/fe/ FLAT EARTH GENERAL - WHAT WOULD IT TAKE EDITION

>>18694690
Also, my apologies for not keeping up with the Generals. Been busy and slightly disheartened when the last one got deleted, but overjoyed when 3 more threads sprung up instantly. It'd be good to see more solidly constructed out OPs, but I ain't gonna tell you brothers how to dance. Y'all move fine enough as it is.

>go here http://www.swoop-antarctica.com/cruises/circle
>book tour, see "impossible" 24 hour sun
>know your parents indoctrinataded you into a cult like belief system

"But anon coincidentally my flat earth believing parents and me are broke as shit."

>go here
>http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1947131/how_to_build_a_foucault_pendulum_for_any_classroom/
>build it
>gasp as you reveal the effects of a rotating planet
>measure the speed then take it north or south and try again
>marvel at how the speed has changed revealing that we are infact on a rotating sphere.

If you don't have the will to do science experiments then I don't have the will to erase your brain washing.

>>18694690
Climb a fuckin mountain
Take a photo of the horizon
Go into ms paint
Make line
Notice how the horizon doesn't line up
Wowee

>>18694754
Taking a $10,000 minimum cruise is a luxury, not a science experiment. And no, I could not afford the time or the money required at the moment. Sorry I'm not a trust-fund baby like you.

In the meantime, can you find me a more convincing timelapse of the phenomenon than this one? Cause it looks fake as shit to me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc-WlTaG7WY

And lets say that I put in the time, money and effort to build a Foucault Pendulum and it doesn't swing in a way that proves the rotation of the Earth (why it would do so in the first place is honestly beyond me. Perhaps you could enlighten me here), would you say that I have proven that the Earth is flat or would you just say that I must have built it wrong or set it in motion unevenly?

As I said in my original post, replying to someone else's question, I would need much better explanations for your silly model of the universe to be convinced the other way. I've seen the holes and you people aren't filling them.

Also, I said I wasn't raised to believe the Earth was flat. Did you even read my post or do you just spout this shit like a reflex?

>>18694793
Accounting for the curvature of my camera lens, right? Again, I don't think you read much or any of my post.

File: FE - ISS harness 2.webm (1MB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 720x576px

>>18694690

don't mind me OP, just testing a latest webm

>>18694799
If your not going to take the time to conduct the research yourself, and your not going to trust other people's research, you are not intelliget; you are bullheaded

File: 321.png (462KB, 1276x745px) Image search: [Google]

462KB, 1276x745px

>>18694793
>Notice how the horizon doesn't line up
it does

>>18694824
Please, by all means! I don't want to spend my whole night replying to these godless fucks.

File: 1488180976946.png (583KB, 1276x745px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 1276x745px

>>18694833

>>18694829
I've done plenty of research on the topic, believe me. What I spoke of in the OP, if you would care to give it a read, was that I have serious problems with the logical foundations of what you claim to be reality. This is my formal training and my personal passion, not taking stupidly expensive unpleasant cruises or building pendulums when I don't even believe the experiment itself would prove anything.

I don't believe people simply by nature of their authority. This is not a logically sound way of drawing conclusions. Most of the experimental and phenomenal evidence that you people put forward as proof of the sphere can be explained just as well by the flat earth model, the rest is clearly bullshit at the level of its very premise.

>>18694929
Can you give a reason for why NASA would fake any of this? Why they would give a shit if you thought the earth was flat or a sphere?

>>18694939
>Can you give a reason for why NASA would fake any of this? Why they would give a shit if you thought the earth was flat or a sphere?

Well it's been going on a bit longer than NASA's been around, they were just created to kill off the last of the true-believers. I've answered this many times, but at least you didn't add "flat earthers never answer this question" to your post, so I'll do you the courtesy of a rundown:

For over a millennia now there has been an attack on traditional beliefs, wisdom and knowledge. This goes back further than the Inquisitions of the 12th Century to the Roman enforcement of Catholicism on their conquered territories. From this time and until the present, the traditional beliefs of Northern Europe and much of the rest of the world (with the Islamic attacks on the Middle-East and Communism in Asian countries) have been routinely discouraged, vilified, "disproven", and otherwise violently stamped out. One of the main reasons for this is that people who hold these traditional beliefs are frustratingly difficult to control by the usual Roman means of material temptation and fear-mongering. Now, I don't pretend to know who's in control of the show today, whether for instance the Vatican is a direct continuation of the Roman state and bloodlines, whether other powers have taken over them at some point and continued in their fashion, or whether it was (((someone else entirely))) all along. Honestly, I don't care at this point, I don't think it's terribly important and I doubt that any of us could possibly find out before something is actually done about it all. What I do think is important is that we rediscover our roots, regain our sense of individual sovereignty, of belonging to a tribe and a land, of being born into this world with certain birthrights, and of having far loftier goals in life than material possession or the satisfaction of base desires.

I know I swayed off topic a bit there by the end, but you get the gist.

>>18694929
Provide the evidence that you have performed ANY of the proposed tests often mentioned here.

Where are the results of your Foucalt Pendulum?
Where are the results of your Cavendish Box?
Where is your rocket flight footage?
Where are the logs of your travels to measure distance?
Where is the data for when you measured the 1kg weight near the equator and near the pole?

This is the annoying thing. You never actually TEST your ideas. And that's a fundamental aspect of rational research. There is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking everything you've been told is a lie. There is something VERY wrong with assuming any alternative solution you can come up with is true.

Clarify your idea. TEST IT. And show the results.

File: !1117635623.jpg (100KB, 854x640px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 854x640px

FLAT EARTH IS CONFIRMED CIA PSYOP
STOP TALKING ABOUT IT

>>18695039
For fucks sake, do some goddamned reading you lazy shit.

Foucault's Pendulum is bullshit. Cavendish's experiment is bullshit. I'm not going to invest the time, money and effort into becoming an amateur rocket enthusiast. I haven't traveled in many years and I've never left my country. I don't know anyone who lives near the equator.

If you read what I said in my original post, I have irreconcilable issues with the basis of your model of reality. There is no experiment that can plug the hole of a logical fallacy. The results of an experiment, like all observable phenomena, are subject to interpretation by the individual and therefore subject to their preconceived understanding of the world. It's possible that a new observation will alter their preconceptions in a noticeable way, but this grows rarer and rarer the older we get. I'm not going to outright state that I will never observe something that leads me to believe that the world is not flat, what I am saying is that you would have to do a damn good lot of re-proving the world to be spherical, especially within the ludicrous framework that has been built around the notion over the past few centuries.

>>18695039

If only you required that much data to believe a flat earth model mega shill.

>>18695055
When was this confirmed, by who and how?

>>18695141

And yet you believe in ice walls and sjy domes. No experiments nessisary

Lol, ok you lunatic.

>>18695154
When did I say that? I'm so sick of these dishonest tactics.

>>18695141
>Foucault's Pendulum is bullshit. Cavendish's experiment is bullshit. I'm not going to invest the time, money and effort into becoming an amateur rocket enthusiast.
>I don't believe people simply by nature of their authority.

Where are your tests? Where is your data? What is your proof?

Stop pussying out or shut the fuck up.

>>18695165
These are things you feel you need for me to validate my beliefs to you. If you would JUST READ THE OP you would see that I was answering a question in the last fe thread that asked what it would take someone to convince me (me in particular because I'm the one who answered it). The fact that every post that has been made in argument against me here has entirely ignored the premise of this thread is very telling. Your monopoly of truth is slipping and the people are growing wiser. Now fuck off. I'm sick of this shit.

>>18695207
>what it would take someone to convince me
I know. I read it. You're ultimate answer was nothing. You don't think it is possible to convince you.
> I don't believe what I'm asking for is possible, because I don't believe that what you preach is possible.
I need no further evidence for your complete unwillingness to change your mind. That's not my point. My point is that even with your irrational, inalienable disbelief, you're too lazy to put any legwork into gathering the evidence to prove your position.

>Now fuck off. I'm sick of this shit.
Good. Where are your tests? Where is your data? What is your proof? Stop pussying out or shut the fuck up.

File: alansays.jpg (28KB, 599x338px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 599x338px

>>18695227
>You're ultimate answer was nothing. You don't think it is possible to convince you.
And you're not doing a very good job at proving me wrong. I've been wrong before, I'll freely admit. I believed the world was a sphere for many years.

>I need no further evidence for your complete unwillingness to change your mind.
Did I say that what I'm asking for is impossible? I said that I don't believe it's possible, based on my beliefs.

>My point is that even with your irrational, inalienable disbelief,
Disbelief in what? In the spherical earth? Or are you just accusing me of being generally unbelieving of things?

>you're too lazy to put any legwork into gathering the evidence to prove your position.
I have done plenty of research
I don't know how you still fail to comprehend this but I never set out in this thread to prove anything. I answered a question asking what it would take to prove the globe earth to me. I think I probably speak for a good number of flat earthers with what I said, to a varying extent depending on what it was exactly that pushed them over the edge from the globe model to the flat one. I could most certainly provide you with many evidences of this model being the correct one, as we do continuously throughout these threads but I don't think it would make a lick of difference to someone like you who is either a paid shill or a bullheaded science zealot and, again, that was not the intention of my post. I was simply trying to give you people some insight into the frame of mind of someone like me. I offered you ways in which you could change my mind and I'll admit that they're difficult, but that's because the damage that has been done in my mind to the globe earth model of the universe is all but irreparable.

>Where are your tests? Where is your data? What is your proof?
Go on, keep on chanting your mantra. Maybe if you say it enough it will gain back some of the power it's already lost.

Now fuck off!

File: 200w-1.gif (2MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x150px

>>18695385

>>18694690
I'm with you OP, but the rabbit hole goes much deeper than that, is not just the flat earth but they are many thing that they keep hidden from us. They follow their religion is science blindly and if you dare question them, they try to ridicule you

Someone post that one star webm,
You know the one.

File: B6C4F63A-2279-426E-834C-04DC048DCD3C-3130-000000DA2D44A319_tmp.jpg (31KB, 342x300px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 342x300px

A Hindu god at CERN

>>18695424

>is not just the flat earth but they are many thing that they keep hidden from us

Like flat moon?

>>18694690
>I would have to be given a rational explanation for all the flaws in the gravitational model of the solar system
like?

