You are a girl right?

Sksksksksksk obvs

4 people are going to area 51

me and the other 3 fingers

@Akhanyatin yes. Space is a vacuum with maybe a few chunks od atoms floating around. But as distance increases gravity unproportionally decreases. Eventually the molecules with kinetic energy escape and the gravity is too weak to pull them back in. Therefor we get a vacuum that escapes earth's atmosphere. Technically the pressure in space isnt zero but it essentially is zero for every calculation purpose.

Vacuum, space in which there is no matter or in which the pressure is so low that any particles in the space do not affect any processes being carried on there.

vacuums

do

not

suck

They dont

High pressure pushes

@the21cat RIP I thought you were a flat earther lol

I was trying to get you to admit that there could be a pressure gradient

it was way easier than expected... but then you're not a FE

FE'ers, how long does it take to fly from Argentina to Australia?

21 cat. Yer loonier than a 3 dollar bill

a pressure gradient indicates a container

every container of pressure has a gradient

why would we deny the pressure gradient when it is characteristic of a container?

lmao gas fills its container so why would there be a pressure gradient in a container

it should be constant

and it isn't constant on earth because we're not in a container

but it's not lmao

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

literally all pressurized containers have a gradient

1

The pressure gradient would be in any container that is in a gravitational field. It's just that in most situations, the gradient in air is too small to worry about and it is ignored.

You can determine the gradient the same way you do pressure underwater. You just multiply the depth of the fluid by the density. For very large columns, the density of air would vary. But for a small container, we can assume it's nearly constant, around ρ=1.225kg/m3
That means near sea level, if the pressure at the bottom of a container is 1atm or about 1013mbar, the pressure 1m higher would be less by the weight of that amount of air.

ΔP=ρgh
ΔP=(1.225kg/m3)(9.81m/s2)(1m)
ΔP=0.12mbar
1m up in your container, the pressure is less by about 0.01%.

huh

that's actually kinda illuminating

it shows that even with constant density atmosphere, you could get a pressure gradient

imagine having to prove we aren't in a container

Imagine having to prove we are

"second law of thermodynamics!"

I mean actually proving it’s existence

what is this debate about

Wether there is a dome or not

It’s not really a debate at the moment

ok what is your opinion

No existe

ok i guess we have nothing to debate about xd

Lol

If we were in space all the air would be gone

It isn't gone thanks to gravity

@Citizen Z how come?

Entropy

Entropy is the reason we have a pressure gradient

I don’t think you understand entropy citizen

@Citizen Z so because of the dome, we have a constant pressure everywhere on the planet not matter the altitude?

Even with a dome, there'd be a pressure gradient. Atmospheric pressure is caused by weight of the atmosphere, so the higher your altitude, the less pressure would be exerted on you.

buoyancy and density would not explain a pressure gradient.... only one thing would explain that...

Buoyancy requires gravity

shhht they don't know that :P

Here's a great video of a density tower in micro gravity to demonstrate how buoyancy requires gravity:
https://youtu.be/rpP-7dhm9DI?t=175

Elon Musk with child trafficker Ghislane Maxwell

is there a debate to be had regarding this image?

right, so in 2014, when no one knew, he was supposed to know?

And so the plot thickens...

I guess he was silenced by the big evil corp that guards Antarctica :/

Technically buoyancy requires a force that acts on the whole system not gravity. Its just the only other possible forces i couls think of wouls be Fc (centripital force (or centrifugal force one of the 2) which would say we are spinning very fast in a circle. Which is ok i guess. Theres not really anuthing wrong with it

there is though, FE believe the earth is stationary

Most of them yes. But not all of them

The non-religious ones don't find it necessary to incorporate geocentrism.

the non religious ones make less sense because what is their excuse?

Purely distrust in the government, I think.

sure but scientists aren't government though

Yes they are. Some of them no but definetly a large amount are hired by the government for research or millitary purposes

@the21cat Yes, it technically needs an acceleration, gravitational or by other means

Yo, right so the earths round my guys

Flat earther's think it's round, too.

