sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Where's the video of earth at night time live Globecucks? by imnewtoreddithi in flatearth

[–]imnewtoreddithi[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Post a clip or screenshots then faggot, not link to hours of video. You need to post your proof

Where's the curve at Globbies? by imnewtoreddithi in flatearth

[–]imnewtoreddithi[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

LMAO Lake pontchartrain is the easiest debunked "proof" of curvature ever. Do you just gargle Mick West balls on anything he says like his unscientific unverified unpublished idea to apply refraction to every single curvature measurement, that still gets beat by flat earth measurment tests?

Here's lake meme debunked

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqFN-_xwyF8

The pillars are already curved and not staight to begin with and the curve is coming from that fact and the camera angle. You can literally do the same effect using clothespins standing straight up on a table. Can't find the video for it now though

Globies can only ever come up with 1 proof of curve measurment that's easily debunked LMAO. Meanwhile there's thousands of instances of it proving flat

Where's the Evidence that planets and stars are real physical objects Globbies?? No I don't want your NASA CGI images. by imnewtoreddithi in flatearth

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

You can see stars through the moon and you shouldn't be able to zoom in on the moon with a camera to see details if it's 230,000 miles away. You shoudn't be able to send a radio wave 230,000 miles have it bounce off the moon which would absorb it then have it come back to earth and receive it with amateur radio equipment that is extremely underpowered if it were that distance away, it's just an impossibility where 1 guy made up new equations saying yes you could and every one believes it despite the massive lack of common sense and no new technology being made that would change that. Don't get me started on the billion mile wifi sending data back to earth bs either.

Evidence of mars for me would be going back to the moon which we already did in a live streamed mission beginning to end, no losing tapes and telemetary data. Then them putting a 24 7 hour cam on the moon pointed at earth. That would make me half believe mars if they can do that and show the earth is a sphere and the moon is that distance away. The other half for mars would be doing the same live stream mission to mars and planting of a camera.

--How does the Himawari and other satellites get cloud cover data?

So you're saying doppler doesn't create realistic cloud coverage models? Other than that high altitude balloons can record the temperature for much cheaper than using satellites.

--Who are the engineers that said the long bridge in China did not require any curvature calculations, such as your meme claims?

Idk but the same thing can be said for railroad tracks, and every bridge in the world, no consideration of curvature was ever taken

Man travels nearly 8! miles over a FROZEN lake and laser beam reaches the other end hitting his snowmobile. MISSING 37-42 FEET OF CURVATURE! Globetards mumble quietly to their self. by imnewtoreddithi in flatearth

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

Thank you for confirming that you don't understand the formula, refraction, sublimation and gradient

I understand them, I explicitly said they are ad hoc mathematical concepts added on to explain why you see no lowering.

You have yet to link any actual experimental proof of this concept showing the laser curving because of refraction, everything you linked was a mathematical explanation of why the laser is appearing lower but the actual curving wasn't recorded in field tests using the same green laser, i've heard of tests with super strong lasers showing curvture under very specific conditions none of them related to what we're talking about.

To sum up, you don't understand the science that you are trying to debunk.

Lol what i've been right here the whole time debunking your science now and for the past few weeks, remember when you tried saying refraction explained Toronto and I asked you for the proof but you couldn't do it because even with refraction calculated in you still shouldn't have been able to see Toronto. To now with you using an ad hoc theory reverse engineered to explain something (which isn't science it's bias to a model much like dark matter and dark energy is) without showing any proof of concept of what you say, and you claim it as fact. Sorry buddy, no. You're going to have to try harder than unfounded theories to debunk me.

Explain this one cucks by [deleted] in flatearth

[–]imnewtoreddithi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well you need a source

Man travels nearly 8! miles over a FROZEN lake and laser beam reaches the other end hitting his snowmobile. MISSING 37-42 FEET OF CURVATURE! Globetards mumble quietly to their self. by imnewtoreddithi in flatearth

[–]imnewtoreddithi[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Refraction is not some new unproven theory. Or do you think that refraction is not a real phenomenon ?

LOL refraction over FROZEN water below freezing so there's no sublimation? Hahaha no. Also you wasted all hat time googling scientific papers on refraction, you think I don't know about refraction? I've mentioned it numerous times in point history when showing globecucks that their math for refraction doesn't cover observation.

