Let's not forget that NASA still won't admit that the first human object in space was a German A4 (V2) rocket in the 40s, not a bullshit NASA rocket from the 50's.
How do you explain phenomena in the sky from looking into a telescope? You don't you just regurgitate whatever theory you read in kike text books or saw on kike media. Nobody has been to space, whatever theory you want to posit about the lights in the sky above us, is just that. A theory.
It is funny how when we talk about the shape of our level plane, you want to point to shiny lights in the sky and claim they are planets because of CGI pictures and indoctrination from school textbooks.
Every single photo depicting a star as a planet is a CGI image. NASA openly admits it.
You don't think I know about Eratosthenes? I know more about your heliocentric model then you do buddy. You wouldn't know the speed at which Earth supposedly rotates, the supposed size of Earth and the radius of Earth. You wouldn't know the speed the Earth supposedly orbits the sun or the speed that the sun supposedly moves through the universe at. You don't have a fundamental understanding of any of this and yet you still defend the ideology with regurgitated nonsense.
A century after Aristotle, around 250 B.C. yet another Greek mathematician and philosopher named Eratosthenes made his claim to fame with a new alleged proof of the spherical Earth. Eratosthenes noted that at noon during the Summer Solstice in Syene, the Sun cast no shadow and the rays could reach straight to the bottom of his well, yet meanwhile in Alexandria a vertically standing metal rod cast a significant shadow. By factoring the length of the shadow with his assumed distance to the Sun, Eratosthenes recorded a measurement of Earth’s circumference close to what heliocentrist astronomers still use today. The fact of the matter is, however, that Eratosthenes’ calculations were made assuming the Sun to be millions of miles away so that its rays would fall perfectly parallel even in points as divergent as Syene and Alexandria. This faulty premise led to his faulty conclusion, which was eventually exposed upon the invention of the nautical sextant. Using sextants and plane trigonometry, by measuring the Sun’s angle at two points on Earth simultaneously and factoring their distance from each other, the Pythagorean theorum reveals both the height and dimensions of the Sun. Using this method, the Sun and Moon have repeatedly been calculated to be approximately 32 miles in diameter, 3000 miles from the surface of the Earth. High altitude balloon footage has also filmed lighting hot-spots on clouds proving the Sun to be local and acting as a spotlight, and not a burning ball of gas millions of miles away as supposed by heliocentrists. After Eratosthenes, the globe-Earth theory completely disappeared from philosophical thought and recorded history for almost two millennia. Geocentric flat-Earth cosmologies continued to reign supreme, with even Eratosthenes himself, touted as the “Father of Geography,” depicting the Earth as flat in his famous 194 B.C. map of the world. https://ericdubay.wordpress.com/2018/07/10/the-history-of-flat-earth/
You think a curve shows a level surface but that contradicts reality. You can point to theoretical bullshit all you want but you can never showcase this in reality because in reality a level is horizontal, flat. Zero curvature.
You even said it yourself when you zoom into the circle.
"Oh look, there's still a curve, but it almost looks like a straight line!"
In reality level is perfectly flat, zero curvature. In kike textbooks that you regurgitate instead of relying on common sense is that level = a curve.
I will repeat, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the dimensions of a sphere to contain a straight line.
A sphere has just one surface and that is curved. Since there is no flat surface in a sphere, the curved surface area of a sphere is equal to its total surface area of the sphere which is 4πr2.
No matter how theoretically large the sphere is. IT WILL NEVER BE FLAT OR LEVEL.
You can even prove this by using the link you provided.
You think a curve shows a level surface but that contradicts reality. You can point to theoretical bullshit all you want but you can never showcase this in reality because in reality a level is horizontal, flat. Zero curvature.
You're denying basic geometry and reality. It's not "theory", but simple, observable physics that when you zoom in on a curve it flattens out. You disputed this and were proved wrong, because you're a flattard. Then you ran away like a little bitch and stopped replying.
It never reaches zero curvature, but at some point it approximates a straight line too close for you to measure. Flattards like you eyeball the horizon, say, "Looks flat to me!", and then deny all other evidence to the contrary.
You are the one denying reality. In construction we use Euclidean Geometry on a Planar surface to construct buildings and datum lines.
when you zoom in on a curve it flattens out.
