Who are the bigger rubes bigfooters or flat earthers

[Hanz_Blitz]

The amount of people SO sure that the earth is round JUST because someone told them it was is staggering.

That's just dumb imo, if you didn't verify it for yourself then don't speak with 100% certainty, especially when it's just second hand information.

Assuming this is just solid trolling

 

[MarloStanfield]

Flat earthers by a long ways. People knew the earth was a globe thousands of years ago yet there are knuckle dragging mother fuckers still walking around thinking it is flat. Given today's technology and advancements, that's not only utterly stupid but downright shameful.

Where’s your proof bruv that it’s a globe? You throw around a lot of utter bullshit without any actual evidence, today’s technology and advancements blah blah blah maybe you’re the stupid knuckle dragging inbred

 

[danashill]

@rj144 @danashill good debate, folks. What started as a humorous thread has taught me a thing or two.

Thank-you... appreciate that.

But what's the logic behind it, why would such a massive celestial body rotate around the relatively small Earth?

You are still trapped in heliocentrism. And yet cannot even explain these perfect circles around a star that has been stationary for millennia as we are supposedly flying through space on a rock that is covered in water at multiple speeds far exceeding that of sound and also in multiple directions.

The logic as stated is just what it appears and always has been since men first looked to the sky.

Again, I am interested it what is demonstrable and no axial or orbital speeds have ever been shown empirically. I can speculate about electromagnetism and other ideas, but why? It is really the heliocentrists at this point with the explaining to do.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

Thank-you... appreciate that.

You are still trapped in heliocentrism. And yet cannot even explain these perfect circles around a star that has been stationary for millennia as we are supposedly flying through space on a rock that is covered in water at multiple speeds far exceeding that of sound and also in multiple directions.

The logic as stated is just what it appears and always has been since men first looked to the sky.

Again, I am interested it what is demonstrable and no axial or orbital speeds have ever been shown empirically. I can speculate about electromagnetism and other ideas, but why? It is really the heliocentrists at this point with the explaining to do.

Well we can observe that gravity makes sense and that smaller things such as us are indeed drawn to a huge object such as the Earth without the need for any physical contact. That's why it makes more logical sense in my mind for the smaller object (earth) to be reacting to the bigger object (sun) rather than the other round. I can't really grasp any reason why the sun could be moving around the Earth, although I do try to be open minded.

 

[X Factor]

Right, but I posted their TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS! Try and understand the difference.


That's fine for you, but the MIT/Cal Tech crowd who designs all this shit that has human life at stake should be demanding answers.


That is because you never looked at the same ship with a decent zoom lens. I can assure you of one thing and that is, you have never seen a ship go over a geometric horizon or a physical barrier. What you have seen is what artists know and have known for hundreds of years. Do read up on perspective and how vanishing points work. Once you get this simple point, you are really going to be having questions.

https://archive.artic.edu/sciarttech/2d1.html

And then check this out. A father shoots a laser into his son's camera lens from over 13 miles away. The father and son are just a few feet above the water.


I found that one really bizarre.

1. Technical documents are written in a way they feel are most helpful to those reading them while covering the techniques and craft of the subject. I don’t know what exactly you’re getting hung up on about this fact.
2. Lol they are engineers not operators. That’s why those manuals have these assumptions in the first place because it’s too complicated for the operators to Calculate the factors of rotating earth/curvature on top of what may be already trying to figure out. It’s the safest thing to do to root out error because few people can do that much math with a level of accuracy. These manuals are constantly updated to have the safest practices.
3. You don’t know the capabilities of a billion dollar submarines periscope. A big factor in being able to see something past the horizon is height of eye. If your looking from a higher point you can see further than from a lower point. So yes I have seen a ship slowly drop below the horizon do to the curvature of the earth and a low height of eye
And as far as your YouTube reference I have one of my own.

 

[rj144]

LOL, just laughing because you can't explain that in English, let alone demonstrate it in reality.

And how are you doing with the 13 mile plus laser shot over standing water?



It appears that way to us just like the stars around the stationary Polaris.

Above: what we observe.

Above: close to what we are told we are doing.

It's explained via math which is how you calculate, not in English my man. You want me to post the whole derivation that you won't understand either?

 

[danashill]

Well we can observe that gravity makes sense and that smaller things such as us are indeed drawn to a huge object such as the Earth without the need for any physical contact.

NO! We have never observed that ever. It's a common belief that has never been empirically shown.

Archimedes explained how things rise and fall and it was as simple as their relative density. No gravity was ever needed or even discussed until several centuries later when a guy named Newton came along and made it clear that he did not want some imaginary force between mass attributed to his work.

His words now:
Tis unconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe {innate} gravity to me. That gravity should be innate inherent & {essential} to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or force {may} be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I beleive no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent {acting} consta{ntl}y according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers....

Original letter from Isaac Newton to Richard Bentley
Author: Isaac Newton

Source: 189.R.4.47, ff. 7-8, Trinity College Library, Cambridge, UK

 

[Kiyashin]

ISS is easily visible from the ground and has been tracked by regular people. It can quickly flip back to the other side of our flat earth every day like a typewriter! This is definitive proof that the Reptilians have taken over as they have even been able to hoax us into believing us pathetic HUMANS can launch an object into space that can instanteonsly teleport itself to the far side of the flat earth. Reptilians and seraphim obviously are able to manipulate the ever-lasting firmament of the heavens which we all know is UNKNOWABLE and IMMUTABLE! GET READY TO MEET YOUR MAKER NOW!

