[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/x/ - Paranormal


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 1669263414243004.png (281 KB, 1280x780)
281 KB
281 KB PNG
the earth is round, cry about it here.
the earth is flat, cry about it here.
let the endless discussions begin yet again.
>>
>>33445753
yeah i get ya

~abstract kinda lump
>>
>>33445753
The helium balloon does experience a greater gravitational force F. The difference is that the force of buoyancy in air is greater than F because it is less dense.

Think of it like this. A pure lump of steel sinks in water. But a boat where the hull is filled with air floats on water, even though the boat with steel plus air weighs more than just a lump of steel which floats.
It is because the boat with air is, in total with air, less dense than the water it displaces. So a massive heavy steel ship can float.

Same is true with a helium balloon. The helium balloon is less dense than the air it displaces so there is net force that pushes the balloon up.
>>
What is interesting is that it is difficult to convince a lot of people that there are actually people who think the Earth is flat.
They think the whole thing is a massive troll and a prank to wind people up. A complete refusal to believe that some people actually think that.

Some of them may have started off like that but I have been to a church and met one very sincere flat Earther.
>>
File: 1669212381732553.jpg (153 KB, 1000x667)
153 KB
153 KB JPG
>>33445810
I'm shape agnostic and legitimately looking for the truth. It's very hard to prove for yourself either way, if you don't just blindly trust whatever images are pumped out NASA (Most are even admitted fake or composite), which isn't proof at all.

The atmosphere creates optical effects which flerfs AND ballers use to push their model. We're never really seeing the horizon, or are we, etc. All I can see is, every day from my own eyes it appears flat and the establishment is constantly trying to invert everything people personally observe and replace it with lies.
>>
File: 1669225243416944.jpg (60 KB, 720x675)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
>>33445867
They tell you the garbage food killing you is actually good, they tell you that being replaced is righteous, they tell you having children is selfish, they tell you living in a box and wageslaving 40 hours a week is freedom, they tell you your "carbon footprint" is killing the planet while they pump trillions of tons of shit into the air, they tell you that something untested is safe, they tell you we went to the moon 50 years ago then destroyed all the technology and it's too difficult to go back.

Why would I trust these people about anything? Would they lie about this? Why not, they lie about everything else. If it's truly a sphere, why censor the opposition, why lie and misrepresent the arguments at every opportunity, why employ paid shills to argue in threads like this, using the most dishonest tactics possible? It doesn't add up.
>>
flat earthers have no balls.
>>
>>33445919
that
that's a funny joke
>>
File: 1669199914902939.png (319 KB, 2156x638)
319 KB
319 KB PNG
>>33445795
>The helium balloon does experience a greater gravitational force F
"Gravity" is still no proven to the cause of things falling down. If you can prove it, fill in the blanks.
>>
File: image0.png (135 KB, 378x442)
135 KB
135 KB PNG
>>33445919
You have no balls since you can't prove the stars nor the Earth, are balls.
>>
>>33445912
The same people are having paid shills push flat earth in places like here. It's an inorganic phenomenon.
>>
>>33445753
The discussion is weird. I feel like weirdly a lot of conspiracy theories are the result of a mixture of poor imagination/the inability to see how things can be counter intuitive and the fear that someone is laughing at you and thinks you are an idiot.

The world looks flat from our small perspective. Therefore it must be flat. Well to a microbe a basketball would look flat.

The ancient Greeks worked out not just that the Earth was rotund but Erastothenes worked out roughly the circumference of the Earth using the shadows.

If you travel north from Egypt across the sea to Greece and further north, you can see the star constellations rising up from the horizon at the same point at night. You can tell that we are moving across a ball.
Pretty every major developed culture in the ancient world worked this out.
Satellites orbit the Earth right now probably giving some of you internet connection but maybe you think every single government on planet Earth and every single scientific and technological institution is lying and in on this massive grandiose conspiracy to make people think the Earth is rotund for some reason.
To stop us believing in God? Wild. Some massive and numerous assumptions going on there.

Just common sense and occhams razor tells you flat Earth is bullshit.
>>
File: 71zc8l.jpg (71 KB, 500x500)
71 KB
71 KB JPG
>>
>>33445999
1. Masses accelerate (change speed or direction) when there is a net resultant force on them. With zero resultant force stuff just stays still or carries on in a straight line at constant speed.
2. Things accelerate to Earth all at the same rate (in a vacuum) of 9.81 regardless of the mass.
3. Therefore there must be some kind of force acting on them.
4. A centripetal force is required to keep something moving in a circle at constant speed (changing velocity).
5. Planets orbit so there must be a force acting on them to keep the changing direction.
6. Hypothesis: hmmmm is This force that keeps planets in orbit the same force that pulls stuff to the ground?
7. Let us test this hypothesis. Galileo did experiments and confirmed that the acceleration to Earth is promotional to the square of the distance between the object and the Earth. Hmmm.
8. Look at orbits or planets. Hmmm what if the force keeping these in orbit is related to mass. Oh shit it is! Newton used keplers laws of planetary motion work out his law of gravitation which predicts planetary motion.
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Newton-derive-the-universal-law-of-gravitation
9. What is all mass is attracted to all other mass with a force that is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
10. Do the experiment. Oh shit it is! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

11. And we call the force of attraction between all masses gravity.

Makes sense?
t. Geophysics grad
>>
Flat Earthers are like people who live in a desert having never seen a metal ship float.
>Hah fucking retards think a metal ship can float. I can see with my own eyes and senses that metal sinks in water. Ships are made of metal. Therefore metal ships must sink. My logic is impeccable. There must be a conspiracy here.

There is a massive imagination gap about why thinks sink and float. When you realise why things are buoyant, they displace a greater mass of water than the object itself, then it makes total sense why a giant oil tanker floats.

Similarly, your immediate senses you see the Earth looks flat. But if you just have a little imagination and think beyond that you can see that it would look flat to something relatively so small.

It is so weird that this is happening.
>>
>>33445912
the only people who lie about literally everything are flat earthers and moonhoax believers. Take your image for example.
>>
>>33446040
No they arent. Are you fucking kidding me. Lol retard.

Sure, ive seen globers control opposition as flatties.
>>
File: 5f0.jpg (120 KB, 990x990)
120 KB
120 KB JPG
>>33446064
Every fucking time
>>
>>33445795
Based brainfag
>>
File: 1663778393967353.webm (2.65 MB, 640x360)
2.65 MB
2.65 MB WEBM
>>33446328
Die slowly m8
>>
>>33446147
You did not fill in the blanks. What is your independent variable?
>>
File: 1551574926719.webm (2.2 MB, 960x720)
2.2 MB
2.2 MB WEBM
>>33446147
Obviously, you have already concluded gravity is real before you made your list.

Prove gravity is real without psuedoscience and faith please. Yes, each experiment and proof you listed is faulty. You are a product of 20+ years of successful propaganda.

>t. actual genius
>>
>>33446357
you are a terrible person
>>
>>33446399
>says the shill parroting pedo-cannibal lies and worldview

>appeal to emotion

Kill yourself
>>
>>33446403
>avoids making an argument when meme image questioned.
>wishes death upon questioner
>gaslights
this is all you have.
>>
File: 1668505058406073.jpg (98 KB, 720x547)
98 KB
98 KB JPG
>>33446421
:)
>>
>>33446371
>independent variable
What is this, middle school science? Are you a kid? Which experiment are you referring with the independent variable?
Not every experiment or scientific discovery has an independent, dependent and control variable. That is rare to have an experiment that simple beyond high school where you just test two variables against each other.
Newtons universal law of gravitation were tested in the Cavendish experiment and have been tested multiple times in numerous other experiments.

Literally massive oil tankers on water will experience a force of gravitational attraction between them.

Read about the cavendish experiment here: https://www.britannica.com/science/Cavendish-experiment
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/43/003/43003534.pdf
>>
>>33446442
Its time to learn about electrons and magnets, anon.
>>
>>33446395
No. You did not understand the process. You need to understand Newtons laws.
Things accelerate to Earth so there must be some kind of force. That is not assuming gravity exists. That is assuming Newtons laws of motion are correct. If you want to honesty explain and derive Newtons first two laws of motion… just go back to school kid.

Gravity, a force between all masses, is deduced later through the experiments I posted.
>>
>>33446449
Yeah lad. Every single university. Every single physics academic. Every single engineer for the past 300 years has got it wrong.
All the physics we have used for all engineering which involve gravity are wrong.

You, some retard on the internet, have got it all right.
I have posted all the info you need to understand. The test is on you.
>>
File: 1668548479710157.gif (691 KB, 498x358)
691 KB
691 KB GIF
>>33446462
>things accelerate to earth
Go back to school kid.
>>
File: fetchimage.jpeg.jpg (264 KB, 680x688)
264 KB
264 KB JPG
>>33446473
Yes, they have got it wrong. They are all retards.
>>
>>33446011
I wonder what must go wrong in someone's life to think that pic related is a good "gotcha" or something. Absolutely retarded
>>
>>33446478
Literally just prove with a ticker tape. Drop a ball. Measure the velocity at each interval.
Then promptly kill youself so you cannot pass your genes on.
>>
File: 1662384080292469.webm (2.23 MB, 720x576)
2.23 MB
2.23 MB WEBM
>>33446491
Yes, yes. Ive heard about your retarded shit 100 times. You need to wake up
>>
>>33446487
You trolling for lulz and bantz. However, I actually do think this mentality is common amongst zoomers. They have such an inflated special snowflake ego that they thin their intuition is everything. If someone opposes their intuition with logic they are so certain the other people is evil or stupid.

It is actually wild. We need to bring back beating tbqh.
>>
File: 1668011286583517.jpg (77 KB, 665x375)
77 KB
77 KB JPG
>>33446490
>>
>>33446504
>IS THAT A FLIPPIN PARTICLE..
>I-IN SPACERINO????
>AIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE IT'S ALL FAKED UNDERWATER AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Do flat earthers think space is just planets and stars?
>>
>>33446338
Flattards lie constantly, as in blatant lies. Genuine honest believers wouldn't act like that. The remaining options are trolls and shills. Trolls wouldn't go to the effort to make lots and lots of Youtube videos, so paid shills are the only thing that's left. Sure there are also some trolls and very stupid people, but shills are the factor driving the cult.

The purpose of the psyop is to both
a) get all places where questioning the status quo is allowed associated with flat earth nonsense, and
b) get Christianity associated with flat earth nonsense.

The current flat earth thing started very suddenly, as if someone suddenly hired a bunch of people.
>>
>>33446506
When all else fails, post awful Facebook memes
>>
File: 1632890238835.jpg (328 KB, 1975x1080)
328 KB
328 KB JPG
>>33446505
No m8. I know the earth is flat 100%.

I get it, you think youre smart cause you got a few good grades from school(tm), and now you agree with every mainstream science and question nothing. And you spend your time snuffing out anybody that does question. Sounds about right
>>
>>33446531
this image is very funny because the Earth visibly curves in it

Also I do feel bad for you. You watched some wannabe know-it-all faggots on YouTube like Dubay or DIRTH, and now you parrot everything you heard without a second thought. You are not a freethinker. In fact you follow and listen to the people that larp as pilots until called out and lie about shit like cold moonlight because they could NEVER be wrong.. It's fucking sad. You are a sheep. An NPC. Just with much more arrogance and blindness.
>>
File: 1665765413238581.webm (2.89 MB, 1280x720)
2.89 MB
2.89 MB WEBM
>>33446559
Well, it seems you just outright deny reality, because the horizon in that image is 100% straight.

So I dont know what to do with you other than call you a retarded globecuck shill.
>>
>>33446577
>I dont know what to do with you other than call you a retarded globecuck shill.
that's right. it's all you know how to do.
>>
>>33446577
>SHILL SHILL IT'S ALL SHILLS AAAAAA SAVEEEE MEEEE DUBAAAYYYYYYY

I'm sorry you're literally blind lmao

Also you will surely provide the original video from your little quirky webm. You do not blindly believe everything you see on your favorite facebook FE anti-chemtrails anti-5g group, right, anon? You are not like those libtard satanic globetards, right?
>>
File: m3exevpz1yp61.jpg (66 KB, 640x457)
66 KB
66 KB JPG
>>33446598
>>33446594
Imagine being these demonic retarded shills what a pitiful existence.

Yes, the horizon is FLAT. Lol. Now die.
>>
File: spacejump.png (205 KB, 393x675)
205 KB
205 KB PNG
>>33446442
>What is this, middle school science
No, it's primary school science and you can't even do that lol
>>
File: piZap_1663813336207.jpg (276 KB, 1080x540)
276 KB
276 KB JPG
>when you observe horizon, horizon is flat

How do globetards explain this?
>>
>>33446442
Reminder that this little pilpul shit >>33446371 was answered repeatedly in the thread containing this post, by multiple anons:
https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/33429743/#q33437171

He will never acknowledge your answer. He will come up with any bullshit excuse to deny any answer you give him. It does not matter what evidence you have. It does not matter how well reasoned your arguments are. He is not after the truth. He is a religious zealot committed to the flat Earth cult. (And that's assuming he's not just a glowie or a bot.) Within that thread he was actually cornered to the point of claiming that gravity only works horizontally and has not been proved vertically. 5 minutes later he was acting as if he had never been cornered, as if nobody had ever answered any of his questions, and the pilpul cycle began again.

Let's say there are three parts to an answer to his dishonest inquiry. He will argue with you for hours over part A. Once you have posted so much evidence that any fool can see A is correct, he will argue over part B, then part C. And then he will come back to A as if you never proved that A was true, as if it was never discussed at all.

