^^^ Imagine being so delusional and retarded to think heavy balls balls in garden shed viewed through a hole drilled in side with a telescope proves the fictional force gravity is real. The nature of electrostatics and the coulomb force on the heavy balls completely invalidates the results.
Also I've made it clear that electrostatics and coulomb force makes density and buoyancy work, you're just pissing into strong wind screaming gravity!
Topic: Flat Earth - page 123. (Read 1095196 times)
When asked why an object falls the globalist will tell you "gravity", he then proceeds to describe how an object falls with multiple volumes (Newton) of mathematical formulae without ever explaining the why. What causes gravity?
The FE explanation for how an object falls is density and buoyancy; the object sinks. The answer for why it is pushed down is because of electricity and the Coulomb Force.
The FE explanation for how an object falls is density and buoyancy; the object sinks. The answer for why it is pushed down is because of electricity and the Coulomb Force.
Imagine being so delusional and retarded to not know that density and buoyancy wouldn't exist without gravity, that's notbatman.
1. When an object is being electroplated, what makes the metal being applied move and stick the object?
2. When a DNA sequencer uses electromigration to create that nice DNA snapshot everybody will recognize, what motivates the DNA molecules to move into their respective positions?
These are two examples of very similar electrical effects to what is being misattributed to the fictional force of gravity.
2. When a DNA sequencer uses electromigration to create that nice DNA snapshot everybody will recognize, what motivates the DNA molecules to move into their respective positions?
These are two examples of very similar electrical effects to what is being misattributed to the fictional force of gravity.
Imagine you are on a date with this hottie and she shows up at your door like this:
I think some of you would have a change of heart!
I think some of you would have a change of heart!
I had to do a reverse image search because there's no way anybody with any self respect would let themselves be photographed in that shirt. It's about as real and convincing as anything else that has to do with flat earth. Sure enough, I was right. Its from an image generator site with custom text:
http://www.redkid.net/generator/love/
Reverse image or not, would you kick this woman out of bed or not take her to a club based on her (dumb) opinion about the Earth?
Imagine you are on a date with this hottie and she shows up at your door like this:
I think some of you would have a change of heart!
I think some of you would have a change of heart!
I had to do a reverse image search because there's no way anybody with any self respect would let themselves be photographed in that shirt. It's about as real and convincing as anything else that has to do with flat earth. Sure enough, I was right. Its from an image generator site with custom text:
http://www.redkid.net/generator/love/
There is no gravity; the falling object is ultimately explained by the medium it's in and the electrical forces acting on them. I also do understand that positive and negative charges are the result of polarization of a material. In the case of Earth it's the inner surface of the dome or firmament that's the source.
Hope for a smarter new year is wasted on this idiot.
If you rub a balloon in your hair does it do "ani-gravity"? Answer yes,
Answer no. Its 100% explained by static electricity.
you can pick up bits of paper and foil so your statement about charged objects is obviously wrong; objects are rising not falling in this case.
What are you talking about? This is all due to static electricity. I suggest you read up on it:
https://www.education.com/activity/article/balloon-science-charge-balloon-stick/
The coulomb force acts on the atmosphere that, in turn acts on the object, hence why density and buoyancy is used to explain how things fall.
You really don't understand how positive and negative charges work. Try again.
There is no gravity; the falling object is ultimately explained by the medium it's in and the electrical forces acting on them. I also do understand that positive and negative charges are the result of polarization of a material. In the case of Earth it's the inner surface of the dome or firmament that's the source.
Imagine you are on a date with this hottie and she shows up at your door like this:
I think some of you would have a change of heart!
I think some of you would have a change of heart!
If you rub a balloon in your hair does it do "ani-gravity"? Answer yes,
Answer no. Its 100% explained by static electricity.
you can pick up bits of paper and foil so your statement about charged objects is obviously wrong; objects are rising not falling in this case.
What are you talking about? This is all due to static electricity. I suggest you read up on it:
https://www.education.com/activity/article/balloon-science-charge-balloon-stick/
The coulomb force acts on the atmosphere that, in turn acts on the object, hence why density and buoyancy is used to explain how things fall.
You really don't understand how positive and negative charges work. Try again.
^^^
If you rub a balloon in your hair does it do "ani-gravity"? Answer yes, you can pick up bits of paper and foil so your statement about charged objects is obviously wrong; objects are rising not falling in this case.
The coulomb force acts on the atmosphere that, in turn acts on the object, hence why density and buoyancy is used to explain how things fall.
If you rub a balloon in your hair does it do "ani-gravity"? Answer yes, you can pick up bits of paper and foil so your statement about charged objects is obviously wrong; objects are rising not falling in this case.
The coulomb force acts on the atmosphere that, in turn acts on the object, hence why density and buoyancy is used to explain how things fall.
When asked why an object falls the globalist will tell you "gravity", he then proceeds to describe how an object falls with multiple volumes (Newton) of mathematical formulae without ever explaining the why. What causes gravity?
The FE explanation for how an object falls is density and buoyancy; the object sinks. The answer for why it is pushed down is because of electricity and the Coulomb Force.
