'undefined';

'undefined';

'>>5525641';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'>Earth is flat
okay then show me the edge, not some ice caps. i want you to show me the real edge of the world.';

'>>5527513
Why the fuck did you bump this thread?';

'>>5527513
There is no edge, it's not a floating disc in space, that's a strawman of the model. One of the main ways they prevent people looking into this topic is by making it seem as ridiculous as possible.

If you really want to know the truth, then try to prove the globe. You will find that there is no personally verifiable evidence, all observations are contract what we were taught and you just have to trust liars that everything is different than what you see.';

'>>5528144
contrary to*';

'>>5527513
Earth is the realm we inhabit. it is neither a ball or disk in a vaccum. There is no outer space for air to expand or water to spill.';

'>>5525640
>No one shows up for the retard schizo thread
womp womp

>Hah I see the shills are coming out
womp womp';

'>>5528144
>Hah, gotcha! That's not the real flat Earth map
>"So what's the real flat earth map"
>Pardon?
>"What is your actual map if that is a straw man, show us the real map"
>Pffft you can't prove it's a globe
>"So what about that flat earth map?"
>Why are you so obsessed with maps? anyway I gotta go...

Every time';

'>>5528301
To you, vacuum means "all the air is sucked out of things", because you're a moron. In reality, space being a vacuum means "All the free-floating gases are attracted to large bodies of mass which hold them against their surface, thus there aren't many particles in between these massive bodies".
Because you're mentally a child, you hear vacuum and think of mommy using the vacuum cleaner. That gives us a glimpse into how retarded the REST of your logic is as well.
The schizo's mantra is "do your own research" but then if you actually "do your own research" the schizo will just attack your sources. Turns out what the schizo means by "do your own research" is literally just "get your info from my source only (which is just some other random schizo on the internet)".';

'https://youtu.be/_bHqBy92iGM
https://youtu.be/su-fmoZUkF8
https://youtu.be/Dd-FAyHdpxI
https://youtu.be/7ae_XdFEQDw

aaaaaaaaaaaaand you lose.';

'>>5528417
Falsification is independent of replacement. Nobody needs to provide an entire perfect working model to refute your claim. We looked and we can see too far. Earth's motion has never been detected and every experiment proved the opposite. Keep lying, coping, seething, dilating and committing logical fallacies. Anyone who is honestly looking for the truth will see shills like yourself and wonder why fallacious arguments are the only way to defend the globe. You have nothing, you are a bootlicker and a cocksucker.';

'>>5528422
Ball priests already admit mass attraction doesn't exist.';

'>>5528422
Black science man himself can't explain what gravity is.';

'>>5525640
>Flat Earth
Yeah...';

'>>5528144
Why do these retards have 6 gorillion different models of their "earth" anyway.';

'>>5525640
>>5525641
>>5525664
>I don't hav any evidence.... better call them gay and then leave';

'>>5529376';

'>>5528989';

'>>5528144
I personally think that gravity and the heliocentric model is a much simpler and more satisfying way to describe the way celestial objects move across the sky (which anybody can observe on their own) than the flat earth model. With the flat earth model, you have to come up with a bunch of random ad hoc explanations for why the planets move across the sky differently than the stars, why comets are also different, why the moons of planets are different, why eclipses happen, why our moon has phases, etc.. With the heliocentric model, everything is tied together pretty neatly. Stuff like GPS and satellite TV is also pretty good proof. If you don't think so because there are potentially other explanations for it and they might be lying, then I hope you don't believe in the new testament, because the same standard of proof would suggest that Jesus' miracles don't prove any of Jesus' claims.

Also, anecdotally, I just find that people who argue for the flat earth on 4chan are often disingenuous. For instance, on /x/ there was some guy who'd always make flat earth threads and spam memes about it. One of them was about how you shouldn't be able to see Mercury or Venus at night, and I very clearly explained why that meme was dumb. The guy didn't respond (but was still active in the thread), and a couple threads later he just posted the same image as if I didn't refute it.

