Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

a reply to: turbonium1

You've explained nothing. You've just puked words on the page and expected everyone else to believe iton your say so. It's blatantly obvious from your weekly word salads that you have not the tiniest hint of a possiblity of maybe understanding concepts children grasp quite easily. You demand evidence then ignore it when it arrives. You provide none of your own. You avoid all the questions you can't answer and difficult concepts because they are beyond you, and pretend you never said the dumb questions you asked that three seconds of googling provide answers to that you think aren't there.

Provide some evidence.

Get a telescope.

Hypocrite.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

You've explained nothing. You've just puked words on the page and expected everyone else to believe iton your say so. It's blatantly obvious from your weekly word salads that you have not the tiniest hint of a possiblity of maybe understanding concepts children grasp quite easily. You demand evidence then ignore it when it arrives. You provide none of your own. You avoid all the questions you can't answer and difficult concepts because they are beyond you, and pretend you never said the dumb questions you asked that three seconds of googling provide answers to that you think aren't there.

Provide some evidence.

Get a telescope.

Hypocrite.

It's easy to understand why 'gravity' was invented, but even easier to understand why it's nonsense, too.
There is no reason to be upset, and angry, about the truth. What for? Nothing to fear about it, no reason to hide from it.

You must know that if a force can pull down a 300 ton building, it would require a huge amount of energy, to do it , correct? So let's say it can be done with massive cranes, which have the power to pull it down.

That takes immense power, whatever the force used for it, right?

You say it doesn't require a powerful force, when it's about 'gravity', even though you KNOW that it requires a powerful force, so you are the real hypocrite here.

And children know they aren't 'pulled down' from below, when they fall down, so if you think you've been 'pulled down' from below, by a force, why do you always call it a FALL? And it further shows that you're a hypocrite.

Why don't you call it 'pulled down', instead of a fall?

That's what I'm arguing for - that we FALL in air. You agree it's a fall, because you always say that it's a fall.

Why say it, if you don't mean it? You would know what a fall is, right? So you know it, and say it, but don't ever MEAN it, is that about right?

What else do you say, but don't actually mean? Or is that it?

a reply to: turbonium1

Is english a second language for you? According to merriam webster you know the dictionary people.(reading make brain muscle hurt right?)

fall noun
Definition of fall (Entry 2 of 3)
1: the act of falling by the force of gravity

Funny how often you contradict yourself isnt it.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

It's easy to understand why 'gravity' was invented, but even easier to understand why it's nonsense,

Gravity wasn’t invented. It is an explanation that solved problems and observable occurrences. Fits in with Newton’s laws of motion. And relativity.

Remember this post
—————————————
Don’t have an answer do you Turbo. Your running out of flat earth lies?

A few more items to add to your list.

Measuring the Earth’s Rotation Rate Using a Low-Cost MEMS Gyroscope

www.tkt.cs.tut.fi...

This Body Part Ages Faster Than the Rest of You

A beauty company might not tell you this. But why our faces age fast is simple. This happens because of a relativity theory that Einstein developed and scientists later proved: The rate at which time moves depends on how fast you’re moving and how close you are to a gravitational field. For example, clocks at higher elevations run slightly faster than those at sea level.

www.besthealthmag.ca...

Gyroscopes prove the earth is moving.

Then the way time / clocks speed up or slowdown in relationship to the distance from earth proves gravity as defined in relativity.

Behind the Curve' Ending: Flat Earthers Disprove Themselves With Own Experiments in Netflix Documentary

One of the more jaw-dropping segments of the documentary comes when Bob Knodel, one of the hosts on a popular Flat Earth YouTube channel, walks viewers through an experiment involving a laser gyroscope. As the Earth rotates, the gyroscope appears to lean off-axis, staying in its original position as the Earth's curvature changes in relation. "What we found is, is when we turned on that gyroscope we found that we were picking up a drift. A 15 degree per hour drift," Knodel says, acknowledging that the gyroscope's behavior confirmed to exactly what you'd expect from a gyroscope on a rotating globe.

www.newsweek.com...

Flat earth lie is a proven lie.
————————————

You claim gravity is the “lie”. When your fantasy model explains nothing in nature that is observable and predictable.

Does not explain how an object dropped in a cave surrounded by earth and rock always knows to drop towards the center of the earth. Does not explain why gyroscopic instruments drift predictably and in a manner that is reproduced in your false notion the earth does not rotate. The theory of relativity for gravity and speed holds true as shown my the way clocks measure time by placing them different distances from the center of the earth. Changes only possible with gravity and clocks moving with the rotating earth.

You

There is no reason to be upset, and angry, about the truth. What for? Nothing to fear about it, no reason to hide from it.

Your the one that has to lie, and hurt your relationship with god.

You must know that if a force can pull down a 300 ton building, it would require a huge amount of energy, to do it , correct? So let's say it can be done with massive cranes, which have the power to pull it down.

Again. Gravity is dependent on mass. Or better put, the force of attraction between two objects is relative to their mass. And the force of gravity in relationship to mass as measured by weight. A one ounce insect only has to produce enough lift to overcome the one once of weight being placed on its body by gravity.

If there is no gravity, then there would be no weight, so why do bridges have weight limits?

That takes immense power, whatever the force used for it, right

Not sure what your referring to. Again..

Gravity is dependent on mass. And the force of gravity on an object is the relationship of mass is measured by weight. A one ounce insect only has to produce enough lift to over come the one once of weight being placed on its body by gravity.


You

You say it doesn't require a powerful force, when it's about 'gravity', even though you KNOW that it requires a powerful force, so you are the real hypocrite here.

I have no idea what your posting about. Please cite and quote where I made such a statement.

Again..

Gravity is dependent on mass. And the force of gravity in relationship to mass is measured by weight. A one ounce insect only has to produce enough lift to over come the one once of weight being placed on its body by gravity.

A jet weighing 2,000 pounds has to produce over 2,000 pounds of lift to fly.

You

You say it doesn't require a powerful force, when it's about 'gravity', even though you KNOW that it requires a powerful force, so you are the real hypocrite here.

No. Using things like the laws of motion, lift equations, and relativity; objects can be designed and made to act in specific ways.

Such as:

Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life
By Clifford M. Will

But in a relativistic world, things are not simple. The satellite clocks are moving at 14,000 km/hr in orbits that circle the Earth twice per day, much faster than clocks on the surface of the Earth, and Einstein's theory of special relativity says that rapidly moving clocks tick more slowly, by about seven microseconds (millionths of a second) per day.

Also, the orbiting clocks are 20,000 km above the Earth, and experience gravity that is four times weaker than that on the ground. Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day. The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day.

physicscentral.com...

You

And children know they aren't 'pulled down' from below, when they fall down, so if you think you've been 'pulled down' from below, by a force, why do you always call it a FALL? And it further shows that you're a hypocrite.

I have no idea what your posting about. Gravity is needed to cause a child to fall down.

If there is no gravity, why do chairs have weight limits

What is the weight limit on my high chair?
Avatar Consumer Care
January 05, 2018 15:48
Follow
Answer

The weight limit on high chairs is 50 pounds.

Note: Children grow at different rates. Although most children can use the high chair up to 50 pounds, there may be children who have become too tall to fit in the chair before they reach 50 pounds.

safety1st.zendesk.com...

Why don't you call it 'pulled down', instead of a fall?

Why do you park in a driveway, and drive on a parkway?

That's what I'm arguing for - that we FALL in air. You agree it's a fall, because you always say that it's a fall.

Why does a brick thrown straight up into the air slow down faster than what is attributed to friction. Stop. Change direction 180 degrees to fall back to earth. Because of gravity that maintains Newton’s three laws of motion.

I literally post what I mean, and back it up with facts.

a reply to: neutronflux

You forgot why does pressure increase as you go down in water. If density was the only factor water density wouldnt change. He has no answers and seems to think because things can fly proves their is no gravity. Makes about as much sense as saying because boats float you cant drown.

I refuse to believe anyone could be so inept i think hes trolling everyone. oh and I see you mentioned the gyroscope. I watched a flat earth video where they did that one and had to conceed the earth was moving 15 degrees per hour. They spent 20,000 dollars on their experment only to prove the earth spins.

www.newsweek.com...

I saw that documentary a couple days ago. There were two extraordinary moments; the one you described above, and also when the laser proved the arc of the Earth's surface.

Even when presented with direct evidence from THEIR OWN experiments which contradicts their beliefs they STILL continue their DISPROVEN beliefs. I simply can't adequately describe a person who behaves this way.

a reply to: TerraLiga

i can... morons

all of em

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: turbonium1

Is english a second language for you? According to merriam webster you know the dictionary people.(reading make brain muscle hurt right?)

fall noun
Definition of fall (Entry 2 of 3)
1: the act of falling by the force of gravity

Funny how often you contradict yourself isnt it.

No, it's funny that some dictionaries conflict themselves, and hide the problem. By plugging in a mythical 'pulling' force, 'gravity', into the definition of a 'fall', they deliberately ignored that 'gravity' supposedly 'pulls things down', and a 'pull' isn't a 'fall', so they didn't mention it, so people like you blindly unaware of the contradiction, and think it helps their argument, when it makes it worse than before.

A 'pull' is NOT a 'fall', they are entirely different things, or actions. If they want to change a 'fall' into a 'pull', then they could say a non-existent magical force like 'gravity' causes objects to be 'pulled down'. But that's an even BIGGER problem, because they would be completely revising the definition of a fall, of ANY type, into a 'pull'. Can't do that, obviously. So they slither 'gravity' into the definition of a fall, ignore the very action 'gravity' is claimed to do - 'pull down' - and put that BS out to the public in their revised dictionaries.

And not ALL dictionaries are - so far, thank God - have twisted the ACCURATE definition(s) of 'fall'....

fall verb (HAVE AN ACCIDENT)
to suddenly go down onto the ground or towards the ground without intending to or by accident:

fall noun (MOVEMENT DOWNWARDS)

[ C usually singular ]
an amount of something that moves down onto the ground or from a higher position to a lower position:

fall noun (ACCIDENT)

[ C usually sing ]
the act of moving onto or toward the ground or to a lower position, often unintentionally or accidentally:

dictionary.cambridge.org...

fall verb

Verb Forms
Idioms Phrasal Verbs
drop down
​ [intransitive] to drop down from a higher level to a lower level
The rain was falling steadily.
They were injured by falling rocks.
fall + adv./prep. Several of the books had fallen onto the floor.
The label must have fallen off.
The leaves were falling from the trees.
The seeds fall to the ground and germinate.
One of the kids fell into the river.
+ noun He fell 20 metres onto the rocks below.
He fell from the fourth floor.

fall noun

Idioms
act of falling
​ [countable] an act of falling
I had a bad fall and broke my arm.
fall from something She was killed in a fall from a horse.

www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com...


The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is widely regarded as the accepted authority on the English language. It is an unsurpassed guide to the meaning, history, and pronunciation of 600,000 words— past and present—from across the English-speaking world.

public.oed.com...



Here's the latest Merriam-Webster spin-job...

"Now the revised entry for racism has finally arrived, included in the online update Merriam-Webster published yesterday. As promised, the entry underscores some nuances, though the revision is not a complete rewrite. As before, the first definition given relates to personal belief and attitudes. But the revised second definition—“the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another; specifically: white supremacy”—better highlights what Mitchum was looking for."

www.theatlantic.com...

'Racism' is now defined as '"specifically: white supremacy"

That's a wonderful dictionary you're referencing here, isn't it?

'Gravity' is supposed to 'pull' objects, now it causes them to 'fall', without ANY 'pull' at all!

Racism is specifically 'white supremacy', as only whites are considered to be racists now, by your dictionary.


Dictionaries wield considerable power and influence, and when they're corrupted by special interest groups, who have their OWN agenda, and that is a slippery slope, indeed.

I'm sure you can agree that to mention one, SPECIFIC race, as 'racist', in ANY way, is not only false, but it can influence others to believe that ANYONE who is white, is either a 'racist', or a 'white supremacist', and must certainly be 'part of systemic racism', because he/she is white!

Anyway, that's an entirely different issue, but it highlights what happens when a very influential dictionary like Merriam Webster corrupts the meanings of words, which were perfectly defined already. If a dictionary loses it's validity, as a reference to be trusted, it becomes a 'trash' source, and they don't want that, I'm sure. But the way they're going now, it won't be long before that happens.

Then we have Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries, from England. Both are considered among the most reliable, trusted sources in the world, especially Oxford, considered the world's top authority. Interesting that neither one has 'revised' the meaning of a fall, to include your non-existent magical 'pulling' force, is it not?

If you want to hold up a source that skews, and conflicts, the very MEANING of a word, like 'fall', or racism', go right ahead, but you'll fail, if you do. If you want to compare your sources to MY sources, you'll also fail.

So do you think 'gravity' is 'pulling down objects', or not? If you do, then you cannot hold up 'fall', caused by 'gravity', as it is your 'pulling down' force, whether your corrupted dictionary says so or not, you claim it 'pulls', and I'm arguing your claims here, not a flawed dictionary.

If you understand why your source is flawed, as you should, then a 'fall' is NOT a 'pull', there is NO 'gravity' involved, nor mentioned in the Oxford or Cambridge dictionaries, because they ARE valid, and accurate sources. And I only pray and hope that they REMAIN that way, in future, or we'll see more and more BS, without ANY valid sources to counter it anymore, and that could eventually lead us all into hell, believe me. It starts by an addition, like 'racism'. Then it leads to another revision, where it says 'racism' is 'white racism', and then - 'white' means 'racist ', 'racist' means 'white'. It's already happening that way, as we all know.

Think before you shoot your mouth off, but thanks for bringing it up - we usually learn much more from our mistakes, than otherwise!

originally posted by: turbonium1

If you understand why your source is flawed, as you should, then a 'fall' is NOT a 'pull', there is NO 'gravity' involved, nor mentioned in the Oxford or Cambridge dictionaries, because they ARE valid, and accurate sources. And I only pray and hope that they REMAIN that way, in future, or we'll see more and more BS, without ANY valid sources to counter it anymore, and that could eventually lead us all into hell, believe me. It starts by an addition, like 'racism'. Then it leads to another revision, where it says 'racism' is 'white racism', and then - 'white' means 'racist ', 'racist' means 'white'. It's already happening that way, as we all know.

Think before you shoot your mouth off, but thanks for bringing it up - we usually learn much more from our mistakes, than otherwise!

Yeah about that...

Guess which book I photographed that from...

Cambridge dictionary is a valid and accurate source you say...

a reply to: turbonium1

Please stop lying. You must be desperate by now, I know, because all of your nonsense has been disproven or shown to be a lie. So - just stop.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

A 'pull' is NOT a 'fall', they are entirely different things

A person can be made to fall by being pushed or tripped.

English is not an exact science.

Why do cars park in a driveway, and drive on a parkway. I originally posted why do “people” park in a driveway and drive on a parkway. English is so funny. I could have used people and most people would understand the spirit of the sentence.

Now..

Why does a brick thrown straight up into the air slow down faster than what is attributed to friction. Stop. Change direction 180 degrees to fall back to earth. Because of gravity that maintains Newton’s three laws of motion.

Explain how an object dropped in a cave surrounded by earth and rock always knows to drop towards the center of the earth. Why cannot not be tricked to fall up to the earth above.

a reply to: turbonium1

You do understand there is a documentary “Behind the Curve” about flat earthers. It’s not hostile in anyway. It just lets flat earthers do their thing.

Flat earthers literally debunk themselves in the notion the earth does not rotate with their own ring laser gyroscope.

Flat earthers literally debunk themselves in the notion The earth does not curve with their own laser pointer experiment over water.

Worth returning to this piece of stupidity, because it betrays just how little turbo knows about anything:

originally posted by: turbonium1
They are complete BS artists, using trickery like this to try and 'support' their magical, non-existent 'force'! Why do they always use small metal balls to 'prove' that their magical force really DOES exist? Why don't they ever use non-metallic objects in their 'experiments'? Put a pebble by a huge boulder, and see what happens! Nothing, of course! That's why they'll never do such a thing, because it would prove that they're BS con artists, in reality!

There is a very good reason why you would use metals in experiments like this, and it does not surprise me at all that turbo can't think of it. it's about controlling variables. Pure metals have nothing else in them that might be influencing the results. They are heavy, which means you don't need a large pieces of it.

The reason they always use METALLIC objects is because metallic objects will attract to one another by MAGNETIC force, a REAL force - not a fake, made up, fantasy force, like 'gravity' is.

Do please list all the metals that can retain a magnetism. I'll start:

Iron.

Oh I know that there are a few more, but here's the thinkg turbo, there's a reason why a non-magnetic metal would specifically be used in these kind of experiments. Given what I explained above, can work out what that reason might be?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Cambridge dictionary is a valid and accurate source you say...

No, I said it was accurate in it's definition of 'fall', when they didn't spew about 'gravity', you've wrongly assumed the rest of it, as usual.

'Gravity' is claimed to PULL DOWN objects, so they are idiots for mentioning 'gravity' causes objects to FALL, since it's claimed to 'PULL DOWN' all objects above Earth, and HOLD THEM DOWN to Earth. It's one or the other - a pulling down, or a fall. Mixing them as if they mean the same thing, is complete BS, because a complete moron would know that they mean two DIFFERENT things. I can't stand devious tricks like this, and nobody else should either.

Are the publishers of these dictionaries all so STUPID, to combine a PULL, with a FALL, or is it something else? Sure it is, they aren't complete morons, they know 'gravity' is a 'pulling down' force, and know what a 'fall' is, and to mix them as if one thing, is not because they're complete nitwits. More like, they know OTHER people are nitwits, and won't know there's any problem with a fall, being a 'pulling down to Earth', because they don't mention it's a pulling force, when they mention 'gravity'.


You're certainly doing your best to support a 'fall' being a 'pull from below', since you believe anything about this magical non-existent force is true, no matter how ridiculous it gets, and this is just one more idiotic argument you're adding to the massive list of idiotic claims about 'gravity'.


A cartoon force, can be whatever you wish it to be - that is the ONLY thing about your 'gravity', which has ever proven!

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
There is a very good reason why you would use metals in experiments like this, and it does not surprise me at all that turbo can't think of it. it's about controlling variables. Pure metals have nothing else in them that might be influencing the results. They are heavy, which means you don't need a large pieces of it.

Wrong, ANY type of metal has magnetic properties, even those considered 'non-magnetic', are magnetic - diamagnetic, paramagnetic (ie: lead), and others, categorized by their DEGREE of magnetic properties, and ALL metals have magnetic properties, INCLUDING lead, which they used in proving 'gravity' exists!

It is also impossible for anyone else to confirm if those metals even ARE pure lead, or whatever, not that that matters, because lead has metallic properties, no matter how slight, and THIS makes your 'experiments' flawed, and worthless, as I told you.

And once again, why doesn't anyone prove it works with OTHER materials, just the same way? You cannot prove 'gravity' exists, by using the one material that ALWAYS has magnetic properties, and claiming metals are the BEST materials to 'prove' it, so there's no need to use OTHER materials to 'prove' it!!

Don't be an idiot, even YOU know that's ridiculous, so don't try telling me it's all good, because it's absolute BS!


Look at all the antics you've tried to pull, over the past couple years or so, just to keep this moronic fairy tale story going! It's unbelievable. At some point, simple common sense should start to kick in, right? I wonder about that.


Use some blocks of oak, or ANY materials, which have ZERO magnetic properties, and see what happens then.

'Purity' of the materials sure sounds like a good thing, doesn't it? But it's meaningless, in such an experiment. The one, and only, absolute requirement for the materials used, is that they do NOT, in the slightest degree, contain materials or properties which corrupt the experiment. Magnetic properties, specifically, which ATTRACT objects together, WERE the reason they used metal for their experiments, knowing ALL metals have magnetic properties. When two metal balls, of ANY metal, are suspended by strings into air, and placed very close to each other, they CAN attract to each other, by magnetic force, and THAT is exactly what they did, and others have ALSO done.

Are you really that stupid, to think they shouldn't use other materials besides METAL, to 'prove' their claim is true? Come on, now, you know better than that! Stop playing the idiot, for once in your life. It's almost embarrassing to watch it, sometimes.

a reply to: turbonium1

Dude, you hurt my brain with your far-reaching word salads.

Gravity attracts, gravity pulls, you fall towards the gravitational centre.

These basic descriptions have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

What has not been proven is the specific atomic sized things that cause particles to combine into larger masses that then in turn exert larger gravitational forces.

I believe the Higgs boson experiments were and are working towards achieving these answers.

Be patient, the answer may not even come in your lifetime. There is no point going against the grain here. You are wasting energy and brain cells that could be put to better use solving problems that have yet to have answers attributed to them.

a reply to: turbonium1

What Bs are you spouting?

For a nonferrous item...

Why does a brick thrown straight up into the air slow down faster than what is attributed to friction. Stop. Change direction 180 degrees to fall back to earth. Because of gravity that maintains Newton’s three laws of motion.

Explain how an object dropped in a cave surrounded by earth and rock always knows to drop towards the center of the earth. Why it cannot not be tricked to fall up to the earth above.