Message from @Albert Einstein
Discord ID: 607137605045190686
I mean if we are talking such a minute amount and it is attached to something...yeah
You also need a magnetically-shielded environment
lot of problems there
Well we have magnetic or statically affected attraction between salt grains and we also have it between dense lead balls in fairness
@Akhanyatin half of "classical mechanics" is actually wrong, just so you know. And regardless, you asking me to prove an understanding would require you to understand the concepts so that you could claim that I don't.
@97 Eleven I think your logic with the implication of the difficulty of unifying general relativity with quantum mechanics is terrible.
Hello
is this flat earth argue chamber
i love it
We're humans and physics is really difficult, us having some problems with theory still is not an argument that you need to replace a spherical earth with a flat one.
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 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