Seems like both of our math is wrong 🤔

Mines not

FECORE LASER TEST OVER LAKES
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bV8hCkvT7gRFkoR6J0AY1mDwYfQR7PAg/view

Laser , visual, infrared, mirrors , flashlights over impossible distances https://youtu.be/ebIg1qCWwos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoxhDtnRmBk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFLI26vd7Rc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEJPXW1PUKY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgGeIanZKAI

Optical slant and angular resolution. Why distant objects distort and disappear from the bottom.

https://youtu.be/FD9PDJ-xZgI

https://youtu.be/uLLwzKPwTDc

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSAlVua7T4g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0Db03o_uIw

just a note: the curvature calculator is just an average since as anyone can see whether u think the earth is round or flat u can observe hills etc. so don't bother with trying to use it as proof either way and low tides exist so don't bother with it over water either but hey who am i to say?

@Koro lol what

Nice excuses..

basically the curvature calculator is bs and doesn't prove anything

The math doesnt lie

Do it yourself over water

which maths?

Use binoculars

The curve isnt there

ok so you get high and low tides and i'm pretty sure this is using outdated physics so not accounting for relativity and the curvature of light in the presence of gravity

that effect has been observed during solar eclipses with stars light being curved by the sun's gravitational field. not the gravity itself to clear that up quickly

Has nothing to do with tides

Nothing to do with gravity

Nothing to do with eclipses

light refraction does

Gravitu doesn't curve light on earth. Thats a theory of gravitational lensing looking at stars

i'm using the sun as an example. it works with the earth as well

Show me your model for refraction

it's the gravity well that causes curvature of light

Prove it.

so light is "bent" for lack of a better word by any field of gravity. and the course of light is altered by passing through any medium whether that's glass or air. so the angle of light moving through the air is at a slightly different angle to when it enters it and when it reflects off an object it reflects at the same angle but earth creates a well of gravity that also curves light. you're under the impression that relativity only applies to stars and not planets which isn't true. it applies to anything with a gravity well as it has nothing to do with a body emitting light

suggestion: take some high level science classes and apply the stuff you learn to relevant experiments and you will find that they are *very* precise

https://www.quora.com/If-gravitational-lensing-is-true-why-does-the-light-from-sun-reach-earth

Still waiting for you to prove gravitational lensing observed on earth.

You believe in science fiction

We dont need to take high level science classes to know gravitational lensing is a theory

Hope you are bringing proof this time..getting tired of you trying to push personal beliefs here

no, i believe in science not sm bs scifi. whoever wrote that question has no idea what they're talking about and fair enough for wanting to know more so allow me to elaborate: light is emitted from the sun. its gravity well is strong but it's nothing in comparison to a black hole which emits light as well in very low frequency. so the photons can escape the well with ease. so i think you might be confusing gravitational lensing with relativity here as relativity precisely calculated how much the light would be "bent" by the gravity of the sun so please tell me how that is not proof of relativity. i'm not pushing personal beliefs in the slightest if anything you are the one pushing personal beliefs with no proof

so please, disprove relativity

in addition it's not even the gravity curving light. it's the curvature of space-time caused by the gravity well of an object with mass

If you had an experiment that proved the earth was moving, you could disprove relativity.

Prove general relativity

Thats your new project

so general relativity has been thoroughly proven many times hence i ask *you* to disprove it

this is very interesting to read

most of the experiments proving it were designed to disprove it so please

disprove it

There is no experiment proving it

Thats why its still a theory

Its science. Science isnt fact. Its a method

so the observation of light being curved in curved space-time being proven during a solar eclipse wasn't an experiment that proved it?

Show me the scientific method used to prove general relativity

@Koro observation doesnt prove causation

so do u want the wiki link or papers because with the level of intelligence you're displaying suggest that the wiki is the more appropriate

ok so explain other causes

You want to be banned?

do u want to listen to reason?

You have no reasoning

Just beliefs

I think it sounds more like reasoning than beliefs, but thats just me. it seems like koro is the only one trying to have a discussion and youre just constantly asking them to 'prove it' rather than giving your input. just something i noticed

ok so GTR hasn't been disproven. it was ammended by stephen hawking more recently as GTR was designed for a static universe. this is a theory that is over a century old and hasn't been disproven. every experiment that was designed to flaw it failed. gravitational lensing while yeah observation is not causation what else could be a factor here? it is precisely calculated with GTR suggesting that it is the factor of curved space-time. the equivalence principle also proves this (give it a quick search as it's a bit of a pain to explain). ether was a concept that would've flawed GTR but lo and behold it didn't so now provide me with anything that disproves GTR. it has withstood a century of people attempting to disprove it with everything they could think of and and yet it didn't manage to so if you can good luck

@waitress how do you disprove something thats not been proven? (The warping of space-time)

No scientist has ever proven gravitational lensing and every scientist admits it cant be observed on earth. Koro made the claim it can be. Asking for proof is normal in that instance. Its a bold claim.