Read that back to yourself again, slowly

* in a hushed voice

*that's the joke*

Aight I came here for a debate thanks, it’s round 👌

it's a joke on the semantics of calling earth round.

it's a globe, for sure.

why do so many discords have admins that let their personal biases interfere with their actual administration

it's awful

!mute @Euclid because f*&^ you, that's why

jk XD

based

the earth isnt flat.

How can the earth be flat if you can't look 100km to the opposite site of a sea?

exactly! it's a box!

A box has 6 sides. If you believe that the earth has a periphery of 40,000 km at the equator, each of the 4 sides that are inline, is 10,000 km long. So that doesn't make any sense.

if the earth is flat, and the sun is close to earth, it should be relatively easy to draw a triangle linking the sun, the east and west coast

So you mean that there wouldn't be (many) time zones most of the time? If that's what you mean, I agree.

i don't care about time zones, i care about triangles

I would very much like it if someone could explain how the sun could work on a flat earth

We can make proper triangles at a spheriod earth too, the only difference is the base line, which would go through the earth.

But the angles of those triangles would be quite differnet

No, the won't. Imagine a line on which you put a isosceles triangle (with the same angles at the bottom). Now imagine that the line curves, but the points of contact stay the same.

Wait, where are these points exactly? Because I was imagining two points on the surface of the Earth some finite distance apart, with the third point being the sun

That's right, I could explain it way better with a picture, but that isn't possible, right?

I understand what you're saying about the isosceles triangle, but there are a few problems. The most important of which is that the angle that you're measuring has to be with respect to the surface of the Earth on both models. On the flat model, the norm of the surface is always in one direction. In the globe model, the norm changes depending on where you are

I also wish I could use some pictures to explain, but I'm very new to discord, so I have no idea about any of that 😦

In this case it's not Discord, I think we have to debate more to get the option to send pictures.

That's alright. We both understand that the earth is a sphere, so I trust us both to understand how triangles work

Definetely

i know we can make a triangle on a globe earth, it's how we first calculated the distance to the sun, but a near sun on a flat earth will not produce the same angles as a distant sun on a globe earth

since they are different triangles

That's for sure, but that has more to do with the position of the sun than the shape of the earth.

ok but one of the postulates of most FE is that the sun is very close

Yeah, I forgot about that

also, if the sun is very far away, why can we see it but we can only see a limited distance on a flat disc?

if the sun is actually very distant, is there still a dome? does that dome cover everything including the sun?

if not, what else is beyond the dome?

I don't know to whom you're asking this questions?

and if there is no dome but a distant sun, then are there also other planets? are they also flat?

i'm telling you why a close sun is actually very important to FE

Ah, allright

So they think that a sun, larger than the earth (although not as large as the sun is, according to NASA) , is inside a type of atmosphere?

usually, the common answer is that the sun and moon are the same size, smaller than earth, and very close to earth (though not close enough to reach by plane)
the ones who believe in a dome often believe that the sun and moon are part of the dome itself or just very close to the dome.
and they believe that they are both self luminescent (the moon doesn't reflect the light from the sun)
and that the moon sends off cooling light

But the sun (for 90% sure) can't be smaller than the earth. It would just have been burnt-out.

They don't think it's a ball of gas. I don't think they have a consensus on what it is, exactly, just that it *isn't* what mainstream science says it is.

The sun on flat earth geometrically has to be around 35 km in diameter

And around 4,300 km away

In that case the sun can't have burnt for 6,000 or more years.

Again, they don't think the sun is a ball of gas, so whether it can sustain itself for 6,000 or more years doesn't really concern them.

The sun would never actually reach fusion at that size.

So they didn't come up with an alternative way of how the sun must produce light?

No, but they don't hide the fact that they don't know.

That's not very creative

haha, no, not really. A lot of what they choose to believe is based on direct evidence. And, since you can't visit the sun yourself, you can't really know for sure what it is.

Well, actually I was wrong with my 'sun must've burnt-out-theory' if the sun was only 35 kilometres. It appears to be the following: The larger a star is, the faster it burns up.