Trying to engage honestly with flat Earthers is a waste of time, for none of them are honest.
>>
>>33446515
You are correct on all points. But I think the people being conned by the YouTubers are true believers. Cults are real. Real people get caught up in them. Mix together low IQ, lack of scientific knowledge, and an ego that feeds off of the idea that "everybody is wrong but I'm such a clever boy I see through the lies!" and you've got a cult member. A useful idiot who helps to discredit legitimate conspiracy theories as well as Christianity.
>>
>>33446011
So no Australia or Asia? And some of the planets can be seen with a home scope.
Flat earthers are just mad because they are balless.
>>
>>33446838
What experiment can you cite that uses gravity as an indepependet variable?
>>33446881
The plantes look like light in the sky, not balls. Why do you want them to be balls so much you're gay? Lol. Anyway the thigs in the sky have no bearing on the shaoe of what's beneath you.
>>
File: 1551574917059.webm (2.97 MB, 960x720)
2.97 MB
2.97 MB WEBM
>>33446838
Love making globecucks cry
>>
>>33445912
>they tell you having children is selfish
Isn't it?
>>
File: 1662134786647292.png (1.08 MB, 4064x1782)
1.08 MB
1.08 MB PNG
>>33446967
Based
>>
>>33446926
You are balless! HA ha ha!
>>
File: 1661879634432050.jpg (527 KB, 935x1309)
527 KB
527 KB JPG
>>33446993
I am a flat earther and still believe we are naturally occuring. Meaning, I dont believe in magic. You see, it is magnet all the way down.
>>
>>33446531
Nice edited image. Here's the original source of the image. Zoom all the way out and position the sun in roughly the same location that is seen in the edited version to see the matching details.
https://www.airpano.com/360photo/stratosphere-caucasus/

The version you posted has been heavily edited. You can see the extreme distortion which resulted in the lower clouds and mountains. I don't know if the owner did this to try and squeeze as much of that section of the pano into a rectangular image as possible, or if a flat Earther did it to lie. I suspect the latter given that the purpose seems to have been to make the horizon flat at the expense of all detail below the horizon, which is horribly distorted. In any case, I do know that it is not a correct view. Note that the pano shows curvature no matter how you position it.

If you want to see a shot made at nearly 300,000 feet using a rectilinear lens with no significant distortions, watch the video below. Note that the ground photo from the 2nd stage is distortion free. Note that at altitude it shows curvature. Note that this is an amateur rocket, i.e. no poisoning the well with "NASA lies."
https://youtu.be/4QsEPEhq5yk
>>
>>33446577
>Well, it seems you just outright deny reality, because the horizon in that image is 100% straight.
Of course it is. The image was edited to make the horizon look straight. >>33447083
>>
>>33446442
Notice that he continues to behave as if his question has never been answered, even though it it has been answered now by at least 3 different anons using three different experiments/examples: >>33446926
>>
>>33446473
If you think academia exists to create thinking humans and not an indoctrination facility, YOU are the retard.

(Yes, downward acceleration exists. That doesn't mean we're spinning incredibly fast through a vacuum).

>>33446487
Based.
>>
>>33447037
No an argument.
>>33447105
Any experiment proving gravity with gravity as the independent variable yet?
>>
File: piZap_1669306606620.jpg (198 KB, 968x1290)
198 KB
198 KB JPG
>>33447083
The top image is clearly edited.

So fake bro. Is this a masochism thing? I like making you seethe. Guess thats why you come back to get btfo so often.
>>
>>33447141
>the original source image
>at the provided link
>made with a panoramic camera
>is really the edited version
>and the edited version
>with grossly distorted clouds and mountains
>and a flat horizon which appears at no position in the original panorama
>is really the true version
LMFAO! Flat Earthers will invent any lie, create any excuse, distort any fact, in order to protect their God damn cult.
>>
>>33445795
Copium for a onions grin tard
>>
File: earthrise_meme.png (257 KB, 711x425)
257 KB
257 KB PNG
>>33447141
Also there is no way for the horizon to rise to eye level on a globe. Impossible. It will always curve down regardless of how big the globe is.
>>
File: piZap_1664299520398.jpg (356 KB, 1080x540)
356 KB
356 KB JPG
>>33447171
Git gud fggt
>>
>>33447124
>Any experiment proving gravity with gravity as the independent variable yet?
All of them. Every single experiment cited to you by every anon who has answered you in this thread and the last.
>>
File: 1668516881706795.jpg (36 KB, 290x360)
36 KB
36 KB JPG
>>33446512
If you think space footage is real and we went to the moon half a century ago with DOGSHIT "technology", aluminum foil and sticky tape, you don't have anything like the insight to discuss the shape of the earth. Leave /x/ and go back to watching netflix, capeshit, eating goyslop and reading ebin science memes on reddit.

If you can't even question the landings (Some basic level 0 psyop) you aren't ready for shit lmao. Just go back to sleep retard.

Who am I kidding, you're paid to post here. See you tomorrow.
>>
>>33447184
>no evidence of curvature
lol
lmfao
>>
File: 1_MotionsVS.jpg (57 KB, 564x348)
57 KB
57 KB JPG
>>33447187
Name one and explain how gravity was used as an independent variable.
>>
File: 1661934178635695.webm (2.22 MB, 1280x520)
2.22 MB
2.22 MB WEBM
>>33447206
LMFAO
>>
>>33447183
Good thing the horizon doesn't rise fo eye level. It's just a lie flerfs invented
>>
>>33447188
The fact those bozos ‘go to space’ to throw a bunch of fruit around for the camera should be enough to set off some flags for any reasonable person.

Its all a big show.
>>
File: 1669191910805509.jpg (210 KB, 634x458)
210 KB
210 KB JPG
>>33446515
>Flattards lie constantly, as in blatant lies.
Continuously posting this over and over in every thread doesn't make it true. Yes, there are some liars put there to discredit real truthers (FE Society for example), just like every movement. Controlled op exist in every dissenting grouping. Then you claim that FE magically doesn't have any controlled op, the entire movement is just conmen. Lmao
>>
>>33447212
>AIEEEEEE MUH STRAWMAN FRICKKIN HELIOCENTRIC CRAZY SPACE LINES AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA WE ARE MOVING SO FRICKING FASTTTTT IT'S FUCKING MELTING MY BRAINERINO

I hate flat earthers with a burning passion just for being so fucking retarded and parading it around like it's fine
>>
File: 1663971440604082.webm (2.89 MB, 1280x720)
2.89 MB
2.89 MB WEBM
>>33447231
Its flat get over it
>>
>>33447219
>no source
>no details such as altitude, lens focal length, post processing
>just a webm
Given that flat Earthers have already been caught in an outright lie >>33447083 you'll forgive me if I don't take your word on it.

Note all the details regarding the rocket flight linked below. Including details about the camera and lens. There's no question that the photo is accurate.
https://youtu.be/4QsEPEhq5yk
>>
File: IMG_0143.jpg (262 KB, 828x824)
262 KB
262 KB JPG
>>33447231
Yes it does. Explain how your magic spinning ball's horizon does drop from eye level when you rise up, paid trannyglobetroll.
>>
File: 1665076395783991.jpg (116 KB, 810x1024)
116 KB
116 KB JPG
>>33447242
>>
>>33447239
>Continuously posting this over and over in every thread doesn't make it true.
It has been my experience in these threads.
>>
>>33447083
if you think the top pic isn't distorted you're blind and retarded
>>
File: 1663803222910870.jpg (123 KB, 704x960)
123 KB
123 KB JPG
>>33447250
LMFAO
>>
>>33447242
Not an argument tranny.
>>
File: 8EmZ.gif (521 KB, 560x312)
521 KB
521 KB GIF
>>33447260
LMFAO
>>
File: 1545526014064.jpg (32 KB, 247x247)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
>>33447239
Name a single flerf who doesn't lie

Remember when one of the globebusters literally larped as a pilot for years until he got called out for it? Remember when one of them (Thanks Bob!) accidentally proved the motion of Earth and went on coping that it was the Aether causing it? Remember when FE Dave and Dubay claimed moonlight is cold? Remember when they said you can only see one side of the moon as if it's a 2D image, totally ignoring Lunar libration? Remember when they used edited tinkered footage from the ISS and literal footage from movie sets to prove NASA lies? Remember when they invented 10 different reasons as to why things fall down? Remember when they made the claim that the sky is a firmament without proof? When they claimed the Twilight phenomenon is the rocket skipping across the waters above like a rock or crashing into it?

Hell, remember when Dirth coached an old lady in a nursing home to say she was taught FE in school in the 30's? And he was incredibly pushy about it too? And then he used the lady's words as definitive proof that FE was taught in schools?

Remember when Hibbeler Productions made 2 collab documentaries with all the prominent flat earthers that was filled with lies, half-truths, muh dramatic fee-fees music, and just straight-up propaganda?

Remember when YOU posted an edited image to make the claim the Earth is flat, just for it to be confirmed you were using an edited image without even checking if it is real (Ironic for a truthseeker lol, but I know you do not actually care about finding the truth.)

>B-BUT FLAT EARTHERS WOULD NEVER LIE THEY ARE SAINTS LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH!!! THAT's WHY THEY MUST LIE AND MAKE UP EVERYTHING!!! F-FUCKING GLOBETARD SATANIC SHILLS TRYING TO DEFAME MY HEROES FUCK YOU
lol
>>
>>33447262
Of course it's distorted. It's a fucking panoramic camera. But the bottom image trades overall distortion for extreme distortion in the bottom half in order to fake a flat horizon in the top half.

Note that while panoramic cameras have distortion, they do not use fisheye lenses. The curve never inverts. The curve is exaggerated depending on camera position in the pano viewer, but it is real.

Of course you won't accept that, so let's look at a camera with no significant distortion and see what it captured:
https://youtu.be/4QsEPEhq5yk
>>
File: 1661833168960031.jpg (197 KB, 949x898)
197 KB
197 KB JPG
>>33447324
LMFAO
>>
File: 1669193593465213.png (1.51 MB, 944x1102)
1.51 MB
1.51 MB PNG
>>33447260
Wow bro, you're so intelligent for reposting dishonest memes from a deboonker website instead of thinking for yourself. Holy shit, I kneel. We are blessed to have such a god genius ITT.

You realize actual smart people don't need to sit in threads with "flattard idiots" jerking themselves off over how big brained they think they are. If FE is such an incredibly stupid and childish belief, why even waste your time on us bro? Just move on. We're too dumb to save. Forget about us.
>>
File: 1662656310171360.webm (2.39 MB, 550x310)
2.39 MB
2.39 MB WEBM
>>33447334
LMFA0
>>
like every other flat earth thread, this one shows why flat earthers should be banned for life and also annihilated. they are the most dishonest bullshitters in the galaxy and we must be cautious. nuke them from orbit, its the only way to be sure.
>>
File: image5.jpg (345 KB, 1200x900)
345 KB
345 KB JPG
>>33447352
LMFAO
>>
File: thanks bog rlg.jpg (33 KB, 539x484)
33 KB
33 KB JPG
>>33447344
>Wow bro, you're so intelligent for reposting dishonest memes
There's nothing dishonest about it. Bob dropped $20,000 on a ring laser gyroscope only to end up proving Earth's rotation, which was 'a problem' and 'confidential'.

>You realize actual smart people don't need to sit in threads with "flattard idiots" jerking themselves off over how big brained they think they are. If FE is such an incredibly stupid and childish belief, why even waste your time on us bro?
Is this your new tactic to try and get people to leave your little cult alone after they've posted evidence you cannot deny? Just because you create a 'safe space' doesn't mean the truth goes away.
>>
>>33447254
>Yes it does

except it doesn't
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFj7gNh3yOM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zx45-kVBFg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptZcJ0pdRgE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGIMrMTypLE1

Hopefully these videos from an actual pilot (not Bob Knodel larping as one) helps you out! :)

Please try to understand that your eyes are not a flawless measuring tool
>>
File: image1.jpg (493 KB, 2272x1440)
493 KB
493 KB JPG
>>33447372
LMFAo
>>
File: unknown.png (402 KB, 1542x1114)
402 KB
402 KB PNG
>>33447338
Moon map is disinformation dude: https://youtu.be/Lsthy-erljw
>>
>>33447280
Your original """argument""" was
>LE SPACE LE SCARY THIS CANNOT BE REAL AAAA
>>
File: image2.jpg (139 KB, 1200x675)
139 KB
139 KB JPG
>>33447377
LMFAO
>>
>>33447351
>flerfer edits fisheye to fit his worldview
>SEE! IT'S FLAT!
No editing. No lens distortion. No NASA. It's curved.
>deal with it
https://youtu.be/4QsEPEhq5yk
>>
File: 1667361773945691.jpg (211 KB, 828x477)
211 KB
211 KB JPG
>>33447324
Refutation is independent of replacement. There are many theories about the moon, the firmament, etc. They don't know for sure, it's speculation. Sorry that FE researchers don't have the resources to produce fancy cartoons like your best buds, or constantly pump out shit onto your TV screen until you start believing it.
>>
>>33447338
>gets called out for blindly trusting liars
>trusts liars some more to le epically own me

get help
>>
File: 1661802218137032.jpg (346 KB, 1080x720)
346 KB
346 KB JPG
>>33447384
LMFAO
>>
File: 1662233854519675.png (1.07 MB, 1080x1080)
1.07 MB
1.07 MB PNG
>>33447392
LMFAO
>>
File: th-2301391789.jpg (28 KB, 474x498)
28 KB
28 KB JPG
>>33447377
The camera needs to be at eye level when you take the picture. But keep lying globe tranny shill.
>>
File: 1661753838900974.jpg (479 KB, 1477x1435)
479 KB
479 KB JPG
>>33447397
LMFAO
>>
>>33447352
Not an argument. No need to get all emotional and ball your eyes out because someone dared to question your "god".
>>
>>33447396
But you haven't refuted anything.
>>
>>33447396
>muh refutation muh epic replacement. Big debate words xD
>btw the earth is flat and covered by a firmament because I can see too far and moonlight is le cold and moon is le hologram even though you can see craters and valleys and mountains visibly curve away.... Satan did that lol
>I also have to make a lot of shit up to fool my gullible faggot npc followers that will buy my books so I can comfortably grift more, openly bash Christianity and retire in Asia
>BRO YOU DON'T GET IT IT'S NECCESSARY EVIL I MUST LARP AS A PILOT AND COACH AN OLD LADY TO SAY WHAT I WANT YOU FUCKING GLOBEBUCK SHEEP

>Sorry that FE researchers don't have the resources to produce fancy cartoons
But that's literally all they do aside from spamming the same edited spacewalk/ISS clips they got from tv specials or news reports that cut the footage up, or making insane assumptions so they can larp as le epic saint truthseekers. Most of those FE schizo images are just cartoons
>>
Lool at this bullshit. CGI ISS and pear Earth in one. kek!
>>
>>33447391
>>33447402
>>33447410
>>33447427
ban this spamming kike
>>
>>33447419
>flat earther doesn't understand the video, posts more Facebook memes

I sometimes wonder if you people genuinely find these funny. I appreciate that you are having a meltdown because your worldview fueled by propaganda got challenged lel
>>
>>33447444
Checked. But if we're going to ban spamming kikes we have to ban all flat Earthers. All any of them do is spam their same bullshit every time.
>>
File: 1661984136190598.jpg (339 KB, 1080x771)
339 KB
339 KB JPG
>>33447444
LMFAO
>>
File: 1642928695512.jpg (102 KB, 1024x759)
102 KB
102 KB JPG
>>33447457
LMFAO
>>
What happened to the FE schizo that used to post here 16 hours a day? He always linked his 4plebs archives whenever someone wanted to debunk him lol. I miss that faggot
>>
File: piZap_1668023404503.jpg (431 KB, 1040x1456)
431 KB
431 KB JPG
>>33447462
LMFAO
>>
File: no_curve_simba.png (371 KB, 577x433)
371 KB
371 KB PNG
>>33447386
Space is 2nd law of thermodynamics violation you globetranny shill.
>>
>>33447478
I can't tell if he changed tactics or if he actually left. He was getting btfo pretty hard so either is possible.
>>
File: 1669204582556071.jpg (282 KB, 1350x1626)
282 KB
282 KB JPG
>>33447439
I didn't make any positive claims. But your ball with a radius of 3950 miles is false. Plenty of measurements and observations disprove that.