He also claims that c02 levels above. 04 percent gave him cognitive impairment. Saying he performed an experiment. Asking for proof of this is also normal as his claim is bold and goes against measured known limitations of co2 for humans.

@Citizen Z I am contrary to your position, but I agree with you that @Koro is not providing either good arguments or solid evidence.

I just think there should be more talking or more research rather than a 'prove it' after everything, if that makes sense.

So as not to appear hypocritical, I'll provide this for a possible piece of evidence for general relativity. https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=137628

It's recent, and it was performed on earth without any reliance on the presupposition of earth's roundness.

.gov great

I can try and find the actual findings report, but still.

Ligo is a big sagnac experiment

If that's so, wouldn't that imply that at least part of the mile long laser tube is moving?

For how complicated ligo is said to be, i dont think it can be trusted nor will it ever be verifiable

Well, what is your standard of evidence then?

LIEgo

https://youtu.be/9qsDqXw6W3Q

Good video

There is a better one that goes deep into the technical stuff

Its not something that is verifiable

Think about it

If gravity was proven. Why spend that much money on ligo

Sagnac tubes move?

https://youtu.be/SWmlimH7laY

The tubes dont move

Thats actually a simple question. You have eyes and can see, yes? Does having eyes mean you understand all of the forces and factors that go into producing sight *electromagnetic, physiological etc..). The answer is no of course not. The same follows for gravity and in fact the basis of science. We observe something, but we dont understand why.

Thats why they have two ligos

No, my point is that if LIGO were indeed a Sagnac experiment, the entire aparatus would be moving, that's the point of the experiment.

Which I would imagine to be a problematic position.

any1 here think the aliens built the pyramids?

No, thats silly

Check this video out
https://youtu.be/sCuKuUgNfjA
Liego

Think how complicated that thing is

why is it a silly conspiracy despato

Well once you come to the conclusion all space images are fake FE is a no-brainer. They literally have zero evidence related to the earth itself that we can detect DOWN HERE

LIGO can measure 1/1000th of a proton radius but we can't measure the earth causes it's too big..... GTFO

@RangerX7 i think ancient people had different technolgy than us

No aliens

do flat earthers believe in space and planets and stuff

Never been to space or other planets

I think its fascinating

the whole flat earth conspiracy

It is.

The pyramids and ancient technology is also

im not sold either way but I think its cool to learn about

@Bitch Scone (Perry Devito) why cant you msg in lounge?

add to interest list secret space program

Noted.

Damn bro @Bitch Scone (Perry Devito)

I must agree with the fact that belief in a flat earth is fascinating. To people who believe in a globular earth, it seems so obvious, yet there is nothing immediate that they can point to as undeniable proof.

Not that I think there isn't proof, however.

how does wind work if the earth is flat

Wind is created by the sun unevenly heating the surface

Nothing to do with FE or GE

what does FE and GE stand for

In short, wind is caused by temperature

FE flat earth
GE globe earth

Pretty good explanation of wind i think
https://scijinks.gov/wind/

does the FE spin?

No

Stationary

so what about the coriolis effect and the stuff it claims it causes

Fallacy

Most things that are claimed to be caused by coriolis like water draining in different directions and storms rotating in opposite directions can be easily debunked

could you link a site?

Site to what?

that debunks it

lol start with youtube <:lul:484994724118134784>

Yea

hows that for a site

http://milesmathis.com/corio.html

This guy is a PHD mathematician

I have another question. I understand not trusting the government to tell the truth about anything, including space travel, moon landings, war crime etc.. but what about that increasing number of private individuals who launch rockets with cameras that are high enough to show the shape of the earth? And I personally know several aeronautical engineers who's job it is to make such rockets. Are alll of these people being told an elaborate lie, or themselves lying? What could motivate any of that?

Stop man

What private individuals launch rockets without government?

Naw, they launch them on their own.

Who?

Plenty of ametuers, I'll find some examples

stuff like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0imcpdLdB8

Did they design their cameras for high altitude?

Its a wide angle lens

There is no way of knowing that.

Unless you asked them.

Yes there is

Look at it.

You don't have to ask

The image is warping

The land mass below the camera takes up half the earth

Its not all of earth

Its a wide angle lens

https://youtu.be/ZXkCgB0cOGc

Personally I find arguing about whether it 'looks round' or not to be a bit unproductive. I'll admit that though it may 'look round', that is a terrible standard of evidence. But if a FE scenario, wouldn't the camera be seeing for more of the earth? like, all of it?

why would they cover it up tho, the goverment and the scientists

thats my biggest hold up with the theory

Yea, fisheyes for certain distort images.

Agreed, that was the second part of my earlier question.

The earth doesnt look round

Lol

The thing is about fish eye lenses though, is that since the resulting video or image taken with them is so distorted, it is not possible to make any claim of it original composition. for FE or GE purposes.

