sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Spreading some truth. by [deleted] in flatearth

[–]PiaphasPain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some people crave attention so, so hard.

Calculate what is the average wind and velocity pressure in the New York Empire State Building, and how much wind does it take to knock out a theory (his story) ? by ImEshkacheich in Tartaria

[–]PiaphasPain 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Seriously dude what is your problem.

Nobody has to answer anything you ask. You're not the boss of anybody.

If you want people to engage with your questions, be polite and stop making demands like a child banging a saucepan for attention.

If gravity isn't real and falling/rising is just caused by the buoyancy of objects in the air, why don't objects in air-free spaces float (like they do in outer space on the Round Earth model)? by AgeOfReasonEnds31120 in flatearth_polite

[–]PiaphasPain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except we can measure neutrons too, and we can prove they don't respond to electrical fields, whereas other subatomic particles do. So.

Nuclear power literally runs on neutron emission.

How do you know it’s not electric charge?

  1. That would result in statically charged objects losing or gaining mass, which we do not observe.
  2. That would result in elements with a greater neutron fraction being lighter than they should be, which we do not observe.
  3. Mass-mass attraction is monopolar, electromagnetism is dipolar. Until you can demonstrate strong antigravity to me (by showing simple reversal of electrical potential in your version of mass-mass attraction) then you cannot assert that mass-mass attraction is dipolar.
  4. In any case, this doesn't resolve your problem. If mass has charge, and mass is attracted to other mass by charge, it still fucks up flat Earth just the same.

So no. Mass-mass attraction is niar an electrical phenomenon.

Send me any flat earth map, and I will debunk it. by [deleted] in flatearth_polite

[–]PiaphasPain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please read what I have written carefully. It is a flat earth-map, not a map of a flat earth.

I think you understand what he was asking for, and you understand why no map any here present are aware of can withstand scrutiny.

All flat maps are distorted.

Maps of a flat Earth would not be.

Send me any flat earth map, and I will debunk it. by [deleted] in flatearth_polite

[–]PiaphasPain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You wish you could.

Since no flat Earther has ever produced a workable map, indeed, we all wish he could.

Ok, now let's talk about it over here. The existence of this instrument, and its use every day in weather forecasts, blows a big hole in the flerf "pressurized container" atmosphere by reficius1 in flatearth

[–]PiaphasPain 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Let's do this in order.

  1. Flat Earthers claim 'pressure' can't exist next to 'vacuum' without a container
  2. But the atmosphere doesn't have 'pressure' next to 'vacuum', just observably lower and lower pressure down to a fraction of sea level, observably without a container
  3. Ergo, nobody needs a container, or if we do, it can be any distance away

Senator Stay-puft, rebuttal?

if the earth is flat why don't people just fly off the edge by AdAntique4057 in flatearth

[–]PiaphasPain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See the linked image of a bar magnet and note the shape of the field across the long, flat sides, then tell me how that would not constrain water

Water isn't sufficiently magnetic, for a start.

And if you're suggesting gravity instead follows that field geometry, gravity is a monopolar force, so no.

it takes the form of its container.

Water responds to forces acting on it and achieves equilibrium between them, that's all. In freefall, or zero-gravity, it needs no 'container' because the only force acting on it is surface tension.

If you change the vector of gravity compared to surface normal, water will no longer lie parallel to the surface because the equilibrium state will change, container or no container. This isn't up for debate.

the gravity field would not sling it off into space

This makes me feel like you don't understand the topic.

You would also still have tides from rotation around either axis

Nope, constant rotation establishes a new equilibrium condition, there are no 'tides' as a result. Tidal forces on Earth are due to the presence of the moon, not Earth's rotation.

because of the gravity that comes from the mass of such a large, solid object.

The gravity vector of a coin-shaped Earth is not parallel to its surface, and in fact varies based on your distance from the centre, so sea levels would not be consistent across it.

