Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What keeps us on the ground
« Last post by markjo on Today at 05:56:11 AM »
Let's say I'm in an elevator in the middle of space far away from any gravity. No windows. The elevator is accelerating upwards. What is holding me to the floor? My inertia countering the elevator rising.
No.  The normal force of elevator's floor counters the force of your weight due to the elevator's acceleration.  Come now, you're supposed to be better than this.
The force of my weight? What do you mean by that, because that sounds like inertia with extra steps.
Force = mass * acceleration.  Weight = mass * gravitational acceleration.  Weight is a force.
Weight is a force? It seems like its just the tendency of things to follow their natural trajectory.
Yes, weight is a force.  You’re thinking of gravitation, which is not a force.
2



Now.  Draw the sun’s path on the picture for the equinox and show how for me in Ohio how the sun can stay the same apparent size throughout the day.  Rise due east and set due west.  And show how the sun can also rise due east and set due west for California, Hawaii, Japan, China, India, Russia, turkey, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Great Britain.

FE is a crap show that can’t “solve” one problem without contradicting itself in several other areas.

The way you ask for things is so much like you think you're ruler of the world. As if as a globalist, you expect "lesser peoples" to cooperate. Ohio sucks. It's a backwards nowhere state and I'm categorically refusing to waste time on your request.
Had you actually bothered to watch these videos, you'd notice there is some change in size. You just haven't been looking directly at the sun, so you didn't notice it. I'm gonna need you to burn out your retinas.

"But it stays the same all day!" No it doesn't. Take a picture and use a copypasted box. There will be minor shifts in size over the course of the day.



And you default to old fart shill. Who sticks lines in the ground and it goes all

\                        /
  \                    /
    \_________/

I'm sorry, but you don't understand your own theory.

If he found that it bulged outward that would be consistent with this outward sectional bulge.


But in inward or flat view is consistent with flat Earth.
3
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth swallowed by the Sun.
« Last post by markjo on Today at 05:48:43 AM »
Every time the Sun sets, the Sun goes underwater, and the water causes it to grow in size. In the future, the Sun could become large enough to swallow the Earth.
Every time the sun sets for one part of the earth, it’s high noon for another part and rising for yet another, all at the same time.  Have you never heard the expression that the sun never sets on the British Empire?
4
Flat Earth General / A recent epigraph of Username
« Last post by marco mineri on Today at 05:28:26 AM »
Quote
"They won't listen. Do you know why? Because they have certain fixed notions ... Any change would be blasphemy in their eyes, even if it were the truth. They don't want the truth; they want their traditions."

This was a perfect depiction (intentional or not?) of flat-earthers. Who appeal to ancient civilizations that regarded the Earth as flat. Who quote the Book of Enoch as a reliable source.

While, on the other side:

Who breaks with the traditional idea of an Earth at the center of the universe? Copernicus.

Who breaks with the traditional idea of planets' orbits being necessarily circular? Kepler.

Who breaks with the traditional (Aristotelian) idea of bodies of different weight falling at different rates? Galileo.

Who introduces the totally non-traditional idea of action at a distance? Newton.

Who introduces the totally non-traditional idea of light being an undulation? Huygens.

Who breaks with the traditional theory of phlogiston? Lavoisier.

Who breaks with the traditional idea of animal species being fixed and immutable? Darwin.

Who breaks with the traditional idea of spontaneous generation of life? Pasteur.

Who breaks with the traditional idea of an absolute time? Einstein.

Who breaks with the traditional idea of geometry of space being necessarily Euclidean? Einstein, again (but already a century before the great mathematician Gauss had posed the question and had set out to measure the angles defined by three mountaintops, to see whether their sum was indeed 180°).

Who breaks with the traditional idea of a universe being static and basically unchanging with time? Hubble and Lemaître.

Not to mention quantum mechanics, where the traditional, natural and apparently self-evident idea that a particle, at any given time, has a definite position in space must be totally abandoned.

So now, WHO is desperately clinging to their traditions?


