Flat Earth

[Vod]

^^^ How do you plan on proving that dark matter isn't comprised entirely of giant invisible pink elephants? You're a filthy animal rolling around in his own crapulence!

Science can't explain observations being made because they're actually pseudoscience muggles. They invent matter that can't be seen, and energy that can't be measured all while claiming they've made a new discovery. Of course the person who originally reported the inconsistency gets told to fuck off.

Not all of the "scientists" out there are retarded pseudoscience lolcows, some of them are very clever and well organized criminals who understand how things work. There's a correct version for the chosen people and some broken or fucked version for the goyim animals, that's how shit works.

Just keep writing your open letters and believing someone/anyone cares about your fantasy...  lol

[BADecker]

^^^ How do you plan on proving that dark matter isn't comprised entirely of giant invisible pink elephants? You're a filthy animal rolling around in his own crapulence!

Science can't explain observations being made because they're actually pseudoscience muggles. They invent matter that can't be seen, and energy that can't be measured all while claiming they've made a new discovery. Of course the person who originally reported the inconsistency gets told to fuck off.

Not all of the "scientists" out there are retarded pseudoscience lolcows, some of them are very clever and well organized criminals who understand how things work. There's a correct version for the chosen people and some broken or fucked version for the goyim animals, that's how shit works.

Just keep writing your open letters and believing someone/anyone cares about your fantasy...  lol

But you still think the earth is round, don't you... LOL!

[notbatman]

^^^ How do you plan on proving that dark matter isn't comprised entirely of giant invisible pink elephants? You're a filthy animal rolling around in his own crapulence!

Science can't explain observations being made because they're actually pseudoscience muggles. They invent matter that can't be seen, and energy that can't be measured all while claiming they've made a new discovery. Of course the person who originally reported the inconsistency gets told to fuck off.

Not all of the "scientists" out there are retarded pseudoscience lolcows, some of them are very clever and well organized criminals who understand how things work. There's a correct version for the chosen people and some broken or fucked version for the goyim animals, that's how shit works.

What the heck did I just read???

Have you ever heard of a large hadron collider

It does all that neat-o stuff you claim isn't possible. Have you been living under a rock for the past decade?

Actually I've been tinkering with electro-mechanical machines, magnets and circuits for a long time now. The LHC is a big multi-purpose electromagnet. They do some experiment, apply some buzzword to centuries old fluid mechanic equations describing the aether and everybody is baffled by all the bullshit. They've got a facade of mathematical equations plastered to the output of two atoms smashed together; these guys are doing other shit with all that hardware.

[odolvlobo]

2. The attempt to explain the results with relativity were falsified by the Sagnac experiment, more specifically the Dufour & Prunier replication in which a rotating frame of reference was accounted for. So yes, a motionless Earth with a static aether have been proven experimentally.

You have an interesting conundrum here. I watched the movie, Behind The Curve, which documented an experiment by some flat-earthers. They did an experiment with a laser gyroscope, which is based on the Sagnac Effect that you say proves that the Earth is motionless. However, in their experiment, the gyroscope showed that the Earth rotates once every 24 hours!

[presduterte]

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.

[notbatman]

2. The attempt to explain the results with relativity were falsified by the Sagnac experiment, more specifically the Dufour & Prunier replication in which a rotating frame of reference was accounted for. So yes, a motionless Earth with a static aether have been proven experimentally.

You have an interesting conundrum here. I watched the movie, Behind The Curve, which documented an experiment by some flat-earthers. They did an experiment with a laser gyroscope, which is based on the Sagnac Effect that you say proves that the Earth is motionless. However, in their experiment, the gyroscope showed that the Earth rotates once every 24 hours!

Fuck, I just made multiple posts addressing this issue; it's the same aether drift as measured in the M&M experiment. This is what the fiberoptic gyro is picking up and just as documented in the M&M experiment it can't account for the missing displacement predicted by the Copernican model.

"The Experiments on the relative motion of the Earth and aether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity." -- Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887

The clowns behind the curve the movie are a bunch of Jews charging $9.99 on iTunes for the privilege of watching them slander the truth.

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.

[notbatman]

^^^ Thanks for the copy & paste, fucking retard.

A close small Sun with divergent rays over a flat surface yields the same results. You can add a 3rd stick but after refraction is factored in the results are consistent with a flat earth and falsify the globe.

[BADecker]

^^^ This is why you use a telescope. So you can see where the distortion limits are, and make an accurate observation.

[exemplaar]

^^^ Thanks for the copy & paste, fucking retard.

A close small Sun with divergent rays over a flat surface yields the same results. You can add a 3rd stick but after refraction is factored in the results are consistent with a flat earth and falsify the globe.

Sometimes you must present reality in pictures to these globofans:



Flat earth realm, not object:



+bonus:

[notbatman]

^^^ 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.

[odolvlobo]

^^^ 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.

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.

[notbatman]

^^^ 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-gas

[sirazimuth]

So the other day I was out on a walk and noticed this fat Pavorotti type dude
sporting a funny feathered hat and holding up a turkey drumstick.
I was like...”hey, it’s not flat man!”

Padda boom...pshhhhh....

^^^ But the best liars are the ones who tell an sufficient amount of truth at the same times they tell their lies.

For example. Truth + lie: "... everything you're told about who you are, where you come from, where you live and where you're going is a lie." Lie + truth: "Rockets go into the Bermuda Triangle and visible objects converge to a point on the horizon. I'm sorry but... ."

So, I guess this makes you notflatman rather than notbatman.

^^^ Why do you even continue. It has been shown over and over, tight in this thread, that the earth definitely is not flat... and that you are not notbatman, but are really notflatman.

Hmmmmm...

[notbatman]

[Lava Lamp]



[Special Snowflake]

[Vod]

^^^ 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.

that relationship relies on gravity. 

[notbatman]

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

^^^ Thanks for the copy & paste, fucking retard.

A close small Sun with divergent rays over a flat surface yields the same results. You can add a 3rd stick but after refraction is factored in the results are consistent with a flat earth and falsify the globe.

Sometimes you must present reality in pictures to these globofans:



Flat earth realm, not object:

https://i0.wp.com/flatearthscienceandbible.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/image16.jpeg?resize=672%2C372&ssl=1

+bonus:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-N6xYNVYAAwfCZ.jpg

^^^ 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-gas



https://i.imgur.com/yBl5PQn.jpg

that relationship relies on gravity. 

No, no it doesn't.

[presduterte]

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.

[notbatman]

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!

[Vod]

"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

[Bitcoin_Arena]

I have been waiting to see this sort of Lunar Eclipse, When should it be coming around? 2050?



Checkmate!