^^^ Claiming ships not visible to the naked eye can't be seen with a zoom lens is a ridiculous argument. 
I made realization that Relativity never had leg to stand on. Let me explain, Newton whose various laws absolutely refute his own theory of gravity was big on thought experiments and one of them was the bucket argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument TL;DR -- "... rotational motion cannot be defined as the relative rotation of the body with respect to the immediately surrounding bodies. ..."Relativity was an emergency measure implemented by the establishment to counter the direct measurements made by the M&M experiment that proved the Earth is motionless. Relativity was never a valid argument and I can't understand how it was even allowed to be proposed in light of the bucket argument. Relativity was quickly falsified by replications of the Sagnac experiment, the results of which are completely ignored publicly by the establishment to this day, that is of course all while they use the latest in aether technology in your smartphone sensors. |
|
|
|
Irrefutable flat earth proofs:
- Measurable curvature: It is measurable, you just disagree with the results, or believe that they are falsified by a massive conspiracy perpetuated by millions of people.
- "Water finds its own level": What the heck does that mean? If it means that the surface of water is level, then that doesn't prove a flat earth unless you disagree on how gravity works.
- The horizon rises to eye level: What that heck does that mean? If you are talking about perspective, then that does not prove a flat earth.
- "Just zoom in": Zooming in been done to show that the earth is not flat, but you reject cases where it clearly shows curvature and dispute the rest as not sufficiently compelling. How does your picture of a mirage help? It obscures the horizon/water line.
- Measurable parallax: consider yourself refuted (unless of course you believe that astronomers are in on the conspiracy): https://lco.global/spacebook/parallax-and-distance-measurement/
- Polaris is fixed: For the record, Polaris is not "fixed". It moves just like the rest of the stars. Either way, that doesn't prove a flat earth.
- No multidirectional movement of star trails: That doesn't prove anything. Why would you expect that?
- Same constellations: What does that prove?
Reality check, lets go over some of your points!
* It's actually the globe fags who disagree with observation and measurement. 
* The horizon rises to eye level because it's the product of perspective and convergence on a plane. Just look at the globohomos screaming how they can't understand perspective! 
* If you watch a boat go "over the horizon" with the naked eye you can still observe it with a zoom lens, proving it disappeared due to convergence. There's no mountain of curved water the boat went up over and behind like the globe faggots claim. 
* Stellar parallax a non-sequitur due to atmosphere refraction not being accounted for; the margin of error due to star twinkle is greater than any claimed measurements the faggots make. 
* Polaris doesn't move, ancient sundials prove this. 
* Airy's Failure experiment proves the stars are in motion. BTW Eisenstein was put to bed by variations on the Sagnac experiment so faggots can fuck off with their non-sequitur relativistic explanations for the experiment. 
You need to clarify your final point as it doesn't refute anything but your intelligence; not an argument. We're not moving and we're not stuck to the surface of a ball. |
|
|
|
It's possible to reproduce The M&M Experiment with a modern fiberoptic or ring-LASER gyroscope. Can I get a second confirmation? edit: I think the MEMs chip in a smartphone could also perform a mechanical variation of the experiment. I think the chip might be sensitive enough to pick up the motion of the stars with their 23h 56m rotational cycle. The Michelson interferometer was able document this displacement using 19th century technology. In the 21st century fiberoptic, ring-LASER and MEMs gyroscopes allow for the displacement to be directly measured by anybody. |
|
|
|
|
^^^ Proof, there's no fucking proof we're on the surface of a spinning globe. It hasn't been proven a million times, not even once you absolute cuckold.
|
|
|
|
|
^^^ You're a retard if you think celestial objects or any crap NASA flys over your head is proof of anything but your stupidity. Saturn looks like an eye and the moon is round so fucking what, that doesn't prove we're on a globe faggot.
|
|
|
|
How as an individual can I know if the Earth is a sphere or a flat disc? What experiment can I do that doesn't involve trusting information from a 3rd party that would prove what the geometry really is?
