Thread

🛡️
you know... I was thinking about it, we start off with these simple observations " why are the stars inverted in the southern hemisphere " and the only explanation that actually fit the observed data is people walking around on a sphere. but that doesn't make any fucking sense if you don't know anything about *the context of the sphere itself* so for thousands of years this conversation was the status quo. P1 : " this ball model is the only model that explains the data. " P2 : "lol, that's ridiculous what keeps people from falling off the ball?" from the 18th and 19th century advances in lenses etc made it clear that the flat earth hypothesis was doomed as the logical gymnastics had to increase as observational data was gathered. but it's only the early 20th century that we get general relativity and data to *actually show* there IS a "force" holding people on the ball. iow, we get the context for the sphere people are walking around on. flat earthers are fucking retarded, they don't even understand that there is basic observational data which contradicts their model of the world. data people have been trying to explain since we were sailing around in dug out canoes, but its kinda understandable retardation if you think about the time frame it took to actually get here. they don't understand GR and to them, physicists are just priests of a new religion. lacking understanding about how the data was collected or how to verify it themselves, what recourse do they have except to ooga booga about it?
Enki's avatar Enki
Man, that's enough brain cells lost for me. Flat earthers are just about as bad as foaming at the mouth Bitcoin maximalists. 😂
View quoted note →

Replies (49)

🛡️
↩ replying to 𝕞ptf
jfc dude. you need a basic high school physics class. okay I'll do some basic explanation. you don't feel like you're moving 500 mph in an airplane either right? likewise the accelerometer in your phone is measuring contact forces. it won't measure 500 mph either once the plane has completely accelerated. however there's 9.8 m/s ² of potential energy always pulling down on you. You're absolutely right about that. when that potential energy is converted to real (like in free fall or plane reaching cruising velocity) it shows zero. so your accelerometer shows that there's that amount of potential energy existing. it does NOT show that that's due to an upward acceleration, just that there's a force acting on it. very curious how you got to that conclusion. we would have to be *constantly* accelerating at 9.8 m/s squared in order for that downward force to be maintained (like how you feel acceleration when the plane takes off, but not when it's cruising). so in less than a year (after this acceleration began) we would be traveling AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. so your model is this: we are hurtling through space on a flat plane at an UNCONCEIVABLE velocity that is constantly increasing but all that velocity is completely unpreceivable in any way. and for some reason that downward pressure is lower at higher elevations on the Earth. and you think this is a completely plausible explanation that doesn't require any magical thinking 👍
🛡️
↩ replying to Hanshan
The accelerometer shows an UPWARD vector or you saying accelerometer only shows acceleration only when not resting on earth? 😅 The earth is moving at a constant velocity but requires constant accelerstion to keep the veloxity. Like you keep your foot on the gas in a car to keep it moving, or the speed would drop off. If there was gravity downward force, it would show downward acceleration in freefall and when resting on earth, but accelerometer doesnt show that.
🛡️
↩ replying to 𝕞ptf
you can imagine the accelerometer to be a small weight in a box that is suspended by springs in all directions. when the weight gets pulled and a spring is lengthened, it reads acceleration in that direction. at rest on the earth surface, the "upward" spring is lengthened and it shows an upward vector. when you release the accelerometer and allow it to fall, the weight returns to neutral, no springs are lengthened and it shows no vector. >> The earth is moving at a constant velocity but requires constant accelerstion to keep the veloxity. Like you keep your foot on the gas in a car to keep it moving, or the speed would drop off. this doesn't make any sense. a mass either has "a constant velocity" or "constant acceleration", you can't have both lol. The car is either accelerating or holding a constant speed. and in order for us to experience a constant 9.8 meters per second squared of downward force, we would have to be *constantly accelerating* in the opposite direction. NOT maintaining a constant velocity. so according to your hypothesis, the sun and moon and earth and everything that we see is somehow holding itself together while hurtling through space at thousands of times speed of light. and accelerating every second. but without us having any observable data to confirm this fantastic speed of course. and this is more believable to you than " mass effects a pulling effect on other mass " something that actually has demonstratable evidence behind it.
🛡️
↩ replying to Comte de Sats Germain
homeboy wants us to believe in a DIFFERENT magical force. One that requires us to be constantly accelerating in an upward direction and traveling at many thousand times the speed of light. which... okay maybe... I haven't personally verified that the speed of light is an insurpassable constant... but this new model can't explain why the stars look different at different points on the plane. or why the downward force is lesser at higher altitudes on the plane. or why we have no observational evidence of this fantastic upwards speed. and what keeps the sun, moon, atmosphere and everything together while we're tearing along. All things which are quite neatly explained by the globe hypothesis. so I'm sticking with that.
🛡️
↩ replying to Hanshan
That is called special pleading logical fallacy. There is no imagining anything about an accelerometer. It reads acceleration or do you deny that? To have constant velocity, you need constant acceleration. It is constant because each second (time), the same measure is applied to keep the same speed. Changes in acceleration (called jerk rate) would be different amounts of force applied over time instead of same amount. When you start your car, your acceleration is higher until you get to the cruising speed and then to maintain the cruising speed requires the same acceleration/force applied.
🛡️
↩ replying to 𝕞ptf
I described to you how the device worked. predicably, you want to ignore its actual functioning also, you're making it very obvious that you dont have the basic knowledge required to have this conversation. acceleration is the *rate of change in the velocity* of a mass. "to have constant velocity you need constant acceleration" is a nonsense statement. The acceleration of a mass at a constant velocity is zero. and maintaining a constant velocity as in a car (ie, against friction) requires force, not acceleration. we're done here 🙏
The most insane mental gymnastics I've ever witnesse, the flat earth crew. Ive tried multiple time to have a discussion wirh a rlaf earther and it usually just divulges to insulst when I ask for a model that explains day and night cycle as well as the season. They can show me two separate models but those don't even jive with each other. The mathematics that secure bitcoin, is the same mathematcs that show you our world is NOT flat.