Topic: Flat Earth - page 256. (Read 1095196 times)

1. Claiming something without proof doesn't make it true

2. If you watched the video he clearly explains how with 2 holes both explanations can work, a close small sun and a far away big sun, however with 3 holes, only a far away sun can explain the shadows, a close small sun wouldn't. Did you watch the video? Rip in pepperonis your ''theory'' Disproved with 3 holes and some math, R.I.P. bro.

1. Do you really think an obvious CGI animation such as presented in the first link counts as scientific observation?

2. Your second link has a Hollywood actor describing an experiment that a assumes that the Sun is millions of miles away. Science is not about making claims based on assumptions.

3. Your third link is a wiki article that doesn't even meet their basic standards:

"This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations."

The article then goes on to make assumptions like "outer space" that has no scientific evidence for its existence, gravity that's an unproven theory and the motion of the Earth that's proven not to exist beyond a reasonable doubt (M&M, Sagnac, Airy & D&P). This isn't science it's bullshit of the highest order.

In regards to any measurements I have to trust the GPS system that's run by the Department of Defense and these liars claims of satellites in orbit are bullshit; GPS uses triangulation from ground based cell towers. Before GPS the data came from NASA (DoD propaganda) and the Apollo program and it's all classified and requires trusting some "scientist" with a Jewish last name who has access.

Science isn't about trusting data and measurements from authority figures like the DoD a Jews who are proven liars that lie about absolutely everything. Science uses actual measurements that can be replicated.

Observable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG0fTKAqZ5g

Testable: https://youtu.be/hLPPE3_DVCw?t=4m24s

Measurable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesy

Repeatable: You can repeat those tests as many times as you want with the same results.

Thanks for proving the earth is round!

If you believe we're stuck to a spinning ball in a vacuum then it's not science that you believe in. Science is observable, testable, measurable and repeatable and the globe fails all of that.

I believe in science, and not to a false science like flat earthers.

^^^ I've successfully debunked special relativity, your arguments are moot and I know you've jewed the metric system so it says 6.66.

That look when you realize you're actually on the back of a giant fossilized turtle with a few elephants tossed in for good measure. For everybody else who can't see the scale of things you just keep on smoking those space rocks.






The mice follow imaginary dance lines, this the basis for mouse field theory and it governs all aspects of your reality.

I define immense as immense, that 6.66 kg is the small imbalance. Also how the hell do you get that number, fuck the metric system man.

We get back to the electric field because ultimately (not directly) the electrons (the least dense charged particle) at the dome (anode) are the cause of all this pushing action. They push everything else out of the way to get the closest to the anode, denser ionized gases are next in line (the ionosphere), then air, then solid matter (the ground).

I'm hurt that you would imply that I need group consensus from my congregation to explain the situation. An ad-hoc attack no less, I must have really nailed it.

It's a house of cards it needs to fall.

Perhaps the fact my argument doesn't change is evidence of its "weight". But hey, you just keep knocking over modified variations of all my assertions over and over while expecting a different result each time.

If you were suddenly placed in a hard vacuum, you would explode, water boils in a vacuum and you would go puff puff splat.

My point is the pressure on objects from the atmosphere is immense, the electric field in polarizing the air causes a small imbalance in that force with less dense objects migrating towards the dome (the anode) as displacement current flows to the ground (the cathode). The more dense an object is less the force from the anode has on it and force from less dense gases push on the object as they jockey for position closer to the anode.

The earth is absolutely round, there will be many conflict in the law of physics if the earth is flat.

You keep saying the same shit over and over again, your random links also don't change anything, keep believing fairy tales

You guys are twisting my assertions, my claims are that Dufour & Prunier's replication on the Sagnac effect took the non-rotating framework of special relativity into account and proved empirically that the results were not consistent with it.

But hey thanks for strawmaning my argument by omitting D&P then knocking over Sagnac with the special relativity argument. Your random link to some bullshit about GPS doesn't change the results D&P obtained.

Right! If there weren't any gravity, their wouldn't be heavier, and their wouldn't be any easy ways to measure density.

I'm by no means an expert in this but I'm fairly sure he said ''Why one is heavier than the other?'' Not to measure the air pressure surrounding the objects.

@af_newbie

  You're just being a fucking idiot now, the air pressure caused by an object displacing it is not measurable as an increase in the air pressure surrounding that object; the force is on the object.

Do you see how retarded your argument is, you're trying to measure a drop in the ocean by analyzing the sea level rise it causes.

Hey calm down, you are going to scare him away. Watch him change the subject entirely and completely ignoring this point just like many others. The guy doesn't even understand that buoyancy cannot exist without gravity.

And, voilà: GPS proves relativity is real! http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

But when you feed him with statements like this,
without anything to back up what you say,
you only increase the validity of the things that he says.

But that is you, of course. Simply a different religion from the one that he has.

Sagnac doesn't prove relativity is wrong. All the others also don't prove anything that you are claiming.