 

[Hellowhosthat]

NO! We have never observed that ever. It's a common belief that has never been empirically shown.

Archimedes explained how things rise and fall and it was as simple as their relative density. No gravity was ever needed or even discussed until several centuries later when a guy named Newton came along and made it clear that he did not want some imaginary force between mass attributed to his work.

His words now:
Tis unconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe {innate} gravity to me. That gravity should be innate inherent & {essential} to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or force {may} be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I beleive no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent {acting} consta{ntl}y according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers....

Original letter from Isaac Newton to Richard Bentley
Author: Isaac Newton

Source: 189.R.4.47, ff. 7-8, Trinity College Library, Cambridge, UK

So in your opinion why are either the Earth or the Sun moving?

 

[danashill]

It's explained via math which is how you calculate, not in English my man. You want me to post the whole derivation that you won't understand either?

No, that's fine if you can't explain all your symbology. I still would need demonstrable, empirical proof... but that's just me I guess.

1. Technical documents are written in a way they feel are most helpful to those reading them while covering the techniques and craft of the subject. I don’t know what exactly you’re getting hung up on about this fact.
2. Lol they are engineers not operators. That’s why those manuals have these assumptions in the first place because it’s too complicated for the operators to Calculate the factors of rotating earth/curvature on top of what may be already trying to figure out. It’s the safest thing to do to root out error because few people can do that much math with a level of accuracy. These manuals are constantly updated to have the safest practices.

Those are the technical documents... not for the operators. Find me others if they exist and we can discuss.

And you are simply wrong about the horizon ever being shown as a physical barrier. I have shown this and the laser over 13 miles agrees.

 

[danashill]

So in your opinion why are either the Earth or the Sun moving?

Clearly, just the Sun, friend.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

Clearly, just the Sun, friend.

So why is the sun moving?

 

[rj144]

No, that's fine if you can't explain all your symbology. I still would need demonstrable, empirical proof... but that's just me I guess.


Those are the technical documents... not for the operators. Find me others if they exist and we can discuss.

And you are simply wrong about the horizon ever being shown as a physical barrier. I have shown this and the laser over 13 miles agrees.

What symbology? I mean you should be able to figure out what is the latitude, right? Alpha is the angle of the projectile. Everything else is self explanatory.

 

[danashill]

What symbology? I mean you should be able to figure out what is the latitude, right? Alpha is the angle of the projectile. Everything else is self explanatory.

You have yet to show how that explains going from over 2 1/2 miles to your .whatever.

 

[danashill]

So why is the sun moving?

Why does steak taste like steak? Look, the heliocentrists are making these extraordinary claims that have never been backed with demonstrable science. That is all I really know for sure.

Have you figured out the laser over a 13 mile distance yet?

 

[rj144]

You have yet to show how that explains going from over 2 1/2 miles to your .whatever.

You mean your calculation which isn't based on physics?

 

[Kid Quick]

Flat earthers by a long ways. People knew the earth was a globe thousands of years ago yet there are knuckle dragging mother fuckers still walking around thinking it is flat. Given today's technology and advancements, that's not only utterly stupid but downright shameful.

 

[danashill]

You mean your calculation which isn't based on physics?

Have a nice day. If you come across that demonstrable science, I will definitely look.

Show just one experiment that shows the necessary curvature, just one that show axial or orbital speed, and for an added bonus, if you find one that shows water violating the natural physics involved in fluid dynamics by showing water sticking to the outside of any shape as opposed to filling its container and lying horizontal on top, then I'm definitely interested.

The physics governing water is extremely clear! Water finds its level. Spirit levels work on this very principle and have guided us in the building of incredible structures for centuries.




Water does not stick to the outside of a ball; water fills its container and lies perfectly flat on top:



Science^^^^

 

[Hellowhosthat]

Why does steak taste like steak? Look, the heliocentrists are making these extraordinary claims that have never been backed with demonstrable science. That is all I really know for sure.

Have you figured out the laser over a 13 mile distance yet?

You just don't seem very sure of your position. In terms of heliocentrist stuff being definitively true I'll be honest and say I don't know, but perhaps I'll look into the evidence.

However I'm being open to an opposing point of view but at the moment all you're giving me is the sun is moving and the Earth isn't because you think it is. Give me something to ponder.

 

[rj144]

Have a nice day. If you come across that demonstrable science, I will definitely look.

Show just one experiment that shows the necessary curvature, just one that show axial or orbital speed, and for an added bonus, if you find one that shows water violating the natural physics involved in fluid dynamics by showing water sticking to the outside of any shape as opposed to filling its container and lying horizontal on top, then I'm definitely interested.

The physics governing water is extremely clear! Water finds its level. Spirit levels work on this very principle and have guided us in the building of incredible structures for centuries.




Water does not stick to the outside of a ball; water fills its container and lies perfectly flat on top:



Science^^^^

You flattards are all the same. Literally know nothing and think they know everything. How many years of physics have you had?