These high class arguments

I enjoy

i dont understand how do people think the earth is flat if every "Proof" has been debunked like nONi

its 4:44 boiz

Your girl on that track she sound better than better than you someone dissed me I don’t know I’m like who

``` Has anyone ever tried Cavendish expiremment within a vacuum? It doesn't even the same results within the same environment, its a flawed scientific method. ```
Oh yes, of-course we have. @rivenator12113

Guess how many torsion bar setups are used, just in Hungary alone, for prospecting minerals?

@Albert Einstein "difficulty" I'd say impossibility. The einstein-hilbert field equations can't be quantised, any attempt of peturbative theory on gravity fails.

sup

@97 Eleven Yeah so we need some new way to unify our observations about gravity, space and time with QM.

And that might be really hard to do.

And the fact that it is really hard does not make a flat earth more likely at all.

You know a flat earth has implications for every single part of physics as we know it, if the earth really is flat almost all of physics will be changed in so many ways.

Like a foucault pendulum for instance with a latitude dependant precession rate. Are you gonna invent a new force to explain that?

And is that new force compatible with all of QFT?

And now the eotvos effect, are you gonna invent a new force to explain that too? And the same question applies to that?

How about tides? A new force there too?

The list goes on.

See, arguments between flat earth and globe earth theory will always be biased because the models are simply too far from each other and lay on totally different foundations, discussions opposing two completely different understandings of modern physics will only reach an understanding when people get tired of arguing and leave

But now

If you want to deny the existance of something and want people to prove it's existance you need to provide arguments to support your belliefs, if you leave it entirely to one side to prove something and then proceed to twist their argument in order to refute it you are basing your entire position on falacies and will never have a proper discussion

I would be totally interested in having discussions with people with different belliefs than mine but for what I have seen here is not the place

@Alpha Well in this case it isn't biased because @97 Eleven is trying to make a new theory of physics which fits better with the data of the real world using already existing physics like QFT, if I am not mistaken.

I wasn't talking about this specific discussion, its the one I was having here last night before sleeping

Ah okay, yeah I agree in general

@97 Eleven ok, are geometry and trig wrong? are optics wrong? are thermodynamics wrong? are fluid dynamics wrong? classical physics aren't wrong, they are approximations, can you build a 165km bridge using only QM?
if QM was perfect, classical physics would be completely replaced by it. classical physics accurately represents day to day macro.
And go ahead, i've been waiting for you to prove that you understand the concepts.
BTW If QM actually could replace classical physics, you'd be able to prove the earth is flat using QM. But you can't, all you seem to be concentrating on is gravity. But as I said, gravity is but one of the many observed and measurable phenomena that prove the earth is a globe. Even without gravity, you can't accurately map the planet on a flat surface.
Your model has nothing, no seasons, no day/light cycle, no accurate map, nothing beyond the dome (I assume you believe in a dome), no sunrise/sunset, no eclipse, no star maps. Your model is based on faith that a book written by men hundreds of years ago was right about something it wasn't even trying to talk about. You base your faith on tools that you probably don't know how to build. It's quite bold of you to assume that companies that build the tools you use in your lab have the best intentions for you. Wouldn't they collude with NASA to give you tools that would confuse you even more?

A more accurate explanation is that they cannot come up with an entire step-by step pyramid of physics that can hold their model together

@Akhanyatin Baseless claims and assertions

The thing is their entire argument is based on saying gravity doesn't exist

If gravity can be proved then all arguments against will become invalid

@Juicy J I guess you've never used a star map or a map in general in your life. Maybe you should try. You can learn things.
@NickC64 sure! go ahead! prove gravity doesn't exist, it doesn't explain why star maps are different north and south of the equator. Go ahead and find Polaris from Australia

Whether gravity exists or not, is irrelevant wtv replaces it will still assert that the earth is a globe. My whole point is that trying to prove flat earth using advanced notions like gravity won't work since you still can't explain simple notions. Start by explaining simple notions, then try to escalate to gravity. If your model of flat earth only addresses gravity, it's still going to be an inaccurate model since it explains nothing else.

>Whether gravity exists or not, is irrelevant wtv replaces it will still assert that the earth is a globe
False, you need gravity in order for a globe to exist or water will slide off it.

Well we observe stuff falling down towards the ground, including water and gas. If the earth is a sphere then the falling direction changes direction as you go around it, if it's flat it doesn't.

@rivenator12113 no because the next theory will still make it fall towards the globe. Disproving gravity doesn't magically change the way everything else works, it just replaces it by something that enables us to understand why things fall towards the earth. It doesn't mean the earth magically becomes flat since we have many other ways to prove it's a globe.

@Akhanyatin dude, what I'm saying is that if we prove gravity then the flat earth argument will fall apart

Because if gravity does exist that means we'll all fly towards the center of the disc if it was a flat earth

Oh, I misunderstood, but what I'm saying is that gravity is way too high level, you don't need to prove gravity, you only need to use simple maths, simple observations etc...

One of the premises of the flat Earth theory is that gravity doesn't exist

And if they just say it doesn't exist without saying why we can't really explain it exists now can we?

Ok but, even with gravity being the main reason GE works, gravity doesn't explain why star maps in the north and south are different. Gravity doesn't explain seasons and time zones and day/night cycles etc