So we already know your side is lying from the out. Whether we can come up with perfect alternative explanations is irrelevant.
>>
>>33447496
>more flippin epic buzzwords I heard from Dubay that I actually do not understand!! xDD that will btfo those satanic globeturds
>>
>>33447496
Space is not a 2nd law violation, but the dome is: https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/33429743/#q33433937
>>
File: unknown.png (1.25 MB, 707x1128)
1.25 MB
1.25 MB PNG
>>33447352
>Shut it down!
LMAO
>>
>>33447239
FE society should be called NO BALLS society instead.
>>
File: moonquick.gif (2.14 MB, 960x960)
2.14 MB
2.14 MB GIF
>>33447506
>It's false because uhmm..... IT JUST IS, OKAY?!?!? LOOK AT THIS HECKIN QUIRKY COOL FECORE LASER TEST!! WE WOULD NEVER LIE. WE ARE THE TRUTHSEEKERS
>I ACKSCHUALLY DON'T BELIEVE IN ANYTHING SWEETIE :) IM LEEEE NEUTRALLL ON THIS MATTERRR I JUST WANNA DEBOOOOONKKK THE SATANIST GLOBETURDS

nobody buys this dude. Please get out of this lying circlejerk before it fucks your life up


Moon libration gif just for fun
>>
>>33447506
I quite frankly don't really care about what you believe in. I am making the objectively true claim that all the big flat-earthers are proven liars and larpers lmao. Those deceptive snakes hold much more power over the random uneducated facebook boomers than you with your "MUH LASER PROVED FLATNESS MUH SECKHUND LHAW OF THERMHOTDHYMAHICS" shit
>>
File: image0.gif (493 KB, 525x375)
493 KB
493 KB GIF
>>33447509
Not an argument.
>>33447513
>Space is not a 2nd law violation
Yes it is.
>>
>>33447506
We've already clearly established who is lying: >>33447083

>Plenty of measurements and observations disprove that.
Pretending that the horizon formula is the line of sight formula and then stomping your feet insisting a photograph is impossible is not proof of anything other than your ignorance.

If the Earth was really flat you wouldn't argue with globies about the line of sight formula. You would hike to the top of a tall mountain and photograph something hundreds or thousands of miles beyond line of sight as calculated by a globie. That not a single flat Earther has ever done this speaks volumes.
>>
File: 1661394056081354.webm (2.94 MB, 724x600)
2.94 MB
2.94 MB WEBM
Video I downloaded from an older FE thread. Some anon was kind enough to post his videos from his own space observations. Here's a video showing a moon of Jupiter casting a shadow on it. Anon also posted much more, but I never downloaded any of it sadly..
>>
File: 1665231311397900.jpg (643 KB, 800x3784)
643 KB
643 KB JPG
>>
>>33447559
Insisting it is does not mean that it is. You cannot just ignore gravity then claim a violation exists. Even if you do not believe in gravity, you have to concede that if gravity is real it solves your 2nd law claim.

Since flat Earth has no gravity, the dome does violate the 2nd law. I noticed you ignored that. Probably because if you think about it too long it will shatter your cult beliefs.
>>
File: carousel.jpg (216 KB, 665x538)
216 KB
216 KB JPG
>>
File: 1661879634432050.jpg (7 KB, 244x137)
7 KB
7 KB JPG
>>33447513
LMFAO
>>
File: 1662923148305128.webm (2.47 MB, 960x720)
2.47 MB
2.47 MB WEBM
>>33447589
LMFAO
>>
>>33447568
Fake and gay.
>>
>>33447462
exactly
>>
slow down guys i don't want to make another containment thread so soon
>>
>>33447558
>objectively true claim that all the big flat-earthers are proven liars and larpers lmao.
So you're omniscient? Let's be honest, you're not god, in fact you've lost control of your life. The only way you can still find fulfillment is deboonking "easy targets" on a schizo forum, where nobody knows who you are, and nobody cares. You're yelling into a void, desperately seeking relevance. Time to turn off the computer and go outside mate. Time to do something with your life.
>>
>>33447607
>t. Never Owned A Telescope
>>
File: 1663060144580576.jpg (1.28 MB, 1242x2033)
1.28 MB
1.28 MB JPG
>>33447563
LMFAO
>>
>>33447478
that asshole is almost certainly still here
>>
>>33447607
LMAO and even more lies.. This one is my favorite. Pointing your unfocused P900s at stars and planets and concluding they look like in your pic. Honestly kinda sad. Telescopes are not THAT expensive, but I can see why it would be for someone who lives with his mother and defends FE all day
>>
>>33447616
the projection to end all projections
>>
File: image0-1.jpg (102 KB, 521x1042)
102 KB
102 KB JPG
>>33447582
>You cannot just ignore gravity
Gravity is not real. Cite and experiment that prove gravity which uses gravity as an independent variable and fill in the blanks >>33445999 to prove me wrong.
>>
>>33447607
How do you think stars trillions of miles away should look with your shitty camera, zoomed in and distorted by the atmosphere?
>>
>>33447636
>H-HILLS AND ROCKS?? ON MY DEAD GRAY ROCK?!?!?!! WTFFF THIS WAS TAKEN ON EARTHHHHHHHHH AAAIEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>
File: 1557439581366.webm (2.44 MB, 852x480)
2.44 MB
2.44 MB WEBM
>>33447643
LMFAO
>>
>>33447625
And they can fall off the Earth's edge, and yet none has proved they can do so.
>>
File: image0-2.jpg (49 KB, 487x630)
49 KB
49 KB JPG
>>33447618
I had. No matter how much focused a telescope is the wandering stars don't look like space balls. Sorry to burst your bubble globe tranny.
>>33447625
No matter how focused it is you trolls claim it's not focused. Quit lying. It's bad for your soul.
>>
File: 1610091614305.jpg (594 KB, 935x1309)
594 KB
594 KB JPG
>>33447673
LMFAO
>>
>>33447620
>uses horizon formula
>not line of sight formula
Thanks for proving my point. LoS requires observer height, target height, and takes into account atmospheric refraction.

If you think the Earth is flat then go photograph something well beyond the LoS formula. Go to the top of one of the two mountains in the Guinness record and photograph something 500 miles away instead of 275.
>>
>>33447636
Oh, you're that asshole? You've been answered a hundred times. Ignored.
>>
File: 1668331073170289.webm (2.81 MB, 700x392)
2.81 MB
2.81 MB WEBM
>>33447692
LMFAO
>>
File: Lake.jpg (839 KB, 1170x1108)
839 KB
839 KB JPG
>>33447675
I agre anon. Which makes it more hillarious when the nasa shills say MUH PLANETS ARE BALLS BUT ERF FLAT?

Uhhh if youve ever actually used an optical telescope you can see with your own eyes they arent space balls like the nasa cgi images. Saturn is flat and matte orange colored

The moon is clearly a disk not a sphere thats why theres no ‘other side’ for us to see.
>>
>>33447675
Again, how do you think burning balls of gas that are literally trillions of miles away should look like from Earth with your shitty P900 30x zoom and distortion by the atmosphere?
Is it just universal for flat earthers to have a huge problem grasping scale and distance?
>>
>>33447680
Can you guys at least use a drone to prove any of this?
>>
File: image0-3.jpg (26 KB, 590x423)
26 KB
26 KB JPG
>>33447701
>still can't cite an experiment that has gravity as the independent variable
Just admit you're a paid troll already
>>
>>33447675
>I had.
Doubt.

>No matter how much focused a telescope is the wandering stars don't look like space balls.
No telescope shows what's in meme pic >>33447607. Meme pic is just a flat out lie. And a particularly stupid one considering how many people own decent telescopes.

Jupiter and Saturn are very clear in an 8" reflector. Mars, Venus, Uranus, and Neptune are also obviously planets. Stars are much further away and all appear as point light sources. Nothing ever looks like whatever the fuck is in your stupid meme pic.
>>
>>33447710
You fail to grasp that those numbers are bullshit and you are making ludicrous assumptions that havent been proven. First you need to prove the distance numbers youre spouting out are legitimate.
>>
>>33446769
You can make a curve appear straight with a fisheye as well.

retard.
>>
>>33447709
Got pictures proving that they are disks?
>>
File: 1661789016961228.jpg (485 KB, 1280x1280)
485 KB
485 KB JPG
>>33447713
LMFAO
>>
>>33447723
Disks arent spheres and lenses distort. Anything can look like a ‘planet’ through a lense.
>>
>>33446506

> bEsT i CAn dO iS CarToOnS

>>33446967

> All FE "evidence" is based on cartoons and models that don't even make sense.
>>
>>33447727
My picrel should prove to you that a ‘planet’ like appearence doesnt mean shit when youre viewing things through lenses.
>>
File: 1646958686891.webm (2.74 MB, 1280x720)
2.74 MB
2.74 MB WEBM
>>33447737
LMFAO
>>
>>33447709
>see rings around saturn
>see moon shadows on jupiter
>HURRR THEY'RE FLAT
lol

>The moon is clearly a disk not a sphere
lmfao
>>
File: image0-4.jpg (76 KB, 949x728)
76 KB
76 KB JPG
>>33447710
>literally trillions of miles away
You didn't prove this claim globe tranny
>>
File: 1551574896235.webm (2.77 MB, 960x720)
2.77 MB
2.77 MB WEBM
>>33447747
>>
>>33447745
Are you implying that vanishing point is proof of FE ? jesus christ how dense are you.

Also, that laser gotcha dude is a fucking dumbass as well. When I'm looking at the sunset, I can see the ground. Why is the table top hidden? The camera is BELOW the fucking table, holy fuck how can you even look at this as evidence, this is an insult to anyone with room temp IQ
>>
File: Skeleplanet.jpg (163 KB, 603x662)
163 KB
163 KB JPG
>>33447747
So this skeletal muscle then must be a sphere???
>>
File: 1588773347175.webm (2.96 MB, 800x450)
2.96 MB
2.96 MB WEBM
>>33447764
LMFAO
>>
File: download.jpg (150 KB, 840x560)
150 KB
150 KB JPG
Oh look, it's this Sisyphus thread again.

Let's all push the rock up the hill for a few hours until the thread dies and do it all over again tomorrow.
>>
>>33447734
>"disks"
Just because you call the moon a disk doesn't make it one. Likewise, just because you call yourself a woman doesn't make you one.
>>
File: image0-5.jpg (143 KB, 1178x1440)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
>>33447723
Lol any lurker can get a telescope, look at the sky and find out you're a lying piece of shit. Thanks for making it so easy to expose you.
>>
>>33447771

Ah yes, my sunset pictures are famous for having a giant fucking magnifying glass in front.

just neck yourself
>>
>>33447768
>so this clearly flat image is a sphere?
Get your eyes checked.
>>
>>33447783
>he doesnt know the atmosphere is a lens

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>
>>33447791
Shill mad at my picrel?

It is an image of something flat which is distorted through a lense to not only take on a ‘curved’ appearence but also exhibits a type of ‘phase’ that we can see on the moon and venus.
>>
>>33447782
Name the telescope that produces this shit: >>33447607 I want the exact fucking model.
>>
>>33447803
>line of sight
NOOOO ATMOSPHERIC REFRACTION IS A LIE
>magic needed to save flat earth
The atmosphere can be a very complex lens.
>>
>>33447805
Its the Bullshit 5000 model CGI1337HAX
>>
File: moonlol.gif (2.22 MB, 960x960)
2.22 MB
2.22 MB GIF
>>33447709
Your argument would make sense if people claimed the black vacuum of space is round, but we are talking about little spheres called PLANETS. Looking at a lake through round binoculars is different from looking at small (from our perspective) round objects that have the black fabric of space all around them

Your claim about other planets being flat disks is also false. You can very easily see them rotate (and even see the moons of Jupiter orbiting it lol). Jupiter for example only has a 9 hour long "day". You can very easily observe the rotation of Jupiter by just looking at it early at night, and then right before daylight fucks your life-changing observation up. This applies to all planets btw. There are countless timelapses on YouTube showing rotation of Mars and Jupiter.

