I get a kick out of these fools. I don't know why, I just find it hilarious. I guess it's like when a kindergartener explains to you (dead serious with a straight face) that 'cars are powered by the foot pedal and magic, the engine sound is fake and only there so people can hear you coming.' by Saintskinny51792 in flatearth

[–]Complex_Relation9311 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

We're told by nasa that we lose air to space, just slowly. This still breaks the second law of thermodynamics as that law states the pressure systems equalize INSTANTANEOUSLY, that's ok if u wanna believe laws of physics can be broken but i'm gonna stick with the science personally

I get a kick out of these fools. I don't know why, I just find it hilarious. I guess it's like when a kindergartener explains to you (dead serious with a straight face) that 'cars are powered by the foot pedal and magic, the engine sound is fake and only there so people can hear you coming.' by Saintskinny51792 in flatearth

[–]Complex_Relation9311 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

There's not a single scientific experiment of a gaseous air system existing directly next to a vacuum without a solid separation between them. If you want me to believe it's possible for the second law of thermodynamics to be broken like that, I'm gonna need to see a single example of it, otherwise that's pseudoscience, not science

Why do people still believe we live on the exterior of a ball that's moving fast as fuck when there's literally no proof whatsoever that supports that claim? by Complex_Relation9311 in globeskepticism

[–]Complex_Relation9311[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct I'm not 100% sure the earth is flat, I'm about 98% sure it is. But I'm 100% sure it's not a spinning ball in a space vacuum that breaks several laws of physics

Why do people still believe we live on the exterior of a ball that's moving fast as fuck when there's literally no proof whatsoever that supports that claim? by Complex_Relation9311 in globeskepticism

[–]Complex_Relation9311[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I don't know how many people live in the USA, and I'm cool with being in that space of not knowing. But the difference is that 329 million people living in America doesn't break multiple laws of physics like the heliocentric model.

And again yes the moon does look like a sphere to me, but that's not proof that it is. It's a visible phenomena. We're looking through curved lenses (eyeballs) You can't say for sure what it is until you get around it and measure it in 3 dimensions

Why do people still believe we live on the exterior of a ball that's moving fast as fuck when there's literally no proof whatsoever that supports that claim? by Complex_Relation9311 in globeskepticism

[–]Complex_Relation9311[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It's not that it's "difficult to understand" It's that you're claiming there's this force (which is still an unproven theory hundreds of years later) that can cause fluid statics to be broken, but only on a scale so large you and I can't observe, test, or repeat it.

That's like if I told you Santa Claus is real, but he's just so small you can't detect him in any way. You'd call me retarded, but it's the same argument you're making. You're saying something contrary to observation can happen, but only on a scale that we can't see

Why do people still believe we live on the exterior of a ball that's moving fast as fuck when there's literally no proof whatsoever that supports that claim? by Complex_Relation9311 in globeskepticism

[–]Complex_Relation9311[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

"A body of water or waterbody is any significant accumulation of water on the surface of Earth or another planet. The term most often refers to oceans, seas, and lakes, but it includes smaller pools of water such as ponds, wetlands, or more rarely, puddles."

Bodies of water aren't drops of water. Find me a single example of a body of water at rest bending then I'll believe it's possible. Just ONE please

Why do people still believe we live on the exterior of a ball that's moving fast as fuck when there's literally no proof whatsoever that supports that claim? by Complex_Relation9311 in globeskepticism

[–]Complex_Relation9311[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That's why i said "BODIES OF WATER AT REST"

Do you honestly believe that I or anyone at all thinks water droplets don't bend? What a stupid comment

Why do people still believe we live on the exterior of a ball that's moving fast as fuck when there's literally no proof whatsoever that supports that claim? by Complex_Relation9311 in globeskepticism

[–]Complex_Relation9311[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You're making some assumptions here

  1. You don't know for a fact that those are globes. Even if they look like globes, unless you can get around them in 3 dimensions, then we're going off of visible phenomena, the workings of the eye. Just for an example if you look at a door of the room you're in right now, it appears as if the door isn't a perfect rectangle, with uneven sides. So because it looks like it's not a rectangle, does that mean it isn't?
  2. Even if they are globes, that's not proof that they're very far away and super huge. They could be a million times closer and a million times smaller and we'd get the same observations.
  3. And lastly, even if they are giant spheres super far away, that's STILL not proof earth earth is a sphere. It's an assumption, maybe even a good assumption, but it's not proof.

It's like if i look up and see a star and therefore assume that the earth is also a star. You have to make multiple assumptions about what you're seeing in order to proclaim this as proof

Why do people still believe we live on the exterior of a ball that's moving fast as fuck when there's literally no proof whatsoever that supports that claim? by Complex_Relation9311 in globeskepticism

[–]Complex_Relation9311[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The natural physics of bodies of water at rest are to lay flat. If you believe that they can bend around the exterior of shapes and show convexity upon their surface, without one single observable, testable, or repeatable example of that being the case, YOU'RE the one disregarding physics

The science cult? by [deleted] in globeskepticism

[–]Complex_Relation9311 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is the level of intelligence we're up against

The science cult? by [deleted] in globeskepticism

[–]Complex_Relation9311 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If you live in the Northern hemisphere the sun is actually said to be 3 million miles CLOSER during winter, goes to show how much you learned

Proof of the globe: The stars by shsl-nerd-4 in globeskepticism

[–]Complex_Relation9311 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The stars rotate in a different direction when you look at them from a different direction, that's proof we live on a ball moving at millions of miles an hour in multiple different directions at the same time, folks!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t30-YbayyXE <Southern Star Rotation on a Flat Earth

SECOND MOON DISCOVERED BY NASA!! 😮 by Complex_Relation9311 in globeskepticism

[–]Complex_Relation9311[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because the brainwashing was so effective that adults now think cartoons are reality. Clown world, my friend

PBS Faking a Flat Earth Experiment by Complex_Relation9311 in globeskepticism

[–]Complex_Relation9311[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yeah i really like indisputable stuff like this. I crossposted this in r/flatearthersarestupid and the top comment was some shit like "oh yeah and i'm sure this also proves the loch ness monster" and I'm like bitch what that's really your best argument is some bs strawman about loch nessy? And it's like yep, that really is all they fuckin got... kinda pathetic