You can prove yourself that the earth is a sphere with some facts: -You can't see the star Polaris from the Southern hemisphere because is at a declination of a bit over 89 degrees, if the earth was flat we should be able to see it anywhere. Convergence, perspective and refraction limits your field of view, you can't see the entire sky from any one point on the Earth's surface. Also atmosphereic refraction causes celestial objects to have an apprent position. You're debunking a strawman model.-You can see the International Space Station and even predict where and when will passover of your city doing by yourself the calculations using the spherical earth model or use a website like ( https://www.heavens-above.com/PassSummary) I know this is 3rd party information but you will be able to see the ISS with your own eyes (I have done it many times). The object you're viewing in the sky could be anything from a high altitude aircraft to some kind of balloon riding the jetstream. I've seen telescopic video of an object with a blinking light that looks like a high altitude aircraft, the object was exactly where the iPhone ISS tracking app said the ISS would be.-Buy a decent telescope, watch others planets and you will see how they are round, that is not a direct evidence but if you think like Flath Earth Society ( https://twitter.com/FlatEarthOrg/status/935644892721762305), you can also with the telescope watch the ISS and see that is not a airplane, a ball, a missile, Chuck Norris or whatever as some people says. Video and photographs of stars and plants taken by Nikon Coolpix P900/1000 owners all show twinkling lights that are not round at all. Again images of an object in the sky are not definitive proof NASA isn't just flying a kite up there to trick you.-Which ever hemisphere you live, watch the sky in the night and watch the direction of the rotation of the stars and call a friend of the opposite hemisphere and ask for the the direction there, you will see that they are opposite. I know is not just like that but that is the essence of the experiment The stars say nothing of surface below them, you're making assumptions about the lights in sky then trying to validate your globe model with those assumptions. If the stars are projections off of a curved mirror (firmament) then you'll get distortions like a change in rotation direction and 24 hour light in Antarctica (summertime) from the light wrapping around. If anybody want to believe that the earth is flat its ok to have different opinions, personally I think that is a sphere or whatever is the name that scientist use No you don't have a different opinion, you've just been brainwashed and are regurgitating the shit you've been fed by TPTB like an absolute cuck. |
|
|
|
^^^ You definition of flat is purely mathematical, in reality this ideal is not in line with observation. For example: "The coastline paradox is the counterintuitive observation that the coastline of a landmass does not have a well-defined length. This results from the fractal-like properties of coastlines, i.e., the fact that a coastline typically has a fractal dimension (which in fact makes the notion of length inapplicable). The first recorded observation of this phenomenon was by Lewis Fry Richardson[1] and it was expanded upon by Benoit Mandelbrot.[2]"
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox You just need to zoom in on any surface and it's not flat by your definition. Your definition of plain isn't ideal why should flat be any different, they are synonyms after all? Finally labeling the crap "modern science" churns out as fraudulent isn't creating a religion, it's me looking at "modern art" and calling it out as literally garbage. The globe isn't based on any empirical science, it's a product of the cult of Ba'al; named after the bowel because it's full of shit! |
|
|
|
^^^ Sorry bruh, snake eyes! That's actually barrel distortion from a GoPro wide angle lens. The Globe, it's the one religion with no moral code. Even the Jew has has a moral code, that's of course when he not using the Torah as to wipe his ass.   quote source: https://youtu.be/mq7u04zmrTg |
|
|
|
|
What part of there's a giant bearded dude in the sky that created earth and man don't you understand?
|
|
|
|
The story you're being told about the lights in the sky is the lie.  If I have to explain that high altitude cold air is denser than warm air close to the ground, then you're a special snowflake who has no business dictating that Titans are not a physical reality. Understand that what you believe is real and what you can't comprehend because you're mistaken about some physical limitation weighs heavy. You're not necessarily stupid for being mistaken, the magician is clever, and skillful at things like photo-realistic paintings. |
|
|
|
I think if I dunk him in a big enough lake of a known size I could get a displacement reading, is fluid Oz close enough? The scale differences are really quite extreme.
And on that retarded comment, I am out. I only needed to prove you were lying once - not continuously. Made me realize that no one cares what you think. I am content to let you mutter to yourself in the dark for as long as you want. Can't you see your problem? There's a spinning globe orbiting a bomb in the vast limitless space between your ears! Once you disembark from the ball and understand that there's a barrier not a vacuum above you and the lights in the sky are just lights, and the ground beneath you doesn't move you might realize that you're not where you believe you are! The Titans are not just myth, the rules that govern our physical reality are in part dictated by the engineered structure that was created for us. We don't see God because this environment is engineered for us at our scale.   |
|
|
|
^^^ Solar powered calculator says the answer to 7 + 9 * 5 is 80. This useless convention that does nothing but add unneeded complexity to calculations must have been implemented not so long ago...
Why oh why would a useless and unneeded convention that prioritizes multiplication (the star) over addition (the cross) be implemented? Who could be behind this seemingly recent change?
Recent? Maybe for you. The rule specifying the order of multiplication and addition is hundreds of years old.Here is some information: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52582.htmlHistory of Order of Operations
Date: 11/22/2000 at 10:56:37
From: Brian Huffine
Subject: History of Order of Operations
I was teaching a computer class and the history of order of operations
came up. Where, when and with whom did the order of operations first
originate? ...
Date: 11/22/2000 at 12:12:26
From: Doctor Peterson
Subject: Re: History of Order of Operations
Hi, Brian.
