/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9751274
>I know you don't otherwise you wouldn't be a cuck to it.
lmao, you absolute failure

>I've provided empirical proof of flatness with the case of Kansas
as has been noted before, Kansas is not planar and in fact has significant relief
>where's your example of empirical curvature?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02525700
you'll notice that it is, according to your batshit definitions, empirical rather than simply observational, as they made measurements.

>Empirical proof please?
see above

>Answer the question
gravity does work in Kansas. you just have an untreated mental illness that you've chosen to embrace rather than manage.

>I have verified enough myself to know the earth is not a globe
your "self-evident" opinion that the earth is flat doesn't count as evidence.

>Which way is the earth spinning in the video?
two ways, in fact; the video is mirrored, with the second half being the first half played backwards.

>If the sun is local, then perspective must have an effect on it, you cannot deny this.
but the sun ISN'T "local"; it's so far away that it is at essentially the same angle to the entire earth. solar parallax between two people on opposite sides of the earth is about a quarter of a degree.

>>9160703
>This is an IPCC figure, and I do not like to use those because they are misleading
yes yes, deniers don't like actual evidence, and think everything that contradicts them is a hoax. we already know this.
>29 gT compared to natural 771 gT
you're neglecting the natural sinks, which account for 788 GT CO2 removed per year
like >>9160477 predicted you would, you're ignoring how NET natural increases (negative, in fact) compare to NET anthropogenic increases.
again, adding a 10g weight will tip a balance with 10 tonnes on each side.

>>8754201
>never published a single paper

you mean like the ones that are infested with plagiarism and errors that stray away from scientific methods? kek