what up, sheeple!

holy fuck, sheeple, that's a lot of roles

is there no swearing?

Hey Czepa, are you on "Debate Flat Earth and More too?

nice, I've heard you on vc

Bedford experiment was flawed, though.

@Human Sheeple you should come visit Flat Earth Debate again sometime.

Coriolis is negligible with draining water. but it still affects storms.

oof

Police pupper is best pupper.

tbf, all these puppers are good bois

new channel! #pupper-of-the-day

That's the definition of Newtonian gravity. In General Relativity, it's the curvature of spacetime.

why would you feel any of that?

True, i guess

and I believe the Cavendish experiment proves at least a gravitational constant.

so saying "it's never been scientifically proven to exist" is bunk.

Actually, I take it back. it hasn't been *proven*. But in science, nothing is every proven. Only disproven.

And general relativity works *incredibly well* under most applications. Falls apart in quantum theory, though.

I didn't come up with that, Derkek. That's the scientific method.

not exactly *civil* debate, is it?

vacuum chambers easily disprove the air density theory.

in a vacuum, objects fall at the same speed.

exactly. there's no air to affect the "air density" part.

I'd say the two celestial poles are flat earther's worst nightmare.

I believe Foucault's Pendulum needs to be mechanized because it isn't a perpetual motion machine.

are you talking about Newtonian gravity?

he's talking about newton's laws of motion.

not Newtonian gravity.

cgi, no doubt

^they don't have the same curve, though. there's a bulge in the middle of the panel.

they do not. you can see it.

more earth showing at the center of the panel.

they are definitely using fish eye lens, agreed. don't appreciate the insult much, tho.

can't see the stars because of light exposure.

derek, pretty sure.

this is supposed to be civil debate.

gravity is a *scientific* theory, which is much different than the traditional definition of theory.

again, the scientific method doesn't *prove* anything. it only disproves.

there is no proof.

a helluva saturday night <:snapsnap:484956825863585792>

Sounds like this plan *stinks* <:snapsnap:484956825863585792>

I'm sorry

I'm pretty sure Sheeple's building a drone to fly over Antarctica.

He showed me some pics a while ago.

it's true. makes sense to limit image permissions.

Daniel's role says concave.

a more accurate statement is "water conforms to its environment."

what is that @ElectroquasistaticMagnetoMan ?

like, it was found *close* to the sun?

or in the sun?

huh interesting

with the naked eye or from photos?

ouch, don't hurt your eyes doing that...

do you have a cole's notes summary of the experiment, daniel?

hmm, I'll have to read up on this

did that change the results?

I'm reading up on it, that's very interesting. Everyone was baffled by the results.

gravitational attraction to the walls was ruled out.

actually, you're describing Newtonian gravity. gravity isn't actually a force.

General relativity superseded Newtonian gravity.

the Cavendish experiment shows there's at least a gravitational constant. What do you think of Cavendish, Jeremy?

it's been repeated numerous times and recently.

just saying

I can give you links, but there's youtube experiments if you look em up.

fake ones? what makes them fake?

Daniel, I think it's because the slinky is falling *and* contacting from both ends at the same time.

@jeremy here's one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mcg2h--JDv4

more powerful, daniel? I believe it's working in tandem with gravity

just curious why you're dismissing cavendish?

@ElectroquasistaticMagnetoMan well, we know that gravity isn't fully correct. it doesn't work AT ALL on quantum scales.

@jeremy I mean, the "attaction" isn't exactly perceptible. it takes a timelapse to really notice it.

I'll watch your vid, just a min.

I think gasification is a great option for power.

gasification converts municipal garbage to usable ash and generates clean-ish burning syngas.

so, eliminate garbage AND get clean energy.

you're still making garbage. we're just not piling it in the dump.

it's being burned.

do you think it should be shooting straight up?

the objective, though, is to get into orbit, not to just get into space.

That rocket is actually going down. it's falling along the earth's curve.

it's a super efficient way to get into orbit.

yes, I am.

well, let's not jump to that just yet.

I'm just saying that's the *reason* why rockets have that trajectory.

to shoot straight upwards is inefficient.

jeremy, I'm just explaining the mainstream reasoning why it takes that trajectory.

120k feet is very high

then it would definitely be falling to the ground in all those pics haha

oh really? I'd like to see that one.

however, and this is definitely assuming the earth is a globe, it makes perfect sense for rockets to take that trajectory.

it's hard to tell how high they are, but they are quite high when they start angling, allegedly.

sure, I'd like to see it.

I'm off to get some lunch! thanks for the civil discussion. 😃

ping me if you get it

Let me clarify, you asserted that the curved trajectory of rockets doesn't make sense. I'm saying that, according to globe earth mechanics, it makes perfect sense. It would be weird if NASA *didn't* curve their trajectories. They'd be working against themselves.

Thanks! I'll take a look as I eat my lunch.

I watched it! That was a plane??

I mean, I find it a little hard to believe there was a plane anywhere near a giant rocket launch regardless of the shape of the earth...