Again, you're not making any sense
Pangea was allegedly a landmass
What do you mean when you say that I don't understand how a landmass works??
If The Earth Is Flat Then What Shapes Are The Other Planets?
- Thread starter KyokushinKarateMan
- Start date
Pangea was allegedly a landmass
What do you mean when you say that I don't understand how a landmass works??
Gibberish
Now random objects can "defy gravity" huh
Gigantic ships and landmasses float on water despite their supposed large masses supposedly causing a larger amount of gravitational force to be acting on them, as gravitational force is supposedly a function of mass
Water must be an anti-gravity device
Again, I asked you a question first
You can't just ignore my question then ask me a question and then expect an answer
Again, how did pangea separate?
1. CLAIM: Gravity makes no sense on the flat earth model, therefore there is not reason for anything to fall to the ground
ANSWER: Yes, gravity does not make sense on the flat earth model. It also doesn't make sense on the heliocentric model but that's neither here nor there.
DENSITY is the cause of things "falling to the ground" as they every object moves towards it's least energetic state
This is why water looks like it can defy gravity
You can google the word "buoyancy" and google will call it a "force" in opposition to gravity, so this video is already off to a bad start
Density doesn't have to be a force, we can see that in water, more dense objects sink and less dense objects float. To say that density applies to water(a fluid) but not our atmosphere(another fluid) is ridiculous
Again, gravity is a theory
2, I don't really use this 8 inch per mile squared argument. All I know is that I've definitely witnessed ships that have supposedly "gone over the curve" of the ocean and out of sight, come back into view with a telescope. He hasn't addressed this yet so maybe he will later?
3. He says the concept of water always seeking it's own level is nonsense, yet the concept of "sea level" exists, which is a concept that states that all oceans sit at basically the same LEVEL, all across the plane, and that level was decided by the water itself, not anything acting on said water. So "sea level", and "water seeking it's own level" are the exact same concepts
Again, water doesn't curve around a spherical object and stick to it PERIOD. He did not disprove this statement
This guy really just said that because drops of water exist, large bodies of water can curve around a sphere and stick to it
Complete gibberish
And again, he says that "level" doesn't mean "flat", even though that's literally the definition of level
On google, "level" IS LITERALLY DEFINED AS A HORIZONTAL LINE OR SURFACE
So now we're denying basic concepts of our reality to believe in heliocentrisc theory. Got it
4. This guy's arrogance is hilarious. He assumes all flat earthers have no science background. He literally did not prove anything with this point, and it's kinda weird that he thinks he did
Space is supposedly a vacuum.
Even your science priests claim that the earth's atmosphere "leaks out into space"
https://phys.org/news/2016-07-curious-case-earth-leaking-atmosphere.html
If this is the case, how is all of this material that's leaking out into space from our atmosphere being replenished in our atmosphere?? Wouldn't this mean that earth's atmosphere will eventually completely leak out into "space"??
The guy in this video doesn't seem to be aware of this concept. Interesting
5. AGAIN, he says that water can stick to a ball, but he does not post proof of this, once again
He can't even prove it on a microscopic level and he doesn't even try
Again, he's creating strawmen to argue against
He cannot and has not proven that gravity exists at this point, yet LITERALLY ALL OF HIS ARGUMENTS ARE BASED AROUND GRAVITY BEING A PROVEN FACT WHEN IT IS NOT
6. Yo this guy is fukking trash
He's using cartoons to try and refute an experiment that was actually conducted in real life, with real thermometers
Moonlight is colder than the shade. You can observe this by searching that term on youtube and watching the actual experiment being conducted
He links to a video of a person conducting the experiment where the dude literally contaminates said experiment by not conducting it exactly the same with the moon and without the moon
Not only that, the sun is supposed to be reflecting it's hot light off of the moon, yet the moon does not reflect that heat at us, even though it's allegedly MUCH closer than the sun which heats us, in the heliocentric model
He then contaminates the experiment a second time, then said that the difference in temperature that he did find, was negligible.
Again, fukking ridiculous
7. More absolute gibberish
There's no up and down in space, but we have a north and south pole, and those represent up and down on the so called globe earth, so they can behave as reference points for directions in space
There's no up or down in space, yet the sphere earth can "float" in space
"Floating" implies direction
According to heliocentric theory, the "outer space"(which is mostly nothing) is rapidly expanding "OUTWARD"
"OUTWARD" implies DIRECTION. "OUTWARD" from what?? From where??
