Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Professor Dave Explains"
channel.
-
14
-
11
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
These people aren't interested in the truth...because you're absolutely right, if they were, they'd get off their asses, peel themselves away from their keyboards and actually go out into the world and make every effort to see what's actually true, remove their bias and look at the world objectively. But they don't, they look at things with a bias filter, only scratching the surface of things and then leaving it at that, seeking the information that supports their ideas and ignoring everything else. These people are exactly why peer review was added to the scientific method...because some people are deeply flawed, deeply bias in their reasoning, and aren't even aware of it.
You're right, if they really wanted to know the truth, they'd be making expeditions to Antarctica, they'd be going out to see if the 24 hour Sun is real or not, they'd go out to confirm if there really is military guarding the walls of this land mass. They'd be learning about world navigation and going out and talking to actual ship captains, pilots, rescue crew workers, military men and seeing how they actually do their jobs, maybe even planning expeditions with these people to see first hand how they do things. If they actually were serious about falsifying gravity, they would be conducting their research, do their own experimentation, collecting the data, compiling it into a thesis they could publish for review and then they would do just that...publish it for review.
These people are fucked though...they're not here for truth, they're here because they got tired of being labelled as the degenerates of society and so they found a way to fight back...by cranking their ignorance up to 11 and shouting at people on the internet, pretending that the institutions of science are all scams...while taking full advantage of the technological advances these "scams" have provided for everybody, including the very computers and internet they use to spread their bullshit claims against science. It's incredible.
6
-
5
-
5
-
Rockets don’t actually push of the air to create lift, they use a different method of propulsion, which falls under Newton’s 3rd Law of motion, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Basically the ignited gas pushes off the tank and the ship and tank are pushing off the gas being ejected out the back.
Best way to picture this is with a simple thought experiment. Picture yourself on a sheet of ice wearing skates, in your hands is a 10 lb medicine ball. Now if you throw that ball with both hands from chest level, what happens? The ball goes one way and you go the other, you essentially push off of each other, action reaction. Now pick up the ball again only this time instead of throwing it, just push it against the air in front of you as hard as you can...nothing happens.
Rockets propel forward through action reaction and they actually operate better in space, because there is no wind resistance. Anyway, hope that helps.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Codfan1122 "Don’t you want a better world for your descendants?" Of course we do, but it's not science that's causing all these world issues today, it's greed and overpopulation. 8 billion people...each and every one of them wanting more then what they should have, not realizing the damage that causes and the harmful industries it feeds. Society is a microcosm, a biom, and industry and corporations are almost like living sentient beings, in that they will do everything in their power to survive...like cancer. Do you know what cancer is? It is cellular life, that refuses to die...it is essentially overpopulation of cells, spreading and generating a mass that eventually kills the host it lives in by consuming it's resources and polluting its system. We are like a cancer in that regard...but we're not exactly like cancer, we are smarter, we are not mindless drones. Science can solve the problems of our species...but one of those solutions to overpopulation, is getting the fuck off this planet so we can spread out and find more resources. If we do not study space, if we do not figure out how to traverse this landscape, then we are doomed. That is a fact. 1 of 2 things is going to happen in the future, we are either going to get off this rock and explore space, or our population is going to consume the resources on this planet and we are going to have major die off in population. It will likely bounce back, but the modern world is going to fall into chaos and we will be right back at square one.
Studying space and learning how to travel in this environment effectively, is in our best interest, absolutely. Thankfully, there are people currently working on this and so they will continue on this path regardless of what you think. I am grateful for that...and you should be too, they will likely be what saves us someday.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Here on Earth, you can't create a vacuum without a barrier, but this doesn't mean space doesn't exist and it doesn't mean a dome exists either. I would say, present me some evidence for this dome, why have we not interacted with it yet? We have plenty of methods today where we should be able to interact with this dome firmament, such as bouncing lasers or radar off of it, which is something we do with our Moon to determine its distance from us...why can we not do the same for this Dome? The truth is, we can't, because there is no Dome. But if you think there is, then present some evidence for its existence. I'm sure the scientific community would be happy to see this evidence.
I'm not sure I fully understand your second question, you may have to rephrase it and provide some context.
How about 200 images of the planet. These are full images, non composites, unedited and non CGI, taken in the late 60's to mid 70's. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz5DTCQlGwE&t=37s In the description of this video is a link to an archive where you can find these photos and more.
Here's some great footage of the 24 hour Sun taken by a guy who calls himself Iceman. A photographer who has visited the South base several times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcppf47VhrU&t=246s There are 2 videos in this, both are some really great footage. It is important to note, that the Sun traces through the sky in an almost perfect line in this video, and that is something that can only occur directly on the pole, anywhere else, and the Sun will wobble in the sky. This is important to note, because there is no permanent structure base in the North, and that's for a good reason, the North Pole is on an ice sheet that is constantly changing...especially during the summer years when the Sun does this. So this is how we know this footage is taken in the South Pole, because there is a permanent base in this footage.
Well I'm not an astronomer, but have you actually looked up ancient astronomy records kept by civilizations like the Greeks, Mesopotanains and Asian cultures? Cause from what I understand, those old records actually do not match with today's sky...but then prove me wrong, show me where you learned that they do match. Show me the records with some citations of yours. Otherwise, your claim there is empty.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
1. Yes, we are beyond the terminator line, but Mercury and Venus are not in the same spot as the Sun, they trace an elliptical path that shoots out Millions of miles from the position of the Sun, which brings them into our night sky. Best way to visualize this, is with a quick visual. https://ibb.co/gF55w1p This is not to scale obviously, but it still demonstrates my point. The red dot represents an observer on the night side of the Earth, the green overlay represents his visual night sky and the orange circle represents Venus or Mercury in their orbit. You'll notice that Mercury and Venus are visible at night...but they are only visible just before sunrise and just after sunset...or if you happen to live at the poles where your visible sky always has a chance of spotting them. It's all about perspective.
2. Again, this only occurs just around sunset and sunrise...and the Moon is always on the opposite side from the sun, or if you live at the poles. Again, this is very similar, it's all about perspective, because the Sun and Moon are so far away, they both can come into our visual sky at sunset or sunrise while we're on the fringes of night and day.
3. We don't see the same constellations after 6 months. Honestly, if you were an amateur astronomer who actually went out at night and monitored the sky each night...you would know this. It's one of the first things you learn as an amateur astronomer, that there are in fact two different kinds of stars and constellations. There are the circumpolar stars and constellations, these are the ones that are locked to the poles and they are the ones we see year in and year out. Then there are the seasonal stars and constellations, these are the stars that lie along the ecliptic plane, and they change throughout a year. You know many of their names too...you're born under a zodiac constellation just like we all were. Just do a search for seasonal constellations sometime and you'll find many lists. You can even confirm them for yourself at any time. Just find those lists and then go out on any clear night and see if you can find those stars that they say you can during that time of year. Then if you'd like, do it again 6 months later and see if you can still find those stars or not.
Anyway, I hope these help to answer your questions here. They are good questions so don't feel ashamed for asking them, they're the same questions any amateur astronomer asks when they first start looking at these things a little closer.
4
-
You have to put these things into scale. Yes relative to us, the small microbes living on the surface of a tiny spec of dust in space, these stars and planets are going pretty fast...but not so much in relation to the galaxy they're orbiting around. It takes 230 million years for us to make one rotation around the galactic center, and the other stars take equally as long. So just picture how far we've actually shifted in that orbit in just a few years time...it will appear as though we never moved at all. The same is true for the other stars, because you have to remember that each star is TRILLIONS of miles between their closest star. What looks like a few inches to you on the ground, is trillions of miles of empty space.
But the stars do shift over time, we even track them. Any astronomer will tell you the stars are moving, they just take a very long time to make any significant change, because of the distances they need to travel to make even an arc second of change...which is the unit of measurement we use for the movement of stars and planets.
This is a good question though, so I hope I had some information that you found useful and at the very least interesting. The stars that align with the pyramids I believe are the same stars found in the constellation Orion, the belt most importantly, but the other stars are said to align with other sites close to the main 3 pyramids. The 3 main stars in the belt are interesting to note, because while the other tars in the constellation are going to shift a lot in the next few thousand years...it's going to take hundreds of thousands of years for these 3 stars to shift out of alignment, and it's likely because they're traveling at the same rate of rotation relative to each other and us. There's lots of reasons why stars don't appear to shift, some shift faster, some shift slower, that all has to do with their positions and rate at which they're traveling relative to us.
4
-
4
-
No, but people who seem to think Admiral Byrd was a Flat Earther are lying to you. That's classic cherry picking and confirmation bias, taking words out of context, and spinning your own interpretations upon them, to support a bias narrative you have. Misinterpreting what people are actually saying and then ignoring when people correct you. It's bias research...and the sooner people realize that, the sooner they can stop themselves from falling into the scam.
Stop lying about Admiral Byrd or at the very least, stop listening blindly to the people making claims about his work and many other peoples work. Tesla was not a Flat Earther, Byrd was not a Flat Earther, Augaste Picard was not a Flat Earther, Captain Cook was not a Flat Earther, etc....stop cherry picking and start looking at the full context of things, rather then the bits that Flat Earth snips out and presents for you with their bias spin on it.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You do realize the Earth is a sphere right? So you don't think if you were standing near the top or bottom of the Globe, that like you standing on top of a hill, you would be able to see the Sun on one side and the Moon the other? In those photos of a Full Moon while the Sun is still up, I'll be willing to bet they're always taken just before sun set or sun rise and the Moon will always be on the opposite side of the sky from the Sun, both of them sitting damn near on the horizon. Refraction plays a part sometimes as well, which does cause light to bend upwards, causing you to see things beyond the horizon, there is also the fact that the Moon does not lie on the same ecliptic plain as our planet is to the Sun, it's tilted a bit, meaning it’s sometimes higher sometimes lower from the ecliptic plain. This is also why lunar and solar eclipses don't happen more frequently. There's a lot of geometry at work here, but I assure you, it is possible from the perspective of you standing on the surface of a sphere.
3
-
3
-
Ok, but what would you use this for? You have to understand that this ONLY calculates drop from a tangent line from surface...so it does not represent what your eye sees, this formula doesn't account for things like height of the observer, line of sight, refraction...it ONLY calculates curve drop tangent from the surface. Which means, those figures would only be accurate, if your eye rests at sea level...which is of course NEVER the case. So it's a very limiting equation that when you use it to determine what should be hidden from your line of sight due to curvature, you will not get the accurate numbers to be able to discern that.
Here, I'll share a far better equation for you that is designed to calculate for your actual line of sight. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ If you click this link there is even a handy diagram at the bottom that helps you understand things further. There is also a link to a forum there that breaks down the math in greater detail...explaining further why the 8 inches per mile squared equation is not useful for this observation.
It even includes the 8 inches formula there to help make a comparison. If you scroll down to the diagram there and pay attention to the dotted line labeled "Surface Level", that is the tangent line from surface I mentioned, making a 90 degrees from surface outward. Now pay attention to the solid line labelled "Drop" that goes down to touch the curve, that is the only thing 8 inches per mile squared is designed to discern...and it doesn't even do it very well, because 8 inches per mile squared is also not an equation for a curve on a round surface, it's an equation for a parabola. This equation does not represent line of sight or what is actually hidden by curvature, if you pay further attention to the red dot labelled "Eye/Camera", that represents the height of the observer, which plays a huge role in determining what you see past curvature. Now if you'll notice the solid green line going down from the observer, that represents your actual line of sight. Do you notice how the line of sight sees things UNDER the surface level line?
This is why the 8 inches per mile squared equation is not useful for this observation...it gives you the wrong numbers for what you're trying to discern and so when you use those numbers to figure out what should be hidden by curvature, you will end up with a false conclusion. Hope this information is at the very least interesting, I don't share this to mock you, it wasn't information I knew at first either and it took me awhile to find and process all this info, so my hope is that you'll take a look and honestly consider it at the very least.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
To add to Dave's point as well and answer your second question there, as they orbit the Earth they also conserve the momentum they got from the Earth, so they move relative to the Earth at all times. I think relative motion and conservation of momentum is best explained with this thought experiment (or real experiment if you'd like to give it a try sometime). If you were to throw a ball around in a moving vehicle, throwing that ball around would behave just as it does while standing stationary on the ground and throwing a ball around. If you were to throw a ball back and forth inside the cabin of a moving plane for example, at 500 mph cruising speed, you can throw that ball in any direction and it will operate just as it does on the ground.
Now understand that you can't throw a ball at 500 mph, nobody can, so how does that ball keep up with the plane when you throw it? Why doesn't it go smashing to the back of the plane? Why doesn't it slow down when you throw it towards the nose of the plane or speed up when you throw it to the back? Conservation of momentum and relative motion, the ball is moving relative to the plane, so it is conserving that momentum.
It's tricky to wrap the mind around, but essentially what this does is creates a sort of stationary frame of reference, where everything moving relative to that frame of reference, operates and conforms to the same motions as if they were in a stationary system. So rockets are like that ball leaving your hand when you throw it in a moving vehicle. Just like that ball moves relative to the vehicle it's moving in, the rocket and satellites move relative to the Earth from which they took off from, conserving that momentum every step of the way.
To further that, it is very easy to conserve momentum in space, because there is almost zero friction due to wind resistance or drag. There is almost no air in space...at least none that is not already moving with Earths orbits already.
Anyway, hope that helps answer your second question there.
3
-
@DoomerDad It actually matters greatly. The 8 inches per mile squared formula is only accurate if your eye sits at sea level...which is just another reason why it's the wrong math because of course we all know your eye never rests at sea level. Go ahead, lie at the beach during a sunset, then when it has gone down completely, pop back up to your regular 5-6 feet of standing height and watch it come back into view. Height of the observer matters...it is a common sense that the higher you are, the farther you will see. This equation I have provided factors this in and understands its importance and it also demonstrates how and why it's important. There is even a link in there that takes you to a forum that breaks down the Math in far greater detail.
I can go into greater detail for why the 8 inches per mile squared equation is not the correct math...I can even provide illustrations if you require them. The fact is, you don't have to agree with me...but I do hope you at the very least begin to question this math and take a closer look at it. The simple fact of the matter is, if you use the wrong math and are not aware of that...then you risk reaching a false conclusion upon every observation that you use it, so it's important to make damn sure you're using the correct math. I am only merely sharing information with you, it's up to you in the end whether you're willing to remain objective and take the time to challenge what you think you know. If you did it once for the Globe, then keep that mind open and be just as thorough with the Flat Earth, never take what these people on YouTube say at face value...from my perspective of nearly 3 years looking into this mess, they are the real con men here, playing off of peoples general lack of knowledge and inserting lies in those gaps.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Vescere "what is the purpose for such a scam?
" Depends on who's running the scam and what they're after. With Bob Knodel, it's money. With Mark Sargent, it's fame. With Eric Dubay, it's power. They all run the scam differently, and they all want different things. Eric Dubay being the worst of them. I compare him to a cult leader...he wants to be the top dog, he thinks he's some kind of messiah, gods gift to mankind...he's not much different from any cult leader, they crave attention...and his followers, brainless sheep in his herd, hanging off his every word...even though he bullshits on every sentence. Point is, they are scamming people...and it's very obvious. Narcissistic, ignorant, lying, nut jobs who couldn't hack it in the real world...so they decided to create their own world instead and place themselves as the leaders of that make believe land.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, first of all Density is not a Law...I think you need to learn the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. A law in science is just something that describes WHAT is happening, this is different from a fact...a fact is just what is, the sky is blue, that's a fact. Objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an opposing force, that is an example of a law...it's just describing WHAT is happening. A theory goes on to explain HOW and WHY something happens and it is the highest level a concept in science can ever achieve that describes how and why things operate the way they do. Density is none of these things, density just describes a state of matter, it is just how many particles of matter occupy a given space...that is all Density is. It is not a force...it does not dictate what direction matter travels in...it does not physically put anything into motion. Gravity does.
Eric Dubay is a con man, selling snake oils to the uneducated masses, so that he can keep funding his life in Thailand. He's also quite insane, racist and a huge narcissist. I really don't know how anybody could listen to him and actually believe a word he's saying...he is clearly a nut case.
2
-
K-Beats Smuggler: And what if you have been wrong this whole time? It is a very real possibility you should consider. Many of us have gone through the 200 proofs of Eric Dubay and have discovered that pretty much all of his points are made from a very poor understanding of physics and the world in general. So in reality...they’re basically 200 ways to show you don’t understand basic physics, geometry, math, astronomy, science in general. Or 200 ways to reach false conclusions. They’re good questions to ask really...but pretty much all the conclusions are incorrect or grossly misunderstanding the science.
Personally, I don’t believe it’s wrong to question reality...but you should never be so confident to assume there is no possibility you might be reaching false conclusions. Science found a clever work around for human error, they called it peer review. If everyone is telling you that there is a chance you missed or overlooked something...then you owe it to yourself to look into things further.
Ironically, that’s what Flat Earth has caused us to do, to re-evaluate what we thought we knew. In that respect, I admire Flat Earth...but upon re-examination, many have found Eric Dubay’s points to be greatly flawed still.
2
-
@smugglifemusic Ya I getcha man, I actually think it's a good thing that people are taking an interest in these things and I actually somewhat admire that they are brave enough to challenge even the most firmly planted concepts of reality. But the danger is there when you misunderstand a concept...and then in the process of re-evaluating these well established theories and ideas, you either overlook a detail or ignore it completely...and then run the risk of reaching false conclusions again and again. Science isn't easy...it takes a lot of diligence and you have to make sure you're doing things correct...which isn't as easy to do as it may seem.
I'll give you a great example that I see quite often, the 8 inches per mile squared equation. This is a very popular equation Flat Earthers like to use to help them determine curvature drop...the problem, they also use it to try and determine what should be hidden by curvature...but what they fail at realizing is that this is not a complete equation to help you make that observation accurately. The only way those figures are accurate...is if your eyes are sitting at sea level...which of course is NEVER the case. In reality, we see further the higher we go in elevation. Basically what this means is, that our observable horizon extends the higher we go up. 8 inches per mile squared does not take into account height of the observer, or observers line of sight...8 inches per mile squared only calculates curve drop tangent from the surface...and so the numbers it generates are not relevant to the observation and thus does not give you the correct figures.
A much better calculator has been developed since this whole Flat Earth thing took off, one that does calculate for height of the observer and line of sight...as well as a few other variables such as refraction index. Here is a great one I've found that's quite useful. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
If you take a look at the bottom of this link I've shared above, you will even find a handy diagram you can interact with that can help you understand a little more what I mean. If you take a look at the diagram, you'll notice a black dotted line leading straight from the curved surface that is labeled "Surface Level". This is what I mean by tangent line, it's just a straight line 90 degrees from a curved surface. The solid black line that is leading straight down from the tangent and touching the surface that is labeled "Drop"...that is the distance that 8 inches per mile squared is calculating...that is all 8 inches per mile squared gives you. But pay attention to the straight line on the left that is labelled "Veiwer Height", this represents the height of the observer. Notice the solid green line leading down from the observer and touching the surface? That is a persons actual line of sight...and the X where the solid green line ends...that's the horizon. Notice how a persons line of sight sees BELOW the "Surface Level" line? This is why 8 inches per mile squared...is not an accurate calculation to help you determine what should be hidden by curvature. The numbers that 8 inches per mile squared gives you...do not represent what your eyes actually see in reality...so if you use this calculation to determine what's hidden by curvature...then you will absolutely reach a false conclusion, every single time.
