When a flat Earther tells you that water cannot curve
(media.conspiracies.win)
Comments (105)
sorted by:
This is a distraction from Jewish Power. Jews own your government, Jews own your media, they control what you're allowed to say and shat you're NOT allowed to say (criticism of Israel). Jews own your banks. YOU are a subject of Israeli occupation. Israel is the great colonizer of the world. The New World Order is Jewish world order.
It is misdirection, exactly the same as in a magic act.
The Jewish devils and occultists themselves claim the world is flat and domed and that there are four dimensions, along with the fifth primordial ein sof.
I think the conspiracy this exposes is Someone or group is trying to convince people the earth is flat.
It's to convince normies that "conspiracy theorists" are all insane and they shouldn't doubt official government propaganda.
Exactly. Flat earthers weren’t even really a thing until Netflix did a documentary on them like 15 years ago. Now it’s like 90% trolls and is a great way to show normies how crazy all those conspiracy theorists are.
LoL exactly
By saying silly things that are trivially demonstrated wrong?!
The true purpose of the flat earth psyop is the opposite!
It is to ensure that no one seriously examines or discusses the subject because it is valuable to do so. It is labeled a "conspiracy" (when it plainly isn't one) for all the same reasons other legitimate things are - to slander, suppress, and disable general knowledge (and expression!) of them.
What do they have to gain by stating the earth is round? What advantage would that produce? I know they lie when the truth will do, but I just don't see how hiding a flat earth would benefit anyone
a) Waves (life) within a line (inception towards death) can be tricked to turn against each other within circular reasoning.
b) Perception within perceivable implies center of souROUNDing...the suggestions by others tempt ones consent off-center and into CIRCEcumference.
c) What do few gain if many willingly ignore everything perceivable nature offers for the suggestions by few?
But does your heart pump blood?
Liquid force (inception towards death) generates solid frequency (life) aka pumping heart/herz/hertz for flower/blume/bloma/blood.
I asked you if your heart pumps blood
a) Answers by others...needed or wanted?
b) What could one ask nature for? More than everything already perceivable?
c) How does frequency of ones choice relate to ones heart/herz/hertz/hz/frequency?
Keeping their job. Imagine a (science or otherwise) teacher (or most any other professional) NOT stating that the earth was round... How long do you think they would last?
One of the tactics of the psyop is to slander the subject as some sort of "conspiracy" to suppress it. Indeed this is the purpose of the terminology "conspiracy theory" outright.
The shape of the world is not a conspiracy, and humanity requires no help (nor conspiracy) to be stupid and wrong as it historically always is.
Teachers teach students that the earth is spherical because they were taught, and believe, that is its shape. There is no conspiracy required whatsoever.
However, if one were hellbent on assuming such a conspiracy does exist and some group of people were knowingly misinforming the rest of humanity (and had for literally thousands of years!) - then there are a great many potential benefits to doing so. Use your imagination! Here's one to get you started : What if there were more land not on our map/globe?
Here’s one:
Why do all airlines fly as if the earth is a globe and not flat
Why do you assume that they fly as if the earth is a globe? In what way do you believe this is the case and can you provide some (likely imagined) examples?
What do you think airlines would do differently if the world were actually flat, and not spherical as it is believed?
Airplanes fly, and they often try to take as straight a line path as possible (to save fuel). They imagine they are "great circle/arcs" but experiencially to all the pilots and passengers they are straight lines.
Airplanes do not depend on the world to be any particular shape. Why do you think they should/do?
https://youtu.be/AJP00jd5Cg8?si=GTDwkS5wGqfXQ3dq
Provide a map, size and measurements of the flat Earth.
You won't do it.
Assuming the earth is flat, there are many available - known as AD maps.
Like providing a map would - or should! - convince you that the earth isn't the shape we were taught it is. Lol.
as predicted, you cannot provide any actual data.
flat earther never can.
I can, but i won't because it will make you an even less competent student than you already are :( If i feed a man a fish...
There are no flat earthers, and i am certainly not one in any case. You sound confused.
Keep defending the search for truth. Thank you you are right.