>>5528537
This doesn't imply mass attraction doesn't exist, it just implies that the mechanism by which it works is different than expected. It's like if we used to think that sails pushed sailboats through magic, and then discovered that they actually work through wind. The fact that sails push sailboats was never in question, it was just a question of how.';

'>>5529450
>This doesn't imply mass attraction doesn't exist, it just implies that the mechanism by which it works is different than expected.

So, every single ballearther after newton observed einsteinian mechanics taking place, but reject it expecting newtonian mechanics instead right?';

'>>5529556
I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make there. Newton came up a law of gravitation which works well to describe most of the solar system, but many years later we found some slight anomalies in celestial body movement that contradict his law, particularly in the movement of Mercury.

Einstein came up with general relativity for a reason unrelated to this inaccuracy, he just wanted to come up with physics laws that improved upon special relativity. Special relativity suggests that all physics laws work the same way for anybody in a reference frame that isn't accelerating. Einstein wanted to take it a step further and say that physics laws work the same way whether you are in a reference frame that isn't accelerating and experiencing a gravitational "force" pulling you a certain direction, or if you are in a reference frame that is accelerating which makes you feel like you are being pulled a certain direction, but there isn't actually a force acting on you.

This involved creating brand new formulas to describe gravity as a fictitious force, and it predicts the same movement that Newton's gravity did for most bodies in the solar system, but are slightly different when an object is very close to a very massive object, like Mercury is to the Sun. These formulas incidentally ended up explaining that anomaly in Mercury's movement, and as a result, they were adopted as being more accurate than Newton's law of gravity. It also predicted other things like time dilation and gravitational lensing which were shown to be real, but I imagine you would think that proof is rigged';

'>>5530645
>Newton came up a law of gravitation which works well to describe most of the solar system
>These formulas incidentally ended up explaining that anomaly in Mercury's movement, and as a result, they were adopted as being more accurate
newton's gravity cannot describe correctly the movement of a helium balloon relative to Earth surface, neither can einstein's.

>Einstein came up with general relativity for a reason unrelated to this inaccuracy
The reason for einstein to came up with relativity, was damage control. (((academia))) had abolish the aether and claim light to be wave and particle for the ball earth model to catch up with the results from the Michelson-Morley experiment.

>time dilation
webm related';

'>>5525688
Jesus, Russia looked like THAT at the end of Soviet Union? I though it would be poorer and more "diverse"';

'>>5530982
>newton's gravity cannot describe correctly the movement of a helium balloon relative to Earth surface, neither can einstein's.
Why wouldn't it? If gravity pulls on both air and the balloon, since the balloon is less dense than air, it will travel opposite to how the air travels. Pretty sure it's the same reason why if you're in a car and accelerate forward, a helium balloon will tilt forward even though you'd expect objects in the car to move backwards.

I think flat earthers believe that what feels like gravity can be explained with buoyancy alone without any gravity, but then you'd need to explain why gas particles and everything else experiences a constant force downwards, or why the disk of the earth constantly accelerates upwards. To me, that just seems less sensible than the theory of gravity, like now you're adding yet another random phenomenon alongside the movement of planets, the moon, planets' moons, comets, eclipses, tides, etc. that has to have its own specific ad hoc explanation, instead of having all of those things explained pretty neatly with gravity and the heliocentric model alone

>that webm
The guy takes 25 words out of an around 4000 word "debate" about the theory of relativity (I'm not sure if it's an actual debate or if it's all written by Einstein and he's playing devil's advocate against himself) and the webm cuts out at the part where the relativist tries to "wiggle out" of it.';

'>>5531046
>since the balloon is less dense than air, it will travel opposite to how the air travels.
Yes.

