I said there weren't pink stars.

let me just have my pizza then I’ll come back. Just with the boys thinking

yes u did

Some young star CLUSTERS and NEBULAS appear pink when seen through a telescope

This is from the ionizing effects of ultraviolet radiation emitted by these stars

They aren't actually pink.

Your original point was, quote, "My response to point 3 is that there are many photos from space to prove that the earth is round but also there are many photos of stars being purple and pink which I hope all of us know is not true because there’s no such thing as pink or purple stars. Both these pictures are from the scientific group meaning if their lying about stars then what’s not saying there lying about the earth. We as flatties will destroy the roundies"

excuse

me

Alright, @Mike Snr. Jnr. Snr. has been warned for '**Bad word usage**'.

obama is a lizard

thank u for ur nonsense hulk

So, @Basil , your point is that you don't trust the people who take the photographs of earth because they also took photographs of pink nebulas and star clusters?

Oh, and purple stars exist 100%.

As I said before, the "pink" is an ionization effect.

When electrons knocked off atoms through ionization rejoin with them, they emit photons (light)

This specific light is red, and when combined with starlight, which is white, it becomes pink from far away.

Ah they're offline.

Oh bugger.

@elle would you say I won this debate?

well sure

i disproved their only rebuttal

they just left you to disprove them

yeah

👍

Hello

Here's my argument
Earth's not flat cause we have proof of:
1- Gravity
2- Gravity being less at the Earth's equator because of it's spin
3- images of earth from space
4- countless ground experiments to prove it's not flat
the usual shebang I encounter is "we don't know gravity exists" "the experiments to prove that weight was less at the equator were faked" "the photos were doctored" "the experiments were fake"
then I'm assaulted with youtube conspiracy theory videos and images that are either fake or actually disprove them

if you attempt to refute my points without using the "fake" argument, I'll be impressed

Well I may not be able to refute your points

Then you concede?

Well we can still discuss a bit

First

I wasn't aware of the study showing gravity less at the equator

You weigh a teeny bit less at the equator than you do at the poles

Centripetal force

So flat earthers usually say gravity effects are explained by density

And that gravity is essentially an unproven theory

Which is wrong, as in a vacuum chamber a hammer will still fall

So can you explain to me how it is that gravity is strong enough to hold the oceans down but allows a fragile butterfly to fly?

Because a butterfly has most of its surface area dedicated to resisting gravity.

Its wings flap, thrusting air downwards, and as each action must have an equal and opposite reaction, it is propelled upwards.

This is possible as it's an insect, and thus weighs very little, meaning that gravity has less of an effect on it.