Comments by "" (@dirkardostevergreen4827) on "How to tell science from pseudoscience" video.

Why are you bringing up nonsense flattard arguments as if they haven’t already been answered thousands of times?
2
@footprints2324 well, a) level (in the case of water) just means equally distant from the centre of earth’s mass. It doesn’t mean that water is flat. They are two different meanings. B) a plane and the atmosphere through which it travels are rotating with the earth. It’s the same principal when you jump in a moving train, the train doesn’t move under your feet because you are travelling with the train’s momentum And b) a ship can only see as far as earth’s curvature will allow.
2
@footprints2324 "How can the Water in an Ocean curve along with the Curvature of earth. Water always stay in level and hence WATER LEVEL." That's fairly simple to answer - gravity. This can be observed quite easily by looking at planets like Jupiter through a decent telescope - even though that's a gas giant, it's the same principal. Gravity causes the gas to coalesce into a spherical shape. It's really not that difficult to see the effects of Earth's curvature. I was in the south east of Tasmania this week which is an area that has very high sea cliffs. I took a boat out to sea to witness the migration of the short-tailed shearwater and as we ventured further out you could literally see the coast line sinking below the horizon. "If atmospheres rotating with the Earth, then how do you expect the atmosphere to stay with the planet unless there is an outer covering. And how can plane catch up with 66600 miles per hour moving object and land with an accuracy. And also the spin which is around 11000." Basically friction between the air and Earth's surface causes the atmosphere to move with the Earth. There is no need for an outer covering nor has one ever been detected or observed. The "firmament" as flat earthers like to call it is just a fantasy. " A ship can be still seen with a powerful camera such as Nikon P1000, for miles and miles" A zoom lens, no matter how good it is, won't be able to resolve an object below Earth's horizon. It honestly baffles me that some people actually think this is possible. A zoom lens can resolve an object too small to be seen with the naked eye if it's close enough to not be below the horizon but if you zoom in on a ship for example that let's say has sunk half below the horizon, it will still be half sunk when you zoom on it, just bigger - it won't magically reemerge in full view. Flat earthers say that this happens but it doesn't, they are either knowingly lying about it or they are just repeating a falsehood out of gullibility.
2
@footprints2324 I’m not seeing any videos but if it’s Eric Dubay I’m completely uninterested.
2
@footprints2324 Well what you want to believe is up to you but I think you'll find that all the things you mention here have a valid scientific explanation if you look into it honestly. There are simple proofs that tell us beyond any reasonable doubt that Earth is a sphere - the southern celestial pole for example, or something as simple as intercontinental navigation which is calculated using great circle routes (ie. spherical geometry). It doesn't take a whole lot to figure out that flat earth is complete nonsense! It has no foundation in reality, it basically amounts to people saying "I don't believe that's possible so it must be fake". You'll notice that flat earthers devote all their energy into trying to tear down mainstream science rather than explaining how their model is correct - because if you ask them to explain the numerous ways in which their model fails to match observable reality they have no answers. I don't know how sincere you are but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It only takes one verifiable observation to conclude that a hypothesis is wrong and can therefore be dismissed. In this case, take the fact that anyone in the southern hemisphere who looks south at night will see the same constellations rotating around the southern celestial pole. Look at any flat earth model and you'll see straight away that they should all be looking in different directions. So therefore it's wrong. No further investigation required - it's just wrong, end of story. Ask any flat earther to explain this and without fail they will make some excuse why they don't need to answer this question and change the subject. Every. Single. Time!
2
@footprints2324 simple, verifiable astronomical observations tell us quite plainly that Earth is a sphere so whatever inferences are made to the contrary by looking at air travel or anything else must be based on faulty reasoning and is therefore not worth investigating. So no, I’m not really interested thanks.
2
@footprints2324 a plane tilts 1 degree every 111km, hardly something a pilot is going to be consciously aware of. Simple astronomical observations include Polaris going below the horizon south of the equator, the fact that we have two celestial poles, the fact that anyone in the Southern Hemisphere who looks south at night will see the same stars rotating around the southern celestial pole, just to name a few. If flat earthers can’t provide a model that explains this logically when the existing model explains them perfectly, then it’s obvious nonsense.
2
@footprints2324 Earth’s circumference is 40075km. Divide that by 360 you get roughly 111.3km (69 miles). Another way this can be tested is that as you travel north or south each pole star (depending on which hemisphere you’re in) will drop by 1 degree every 111km that you travel. This is mathematical proof that Earth is a sphere. This wouldn’t happen if we were standing on a flat plane. By the way, that last video you linked - you know that’s a joke channel right?
2
@footprints2324 he’s making fun of flat earthers. It’s not meant to be facts and data!