The FE explanation for how an object falls is density and buoyancy; the object sinks. The answer for why it is pushed down is because of electricity and the Coulomb Force.
Well that sounds pretty fucking stupid. Why does shit with a neutral charge "sink" at the same rate as charged shit then dummy?
Boo. I came here to be entertained.
When asked why an object falls the globalist will tell you "gravity", he then proceeds to describe how an object falls with multiple volumes (Newton) of mathematical formulae without ever explaining the why. What causes gravity?
The FE explanation for how an object falls is density and buoyancy; the object sinks. The answer for why it is pushed down is because of electricity and the Coulomb Force.
The FE explanation for how an object falls is density and buoyancy; the object sinks. The answer for why it is pushed down is because of electricity and the Coulomb Force.
Flat Earth is consipiration
I see we have another FE troll (probably a batty sock) in the thread seeking attention.
Not gonna quote the idiot. That's what strokes their ego and gives them a woody.
Not gonna quote the idiot. That's what strokes their ego and gives them a woody.
Except that the expanding universe is simply an astronomy thing for the most part. Astronomers see the stars flying farther apart, and they don't generally think to apply this to everything. If they applied this principle to the atoms and the subatomic particles, the resulting effect would be gravity without actual gravity at all. It would really be inertia, but it would feel and look like gravity.
Maybe you should stick to quoting a book and leave the thinking to more intelligent people?
More than likely, gravity is simply inertia, acting on the material whole, as the universe expansion speeds up continually.
The would work on the front of the accelerating object, but on the back you would have anti-gravity...
Fairy tales fall apart when you shine light on them. :/
Except that the expanding universe is simply an astronomy thing for the most part. Astronomers see the stars flying farther apart, and they don't generally think to apply this to everything. If they applied this principle to the atoms and the subatomic particles, the resulting effect would be gravity without actual gravity at all. It would really be inertia, but it would feel and look like gravity.
Maybe that is all gravity really is... inertia in an expanding universe, that has expansion accelerating. Maybe it's not gravity we should be looking for, but rather the reason for the expansion acceleration.
Yes! Thank you!
More than likely, gravity is simply inertia, acting on the material whole, as the universe expansion speeds up continually.
The would work on the front of the accelerating object, but on the back you would have anti-gravity...
Fairy tales fall apart when you shine light on them. :/
I've refuted it multiple times; the measurements for stellar parallax are smaller than the margin of error caused by refraction or star twinkle.
You're not dealing with the gyroscopic observation that the Earth is stationary. Instead of valid reasons why no motion can be detected, you've decided to make "but what about this?" arguments, gaslight and concern troll.
The Devil's left hand, is this the behavior of somebody who is right?
You haven't refuted parallax measurements. You have only SAID that yo have refuted. You can't refute them. Why not? Because anybody who is a bit of an amateur astronomer can and does prove you wrong.
There are so many gyroscope miscalculations in your figures that you are laughable. Number 1 is, get a kid's gyroscope that you can buy in the store. Wrap the cord around it, and fire it up with a good pull on the cord. Then set it on its pedestal. Watch it weave about this way and that, as it slows down due to friction. Laugh your head off at all those jokers who tried your experiment and died. They were street people anyway, right?
Bringing satanism into it shows that you can barely think outside your occultic box.
^^^ "we don't have to do it this way" <--- It's obvious you don't want to be shot in the head.
15 deg/hr is enough you can visually perceive the platform rotating, the gyroscope isn't moving. This isn't manufactured evidence like the globe relies on.
15 deg/hr is enough you can visually perceive the platform rotating, the gyroscope isn't moving. This isn't manufactured evidence like the globe relies on.
Rather, one thing is obvious, and another is apparent.
Apparently I don't even want to entertain your silly thinking.
Obviously, the way the gyroscope behaves seems different at different latitudes.
The test is of a gyroscope and weather it (A.) rotates with a 15 deg/hr rotating platform or (B.) maintains its position in space, where it takes place is irreverent. The answer is B, go use this proven gyroscope at the equator if it suits your fancy, test the globe. If the Earth is rotating then it's rotating, if it's not then it's not and there's no detectable motion.
You have to explain why the proven gyroscope can't detect any motion of the Earth. You can't claim it's not sensitive enough, that's not an available option. The answer is that the Sun is a small object relative to a stationary surface and that it travels across the sky just as it appears.
Many people have shown that the sun is not a small object only a few thousand miles away. You haven't been able to refute my trig/parallax point.
The fact that you are looking to do damage to people who have shown you where you are wrong, shows that you have a religious cult in your beliefs. Why? Because it hurts when you are wrong, and you want to get even with the people who you blame. But please don't go out and commit suicide just to get even with yourself, once you finally figure out where you are wrong.
I've refuted it multiple times; the measurements for stellar parallax are smaller than the margin of error caused by refraction or star twinkle.
You're not dealing with the gyroscopic observation that the Earth is stationary. Instead of valid reasons why no motion can be detected, you've decided to make "but what about this?" arguments, gaslight and concern troll.
The Devil's left hand, is this the behavior of somebody who is right?
Jump to: