Flat Earth

[Przemax]

First of all you have not proven anything.! and never will.
Secondly the flat earth model is very easy to understand (even by a child) but YOU fail to understand. (just you).
Just so you know where i am coming from one more time.

Gleasons is correct! even the hole in the middle!

Finally you are on ignore from now on.! as you are too retarded and no one can get through to you.!!

First of all I know I can not prove you anything. Noone can prove you anything even God if you are not open to the alternative and above all truth. In current state of knowledge and established truth everything we see as a truth is logical. Is flat earth an exception? I dont think so. If it is than you better have a kickass explanation why its so.

Secondly I know the flat earthers are infantile like children. Ive saw that. Im not blind. People grow up and change their opinions (you dont). You stick to your opinion against the odds like a bad tempered child. And you cant admitt you were wrong - thats a trait of an infantile adult. Grow up.

Finaly Im too retarded because I explain to you what is logic. Yes you are a child. Thats what we can agree upon.

Yes Im retarded because i believe in humanity. People never cease to amaze me with their stupidity and yet I believe they are not damned to hell.

Yes Im retarded to think someone there is a common sense. My bad.

And Im proud that Im emotionaly retarded. I keep my hope in people even though my age should make me stone cold upon people.

Gleason was infallible - Gleason is a God. You are a funny little kid. He was correct on what? On the distance between australia and africa? Hahhaha. No he was not. Obviously if you travel. He was correct on having south poles instead of south pole? No evidence for that - to the contrary. And so on and on.

I must revise my opinion about humanity or at least divide them to the Americans and the rest of humanity.

[1715140888]

1715140888

[1715140888]

1715140888

[Anegg]

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?

The earth rotates on it's axis so it definitely can't be flat. It is just that simple.

[notbatman]

...
The earth rotates on it's axis so it definitely can't be flat. It is just that simple.

The Michelson & Morley and Sagnac experiments provide irrefutable empirical proof the Earth is motionless.

[BADecker]

...
The earth rotates on it's axis so it definitely can't be flat. It is just that simple.

The Michelson & Morley and Sagnac experiments provide irrefutable empirical proof the Earth is motionless.

No they don't. They simply prove that they didn't take enough science into account. Of course, some of this science wasn't known then. But the answer is just the same. Globe earth.

[notbatman]

...
The earth rotates on it's axis so it definitely can't be flat. It is just that simple.

The Michelson & Morley and Sagnac experiments provide irrefutable empirical proof the Earth is motionless.

No they don't. They simply prove that they didn't take enough science into account. Of course, some of this science wasn't known then. But the answer is just the same. Globe earth.

Oh fuck off, they provide irrefutable proof the Earth is motionless. Gyroscopes and Airy's failure experiment also prove hard proof that Earth is motionless.

[notbatman]

I provide hard proof the Earth is motionless, put up or shut up. Here's a video that goes over some of the facts.

-- https://youtu.be/iI4Esr8FlBE

[BADecker]

I provide hard proof the Earth is motionless, put up or shut up.

No. The only absolute zero is in your heart.     

[notbatman]

I provide hard proof the Earth is motionless, put up or shut up.

No. The only absolute zero is in your heart.     

shut up.

[TooQik]

...
The earth rotates on it's axis so it definitely can't be flat. It is just that simple.

The Michelson & Morley and Sagnac experiments provide irrefutable empirical proof the Earth is motionless.

No they don't. They simply prove that they didn't take enough science into account. Of course, some of this science wasn't known then. But the answer is just the same. Globe earth.

Oh fuck off, they provide irrefutable proof the Earth is motionless. Gyroscopes and Airy's failure experiment also prove hard proof that Earth is motionless.

Actually they simply fail to prove the existence of aether and/or aether wind. You're simply drawing a conclusion that the failure to prove either implies the Earth is motionless, which is short sighted. Another conclusion is that either the aether doesn't exist or it behaves differently to the theories put forward and tested for in the experiments.

[notbatman]

...
The earth rotates on it's axis so it definitely can't be flat. It is just that simple.

The Michelson & Morley and Sagnac experiments provide irrefutable empirical proof the Earth is motionless.

