Flat Earth

[Anonymous No.9898427]

Is there something to the flat earth theory, or is it complete bullocks?

[Anonymous No.9898437]

LARP that has gotten old and retarded. /thread

[Anonymous No.9898522]

>>9898427
the existing thread is still alive tho

[Anonymous No.9898652]

>>9898522
too late

[Anonymous No.9898761]

>>9898427
>the flat earth "theory"
...is not a "theory", bcoz it fails to explain observable phenomena.
Lrn2theory fgt pls

[Anonymous No.9898768]

[Anonymous No.9898859]

>>9898768
There are brainlets who actually believe this

[Anonymous No.9898866]

>>9898768
Angular momentum is conserved: the fact that the Earth is spinning means your plane is also spinning, so any momentum you impart to your vehicle is in addition to the spin of the Earth.

[Anonymous No.9898877]

>>9898866
This doesn't work because the earth is spinning at a different rate depending on where you are - so if you take off from the equator at 1000mph, and land in the northern hemisplane at 750mph, you have to then say that the air is actually making the plane spin at the same rate as the earth below it, and not only this, but the air at 35,000ft will be spinning at a different rate as well - KEK!

[Anonymous No.9898886]

>>9898427
Why do you need differently sized parcelles in that map? You only need that to compensate for curvature. If the Earth is flat, you could map the countries accurately on a flat surface.

[Anonymous No.9898891]

>>9898866
You still can compensate with those little things called engines and just go whatever place you want.

[Anonymous No.9898893]

>>9898877
>This doesn't work because the earth is spinning at a different rate depending on where you are - so if you take off from the equator at 1000mph, and land in the northern hemisplane at 750mph
Different linear velocity, but the same angular velocity, which is the relevant speed here.

[Anonymous No.9898904]

>>9898893
The plane must compensate for change in rotational speed from the take off point and landing point - how is this achieved? (It isn't because the earth is not moving).

[Anonymous No.9898917]

[Anonymous No.9898928]

>>9898904
By application of the brakes and/or the throttle.

[Anonymous No.9898933]

>>9898427
https://youtu.be/JgY8zNZ35uw
Part 1 of many, go watch this before you kill another thread

[Anonymous No.9898937]

>>9898928
Kek - I had a flying lesson a few months ago and this was never required.

[Anonymous No.9898945]

>>9898933
I've debated this faggot before and he had nothing other than ad hominem, straw man, and a forced verbose vocabulary to try and make himself appear more intelligent than he actually is. His videos are exactly the same.

[Anonymous No.9898952]

>>9898945
Can you enlighten us brainlet globe-earthers on how to solve the countless problems with a flat earth mentioned in all of the videos?

[Anonymous No.9898958]

>>9898945
Lol, sure thing.

[Anonymous No.9898964]

>>9898952
Everything he says are straw man arguments, misrepresenting flat earth arguments. He also can only hide behind mathematics rather than provide scientific proof to back the mathematics up.

[Anonymous No.9898966]

>>9898964

cool so i have a pretty easy question : assuming a flat earth, present a possible configuration for the earths core that generates the magnetic field we observe :)

[Anonymous No.9898967]

>>9898958
It's true faggot.

>>9898966
Flat earth doesn't need a core - it's an infinite plane.

[Anonymous No.9898971]

>>9898967

so it's an infinite plane that SOMEHOW has a finite magnetic field with radial symmetry ?

[Anonymous No.9898979]

>>9898971
I don't think it's actually that difficult, with simple magnet arrays. Still not exactly something that would naturally occur, though that applies to all of flat-earth.

[Anonymous No.9898983]

>>9898964
Okay can you present the actual flat earth arguments correctly? Also please show us the real flat earth. A flat earth which doesn't get debunked by his evil math

[Anonymous No.9898985]

>>9898971
Magnetic fields extend infinitely.

[Anonymous No.9898988]

Wait, both the accelerating flat earth theory and buoyancy """theory""" is completely debunked by gravity anomalies. Is there another explanation for gravity? Aside from the "gravity does exist + giant snowball" idea.

[Anonymous No.9898995]

>>9898983
It is an infinite, stationary plane. Sun/moon/stars are local, and are moving/emitting light due to electromagnetism. They are close, therefore affected by perspective. Perspective is what gives the illusion of objects in the distance appearing to go behind the horizon line.

Stars create the magnetic field, not the core of the earth. Everything attributed to a moving earth is actually due to the electro/magnetic effects of the moving stars/sun/moon.

[Anonymous No.9899003]

>>9898427
If I go from West to East and vice versa on plane I will go in straight line on globe, but it will be circle on Flat Earth.
I will see only straight flight from start to finish, no flying in circle. And plane is not constantly turn left or right a little after flying straight.
Explain this

[Anonymous No.9899006]

>>9898985
Why is it axially symeteic then?

[Anonymous No.9899014]

>>9898995
That still doesn't debunk his basic first arguments about flying. Your arguments raises even more questions.

Explain your map in a little more detail or add a picture in your next reply, if all the math works out I'm willing to believe you.

