This thread is meant to debunk the deranged idea that our realm is a planet floating in space.
If the so called established science can't be challenged, then it's not science, but religion.
>flat earthers any time their shit is disproven
Owen Benjamin || M O O N W A V E
Would anyone be willing to provide me with lore pertaining to the old suns and moons in this particular image? I want inspiration for my fantasy setting. What are the black spheres next to the moons?
I've considered that a flat realm may be more interesting as a design for my fantasy setting, and I would like any unique lore that the flat realm model uses that would be inconsistent with the conventional round earth model.
It would of course be a missed opportunity to make my planet hollow, but perhaps I can work with that as physics get increasingly funky beyond the ice rings.
Another question, in the flat realm spinning model, where does the sun go when it sets, and why would it appear to dip below the horizon.
Assume I'd believe whatever you told me, but don't spare any details, as want this for worldbuilding.
>>161189>where does the sun go when it sets, and why would it appear to dip below the horizon.Perspective.
Read the thread for the pertinent answers, most are here.
>>161190The thread is more than 600 posts long, so if you could help me out and point me to some post numbers, that would be much appreciated.
>>161191I'm sure it is just a matter of time for some anon come to the rescue.
>>161192It's also more of its own topic, tbh. I'm really only concerned with how to use this model as a fantasy cosmology. If anyone has thoughts/suggestions on that, I'd appreciate the input.
>>161378After watching both videos, I see no evidence for a flat earth. If you would be so kind as to indicate the part that you feel is evidence, that would be great.
Okay, after scrolling through all of this, I've gotten some decent ideas for my fantasy setting.
Question for flat earthers and round earthers: How can a world larger than Earth have a lower gravity? Preferably 0.9x to 0.8x.
>>162403Maybe if it were a gas planet? Lower mass should mean lower gravity.
>>162403Uranus hos very low gravity, mate.
>>162403Cull all the dense mf's, like everyone ITT
>>162403>gravityIt doesn't exist. Think in density and buoyancy.
That said, there are 44 instances of gravity in this bread with plenty of information.
>>160435So pic 4 does come up if you follow the link, it's page 35 if you follow the actual number of pages included in the pdf but 30 if you follow the numbers in the down-left corner of the pages.
Don't know what that means in the context of this document yet, though.
Maybe someday I'll go through this thread.
>>162417>Don't know what that means in the context of this document yetIt means that the military and NASA make all their calculations assuming Earth is flat, otherwise the math would be so incredible complex and unmanageable that all their projects will be unpractical. Not to mention that making calculations on the assumption that Earth is flat, the math checks perfectly out.
>>162408Uranus doesn't exist, it's a CIA psyop
>refuses to elaborare further
Zero doubt, this will be ironically weaponized but thats fine cuz you cant fake authenticity
>Antarctica Is NOT What You Think! [CLIP]>A video that should end the idea that we live on a globe with a southern continent at the bottom surrounding the south pole.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoX27ItX22MMirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/euyI2q1sZQZj/Full Length Video on Rokfin:
https://rokfin.com/post/80542/ARCHIVE
>>162583This is why Im on about flat earth.
I agreeIts curious/suspicious that there is no presented video of a complete 360deg. shadow. That should be readily available, easy to document and produce, and that it isnt being done is worthy of significant consideration.
Which legitimately leaves us with questions about why, and to what purpose. I know what conclusion
you lot wanna jump to, because you're an idealogue.
As for the lengths of the shadows,... I dont know if the videographer has ever heard of slopes. Cuz you can very clearly obser e slopes in all the 'elongated/short' shadow videos.
Ive said it before, Ill say it again. There are a number of unanswered question about the globe model.
However, there are vastly more unanswered questions about a flat earth model, and until such a time as a flat earth model can be producex, from which a predictive model can be observed and validated through trial, its lunacy to attempt to throw out the globe, especially withiut being able to explain why calculus doesnt work.
Any day now on that.
Let me rephrase that. Lets assume the earth IS flat.
Why then does calculus apply cohesively to a multitude of naturally occurring phenomena, except the planet?
Am I to assume calculus is part of the masonic nasa conspiracy?
Another rephrase: Why does calculus produce cohesive results that indicate a globe model if the earth is flat? If calculus were capable of quantifying and predicting all walks of natural phenomena with accuracy, why does that accuracy dissolve when applied to the globe, especially in that the same multi-genre cohesion can be observed to indicate a globe?
Simply
>Calculus is a perfectly viable, until you apply it to the globe.Why?Bonus points if you approach the question from an arbitrary standpoint, as opposed to starting from... your usual.
>>149639>>149962>>149974>>154733Golly, I wonder why these posts dont warrant an answer/response
>>162586>CalculusAre you referring to trigonometry?
>>162590Did Newton invent trigonometry to map the circumference of the planet?
Wow, a lengthy silence; I assume OP is versing himself with Calculus. This is not to cast aspersions on trig, its more to say that simplified equations on the internet will never give values that will match in-field values. The planet is far more nuanced than a simple equation or ratio of slope over distance.
>>162422>otherwise the math would be so incredible complex and unmanageable that all their projects will be unpractical.You said it, not me
>>162598>I assume OP is versing himself with CalculusNo nigger, I'm cooking diner after a long day.
>>162598>This is not to cast aspersions on trig, its more to say that simplified equations on the internet will never give values that will match in-field values.WTF are you talking about, math is math. Give some example where math won't apply.
>>162732Can someone explain to this nigger what relativity is
And whiplash
>>162600Newton's planetary calculations. Go on, explain where he went wrong.
>>162736>calculationsThere's nothing wrong with them. The problem is that Newton assumes a heliocentric system, which is a fiction of course.
>>162737Are you of the position that he didnt validate his calculations through testing?
>>162738>validate>testingThe calculations are fine, the issue is that they are applied to a theoretical model impossible to verify.
NASA and other transnational agencies claiming the existence of space are lying.
>>162739So thats a yes then? You unironically believe that he invented Calculus, but didnt bother to perform a single experiment to test his findings?
>>162740>You unironically believe that he invented CalculusYour words, not mine.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz would strongly disagree.
>but didnt bother to perform a single experiment to test his findings?And how would he? Testing the numbers against moving celestial objects may match, but the core of the issue is if those objects in the firmament are really planets as Newton assumed.
>>162789There's even a specific wikipedia on this for Norway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_of_Norway>A straight line along Norway's sea borders (the coastal perimeter) is 2,650 kilometers (1,650 mi) long.[1][2] Along the coast there are many fjords, islands, and bays, resulting in a low-resolution coastline of over 25,000 kilometers (16,000 mi).[3] At 30-meter (98 ft) linear intercepts, this length increases to 83,281 kilometers (51,748 mi)[4] (see the coastline paradox)And then like that says
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox
>>162790>Benoit MandelbrotYes, his observations on the dynamics of planes will very neatly put the final nail in the flat earth coffin, assuming we get to it
>>162791>his observations on the dynamics of planes will very neatly put the final nail in the flat earth coffinInteresting. Would you deliver?
>>162792(you) of all anons ought appreciate the irony when I say
>Spoonfeeding Request: DENIED