If you knew you weren't gonna be able to be convinced, why'd ya ask? You're so ignorant

>>18695431
>Somebody at CERN is Hindu
>That has anything to do with flat earth

>>18695015
Ok, so control of the people is the overall goal? I get that, because that's what religion was created for, control has been an interest from the powers for time immemorial. How though, do you suppose that people who believe that the earth is flat fall out of that control? How do people who believe in a spherical earth fall under any sort of control?
Thanks for indulging my question anyway.

Explain lunar eclipses in a flat earth model.
You can't. kek

>>18695407
And so the attempted diversion of the thread turns to simple derision.

What do I care what OJ Simpson thinks of me anyway? The man killed his whole family. I don't care how many home runs he hit.

>>18694690
only autistic musllims believe the earth is flat, its not you sand monkeys, and by the way Jesus is god, and muhamma\ed was a rotten murdering pedophile

File: youarehere.jpg (135KB, 640x433px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 640x433px

>>18695588
If you're genuinely interested then it's my pleasure to answer you. It's just that this exact question gets thrown around constantly as some sort of ultimate flat earther dupe. I'm going to bed right about now so I'll give you a proper answer tomorrow if this thread's still up, or else I'll post it in whatever flat earth thread happens to be up (it's funny how even the shills wont let this thing die).

In short, just think about the wider implications of both models. This picture sums it up pretty well. On the flat earth side, you get a much better sense that you belong here, that you were meant to be, that you weren't just some cosmic accident, that you might have a purpose here, that you might have a reason to care about yourself and your future, to not let yourself be disrespected by some other schlub. I might get deeper with the true meaning of the "heathen" religions when I get back.

>>18695385
>I could most certainly provide you with many evidences of this model being the correct one, as we do continuously throughout these threads but I don't think it would make a lick of difference to someone like you who is either a paid shill or a bullheaded scienc
it was fucking radical halfwit islamists clinging to their false doctrine so they have come up with some bullshit mental gymnastics based on bullshit to try and defend their false beliefs

>>18695643
>ly interested then it's my pleasure to answer you. It's just that this exact question gets thrown around constantly as some sort of ultimate flat earther dupe. I'm going to bed right about now so I'll give you a proper answer tomorrow if this thread's still up, or else I'll post it in whatever flat earth thread happens to be up (it's funny how even the shills wont let this thing die).
the answer is right above you, retard pedo worshippers are clinging to it because it's in their unholy book, and a spherical earth means pedo muhammed was full of shit

I used to think this flat earth shit was BS but then I went on an expedition to Everest in the 90s with my boss and at the summit the horizon was flat.

>>18694690

This flat vs round Earth is the greatest distraction ever created. It doesn't matter what side you're on, you're still missing the big picture. No one I won't tell you what it is. Discovery is part of the journey. I'm just tired of seeing these threads.

File: FALSE.jpg (32KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x500px

>>18695055
So CIA is really really old...

"Samuel Birley Rowbotham, under the pseudonym 'Parallax', lectured for two decades up and down Britain promoting his unique flat earth theory. This book, in which he lays out his world system, went through three editions, starting with a 16 page pamphlet published in 1849 and a second edition of 221 pages published in 1865. The third edition of 1881 (which had inflated to 430 pages) was used as the basis of this etext.

File: 1488207398001.jpg (2MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4128x2322px

Rate my theory

>>18694690
Flat-Earthers really need to just be fired out of a cannon and into the sun, they get to see that the Earth is round before they're incinerated, and the general IQ of the planet goes up a good deal. Win-win, if you ask me.

>>18694818
>MUH FISHEYE LENS!!!!!11!1! XDDD

>>18694939
Because Satan, or believing that the Earth is round makes the Illuminati mind control more effective, or some other stupid shit.

>>18695015
>true-believers
Hey there, Mr. True Scotsman.

>>18695015
>or this is that people who hold these traditional beliefs are frustratingly difficult to control by the usual Roman means of material temptation and fear-mongering. Now, I don't pretend to know who's in control of the show today, whether for instance the Vatican is a direct continuation of the Roman state and bloodlines, whether other powers have taken over them at some point and continued in their fashion, or whether it was (((someone else entirely))) all along.
sand nigger flat earther cuckfirmed, go home muzzy, muhammed was a pedo, the earth is round, you fake prophet is a lying piece of shit chomo

>>18695141
because youre an idiot pedo worshipper, you put a warlord over god in the flesh, you aint fooling nobody kiddy fucking sand niggers

>>18695629
Well, God murdered a bunch of children with bears for laughing at a bald guy in 2 Kings, so...

>>18696191
>>18696200
Sure is /pol/ in here.

>>18695385
>>You're ultimate answer was nothing. You don't think it is possible to convince you.
>And you're not doing a very good job at proving me wrong.
You LITERALLY typed that it is not possible for you to be convinced that the Earth is spherical...
Is this suposed to mean you still expect me to keep trying, or that I'm supposed to prove you wrong about the fact that you are impossible to convince.

Either way this was a good laugh in the morning. But the fact remains:
Where are your tests? Where is your data? What is your proof? Stop pussying out or shut the fuck up.

It's happening guys. The media is beginning to lump every new idea into the same pile.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/09/flat-earth-truthers/499322/

>>18696207
Yep... Can't seem to get away from 'em.

File: 20170220_102959.png (1MB, 1403x999px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1403x999px

>>18694690

>>18695055
Are you saying CIA is over 2000yr old?

File: image-83.jpg (200KB, 640x1111px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 640x1111px

just dropping this

File: 20170227_174308.jpg (198KB, 909x640px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 909x640px

>>18695629
Ah this jew again

>>18694690
How does gravity, or what one would define as gravity, function in a flat Earth system?

>>18696133
Hitler believed in the conclave earth.
Also did some research to it, didnt go that well..

>>18696254
The usual cop-out is either "density" or "gravity is actually electromagnetism."

>>18696254
Gravity doesn't exist as newton declared it.

File: Foucault_pendulum_plane_of_swing_semi3D.gif (64KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 256x256px

>>18694799
>Perhaps you could enlighten me here
At either the North Pole or South Pole, the plane of oscillation of a pendulum remains fixed relative to the distant masses of the universe while Earth rotates underneath it, taking one sidereal day to complete a rotation. So, relative to Earth, the plane of oscillation of a pendulum at the North Pole undergoes a full clockwise rotation during one day; a pendulum at the South Pole rotates counterclockwise.

When a Foucault pendulum is suspended at the equator, the plane of oscillation remains fixed relative to Earth. At other latitudes, the plane of oscillation precesses relative to Earth, but slower than at the pole; the angular speed, ω (measured in clockwise degrees per sidereal day), is proportional to the sine of the latitude, φ:

{\displaystyle \omega =360^{\circ }\sin \varphi \ /\mathrm {day} } {\displaystyle \omega =360^{\circ }\sin \varphi \ /\mathrm {day} }
where latitudes north and south of the equator are defined as positive and negative, respectively. For example, a Foucault pendulum at 30° south latitude, viewed from above by an earthbound observer, rotates counterclockwise 360° in two days.

>>18696253
messianic jew faggot get it straight, Eashoa is God, YHVH = YaHshVaH = Yahshua = Eashoa = "Jesus"

>>18696268
Okay, but clearly things fall "down" due to some cause, so what is it and how does it work?

>>18696288
clearly this is a phenomenon of correlating masses am irite?

>>18696288
Balloons filled with helium go up.
Density.

>>18696301
Density is not a force, and does not provide energy.

What is causing objects of different density to move up or down in relation to each other?

File: Foucault-rotz.gif (264KB, 448x336px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 448x336px

>>18694824
What you're looking at here is the paranormal phenomenon known as "loose clothing" and "fabric draping".

If there's a square harness suspending him, why does it vanish into nothingness when he brings his arms together and the slack in the fabric becomes taut?

>>18695015
>an attack on traditional beliefs, wisdom and knowledge
But Flat Earth is a VERY recent cosmological phenomenon in the West.

CC didn't think the world was flat when he set sail. That's some bullshit to try to paint the past as fucktarded. Meanwhile, Eratosthenes confirmed a spheroidical earth 200 years before the birth of Christ.

>>18695141
>Foucault's Pendulum is bullshit. Cavendish's experiment is bullshit.
You ONLY get to say this if you've DONE the experiment YOURSELF and found it to be wanting.

Otherwise, you're just here to indoctrinate harder than the people you think are indoctrinators.

>>18695144
Flat earth does not explain why people in the Southern Hemisphere all see the same rotation of stars, and cannot see polaris.

Flat Earthers can't even get their geography straight; most flat earth maps have the shortest distance between East Australia to Africa going over Asia, which it doesn't, and would take twice the fuel and possible airspeed to get from East Australia to Africa if the earth were in a flat configuration.

Meanwhile, in real life, when you make that flight it goes over the ocean without the need to refuel a couple times.

>>18696210
>Where are your tests? Where is your data? What is your proof? Stop pussying out or shut the fuck up.
They don't have any, never will, and will continue to offer zero (0) new observations or theorems on the nature of planetary geography, geology, astronomy, or climatology. Not ONE prediction. Not ONE test. Not ONE paper that asserts a valid observation.

>>18696254
They just say "gravity = density" which is BS, as density is not a universal force, and does not explain drop in air pressure as you ascend through the sky.

>>18696301
So this means the sun and moon are lighter-than-air objects?

>>18696315
He has no answer because he doesn't realize that the forces of air pressure act on a balloon of helium at every possible point of direction, meaning there's be no possible reason for said balloon to go up, or down, or in any direction, other than purely arbitrarily (since the forces are acting equally on all sides).

>>18696315
I dont quite understand your question, english is not my main language.

>>18696333
What is your first language? I'll link you to an article describing fundamental forces in said tongue.

>>18696327
Well.. you can sometimes see stars through the moon..

>>18696333
Basically it says, why do things that are "more dense" go down and why do things that are "less dense" go up?

>>18696337
Finnish.
Thank you for making this effort to unretard me, i have been waiting this for long.

>>18696315
If gravity is real, everything has more weight at night relatively to the sun and lighter at day?

>>18696342
What kind of fucking question is that?

>>18696346
And basically because they are heavier than air or lighter.

>>18696339
Thermal noise.
Hot pixels.
Dust.
Exposure times for the Moon are usually too short to pick up stars.


All of these must be accounted for by actual professional photographers.

>>18696346
A legitimate one? The reason things separate by density is due to the action of gravity essentially acting in one direction.

Like, the reason oil will separate *above* water is due to gravity. If the only cause was "density" oil could just as well separate to the bottom.

>>18696343
Maybe?
Soumi right?