However, a sun (according to the best-known theory) probably can't be 35 km in diameter and still be a sun.

no, it would never be able to achieve fusion.

97 has an explanation on why it could sustain fusion or something

I have no idea if it’s bs or not but you should talk to them

I'd be interested to hear that. I'll ask him in the other server

Lol thats an interesting piece of data.

so .. just measure that curve u trolls beLIEve in so much ,, and prove it ur self , //

..
u want ppl to spoon feed u info when u still cling to mainstream bs -- mockery , , -they-are mocking u , the public

Y o-u a-RE ilLe-gibL-e

Speak English

Reminds me of how Mike writes... Mike, is that you?

Mike is vacationing in the ICLOUD of the internet

i'm not a flat earther and looking for a civil debate with one

anyone up

?

Yes, but a glober too

I'm a bit bored by the fact that no flat earther joins the debate.

What is there to debate @P3TER_

@Citizen Z the shape of the earth?

Water is said to cover 71% of our known surface of earth. The natural physics of water is find and maintain level. Therefore the earth is atleast 71% flat just counting the oceans. Then we also have large lakes and other naturally flat surfaces such as salt flats and plains.

So like i said, the earth is flat, what is there to debate?

Assuming there is a force that acts in the same direction but a globe earth haa gravity acting as a vector with essentially constant magnitude in different directions depending on where masses are making it possible for water to fill space unnaturally

Being flat and being level are not at all the same thing.

You know what i mean. No need to skew the words

Do you think im saying earth is flat like a vertical wall?

Oh well. Guess you cant understand simple concepts

In that case we are done.

Have a nice day.

So, if we agree that being flat and being level are not the same thing, then we can agree that concluding the earth is flat because water levels itself is a non sequitur.

I dont think you mean the earth is a vertical wall

Im saying that a spherical earth with gravity does not act the same as a bucket of water because the direction of the force varies from place to place. Each vector points to the center if the earth but some point upwards, sideways, and diagonally from a view of the whole earth

Gravity is a theory

Einstein debunked newton

The entire thought of gravity has never been proven

You are assuming there is a center

Assuming the radius

Assuming the causation

Thatz pseudoscience

Show me water bending

Show me gravity

Belief systems are not a debate

I can prove the earth is flat

You cant prove the earth is a ball

Agreed that belief systems are not valid for debate.
Show me a ***better*** option for gravity and I'll change my roles.

hmm, globe gravity: g = GM/r^2. better gravity: g = -9.81 m/s^2

Some things to write here we don't assume the radius we can calculate that, none of it is water bending tell me how it is, you have been shown gravity it's around you. Some things you definitely did get right, we don't know an exact causation for gravity we just know what it does, we don't really know why. It's been proven as a force just not an explaination of why yet.

i've never seen it demonstrated or all around me i guess

things fall but i haven't been able to prove actual gravity for myself

Actually, gravity isn't a force.

in that view, you have to start saying that the floor is accelerating upwards

but it is the technical globe one yeah

Or we are on a rotating string

like string theory?

No more like centrifuge theory

is that like hollow earth?

https://img.purch.com/rc/696x392/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA5Ni84NzQvb3JpZ2luYWwvbmFzYS1zYXRlbGxpdGVzLXRyYWNrLWJyZWF0aGluZy1lYXJ0aC0wMS5qcGc= We all were fooled, the earth actually is a flat football !

And everyone who disagrees can go straight to the edge off the world and jump off the antarctica border into nonexistence

techstone is actually right he has approved evidence found in an ancient maja building with a drawn flat football

You trolls are really a nothing burger

@TechStone actually even if people wanted to they can’t cause there’s a limit to how far in you can go in Antarctica

They say it’s designated for “scientific research”

then just dig a tunnil in the ice, easy enough

then bungee jump without a rope

Wdym *nothing burger*

Is there an inside joke about me now

https://youtu.be/e-VD8q5pVM0

https://youtu.be/zsTbrFhEFFo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGjFAe018oA

@Roovland do you believe that hag?

