Talk about the spiralling 🤣

--yeah tho..thats' Crazy lol ..we dont usually harldy ever get tornados here in ny huh! lol

every so often (barely)--but

There was on 2007

I remember it was really windy and I stayed home

No I measure the Earth as flat

We use science here

http://prntscr.com/nc6tvk oh, ..i didnt know lol
--forgive my ignorance about it smiles

my mom said I had to go to bed early because the major said so

@Human Sheeple hmm? what happend 😃

who

she was worried if we had to wake up in the middle of the night and wanted me to be well rested

ah

hmm 🤔 ...

Observe my MEASUREMENT of Flat Earth

Now to MEASURE your globe here's what you have to do

but.. lol NOW? you're making me wanna look at my Yahoo HOMEPAGE to see the news lol, ..about weather ..here in new york last night lol...

@Hamburger Guy

it's horrific

@Hamburger Guy yo, ..anyone get >hurt?

of course it had to happen last night so I didn't get day off from school

heehees @Hamburger Guy

It flew over Bronx and Queens the rest of the boroughs it was just windy

yeah, ..we had heavy rains and strong winds ...up here , last night

*Syracuse (newyork)

Soreexcuse

How do you pronounce Syracuse

like..

"Sara" ..cuse

SaraCuse

(Syracuse)

; )

I always pronounced it Syrasoos

Check this out guys I went up against this guy who claims to be able to see his house live from space in real time from Himawari 8

actually ..was named after a City in > Sicily ..named .."Syracuse" >> "Siracusa"

He asked me how could they predict the clouds, I said on a computer obviously

SIRACUSA 😃

lol, ..i likey

but yeah ..that's the city in Sicily

i lived in syracuse

which its name after

If the earth is round then why is the rainbow a curve shape

buit in English its spelled Syracuse

I know it was named after the actual city I asked because i was listening to audiobook from the 17th century and they said Syraciuse

rains like 3x a week, 3 jet streams collide there. #1 test market in the US.

@Hamburger Guy --ah wow, cool 👍 yep..

It annoys me because now when I here Syracuse it doesn't register right away but Syrasoos does

lol, i just seen you posted that, ...that you thought it was pronounced like that 😊 giggle

nah yeah >> SaraCuse (Syracuse) 😉

Again this is why we call him Genghis Khan not Chinggis Khan

no audiobooks back then to correct us

....

we have a DOME up here too

in fact? its the only DOME STADIUM in the whole > Northeast USA teehees

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvS351QKFV4

^o^

hello fellow flat earthers

I saw that it's weird

@weed. HIGH


<:giggle:485714802123997184>

but slavic cartoons can be weirder

Islamic Disco?

especially the old Soviet ones

: O

nice..

--great....

No it's Russian

Russian = Slavic

Not including Turkic conquered people

guys I really think that the earth is square tbh

beautiful here in Florida, though it will be hot later most likely

I don't!

it really makes sense if you think about it
the earth is actually square

i guess it could be square

@weed. If you consider the limitations of your local earth to be the floor of your house, then yes the local flat earth from your fixed frame of reference is locally flat and square.

earth is round

i think that the earth is completly flat and anyone that thinks otherwise can jump off antartica

I travelled all the way to see if the earth is flat or round. it's actually square

where did you travel to

it has a waterfall like drop but it gets fine after a while

What's going on everyone

I tried to travel to Antarctica
And there is no wall

it's actually square

haha

you don't believe me?

well do you have any photos?

@Superiorna_Artiljerija What happened to Cavendish

The experiment we would recreate

With big balls

made of what though?

Teflon Hexane

🤔

FAM

How high do you intend on going?

Alright, @weed. has been warned for '**Bad word usage**'.

Rocketry is pretty fun

No i mean the Cavendish \

Lets do it

I like to eat poo poo

WE ARE NOT DOING A ROCKET

Why not?

No

I didn't say the rocket would be _good_

We need to prove that gravity is a force independent of static electricity

Do we _really_ have to go back and do the Cavendish experiment?

That's lame as hell

i think that electric increase in height has something to do with it

@Fading You don't have to

hmmm

@Superiorna_Artiljerija we need to prove that is the case

By replacing the lead balls with a material inert to static electricity

Lead is a pretty bad conductor, is it not?