Tell us nobody ever explained to you why Latitude and Longitude are the only way to predict surface point-locations on Earth,
without telling us nobody ever explained to you why Latitude and Longitude are the only way to predict surface point-locations on Earth.
This isn't about prediction, it's about measurement. A flat map works better than a globe shaped one - which is why our maps are flat.
Assuming the world is flat, the latitude lines are circles and the longitude lines are axial lines from the north pole. The arbitrary coordinate system we use has absolutely no bearing on the shape of the world. This is an encouraged erroneous conflation.
And prediction can only be done with proper measurement, illiterate.
Flat maps DON'T work better, that's why the SPHERICAL COORDINATES are MARKED on ALL FLAT MAPS.
And the MAPS are ALTERED so they more CLOSELY reflect reality of the planet being a sphere.
YOU who don't even know why Longitude and Latitude EXISTS, and are the SOLE COORDINATES USED on even FLAT MAPS,
vs EVERY MAP MAKER who EVER EXISTED:
Everyone coming by take otice how jack thinks FLAT MAPS apply to Earth better?
MAP PROJECTION: THE SCIENCE OF TRYING to MAKE FLAT MAPS fit EARTH as WELL as GLOBES DO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection
That's catastrophic failure of your lack of knowledge,
even of the reason for existence of,
the MEASUREMENTS TAKING PLACE on MAPS,
being in LONGITUDE and LATITUDE.
Using only:
S P E R I C A L geometry
surface area formulas.
There is no reference, of any kind, EVER:
to anything flat, in deriving them.
Ever.
All measurements are taking SOLELY from a SPHERE:
of a PRECISE and unchanging size.
COMPARED M.E.A.S.U.R.E.M.E.N.T.S.
match the SURFACE AREA
FORMULAS,
in the Geometry,
no one ever told you about.
https://www.nosco.ch/mathematics/en/earth-coordinates.php
All systems measuring Earth surface are SPHERICAL coordinates systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_coordinate_system
[For broader coverage of this topic, see Spatial reference system.]
A geographic coordinate system (or GCS) is a SPHERICAL, or geodetic coordinate system,
for measuring and communicating positions directly on the Earth,
as latitude and longitude.
It is the simplest, oldest and most widely used of the various spatial reference systems that are in use, and forms the basis for most others.
The geographic coordinate system is not cartesian, because the measurements are angles related to a sphere; and are not on a planar surface."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_coordinate_system
Actually, no. But i get your meaning.
Of course they do. That's why we have used them for millennia and continue to today.
Again, the depiction and coordinate system chosen (and even believed to be correct) by the mapmaker are arbitrary and irrelevant to the actual shape of the world. The map is a tool for travel, nothing more.
Everything you say beyond this line is restating the same misunderstanding. Of course the world is depicted as spherical, and has a coordinate system that is consistent with that depiction. It's not a coincidence, nor providence of the worlds actual shape! We believe it's spherical and have for thousands of years! It has no bearing on the actual shape of the world - it's just arbitrarily chosen to be consistent with that belief.
If the world is flat, and/or not spherical, then it is your "catastrophic failure and lack of knowledge" we are actually discussing. Right?
Yes, clown. You must measure correctly to predict. In geo-location, the word predict means "say correctly, a point will be where it is formulated to be."
This is a science, that uses mathematical formulas, to say ahead of time where something is going to be.
And no, clown, I PERSONALLY provided you the link to the SCIENCE that TRIES to MAKE FLAT MAPS work AS WELL as GLOBES.
You are in FLAT DENIAL of the ENTIRE SCIENCE - and it is as COMPLICATED as the MATHEMATICS of SPHERES you never learned,
of ''Map Projection."
https://www.google.com/search?q=Map+Projection&oq=Map+Projection&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQLhhA0gEINTEzMmowajCoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
This is an ENORMOUSLY important science to navigation, you're just illiterate.
Again, you're utterly wrong about the choice of surface areas for travel and prediction on the surfaces of any geometry being unimportant.
They're so important that the only way to successfully predict surface point locations, is to use a mathematical model that is identical to the surface of the geometry,
or you're describing the surface of ANOTHER geometry.
The field of science they teach 10 and 12 year-olds, that nobody ever taught you, mandates it.
