Thats not actually the experiment, thats the name

provide the Wiki page or anything detailing it

Well, you already proved you can’t watch a video.

Thats because I was doing Something Derek

something I mentioned

but because I swore my message was deleted

Yeah right. ‘Doing something’ while typing..

BullShit.

Listening to music

Music which is good enough that I dont wanna turn it off to watch a video you posted in the middle of an unrelated conversation

multiple times

https://youtu.be/hP8l3yqdKJM

Derek, please post a webpage or something I can read about the experiment

I said before Im listening to music

ah

he's offline

He asks people to watch some video, and refuses to look up the experiment he spent 15 minutes posting memes about.... insane

I know right

like bro

https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment

I hate posting Flat earth society stuff.

But that article gives a more accurate review than most.

Especially when other articles keep inserting claims and stating things like, “because the earth is moving.”

When they have never established that in the First freaking place.

The experiment was so effective at demonstrating the earth doesn’t move, the only thing mainstream science could turn to, was Einstein’s theory of relativity. Which is an illusion that masks over the already established experimentable data.

Oh ok

oh

You assume there's only one balloon satellite, they admit there are "satellite constellations" which can encompass "balloon satellite constellations" i.e. the same signal emmitted from multiple sources

Oh the old assume technique

@Tiktok I was having a conversation. Keep your dribble in DM’s.

Well that’s s uncivilised

You literally interrupted a conversation to post that Flat Earth Video Derek

Z posted the flat earth video first.

So, no. I didn’t interrupt anything.

you did

we were discussing the vid Citizen posted about the Trans athlete

then you stanked that video in

Also you don’t just call somebody’s conversation dribble

Have some manners

Yes. The 2nd video. I was talking about the one he posted first. Not my fault you like to pick one subject that was started second over another.

But the main focus of the convo was the trans video

You and one other person are not the main focus. Get over yourself.

3 people at that point

and u, one singular person

are?

2 people and 1 chimed.

My parabolic reflector must be oriented precisely (less than 1°) at the satellite. If I have a 1° deviation I can't catch the sat anymore.. so a "constellation" of sats doesn't explain it..

thats still more people focusing on that conversation than the amount of people who wanted to start a new convo by making us watch the video

that 2nd amount being one, You.

Yet here you are talking to me about it.

That makes 2.

And we also have had 2 chimers.

That’s because you were rude

there was no other conversation to have Derek

So, what have you learned about transgenders?

Do tell.

Thats not the point here

you interrupted our convo on it

So not shit? Fascinating.

you have no right to chastise someone else for doing the same

Unlike you, at least I don’t chastise without providing actual information, instead of empty rhetoric.

You just lost the argument derek

Based on what?

Enlighten me.

Insults are the evidence of a lost argument derek

Huh?

My god

Are facts hate speech to you or something?

What facts do you have then derek

And you proved my point.

You weren’t even listening.

Thanks!

!mute @(george)

Concern troll.

Interesting

I was surprised I wasnt muted

I'd like to stay unmuted tho so I'll leave it at that

https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-plans-to-send-a-drone-to-explore-saturn-s-moon-titan

So we can't go to our moon

But Saturn's moon

TO EASY

I mean ik its a robot but still we need the tech to send it there

Because you’re not trying to be a concern troll, @👻 𝐊𝐢𝐫𝐚 👻 and I do appreciate that.

Well that's good

!p hade

I agree.

I wonder if I can mute people

Ik I can warn

!warn @👻 𝐊𝐢𝐫𝐚 👻 get rekt

But will mute work 🤔

Very good

!mute @👻 𝐊𝐢𝐫𝐚 👻

<:XMARK6:403540169992568833> **Epic Abe**, you can't use that

Well

moron

We found out the answer

Yeah

https://youtu.be/hP8l3yqdKJM

Why was I muted

Your name is spelt wrong

^

So that's why you were banned

Who are you talking about?

!warn @Deleted User incorrect name spelling

Oh it’s one of those servers

Lol wdym

warning random people for no reason

The ones where you get banned easily

Nah that's just me

So far Abe is the only one doing that

Don't worry I'll stop

These warns mean nothing

ah thats good

Here how not to get banned

Don't be a nunce

That's it

Debatable but I'll see for myself

I’m guessing that means don’t disagree with people

precise Elevation angle for Eutelsat 16A : 24.38°

@N.C.R ranger No of course you can disagree

But you need to show proof

https://satlex.net/en/azel_calc-params.html?satlo=16.0&user_satlo=&user_satlo_dir=E&location=57.75%2C14.16&la=57.75&lo=14.16&country_code=se&diam_w=75&diam_h=80

Alright

Judy because you disagree doesn't make you a nunce

Literally that's the only reason you can get banned

I think tiktok should meet Christopher Biblis. He has a very interesting view on satellite dishes, and how they are often pointed at a source above, not because there’s a satellite there, but because there’s a physical barrier that can relay signals.

I'm tempted to investigate the claimed offset angle

40,000km high

That sounds impossibly far

offset of what? dome?

ＴＨＥＲＥ　ＡＲＥ　ＮＯ　ＳＡＴＥＬＬＩＴＥＳ　ＩＮ　ＯＵＴＥＲ　ＳＰＡＣＥ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq9SJIGmqyQ

Yes they are.. I'm looking at a sat-TV channel RIGHT NOW!

m8

@Tiktok your looking at tv

Stop spamming. Satellites don’t exist.

lol

@Tiktok and that proves you get tv

"Stop spamming" yet you spammed pictures

when your dish is poiting a way

Showed two different pictures once each? That’s not spam, jack ass.

you have no proof of satitlties...TV is only proof that you get TV

you said him giving evidence that satilites exist by giving scientific proof and you tell him to stop spamming yet you post multiple pictures that take up more text so i dont understand why hes a spammer

The average temperature of outer space near Earth is 283.32 kelvins (10.17 degrees Celsius or 50.3 degrees Fahrenheit). In empty, interstellar space, the temperature is just 3 kelvins, not much above absolute zero, which is the coldest anything can ever get.

https://sciencing.com/temperatures-outer-space-around-earth-20254.html

because he posted it serveral times @Cyka's Cyuan

ah

i think

Yep.