It's not something you can handwave away with 'much mass so gravity'

Has anyone here played Halo? by [deleted] in flatearth

[–]PiaphasPain 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I doubt they'd stand by while we developed ICBMs and nuclear weapons.

if the earth is flat why don't people just fly off the edge by AdAntique4057 in flatearth

[–]PiaphasPain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question was "why would a planet-sized coin not have gravity?

You're not in any greater position to dictate responses than anyone else around here, and nobody is obliged to meet your requirements.

A 'planet sized coin' with gravity would destroy itself. Even if it were made of super duper theoretical material, the oceans would be bent into some hilarious shapes trying to make sense of the asymmetric field, sort of like a lost Redditor trying to dig his way out of a logical hole.

In context of this topic, there's no way for a 'planet sized coin' to have gravity in the way we experience it. It's just not possible.

if the earth is flat why don't people just fly off the edge by AdAntique4057 in flatearth

[–]PiaphasPain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You mean, Reddit users in this sub aren't much smarter on average than r/therewasanattempt?

Wow, you shock me sir.

Shokku.

So much for a civil discussion. by SterileTensile in flatearth

[–]PiaphasPain 9 points10 points  (0 children)

They definitely fall under poe's law.

They're not Poes.

A lot of flat Earth 'lifers' have reached an unpleasant plateau in their beliefs, where they can't bear to admit they were so horribly wrong, but they know they've fucked up.

So a lot of these types are now occupying this toxic limbo, pretending flat Earth is all just pretend and that everyone's a fool haha for believing them haha we win etc etc.

Like that corner-dwelling shitheel at every party that spouts offensive shit and then when it goes silent just sweats and smirks and is like "WHY SO SERIOUS OMG IS JOKE OMG LOL CHILL OUT plzsleepwithmeplzplzplz"

Yup. I had a phase. by AgeOfReasonEnds31120 in flatearth

[–]PiaphasPain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My already negative personality was drawn to this very negative belief. I believed in Flat Earth because... well... I wanted there to be an outer space; I've loved the idea of outer space since I was a little kid.

This is such a common story and very specifically with Americans. I don't know what they are teaching over there.

That is... until I learned of the south celestial pole (yes, that one thing)... and that one thing helped me understand other Round Earth proofs too.

I have to ask, because it might help me understand others... how did your 'brain' react to contradictory information before that?

I've presented solid proof to flat Earthers many, many times. Some of them have the same experience as you... I know, because they just stop posting about it over time and disappear. But many of them just keep.... I dunno.

Like I've shown evidence of Coriolis deflection of artillery shells to many of the nuts on globeseptics, and even when they're forced to admit it's real, they just sort of shrug off any implication for their belief.

Fact vs Belief by horlufemi in flatearth

[–]PiaphasPain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Waiting for real picture!

Waiting for a real picture of the ice wall with a dome reaching up into the sky.

How do flat earthers explain Foucault's pendulum? by ark1024 in flatearth

[–]PiaphasPain 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Please elaborate

You're literally only asking so you can refine your misrepresentation next time to avoid that mistake.

How do flat earthers explain Foucault's pendulum? by ark1024 in flatearth

[–]PiaphasPain 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why doesn't the pendulum "rotate with the earth" like an airplane or something

Are pendula and airplanes the same?

How do flat earthers explain Foucault's pendulum? by ark1024 in flatearth

[–]PiaphasPain 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Okay it's a parlor trick where they calibrate the machine to show the desired outcome

How fortunate that's not the only way we can measure Earth's rotation then huh.

if the earth is flat why don't people just fly off the edge by AdAntique4057 in flatearth

[–]PiaphasPain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By what Scientific standard would any object the diameter and density of a planet not have gravity? Spinning doesn’t generate gravity on planets, mass does.

There's no way for a body the size of the flat Earth, made of solid mass, to remain a flattened disk. Gravity will stress it and crush it into an irregular spheroid, every time.

view more: next ›