I'm pleasantly surprised on how informative and interesting this video is. Goes onto great detail into the mud flood theory and how the old world used these clean beautiful structures.
I do not understand why people talk like this, is it supposed to make them sound more dramatic or something.
I did get to the part where he says there are no maps that accurately portray the earth.
Well, if the earth is round, there is no way to implement a 3d model onto a 2d surface. There are several mathmatical ways of doing it, but each one has some kind of distortion. I know math stuff is hard.
Trying to understand it from a flat earthers viewpoint, im guessing they think that the moon is simply a little closer than the sun, or something. And still passes right underneath it.
This may be the actual video that I meant to post. Between the two of them, even though it's likely all just nonsense, it was some of the more interesting ideas/theories that I've seen.
You completely misunderstand. We predict eclipses and generate equations to extrapolate them based on charts - not models.
There are plenty of civilizations which "modeled" the world as flat which also had charts of when eclipses occurred.
The shape of the world is not involved in such things at all.
Beyond that, models are merely tools for limited use - not proof of anything in reality.
We have working astronomical models for the earth being the center of the universe (and assuming the earth a flat plane, as it appears experientially to us). Does that prove that the earth is the center of the universe?
It is trivial to create a model assuming anything you like - reality doesn't care.
You couldn't read them even if i did track one down.
You are welcome to follow up on the claim at your leisure. I have no reason to doubt it, and every reason to conclude it was important to many (if not most) civilizations to watch and record the patterns in the sky.
In ancient egypt, for one, such knowledge was used to convince the subjects that the pharaoh was a god.
Do we know that these charts are (mostly) correct?
Because the periodicity is the same today - yes, i think we do. But presuming that ancient astronomers with written language lacked the ability to record the frequency of astronomical events competently seems a little extreme to me.
As in, are the rough measurements/design reflective of reality?
Much like our measurements today, and for the same reasons, i would expect that the measurements themselves are reflective of reality (i.e. reasonably accurate) - however the interpretations of those measurements are often wildly wrong.
Either gas is ever expanding or gas is at rest upon the particles below it. Both cannot be simultaneously true.
No one ever said that gas is ever expanding, that is purely your misunderstanding. Gas always expands to fit the container. Not "gas always expands forever with eternal limitless energy"....
Except that is explicitly not what you said. Expanding to fit an available volume is not infinite expansion, obviously.
then it wouldn't be resting on other particles.
Firstly, expansion occurs in all directions... Secondly, once expansion is no longer occurring (due to reaching equilibrium/rest/the confines of the container walls), the particles of course would be resting on one another (as they are during expansion as well...)
You seem to imagine that expansion precludes falling - or they are somehow mutually exclusive. Imagine a squished foam ball (or spring) being dropped...
Expanding to fit an available volume is not infinite expansion, obviously.
It's not expanding in size infinitely, no, but the particles are infinitely working to expand, as futile as the efforts may be. The particles will never come to rest, especially not on top of one another. Even at equilibrium, the particles are still in motion at an atomic level.
but the particles are infinitely working to expand, as futile as the efforts may be
True, as long as the temperature is non zero kelvin.
Even at equilibrium, the particles are still in motion at an atomic level.
Same as the first answer. However, conceptualizing the gas molecules/atoms as darting about (aka billiard balls) is only one useful framework. It is not necessarily correct, or consistent with everything we observe. Gas largely behaves as a fluid, and is an alternative useful conceptual framework. Of course, in either conceptualization - constant motion of some sort remains.
I regret to inform you that on the rare occasion when you’ve encountered a flat earther, they were just fucking with you. There’s very very few people who actually believe in it.
It was popularized after a Netflix special from about a decade or two ago and almost all flat earthers are just trolling each other or are people who are too dumb to get the joke.
The former (doing nothing) implies suggested; the latter perceivable (knowledge)...why build a statement on a contradiction?
you
Only if one claims self as "me; myself and I" do other ones get branded as "you". Letting go of claims (to ask or seek to obtain) makes it way easier to discern that nature already offers everything (perceivable) to each one (perception).
have
How could there be possession (have) within procession (inception towards death)?
blood
Blood in blood out...do I sound like a chi-vato loco?
pump
a) HYDRO (water) DRAULIC (drastic; forceful, vigorous) aka forcing (inception towards death) vigor (life).
b) Consider "pump up the JAM; noun - "a tight pressing between two surfaces" and being impressed (living off-spring) within a single surface (inception towards death)...
