Imagine my surprise
(cdn.videy.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
Why can't it be? What makes you so sure of it? Because it's absolutely plausible. Given gravitation, matter tends to move towards itself, thus stars, planets and moons form, and orbiting occurs. If it weren't like that, all matter would be distributed across space like a gas. But that only means that the vacuum of space would be replaced with... an almost vacuum of space. 99.999%+ of space consists of nothing, the rest is matter, which is highly concentrated (like stars).
> I know it can't be understood until you've tried it.
See, there are multiple attempts from flat Earthers, and all have their logical shortcomings that render their theories impossible. For example the fact that there are places in the North where you can see the Sun for 24+ hours straight should debunk all of them. I cannot even imagine the super-fancy made-up map one could come up with to make it plausible, whereas with Earth being a globe it's utterly simple and straight-forward. One flat Earther did it not long ago, and while he remained skeptical to maintain his "pride," he was accused by others of being a fraud or incompetent.
It's one of those cult beliefs that is highly entrenched. Even if you get 1 person out, all others will double down in their fanaticism.
> You're a man when you can take the FE proofs seriously
I did. So far ALL failed to prove their points. And there were some who were much better than you are btw. He made an argument based on a physics formula... which was ultimately silly, but it was a good attempt and I had to look it up myself.
> While you adopt others idea (video, NASA, space fags here and there)
[How about](https://replogleglobes.com/blog/the-shape-of-the-earth-who-discovered-the-fact-that-the-earth-is-spherical/) Aristotle, Eratosthenes (3rd century BC), Ferdinand Magellan, Juan Sebastián Elcano? NASA is very recent... they came 1 or 2 millennia late to the party.
> then you are merely a sheep, following the crowd.
But what if... you are exactly what you accuse others to be? Maybe you think because you go against the grain you are smarter in some area, yet you navigate yourself with ignorance and dismissal of established facts, math and physics. Your opposition to soyintific community is reasonable and justified btw - there is more corruption going on than most people can even imagine. But we are not talking about idiots, we are talking about people with a very high IQ and extensive understanding of what they are doing. If you don't operate with the same level of intelligence and/or competence, you cannot even communicate with them. It's as if they are talking to a dog, trying to prevent it from shitting on the porch... but the dog doesn't understand.
Tell me, one of these "short comings" that you have found in "flat earthers" points?
When it comes to Eratosthenes, you have to understand how gullible you are, how you're not able to see the massive hole in the logic. But, don't take my word for it since your too biased to learn from me, so get it from V-sauce, Jew tool fake science fag himself. https://streamable.com/356zse
Do you see the obvious unscientific flaw?
Did you know the the solor system and planets and globe were all new to the department of education only one decades before the "moon landing". Ya, nobody taught globe earth until the 1950s. It was only debated in so called higher learning, and the debates were overwhelming.
Today, the government has exceptional control over your world view.
But, don't believe me, just answer so more questions. Like, where does the powerful, infinite vacuum of space stop pulling off little air molecules? At what elevation is the "gravity" stop protecting the air from getting sucked off? No one can tell you, it's fact that doesn't exist, but go look
How about answering my other point about Polaris. Why did that one get by you?
Going back to my original claim that you're a half ass who never actually tried to understand perspective or anything a flat earther had told you ( I'll bet you've never met anyone who told you the earth isn't a globe either, just watched globetard programming that teach you how to behave towards a person like me, should you ever meet a person you think is a "flat earther" which I am not, but I digress...)
You're incapabliy of describing why the 24 hour sun doesn't make sense is how I know you're lying about "looking into flat earth"
You actually assume that I am arguing for a pancake planet floating around the sun with other round planets, huh? Do you know anything about real zetetics? No. You're just another sheep who thinks they understand the premise before regurgitating your globe space programming.
If you ever met a real "flat earther". You'd learn quickly they know more about heliocentric and geocentric models than you. Ya, there's nothing you know about space or gravity that I can't run circles around. It's impossible to teach the globe programmed though. I know because I was just like u several years agYou didn't actually. So, let's prove that you don't understand FE model. Shall we?
Tell me, one of these "short Cummings"
When it comes to Eratosthenes, you have to understand how gullible you are, how you're not able to see the massive hole in the logic. But, don't take my word for it since your too biased to learn from me, so get it from V-sauce, Jew tool fake science fag himself. https://streamable.com/356zse
Do you see the obvious unscientific flaw?
Did you know the the solor system and planets and globe were all new to the department of education only one decades before the "moon landing". Ya, nobody taught globe earth until the 1950s. It was only debated in so called higher learning, and the debates were overwhelming.
