zero evidence on your side

zero!!!

none

nada

zip

nil

nothing as proof

<a:PepeCoffee:634141178056671262>

but keep patting yourself on the back! keep telling yourself you're right

!mute @Tae

Troll.

"South*StarToday at 2:32 AM
If earth is flat, than earth Chan has flat chest"

Ye Ik him. He’s a lil troll. I told em he was gonna get muted if he said stuff like that

Well hopefully he learns.

https://youtu.be/_t-iCK1vqCc
No further questions.

@oh hi mark 1 minute in the video and shes saying circumnavigation is not possible on flat earth which is false. Condemnation without investigation once again.

@CryptoCypher we can test this ourselves if you want to

Also, I’d still like to hear the mechanism behind objects accelerating downwards

Something other than “Thats just how it is”

@Say nice idea, but... just show proof of curvature and proof of rotation. there's plenty of explanations for the observation, commonly referred to as "gravity" you've likely already heard and dismissed them already because you so desperately want to hold on tightly to your precious globe model, with no real reasoning other than "but scientist xyz told me or NASA this or Neil Degrasse Tyson that" If you're not going to respond with proof of the things I'm asking for "curvature" or "rotation" I have no real interest in this conversation!

Relax mate, I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t want a conversation

Here’s a relatively simple proof for curvature: put a stick in the ground. At noon, measure the angle at which the shadow from the sun makes. Then, have a friend or someone else a few degrees north/south do the same. On a flat earth, the angle should be different than what they would be on a curved earth

oh sticks LMAO

hahaha

Also, you do need a force to explain the acceleration of objects

No sticks prove nothing

Why

come on, provide a better one than the sticks BS

Why do you need a force

Do you want to have an actual conversation? Or are you going to continue acting like that

You just want it?

You need a force because things don’t accelerate without a net force

well... do you have a better "proof" than sticks?

No, it’s just how it works. The acceleration of objects necessitates a net force

Crypto, stop arguing dishonestly. I presented a proof. Accept it or reject it and give your reasoning

No! the sticks thing is not proof! this is not me being dishonest, it's me being realistic. Those sticks prove nothing

Explain why it’s not proof

because you're just parroting the same BS you heard from one of your leaders! come on man, use some real logical reasoning here. we've heard the sticks stuff before, many times, it's utter nonsense. Now, are you going to provide real proof, or do you really want to argue about sticks? cos honestly, it's pathetic

Im not just repeating it. I understand the math behind it.

How far away is your sun in your model?

we don't have a model

I dont have a model for how far the sun is

They believe it's much closer than the globe earth sun.

It looks pretty close

Feels close

Intuition is misleading

Doesnt feel 93 million miles away

Again, intuition is misleading

looks close, feels close and just like the globe model, nobody has ever actually measured the distance, because nobody can

If psychology has taught us anything, it’s that we shouldn’t trust our senses

We have measured the distance

They say the suns surface is 10000 degrees. You think the heat from 10 self cleaning ovens travels 93 million miles and heats u up?

Lol

You measured the distance?

Hows that?

we haven't! to measure the distance we either need to know the size, or the distance, we don't know the distance without knowing the size! do you see the predicament?

Parallexes

What assumptions did you use to measure ?

Lol

You dont need to know the size of the sun to measure the distance lol

of course you do

Why...?

because if you know the size, you can calculate the distance!

Crypto, can i ask, whats the highest level of math you’ve taken?

it doesn't matter what my level of indoctrination is, it's irrelevant

Math isn’t indoctrination...

whatever, we'll agree to disagree

That’s a ridiculous assertion though. Math is self-evidently true

Ok literally look at flat earth ocean currents.

It's pretty clear voyages in the exploration age just followed the currents in a huge circle.

They didn't just sail straight and they hardly had the technology to do much else aside from following the wind and ocean currents.

but maths alone isn't proof of a lot, it can verify things, sure. But maths can't tell me what you had for dinner yesterday or what time you emptied your bladder

Sure, but that’s not the purpose of math

We can use math to measure distances and angles

maths is just another language, used as a way to explain things that words alone can't always convey. But back to the point, maths alone is not enough to tell you this world is a globe. You need other things too. so, are we going to get back to you providing proof for curvature or rotation? or is this just going to be another pointless conversation, another opportunity for a globe supporter to think they're right, so they can massage their ego?

Be back later, calc class is starting

LMAO

@🎃Oakheart🎃 not only that, but sailors have used sextants for a very long time, navigating by the stars, to this day, sailors can use those same star charts used back then, confirming the stars haven't changed

oops

That’s just not true, only general shapes and positions are the same for some stars

Some constellations are completely gone

My favorite is Argos Bc boats are cool

The big dipper can be seen all year

The Big Dipper, especially Polaris, is near our axis of rotation

Based on time of year, certain stars/constellations take certain positions in the sky

The big dipper shows the season.

You've been decieved.

By NASA

Polaris is A PART OF the Big Dipper

no...

Yes it is

Thats not possible on a globe.

It’s at the end

It’s rotating as the earth’s position changes, how is that not possible?