Topic: Flat Earth - page 186. (Read 1095196 times)

^^^ You've proven by your statements that you don't understand what empirical measurement is, I bet you don't even know what a sextant is! Please consider killing yourself instead of regurgitating pages of unproven theoretical nonsense and logical fallacies, use a long rope and drop from a decent height if asphyxiation isn't you thing. The Jews have filled your head with shit and you buy every word of it you gullible cuck. I'm serious kill yourself man, don't push this conspiracy in my face!

I think you pulled the distance of the sun out of your ass, yes. I measured the distance of the sun with a ruler, and it said it was 15 inches away from me. I won't explain what I mean, but its 15 inches away, and because of that, the sun is actually a 40 watt LED. The fact that we can measure the power over a square meter of the earth, and that its proportional to the total power emitted over a sphere by calculating using surface areas makes no sense right? Solar panels are a conspiracy.  At this point, we are making vastly different assumptions, so I'd venture to say that 99% of the laws of physics don't exist in the circumstances you are saying exist. I'm not interested in speaking with you, because your assumptions are just too wrong for me to be able to justify. You aren't providing anything to the conversation other than your continued desire to see me go "rope off". I dunno, autoerrotic asphyxiation isn't my bag.

@Joe, ozone aside, the "air" is not a uniform density. If the air is made of oxygen gas, nitrogen gas, argon, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and various other things. Just going by densities, the more dense atoms would separate out and the less dense atoms would form layers above the lighter atoms. Like mixing water and oil.

The "experts" in finances stand to gain by fucking you over. The experts in physics stand to get laughed at if they are unreasonably wrong. Sure, medical knowledge sucked at some point. But after a certain amount of time and experimentation, you can draw conclusions. Antibiotics are better than amputating, our model for gravity is better than assuming that there are invisible gnomes that just like things to be on the ground. Lets call gravity some magical force that I can't describe, but I can predict at any point in the universe. Who cares whether I call it gravity or magic gnomes. As long as its consistent, I can still represent its effects on everything as "g" for gnomes. Im not against seeing proof of everything, but how can I prove observations at the bottom of the ocean without some crazy equipment. Sometimes you need millions of reference points to be able to prove that something is the same at all points. If we are talking exclusively about the physics that works here at the surface of the earth, we are leaving out a lot of variables.

Again, we are working in the wrong direction here. Find proof that something you witness happening doesn't agree with what physics can explain now, and use that as your basis for a required change. If you assume the change in size in sun to prove there is no gravity, you are assuming buoyancy, electricity and magnetism, optics, thermodynamics, nuclear physics, astrophysics, and many other disciplines are broken as well. You can't use them in your explanations until you create a new unified model to explain how each thing works.

I have no doubt you speak the truth in real life.

But on the anonymous internet, you post lies.  

Yes, you are a liar, and you proved it just now when you admitted buoyancy (which relies on gravity) was a fact.

Why does density only push things down?  Why isn't your imaginary sun crashing into the earth?

@Vod, I'm a liar who posts doctored photos? Just kill yourself you miserable sack of shit!




Why don't post all these proofs then duncecap?

Just a brainwashed mindless slave, everything you believe is garbage, you're a fucking retard! All you souless morons that get pumped out of this fucked, corrupt system need the rope.

There are at least five hard evidences that the earth is round and that evidences we were taught on physics at school. Since I am good at physics, I can be sure of the roundness of our planet.

I really don't think showing pictures will convince this liar in any way.  He will just post doctored photos.

You need to use his own words against him.  For a couple years he has claimed there is no proof of gravity, then suddenly in his last post he revealed there is. 

Different views of the enclosed World. (Air lock system)

North star is at end of Ursa Minor (red circle)
Blue line is Earths path trough the year, gold line moons path around earth over the course of the year


and turned 180° to spring (equinox) time centered.                 and 45° turn x,y and z




And 45°tilt exactly aliened blue and purple line (northern sky above purple line)



A head spinner, upside down, back to front and X at -23,5°
https://imgur.com/EcLBXiK

So since those measurements rely on gravity in their base equations, I guess that means gravity is also a proven physical force, right?

I've been saying since day one you were a liar.  Thank you for finally proving it. 

"... Items are dense because they are pulled together via gravity. ..."

If you can prove density, then you have proved gravity!  Items are dense because they are pulled together via gravity.  Same with buoyancy.

Density isn't a force - it is a measurement.  How can a measurement move anything?