[Anonymous No.9899017]

>>9898427

[Anonymous No.9899028]

>>9898995
>moving due to electomagnetism
That would mean a source of light so intence it can change the momentum of the sun, or some bullshit """electromagnetism""""""
>perspective
You can see anything far away if its bright enough. Here it needs to be rotating in a circle as it magically only sweeps light in half of the world. Im actually having trouble of imaging a thought experiment because of how retarded it is, but the point would be that going sufficiently north you would be able of to get at a distance you should see the sun, but you dont because, by no reason whatsover. It only casts light in a particular way
>Stars create the magnetic field
Well, except you show me a simulation and theory were that is posible, while also explaining why the magnetic field converges at some arbitrary point in the icy region of the south pole using electromagnetism Im not going to trust some less than half assed attempt at "argument". Just saying "electromagnetism" means jack shit you retarded faggot.

[Anonymous No.9899031]

Explain this, globlets.

[Anonymous No.9899040]

>>9898988
Globalists state that the closed, pressurised environment of the earth is due to gravity holding everything in, meaning gravity must be strong enough to keep a pressurised atmosphere from equilibrating with the de-pressurised vacuum of infinite space - quite ridiculous.

Infinite plane states that the closed, pressurised environment of the earth is created by a barrier holding the air in - what this barrier is made of remains to be seen, but I don't believe it to be a dome, as this is just an illusion of perspective again.

My current theory is that we are not being attracted to the earth, by the earth's magnetic pull, rather we are repelled by the air above us. Everything is electromagnetic and will interact with everything else based on these electromagnetic properties.

Strange as it may sound, I think our bodies are set up in such a way to reflect this. For example - our legs are electromagnetically repelled by the air much more than our head is - which would mean the brain is repelled electromagnetically less than our legs due to its composition.

I also believe the composition of blood is important to this (we already know blood is magnetic due to iron).

[Anonymous No.9899057]

>>9899003
Planes fly relative to magnetic north. They do fly curved paths, especially when it comes to the equator, the excuse being that flying straight on the equator will take longer due to its increased circumference.

[Anonymous No.9899062]

>>9899006
They aren't - again this is the illusion of perspective.

[Anonymous No.9899064]

>>9899057
>fly curved paths
Show me picture from plane as proof for this

[Anonymous No.9899072]

magical beasts and homeopathy have more credibility than fucking flat earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hieFRBYa7Eg
at this point I just pretend people who "believe" in it are all just bored beyond fucking measure and like to get into pointless arguments with autists

[Anonymous No.9899073]

>>9899040
Jesus christ, how deluded someone can get.

Your first paragraph is just laughable. You know the only reason gass exerts pressure on earth IS BECAUSE OF GRAVITY. That is the weight of the mass of the gass exerts a force over all of us. Pressure happens when you have a force acting over a surface. Vacuum having lesa pressure only makes sense within a place that has an atmospheric pressure.

Oh, so instead of an elegent and empirically verified theory of gravity, we should belive you have a magical barrier "holding" air? Are you fucking serious?

>My current theory
Your current theory is not even coherent and the rest of your post can be disproven by passing strong neodymium magnet through a regular person, which is much more powerful than the magnetic field of earth.
>>9899062
O, so it isn't axially symetric? In what fucked up way could perspective account for that. There's two points on earth were magnetic field lines converge, known by anyone as the magnetic north and south. How on earth is seing somethibg "bigger" relative to your position has anything to do with the measurment of those lines?

[Anonymous No.9899076]

>>9899072
You have a fair point, if this is bait, I'm getting trolled pretty good.

[Anonymous No.9899087]

>>9899014
I don't believe an accurate map exists yet - an accurate globe map doesn't exist either.

The earth needs to be surveyed relative to both magnetic north and south, this will allow planes to navigate in straight lines.

[Anonymous No.9899089]

>>9899087
So there IS a magnetic south. Are you retarded? Also why do you believe there is no accurate globe map?

[Anonymous No.9899090]

>>9899087
So there IS a magnetic south. Are you retarded? Also why do you believe there is no accurate globe map?

[Anonymous No.9899093]

>>9899089
He's kinda right. There's only map projections which are all inaccurate.

[Anonymous No.9899094]

>>9899093
You haven't seen a fucking globe?

[Anonymous No.9899095]

>>9899064
It's called the "Great Circle Route".

[Anonymous No.9899099]

>>9898877
>you have to then say that the air is actually making the plane spin at the same rate as the earth below it, and not only this, but the air at 35,000ft will be spinning at a different rate as well
It's almost as if air is moving.

[Anonymous No.9899102]

>>9899031
Earth curvature amounts to 11cm/km.
Metal ball diameter is 10m, at most.
Find a 10m high mirror with a 1.1mm curvature and try again.

[Anonymous No.9899103]

>>9899031
That curved surface is small.
Like your brain.

[Anonymous No.9899105]

>>9899094
Not IRL

[Anonymous No.9899107]

>>9899105
https://www.ultimateglobes.com

[Anonymous No.9899138]

>>9899072
Enjoy pretending you're flying through the universe at ridiculous speeds then.

>>9899073
>Your first paragraph is just laughable. You know the only reason gass exerts pressure on earth IS BECAUSE OF GRAVITY. That is the weight of the mass of the gass exerts a force over all of us. Pressure happens when you have a force acting over a surface.
Gas exerts pressure because it itself is exerting pressure on a container. Gas naturally wants to separate, equilibrate, expand, finding the route of least resistance. You claim that gravity isn't strong enough to stop gases equilibrating, but the higher a gas goes, where gravity is weaker, it is capable of stopping this gas from equilibrating with a vacuum, which is most definitely the path of least resistance.