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perusvuorovaikutus

>>18696339
Additionally, if there is no gravity and only density, how do the sun and moon maintain their procession through the sky?

>>18696361
Suomi*
And i'll read that and come back with some questions prob.

>>18696345
>everything has more weight at night relatively to the sun and lighter at day?
...
What?

>>18696358
Or separate completely at random like a shaken jar of oil and water in a space station.

If gravity were simply density, the effect of shaking a jar of water and oil on a space station would be the same as on earth.

But clearly there's a difference in how oil and water behave inside and outside of gravitic conditions.

>>18696362
That's something that always bothered me about the "spotlight sun" hypothesis.

You'd think for a population that's so hard assed about going out and looking at the sky, they'd do it for longer than five minutes to record a YT vid and maybe bring pen and paper to write down a full night's of observations. Instead they point their LQ cameras, poorly, at objects for a few minutes before just repeating the conclusions they had before the observation.

>>18696362
Dont ask if you havent read about flat earth to answer that.

>>18696378
From what I've seen, flat Earth models usually show the sun and moon traveling in a circular motion above the plane of the earth. I'm asking that if there is no "gravity" to provide a central point to orbit around, how are they maintaining this motion?

>>18696389
Okey you got me..
Im not the creator of this realm like you think.

>>18696398
Obviously you're not, but there has to be some explanation for the mechanics of it, surely

>>18696333
Does this help?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q85PKhnVgK4

We have made an observation: helium balloons go up
We can give the density of helium: .164 kg/m^3
We can give the density of the general atmosphere: 1.225 kg/m^3
(both at sea level and temp of 15 C)

We can see helium is less dense than the atmosphere. Why does this make it go up? Why up and not down? What is causing this? What force is acting on the helium balloon to enact movement?

>>18696343
Are you IN Finland now? Would you be willing to perform some ACTUAL tests? I live around the 33rd parallel and I am 100% willing to purchase a weight and find an accurate scale (I bet I can borrow one from the local university) to perform the 1kg weight experiment that one anon mentioned.

>>18696402
>Obviously you're not, but there has to be some explanation for the mechanics of it, surely
There should be, but there's also the whole spotlight sun BS that I cannot even think of a rational mechanism for.

I notice a LOT of the arguments end with 'godunit'.

>>18696403
>I am 100% willing to purchase a weight and find an accurate scale (I bet I can borrow one from the local university) to perform the 1kg weight experiment that one anon mentioned.
You're doing God's work, anon.

>>18696408
God is a title.

>>18696375
>>18696403
Also, if density really was the only force, objects in a vacuum would do, what, hover since there's nothing to float or sink on? Easy experiment to do with a helium balloon and a vacuum chamber.

https://youtu.be/K1UUgrALKQc

File: 16683880_255602444883685_4268835421620691685_n.jpg (108KB, 960x590px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 960x590px

>>18696411
K.

>>18696345
I've never heard of this effect. Feel free to show all the data of this effect. I'm sure you have extensive measurement notes.

>>18696347
Why do heavy things go down? What is causing this change in movement?

>>18696413
>"That's nice"
Lol'd irl for some reason.
Nice quick experimental debunk vid for weird claims. Wish there were more like it.

>>18696403
Yes, im in Finland what is this experiment you are talking about?

>>18696413
Huh. Can anyone explain to me why the balloon doesn't pop in the vacuum? Is he not pulling ALL the air out of the chamber?

>>18696413
No one has ever made a perfect vacuum.

File: 13151067_1598143360500785_14262540_n.jpg (29KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 320x320px

>>18696389

>>18696437
I don't think anyone's actually claiming that.

>>18696432
Just enough air the lighter element not to be pushed to the top of the chamber.

File: 20170209_071455.jpg (598KB, 1108x1142px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 1108x1142px

>>18696416
I thought you were actually intelligent.
But your post and namefagging proved me wrong.

>>18696431
IIRC, the basic idea is that the spin of the Earth causes a very small - but measureable - reduction in the force of gravity. The closer to the equator, the larger the reduction. Thus, if weight is a result of mass x force of gravity, a 1kg weight will weigh less near the equator and weigh more near the poles.

So if I at the 33rd parallel were to buy a 1kg weight and measure it VERY precisely (like 3 or 4 decimal places, but as many as I can be accurate to). I could then mail that 1kg to someone in Finland near the 60th parallel and have them weigh the mass VERY precisely.

If our ideas are correct, we should see that the exact same mass weighs less where you live, and more where I live.

>>18696453
>same mass weighs less where you live, and more where I live.
Oops, got that backwards. The same mass should weigh more near the poles, and less as you go toward the equator.

But that's the fun and rigor of science! Once we actually do the test, we can KNOW which one is right, and which is backwards - or if both are wrong.

>>18696453
This could be nice, but im not sure im comfortable giving my address to someone i do not know.

>>18696441
Tesla's absolutely NOT advocating for a flat earth.

Aethyr theory was the concept of a pilot-wave that would guide and direct light, like a ball on water. In this case he's making the argument that the stars are related to said lumniferous aethyr.

Moreover, he's arguing against scientific abstraction to point out the validity of ecology systems, as opposed to the dry conception of an object to be used or conquered. This part of the quote is proto-conservationism/environmentalism.

It's also hilarious to me that the quote says "earth has no edge" but you've attached an illustration of an earth with an edge.

>>18696452
You've already said that to me a few times before using that same pic.

>>18696465
Use a drop address.
That's how you (should) buy drugs in the mail.
Snips any anonymity concerns.

>>18696474
I dont use drugs and i have not said that to you before

>>18696465
Obviously no info would be passed on 4chan. I can either end it to some sort of PO Box if Finland does that. Or you could purchase the weight, measure it, and send it to me. But then you'll be required to do a little purchasing.

Looking around I think 1kg might be too large (forgive my horrible Imperial ways, forgot that equals over 2 lbs.). But a 100g weight sells for less than $10 US.

>>18695424
>try

>>18696481
There is a PO box thingy. But how can we be sure that either one of us tells the truth :D

>>18696531
This. Modern science is a little off.
Every thing they dont know they come up with theorys that are provided as facts.

>>18696545
More like "best current answer subject to experimental revision", but sure, that's totally worse than "don't bother checking I already have all the answers because my intuition doesn't lie".

>>18695207

>monopoly of truth slipping
>people are growing wiser

jesus christ first time i came to this board and im already crying tears of joy.

OP is a faggot.

>>18696536
>What would it take to convince you my part is authentic? If you make the first measurement, I want timestamped pics (preferably vids) of:
unboxing & redacted receipt
>three measurements on at least 2 (preferably 5) different scales, recalibrate scale to zero between measurements
>personalize the weight BEFORE MEASUREMENT with something /x/ related, like Ape of Thoth's trip or something

The personalizing might be tricky, as we are trying to keep the mass exactly the same down to precise amounts. So adding even ink or paint, or removing mass through etching will affect the measurement. If you decide to add a mark, try to use paint or something that won't rub or flake off and be sure to package the mass carefully. The test will be void if it loses mass in transit. I think an etching on the bottom would be best, in which case keeping it simple like "/x/" would be preferred.

>>18694690
>>What proof would convince you, unquestionably and absolutely, that the Earth is round?

None.
I used to believe the earth was round but after seeing this belief collapse on itself, it's not possible to go back.
You won't go back and accept a lie once you see reality. You'll have to ask yourself what kind of evidence would convince you that something that's obviously false is true. All you have are these arguments that look very silly, you're arguing against reality, trying to keep people in the fog of ignorance.

>>18696617
What evidence convinced you?
>You'll have to ask yourself what kind of evidence would convince you that something that's obviously false is true.
I've yet to see any flat eather undermine the calculational validity of the sphereoidal earth model or astronomy, >>18696316
>Flat earth does not explain why people in the Southern Hemisphere all see the same rotation of stars, and cannot see polaris.

If you guys could give me one working mathematical or geometric model that reflects the reality of what happens when I fly or observe the night sky, I'll take a look. Thus far nobody's gone that far. I can find no contributions of the flat earth model to modern astronomy or physics.

File: balance.jpg (14KB, 400x343px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 400x343px

For anybody who is interested, here's a relatively easy experiment you can do to prove the rotation of the earth. All you need is a friend in another country.

Step 1: Buy a 100mg weight. Use a well-calibrated electronic balance to measure the weight down to a couple decimal points.

Step 2: Mail the weight to a friend who lives abroad. This works best the more significant the difference in latitudes is between your 2 countries, so try to get somebody closer to the equator or to either pole.

Step 3: Have them measure the weight on a well-calibrated electronic balance and compare your 2 observations. You'll find that the 2 measurements are actually difference. Not only that, but you'll be able to calculate and predict the difference depending on how close you are to the equator

Since the Earth is a sphere, it spins fastest at the equator (roughly 1000 mph). This spin decreases as you approach the poles until it gradually reaches zero. The centrifugal force of the Earth's spin counteracts the acceleration of gravity and affects the weight of any given mass.

So not only is the spin of the Earth observable, but it can also be used to predict the changes it weight as you move across the globe. Isn't that neat?

flatearth is just a psyop to make people not look into the nazis living in antarctica and hollowearth having UFOs and infiltrating different kikeorganizations
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/113994091/

>>18695055
such a lame, weak effort to kill the fe movement but it only makes me more certain that the powers that be MUST be covering up

>>18695588
the purpose of religion is to help divide the people so that they are more easily conquered. what are 15?

>>18695610
I'm convinced. You did it!

>>18696441
>>18696441
1. Tesla was a retard.

2. Tesla never actually said that. It's made up, along with a lot of other FE BS.

>>18696639
>mathematical or geometric model

I really expected more from someone claiming to have all that occult knowledge, or maybe I was mistaken and you're just a freemason type, accepting the mainstream view for monetary reasons and treating this as some amusing hobby to discuss among gentlemen.

I came to my realization from a completely different angle than most people, at least I would want to think this.
I wanted to know about the "overview effect", like any psychological phenomenom it should be possible to achieve through meditation. That's what I wanted to do, see the earth and have the experience those who went to the moon supposedly had.
I've used this same method for many other things to change my perspective, understand other people and correctly predict/calculate how things would play out, based on those behaviour and thought patterns I've learned to recognize in other people.

But for this particular thing, the "overview effect", I couldn't reach it even after a very long time, which made eventually made me start looking for a different angle. If I can't reach it I'm doing something wrong, there's never been anything I couldn't solve and see before.
So I ended up asking the universe to show me this, give me guidance, I used a simple and functional method I've successfully used before.

