you have to earn it.

once we confirm you are legit

and not just a troll

I'm a legit bagel earther

and so far it's not looking so good

!mute @Stalin the Incredible

too bad. another lost soul

ye

he could have learned so much

but chose the blue pill

Bennnnnnnny in the VC claims to have seen curvature out a aeroplane window, an that mass attracts mass because downward acceleration an meh grabbity 😄

Literally nothing you guys posted was bullshit.

@Panto Math👀 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment

as I always say....flat earthers are the scientists. heliocentrists are the religious ones. oh the irony...

That mirror image is photoshopped

It looks like it

@Wasted i never understood what was proven by that test

@Riska most pictures are photoshopped

flatties use them just as much as globers

but flat earth is the baseline

earth is flat until its proven otherwise

The bedford canal experiment doesn't prove flath earth

It does not take account of atmospheric refraction. In fact experiments have been carried out on the same stretch of canal that prove the Earth is a globe.

The difference between the two experiments was the height at which the sight line was made. When close to the water there is line of sight along all six miles. When thirteen feet (4m) above the water, the curvature was evident and a pole at the halfway point was obviously higher than the line of sight.

It is common for the atmospheric refraction to exactly cancel the curvature of the Earth, especially over water where there may be expected to be a temperature inversion. Other such experiments have “proved” that the Earth is concave. Of course it is not necessary to have the two effects exactly cancel in order to prove the simple presence of a line-of-sight.

See: Bedford Level experiment - Wikipedia

That link also discounts the popular rule of thumb of 8 inches of dip per mile. It gives it as 8 inches the first mile, a total 32 after the second and 72 after the third.

See anything wrong with this picture, Claire?

Ok . Yes. You debunked this one. I might've picked the wrong image.

https://youtu.be/YT1iXclwCN8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aNsFl3HOLE&feature=youtu.be

https://youtu.be/kBKFroWtGko

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yefscjx9EFY

@Logrian why do you take michio kakus word seriously?

if you asked him how did they get to that number his brain would restart 😄

The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[1][2][3]

You

!mute @ste10714