>flat earthers believe that what feels like gravity can be explained with buoyancy alone without any gravity
Copernicus require neither mass attraction nor curved space push. For more than a century the ball earth model held trillions of gallons of water by density alone until newton came up with ad hoc mass attraction(jewish mysticism) followed by einstein(jewish mysticism 2.0)

>but then you'd need to explain why gas particles and everything else experiences a constant force downwards
I don't need to explain a constant force that supposedly hold oceans at the bottom of a spinning ball but can keep a helium balloon on the ground.

>or why the disk of the earth constantly accelerates upwards.
No flatearther made the claim that Earth is a disk in this thread. Why do you came up with "disk earth" when >>5528144 and >>5528301 already made negative claims about disc/disk earth?

>To me, that just seems less sensible than the theory of gravity, like now you're adding yet another random phenomenon
What are you talking about? The concept of density was already common sense way before the ball earth model. Mass attraction and curved space push the ad hoc.

>The guy takes 25 words out of an around 4000 word "debate" about the theory of relativity (I'm not sure if it's an actual debate or if it's all written by Einstein and he's playing devil's advocate against himself) and the webm cuts out at the part where the relativist tries to "wiggle out" of it.

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/83';

'>>5531209
You didn't explain why gravity isn't sufficient, you just explained how density could be sufficient w/o gravity

>Copernicus require neither mass attraction nor curved space push
I'm not really familiar with how Copernicus explained it, could you elaborate? Does it actually explain the mechanism by which density causes stuff to rise or fall, or is density itself the reason?

>until newton came up with ad hoc mass attraction
But mass attraction and the solar system model explains lots of different phenomena, whereas flat earth explanations often only explain one thing at a time, if they explain anything at all. Like, you can say that density is sufficient to explain why stuff falls w/o gravity, but what about tides, planetary motion, the motion of our moon, the motion of planets' moons, the motion of comets, etc.? Gravity explains a lot of things, which is why I find it nicer and easier to believe in.

Also, earlier in the thread you mentioned how flat earthers don't need a working model of their system to disprove the globe theory. But IMO, if the globe theory has a satisfying mechanism to describe how a ton of phenomena works, and all flat earthers have are alternate possible explanations for every individual phenomenon but none of them are really connected to each other, and ON TOP of that the globe earthers have fancy miracle tech like GPS that they claim works because the earth is a globe, I can't see any good reason to switch sides.

>No flatearther made the claim that Earth is a disk in this thread
The disk part wasn't really important but sorry for calling it that, I just mean that you'd either need some reason for why everything seems to accelerate downwards, or the earth accelerates upwards

>that webm
While I don't think there are any better explanations of why the universe formed, I think it's far far more likely that the big bang is false than that the Earth is not a globe. String theory is kinda useless either way so idrc about it';

'Flat earthers are deliberately trying to conceal the truth that the earth is hollow. The idea of a flat earth did not exist in historical records, but our ancestors frequent pointed to the earth being hollow. Fucking glowie faggots trying to scare people away from discussing the concealed truth about the earth.';

'>>5532967
You're completely wrong. Every single ancient civilization believed in flat earth, usually with a dome above us. There are even many books from 1800-1950 discussing it. It's not a new idea. The "it's a psyop" disinfo prevents you looking into it with an open mind. FE is not a psyop. It destroys all of the psyops. Once you realize they can lie that big, then nothing is off the table.

All of that is irrelevant because we can measurably see too far on the ground and it's still completely flat at 120,000 feet.';

'>>5532982
>psyopper trying to psyop me
Earth is hollow, and all of the things labeled as mythological or cryptid have migrated within it. Sourcing material from "1800" is useless, as the Illuminati had already had centuries of time to forge historical documents and sow the seeds of mistruths. You were tricked into thinking you were smarter than the round earth faggots';

'>>5532984
You realize a plane can be hollow underneath as well? Nobody believes the flat disc in space bullshit. That's a strawman.';

'>>5531434
>You didn't explain why gravity isn't sufficient, you just explained how density could be sufficient w/o gravity
In order to be sufficient, the theory must match observable reality always. Both newtonian gravity pull and einsteinian gravity push wrongly predicts the mass of a helium balloon to move towards Earth surface.That's the opposite to observable reality.

