That. Is important. To understand UFO says nothing about origin

i put " between gravity

""

So “anti density”

Lol

yea

Anti buoyancy and density

Em field rider

Wtf. This is bullshit!!!
Well that’s a wash. 😡

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7222949/Maurene-Comey-U-S-prosecutor-working-case-billionaire-sex-offender-Jeffrey-Epstein.html

floating technology

Do you watch globebusters?

@The Gwench. Maybe she got hit oonn. By Epstein in drunk moment when younger

They did a presentation about gravimeters

some times

Bob accepts gravity now

damn , he a sucker then

how so ?

@ivo Haha. I’m sure the whole trial will be a bloody farce. 🙄

Because he did a presentation about ‘gravimeters’ and they detect a “force” a acceleration

whats his excuse, mic drop ? 😂

Which we call gravity

thats an effect

Doesn’t it suck when sex offenders get punished? Smh

the cause is unknown

It’s a measurement

of the effect

@The Gwench no doubt. There, let's hope he gets. A lead return from a prepared victim

no one knows the cause

The cause doesn’t matter in this case. It exists it can be measured

its asumex

d

With a gravimeter for one

the effect isnt the same as cause

Gravity is reaction of. Thermodynamics being in it

Maybe you should hear it from bob himself instead from me

https://youtu.be/hByJBdQXjXU

He was annoying the crap out of jeran

First the gyro now gravimeters

i dont think he has anything smart to say, even the mainstream science admits they dont know the cause

Gotta. Work. Have a good day 👋

You too

bye

good luck

Why do you have to know the cause to know something exists something we can all measure?

There’s a downward force on earth regardless of it’s shape and you can call it whatever you want

mostly because globe gravity puts in parts that never have been measured

because we cant ascribe properties to an unknown factor, that would be considered psuedoscience

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

What “properties”

the effect

The ones we can measure? That there’s a downward acceleration of 9.8m per sec per sec?

that effect is fine

the globe claims others

they call the law because its an constant.
the cause is unknown, cant ascribe nade to an unknown factor

What does the globe claim about it?

that it would change on an FE, like in that crazy vsauce video

Right

and a lot of the globe model and space relies on other parts of it i guess

I’m trying to figure out a way for it to work on a flat earth

With mass attracts mass

It can’t be a disk that’s for sure

most i've seen don't believe mass attracts mass (if they're fe). good luck though :p

Maybe with a giant cilinder

**Question Of The Day #132**

Are the Nazis still alive and well in Antarctica?

Tell us what you think in the <#484514023698726912> 😃

And we’re on top of the cilinder

@raspberry some of them do though haha like bob knodel and mark sargent

i didn't know mark did lol, figures

Well he thinks it’s machined

naziz just evolved and developped better brainwash techniques, war wasnt working, now its a war for your mind

With giant gravity making machines under the earth

controll ones mind controll their reality

it is an info and mind war

Personally i think the flat earth is a psy op. Because it links all other conspiracy theories into it

I think it’s allowed to muddy the waters

flat earth is direct measurements

Which measurements?

https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
we have measured the earth water surface to be flat and not curving with direct measurements, the globe model predicts 8 inches per miles squared, for example : 8x10x10 = 800 inches of drop in 10 miles thats 20.3 meters of drop over a spawn of 16 km, when we measure over this distance there is no drop at al, so no curvature equals flat
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrV1BQhaufM-PsEtMjjehDQ/videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2zhK5paB5U
https://youtu.be/uJ3TLdcVNfA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ujL4424Nsg&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3Qc_rsubhAMEheBjM4vunjxoueZQW3wRqQvZFy09Wc9sJ9VxROJ4bCslY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ujL4424Nsg&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3Qc_rsubhAMEheBjM4vunjxoueZQW3wRqQvZFy09Wc9sJ9VxROJ4bCslY
19.25 meters of refracted hidden, thats the height of a 6 story building
yet we see to the base over a distance of 22 km where there should be 19.25 meters of refracted hidden curvature according to the globe model.
if you account maximum refraction possible, the lighthouse still should be 8 meters obscured by the supposed curvature
the lighthouse is 1 meter above sea level,
the focal hight of the light house is 30 meters above sea level
cape florida lighthouse, Key Biscayne footage taken
with a nikon p1000 camera from blackpoint 22.1 km distance

focal hight=height of the lamp of a lighthouse from water level
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/557318461819453451/597873047940366366/zero_curvature.1..jpeg
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/557318461819453451/597873063790379010/zero_curvature1.0.jpeg

This is shotgun argumentation bro

This pile as much as you can in one go

https://youtu.be/uJ3TLdcVNfA

watch it

zero curvature

So these are all just looking through a telescope or camera. And then compare it to a calculator that has errors

You said you had actual measurements

Where did you measure the surface of the water?

laser measurements

Are you saying a laser can’t bend?

thats not even an argument,

It makes your argument invalid is what it does

How did you or they measure something with a laser?

no it doesnt,

they measured direct, accounting all factors that could deviate the results

Just pointing a laser over a large body of water isn’t really measuring it is it

thats how you perform an experiment based on the scientific method

not just cherry pick like you do

What do i cherrypick?

does light bend? derp

You said you had actual measurements.