>Oh, so instead of an elegent and empirically verified theory of gravity, we should belive you have a magical barrier "holding" air? Are you fucking serious?
It's hardly elegant because you still don't know what it is - Newton was wrong, Einstein is wrong. Curved spacetime? Are you serious?

>Your current theory is not even coherent and the rest of your post can be disproven by passing strong neodymium magnet through a regular person, which is much more powerful than the magnetic field of earth.
There's different types of magnetism, different things are affected by different types of magnetism.

>O, so it isn't axially symetric? In what fucked up way could perspective account for that. There's two points on earth were magnetic field lines converge, known by anyone as the magnetic north and south. How on earth is seing somethibg "bigger" relative to your position has anything to do with the measurment of those lines?
It's not about them being bigger, it's about where they are in the sky from your perspective. Standing on the equator, it will look like the stars are axial opposites, when in reality they are laid flat above us, opposite to each other. Next post will illustrate this.

[Anonymous No.9899140]

>>9899040
>meaning gravity must be strong enough to keep a pressurised atmosphere from equilibrating with the de-pressurised vacuum of infinite space - quite ridiculous.
What do you think? That the pressure of the atmosphere is the same as you increase the altitude? NO, pressure decreases with altitude, and the atmospheric pressure is the result of all the mass of gas above you.

>pressurised environment of the earth is created by a barrier holding the air in
What is simpler? Gravity or an infinite barrier holding the air?

>what this barrier is made of remains to be seen
"I don't know any material that can be the barrier, but there as to be a barrier, for sure.... Believe me...."

>Everything is electromagnetic and will interact with everything else based on these electromagnetic properties.
You don't even know how to use Maxwell equations, less you have a reasonable theory.

>our legs are electromagnetically repelled by the air much more than our head is
And that, somehow, is more believable than "the evil gravity".....

>(we already know blood is magnetic due to iron)
Haemoglobin is very weakly DIAMAGNETIC, that means that blood is REPELLED by a magnetic field. See, for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVsWTkD2M6Q
In that video you need a giant magnet you get a small movement form the blood. While the magnetic field of the Earth is of the order of 10 microTeslas, that magnet should be of the order of Teslas (so we are talking about 5 orders of magnitude of difference). So your idea of the blood is bullshit.

>>9899087
>I don't believe an accurate map exists yet - an accurate globe map doesn't exist either.
There is an accurate map of the globe, but there is not way to project a globe into a plane without distortions. That's math.

[Anonymous No.9899149]

>>9899138
amazing

[Anonymous No.9899156]

>>9899073
The hurdles in pic related are all at the same height, yet the furthest one is still visible and is closer to the ground/horizon. If you continued to move under those hurdles, the furthest one would rise and eventually you'd be looking directly up at it. The same concept applies to the stars, the ones moving further away move closer to the horizon, when in actuality they are still at the same level as the stars higher in the sky.

[Anonymous No.9899159]

>>9899138
>Gas exerts pressure because it itself is exerting pressure on a container.
You know nothing about statistical mechanics....

>but the higher a gas goes, where gravity is weaker, it is capable of stopping this gas from equilibrating with a vacuum
Again, here you are proving that you believe that atmospheric pressure is the same at all heights, but IT IS NOT.

>hardly elegant because you still don't know what it is
Of course you have no idea about gravity.

>Newton was wrong
If you take the small curvature limit of General Relativity you recover Newton's theory of Gravity, so he wasn't so wrong.

>Einstein is wrong
Because you say so.....

>Curved spacetime? Are you serious?
It makes more and better predictions that you flat board...

>There's different types of magnetism
There is only one magnetism, you uneducated dumbass. Maxwell is revolving in this grave.

[Anonymous No.9899161]

>>9899138
>Gas exerts pressure because it itself is exerting pressure on a container
Yes, that would be true if you had a closed container that maintains a volume, but there is nothing above earth and so your bullshit model of gasses is not valid, except you propose some barrier as an alternative, which is nothing but ad hoc bullshit. And again, because the earth - space system is not a fucking closed box, it makes absolutely no sense to talk about a "natural pressure". That would only ocurr at collisión and without gravity it certianly would fly away. It is not in equilibrium with vacuum in any way or form, because that's just an open system. This doesn't even need thermodynamics, it's fucking common sense
>It's hardly elegant because you still don't know what it is - Newton was wrong, Einstein is wrong. Curved spacetime? Are you serious?
Nice refutation based on empirical evidence. You offered nothing so I don't have to counter with nothing.
>There's different types of magnetism
No you fucking retard, magnetic fields can induce certain magnetic interacctions on non-ferromagnetic material, but there aren't different types in any known theory of electromagnetism. Different things are affected differently because of it's composition.
>It's not about them being bigger, it's about where they are in the sky from your perspective. Standing on the equator, it will look like the stars are axial opposites, when in reality they are laid flat above us, opposite to each other. Next post will illustrate this.
Please don't wait youre time. The magnetic field converges AT A SINGLE POINT, but remains symetric no matter from what direction from north you measure it. That's mathematically impossible.

