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

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

^^^ He doesn't have an answer, he's delusional and insane. What kind of rational person claims the theory they champion doesn't need to be proven? He literally believes in a magic force that's so sacred and divine, to question it is blasphemy.

I can answer why things fall using existing and proven physics such as density, buoyancy and the coulomb force. I claim that the lights observed in the sky such as the Sun, Moon, stars and planets are just that, lights in the sky. He claims that the lights are heavy balls, some that are terrestrial worlds you can visit and others that are giant bombs that never stop exploding millions of times larger than the Earth. His answer for this madness is more heavy balls in a shed, heavy balls proves heavy balls and he doesn't need to explain why because its magic and divine.

Objects fall because they're more dense than the air they've displaced and get pushed down. Gravity is only needed if you're lying or confused about the shape of the Earth and the nature of the heavens.

The theory of an invisible magical force doesn't need proof? You're all fucking insane, there's no reason here just mad men pushing a giant lie and conspiracy.

How so? The theory of gravity has never been proven, you'll be the first!

---

---

---

---

You've justified the heliocentric model in your mind based on images of puppets hanging from wires the government showed you when you were six. You can't even consider a flat Earth model with a close small Sun for the purposes of evaluating Eratosthenes experiment. This is the point where I tell you to go rope yourself.

He's already denying Einstein, slippery slope my friend.

Nice, you take the position that a force that's a pull (really what?) isn't the the only possible force knowing that you'll be beat mercilessly but you somehow manage to chimp out in the end and claim there's a globe.

@salty what do you know about the coulomb force?







"... The law was first published in 1785 by French physicist Charles-Augustin de Coulomb and was essential to the development of the theory of electromagnetism. Being an inverse-square law, it is analogous to Isaac Newton's inverse-square law of universal gravitation. Coulomb's law can be used to derive Gauss's law, and vice versa. The law has been tested extensively, and all observations have upheld the law's principle. ..."
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb's_law

If you can understand density, buoyancy and the polarizing effects of the coulomb force then you don't need gravity, it's 100% bullshit. Heavy balls in the shed don't prove there are heavy balls in the sky; the nature of electrostatics is such that it renders the Cavendish experiment absolutely inconclusive.

^^^ It's difficult to interpret your statement, but it looks like you've been honestly confused. I see now why the shills bathed you in merit points for espousing the virtues of gravity.

Okay, the deal is when you measure the distance to the Sun with a sextant it's about 3,000 miles and its diameter is about 32 miles. You've got it in you head that the Sun is 93 million miles away and the rays are hitting us in parallel, they are not. The rays are divergent; the Sun is close, small and in motion over a plane.

^^^ You claim refraction by the atmosphere is unmeasurably small, but can you prove that?

Keep in mind that during a selenelion eclipse with the Sun and Moon both visible in the sky above the viewer, to claim a globe refraction by the atmosphere has to be so extreme that it takes the Moon from below the horizon and puts it up above your head. Now you want to claim it's effect is so small it can't be measured?

^^^ Nice an honest answer, I see you're now willing to admit that you don't know instead of the knee-jerk it's a globe reaction we see from the other users. If you've got the ability to think critically I implore you, spend some time going over the evidence we're on a spinning globe.

---

---

This video goes over some of the math:
   Flat Earth | Globe Earth Mathematically Debunked -- https://youtu.be/bol8vZ7pcu8

^^^ The whole argument laid out by Neil deGrasse Tyson. -- https://youtu.be/hLPPE3_DVCw?t=248

^^^ Thanks for your intellectually dishonest reply.



1. There are three (3) or more separate shadow angle measurement points located in different cities.

2. Shadow angle measurement points are plum vertical sticks or plum vertical wells.

3. The one (1) point directly under the Sun at noon is not measured because its angle and refraction are both known to be zero (0).


You're telling me that because the point directly under the Sun is known, we don't need to account for refraction on the points are being measured and documented? Either you're confused or, you're being dishonest with me and everybody else and you should rope yourself.

^^^ I'm interested in discussing atmospheric refraction and Eratosthenes experiment using three or more shadow angles. Instead we've got Magellan's Island and a succession of off-topic posts on an unproven theory that received more merit points than I gave Vitalik Buterin and Satoshi Nakamoto combined!

Eratosthenes experiment using three or more shadow angles is touted as proof of the globe by scientists, professors, NASA, PBS and the church. What happens when the recorded angles have atmospheric refraction taken into account?

---

---

Perhaps I believe in some kind of black magic that moves the shadows cast by the sticks; a magic called refraction that magically moves the Sun and Moon? Maybe if we move to ban plastic straws we can help reduce the danger refraction magic poses to people?




^{Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/plastic-straw-ban-why-are-there-so-many-2018-7}

---

---

While you ponder the magic of refraction and why your drink no longer comes with straw, I've got short documentary video about our hero Elon, the man single-handedly building vacation getaways on Mars.

The Mysterious Lineage of ELON MUSK! -- https://youtu.be/yfcprMi82l0

An entire page of NPCs trash MoBs making pre-programmed noises.

Of all the proofs I've got this seems to be the best as all you have to do is, prove that atmospheric refraction applies to Eratosthenes experiments with additional sticks (or wells). This is the #1 goto proof the globalist have and leaves refraction as the only thing left to do; the difference in angle the globalist claims as proof is consistent with refraction. Once refraction is accounted for then the experiment agrees with a small moving Sun over a flat and motionless plane and, the globalist no longer has an argument as his proof has been co-opted.

Refraction can be established by co-opting the globalist's explanation of a selenelion eclipse.

The distance to the Sun can be measured with a sextant and it's about 3,000 miles. BADecker has no response but bullshit, observations of Earth at 12,000 miles, adds an irrelevant point about perspective, fuck off. He can't deal with the fact refraction proves the Earth is flat when more sticks are added to Eratosthenes experiment. He can't deny refraction or the selenelion proves the Earth is flat.

The Earth is provably flat and motionless. The globalists need to swing from a rope.

---

---

When performing Eratosthenes experiment using three or more sticks (or wells), the stick directly under the Sun has no refraction due to its position, for all other sticks atmospheric refraction must be accounted for. Observation of the shadows is consistent with a plane, falsifies the globe and proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is flat and motionless.

^^^ Gaslighting.

Perhaps, you're just slow... so I've condensed my post so the two arguments that together prove the earth is flat are clearly outlined:






Both arguments need to be answered by the globalist, when he answers using the programed response defined by authority (he's unable to think for himself) his answers conflict in order maintain that Earth is a globe in both cases. He can't claim refraction isn't a factor and answer the second argument. He also can't claim refraction allows for both the Sun and Moon in sky together during an eclipse and answer the first argument. This simple exploit of the programed response given by the globalist proves we are on a plane; the globalist provides everything your proof needs.