>I'm not really familiar with how Copernicus explained it, could you elaborate? Does it actually explain the mechanism by which density causes stuff to rise or fall, or is density itself the reason?
Neither am I. Just searched for "copernicus without gravity" on google and here the first result was:

http://www.cellularuniverse.org/G5_GravityNotAForce.htm

You can reapeat the experiment in webm related and see for yourself.

>But mass attraction and the solar system model explains lots of different phenomena, whereas flat earth explanations often only explain one thing at a time, if they explain anything at all. Like, you can say that density is sufficient to explain why stuff falls w/o gravity, but what about tides, planetary motion, the motion of our moon, the motion of planets' moons, the motion of comets, etc.? Gravity explains a lot of things, which is why I find it nicer and easier to believe in.
It explains lots, but it also contradicts lots of observations. An explanation that contraditcs observable reality is better know as "lie". The flat earth model won't have all the answer, but there are no contradictions.

>tides
There are no observable tides on lakes, rivers, pools, not even my glass of water. If gravity was the cause for tides, it would be observable on every single body of water.

>planetary motion, the motion of our moon, the motion of planets' moons, the motion of comets, etc
The flat earth model does no explain the motion of celestial bodies. As i mentioned before, the flat earth don't have all the answers.

1/2';

'>>5531434
>>5533220

>Also, earlier in the thread you mentioned how flat earthers don't need a working model of their system to disprove the globe theory.
If you're talking about >>5528529, you got the wrong guy. Still agree to what he said though.

>if the globe theory has a satisfying mechanism to describe how a ton of phenomena works, and all flat earthers have are alternate possible explanations for every individual phenomenon but none of them are really connected to each other
Not everyone is satisfied by the globe model. Not everyone is satisfied by the flat earth model.

>ON TOP of that the globe earthers have fancy miracle tech like GPS that they claim works because the earth is a globe, I can't see any good reason to switch sides.
It's not miracle tech if you understand how it actually works. webm just for fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfpNpQMYp8M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS4jPjs6JPw

2/2';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'>>5531434
>or the earth accelerates upwards
Kek this is FES disinfo. Things fall due to density. No further explanation needed.

>fancy miracle tech like GPS
There is actually good evidence they are hiding shape in the GPS model because they make "corrections" for relativistic effects and it's impossible to get the raw data without these corrections.';

'>>5533253
It's arguments like this that make me think the flat Earth model is a psyop. 99% of people don't live in France, can we safely assume it doesn't exist? They're so full of holes you can't image anyone making them in good faith.';

'undefined';

'>>5533749
>It's arguments like this that make me think the flat Earth model is a psyop
Glowniggers love it because it's simple to use it to divert people's attention from real investigations and permanently discredit anything they say by branding them as conspiratards. It shouldn't work but the average American is that dumb.';

'>>5533781
Good video, thanks for sharing.

>>5533749
>>5533824
If it was true, wouldn't you expect there to also be people making bad faith arguments to make it look bad? You know, controlled opposition? You really need to look at the facts and the observations instead of desperately looking for any excuse to not investigate. This is pure coping.

>Uhh duhh it's a psyop OBVIOUSLY so I'm not even going to look!
You can literally check for yourself that we can see too far. Get the globetard math and go look around your local area. I did.';

'>>5528428
>posting "professor Dave"
lowest IQ in the thread';

'>>5534521
>If it was true, wouldn't you expect there to also be people making bad faith arguments to make it look bad?
No. "Anything that makes my point look bad or incorrect is being spread to discredit me" could be used to argue literally any point. It also implies there's a collection of good faith arguments that they're trying to counter, which is lacking.
>You really need to look at the facts and the observations
The facts and observations seem to be "99% of data doesn't go through satellites therefore they don't exist."
>You can literally check for yourself that we can see too far.
Most everyone else sees a world that fits with the round Earth model, myself included.';

