so you answer is the one in the video is cheap. that is your opinion, you have no proof that this is so.
what happened to your lateral/angular motion argument?
RE: i believe we live on a flat earth because...
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
i believe we live on a flat earth because...
That argument was just a tangent about whether the rotation of the Earth was fast or slow; it's fast in terms of lateral motion, slow in terms of angular motion, and angular is what the gyroscope picks up.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
1000 mph is slow?
the angle would change 15 degrees every hour. but it doesn't.
the idea that because the angular motion is slow that it wouldn't be picked up is your theory. you have nothing to back it up, it is a supposition to account for what you can't explain.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You have nothing to back up the assertion that the gyroscope was sensitive enough to pick up the angular motion. And between "conspiracy theorist who believes the Earth is flat uses shoddy experimental technique" and "the Earth is flat", one is totally predictable and the other is totally ridiculous.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
you having nothing but your assertions.
you prove nothing, and keep claiming victory...
while at the same time admitting to having no actual knowledge, but skimming boards to use to rebuke.
being hollow must be an interesting experience... to be a pawn, a puppet... to turn over your will to another. sounds horrible to me. but whatever works for you.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I mean, I could go into the Kolmogorov complexity of the two hypotheses for a more rigorous explanation of why the one is more likely than the other, but that's a lot more effort than the task of justifying an assertion like "a flat Earth is less likely than experimental error". Obvious things are obvious.
"Flat-Earther talking points" is a very niche subject, it's not weird to have to look that stuff up, it's more embarrassing for your side that the responses to the standard talking points are compiled that way.
You sound real proud of that diss considering it amounts to mocking me for having the scientific consensus on my side.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
do you even have a high school education? because now you are just throwing words out there again. kolmogorov does not apply in anyway, shape or form.
and yet you continuously use words that don't apply. it is embarrassing.
i think you are acting from a script.
look at how you talk... bringing up shit that doesn't apply, then not being able to defend it. you are just hoping to befuddle me.
that is mainstream science... or a paid schill. same thing.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's just about Occam's Razor. Kolmogorov complexity is a rigorous way of defining the complexity of a thing, as opposed to colloquial understandings of complexity where "the woman down the street is a witch, she did it" sounds like a very simple explanation for any "it". Didn't really need to name it here, I suppose, since it's not needed to recognise which is more Occamian between "experimenter error" and "massive global conspiracy".
It's kinda funny how you're insulting me with an accusation that I'm uneducated, and then immediately also insulting me by saying I sound like mainstream science. Like, are science educators good or bad?
Although if you do think you know physics enough to posture about it, how do you think gravity works on a flat Earth? Because the usual line I hear is about "density" which is silly.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
proving which is more likely is useless here. kolmogorov is used to find the best equation, not find the truth.
as for occam... heliocentric people require nasa/government for proof.
flat earther just needs to walk outside.
science is observation/theory. not truth. it is treated as truth right now, which is the problem. it is treated as gospel.. it has become a religion.
talking to schills, i've noticed they seem to think calling things silly, or obviously stupid then makes it true.
yet here is one of the 'leaders of science' defining gravity... and can't do it. not without bringing up space/time blah blah, bullshit that can't be tested.
so if you can't explain it to me, you can't test it, why do you keep pretending it is a thing that makes sense? what we have is observations that are useful for prediction, not a definition of what it is.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit