To The Moon

[Mad as Fish]

I always thank God for gravity, especially when I pee.

The wind can be a bugger though.

 

[AN2]

I always thank God for gravity, especially when I pee.

Did you know that @Hermit can't tell you why things go down? (even a child could)

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

The rocking is actually discussed in the video.

Community Notes:

The synchronized Earth and Panel rocking is not discussed in the video.

 

[AN2]

Community Notes:

The synchronized Earth and Panel rocking is not discussed in the video.

No, it isn't. Because there isn't any such synchronisation, you fucking clown

 

[AN2]

@ 01:47 - "We know the globe Earth's ridiculous anyway . . . ."

He also later says - "The globe is physically impossible"

Ha! A flat-earther. The irony

 

[Professor]

He also later says - "The globe is physically impossible"

That's because FE science is all about debunking GE science (and actual physics) without a FE model to demonstrate and compare the actual differences. They can say anything about a FE without FE
proof - Wonderful

While, the GE'ers are continuously measuring and publish all 24/7 - We are still waiting for the first FE live image of Flat Earth to be ever seen ever . . .

Ha! A flat-earther. The irony

A Global Earth is all they'll ever have to show while they are immersed in believing that sources of physics, geography, engineering, experimentation, air travel, space travel, world millennia global intelligentsia over the many centuries - All Fake!!

 

[AN2]

That's because FE science is all about debunking GE science (and actual physics) without a FE model to demonstrate and compare the actual differences. They can say anything about a FE without FE
proof - Wonderful

While, the GE'ers are continuously measuring and publish all 24/7 -

We are still waiting for the first FE live image of Flat Earth to be ever seen ever . . .

If they flew something that high to take a picture it might crash into the dome

A Global Earth is all they'll ever have to show while they are immersed in believing that sources of physics, geography, engineering, experimentation, air travel, space travel, world millennia global intelligentsia over the many centuries - All Fake!!

 

[Professor]

And for anyone who needs the science to feel comfortable in the discussion there are these down-to-earth examples . . .

Scientists Bounce Laser Beams Off Old Soviet Moon Rover

Last month, scientists bounced a laser off the Soviet Union’s old Lunokhod 1 rover, which trekked across the moon’s landscape more than four decades ago.

www.space.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTtce3rJxhc


It's not good enough to simply debunk a bit of small-time earth curvature as being the deciding factor of a FE.

A FE says we can all jump aboard a high altitude zeppelin or redbull space capsule and go high enough to see the full flat plate and the great ice wall perimeter in giro.
The telescopes on board would provide all the proof, no doubts about it.

 

[Hermit]

Did you know that @Hermit can't tell you why things go down? (even a child could)

Relative density explains how objects fall down or rise up. There is no up or down on your retarded globe by the way. Up and down are vectors with respect to a horizontal plane of reference.

That's because FE science is all about debunking GE science (and actual physics) without a FE model to demonstrate and compare the actual differences. They can say anything about a FE without FE

There is no "FE science" or "GE science". Science deals with the causes of natural phenomena. Geometry deals with shapes. Models don't prove anything, we don't live in a model, we live in physical reality in which we experience and practically use the surface of earth as a flat, level, horizontal plane.

 

[AN2]

Relative density explains how objects fall down or rise up.

Density of what, mass, air?

Why doesn't mass "fall" sideways?

Why does mass fall down in a vacuum?

There is no up or down on your retarded globe by the way. Up and down are vectors with respect to a horizontal plane of reference.


There is no "FE science" or "GE science". Science deals with the causes of natural phenomena. Geometry deals with shapes. Models don't prove anything, we don't live in a model, we live in physical reality in which we experience and practically use the surface of earth as a flat, level, horizontal plane.

 

[Professor]

There is no "FE science" or "GE science". Science deals with the causes of natural phenomena. Geometry deals with shapes. Models don't prove anything, we don't live in a model, we live in physical reality in which we experience and practically use the surface of earth as a flat, level, horizontal plane.

Yes we don't live in a model. You, and I certainly experience level flatness on a horizontal plane that we seek and strive to build on the true plane's H/V/D which is grand for our reduced human perspectives but we must also take into account how we are connected to and rely on global planetary perspectives too.

A great example is how builders rely on both flat earth and global perspectives in building design.

Also, those clever folk in global risk management certainly rely on OTHER global networks to see what's happening in the night time 3000'sKM beyond their evening horizon - A position which no telescope could ever ever see beyond, even from a capsule, airplane, space station such is the huge span of the globe.

Which means a flat earth image is a physical impossibility to capture . . . .

 

[AN2]

Where's @Hermit gone

 

[Hermit]

Density of what, mass, air?

Solids, liquids and gasses.

Why doesn't mass "fall" sideways?

That's an oxymoron - falling means down/vertical motion, sideways means horizontal motion.

Why does mass fall down in a vacuum?

We don't live in a vacuum, so what masses do or don't do in vacuum is irrelevant to what masses do in our natural environment.

 

[AN2]

Solids, liquids and gasses.


That's an oxymoron - falling means down/vertical motion, sideways means horizontal motion.

Yes, "fall" was in quotes

Secondly, why r u being so childish?

You claimed that "relative density" is the reason objects go down (in a less dense medium), why in that direction?

We don't live in a vacuum, so what masses do or don't do in vacuum is irrelevant to what masses do in our natural environment.

I was talking about a vacuum in our natural environment

 

[valamhic]

It was strange how Buzz Aldrin endorsed Trump. If he was on the moon he would but if he was not he would not me thinks

 

[Hermit]

You claimed that "relative density" is the reason objects go down (in a less dense medium), why in that direction?

Why that direction is unknown, it's just the way it is. Reality would be chaotic and unfunctional if objects were moving about in all directions.

 

[AN2]

Why that direction is unknown, it's just the way it is.

The same thing happens on the Moon..


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo8TaPVsn9Y

Of course, that experiment wasn't to prove that gravity exists (only flat-earthers think that it doesn't), it was to show that objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field regardless of their mass.

The same thing would happen on Earth in a vacuum.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

Why that direction is unknown, it's just the way it is. Reality would be chaotic and unfunctional if objects were moving about in all directions.

The direction makes sense outside of a gravitational model. More dense stuff holds up/supports less dense stuff. It is why an iron anvil will float in a tub of mercury, which has a higher density than the iron. Gravity (if operational) should always pull a solid through a liquid, as an outside, secondary force acting on these substances. In this instance , it doesn't, thereby indicating the possibility that no secondary force is being exerted beyond the quality and effect of density+volume. The density model is a simple pyramidal model, with the most dense stuff at the bottom. Volume is also at work however, as you need the volumetric force of one object to exceed that of the other. You need a certain volume of mercury, for example, to resist the volume of the iron anvil.

 

[AN2]

The direction makes sense outside of a gravitational model. More dense stuff holds up/supports less dense stuff. It is why an iron anvil will float in a tub of mercury, which has a higher density than the iron.

Gravity (if operational) should always pull a solid through a liquid, as an outside, secondary force acting on these substances.

Is that flat-earth science?

In this instance , it doesn't, thereby indicating the possibility that no secondary force is being exerted beyond the quality and effect of density+volume. The density model is a simple pyramidal model, with the most dense stuff at the bottom. Volume is also at work however, as you need the volumetric force of one object to exceed that of the other. You need a certain volume of mercury, for example, to resist the volume of the iron anvil.

 

[AN2]

Is that flat-earth science?

Why the Confused emoji @PlunkettsGhost?