Southern American: "Ayll have a diet Earth."
(cdn.videy.co)
Comments (10)
sorted by:
This video is a good joke response to those certain people who end up on conspiracy forums that effectively seem like alt plants to discredit conspiracy theorists.
I was thinking the other day.
Most mainstream science does not claim to know the answer. Like what the nature of space is exactly. Only what appears to be the answer.
That is the entire nature of our reality and science. We do these experiments, millions of people do them, to help reinforce and create proofs for what we consider "reality".
But the truth is, we really know very little, in fact we dont know shit.
It really is a best guess.
https://archive.is/20210311162038/https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/
So im really hesitant when I see people claiming they know the truth of reality, in fact it is definitely one of my pet peeves.
Also I assume buddy is yanking ur chain. The oceans on earth are not carbonated, not anymore then they are oxygenated or nitrogenated.
And carbonation in the water has zero relevance to flat earth.
It was a joke. Ayh thought that was obvious. :/ You get it right? If its not carbonated .. its flat water? Flat Earth? Eh? C'mon buddy.
You triggered me on the second sentence --> "most mainstream science does not claim to know the answer"
My friend.. if any thing has radicalized me more in the last 10 years it has been the repetition that theories are now asserted as fact and communicated like faith to students. Journals now print hypothesis in excess over experimental research. People like Neil Tyson and Susan Hossenfender (sp?) and Physics Girl (die already) are celebrities but they are book and word of mouth trendy non-critical idiots. People like Hawking are celebrated yet he never proved a single thing -- not one -- and even lost most of his wagers about theories. YouTube channels with 15M subs and 5M views per video regurgitate the most invalidated of theories with absolute certainty.
Young people do not have a chance to be hyper critical of theories bcz they do not recognize them as theories. The biggest one for me is some thing ayh have worked on for decades with others in that the Standard Model (ie particle physics) is absolute wrong. It remains a theory and is consistently upended by discrepancies in modeling. So instead of tearing it down and better examining the field that envelops said "particles" they simply add next particle. Bear in mind that physics is the goal of understanding the simple mechanisms of all things in nature and yet now we have 17 particles that make up the Standard Model with 3 more suggested -- this does not include double that when adding Quantum Mechanics b/s.
The rebranding lies of science has pissed me off and ayh want the whole field undone so fresh perspectives can once again have access.
"officially"
Bear in mind that the explanation you posted is not official -- it is one model and it is incomplete. At present, the very same scientists who tell you that model is correct can also not explain what 89% of what the universe consists of -- and also can not explain how the Standard Model of particle physics seems to contain endless primary particles (bcz SM is wrong)
Again --> do not rely on the current theories as being leverage to dispute. They are are muddled as the opposition theories.
As to your "physical barrier" -- again, falling, not pressured like expansion. The atmosphere is not some fixed bubble but a gradient.
a) Impression (inception towards death) generates expression (life), hence being within implying pressurization.
b) Suggested system (assemblage of things adjusted into a regular whole) tempts one to ignore that whole separates self into partials, hence oneself being a partial (perception) within whole (perceivable).
c) Suggested vaccum (empty space) tempts one to ignore being partial within whole/full/fill, since only within whole can a partial wander (Latin spatior; space) around.
d) Matter can only be within momentum of motion...a "vaccum" without matter cannot be, unless being ignores momentum of motion.