The moon is clearly a sphere. You can see craters, valleys and mountains curve away. There's also this neat thing called lunar libration, which without a doubt proves the moon is curved. Try taking photos of the moon for a while daily. It would be a fun experiment for you to do
>>
File: image0-6.jpg (82 KB, 1030x1996)
82 KB
82 KB JPG
>>33447783
>what is atmospheric maginification?
>>
>>33447817
They arent spheres though thats why the moon only has one side for us to see no matter your position on earth.
>>
File: 1639003462371.png (186 KB, 600x458)
186 KB
186 KB PNG
>>33447820
>OMGGGGG THEY ARE UPSIDE DOOOOWNNNNNNNNNNNN AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
>>
File: 1557976088509.webm (2.27 MB, 960x720)
2.27 MB
2.27 MB WEBM
>>33447814
LMFAO
>>
>>33447804
>Shill mad at my picrel?
Why would I be mad that you posted a photograph of something flat?

>It is an image of something flat which is distorted through a lense to not only take on a ‘curved’ appearence
It does no such thing. Telescope moon views allow you to see craters edge-on near the edge of the moon, clearly indicating that it is a sphere. Nothing is edge-on in the microscope view you provided.

>but also exhibits a type of ‘phase’ that we can see on the moon and venus.
It does no such thing. Look, I'm sorry your parents never bought you a telescope as a kid. Get a job, buy a halfway decent Dobsonian, and actually experience what things look like through a telescope.
>>
>>33447824
>completely ignores the entire post

Autist-sama... I kneel..
>>
If anyone needs evidence that these flat earthers are only here to shit up threads and the boards they are on, review this thread. i don't know what they are here but it's always like this - completely pointless trolling that only a shut in autist could enjoy.
starve them of the attention they crave so much. the only way to win this game is not to play
>>
File: 1609836543001.jpg (297 KB, 1077x410)
297 KB
297 KB JPG
>>33447826
LMFAO
>>
>>33447824
>ignores all evidence
>insists FE is really right
So fucking typical...
>>
File: image0-1.gif (414 KB, 214x234)
414 KB
414 KB GIF
>>33447805
Thereis no telescope that makes the stars appear like space balls. https://youtu.be/Mb10q6WNTmQ
>>
File: 1664113527016324.jpg (378 KB, 1080x771)
378 KB
378 KB JPG
>>33447841
LMFAO
>>
>>33445753
wait until they find out you can actually consume salt water from the ocean. It is a satanic conspiracy to get you to drink their fluoride tap water
>>
>>33447848
>severely defocused image
>claims it's focused
Look, I'm sorry your parents never bought you a telescope as a kid. Get a job, buy a halfway decent Dobsonian, and actually experience what things look like through a telescope.
>>
>>33447850
>fe image debunked
>wait a few posts
>use it as if it was never debunked
The pilpul cycle continues.
>>
>>33447858
Sorry cuck. Not drinking the flouride. Not getting the vax. The earth is flat. Fuck you
>>
>>33447848
Logical normal person conclusion:
>Hmm some of the things in the sky look much more detailed when I zoom in on them using my telescope
>Woah I can see that heavenly body rotating and it clearly has things orbiting it
>Hmmm the moon has craters and another such terrain that visibly curves away near the edges
>Hmmm... now what about all the other dots in the sky..
>hmm they are still just little dots in the sky no matter how much I look at them through my telescope..
>Hmmm.. could that mean they are much farther away than these detailed round bodies I can observe?

Flat earth logic:
>OMG GLOBEKEKS BTFO ONCE AGAIN YOU ACTUALLY CANNOT SEE THE STARS IN GREAT DETAIL!!! INFACT THEY BECOME DISTORTED IF I LOOK AT THEM WITH MY FLIPPIN CAMERA LOL
>OMG THEY ARE FRICKIN FLYIN ANGELS LOOK THEY'RE DANCING OMG THIS IS A MESSAGE FROM GODDDDD OMGGGG AIIIEEEEEEEEEE
>BURN THAT FUCKING HERETIC AT THE STAKE!!!! SHOOT HIM!!! HANG HIM!!! CUT HIS HEAD OFF!!!! HE DISRESPECTED GOD BY LOOKING AT JUPITER!!!
>>
File: FbHC4gZUYAA-Pfi.jpg (42 KB, 562x565)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
>>33447891
LMFAO
>>
>>33447898
What, posting flat earth memes in a flat earth thread?

Go back to the succufag thread retard.
>>
>>33447845
All evidence in my 30 some years of existing as a human have taught me i will not be seeing the other side of the moon any time soon. And no human has seen it.
>>
File: image0-2.gif (2.17 MB, 522x486)
2.17 MB
2.17 MB GIF
>>33447862
>nooo it's unfocused
Can you stop lying? There are no space balls.
>>
>>33447898
it's a containment thread, no better place for that than here. good seething and (you) donation btw
>>
>>33447898
>SHUT IT DOOOOWN
LOL
>>
>>33447924
I get lying about the stars, but lying about MARS? The planet that anybody can observe with a decent telescope?
>>
File: 1660324990763534.jpg (317 KB, 1000x872)
317 KB
317 KB JPG
>>33447937
They'll lie about anything m8
>>
>>33447948
I don't think you understood that I was making fun of you lol. You are lying about how Mars looks even though anybody can disprove it easily
>>
File: image0-4.gif (2.74 MB, 469x322)
2.74 MB
2.74 MB GIF
>>33447937
Anyome can observe with any telescope that nor Mars nor the other stars, look like balls.
>>
>>33447954
>more lies

lol
>>
>>33447954
Also what they will say is distortion from the atmosphere sure does look like the kind of distortion you can see underwater in pools and such….
>>
File: image0-5.gif (1.32 MB, 338x332)
1.32 MB
1.32 MB GIF
>>33447957
Does this lool like ball to you? If yes you have been watching too much gay porn lol
>>
>>33447963
>more epic P900 imagery
>projects his gay fetish
lol

I do find this very interesting tho. I thought this "muh planets look like this xD" meme died a while ago because even flat earth shills realized it's too blatant. Are you new on the job?

lmao
>>
>>33447899
I know flattards can't into perspective, but:
>Imagine a photograph of a human at the foot of the Eiffel tower.
>Imagine another photograph of a human close up (perhaps taking a selfie) with the Eiffel tower in the background kilometers away.
Get it yet?

(Hint: In the above example human ~ moon and Eiffel tower ~ earth.)
>>
>>33447924
Stop being a fucking retard. Yes, it's unfocused. As this anon said >>33447937 anyone with a decent telescope can view it and get it in focus.

>>33447954
>unfocused image of saturn
>can still see that the rings circle around it
>NOOO IT'S NOT A BALL
Wow you are dumb.
>>
File: 1668098492192849.png (132 KB, 900x850)
132 KB
132 KB PNG
>>33445753
Every morning, I look 93 million miles out my window at a huge fiery ball 1.3 million times larger than the earth as we roll towards it at 1000 mp/h. It creeps up over the horizon and I look left and right to see the curves, then I switch on my TV to hear about real wars in far off places I've never been, and ruin my life over apocalyptic viruses I can't see. I sit down and eat lucky charms with onions milk and watch Rick and Morty, while browsing reddit because I can't single task anymore (It triggers my ADHD and makes me sad). After making the rounds on /lgbt/ I jerk off to cuck porn on /gif/ then flick through the /x/ catalog searching for threads like these. Another day, another flerf to flatten, I chuckle to myself (That was a pun you see. I am quite witty). Then I post until the earth rolls away from the sun.
>>
>>33448032
kway lost
>>
File: 1664726341591731.png (282 KB, 564x562)
282 KB
282 KB PNG
>>33448008
LMFAO
>>
File: image0-6.gif (593 KB, 230x276)
593 KB
593 KB GIF
>>33447977
Stars don't like space balls no matter which telescope or camera you use. Are you tired of lying yet?
>>
File: 1668941477810331.png (77 KB, 714x575)
77 KB
77 KB PNG
>>33447771
Nooo-o the desk must be curved! THIS IS FAKE. IT CAN'T BE REAL. A-AAT-MOSPHERE ISN'T A LENS (EXCEPT WHEN IT BENDS THE IMAGE AROUND CURVE LIKE >>33447935). Ww-why do flerfers always lie!? Why do they have to lie-e? YOU STILL HAVEN'T GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE
>>
>>33448010
>still lying that it's not focused
Stars will never be spaceballs.
>>
File: image0-86-1.png (886 KB, 720x900)
886 KB
886 KB PNG
>>
>>33448100
who are you quoting schizo
>>
>>33448116
>more lies and strawmen
lol
>>
>>33448116
>conveniently ignores Jupiter and only posts shitty unfocused photos of Saturn

lawl
>>
>>33448143
>still lying about stars being balls
Lol go suck on balls faggot
>>
File: black_hole_donut.png (490 KB, 580x550)
490 KB
490 KB PNG
>>33448171
According to yiu trolls all real photos of the planets no matter how focused they are are "out of focus" kys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVd8GK6kPaY
>>
>>33448177
I can't believe NASA put a special device in my telescope that makes Jupiter rotate and have moons wtf that's crazy
>>
File: aged p.jpg (98 KB, 631x795)
98 KB
98 KB JPG
>>
>>33448202
The photos in
>>33448116
are objectively out of focus and blurry as shit lol. Anyone with a decent telescope can tell you're full of shit
>Dubay
>muh appeal to authority
kys cattle
>>
>>33448217
Blah blah I don't care about your lies. Anyone with a telescope can debunk your bullshit.
>>
>>33448235
very ironic considering you have never touched a a telescope in your life and are just parroting shit Dubay told you LOL
>>
>>33448223
>are objectively out of focus
They are not kys you piece of shit troll
>>
>>33448223
>be flerfer
>inbetween sucking cocks argue retardation
>keep sucking cocks
>realize balls are round
>haha they have no gravity
>put balls in my mouth cuz flerfer
>taste the salt which proves earth is flat
whew lad
>>
>>33448235
notice how the plane gets smaller and the sun doesn't
>inb4 some FE shill responds with footage of the sun without a solar filter
Don't even bother
>>
File: yeah.jpg (305 KB, 1725x639)
305 KB
305 KB JPG
>>33448242
I have a telescope I can see that the planets don't look like space balls. Fucking liar.
>>
>>33448259
Post telescope right now and tell me what equipment you use and whether you are legally blind or not
>>
File: 1661110855671642.png (7 KB, 275x275)
7 KB
7 KB PNG
>>33448217
I can't believe NASA pays retards to post in these threads all day. (Can I have a job?)
>>
>>33448255
This makes no sense. Your trolling is getting pathetic.
>>33448256
Kys troll https://youtu.be/RMkQUS461uE
>>
>>33448278
>can't check digits
>keeps sucking cock
dubs don't lie cock breath
>>
>>33448278
>IT GETS SMALLER CHUD TRUST US
>WAIT NO THEY FOUND OUT HOW TO USE A SOLAR FILTER
>UHHH UHMMM....
>OH I KNOW! IT ACKSCHUALLY GETS MAGNIFIED AS IT SETS!! SO IT CONVENIENTLY REMAINS THE SAME SIZE THROUGHOUT THE DAY!!

Stop sucking Dubay's cock
>>
File: wD7E0Yx.png (285 KB, 607x577)
285 KB
285 KB PNG
There is no telescope in existence which makes the stars look like space balls. If you don't believe go buy a telescope and look at the stars. You will find out these ball trolls are blatantly lying.
>>
>>33448296
Why don't you want to show your telescope and tell me your setup?
>>
>>33448296
Nobody in this thread or elsewhere claimed you can in detail see stars with an amateur telescope lmao
>>
File: 1668516345631018.jpg (40 KB, 720x711)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
>>33448256
The sun is a light source. A plane isn't.
>>
>>33448269
Tell me an affordable telescope that will show me balls in space. How much magnification do I need?
>>
You can really feel the desperation of the ball-gobblers these days.
>>
>>33448332
most of the thread has been a sissy having a meltdown and spamming facebook memes while repeating "LMFAO" over and over again
>>
File: zoom_out_no_curve.gif (2.77 MB, 450x252)
2.77 MB
2.77 MB GIF
>>33448332
True that
>>
>>33448324
A budget $500-$800 telescope should allow you to see Jupiter in pretty decent detail. Not a blurry circle like Dubay would want you to believe lol

You told me you have a telescope. Why not post it?
>>
>>33448309
>Random zoomed in pic with no context with a retarded caption

such is the life of a flerf cherrypicker liar

Also even if the Moon actually produced its own light magically, it wouldn't stay the same size through the day/night lmao. Flat earthers just cannot grasp 3D space, distance and scale. It's literally impossible for them.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ0o3PF_MNo&fbclid=IwAR1y4MtAlTSBcPb_h2S4scvke7rR0szQnu0Y4oI5rLZwfyp3gMaLz04LtmY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yV2tOwioNo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVq_JH6yqZc
>>
>>33448366
I'm a different anon. That's a bit out of my price range unfortunately. Guess I'll just have to choose which bunch of memes to believe from the internet.
>>
>>33448392
are you being ironic?
>>
DAILY REMINDER
>take two radios
>hand one to a friend
>drive to a flat area with no tall obstructions in two cars
>choose a no-bounce frequency
>drive away from each other until you can no longer connect
>mark the locations on a map
>switch to a taller roof mount antenna
>"oh hai i hear you now"
>drive away from each other until you can no longer connect
>mark the locations on a map
>break out an even taller antenna
>"oh hai i hear you now"
>compare to LoS calculations
>"it's a globe!!!"
flattie copes
>hurr it's inverse square
Try increasing transmit power, it won't work.
>hurr it's atmospheric attenuation
Try increasing transmit power, it won't work.
>marconi!
Ionosphere bounce
>REEEEE THERE IS NO IONOSPHERE HE PROVED FLAT EARTH
You can tell if a signal is coming straight at you or bouncing off the ionosphere using a directional antenna.
>MUH HUMPBACK WHALE CALLS!
Whales are miles above the ocean floor, and sound bounces very easily off ocean thermal layers.
>REEEEEEEEEE
Meds
>>
File: southern hemisphere stars.jpg (671 KB, 2260x1496)
671 KB
671 KB JPG
SOME OF THE MOST OBVIOUS PROOFS OF A GLOBE EARTH

>southern hemisphere stars rotate around a southern pole
Video below is from Australia. There is no way to explain this with a flat Earth model. Second link to jump to the camera aligned with Earth's south pole.
https://youtu.be/huysYcz-AiQ [Embed]
https://youtu.be/huysYcz-AiQ?t=89 [Embed]

>optical and radio LoS
Reminder that you can demonstrate curvature with two $35 BaoFengs and some antennas. Contact your local HAM club if you want some boomers to demonstrate curvature for you for free. Here is a LoS calculator link. Reminder that flatties typically miscalculate/lie about LoS distances. Always check their claims with a valid LoS calculator. Reminder that the entire radio and radar industries use LoS every day, it is integral to their functioning.
http://www.calculatoredge.com/electronics/lineofsight.htm

>southern hemisphere flight paths
Using a globe Earth flight path on a flat Earth in the southern hemisphere would leave your plane sputtering for fuel and falling into the ocean. Interesting that never happens, isn't it?
>but muh no flights across southern hemisphere!
Reminder that flatties limited their commercial flight searches to make it appear that this is true. There are plenty of flights between destinations in the southern hemisphere.

>gps
Reminder that GPS relies on the Doppler effect for tracking movement, therefore it cannot be faked with ground stations, airplanes, or balloons. GPS transmitters are provably moving at orbital altitudes and speeds. Did they punch through the dome? GPS also uses a spherical model for mapping. If Earth was flat then at the north pole GPS would read your altitude as 3,963 miles.
>muh LORAN!
Again, GPS transmitters are provably at orbital speeds and altitudes. You cannot fake Doppler.

>seasons
>eclipses
>day/night
>sunrise/sunset
>moonrise/moonset
And finally:
>actual single frame photographs of Earth on medium format film taken during the Apollo missions
>>
File: flerfers lie.jpg (81 KB, 1087x549)
81 KB
81 KB JPG
FLERFERS LIE

Take a close look at the attached pic. Flerfers often post it as proof the Earth is flat. Why do I want you to look at it? Because it's a lie.

"The Australian Black Swan" tells you that the maximum line of sight for a 5.5ft tall observer is 2.35 miles. But the cliff is 7.8 miles away. So what's wrong with this flat Earth "proof"? *** Line of sight depends on both observer and target height, as well as on atmospheric refraction. *** The lighthouse is at least 100ft tall which means the visible cliff is at least 400ft tall. LoS for a 5.5ft observer of a 500ft (combined height) target is 35 miles.

What about the oil platforms? Ocean oil platforms have an "air gap" between the ocean and the first deck of 40-60 feet. Observer height was listed as 1ft (camera on the ground?). With a 40ft first deck the line of sight is 10 miles. With a 60ft first deck it's 12 miles. With a 5ft observer and a 60ft first deck it would be 14 miles.

At 6.21 and 9.41 miles you would still see the entire structure above the first deck even if the first deck was only 40ft off the ocean and the camera really was on the ground at 1ft. For the closer platform you would see some structure below the first deck. Note that we see more of the closer rig, proving curvature.

Here's a line of sight calculator: http://www.calculatoredge.com/electronics/lineofsight.htm

>but we're talkin' about muh horizon
>MUH HORIZON IS TOO FAR AWAY!
No it's not. It's between the observer and target in both photos. That's why the observer cannot see the very bottom of the target.
>>
>>33448366
>$500-$800
How conveinient
>>
File: gps receiver.jpg (55 KB, 808x814)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
DAILY REMINDER - GPS absolutely proves globe Earth, rotating Earth, space, orbiting satellites, time dilation (relativity), and gravity.

Flerfers will point to LORAN and claim that GPS could work off of transmitters sitting on the ground, on balloons, or on airplanes. But it cannot.

Why? I'm glad you asked.

In tracking mode GPS receivers use Doppler signal analysis to determine receiver velocity. It is impossible for a transmitter to fake Doppler signal shift across 360°. If the transmitter was lying about its speed, then the receiver would think that it was moving at high mach based on the incorrect Doppler shift in the signal. And since GPS is computed in 3D space from four satellite signals, if the satellites were lying about their positions (altitudes) the resulting location and altitude on the receiver would be off by thousands of miles.

This means that GPS satellites are provably at orbital altitudes and speeds, because GPS could not function at all if the satellites were lying. And if the satellites aren't lying, then space is real. Orbits are real. But the dome is not real. Not unless the satellites punched through it.

What about Earth's shape? GPS receivers use a spherical model of Earth. If Earth was really flat, then receivers would report altitudes literally thousands of miles off. This means Earth really is a sphere.

Furthermore, both Earth's rotation and time dilation must be accounted for in GPS. If either one was not then, once again, receivers would give obviously false and useless results. That means Earth really is rotating. And time dilation is real. And if both orbits and time dilation are real, that pretty much guarantees that gravity is real.

No single instrument completely shatters all of flat Earth mythology quite like the GPS constellation. It really is a beautiful thing.
>>
>>33448395
>That's a bit out of my price range unfortunately.
ah, so you're 16 and/or live with your mommy.
>>
>>33448496
>doesn't have $500
lmao get pozzed you poor bitch
>>
File: COBE logo.jpg (34 KB, 535x260)
34 KB
34 KB JPG
CBR Proves Earth's Motion Through Space

The ability to measure the cosmic background radiation (CBR) gives us something the physicists of the early/mid 20th century could only dream of: a universal frame of reference by which to establish if Earth is really moving linearly or if it just appears to be. The CBR permeates all of space. If an object is at rest relative to the CBR then the frequencies observed will be the same in all directions. If an object is moving relative to the CBR, then Doppler shift will reveal in what direction and how fast.

We measured this phenomenon and established Earth's linear motion through space using the COBE satellite in operation from 1989 to 1993. What did we find? That the Earth is definitely moving through the cosmos.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fast-is-the-earth-mov/

>In 1989, the COBE satellite was placed in orbit about the earth (again, the earth is the frame of reference!) to measure the long-diluted radiation echo of the birth of our universe. This radiation, which remains from the immensely hot and dense primordial fireball that was our early universe, is known as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CBR). The CBR presently pervades all of space. It is the equivalent of the entire universe "glowing with heat."
>One of COBE's discoveries was that the earth was moving with respect to this CBR with a well-defined speed and direction. Because the CBR permeates all space, we can finally answer the original question fully, using the CBR as the frame of reference.
>The earth is moving with respect to the CBR at a speed of 390 kilometers per second. We can also specify the direction relative to the CBR. It is more fun, though, to look up into the night sky and find the constellation known as Leo (the Lion). The earth is moving toward Leo at the dizzying speed of 390 kilometers per second.
>>
File: image0-7.jpg (21 KB, 480x400)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
>>33448442
>>33448461
>>33448489
>>33448500
Shift started?
>>
>>33447804
and lunar eclipses?
>>
>>33448395
Find your local astronomy club and go to one of their club nights. Everyone will have a telescope out and show you shit.
>>
Pic related is a ring laser gyroscope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser_gyroscope

RLGs detect rotation via the Sagnac effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

RLGs detect Earth's rotation.
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/new-chip-based-laser-gyroscope-measures-earths-rotation

inb4
>MUH PHYSICIST MIS-QUOTES!
Because flerfers like to use pilpul to argue endlessly over their misquotes, we'll just cut to the chase and dismiss this as the appeal to authority fallacy which it is.

>MUH ROTATING AETHER!
Michelson-Morley disproved the theory of a luminous aether.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

>NOOOOO! THE AETHER IS REALLY THERE!
MM has been repeated with instruments 2 orders of magnitude more sensitive. Still null.

>BUT FRINGES WERE DETECTED! MUH AETHER IS ROTATING!
Fringes are always within the device error range. As devices become more accurate, the fringes become smaller, ultimately by two orders of magnitude. Either the aether is magically slowing its rotation as we build more accurate interferometers...which also means a rotating aether cannot explain RLG results...or there is no aether.

>BUT MUH ROTATING DOME SHELL INERTIAL FORCES!!!
RLGs do not rely on inertial forces. They rely on Sagnac.

>BUT HAWKING SAID!
Oh, you love Hawking? Good, he said Earth is a rotating sphere orbiting the sun, and even showed people how to prove this.
https://ca.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/hawking_genius_ep06_clip01/where-are-we-ch-1-the-circumference-of-the-earth-genius-by-stephen-hawking/
>>
>>33448526
Spheres don't cast round shadows on other spheres so lunar eclipses debunk the heliocentrick model.
>>
>>33448526
https://youtu.be/TuKsMlANPxk
>>
>>33448561
>thinks nasa is psyopping a flat earth
>can't give intelligent reason why outside of "trust me dude"
>proceeds to save shitty infographics made by trolls to proliferate retardation
>>
File: Round.jpg (140 KB, 700x700)
140 KB
140 KB JPG
>>33446011
B-but how did they know it was ROUUUND in 25 AD?? There was no twitter or fox news back then! O- OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD
>>
FLAT EARTHERS ARE SCHIZO

Take a good look at this quote from a flattie flerfer:
https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/33186246/#33190074
>“Thanks Bob” was the exact same experiment as the Michelson-Gale experiment which was already done many decades prior to that kikeproduced Netflix “documentary”. The fact that people think flat earthers discovered the sagnac effect is proof that experiments such as Michelson-gale were removed from curricular and hidden.
Nobody has removed the MM or MG experiments from schools. Nobody thought flattie flerfers discovered Sagnac. This is a perfect example of the sad lengths to which flatties will go to protect their FE religion. EVERY FACT MUST BEND to flat Earth. EVERY CONTRADICTION must be explained away. EVERYTHING THEY CANNOT EXPLAIN AWAY is a conspiracy.

It's sad really. But it gets even worse. In another post a flattie flerfer actually claimed the following to try and explain sun/moon rise/set and seasons on a flat Earth.
https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/33186246/#33190439
>Each observer has a personal atmospheric dome (not to be confused with the firmament) which creates a sort of bubble around the observer.
>Each observer has a personal atmospheric dome (not to be confused with the firmament)
>Each observer has a personal atmospheric dome
>EACH OBSERVER HAS A PERSONAL ATMOSPHERIC DOME
A flerfer will believe that we all have our own special domes rather than follow evidence to its logical conclusion. Oh, and the "magical" part of the magical personal atmosphere dome is that its refractive properties have to change with latitude, longitude and time of year in exactly such a way that it makes the sky behave exactly as it would if the earth were a sphere. According to flerfers, God made a flat Earth, but uses magical personal domes to make you think it's a sphere.
>>
>>33448500
>Shit he posted it again
>QUICK, post that meme!
>>
File: Foucault's pendulum.jpg (151 KB, 1584x894)
151 KB
151 KB JPG
Flat Earth Physicist Misquotes

Stephen Hawking literally did a TV show where he taught people how to discover/prove Earth's shape and motion. Hawking was a genius who understood modern physics, relativity, and the actual opinions of the world's great physicists better than any flat Earther could ever hope to. And yet he saw no contradiction between any of the writings being (mis)quoted by flatties and his own statements in his own TV show.

https://ca.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/hawking_genius_ep06_full/where-are-we-full-episode-genius-by-stephen-hawking/

1:47 "Fortunately, we humans know everything, from the SHAPE OF THE EARTH to ITS PLACE IN THE UNIVERSE."

34:21 "For me, it's one of the most striking demonstrations in the history of science."

35:00 "Foucault set a pendulum moving in front of a crowd for a day. And what they saw was astonishing. Over the course of the day, the pendulum's direction of swing would move, a bit like the hands of a clock. What was the source of this rotation?"

36:34 "So, what you see depends on where you are. And it's just the same with the pendulum in the museum."

37:09 "With his pendulum, Foucault convinced the world that Copernicus and Galileo were right. AND ANYONE CAN SEE THE EARTH TURNING WITH THEIR OWN EYES."

37:53 - "Our volunteers had discovered how WE ARE JUST ONE OF MANY SPINNING BALLS ORBITING OUR SUN IN A PLANETARY COMMUNITY CALLED A SOLAR SYSTEM."
>>
File: crushed dome.jpg (11 KB, 480x360)
11 KB
11 KB JPG
The Box That Killed The Dome

If you remove the lid of a pressurized box of air inside of a vacuum chamber without gravity, the air will violently rush out of the box to fill the vacuum. The air pressure will then be the same at every point in the chamber. It will be the same at the top, bottom, middle, and at all sides. Just like the air pressure in your car tires or a balloon or a SCUBA tank.

This thought experiment debunks the entire flat Earth model. If the air does not cling to the bottom of the chamber, then it certainly would not cling to the bottom of flat Earth. If the air does not leave any part of the chamber still in vacuum, then it certainly would not leave any part of flat Earth in vacuum. And if the air creates equal pressure at all points in the chamber, then certainly the air creates equal pressure at all points in the flat Earth dome.

Yet there is no denying that air thins as you climb in altitude. At 100,000 feet, somewhere near the top of the theorized dome, the air pressure is so low that it is effectively a vacuum.

This alone debunks all of flat Earth.

Note: no flerfer has ever provided a workable answer to this. They immediately sperg out if you even mention it, and rant and rave that the box thought experiment actually kills the globe. The only way they can do this, of course, is to deny gravity. But if gravity doesn't exist then the dome is just as dead. And if it does exist, the globe model works, while the dome remains...dead.
>>
File: celestial poles.jpg (100 KB, 1154x606)
100 KB
100 KB JPG
Southern celestial pole debunks all of flat Earth all by itself.
>>
File: spinning globe.jpg (34 KB, 590x392)
34 KB
34 KB JPG
You will never have a flat Earth. You have no model, you have no math, you have no testable predictions. You have a zoomed in photo twisted by bad line-of-sight calculations and weed into a crude mockery of God's perfection.

All the “validation” you get is two-faced and half-hearted. Behind your back people mock you. Your parents are disgusted and ashamed of you, and your “friends” laugh at your flattie videos behind closed doors.

Rational people are utterly repulsed by you. Thousands of hours of education allow smart people to sniff out pseudo scientific frauds with incredible efficiency. Even flat Earth photos which “pass” look uncanny and unnatural to a thinking person. Your unanswerable questions are a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to get a drunk girl to watch a video with you, she’ll turn tail and bolt the second she realizes you weren't just joking about flat Earth conspiracy theory.

You will never be happy. You wrench out a fake "I know it's true!" every single morning and tell yourself others are going to believe. But deep inside you feel the depression creeping up like a weed, ready to crush you under the unbearable weight caused by the force you deny, Earth's gravity.

Eventually it’ll be too much to bear – you’ll buy a ring laser gyroscope, start your livestream, and plunge into the cold abyss of Internet mockery. Your parents will find you accidentally proving the globe, heartbroken but relieved that they no longer have to live with the unbearable shame and disappointment. They'll copy and upload your video across social media, and every viewer for the rest of eternity will know Earth is a rotating globe. Your flat Earth videos will decay and get deleted from YouTube, and all that will remain of your legacy is a video with an experiment that unmistakably proves the globe.

This is your fate. This is what you chose. There is no turning back.
>>
>>33448537
Good idea, thanks anon.
>>
>>33448593
Personal dome is a retarded way to put it but the atmosphere between the observer and the object does refract light
>>
>>33445753
>It's not flat, it has volume. Even if a flat surface, what's the shape?

>Missing the bigger picture: The surface of the Earth as we know it is really one small segment of the ocean floor of a much larger planet.

>The beam of light from the sun, down to the atmosphere (big air bubble), is the "diving tube," providing light, heat, and energy in general.
>>
>>33448395
It is possible to build a decent telescope in a garage if you want to put in the effort and find a good set of instructions to follow. Grinding and polishing the optics is the hardest part. The case can be made out of plywood or something.
>>
>>33448663
>line of sight
REFRACTION IS A LIE
>personal dome to make the movement of the heavenly bodies around globe Earth seem plausible on flat Earth
Refraction can do anything
>t. Flattie F. Flerfer
>>
>>33448673
Lots of people build their own telescopes, but most of them buy the mirror already polished.
>>
>>33447271
You are so fucking stupid. I legitimately hate you.
>>
>>33448673
Or if they have a buddy that has one, or a friend of a friend.
>>
flat earthers are completel0y balless.
>>
File: 1667896594564018.jpg (253 KB, 1242x1907)
253 KB
253 KB JPG
>>33448681
>Refraction can do anything
Ballers sure seem to think so.
>>
>>33448673
>>33448693
That's a really cool idea, might be a fun project. Thanks anons.
>>
>>33445753
Just wanted to stop in and say: The earth is round and no amount of threads stating otherwise will change that. You fell for a very obvious (and retarded) psy-op. EdUcAtE yOuRsElF with something other than retarded youtube grifter links and stop running from actual discussion- that is all.
>>
>>33448681
don't forget they seem to not understand how lenses, the atmosphere, or light works...otherwise they would realize how stupid their line of sight shit bullshit is
>>
And so the no balls society thinks you go can up a large hill and knock stars from the sky.
>>
>>33448853
You should probably educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction
>>
How the ancient Greeks proved Earth was round over 2,000 years ago

https://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2019/02/22/eratosthenes-earth-round-flat/
>>
File: Australian Black Swan.png (1.08 MB, 1209x765)
1.08 MB
1.08 MB PNG
>>33448489
>"The Australian Black Swan" tells you that the maximum line of sight for a 5.5ft tall observer is 2.35 miles. But the cliff is 7.8 miles away. So what's wrong with this flat Earth "proof"? *** Line of sight depends on both observer and target height, as well as on atmospheric refraction. *** The lighthouse is at least 100ft tall which means the visible cliff is at least 400ft tall. LoS for a 5.5ft observer of a 500ft (combined height) target is 35 miles.

The distance to the shoreline under the lighthouse is 7.8 miles at a height of 0-1 ft. Let's say 3 feet for giggles.
That gives us a distance to the horizon of Horizon distance 2.12 miles.
The shore line would be 21.51 ft UNDER the physical horizon.
It is not. Mentioning the lighthouse is just silliness. They aren't saying you couldn't see the lighthouse. They are saying you couldn't see the shoreline.

You lose.
>>
>>33448489
>What about the oil platforms? Ocean oil platforms have an "air gap" between the ocean and the first deck of 40-60 feet. Observer height was listed as 1ft (camera on the ground?). With a 40ft first deck the line of sight is 10 miles. With a 60ft first deck it's 12 miles. With a 5ft observer and a 60ft first deck it would be 14 miles.
>
>At 6.21 and 9.41 miles you would still see the entire structure above the first deck even if the first deck was only 40ft off the ocean and the camera really was on the ground at 1ft. For the closer platform you would see some structure below the first deck. Note that we see more of the closer rig, proving curvature.

For the oil rigs
The height of the observer is 1 ft
The horizon is 0 feet and BEHIND to furthest Oil-rig.
Giving us a distance to the horizon of
1.22 miles
The oil rig at 9.4 miles should be
44.57 ft UNDER the Physical curvature of the earth.
It is not.

You lose again
>>
>>33449496
This image says the observer height is 5.5ft.

>>33449510
That line back there isn't a horizon. It's just a different shade of colour. You can see halfway up the image that there's another orange line as well. Is that also the horizon?
Either way, looking at those platforms on a clear day without any extreme atmospheric conditions shows reality :^)
>>
>>33449510
>The oil rig at 9.4 miles should be
>44.57 ft UNDER the Physical curvature of the earth.
Actually, it means there should just be like 14 metres of the bottom of the platform hidden. Not that the entire platform should be 14 metres under the horizon.
>>
>>33445867
earth's somewhat round, like a dough, nasa is muttmerican entertainment show tho
>>
>>33449550
>This image says the observer height is 5.5ft.
Yes it does. The shoreline is 0-1 meters. Learn to read.

>>33449550
>That line back there isn't a horizon. It's just a different shade of colour. You can see halfway up the image that there's another orange line as well. Is that also the horizon?
>Either way, looking at those platforms on a clear day without any extreme atmospheric conditions shows reality :^)
Watch the video. It's the horizon. It's been repeated 100s of times now.
https://youtu.be/Bhmo0B-hMts
>>
>>33449571
>Actually, it means there should just be like 14 metres of the bottom of the platform hidden. Not that the entire platform should be 14 metres under the horizon.
and since we can see the horizon beyond the platform at 9.4 miles
and we can see a 2nd platform behind the 1st platform in the foreground at 6.2 miles, this tells us that the physical horizon of the earth at 2.87 miles based on 1.22459√height of the observer is false if the Earth has a radius of 3,963mi.

Welcome to lfat earth
>>
File: fdsf.jpg (5 KB, 303x166)
5 KB
5 KB JPG
>>33449747
>Yes it does. The shoreline is 0-1 meters
And the 'hidden height' should be 16ft, which is 4 meters. The video doesnt show the shoreline accurately enough to see whether the land runs flat to the shore or it meets the shore with a drop off.
Seeing as its a light house, theres probably a drop off into the water from the shore.
Anyway... A hidden height of 4 metres is literally nothing.

As for the oil platforms... Its really as simple as pic related.
Its sad how you flatties have to rely on heavy atmospheric conditions and ignore clear views.
Inb4 cope about gigantic waves or whatever lmfao.
>>
>>33449496
It is pure delusion to believe that you can see the shoreline in that photo. It is also a COPE that flerfers came up with well after this >>33448489 was written. You lose.

>>33449510
The horizon is BETWEEN the observer and the oil rigs. That's why you cannot see all of their bottom structures. You see LESS of the further rig because it appears LOWER than the closer rig, all of which confirms curvature. Curvature is further confirmed by the fact that in a separate photo of those two rigs the further one appears even lower. Atmospheric refraction is variable. Oil rig height after being positioned in the ocean is not.

You lose again.
>>
>>33449571
It means jack shit because flerfers are just too stupid to use the LoS formula instead of the horizon formula. When you use the wrong formula, you lose. (Again.)
>>
>>33449821
>And the 'hidden height' should be 16ft, which is 4 meters. The video doesnt show the shoreline accurately enough to see whether the land runs flat to the shore or it meets the shore with a drop off.
So then the waves have to be at least 16ft high at the shoreline. That's what you are gonna go with ?
Watch the video. A boat comes around the back of the rocks with the horizon beyond that. Impossible on a flat earth.
https://youtu.be/77unKlnMTwI
>>
>>33449784
Imagine being so arrogant and stupid that you see all of this evidence:
>>33448442
>>33448461
>>33448489
>>33448500
>>33448521
>>33448548
>>33448604
>>33448609
>>33448618
And proceed to assume that it is not your understanding of LoS which is wrong, but the mountain of evidence proving globe Earth.

>Welcome to lfat earth
Oh...so you can photograph the western Rocky mountains from Mount Whitney? And the Chicago skyline from the eastern Rocky mountains? Right? Oh...you can't?

Hmmm...welcome to globe Earth.
>>
File: calc-method.png (1.75 MB, 800x1130)
1.75 MB
1.75 MB PNG
>>33449842
You are a liar. Simple as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Distance_to_the_horizon
>>
The Greatest Laser Experiment in History - SHORT VERSION - BY FECORE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz4FTVa8tAU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsSanuUNygI
>>
>>33449836
You have no idea what the Oil rig looks like from 100ft away. None. We can see the loading ladders go all the way to the water.

However this matters not at all because the Oil rig is only a placeholder for distance.
We see the Horizon BEHIND the oil rig and we know that the horizon is where the sky meets the ocean at a height of 0 meters. It doesn't matter how much of the bottom of the oil rig is "cut off".

This puts the horizon BEHIND the Oil rig which is at a distance of 9.4 miles.

The MATH tells us that at an observer height of 1 ft the physical horizon, meaning the are where the actual planet obscure your view, HAS to be 1.22 miles based on the radius of the earth.

So either you have to say the Radius of the Earth is bigger OR you have to admit the Earth is not round.

1.22459√height of the observer.
1.22459√1ft= 1.22459 miles
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=9.4&h0=1&unit=imperial

You lose AGAIN
https://youtu.be/dmJ7-hVeNPY
Watch this in order to keep losing
>>
>>33449874
>told you're using horizon formula instead of LoS formula
>"YOU'RE A LIAR"
>proceeds to link to horizon formula
Really, how stupid are you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction
http://www.calculatoredge.com/electronics/lineofsight.htm
>>
>>33449906
Show us the line of sight for this so I can show everyone your game.

300m (Height of Notre Dame de la Garder Mountain)+ 154m (height of the church where the phot is taken from)=454m or (1489.48 ft)
1.22459√height of the observer in feet.
1.22459√1489.48 feet= 156.58 miles (252 km)

The distance we are looking is 255 miles (410.38 km) to the shoreline

So 2428.9m (7968.74 ft) should be obscured by physical earth curve.
Meaning we should not see anything that is less than 2428m tall....
Yet we see the town easily...

Globers lose AGAIN Ta Da!
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=252&h0=454&unit=metric
>>
>>33449906
The formula for atmospheric refraction

If we can assume a constant lapse rate in the air between the eye and the Earth's surface, and if the observer's height h is small compared to the 8-km height of the homogeneous atmosphere, then we can assume the curved ray is an arc of a circle. This assumption makes things easy, because the relative curvature of the ray and the Earth's surface is all that matters. In effect, we can use the previous result, but just use an effective radius of curvature for the Earth that is bigger than the real one.

This assumption is made so often that it's conventional in surveying and geodesy to use a “refraction constant” that's just the ratio of the two curvatures. A typical value of the ratio is about 1/7; that is, the ray curves about 1/7 as much as the Earth does (or, equivalently, the radius of curvature of the ray is about 7 times that of the Earth's surface).

Using this “typical” value means we should just use the formula given above, but use a value R′ instead of R for the effective radius of the Earth, where

1/R′ = 1/R − 1/(7R) = 6/(7R) ,
so that
R′ = R × 7/6 .


So what does that all mean ? It means that you have to make the radius of the earth LARGER in order to make your formula work. That would put the radius of the earth way past the moon.
>>
Imagine being this dumb, does know nothing about basic physics and post shit like this, keep being this dumb, it is funny, flat-brained dunce.
>>
>>33449899
>You have no idea what the Oil rig looks like from 100ft away. None.
I know that it is a minimum of 40ft above the water. It is likely more. That's the minimum for safety. No ocean rig is ever lower than that.

>We can see the loading ladders go all the way to the water.
If the ladder reached the water 40ft min below, and curvature obscured 20ft of it, it would still look like the ladders went down to the water. How is this not obvious to you? How stupid are you?

>We see the Horizon BEHIND the oil rig
It is BETWEEN the observer and the rig which is why the full bottom structure cannot be seen. And also why the rig appears lower in the 2nd photo >>33449821. Do you really believe that the Earth is flat and the back rig is just bobbing up and down in the water? Really???

>and we know that the horizon is where the sky meets the ocean
This is literally in front of both rigs, between the observer and the rigs. The rigs rise above the horizon/curvature FROM BEHIND the horizon. Their height varies between photos because atmospheric density changes which changes refraction. We know it has to be this because the further rig appears lower, and its height appears different between the photos. The rig is not bobbing up and down. You lose AGAIN.

Read this and keep losing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction
http://www.calculatoredge.com/electronics/lineofsight.htm
>>
>>33449991

>I know that it is a minimum of 40ft above the water. It is likely more. That's the minimum for safety. No ocean rig is ever lower than that.
Cool story bro. 44ft is obscured by earth curvature. So is the lower deck now 88 feet high ?