Yes?

Yes it does

watch the last vid

you just dismissed it out of hand because of derp

I probably already saw it

He’s pointing a laser over a large body of water and then he compares it to ‘the curve calculator’

They’re all the same

he accounts for all other possible factors too, that could deviate the final result

like refraction

I’ll watch it

Mass does not attract Mass folks

***If mass attracts mass then why is nobody attracted to me?***

I’m about 6 minutes into the video and he says the drop should be 10 meters when the laser is level. That’s the point the curve calculater assumes that you do. If you’re 1 meter above sealevel and you tilt that laser untill you can see it on the other side then it’s only 4,5 meters of obstruction. Over a distance of 15 kilometers with standard refraction that’s perfectly plausible.

Not to mention his first 2 attemps failed he could not see the laser

So this boils down to which way the laser bend

https://youtu.be/ab1se0dkeCU

Hello

How is everyone doing

Good

Better than John Lennon, anyway

https://www.radiotimes.com/news/film/2019-07-07/yesterday-danny-boyle-himesh-patel-defend-john-lennon-scene/

Pizzagate is real

Non-polotical yet a centrist.......

Wym

@zep tepi “standard refraction” is an unproven excuse that implies the opposite of what refraction actually does to justify being able to see farther than you should. light refracts upwards, not down, as your “standard refraction” implies.

@Vent there are no hot singles in your area :(

you can make an equation to justify any lie, or as I like to put it, there is more than one way to add up to nine. just because you proved that 8+1=9 doesn’t mean that 7+2, 6+3, and 5+4 don’t add up to the same thing

The earth is round

yes

@Morning Dew where’s the rest of the picture?

ask sheeple i got it from him

@Morning Dew 🐑

e

OK if earth flat then why are there no hot singles in my areA!!!

!mute @Mohbegin troll

gravity and a day-njght cycle can work on a flat earth, that is basic stuff, and furthermore, disproving a model does not require that you substitute it with another model. i firmly believe that no man can ever know the truth shape and proportions of the Earth

earth is round

yes

🌎

My table is also round

@Morning Dew you claim gravity can work on a flat earth?

yes, a constant downward force can work on any model

But that's not what gravity is

It isn't a force

semantics

Yes but label is different from scientific theory

BUT ACKSHUALLY

i don’t play word games with pseuds

Too many people think gravity is a label when it's an explicit explanation of a set of observed phenomena

So you're just using the term inaccurately to create false claims

i hope you feel smart, because that’s all you accomplished with that word salad

i don’t blame you, its how this society is taught

🤔

How was that a word salad

Your claim was wrong since you're using a term incorrectly. If you really want to deny that by saying that I just want to feel smart then be my guest.

it doesn’t matter how you describe what gravity is, the original discussion was about whether or not gravity can exist on another model of the earth. the textbook definition of gravity is irrelevant in that context, which is why your posts are semantic word salad

i described you perfectly, thank you very much

Kek

Except it does matter what gravity is since that's how you can even determine if it works on a flat earth

How you describe gravity is crucial as to whether or not it works on flat earth in the first place

@everyone

in essence, what you, and what others like you do, is that when someone calls you a “poopyhead” you say “WELL ACKSHUALLY MY HEAD ISN’T MADE OF POOP” and miss the point. You’re going on this meta rant because you already know this theoretical concept can work on both

but i hope you feel smart

most people come here to satisfy their pride so i’d hate to rain on your parade

this is actually a debate that seems to cause issues

whether the word "gravity" refers to theories like einstein's and newtons, or if it refers to the observed fact that things fall

But... it can't?

You continually claim I'm missing the point but you're the one whose using ignorant of what gravity is described as in the globe model. This ignorance is leading to a false claim.

I’m sure you’ll get to the point eventually

I'm just stating that your description of gravity is inaccurate if you believe it to be compatible with the flat earth, which you've claimed.

you pseuds do love your self-satisfying buildup

look at him stroke that e-peen

what's wrong with constant downwards acceleration?

let him twist his nipples a little more first

Ah yes, you've got no real argument so you turn to ad homs. Should've expected that.

@raspberry if you're going to cite gravity then it's as a theory.

still waiting for your argument that you have written an essay building up to

if gravityis a downward force... why does a Helium balloon rise?

sure, i'm fine with either, it's just that people have used both and confuse them in the past @Shadow✓

My argument is that your claim is wrong because your idea of gravity is wrong. Not that hard to see.

The helium balloon displaces an amount of air (just like the empty bottle displaces an amount of water). As long as the weight of the helium plus the balloon fabric is lighter than the air it displaces, the balloon will float in the air. It turns out that helium is a lot lighter than air.

Basically, gravity pulls harder on the denser object, so the lighter one “floats”.

@raspberry if you call gravity the actual phenomena of objects falling that's rather incorrect. Since usually gravity is described as the explanation and cause for the observation.

i thought that that gravity was a DOWNWARD FORCE? why doesnt the helium go down then?