Her proofs
My friends are astronauts
Its not okay to think earth is flat
Fake pictures
She doesn't understand flat earth
Boats over horizon ( lol angular resolution and optical slant)
Ancient greeks
The tropics. (Assuming the sun is far away) sticks and shadows. (Worst globe proof ever) works on a flat earth also. Eratosthenes made 5 assumptions that were all not correct.
Lunar eclipse. Not a proof. An observation. Assuming the earth is casting a shadow. (Look into selenelion eclipse, the moon and sun are in the sky at the same time, moon darkening comes from top of moon and works its way down.

Then she reaffirms the fallacy that the earth is round and its not okay to think otherwise.

I sincerely hope you wake up and see the lies.

I will tell you this. The videos coming from the most popular channels and the videos that have the most likes and views are likely the videos you should be questioning

Once you do that, your eyes will open

Many ppl are in a state of Indoctrination

Fooled by basically magic tricks and smooth talkers

Big think?

Is that thinking big?

Question.

What about Mars or any other planets being flat? Are they simply a "conspiracy theory"? Have any of you ever looked through a telescope? The planets all seem to be facing us directly where we are, no matter where we are on the Earth. Spherical or not, the Earth is very large, so how would something like the moon be flat and be facing every individual thing at the same time, assuming its signifigantly smaller than the Earth. Are the telescopes rigged? No they are not, the government would not rig every single telescope as they would spend an insane amount of money doing that as the amount of telescopes manufactured is already very large. Are you going to tell me that the government controls all the money. No, because if so, then the economy would have plumbetted a long long time ago.

What if Mars was just a luminous object in the sky, like we see in a planetarium? Just because it’s round doesn’t mean the earth is round too.

So you believe Earth is the only flat mass?

If so, then why has no one ever fallen of the edge, if the ice from Antartica goes around the Earth, then why is it no where to be seen, or why do we not fly of the edge, when flying from California to Japan across the Pacific ocean? Are you implying that the Pacific ocean is split in two?

"Just because" is not enough

!rank

<:XMARK6:403540169992568833> **A Day with Roche’**, this command is disabled in this channel

Yaaaay

@lil 4oe 4oe you don't have to cross the edge to fly from cali to japan

people can't even get to the south pole without credentials pretty much

Yeah you could fly across the rest of the world, or you could cross the Pacific and save like 3 days worth of time

Because there is no ice wall

thats why people fly across the pacific

and not over North America, Europe, and Asia

you keep changing subjects

but as far as flying east west, planes don't seem to take direct line routes either way

P3TER_#9311 LANGUAGE!!!

What? May I not explain something in normal words?

???#6440 Stop spamming! This is warning number 1

????#8770 Stop spamming! This is warning number 1

&ice 602772945160372235

??????????#0638 has been ICED for 4 Week(s)!

&ice 602772674607054848

??#6748 has been ICED for 4 Week(s)!

@Citizen Z lol
You say **I will tell you this. The videos coming from the most popular channels and the videos that have the most likes and views are likely the videos you should be questioning**
But once you succeed in "telling the truth" and flat earth becomes mainstream then paradoxically we should wake up and not believe flat earth anymore..... lollers

i would like to debate like a civil person

¿¿¿¿anyone???

no one will debate with me :C

About what?

@lil 4oe 4oe Have you noticed how the flat earth map is on the UN logo?

idk just flat earth stuff in general

Lollll

That's done to get every country at a 2d map

mhm

Is it really?

No flat earthers just took that, of does not match any real distances

...

hm

Actually the distances make sense

Of course, no country likes to be in an organisation that's excluding your being as a country by their logo

I meen, schorsing to the map out duchy of luxembourg is lager then pasta of scandinavia

Sorry autocorrect is on other laguage

No, but it's also done to not make any continent look more important than another.

.....................

Flight stops make so much more sense on the flat earth map than on a round map

#dutch @BelgianBastard/Charles_McCnaller

Not really

Yes

Prove to me the earth isn’t flat lol