>If the ladder reached the water 40ft min below, and curvature obscured 20ft of it
44 feet for Platform habitat.
So you would have us believe that the loading ramps are 44ft + whatever height we see in the pic.
Yeah anyone with a brain sees right through that.

>It is BETWEEN the observer and the rig which is why the full bottom structure cannot be seen. And also why the rig appears lower in the 2nd photo >>33449821. Do you really believe that the Earth is flat and the back rig is just bobbing up and down in the water? Really???
Do you believe the earth is somehow breathing and changing the distance to the horizon day to day ?
The physical horizon is at 2.87 miles.

>>and we know that the horizon is where the sky meets the ocean
> This is literally in front of both rigs, between the observer and the rigs
LMFAO sure thing... Except in the video we clearly see that this is not the case.
>>
>>33449920
This was debunked in a prior thread. And I'm betting you know it was debunked but proceeded to post it again anyway because Flerfers Always Lie. From:
https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/33376353/#q33383398

Nice template response. Ignore this reply at your own peril.

I google-translated that blog post from catalan to english, read through it and understood the context and the peculiarities of this series of infrared photos. They are all taken from very high up, not from ocean level.

The context here is that there had been a tradition to climb up the Notre Dame de la Garde in Marseilles, France and look for the mountain Canigó on the other side of the bay near the border to Spain. These photographs were an attempt to do the reverse, to take clear infrared pictures of the Notre Dame de la Garde from the summit of mountain Canigó.

Canigó is 2784m high. The Notre Dame de la Garde in Marseilles is on a tall hill which is easily over 300m high, and the church itself is 154m tall. The distance between the two is 252 kilometers. You can throw the numbers into one of your precious LOS calculators but i fear it might hurt your sanity to prove the curve on your own so you don't have to do it if you don't want to.

YET AGAIN FLAT EARTHERS PASS OFF SOMETHING THAT PROVES THEM WRONG AS THEIR OWN TRUTH
>>
>>33450059
Right so now I get to show everyone you chicanery.
Let me everyone you the scam he is playing herewith Radio LOS instead of using the formula for Horizon which is
1.22459√height of the observer in feet= Distance to Horizon

Looking from the Pyranees to Barre de Ecrins
Now keep in mind no one is standing at the summit of the Pyranees in this photo.

Height of the Pyrenees 7263m (23828.45ft)
Distance from the Pyranees to Barre de Ecrins - 443k or (275.27 miles)
So..

1.22459√height of the observer in feet= Distance to Horizon
1.22459√23828.45 ft= 189 miles (303km) to the PHYSICAL curvature of the Earth
Anything lower than 1509.62 meters (4952.79 feet) would be hidden by the PHYSICAL curvature of the earth.
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=443&h0=7263&unit=metric
----------------------------

Now looking from Barre de Ecrins to the Pyranees
(This is the actual photo)

Height of Barre de Ecrins 2784m (9133.74ft)
Distance from the Barre de Ecrins to the Pyranees - 443k (275.27 miles)

1.22459√height of the observer in feet = Distance to Horizon
1.22459√9133.74 ft=117.04 miles (188.36km) to the PHYSICAL curvature of the Earth
Anything lower than 5086.56 meters (16687 feet) would be hidden by the PHYSICAL curvature of the earth.
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=275.267438160991&h0=9133.7472&unit=imperial

So that's the math
Now notice that he provides a line of sight of 305km.
How did he come up with that ?
He is adding the two results together.
He is also using the incorrect heights, so that helps as well.
>>
>>33450050
>Cool story bro. 44ft is obscured by earth curvature.
Horizon formula != line of sight formula. You cannot ignore refraction. Read this again and again and again until you understand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

>So you would have us believe that the loading ramps are 44ft + whatever height we see in the pic.
Are you imaging things are in the photo again? Like with the shoreline? Bottom deck is 40-60ft off the water, depending on the rig. You lose.

>>It is BETWEEN the observer and the rig which is why the full bottom structure cannot be seen. And also why the rig appears lower in the 2nd photo >>33449821. Do you really believe that the Earth is flat and the back rig is just bobbing up and down in the water? Really???
>Do you believe the earth is somehow breathing and changing the distance to the horizon day to day ?
The horizon remains the same, in between the observer and the rigs. The density of the air refracting light over the horizon does not. Since ocean oil rigs do not bob up and down, yes, it has to be variations in refraction photo to photo.

>> This is literally in front of both rigs, between the observer and the rigs
>LMFAO sure thing... Except in the video we clearly see that this is not the case.
You see whatever the fuck you want to see to protect your cult. But in the end, you lose.
>>
>>33450081
>MUH RADIO LOS!
Radio and visual LoS are virtually the same except in cases where RF bounces. You lose.

>instead of using the formula for Horizon
Horizon != LoS. You lose again.

>Now keep in mind no one is standing at the summit of the Pyranees in this photo.
You didn't translate shit from that site. The other anon did. You are wrong and you lose (again).

>hidden by the PHYSICAL curvature of the earth.
Ignoring atmospheric refraction? Again? Why do flerfers always lie? Why do they always omit the truth? Read this and lose again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

>Now notice that he provides a line of sight of 305km.
Yes, that is the correct LoS distance for the observer height, target height, and average atmospheric refraction. Which means...you lose.
>>
>>33450109
>Horizon formula != line of sight formula. You cannot ignore refraction.
You are such a lying snake.
The formula for atmospheric refraction is 7/6R
No where is that in your formula for line for line of sight.

>Are you imaging things are in the photo again? Like with the shoreline? Bottom deck is 40-60ft off the water, depending on the rig. You lose.
Oh so now it's 60 ft ? You added 20 feet.
44 ft is hidden by the curve of the earth. So is it now 60 ft + the 44 feet that is hidden ?
The lower deck is now 104 high. You are making this up as you go along.
Matters not. Anyone who watches the video can clearly see the horizon BEHIND the furthest platform at 9.4 miles.

>The horizon remains the same, in between the observer and the rigs
So now we are magically seeing over the curve of the earth. Cool story bro.
>>
>>33450081
Imagine being so arrogant and stupid that you see all of this evidence:
>>33448442
>>33448461
>>33448489
>>33448500
>>33448521
>>33448548
>>33448604
>>33448609
>>33448618
And proceed to assume that it is not your understanding of line of sight which is wrong, but the mountain of evidence proving globe Earth.

>Welcome to lfat earth
Oh...so you can photograph the western Rocky mountains from Mount Whitney? And the Chicago skyline from the eastern Rocky mountains? Right? Oh...you can't?

Hmmm...welcome to globe Earth.
>>
>>33450151
>Radio and visual LoS are virtually the same except in cases where RF bounces. You lose.
Except you are taking the LOS from the observer to the target and ADDING it to the LOS of the target to the observer.
Because you are a sophist.

>>instead of using the formula for Horizon
>Horizon != LoS. You lose again.
No shit. That's why we use it. It only measure the horizon from the Observer to the target.
Not the Observer to the target + The Target to the observer like you are doing.

>Ignoring atmospheric refraction? Again?
Oh you mean that atmospheric refraction where you need to make the radisu of the Earth larger ?
7/6R is the formula.
You can't even tell us the radius of the earth. How'd you measure that from the earth lmfao.
Complete sophistry

>Yes, that is the correct LoS distance for the observer height, target height, and average atmospheric refraction
WRONG.
It is the Observer height to the target + The Target height to the observer.
Atomperic refraction isn't even in the formula you lying dog.
>>
Look at this
See what he is doing
He is adding the observer height to the target + The Target height to the observer
and then he is saying.. oh an the formula uses atmospheric refraction.
He's a total liar.
>>
Now look at this and then click this link

Right let's do the math
1.22459√height of the observer.
1.22459√5.5= 2.871848 miles

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=7.8&h0=5.5&unit=imperial

Did you catch his obfuscation, sophistry and outright lie ?
>>
>>33449859
Have you never been to a light house before? They arent on the fucking beach. The land doesnt run flat to the water. There are drop offs to the water.
>>
>>33450155
>>Horizon formula != line of sight formula. You cannot ignore refraction.
>"You are such a lying snake."
>Says the lying snake
Air density is higher at lower altitudes. Meaning that outside of atmospheric inversions, the atmosphere always bends light down a bit. ALWAYS. Meaning that you CANNOT ignore refraction. That is not a lie, it is a basic fact and is incorporated into LoS calculators.

>The formula for atmospheric refraction is
...in the fucking Wikipedia article. Read it again.

>Oh so now it's 60 ft ? You added 20 feet.
You are such a lying snake. From: >>33448489
>Ocean oil platforms have an "air gap" between the ocean and the first deck of 40-60 feet.

>So is it now 60 ft + the 44 feet that is hidden ?
>The lower deck is now 104 high.
LOL why are you combining shit? If an oil platform deck was 60ft off the ocean, and an observer's distance was such that 44ft of it was hidden by curvature, then you would still be able to see 16ft of it. WTF does 104ft come from? Are you lying again, you lying snake?

>Anyone who watches the video can clearly see the horizon BEHIND the furthest platform at 9.4 miles.
Anyone with a brain can see it is between the observer and the oil rigs. You lose again.

>So now we are magically seeing over the curve of the earth. Cool story bro.
>objects rising above the curvature are magic
>atmospheric refraction is magic
You really are just too dumb to understand any of this, aren't you?
>>
>>33450238
See the horizon distance in the link ?

d1 = Horizon distance

2.871848

That's the 3 miles. Nothing else matters..
>>
>>33450242
They aren't looking at the lighthouse. They are looking at the shore.
The waves should be hidden under 16 ft of earth curvature
h1 = Target hidden height 16.1960 feet

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=7.8&h0=5.5&unit=imperial
This isnt hard
>>
>>33449899
>You have no idea what the Oil rig looks like from 100ft away
Really? Are you just going to pretend that its impossible to know what it looks like close up?
>>
>>33450246
>>Horizon formula != line of sight formula. You cannot ignore refraction.
>>"You are such a lying snake."
>>Says the lying snake
>Air density is higher at lower altitudes. Meaning that outside of atmospheric inversions, the atmosphere always bends light down a bit. ALWAYS. Meaning that you CANNOT ignore refraction. That is not a lie, it is a basic fact and is incorporated into LoS calculators.
Not in your formula. Post the formula.
You are lying

Then I will lay it all out for everyone what you are doing, although anyone with a brain already gets your grift here.

>LOL why are you combining shit? If an oil platform deck was 60ft off the ocean, and an observer's distance was such that 44ft of it was hidden by curvature, then you would still be able to see 16ft of it
Yeah keep digging your bullshit. Obviously the ladders higher than 16 feet.
the reality though is that the lower level is 40 feet high and 44 ft is hidden by earth curvature... so there would be no ladders to see.

and it's a moot point because we see the horizon behind the platform and the horizon is be definition at 0 meters...
Thanks for playing.
>>
>>33450256
>They are looking at the shore
What shore? All you can see in the video is a blurry view of land. You cant see with a clear view where the land meets the water.
Have you never been to a coast that isnt just a beach? A drop of 4m from the land to the water is basically nothing.
>>
>>33450268
There you go. Platfrom Hillhouse at 6.2 miles.
WE can CLEARLY see the steel braces in this picture
>>
>>33450293
>What shore? All you can see in the video is a blurry view of land. You cant see with a clear view where the land meets the water.
What are waves ?
https://i.4cdn.org/x/1669329464412749.jpg

I went over this
>>
File: platform_habitat.png (2.25 MB, 1405x932)
2.25 MB
2.25 MB PNG
>>33450268
>>33449899
And here is a close up photo of platform habitat.

>You have no idea what the Oil rig looks like from 100ft away. None
Dishonest flerfer shill.
>>
>>33450192
>Except you are taking the LOS from the observer to the target and ADDING it to the LOS of the target to the observer.
Because that is how it works. The height of both observer and target is needed. WTF do you think the calculators ask for both observer and target height? (Pic related)

>>Horizon != LoS. You lose again.
>No shit. That's why we use it.
So you can short change the result and pretend you proved something? You lying snake.

>Not the Observer to the target + The Target to the observer like you are doing.
So if you have a 5 ft observer and a 5,000 ft target, you think the 5,000 ft has nothing to do with whether or not the person can see the target? Really? You can't see a mountain at any further distance than an ant hill? LMFAO you lying snake.

>>Ignoring atmospheric refraction? Again?
>Oh you mean that atmospheric refraction where you need to make the radisu of the Earth larger ?
Do you actually think someone is making the Earth larger? Have you taken your meds today?

>>Yes, that is the correct LoS distance for the observer height, target height, and average atmospheric refraction
>WRONG.
I'm sure the entire radio telecommunications industry, military radar industry, and commercial radar industry are wrong, and you are right. LMFAO

>It is the Observer height to the target + The Target height to the observer.
Wait a minute, at the beginning of the post you insisted that the target height had nothing to do with it. Now it does? LMFAO you don't understand shit, do you? You're just flipping back and forth hoping to land on some combination which saves your cult.

>Atomperic refraction isn't even in the formula you lying dog.
Educate yourself and realize that you lose yet again:
https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/el-GR/calculator/radio-line-of-sight/
>>
>>33450309
See >>33449821 for a clear view that isnt effected by heavy atmospheric conditions.
>>
>>33450315
Yeap and we can clearly see the gantry that is 4ft above the water. Compare it's height with railing which would be 4 feet high. It's the same.
WE see this gantry at 6.2 miles.
Thanks for playing..

AND it doesn't even matter because we see the horizon at over 9.2 miles which is impossible on a ball earth.
>>
>>33450335
>can clearly see the gantry that is 4ft above the water
4ft above the water? You are so dishonest lmfao.
>>
>>33450225
Let me get this straight. Take a man who is 5.5ft. Calculate his line of sight to an ant hill. Now put him in front of a mountain and have him drive away from the mountain. Do you REALLY BELIEVE that the mountain disappears at the same distance as the ant hill?

REALLY???

