This thread is meant to debunk the deranged idea that our realm is a planet floating in space.
If the so called established science can't be challenged, then it's not science, but religion.
2720 replies and 1418 files omitted.
>>157811No one is shilling except for you.
You do realize that the size and location of the light source plays a role in how the eclipse is projected right? So, sticking a ball in front pf a light bulb is about the least credible of an experiment imaginable.
>>157812Dear 57 IQ ape, it is not the distance, but the shape of the shadow.
>>157814>cant tell that proportionate sizes has everything to do with the appearance of curvature over a vast and specific distanceDunning Kreuger, ladies and gentlemen
>>157815Try it yourself in your kitchen and let us see how it goes.
>>157816My kitchen is not arranged precisely enough to conduct a credible experiment, and Im not so foolish as to think otherwise. I hope you're the same anon who claimed an engineering background, cuz then you would know what precise ratios and calculations are required to recreate a suitably detailrd model for which such an experiment would be credible. When milling, I deal with precise measurements in the microns. You know what happens if a person is off by just 2 microns? The whole thing falls apart. You're suggesting that an experiment that is off by inches will fly just fine though. Thats not how this works
>>157817Do not misdirect attention to "precision" because in this case is irrelevant. It is about plain optics, or light propagation in other words.
>>157818The earth is an alleged 150mil kilometers from the sun, and an alleged 405k km from the moon. Thats a ratio of 370 to 1. There needs to be 370x more distance betwern the light and the earth stand-in AND its size needs to be proportionate to the modeled moon size.
That you neglect to account for that makes your claims utterly ludicrous.
>>157819The experiment is not about distances and proportions, but the shape of a shadow. Try it yourself lazy nigger, it is free.
Otherwise watch again the video as many times as necessary until you grasp the concept.
>>157820Lets put this into perspective.
A properly ratio'd model would have say, 370' between the 'sun' and the 'earth', and ONE foot between the earth and the moon.
The SUN with a calculated diameter of 1.39mil km would need to have the diameter of about 6.5". The earth, with a calculated equatorial dimeter of ~12.75k would proportionately need to be about the size of a pea, and the moon would be about the size of a peppercorn, just 1' away.
That would A. be vastly more credible experiment.
>>157821>distances and proportions againWhat part of your brain is not working properly?
Heres that pic from the video.
Please note, the proportions are 6.5" diameter sun, then 370 feet, then a pea, then 1 foot, then a peppercorn.
A football field is 360' long. There is more than a football field between the sun and the earth, in this model.
>>157824Playing shadow puppets with arbitrary sizes and distances will give you dodgy results, but the results are based on the infanti-level precision of the experiment. What Im saying is, that example doesnt in any way disprove the viability of eclipses, it only makes the videographer - and you - look foolish for presenting invalid findings as 'evidence'
>>157825On the contrary, it makes you look retarded. The quality of the experiment is exactly the same than the NASA one.
It looks like the problem it is in your mindset which only accept input from "authoritative" sources regardless of its validity. The brainwashing is strong in you.
>>157827Thanks for confirming the 'legitimacy' of your 'engineering background'. You obviously dont actually work in engineering, because you would appreciate how inane you come across to someone who deals with extreme precision and calculation versus anything but, and how a layman can look at a thing and assume to comprehend it right before getting themselves and people around them killed.
Obviously thats not an argument, its an inference made by taking your entirely ass-backward method of approaching the experiment and applying it to someone in an industrial context.
>>157828Your statement is based in faith, not science.
If you would have a engineering background, then you would recognize at once that NASA lies don't meet the scientific method and therefore they are null and void.
>>157829Who's going off NASA? I tend to favor centuries of mathematicians who did the work.
>>157830>I tend to favor centuries of mathematiciansAlready dis-proven theoretical science.
Let me be clear, NASA is full of shit. Im not talking about that.
Im talking about Copernicus and Galileo and so forth. Debunk THEM.
>>157834I get it now. Your tactic is to deflect and persist until the other person gives up, concedes under duress, or their head explodes from trying to comprehend how someone could be so oblivious to their own folly.
I already said, Im not pouring through hours and pages of the most irrational caricatures of intelligence, just to try and locate the bit that 'you feel' debunks them. Ive seen plenty of the videos youve posted, along with all the strawmans, to know what constitutes evidence in your eyes, and I havent seen anything that does as you describe; it is reasonable to conclude therefore that you are full of shit because the evidence - in spite of your conviction to it and refusal to critically analyze it - says the same.
Speaking of strawmen
https://youtu.be/x59uV541sLI >>157836>Debunk CalculusCalculus is good, what it is not good is the theory about gravitational forces which cannot be backed by the scientific method. Remember, there is a bunch of scientists
priests, all paid by the same establishment, who tow the line of planets and the "Theory of Gravity" which cannot be proven to exist.
>>157837>calculus is goodThen you might as well give up now, because calculus was invented to determine the sphereoid shape of the planet. That is its purpose.
It just so happens to correlate to vast swaths of other scientific constants, meaning that if they're wrong (including gravity) then calculus would not work.