[Anonymous No.9899170]

>>9899089
Yes I believe there's a magnetic south, each hemisplane has their respective dominant magnetic "force".

[Anonymous No.9899179]

>>9899099
Ah yes, air being stuck to a spinning ball by none other than that amazing gravity again. Had no idea air had velcro properties. But ignoring that, even if the air was moving with the earth, this implies the air is strong enough to move the plane with it. Remember, the plane will take off at the speed the earth is rotating at that point, but as the plane travels, the earth will be spinning at different speeds, therefore the air is spinning at different speeds, requiring the air to also force the plane to spin at this same speed, which is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.9899185]

>>9898427
If flat earthers are so determined to prove their theory, why don't they crowdfund an expedition to measure the circumferences of the tropic of capricorn, the equator and the tropic of cancer? If that image is correct, would mean that the tropic of capricorn would be way bigger than both the equator and the tropic of cancer.

[Anonymous No.9899188]

>>9899179
>he doesn't know what momentum is

[Anonymous No.9899195]

>>9899179
You never heard of friction and viscosity? You know about inertia right?
>But it's changing direction|
Due to a gravitational force that pulls inwards, that doesn't do work.

[Anonymous No.9899207]

>>9899179
>air being stuck to a spinning ball by none other than that amazing gravity again
Hurrr, durrr, air doesn't form a layer over cars and other moving objects.... Somebody don't know how shear viscosity works.... This is called "No-slip condition": "at a solid boundary, a viscous fluid will have zero velocity relative to such boundary".

>>9899185
Indeed.

[Anonymous No.9899223]

>>9899185
>to measure the circumferences of the tropic
could be because tropic is an imaginary line drawn on top of earth model they reject
how the fuck do you measure it if your earth model has north pole in the center and antarctica encompassing everything?
how do you even maintain direction to trace it?

[Anonymous No.9899261]

>>9899185
They should made 2 expedition to Antarctica. One starting from South America and other from Australia, and both going directly toward South Pole. They should never met if their flat earth is true.
But mention any going to antarctica and they trow standard exuses to do nothing

[Anonymous No.9899266]

>>9899140
>What do you think? That the pressure of the atmosphere is the same as you increase the altitude? NO, pressure decreases with altitude, and the atmospheric pressure is the result of all the mass of gas above you.
It doesn't matter is pressure decreases with altitude, at some point pressurised gas will meet the infinite vacuum of space, there's no such thing as depressurised gas. This gas will equilibrate with the vacuum, then the gas below it, and so on until there's no gas left.

>What is simpler? Gravity or an infinite barrier holding the air?
Infinite barrier. To create pressure, you require a container. This is a fundamental fact of reality, and very simple.

>"I don't know any material that can be the barrier, but there as to be a barrier, for sure.... Believe me...."
Better than pretending to know what it is, or to make up some bullshit force/non-force like curved spacetime. If we had easy access to the barrier then we could perform experiments.

>You don't even know how to use Maxwell equations, less you have a reasonable theory.
You don't need equations to do science, equations come afterwards once the physical side of things have been established, rather than dreamed up purely from mathematics.

>And that, somehow, is more believable than "the evil gravity".....
It would makes sense that the body was attuned electromagnetically to an electromagnetic world.

>Haemoglobin is very weakly DIAMAGNETIC, that means that blood is REPELLED by a magnetic field. See, for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVsWTkD2M6Q [Embed]
In that video you need a giant magnet you get a small movement form the blood.
Yeah but I'm talking about blood inside the body, which is pumped from a heart with electric properties.

>There is an accurate map of the globe
Kek, show me an accurate map of the globe then.

[Anonymous No.9899281]

>>9899159
>You know nothing about statistical mechanics....
Spacetime loser.

>Again, here you are proving that you believe that atmospheric pressure is the same at all heights, but IT IS NOT.
Not the point, at some point pressure meets the infinite vacuum of space - they cannot co-exist side by side without a barrier, no matter how small the pressure of the gas may be. Gravity also requires that is the thing forcing the gas up as it pulls the denser gas down, but then also is the thing that stops the gas from moving once next to a infinite vacuum.

>If you take the small curvature limit of General Relativity you recover Newton's theory of Gravity, so he wasn't so wrong.
Things fall due to curved spacetime?
>Because you say so.....
Rotations of galaxies tell me so.
>It makes more and better predictions that you flat board...
Predictions mean nothing in terms of describing how reality actually is.
>There is only one magnetism, you uneducated dumbass. Maxwell is revolving in this grave.
Different types of electromagnetism should I say, from light to electricity.