LMFAO

>>33450247
>Nothing else matters..
WAIT SO YOU REALLY BELIEVE ANT HILL VS. MOUNT EVEREST DOESN'T MATTER, THE LINE OF SIGHT REMAINS THE SAME FOR A 5.5 FT TALL MAN????? THIS IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE????? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
>>
>>33449496
>mitchell fromAustralia
Isn't that the same guy who posted a video of the southern celestial pole and claimed it was the northern celestial pole?
>>
>>33450328
>>Except you are taking the LOS from the observer to the target and ADDING it to the LOS of the target to the observer.
>Because that is how it works. The height of both observer and target is needed. WTF do you think the calculators ask for both observer and target height? (Pic related)
LYING again.. over and over and over. Complete sophist is what youa re.
You are taking the LOS from the observer to the target and ADDING it to the LOS of the target to the observer.
In a photo you are not measuring both ways and adding them together.
The formula is very simple.
It's is 1.22459√height of the observer in feet.
1.22459√250=19.36 Miles
It is NOT
√ (2*height) = √ (2*250) = 22 Miles .
√ (2*height) = √ (2*350) = 26 Miles .
Line of Sight = 22 + 26 = 48 Miles.
>>
>>33450362
>Let me get this straight. Take a man who is 5.5ft. Calculate his line of sight to an ant hill. Now put him in front of a mountain and have him drive away from the mountain. Do you REALLY BELIEVE that the mountain disappears at the same distance as the ant hill?
Are you dumb or something ?

How far away is the ant hill?
How far away is the mountain ?
>>
>>33450285
>Not in your formula. Post the formula.
I gave you the Wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction
As well as a LoS calculator that explains the calculation
https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/el-GR/calculator/radio-line-of-sight/

>Then I will lay it all out for everyone what you are doing, although anyone with a brain already gets your grift here.
My grift? You're the one telling people that ant hill vs. mountain makes no difference, line of sight is equal for both.

>>LOL why are you combining shit? If an oil platform deck was 60ft off the ocean, and an observer's distance was such that 44ft of it was hidden by curvature, then you would still be able to see 16ft of it
>Yeah keep digging your bullshit. Obviously the ladders higher than 16 feet.
I don't understand. You think the ladder would magically show through the curvature, like a ghost?

>the reality though is that the lower level is 40 feet high and 44 ft is hidden by earth curvature... so there would be no ladders to see.
40-60ft. You just grabbed the lowest value trying to make your little argument work. But if the Earth was actually flat then you could just take a photograph of something at a distance 10x what should be possible according to globies. You wouldn't waste your time arguing over 4ft or denying the LoS calculators and formulas.

Of course you cannot do that because of curvature. Welcome to globe Earth, pal.

P.S. You lose. Again.
>>
>>33450348
Look at the railing on the gantry.
How tall do you think the railing is ?
Now in your mind move it over the pylon connect to the bottom of the gantry.
No matter how tall you think it is.. It is visible in the phot at 6.2 miles.
Impossible if the earth is round.
WElcome to flat earth
>>
Friendly reminder that something that vanishes over the horizon can NEVER EVER be brought back into view by zooming in on it, as flatties claim.
>but muh perspective!
If it were just perspective that were the cause of things vanishing over the horizon then you could use a high powered zoom or telescope to bring them back into view. But you cant. No flattie has ever done this.

>inb4 shaky videos of someone on a beach zooming into recreational fishing boats that are in front of the horizon line
It's all so tiring.
>>
>>33450393
I've explained this ad infinitum
We are not measure radio LOS which take the Distance from 1 radio tower to another and back again.
Why would you keep going back to Radio LOS when we have the formula for Earth Curve
1.22459√height of the observer.

It is NOT
D1+D2= LOS
>>
>>33450403
The shortest gap between the bottom of the gantry and the water is at least TWICE the height of the railing. So no, it isnt 4 foot, you dishonest shill.
Also, see https://i.4cdn.org/x/1669329197078756.jpg
Cope and seethe.
>>
>>33450393
>But if the Earth was actually flat then you could just take a photograph of something at a distance 10x what should be possible according to globies.
Lie down and look as far away as you can.
Now stand up.
You see further.
Perspective and observer height...
You'll get there.
>>
>>33450385
>LYING again.. over and over and over. Complete sophist is what youa re.
>You are taking the LOS from the observer to the target and ADDING it to the LOS of the target to the observer.
No, the calculator is computing LoS for observer height and LoS for target height...including refraction in both cases...and then summing them for the final LoS which exists between them. I'm not doing anything but inputting numbers into the calculator.

I really think you need to step away from the computer for a moment and get a grip on yourself. You are frothing at the mouth, swinging every which way, trying desperately to save your cult beliefs. I didn't create the calculator, and the calculator is obviously not computing "observer to target + target to observer" since that would be the same number x2.

>The formula is very simple.
The formula is not the horizon formula you lying snake.
>>
>>33450446
Ok so is it 8 ft ?
We still clearly see it at 6.2 miles.
https://i.4cdn.org/x/1669332662452992s.jpg

are you blind ?
>>
>>33450390
>>Let me get this straight. Take a man who is 5.5ft. Calculate his line of sight to an ant hill. Now put him in front of a mountain and have him drive away from the mountain. Do you REALLY BELIEVE that the mountain disappears at the same distance as the ant hill?
>Are you dumb or something ?
You're the one who insisted earlier that target height is irrelevant. You even outlined observer height (i.e. station #1) and drew an arrow with THE RELEVANT DISTANCE here: >>33450225

>How far away...
Same distance. According to you only observer height matters. You even circled this IN RED. So according to you as the 5.5ft man walks away from the ant hill and the mountain, they both disappear at the same time.
>>
>>33450453
>The formula is not the horizon formula you lying snake.
Yes it is.
It's the horizon formula from the observer to the target and ADDING it to the horizon formula from the of the target to the observer.
Thanks for playing
>>
>>33450473
>You're the one who insisted earlier that target height is irrelevant. You even outlined observer height (i.e. station #1) and drew an arrow with THE RELEVANT DISTANCE here
Do you know why it is irrelevant ?
Because the horizon.. IE station 2 is ALWAYS at 0 meters
That's what the fucking horizon is you dolt
>>
>>33450458
>Ok so is it 8 ft ?
At least twice from the shortest point. So more than 8ft to the top of the highest swell.
Either way ts not 4ft and you are just a dishonest shill ;^)
>>
>>33450403
>if you do this and assume this and draw a line here and stand on your head and use my formula which isn't the right formula THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE THE EARTH IS FLAT
OK flerfer. Go photograph the Rockies from Mount Whitney in CA. What? You can't? Hmmm...

Welcome to globe Earth, pal.

>>33450434
>I've explained this ad infinitum
>We are not measure radio LOS which take the Distance from 1 radio tower to another and back again.
>and back again.
LOL no the calculators are not computing "and back again." WTF are you getting this shit?

>Why would you keep going back to Radio LOS
Because it's virtually the same as visual. Only normies don't masturbate over how far away they can see something while radio technicians do need to know how far away they can transmit. So all the calculators are labeled for radio. Doesn't change the fact that the distances are roughly the same for visual.

>when we have the formula for Earth Curve
We do. Too bad it's not the LoS formula.
>>
>>33450478
>>The formula is not the horizon formula you lying snake.
>Yes it is.
No, it is not. You cannot ignore target height. You cannot ignore atmospheric refraction.

>It's the horizon formula from the observer to the target and ADDING it to the horizon formula from the of the target to the observer.
No, because you cannot ignore atmospheric refraction. Read this and realize that you lost again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

>>33450487
>Do you know why it is irrelevant ?
>Because the horizon.. IE station 2 is ALWAYS at 0 meters
The oil platforms are not the horizon you dolt. The lighthouse is not the horizon you dolt.

Are you even aware of how many different times your story has changed in the past few minutes? You are thrashing about like the liquid metal terminator at the end of T2. Desperately trying to find a story, a theory that somehow fits everything and saves your flat Earth.
>los = horizon
>i mean it equals observer+target but no refraction
>nooooo you can't include refraction!
>ok but your calculator is going there and back again
>ok it's not but imma going back to los is a simple observer horizon calc, nothing more
Did you ever think that if you have to thrash about this much, maybe your theory is false?

Welcome to globe Earth, pal.
>>
>>33450493
It doesn't matter because we can see the water level, the pylons and the lowest gantry at 6.2 miles.
Impossible on a Globe earth.
We can also see the water level, the pylons and the lowest gantry at 9.4 miles.
Impossible on a Globe earth.
We can also see the horizon BEHIND the furthest oil rig which means the visible horizon is further away than 9.4 miles
Impossible on a Globe earth.

The PHYSICAL Horizon is at 1.22459√5.5= 2.871848 miles
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=9.4&h0=5.5&unit=imperial

Which means that anything lower than 28.4197ft should not be seen at 9.4 miles

The PHYSICAL horizon is at 2.37 miles.
Yet we see the horizon beyond 9.4 miles

Welcome to flat earth
>>
>>33450601
And what does Musk say to that?
>>
>>33450600
>flat Earther trying to find an explanation that saves the flat Earth
>circa 2022, colorized
>>
>>33450527
>LOL no the calculators are not computing "and back again." WTF are you getting this shit?
Man you are dumb as a rock.

Here lets do it with a horizon which is ALWAYS at 0 meters.

See now why we always use a HORIZON calculator to calculate the HORZION ?
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=7.8&h0=5.5&unit=imperial

Ack wont let me post anymore images
Put in
Antenna Height (1st Station): 5.5 ft
Antenna Height (2nd Station): 0 ft
Here
http://www.calculatoredge.com/electronics/lineofsight.htm
>>
>>33450601
None of that is visible in the footage taken on a clear day without any heavy atmospheric conditions...
Cope and seethe.
>>
>>33450600
>The oil platforms are not the horizon you dolt. The lighthouse is not the horizon you dolt.
Yes we got that
The Horizon is beyond the oil rigs. That's why you see PAST them
The horizon is past the lighthouse. That's why you see PAST the shoreline.
In fact you can watch the video and see a boat coming in from behind the rcoks.
Guess what the height of the keel of the boat is.
0 meters

ALL IMPOSSIBLE. On a globe earth
>>
>>33450668
It's visible in all the pics I posted.
and in the video.
Cope
https://youtu.be/Bhmo0B-hMts
>>
>>33450601
>It doesn't matter because we can see the water level, the pylons and the lowest gantry at 6.2 miles.
You would expect to see at least 20ft of the structure below the first deck with a camera height of 1ft. If the first deck is >40ft off the ocean, then you will see more structure.

>We can also see the water level, the pylons and the lowest gantry at 9.4 miles.
In one photo, but not in the other. You are dancing around the limits but the limits vary due to variability in refraction. You're also refusing to acknowledge that the first decks are likely >40ft off the ocean.

>Impossible on a Globe earth.
No, but here is what is absolutely impossible on flat Earth: the further platform appears lower in the water than the closer platform. Worse for you, it appears lower than itself in a different photo. If Earth was flat they would be at the same height above the water. A wave could make them appear a little lower. But it would either make BOTH of them appear lower (i.e. still same height) being in front of both. Or it would be obvious if it was between the two.

I'm sorry, but...you lose. Again.

>We can also see the horizon BEHIND the furthest oil rig
You can insist upon this until you pass out blue in the face. The horizon is in front of both of them. It is literally what obscures their bottom superstructure.

Welcome to globe Earth, pal.
>>
>>33450600
>>Because the horizon.. IE station 2 is ALWAYS at 0 meters
>The oil platforms are not the horizon you dolt. The lighthouse is not the horizon you dolt.
No shit. The horizon is behind the oil platform.
The horizon is ALWAYS at 0 meters. DUH....
>>
>>33450698
>. If the first deck is >40ft off the ocean, then you will see more structure.
It's clearly not. The gantry is defiantly no more than 12 feet
https://i.4cdn.org/x/1669332738821739.png

The rest of what you say is based on a 40ft gantry height, so you lose again
Plus the horizon is behind that.
At 0 meters
>>
>>33450698
>No, but here is what is absolutely impossible on flat Earth: the further platform appears lower in the water than the closer platform.
What is perspective. Do door heights actually get lower looking down a hallway ?
Do the height of phone poles shrink in the distance ?
>>
>>33450698
>You can insist upon this until you pass out blue in the face. The horizon is in front of both of them. It is literally what obscures their bottom superstructure.
and yet we see the horizon behind the oil platforms. Thanks for palying
>>
Hey look, just all of you get on a boat and go sail off the edge, problem solved.
>>
Anyway I'll give you the last word. Thanksgiving dinner starting here soon.
>>
>>33450652
>Man you are dumb as a rock.
Just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper, flerfer.

>Here lets do it with a horizon which is ALWAYS at 0 meters.
OK

>https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=7.8&h0=5.5&unit=imperial
d1 = Horizon distance 2.871848 miles

>Antenna Height (1st Station): 5.5 ft
>Antenna Height (2nd Station): 0 ft
>http://www.calculatoredge.com/electronics/lineofsight.htm
3 miles

OOOPS! The difference is due to refraction which is NOT computed by the horizon calculator. If it was due to "there and back again" Mr. Bilbo Baggins, then the LoS calculator would report something like 5.6 or 5.7 miles, or 6 miles rounded up.

You lost. Again!
>>
>>33450685
>Yes we got that
>The Horizon is beyond
Nothing. It is between the observer and the target in each of these cases. Denying this is simply denying reality.
>>
>>33450727
>if you do this and assume this and assume that and ignore this and ignore that then I'M RIGHT
OK flerfer. Let me know when you've photographed the Rocky mountains from Mount Whitney.

>>33450735
>perspective makes further things appear lower
LOL
LMFAO
>>
>>33450690
You've only posted pics showing heavy atmospheric conditions.
Why aren't they visible on a clear day?
>>
>>33451101
Having been btfo'd in this thread, they have already moved to a new one.
>>
>>33450825
>>perspective makes further things appear lower
>LOL
>LMFAO
No, refraction does though.
>>
The Earth is still flat and motionless.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.