It doesn't it is physically impossible for a curve to flatten out. This is like trying to say a man can be pregnant. You are dribbling literal bullshit mate.
Then you ran away like a little bitch and stopped replying.
You can't refute any of my facts, you don't bring anything new to the table that I haven't encountered before. You all repeat the exact same script like the NPC's that you are. I haven't run of anywhere, I just happen to have a life unlike you.
but at some point it approximates a straight line too close for you to measure.
If you can't measure the curvature then it doesn't exist. We don't base scientific findings of "too close to measure" that is a god of the gaps fallacy.
If there is curvature, it should be measurable even at a small scale.
It doesn't it is physically impossible for a curve to flatten out.
There's less and less curve, and the more you zoom, the more it approximates a straight line. You denied it, I proved it, and then you ran away like a little bitch.
If you can't measure the curvature then it doesn't exist.
Lulz, you are so fucking retarded. Can you measure a difference of a nanometer with your grade school ruler? No. But can you measure it with precise enough tools? Yes. You're a flattard eyeballing the horizon and saying, "Looks flat to me! Must be ZERO curvature!" Then deny all evidence to the contrary.
You need to educate yourself on what "level" means. There is no "approximation" involved in finding level. It's always precise because it is measured using Plane Geometry not theoretical Spherical geometry.
You're a flattard eyeballing the horizon and saying, "Looks flat to me! Must be ZERO curvature!"
You are the one that will claim that boats disappear over curvature but then when we zoom in and bring them completely back into view you claim the curve is too big to measure or observe. You are literally a kike engaging in pilpul.
You need to educate yourself on what "level" means. There is no "approximation" involved in finding level. It's always precise because it is measured using Plane Geometry not theoretical Spherical geometry.
You need to educate yourself on how engineering deals with precision. They don't measure down to 100%, ZERO error level. There is ALWAYS some precision error in the tools they use, flattard.
You are the one that will claim that boats disappear over curvature but then when we zoom in and bring them completely back into view
I never use boats as evidence in my arguments, flattard, because the videos tend to be of poor quality and the minute details easily swamped by extraneous factors, like waves or air quality. You can find videos arguing for both cases.
I use THE SUN when talking about the horizon. You know, that giant light in the sky that disappears from bottom to top every sunset, but doesn't magically reappear when you zoom in. It also doesn't shrink as it does so, if your video isn't swamped by glare. All easily repeatable and verifiable by anybody.
you claim the curve is too big to measure or observe.
I never said that, flattard. I said if you eyeball it the horizon will look flat, but then flattards stop there and ignore all evidence to the contrary. Meaning you CAN measure it in tons of different ways, but no matter what evidence you show to a flattard, they deny it.
Again, you are repeating the exact same NPC response that every one of you repeats. I'll show you countless videos of the sun not only changing in size but also just suddenly vanishing instead of disappearing out of your limit of perspective. It won't matter what I show you because at the end of the day you will just claim that "glare" or "refraction" is the cause of it in every instance.
You don't understand the fundamental principles of planar geometry or the fact that we have been using it for well over 2000 years before the kike Einstein came along. It is sad and pathetic that you protect your dogmatic jewish religion of new age science and reject the common sense science from actual White scientists like Euclid of Alexandria.
I'll show you countless videos of the sun not only changing in size but also just suddenly vanishing instead of disappearing out of your limit of perspective.
Do the experiment yourself, flattard. Get a welding mask and measure the width of the sun at noon, then do it again near sunset. It should have shrunk dramatically during that time using a flattard perspective.
Of course you will never do this, because you know you are wrong. Just like you were wrong about zooming in on a circle, and when I showed you how to repeat the experiment on a computer, you slinked away with your tail between your legs.
You have zero clue about the heliocentric model or any of the supposed distances involved and then you also claim to understand how a geocentric model works.
You keep thinking that you can zoom into a curve while real engineers utilize actual planar geometry champ.