Could it be that few are suggesting "pump" to "jam" up consenting many within a moving system?
I couldnt resist. Seriously though, if its not the moon then what is it.
You guys realize, this proably happens all the time, but when its only 10-80% occluded, your not going to notice unless you happen to be wearing your solar glasses and looking at the right time...
Not a flat earther, but this really long video purports to show this in the last section (starts at 4:00:00):
https://www.bitchute.com/video/QetnEQ2pszMr/
EDIT
This may be the video that I meant to post.
https://files.catbox.moe/4dicrf.mp4
I'm pleasantly surprised on how informative and interesting this video is. Goes onto great detail into the mud flood theory and how the old world used these clean beautiful structures.
I cant watch content like this.
I do not understand why people talk like this, is it supposed to make them sound more dramatic or something.
I did get to the part where he says there are no maps that accurately portray the earth.
Well, if the earth is round, there is no way to implement a 3d model onto a 2d surface. There are several mathmatical ways of doing it, but each one has some kind of distortion. I know math stuff is hard.
Trying to understand it from a flat earthers viewpoint, im guessing they think that the moon is simply a little closer than the sun, or something. And still passes right underneath it.
Not gonna lie, that guy's voice is weird.
This may be the actual video that I meant to post. Between the two of them, even though it's likely all just nonsense, it was some of the more interesting ideas/theories that I've seen.
https://files.catbox.moe/4dicrf.mp4
In your own words?
I met my first flat farther a few weeks ago. He was doing some work for me and everything was going great. When he told me, I was dumbfounded
You completely misunderstand. We predict eclipses and generate equations to extrapolate them based on charts - not models.
There are plenty of civilizations which "modeled" the world as flat which also had charts of when eclipses occurred.
The shape of the world is not involved in such things at all.
Beyond that, models are merely tools for limited use - not proof of anything in reality.
We have working astronomical models for the earth being the center of the universe (and assuming the earth a flat plane, as it appears experientially to us). Does that prove that the earth is the center of the universe?
It is trivial to create a model assuming anything you like - reality doesn't care.
Show those charts then.
You couldn't read them even if i did track one down.
You are welcome to follow up on the claim at your leisure. I have no reason to doubt it, and every reason to conclude it was important to many (if not most) civilizations to watch and record the patterns in the sky.
In ancient egypt, for one, such knowledge was used to convince the subjects that the pharaoh was a god.
As usual, the Flat Earther pretends to have evidence but refuses to show it for some bullshit reason.
Always the same.
As usual, i'm not a flat earther and you are too belligerent and forgetful to know that :(
So show the charts then.
You can't because they don't exist.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "they don't exist" is not a good way to learn about new things :(
Instead, try doing a little research. If you try and fail to find such charts, let me know what you tried and i'll do my best to help.
I will not do your research for you, because it will make you a weaker student than you already are.
Thank you for proving my point.
Typical flat Earther: "I have evidence but won't show it because you're meeeeeean"
Can you name one of the civilizations/share one of the charts?
ancient egyptians, babylonians, and ancient chinese to name a few.
I leave the cuneiform tablets to someone else to track down ;)
Funny you mention the Egyptians and Chinese, because their charts are largely constructed around a heliocentric model
The ancient egyptians conceived of a flat earth with a dome stretched out over it. It's depicted many times in their reliefs.
The ancient chinese are almost certainly the same - prior to greek influence, that is.
Do we know that these charts are (mostly) correct? As in, are the rough measurements/design reflective of reality?
Because the periodicity is the same today - yes, i think we do. But presuming that ancient astronomers with written language lacked the ability to record the frequency of astronomical events competently seems a little extreme to me.
Much like our measurements today, and for the same reasons, i would expect that the measurements themselves are reflective of reality (i.e. reasonably accurate) - however the interpretations of those measurements are often wildly wrong.
How far does the dome reach, stretched out? Is there a measured (roughly) diameter of this dome?