'>>5533220
>Both newtonian gravity pull and einsteinian gravity push wrongly predicts the mass of a helium balloon to move towards Earth surface.That's the opposite to observable reality.
That's what they would predict if the atmosphere didn't exist, but with an atmosphere in place, they correctly predict that the helium balloon would move upwards as other air particles move downwards. The way buoyancy works takes gravity into consideration. It would be like arguing that F=MA and the concept of inertia is wrong because helium balloons tilt forward if you accelerate in a car

>http://www.cellularuniverse.org/G5_GravityNotAForce.htm
>Since their natural place, it was reasoned, was at the center of the Earth, all falling objects were in "natural motion."
So his gravity-free theory was that objects tried to move towards the center of the Earth as this was their natural place... meanwhile, gravity predicts that objects experience a force pulling them to the center of the Earth. Virtually the same prediction lol. Only difference is that gravity describes things quantitatively and explains the movement celestial bodies in addition to objects on Earth, whereas Copernicus (from what I saw) only described things qualitatively, and needed a separate explanation for celestial bodies.

>There are no observable tides on lakes, rivers, pools, not even my glass of water. If gravity was the cause for tides, it would be observable on every single body of water.
Not necessarily, because the amount of water level rise you'd see depends on how wide and deep the body of water is, so for a lake or a glass of water, it would be unnoticeable.

>that webm
The gravitational attraction of the ball isn't enough to hold the water on it. The webm doesn't show any internal inconsistencies within the globe earth model, it just shows an inconsistency between globe earth science and flat earth science. Of course those two models aren't going to be consistent w/ each other';

'>>5533454
>>5533253
I'm aware of ocean floor cables but there's info that doesn't get transmitted through them like satellite TV. And with stuff like the relativistic corrections really being flat earth corrections and everything, that just further increases the number of organizations that would have to be in cahoots in order to protect the truth. Like, it isn't just NASA and all of the other space agencies that are lying now, it's also a ton of tech companies and engineers/programmers that have to either be lying or brainwashed. It's just another reason that it's far more likely IMO for the globe earth to be true, when taken into consideration ALONGSIDE the physics arguments and the simplicity of gravity in explaining the night sky.';

'>>5534876
>Most everyone else sees a world that fits with the round Earth model, myself included.
You look outside and you see a flat horizon. You see the sky moving, not the Earth. You never feel motion. Water on a calm lake makes a perfect reflection, only possible if it's flat and not moving. You never see a spinning ball with water sticking to it, retard. You trust liars who hate you, over your own senses. Brainwashed faggot.';

'>>5535165
>it's also a ton of tech companies and engineers/programmers that have to either be lying or brainwashed
Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is one place where raw GPS data where the corrections are applied. All engineers who work with GPS use the "corrected" data.';

'>>5535557
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what everyone else senses. I can't currently see a flat horizon, I can't currently see the sky moving, I don't have an organ that senses "motion" and I certainly am not arrogant enough to declare if some physical thing is perfect.';

'>>5535841
>I can't currently see a flat horizon, I can't currently see the sky moving
Are you blind? If so then, I'm sorry. But this is what non-blind people see when they look up.

>I don't have an organ that senses "motion"
Oh, I see, you're just brainwashed.';

'>>5533749
>99% of people don't live in France, can we safely assume it doesn't exist?
Considering everything i heard about France, things seems to be the same compared to every place i've ever been in the last 35 years.

I have experience buoyancy in bodies of water many times in my life. No faith required to assume such thing is possible in other places. Outer space on the other hand is this place where the human body experience buoyancy in nothing but air. Faith is required to assume such thing is possible.';

'undefined';

'if flat earth was true there would be no need to make the same flat earth thread every single day for 15 years straight. yet here flat earthers are, making the same thread over and over and over. that's the definition of big lie propaganda. repeat the lie enough and eventually morons will just believe it regardless of it being false';