- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
That's where I found it. At Harvard.
You found it on Google when you did a quick search, I have shown you where it came from because that's exactly what it says on the article, but you never read it so you wouldn't know.
Isn't it interesting that you would sooner attack semantics like a seven year old child instead of learn something by actually reading the article?
You're just propping up the full length mirror again. YOU didn't read it, which is obvious when you referred to absolute time, which is not mentioned in the article at all. Once again, you have shown us all how much of an utter buffoon you are.
There is no doubt that it is corrupt then. Even if part of it is true, NASA only stamp it when the BS needs a 'shut up, NASA approves so don't question it.' authoritative nature to it.
I have no idea why you keep harping about NASA, they have absolutely nothing to do with any of this. That's just a red herring.
I assumed your comeback would be the GoPro camera videos
I don't need to talk about GoPro camera videos because I've seen lots of them. So what.
I was talking about the flat earth model, the motion of the sun and moon which is simply impossible as a moving object will move in a straight line, but they are moving in circles, how is this magical feat accomplished?
it's still a design/destiny-map that isn't really 'out there' to explore but instead some kind of mystical map of many realms
So, it's all just a fantasy?
I've seen the GoPro cameras leaving Earth; they support the Flat Earther's idea of what's outside of the sky NASA come up with excuses for that too.
Stick to the truth, don't lie.
I'll explain it later (involves them moving by either magic or magnetism
Sorry, but neither of those are valid as there is zero evidence for both.
the first law is obvious if the third law is true
Not really, they are different laws. One is about a force being exerted on an object while the other is simply the object moving in a straight line at the same velocity.
You mentioned on another thread where I was banned by the cowardly BurritoBreath about Newtons laws, I'll paste it here where BurritoBrain can't do anything but rant.
The first and third law are actually the same law, I do not know why they just split those two elements of the same law. How is that law not operating in a Flat Earth?
The first and third are entirely different laws. Let's look at the first law - every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that state of motion unless an external force acts on it.
What that law says is that after a force has been exerted on an object, the object will move in a straight line and continue to keep moving until another force has acted upon it.
The third law says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
What that law says is that when the force is exerted on the object, the reaction from the object will be equal to the force that was exerted on it and it will react in the opposite direction. It is the second law that qualifies this law in a formula - force equals mass times acceleration. F=ma.
These laws are being violated on a flat earth model by the motion of the Sun and Moon. Both are in a constant state of acceleration as they move in circles above a flat earth. This is impossible unless there is some force constantly acting upon them in order for them to move in a circle.
Since the flat earth model denies the existence of gravity, flat earthers are left without an explanation and evidence for their model.
my article is from Harvard, so it kind of assumes the reader has been to high school.
Lol. No, the article is from the Royal Astronomical Society stored in the NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) on a server at High Energy Astrophysics Division at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
And, you never read it, but instead blurted out something entirely different than what was presented in the article. You have made a buffoon of yourself once again. Congratulations!
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!