If you can prove buoyancy - then you have proved gravity.  Look the equation - specifically the "g".   

Fb=p(fl)*V*g

Where
p(fl)=density of the fluid
V=volume of the object
g=force of gravity (9.8 m/s^2)

And you said there was no proof of gravity.  Silly guy.  

Gravity is an unproven theory no matter how many volumes are written and pages of bullshit posted, it will never be proven because it is false and a conspiracy. There is no magic force!

Salty dude, you're so absolutly full of shit. You didn't prove anything in regards to Eratosthenes, at least I posted a photo that proves the Sun's rays are divergent. Empirical measurement with a sextant, you think I just pulled the distance to the sun out of my ass? You ended the discussion because you're a fucking loser.

You're all brainwashed chumps or liars, in either case it's mass delusion.
 

The Ozone example caught my interest but looks like its highly unstable and does not stay in the atmosphere for long and is constantly replaced by new ozone.  There are a lot of sites from mainstream science out there explaining why it does not sink.  

"Ozone is an unstable compound with a relatively short half-life (about 20 minutes). It does not stay in the atmosphere for long. It is continually being formed from ordinary oxygen in chemical reactions, and removed by ultraviolet light. So it doesn't really get the time and conditions to settle down."

Once again I'm a practical guy so take that info for what it's worth.  I have zero experience with Ozone at 6-10 miles up.  I can only imagine the conditions up there on any shape earth and have zero idea why the gases do what they do under those conditions.  Why does gravity not grab those heavier gases and bring them down?

--

On the why things fall at the same rate of speed I have no idea on the why.  I simply know how they fall.  I could never prove why they fall.  I wish I knew though!

--

Why is it not acceptable to give the benefit of the doubt to people with expertise on the matter?
If we all thought like that we should wrap this crypto thing up and trust the experts in finance, the central bankers!  F that noise.  Our "top" financial professionals are all thieves.  Remember, doctors were saying smoking was good to go back in the day!  Imagine if we all just took their word for that.  There is no way in hell I am trusting any of these "authorities" until I see proof.  

If we are talking real science there is no room for belief.  Claims need to be practically demonstrated (especially when it goes against our direct reality) and the people making them should be held accountable to prove their claims.  The water I use everyday finds it's level.  We build with spirit levels.  Saying that large bodies of water curve goes against every experiment I can do on my own that deals with water.  

I'm not coming up with a new theory.  I'm challenging the one that's been presented to me.  I do not claim the earth is flat, concave, 4d, 5d, spherical or dildo shape.  The only thing I'm claiming is I don't buy the current model as I see theories and stories which no one can practically prove to me that go against my reality.  

I love your responses!  I totally disagree with it all but you have sent me on an ozone quest + you helped me find an entire catalog of that Boston University physics professor on youtube.  I'm now watching with my son and it all stemmed from your  pressure gradient post.  So even though we probably will never agree on this thing until we can both send out our own cameras up 200k+ feet (at least) to get our independent visual proof I still like the back and forth.

Well, one example I can think of is Ozone at the top of the atmosphere. It is more dense than oxygen gas, but its still up there. I also ask that you consider the case when there is no air, will everything fall? As I mentioned, our (slightly outdated) idea of gravity as a property of matter, is no more strange than Bill Nye's famous, "inertia is a property of matter." but no one has any problem with inertia. As a final thought, if the density of an object is the reason it falls or floats, why does density not effect the speed at which an object falls due to gravity? Lead is much more dense than a rubber ball, but they both fall at the same speed.

There is also something to note about gravity always only being in the -y direction, pointed towards the center of the earth. If it was just a matter of two objects being more or less dense than one another, there wouldn't be any vectors involved. So instead of 9.80 m/s^2 downward, an object falling at 6.9m/s^2 downward and 6.9m/s^2 to the left or right, would still fit the same scalar requirements for an object to be moving at 9.80m/s^2 since ratios of densities are not vectors. Gas exchange of water might also be something worth looking into. Oxygen on the surface of a lake goes down into the water, if it was just a factor of density, wouldn't the oxygen always rise up above the lake?