Okay, well then we've still got an issue with the contradiction in what we've discussed on gasses and how pressure is lower at higher atmospheres.
Either gas is ever expanding or gas is at rest upon the particles below it. Both cannot be simultaneously true.
No one ever said that gas is ever expanding, that is purely your misunderstanding. Gas always expands to fit the container. Not "gas always expands forever with eternal limitless energy"....
Precisely what I mean. If the gas is expanding to fit the container, then it wouldn't be resting on other particles.
Except that is explicitly not what you said. Expanding to fit an available volume is not infinite expansion, obviously.
Firstly, expansion occurs in all directions... Secondly, once expansion is no longer occurring (due to reaching equilibrium/rest/the confines of the container walls), the particles of course would be resting on one another (as they are during expansion as well...)
You seem to imagine that expansion precludes falling - or they are somehow mutually exclusive. Imagine a squished foam ball (or spring) being dropped...
It's not expanding in size infinitely, no, but the particles are infinitely working to expand, as futile as the efforts may be. The particles will never come to rest, especially not on top of one another. Even at equilibrium, the particles are still in motion at an atomic level.
True, as long as the temperature is non zero kelvin.
Same as the first answer. However, conceptualizing the gas molecules/atoms as darting about (aka billiard balls) is only one useful framework. It is not necessarily correct, or consistent with everything we observe. Gas largely behaves as a fluid, and is an alternative useful conceptual framework. Of course, in either conceptualization - constant motion of some sort remains.
cool source on that. it's true because you say so.
You are the one making unsubstantiated claims here, you fucking clown.
I’m not a flat earther but, since you’re such a space fan, can you show me the calculations for humans landing on the moon?
I regret to inform you that on the rare occasion when you’ve encountered a flat earther, they were just fucking with you. There’s very very few people who actually believe in it.
It was popularized after a Netflix special from about a decade or two ago and almost all flat earthers are just trolling each other or are people who are too dumb to get the joke.
Yep, flat earth was a psy p to discredit conspiracy theorists. This is basic stuff, even normies get it.
Normies don't get that its a psyop, they just think "har har conspiracy theorists stoopid".
True, normies don't believe psy ops are a thing. Bottomless pit.
Don't mean there aren't people who don't actually take it seriously.
Mass formation psychosis is real, why not fringe formation psychosis?
Suggestion eclipses (obscures) perception...if one consents to it.
...a suggested outcome tempts others to ignore perceivable origin.
Action (tion) calculates (to add, subtract, multiply or divide) as follows...addition (inception); subtraction (death); multiplication (intercourse for off-spring) and division (being partial reaction within whole action).
That's how oneness (action) calculates ones (reactions)...any suggested calculations tempts ONE to ignore self for others.
This guy doesn't even know why the heart's function is
Why? Self sustenance! Why else?
You don't know if you have one though, and if it pumps blood.
The former (doing nothing) implies suggested; the latter perceivable (knowledge)...why build a statement on a contradiction?
Only if one claims self as "me; myself and I" do other ones get branded as "you". Letting go of claims (to ask or seek to obtain) makes it way easier to discern that nature already offers everything (perceivable) to each one (perception).
How could there be possession (have) within procession (inception towards death)?
Blood in blood out...do I sound like a chi-vato loco?
a) HYDRO (water) DRAULIC (drastic; forceful, vigorous) aka forcing (inception towards death) vigor (life).
b) Consider "pump up the JAM; noun - "a tight pressing between two surfaces" and being impressed (living off-spring) within a single surface (inception towards death)...
Could it be that few are suggesting "pump" to "jam" up consenting many within a moving system?
Lol doesn't even know basic biology
Logic (logy) contradicts life (bio)...hence all the conflicts of reason.
Hahaha he thinks biology contradicts life
Nailed it
You would have a point if it wasn't for the fact that it isnt the moon that causes the eclipse.
7/10; at least it’s a uniquely stupid statement.
If its not the moon, it must be your moms azz.
I couldnt resist. Seriously though, if its not the moon then what is it.
You guys realize, this proably happens all the time, but when its only 10-80% occluded, your not going to notice unless you happen to be wearing your solar glasses and looking at the right time...
then what does?
It's the Sun winking at you.