No they don't. They simply prove that they didn't take enough science into account. Of course, some of this science wasn't known then. But the answer is just the same. Globe earth.

Oh fuck off, they provide irrefutable proof the Earth is motionless. Gyroscopes and Airy's failure experiment also prove hard proof that Earth is motionless.

Actually they simply fail to prove the existence of aether and/or aether wind. You're simply drawing a conclusion that the failure to prove either implies the Earth is motionless, which is short sighted. Another conclusion is that either the aether doesn't exist or it behaves differently to the theories put forward and tested for in the experiments.

The Sagnac experiment is empirical proof of the aether.

[TooQik]

...
The earth rotates on it's axis so it definitely can't be flat. It is just that simple.

The Michelson & Morley and Sagnac experiments provide irrefutable empirical proof the Earth is motionless.

No they don't. They simply prove that they didn't take enough science into account. Of course, some of this science wasn't known then. But the answer is just the same. Globe earth.

Oh fuck off, they provide irrefutable proof the Earth is motionless. Gyroscopes and Airy's failure experiment also prove hard proof that Earth is motionless.

Actually they simply fail to prove the existence of aether and/or aether wind. You're simply drawing a conclusion that the failure to prove either implies the Earth is motionless, which is short sighted. Another conclusion is that either the aether doesn't exist or it behaves differently to the theories put forward and tested for in the experiments.

The Sagnac experiment is empirical proof of the aether.

The Sagnac experiment is inconclusive as the observed result is predictable using both aether and relativity theories ie. both theories predict a shift in interference pattern as witnessed by the experiment.

[notbatman]

...
The earth rotates on it's axis so it definitely can't be flat. It is just that simple.

The Michelson & Morley and Sagnac experiments provide irrefutable empirical proof the Earth is motionless.

No they don't. They simply prove that they didn't take enough science into account. Of course, some of this science wasn't known then. But the answer is just the same. Globe earth.

Oh fuck off, they provide irrefutable proof the Earth is motionless. Gyroscopes and Airy's failure experiment also prove hard proof that Earth is motionless.

Actually they simply fail to prove the existence of aether and/or aether wind. You're simply drawing a conclusion that the failure to prove either implies the Earth is motionless, which is short sighted. Another conclusion is that either the aether doesn't exist or it behaves differently to the theories put forward and tested for in the experiments.

The Sagnac experiment is empirical proof of the aether.

The Sagnac experiment is inconclusive as the observed result is predictable using both aether and relativity theories ie. both theories predict a shift in interference pattern as witnessed by the experiment.

The Sagnac experiment is direct measurement of a luminiferous medium i.e. it is conclusive.

[Joshuar]

Except I have a cousin who flies planes that go into the higher stratosphere, and the earth is clearly not flat. Go take a telescope at look at other planets in the sky, and you can clearly see they are not flat(Just like I have many times).

If you believe the earth is flat, there is something very wrong with you mentally, and your sense of perception is very off. Please go see a therapist.

[notbatman]

^^^ Because your cousin said so?

[TooQik]

...
The earth rotates on it's axis so it definitely can't be flat. It is just that simple.

The Michelson & Morley and Sagnac experiments provide irrefutable empirical proof the Earth is motionless.

No they don't. They simply prove that they didn't take enough science into account. Of course, some of this science wasn't known then. But the answer is just the same. Globe earth.

Oh fuck off, they provide irrefutable proof the Earth is motionless. Gyroscopes and Airy's failure experiment also prove hard proof that Earth is motionless.

Actually they simply fail to prove the existence of aether and/or aether wind. You're simply drawing a conclusion that the failure to prove either implies the Earth is motionless, which is short sighted. Another conclusion is that either the aether doesn't exist or it behaves differently to the theories put forward and tested for in the experiments.

The Sagnac experiment is empirical proof of the aether.

The Sagnac experiment is inconclusive as the observed result is predictable using both aether and relativity theories ie. both theories predict a shift in interference pattern as witnessed by the experiment.

The Sagnac experiment is direct measurement of a luminiferous medium i.e. it is conclusive.