Indeed, that's why science is hated by so many. It disrupts traditional, comfortable ideas and beliefs. Like that nature is still an “out there”, stronger than us, against which we can manly fight without the fear of “toppling the boat” - that is, polluting the environment, destroying ecosystems, exhausting natural resources, altering the very climate of the planet. No more dreaming of ever bigger cars? No, it MUST be a conspiracy, like the Covid hoax, like the vaccine scam, like the 15-minutes cities, to keep us caged and controlled!

As so many times in history. Famines were caused by hoarders, plagues by “untori” (plague spreaders) or Jews, other natural calamities by some inconsiderate member of the community who had somehow offended the gods. It's always been highly comfortable to think that it's enough to get rid of the offender or to topple the conspiracy to get everything all right again.
5
Also Cavendish was shite. And you know it I hope.

Cause you don’t like the results.  Explain how modern refinements to the Cavendish experiment are bogus.  And if you don’t think gravity is real, explain how an accelerometer in a cell phone uses gravity to reference down.  The heliocentric model leads to advancements, FE is useless to me. 
6
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth swallowed by the Sun.
« Last post by JackBlack on Today at 02:22:13 AM »
Meaning of “blah blah blah” in flat-earthers' language: “A discourse I don't understand – or I don't WANT to understand – and/or I'm not able to find a coherent reply to.
Just to play devils advocate, in this case I screwed up the end quote and they just cut out my response and copy pasted bits below. So I understand.

Can Anne explain why this doesn't happen?
Depends on what you mean by "explain".
They appeal to a magical aether that magically makes the FE produce the results expected directly for a round Earth.
7
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth swallowed by the Sun.
« Last post by marco mineri on Today at 01:51:16 AM »
Blah blah blah


Meaning of “blah blah blah” in flat-earthers' language: “A discourse I don't understand – or I don't WANT to understand – and/or I'm not able to find a coherent reply to.

That said, a Sun 1 km in diameter should be at about 100 km (check this with some mountain 100 km away and 1 km high. It will appear with about the same apparent size as the Sun). But then, if it's at zenith in a certain location, it should appear with an altitude of about 45° in any other place 100 km away (and it could be triangulated with a baseline of just a few km). Can Anne explain why this doesn't happen?

(why am I wasting my time writing this? People such as Anne don't worry a bit about being logical and consistent. They go on freewheeling, inventing the most fantastical things and calling them “a theory”)
8
It seems like there's a semantics match going on. So is gravity mass returning to mass or something else entirely?
At a simple level, it is mass attracting mass. No need for it to be returning.
9
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth swallowed by the Sun.
« Last post by JackBlack on Today at 01:21:04 AM »
Every time the Sun sets, the Sun goes underwater, and the water causes it to grow in size. In the future, the Sun could become large enough to swallow the Earth.
Then why doesn't anyone see it growing in size?

Every time you run out of arguments to try to debunk me
And when has that ever happened?

Nuclear fusion requires extreme pressure and high temperatures to occur.
Yes, and in the sun that is caused by the gravitational pull of all that mass.
Taking that away you need to resort to even more magic.

The Sun can make nuclear fusion even though it is less than 1 km in diameter because of the colossal density and pressure of the aether.
And does that also apply when it sets into Earth and goes underwater?
If so, why isn't all that water undergoing fusion?

Visual phenomena and radical variations in speed in the Sun's orbit allow us to know the density of aether in the region of the universe where the Sun is.
Sure, its 0, as aether doesn't exist.

What you are saying is not things you know, it is wild speculation you cannot justify at all.

Approximate density of aether in the troposphere:
2,45 kg/m^3 (1,225 kg/m^3 × 2)
Based on what?
Show the math of how this number is derived.

● The natural speed of celestial bodies is ≈ 20000 km/s.
Again, based on what?

● The resistance generated by the density of the aether reduces the speed of celestial bodies to ≈ 1670 km/h (0,464 km/s).
Again, based on what?

D = 20000^2/0,464^2
Why?
10
The Lounge / Re: Test<
« Last post by Username on May 17, 2025, 11:26:22 PM »
Good to know
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10