were in my post did i make claims about the shape of the earth or solar system? this is about cosmological models and how neither side have proper ones. If you have poor reading skills id gladly try and dumb it down for you
Dark matter and dark energy are easy to understand; that you conflate them with the shape of the earth proves that you have 0 understanding of the topic.
Mathematical equations don't work to explain the observed Universe; not until over 10x the result is added, then they come close enough for government work.
c) Flat/plat - "to spread" aka towards (inception towards death) spreading (life).
to present a model
Suggesting (to present) likeness (model) tempts one to ignore being different from one another, and therefore a differentiation of matter (life) during sameness of motion (inception towards death).
It's not Flat earth. That is just language used against us to prevent shared knowledge.
a) Knowledge implies perceivable; language implies suggested. Language implies articulation (words) within natural (sound).
That represents the foundation for all deception. One cannot deceive another without suggesting to ignore perceivable.
b) Notice that you put "it's not" before flat earth...what does it matter that many reason against each other about flat earth vs round earth, while ignoring the implication of "it's not aka it is nothing".
The trick...reason (versus) distracts from implication (if/then).
The foundation for "not/nothing" implies suggested nihil-ism (Latin nihilo; nothing) tempting ones consent to de-nial everything perceivable for it.
does not mean one needs to prove where we are
a) Meaning implies proving by suggestion. Nature doesn't prove meaning...it moves all perceivable through each ones perception.
b) Notice once again the use of "does not" to make a point within a conflict of reason (does vs does not).
c) Suggested pluralism (we) tempts perceiving singular (one) to ignore self for others. There's no we in nature unless one chooses to count other ones...few suggest collectivism to tempt many to count each other and thereby join together.
d) Where? Energy (internal/inherent power)....where else could being be sustainable?
we aren't where we are told
a) And the deception in that is "told/tell/tale" aka TELL, verb - "to utter; to express in words; to communicate to others".
Nature doesn't express in words...it moves sound, hence moving impressing sound through expressing instruments.
b) Third time's a charm..."aren't aka are nothing". Those deceived utilize nothing as their foundation to reason from.
c) What if being told by another contradicts ones "self discernment"? I can tell you how self discernment works, but you agreeing or disagreeing with that doesn't imply your SELF discernment.
There are hundreds of argument against heliocentrism.
There is no dicodomy though. As in, just because one can prove heliocentrism isn't possible, doesn't mean they must simultaneously prove some other model or theory.
a) It doesn't matter how often one (uni) is turned (vertere)...it's always one.
b) Cosmology aka cosmo (universe) logy (logic/reason) implies each different one turning within same conflict of reason.
c) Heliocentrism against geocentricism implies different ones consenting to fight each other over the same suggested -ism.
d) Center (centr) of sun (helio) and earth (geo) implies oneself...being able to stand implies balancing on earth, and ones choice can only exist at center of balance. As for sun...notice that everything within this world is called "under the sun".
e) Motion (light) generates matter (dark)...matter struggles in-between lightning (discernment) and darkness (ignorance), hence having to bear light through the valley of the shadow of death.
Flat Earthers are unable to present a model or explain any observation using a Flat Earth.
They are desperate a d pathetic.
Nah, you just don't know your shit. Plus. Anyone knows flat earth isn't a theory or model that needs proving
It's just disprovin' the globe. That's it and you could do it too if you applied yourself
yeah but you can now say the same for heliocentrics. There are no working models period. Even Mainstream science admits this.
That is complete bullshit.
Name these scientists you talk about
no need to get upset fwend. the current model is the Lambda-CDM model. Which is based on "dark matter" and "dark energy"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/03/240315160911.htm
The shape of the Earth or the solar system are not mentioned in this article anywhere.
Try again, retard.
were in my post did i make claims about the shape of the earth or solar system? this is about cosmological models and how neither side have proper ones. If you have poor reading skills id gladly try and dumb it down for you
Here.
again, what did i say about heliocentrism? simplify that there is no working model.
Dark matter and dark energy are easy to understand; that you conflate them with the shape of the earth proves that you have 0 understanding of the topic.
Mathematical equations don't work to explain the observed Universe; not until over 10x the result is added, then they come close enough for government work.