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 3 points 1.1 yearsMar 24, 2023 16:14:40 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] JustALover
[ - ] JustALover 1 point 1.1 yearsMar 24, 2023 15:56:28 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] HonkyMcNiggerSpic
[ - ] HonkyMcNiggerSpic 1 point 1.1 yearsMar 24, 2023 12:44:46 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] AugustineOfHippo2
[ - ] AugustineOfHippo2 1 point 1.1 yearsMar 24, 2023 09:27:13 ago (+1/-0)
https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/opo0323a.jpg
or how about moons revolving around jupiter:
https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/wallpaper1/heic2017a.jpg
https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/thumb300y/opo9913c.jpg
two pictures of mars at different times of year:
https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/heic1814g.jpg
[ + ] GetFuckedCunt
[ - ] GetFuckedCunt [op] 2 points 1.1 yearsMar 24, 2023 10:00:16 ago (+3/-1)
It is funny how when we talk about the shape of our level plane, you want to point to shiny lights in the sky and claim they are planets because of CGI pictures and indoctrination from school textbooks.
Every single photo depicting a star as a planet is a CGI image. NASA openly admits it.
[ + ] AugustineOfHippo2
[ - ] AugustineOfHippo2 1 point 1.1 yearsMar 24, 2023 10:47:11 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] GetFuckedCunt
[ - ] GetFuckedCunt [op] 1 point 1.1 yearsMar 24, 2023 11:01:37 ago (+2/-1)
A century after Aristotle, around 250 B.C. yet another Greek mathematician and philosopher named Eratosthenes made his claim to fame with a new alleged proof of the spherical Earth. Eratosthenes noted that at noon during the Summer Solstice in Syene, the Sun cast no shadow and the rays could reach straight to the bottom of his well, yet meanwhile in Alexandria a vertically standing metal rod cast a significant shadow. By factoring the length of the shadow with his assumed distance to the Sun, Eratosthenes recorded a measurement of Earth’s circumference close to what heliocentrist astronomers still use today. The fact of the matter is, however, that Eratosthenes’ calculations were made assuming the Sun to be millions of miles away so that its rays would fall perfectly parallel even in points as divergent as Syene and Alexandria. This faulty premise led to his faulty conclusion, which was eventually exposed upon the invention of the nautical sextant. Using sextants and plane trigonometry, by measuring the Sun’s angle at two points on Earth simultaneously and factoring their distance from each other, the Pythagorean theorum reveals both the height and dimensions of the Sun. Using this method, the Sun and Moon have repeatedly been calculated to be approximately 32 miles in diameter, 3000 miles from the surface of the Earth. High altitude balloon footage has also filmed lighting hot-spots on clouds proving the Sun to be local and acting as a spotlight, and not a burning ball of gas millions of miles away as supposed by heliocentrists. After Eratosthenes, the globe-Earth theory completely disappeared from philosophical thought and recorded history for almost two millennia. Geocentric flat-Earth cosmologies continued to reign supreme, with even Eratosthenes himself, touted as the “Father of Geography,” depicting the Earth as flat in his famous 194 B.C. map of the world. https://ericdubay.wordpress.com/2018/07/10/the-history-of-flat-earth/
[ + ] zongongo
[ - ] zongongo 1 point 1.1 yearsMar 24, 2023 16:44:00 ago (+1/-0)
If the sun is actually proximal, the results would be the same on a flat plane.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony -1 points 1.1 yearsMar 24, 2023 09:03:50 ago (+0/-1)
https://www.talk.lol/viewpost?postid=6413fc24a91c5#comment_6415197c56e38
[ + ] GetFuckedCunt
[ - ] GetFuckedCunt [op] 0 points 1.1 yearsMar 24, 2023 09:53:57 ago (+1/-1)
You even said it yourself when you zoom into the circle.
"Oh look, there's still a curve, but it almost looks like a straight line!"
In reality level is perfectly flat, zero curvature. In kike textbooks that you regurgitate instead of relying on common sense is that level = a curve.
I will repeat, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the dimensions of a sphere to contain a straight line.
A sphere has just one surface and that is curved. Since there is no flat surface in a sphere, the curved surface area of a sphere is equal to its total surface area of the sphere which is 4πr2.
No matter how theoretically large the sphere is. IT WILL NEVER BE FLAT OR LEVEL.