To find surface points on a cube you must have a mathematical model that matches that cube in EVERY single particular.
To correctly predict surface points on a sphere you must have a mathematical model that matches that sphere in EVERY single particular, or YOUR predictions of where things will be, will be WRONG.
You're just an innumerate, illiterate hillbilly no one ever taught geometry to.
This is incorrect. Even to make correct predictions does not require measurement. This is, of course, besides the point.
Map projection is obviously not a science.
From my perspective, you are in "flat denial" of the science of hydrostatics (a branch of physics).
This is wrong. Nothing abstract (in this case math or any other language) mandates anything about reality - nor can it.
The world is whatever shape it is, and the arbitrary coordinate system and/or deeply held beliefs of cartographers have no bearing on that shape.
Maps are not for prediction, but for travel. If the map is wrong, we fix it.
Your fervent and belligerent belief will not change the shape of the world. The real question remains; if you were wrong about the shape of the world - would you want to know it? Or would you prefer to just keep yelling, meaninglessly and pathetically, online?
Wrong answer hillbilly.
The coordinates system for CORRECT SURFACE AREA and surface point LOCATION prediction is NOT arbitrary.
You're just an illiterate, innumerate hick who nobody ever taught how Longitude and Latitude operate to successfully predict on the surface of the planet.
How come serious attempts at discussion get ignored and/or get empty responses actively withholding information?
Do you have an example? Personally, i try not to ignore anything, though life certainly gets in the way and sometimes it takes me a while to respond.
Personally, i try to answer questions as thoroughly as i can. However, the one exception is when doing so will make the student weaker at doing their own research and thinking for themselves.
Im very happy to help any earnest students in their research, but i should not, and will not do it for them.
Our discussion about a scale model of the earth comes to mind
As well as our talks about Antarctica
Was there more of that conversation to be had? I think we had pretty well concluded it. You were in search of a completely accurate scale model of the earth - and in general, one doesn't exist - regardless of what shape it actually is.
Again, i don't think there was much of anything left unsaid and certainly nothing ignored. You may not have been satisfied with my answers, but that is a different matter.
If there really is anything you asked/discussed that you think was ignored, please cite/link to it specifically so i can properly address it!
You've misunderstood me. I was not looking for a completely accurate scale model. I was only looking for one without significant error (such as the relation of landmasses to one another, or relative shape of the landmasses). It does not have to be completely 100% accurate. There is a middle ground between 100% accurate, and 20% accurate.
The conversation about antarctica sort of molded into this, but there is a lot that you seemed to misunderstand in that conversation as well.
So, effectively, much is left "ignored," because you comment on your own misunderstandings, and when I correct you and try and help you realize what I am intending to say, you sort of just quiet down, hence why I started the threads.
Here's a link: https://communities.win/c/flatearthresearch/p/17sOnl6c42/x/c/4Z8kfcZzICu
I encourage you to read through with fresh eyes, and see if you can get a better grasp on what I was looking for.
Disruption of flat surface...
The language used is often simple and imprecise, leading to misunderstandings like this.
Of course water can curve, it's a fluid! It can take the shape of anything you put it in, or forces applied to it. In the case of the droplet, it is being forced into that shape by isostatic air pressure (air pressure pushing equally on all sides)
However, aside from negligible surface tension artifacts, the surface of liquid water at rest is always flat, level, and horizontal.
It is more accurate to say that water at rest does not, and by its nature cannot, curve convexly in the manner the globe model describes/requires. This has been a law of hydrostatics for centuries.
If you went out and directly measured the supposed curve of a stationary body of water (such as a frozen lake, for instance) - you would be the first person in history to do it!
In fact, everyone who has ever tried (including the scientists in the discipline of hydrostatics) has found that it does not, and cannot, curve at rest the way we are taught it must to fit the presumptive worldview we are steeped in.
To anyone with an earnest interest (including critical!) in this subject, or the heavily funded psyop that surrounds it, please join us to exchange our views on c/flatearthresearch!
Suggested language implies words shaped by setting letters together...aka a complex/composite of more than one. Sound implies whole (perceivable) setting itself apart (perception) aka whole (oneness) into partials (ones) aka simple/single.
