"So you mean to tell me" meme template

Sure I can, here you go!

:)

I can show you that with a scale model - you just need to scale down the distances and sizes. You know, to scale.

of course you can. Use a bombfire and scale down distances and sizes. you will be able to see how it works.

All talk and no #ScientificMethod...typical globehead

[image deleted]Ah, lemme help

The narrow shadow is totality. The larger shadow is what sees part of the sun at the edges, and is larger.

Not hard to watch a time lapse of sunspots rotating around the sun and see the pretty obvious fact the sun is also a rotating sphere.

As is nearly every celestial body, because higher energy shapes - non-spheres - are unsustainable and collapse into spheres. Kind of like those droplets of water you see flattening themselves out into stability floating inside the ISS.

Sorry, don't claim "photoshop," the footage goes back to films in Skylab and Apollo days too.

Your argument has been refuted.

Yes but in no circumstances in nature can what you say be replicated. Therefore with no possibilities of testable, repeatable, physical observation your argument becomes not only falsified but also refuted because it is scientifically implausible. #FailedGlobeTheory

Sure you can. Just follow the math of the linearity. It's replicated regularly within our own solar system.

Jupiter's moons cast shadows on its surface constantly with the same physics. You can see the same in the photos of the lunar shadow on the Earth from the ISS. Dark central spot is totality, lighter shadow moving outward from center is the zone of partial eclipse where, fading to full sunlight as you move outward.

If a solar eclipse causes the moon's umbra to be about 100mi wide on earth, why doesn't the same thing happen to earth's shadow on the moon in a lunar eclipse? The earth's shadow completely covers the moon - and then some - meaning it doesn't even shrink to 25% of it's original size whereas the moon's shadow is about 5% of it's original size. How do you explain that when the light source and distance are basically the same?

The diameter of the earth is over four times that of the moon. Watch what happens during the lunar eclipse. It phases in at first with a dullish penumbra shadow, usually orange, then goes to (near) full dark, which is the full umbra.

Can't beat the graphics. I particularly note the one showing the moon's shadow moving across the earth's surface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse

So I seriously have to ask you. Do you or do you not see the to me pretty obvious fact that every other entity out there in the solar system is spherical?

The sun is, you can watch time lapses of the sunspots going around it.

The moon is, you watch the progress of craters at the edge of its shadow anywhere that moves.

Venus is, you can watch the progress of its crescent with even binoculars, though a telescope is obviously better.

Jupiter is, you can see the progress of its four visible moons as they orbit around the thing.

Spheres are the lowest energy states. Anything that deviates from their equilibrium just collapses back over time, and more rapidly with larger mass and vice versa.

So everything else is a basketball, but the earth is a pizza? Because well it's just gotta be because that's how the Bible reads to me" or something strange like that? Obviously not.

I believe in a hell of a lot of government coverup from JFK to the Liberty to 9/11 to suppressed tech. But for anyone who grasps anything about physics, flattism is the purest example of bull in existence. And I personally believe deep staters promote it specifically to discredit nonmainstreamers who get too close to the truth about all the other things.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the spheres point is pretty much checkmate.

☝️Logical Fallacy:
#HastyGeneralisation. “Just because all the billiards balls are spherical must imply that the billiards table is spherical too”👈🤣😂🤣😂

your logic fails as hard as the globe theory here: looks are deceiving and nobody else has EVER BEEN ANYWHERE else but Earth to make such observations. Stating anything other than that is pure conjecture

Actually the video of our flights around the moon are proof by any reasonable conception.

But let me make sure I have this straight. Your last meme suggests you believe that

(1) you admit that as observable by all the reasons I gave, you admit those celestial bodies are in fact spheres, AND YET
(2) you believe the earth is a disk.

Is that - as I asked before - actually the correct description?

Hate to burst your bubble but: https://makeagif.com/gif/heliocentric-cosmology-is-off-by-a-factor-of-10-to-the-120-vULNTv

Since most flat earthers don't even approximate Kaku's understanding of the issues, let alone demonstrate how any such point as he discusses is absent in anything as comical as flattism, I'm not likely to lose much sleep.

Ironically, I'm beginning to believe that if extraterrestrials landed, took you up into a saucer craft, took you out into space into orbit, and landed again - and you saw it all with your own eyes - you still might cling madly to your very disproven creed.

Interesting.

☝️☝️Your long answer ☝️☝️
Your short answer: “so no, I cannot replicate what science says we observe in the solar system with natural physics”

Got it! Thus you’ve demonstrated an idiot-proof scientific method failure. Testable (no) repeatable (no) observable (no) falsifiable (yes)

I just explained we (1) can and (2) do.

Unfortunately, reading something with as much math and science content as a wikipedia appears to be beyond your abilities.

Oh, right, the photos of the umbras/penumbras passing across the surface of Jupiter or even Earth must be some giant photoshop/video-editing conspiracy. Right.

This is why we can't get taken seriously on real conspiracies. It's by design too, and the subintelligent get played against the intelligent.

If we ever do get commercial space trips in our lifetimes, I hope you never get to go, because it's everyone else that will deserve it :-/

So... we can't test it, therefore it's false? Hate to break it to you, that's not how science works.😅

Yes: if a hypothesis is proven invalid it then becomes a FALSIFIABLE hypothesis. “I cannot make water adhere to a spinning pear shaped rock locked into orbit inside a microgravity environment, thus we don’t live on a spinning pear shaped rock” is a true statement.