He’s not banned tho

did he dm you?

oh ok

@ProgrammerVerbatim did u see the finale last night?

finale for what?

If you don’t support the 2nd law argument, then why are you claiming the atmosphere should disperse into space?

mr robot

its the tv show ur profile picture is from

@Fran take it to <#484514023698726912>

@Fran oh i was freaked on how you knew i watch mr robot lol

lmao

because i think it would

It doesn’t though

We can observe this

same reson i think nebula would disperse

Why? Gas dispersing into an equilibrium is part of the 2nd law of thermodynamics

i dont claim space couldnt exist because of it

Particles in a nebula attract each other the same as any celestial body

that is the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument

You claim that the atmosphere couldn’t exist though? I’m confused

as i understand it

The argument isn’t that space can’t exist though

it is

Ok, I am going to be straight with you. Fluid dynamic is not my strong suit

Space is obviously far more vast, the argument is that the atmosphere would disperse into space

Now you’re just changing labeling

If you want to argue about geometry I would be more comfortable with that

no

Me pop knows a lot about fluid dynamics, not that it matters

copy pasta to prove label changing

You know who I miss?

Indio.

That guy was so fun to argue with

he's on 24/7

Oh

Well he doesn’t say much

he does as far as i know

hes very knowledgeable

It’s not a matter of copy pasta. Space would still exist if the atmosphere dispersed into space. Flat Earthers using the 2nd law of therm argument claim gas pressure can’t exist if space does

Which is exactly what you’re claiming

i believe that if space were as we are told then the air would disperse

Yes, that’s the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument

same as it would for a nebula

no

they say space cannot exist

What is the 2nd law argument, can you clarify?

Why do they say it cannot exist?

because it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Why does space’s existence supposedly violate the law in the argument?

i am not talking such a rigid position

i just give an opinion

But you’re using the exact same argument

@California Nightmare 3.0 unmote

it isnt an argument its an opinion

@Logrian unkute

unmute

dont be a prat

@chad46 halp

unmite

unmute

The idea behind the argument is that gas pressure can’t exist next to a vacuum

How is an opinion used in opposition to another than an argument?

its just put there

rather then claiming something is impossible

“I think this will/won’t” rather than “this will/won’t” doesn’t change whether or not it isn’t an argument

ok

This was a pretty pointless subconversation, wasnt it? 😅

no

i really dont know what goes on in the sky

But you’re claiming that given x, y will happen

yes, but im not fixed on it

i will not say space doesnt exist because x

And that’s why this sub-conversation was pointless, you’re skirting around the point that you are using the same argument. Flat Earthers saying space can’t exist next to an atmosphere don’t believe space exists, but they still use that argument

It’s a given X, Y kind of thing. It’s an argument, and you’re using it. You’re just removing yourself from the responsibility.

im not using it

But regardless, I huh again, it was still fun

i dont use that argument to support flat earth

i was arguing for it because i think its the case

but it doesnt prove flat earth

(Back for a quick sec)
You’re using it as an argument against globe earth, and you’re still using that as an argument

It extends into a proof by contradiction

its a claim i do not have sufficient proof for

hence just an opinion

it is irrelevant to flat earth as far as i am concerned, but i will give my opinion

if by some miracle it is proven that 10^-17 torr does in fact exist then i will accept it, it doesnt change the measurement of the sea being flat @RadRhys

That’s a redirection, Chad

And cherrypicking

@Flat Earth PhD may I ask you something?

@Chris | Flat Earther yo

I need to ask you something

?

Globus cruciger

are you familiar with it?

@Chris | Flat Earther

you have never had an image tear before?

<@!256599271879475200> i'm a flattie 🙂

https://tenor.com/view/burn-sick-omg-omfg-dead-gif-4802144

<@!255071147018813440> you got rekt

oli

come back

sonny

Uh

@California Nightmare 3.0 is that the scientific method?

https://youtu.be/cH-M4s7S_7I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WRZvPa120g

Lol https://i.redd.it/bmx1ux4eih641.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

this guy breaks it down

Is he right?

i dont think so

nobel prize in physics

K. So

Nobel physics say earth is a sphere

physics is not the same as climate science

And that gravity exists

and that space exist

So if flat earthers had superior knowledge, they'd be able to use that to create useful technologies

What the heck are u two talkin about

I want in

Flerfers think Tesla was a real scientist but Einstein wasnt

!mute @Bootylicious

thanks @Citizen Z

ok he's been muted again

Np probably a globe goon

A goonie

😂

Thats sad

I was just clearing his name.