Sound (simple) or Words (complex)...one is perceivable as self; the other suggested by others. Consenting to the latter; tempts one to ignore former.
REST, noun - "cessation of motion" contradicts FLUID; adjective (Latin fluere) - "to flow". Water (matter) seeking level implies balancing (momentum) within motion.
The trick...ones consent to suggested words tempts one to hold onto definitions (definite; affixed), which implies ones ignorance of being (life) moved (inception towards death).
a) What if it (matter) already exists within (momentum) an outside force (motion)?
b) What if form (life) can only be shaped within the mold (momentum) of flow (motion)?
c) What if calling matter (water) motion (fluid) tempts one to ignore the perceivable mold for those molding suggestions aka those who make the calls?
How can sides differentiated from one another be equal? While you're considering that...why do few suggest equality (same) through diversity (difference) towards many?
Quote this "law".
I did.
"Barring negligible surface tension artifacts, the surface of water at rest is always flat, level, and horizontal."
The reason it is a law is because there are no measurements which contradict it. That's all laws are - repeated measurements of what is.
Prior to "newton's folly", there are many descriptions - both mathematical and, more commonly, in english of this law (aka phenomenon/behavior) which describe it plainly. After "newton's folly", the laws are surreptitiously changed to include fictional terms - but this is simply not acceptable in science. Laws are created from measurement. They cannot be changed (and should not) until and unless contradictory measurement is provided which warrants such a change.
From where did you pull this quote? Searching it yields zero results.
It's my quote.
Try the other one i mentioned if you are looking in more modern hydrostatics textbooks.
Otherwise, the older the hydrostaticks text, the more plainly it will tend to be written. The surface of still water (of significant surface area) is always level, flat, and horizontal.
What other one?
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/17si9vQApM/when-a-flat-earther-tells-you-th/c/4ZA0j0GdBfL
Do you have an actual source for this "law" that isn't yourself?
Yes, many. It is in a great many books on hydrostatics, and phrased a number of different ways (both mathematically, and more often - in english). One way it is described in modern textbooks is "Fluids at rest cannot resist a shear stress" or equivalent.
You seem to be misunderstanding what a scientific law is, and why.
We establish them by measuring what is, not what we imagine might be.
When we measure water's surface at rest, again - barring negligible surface tension artifacts, it is always flat, level, and horizontal. The "source" of this law, as well as the place to look for a citation validating (or invalidating, as it appears you hope) it is reality! Still, if you trust books more than you trust your own competence to assess reality - there are many available on hydrostatics.
Then for fuck's sake provide one. Why can't you?
I don't do people's homework for them, it makes them weaker/less competent students.
I can help you find one if you earnestly look and fail. My only request is that you earnestly try first, and then share what you tried. Are you afraid you might confirm what i'm saying, and so refuse to look?
Conclusion: you made up this "law".
Just another flat Earth liar who cannot substantiate his claim.
good one.
What is the altitude at which one must look down to view the horizon?
OP won't answer the question.
Technically, you're always looking down, albeit slightly, to view the horizon.
You can see the horizon at any altitude.
Are you retarded?
You illiterate North American Pavement Ape, why didn't you tell us your also an aspiring astronaut?
I'm not American you fucking clown.
Maybe run your original question through google translate again you illiterate retard.
For the other New European pavement apes out there:
If you had to look down to see the horizon, at what altitude (elevation above the earth's surface) would you have to look down to see the horizon?
What is the altitude?
You won't answer the question.
For fuck's sake, you don't even know the meaning of the word "horizon".
Let me help you:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/horizon
That is what horizon means.
You can see that from any height.
how would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast yesterday?
That's not a sentence that makes any sense. Are you a bot? Fucking hell, this is tedious.
My fault
As an astronaut I thought you'd be able to tell me THE ALTITUDE you reach when you look out the window and the concept of the fucking horizon no longer exists, BECAUSE YOU'VE LEFT the EARTH.
Yes, obviously. I had to tell you the meaning of the word before your ignorant brain understood that your question made no fucking sense.
I'm not an astronaut. What the fuck are talking about now? Learn English, please. I have no idea what you are asking.
So, what's the question and please use proper language. What's your native language? Maybe I can help.