The result came to me about a week later. I was taking a walk and felt the effect of the spell come back to me, which means the answer will be shown. I followed it and led it lead me to a small gravel pit and left me there. That's where the words formed, the reply was completely unexpected

>this is what it is, what you see here
>anon, you're asking the wrong question, what you're looking for doesn't exist
>because the earth isn't round

>Yeah sure.
I just forgot about the whole thing and didn't think about it again, until I saw one of these threads here about a year ago, and actually went into it and started looking at the arguments presented.

>>18696639
I love the fact none of them have acknowledged you. Keep up the good work.

>>18696671
Psyop older than 2k years?
Nice one.

>>18696655
TL;DR: If you're a fat-ass, move to an equatorial country- you'll automatically lose weight.

>>18696716
Tesla was a retard?
Dude, einstein took some of his works and presented them as his own.

>>18696732
This.

>>18696719

(cont.)

That's when I saw everything fall into place, my old belief collapsed and the things I used to laught at turned out to be real.

There's no such thing as "still believe that the earth is flat", I'm not even a member of the church anymore because of what they are currently doing. The shape of the earth is not a religious statement for me. It's simply the mass of arguments, actual photage and documented experiments presented forming a solid image.

If you're asking for one specific part, that's not how this works. It reaches a critical mass when a theoretical built doesn't hold anymore, and you're forced to replace it.

I guess I just never cared about this, I never invested anything in the round earth model, it was just something I accepted mindlessly. I have no conviction either way, the change just happened naturally.

I'm really a very skeptical person, so anything I actively accept as real will have to be really solid.

>>18696729
nah, the idea the psyop is based on is that old. the psyop itself only a few years

>>18694690
i legitimately can't tell if this is elaborate bait or an actual thread

>>18696403
>We can see helium is less dense than the atmosphere. Why does this make it go up? Why up and not down? What is causing this? What force is acting on the helium balloon to enact movement?


There two forces acting on a helium balloon. The first is gravity. It's pulling the helium balloon down. Now the helium balloon rises, which means there must be a more powerful force pushing it up.

In this example, it's the surrounding air, which is also being pulled down by gravity. You can think of gases like a bunch of tiny little billiard balls, constantly bouncing around. The molecules of air are much larger and heavier than helium. Since the force of gravity is pulling harder on these molecules, they sink down due to gravity mroe than the helium, and push the helium up in response. Think of a bunch of big burly rugby players trying to squeeze down a hallway, and just pushing little kids aside.

The heavier air will keep pushing the helium balloon upwards, until it gets to a certain altitude where the pressure on the bottom of the balloon matches the force of gravity pulling it down, at which point it just floats level, going neither up nor down.

This sort of force is called buoyancy. It only applies to liquids and gases, since those are the kinds of particles that move around and flow. While density explains which fluids float and which sink, it does not actually explain the forces behind it to cause things to move.

>>18695039
Wants people to not believe something simply because they were told. Believes in flat earth for no more reason than simply being told

>>18696765
Love you. I'm glad you exist.

>>18696743
>Dude, Einstein took some of his works and presented them as his own.

No he didn't. Tesla wasn't even a physicist.

>>18695610
and solar eclipses
and the transit of Venus
and the transit of Mars
and the path of stars
and gravitational force
and seismic echoes
and satellites visible to the naked eye
and constellations that rest over Antarctica

FE has so many glaring holes in it, you would have to be an utter retard to ignore them

File: straightjacket.jpg (69KB, 958x880px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 958x880px

>>18696765

You legitimately belong in a rubber room.

>>18696841

Not an argument.

>>18696797
Einstein is Mason. Fake son of a bitch.

>>18696799

These retards can't even produce a map of their flat earth.

For some odd reason, the globe maps we've been navigating with for the last few thousand years, miraculously allow you to navigate around the flat earth with no issues whatsoever.

Really makes you think.

>>18694690
Disinfo flat earth threads being turned into generals, just what /x/ needs.

File: world map.jpg (77KB, 768x735px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 768x735px

>>18696850

>>18696799
Hell, even lunar phases give it trouble, since if it was as close to the Earth and sun as the flat earth model suggests, we wouldn't have full moons as it would always be possible to see at least some of the non-illuminated dark side from anywhere on Earth. People in the southern hemisphere would be lucky to even get more than a half-moon.

>>18696844

Why would I need an argument.

You're mentally ill and should be institutionalized.

It's really that simple.

>>18696853

So that is an accurate map of the flat earth?

In the last thread you monkeys were claiming that there was no map because the illuminati or whoever had been suppressing this knowledge for thousands of years.

>>18696857

That's who you people always react isn't it. Instead of addressing anything in my post you start with personal attacks.

You already lost.

File: flat earth trig.jpg (2MB, 2340x4160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2340x4160px

>>18696853
this map simply doesn't work

it would be impossible for the Sun to ever sink more than 15 degrees below the horizon

You need to scrap this and try again. Otherwise, you are denying observable fact, just because you WANT your model to be true.

>>18696863

It may be. I found it in another thread on here and it looks decent to me. The idea of other continents out there add a little spice, don't you think?

>>18696301
>I failed every science class I've ever taken, but I'm totally an authority on all things science

>>18696867
internet discussion is a serious competition

>>18696719
>>18696765
That ending made me guffaw. Now when you say "the words formed" do you mean you heard a voice, or did the words literally form into a visual aspect? Like, did they get scratched out in the gravel?

>>18696791
a) I know and accept how gravity works
b) I am responding to the person who was saying the force acting on these things is "density." I want to know what their explanation is, because "density" is not a force and they don't accept gravity.

>>18696793
??? Why does everything think I am a flat earther? I was responding to someone who said they don't take arguments from authority. So I was challenging them to provide any evidence that they have performed these experiments instead of just hearing about them.

The point is FE peeps will come up with what they THINK is a good counter-argument, but will just stop there, like if I can think of some response, that means my response is true and you're a fraud.

>how does the sun stay in orbit?
>uhm...magnets?
>what? how does that make sense? what evidence do you have that the orbit is due to magnets?
>are you globetards still on this? we already answered your question, stop pestering us

No tests. No data. No proof. Just more and more wild claims like "words formed in a gravel pit."

>>18696849
Tesla was a pedophile. There, see, we can both make up nonsense.

>>18696867

There's nothing to address. You're mentally ill.

Coddling your delusions helps no one, certainly not you.

A nice comfortable padded room and some thorazine would do you a world of good.

>>18696871

I poxted my story up there, I explained how I don't want anything, I don't really care. It's just that the round earth model doesn't make any sense when I took the time to look at both sides.

>>18696872

Where did the other continents come from?

I thought the magical ice wall of antarctica prevented further exploration.

>>18696886
>when I took the time to look at both sides

you did no such thing

>>18696881
Didnt Tesla legit want a pigeon to give him the succ tho?

>>18696327
The general flatard consensus is that they're attached to a magic dome that's attached to the edges of the disc.
>>18696339
No, you can't. Shithead.

>>18696886
>It's just that the round earth model doesn't make any sense when I took the time to look at both sides.
Yes it does

You're just a gullible cunt, taken in by misdirection and insubstantial arguments. There is zero evidence that contradicts the sphere Earth model.

>>18696877
>Now when you say "the words formed" do you mean you heard a voice, or did the words literally form into a visual aspect?

More like they formed in my mind, while I was looking at this large flat surface. If you can picture your thoughts as random words and then these words were drawn together by a magnetic force until they formed the sentence.

>>18696905

There are medications for people who hear voices in their head. You should consider treatment.

>>18696886
>I took the time to look at both sides.

>petabytes of evidence, decades of accurate travel, and perform-able self-experiments to corroborate
>I couldn't directly experience the astronaut's subjective experience of the past during meditation, and words in a gravel pit told me this is because the earth is flat

Truly fair and reasoned judgement on your part, anon.

>>18696883

You lost. You don't know what to say so you question my sanity. What does this say about you? It's probably what you're afraid of deep inside, that I'm right and you're actually wrong, because what would that make you in your own words...?

>tl:dr
>projecting this hard

>>18696890
>>18696903
>>18696909
>>18696910

>I can't make proper arguments because I know I lost already

>>18696854
That's if the phases of the moon are product of sun light, witch in flat earth is not predominant theory. The theory I consider is moon has its own light and phases.

>>18696903
This. It's easy to do the math and disprove just about every flat-earther argument with a basic understanding of high school level physics.

>>18696918
You didn't put forth any argument or evidence. You essentially just said "I felt that it was this way, therefore it's true". You don't have any argument to counter against so of course people go for your mental state.

>>18696881
Tesla had pure heart. You can see it in he's eyes.

>>18696928
>The theory I consider is moon has its own light and phases.
how?

What reason do you have to disbelief that the Sun is lighting the Moon?

When the Sun is to the left of the Moon, the left side is lit.
When the Sun is to the right of the Moon, the right side is lit.
When the Sun is behind the Moon, it is a new moon.
When the Sun is in front of the Moon, it is a full Moon.

Do you honestly think that is a coincidence?

>>18696905
And being the really very skeptical person that you are, you decided these words you imagined were of universal authority such that it answered your mystery and left no room to doubt that the Earth is flat.

>>18696924
(Only the last was me, btw.) What would I argue against? You didn't make an argument you rambled about special magic powers. Make an argument and well see if it merits response. How about you claimed you can experience other people's subjective experience through meditation. Let's start with this is a claim with no proof. Why should I believe that, really very skeptical person?

>>18696928
Fascinating. You have evidence or data for this?

>>18696945
>pure heart

No, he was a liar and a shameless self-promoter. A fraud, basically. He was ignorant of science. And a bigot.

>>18696954
Even before this. I want to know how anon would construct an experiment to tell whether the moon is reflecting light or giving off its own light.

I don't need evidence. I want to know what you would do to gather that evidence.

>>18696315
Difference in dimensions.
2D 3D surface and 4D space.
Lower density expand into 4D(space).
Higher density solidify into 2D(surface).
The lower you go the closer you are to geometric 2D 3D surface, meaning, the higher the density level youre at.
The higher you go the closer you are to 3D 4D(space), meaning, the lower the density level youre at.

>>18696928
>The theory I consider is moon has its own light and phases.

Your "theory" is already shit.

If the moon did produce its own light, and its own phases, it would still appear differently at different places on your flat earth model.

>>18696979
>Lower density expand into 4D(space).
why?
>Higher density solidify into 2D(surface).
why?

