So you're saying that if you're standing at the tallest point of a plane, that some lower part of that plane will somehow "rise" up to block your view?

Why are you now bringing perspective into this? Yes there are dozens of concepts that appear to support the flat earth theory on the surface, but you don't get to jump from one to the other as they each fail under scrutiny.

I know how perspective works. Now tell me what could possibly obstruct your line of sight of the moon from atop Everest.

I'm on mobile now but i did some calculations, i can upload pictures later.

But given those parameters, a person standing anywhere on the south pole (which i understand to be any point in the outer edge of the disc) at sea level, and a moon that is at the opposite side of the disc (~25K miles away from the person) and 3K miles above sea level, the smallest angle possible is about 6.8 degrees, not 0.01.

But that's not necessarily conclusive, we just have to figure out what it would take to obstruct this person's view of the moon in this scenario, since this is the worst case scenario (the furthest a person can be from the moon while still on the flat earth.

So what could block this guy's view of the moon? Well, if he's 6ft tall then any 7ft obstacle could do it, IF right in front of him. In the other extreme, any 3001 mile obstacle could also block his view of the moon, even if said obstacle was at the opposite side of the disc.

So what's the tallest possible obstacle? Mt Everest at 5.5 miles. Doesn't seem like much, and after some math it clearly isn't. Given the scenario above, even mount Everest itself would not be tall enough to block your view of the moon, unless it was within 45 miles of you. In other words, if you are 46 miles away from mt everest, then it won't block your view of the moon, even if the moon was as far away as could be.

Now there could be less tall obstacles than mt everest that could still block your view, provided that they are closer. But still, 45 miles is a very small area. Given these numbers, you could go to any point in the ocean that is 4 miles from any shore, and the moon would always be visible from there (because 45 miles from the shore means Everest is even farther, and you're at sea so there's nothing else out there to obstruct your view). There are hundreds of places that you could visit to test that theory. Thousands.

But even putting all this math aside, I realized that your model would also imply that the moon is always visible from the tallest point on earth. Because there's nothing blocking you. But this is clearly not the case, or at least i don't think you belive that but please tell me if I'm wrong.

Tldr i don't think your model aligns with observable reality.

Give me numbers then. What's the diameter of the flat earth and how far is the moon from the surface? Then we can check if it's even possible to get a 0.01 degree angle, even from edge to edge.

That doesn't change what i said. Yes some folks would see the moon directly above, others would see it off in the distance, but everyone would see it all the time.

But then the moon would be visible from everywhere all the time.

I think they would have been blown away by the rocket landing nearby

To do what

Should have been forced to resign after that bitch- handed throw

Deez nuts beg to differ

I do eat ass...

Flat earth is the meat shield ideology to NASA's moon hoax.

It's (D)ifferent

So if this episode's plot wasn't a coincidence, how do you explain it?

You know how farts smell less as you move away? That's how the atmosphere works

Ask him about the weather

He was an auto aim fag

This is why Thanos' plan was retarded. He'd only be setting us back to 1970s level pupulation.

John Titor a little late

Here come dat boi recession!!!!

Oy with a chance of vey

Why is Australia so gay?

There's a big wound

• Inflation

• WW3

• Roe v wade

Its called a Stock Equilibrium graph, or SE for short. Made by an anon named Goat. Lookup goatSE for more info.