:/

relative density and buoyancy are consequences of things falling imo

here, since you’ve completely missed the socratic challenge i have presented and have chosen instead to focus on my comment which should be irrelevant to the discussion, let me help you. “Gravity cannot work on anything but a sphere because...”

its because gravity isnt real at all DENSITY is the effect you are looking at

@Shadow✓ i usually use it the way you do too. other globers tho have mixed it up, and this caused a huge debate on another server

@raspberry I honestly think that's ignorance more than anything. In physics at least gravity is usually reffering to the cause.

@A Search for Roche's Rifle things can fall without a need for gravity

ofc they can

even a downwards force doesn't mean there has to be gravity

“Gravity cannot work on anything but a sphere because...”

gravity still IS ONLY a theory folks

@Morning Dew I was pointing out that your conclusion was derived from ignorance. But if your ad homs were calling for me to explain then Alright.

“Things can only go down on a sphere because...”

@Shadow✓ i pretty much agree with you here xp. i could give you their arguments, "theories use the word 'gravity' even when the theory changes," but, yeah, it's still talking about the theory

Gravity will cause anything of sufficient mass to collapse into a sphere

Gravity on a flat earth would cause it to collapse into a globe

oboy shadow you need help

THERE WE GO. was that so hard? was your essay before that really necessary?

collaspe into a globe? thats just nutts

i hope you at least climaxed

@raspberry well newtonian gravity never really gave a cause for it

@Morning Dew do you have a pic of a laser curving upwards? @A Search for Roche's Rifle

@A Search for Roche's Rifle it's not, since that's what gravity in the globe model does

@Shadow✓ yeah

or maybe, and roll with me on this one, gravity, as explained by the globe model could only work on a globe, but the existence of a similar phenomenon could work on a flat earth given the idea that the flat earth had properties which made it impossible to “break into a sphere,” such as, idk, a God holding it together. as you say, you have a phenomenon, and you explain it with a math problem, but that is not the only explanation for that phenomenon. there is more than one way to add up to 9

yes

you presuppose that only a round ball with a 25k circumference could create the 9.8 figure, to which I would say, there could be potentially infinite explanations for that phenomenon, you just HAPPEN to have found one of them. this is a common fallacy i see from your types

its as Tesla said, your math could or could not be related to reality

👌

theoretically, if the ice wall and stuff is infinite, then gravity would work on a flat earth, as all forces will cancel out apart from down

or a spagetti monster happens to create the phenomenon with trillions of invisible omnipresent noodle arms

that can be the only rational explanation

@Morning Dew if you're suggesting to use gravity whilst ignoring how gravity works and making the claim "god stops it from doing this" then sure, you could twist it all you wanted to work for you. Except that isn't really gravity, that's just a version in which specific rules are ignored to make it reconcile with a model it should classically be impossible to exist on.

it would be interesting to see what shape could do that nico lol

my my, that’s some word salad you’ve got there, I’m very impressed, you get a gold star

Not as strongly crafted as your word salad, my friend

i swear its like i can always call your type out before you say anything

you’re not even grasping the socratic challenge i presented you, i am not foolish enough to be intimidated by empty words

@Morning Dew also, your common fallacy that my type seems to consistently present is not completely accurate.
We made an explanation to explain a certain observation, but this explanation also predicts other observations and gives direct mathematical predictions for these observations.
And guess what? When we try to experimentally test and confirm said predictions they turn out to be perfectly consistent with our theory.

you are, as I like to put it, implying there is only one way to add up to 9, because you proved that 8+1 always equals 9. that does not prove it is the only equation that does that

SHEEPLE has a vid of a laser going upwards yes

bending

yes

That's why general relativity (our theory of gravity) has been experimentally shown to be consistent and mirror reality

It may not be the only way, but its shown to be consistent and able to predict phenomena with precision

perfect example, roche, of a math problem that works but is unrelated to reality. Again, @Shadow✓, that does not prove it is the only explanation.

Therefore it can accurately reflect reality and has been shown to

I never said it's the "only" explanation, I said it's an explanation we use because it's consistent with reality. Thus why it's still a modern theory.

i think those demonstrations also rely on a lot of trust in authority rather than direct observation shadow

I’m scared

@raspberry you mean the predictions?

yes

people will say the exact same things about “standard refraction” even though it is ridiculous and unproven through experimentation. Your math may or may not explain reality. it may merely correlate with reality. THEREFORE, there could be another explanation that works on a flat earth, THEREFORE gravity could work on a flat earth, THEREFORE it does not prove what you think it proves. Now go ahead and shift the goalpost again

well the fact that the predictions match reality at least

There's gravitational redshifting, gravitational lensing, and gravitational time dialation

redshifting and time dilation are usually just done assuming GR is true, they don't prove it

None really require an appeal to authority since they're all involved with a profession that you can achieve and do a direct observation or measurement yourself.

lensing is supposed to be a proof but... have you ever seen that happen?

maybe we can check during the next total solar eclipse like einstein did

but, i feel like there'd be a more practical way to demonstrate curvature, if it existed

gravity does not prove what you implied it proved, as I have have just socratically proven. by all means though, continue stroking your ego

it is a very good theory that correlates with reality, congratulations

i hope you got an A in physics