[Anonymous No.9899294]

>>9899261
again
look at this>>9898427
where is south pole on this?
do you realize that a flat earther is absolutely convinced that all governemtns and corportations are working together to cover this shit up?
even if they did all of it with their own money, they would still blame people who ferried them from being in on it

[Anonymous No.9899314]

>>9899266
>It doesn't matter is pressure decreases with altitude
Yes, because there is less mass of fucking air pushing downwards
>There's no such thing as depressurised gas
You have no fucking clue about highschool hydrostatics. The pressure you measure is DO TO THE AIR'S WEIGHT. You know density also changes right? So at some point you just have vacuum https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-density-volume-d_195.html..
>To create pressure you require a container
You require a force and a surfacce you absolute retard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure If you don't like wikipedia, check literally everywhere else. A gas can exert pressure after a collision, just try and blow air into a scale. It's just not going to stay there. The hydrostatic pressure of a fluid is due to gravitation as any object with mass is attracted to other massive objects.
>Or make up some bullshit force like curved spacetime
Oh, so you understand the limits of empricism? Curvature of spacetime is a mathematical model that let's us make predictions about the dynamics of massive object that agrees with plenty experimental evidence. Proposing some bullshit barrier is only as valid if you show a mechanics that agrees with observations, which you don't have.
>You don't need equations to do science
Yes, but you show no comprehension of the basics of E&M as your next points show. What does it mean for a body to be "attuned electromagnetically"? Can you put it in the languange of classical electromagnetism or QFT? If not, you have evidence of this new phenomena physicists somehow missed?
>which is pumped from a heart with electric properties
Lol, again, do you know what a fucking MRI is? That sort of field barley move water molecules in tissue. Iron in hemogoblin is a complex that has no ferromagnetic properties.
>Show me an accurate amp of the globe
Yes, it has been known since Gauss you have no isometric mapping between a sphere and a plane. Look at a globe.

[Anonymous No.9899317]

>>9899161
>Yes, that would be true if you had a closed container that maintains a volume, but there is nothing above earth and so your bullshit model of gasses is not valid, except you propose some barrier as an alternative, which is nothing but ad hoc bullshit. And again, because the earth - space system is not a fucking closed box, it makes absolutely no sense to talk about a "natural pressure". That would only ocurr at collisión and without gravity it certianly would fly away. It is not in equilibrium with vacuum in any way or form, because that's just an open system. This doesn't even need thermodynamics, it's fucking common sense
For something not being up there, they sure act like there is. There's a magnetosphere, there's van allen belts, there's space debris, you can't get out of earth unless you're going a ridiculous speed. Sounds like there's something up there to me, they're just not telling us straight.

>Nice refutation based on empirical evidence. You offered nothing so I don't have to counter with nothing.
What empirical evidence is there of spacetime? How much does it weigh?
>No you fucking retard, magnetic fields can induce certain magnetic interacctions on non-ferromagnetic material, but there aren't different types in any known theory of electromagnetism. Different things are affected differently because of it's composition.
Semantics.
>Please don't wait youre time. The magnetic field converges AT A SINGLE POINT, but remains symetric no matter from what direction from north you measure it. That's mathematically impossible.
That's because measuring it in such a way isn't affected by perspective - the only reason people think they are axial opposites is because that's what they look like with our eyes.

[Anonymous No.9899333]

>>9899188
Doesn't explain anything in regards to a plane flying independently through spinning atmosphere.

>You never heard of friction and viscosity? You know about inertia right?
Is the air at 35,000ft less dense? Less friction and viscosity? Still able to move an a plane flying through it? Interesting...
>Due to a gravitational force that pulls inwards, that doesn't do work.
Gravity, what a force. That curved spacetime does everything. You're going to have to back this up otherwise you're just making things up.

[Anonymous No.9899335]

>>9899266
>It doesn't matter is pressure decreases with altitude
Yes, it does. How do you explain the change in pressure in your container model? Let me guess..... "It's the magic of electromagnetism".

>at some point pressurised gas will meet the infinite vacuum of space, there's no such thing as depressurised gas
There will be decreasingly quantities of gas until you get nearly none. There is no clear boundary.

>This gas will equilibrate with the vacuum, then the gas below it, and so on until there's no gas left.
That's what gravity is preventing. Thanks to it the provability of finding a gas molecule decreases with the altitude.

>To create pressure, you require a container. This is a fundamental fact of reality, and very simple.
I don't see the water in the seas being in a container and pressure increases with depth.

>Better than pretending to know what it is, or to make up some bullshit force/non-force like curved spacetime.
"I don't know anything about gravity, but I'm sure that it's bad"

>You don't need equations to do science
Hahahaahahahaha.... Oh, wait, you are serious. Let me laugh even harder. HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>It would makes sense that the body was attuned electromagnetically to an electromagnetic world.
That's bullshit and you know it.

>which is pumped from a heart with electric properties.
That's even a bigger bullshit and you know it.

>>9899281
>Spacetime loser.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, that proves that you don't even know what Statistical Mechanics is....

>Not the point
IT IS the point, you dense dumbass.

>Things fall due to curved spacetime?
Yes, https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-derive-Newtons-law-of-gravitation-from-Einsteins-theory-of-relativity

>Rotations of galaxies tell me so.
Dark matter, a matter better understood than the material of your barrier. Which is a shame for your barrier.

>Predictions mean nothing in terms of describing how reality actually is.
>Different types of electromagnetism
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.9899340]

>>9899195
>>9899333

[Anonymous No.9899344]

>>9899207
>Hurrr, durrr, air doesn't form a layer over cars and other moving objects.... Somebody don't know how shear viscosity works.... This is called "No-slip condition": "at a solid boundary, a viscous fluid will have zero velocity relative to such boundary".
False equivalence. We're talking about the same air moving with the object, you're talking about different air forming around a moving object.

[Anonymous No.9899345]

>>9899281
Again, there is no tendency for air to "occupy" space. The reason air wants to occupy vacuums IN EARTH, is because air puts pressure on a vacuum container as THE WHOLE MASS OF THE ATMOSPHERE is putting it's weight over the mechanism maintaining it air free.