Today, the government has exceptional control over your world view.
But, don't believe me, just answer so more questions. Like, where does the powerful, infinite vacuum of space stop pulling off little air molecules? At what elevation is the "gravity" stop protecting the air from getting sucked off? No one can tell you, it's fact that doesn't exist, but go look
How about answering my other point about Polaris. Why did that one get by you?
Going back to my original claim that you're a half ass who never actually tried to understand perspective or anything a flat earther had told you ( I'll bet you've never met anyone who told you the earth isn't a globe either, just watched globetard programming that teach you how to behave towards a person like me, should you ever meet a person you think is a "flat earther" which I am not, but I digress...)
You're incapabliy of describing why the 24 hour sun doesn't make sense is how I know you're lying about "looking into flat earth"
You actually assume that I am arguing for a pancake planet floating around the sun with other round planets, huh? Do you know anything about real zetetics? No. You're just another sheep who thinks they understand the premise before regurgitating your globe space programming.
If you ever met a real "flat earther". You'd learn quickly they know more about heliocentric and geocentric models than you. Ya, there's nothing you know about space or gravity that I can't run circles around. It's impossible to teach the globe programmed though. I know because I was just like u several years ago.
The established physics and math IS what I questioned. And I found to be totally corrupt and also simply retarded. For example, You should ask yourself how parallel (aka direct) light from the sun can create a penumbra. Or how does a cloud or hot air balloon stay in sync with the spinning ground below ( assuming you really do understand basic physics)?
As I said, there are many. And they are all failures. There is no one singular model. There is plain flat Earth, there is infinite flat Earth, and I even encountered one which purely consists of sophistry (the guy never told me).
> Tell me, one of these "short comings" that you have found in "flat earthers" points?
Alright. For one I could see the Sun and Moon simultaneously multiple times. According to various FE models they circle each other on opposite sides.
Seeing the Sun for 24h+ straight in the Arctic. That should be impossible, yet it happens quite a lot. Even in northern parts of Norway there are places where it happens that it's dark all the time or (mildly) sunny. If the Sun would circle around above ground, that should be impossible.
The fact that the alleged sight distance is inconsistent. While on a mountain you can see very far (as in the image I linked), but when standing on the ground your sight range is surprisingly low. The simple explanation is the curvature of the planet, which is the reason you cannot see tall buildings you "should" be able to see if Earth were flat, but you can see very far if you are on a mountain. Also the curvature is well visible in the other image I linked which shows power poles across a see - the surface of the water is actually as flat as can be.
The fact that FE by baseline has magical properties as a premise, and also logical inconsistencies. The Sun and Moon are supposedly tiny and float around with no explanation whatsoever. Sight range is supposedly a thing, but the Sun and Moon are more far away than anything in vicinity, plus the magical "dome" that is there for no reason, serves no purpose except tricking us to think there are stars and planets, is even behind it and is supposedly even darker, yet it is seen. Oh and Earth is moving through space eternally and generating the illusion of gravitation at 9.81m/s, which doesn't work according to physics, even though FEs say there is no space... so what is it flying through? A big nothingness? Also called "space"?
The names for planets came from Rome... ~2 millennia ago. They named their gods after the visible planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn).
> At what elevation is the "gravity" stop protecting the air from getting sucked off? No one can tell you, it's fact that doesn't exist, but go look
It's logical. The gravitation of Earth is limited and decreases over distance. Which means the higher up the atmosphere you go, the less dense the air molecules. Even on mount Himalaya it is a known problem to breathe for humans as air becomes sparser. As the density of air molecules decreases, there is a point where air is no longer "trapped" on Earth. There is a gradual transition spanning a long distance.
[Here](https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/atmosphere/layers-earths-atmosphere)'s a source with details.
> How about answering my other point about Polaris. Why did that one get by you?
Didn't see it. Polaris is *the* star that appears static because it aligns with the axis of Earth's rotation. Over time the actual star can and does change. The current star is *currently* our "Polaris" so to say. Not sure what you asked though.
> You're incapabliy of describing why the 24 hour sun doesn't make sense
It makes perfect sense. [Here](https://www.visitnorway.com/things-to-do/nature-attractions/midnight-sun/)'s a demonstration of how it looks in Norway. And an explanation. The place is angled at the Sun, and this phenomenon occurs for weeks. The farther away from the equator, the bigger the gap of sunlight time in summer and winter, which reaches a point at the polar edges where it gets extreme enough that there are times of total darkness and continuous sunlight. 5 min video [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g34rcrCm06g) explaining it. Look, I just learned something.
That it happens is a widely known fact btw. Even if my explanation were bad, it still *does happen* since forever.