Calculus disproves flat earth
>>157838>because calculus was invented to determine the sphereoid shape of the planet>Calculus disproves flat earthPreposterous.
According to history, Newton developed calculus at the same time than Leibniz, and the later was having none of the Newton's nonsense.
https://williameamon.com/?p=382 >>157839The principle Newton was unable to describe was electromagnetism. C'mon now, this is basic.
>>157840>electromagnetism>basicWant to dive into Aether?
>>157843Dependa on how you define aether
>>157848Thats the one!
I agree that one raises further questions. In fact, I seem to recall having this conversation ITT previously. Anyway, if the earth were non-spherical, the experimental distances would be far greater and far more readily provable. For one I would have to look at the specific mandlebrot section for the planet in those areas (hungary and budapest, iirc). For two, even without calculating extreme ratios, you're suggesting that 'if the earth is flat' you could see any part of the planet if you went far enough away. Like, assuming the illumination is sufficient with the revolving sun and moon disk, if you traveled far enough perpendicular to the ground, you could see all continents?
Why didnt they have a length receiver? You know, so they could adjust the angle of the laser and derive corroborative angles and heights? You know, trigonometry?
Like literally, that would be unassailable
>>157850See posts about perspective.
>>157851You should email them and ask.
>>157854Uhm, no, instead I will objectively conclude that the experiment has an insufficient sampling of data to corroborate and scale its results from, from which a hypothesis yhat WOULD lead one to proof of flat earth SCIENTIFICALLY. Like literally, just adjust/measure the angle of the laser, and record it. Thats all it would have taken.
>>157615I was asking about the South.
>>157613>>157744While I appreciate how NASA tells more lies than truths (as any official organism would), this is not enough of an argument for me. This is exactly the same as "debunking" psychic phenomena by demonstrating you can fake it with stage magic. It doesn't debunk anything. I'm afraid that's just a fallacy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jF349mX2lwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32YO4ku0xFQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUiw576aM00https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eABjyxKDXENumerous people have been there and experienced what according to the flat Earth model should be impossible. Instead of calling everyone a liar, I'd like to see a flat Earth model that accounts for this phenomenon. That is the real scientific mindset. Adjust your hypotheses to your experience.
>>149965That's how boomers were taught to "learn". It's the same mechanism at work behind the Q anon phenomenon. Herd mentality, heavy emotional investment, groupthink and above all projection so that faults in one's reasoning (or lack thereof) are perceived to belong to the other.
Honestly, at this point, after having given it the benefit of the doubt for 5 years (and I would still be willing to believe the Earth was a thoroid, if it stood up to scrutiny), I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing was some kind of experiment on manipulation of the masses.
Now that I think about it, the parallels between Q anon and flat Earth are unsettling.
>>157892Glad its not just me. There ARE interesting elements to the flat earth theory and SOME (minimally) of their findings are compelling. However, they are compelling in the sense of 'why did the readings come out that way', and the evidence does NOT point toward a flat earth, rather it suggests phenomenon locally occuring in thenexperiment that skews the results. That we're not allowed to "peer" review the experiments beyond being 'told' what they entail is likewise telling.
>>157891>>157892>>157893Anons, if there is not a curvature then any further argument about Earth being a planet is useless.
>>157892>Now that I think about it, the parallels between Q anon and flat Earth are unsettling.There is not comparison, Qanon relies on Mossad bullshit, on the other hand, the Flat Earth movement on direct observation and experimentation.
>>157898>the Flat Earth movement on direct observation and experimentationDo you have any peer reviewed sources?
Galileo was imprisonned, not because how argued that the Earth revolved around the sun but, because he didn't allow his scientific studies to be peer reviewed and slandered anyone who dared to question or criticize his theories (Because, you know,
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS TO CONTINUOUSLY PERFORM THE EXPERIMENT UNTIL A FACT IS UNDENIABLY REACHED).
>>157920>Do you have any peer reviewed sources?Flat Earth is not peer reviewed. There's a reason to it.
>>157897Not really. I want to know why there is a midnight Sun in the Southern hemisphere. I'm alright with "debunking" whatever model, including the "globe model" and all its cosmology. I really can stretch my suspension of disbelief as far as logical consistency allows.
But give me an alternative that explains the empirical observations. How does a midnight Sun in the Sourthern hemisphere happen?
>>157898I was talking specifically about the memes. You can't deny they have the same flavor to them.
>very crude humor based in middle school finger-pointing and ridiculing>appeals to emotion and peer pressure>boomer-tier meme crafting skills>>157930I don't. Everything I "know" about almost anything (even most of the time I experience it directly) is based in conjecture and logic. Are all these videos fake and their posters liars? Can you prove it?
>>157891There are many, many such videos by civilian researchers who have been there and recorded it. Hell, I might go there myself and in many a flat Earther's mind I would become a Mason, a liar and a conspirator.
How many videos disproving the midnight Sun in Antartica in-situ are there?
>>157931>There are many, many such videos by civilian researchers who have been there and recorded itAhem.
You kidding, right? Anyone going there is on a payroll and bounded by legal coercion. No independent access is allowed.