So this is just one of many things Flat Earth gets wrong...but they're not aware that they're getting it wrong and it's become a problem...because everytime I try to point this out, most people either ignore me or get really upset with me. You see the problem? When you misunderstand how something works...you run the danger of reaching a false conclusion...and if you're not aware you're making a false conclusion, you run the risk of continuing to make more and more false conclusions, until you've built an entire new reality around this way of thinking. And from what I've seen...many of the people on YouTube who push this misinformation...KNOW full well that they're spreading misinformation and false conclusions...some have been caught red handed doing it...which makes them nothing short of con men...which is dangerous, because they're actively out there building a group of followers, who are angry for all the wrong reasons.
Anyway, that's just one simple observation I wanted to point out to you. I hope it helps to make my point and I hope I was able to articulate things well enough for you. It's great that people are actively taking interest in the science of our world...but science learned a long time ago...that human beings are flawed. We have bias, egos, the tendency to lie to others and ourselves for personal gain and to avoid humiliation...and each of us has our limits for what we are capable of understanding. So science found a work around for human short comings, peer review. That's kind of what we're doing right here right now, in these comments sections, so that's why I prefer just sharing information, rather then just treat you like your wrong to question reality...like most people seem to like doing. Keep learning I say, I just hope you take into consideration that there might be some errors in your current understandings, all that I ask is that people take the time to listen to what others might be telling them...and yes, that goes both ways.
2
-
@smugglifemusic If you take a look at old Astronomy data going back thousands of years though...you'll know that Polaris wasn't always the Northern Star, roughly 3000 years ago, the North Star was Thuban. This is cross referenced by several cultures who all thought it was a good idea to record the positions of stars...all of them confirm, Polaris was not the North Star many thousands of years ago.
So the stars do change and we can even track those movements over the course of a decade...at least for some stars, the closer ones. If you record the positions of stars in the night sky every year and then compare them to each other over roughly a decade of tracking them, you will spot a few shifts in stars positions. The shifts will be VERY small, but they are there, which suggest that the stars are moving, they just take a very long time to make any noticeable difference.
Astronomers know the stars are moving...they've been following them a long time, they've even mapped many of the movements and can now predict where many of them will be over a few thousands years change. It's just not common knowledge...but whoever told you the stars don't move...is not an astronomer and clearly didn't know what they were talking about.
So why don't the Stars change very quickly? Well, one good theory is because of the distances and the speeds they travel relative to these distances. Our Sun moves at roughly 450,000 mph (as does our entire solar system, since it's towing us along with it). I know this speed sounds impressive...but on a galactic scale, the Sun is barely moving at all. A mile is only impressive to you and me...the micro life living on the surface of these massive giants...even a few thousand miles means almost nothing to the Sun and the Earth.
In 1 hours time, the Sun barely moves half of it's entire diameter, to put that into perspective, move roughly 1 foot in front of you, in the course of 1 hour. Relativity is what explains the movement of the Stars quite well...it's all relative. The closest star to us is roughly 24 TRILLION miles away so then it's safe to assume the other stars are all equally as far away from each other yes? So what looks like a few centimeters distance (between each star) from our perspective, is actually a few Trillion miles and these things are barely crawling along relative to the galaxy. To put it into better perspective again...imagine you're still only moving about 1 foot per hour, now imagine the closest star to you...is in China (assuming you live in America).
Does this make sense? This of course is not evidence for the distances of the Stars, for that you have to go into how they found the Astronomical Unit and then you have to do even more research on how they determined a stars luminosity at great distances. It's all quite clever really, but there is a great deal of evidence that supports the theory of the distances of Stars...and it all matches quite well with the heliocentric model, it also explains why stars don't shift (move closer or further from other stars) as you travel anywhere on Earth.
Figuring out the Astronomical Unit was very important. Once we knew the distance of the Sun from us...we could figure out how fast we were moving, and then we could unravel a great many things about the galaxy we couldn't before. The Astronomical Unit is quite interesting to learn about, so you should give it a look sometime. It is the meter stick we use to measure the cosmos with, most notably our own Solar system.
2
-
You need to understand, many of us here are not new to Flat Earth Theory...we’ve watched these videos you’re sharing before...many times, they’re all the same. I myself have been actively looking at this mess for nearly 3 years now...I’ve heard all of these arguments before, Flat Earth has not changed in the last 3 years since I started looking at it closer, still the same bad logic, poor science and misunderstandings...and even lies, in many cases.
It’s fine to question reality...but it’s arrogant to assume that just because we didn’t reach the same conclusion, it must mean we’re not looking hard enough...trust me, we’ve done what Flat Earth asked of us, we have done our research well.
I think you should watch this video...Flat Earth is absolutely just as crazy as it sounds. Even if you disagree, you should be objective enough to turn the lens around again and keep questioning both sides. If you are, then that’s good. Falsification is the key to science.
2
-
@JoozOwnTheMedia-xi3fl They do take video...the ISS films its orbit pretty much every single day, there is tons of video from the ISS on YouTube, any quick search will find it. The reason they don't take full video of the Earth from far out into space however, is because of how slow it's moving. Here's a video of Earth taken back in 1990 by the Galileo spacecraft https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT8LL5kAxXY, wow...isn't this exciting. Here's that same video over a 5 hour time frame sped up 3600x's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahVKJjo2w2o. You see the problem here? The Earth is not rotating fast enough for us to film it far out into space...so they take pictures instead because you'd never notice it rotating anyway unless you sped up the video. The Himawari 8 satellite takes a high resolution picture of Earth every 10 mins. Here's what some of that footage looks like sped up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRDYvF-9n_0
But I realize your brain is now probably wrestling with the 1000 mph rotation and the 67,000 mph orbit...and you're wondering why I'm saying the Earth rotates too slow to notice. So run this thought experiment, It takes 24 hours to make a full rotation, so spin a ball in your hand so that it takes 24 hours to make 1 full rotation, film it and let me know if you notice any rotation at all. Speed is relative, relative to us 1000 mph is impressive...relative to the Earth...not so much. Most of these satellites are in a geostationary orbit, which means the satellites are moving relative to the Earth, so they're moving at the same speed the Earth is moving, plus a little extra to maintain their locked position in orbit. Because there is no friction in space to slow them down, objects will stay in motion, they will conserve momentum...conservation of momentum in a nutshell.
For just a little extra, here's 200 full photos of Earth taken during the various Apollo missions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz5DTCQlGwE
Could these be faked, maybe, but doubtful. I've been working as an artist a long time...and to fake all these photos and videos...would be a staggeringly impossible achievement, especially back in the days before CGI. Heck even modern CGI today wouldn't be able to pull it off 100%, there would always be errors...especially in live feeds over several hours in length that would eat up processing memory. It takes a lot of memory to even render a few minutes of CGI...how big would the servers have to be to render several hours worth, without any run time errors or glitches?
Besides that, simply just stating something is faked...is not good enough. But yes, they do take video and photos of Earth...lots and lots of photos and videos. You live in the information age, there is literally no excuse anymore, it's not hard to find these photos and videos. Maybe spend some time away from these conspiracy videos for a change.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Earth is oblate, meaning not a perfect sphere. Here's a great video demonstrating just how oblate the Earth is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjx0KcDH7pQ It's not easy to see with the naked eye, but the Earth is not a perfect sphere, so it can not be classified as such. It's normal really, you know how many things in nature are a perfect sphere? Absolutely nothing. It's not a geometric shape that's easily achieved, certainly not by a planet that is rotating, which creates a slight centripetal force that resists gravity a tiny amount, which creates our slight bulge at the equator.
I very much doubt a teacher has ever said we can't see the moon during the daytime, if they did...then they were not a very good teacher, because it's obviously not true. Any science teacher would know how the Moon phases work and they would know that the Moon spends roughly half of its orbit around Earth between the Sun and the Earth...which means it's visible during the day. The only time it is not visible during this half of its orbit, is during the New Moon phase, where it is DIRECTLY between the Sun and the Earth, making it impossible for the Sun to reflect light off of the Moon and back to us here on Earth.
2
-
2
-
What exactly would you like to know about plane gyroscopes? A good source that might be able to help you out is a guy that goes by the name Wolfie6020 here on YouTube. He is a commercial pilot from Australia, who has done several videos explaining how these gyros work, in great detail, even taking them apart and demonstrating the mechanics. If you're wondering how they curve with the Earth as the plane flies, that is thanks to what are called pendulous veins, which are designed to use gravity vectors to re calibrate the gyro with the surface while in flight. They're really kind of neat how they work, and Wolfie goes into some great detail on that, so give it a look sometime.
He also has some videos explaining the newer laser gyro systems that are in many planes today, also some interesting information to be had. He covers pretty much all things flight/plane related to this argument, from gyros, to world navigation, he's the guy to check out.
2
-
2
-
@pepper22768 More counters to the shit they say....yup, gettin longer, but hope this stuff helps.
4. He'll more then likely claim that because our Earth spins at 1000 mph, darts around the Sun at 66,000 mph and fly's through the galaxy at 550,000 mph, that this is proof enough the Earth is Flat and not moving, because he believes we should notice these movements. It's a convincing argument actually, but this one only stands up...if you ignore a little thing in physics called Relative Motion. So if you're not well read on physics (though this is still basic highschool physics)...this one might catch some people off guard and it often does. So in this argument, it's important to understand what Relative Motion is and how it works, because it helps understand why these speeds are not only possible...but likely are reality. Relative motion states that speed and motion are relative, that our bodies are moving with Earth and so are relative to it. Our bodies do not feel or pick up on speed, what we are tuned to notice is CHANGE in motion, meaning acceleration, deceleration and any sudden change in forward velocity (sharp or sudden turns). Anyone can prove this with simple thought experiments, such as when you get on a plane and it's reached cruising altitude. At cruising altitudes on most commercial planes, they fly at an average speed of 500 mph...yet anyone is free to get up and walk around the cabin just fine. Once speed has leveled out and the plane is not rising or descending, you do not feel any motion...you are not sucked to the seat, you can move around just fine, throw balls around, jump, even flys can buzz around the cabin just fine...yet you're still moving at 500 mph. This is relative motion in a nutshell, your body is now moving relative to that planes motion. Our bodies are always moving relative to the Earth...it doesn't matter how fast the Earth is moving...so long as that speed is constant and moving in a relatively straight path...we will never feel these intense speeds.
He may counter with "but the Earth rotates, so our bodies are not traveling in a straight path", this is true...but the angular change in velocity is still very gradual, 15 degrees...over the span of an hour, 360 degrees in 24 hours. To put this into perspective, imagine you're traveling in a NASCAR going near 300 mph around a perfectly circular course. If the course is only like 1000 metres long...then yes, you'll feel Centrifugal forces clinging you to the car door as you make your circuits....your rate of angular change in this example is very great, so you will notice. But, expand that circular track to something more like lets say 100 miles, or even 10 miles to be more generous to Flat Earth...would you expect to be flung to the door then? Not likely. Why? Because the rate of angular velocity change has greatly decreased with the size of the course. Yes we rotate at 1000 mph, but the Earth has a circumference of 25,000 miles. Flat Earth either ignores or doesn't think of these things...but feel free to use these thought experiments on them, cause they need to hear them.
5. He might argue that gravity is just Density and Buoyancy and gravity as we know it does not actually exist. Remind him that Density is just a property of matter and Buoyancy is a left over effect we observe occurring thanks to gravity and density displacing matter. Density is not a force...it gives no energy to anything which is required to make things move, it is quite literally just how many atoms are packed in a given space. Buoyancy is a force, but it requires a starting force to put it in motion, it does not exist on its own. The question is WHY and HOW do things fall DOWN? Why that direction? Density and Buoyancy does not answer for this...gravity does. A good point to bring up is this, he might claim that "things fall because they are denser then the air"...but if this is true, why don't denser objects fall up then, where the air is even less dense? Air gets thinner and thinner as you go up in elevation, meaning the air above is less dense then the air below, so why when you drop something heavy doesn't it rise up into the less dense air? Lots of holes in their theories to replace gravity, feel free to poke many more into them...it's not difficult.
Woo boy...these got long. ^^; Apologies for that, nobody much cares for reading walls of text I realize, but I hope you find all this info useful anyway. Just don't let him get to you, Flat Earthers are crafty but I assure you, they just do it cause they love the attention and they love believing they're special. Their confidence is just classic narcissism, these are people who don't seem to enjoy a world where they are nothing but a spec of dust in an endless cosmos...it makes them feel small and narcissists don't like that very much. This is where their bias stems from, it's not every case mind you, but many of them very much WANT the Earth to be Flat...at any cost, even if it means lying to themselves. Always remember that these people are arguing against a very large majority of scientists and science that all unanimously agrees the Earth is a sphere. These people didn't reach that conclusion lightly...it took Centuries and these same people build the world around you and me...they couldn't do that, if they didn't know a thing or two about the world and how it works. Always remember that. I'm sure you do...but sometimes you listen to these crack pots talk long enough, and their blind confidence can start to jar you a bit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well...that's the problem, this literally is NOT the biggest debate on the planet right now. It's a big debate to you...and people like you, but for the majority of the world, this is actually not up for debate. NASA knows if they address this more directly...then they're acknowledging its existence, which only gives attention to something that doesn't deserve any attention and they have better things to do with their time. NASA already put the final nail in the coffin of Flat Earth, when it photographed the Earth. Here is 200 pictures of Earth taken during the various Apollo missions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz5DTCQlGwE&t=3s
They continue to verify the shape of our planet every single day, with live feeds from the ISS and various satellites in orbit right now. What more do you guys want from them? Cause I can guarantee that they are well aware that nothing short of launching you into space will convince you...something they are just not going to do anytime soon, for many reasons. Seriously though, what exactly would you want NASA to provide for you? They have hundreds of hours of footage already and probably MILLIONS of photos...but Flat Earth just scoffs at all of it, calling it all faked before they've even taken the time to analyze any of it. So be honest with yourself, WHAT do you want from them?
2
-
Nope, you can't...somebody lied to you and told you the wrong math...and you ate it up without checking it. I can only assume you were using the 8 inches per mile squared equation to make your observations, but is that a good guess? If not, then I apologize, but I'll share this anyway, here's a far better curve calculator https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ even has a handy diagram at the bottom showing you how it works. Height of the observer matters, line of sight is what you're trying to discern and 8 inches per mile squared does not account for that...it is the wrong math for the observation you are trying to make, it's as simple as that.
Also, I'll share this blog, it has some really good observations of curvature, give it a look sometime. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat-Earth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth&demo=Soundly#App
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@treefloraken8263 I think you've just described your bias though. Why does the bible stand as a source of truth to you? Is it possibly because you WANT it to be true, not because it actually is? From my perspective, having never been religious, I see the bible very differently. The bible is not a scientific research paper...it has no science, no data, no equations, no research, no experiments, no facts. From my perspective it appears to have been written by normal men, who in there time had very little understanding about the physics of the world and so interpreted what they believed to be true from their own narrow understandings from their time. So why do you believe the words of the bible, over science that can be verified? Science that refutes the words of the bible on almost every page? That's really what interests me about many Flat Earthers...many of you are religious, mostly Christian in fact. I know this, because I've spent many years now talking with Flat Earthers, and I'm confidant now in saying that around 90% of the people I talked too were religious and most of those people were of Christian faith. I find that fascinating. Of course I didn't actually graph that statistic and keep track, so it's likely off a bit, but the very large majority of Flat Earthers I've chatted with are religious.
You pretty much summed up one of my own conclusions about Flat Earth, I think Flat Earth has brought faith back to people. It has made the belief in God even stronger for them. In a time where faith was waning in people due to science and the things we know today, Flat Earth has now created a possibility for you that science has maybe been lying to us all this time, which has renewed your vigor in your religion. I get it, it must be a powerful feeling...but you have to wonder then if your belief in a Flat Earth is being led more by your bias...or from actual facts. Because from where I'm standing you have to ignore a LOT of science still to believe the Earth is flat. What you're describing above in your comments is your path to following your bias over science and how that bias has only grown stronger. Not to say you won't turn your ear to science and listen, from what I gather you are at least one of the more reasonable and honest Flat Earthers, which is refreshing to see by the way, but you are still drawn in by your religious bias. I think in a lot of instances, it even trumps the science. Maybe fills the gaps when you can't explain or understand a concept for yourself.
Anyway, I mean no disrespect to your beliefs, but I have to ask if you've ever pondered the possibility that perhaps you are led by your bias more so then anything else? Are you aware that you have a bias? From what I'm seeing, it's a very clear bias, your faith in the Christian teachings. I for one don't think it's stupid to question science and the reality we live in, it's quite logical actually, so I don't comment to mock Flat Earth, I'm actually still quite interested in what it has to say...but time and again, I find a lot more confirmation bias leading people in Flat Earth, then I do actual honest research. So I'm just being blunt, have you ever considered that perhaps your bias has led you down the wrong paths of understanding?
2
-
2
-
2
-
In the English language, words take on a new meaning depending on the context. In geometry for example, level is defined as perpendicular to the center of object. Gravity works the same way, level in this context means perpendicular to center of mass, or center of gravity if you prefer. So no...level in this context does not mean flat. You picked the first definition of the word and forgot that words have many different definitions, depending on where they are being applied...that's why English is hard language to learn, apparently even for people who speak it as a first language.
8 inches per mile squared is a half truth, it's accurate for discerning curvature...but it does not calculate a figure that represents your line of sight, nor does it calculate what is hidden by horizon. It completely ignores important variables such as height of the observer...I'm sure you are aware that you can see further the higher you go in elevation, it's pretty common sense...so 8 inches per mile squared is the wrong math, because it does not include a variable for height of the observer. Plus many more variables, such as refraction. It is a very basic equation for a parabola...so it is the wrong math to use for the observation. Use the wrong math and you will get the wrong figures, which will cause you to reach a false conclusion...it's as simple as that.
