You literally can see the curvature of earth, on earth. Granted, you need to be on a high place on an island, but you will see the curve when looking at the sea.
I guess this proves the fact that you can't fix stupid.
I wonder how many of these people flunked science when they were kids?
Is it some sort of tradition that crazy conspiracy tards use low resolution .jpegs with the cruddiest font for text in bold black letters combined with MSpaint type "editing" on it?
[QUOTE=MendozaMan;50923281]Is it some sort of tradition that crazy conspiracy tards use low resolution .jpegs with the cruddiest font for text in bold black letters combined with MSpaint type "editing" on it?[/QUOTE]
You can't buy photoshop or a decent computer with crazy.
[QUOTE=J!NX;50922084][video=youtube;uexZbunD7Jg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg[/video][/QUOTE]
The first person sections of this video made me really uncomfortable, especially when he zoomed the moon up so close to you.
[QUOTE=MadCatMkII;50923454]The first person sections of this video made me really uncomfortable, especially when he zoomed the moon up so close to you.[/QUOTE]
The video in general feels extremely creepy, closer to a psychological horror movie than a casual debunk video, it makes you believe that someone could make a haunting film about this topic.
This clip is Steven King's "terror" definition shown in a completely unexpected place.
This is some ASMR type shit now
[url]https://youtu.be/GhRiLP32qfs?t=17375[/url]
i still believe every flat earth page on facebook is just a shitposting meme page in disguise, i can never take half the shit they post seriously
[QUOTE=J!NX;50919709]at least we already have earth spinning videos
[video=youtube;3d8fEl8xSJs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d8fEl8xSJs[/video]
but these assholes always find a way to say "This proves its flat instead"[/QUOTE]
Sweet Baby Jesus that comment section makes me depressive...
[QUOTE=darth-veger;50923671]Sweet Baby Jesus that comment section makes me depressive...[/QUOTE]
Every time somebody mentions "Photoshop" in this kind of situations I just imagine a guy using photoshop to modify every single frame, one by one...
Ok what the fuck. I watch the whole thing and he rewards me with an ear rape at the very end! 6:09:55
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;50923111]Doesn't work for all the theories out there.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/QlboBkn.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
...That one is even less feasible. You'd see the edges of the earth from every point but the arctic.
[QUOTE=Zeos;50923812]...That one is even less feasible. You'd see the edges of the earth from every point but the arctic.[/QUOTE]
Would make for a pretty awesome fictive world though. Imagine sailing from Japan to Australia on that map: You'd be able to see the [I]entirety[/I] of Australia, Indonesia, the Philippines, New Zealand and the entire ocean you're about to cross, [I]from the port[/I].
[QUOTE=MadCatMkII;50923454]The first person sections of this video made me really uncomfortable, especially when he zoomed the moon up so close to you.[/QUOTE]
yeah but imagine how fucking cool it would be if reality was like this
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;50923111]Doesn't work for all the theories out there.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/QlboBkn.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
with an earth like this you'd still see different sides of the moon from different continents
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;50922998]
Apparently, [url="http://wiki.tfes.org/UA#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light"]this[/url] is their explanation.[/QUOTE]
[quote]It is a common misconception that if we were to continuously accelerate over time, we would eventually be moving faster than the speed of light. This is of course, incorrect as nothing with mass may do so.[/quote]
What the fuck. And then they contradict it. And then try to prove it backwards. Like, I can appreciate how "How can the Earth continuously accelerate without reaching the speed of light" turned into "[b]Why[/b] the Earth can't reach the speed of light" halfway into the "explanation", but at the same time they've just proven why the Earth can't be moving with a continuous acceleration... evidently, the Earth doesn't, so what about gravity again?
[Quote]
- There's no gravity. The Earth actually constantly accelerates "upwards".
- Okay, so we should reach light speed eventually?
- No, that's impossible. Next question please.
[/quote]
That's their entire explanation.
one Flat Earther explanation is that the earth can't be round because if it was everything would fly off "like when a car turns and everyone is thrown to the side"
[QUOTE=J!NX;50924102]one Flat Earther explanation is that the earth can't be round because if it was everything would fly off "like when a car turns and everyone is thrown to the side"[/QUOTE]
"But gravity"
"Gravity doesn't exist. Next question"
[QUOTE=gudman;50924080]What the fuck. And then they contradict it. And then try to prove it backwards. Like, I can appreciate how "How can the Earth continuously accelerate without reaching the speed of light" turned into "[b]Why[/b] the Earth can't reach the speed of light" halfway into the "explanation", but at the same time they've just proven why the Earth can't be moving with a continuous acceleration... evidently, the Earth doesn't, so what about gravity again?
That's their entire explanation.[/QUOTE]
wait, if the earth was accelerating upwards, how have the moon/sun/stars not fallen into it by now :v: Anti-gravity? :v:
[QUOTE=J!NX;50924111]wait, if the earth was accelerating upwards, how have the moon/sun/stars not fallen into it by now :v: Anti-gravity? :v:[/QUOTE]
They accelerate too.
