Lost Weather Balloon GoPro Found Two Years Later with Astounding Shots of Earth from Space

It looks convex, concave and flat.

And you prove you have no sense of scale. First the basketball has far less mass. Second the spin is about 1000 mph but only because the Earth is so large. it still takes 24 hours to complete one rotation

yes, it absurd to think there should be any uphill. It only shows the flattie's ignorance.

No you are a moron if you believe in fairy tale forces...

The magical force is strong enough to hold upside down water to the earth, but yet its also weak enough that you can splash it with your hand.

Not magical. Proportional to mass. Proven by the Cavendish experiment and the MANY times it has been repeated.

Burn?

The video was off topic.
The topic was how water does not adhere to a sphere-shaped Earth.
It doesn't.
It won't.
It hasn't.
And it isn't. So any little depictions that NASA shows that are of a round Earth are false and are simply the product of artist rendered drawings.

I don't think that was water used in the video and it was so short a time span who cares?
If the video were sustained for several hours because NASA are well known hoaxers.

In any case, I've seen lava lamps do the same thing without the huge expenses. Same principles.

Electrostatic force doesn't burn, it attracts polar molecules to other polar molecules.

LMAO at the many times the Cavendish experiment has been repeated.

Every time I tried to learn the experiment from the physicist side, they couldn't recreate it - yet take a 230 year old experiment as gospel.

NOBODY has replicated his results. Nor will they.

Or your loose change would rotate mountains and tic tacs would roll off the counter towards your fridge.

It does, it does, and it does. The video shows that water has no problem conforming to a spherical shape.

Watch, you fucking moron.
[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]
How many times do I need to post this before you get it? Tell me dumbass, how fast would you be moving with the rotating earth while standing at one of the poles? How fast would you be moving while standing at the equator? Are those numbers the same? No? Well then... your latitude matters, doesn't it?

Suck on it you sorry sack of crap:
[link to www.fourmilab.ch (secure)]

Yeah, it's like, why don't babies rotate around Rosie O'Donnell when they go near her? Cavendish can eat a bag of dicks. An experiment all about mass attracting other mass using 350 pound metal balls, when the walls he built around his experiment to keep wind out weighed far more than the balls themselves.

Are you for real?
We already know about raindrops.
And they'll slide right off a slanted windshield, too.

Yes, because the mass and gravity of earth is orders of magnitude greater than your car. That's a strawman you dumbass.

Just alert me when they can replicate a body of water adhering to a sphere without spinning off of rolling off and instead forming stationary pools.

I have always wondered that since we are moving at different speeds on different parts of the globe, wouldn't the effects of gravity be a lot different at the poles than the equator? Or wouldn't we physically notice the difference? Shouldn't we weigh a lot more or less at the poles compared to the equator because of the difference in rotational speed?

Why do you lie?


So you don't understand scale. Got it.

And a droplet of water is magnitudes lesser than the Atlantic Ocean. What's your point?

So you also have no sense of scale. How sad for you.

TPTB will never allow the truth out that the earth is flat. It would destroy their control over the masses and throw all "scientic" thoery into chaos. All "science" is nothing more than theory.

So what? Another idiotic red herring.

it is different between the poles and the equator. It has been measured. But the max centrifugal force is less than 1/2 of one percent of gravity so it is unlikely to be noticed physically.

I hate these flat earth arguments. I'm fairly unbiased from a scientific perspective. If you can prove it, I'll believe it. If you can't, it's simply conjecture. I have personally been at altitudes higher than 30,000ft and with my OWN naked eye, I have seen the curvature of the earth. Besides that, there is far more evidence proving the roundness of the earth than there is the so-called flatness of it. Why is it that every other object in space is spherical? Literally, EVERY OTHER OBJECT save the dwarf planets, ie. Pluto, which even it has a somewhat spherical shape. It takes much more faith to believe the earth is flat, considering the ever-growing lack of evidence, than it does to believe it's round. So Nasa's a propaganda machine, so what? Explain how a flat surface can have so much gravity EQUALLY all around (no pun intended there). Yes, there are in fact "concaves" or nonsymetrical features to Earth. I'll admit, it's not a perfectly round basketball. But it IS round(ish). You can't fall off the thing if you travel far enough. I usually don't bother offering my 2cent in these types of arguments but my God people, seriously... Build your own, non "fish-eyed" lense & send your own balloon up. I was about to add I've never seen such stupid people before but then this customer just walked in that proved me wrong...

how does the shape of Earth allow "TPTB" control over the masses? How, for example, would me agreeing that the Earth is flat make you any freer?

A sniper shot is dealing with 1000s of ft. Not 10,000 miles.

LMAO. You're becoming quite a desperate idiot trying to keep up with all these magical principles. Not once did I try to engage with any behavior other than asking questions.

Now, you're comparing earth spin of a sniper shot to the equator spin vs pole spin?

You're comical relief now, and that's basically it. I bet you get fired soon

oh, the irony.

Right, I'm the one pissing mad trying to prove to people I've never met, that the earth is round and spinning. LMAO.

Fat earth.

Cavendish’s actual apparatus consisted of two 12” lead balls weighing 348lbs each. These were the attracting spheres. The spheres to be attracted were 2” in diameter and weighed 1.61lb each.

But it is proof of nothing. Cavendish didn’t even bother to include the weight of his walls. He had a 348 lb ball 9” away, and a multi-thousand pound wall 24” away. Sure, only one point on the wall is 24” away; other parts are varying distances, but the wall is not negligible however you look at it.

You should find it very mystifying that all these scientists not only ignore huge masses only two feet away, masses that may or not be balanced, they also ignore the need to say why they can ignore these masses.

Then do the math. How much would the wall attract it? YOU think it would be a problem, YOU should show it.