Not just anyone is going to be able to do that

If I crash, oh well I'll build another one

I'm not just anyone, I am human sheeple

This is the thing.. The whole pac man map thing, its hard to go against such a large amount of evidence of it being a globe

I'd rather go to the North

It is only our own fear of crashlanding in a frozen hell hole that prevents us from going

Hello, There!

<:snapsnap:484956825863585792>

Fuck it if I cross Antarctica alive and reach charted landmass I might as well try and do pole to pole circumnavigation at least then I'll have a MEASUREMENT

Then maybe we could investigate "superglobe" as a possibility

I mean all the NASA fakery, the long distance shots, it warrants investigation

You could measure the circumference without travelling the world by sun and shadow angles

It would be very hard to hide a flat earth, given modern technology, observations etc, however what we see isnt what we get, and inversion can flip and fill from convex to concave

They will end up proving flat earth false by simply travelling east and ending up where they came from

@AstralSentient That assumes a globe before you even take a pen to the paper.

Yeah, but this in response to Sheeple's "superglobe" inquiry

You'd still need to travel

You can't jot down some math and expect to have reflected reality.

You need to verify and make sure that your math was correct.

Not just believe it.

You can't go direct pole to pole direct, you have to go around the world, suspicious is how when they are next to a pole they go around it where if they was on a convex sphere they would go over it or by it, which just makes it even more suspicious of being concave

But the math can reflect reality with the variables put in.
Since we would measure the sun angles, all else we'd need is distance between two places.

I believe flight routes prove concavity

You have to imagine it in your head but think about it

On a concave earth, it would be more complex, light couldn't really travel in straight lines for it to work out

For measuring circumference

But I guess it could still work

@AstralSentient No, math is a tool. Math will never directly reflect reality. That's why you will always need experimentation. You will always need measurements and verification.

Light gets here in minutes or seconds, the atmospheres density causes it to refract more and more as it gets to us

But the measurements are the sun angles/shadows, and distance

But I believe its the medium it's travelling through that causes it, not light itself

When we ascend we get less displacement

@AstralSentient That's not a measurement, that's an assumption.

Cus less aymosphere

Look at clouds

Figure it out

Why do clouds make a dome around you at ground level, yet they level off flat when we get high?

@AstralSentient
When you observe the sun on the horizon it appears a red/orange color.
When you observe the sun directly above you, it appears a yellow/white color.
It is reasonable to assume the most amount of refraction occurs when you observe the sun closest through the horizon.
The sunlight must go through the thickest amount of air closest to the horizon.
Take a look at Lapse Rate. There is a net change of air temperature of about 6-8 degrees celcius lower per kilometer of altitude gained.
Cold air has a higher refractive index than warm air.
Light will naturally curve upwards in air and the closer the apparent sun is to the horizon the more it curves upwards.
Attempting to apply linear trigonometry to an extremely curved beam of light when the sun is close to the horizon is pointless, it won't work.

Concave human sheeple

😉

I will accept there are valleys and quarreys and sinkholes which have concavity, however 70 percent of Earth is water, water seeks its level and is therefore apparently mostly locally flat.