This video is exhausting, holy shyt
8. I've never made this argument that he's trying to refute, but I've already disproved the sidereal day, which also disproves whatever it is that he's trying to say here
9. I posted a video on scientism earlier in this thread that destroys this point. It's ridiculous how smug and arrogant these heliocentric zealots are. Now "scientism" doesn't exist because the concept of "science experiments" exist. This doesn't make sense and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how "scientism" is defined
10. "Herp derp they tell you you've been brainwashed and lied to"
As if the people in power don't lie every single day
As if nasa doesn't receive multiple billions a year, yet stated that they can't go back to the moon, even though they supposedly went 50 years ago
I wish one of you fans in here were man enough to go through the content that I post towards y'all, as thoroughly as I go through the content that y'all post at me
KyokushinKarateMan
Train hard, fight easy
1. CLAIM: Gravity makes no sense on the flat earth model, therefore there is not reason for anything to fall to the ground
ANSWER: Yes, gravity does not make sense on the flat earth model. It also doesn't make sense on the heliocentric model but that's neither here nor there.
DENSITY is the cause of things "falling to the ground" as they every object moves towards it's least energetic state
This is why water looks like it can defy gravity
You can google the word "buoyancy" and google will call it a "force" in opposition to gravity, so this video is already off to a bad start
Density doesn't have to be a force, we can see that in water, more dense objects sink and less dense objects float. To say that density applies to water(a fluid) but not our atmosphere(another fluid) is ridiculous
Again, gravity is a theory
2, I don't really use this 8 inch per mile squared argument. All I know is that I've definitely witnessed ships that have supposedly "gone over the curve" of the ocean and out of sight, come back into view with a telescope. He hasn't addressed this yet so maybe he will later?
3. He says the concept of water always seeking it's own level is nonsense, yet the concept of "sea level" exists, which is a concept that states that all oceans sit at basically the same LEVEL, all across the plane, and that level was decided by the water itself, not anything acting on said water. So "sea level", and "water seeking it's own level" are the exact same concepts
Again, water doesn't curve around a spherical object and stick to it PERIOD. He did not disprove this statement
This guy really just said that because drops of water exist, large bodies of water can curve around a sphere and stick to it
Complete gibberish
And again, he says that "level" doesn't mean "flat", even though that's literally the definition of level
On google, "level" IS LITERALLY DEFINED AS A HORIZONTAL LINE OR SURFACE
So now we're denying basic concepts of our reality to believe in heliocentrisc theory. Got it
4. This guy's arrogance is hilarious. He assumes all flat earthers have no science background. He literally did not prove anything with this point, and it's kinda weird that he thinks he did
Space is supposedly a vacuum.
Even your science priests claim that the earth's atmosphere "leaks out into space"
https://phys.org/news/2016-07-curious-case-earth-leaking-atmosphere.html
If this is the case, how is all of this material that's leaking out into space from our atmosphere being replenished in our atmosphere?? Wouldn't this mean that earth's atmosphere will eventually completely leak out into "space"??
The guy in this video doesn't seem to be aware of this concept. Interesting
5. AGAIN, he says that water can stick to a ball, but he does not post proof of this, once again
He can't even prove it on a microscopic level and he doesn't even try
Again, he's creating strawmen to argue against
He cannot and has not proven that gravity exists at this point, yet LITERALLY ALL OF HIS ARGUMENTS ARE BASED AROUND GRAVITY BEING A PROVEN FACT WHEN IT IS NOT
6. Yo this guy is fukking trash
He's using cartoons to try and refute an experiment that was actually conducted in real life, with real thermometers
Moonlight is colder than the shade. You can observe this by searching that term on youtube and watching the actual experiment being conducted
He links to a video of a person conducting the experiment where the dude literally contaminates said experiment by not conducting it exactly the same with the moon and without the moon
Not only that, the sun is supposed to be reflecting it's hot light off of the moon, yet the moon does not reflect that heat at us, even though it's allegedly MUCH closer than the sun which heats us, in the heliocentric model
He then contaminates the experiment a second time, then said that the difference in temperature that he did find, was negligible.
