alone across Antarctica using only personal muscle power, as well as the first woman to cross Antarctica alone.[19][20] Her journey began on 25 November 2011, at the Leverett Glacier, and continued for 59 days and a distance of 1,084 miles (1,744 kilometers).[21]

I guess she's just a liar then? Paid NASA shill?

When the U.N. flag 100% matches the flat earth society map.

The UN's flag was made in 1946. The flat earth society would have made their map to look like the UN one on purpose.

The Antarctic barrier, and all the "southern hemisphere" flight route inconsistencies suddenly make sense.

what inconsistencies? Different planes take different routes due to differences in the plane they're flying, as well as storm conditions.

Elon Musk is a player in the fake space game.

of course you're going to say that.

On a flat plane, signals of tower masts have demonstrably shown that they carry farther than your beloved CGI spinning ball would permit.

How so? Atmospheric bouncing is a well known effect that amateur HAM radio operators use and understand. As well as signal penetration.

Beneath a firmament dome, signals would reflect, as does thunder, yet the opposite would be observed if the CGI or painted sphere were real.

uhhhh what?

Signals do bounce. Again, and radio operator anywhere can tell you this. Thunder is a sound wave and eventually just loses energy.

thunder sounds ripply due to the sound reaching us at different times, and can travel 16 kilometers away.

Gps coverage, if space were real, orbits, and satellites too, would not be out of service in political hotspots. The satellites wouldn't avoid those areas. Look below:

So I needed to do some digging on that coverage map, since you were an asshole and linked directly to an image.

here I found the map in a PDF document. "Globelestar LEO network" Perfect, now what is GlobalStar?

lowspeed data communication. It's not GPS. It's also data communication. That's why there's the little images of satellite dishes on the map, the satellite in LEO picks up your signal, and passes it on to a ground station. This isn't GPS, it's satellite phone/tracking.

GPS is a receive only technology, and is global.

You, my friend, are defending a ridiculous lie

From the guy with a map that isn't true.

How can orbits not decay? If they do, how are the space station, and Hubble telescope, being so heavy, to remain at altitude?

They do?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_station-keeping

The Russian space station, Skylab, was it? When that was abandoned it fell into earth due to a decaying orbit. The ISS does make regular burns to stay in orbit.

Why do you think they must fall? Going from ocean level to the top of a mountain has a noticeable air pressure differance. As such, eventually, there would be no air. Or are you now saying everyone that's been to the top of a mountain is in on the conspiracy?

You are under a spell, and will pull an answer from the same place the Moonwalking Astronauts pulled a Dunebuggy out of.

A Saturn V rocket? Why do you think it's so hard to get something under 500 pounds on the moon? it folds.

Unless you grow weary of being lied to

i am, your ignorance and onslaught of misleading facts is weary. But I pull through, I must help the ignorant.

It's not that everyone is in on it, it is that everyone starts life under it

No. Everyone must be in on it for it to make sense.

Plane routes are curved to save fuel. So essentially every pilot, crew member, and then everyone above them in the company is in on it. The management at every Satellite based ISP, and TV service would be in on it to. Since they spend money on satellites.

It takes a while to muster courage to be skeptical.

This isn't being skeptical, it's being stupid.

But I don't care to be misled, and am suspicious of professional liars like the ISS crew on their harnesses in front of their green screens.

Except harnesses won't give you a full 0g look. You'll still be pulled towards gravity.

Also, why mislead people? What's the point? Your conspiracy lacks evidence, reason, and purpose. 9/11 at least was a precursor to war. But flat earth?

I'm suspicious when a continent is off limits.

Antarctica?

http://www.intrepidtravel.com/us/antarctica http://www.alci.co.za/

You can go there mate. So, that's a lie.

When a plane goes missing so easily in the southern latitudes.

Because, as your map shows, satellite communication is not there. As such they can't relay their position to a safe place.

When nobody has circumnavigated north-south.

You want the far north, or far south? People have trecked across both.

2012 — Felicity Aston becomes the first person to ski alone across Antarctica using only personal muscle power, as well as the first woman to cross Antarctica alone.[19][20] Her journey began on 25 November 2011, at the Leverett Glacier, and continued for 59 days and a distance of 1,084 miles (1,744 kilometers).[21]

I guess she's just a liar then? Paid NASA shill?

When the U.N. flag 100% matches the flat earth society map.

The UN's flag was made in 1946. The flat earth society would have made their map to look like the UN one on purpose.

The Antarctic barrier, and all the "southern hemisphere" flight route inconsistencies suddenly make sense.

what inconsistencies? Different planes take different routes due to differences in the plane they're flying, as well as storm conditions.

There is much more, too. More of what should be undeniable cause for serious inquiry.

I'm glad all this shocking undeniable evidence isn't listed here. Oh wait, I'm not. If you're going to say you have proof, then use the proof.

Sources matter a lot when, considering the evidence, and the demonstrable intelligence of real people like me who are telling you to wake up.

Then why don't you have any sources? You claim that GPS is only for a small area, but you're wrong there because you didn't look deeper. You claim that Antarctica is a no go zone, yet you can travel there. How about you pull your head out of your ass and open your eyes?

and the demonstrable intelligence of real people like me who are telling you to wake up.

/r/iamverysmart

When you see others viciously attack the messenger as if they are Kidnapping and raping kids and whatever the real global elite reportedly tend to do now and in much of history.