Troll 😂

They’re all scientists tbh. Just cause some of them had different beliefs doesn’t mean we should disqualify or discredit their research. I mean a majority of those people are geniuses.

Lowkey just gave him a second chance 1 minute ago and he already blew it.

@Deleted User you are still bad

breaking up

@Metallica agreed

My internet connection sucks

F

RIP

scientists who express opposing views usually are not seeking any alternative motives such as money or fame. in fact they put a lot on the line by speaking out

Most of those scientists thought at one point we are the center of the universe

that is the reason why its always good to hear out the minority who can loose jobs or licenses for trying to speak what they believe is the truth

Well it doesn’t really matter what they think. A scientist is is someone who conducts scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest.

Anyone can be a scientist. Those people are just famously know as scientists because of their amazing findings

indeed

well ya the thing is, with controversial topics you wont believe how much of the scientific research that does not match the narrative is unpublished and thrown away

no scientist or institute is required to publish the research and results they find. they have the full right to perform 10 studies, burn 9 which did not deliver the desired results and publish the 1 which did

well studies that are wrong are often published and then disproven

it depends

it is not that simple

every properly conducted study requires a massive amounts of fundings

yes, that's science

which you can only find from big industries or governments

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand you had to ruin it

ruin it?

what does that mean

proof that you can only get a large amount of evidence from big industries or governments, please?

go read studies

and look at who funded them

which ones

eeinstien wasn't funded

in USA alone for example almost 50 percent of the studies are government funded

then think about all the others

einstien wasn't funded

im talking about today

even today

nah today majority of studies require large fundings

23% of studies aren't funded

and thats not a small minority

yes that is a minority and those studies without much fundings are using poor methodology

usually analyzing and interpeting data

not conducting anything really

so what are you trying to say

what are you trying to prove, ultimately.

nevermind

i forgot what i tried to point out

exactly

i believe i meant that main stream research should be taken with high skepticism

and it is

thats why the scientific method exists

well you guys were talking about climate science i doubt any scientific method was used there

it was

fine show me

what scientific method they used to prove humans cause global warming

guess what, they cant

in order for them to properly use the scientific method there, they would need to replicate a copy of the earth without humans and see if global warming happens

this is what a scientific method is, and just like many other fields of studies, climate science is very inaccurate simply because its near impossible to use the scientific method

https://climate.nasa.gov/

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

so you mind explaining

NASA is already a discredited witness. any judge would throw out all their evidence in court

how did they discover man-made climate change

what methodology was used to come up with this conclusion

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

im asking you

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

yes. this is an organization we can trust....

even if i trust nasa, whats the scientific method used

in the post he linked about human causes

In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

this is what they said

yep

basically the consensus said that its probably humans

in what world is that a scientific method

@Советский стив#0561 so from what i understood in the article about human caused climate change, they basically said that since co2 increased and apparently the earth became warmer, therefore humans caused the climate change

basically correlation equals causation

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/

Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter:

1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.

glad to see some are actually trying to do something...

i dont think people realize how much co2 is produced by nature itself

i mean did any global warming believer look into the volcanoes for example

or even into history, all throughout history tribes and communities throughout the world performed controlled wild-fires to keep the land fertile

wild fires produce a fk ton more co2 than anything humans do

yes the controlled wildfires decreased

Even NASA is admitting now that CO2 is causing global greening

bcs so many scientists have been making the public aware

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOwHT8yS1XI

https://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

https://www.livescience.com/1981-wildfires-release-cars.html

the most important documentary to watch is "The Greatest Story Never Told"

there is a Jewish documentary by eric dubay, and wow is it disturbing to watch

he goes into the insane practices they dp

do

its called " Adolf Hilter vs The Jew World Order "

Watch "The Greatest Story Never Told"

i saw it

and Europa Rising

https://www.bitchute.com/video/s1nPYDj7KBEQ/

Greatest Story is 6hrs. but broken into chapters. very well done

ah ok

eric dubay adds a few more parts to it

eric dubay includes a lot of the greatest story never told and its twice as short