by mit off the moon yet nasa defenders will still swear that experiment is proof we landed on the moon and left reflectors there

well that is one of the pieces of evidence

but the fact taht we brought back pieces of the moon is another compelling piece of evidence

I think it means that you use math to calculate using known variables

the moon rock that turned out to be petrified wood ?

that piece of the moon ?

no that wasn't one that was brought back

Anyways, I got something at least;
https://www.askamathematician.com/2014/02/q-how-fast-are-we-moving-through-space-has-anyone-calculated-it/

didnt we give a moonrock to a country and it turned out to be petrified wood

no,, the netherlands ambassodor lied about getting a moon rock, and everyone in his country believed him

those aren't handed out like that

especially not to some random ambassador

I remember Jarrah White asking Buzz Aldrin about the petrified wood

He said it must have been secretly switched out with the real moon rock

And how fast is the Milky Way Galaxy moving? The speed turns out to be an astounding 1.3 million miles per hour

thats slow though lol

tell me again how we are better at space travel now than we were in 1969

human space travel

manned space travel

Well, since it would take 225 million years for the sun to complete orbit around the galaxy, it is very slow.

idk 1.3 million mph seems fast

Relative to the vast scale of such a universe, pathetically slow it seems.

"Seems fast" is not mathematical nor scientific

Yeah, it is subjective

I tend to focus on what can be proven by general observation and experiments ordinary day to day people can do, so this galactic orbit isn't really that interesting to me anyways.
I think things like earth rotation can be proven by general people in principle, as well as earth shape, no space agencies or scientific journals needed

yes but u observe a boat that appears to be going over the horizon and its not proof positive it is going over the curve it could be an optical thing

their is a second option other than it going over the curve

<:Redpill:551640293372329984> 👀

right off the rip when u look out at the ocean the water appears to be going higher than ur feet thats what we observe we know thats not correct though right

?

"it could be" isn't really a valid refutation. We observe obscuring, no hypothetical needed, onus is on someone else if they want to insert a hypothetical to explain it away.
I think flat earth will have a very hard making a comeback in light of this

so our first observation when we look out to sea is not correct with reality

It is the case because of our perspective in relation to the distance.
Same is true with objects decreasing angular size with distance, it is a demonstrable and known fact of reality.

before we talk about boats or anything the water in the ocean is appearing to go above ur feet all the way to ur eyeline our first observation of whats going on when we look out at the ocean is incorrect with reality

u cant cherry pick what is real when we look out at the ocean

No need to cherry pick, we rely on what we see. In this case, water obscuring distant objects, a convex hump in between the observer and object

we see the water going above our feet all the way up to our eyeline we should rely on that as observational fact the water is getting higher ?

Like I said, that is a known observable fact of nature, perspective. The relative angles of the ground to our eyes, it really couldn't be either way.

ok so u agree the first thing we see when we look out to the ocean does not reflect reality

It does reflect reality

the water is really as high as ur eyeline ?