Not without a fishey lens of cgi

You can do a fisheye reversal on the imagery

It comes out flat

I highly doubt that.

That you can revese it

Well its real.

Look it up

https://www.lonelyspeck.com/defish/

That is for photos.

I have a video somewhere of defishing a rocket video

Id have to find it

Just curious how does gravity function with the flat earth model

Okay, I see your point. I find this a bit suspicious though. The process in the link you gave (and in in some others I found) shows how images can be manipulated in order to remove the fisheye effect after the image has already been taken. In principle this is fine, but for a standard of evidence I find it weak. This is because there is no direct complement to the specific lens effect. What I mean is that the original pictoral information has been lost. Yes, you can later attempt to reverse the distortion effect, but the original information is lost. A good analogy is this: you have a bucket with a few grains of sand in it (the original information) and then fill the whole bucket with sand (the lens distortion), you then take out most of the sand, but since you don't know how much sand you had originally, you make estimate (the reversing process). Thus you are left with some amount of sand that looks right, but is not really identical to the original. I hope I made my point clear.

The origin Sheppard flight was defished

https://youtu.be/geWaK8LRv5Q

The gh2 vent cam

https://youtu.be/JNPpdHYD8jo

Came out flat

Agreed. Its not evidence

ISPRS Istanbul Workshop 2010 on Modeling of optical airborne and spaceborne Sensors, WG I/4, Oct. 11-13, IAPRS Vol. XXXVIII-1/W17. http://www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXVIII/1-W17/5_Yilmaz.pdf

High altitude Video and photographs have to be taken from cameras designed to be at that altitude

Otherwise defocus happens

Okay sure, but I still hold that reversing a fisheye lens effect with photo editors is not good evidence.

Its better than claiming the fish eye lens was the curve

Its still not good evidence. Of course dumb round earthers are going to point to a lens distortion as proof.

@Citizen Z how does gravity function with regards to the most commonly accepted flat Earth model

Things fall down

Lol

Density

We dont know the exact cause

Neither do you

You claim a religious belief

<@221423521824374785> density and bouyancy

Not sure of exact cause and im not going to pretend to know

<@221423521824374785> - no its not, ..not with taht helium in it

that*

helium is less dense than air isnt it

<@172482928457023488> thats a measurement

Not a cause

<@172482928457023488> Not necessarily, some materials are incompressible.

core - they say <:lul:484994724118134784> ...

<@221423521824374785> why does the ground become less dense and have more water the deeper they drilled?

<@172482928457023488> that's an equation. Not a cause.

why does the ground become less dense and have more water the deeper they drilled?

It did

<@172482928457023488> Yea, some substances are generally incompressible (except within a small margin). Which is why they have known density values

So you are going to blatantly lie to me?

<@172482928457023488> - you're = you are

<@221423521824374785> now i can't trust anything you say

Liar.

<@172482928457023488> they're = they are
<:BigSmiles:556070613224259594>

k

got an interesting topic regarding science in general

i love fish-sticks <:BigSmiles:556070613224259594>

<@172482928457023488> You can, for gasses, which are compressible.

<@172482928457023488> fallacy

anyone knows about the replication crisis?

https://www.corbettreport.com/the-crisis-of-science/

physics class... doesn't that make an appeal to authority?

i love fish-sticks

<:BigSmiles:556070613224259594>

@Lancelot It seems like its simply a methodological issue with soft sciences, which is not much of a surprise.

physics teachers of course tell things that are true, but not everything they say is true

Many fallacies among this bunch

Along with pseudoscience

there are things in the field of physics they don't know

public school does with common core

Oh no

Agreed

programming for conformity

Reality crashed before my eyes

Of course they brainwash you

common core is very evil

that's what it's about

*slaves*

calculation is something simple to learn, but that doesn't necessarily set you free

>i'm not brainwashed

critical thinking sets you free, add tothat independence from authority

some braincells... well, that includes braincells filled with mercury

Critical Thinking is brainwashed into University students, why trust it?

pure logic has more to do with the balance between intellect and intuition

<@172482928457023488> I think you mean skepticism without boundaries

adding intuition makes you see the bridges

Logic is how you wish to define it to conform to your beliefs

To educate a child means to teach him HOW to think, not WHAT to think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU8nSn5Ezd8

@Technomatrix - eyes remember you ..all the way back from "24/7 FE" discord, before there was even hardly anybody there <:BigSmiles:556070613224259594> lols..

but, teach your child how to think critically

Yeah, I think I remember you @✧Mike Flatbird (Mike Blackbird)✧

when it comes to homeschooling, allow your children to debate logically

Teach the controversy

did you know that not everything you learn at school will be in your memory?

interest plays a significant role

Alright, <@!221423521824374785> has been warned for '**Bad word usage**'.

neither take too much salt in the other place

Maybe the true model of our universe is all solved but it is being hidden before our very eyes!