All of these ideas can be practically demonstrated, its just a matter of whether you have the equipment and understanding to do it. For example, I couldn't give you a practical way to prove a nuclear theory that requires a particle accelerator, without you having access to a particle accelerator. It seems a little silly to say that you wouldn't believe the concept unless you had a particle accelerator. This goes together with what I'm about to say. Of course I don't mind curiosity, more power to you if you'd like to perform your own experiments to better your own understanding, but why is it not acceptable to give the benefit of the doubt to people with expertise on the matter? (not me) I'm not an expert, someone who is an expert on astrophysics could probably explain gravity in 5 seconds in a way that'd make anyone understand. I don't go to a doctor and refuse to believe in penicillin because its inconceivable to me that mold could treat the clap. There have been guys for hundreds of years who have fought to prove things to themselves and everyone else. All it takes is one case where you point out what they proved was wrong, and you get a sack of money and a noble prize. Not really the authoritative group that stands to gain something by making people believe the earth is round.

Maybe you can clear this one up for me, what is the appeal to thinking there is some sort of conspiracy regarding physics? The whole basis of physics is that its just observing things so many times that you figure out how something works. When someone finds a flaw in physics, there isn't some massive cover up, the person gets a bunch of money, awards, and an equation named after them. I don't really care if you don't trust NASA, but how many space agencies are there?

Anyway, you guys are going about this all wrong. If you are going to propose a completely new theory, you need a uniform set of laws that describes everything that could possibly happen under the new system. If that sounds like a monumental and unfair burden to be placed, it is. I'd recommend going with finding something that isn't accurately described as it is now, and seeing if you can unify a new theory around that. I don't mean introducing some crazy variables, like air being made of lead or the sun being closer than a country across the Atlantic ocean. I mean, find something that you can observe that does not follow the existing law of physics, and use that to prove that theres a problem.

Why can't objects with a relative density greater than the surrounding air simply fall due to the fact the air cannot support that object?  Is there any object on earth, that has a greater density than air, not fall?  

I make no claim on why an object falls.  This is just a question.  My true answer on this is I cannot prove in any way shape or form why that object falls.  I just know how it falls and when it will fall (vs rise).  It does seem though 100% of the time if the object is denser than air it drops.  If the air is more dense than the object then up the object goes.

Is there an answer to this that does not involve radical ideas that cannot be practically demonstrated?  Once again if the answer is no these ideas cannot be practically demonstrated then it is what it is.  

Again, you cannot, because the laws regarding buoyancy fall apart if you take gravity out of the equation. The proof that gravity exists, is that it works at every single point in the universe by the model we have. You cannot support your claim with facts that rely on the things you are trying to disprove. Honestly, I'm not interested in talking with you because you have yet to support any of your claims. I'd love to hear how you can answer why things fall with those three things, but you haven't said how, you just keep repeating yourself without providing any explanation.

I like Joe, being skeptical is great, Joe disagrees with me, but we are able to have a conversation regardless. Just saying, the sky is green, if it wasn't green, there would be balls in the sky, doesn't really help anyone.

I proved Eratosthenes experiment and how it concludes the earth is round. I did not prove how it falls apart in the case of the sun is 15 miles away, because you've given no explanation for why I should assume the sun is 30 feet in the sky. By your logic, I also failed to prove why the earth isn't a triangle.

Science has real answers, just because you can't understand the concepts doesn't make it false. If I don't believe that germs exist because the sun is so close that all of the ultraviolet radiation would kill them, that doesn't mean I won't get a cold. The burden of proof is on you, you have to prove that using only what you believe, you can more accurately model what will happen if we put it to the test.

Let me know what equations you are using, we'll perform the experiment and see the results. We'll then do it a million more times over 400 years, and see if it holds true in all cases. Thats what Physics is.

It's not just him, every warm body pumped out by the system is absolutely certifiable. As for suchmoon we found out he chimps under pressure, and will deny the globe but only under the threat of death or the opportunity to pocket some money. BADecker is going down with the ship, he'll never repent. Vod will fold like a house of cards and deny ever believing in the globe.

You have to admit this was still better than trying to explain to suchmoon (50+ times) that he didn't see the boat go behind the water curve while he was standing on the shore.  That one hurt my soul. 

He threw in the towel in the middle of discussing Eratosthenes experiment because it required him to consider that the Sun was close and small. He literally couldn't get through one proof and had to quit just on the the thought of abandoning the heliocentric model. The only explanation I have for this irrational behavior is that he believes the NASA puppets hanging from wires are really flying in the heavens above us thus outer space must be real.

I agree science has no real answer.  It's sophistry.  He is much better at science than the regular crew though!   In the end the most basic questions posed cannot be answered by him in a way in which we can observed, measured and repeated.  

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
Nikola Tesla