I don't want to try and explain to you relativity as we already know you don't even understand geometry. So try and refute this https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2006-3

>Different types of electromagnetism
No, maxwell's equations describe from static electrical field to classical EM waves.
>>9899317
>For something not being up there, they sure act like there is. There's a magnetosphere, there's van allen belts, there's space debris, you can't get out of earth unless you're going a ridiculous speed. Sounds like there's something up there to me, they're just not telling us straight.
O god, are you actually reading what you are typing? You are not even making sense at you lame speculative bullshit. You got told so you retorted at confusing your own lack of understanding for a more pleasing "it's a conspiracy".
>>9899333
It's okey, you don't have to believe einstein and all the high precission experiments. But refute this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment https://books.google.com.mx/books?hl=es&lr=&id=zXK-tLclDOUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA119&dq=modern+cavendish+experiment&ots=6PfcgoBt6d&sig=ucWb9xnDbIj22sN5mAjHoOH6V_k&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=modern%20cavendish%20experiment&f=false Also, you have to explain why shit falls even in vacuums. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs

[Anonymous No.9899346]

>>9899223
South magnetic force exists alongside the northern.

[Anonymous No.9899347]

>>9899261
>But mention any going to antarctica and they trow standard exuses to do nothing
Antarctica is closed off to most people - we wouldn't be having this debate if it wasn't.

[Anonymous No.9899349]

>>9899294
The south magnetic "pole" is the land directly underneath the southern stars' rotation point.

[Anonymous No.9899356]

>>9899317
cont
>Semantics
Okey then, explain how diamagnetism explains everything you say.
>>9899333
>Is the air at 35,000ft less dense? Less friction and viscosity? Still able to move an a plane flying through it? Interesting...
You made no quantitative analisis. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html Read this again.
>>9899344
>False equivalence. We're talking about the same air moving with the object, you're talking about different air forming around a moving object.
What? If you spount nonsensic shit that only makes sense to you, the rational thing to do is either be explain yourself better or re think your shit. How can jupiter be a planet then?

[Anonymous No.9899401]

>>9899314
>Yes, because there is less mass of fucking air pushing downwards
If you put a helium balloon on the floor and let go, it will rise, despite there being the majority of the air above it, "pushing" down on it. If it's capable of rising through that, then it should be even easier to rise at higher altitudes.

>You have no fucking clue about highschool hydrostatics. The pressure you measure is DO TO THE AIR'S WEIGHT. You know density also changes right? So at some point you just have vacuum
Kek, it just magically happens. If a gas can co-exist next to a vacuum, can you please show a demonstration of this on earth?
>You require a force and a surfacce you absolute retard
Kek, that "force" being curved spacetime? You do not need some separate, metaphysical force, the physical substances themselves are enough. The physical substances themselves have their own intrinsic properties and "force" when they interact within a pressurised environment.
>Oh, so you understand the limits of empricism? Curvature of spacetime is a mathematical model that let's us make predictions about the dynamics of massive object that agrees with plenty experimental evidence. Proposing some bullshit barrier is only as valid if you show a mechanics that agrees with observations, which you don't have.
I can show you that you need a barrier between pressure and de-pressure for them exist side by side, repeatedly. You need to show me pressure and de-pressure co-existing without a barrier.
>Yes, but you show no comprehension of the basics of E&M as your next points show. What does it mean for a body to be "attuned electromagnetically"? Can you put it in the languange of classical electromagnetism or QFT?
Our brain, heart etc have electric properties, our blood is magnetic, our eyes see electromagnetic radiation, the information from our senses are converted to electrical signals - we can't see gravity though, we can't see curved spacetime

[Anonymous No.9899437]

>>9899401
>If you put a helium balloon on the floor and let go, it will rise, despite there being the majority of the air above it, "pushing" down on it. If it's capable of rising through that, then it should be even easier to rise at higher altitudes.

buoyancy dude
did you go to fucking high school?

[Anonymous No.9899450]

>>9899401
>Helium balloon
Wow and a ball full of air also rises when submerged in water. This is some weird shit. But apparently the ancient geeks understood it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy
>Can you please show a demonstration of this on earth?
Of what? That you can have some place with less matter than others without generating a gradient? You know that space isn't 100% vacuum right? Why is then that we can measure different densities of air as we go up? If it has less mass, then it would have to go up because it's more "vacuumy", by your retarded logic. Density changes with altitude. If you barrier is pushing uniformly the air down, you wouldn't see this effect.
>Kek that "force" being curved spacetime?
Okey retard. Spacetime is a dynamical and geometrical model of gravity. The trayectories of bodies are modeled by curves embbeded in a 4-dimensional lorentzian manifold, which gas a non euclidean metric at each tangent space. The changes of trayectory contrary to a free body are undesrtood as changes of this metric whose geodesics (time like or lighlike) give you the trayectories of the bodies under a pure gravitational interaction. You can also formulate Newtonian theory this way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%E2%80%93Cartan_theory and you can be even more abstract and talk about symplectic manifolds and variational principles. They are mathematical models that fit the experimental evidence we have, but that doesn't mean you need to interpret it literally. Not my fault all your knowledge comes from pop sci. Interpretation obviously is requiared, but the thing is that these theories predict weird shit, but it has standed through a lot of experiments.
>Pressure and de-pressure
Define this terms
>Our brain, hear etc have electric properties
Yes, and we know this thanks to our theories of E&M formulated mathematicaly. Something you are incpable
>Our blood is magnetic
No http://www.revisemri.com/blog/2006/mri-blood-iron-attraction/

[Anonymous No.9899452]

>>9899335
>Yes, it does. How do you explain the change in pressure in your container model? Let me guess..... "It's the magic of electromagnetism".
Because pressure equilibrates in a closed system. If you put helium in a vacuum chamber, "gravity" doesn't pull it down, the helium expands and equalises its pressure, putting equal pressure upon each of the chamber walls.