2
@footprints2324 I’ll refer back to what I said before, there are simple, irrefutable proofs (some of which I’ve already listed) that Earth is a sphere so any claims to the contrary are going to be based on faulty logic. A guy sitting in front of flat earth map (which itself can be overwhelmingly demonstrated to be wrong) talking about planes is 100% guaranteed to be nonsense.
2
@footprints2324 yeah but nah ...
2
@footprints2324 Are you a trained engineer? If not, wouldn't you think someone who has studied engineering and physics concepts would be an ideal place to start with your learning?
2
@footprints2324 It is gravity. If you know if a better theory than the existing one, let me know.
2
What anomalies are they?
2
Did she upset you in some way?
2
@footprints2324 my thoughts on Brian Mullins ... he was lauded as a hero by flat earthers because he seemed to know what he was talking about and spoke on subjects that were beyond a lot of people’s ability to comprehend but his discussions seemed to indicate that there were actually some issues with the globe earth model and mainstream science. The problem was that many people did understand what he was talking about and in the comment sections on his original videos they not only tore him to pieces but went as far as reporting him to the engineering fraternity for malpractice. After all, no one wants a civil engineer who doesn’t understand the concepts behind his own profession working on their projects! Interestingly, Brian disappeared from YouTube never to be seen again leading some to speculate that he was rather keen to distance himself from his body of work. I won’t comment on the video you’ve linked as his content has been thoroughly debunked by others. I’d suggest you look up a mirror of that particular video that allows comments and see what others have to say. Always be suspicious of any flat earth video that shuts down any discourse.
1
It’s a sphere, get over it.
1
@objectivityworldview yeah ... that’s not a scientific fact though is it? If anything it’s the opposite - unscientific claptrap. Looks to me like you’ve been brain washed by con artists on YouTube. How’s that working flat earth model coming along?
1
@objectivityworldview Well for a start you're using the wrong formula. You're also basing this on a purely geometric basis which would be fine if Earth didn't have an atmosphere but it does. If you want to use math as your basis, try this on for size. The angular height of either celestial pole (which points at Polaris in the northern hemisphere) will always match your latitude. This would work on both a flat earth model and globe at the north pole where it would be 90 degrees (ie. directly above your head). But as you move south the math for this would fall apart on a flat earth model. You would soon find that your measurements, assuming Earth was flat, gave the result that Polaris was at an infinitely different series of heights. On a globe model with Polaris a great distance away, there is no discrepancy. I have only described this in vague terms. For a more thorough explanation check out this link : https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/10/ and scroll about a third of the way down to "How Polaris Can Be Used To Confirm A Spherical Earth". It's fairly cut and dry, Earth isn't flat - as much as you might like it to be for whatever reason.
1
@objectivityworldview no I’m not denying anything. And given you just flatly ignored an easy proof of earths sphericity tells me that you are the one who’s in denial (not that this is any surprise).
1
@objectivityworldview If you knew what the scientific method was you wouldn't be talking complete bollocks. The scientific method would require the flat earth "hypothesis" to at the very least have a working model. Further to this it would need to be able to make testable predictions. And further to that it would need to falsify the accepted model of Earth and demonstrate that it could produce more accurate predictions. This is of course predicated on having a working model to begin with which flat earthers have not been able to produce so baseless claims is the best they can do. Now, I've already given you verifiable proof that Earth can only be a sphere which you have duly ignored so unless you have something of any substance to add then I was just assume you're another garden variety troll.
1
@objectivityworldview making claims and sticking “verified” at the end doesn’t make it true. I hope that was a cut and paste job and you didn’t actually waste your time thinking about that garbage. So which flat earth model correctly demonstrates why everyone in the Southern Hemisphere who looks south at night sees the same constellations rotating around the southern celestial pole? Hmmm, that one’s a bit of a problem for you flatties isn’t it? Which flat earth model correctly demonstrates why we see the same side of the moon, even for two observers standing thousands of miles apart? Which flat earth model explains why Polaris disappears below the horizon south of the equator? If it’s at the centre of this dome then we should all have direct line of sight to it - how is it possible that it’s being obscured by Earth’s surface? These are a few actual verifiable observations. Asking for a flat earth model to explain them is rhetorical of course - we both know that no such model exists. Yet very easily explained by the fact that we live on a globe, as any non-delusional, mildly intelligent person can easily ascertain.
1
@objectivityworldview there’s not much to negate, you’ve just made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims - which is of course all you can do when what you’re saying is complete nonsense. On the other hand I have given you a number of verifiable facts that completely obliterate your snow globe fantasy which you’ve ignored. Well, of course you’ve ignored them - you’re a flat earther, that’s what flat earthers do : you demand proof and then you ignore it. On that note, I’ve got better things to do than waste my time with an idiot so see ya later.
1