[–] varialus 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Maybe it's just due to light curving as it passes through something or another. If you start with the axiom that the Earth is flat, then I'm sure it's probably possible to bend all of physics to make it work. It would make for some convoluted math, but it should be possible I'd think. It would be cool to have a computer program that let you set certain axioms like this and then it automatically bend the rest of physical laws on the fly to make it all still work as much as possible.
[–] Trump_is_Cucked [S] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
You could do this Unity or other 3D modelling program. But we already know the conditions underwhich light bends -- this phenomenon cannot be explained under those conditions.
Refraction and other atmospheric distortions vary. This observation ALWAYS HOLDS. For all of human history this observation has been made.
It proves that the Earth is round.
This is basically the same thing I wrote in another comment, but hopefully clearer. If you were to use a 3d Earth and universe modeling program with lots of physics simulating that could be manipulated in any way, which is what I was suggesting in another post, and then manipulate a spherical Earth to be flat and presume that scenario to be reality and it actually really was reality, then the physics which would prove a seemingly round earth to be flat would be the calculations which would reverse those manipulations from an Earth that is simulated as flat to one in which the Earth is round, which is what we observe. However, if you were in such an improbable universe or even if that is the condition of our actual universe, then it would be difficult or possibly even impossible to detect that we were in such a universe. If however, although even less probable, such a bizarre scenario were to solve an as of yet unsolved physics problem such as grand unification or whatever it's called, although there wouldn't be any direct evidence for the theory, the theoretical physics solution would give some precedence to the theory.
[–] ytesbrown ago
lets suppose you debunk it. But all the bubbles, all the fake NASA footage ? how do you explain it ? including the " man in the moon " ...
[–] Trump_is_Cucked [S] ago
The water bubbles are simply a product of the suit cooling systems. The NASA footage isn't faked, your "evidence' has been debunked 1000 times. I don't know what you are referring to by "man in the moon."
[–] kry0 ago (edited ago)
Why do you suppose the NASA footage is faked? What do they gain by faking it?
Edit: grammar
Edit 2: As expected, no reply. Typical
[–] AOU ago
100,000s people faking it. I could they get so much people without leaks?