>There will be decreasingly quantities of gas until you get nearly none. There is no clear boundary.
That's even worse because it suggests the infinite vacuum of space is in amongst the gas due to there being no clear boundary.

>That's what gravity is preventing. Thanks to it the provability of finding a gas molecule decreases with the altitude.
Is the pull of gravity at that altitude stronger than the infinite vacuum's de-pressure?

>I don't see the water in the seas being in a container and pressure increases with depth.
I'm afraid the seas are contained, this is logically consistent with how bodies of water work.
>"I don't know anything about gravity, but I'm sure that it's bad"
No one knows what "gravity" is because it doesn't exist - it simply latches on to the behaviour of objects and pretends to be the cause of it.
>Hahahaahahahaha.... Oh, wait, you are serious. Let me laugh even harder. HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
No where in the scientific method does it state you need to to do equations - equations come afterwards.
>That's even a bigger bullshit and you know it.
Do you know how the heart beat works?

[Anonymous No.9899458]

>>9899452
>Because pressure equilibrates in a closed system. If you put helium in a vacuum chamber, "gravity" doesn't pull it down, the helium expands and equalises its pressure, putting equal pressure upon each of the chamber walls.
If it is in equilibrium then yes it puts equal pressure on both the infinite earth and the magical barrier of bullshit, so that would mean that at the top and at the bottom you have the same pressure, something we clearly don't observe.

The rest has been explained enough times.

[Anonymous No.9899491]

Just as a general response. HOW CAN STUFF STILL FALL IN A VACUUM IF IT'S ALL A CONSEQUENCE OF AIR AND IT'S PROPERTIES.

[Anonymous No.9899499]

>>9899294
Yes I know. They believe all conspiracies and this include all goverment working togher under some masters and its something what infitraded everything.
But still there is solution for conspiracytard who will not use it because they are already convinced in their believes and their dogmas already also state this would be imposible like this guy demonstrate:
>>9899347
But still, if all true they would still gain from this, since failure caused by outside force would show some proof of their claims.
If they were actually real fighters for truth or freedom they would try it, but they are just slacktivist and larpers who become part of conspiracy cult and will never move ass to do something meaninfull in their life.

[Anonymous No.9899504]

>>9899491
And if you say MAGNETISM, you are basically postulating a force in the same way gravity is postulated. Hell, how do you think magnetism is "derived" because our heart and nervous system "uses" it? So experimental evidence. There's no phenomenology on organs that are external to the mind, so not even in some fucked up philosophical bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9899556]

>>9899345
>THE WHOLE MASS OF THE ATMOSPHERE is putting it's weight over the mechanism maintaining it air free.
That makes absolutely no sense.

>I don't want to try and explain to you relativity as we already know you don't even understand geometry. So try and refute this https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2006-3
Meaningless jargon - all they do is measure something and then make that measurement fit with their model, they can do this because they are the ones making the measurements as well as defining what they mean.
>O god, are you actually reading what you are typing? You are not even making sense at you lame speculative bullshit. You got told so you retorted at confusing your own lack of understanding for a more pleasing "it's a conspiracy".
How naive. You do realise you can bounce radio waves off the magnetoflat right? Yeah it's just hot air up there though right?
>But refute this
Cavendish experiment uses lead balls which are electrically static.
>you have to explain why shit falls even in vacuums
Because you can't create a perfect vacuum on earth, the chamber will still have air in it

[Anonymous No.9899582]

>>9898937
The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one.

[Anonymous No.9899595]

>>9899556
>That makes absolutely no sense
It makes perfect sense if you understand that massive objects attract, and so, air is attracted to earth. So the key point here is that you consider any model that relies on the existence of a gravitational interaction as "nonsensical"
>Meaningless jargon - all they do is measure something and then make that measurement fit with their model, they can do this because they are the ones making the measurements as well as defining what they mean.
Hmm, well, you can certainly measure from earth the orbit of mercury, and the lensing of light as it passes near a massive object. Can you please show me your evidence that these measurements are manipulated or "trivial"?. How can you explain the nature of light, which you jerk off so much too, without even realizing it requires the special theory of relativity for it to work? You know lorentz transformations were derived from the transformations properties of Maxwells equations? And even in aether theories, you cannot escapce shit like time dilation and length contraction as it permeates all of space.
>You do realise you can bounce radio waves off the magnetoflat right?
What? What the fuck is a mangetoflat?
>Cavendish experiment uses lead balls which are electrically static.
Therefore giving evidence to an interaction that cannot be acounted for electrical, coulombian interaction. Also the word you are looking for is "elecitrically neutral".
>Because you can't create a perfect vacuum on earth, the chamber will still have air in it
So you have some weird law in which the acceleration of an object is inversely to the amount of air? Not also that, but apparently if you put the same exact vacuum at a different altitude you get a different acceleration. Why would that be? Also, if space is pretty empty, how would you explain the different periods of orbit the planets have if they are basically all under the same almost-vacuum conditions?