@Fading it's still a conducter

So you want to dispel all doubt by using something perfectly insulating?

We know it is gravity if we calculate a similar gravitational constant

No it's a good conductor hence why it's used in car batteries

It's used in car batteries for a battery reaction, not for it's conduction

It is static electricity if the gravitational constant we calculate is noticably different

redox reaction* not battery reaction, sorry it's been a while since org chem

@Human Sheeple I assume you're talking about lead-acid batteries?

Lead has a conductivity of 4.55 x 10^6 S/m at 20 degrees C

Ah okay not as low as I thought

That's one order of magnitude LESS than copper

However Teflon has a conductivity of 10^-25 S/m which makes Lead 31 orders of magnitude better conductivity

hi good morning Human

nice

So if we use the same mass for the balls and they attract at the same speed it proves gravity and disproves Sheeple's 6 law

I kind of came into this discussion late so all I really now is we're not trusting the Cavendish experiment for some reason

Something to do with electricity I guess

Which is cool, who is gonna build the apparatus?

@Fading Sheeple suggests that the Cavendish experiment is not a result of gravity but the rods nearing the lead balls via static electricity

The Cavendish experiment is alright though keep in mind that usually you ought to work with no external forces such as friction or torque which isn't always the case

@The Gwench Send full pfp please

ha i was watching Arwijn show too

@Bannebie can you clarify what you mean by "work with no external forces"?

@Fading Sheeple wants me to do it in the dark too lol

Didn't Cavendish also do it in a pretty isolated thick enclosure which was then inside a building he stood outside of?

Aka ideal environment. The classic *weightless string, no friction, assume π=3* stuff

So how exactly would you do that, considering that is precisely what you said, _ideal_ ?

Lead balls are the only problem according to Sheeple and that can be easily accommodated for

Also aren't there better versions of the Cavendish experiment anyway? My education is hazy but i thought it was improved upon later

well if they changed it, it couldn't hide anything

There should be a gazillion of them

right there should be 15 different ones we could look at

Looks like Charles V. Boys improved upon the design

if they changed the Cavenderp experiment

Google it

maybe tehre is

Google scholar pls

So you get actual papers and not esoteric blogs

I doubt there are any 21st century scientists still working on cavendish

On Cavendish itself, no

But similar experiments

Yes but it's a question of accuracy, not about whether or not it exists

Redefining constants is a hot topic in science right now

Alright, @Fading has been warned for '**Bad word usage**'.

Iirc the gravitational constant we have _poor_ accuracy for

Big G is constantly being redifined

relative to the other constants

@Hamburger Guy in other words gravity is fake

Man it's hard to not trigger the bad word bot

So we would take Big G from lead and then Teflon Hexane and compare them

One of my research topics in Uni was redefining the kilogram using avogardo constant in spherical silicon balls

@Human Sheeple What would that have to do with being fake?

If gravity exists the Big G should be the same

You can redefine the wheel all the time, does that make wheels fake?

If not the Big G should be about 32 times apart

@Fading DAILY REMINDER GRAVITY IS A JOKE THAT CAN BE DEFEATED WITH A CHILDREN'S HELIUM BALLOON
1. CHANGING THE DENSITY OF THE BODY: https://imgur.com/a/uIY067X

I haven't found any balls on amazon

Unless there's something more to that gif are we just ignoring buoyancy?

might have to get it custom made

yeah that seems like something you'd have to commission

I'm not quite sure why flat earthers deny gravity. Gravity doesn't really change whether or not the earth is flat.

@Fading Sheeple got it wrong because adding balloons of the same mass and volume does not change the density

@Bannebie it depends on what their explanations for the other planets and things are

@Hamburger Guy That makes even less sense than I thought but okay

@Fading Except we don't know what planets are

@Hamburger Guy You don't understand negative relative density

@Bannebie My point is the source of denial of gravity can be dependent on the explanations for planets that flat earthers provide, which gravity might prove an issue with

@Fading LOGICAL FALLACY: SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF: https://imgur.com/tSgXe5B

@Fading Burden of proof is on you to PROVE gravity

Then they should find a different explanation for planets, because gravity is simply an effect we observe

If I have a ton of balloons of the same density individually adding more balloons will not change the density

Do the math

You mean balloons filled with WATER?

right you won't take off no

The point is that we have no idea what planets are, so using gravity to explain anything about planets is senseless.

