True dat

Who is the flat earther here

we all are flat earthers

i am!

i came from a family

oF FLAYT EARTHERS

i lived at harvard and they all said the earth is flat!

i live near nasa
and it is oBVIOUSLY
fake

the goverment made it all uP

Oooo good for you. hehehe.....

NASA IS JUST A CARDBOARD CUT OUT

EXACTLY

I SAW A ROCKET GET NOCKED OVER

Are u guys the trollsters

no!

i really do believe in a flat earth

i grew up from a family of flat earthers

!mute @yeezy yeezy yeezy

mind reader package#3928 (335604769546829836) is now muted for '**Unspecified.**', alright? <:THUMBSUP6:403560443345371137>

What was that for?

Show me a pic of a flat earth guy in space

do people still say gravity is strong

It’s not @Superiorna_Artiljerija

Because the ROUND earth is small

thank you

also gravity as a force is not that strong compared to the 3 others

Ya, flat earthers think of gravity was real, it would smush everyone to the ground

(It kind of does now, but you know what I mean)

o/

@The Chucken Noris show me a picture of a spaceship

Sight distances prove the earth is flat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruJgOfxL81s

That's their standard refraction model for 123 miles

Well the blue is the earth. The red is the path light takes in their standard refraction model
So anything on the earth at the blue will be elevated to the red
by refraction
So that is the standard 7/6 R

If your at 1000 miles altitude I guess you can see the other side lol

Here's the thing. Actual experiments show refraction varies from 20X to - 20X
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/533401661776068669/unknown.png
On the other hand, our empirical results show that the
refraction coefficient k may reach magnitudes as large as +12 to +16 over grassland at 1.8 m. This clearly
exceeds previously published ‘extreme values’ (e.g., maximum values of k = +6 at 1.5 m height over grassland,
cf. Hübner [1977]). We acknowledge that surface types like ice or water may even produce larger refraction
effects, as described in section 2.

As you can see from what I just posted , they measured what would be radius that would be 16 times larger than the earth radius
They think k they model refraction ,.In fact they model the deviation from from the globe radius.
They don't measure the refractive index of the air. the impute it from the deviation of an expected value
of course. Their model follows earths curve perfectly
think about how nonsensical that is. exactly equals the curve of the earth...idiocy...

https://earth-ae.github.io/#current/ocean/primary/waves/overlay=sea_surface_temp/azimuthal_equidistant

I don't think I've ever seen a formula for the horizon

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_eye#Basic_accuracies

or one that takes in account basically all details that are necessary for an accurate measurement

You can do the math yourself

Human eye .02 degrees angular resolution