You can even prove this by using the link you provided.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony -1 points 1.1 yearsMar 24, 2023 10:50:08 ago (+0/-1)
You're denying basic geometry and reality. It's not "theory", but simple, observable physics that when you zoom in on a curve it flattens out. You disputed this and were proved wrong, because you're a flattard. Then you ran away like a little bitch and stopped replying.
It never reaches zero curvature, but at some point it approximates a straight line too close for you to measure. Flattards like you eyeball the horizon, say, "Looks flat to me!", and then deny all other evidence to the contrary.
[ + ] GetFuckedCunt
[ - ] GetFuckedCunt [op] 1 point 1.1 yearsMar 24, 2023 11:07:01 ago (+1/-0)
It doesn't it is physically impossible for a curve to flatten out. This is like trying to say a man can be pregnant. You are dribbling literal bullshit mate.
You can't refute any of my facts, you don't bring anything new to the table that I haven't encountered before. You all repeat the exact same script like the NPC's that you are. I haven't run of anywhere, I just happen to have a life unlike you.
If you can't measure the curvature then it doesn't exist. We don't base scientific findings of "too close to measure" that is a god of the gaps fallacy.
If there is curvature, it should be measurable even at a small scale.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 1.1 yearsMar 24, 2023 11:24:12 ago (+0/-0)
There's less and less curve, and the more you zoom, the more it approximates a straight line. You denied it, I proved it, and then you ran away like a little bitch.
Lulz, you are so fucking retarded. Can you measure a difference of a nanometer with your grade school ruler? No. But can you measure it with precise enough tools? Yes. You're a flattard eyeballing the horizon and saying, "Looks flat to me! Must be ZERO curvature!" Then deny all evidence to the contrary.
[ + ] GetFuckedCunt
[ - ] GetFuckedCunt [op] 2 points 1.1 yearsMar 24, 2023 11:30:10 ago (+2/-0)
You are the one that will claim that boats disappear over curvature but then when we zoom in and bring them completely back into view you claim the curve is too big to measure or observe. You are literally a kike engaging in pilpul.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 1.1 yearsMar 24, 2023 11:41:13 ago (+0/-0)
You need to educate yourself on how engineering deals with precision. They don't measure down to 100%, ZERO error level. There is ALWAYS some precision error in the tools they use, flattard.
I never use boats as evidence in my arguments, flattard, because the videos tend to be of poor quality and the minute details easily swamped by extraneous factors, like waves or air quality. You can find videos arguing for both cases.
I use THE SUN when talking about the horizon. You know, that giant light in the sky that disappears from bottom to top every sunset, but doesn't magically reappear when you zoom in. It also doesn't shrink as it does so, if your video isn't swamped by glare. All easily repeatable and verifiable by anybody.
I never said that, flattard. I said if you eyeball it the horizon will look flat, but then flattards stop there and ignore all evidence to the contrary. Meaning you CAN measure it in tons of different ways, but no matter what evidence you show to a flattard, they deny it.
[ + ] GetFuckedCunt
[ - ] GetFuckedCunt [op] 0 points 1.1 yearsMar 24, 2023 11:45:50 ago (+0/-0)
You don't understand the fundamental principles of planar geometry or the fact that we have been using it for well over 2000 years before the kike Einstein came along. It is sad and pathetic that you protect your dogmatic jewish religion of new age science and reject the common sense science from actual White scientists like Euclid of Alexandria.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 1.1 yearsMar 24, 2023 11:54:09 ago (+0/-0)
You'll show me a video with glare and then ignore the ones without it, like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB1punBbeV8
Do the experiment yourself, flattard. Get a welding mask and measure the width of the sun at noon, then do it again near sunset. It should have shrunk dramatically during that time using a flattard perspective.
Of course you will never do this, because you know you are wrong. Just like you were wrong about zooming in on a circle, and when I showed you how to repeat the experiment on a computer, you slinked away with your tail between your legs.
[ + ] GetFuckedCunt
[ - ] GetFuckedCunt [op] 0 points 1.1 yearsMar 24, 2023 12:04:48 ago (+0/-0)
You have zero clue about the heliocentric model or any of the supposed distances involved and then you also claim to understand how a geocentric model works.
You keep thinking that you can zoom into a curve while real engineers utilize actual planar geometry champ.