Also, horizon is only 3 miles at sea level from a 6 ft viewing height...horizon is extends the higher you go, so again...you have to use the correct math, or you will reach a false conclusion. Here is the correct math for discerning what is hidden by curvature. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ If you click this link and scroll down you will find a handy diagram that shows you what is being calculated. It even includes the 8 inches per mile squared visual represented by the dotted "Surface Level" tangent line and the solid line labelled "Drop", that's what 8 inches per mile squared is calculating...a drop from that straight tangent line down to surface. That is not line of sight or horizon...so it again, it is just simply the WRONG MATH to use for these observations. Give this calculator a try sometime, there is also a link there that leads to a forum discussion that breaks down the math in greater detail. Here's a great video explaining this calculator a little more in depth as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wPNUU3yw2Y&t=9s
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chrisque1171 Is that all you're looking for was an unedited video of a rocket from ground to space? This whole time I thought you were asking for ground to the Moon, or ground to Saturn, or even ground to the ISS...the reason these don't exist is because of how much footage that would be. The Moon is 3 days, to another planet it's several months to several years and even the ISS it takes a few hours to link up with it. So these videos don't exist (maybe ISS, but I haven't found it), because it's just too much data. But here, I've found several videos unedited of ground to space rockets showing the curvature along the way, so I'll share those if you're willing to take a look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGGYYqDDfRI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMfQHzjNvRU
The thing is, it's very hard to find this sort of stuff on YouTube. The algorithm kinda favors big channels and videos with more views and more flashy entertainment value...and so things like raw footage get pushed down to the bottom, in favor of the flashier, chopped up and edited videos. I found these through a google search...and it didn't take long, you just have to search in different places. There is also more then likely a forum someplace that has an archive of raw footage like this, so stop searching YouTube...cause you likely won't find anything like this coming up in the search. But there is tons of video like this, these are just two that I was savvy enough to save...but I have seen more.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Preston Macy The 8 inches per mile squared equation does not represent your line of sight though. The numbers it derives are for a drop from a tangent....now think about this for a moment, is that tangent line from surface YOUR line of sight? No...it's not, unless your eye is resting directly at sea level (which is never the case), then at no point is this math representing YOUR line of sight. If Earth is curving down from the start of that tangent line...then at what point does an object become obscured by the horizon? The 8 inches per mile equation doesn't calculate that, it gives no figures for what distance horizon is given your observer height, nor does it accurately calculate exactly how much is hidden from your line of sight by horizon. The simple fact is, it is missing variables for the conclusion Flat Earth is claiming it gives...no matter how many ways you slice it, it is the wrong math to use for long distance observations.
Here is the correct math. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ This includes variables for height of the observer, height of the object, arc length, tilt angles, everything you require to make a geometric calculation. They also include a variable for standard refraction...which can not be ignored in this math, as refraction can and will effect what you see at distances. 8 inches per mile squared, is lacking variables required to reach an accurate calculation for this observation, so it is the wrong math...it's that simple.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ya...at least evolutionary biology is a lot harder to verify, with a lot of science that can be misinterpreted and argued. Still lots to learn in that avenue and lots of work to be done yet and at the end of the day we still don't know everything about it. I'll give creationists that much...they're wrong of course, but I can see how someone would fall into that mess and believe it. But the shape of the Earth....you have to be completely deluded to believe the Earth is Flat, all while using all the technology that science has provided for you in this day and age. If people REALLY truly think, we could achieve all our current technological achievements...but we haven't figured out the true shape of the Earth yet...then they are fucking stupid and paranoia leads them, not rational thought.
So ya, I'd keep a creationist friend I think (unless they were really pushy with their religious beliefs, but then we'd likely not be friends anyway), but a Flat Earther...yikes, ya, I don't know about that one. Unless you can bring him back from the brink...but I think he's just gonna get worse, cause it's probably gonna take over his life and his identity eventually.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nope, have you ever talked to a Flatty? I've talked to hundreds at this point and while SOME of them say they conform to no model, most of them say with confidence that they know the Earth is flat. Just scroll down in these very comments and find some Flatties, your fellow Flatties will prove you wrong on that one pretty quickly.
You're confusing what YOU believe, with what others do. People tend to do that, we tend to see the world how WE ARE, instead of how IT IS.
But that's great, if you feel it's just a hypothesis, then get to work verifying or falsifying it...meanwhile the Globe is verified, so even when you do get past hypothesis (in your mind), you'll still have a long way to go pitting it against the Globe to see which model actually conforms with reality more. Good luck with that.
2
-
They do have the old technology...but the old technology is just that...it's old. Why would you send astronauts back up into space, with old tech? Tech that barely worked in the first place? The answer is you wouldn't, you would want to send them with new tech, more advanced tech...more reliable tech. The problem is...new tech is not as sturdy as the old analog systems, and all of it needs to be tested in the same conditions, before a launch into deep space with passengers can be approved (which is basically a lot of what ISS does). What I mean is, with new technology, comes new hurdles...new engineering problems and bugs that need to be worked out for every new system, so that they function without failure in space. We have computers and micro processors today...but these instruments are greatly effected by things like the van allen radiation belts, and strong electromagnetic fields...in short, they have a tendency to fail in these conditions, to shut down and stop working...so better systems need to be developed to overcome these issues, because that's exactly what you DON'T want to have happen while in space...all your shit breaking down. The problem is...NASA is not as well funded as they used to be...and so they can only do so much these days.
This is the problem with Flat Earth...it's taking interest away from these space programs...convincing people that space isn't real nor important, which is taking even more funding away from them. Here's the reality...going to space is neither cheap nor easy...but the rest of the world seems to think it is for some reason. If everybody was a scientist or engineer or an astronaut even...then they'd understand how hard it is to get funding for these programs and they'd understand how hard it is to get into space at all! But...most people don't care, that's the reality. Most people are happy just reaping the benefits of scientific achievements...but have very little interest in contributing in any way towards making them reality. Not their fault really...as I said, most people don't care...because they don't have first hand experience with any of what's going on and that's not likely to change any time soon, so can't really blame people really. But this whole Flat Earth thing needs to stop...getting off this rock and exploring space, is the single most important thing our Species NEEDS to figure out...or we face some real problems down the line.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@motorlocksmith You're making a lot of arguments from incredulity, but not a whole lot of valid points. Just saying something can't be millions of miles away is an incredulous claim, just saying things are fake before actually verifying that they are, that is a speculation, not evidence. These aren't arguments...they're just empty claims, why should anyone listen to ignorance and incredulity? In what institution of science do you expect arguments like this should stand up? Do you have any actual evidence that falsify's the conclusion of the Sun being 93 million miles away? You seem to think not seeing Mercury or Venus is evidence of this, but you do realize that Mercury and Venus are much MUCH smaller than the Sun, right? Not nearly as bright either, not even close. These planets are about as bright as a star seen from our planet. How many stars do you see during the day? What makes you assume that Mercury or Venus has the luminosity to be seen, while your eye (or camera lens) is adjusting to the intense light of the Sun? Are you aware of what an exposure setting is on a camera? I suggest you learn, because this matters towards your question. Have you ever considered the possibility that our eyes can only process so much light at once and it becomes VERY hard to process much dimmer light sources, while currently looking at something as bright as our Sun? Do you ever consider the possibility that maybe there are valid answers to your questions? Or do you just assume you're always right?
Tell me, what are you famous for inventing, innovating or discovering again? What successes in life have you had, that make you so confident that you're somehow smarter than all of modern science?
It's fine to have questions, but you seem to think your questions are your proofs...as if they are air tight and can't be answered. They can be answered, with ease in fact, the trouble is you'd likely never listen to those answers. Just because you don't understand or know a lot about modern physics (or a cameras exposure setting), is also not an argument against modern physics...it's just personal ignorance and misunderstandings that you have, that have led you to a great many false conclusions. It's not our problem if you don't understand these things, it's also not our problem if you won't listen. We can explain some science for you, even show you evidence that supports those conclusions, but judging by your manner of engaging with people here, it's very unlikely you'll even bother to take a look at any information we share, so it's rather pointless to even try.
But if you're willing to drop that ego for even a moment, some of us probably wouldn't mind sharing. Up to you really. We're not your enemy...maybe try opening up and having a civil discussion sometime, you might be surprised with what you could learn.
1
-
@ap6584 Rockets don't push off of the air for propulsion, they push off of the fuel being expelled from their exhaust tanks. It's Newtons 3rd Law of Motion in action, any action has an equal and opposite reaction. The gas pushes off the tank and the tank pushes off the gas...it works just fine in a vacuum. In fact it works even better in a vacuum, no air to create a drag force. And before you say the rockets wouldn't be able to combust in the vacuum of space, they are chemical reaction rockets...that use many different propellant combinations that don't require the oxygen in our atmosphere to continue burning. They even have today nuclear powered rockets, which use fission reactions to generate thrust...so there are many different ways they can keep their rockets burning without the oxygen of our atmosphere as an oxidizer.
I think a lot of the claims against NASA faking things with green screen and harnesses, is largely conjecture. You watch a few videos cut together from people making these claims but then don't really question the people who make those conspiracy videos. There are plenty of videos online that also debunk those claims of faked space and they make a lot of very good counter arguments against those claims...so who's right? I think it depends on your level of hatred in authority, NASA is a government funded agency, you don't trust the government, so you are more likely to believe anything that is said against them. That's not an argument though...that's psychology. I don't trust the government either...but when I watch those faked space docs on YouTube, all I see are very paranoid people, making blind claims, without any REAL evidence. Have they talked to an astronaut who can confirm these harnesses? Do they have the harnesses? Have they demonstrated and recreated how they work? No...time and time again they just point little things out that could possibly be a green screened harness...and then claim that it 100% is, without further evidence to prove it. That is very poor detective work...and would not hold up in any court of law, for good reason. Is it enough to form a hypothesis from? Sure, but then you guys are all well beyond that now aren't you...you believe the claims made with absolute certainty!
Yes, we live in a time now where things can be faked visually...but just because they CAN fake something, does not mean that they HAVE faked something by default. Personally, I don't trust the people who create those conspiracy videos online, they use a lot of deceitful tactics, smoke and mirrors to convince you that space is being faked, only showing you what they want you to see. Spend some time away from those docs for a moment and take a look at the videos debunking them for a little while...and learn that the people making those conspiracy videos are not being very honest with how they present their information. Just empty claim after empty claim...and you buy it all without question, because you already don't trust the government.
1
-
@lukaskoblovsky1503 What are you talking about? We have successfully created fusion reactions here on Earth...the reason we can't maintain fusion, is because it requires a lot of GRAVITY, which is something we can not scale down. But Fusion reaction has been accomplished using other methods and here's the thing, we wouldn't have known HOW to create fusion reactions, if we didn't know a thing or two about the Sun and gravity. We know the Sun is made of mostly Hydrogen and Helium...and wouldn't ya know it, the main ingredient in fusion reactions is Hydrogen and when you fuse these atoms together, they become Helium. Isn't that interesting...what a coincidence, I wonder how we knew Hydrogen was the main ingredient in fusion reaction...almost like we know what we're talking about.
You're paying attention to some pretty dumb things and ignoring everything else. Water clings to the surface of Earth using gravity, gravity is real...if it wasn't, then nothing would exist...gravity quite literally binds our planets and our stars together. Vacuums don't suck and the atmosphere is again contained by gravity, going from 14 psi to 0 psi over a gradient...which is exactly what we'd expect to see occur with gravity, matter stacking on top of matter to create pressure until there is no more matter left to stack....then you get space, which is all space is...emptiness. Have you ever seen what smoke does in a vacuum chamber? Or any gas for that matter? It falls to the bottom of the tank, rather than dispersing evenly due to entropy. The bottom of the tank then creates a layer of gas or smoke, while the top...you guessed it, is a vacuum. Which demonstrates atmosphere next to a vacuum...try it some time. Gravity is the container...you block head.
Now, here's just a few things your model ignores. Star Trails for 2 hemispheres, 24 hours sun in 2 hemispheres, path of the Sun in the South rises from a southern orientation, Moon phases that make sense with an orbiting satellite reflecting light back to us from angles, Moon phases would not be the same all around the Earth on a Flat Earth. Lunar eclipses that have yet to be explained on a Flat Earth, Solar eclipses that don't match with what we see when modeled on a Flat Earth, the fact that we use the Globe model to predict solar and lunar eclipses years in advance down to the second and square mile. Flight paths in the south that do not match with a flat Earth, global navigation that uses lines of longitude and latitude designed for two EQUAL hemispheres, the South sees the same stars at the same time...all 3 points (South America, South Africa and Australia/NZ), all see the same constellations at the same time during their winter, the fact that we have detected motion with pendulums, ring laser gyros, gyro compasses and tests done for Coriolis, THE FACT THAT THE SUN AND MOON SET UNDER HORIZON! This is just a small sample of some of the basic things the Flat Earth model can not account for. Many people have tried, but they really have to stretch logic, jump through hoops, misdirect, mislead, lie and bullshit to make these things go away. I can provide links to observations and experiments that support all of these and links to observations and experiments that refute the bullshit Flat Earth claims about these things on their model.
Flat Earth does not work...it can account for a few small variables, but that's it...once you actually model it and compile everything together, it falls apart. This is a fact. You have to ignore a LOT to actually believe it to be reality...while the Globe accounts for every observation. From what we can gather, the only thing that keeps some people from understanding it, is gravity. You can't see how gravity would contain our oceans and our atmosphere...and somehow, people have successfully convinced you that gravity isn't real. And yet...we have created fusion reactions, the same processes that the Sun uses to burn. The Sun does it effortlessly, because of gravity...WE can not scale down gravity, which is why we're having trouble maintaining fusion long enough to make it viable. Currently we're putting more energy into the system, then we're able to produce...THAT is why we don't have fusion reactors right now...BECAUSE gravity is a key ingredient and we can not scale it down. So we're having trouble, because we have to find alternatives to gravity.
Anyway, point is, the Flat Earth model does not work, the Globe Earth does. What people think are holes in our model, are not actually holes in the model...they're holes in their understanding of that model. Personal incredulity and ignorance, nothing more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@diannehogan7605 Actually you are correct, I'm Aquarius, best times to view my constellation are in October, but I'm born in February. Thanks for pointing that out, good to correct these things if they're wrong. However, my main point still stands. The Zodiac constellations are classified as seasonal constellations, as they're only view able during certain times of the year. The point is, seasonal stars are a great bit of evidence that supports the heliocentric model, because it's what we'd expect the night sky to do if our Planet orbited the Sun. But thanks again, I did research this awhile ago...but obviously I didn't go deep enough and I should have. Aquarius can still be seen in my region during February, but it's not the best time of year to view it.
1
-
1
-
The United Nations represents all nations of the world...and not surprisingly, you can not represent all nations of the world with ONE side of a Globe. So instead, they use a flat map of the Globe, so that all nations are included on the map. As an artist who has spent several years designing things such as logos, I can tell you that they used the AE projection of the Globe because it uses a triad symmetry, which is a VERY appealing symmetry and is quite common in logo design. So, the map is a clever design, it includes all the nations of the world AND it is well balanced and pleasing to the eye. If I was designing a flag for the UN, I would probably think to use a similar layout. So if you think this is some kind of evidence for a Flat Earth...I would say that you are just chasing patterns that are not there...which is quite common for us humans to do, we are very good at seeing patterns, even if there are no reasons for them. I believe there is even a term for that in psychology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikegibbons2889 Tesla was a mathematical genius...so he used math equations just as much as the next scientist to formulate his ideas and iron out the details of his experiments, but he was more an actual experimenter, he liked to get his hands dirty. His argument was just that a true scientist should be more hands on and actually test their theories in a practical experiment, rather then endlessly formulate equations and theories. He had a good point, but he wasn't against math...that wasn't what he was trying to say, he understood the importance of math in science, he knew that math is just another tool we use to help us solve the greater mysteries of our reality...and he used that tool just as much as any scientist.
Theoretical science has its place, it is just the sketching phase of science, it's where we develop the blueprints of science...a blueprint in science is just as important as a blueprint in building. We work out the details on paper first...and then we devise ways to test our theories. Tesla was an experimental scientist, he felt his peers were spending to much time calculating and not enough time experimenting...that is all. But then he needed to make his theories work much quicker, because he was known as an inventor first...that's how he earned his living, so it was his job to experiment and figure things out much quicker, so that he could invent the patents that were basically his bread and butter. Where as a theoretical scientist working for a university (like Einstein), they're not paid to invent...they're paid to lay the groundwork, the foundations, the blueprints. They are paid to crunch numbers...that's why they don't experiment. Experimental scientists however are also employed by universities and these people do focus more time on actual experimentation and field research.
So I think Tesla gets taken out of context personally, he was not against Math...he knew how important it was just as much as any scientist, he just wished more scientists were more hands on like he was...but he came from a different background, he was an inventor as well as a scientist, he was largely self sustaining and independent, many of his peers were not.
1
-
Ya, the Flat Earth is crafty and has a lot of pitfalls that people can fall into if they lack the knowledge at the time to counter those pitfalls. But like Cardinal RG said, you won't find any experts or specialists among Flat Earth...you'll find lots of people claiming to be pilots or engineers...but they're usually always proven to be liars. Meanwhile, the Globe is full of experts and scientists and people who navigate the planet for a living. As an artist/illustrator myself, their claims of perspective were what really pissed me off...they just opened up an art book doing a lesson on perspective and then chopped it to shit...completely reworking perspective and molding it to fit their narrative. I've been studying perspective a long time and I apply it in my daily work...I can tell you, they're straight up bullshitting about perspective and other optical effects.
Anyway, I do hope your friend comes to realize that, this is a good video to start but it might take more then that. Once they start even considering a Flat Earth, it's likely the hypnosis of Flat Earth channels is already set in...it's not easy to snap people out of it after that, because people naturally don't like being wrong...and once those chips are pushed all in, it can be a little embarrassing to admit you were wrong, so instead...most people just double down and dig even deeper...especially if you call them idiots for having dabbled in these concepts. So never call him an idiot, just present him with the facts and leave it at that.
1
-
Why exactly do you think the Moon rotating at the same rate as it orbits is BS? It works...if the Moon were to rotate at the same rate as it orbits...then we would absolutely always see the same face. Mercury does the same thing with the Sun, we observe it rotating in sync with its orbit so that it tidal locks with the Sun, always facing one side towards the Sun, so it's not just the Moon we observe this happening with. It has a lot to do with how close it is to the source of gravity that keeps it in orbit. I know it seems odd...but there is physics at work here that does make sense and that does work when all things are considered and calculated. But I am curious why exactly you feel the Heliocentric models explanation is BS? If your only reasoning is because you feel it's to much of a coincidence, I'll stop you there...because that's not an argument, that's just your own personal inability to comprehend or accept what's happening. So what if it's a coincidence? Lots of things are a coincidence...they still occur anyway.
Though I don't personally think it is a coincidence, there is a logical explanation that does work and makes sense. It's rotation was slowed by Earths gravity until it was tidal locked with it, and we just happen to live in the era where the Moon is tidal locked to us, which keeps one side facing us. From what we understand about gravity, this is not only possible but a reality. Earths rotation is also slowing right now...and at some point a few billion years from now, the Earths rotation will be slowed to a point where only one side of the Earth will ever see the Moon at all. If anything is alive in that time...do you think they'll find that impossible or a coincidence? Maybe some idiots will sure...but the rest of us don't look at the world through any superstitious or paranoid lens...we know what's possible and we never rule anything out simply because we can't accept it as true...that's called being objective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Conservation of momentum is a thing whether you're outside of a vehicle or inside...but yes, there is a little bit of wind resistance while outside, but at low speeds, it's quite negligible. Here's a great experiment demonstrating conservation of momentum in much the same way as the truck example. https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/b6mn9k/just_bouncing_along/ Notice how this person keeps landing in the center of the trampoline, despite the tractor moving forward and pulling it out from under him. That is conservation of momentum in action. What this does is create an environment that behaves almost as if stationary.
Another good example is on a plane. While at cruising altitude, a plane travels at roughly 500 mph, but at no point are you sucked to the seat, in fact you are allowed to get up and walk around the cabin just fine...your entire body moving at 500 mph relative to the plane. If you were to throw a ball around inside that plane going at 500 mph, throwing that ball would be effortless and it would be no different then if you were tossing that ball around, while on the ground and stationary. You could throw it in any direction, it won't speed up or slow down depending on what direction you throw it...it'll just behave as normal...but you can't throw a ball at 500 mph can you? No, even the best pitchers in the world can only throw about 100 mph...so this is a perfect example of Relative Motion and Conservation of Momentum, just like the trampoline example I shared in the link above.
Relative Motion and Conservation of Momentum are occurring right now, while the Earth rotates and orbits around the Sun...and it does the exact same thing in those movements, it creates an environment that we perceive as stationary, even though we are moving. What this science has taught us, is that WE don not feel motion, what we feel is sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion. This creates inertia and inertia is what we feel, but if speed is constant and if change in velocity is gradual enough, which it is in all our movements through space, then we will notice nothing at all...not matter how fast we're travelling. Pretty neat eh.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rainbowwizard1821 I'm always hopeful, but no...in my experience (and I've been doing this a long time now), they don't tend to listen. But every once in awhile, I do help someone and they let me know that I helped them, that makes it worth it. Actually, just the other day, a kid in the 8th grade thanked me for the information I shared and was glad I gave him the opportunity to make up his own mind, rather then shove the facts down his throat. So I do this more for those people, people on the fence who are looking for this information but are met with pure ridicule...which then steers them in the opposite direction. Cause Flat Earth does ask some good questions sometimes...they just don't seem to realize that these are all questions science has already asked and has since solved, so there are answers and they're relatively easy to understand...just not easy to find sometimes.
People tend to double down on their beliefs if you try to force things on them or ridicule them, and this is psychologically proven, so I try to just share the information and just leave it at that. Most of these people have already made up their minds...so I know they won't generally take a look, but I do it more for the people reading these comments who are not so sure just yet and who are just looking for information to help them out. I've learned a lot and have acquired a lot of information on this topic...might as well share what I know and remain optimistic.
That being said...some people are beyond help, there are some rude, ego driven fucks out there who really don't deserve much other then ridicule, so I do have my limits. But he asked for some proof, I have loads of it, might as well give it a shot. At the very least he can't say we don't have evidence anymore...though I know odds are good he probably will still claim that later anyway...but still worth a try.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fred-a-stair Sorry, I'll elaborate a little further. When they make the cold Moon light argument, they're implying the Moon does not reflect light from the Sun, they're claim instead is that the Moon produces its own light...and that this light is a cold light in opposed to a warm light...you know, like all other light in existence. There reason for this claim, is because of an experiment they like to do a lot, where they take a laser thermometer and point it at a section of ground that is in the moonlight, and then they do it again for a section that's under cover. The result is that the thermometer reads colder while in the moonlight...so they jump immediately to the conclusion that it's the moonlight that's causing this, instead of considering or isolating any other variables.
They think that because they did a very sloppy experiment, with zero controls in place, that gave them a false conclusions, it means the Moon is projecting its own light. That's what their main argument is here in this case....and ya, it's pretty dumb. It's a clear demonstration of their complete failure in running proper experimentation...and it demonstrates what happens when you run sloppy experiments, you reach false conclusions.
1
-
1
-
Woo boy...well, the best thing to do would be to avoid giving him what he wants, which attention and the feeling of superiority over others. But, I assume he's more then likely gonna talk crap anyway, so best to be prepared with some ammo. Here's some good points to bring up and some good counter arguments to the shit they say.
Here's 6 good arguments to use.
1. Ask him why there are different stars in the North and the South. We see Polaris and the Big dipper in the Northern Hemisphere, and Alpha Centauri and the Southern Cross in the Southern Hemisphere, but you can not see the opposing hemispheres sky while you are in one hemisphere or the other, unless you're close to the Equator, this is the only time you can see both night sky hemispheres. Completely possible and makes sense on a Globe with 2 hemispheres and an entire planet blocking your vantage of the other hemisphere...not so well explained on any Flat Earth model. He'll likely deflect with "looking at the sky doesn't prove anything." Which is nothing but an excuse, a deflection because he has no counter answer and it's pure bullshit...and he likely knows that, but that's what they say when they know they're cornered. If he does deflect with this, then keep that in mind and call them a hypocrite if at any point in the discussion he used/uses the sky to make a claim of anything...because they do and they will. Funny how they can use the sky for observational evidence, but we can't.
2. Remind him that lines of longitude and latitude are designed with these 2 hemispheres in mind. Pilots, ship captains, rescue crews...all use this navigation system and it is designed for a Globe and only works on a Globe, as these lines would be grossly stretched in some points on any Flat Earth...they just do not work on a Flat system of any kind, but they work perfectly on a Globe with 2 hemispheres and anyone can use these lines of navigation when trying to find places...it's deadly accurate. Remind him of that...remind him that nobody who navigates the world for a living uses lines of navigation designed for a Flat Earth model and we're talkin millions of people.
3. Ask him why the Sun and Moon rises and sets beyond a horizon each day. He'll more then likely answer with "perspective makes it reach the vanishing point at the horizon and then they disappear." Sure, the vanishing point is a thing in perspective, but kindly remind him that things also SHRINK in visible size when they travel further away from us...that is also something perspective does and this is common sense. The Sun and the Moon do not do this before they reach the horizon, they maintain the same angular size throughout the day. If he starts cherry picking some examples where the visibility isn't very good and the Sun shrinks...call him out for cherry picking and remind him that these examples only occur when the atmospheric visibility at the horizon is very hazy. On any clear day, the Sun and the Moon do not shrink in size before they reach the horizon. The Moon is a better observation to make, because it's not nearly as bright and is much easier to measure throughout a night.
4. Ask him why there is 24 hours sunlight in both the Arctic and Antarctic during their respective summers. This is not possible on any Flat map or model, but it works perfectly fine on a Globe with a tilt in its axis of rotation of 24.5 degrees. If he goes on a rant about how the footage of 24 hour sunlight in the south is faked, ask him about the 17 hour sun at the tip of Argentina, tell him to look up Rio Grande Argentina during the Dec 21 solstice. They experience 17 full hours of daylight...and anybody can travel here as well. (I say as well, because anyone can go to the Antarctica also.) Even 17 hours of visible Sun is impossible on any Flat Model.
5. Ask him how a Lunar Eclipse works on a Flat Earth. They hate this one, because they really have no good explanations yet...a lot of bullshit and made up gibberish, but nothing that makes any sense or that has been confirmed by anyone. Politely remind him that Lunar eclipses on the Globe model are caused by the Earth shadow being cast on the Moon...which is why the shadow is round. If he deflects with "the shadow should be bigger", give him a lesson on how shadows work, they consist of two parts, the Umbra (the dark center) and the Penumbra (the blury, much less dark, outer edges). The further an object is away from object it is casting a shadow upon, the smaller the umbra of the shadow becomes. This can be demonstrated with the Sun and a Ball, just go out on any clear sunny day, hold that ball up to a wall that is being hit by direct sunlight (works best closer to sunrise or sunset cause the angle of the Sun helps you out more), then just walk away from the wall while still casting the shadow on the wall. The further you are away from that wall, the smaller and smaller that umbra shadow becomes.
6. There are also the star trails, they hate that one as well, so remind him of these. When you take a long exposure photo of the Northern or Southern sky, there is always a rotation around a central point. In the North it's around Polaris, and in the South it's around a star called Sigma Octantis (which is also very faint and hard to see with the naked eye, but it's there). There are TWO rotations...as we would expect there to be on a Globe that rotates. They can explain why there is ONE rotation on a flat model...but they can not explain why there is two...which in reality, there are two, so be sure to mention this.
Anyway, that's a good start, there are many more, so feel free to ask for more...I've unfortunately been in the thick of this mess a long time now.
1
-
@pepper22768 Now here's some counters to some of their better, more frequent arguments.
Sorry if these are getting long ^^; just felt you were lookin for some good ammo and I like being thorough, feel free to read or ignore these if it's to much at once.
1. He'll likely mention that curvature has never been measured and can't be measured because Earth is Flat. This is a lie, we can and have measured the curvature, so first call him out on that. We first did it with shadows, measuring sun angles from several different locations miles apart. He'll probably counter with "that works on a Flat Earth with a local Sun as well", but no...no it doesn't. It works for maybe 2 points sometimes, that are not to far apart from each other, but if you take multiple data sets from various places all around the Globe, the Sun angles stop making sense on a Flat Earth and do not point to a Local Sun. As shown here in this demo, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0 But some of the better ways we measure it now today are through things like surveying the land, satellites and even seismology...that last one basically slams a nail in the coffin of Flat Earth every time an Earthquake hits, so worth learning more about. xD
But, he'll likely bring up the 8 inches per mile squared formula to make his case as well, stating that when you use this "curve calculator" to determine what should be hidden by curvature at distances, the numbers don't show any curvature. The reason this is crafty, is because it makes them think they're doing proper math to figure out for this problem...but it's important to know that this math is not the correct math for what they use it for, and that's where they are going wrong here. Lots of problems with this formula, It's not a curvature formula, it is a basic formula for a parabola. It also does not account for height of the observer, refraction, line of sight...the list goes on. It also only gives you curve drop tangent from the surface...which basically makes those numbers useless, because they are only accurate, if your eye sits at sea level, which is never the case. In reality, we look down at the horizon...so basically, the reason these idiots fails to measure curvature, is because they're using the wrong math. Use the wrong math...and you will reach a false conclusion, it's that simple. Here's a link to a far better curve calculator https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ Even comes with a handy diagram you can use to show him how it works. His formula only gives curve drop tangent from the surface...this calculator gives you your line of sight, which is what he should be trying to discern.
2. He may bring up boats in the distance being brought back into view with a zoom camera, boats that looked like they crossed the horizon with your naked eye, brought back with a zoom lens. In his mind, this is proof of no curvature...and he'll likely want to focus on boats and small light houses and such to make his case here. You can argue with him about the boats and lighthouses, there are good counter arguments to make here as well, but I prefer switching the conversation to mountains when they bring up this argument. Ask him why THOUSANDS of feet of the bottoms of mountains go missing, when observed or photographed at distances. On a Flat Earth, there might be some of the bottoms missing due to atmospheric distortions like refraction and mirages, but not THOUSANDS of feet like we do see occurring in reality. This is where you can actually put that calculator I shared above to use, with long distance photos of mountains. You just require the observers elevation height and the distance to the object being observed and it will calculate how much of the mountain should be hidden, using both a geometric calculation and a calculation that includes refraction. Refraction is important, it does exist (as much as they like to claim it doesn't) and it does curve light making objects far in the distance appear to rise up over curvature...which is also why Chicago and Toronto are visible sometimes when viewed from across the lake, refraction for that day make it possible. Refraction index changes due to humidity and temperature, also important to note, the curve calculator I shared is only an average index of refraction.
3. He might go on and on about how "horizon always rises to eye level"...this is another straight up lie. Most Flat Earthers have never actually checked to see if this statement is true...in fact I often wonder if they even know what it means, but I digress. Horizon does not always rise to eye level, it drops the higher you go in elevation. This is what we'd expect to see occur on a Globe and it's exactly what does occur. It's also pretty easy to prove, with the help of a theodolite (a common surveyors tool, you can get apps for it on your phone now that are pretty simple to use), you can actually test the horizon and see if it drops by calibrating the theodolite to horizon at close to sea level and then testing the horizon again with the theodolite, while hiking a hill or mountain, taking a flight, or even going up to the roof of a tall building. The higher you go, the more the horizon line will drop from eye level. The reason Flat Earth fails here, is because they never actually measure it...they just eye ball it and say it's true. You will not be able to notice the drop in horizon with your eyes alone...it's that simple. You require the help of a theodolite or a simpler leveling rig...which can be built with 2 clear water bottles and a hose or pipe connecting the two. There are videos here on Youtube explaining how to build and use a leveling rig.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're talking about a sidereal day and it's a great observation actually. We have timed our clocks to a solar day, which gives the Earth a full sidereal rotation, plus a little extra so that it lines up relative to the Sun each day. Minute Physics does a great video on this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxz6nNqpDCk Though he mentions stellar days here not sidereal, which are a bit different, but it explains the jist of what you're wondering about.
So basically, the Earth really completes a full rotation every 23.5 hours or so (that's what we call a sidereal day), but a solar day tacks on an extra few minutes, bringing it to an even 24 hours and giving the Earth a little extra rotation to line back up with the Sun each day, helping the Sun to align with noon each day. But it's not perfect still, cause our orbit is not perfect, it's elliptical and we speed up and slow down during Perihelion and Aphelion, that's why making an accurate calendar was so difficult...that's why we have a leap year every 4 years...but even that's not perfect. Every 40 years or so we have to add on an extra leap year...it was actually really hard to create an accurate calendar for these reasons. It took hundreds of years to refine our time keeping and our calendars, because our orbit is so hard to track. Even our rotation is wobbling, which is a roughly 25,000 year precession cycle...which adds another layer of difficulty to things. It's a mess, but it's another proof that Earth is orbiting around the Sun.
It's really interesting stuff, so it's great that people are asking these kinds of questions, cause it's neat to learn this kind of history...what's sad about Flat Earthers is they don't bother to look up the answers to these questions, they just hold those questions up as their proofs instead, rather then learn something cool like that. They honestly think they're the first people to ask these questions about the heliocentric model. Their real failure is their smug over confidence and arrogance...so I'm glad people like yourself are asking AND learning, not just asking as if these questions should stump us.
1
-
1
-
"Also explains why Alaska gets sun for months then dark for months." We'll agree to disagree...as you would always be able to see the Sun on a flat plane, it would never go below horizon on the AE map, but assuming I agreed it could...how would this explain the Southern hemisphere seeing a 24 hour sun as well? Sure, the Sun getting closer to the North makes sense why they see a 24 hour Sun during their summer, but the Southern pole is massive...and the Sun has a lot more distance to cover, yet they still see a 24 hour Sun in the South as well...it's well documented. So how does the AE model account for this?
Do you know how the Heliocentric model describes the seasons? It's pretty simple geometry and physics, light is hotter the more direct it is upon a surface, in apposed to being spread out at greater angles...the days are also longer while tilted toward the Sun, so in general that area that's tilted towards the Sun receives a lot more solar radiation...so it's really simple I feel. The Globe accounts for all observations as well. 24 hour Sun in both poles, different stars in both poles, 2 star trail rotations at both poles with opposite rotations...this is all stuff we'd expect to see occur on a Globe, that doesn't quite work on a Flat Earth. We have 2 hemispheres in reality...you can't just focus on one and call it done, you have to be objective and accept that there are in fact 2 hemispheres, that operate the same...which doesn't make a whole lot of sense on a Flat Earth, but works perfectly on a Globe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First of all, you can see curvature at 10 km (roughly the cruising altitude for most commercial aircraft), it is just very faint and not easy to spot with the naked eye. Furthermore, camera lenses have all kinds of lens distortion that make it tricky as well, these distortions are present in most camera lenses and do make it more challenging as well, but with the right equipment, you can snap a picture of curvature from 35,000 feet and you can detect it.
Second, we have detected the rotation of our planet in several different ways now and we have measured it. Even Flat Earth has measured it...with their now famous ring laser gyro experiment that detected a 15 degree drift per hour...just like our model says it would. So you're either not aware of these experiments that have proven and measured the Earths rotation, or you're in complete denial of their existence...in either case, your claim that we have not measured the rotation of our Earth is false.
So I'm sorry, but from our perspective, you're just not being very honest with yourself...or you're being very ignorant. In either case, YOU are the problem...not the science or the model itself.
1
-
@rajbrar8584 Neil was merely pointing out that it's difficult to see the curve from a plane with the naked eye, but 35k feet is roughly around the time it begins to become visible...problem is, with so much atmosphere blocking the horizon, it's quite difficult at this altitude and not very likely that you'll see it. 130k feet however, it becomes easier...but still even at this height, the curve is quite gradual, so if you don't do anymore then just look at the images and video, you could easily conclude the horizon flat. But, if you actually pause the camera, trace the horizon line and then match the images to calculations of what we'd expect to see at those heights, you'll find that the horizon we see at those altitudes do curve and they do match with what we'd expect. Here's some footage where somebody did just that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edsUrLXrlLg Here's another great demonstration that breaks down the Math and matches the calculations with actual pictures taken in reality. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth Lots of good demos for curvature in this blog, but just watch the first tab at top left labelled "Curve", click on that and it will begin the simulation. There are hundreds of videos and demonstrations like this online now...but Flat Earth chooses to ignore them and see only what they want. If you got the guts to challenge what you think you know, give those links a look sometime.
I didn't mention any of the other experiments that test for rotation and movement of the Earth, because judging by your past comments here...you didn't seem all to interested in sharing information and keeping an open mind, it seemed to me like you were only here to troll, to flex your ego and to get a rise out of people. So I didn't feel like it was worth my time...if the chances were good you weren't going to look at anything I shared anyway. But if you are actually interested, I don't mind sharing those experiments.
No, I'd say it's hard to have a discussion with anybody who believes observations are not important for an experiment. You'd be correct to say that observations are not the only thing you should do while conducting a proper experiment, but observation is a still a very key component in almost any experiment...to argue otherwise, is ignorant and only shows a lack of a working knowledge of how science works.
Are you aware of the Ring Laser Gyro experiment? If not, here's a brief summary. The Earth in the heliocentric model rotates once every 24 hours, so if you were to slice the globe up into 24 equal sections, each one would be 15 degrees (360/24=15). So if the Earth is rotating, then it should rotate 15 degrees every hour, pretty simple. Ring Laser Gyros, are a very expensive, very precise piece of equipment, that are designed to maintain rigidity in open space, even better than their mechanical counter parts. Meaning the gyro itself will not move but it can read any shift in the housing unit, which it displays as a drift in orientation relative to the gyro inside the housing. So what happened was, one of your own groups (the Globebusters), purchased one of these gyros and used it to test the rotation of the Earth. Every single time they switched the gyro on, they detected a 15 degree drift in orientation...which matches with the heliocentric model of a rotating Earth.
They then tried to falsify these results, which is fair, that's exactly what you should try and do in any science experiment, look at it from every possible angle to see if there's perhaps any variables you may have missed that could have also given those results. But, try as they might...and they tried pretty hard, they could not falsify the results, results that only made sense if the Earth is in fact a Globe that rotates once every 24 hours.
Why does this qualify as an experiment? Because we formulated a hypothesis, that if the Earth is spherical and if it rotates once every 24 hours, then it should rotate 15 degrees every hour. Flat Earthers then found an instrument that would be able to detect this motion and then they tested it with both a Flat and Globe hypothesis in mind, collecting data in multiple data sets over several days, recording the results and comparing it the pre-calculations for each model. When they tested it...the results matched with the globe Earth hypothesis, not a Flat Earth hypothesis. Every time the gyro was switched on, it detected the 15 degrees of drift every hour...not 0 degrees (which is what they were hoping for), not 5 degrees, not 25 degrees...15 degrees, which matches with the Globe hypothesis of a 24 hour rotation of a spherical object. As well, the gyro detected a drift on 3 different axis...as it would also expect to pick up, on an Earth that is spherical. For more information on that watch this video here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJOaBGAgyhw
There are several reasons why the sky couldn't have caused these results...because first of all, how would it? How would the sky physically be able to shift the orientation of the lasers inside the gyro? The lasers have no moving parts...that's why they are more precise than a mechanical gyro, the only way to detect a shift, is for the gyro itself to be moving...which means the ground it sits on must be moving. Not that they didn't try to come up with some excuses for how the sky could move that laser, one hypothesis put forward being Electromagnetic attraction...but try as they may, when they placed the gyro in a chamber that blocked Electromagnetic forces...the laser still detected a 15 degree drift, so that falsified that hypothesis pretty quickly.
It's not like science ignored the possibility of the sky being the cause of the gyros movement...it's just that so far, their has been no evidence to suggest that was the case. So as it stands currently, we can only conclude for now that it is the Earth below the gyro that is causing the drift. So this is actually one of the best proofs that supports a rotating Earth. We find it particularly funny as well, because it was actually a Flat Earth experiment that detected this motion...which we can't help but see the irony in. Not that we don't have our own laser experiments, this experiment isn't new...the people who build these lasers have been doing similar experiments for years now and there is currently a massive laser being built under the surface that will be the most precise laser gyro ever built. It will more then likely add further evidence for a rotating Earth.
So this is a very good bit of evidence that supports the Globe model...one of many. Flat Earth really likes to ignore this one or deny it as best they can...so I hope in your case you just were not aware of this experiment, but if you were, what is your conclusion for this experiment and why? I'd be curious to know your thoughts. Again, I'm more then happy to share even more experiments with you, but I suppose that will depend on your next reply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lak0803 Exactly...your point of reference is in space...but understand, there is no direction in space, so it's a poor frame of reference to judge anything from. There is no up, down, east, west, south in space...there is no direction, so the only thing of reference near by that you could orientate yourself with, is the Earth. So if you were in the ISS flying above Earth, you would orientate yourself to the ground, feet facing down toward the ground.
Just watch this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQVu9i6CnU4&t=40s at what point in this sped up ISS footage, do you feel upside down or sideways? Even though it is curving along with the Earth, so from starting point to end point, the ISS has essentially flipped in orientation...but they don't notice anything, because they always orientate with the Earth below...it's the only reference point they have to know what direction they are facing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Water has no means to resist gravity...you do. When you lift your leg, you are expelling energy to do it, without that energy being used, you would not be able to resist gravity either. Water can't do that, because water is not alive. On top of that, gravity works by mass attracting mass. If an object has more mass, it's going to be effected by gravity a lot more then something with less mass...so it's actually easier to resist gravity, the smaller you are.
Also, do you think the oceans are one massive entity that is singular in nature...or is it more like triillions of little drops collected together that make up one big ocean? If I dumped 100 people onto a scale, would it now become impossible for any of them to lift their feet and resist gravity for a little bit by expelling energy? Did they become one massive person, or are they still they're own individual people? Water isn't much different, though it does bond a little bit due to molecular bonding, water molecules are still pretty independent of themselves...but again, they are not alive, so they have no means of resisting an attractive force of any kind, they will conform to any force that is applied to them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@efgtest The short simple answer, it's the name we gave to the observation of things dropping. Things drop, that's a fact, scientists isolated that it was a force that was causing it, they named it gravity. In more layman's scientific terms gravity is an accelerating force caused by the bending of space time, due to an objects mass, that creates a gravity well that pulls matter to center of that well, or center of mass if you prefer. But how do we know that? That's a lot of physics that would take a long time to explain. Though I'm sure you've heard a lot of physics thrown at you by now, and probably heard those definitions of gravity before, so why do you ask?
I can go a bit deeper if you'd like, but more curious to know what you know about gravity. I do feel people in Flat Earth misunderstand gravity, how water works, forces in general and what the term level means when said in the context of geometry or gravity. So I have information I can share if you'd like some things answered, I don't mind at all. Or, if you feel I've overlooked anything, feel free to let me know, I'm all for learning new things as well.
1
-
1
-
@efgtest Mmk, I found some time to reply back. Thanks again for giving some more insight into your ideas of Gravity, it's quite informative and adds some details to the Flat Earth theory, or at least their methodology. I won't bore you with the physics, I'm sure you've heard it all before, what I'd like to address is where I think you're going wrong in your thinking. Apologies in advance, this does get long, but I hope you find the argument at least interesting.
Quote from you "Gravity= "things fall" (fact) + Story (theory)to give you a comfort answer for the "why things fall" question." Yes and no. Yes theories are not facts...but then no real scientist would disagree with you on that, they are well aware they are not facts. But no, they are not just "comfort answers", they are based around mountains of experimentation, data collection and research. Nothing graduates to the level of a Theory in science, until it has gone through every single step of the scientific method. But true, even in the end, theories are not facts, not even in a scientific theory, which is very different from the common use of the word theory, but it's still not a fact. The thing I don't get about Flat Earth however is they seem to believe scientists are not aware of that...scientists are well aware of that fact. That's exactly why they didn't call their conclusions "scientific facts", they chose their titles and wordings carefully, calling the end conclusions of all their study and research "scientific theories". Not to be confused with a Scientific Law, a Law describes WHAT is happening, it does not describe WHY and HOW the WHAT is doing what it's doing. That is what scientific theories are for...and I would just like to say, that they're far from useless.
That's the problem with Flat Earth methods of thinking as I see it. Do you like all the technology you have today? Do you know how it all got here? Here is a fact for you...dam near every single piece of technology you enjoy today, is only made possible in large part thanks to scientific theories. That is a fact...go look into almost any technology. Peel back the layers of history and discover that almost every single new innovation is only possible thanks to these theories you seem to think have no use...theories such as gravity. So what do you want us to do instead? Stop searching for answers...because you would prefer we only search for facts? Seems very limiting to me. Gravity is theory, but it's a VERY good theory and has helped us discover a lot more about our universe, which has made invention and innovation and engineering...well, let's just say that when we discovered gravity, it was like the flood gates of information opened. Then when Einstein cracked the code of General Relativity...the flood gates opened again! Because keep in mind that we have split the atom...that is a FACT...guess how we did it? That's right...scientific theories. Gravity is actually a huge one for us right now yet again, because right this very second scientists are trying to create "Nuclear Fusion" reactors...which is basically simulating the Sun, which basically boils down to us attempting to reproduce a small Sun here on the surface of the Earth, or at least the reactions that occur inside the Sun to produce Energy. This will become the cleanest and most renewable and most efficient form of energy the world has ever known...and it could single handedly solve ALL of our energy problems today.
The most interesting thing to note, we have succeeded in doing so! We have successfully created fusion and proven to the world that it exists and we've done it several times over now. Here's why that is relevant again...Nuclear Fusion was only made possible, from scientific theories...the main one being gravity. If Einsteins theories of General Relativity were incorrect, we would not have been able to discover fusion...let alone reproduce it. So we've created fusion...that's a HUGE proof that we are on the right track with gravity. Say what you want about it, that we don't know shit or that nobody does...or peel yourself away from YouTube for second and go talk to a nuclear physicist, or go visit a research lab, or take some physics classes...and prove some stuff for yourself. Anyway, so we've successfully made Fusion in a lab, but the problem is we now have to figure out how to stablize the reaction...and do it in a way that produces more energy then put in to the system MAKING the reaction happen in the first place. So it's not commercially viable right now...and who knows, it may never be...but the point here was that we have done it and we did it using what we know about gravity, atomic bonding, electromagnetic spectrum and from studying our Sun.
So that's a fact...for something that is "just a theory" or "just a comfort answer for why things fall", every bit of knowledge we've crammed into that theory sure has been useful. Fusion is just one of many things that are only possible thanks to our understanding of gravity....the point is, if we were wrong about gravity, it would not have been possible in the first place.
So technology alone is my biggest red flag...that the methods of Flat Earth are VERY limiting for human society. You guys seem to think that "facts" are the only thing that matter and that are useful for our benefit. But I feel the proof is in the pudding...science works and it brings results. Scientists know for a fact that scientific theories are not facts...that's why they didn't call them facts to begin with. Because our universe is VERY complex...determining WHAT is happening, that's easy, just requires simple observation in most cases...figuring out or isolating WHY and HOW it's happening? Damn near impossible...just because how complex our universe is and how little we actually understand. So we created the scientific method to help us out, it's not magic, it's not bullshit, it's a tool...a method of thinking anybody can use to unravel the mysteries of the universe...AND IT WORKS!! But it's a slow process, and the truth about information is this...as new information comes to light, it has the potential to change old information. That's true no matter what sort of information it is, whether it be the information we currently have about gravity...or the juicy bit of gossip you got from you Ex-girlfriends best friend. Things change as new information comes to light, so scientists left room in their theories for expansion and change, by never assuming they know everything and not calling their conclusions facts.
The thing is...you are absolutely not going to change anything about scientific inquiry...by making videos on YouTube and bitching about science in comments sections. You want to change the dominant theory or model for anything? Then you have to earn it. You have to produce the experiments, run the calculations, collect the data, compile the research and publish it all for peer review....and that debate and argue your position for years sometimes decades! That's the reality of science...and if you don't go through the proper channels...then nothing is going to change.
Science doesn't care what you believe and it's not going to just roll over because somebody disagrees with the current models and theories. Prove that they are wrong...if you can. Science doesn't even care if you do, if you can find evidence that actually proves the Earth is Flat then GREAT! It's annoying and a tad frustrating in science...having to start over, but in the end they don't really care, they get over it. Here's another fact, Einstein wasn't praised in his day...he was actually hated by many in the scientific community...because he was spitting in the face of Newtonian physics! Which was the standard model in his day! He had to fight long and hard to get his theories heard...and it took YEARS before the experiments could be done that proved him correct or at the very least plausible! So if you wanna know WHY he is so famous today...is because he CHANGED science as we knew it! So you guys shouldn't be scoffing at Einstein...he's a lot like you guys in some ways, he went against the established norm, he challenged the dominant model of reality...and he won! That is why he is the single most famous name in science today...so, why doesn't Flat Earth give it try as well? If you guys know so much more then the rest of us.
Anyway, sorry for the long rant, I hope you make it though but I understand it does get a bit redundant. The short of it is just that you're half right...but then science already knows that, so what's your point? But you're also WAY off, if you believe scientific theory is not useful. Disagree with Gravity all you like, that's fine, everyone is free to challenge the current theories and models of science, heck they WELCOME it...but just know that Flat Earth has a very long way to go if they ever hope to even come close to abolishing it as the dominant theory for why things fall. That's another fact. I know you don't really conform to any idea, choosing to just remain ignorant...that's fine too, but stop telling people our methods are useless then, if you have no horse in this race.
1
-
@efgtest So if you want, I can still go into the physics of Gravity. That last comment didn't go into much of any of it. Up to you though, I just kinda felt you were sick of people giving you science lessons...I know I would be in your position. Plus I don't really enjoy talking down to people if I can help it...that last post might have been a little condescending, but it's not my intention, I just figured it was an argument you maybe hadn't heard yet. I'm not really here to force anybody to listen to me, I just like sharing information and providing counter arguments, I'm sure you do as well, that's why we're both here isn't it...it's a bit of a hobby at this point?
I'd also like to just add from that last post. I'm not saying I don't see your position as logical, because I do. You are frustrated as well, you're tired of people telling you that these things are facts of reality, when from where your standing that's not true at all and never has been. So I do understand your position and I see how you've reached that frustration. It is a little annoying being told over and over again what is what...and unfortunately that is something people tend to do a lot of, especially scientists. From where I'm standing, I feel this is one of the main reasons people have turned to Flat Earth. Of course there are many reasons...but this frustration of yours seems to be a common one I run into.
Anyway, I do like talking physics though and I'm no slouch on the topic of gravity, so feel free to ask anytime. Maybe I could provide some information you haven't heard yet...however unlikely, but you never know and I don't mind the discussion so long as it's civil and interesting.
1
-
@efgtest Hi again, thanks for the reply, was another good response. Apologies if I tend to speak in generalized terms. Yes, I do tend to refer in "they" when talking to a Flat Earthers, I do that because I get the feeling that many FE believers share much of the same research and ideas, following the words and advice from the same sources...but that's not much different on our end I realize. The big problem I've come across in this debate...is a communication break down...I want to talk to you guys, I wanna know if there is something you have to point out to us, but these conversations tend to get heated or nasty so quickly...it makes learning anything about your positions, very hard. I'm sure you'd agree, so I hope I haven't been making all the same errors we tend to do in attempting to make our points and learn yours, but I am aware that talking in sweeping generalizations is one of those ways that communication breaks down...so I apologize for that, it's just so hard not too and hopefully I can explain why.
First thing is this, personally I don't think people of FE are stupid...in fact far from it. I've chatted with some real block heads sure, so you do have idiots (but so do we), but I've actually been quite surprised...and I mean no disrespect there, I'm sure you're more than aware how ridiculous your side of things must sound to the rest of the world, our first reaction is just to paint you all as...stupid. But in my experience, I've been surprised, cause many I've chatted with are very far from stupid, and your positions do have logic to them, it just takes effort to see things from your angle, cause what is clear is that Globers and Flat Earthers do think differently...and that's what I'm most interested in.
Anyway, yes, I think the break down occurs in a lot of ways, the "mixing" you refer too above as well. We have a hard time removing ourselves from fact and theory, that is true...but that's mostly a problem with people who are not trained scientists I would argue. Scientists actually DO train themselves to separate the two and it is worked into the scientific method to be very careful with those two distinctions, in fact it's taught in university courses...how to be more objective, to remove bias, and they train scientists how to remove variables from an experiment to distill them down so you know your experiments are not being altered by unseen variables. As best you can, even then it's nearly impossible to account for what's called unknown unknowns, the things we're not aware we don't know...an example of that about 300 years ago we weren't aware of the electromagnetic spectrum, it was an unknown unknown at the time that probably messed with a TON of our early experiments and gave us faulty results...but I digress. They also teach scientists to remove themselves from the wordings and recognize that theories can change, they are not facts, so these things are taught to scientists and they try to always remember that...it's just very difficult to overcome natural human errors, such as bias, ego, emotions, etc, even trained experts can make mistakes...and some of them never properly learn these things. Point is, scientists actively practice trying to be as objective as they can...where as the general public do not practice this, which causes them to fall into the very traps of reasoning the scientific method was developed to overcome.
My argument is for scientists and the technology they produce for us...if I have a horse in this race, it's to defend their achievements, because I feel it's a little arrogant and ungrateful to slander the work of these people...who are basically responsible for every comfort we enjoy today. I just like to remind FE of that, to not take it for granted and just to remember that scientists are not "evil beings" out to get them...they are regular people, who worked very hard to get to where they are, and they do a lot for us. I don't take that for granted, I just like to make it clear, that neither should FE. Perhaps you don't...but then you don't talk to as many Flat Earthers as I do I would bet. How many I come across that say all science is bullshit, scientists are quacks and the many that tell me higher forms of math are fake and not useful...is disturbing. I see the logic in not leaning on math for everything, but then theoretical science is just the blueprint phase of science...you wouldn't build a house without a blueprint correct? The same is true in science, we don't just build nuclear fusion reactors...without working out the science on paper first. That's the function of theoretical science...the problem I feel, is that maybe scientists shouldn't even be discussing theoretical science with the general public...but, the public is an impatient beast, they demand results and so science has to give them something. It makes a bit of a mess...especially when media puts their spin on things, when trying to dumb down the science. Media sells headlines...they don't care if the science is done yet, so sometimes (a lot of the time actually) they grossly over emphasis or over estimate the science. This is when people start calling bullshit...and if it happens enough times, they stop trusting science. It's a slippery slope and a tricky situation...so I just try my best to mend some of that lost trust....simply because, our species NEEDS scientists and I worry that people are losing faith in them...which is slowing things down even more...because these people NEED funding, it's the fuel that keeps the wheels of research turning. They're not going to get that funding, the more trust is lost in them by the general public.
So this is why I argue, not just cause it interests me...but also cause I have a horse in this race, I worry that Flat Earth is working against the whole of society in a lot of ways...convincing people that science is bogus and we should just abandon it. Maybe that's a misplaced worry, but I hope you can understand...it's a fear many share and I hope you can see our reasoning there. The question is, is Flat Earth causing a deeper rift between the general public and scientists? Or is it a symptom of a rift that was already there? How much effect is Flat Earth currently having on that rift? These are things I think about...and worry about. Flat Earth thinks they're "waking" people up...to me, they're putting people to sleep like never before, making them even MORE ignorant and afraid of science then they already were...do you see my problem? I personally feel, Flat Earth is doing more harm then good. But Flat Earth of course doesn't feel that way...they feel they're the heroes here for a lot our problems. The question is...are they actually, or are they just fucking everything up even more? This is why I speak in terms of a group...rather then speaking directly too you, at least I assume. I'm not worried about the individual, I'm worried about the group, I'm worried that the Flat Earth "movement" could potentially be setting us back. I think that's a real concern...that even people who believe in Flat Earth should consider and I hope they do.
Apologies, these rants are getting more into the philosophy then the science...maybe I'll shift gears for a bit here, cause I'm really rambling a lot now. xD Technology and scientists are my reason for arguing mostly...but it's not my reason for believing the Earth is a Globe, the science is what convinced me of that, so next comment I'll talk some science with you, cause I do have some points to make there on that as well. Thanks for the discussion so far, really good to find reasonable and civil people to chat with, I learn a lot about the Flat Earth position from these kinds of talks and I hope you learn a lot from anything I have to share as well.
1
-
@efgtest Alright, I'll try to ramble less here and focus on science now. I see you asked some questions in-between my typing my last reply. xD
Well let's see, yes, I have seen a real gyro, but I believe you're referring to the more mechanical gyros used in things like an artificial horizon indicator on an airplane. I don't pretend to know all the science that goes into a gyro, or these devices, but I do have some knowledge on the topic you might find useful or helpful.
So a common argument I run across from Flat Earth, is that because gyros maintain rigidity in open space, we should notice a tilting of the gyro as an aircraft or submarine travels along the curve of a surface...if the surface is curved. This is true, though in a mechanical gyro...they do have friction that causes them to precess or tilt slightly over time. That's why we use laser gyros now...cause they don't have this problem. Anyway, I'm not too knowledgeable on the gyros that submarines use, I understand them to be mechanical still and far beyond any other mechanical gyros technology, that's about as much as I know about submarine gyros. But I'm quite familiar with the gyros used in aircraft, more specifically the ones used in an artificial horizon.
The interesting thing about these gyro systems, is they're quite complex, they're not just built of spinning gyros. I'm curios if you've ever heard what a pendulous vane is before? If not, basically it's a hinged system on the gyro that detects when the gyro has tilted. It does this, by making use of gravity. What happens is, the gyro does maintain rigidity as the aircraft travels, but gravity vectors change. So a weighted hinge is kept on the gyro that drops when the gyro tilts too much due to it maintaining rigidity. When it drops, it allows air to rush into a compartment, which clicks on a sensor that turns on an electric motor, which slowly tilts the gyro back until the pendulous hinge clicks back into position due to gravity. Once the hinge drops back into position, it turns the motor off, which stops the tilting of the gyro.
It's a very clever system, what's interesting about it is that if the Earth were Flat...why would these gyros require this system at all? If the Earth were flat, a gyro would be all that you need...it would make the perfect indicator of level in any transportation that travels in open systems like air. However, yes, mechanical gyros precess over time, so they would still require something to adjust the gyro...but the process of precession in gyros is actually quite slow and can take several hours to make a noticeable precession, in the case of really well manufactured gyros...but these gyros in aircraft are constantly in need of these pendulous vanes and constantly adjusting. It leads me to conclude that the reason being is because the surface does in fact curve.
Now, it's a fact that artificial horizon has pendulous vanes...but it is still possible that pendulous vanes could be a clever ruse put forth by whoever or whatever is trying to deceive all of us...but is that very likely or is that true in anyway? Especially since we can actually take these gyros and do our own tests with them? Which is something a YouTuber here has done and currently is still doing. I'm not sure if you've heard of a content creator named Wolfie6020, (if you've been reseraching this topic long enough then you may have). He's a licensed commercial air pilot from Australia, who has a ton of great information on gyros and artificial horizons over on his channel. He's done several experiments with these gyros, putting the pendulous vanes to the test to see if they're actually needed, or if they're just misunderstood...or if they're just a clever ruse.
He's been pretty thorough about it actually, with many different experiments he's done with these gyros, some of his experiments being actually inspired by questions people of Flat Earth had sent him. I'll link his video where he explains the pendulous vanes a little more in depth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1QGRPVBZvw
Anyway, so that's what I know about gyros as they pertain to this particular argument. If there is anything else you'd like to point out or ask, feel free to let me know. If there is anything you feel I've overlooked, feel free to point it out, I'd be interested to know.
1
-
@efgtest I figured you had heard of Wolfie, spend enough time researching this debate and you come to know all the players on both sides. I hope you don't consider me his "pack", you asked a question on mechanical gyros, he's been the most informative source I've found on those gyros thus far, just because he's doing experiments with them that directly correlate to this argument. I take in information if I feel it's good info and he's been good info so far, but I'd be interested to see the sources that dispute his work on gyros, I'm sure there are many. So if you have some links that could shed some more light on gyros, I'd be interested to see them.
Gyros are not where I personally focus my attention, I learned enough to get a grasp on the arguments, but I'm not aware of every argument in that domain and I don't know how every gyro system operates, least of all the ones used in submarines. I know the most about artificial horizons, thanks in large part to Wolfie, but I did check other sources to question if what he was telling me was true, I think it's important to cross reference rather than listen blindly.
Physics is where I hold the most ground, because physics is something I've always been interested in, long before this whole Flat Earth thing, and had I not become an artist/illustrator for a living, I would most likely have become a physicist of some kind, most likely experimental because I find I had a skill at developing experiments...being creative kind of gives you an edge in experimental science. It kills me a little...cause I wish I had more time, I've actually thought of TONS of experiments I could do pertaining to Flat Earth, most of which I haven't seen anybody try yet.
Anyway, I'm rambling again...lets focus on some more science.
1
-
@efgtest Yes, this is the reality and people have access to information now like never before, they're going to form their own opinions much quicker then they used too. I think this is a good thing personally, but I feel we have some growing pains here today...because it currently feels like it's causing more divides than ever before and that part of things makes me uneasy...because I had expected it would unify us more, not turn us against each other. One reason could be misinformation, as information is much easier to spread these days...the same is true for misinformation. There is no checks and balances on what is said on channels like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, etc...I mean, there are of course ToS and rules that can get you banned, but for the most part...anybody can make a claim and if they're sharp enough and clever enough, they can sell you on that claim without having to do much...because people generally are impatient or they simply just don't have the time to question everything.
But yes, I do agree with you on many points actually. It's fine to admit when you don't know something, that's absolutely fine...just not easy to do in most cases, cause it's something we humans hate admitting...so both sides suffer from this. I believe I actually stumbled upon a psychology paper once that explained how the brain actually goes through physical pain in the process of changing its mind...and it could be part of why we resist change so staunchly, it's a survival instinct. Though I can't remember the details exactly...so now I'm spreading misinformation I'm sure...see how easy it is?
Anyway, I want to focus on some science, cause you bring up a few points and I keep forgetting to address them.
First of all...yes, we really do not agree on the science. That is a huge problem...and it does make a lot of debates pointless it seems. Some arguments I feel are even what I call "moot arguments", which is any argument that fits or supports both models or if both have an answer for the observation...an example would be boats going over the horizon. We say curvature, Flat Earth says perspective and atmospheric conditions...who's right? Both have strong cases...I've seen some very interesting photos from both sides, but the debate here never seems to end. So I don't focus on small boats anymore, I focus on mountain ranges or long bridges, because explaining how atmospheric conditions can make a boat disappear...OK, I'll bite, but explaining how thousands of feet of a mountain can disappear...not so easily explained by atmospheric conditions.
My main argument for the curvature calculations is pretty simple, Flat Earth uses the wrong Math. They have been since the beginning and so when they use this math, they reach the wrong figures, which causes them to reach false conclusions when they use these figures to make their comparisons. Though that's a generalized argument, I do stumble onto some FE believers who are aware of the better curve calculators out there today and some actually do understand the math as well and make use of them...it still doesn't seem to sway them. Anytime I use these calculations for myself on distance images, I get results that match with a Globe. I even check the Math for myself in many cases...it's good math, it's mostly just simple trigonometry that goes WELL beyond the 8 inches per mile squared nonsense...which I hope I don't have to tell you is wrong for so many reasons...first being that it only calculates curve drop from tangent to the surface...which don't get me wrong, it does accurately (to a point, then it turns into a parabola and shoots down)...but it's only good Math if you're eye is sitting at sea level, which of course...it doesn't. 8 inches per mile squared doesn't account for line of sight, which does matter. So my argument there is that the Math is often incorrect...but like you said, we don't even agree on Math at times.
When it comes to curvature though, these two links are the best I've found for curvature. Feel free to check them out if you like, the first one is a blog that goes through several observations and explains the math of the curve calculators a lot more in depth. It also includes probably the best curve calculator I've seen yet and it's quite useful. The most interesting part of the Blog to me though, is the animation breaking down the Soundly observations. Somebody actually modeled the Lake Pontchartrain bridge to scale and then placed it on a curved Earth to scale...and then matched the 3D rendering to actual photos taken in reality. I find it interesting at the very least and I think more Flat Earthers should be aware of this blog...and perhaps you are.
ter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat-Earth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth&demo=Soundly#App
This second one is a simulation of topography data for an area and then placed on a curved and flat Earth respectively. He's focusing on some photos here taken by JTolan, the San Jacinto mountain range to be specific. The whole video is interesting, but if you're pressed for time, just start the video at the 6 minute mark where he does his comparison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU
I've also done the math for many photos and many different mountain ranges, so far I haven't found any that do not match with a curved Earth, to the size and scale we think it to be. So that's where I stand currently on the curvature calculations.
Fact is, there is a lot of atmospheric distortion at the surface...so it's really not easy to distinguish if it's curve or atmosphere causing these objects to disappear at distances...like I said, I've seen good arguments and photos put forth by both sides.
I've concluded this, sometimes our senses can and do lie to us. I trust my senses still...but I always keep in mind that optical illusions are a real thing and they do occur in nature. Our brains do their best to interpret the world around us...but it takes shortcuts sometimes, this is where we can and do fall into traps. So I just do my best to make sure I've eliminated that variable when making observations like these.
1
-
@efgtest Ok, so none of that previous stuff was physics and that's where I said my strength lies. So I just wanna go into one principle of physics I feel Flat Earth misses...and see if it resonates with you or not, because you seem quite good at filtering what's important and what isn't and so maybe you'll understand the physics here and maybe even shed some light on why Flat Earth doesn't accept this science...that's what I'm most interested in is why, so I'd really like to know your answer on this one in particular.
I've tried many times to get this particular point across to people, so far with little success...but I feel it's a very important piece of physics that I think Flat Earth in general overlooks...and I say that because it's never something I see them talk about in videos, at least not in depth, and I mean Flat Earth content creators. They just never seem to explore it much and I'm a bit puzzled as to why. Hopefully you can help me out.
So I wanna go into the science of motion a little bit, the most important being Relative Motion. So my next comment I'll go into that a little bit. The physics of Relative Motion and Conservation of Momentum are very important to understand if you want certain questions answered about the motions of the Heliocentric model. I'm sure you've heard a lot of different science now on motion, but maybe you weren't aware that it was all pertaining to a branch of physics called Relative Motion. Anyway, even if you've heard much of this science before, my main interest here is to find out why Flat Earth doesn't accept this science? So I'll go into in more detail, then you can let me know, or fill me in on what you feel is missed or overlooked in the science of Relative Motion.
1
-
@efgtest So another argument I hear a lot is the motions of the planet. It's actually a great question that Flat Earth asks, "how is it possible for us to travel at such immense speeds and how does water remain still like glass on the surface of these moving objects?"
It's a great question really, because we all have experience with speed in our lives. We generally all assume this, we assume to know that as things get faster, it creates G forces that make it hard to keep ourselves from being sucked to the back of our seats...and that's just at a few miles per hour, let alone thousands. So I see the logic in why they ask that question, it is a really good question that needs to be asked about the Globe model, because in the Heliocentric model, that's what would have to be happening...we would need to be flying through the galaxy at some pretty intense speeds, given the distances we travel in the amount of time we do it in.
I won't go into how we calculated the AU (Astronomical Unit, or distance to the Sun, or as science likes to refer to it as...the measuring stick for the Solar System), that's a whole different ball of physics and mathematics. It is relevant to understanding where we got those speeds from...but I want to focus on the motions themselves with you, not how we learned of those motions, just the physics of the motion in general.
So what if we're all wrong with our assumptions of motion? What if very few of us have ever really pondered G forces and motion before? Could it be possible you and Flat Earth have overlooked something about motion and what our bodies experience when we notice motion? The Laws of Motion say yes...very few people really understand how motion works...and that's their problem in this observation.
So the Laws of Motion and most importantly Relative Motion explains that motion is relative. Basically, we move relative to whatever surface or moving environment we are on or in. Once we are relative to a frame of reference or motion, we are then moving relative to it, we are moving with it...and then the physics of motion most notably conservation of momentum, makes it almost like we're stationary or not moving at all. Once we are moving relative to something, we can now do anything in that environment we would normally do while stationary on the ground. We can walk up and down the train, jump, throw a ball around, move side to side, conservation of momentum makes it so we're able to do the same stuff, as if we were stationary.
A great way to understand relative motion, is by picturing a man on a train going at 100 mph. He is now moving relative to that train, he is traveling at 100 mph, but to him it rarely feels that fast once he's in full motion with the train. He can walk around, jump, throw things...everything inside that environment is moving relative to the environment, moving relative to the train. But to an observer from the outside, he is clearly moving, that person is relative to his environment, which is moving slower then he is (or stationary if you prefer). If that person were to try and jump onto the train, he would be killed instantly, because his body relative to that train is not in motion...or it is in 100 mph less motion, which is a huge difference and so he will be killed in this example.
But, if that second person is also on a train going 100 mph, and if that train is running perfectly parallel to the other train and if they are close enough to each other. Then the 2nd person could easily jump from one train to the other...ignoring wind resistance that is. He is now moving at the same relative speed, his forward momentum is the exact same as the opposing train, so he can now jump on it from that frame of reference, because he is relative to it, make sense? Relative motion in a nutshell and very easy to understand.
What we learn from this physics is this...we do not feel speed or motion, what we feel is acceleration, deceleration or any change in forward velocity. That is what our bodies are fine tuned to notice. That can be easily demonstrated both in a laboratory or with simple thought experiments.
Another great example is the observations made on airplanes. They travel at great speeds...but I'm sure if you've ever been on an airplane, at what points do you notice you are going at 500 mph through the air? Generally only when taking off, when landing and when hitting turbulence? The plane moves at 500 mph, which if you were to view that speed from a position on the ground relative to the ground, if you were to watch a plane or car or anything shoot by at 500 mph...it would be impressively fast. Yet passengers on that airplane are not sucked to their seats...the question is, why?
The answer is relative motion and conservation of momentum yet again. This is science I don't feel can be denied. From these simple thought experiments you can reach some conclusions. The observation on these fast moving frames of references are this, when we reach a constant rate of speed, we don't feel any movement. We only seem to notice acceleration, deceleration and change in forward or angular velocity.
So how is this relevant to the Earth and it's motions? Well...is it possible then, that even at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour, we wouldn't feel this motion either, so long as we were always moving at these velocities at a constant rate? Which in the heliocentric model, is exactly what's happening according to the model.
Now a counter argument I always tend to hear is this, "ya, but put yourself outside the plane, and there you go, you'd feel that." Yes, that's a great counter observation...the trouble is this, that's a different beast to Relative Motion. What you're experiencing in that case, is the drag force, the wind resistance...basically, your body is smashing into all the air in front of you that is NOT traveling relative to the plane, or train, or car, or whatever the example may be. In the case of the Earth, you have to remember that it is traveling through space...which is empty, there would be ZERO wind resistance in this environment. So you can zoom through this environment at great velocities, and never feel a thing while you're doing it. And with nothing in space to slow you down, no drag, no apposing forces to slow you down...then Newtons 1st Law of Motion stands clear, "anything in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an apposing force."
Very simple science, easy to understand, easy to demonstrate...my question is why does Flat Earth not accept any of this science? It answers all the problems they have with the motions of the planet. Most importantly the physics I've described above is a reality, relative motion is a real thing, conservation of momentum is a real thing, the Laws of motion are basically fact. So it begs the question...why does Flat Earth ignore this science? If they understand this science, then why do they still bring up the motions of the planet in conversations? What about this science do you and many others disagree with? That's what I'd like to know a bit more about.
I've heard many counter arguments now, some good...some just awful. But lets discuss some if you'd like, I'm very curious on this one and maybe you can shed some light on why Flat Earth doesn't pay much heed to Relative Motion.
In the meantime as well, here are some great videos that demonstrate a bit of relative motion in action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18Dyl2msozc Helium balloon on a train, moving with the train in the open air. Notice how it only begins to notice the movements when the train begins to slow down. What's interesting is the Balloon is flying past all the stuff from outside the train...and it never flings back against the seat. The answer for why, relative motion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0gg1F0sz0E Second one is just a simple demonstration of Relative motion, demonstrating how conservation of momentum works. Please don't make the argument of Coriolis here, Coriolis won't effect nothing in this demo, there is not enough time for Coriolis to take any effect...as that is a key component of Coriolis effect...distance and time...and this a short distance, over a short amount of time.
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/b6jluf/trampoline_with_constant_velocity/?platform=hootsuite Finally one last demo of Relative motion, same as the gun above, but a bit different and with many more launches.
1
-
@efgtest Now you brought up the "closed system" argument. That seems to be a popular one as of late in this debate and it has been interesting stuff for sure. But the crux to that argument is that matter can't exist next to a vacuum and the fact of that is...that it absolutely can and that's not hard to prove either. Are you aware of what smoke or gas does in a vacuum chamber? With no other matter in the chamber to cause the effects of buoyancy, smoke will fall to the bottom of the tank, every single time. What's more interesting, is that instead of dispersing evenly throughout the tank due to entropy, the smoke will form an almost perfect layer of smoke at the bottom (because smoke has mass). Which has demonstrated for me on several occasions now that matter can exist next to a vacuum, as the top of that smoke would be sitting directly next to a vacuum. If gravity didn't exist...then we would expect entropy to disperse that gas/smoke throughout the system, but that's not what we observe when we do that experiment, gas/smoke always falls to the bottom of a vacuum chamber and forms a layer. That's just one good piece of evidence, I've seen several more, but that one is an easy one to understand I feel.
In the case of our planet, it technically is a closed system...and gravity is the reason for that. The vacuum of space is not a suction...it's not sucking on anything, I'm sure you've heard that before. The vacuum of empty space is just that...it's empty, void of matter, that's all. It doesn't apply any force to anything, it physically can't. Entropy is real, that is something, but that has no relation to empty space really (aside from matter wanting to move into empty space, if it doesn't have anything stopping it from doing so, in this case gravity) and entropy isn't really a force either...and it conforms to whatever force is acting upon it, just like our atmosphere, just like water, just like us. We are all being contained by gravity...gravity is the container. That is hard to wrap your head around sure, but gravity is like a perfect vice pushing down from all directions...like a hand balling up some snow, but a million times more efficient then that, never letting anything escape...so the theory goes, but again, if we were wrong...much of our technology wouldn't work, because it uses this understanding in its framework...do I have to mention Nuclear Fusion again?
But that's fair to say, Flat Earth requires solid "proof", as I have outlined mostly just abstract theory that explains how. The proof though is in every small piece that makes up the model as a whole...and that's what I'm trying to get across. When you focus on single pieces of evidence rather then the model as a whole, you start asking for proof of a beautiful painting, while your face is squished into the canvas trying to figure out if a color is magenta or not. "IT'S PINK!!" says one guy "IT'S PURPLE!" says another "No, It's Red!!" but pull your face back a bit, and find out that the colors blend together to form magenta...the point then becomes this, the heliocentric model is not ONE proof, but MILLIONS of tiny little bits of evidence working together to form a working model, that explains EVERYTHING, with the most accuracy. Like I said, I can't be 100% sure the Globe is real, you're correct...but I can be 98% sure, just by confirming a few things for myself using experiments and observation, and that's not nothing. An astronaut, he is 100% sure and if I can confirm 98% for myself without ever having to go to space...then this guy comes along that is 100% sure...and he has PICTURES, well, now I can be 99.9% sure...which is about where I sit, having done the science, done the math, made the observations...for myself.
Flat Earth however, can't even answer for basic questions...like why there are two hemispheres? Why air travel in the south doesn't take longer then it should? Why the Sun and Moon don't shrink in angular size as they travel away from our apparent positions? Why there is 24 hour Sun in the South and North? If there is a physical Dome above us, where is it? Why haven't we interacted with it yet with lasers or radar or the electromagnetic spectrum of any kind?
But the Globe can...it answers these very basic holes of the Flat model, with absolute ease...simply because everyone of those observations (and many more) are exactly what you'd expect to see occur on a spherical Earth.
Basic questions that started it all off in the first place...the Flat Earth has more holes then any other model...so we discarded it, because it couldn't make predictions and answer for these simple questions. A globe could...perfectly in fact and THEN we set out to figure out the deeper problems. From how I see it, the only reason people become Flat Earthers, is because they don't fully understand the science...or if you'd prefer, they disagree with the science (which is more your case). That's fine, it's really tricky to discern which is which, but you appear to have a pretty good grasp, so I'll put you in the latter category. It's fine to disagree and you're correct, the Flat Earth is not going away anytime soon.