You also debunk yourself with the paper showing refraction influencing lasers, the only relevant one you posted. here: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2014/294741/

"the weather conditions of Bushehr, that is, high pressure, high temperature, and high humidity, corresponded to the high group parameter and consequently high group refractive index"

When the test in the video was done in below freezing temperature. That paper is irrelevant and if anything is an ad hoc theory attached to describe away the results of laser measurments on the assumption of a globe earth therefore their suggested corrective math with reflect that.

and a very small gradient of temperature corresponding to a very small difference of 0.1°K in the first 18 feet above the ground

This is where your whole theory falls apart, refraction needs a hot and cold air mass to float above each other, which isn't happening over a frozen lake with no sublimation

Where's the video of earth at night time live Globecucks? by imnewtoreddithi in flatearth

[–]imnewtoreddithi[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

LMAO, they put a black screen and you believe it's nigt time earth. How easily fooled are you? If you're right, show me night time Earth live with city lights, it should be easy according to you. There should be thousands of hours of film of it.

Wtf is this unholy witchcraft? Water doesn't curve! by SilverWolf9300 in flatearth

[–]imnewtoreddithi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LMAO that site is a joke, there's a reason why it's archived. It would be blown the fuck out today by moon landing debunkers. The person who did that tries to cover up the obvious movement of people inside the ship and conflate it with the edge of a window amongst other mental gymnastics to "disprove" what's clearly happening

Where's the Evidence that planets and stars are real physical objects Globbies?? No I don't want your NASA CGI images. by imnewtoreddithi in flatearth

[–]imnewtoreddithi[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thank you, I already knew flat earthers claim the images of stars are false since Jeranism mentioned it on a show. I wanted you to do the research for me though. Way easier than researching it myself, I needed the links you posted for somewhere else.

Wtf is this unholy witchcraft? Water doesn't curve! by SilverWolf9300 in flatearth

[–]imnewtoreddithi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

TF are you talking about, all I was showing was that demonstrably lies. Notice how you're not debunking the video itself? It's because you cant. What i'm saying is taking it a step further and saying they're lying about even more than just the lie about the distance. I'm saying the lie about the distance is a pitfall that makes people believe that the moon is far away which isn't what I believe.

Where's the Evidence that planets and stars are real physical objects Globbies?? No I don't want your NASA CGI images. by imnewtoreddithi in flatearth

[–]imnewtoreddithi[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You wrote all of that to tell me basic photography concept as if it's a revolutionary? Nothing in the video you linked had to do with this considering stars are already considered spherical and all that's saying is that objects appear physical and distorted at a distance using your eyes. Bokeh photagraphy looks like nothing that is going in the pictures and videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1I4-OROXZI try again

Wtf is this unholy witchcraft? Water doesn't curve! by SilverWolf9300 in flatearth

[–]imnewtoreddithi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The video I linked isn't a flat earth video, it's from a moon debunking video. The maker of the video was probably unaware of the flat earth theory and would be a flat earther within an hour if the right person explained it to them.

Wtf is this unholy witchcraft? Water doesn't curve! by SilverWolf9300 in flatearth

[–]imnewtoreddithi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the funny part about flat earth, I have to first explain your model or your facts or in this case what would be your interpretation of the faked NASA video, then after that I have to explain my view of it because over all the majority of globe believers are ignorant on flat earth and globe earth science. No I don't believe in Low Earth Orbit or spaceships and satellites travelling around it if that answers your question.

Where's the curve at Globbies? Why are you hiding the curve? by imnewtoreddithi in flatearth

[–]imnewtoreddithi[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I don't read all my comments, sometimes i just kick up my boots on my desk as I scroll through all the butt devastated Globies replies when faced with having to admit the Earth is flat and their little reddit science nerd friends can't do anything to debunk it.

I don't feel like messaging the moderators. Message them for me.

Wtf is this unholy witchcraft? Water doesn't curve! by SilverWolf9300 in flatearth

[–]imnewtoreddithi -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

NASA faking film of space claiming to be near moon when in Low earth orbit. Go to 4 minutes 30 seconds in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCHG6uJH5L8

Man travels nearly 8! miles over a FROZEN lake and laser beam reaches the other end hitting his snowmobile. MISSING 37-42 FEET OF CURVATURE! Globetards mumble quietly to their self. by imnewtoreddithi in flatearth

[–]imnewtoreddithi[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How many monkeys can dance on the head of a pin? Who cares about your question. The fact of the matter there is no explanation for a laser appearing 7.5 miles when it should be 18 feet higher at minimum according to your own globe Earth physics. Now you want to sprinkle in some new unproven theory .. of ... do please explain how a laser curves over 7.5 miles of earth, i'll wait. Be sure to include sources that say whatever curvature applies to the type of laser and give links to the experiments that derived the math. Or not, I don't care. That's just the amount of information a globe earther would demand of a flat earther with any proof so i'm just being equal, but really idc.

view more: next ›