>>18696947
Moon seems to have cool light that you can measure. I I mean, moonlight is colder than moon shadow. Reverse as the sun. I have to make the experiment by myself but Im glad you ask with that cientific spirit.

>>18696979
So what dimension is the helium balloon at? What dimension is the atmosphere at? What rate does their dimension change from? Are there half dimensions? If dimensions are digital (there are no half or fractions of dimensions) why does the balloon rise continually instead of jumping from one dimension to the next?

>>18696997
>moonlight is colder than moon shadow

No it isn't.

>>18694690
There are some really rich flat earth theorists out there. Why hasn't a single one been to the edge of the earth to bring back proof?

>>18696947
Do you honestly believe the sun and the moon looks the same size by chance?

>>18696997
You didn't answer a single question I asked you.

Do you honestly, HONESTLY think its a coincidence that the phases of the Moon ALWAYS aligns with where the Sun is?

You take what flat earthers says without ever testing it for yourself, and then you flat out deny common sense observations like the position of the Sun relative to the Moon.

You're not interesting in finding out the truth.

>>18696362
https://youtube.com/watch?v=G9OTL-5eLT0

Btw the moon is cold and has its own cold light, nor reflection of suns light.
This can, and has been proven by many already.(including tested by myself, moon light is already few to many degrees colder than moon shade)

>>18697005
I'm sorry, I don't know what you think that has to do with how the moon reflects sunlight.

If I go outside at night and shine a flashlight on a tree, the tree is reflecting the flashlight. It doesn't make the tree look like a flashlight.

>>18696954
Moon seems to have cold light. Look for experiments or do it yourselves.

>>18696968
Colder under moonlight than moonshadow

>>18697021
>Look for experiments or do it yourselves.

No, you are making the claim that the moon produces its own light, and that it is cold; you show your results and how you obtained them.

>>18696993
Geometric dimensions difference. Thats why.

File: annular.jpg (46KB, 497x289px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 497x289px

>>18697005
They're only roughly the same size. The Sun's corona often spills over the edge of the Moon. This is because the Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth. In 1000 years, it will not fully eclipse the Sun.

Are you going to answer my question now?

>>18697039
explain that concept, what are the mechanics behind it

>>18697013
If the sun and moon were held in place by electromagnetism and they were as close as the flat earth model necessitates, we would be able to detect the magnetic field - it would be even more prominent when it has to change to account for the sun's location in the sky changing through the seasons.

>>18697003
Antarctica treaty

>>18697013
>This has been proven

No, it only proves you're sloppy dishonest retards with no understanding of how either light or temperature or measurements work.

https://www.metabunk.org/claim-water-in-moonlight-cools-faster-than-water-not-in-moonlight.t8161/page-3

>>18696999
It moves through other density accelerating towards its proper density level(relative to the geometric difference on the 2 ends of the 3D dimension between 2D and 4D of the realm)

>>18697029
Is this true? Can you convince me of this?

For now, let's say it's true. What does this mean? Why do you think this means the moon makes it's own light? Can you convince me? Let's say I go "That's because reflected light doesn't produce heat, and anything creating a shadow acts like a blanket, trapping heat."

How are you going to show me that the moon makes it's own light, and isn't reflecting light?

And what if I say, "Cold light? The moon can't make cold light because there's no such thing." How are you going to convince me that there's such a thing as an emitter of light that also lowers temperature?

>>18697050
Could you explain?

>>18697058
>accelerating towards its proper density level
why? what force is propelling it?

>>18697050
You can book a cruise to Antarctica through just about any travel company. Shit, you wouldn't even have to go far, just take a picture of the midnight sun during the southern hemisphere's summer solstice and that'd prove it.

>>18697058
First you said dimension. Now you are saying density. Which is it? Are you saying the helium balloon is changing density? What is causing it to accelerate? How does a density level compare with a dimension? How many dimensions in a density? Or how many densities in a dimension? What are the ends of a dimension? What is the realm?

File: 0.jpg (33KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x360px

>>18697046
Vertical plane is between 2d and 4d.
2d is surface. Extreme geometric density.
4d is space. No geometric density.
Between both = stretched spectrum/levels of density.

We are limited to 4D(Space) and 3D(Form) and 2D(Surface), inside this 1D(Sigularity), outside of it there might be higher dimensions possible, but this universe/realm(everything in existence for us) is limited up to Pure 4D(Space).

The horizontal 3D layer between pure 2D(density/surface) and pure 4D(Space), stretches/goes on, possibly infinitely/endlessly. (Look at pic for example)

If you keep moving higher you will reach a layer in which you keep moving at the same spot unable to proceed any higher.
If you keep going lower, you will be eventually crushed into 2D, then if by impossible means you still keep going down then you will be crushed and turned into the layer of space(turn into 4D) of the 1D. Which makes you unable to go higher in the first example.

The goal/purpose of this realm is probably to comprehend its laws(/the laws of nature within it by which it exists), and then to control it/create your own or exit it.

Here. Try this. I want to build a conveyor belt with trays on it that will catch a 100kg mass falling from a chute 50 meters above the trays. The second mass will fall after the first mass hits the tray. In order to make sure each tray is lined up to catch the mass, I need to know exactly how long it will take for the mass to drop. Now thankfully for me, the chute happens to be a complete vacuum, so we won't have to deal with tricky old air resistance.

Please use your special snowflake density-dimension theory to tell me how much time it takes for a 100kg mass to fall 50 meters without air resistance.

>>18697118
Its a neat idea, but it comes into conflict with many things we observe. Seismic echoes, satellites visible to the naked eye. And there's the fact that in a vacuum, a helium balloon will fall to the Earth at the exact same acceleration as a stone.

what reason do you have to disbelieve the classic model of gravity?

>>18697150
Look, I don't give a shit about conspiracies or God or finding the truth. I have a business to run and I need my fucking trays in the right fucking place. If this guy can make my business run right, then I'm going with him.

>>18697118
Well? What of it? Can you solve my problem? Because I bet current physics can give me an answer. And if current physics can help me run a business, but you can't - why should I ever listen to you?

Fuck truth. Fuck God. Fuck conspiracies. I'm trying to get fucking boxes. In fucking trays. Can you solve it, or not?

>>18697064
>How are you going to convince me that there's such a thing as an emitter of light that also lowers temperature?
By testing it first both objects in moon so that they have the same temp, then move one tiny bit to be exposed to moon light and seeing that the object exposed to moon light get colder by a few degrees while the same object next to it which is in moon shadow temp doesnt change. After testing you can then switch both objects wait few mins and test again. The object exposed to moon light will still get few to many degrees depending on how close the moon is and is theres a full moon. It always works.

>>18697064
>>18697175

first both objects in moon shadow*

With the advancement of space x and celebs believing this flat earth garbage. Im wondering what you flat eath dopes will say when Someone takes a ride for 50k and comes back with their proof. You'll probably claim brain washing or some other pathetic excuse. The fact is we're spinning on a globe and within the next few years 50k will buy you a tour around our beautiful planet. Space X will be what stops this nonsense and history will look back at flatearthers as some of the dumbest people of all time. Do you want to be labelled as some of the most uninformed people in the history of mankind then go ahead keep thinking the earth is flat.

>>18697175
>It always works.
no it doesn't

>>18696963
That's Edison.

>>18697175
>By testing it first both objects in moon so that they have the same temp
I don't understand what you mean here.

>then move one tiny bit to be exposed to moon light and seeing that the object exposed to moon light get colder by a few degrees while the same object next to it which is in moon shadow temp doesnt change
OK, here is a testable observation. Have you done this? Where is your data?

The problem is my Blanket Theory explains this as well. The "moon shadow" is actually a pocket of warmth, ad when you remove the object from the pocket it gets colder because it is out of the pocket.

How are you going to convince me that the light is making it colder, and not the shadow making it warmer?

Second, none of this has adressed how you will show that the light is emitted from the moon rather than reflected off it.

Third - I still do not accept that there is an object that emits light and lowers temp. You will have to show me one up close before I will accept something unapproachable (for me) like the moon is one.

>>18697182
Well that's the fun of a conspiracy, isn;t it?

No matter what evidence contradicts your conclusion, you can ALWAYS claim that its just another layer to the conspiracy.
There is literally nothing that you can say or show to a conspiracy theorist to convince them otherwise. It is unfalsifiable.

>>18697204
I'll be honest dude, I don't have any confidence that the guy you're speaking to understands hypothetical scenarios or how to counter them. More power to you, though.

>>18697150
>in a vacuum
In because the space surrounding it of a lower density than it so its density level there would be closer to 2D which is downwards)

>Seismic echoes
Deep down at high density earth is being crushed releasing heat. Heat being of lower density tries to escape upwards.

>classic model of gravity
Because it limits us and overcomplicates everything for science in many ways.

>>18697226
>Because it limits us and overcomplicates everything for science in many ways.
what evidence have you encountered to make you disbelieve gravity?

>>18697224
It's my day off and I'm marathoning The Shield. This is my ADD distraction so I really don't care.

>>18697226
>Heat being of lower density tries to escape upwards.
Lolwut? What is the density of heat?

>>18697204
The problem is my Blanket Theory explains this as well. The "moon shadow" is actually a pocket of warmth, ad when you remove the object from the pocket it gets colder because it is out of the pocket.

Only block the light at a distance.

>>18697243
Was this a complete thought? I feel like you were typing more and accidentally hit post.

>>18697240
Heat / cold affect the geometric dimension; expanding/condensing, therefore affecting the density of the object compared to the pure 2d and pure 4d geometric density level.

>>18697255
Block the moon light at a distance with a single semi transparent layer.
Still same result, I was worried about the same idea you had, the shade being a pocket of warmth, so I tested it in a way to minimize its effect as much as I could, still was the same result though, I didnt believe it back then when I was testing it

>>18697226
>Heat being of lower density tries to escape upwards.

Not the point he was making - seismic waves can be, and have been used to measure the contents of the Earth's interior. Or at least I assume that's what he was getting at.

>>18697226
>heat being of lower density tries to escape upwards

Heat does not have density. It does not move upwards.

>>18697271
What is the density of heat? What is the rate of condensing expanding? What makes a hot metal block sink and a cold gas rise? What is the upper limit of the 4d density? Is there a 5d? A 1d?

You haven't given a single answer to my questions.

HOW LONG DOES IT A TAKE A 100KG MASS TO FALL 50 METERS WITHOUT AIR RESISTANCE?