Again, fukking ridiculous
7. More absolute gibberish
There's no up and down in space, but we have a north and south pole, and those represent up and down on the so called globe earth, so they can behave as reference points for directions in space
There's no up or down in space, yet the sphere earth can "float" in space
"Floating" implies direction
According to heliocentric theory, the "outer space"(which is mostly nothing) is rapidly expanding "OUTWARD"
"OUTWARD" implies DIRECTION. "OUTWARD" from what?? From where??
This video is exhausting, holy shyt
8. I've never made this argument that he's trying to refute, but I've already disproved the sidereal day, which also disproves whatever it is that he's trying to say here
9. I posted a video on scientism earlier in this thread that destroys this point. It's ridiculous how smug and arrogant these heliocentric zealots are. Now "scientism" doesn't exist because the concept of "science experiments" exist. This doesn't make sense and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how "scientism" is defined
10. "Herp derp they tell you you've been brainwashed and lied to"
As if the people in power don't lie every single day
As if nasa doesn't receive multiple billions a year, yet stated that they can't go back to the moon, even though they supposedly went 50 years ago
I wish one of you fans in here were man enough to go through the content that I post towards y'all, as thoroughly as I go through the content that y'all post at me
I respect that you at least watched it and replied to their argument thoroughly, which is honestly more than I can say for some of the people debating you. Repped
Smaller energy cannot "pull" larger energy. That's common sense.The Sun is 109 times larger than the Earth.Sure did. He never discredited his own theories. And you don't believe in Issac Newton so you can't use anything he said in a debate.Still waiting on you to answer Elementary level questions: what flat shape are the Sun, Moon, and Earth and what position are they sitting in?Now you REALLY exposed. When I mentioned horizontal and vertical, you said I didn't make sense, only to state later that the Earth is a HORIZONTAL plane-- meaning it is a flat planet that is horizontal. That would make the Sun and Moon obviously vertical. Which is IMPOSSIBLE without gravity. You've officially been cooked. I was waiting for you to slip up. The Earth is flat and horizontal but the Sun and Moon are vertical? Gibberish.
1. CLAIM: Gravity makes no sense on the flat earth model, therefore there is not reason for anything to fall to the ground
ANSWER: Yes, gravity does not make sense on the flat earth model. It also doesn't make sense on the heliocentric model but that's neither here nor there.
DENSITY is the cause of things "falling to the ground" as they every object moves towards it's least energetic state
This is why water looks like it can defy gravity
You can google the word "buoyancy" and google will call it a "force" in opposition to gravity, so this video is already off to a bad start
Density doesn't have to be a force, we can see that in water, more dense objects sink and less dense objects float. To say that density applies to water(a fluid) but not our atmosphere(another fluid) is ridiculous
Again, gravity is a theory
2, I don't really use this 8 inch per mile squared argument. All I know is that I've definitely witnessed ships that have supposedly "gone over the curve" of the ocean and out of sight, come back into view with a telescope. He hasn't addressed this yet so maybe he will later?
3. He says the concept of water always seeking it's own level is nonsense, yet the concept of "sea level" exists, which is a concept that states that all oceans sit at basically the same LEVEL, all across the plane, and that level was decided by the water itself, not anything acting on said water. So "sea level", and "water seeking it's own level" are the exact same concepts
Again, water doesn't curve around a spherical object and stick to it PERIOD. He did not disprove this statement
This guy really just said that because drops of water exist, large bodies of water can curve around a sphere and stick to it
Complete gibberish
And again, he says that "level" doesn't mean "flat", even though that's literally the definition of level
On google, "level" IS LITERALLY DEFINED AS A HORIZONTAL LINE OR SURFACE
So now we're denying basic concepts of our reality to believe in heliocentrisc theory. Got it
4. This guy's arrogance is hilarious. He assumes all flat earthers have no science background. He literally did not prove anything with this point, and it's kinda weird that he thinks he did
Space is supposedly a vacuum.
Even your science priests claim that the earth's atmosphere "leaks out into space"
https://phys.org/news/2016-07-curious-case-earth-leaking-atmosphere.html
If this is the case, how is all of this material that's leaking out into space from our atmosphere being replenished in our atmosphere?? Wouldn't this mean that earth's atmosphere will eventually completely leak out into "space"??
