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
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.