God, I can't even fucking begin to explain just how aggravating it is to see flat earthers in youtube comments calling out some nice earth shots from space as fake, and CGI; earth is flat, etc etc.
I saw this one video this dude uploaded of the ISS orbiting the earth with some absolutely great looking shots with the cloud, cities etc etc. And of course, There's flat earthers in the comments, calling it fake and shit.
Like seriously, The guy uploaded some greatass footage of the earth, and they have to go around ruining it.
Made a /pol/ thread about this last night, what a ride that was.
[url]http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/86042867#p86052767[/url]
[QUOTE=gudman;50924080]What the fuck. And then they contradict it. And then try to prove it backwards. Like, I can appreciate how "How can the Earth continuously accelerate without reaching the speed of light" turned into "[b]Why[/b] the Earth can't reach the speed of light" halfway into the "explanation", but at the same time they've just proven why the Earth can't be moving with a continuous acceleration... evidently, the Earth doesn't, so what about gravity again?[/QUOTE]
I think it's a pretty clever way to set up that explanation though. Personally I don't know enough to figure out what all the maths meant, so I needed someone like you to tell me why it was bullshit. Makes sense what you say is what they did, but I couldn't have interpreted it myself, and I imagine many others wouldn't be able to pin-point the errors either.
[QUOTE=gudman;50924121]They accelerate too.[/QUOTE]
but surely that means that tons of particles would be falling off the sides/bottom since our idea of gravity pulling towards the centre of a large mass doesn't exist and to them the moon/stars are round anyway?
or do they just conveniently ignore that since it goes against their agenda
Conspiracy theorists just prefer to think that ultimately there's "someone" in control of everything because its scarier to think that most governments are actually incompetent to a certain degree.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;50924637]I think it's a pretty clever way to set up that explanation though. Personally I don't know enough to figure out what all the maths meant, so I needed someone like you to tell me why it was bullshit. Makes sense what you say is what they did, but I couldn't have interpreted it myself, and I imagine many others wouldn't be able to pin-point the errors either.[/QUOTE]
I've not a faintest clue what that math means, I was just going from what's actually [b]written[/b] there. I don't know if that math is even correct (although wouldn't it be hilarious if it isn't?), but it's supposed to describe how accelerating to speeds up to the c is impossible for objects with physical parameters different from, well, light. Which goes against their base proposition about continuous and stable acceleration. If the Earth would decelerate at a certain point - then surely we'd just get ejected into space, what with no gravitational pull to keep us glued to the ground? At the very least we'd notice a global cataclysm that would happen should the force that pulls us "down" weaken even for a 1/100 of a second.
What I mean is, a person has to not be all that interested in reading all this bullshit to fall for it, considering that all it takes is to read the question and compare it to the supposed answer. OR! You have to have a strong preconception to straight-up ignore the logical disaster that is going on. And that kind of brings into question their entire "oh we're so educated here, we are super serious about our beliefs" narrative, along with "we're just looking at everything with an open mind!".
[QUOTE=gudman;50924922]I've not a faintest clue what that math means, I was just going from what's actually [b]written[/b] there. I don't know if that math is even correct (although wouldn't it be hilarious if it isn't?), but it's supposed to describe how accelerating to speeds up to the c is impossible for objects with physical parameters different from, well, light. Which goes against their base proposition about continuous and stable acceleration. If the Earth would decelerate at a certain point - then surely we'd just get ejected into space, what with no gravitational pull to keep us glued to the ground? At the very least we'd notice a global cataclysm that would happen should the force that pulls us "down" weaken even for a 1/100 of a second.
What I mean is, a person has to not be all that interested in reading all this bullshit to fall for it, considering that all it takes is to read the question and compare it to the supposed answer. OR! You have to have a strong preconception to straight-up ignore the logical disaster that is going on. And that kind of brings into question their entire "oh we're so educated here, we are super serious about our beliefs" narrative, along with "we're just looking at everything with an open mind!".[/QUOTE]
Based on what I know about relativity, and I might be wrong, it checks out. If you have a rocket or something accelerating forever, someone on the rocket would still feel the acceleration no matter how long the rocket goes. An outside observer would see the rocket getting closer and closer to the speed of light but never reaching it. Time would go slower for the guy on the rocket, or at least I think that's how it would work? Relativity is weird.
But then you run into the issue of the constellations being constant and traceable in a way that doesn't at all line up with accelerating towards them
[QUOTE=SamPerson123;50925114]Based on what I know about relativity, and I might be wrong, it checks out. If you have a rocket or something accelerating forever, someone on the rocket would still feel the acceleration no matter how long the rocket goes. An outside observer would see the rocket getting closer and closer to the speed of light but never reaching it. Time would go slower for the guy on the rocket, or at least I think that's how it would work? Relativity is weird.[/QUOTE]
Oh, so that's what it means. Makes sense then. If that's the case, they should've worded those parts better. I remember reading on something like that, guess it didn't quite click.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50925122]But then you run into the issue of the constellations being constant and traceable in a way that doesn't at all line up with accelerating towards them[/QUOTE]
I'm sure they'd just say that the stars are painted on the ceiling of the earth rocket ship.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.