...
I spent some time researching this question, because it is asked
frequently, but I have not found a definitive answer yet. ...
 edit: Oh, there more in the links Doctor Peterson provides: More on Order of Operations
Date: 02/13/2000 at 13:59:53
From: Jerome Breitenbach
Subject: Order of Arithmetic Operations
Hi,
I'm a professor in the field of electrical engineering. Occasionally I
remind my students of the precedence order regarding the four
arithmetic operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and
division. Apparently though, based upon viewing numerous Web sites and
the messages of various on-line discussion groups, there seems to be
some controversy regarding these simple rules! ...
... my search for an "authority" on this matter has been nearly
fruitless. ...
|
|
|
|
^^^ Solar powered calculator says the answer to 7 + 9 * 5 is 80. This useless convention that does nothing but add unneeded complexity to calculations must have been implemented not so long ago... Why oh why would a useless and unneeded convention that prioritizes multiplication (the star) over addition (the cross) be implemented? Who could be behind this seemingly recent change?  How about you get pet your cat in wrong direction for a little while, see what kind of reaction you get. |
|
|
|
"you can't see it or weight it but trust us goy, it's really there".
But you can see or weigh your god? lol I think if I dunk him in a big enough lake of a known size I could get a displacement reading, is fluid Oz close enough? The scale differences are really quite extreme.  |
|
|
|
7 + 9 * 5 = 80 God hates fags.
|
|
|
|
I'm going to fucking deny there's giant invisible pink elephants in the sky, I'm going to deny their trunks are holding onto invisible black holes keeping them from flying apart!
But you won't deny that there's an invisible man in the sky, so what's the difference really? Sheesh man this is getting kind of embarrassing for you. The difference is God isn't invisible just really tall, that and there's a barrier blocking the view. Dark matter on the other hand is made up bullshit to explain why observations don't match the predictions made by the current astronomical model. Oh right, God is tall and hidden by a barrier, physics is made up bullshit, right, got it now. Between that and the lava lamp picture I'm sold.  I suppose bacteria didn't exist either before we could see it on a microscope. Fucking idiot. Is physics and the scientific method bullshit? No, "modern science" isn't based on the scientific method, it's based on authority and engineered consensus; there's no basis for it in any physical reality. Their model of heavy exploding balls in a vacuum doesn't match observation and they're telling you, "oh, it's all held together by invisible matter goy", "you can't see it or weight it but trust us goy, it's really there". No mate, you're the fucking retarded cuckold here!  |
|
|
|
If you stick a stick in the (sticky) ground, it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow: Imagine the Sun's rays (represented by yellow lines) hitting two sticks (white lines) some distance apart. If the Earth were flat, the resulting shadows would be the same length, no matter how far apart you place the sticks. But they don’t. This is because the Earth is round, and not flat Lyrics | Seo Company in India ^^^ Just don't forget to mention refraction! That illustration is great at getting the point across but, it omits refraction and is in fact a variation on the original Eratosthenes experiment using more sticks. If you don't understand that, a shill can use real world observations to claim he's measuring a curve. The shill will be able to embarrass you while at the same time convince any observers that the globe has been proven. Be warned the illustration comes from the controlled opposition group The Flat Earth Society.
In reality refraction produces a lensing effect that causes image distortion. The distortion is at a maximum closest to the horizon and at a minimum directly above you creating a concave lens. After passing through this atmospheric lens the image of the Sun will project shadows that can be interpreted as proving a globe if, the lens is omitted (an act of deception) during calculation.
As you stated, refraction is necessary in order to explain the values of the observed angles. If you omit refraction, then the predicted angles wouldn't match reality. I assume that the refraction is understood to be caused by the increasing density of the atmosphere as you get closer to the surface. It should be possible to compute the amount of refraction based on the densities of the atmosphere at different heights and see if that matches the observed refraction based on a flat earth model. Another possible experiment would be to measure the angle of the sun at a very high altitude and compare it to the angle at a low altitude. If the angles don't match, it would be evidence for both refraction and a nearby sun. If the angles do match, it would be evidence against those ideas. Has any of that been done and documented? If so, I would be interested in seeing it. ^^^ There's a relationship between temperature and pressure, this means that cold air at high altitudes is more dense than warm air close to the surface. edit:
Perfect Gas Law:
"This law is a generalization containing both Boyle's law and Charles's law as special cases and states that for a specified quantity of gas, the product of the volume v and pressure p is proportional to the absolute temperature t; i.e., in equation form, pv = kt, in which k is a constant." -- https://www.britannica.com/science/perfect-gashttps://i.imgur.com/yBl5PQn.jpgthat relationship relies on gravity.  No, no it doesn't. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
