If this isn't the place for this question, or not an appropriate discussion topic, please tell me.

Hmm. To me it looked like some organization was trying to appear is if a mass shooting had happened, but had not actually murdered anyone in order to push an agenda, likely a gun-grabbing one. Either way, there was a fair bit of evidence of something was not right. There was plenty of holes in the story and very contradictory evidence.

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

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.

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

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

Well, what is your standard of evidence then?

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.

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.

No, thats silly

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.

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?

Naw, they launch them on their own.

Plenty of ametuers, I'll find some examples

stuff like this

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

There is no way of knowing that.

Unless you asked them.

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?

Yea, fisheyes for certain distort images.

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

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.

I highly doubt that.

That you can revese it

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed

common core is very evil

>i'm not brainwashed

<@172482928457023488> I think you mean skepticism without boundaries

There is technically a safe level of heavy metals. But it's measured in the parts per million

if not parts per billion

Yea, chronic heavy metal poisioning is far more of a problem than short term

Aluminum can certainly be toxic if ingested in high quantities.

This chat certainly deteriorated for a bit there