But I just want to make it clear...there is GOOD reason we came to the conclusion of a sphere Earth. People can call us "indoctrinated" all day long, the science still makes sense and it works. The Flat model on the other hand does not work...it breaks down on the most basic levels when you really analyze it, unable to explain or account for...much of anything really. We have evidence that all compiles together and works, the theories, the facts, the laws...everything. We have some unanswered questions at best...that's about it, but the things that Flat Earth argues like the motions, gravity, entropy, etc...these higher physics they feel we have overlooked, I don't really think we have...the only exception being gravity, because we are very clearly missing something in gravity. But again...scientists are VERY aware of that fact and they have no trouble admitting it. Doesn't mean they're wrong...just because they're currently missing something, does not mean whatever they're missing doesn't fit in the model or theory...it just means they haven't discovered it yet. But, like I said in the previous comment, they could be wrong...absolutely they could! There is chance they missed something big...so, only way to know for sure, is for some people to work backwards...it's just harder to do that, when you've got all this previous knowledge getting in the way of that. So, that's why it's fine to disagree, nobody is stupid for disagreeing I feel...intelligence just isn't as black and white as we'd like to think it is...and some people just think differently.
1
-
@efgtest Sorry for the late reply back, busy week.
So this is the difference with Flat Earth I feel and it's what I've been trying to get through to you over our exchanges. No, I can't be 100% sure of anything, but that's the reality we live in. We rarely operate on absolutes, in science, dominant theories only operate at high percentages. That's how science works...and so if you don't like that, well, tough titty really. That's how we do things. So I think Flat Earth just has a problem with thinking in percentages and accepting truth based from that. Our world is VERY complex. The reality is, we will likely NEVER know everything about it, because we are just a tiny little microbe compared to this massively complex reality we inhabit. So, because some things are so very complex, we can not reach absolute clarity on many things...so we do the next best thing. We create models and collect data and information and evidence. If they all point to the same thing, then we conclude that to be true. I'm fine with that, I will conform to whatever model can be proven to me with the highest percentage. That will be my reality until something can come along that has a higher percentage. Right now, I'm 99.9% sure the Earth is a Globe, which is good enough for me. That's how science operates...and it works.
Is it true? Well, if our science works and is useful for invention, innovation, engineering and navigation...then yes, we know we have something correct. Truth is, the Globe model is the dominant theory for a reason, it works!
But, we're going in circles now...and probably have been for awhile. I believe with 99.9% certainty that you are wrong about the shape of the planet, and I didn't just get there by remaining ignorant on the subject. I researched Flat Earth for myself just like FE told me too do...and all I found were a great many misunderstandings about the Globe, usually always coming right down to the physics. Flat Earth has a VERY basic understanding of physics and the scientific method...it has led you guys down this rabbit hole. You're also a bit hypocritical...I used to think you guys were all about thinking in absolutes, and maybe that was your problem...but then that's not really it either, because many FE believers believe there is a firmament above us, an ice wall surrounding us, a military force keeping us from exploring the South. Do they have any evidence to support these claims? No...actually what little evidence they do have is as flimsy and unverifiable as the science they misunderstand about the Globe...and yet, they believe these things to exist anyway. So it's left me to wonder...you ask us for "solid proofs" and "facts" but then when it comes to things with your model, you feel you don't require the same quality of absolutes? I'm not saying you personally believe in the firmament, you're at least a little more reasonable, but I'm sure there is something about the Flat Earth model that you conform to with little to no evidence to support it.Though for now, I'll assume you're one of the saner ones...but just know that I run into a LOT of Flat Earthers that believe in a lot of crazy shit, with little to no evidence to support it and then they turn around and ask me for solid "proofs" and "facts" for the Globe. These people are hypocrites...and they don't even realize it.
It's a red flag for me personally, because FE makes that claim all the time that they're just looking for the "facts"...valuing hard evidence above all else...but when it comes to the holes in your model, like the firmament, like the ice wall...these things get a pass for some reason? Why? No, I think you guys are just in denial. I don't know why you're in denial...the only reason I can muster, is because it makes you feel superior in some way. If the Earth is Flat, when the entire world says otherwise, then you get to be the smartest person in the world. Even if you're not aware of this reason, I think subconsciously, this could be happening to most Flat Earthers. That's what I'm seeing from my perspective anyway...and this conversation is just cementing that even more. I think it's a lot of things really...and varies depending on the person, but I feel it makes YOU feel superior to people like me, believing you know "reality". No, you don't know reality any more then the next person. You use that word mostly just to annoy people, to assert your fictional dominance, helps you feel special...which is fine really, we all like feeling special.
Anyway, let's focus on some more science.
1
-
@efgtest Getting back to the pressure argument. Yes, I know it was in a container...but that was ignoring the main argument. The argument Flat Earth likes to make is this "matter can't exist next to a vacuum". The smoke in a vacuum chamber however, demonstrates matter next to a vacuum. Which demonstrates my point that falsifies the main argument, matter has no trouble existing next to a vacuum...so that argument I feel is then proven null. But, you ignored the main argument and pointed out that "but a vacuum chamber is in a container"...yes, I know that, again...that's not what I was addressing! I didn't mention a container once...because that wasn't the argument I was addressing. I was focused on whether matter can exist next to a vacuum...and yes, yes it can. The smoke in a vacuum chamber experiment is just one observation you can make that proves that, there are many more.
I think you and me have a very different idea of what a vacuum is in the context of space. A vacuum is just empty space, void of matter, nothing existing in a given space. Many Flat Earthers believe that matter should be sucked off our Earth...it's an argument they often bring up. But that's not how the vacuum of space works simply because...how does nothing, suck on things? It's a good question I feel...why do Flat Earthers believe that empty space, creates a suction? They've watched to many sci-fi movies if that's what people believe.
I get why you deflected the argument into "but it was in a container", because your argument is that a vacuum can't exist without a container. Ok, but why do you believe that? The only reason we use a container here on Earth, is because on the surface of our Earth we have a lot of pressure...and so to simulate empty space here on Earth, you require a container. But that's not the case up in space. From everything we know about space so far, there is no evidence of this container...so we have no reason to believe it is contained by anything.
So to answer your question here "So gravity hold the oxygen and what hold the vacuum? What ? Space is endless? Vacuum is endless without a container?" Yes, as the theory goes so far, we believe the universe to be endless...because we have not found any evidence to suggest otherwise. Can that conclusion change? Absolutely, if we ever discover a container, we'll adjust accordingly...but truth is, we haven't yet.
But, I know what you're going to say...you'll get mad that I'm thinking in "theories" again. Why you get so upset about theories...I've already explained to you many times now, that this is how science operates...theories are useful and they work. Scientists don't know everything, and they likely never will...so they form theories. What's the problem? If it works, if it helps to build our world...then why get so upset about theories? Today the dominant theory is that the Big Bang created our universe...tomorrow some evidence could come to light that makes the Big Squeeze the dominant theory...so what? We have evidence to suggest that the Earth is Round, so you have to understand that YOU also conform to a THEORY...the Flat Earth theory. So long as we have evidence that refutes a Flat Earth...your idea of "reality" is also very much just a theory as well.
It's not reality, it's a belief you have. Get that through your head. So it's no different. You THINK you know what reality is...but no, you do not. It's not a big deal really, nothing to get upset about. I'm sorry the universe isn't as easy to understand as you'd like it to be...but ya, you're THEORY of the shape of the Earth, is still just a theory as well. The difference is, your science is very falsifiable and doesn't hold up when analyzed. We have much more evidence to support our model, with math and science and data that matches and works.
Yes, Flat Earth absolutely does misunderstand the Globe Earth model...you've proven that time and time again with your conclusions during our exchange.
A great example is the two sticks experiment. Your claim was that this observation works on a flat plain with a local Sun as well. But the truth is...it doesn't, not even close in fact. You'd know that, if you actually tested it. This experiment almost sorta, kinda works if you're not going very far, if your two distances are more local...and if you're only doing 2 observations. But take several more data sets, from distances MUCH farther apart from each other...and the only results you get, are the ones that match with the Globe model. Here are a couple experiments that prove this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9w4KtHxZ68&t=908s This one is great, it takes several data sets from multiple locations from all around the Globe, at the exact same time of day, during the Equinox. If you're pressed for time, just watch the final 2 minutes of the video, where he compares the results on a flat plain and then a Globe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nzEhDX-xzg Here's a similar simulation, taking data from timeanddate.com during the Equinox, and tracking the Sun throughout a whole day.
What you'll notice in these 2 videos above, is that when you actually TEST that claim, that the experiment works on both a Flat Plain and a Globe...what happens in reality is that you get only ONE conclusion, supporting only ONE model. When the shadow angles are compared on a Flat Earth, using real world data, the Sun's location varies and the points rarely line up. However, when you match that same data to our Globe, you get perfectly parallel lines that all point towards something much bigger then our Earth...and much farther away. So no, the claim that this works on both models...is not true at all. You'd know that, if you actually stepped away from your computer for a change and actually tested it.
Another great example, you had mentioned in a previous comment the "melting temperature of our upper atmosphere" argument. Which is a good question to ask really, "why doesn't the ISS or Satellites melt, if low Earth orbit exceeds melting temperatures?" Great question...but it has a very simple answer. If you know your physics, you'll know that melting points are not just achieved by temperature alone, they also require pressure. We set those melting points based on what they are like here on the ground...which is a pretty standard pressure, but in the vacuum of space...there is essentially zero pressure. So first of all, if there is a melting point in this environment...it's going to be VERY different from surface. So the problem with your misunderstanding here, is you've forgotten that space is a VERY different environment from what you're used to here on the ground. The truth is, with no pressure, no molecules of air to maintain the temperature required for the ISS and Satellites to absorb that heat required to make them melt...most of that heat being sent at them from the Sun, is going to be deflected off of the surface of these vessels, rather than absorbed. That is the truth of why they do not melt. How do you verify this? Simple, a few easy to do experiments here on the ground can teach you how heat transfer works in different density pressures. Put a single ice cube in an empty glass and time how long it takes to melt. Now put an ice cube of equal volume in a glass filled with water, and time how long it takes to melt. Which one melts faster? The answer is easy, the one in the glass of water melts faster. Why did it melt faster? Because it's in a denser medium, there is more pressure, more molecules of matter surrounding it, causing a more constant rate of heat transfer. Another good experiment, did you know you can't boil a potato at higher altitudes such as mountain tops? At any height where the air gets thin enough where you require oxygen, it becomes nearly impossible to boil and cook a potato. It's for the same reason...there is less pressure at this altitude...which creates less heat transfer, a potato will take MUCH longer to become soft. It's the same physics...so basically, the observation you can make here is this, these satellites are in a different environment, and so the physics is going to be LOT different from what you're used to here on the ground. Without pressure, with no molecules surrounding these objects, most if not all of the intense heat from the Sun, is deflected off the surface of these objects, back into space.
Just a couple of examples...and I have many. I can go through all the misconceptions that Flat Earth has about the Globe...and it doesn't take much effort either. It usually always comes down to the physics. Flat Earth just does not know much about physics. So they reach false conclusions, based around their lack of understandings. It's as simple as that really.
1
-
@efgtest Flat Earth is not "truth" it is just as much a theory as any other. This is what you need to understand. You lose us in conversation when you think in such absolutes. There is strong evidence to suggest Flat Earth is not reality, so you have to acknowledge this and learn to stop calling this movement "truth". That requires you prove it...if it can't be proven 100% unfalsifiable, then it is just a theory like any other...the difference is, so far, it's not a good theory, because the Globe model has much more evidence to support it. Feel free to change our minds, but I'm just telling you...rhetoric is not how you do that...prove it with science, and accept the possibility that you could be wrong. Because so far, all I'm seeing is a lot of very delusional people, with a very low understanding of physics...I'm not alone in that analysis of Flat Earth, far from it. You can chalk it up to us being played by the "system", but then prove that as well...with evidence. Some of us don't just listen to people blindly and without question. If the science of the Flat Earth model was solid, we'd believe you...but it's not, there is a lot of things wrong with Flat Earth from a scientific stand point. You can ignore us all you want...but that's the only truth we're seeing currently. Prove us wrong...if you can, anyone is welcome to try.
1
-
@efgtest That's fair, we both have our reasons for which side of this debate we align with. I have been doing the research a long time now, and so far the science has convinced me of a Globe. That's all. If I see any convincing evidence for a Flat Earth, then I will consider it, but most of the time I just find misunderstandings and paranoia. That being said though, I'm not aware of every experiment and every argument...even after all this time, I'm sure there are things I have yet to fully analyze. I think it's just the rhetoric I get annoyed by a wee bit...but as we figured out earlier, we just think differently, so we're going to articulate our responses differently and use our own rhetoric. I imagine Flat Earth gets annoyed with our stubborn tenacity as well, that's why I do prefer just looking at the science, rather then all the rhetoric of these debates.
The observation of the smoke in a vacuum is comparable I would argue, because smoke has mass...and pressure is just mass stacked on top of mass...so there is a pressure gradient in that smoke...it would just be so small, it would be difficult to measure. The point was, matter can exist next to empty space and that without other molecules of denser air around to cause the effect of buoyancy, smoke will fall to the bottom of a vacuum chamber instead of rising. If there was no gravity pulling that smoke down, then it would disperse evenly into the vacuum chamber due to entropy....gravity is just the name we gave to the force that causes things to drop down towards the ground...that's all. We don't pretend to know everything about it, but that doesn't mean we don't know anything about it, because we do. If we didn't...things like fusion reactions wouldn't be possible...fusion reactors require a lot of the science of General Relativity...so we do know something. My point in that observation, was just to point out that the claim "matter can't exist next to a vacuum" is false. Even the famous Dog Cam footage that Flat Earth paraded around for a time, is further proof of that. First of all, that footage shows us the black emptiness of space surrounding our Sun...which if the Sun were in an atmosphere, with molecules of any kind surrounding it, this wouldn't occur, so we can conclude that space is possibly empty. And second, the balloon in that video eventually pops, which indicates that it has reached vacuum conditions. So that's two pieces of evidence that I feel also show our own atmosphere, next to a vacuum. There are other experiments I can share as well...but I think you get my point...that argument doesn't fly with me. It's not true as far as I'm concerned currently.
Ring Laser Gyros are deadly accurate...so I feel you're just denying their relevancy in this argument, because they didn't come back with a result you were happy with. And as I explained earlier, the gyros in airplanes have pendulous vanes and electric motors that correct their orientation as they tilt. The question is then, why do these gyros require these corrective measures, if the Earth is Flat? If the Earth is Flat, then they wouldn't require pendulous vanes at all...the gyro would be enough. But the reality is, they do have these corrective systems in place...and many sources online can confirm that, not just Wolfie.
But, if you got any evidence that could refute any of what I just said above, feel free to share. From what I've seen, gyros do more to confirm the shape of our planet as spherical. I'm open to more information if you have it, but for the time being, my conclusion is that Gyros whenever tested confirm a spherical Earth.
The thing about the "water not being able to conform to a ball" argument, is that it also requires you ignore some things about water...and gravity. Water will conform to whatever force is acting upon it...it's not alive, it can't resist forces...so if a constant force like gravity were to exist, and if it pulled all matter to a center point (just like the theory of gravity has worked out that it does), then water absolutely can conform to the outside of a sphere...so too can our atmosphere. The problem Flat Earth has, is that they want to see a clear demonstration of this, and the reality is...unless you go up into space, you can't recreate this...simply because we are currently in Earths gravity well, which trumps all other gravity wells. So a ball in your hand, which has a mass FAR less than the Earth...of course the Earth is going to win and any water you put on the outer surface of a ball in your hands, is going to fall to the bigger attractive force below your feet...which is Earth. So it's not a demonstration we can produce for you guys...at least not here on the ground, because Earth is a variable you can't eliminate from this experiment, here on the ground. Get us far enough out into space though, and you bet your ass we can do it...but even if I showed you videos of water when tested out in space, you'd just call the video fake I'd bet. So it can be a bit pointless to share these things...but, here's some video anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8TssbmY-GM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZEdApyi9Vw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbKbVTllSd4 bit longer video, but older, long before the ISS. Bunch of different experiments here, some with water in zero G.
But no, it's not impossible under the theory of gravity. Water is just like any other matter...it stacks on top of itself and it conforms to whatever force is acting upon it. So here's a hypothetical thought experiment you can do. For this experiment, let's just assume gravity is a real force and works as the theory says it does. Now imagine you have a perfectly smooth ball in empty space, with no other gravity wells near by, and then you create single layer of water molecules covering every inch of the surface of that ball. It's going to curve as it covers the surface of the ball correct? But now, if you add more water but if there is no more room for any more water to sit evenly beside all the other molecules of water...then what does it do? It begins to form another layer of water on top...and it does this for every layer you add...it's not hard to understand really. Gravity is a constant force, it pulls everything to center from all angles...it would absolutely be able to keep water to the surface of a sphere.
Other than those space experiments in the videos above, I can't show you an experiment of water on the outside of a ball here on the surface of the Earth, but what I can show you is an experiment of water curving when a force is applied to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuXJwxr6U4M In this experiment, water is put under a constant inertial force, as the inertial force is applied, the water has no problem curving, conforming to the forces being applied to it. You'll notice also, that as the inertial force levels off, once the water has time to adjust, the surface of the water sits like glass...smooth as ever. Conservation of momentum and fluid mechanics explain why this happens. If this inertial force were to exist indefinitely, never turning off or slowing down, then the water would remain curved as it conformed to that force, and because of conservation of momentum and relative motion...it would remain to sit like glass. I know what you're going to say though "that's in a container, not the outside of a surface", yes, of course, but that's not the point of that demonstration. The point in that demonstration is to show you how water works, when a constant force is applied to it. If water is held by a force, then it will conform to whatever force is acting upon it. If that force causes it to curve...then it will curve and maintain that curve just fine. And that's exactly what gravity is...a constant accelerating force, that's always there. Gravity is a constant force, it never changes, it's always there and it pulls all matter to center...which causes all matter in 3D space to produce a ball...that's the only shape matter can take with a force like gravity pulling everything to center. Water, conforms to this force as well...so the reality is, the argument "water can't conform to the outside of a ball", is not true...because it absolutely could, with a force like gravity acting upon it at all times.
It's fair to ask for that demonstration though, but just know...that the physics does work and water would have no problem conforming to the surface of our Earth, if it's trapped in a gravity well that pulls all matter to center of mass.
So I suppose the part about that argument that annoys me is this...you're claiming it's not possible, but if you really think about it, it is absolutely possible. So I just wish Flat Earth would stop wording this argument in a way that makes it out to be impossible. It's only impossible if you ignore gravity...and don't bother to understand how gravity works. Which is why Flat Earth denies gravity so staunchly...but ok, then just leave it at "prove the existence of gravity", then I would personally be less annoyed by this argument. Cause that's a fair argument then, prove gravity, that's perfectly reasonable then.
But that's not where the argument goes...it flat out just assumes gravity is not a thing, because it has too for Flat Earth to work.
1
-
1
-
@efgtest Yes, I took the time and watched the videos you sent me. I've seen several of them before, the only one I had not seen was your second gyro video. But that first one is a pretty basic demonstration of a gyro, same lecture that gets taught in university classes all around the world and it's one of the first videos you find on YouTube when you try learning more about gyros. Yes, I know a fair bit about gyros as well and the problem with mechanical gyros is that they do drift over time due to friction in the gimbles and bearings. So over enough time, they won't maintain their calibrated position and will require adjustment either way. This is true, but from what I understand, this takes time...especially in the more well made gyro systems that have eliminated most of the friction, they will precess much slower. Either way, it is gravity and the pendulous vanes that tell the electric motors to tilt the gyro down when it has fallen out of alignment with the surface...and it tilts the gyro on its main gimble. Which means if the Earth were curved it could very easily re-calibrate it away from its original position from take off. You can adjust the main gimble all you want and it will maintain whatever orientation you leave it in from there, it's the other 2 gimbles that won't move the gyro from that orientation, but the electric motors of the pendulous vanes adjust the main gimble or the gyro itself if you prefer.