> You actually assume that I am arguing for a pancake planet floating around the sun with other round planets, huh?
Nono, as I said I got a version that was based purely on sophistry too.
> how I know you're lying about "looking into flat earth"
I didn't say I was brainwashing myself to death over it, watching 24/7 flat Earth videos on YouTube.
> You should ask yourself how parallel (aka direct) light from the sun can create a penumbra.
Uh, [this](https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/penumbra-shadow.html)? Quite self-explanatory from the image. The Sun is huge compared to Earth, and far away. And there is also a little atmospheric refraction in play.
> Or how does a cloud or hot air balloon stay in sync with the spinning ground below
Simple. The air rotates with the planet. It too is bound by gravity, just as buildings, trees, animals. If it wouldn't, we'd have lethal amounts of wind permanently (~1670km/h), rendering this planet inhabitable. So because everything on the planet is rotating *with it* at a speed of ~1670km/h, we do not perceive anything from it because the difference is ~0.
> The established physics and math IS what I questioned. And I found to be totally corrupt and also simply retarded.
I agree, but I question if you are capable to judge it. You brought up "critic points" that are extremely easily looked up. To compare with chess - you calculated 0 steps ahead. You just made moves that looked good, but somehow forgot you have an opponent who also makes moves.
You dont brainwash yourself, you actually unprogram because you start thinking for yourself. Not following sources or anyone else, but using logic and math to see through the believe system the majority are in.
Anyway. This goes nowhere. You just repeat things everyone knows and don't try to learn.
Polaris nor any other star has moved. It's still in the same place despite the sources you believe. But you're lost on the concept of why it's impossible for the stars to stay the same given the vortex path the planets and sun take,
Anyway. Just take the win, keep being you, I don't care
Well, things are as they are, so what novelty do you expect?
> You missed the 24 hour sun again, explain why it works on FE.
It doesn't. According to FE the Sun circles around the "plane", and combined with limited line of sight, or light having a tiny travel distance, it shouldn't be possible. Note that this phenomenon occurs on both poles. Perhaps with crazy levels of atmospheric refraction, that's one I heard as well.
But feel free to enlighten me why it *should* work. I thought it's something like a final debunk, which is why the FE guy who experienced and filmed it (to heckin' disprove the globetards) was ostracized by his friends as a fraud and idiot.
> Not following sources or anyone else, but using logic and math
It's literally all logical and reasonable what I've shown you. There is not a single thing where I have to blindly trust anything. When I told you I learned something, I meant it. I looked into it until I understood.
> It's still in the same place despite the sources you believe.
It takes tens of thousands of years to change. The interstellar constellation is relatively stable. Stars aren't just flying around wildly. On a large scale, tens of thousands of years is a tiny amount of time.
> But you're lost on the concept of why it's impossible for the stars to stay the same given the vortex path the planets and sun take
You mean orbit? Sure... after a long time planets in our solar system might collide with the Sun, but we are talking about a time frame of billions of years here. Nothing is permanent. The entire concept of entropy describes it. Don't know how that's relevant though.
> Anyway. Just take the win, keep being you, I don't care
Well, so I disproved your claims and I responded to all of them. So what, you just don't talk about it? You bury your head in the sand?
You still have to refute a SINGLE thing I presented. And if you are oh-so aware of all the things I've shown, WHY didn't you respond to established science?
You remain vague about your theory (shame?), you do not engage in any of the topics (you ask A, I say B, the end), and you resort to psycho-analysis attempts like it has any effect.
Flat Earth is simply fueled by distrust of government, the sense of being smart without being, lack of education and a personality that aligns with it. You, just as many of your American colleagues believe in nonsense. The Earth is spherical, the heliocentric model has been long established and verified to be true, and as a cherry on top there are countless satellites in orbit and a live-feed of Earth's surface.
You are trying to win a battle that is LONG lost. It cannot be won because it's not true, and as time progresses, it is proven false more and more. The evidence is beyond overwhelming, so UNLESS you find that edge or another irrevocable proof (which is impossible btw), why should anyone even care to listen to you, when it's obvious you and your friends are ignorant imbeciles?
Nobody who is smart is on your side, never has been. Everybody who can muster enough cognitive ability to process logic stands against your beliefs. That's not the case with the jewish problem, Covid, Climate Change, etc - plenty of smart people talk about it/oppose it.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous flat Earth is? It's more ridiculous than "diversity is our strength." It's more ridiculous than the idea that MSM is trustworthy. It competes in ridiculousness with Scientology's beliefs, and "we wuz pharaohs n' sheeeit." And the ridiculousness comes from irrationality and going against reality and logic.