The Sagnac experiment is a measure of the speed variation in light through a medium via observation of the interference pattern the rejoined split beam of light makes. The medium is irrelevant, hence it doesn't prove the presence of aether.

I should add, the irony in all this is you are using the Sagnac experiment to prove that the Earth is motionless, yet the Sagnac effect was used to prove the rotation of the Earth and is used in GPS today.

[Przemax]

The fact that there is a polar day at all antarctica at the same time proves there can be no flat earth possible. Period.

So if earth is motionless then - Houston we have a problem. The only possible outcome - Cellular Earth or stay illogical. I really dont know why flat earthers have such a emotional stress against CE? Its the upgreaded flat earth model. We agree on the most important principles like a motionless earth.

And yes earth appearing ball in higher stratosphere cant be a conspiracy. Just be real. Too many people is involved in it. There is only one logical conclusion not involving idolatry and bigotry - both options are illusions most likely because they condradict themselfs. Its a sceleton in the closet that Nasa want to hide inventing fallable and provably wrong concepts like flat earth.

Even from a religious standpoint of view you are guilty of idolatry. You reify the manmade ideas and call it that God have decided that. Thats a very great sin.

[Joshuar]

^^^ Because your cousin said so?

Do you have a telescope? Go take a look at other planets in the sky and tell me they're flat, look at them from different angles. Are you mentally challenged? It seems so...

[Przemax]

I should add, the irony in all this is you are using the Sagnac experiment to prove that the Earth is motionless, yet the Sagnac effect was used to prove the rotation of the Earth and is used in GPS today.

Yes. But how do you know how GPS works? Because someone have told you so? And if you would dug really deep into the rabbit hole you would see that the GPS model is based on an earth being a concave. But dont believe me. Im just a human I could be wrong, check it yourself. The idea of creating a GPS was because the accuracy of ships at docking to a port was very very very low - because of maps assuming the earth is convex. That had made ships go into a shallows or rocks.

[Joshuar]

I could understand someone argueing against global warming(only slightly) or against the existence of god(entirely cause you cant prove/disprove god), but argueing that the earth is flat, you're special and not in a good way.

Take a damn telescope, point it at the sky and look at other planets, go to different angles, areas, and you'll see that other planets are clearly NOT flat, they are rounded. The same goes for the Earth.

If you really really are special in a bad way(like downright retarded), then go buy a seat in elon musk's space shuttle ride so you can clearly see with your own eyes that the Earth is rounded in a spaceshuttle in space, or become an astronaut.

Otherwise shut the hell up.

[Przemax]

I could understand someone argueing against global warming(only slightly)

Well. Global warming and manmade global warming that is being caused by co2 are two different things. The scientists had wrongly assume that the co2 is a cause but its later in a timeframe than the rising temperature. Cause must be preceding the results, its the other way around there. Thats why intelligent people have doubts if manmade co2 theory is not a hoax.

but argueing that the earth is flat, you're special and not in a good way.

Arguing and questioning everything is good. Flat earthers have all the reason in the world to think the earth is flat. Thats a valid option. What is bad here is that they dont apply the same standards to themselfs as of others. If they prove someone is wrong it means someone is entirely wrong. If someone prove they are wrong they ignore it.

Take a damn telescope, point it at the sky and look at other planets, go to different angles, areas, and you'll see that other planets are clearly NOT flat, they are rounded. The same goes for the Earth.

Just because planets are round does not mean the Earth is a planet. Does it? No it does not.

If you really really are special in a bad way(like downright retarded), then go buy a seat in elon musk's space shuttle ride so you can clearly see with your own eyes that the Earth is rounded in a spaceshuttle in space, or become an astronaut.

You mean the earth appearing to be round. Yes the earth appears to be round at higher strats. But they have their reason to doubt stuff. Nasa and other agencies are not entirely honest with us - their paranoia is a little overkill tho.

I would like to mention that in lower strats the earth appear to be flat. The word appearance is important here, but I understand that it requires some ammount of inteligence to see the difference between appearing and being. Oh well if you are stupid. Though luck. Bad genes.