[Anonymous No.9899618]

>>9898427
How come the center is cold, the edge is cold, but there's a band of hot around where the north of Africa, the Caribbean, etc are?

[Anonymous No.9899626]

>>9898427
Bullocks are cattle, you moron. Lern two spel.

[Anonymous No.9899641]

>>9899618
that's where the sun is supposed to be circling over

[Anonymous No.9899668]

>>9899641
Why do the hot places get less hot during parts of the year and hotter in others?

[Anonymous No.9899671]

>>9899356
>Okey then, explain how diamagnetism explains everything you say.
Everything we call "matter" is either diamagnetic, paramagnetic, ferromagnetic - all matter interacts with a magnetic field by being attracted or repelled in an inverse square law relationship, but if this behaviour occurs when an object is repelled by air/attracted to the earth, we attribute that to "gravity".

The "core" of the earth is assumed to be made of molten iron and nickel, despite these metals losing their magnetic properties at high temperatures - there is zero evidence to prove the "core" is made of this, let alone any proof that there is a "core". The deepest any one has dug is 8 miles.

>You made no quantitative analisis. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html Read this again.
Explains nothing - we're talking about the rotation of the air, and less dense air being capable of rotating a plane along with it, which is absurd.

>What? If you spount nonsensic shit that only makes sense to you, the rational thing to do is either be explain yourself better or re think your shit. How can jupiter be a planet then?
Planets are sci-fi, their properties are entirely made up. It's been like that for centuries. They're just lights that have a symbiotic relationship with the magnetic field generated by the stars.

[Anonymous No.9899676]

[Anonymous No.9899688]

>>9899676
what the fuck is this I don't even...

[Anonymous No.9899691]

I can't understand why people actually waste their time debating with flat earthers, they aren't preventing us to evolve in any way, unlike groups such as anti vaxxers which ignorance might cause people to die or to grow sick. We keep on exploring and sending stuff to space that makes our lives better, such as satellites, no matter what, thus why debate them? Let them keep their schizophrenic circle jerk and go do something useful with your time.

[Anonymous No.9899709]

>>9899671
The magnetic field is generatrd by convection currents, and has nothing to do with the temperatura at which a permanent magnet loses its field, because the model is not that of a ferromagnetix material. Feel free to debunk anything here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory
>Less dense aie being capabñe of rotating a plane
What the fuck are you smoking? Just because the atsmosphere moves doesnt mean it moves at a speed so fast it cannot give any horizontal wind drag. The plane is using a fucking motor to gain trust you moron.
>Planets are sci-fi
So telescopes are not valid? Spectrometry neither? Optics and QM are theories verified by shit on earth. You still fail to give evdience of your claims, while there is substantial, direct evidence of the plants, and their composition.

[Anonymous No.9899736]

>>9899691
I actually learn a lot, because whatever time I spent debunking, they spent a lot more time fabricating bullshit. The retard itt isnt even giving an argument. Just typing shit, but hey I at least I reviewed my hydrostatics.

[Anonymous No.9899740]

>>9899676
>research flat earth
So turn off your brain, distrust any source that text on image or yt video done by somebody ignorant about any subject

[Anonymous No.9899742]

>>9899676
>we can only see the stars that are directly overhead at midnight.

[Anonymous No.9899754]

>>9899740
>>9899742
that picture is literally saying you should be able to see stars which are behind the sun for half a year, because the person who made it actually doesn't fucking know that's our reality

[Anonymous No.9899757]

>>9899754
>>9899740
>>9899742

shouldn't
fuck
shouldn't be able

[Anonymous No.9899771]

>>9899676
They don't like this picture because they don't have a reasonable response

[Anonymous No.9899772]

>>9899676
What are seasonal constellations?

[Anonymous No.9899781]

>>9899437
So we now have a force that can make things rise and fall depending on their density/displacement of the medium they are in. What do we need "gravity" for? Direction? On an infinite plane, pressure to the left and right of an object will always be the same, but up and down is not. The quickest route to low pressure/density is up, the quickest route to high pressure/density is down, this explains why objects rise and fall.

[Anonymous No.9899785]

>>9899781
It doesnt explain why shit falld in a vaccum. It doesnt explain why we have any sort of pressure

[Anonymous No.9899805]

>>9899781
infinite plane?
please stand by while I'm going to have smoke and laugh my fucking head off
when you need to compund your bullshit hypothesis with more bullshit hypotheses, and we didn't even come to the best one, since if the earth was an infinite plane, then the fucking night sky is also a hologram, right, because that's why it races westward every night and changes over the year
because it's a projection from your mom's butthole

I'm drunk and tired of your shit
if you want to compell people to go look up more wikipedia articles, at least compile your bullshit in a way that doesn't make them remind of rudimentary concepts like buoyancy

[Anonymous No.9899816]

>>9898427
Yep, there's the fact if you babble some non-sense with enough confidence, there will always be people that follow you