The guy in this video doesn't seem to be aware of this concept. Interesting
5. AGAIN, he says that water can stick to a ball, but he does not post proof of this, once again
He can't even prove it on a microscopic level and he doesn't even try
Again, he's creating strawmen to argue against
He cannot and has not proven that gravity exists at this point, yet LITERALLY ALL OF HIS ARGUMENTS ARE BASED AROUND GRAVITY BEING A PROVEN FACT WHEN IT IS NOT
6. Yo this guy is fukking trash
He's using cartoons to try and refute an experiment that was actually conducted in real life, with real thermometers
Moonlight is colder than the shade. You can observe this by searching that term on youtube and watching the actual experiment being conducted
He links to a video of a person conducting the experiment where the dude literally contaminates said experiment by not conducting it exactly the same with the moon and without the moon
Not only that, the sun is supposed to be reflecting it's hot light off of the moon, yet the moon does not reflect that heat at us, even though it's allegedly MUCH closer than the sun which heats us, in the heliocentric model
He then contaminates the experiment a second time, then said that the difference in temperature that he did find, was negligible.
Again, fukking ridiculous
7. More absolute gibberish
There's no up and down in space, but we have a north and south pole, and those represent up and down on the so called globe earth, so they can behave as reference points for directions in space
There's no up or down in space, yet the sphere earth can "float" in space
"Floating" implies direction
According to heliocentric theory, the "outer space"(which is mostly nothing) is rapidly expanding "OUTWARD"
"OUTWARD" implies DIRECTION. "OUTWARD" from what?? From where??
This video is exhausting, holy shyt
8. I've never made this argument that he's trying to refute, but I've already disproved the sidereal day, which also disproves whatever it is that he's trying to say here
9. I posted a video on scientism earlier in this thread that destroys this point. It's ridiculous how smug and arrogant these heliocentric zealots are. Now "scientism" doesn't exist because the concept of "science experiments" exist. This doesn't make sense and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how "scientism" is defined
10. "Herp derp they tell you you've been brainwashed and lied to"
As if the people in power don't lie every single day
As if nasa doesn't receive multiple billions a year, yet stated that they can't go back to the moon, even though they supposedly went 50 years ago
I wish one of you fans in here were man enough to go through the content that I post towards y'all, as thoroughly as I go through the content that y'all post at me
I give you credit for watching and replying to the whole thing.
In your gravity explanation what do you mean by towards it's least energetic state?
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,816
- Reputation
- 8,179
- Daps
- 121,949
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
KyokushinKarateMan said:I respect that you at least watched it and replied to their argument thoroughly, which is honestly more than I can say for some of the people debating you. Repped
I've been taking apart every single point he's raised this entire thread.
He has me on 'Ignore' because I destroyed him back here....
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/one-of-us-has-to-go.702545/
Every single objection he raised in that post you dapped was due to his ignorance, not because of any logic or mathematical acuity.
I can prove it. For instance....
He has me on 'Ignore' because I destroyed him back here....
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/one-of-us-has-to-go.702545/
Every single objection he raised in that post you dapped was due to his ignorance, not because of any logic or mathematical acuity.
I can prove it. For instance....
xCivicx said:
There IS no Flat Earth model that explains ANYTHING without invalidating anything else it tries to explain, that's why gravity makes no sense on it, but perfect sense on a globe.
Density is NOT the cause of things falling down. This is easily shown to be a false by a 5th grade math question:
What weighs more; a ton of feathers or a half ton of nickels?
Water is not 'defying' gavity. It is following the Law of Gravity which is the attraction of two objects towards one another based on their mass that Newton quantified in the following formula: Fg = G m1m2/r^2 where Fg is the gravitational force, m1 & m2 are the masses of the two objects, r is the distance between the two objects, and G is the universal gravitational constant. Notice, there is NO equivalent Flat Earth calculation because they don't believe gravity exists, so they have to account for it in some other manner. Hence, density/buoyancy. Density is not a force, however, since it has NO direction. Buoyancy is because it acts in opposition to a frame of reference acceleration, but the 5th grade math question I posed earlier destroys any relevance buoyancy may have to why things fall down. It is a red herring. Neither density nor buoyancy are accelerating forces. G (gravity) is.
Saying 'Gravity is just a theory' shows you have no idea what you're talking about and is just one of the many things that Flerfs say because they don't understand science.
0/12
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,816
- Reputation
- 8,179
- Daps
- 121,949
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
DethWeiller said:
No one knows how the Universe began or if it did start from 'nothing', but we know the Earth ain't flat.
We've known that, empirically, for about 3,000 years.