Your ideas are useless.

>>18697255
Also what amazed me the most was that during full moon I could use a huge water based magnifying lens (was pretty hard to find the right angle), the concentrated light was cooling objects at a rapid rate, thats when I was fully convinced.

>>18697296
>Block the moon light at a distance with a single semi transparent layer.
Still same result as what? Look - I need to see your data. Your words just aren't giving very good descriptions.

>>18697318
>water based magnifying lens

The water was cooling the ambient air around what you were "measuring".

>>18697339
Droping objects of ~20*c to freaking 4~5*c other even to 0-1*c in the middle of a field during ~20*c, something degrees?

Yeah, no way. Moon gotta have its own 'cold light' otherwise I cant explain wtf that phenomenon was.

>>18697313
For us theres no 5D we are limited up to natural 4D(Space).
Time is not a natural dimension, it is a relative difference.
Just like density level is relative to geometric dimensions.
Pure 4D is the lack of density.
Pure 2D is infinite density.

>>18697313
Heat it self is not density, it is a force(/energy)/movement resulting in expansion(less geometric density) from 2D into 4D.
Cold it self is not density, it is the lack of force(/energy)/movement resulting in higher geometric density(solidification).

>>18697450
>heat itself is a force

wrong again

>>18697358
>I can't explain wtf that phenomenon was

I can. You're lying.

>>18695621
>OJ Simpson
Gif is Michael Jordan
>Killed whole family
Two people out of six family members
>OJ played baseball
Football

>>18697318
>a huge water based magnifying lens

Please describe this device in detail.

>>18697013
Probably.
Also sun is of a lower density so its supposed to be higher but its kept lower by the cold field of the moon.
The moon stays at its level by the elecromagnetic locking.

>>18697504
Pretty much like this one:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=eeSyHgO5fmQ
Slightly more clear/better materials and very pure water.
Getting the correct angle for the moon light was hard, took quite a few tries/long time.

>>18697504
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XFw7U7V1Hok
Might work too, havent tried that kind of lens yet.

>>18694690
the earth is flat and less than 4000 years old because jesus says it in the bible, and this makes it true, and if u don't agree with this as pure literal fact you are a homosexual and will go to hell. Christopher Columbus was an orange picking bean queen, but even that homosexual knew in jesus name that the earth was flat, its why he sailed across a flat ocean. Its total scientific fact, and it says so in the holy bible, that satan put fossils on the earth to trick us into evolution, he also possessed jews, spics, n coons to run around saying the earth is round when its flat. so people stop believing in the bible. well my great great grand dad was no monkey, and my bible says the planets flat, and if that's not proof enuff for you, that's why u r a sad homosexual sinner. All this stuff is in the bible, its true, and if u don't believe in it, u r going to hell with all the other thieves, Satanists, wiccans, democrats, Anglicans, Mexicans, and homosexuals. read the bible bitches. don't read devil worshippers like Darwin and that wheelchair loser cause they want u to go to hell so they can have sex with men. believe in jesus or else!!! so if u do think the world is flat, your either gay, a Satanist, or both, but when jesus comes back, u will wish u believed in the truth.

>>18696949
>you decided these words you imagined were of universal authority

I said I didn't care for a long time. It was only after I went into a thread here I saw it all fall into place.

>>18696937
>You essentially just said "I felt that it was this way, therefore it's true"

All the pieces fit when I applied this view. I'm not talking about your theoritical models, but the way the world functions. The idea that the earth itself is anything but the stuff you're walking on is actually ridiculous. It's so far from everyday life it's just amazing how much energy people can put into this stuff. Makes you wonder what all this is trying to divert your attention away from, right? Like real life issues ripping people off on a daily basis.

By simply accepting that the earth is a flat surface and the rest of the stuff out there is unimportant, you will see the things the world's rulers don't want you to look at. With a mind filled with this trash about earth and planets and space and whatever, your thinking gets clouded and your ability to resist disappears. You'll just accept whatever legislation they suggest because you don't understand the real implications of it, your mental capacity is used up trying to force all this stuff into place, made up shit that doesn't matter one bit.

>>18697732
>I said I didn't care for a long time. It was only after I went into a thread here I saw it all fall into place.
OK fine. The really very skeptical person had a hallucination that allowed the Flat Earth lunacy to make sense. So why tell the multi-post story if wasn't what convinced you of FE, when you were asked what convinced you of FE? I believe your answer was "I can't point to anything, so I'll just say it's everything." I might have the exact words wrong, though.

>By simply accepting that the earth is a flat surface
But I've climbed mountains.

>the rest of the stuff out there is unimportant
Who gets to decide what's important? You trying to rule my world and pursuits? Why is it so important for you to control what I study?

>You'll just accept whatever legislation they suggest because you don't understand the real implications of it
What specific legislation have you been for or against recently, and we can see if I'm in agreement. Otherwise you're making a LOT of assumptions, Mr. Really Very Skeptical Person

Flat earthers need to be executed.

>>18694793
mountains aren't that high that you'd notice a curvature

I'm back again. Looks like I've got a lot to catch up on.

>>18696210
>You LITERALLY typed that it is not possible for you to be convinced that the Earth is spherical...
The deceitful tactics of the shill. I said I don't believe it is possible, not that it wasn't possible. There's a difference. You're either being stupid or misleading. Which is it? I literally already explained this in the post you referenced.

>Is this suposed to mean you still expect me to keep trying, or that I'm supposed to prove you wrong about the fact that you are impossible to convince.
I don't give a fuck what you do mate. Honestly I'd rather not have you try to derail my threads with your dishonest tactics.
>But the fact remains:
>Goes on to ask questions
Can't make this shit up.

>>18696260
>The usual cop-out is either "density" or "gravity is actually electromagnetism."
Well it'd clear up the major conflict between classical physics and quantum physics.

>>18696315
>What is causing objects of different density to move up or down in relation to each other?
Their relation to each other is causing you dolt. Heavier, denser things push lighter, less dense things up. Their density gives them their heaviness. This is not difficult to understand, it's just you've been brainwashed into thinking that you need gravity for things to have any weight to them. Do you need gravity for light to shine or for water to be wet? You'll probably say yes but that's because you're an idiot who worships a fictional force as though it were the lamest deity ever conceived.

>>18696275
>the plane of oscillation of a pendulum remains fixed relative to the distant masses of the universe while Earth rotates underneath it
What the fuck does this mean? The sun? The other planets in the solar system? The stars? None of that shit is fixed. Shouldn't you be saying "stays still even though supposedly nothing in the universe ever really does"?

>while Earth rotates underneath it, taking one sidereal day to complete a rotation
Bullshit. This pendulum that is attached to the same world whose rotation it's meant to be measuring is somehow completely unaffected by this rotation itself? Why? Because it's swinging? Does the pulley it's attached to not rotate with the Earth? Does this not affect the pendulum's trajectory at all? Maybe if it was only meant to move a little bit over a 24 hour period, just enough to notice and measure, I would believe you. But that wouldn't have quite the same spectacle then, would it? That's all this "experiment" is: a spectacle. Any thinking person could see that it's fundamentally stupid, but you lot think it's gospel because your loser highschool science teacher read it out to you from a textbook.

>>18696316
>You ONLY get to say this if you've DONE the experiment YOURSELF and found it to be wanting.
Jesus, did I strike a nerve there buddy? You sound like I was talking about plowing your mum's dry ass pussy and she's been dead 3 years. I don't have to do an experiment to dismiss its results if I can invalidate its very premise.

Let's say I've constructed an experiment that I claim proves the Earth is flat that requires a 10km long stretch of perfectly straight steel and a high powered laser to measure its straightness. I claim that since I measured the steel to be perfectly straight that it means that the Earth itself is perfectly straight. You rightfully say that's bullshit because I've measured the steel and not the Earth itself, but I just wave my arms and yell "YOU CANT SAY THAT UNLESS YOU'VE DONE IT YOURSELF".

>>18694690
Pics from space prove its round. Dumbass.

>>18697500
Woosh!

>>18694690
Is this meme the ultimate form of contrarianism?

>>18698298
I said they would have to be convincing. If I can identify the special effects used, it is not convincing to me.

>>18698298
b-but thats disinformation to further spread the spherical earth agenda, which helps the guberment _____________!

File: Tallgoth.png (67KB, 239x365px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 239x365px

>Ugh, a spherical earth? Do I look like some kind of conformist to you, poser?

>>18698298
>b-but I just can say "le cgi"!!!!1

>>18697913

You don't understand anything I wrote, it's clear now. What are you even doing on /x/?

Oh, wait, don't answer. I know this one. I actually used the same spell yesterday to get a reply on this.

You're entitled. You think you own reality. You think everything has be explainable within your worldview, and you can't accept that there are things in existence that doesn't fit in. So you attack anything that doesn't fit in, because you think it's YOUR RIGHT to make those things disappear.

When you can't convince the people you are arguing with, using your narrow mindset, you resort to calling them retarded, gullible, insane etc. (By "you" I'm here referring to sphere earthers on /x/ in general, not you personally, because I can't know if you're one or more people when you're all anons.)

You need to accept that there are things that you cannot explain, you do not have the right to explain everything. There is no such thing. You can't even explain properly why people oppose you. All you have is namecalling. That's where you end up when your ability to explain ends, exposing your lack of good intent.

>>18694690
here come the flat earth sand niggers agfain, muhammes was stupid, slaughtered dudes and fucked kids, he's a bullshitter you idiots, it's an egg shaped hunk of minerals, maybe hollow, maybe a molten core, but it's round as fuck

>>18696579
I hope you enjoyed your visit, now GTFO.

>>18696345
This is pure grade-a decimation of the theory of gravity. Everybody should stop and think about this one for a second. For those of you too lazy to hover over a link, here it is again:
>If gravity is real, everything has more weight at night relatively to the sun and lighter at day?

I'll throw out another similar one to this, one of the holes in the theory I mentioned in the OP. If we revolve around the Sun and the Moon revolves around us (putting aside for the moment the obvious flaw in that situation), then how is it that the moon maintains a constant velocity when it is revolving around us both towards the sun and away from it? How can the Sun's gravitation pull which is strong enough to hold planets far more distant than the Earth is have absolutely no effect on the orbit of the moon?

>>18698298
>>18698311
>>18698334
Samefagging at its worst.

>>18698348

If you actually looked into these things instead of getting all your knowledge from flat earth believers you would know that the moon is actually slowly falling away from the earth and towards the sun.