@Cosmonaut! have you been there to verify?

*yawn* - ah, that argument..

you mean asking for proof?

so if i said "in my backyard i can fly aroud like super man"

and you asked to see it...and i went"mann...THAT old arguuemnt"

I just linked a source, I dont have to personally have been there to link a source

"gooosh...i just HATE when people ask me to prove my claims"

how do i know the soruce isnt lying?

I guess its on you to disprove the source.

That's not how burden of proof works

if i said i can fly...is it on you to prove i cant?@Cosmonaut!

*Several people are typing*

Yep, and I'm POSITIVE you guys fact check the meme spam you send out... right

if i said i can fly...is it on you to prove i cant?@Cosmonaut!

stop spamming

asnwer then

If we are to believe Sheeple that satellites hang at just 40Km altitude, we can calculate the HORIZONTAL distance from me to the satellite :
tan(24.38) = 40Km/H_distance ---> H_distance = 88Km
Just 88Km (to south) away from me !?
If that ^ would be true, satellite antennas in Malmo (another city which is just 180Km down to the south from me)
would have to point toward NORTH, not south !!!!!!!!
But in REALITY, ALL satellite antennas from the nordic hemisphere are oriented toward SOUTH *
<<<<<<< C A S E C L O S E D ! >>>>>>>

cosmonaut check dms

!mute @Tiktok Told you to stop spamming.

@Tiktok Cite your sources

@Tiktok can you back that claim?

ice box time

not anymore lol

Its a false equivalence - I think it’s a little unfair for me to have to have “been there” to verify, yet derek posted about the temperature of the thermosphere without having to “be there

Different burdens of proof, plus I could basically just use that argument over and over for anything that you post. Its a bit disingenuous.

well then i dont need to show you that i can fly to prove i can fly

The temperature of the thermosphere is what we are told. Yet nowhere in real life can we verify that’s the case with other elements enduring that temperature in a vacuum.

But posting about the temp of the thermosphere without also posting about how objects radiate heat AWAY is disingenuous.

It shows lack of understanding

Radiating heat away is a Claim.

Prove it.

Show me how that is done in a vacuum.

science does not deal in proofs

Real science does. Pseudoscience doesn’t.

science never deals in proofs. Look up "scientific proof" and the first google hit will be "scientific evidence"

No such thing as scientific proof

Of course. Yes, Google is the answer to everything. Nevermind they bury information like nazi’s burned books.

@Derek Nelson use ecosia

Ask anyone in science if they EVER deal with PROOF or if SCIENTIFIC PROOF is a thing.... they will all say no

That's actually true. Since science is based in philosophy, there is no settlement of information about anything.

Everything is up for debate and nothing is ever settled.

If that’s the case then what category would we place proof in?

None

mythical

Court.

Court is still subjective and often flawed

no such thing as 100% proof

Philosophically, I can't agree to the term, proof.

Well, in that case, philosophy can kiss my ass.

I require proof.

You'll be waiting a while.

If you want to learn how science deals with evidence, theories and laws, - https://youtu.be/lqk3TKuGNBA
But I know you wont watch it

You might as well have typed "I DEMAND PURPLE UNICORN LEPRECHAUNS" -

science does not deal in proof

So you mean to tell me, mainstream science gets to tell us how everything works, without ever having to prove a single thing.

Watch the video, it explains everything

There’s another word for that.

It’s called religion.

Can you 100% prove... ANYTHING?

By the scientific method, yes.

Is there something wrong with observation, measurement, and experiment?

Even by science, they dont deal in proofs... (told you that you wouldnt watch the video)

the vid does explain it well

At this point, we arent even speaking the same language... proof does not exist

replace it in your vocabulary with "evidence" - and you will be part way there

Part way to a point where proof doesn’t matter. Sounds like a dead end.

If you want to talk in the language of science, at least understand how it works. If you refuse to understand how it works, nobody can really help you.
evidence, theory, law - watch the video

I need to speak the language of how Proof doesn’t matter?

scientists dont use the scientific method to PROVE ANYTHING - EVER

Not anymore they don’t. True. Because the scientific method doesn’t support their ridiculous theories.

no scientific claim can really be 100% accurate

How serious can you be, if you cant watch a 5-6 minute video explaining terms you are getting wrong

have u done that math???

Like plugging your ears and going 'LALALALALALALALALALALA'

it is barley anything those forces

Prove it.

what

science does not deal in proofs

Then you’re not a real scientist in my mind.

You’re a theorist.

A philosopher.

0@Tiktok Five years ago physicists showed that certain kinds of laser beam can follow curved trajectories in free space. ... The Florida team generated a specially shaped laser beam that could self-accelerate, or bend, sideways. The researchers did not bend the laser beam as a whole but rather the high-intensity regions within it.Nov 30, 2012

1 dissenter out of 7.6 billion people
interesting

Appeal to a majority is not a substitute for proof.

Scientists are partly philosophers

he says lasers wont bend but it follows the curve of earth

science does not deal in proof -

Science is based on philosophy

scientific proof DOES NOT EXIST - you are feels over reals right now

The scientific method doesn't actually 100% prove anything.

it does

The results can be debated

so i cant prove rocks fall in air 100% of the time?

jokes