Because if the earth was spinning you'd see different stars constantly.

It'd just be a blur.

We do see different stars.

Also tilt does change over time

Ok but you can always see the big dipper, polaris, the triangle star.

Why would it change relative to the sun tho?

Heliocentric = Lies

Geocentric = Truth

Yes, because they’re all near the axis of rotation

No, they are in different points of the sky

Curve = fake

Globe = fake

The Summer Triangle is the same issue

They’re all near the axis of rotation

Unless you’re in the tropics, you’ll always see the stars near the axis of rotation in your hemisphere

Sorry I’m getting a bit distracted

Now I’ll ask a question because y’all keep ignoring it

On a flat Earth, we should be seeing the sun rise and set to the north unless you’re at the North Pole

That is a lie, there are several dead constellations and new constellations

Argos is literally my favorite

But it doesn’t exist anymore

It's all about perspective.

Is that a jab at what I said about crepuscular rays?

Bc what I said actually makes sense and that one dude even had a model

There’s like 3 stars in Argos that are gone

And the positions of other stars in it have changed

Before Polaris, the Egyptians used Thuban

im so flat

how are you fellow flatties

if the earth was flat cats would’ve pushed everything off

alright

k

Im back

@RadRhys I believe Polaris is part of the Little Dipper, not the Big Dipper.

And math is valid. It’s empirically and verifiably true

And stars have not stayed in the same place.

They move every year, and we can calculate their movements with parallaxes

Also, how do you explain the Coriolis effect seen in hurricane storms in a flat earth model

You’re right, I always mix up major and minor

hey guys what do you make of this video, im kinda stumped now

https://youtu.be/edsUrLXrlLg

shows the curvature of earth and i can see it myself

anything that could explain this??

no fisheye lens

unless there was discreet manipulation of the video

Well, you have your answer then.

Manipulation.

but how do you know

we cant just jump to unreasonable conclusions

doesnt help us but i know manipulation and deception is all too common

It's unreasonable to assume that the video is true.

and you have no proof it's not a fish eye.

Curb your ignorance.

true but you should look at it yourself

Why?

I've seen hundreds of pictures of the globe.

It seldom gives me much thought.

its not a globe video

video footage of curvature at altitude

the only convincing thing ive seen against flat earth so far

Easily faked.

Very easily faked.

Have you ever seen the curvature with your own eyes?

I think not.

listen listen how many people can afford to fly up that high to do that? not a good argument, too many of us saying that and it doesnt help flat earth one bit

i need to hear what others think

Ok but thats not proof either.

The fact that you have to go to extreme lengths to see for yourself is enough reason for doubt.

There is simply no proof of a globe.

not exactly beyond reasonable doubt, i dont think you get im trying to just get a good explanation of the video's "proof" of curvature

this is a globe

lol

Ok how many times must I tell you, a video is *not* proof.

you didnt get what i was saying lol

im not saying it is proof

You are attempting to prove the existence of the curvature, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

Am I incorrect?

no

What is proof

What would be a reasonable example of proof

like i said its seems convincing that there COULD be a curvature from this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edsUrLXrlLg&feature=youtu.be

thats all im saying

And besides there would be artifacts of video manipulation

Could be but its most-likely fake.

im literally just sharing the video calm down

How do you know

Because you cannot prove it's authentic.

Did you see any effects of video manipulation

And I dispute all evidence of the globe.

MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.
CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them. To learn more about this, visit our page describing how science aims to build knowledge.

Permissions are not properly configured.

Please check https://biblebot.xyz/permissions for more information.

Cat is correct.

Yes yes I am

Um

🙄