There is no such thing as a perfect orbit. Don't be a retard

File: Screenshot_2017-02-27-18-43-50.png (202KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1080x1920px

>>18698366
*tips tinfoil*

>>18698342
>All you have is namecalling.
We've spend the better part of a day asking you to perform simple DIY experiments in the interest of debate, and you've argued your way out of doing any of them like a bona-fide politician. We're past the point of entertaining debate, and now I just think you're obnoxious and possibly fishing for replies.

>>18698383
How could I have possibly have gotten all my knowledge from flat earthers? I went to school like everyone else. I even have a degree.

Answer me this: Why would the moon be slowly falling away from the Earth towards the Sun if every time it revolves around the Earth it is being hurled towards the sun and then needs to somehow drag itself away from the Sun's pull just to stay in Earth's orbit? You've admitted that the Sun does indeed have some sway over the moon, so how can this be?

1- Earth isn't round, it's just like a rock ( not flat of course) the geodesys makes a model which works almost perfecty. So the earth is a formless oblong rock.
2-The center of gravity of this shihole we call earth is in the center like a sphere, so that we can stand in our feet. If the earth were flat we all would be dragged to the center like if we were fishes attached to coiled lines.
3- the electromagnetism ( Gauss' law ) pretty much destroy this erath flat theory.
4- how do you explain satellites orbiting around the earth? How do you defeat relativity? Everything is against you.

Fine you want evidence?

Satellites

Explain how I can use a phone/gps anywhere in the world, without either

A the goverment has secret tech
Or
B making your model more complicated then the normal gravity model

All while we on the ground have to build more radio towers to cover cellular dead zones

Not everyone can be on the fucking payroll you know, eventually someone would've noticed.

>>18698434
Shit didn't mean to copy you, I was working on my post when you were doing yours, my bad.

>>18698449
Don't worry mate. I know you wrote your post, anyways you added more info to the thread.

bleep blop bleep blop bleep blop bloo

This thread is on fire.

The Earth is round for the same reason that bubbles are round. The pressure inside is equal to the outside.
Earth is round and HOLLOW.

>>18698419
You obviously don't know how this universe works

>>18698440
>Explain how I can use a phone/gps anywhere in the world, without either

>A the goverment has secret tech
>Or
>B making your model more complicated then the normal gravity model

Radio towers. Their signals don't need to be bounced around the Earth's curvature because that's just your dumb idea.

This WWII radio navegation system could work over 1,500 miles. That means that according to your model, it would have been dealing with 284 miles of curvature between itself and its target.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN

GPS is simply triangulation. We think it's some super high tech satellite technology but really they're only supposed to be re-transmitters anyway.

>>18698495
Then explain it to me.

>>18698419
It is a combined motion. The moon is also in orbit around the sun (exactly like earth). It just happened to be also influenced by the earths gravity. think of it like walking back and forth in a train. Sure you move in relation to the train, but overall the train is still the dominant movement in relation to the terrain.

>>18698506
The suns curves the space around it. And this influence is in every single particle but it becomes faint if one object distances from it. we (solar system) are the closest objects to the sun, so its "wealth" reaches all of us. For instance, before the relativity theory due to the irregular movement of mercury, we thought near by it, there was an unknown planet disturbing its orbit, nowdays we know the reason why this happen. And all the orbits becomes more regular when an object moves away from the sun. So, of course the sun has, does and will influence in the movement of the moon.

>>18698491
wut.

>>18698524
That is a terrible analogy for what we're talking about. Why is it that whenever I bring up something silly about the supposed orbital or rotational motions of the Earth, like how the fuck are we not aware of them, I get back these examples of completely linear motions? A better example would be, and this is more in relation to the flaw I previously hinted at but left unsaid, imagine you were running circles around a car that was driving around a roundabout. Going around it one side would mean struggling to keep up with its own velocity as well as trying to overtake it, while running around the other side would mean you could stand still and the car would do the moving for you.

>>18698605
And the roundabout is you.

>>18698491
The Earth is spherical because of gravity.

>>18698598
>So, of course the sun has, does and will influence in the movement of the moon.
None of what you said even related to that.

>>18698612
Huh? No, the roundabout is the Sun, the car is the Earth and you are the Moon. I'm not doing any of that shit because it's as dumb as your concept of reality.

>>18698498
It is not a
>simply triangulation
It's more complicated than that.

>>18698627
My explanation for this round Earth is as viable as yours, mate.

>>18698633
Look at the big picture.

>>18698633
>The suns curves the space around it. And this influence is in every single particle but it becomes faint if one object distances from it.

>None of what you said even related to that.

>>18698419
>so how can this be?

The moon orbits around the sun. It also orbits around the earth, but both, together, orbit around the sun.

I don't know why this is complicated. There's no need at all to invoke General Relativity. It works perfectly fine with Newtonian motion.

I work at a TV station, part of my job is tuning in programming from satellites in geostationary orbits above the equator of the earth.

Call me a disinfo agent, but when I learned this skill from my boss I wasn't let in on some grand conspiracy. I point the dish at the right place in the sky, and I get the signal I need. If I need a signal from a different satellite, I point it to the corresponding spot in the sky, and I get the signal I need.

How do flat earthers explain this? I'm really curious.

>>18698643
No, the pressure on the inside of the earth is substantially greater than the pressure on the outside.

>>18698671
I'm sorry if I've misunderstood something here with such clear writing as:
>but it becomes faint if one object distances from it
>nowdays we know the reason why this happen
>And all the orbits becomes more regular when an object moves away from the sun

Please explain to me how this has anything to do with what I was saying? I'll repeat my original question:
>Why would the moon be slowly falling away from the Earth towards the Sun if every time it revolves around the Earth it is being hurled towards the sun and then needs to somehow drag itself away from the Sun's pull just to stay in Earth's orbit? You've admitted that the Sun does indeed have some sway over the moon, so how can this be?

Heathen fools! Asking for such blasphemous things as evidence and science. Don't you know the only proof you need is in the great holy book!?

You don't need experiments when you have the word of god. The earth is flat with a giant dome ceiling. And space is full of water.

So says god!

>>18698605
>That is a terrible analogy for what we're talking about.
That could be. Not my first language, not terribly good at explaining. I guess the point was, that it is a combined motion. Just because you can pick one vector in this rather complicated system of forces that seemingly goes away from the sun, doesnt mean the moon "beats" the sun. Maybe running was really kind of misleading. Maybe imagine a record player on the train; one side of the record will go against the direction of the train, but it still follows the train as a whole. I guess the important part is, that it takes no "effort" to orbit something. It is just a combination of forces that act on an object. An orbit is really just falling towards something while constantly missing it

>>18698691
Can you mesure this at home or you just believe in that?

>>18698750

Sure measure the pressure in your mom's living room, then measure the pressure in your mom's basement.

>>18698717
>Not my first language, not terribly good at explaining.
You've expressed yourself well enough for me to understand your analogy. Perhaps you're not so good at conceptualizing?

>Maybe imagine a record player on the train; one side of the record will go against the direction of the train, but it still follows the train as a whole.
But this is wholly unlike what we're talking about. The record is being spun by a mechanism that is sitting on the train itself. We're talking about free-flying objects here unbound by any force other than gravity, right? Just because you say there's some greater combined motion here between the Sun and the Earth and god-knows what else, doesn't mean that what you're talking about makes any sense. The Moon is meant to be making the same rotation around the Earth, day in, day out, barring perhaps a little bit of pull towards the Sun that someone mentioned earlier. Just because they're part of some bigger picture doesn't mean that moving towards and against a force of attraction become negligible parts of this equation.

At the very least, the moon should have a terribly irregular orbit until eventually it is plucked from its orbit around the Earth and settles in orbit around the Sun, like everything else in the solar system barring for some reason the moons of these objects.

>>18698789
Too far away from her house now, this debate will have to way but I wrote your post number.

>>18698498
Oh? Simple radio towers? Then explain why I can use my fucking radio phone in the middle of nowhere? You missed the fact I can use my phone anywhere in the world, even where there isn't any towers.

>>18698849
Are you retarded? Radio phones>tower>sattellite.

>>18698849
What's the furthest distance you've ever been from a radio tower? Where was this?

>>18698882
I love it when you an literally see the shills shift gears.

File: 1488076322733.png (449KB, 1157x850px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 1157x850px

OP has gotten wrecked more than I can count and he still does mental gymnastics to try and further an already finished argument. What a joke.

>>18698900
When was that then?

>>18698894
In my defense I'm retarded.
>I love it when you an literally see the shills
Nice to see a fellow retarded learning how to write.

>>18698882
OK you are acturally mentally handicapped so let me inform you on some things you apparently missed.

One, my radio satellite phone works anywhere in the world, with or without towers, I have used it in the middle of the ocean and have used it in third world countries where the goverment hasn't built a public work in years.

Now, you could say "but those are still using earth radio" but then why in the United states is there a radio tower every few miles, how can we apparently have the range to contact me hundreds of miles off the coast but we need them every little while inside the United states?

>>18698929
Oh wow, I missed a c. Sinking pretty low there, aren't you buddy?

>>18698930
As I said in my defense: I'm retarded. I'm obliged to tell you guys by the law.

>>18698944
But if we are the roundbout how can we sink?

>>18698930
Need more towers to handle more signals. Check that wiki link I posted again. 1,500 mile coverage back in WWII.

>>18698953
So secret magic technology.

>>18698750
At home? No, you have to go outside.

Being a fat ass isn't an excuse for not doing experiments.

>>18698900
>>18698929
>>18698946
>>18698952
>>18698968
>I just got word from the big man upstairs, guys. He told us to shift gears again. This time into Retard Mode Formation Alpha.

>>18698799
>The record is being spun by a mechanism that is sitting on the train itself
Yes it is ananalogy. It is not the same thing, but the the part about the combined motion is analogous. Was just to illustrate that you actually can go "against" the bigger force (if you look at the vectors seperately) in a system in which multiple forces act on something simultaniously. If you jump off something and move your hands up mid-air, you move them against gravity, but they still fall with you. The moon is always also in an orbit around the sun. I really cant see where the contradiction is. You can kind of think of the earth-moon system as one object orbiting the sun

>>18698971
I like doing experiments, I'm just sorry that you can't understand figurative speech. It was just a bait and you took it. You, my friend, are the reason why the world is so alienated. You went straight into the ad hominem instead of refute me. In case you don't know refute means to prove something wrong with EVIDENCE. Square up to de bait me.

