See this is just an example of your blatantly stupid troll logic, i never said the title proves anything this is just incessant troll logic assumptions from jsps biggest troglodytes - you actually need to see and understand the empirical evidence - something your brain cannot handle.

If you catch yuor wife blatantly lying like you do, why would you still blindly trust her - if you do that's pretty silly.

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 3 2017 01:42pm

as predicted, more of your typical recycled word salad you picked up in the comment section of one of said videos.

between the rubber-and-glue method and just stealing shit from others in your circle is there anything you've actually thought up yourself? Maybe the "a slinky isnt a spring" line, i dont think even the average flat earther would spout that.

you can take your circlejerk troll logic, blind trust in Nasa and magical assumptions without proof and shove them deep within your butt cavity.

I do like how you're sure a slinky is a spring because Nasa told you, um ok.

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 3 2017 01:54pm

where on earth did you get the idea that NASA is my source that a slinky is a spring?

couldn't possibly be something you just made up to make it easier to confirm your biases? could it?

where again, did you learn that something isn't a spring unless it can lift a garage door? are all rectangles squares too?

Surfpunk posted the Link where it said that a slinky was a spring and it you look the page is paid for by the Nasa Ad department, I mean wtf does Nasa have anything to do with whether or not a slinky is a spring - apparently a lot, I'm not even sure i can find the exact link but it was in that thread were we were discussing that, but it points out exactly what i've been saying.

as to are all rectangles squares: So a square is a special kind of rectangle, where all the sides have the same length so every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square.

What your answer to this question Months have mostly 30 or 31 days, How many months have 28 days?

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 3 2017 02:19pm

so since surfpunk posted something that means that i am blindly believing in it based on that source and that source only?

are you starting to see the problem? your faulty memory and assumptions pile up into some really strange conclusions. I didn't need any source at all to tell me that a slinky is a spring other than the Webster's dictionary. Its shape and behavior with respect to tension match that description perfectly.

the sad thing is that a slinky's internal tension neither proves nor disproves gravity nor any competing theories for why things fall. as i said repeatedly. admitting a slinky is a spring loses you nothing and gains me nothing. you're only doubling down because you're....well.... you. Let me state it clearly:

Regardless of gravity or some other force being the reason things fall down, regardless of your subjective definition of a spring, the reason the bottom wont fall until the top catches it is due to internal pressure. U can call this a spring, u can say the top falls because of density or w/e. it neither proves or disproves anything.

but the problem is obvious, you posted that slo mo video to "prove something", so if u admit what i said above you need to prove your assertion with something else. much easier to triple down and fight about whether something is a spring for 3 months....


and not all spring can lift a garage door. NOW do u get the reason i posted that?



This post was edited by thesnipa on May 3 2017 02:14pm

This is the just the classical Hierarchy Pyramid of information - Nasa says something and everyone blindly believes it - if another source reprinted their conclusion its just copypasta, you live in a society that rants about how great free speech is but when you see it you try to crush it - lol, typical 'Merica hypocrite.

If gravity is real -show me some empirical evidence of how it works between 3 bodies without rely on the sun/moon/earth assumption logic, you need to prove your assertion with something else ok

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 3 2017 02:31pm

i said i didnt need a source and you claim i'm leaning on a hierarchical source pyramid...

typical conspiracy theorist, any time you're proven wrong the conspiracy grows to a point you dont need to prove your assertion. You're now claiming i'm influenced in this, with zero proof, to keep your biases.

the sad thing, as i stated clearly, this doesnt prove anything. you're just doing it so u can believe a video of a slinky falling proves your side right, somehow... even though it wouldnt prove that at all. internal tension would act the same way whether or not gravity is the reason things fall. why do u keep dodging that part? i interpret silence to mean you know i'm right.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 3 2017 02:30pm

So you're saying you arrived at the exact same determination as Nasa without a source, so you think your a rocket scientist now. Cool show me some empirical evidence that gravity exists between 3 objects without using the typical planet/moon/sun assumptions, Should be easy for you right - since your so brilliant. Ok waiting for that.

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 3 2017 02:37pm

ive been arguing the shit card sultan believes in in some shitty gay furry discord im in and people are losing their shit this is also a good mental exercise for me trying to stay on solid ground against the tsunami of facts and shit, turns out saying they're indoctrinated is a pretty effective last resort here.

They even made me my own channel to rant and rave in

This post was edited by DCSS on May 3 2017 02:38pm