How would Helium be different

10 fold lower density than air

@Bannebie So just to be aware of what we're talking about here, you don't believe we know whether or not planets are large masses in space?

@Fading 😂

The light you see in the sky weighs NOTHING

it's light

Yes, I don't believe anyone knows what exactly planets are since there's no way we can directly observe their size or weight.

@Bannebie You can measure angular size

Yeah uh you can view their size with telescopes lol

Observable testable repeatable, that's science

Yes, but that's just the *apparent* size.

@Fading Where's the testable and repeatable part?

Oh whoopsie you forgot that bit didn't you

@Human Sheeple of what?

SCIENCE

Testable and repeatable part of what?

For the *actual* size you'd need the distance, which can't be measured

If I can SEE a streetlamp 10km away, am I allowed to say it's a burning ball of fusion gas? Or if I climbed that lamp post and disassembled it and tested what it's made of, would I find a bunch of LEDs?

Well we use planetary orbits combined with angular size to calculate a planet's true size

@Human Sheeple We're talking about different things, I'm just saying we have _some_ information of what a planet is whereas Bannebie appears to be claiming we have _none_

When you disregard experiment and repeatability, you are pushing PSEUDOSCIENCE

I mean that's assuming planets have something like an orbit

So what's this then?

This is a planet

@Bannebie Okay so that's what I'm trying to get at, are you saying you don't believe planets orbit the way the scientific community thinks they do?

I'm just clarifying your stance here

This however is NOT a planet

@Fading Precisely, AFAIK all those things are based on assumptions we cannot test, repeat or replicate. It's variables which we cannot empirically prove, therefore the only honest answer one could give is *I don't know*

So you don't feel for example that data gathered by the likes of Tycho Brahe are adequate indication perhaps that the bodies in the sky orbit? And so on and so forth

I'm not exactly sure who that is, I'm rather bad with names

@Fading You know they assassinated Tycho Brahe

They did NOT like his geocentric model

Well my point is our understanding of the planets and the orbits is based on several hundred years worth of observations and refinement to theories

So I was just wondering, do you disbelieve that data proves what people assume it does, or that's it's fake etc

<a:Hasake1:528042341915820032><a:Hasake2:528042342062751744><a:Hasake3:528042342637109278>

It's less that I disbelieve it and more that I believe it's based on assumptions which we can't directly test. Saying a planet has an orbit because it follows a certain path is a non-sequitur. A planet following a certain path simply means that a planet is following a certain path, you can't induct anything else from that.

But if that path behaves the way an orbital model would explain, you don't believe that to be valid evidence?

MODEL

Are you saying the only way we can accept something to be true is if you hypothetically tracked it the whole way around without any steps in between?

MODELS are a system of postulates

Postulates are a system of assumptions

Assumptions are a system of beliefs

A system of beliefs is a RELIGION

I thought we were talking SCIENCE here

Who thinks the earth is flat

@Superiorna_Artiljerija WRONG it's a measurement

@Human Sheeple You don't need to believe in an assumption to decide to test it to see if it is valid

Hello is the earth flat

<a:PeaceAndTranquility:534895590933528596>

Alright, @Dec knudssen (MRS x KILLS) has been warned for '**Bad word usage**'.

The earth is not flat end off get a grip 🌏🌏

Ha

@Fading No, I'm saying that it's would be true if you could successfully falsify it by showing that 1) an orbital model sufficiently represents the observation and 2) any other model *wouldn't* sufficiently represent the observations. So far, you can explain planets by either an orbital model, which also assumes that planets have an orbit or that planets are some kind of wandering lights in the sky that happen to have a path. Using occam's razor on the two would yield that it's more likely that planets do in fact not have an orbit.

Here is the definition of a MODEL

SYSTEM OF POSTULATES

@Bannebie Number 2 isn't actually the case

Postulate means TO ASSUME

ASSUME means to PRETEND

In a simplified way, you pick the _best_ model with the most evidence and ability to predict (which is what testability is)