File: uncle_bog.png (111KB, 497x317px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 497x317px

Will they make the call using a sattelite phone?

Ok, #WAKEUPSHEEPS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upBE0_wAA70

File: cochran.jpg (39KB, 780x549px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 780x549px

>>18698984
> I really cant see where the contradiction is.
If you're being truthful then I honestly don't know if I can help you here. I'll give it one last crack anyway:

The Earth orbits the Sun. Simple enough. The Moon orbits the Earth. Simple enough if you forget for the moment that the Earth is orbiting the Sun. The Moon is orbiting both the Earth and the Sun? I'm sorry, it can't work like that. If the Moon was orbiting the Sun in any way then it wouldn't have a uniform rotation around the Earth. As I've tried to illustrate with my car and roundabout model, to maintain its constant orbit it would have to speed up to keep up with the Earth's motion half of the time and slow down when it came around the other side so that it didn't shoot off in the opposite direction to how the Earth was moving.

If you want to talk about it having some shared orbit around the Sun and the Earth then it should be a completely irregular orbit and I don't see how it could ever stay within the Earth's orbit in such a model. More likely it would orbit the Sun like the Earth does only to have the Earth swing by every once in a while and mess its orbit up a bit.

It does not make sense. And if it doesn't make sense, you must acquiesce!

>>18699047
Let me ask you something: Do you think that the sun is in the same place all the time?

>>18699069
No I don't. Why do you ask?

>>18699045
Get your faggot twittershit out of here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGl8I3l-5ac

>>18699047
>he Moon is orbiting both the Earth and the Sun? I'm sorry, it can't work like that.
Well, thats the part where I cant follow where you see the flaw. I gave you enough examples and explanations of combined motions I guess. The moon is orbiting the sun, that doesnt make him ignore the gravitational force of earth.

>so that it didn't shoot off in the opposite direction to how the Earth was moving
why would it shootoff? thats just not at all how that works. do you even relative velocities, bro?

>then it should be a completely irregular orbit
on a larger timescale no orbit is completely stabil and regular. But I guess thats not what you mean. You somehow expect it to end up completely chaotic while the forces remain the same/predictable.

All of this confusion and we arent even talking beyond newtonian gravity. Maybe take the relativity-pill and stop thinking of gravity as a force after all

>>18699076
The Sun is moving all the time, orbiting the center of the Milky Way. The Earth is orbiting the Sun. The Moon is orbiting the Earth. But the Moon is also orbiting the Milky Way.
The Moon only orbits the Earth because it was orbiting the Sun in a very wide orbit, or just went rogue from somewhere, then Earth forcefield sucked the Moon back, while the Moon pulled Earth a little and they danced like that some sort of "temporary balance" was found.

>>18699107
>WATER
Fuck that argument , ocean level is CONSTANTLY changing, due to the tide rising and falling. And the tide is caused by the gravitational force of the moon orbiting earth.

>>18699119
>I gave you enough examples and explanations of combined motions I guess.
You guessed wrong. What examples? The train and the record player? Not applicable in the slightest.

>The moon is orbiting the sun, that doesnt make him ignore the gravitational force of earth.
You should be saying the Moon is orbiting the Earth, that doesn't make "him" (should be her, really) ignore the gravitational force of the Sun. If the Moon is truly orbiting the Sun, then that means that its revolution around the Sun should be its primary motion. This would not mean that the Moon turns around and goes back the other way just because it's not ignoring the Earth's gravity.

>why would it shootoff? thats just not at all how that works.
What does it do with all that extra momentum then?

>do you even relative velocities, bro?
Oh, please enlighten me Mr. Scienceman. I'm obviously so stupid and confused!

>on a larger timescale no orbit is completely stabil and regular. But I guess thats not what you mean. You somehow expect it to end up completely chaotic while the forces remain the same/predictable.
Just because two forces remain "the same/predictable" doesn't mean a third party is going to function smoothly between them. I think the word you're looking for is harmonious.

>All of this confusion and we arent even talking beyond newtonian gravity. Maybe take the relativity-pill and stop thinking of gravity as a force after all
Again, stop trying to sound smarter than the arguments you're presenting and enlighten me please sir.

>>18699123
Sure, complicating the system even further is bound to help your argument!

>>18699160
>>18699107
So according to you water == ocean? The very first example he gives is the Nile. Is the Nile an ocean? Stop being a deliberately deceptive and deceitful fuck!

File: 1484002492533.jpg (16KB, 214x317px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 214x317px

this thread sucks

>>18699210
>complicating
>even further
Holy keks, my sides.
Ignorance is truly a bliss.

>>18699285
>Ignorance is truly a bliss.
Is it? How nice that must be for you.

>>18699321
That's funny because I am telling you exactly what happened you just aren't understanding as I proved here
>complicating
and here
>even further
I understood and refuted your problem with facts that you don't quite get.
So you tell me.

>>18699348
>I understood and refuted your problem
You say you did, I say you didn't. Only the viewers at home can decide for themselves.

>with facts that you don't quite get.
What facts? The model I was specifically arguing against? Were you using that as proof of itself? Pretty shoddy arguing if you ask me. You shouldn't throw the word fact around like that in an argument anyway. That's just an appeal to an authority that you haven't even identified.

For anyone who's unsure of what's happening here, they will keep parading around as though they have won even when they haven't, just to keep up appearances to those who aren't paying much attention. It's a damage control tactic. If he admits defeat like a gentleman, then he has lost more than he has to. The far sadder possibility is that this is a legitimate free-thinking individual who really can't see past their lifetime of indoctrination.

>>18699208
>Not applicable in the slightest.
it is. as an example of a combined motion

>If the Moon is truly orbiting the Sun, then that means that its revolution around the Sun should be its primary motion
it is. well, at depending on how you define "primary motion". It would be much easiser for the moon to esacpae earth's gravity well as it would be for it to escape the sun

>What does it do with all that extra momentum then?
there is no "extra" momentum. why would it shoot off? maybe try showing your math? like, how big is its momentum?

>Oh, please enlighten me Mr. Scienceman. I'm obviously so stupid and confused!
thats quite childish. But do you understand relative velocities? Because you seem to think that the combined motion of the moon around earth and the sun would somehow shoot it off. thats just not how it works. no need to get all snarky

Just tried to explain my view on it my man.

>>18699389
Ow, I see how you want to debate. You want to forcefeed me with your "few lunatics theory" instead of refute the real world. This thing can be calculate. Calculated by scholars and computers.
The very roots of your idea is wrong.
I will take my leave because you will drag me down to your level and will beat me for experience. As I said before: Square up.

File: so many forces on this poor little moon.png (41KB, 1340x540px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1340x540px

>>18699405
>it is. as an example of a combined motion
A record spinning on a train is so far removed from the supposed motion of the Moon around the Earth as the Earth orbits the Sun. If you don't understand this then there's no point debating you.

> It would be much easiser for the moon to esacpae earth's gravity well as it would be for it to escape the sun
Want to try that one again?

>there is no "extra" momentum. why would it shoot off? maybe try showing your math? like, how big is its momentum?

Sorry bud, that's not my style. Here, have a diagram of all the things I've been arguing.

>thats quite childish. no need to get all snarky

Says Mr. Doyouevenbro?

>>18699447
>This thing can be calculate. Calculated by scholars and computers.
You can calculate anything according to the rules of a model. Doesn't mean it's real.

>The very roots of your idea is wrong.
That's precisely what I'm arguing against your model. It is fundamentally flawed. This goes beyond any maths or experimental verification. Those can be molded to suit the model, particularly when the person doing the molding honestly believes that the model is their reality and is unwilling to give that up.

>Ow, I see how you want to debate. You want to forcefeed me with your "few lunatics theory" instead of refute the real world.
What's my "few lunatics theory"? I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Refute the real world? Why would I want to do that?

>I will take my leave because you will drag me down to your level and will beat me for experience. As I said before: Square up.
Go on. Try and take the high road, despite all the dishonesty I've had to endure in this thread.

>>18699584
>Square up
Also, I just searched this up. You didn't say it to me before. Just FYI.

>>18698149
>I said I don't believe it is possible, not that it wasn't possible.
OK then, if you have any rationality at all, you would agree that facts contrary to your beliefs should change those beliefs. Otherwise YOU ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO CONVINCE.

And you said that was wrong.

So what evidence would get you to change your mind?

>Heavier, denser things push lighter, less dense things up.
What happens with a heavier, less dense object or a lighter, denser object? How much denser does an object of the same weight have to be to sink? What rate? WHERE ARE YOUR TESTS? WHERE IS YOUR DATA? WHAT IS YOUR PROOF?

>>18698277
>This pendulum that is attached to the same world whose rotation it's meant to be measuring is somehow completely unaffected by this rotation itself?
Not measuring, but yes. Exactly. And here's the thing: GO DO THE TEST. HERE IS THE DATA (http://www.osrportal.eu/files/uploads/objects/Report_Example_EN_Foucault.pdf). THIS CLAIM HAS PROOF.

>Why?
You wouldn't believe me if I tell you. Go do the test and figure it out yourself.

>Let's say I've constructed an experiment
You've never constructed a legitimate experiment in your life. I doubt you can formulate a good hypothesis, or that you know what makes a good hypothesis.

>YOU CANT SAY THAT UNLESS YOU'VE DONE IT YOURSELF
Until you perform your 10km steel experiment, I would call bulshit for having no data. After you perform it, I would say WHERE IS YOUR TEST? WHERE IS YOUR DATA? WHAT IS YOUR PROOF? And then I would look that over.

>>18698348
>If gravity is real, everything has more weight at night relatively to the sun and lighter at day?
Yes, actually! Want to find out how much?
http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpgravity/newtons_law_gravity_equation_force.php#ajscroll
Using the mass of the sun (1.99x10^30 kg), and 1kg at the distance from Earth to sun - we get our gravitational force to be 0.005901544 Newtons.

Now let's do it 8,000 miles closer and we get 0.005936903953354 Newtons. So the difference in force is .00003536 Newtons. How much change in weight is that? Using a quick converter, that means there is a .000008 lbs difference in the 1kg mass's weight when on the side of the Earth facing away.

Now you can measure and see if that's true! Do you have a scale that can detect 1 millionth of a pound?

>how is it that the moon maintains a constant velocity when it is revolving around us both towards the sun and away from it?
It doesn't, but like the 8 millionths of a pound change in mass - the difference is very small and you wouldn't notice unless you are - I don't know - recording data.

Do you have any data recorded?