That's entirely unrelated to FE.
Duh.
Go the fuck back to reddit.
dude you believe they played golf on the moon. Id bet my life you have a safety helmet on right now lol
Neither one of you exhibits a speck of logic.
Thanks for conceding the argument.
iv discussed with you in the past, i will only engage in proper conversation with you when you post the picture of your Buzz Aldren love doll.
the terms have not changed. good day sir
Thanks for admitting space is real, the Earth is not flat, and that the white man walked on the Moon.
a) Flat motion (inception towards death) generates earth matter (life).
b) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatline ...a distraction from being temporal matter within ongoing motion.
c) Flat/plat - "to spread" aka towards (inception towards death) spreading (life).
Suggesting (to present) likeness (model) tempts one to ignore being different from one another, and therefore a differentiation of matter (life) during sameness of motion (inception towards death).
It's not Flat earth. That is just language used against us to prevent shared knowledge.
Calling the globe and space the deception it is, does not mean one needs to prove where we are. Just that we aren't where we are told.
a) Knowledge implies perceivable; language implies suggested. Language implies articulation (words) within natural (sound).
That represents the foundation for all deception. One cannot deceive another without suggesting to ignore perceivable.
b) Notice that you put "it's not" before flat earth...what does it matter that many reason against each other about flat earth vs round earth, while ignoring the implication of "it's not aka it is nothing".
The trick...reason (versus) distracts from implication (if/then).
The foundation for "not/nothing" implies suggested nihil-ism (Latin nihilo; nothing) tempting ones consent to de-nial everything perceivable for it.
a) Meaning implies proving by suggestion. Nature doesn't prove meaning...it moves all perceivable through each ones perception.
b) Notice once again the use of "does not" to make a point within a conflict of reason (does vs does not).
c) Suggested pluralism (we) tempts perceiving singular (one) to ignore self for others. There's no we in nature unless one chooses to count other ones...few suggest collectivism to tempt many to count each other and thereby join together.
d) Where? Energy (internal/inherent power)....where else could being be sustainable?
a) And the deception in that is "told/tell/tale" aka TELL, verb - "to utter; to express in words; to communicate to others".
Nature doesn't express in words...it moves sound, hence moving impressing sound through expressing instruments.
b) Third time's a charm..."aren't aka are nothing". Those deceived utilize nothing as their foundation to reason from.
c) What if being told by another contradicts ones "self discernment"? I can tell you how self discernment works, but you agreeing or disagreeing with that doesn't imply your SELF discernment.
You are making a bit more sense these days, for an experimental AI, but still pretty far out there
Show me any AI that can adapt to perceivable inspiration...impossible. Artifice (information) is shaped out of ignorance of natural (inspiration).
Then again...it is possible to trick anyone to ignore natural for artificial.
a) Nature makes (all perceivable); those within re-make (ones perception).
b) Sense (Latin sentio) implies ones perception within all perceivable....not anything suggested by another one.
c) Writing "you make" contradicts itself...you (ones suggestion) make (all perceivable).
Nature designates units (Latin unitas; one)...if one chooses to claim self as "me; myself or I"; then one brands other ones as "you".
Many ignoring this permits few to hide underneath YOU (phonetic jew). Another layer of that deception...YOU aka I-O-U (I own you).
There are hundreds of argument against heliocentrism.
There is no dicodomy though. As in, just because one can prove heliocentrism isn't possible, doesn't mean they must simultaneously prove some other model or theory.
a) It doesn't matter how often one (uni) is turned (vertere)...it's always one.
b) Cosmology aka cosmo (universe) logy (logic/reason) implies each different one turning within same conflict of reason.
c) Heliocentrism against geocentricism implies different ones consenting to fight each other over the same suggested -ism.
d) Center (centr) of sun (helio) and earth (geo) implies oneself...being able to stand implies balancing on earth, and ones choice can only exist at center of balance. As for sun...notice that everything within this world is called "under the sun".
e) Motion (light) generates matter (dark)...matter struggles in-between lightning (discernment) and darkness (ignorance), hence having to bear light through the valley of the shadow of death.
There is none. Fuck off, jew.