So in reality the gyro would work on both models (FE and Globe), because if gravity is what notifies the air vanes that the gyro is out of alignment with the ground, and if gravity vectors change as you travel on a curved Earth (which is what the theory of gravity says it does), then the vanes re-calibrate the gyro to the surface, leveling off to the gravity vectors. It would absolutely work on a curved Earth as well, but yes the argument could be made that because mechanical gyros are not perfect, that they precess over time, that this is the reason for the pendulous vanes on a Flat Earth, to keep precession in check and that would be true as well, it would then still require pendulous vanes even on a flat plain. But then the crux to that argument is time. It takes time for friction to cause the gyro to precess, much more time then it would take a change in gravity vectors to be noticed by the gyro on a curved surface. So the question then is this, how often does the electric motor of an artificial horizon kick in to adjust the gyro in reality? If the gyro while flying requires adjustment more times then it would on a flat plain, then you can conclude the ground below is curving. If the motors don't kick on nearly as often, then you can conclude the ground below as possibly flat.
So you could actually test this, by purchasing an artificial horizon and taking it on a long distance flight. Counting the number of times the electric motor kicks on to adjust the gyro. You'd need to know exactly how long it takes natural precession to kick on the adjustment motor, and you could record that very easily by just spinning the gyro up at home before the flight test and recording the precession over time on a flat surface at home. So you test the two, I'm sure their would be a way to know when the motor kicks on to re-calibrate the gyro back to level position, so you would just count the times this motor is turned on and record the time it took between each.
On a curved Earth, you should expect the correcting motor to kick on far more often then if the Earth were flat. So it's a good experiment one could do, I'm not currently aware if Wolfie or anyone else has tried this, but would be interesting to see. Point is, if you're trying to claim that a gyro with pendulous vanes would not work on a curved surface, then let me just stop you there, because yes it would. That much I do know for sure. Gravity vectors would change as you travel along the surface of the curved Earth, these gravity vectors would drop the hinges of the pendulous vanes on the main gimble, which would cause the corrective motor to adjust and re-calibrate the gyro on it's main axis, which would re-calibrate it's orientation in open space. So to be sure of your claims, you'd have to put the gyro to the test. Even then, by itself it's not conclusive enough to make a conclusion from, but it's a good piece of evidence for either argument depending on the results.
1
-
@efgtest Yes, I have researched B and C. That being, "NASA fakery"...and I actually caught more "fakery" and lies, from the people who create those conspiracy videos on YouTube. Every time I take a look at those "faked space" documentaries...I find that the people making them do a lot to fool the viewer into buying their claims made in the videos. Let's see, I'll focus on one example. There is a famous claim in many of those videos where they break down a space walk done by the Gemini crew, which was one of the first successful space walks. Here's one such video, I'm sure you've seen this before. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEPuY_OmCps There is a scene in that video footage where the helmet of the space suit swivels. A claim is then made by the creator of that conspiracy video that those Gemini space helmets were not designed to swivel. Well, after some digging I was able to falsify that claim. Here is further footage of that same Gemini crew. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8ep2wSREno At 50 seconds into this video you get a very clear demonstration of the helmet swiveling. So his claim is false, those helmets do absolutely swivel...yet he presented it as proof that footage was faked anyway. He does later point out that they don't swivel once the suit is pressurized...but try as I might, I couldn't find any information that supported that claim and I looked up the actual suit specs, which you can actually find a pdf document online that is full of information on the Gemini space suits. There is also several YouTube videos that go into their specs as well. Nothing I found could confirm that his second claim was true, that they don't swivel under pressure. They absolutely can, because it's the same swivel joint system they use on all the joints, from the gloves, to the arms and legs of different space suits...these swivels are designed to function in a vacuum...otherwise what would be the point of them? If they do not work in a vacuum...why include them in space suits at all? They used these swivels in all kinds of joints, so that claim doesn't hold much weight with me. But he doesn't clarify the pressure comment until later, he first just straight up claims they were not designed to swivel at all...and yes, as that video I shared above demonstrates, they absolutely were designed to swivel. Before you point out that the footage looks "motion captured" or animated...just know that I'm an artist/illustrator for a living, who has done his own stop animation films...I have several more points I can make on that claim, that can and do refute that argument as well...so feel free to mention that if you like, just know I'm quite knowledgeable on the topic of stop animation and film techniques...I have first hand experience in both.
Later in his video, he makes another claim at 3 minutes 21 seconds he zooms in and puts text on the video that reads "nice patch", telling the viewer to pay attention to the american flag patch on his left shoulder. Not 3 seconds later he then presents a photo where you can't see that patch on either of their shoulders. Causing you to wonder, why there is no american flag patch in the second photo. Which leads the viewer to believe that space walk was further faked, and they just forgot to put the patch on the actual space suits for the photo ops. It's convincing on the surface...but I personally never take things at face value and neither should you or anyone else. For starters, he chose a photo where both astronauts arms are covered, you can't see their shoulders even if you wanted too...for another, you wouldn't be able to tell from this photo alone if it were flipped or mirrored. Either way, he presents that photo as evidence of his patch claim...when there are a few things wrong with his photo "evidence", it's not conclusive enough for him to make that claim...and I'd be willing to bet he chose that picture, just so he could lie and make that claim. If you rewind that video to 58 seconds however, you get a single frame of that patch on his left shoulder, clear as day. The funny thing is, the presenter of this video, was very careful not to include more footage with that patch...just so he could make that claim. If you watch the original footage from where he took that from, you see the patch a lot more...the question then is, why did he choose to cut out the rest of the footage? Probably because it would ruin his patch claim...so he was very clearly leading the audience, showing them only what he wanted you to see, to help make his claims seem more valid. Basically, smoke and mirrors...clever misdirection.
That's just a couple examples from a single video, I've caught this stuff pretty much every single time I watch these "NASA faked space" documentaries or video break downs. It leaves me to question the people who created those conspiracy documentaries...not so much the other way around. They present half truths...showing the audience what they want you to see and then making claims, knowing that very few people will actually check them on their claims. I find these tactics very deceitful and it causes me a lot of distrust in the people making them...essentially, it raises a few red flags for me, and makes me doubt the validity of these claims against NASA.
Here is one final video I'll leave you with. Another good example of claims made without much looking into them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiCthIVWIJE&t=102s The thing I'm trying to point out here is this...why do you trust these people who make these YouTube videos claiming faked space? I've caught them lying on several occasions, every single time I look at these videos in fact. They don't seem very interested in being objective with their evidence at all...they seem more interested in hypnotizing the viewer into believing what they're saying without question. It leaves me to question them...so no, I don't hold the "NASA faked space" docs in very high credibility. I have looked into it...the only liars and huxters I found were the content creators of those videos.
Gravity is an accelerating force, not to be confused with an inertial force which is more an objects resistance to a directional vector. Gravity as we know it is actually one of the 4 fundamental forces of the universe...so it's very much defined as a force. So not sure where you're going with that one. There are some technicalities in general relativity that understand gravity a bit differently, but we do define it as a force in general terms, because it behaves as such and is best understood as a force. Feel free to elaborate further though.
1
-
@efgtest Yes, but I think you're misunderstanding me. You can calibrate the gyro into any position you want in free space and THEN the gimbles will move freely around it without changing that orientation you have set. What the pendulous vanes do, is they reset the orientation, they move it's orientation in free space...they change it. Make sense yet? The part where gravity is a factor, is in the pendulous vane...not the gyro. The hinge that covers the air valve drops due to gravity, when it notices the orientation is not at 90 degrees to the surface anymore. Then the motors shift the orientation back to 90 degrees relative to the surface...which on a spherical Earth, changes as you travel along it. Nothing I have said, contradicts any of the videos you have shared with me.
What you seem to believe, is that the gyro either naturally sits at 90 degrees and then never moves from there, or that it can not be re-calibrated once it is in motion. This is false, the pendulous vanes do just that...they are there to ensure the gyro remains at 90 degrees from surface and they do this by using gravity in clever ways. I know what the gimbles do...forget the gimbles for now, that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the spinning gyro itself. The part that is spinning...the disk that you can angle in any direction and then once you have it in an orientation, the gimbles can move around it freely. The pendulous vane moves the actual gyro...it has nothing to do with the gimbles.
If you feel I'm missing anything, feel free to let me know.
1
-
@efgtest Yes, they can fake almost anything visually nowadays, though they do still have limits...and some things still will never quite look "real" in CGI. But what's important to remember, is that just because they can fake something, doesn't mean they do. The opposite is also true, it doesn't mean they don't either. So that's why I don't laugh at Flat Earth, I try to listen to what they have to say, because logically...we can't be certain of much. This is the difference between you and me though, as I see it, I believe I have a higher level of trust in people, namely scientists. I know that not everything I'm told is true...but then I know people are generally good and in order to fake something this big, would require a LOT of participation and effort, from MILLIONS of different individuals. Not just in NASA, or any of the space agencies, but ALL the various institutions of science, research, engineering, navigation, schooling, government, miltary...the list goes one, it is quite likely actually BILLIONS of people at this point. It's just not likely is all, but not just for those reasons...but also, because anybody can confirm the shape is spherical for themselves with a few simple observations.
So I choose to lean toward the former of my statement...just because something can be faked, does not mean it was faked. I think where you stand on either side of that spectrum, depends on your level of trust in people and society in general. As I was able to point out to you in my analysis of that single conspiracy video, these people who create these videos are VERY deceitful, in how they present their findings. It leads me to conclude, that they're most likely doing that with most (if not all) of their claims and they play off our growing insecurities of reality to help sell their claims. Now I should point out that though I generally do hold a higher level of trust in people...I do remain skeptical, and that trust erodes just like anybody elses does if I've been successful in catching people in lies often enough...I think this is what happens with Flat Earth...except from my perspective I feel they're being duped by these conspiracy videos. They think like you do and so they know how to gain your trust...by appealing to your disdain for authority.
We got a new conspiracy going around that we could be in a simulation....and stuff like this has wracked peoples minds to that possibility, some people becoming very paranoid about that idea, many very uncomfortable with that possibility. Truth is, as CGI and video manipulation software become more advanced...it does become harder and harder to separate facts from reality. People have a natural resistance to being duped...we don't enjoy it very much, and so we do everything in our power to eliminate the possibility that we're being had...even if it's not true at all. I think this plays a huge role in why Flat Earth has become so rampant lately...CGI. But, it's the reality we live in, so I lean to my statement again, just because it can be faked, does not mean it was. So I'm VERY skeptical, when I take a look at the claims made saying that things are faked digitally...because a lot of the time, these claims are coming from people with ZERO working knowledge of how CGI and digital video effects are created...they do still have limits in what they can do, so if you know these limits, you can spot where peoples claims might just be their paranoia leading them.
That's the big issue I have with Flat Earth...how can you be so sure, you're not just letting paranoia lead your thinking? Paranoia is a tricky beast...and the shitty thing is, you will rarely ever know when you're falling victim to it...because by that point, it's usually to late. I think these people in these fake space videos do a lot to erode peoples trust...and make them just as paranoid as they are. So I pay closer attention to see if I can spot them lying...which I have been successful in doing, every single time I watch those videos.
1
-
1
-
@efgtest Gonna do a double quote here. ""Its about this and i quote " You can calibrate the gyro into any position you want in free space and THEN the gimbles will move freely around it without changing that orientation you have set"
That is the key! that's what you have to understand. ""
But you're still missing what the pendulous vanes do. They change the orientation of the spinning gyro itself over time. The gimbles move around freely, but the pendulous vanes are designed to move the gyro itself, pitching it up or down depending on the gravity vector it's currently in. The gyro is not affected by gravity vectors...but the pendulous vanes are and they move the gyro. That's why they are there.
I think I kinda understand more your observation of that second video you shared, saying that the gyro in that demonstration is not designed to flip a full 180 degrees inside the housing. But if the entire housing is flipping with the plane it's attached too, then the inner components still flip with it correct? Which would be the case as a plane travels from one hemisphere to the next, the entire housing is flipping along with the planes orientation. I think I get your argument there though, saying that the gyro would keep it's orientation in free space, but again...if the entire gyro, housing and all, is flipping upside down from starting position...then the gyro inside doesn't need to be able to flip a full 180 degrees, it just requires a system inside the gyro that can pitch it up or down gradually as it travels from one hemisphere to the next, keeping it in line with the housing. Which it does...they're called pendulous vanes. That's the purpose of the pendulous vanes, to pitch the orientation of the gyro itself, to keep it level with the surface at all times.
Sorry, I know you wanted to move on, just felt there was more to say on Gyros. You seem to keep forgetting about pendulous vanes and what they do, so I'm just trying to shed some more light on what the purpose of these pendulous vanes are. Your observations would be sound, if pendulous vanes were not included in these gyro systems...but they are, and they do pitch the gyro to match with the gravity vector they are currently in. Even if they weren't though, they would still be required in a gyro because of precession. The question then becomes, are pendulous vanes in the gyro to account for gravity vectors or to account for precession? That would require further experimenting to figure out and as I said in the last comment, I'm not currently aware of any experiments that test this. Either way, pendulous vanes can and would account for the curve of the Earth, they are designed to re-orientate the gyro in free space, that is their purpose.
1
-
@efgtest If you're referring to me, I never said I didn't know anything about Gyros. I said I don't know much about the gyros used in submarines, but when it comes to the Gyros found in airplanes, in artificial horizons, I said I know quite a bit about those gyros. I said that from the very start.
So it's not like I'm just now learning about this stuff, but I am learning a little more about where I feel Flat Earth goes wrong with the gyro...and from what I've learned you seem to keep forgetting about pendulous vanes, or you choose to ignore them. Pendulous vanes exist, and their purpose is to shift the orientation of the gyro inside the housing, little by little, keeping it level with the surface as it travels.
So all your observations for a gyro are sound...but you're forgetting about these pendulous vanes that are included in airplane gyroscopes. I'm merely just trying my best to make you aware of this mechanism, even if you were aware of them...you seem to discount them in all your conclusions. The question is why? Maybe you don't much like or trust Wolfie, and you know most of us are learning about pendulous vanes from him, so you discount our observations simply because it came from a source you don't trust...but then you don't need Wolfie as a source to learn what these pendulous vanes are and what they do, there are plenty of other sources that will all say the same thing about pendulous vanes. Many that have nothing to do with the Flat Earth debate...just simple video demonstrations explaining the Gyros in airplanes for educational purposes.
All I'm saying is, if you're going to use the gyroscope as an argument for Flat Earth, then you have to account for these pendulous vanes...because anyone who knows about these gyroscopes is going to counter your argument by mentioning them. What's interesting is that you haven't really addressed these pendulous vanes...you haven't given me any reason to believe they are not used for the purpose I've described them for. So as much as I'm aware you'd like to move on, I'm still left to conclude that you either don't know exactly yet what Pendulous vanes do...or you do and you've chosen to ignore them...but I'd rather you address them, not so much for my sake, but for yours. That's really all I can conclude so far...so that's why I keep mentioning it, because I'm hoping you'll either see what I'm pointing out, or you'll have a counter answer that demonstrates what I'm possibly missing.
When we started this conversation, I asked if maybe there was something you were possibly missing. I was also posing that question to myself, which is why I have these conversations...to see which one of us is missing something. I fear that denial sometimes keeps us from seeing some things...so you have to ask yourself honestly, do pendulous vanes account for your observations of Gyros? Would pendulous vanes account for the curvature of the Earth? I've been trying my best to see if perhaps I'm wrong about pendulous vanes, but so far, no matter how I look at it, they do account for things...quite perfectly in fact and you've given me no reason so far to conclude otherwise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very scientific of you, have you taken measurements or recorded any data that backs up these claims? Have you modeled that data to scale to see how the eclipse would look over a flat plane? Well here is somebody who did, they modeled the 2017 American eclipse to scale over the AE Flat Earth projection, take a look at the results. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NppyjcSBUvA&t=177s
Just saying these things are so...without actually doing any work to verify them, without taking any scientific measurements or data, is not how you reach conclusive results in science. You're gonna have to do a LOT more then that, or else why should anyone believe a single word you're saying. This guy also modeled that same eclipse for the Globe, have a look sometime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgj--6EX-RE&t=917s
Eclipses are predicted YEARS in advance...they don't use flat Earth geometry or cosmology to do that...they use the heliocentric model, to predict these events down to the second of occurrence and square mile location. That is a fact...not an opinion. Here is a great website that displays the next solar and lunar eclipses for the next 10 years. http://www.eclipsewise.com/solar/solar.html Included here is also every bit of detail you require, in order to recreate these calculations for yourself.
So go ahead, ignore all this scientific research, measurement, math and data...it's what Flat Earth is best at, shoving their fingers in their ears and ignoring reality.
1
-
1
-
Sadly, having spent a lot of time chatting with Flat Earthers now (roughly 3 years), I have found out their reasoning behind much of their conclusions...those 2 in particular I hate to say, actually do have some logical answers to them. I do hate saying that, because Flat Earth is still the most illogical position to hold today, but Globe Earthers I feel should be aware of a few of their arguments that do render a few of our arguments...just as illogical, at least from their perspective.
In their world, the entire cosmology of our universe is a made up lie, so the reason they don't hold the argument "all other planets are round" to be a good observation or a good argument, is because they don't consider Earth to be a planet. At least not in the same sense as the other planets. Earth, is the universe basically...so the planet we stand on, is not like the planets we observe in the sky, so it can't be compared to them. Earth in their world view is basically the fabric of reality itself and is far more important and different from the "wondering stars" above, that they claim are just small dots of light. Many of them don't even consider the planets to be planets...just more lights in the sky we'll never know the truth of. Which I know...how can I say our argument is illogical when their position is so clearly bat shit insane...but, I've spent a lot of time trying to get inside the minds of these people, and if you want to argue against them, you have to understand where they are arguing from. Earth is not a planet like all the others, so this is why they feel that argument is illogical...and from their perspective, they'd be right. If that were the case, then ya, saying all other planets are round is a bad argument to make...so you see, they're not looking at the problem from the same cosmology as you and me, they're looking at it from a completely different perspective.
But...they have to ignore a LOT to make that argument work for them, such as all the laws of planetary motion, all the years of studying and photographing the cosmos, all the data, pictures and video sent back to us from probes, satellites and space craft...basically all the science for our cosmology, that has been gathered by millions of people, for thousands of years. Not a problem for them though, they're very good at ignoring all this evidence. Many of them don't even believe space is real...try arguing with people who don't believe space is real. What sux though, is that none of us have been to space...so they're right about one thing, how do we know for certain then if we've never been there ourselves? Which as much as it pisses me off to admit, they'll have us by the balls on that one for quite some time until we're finally all space explorers...which can't come quick enough. However, any amateur astronomer can confirm much of the cosmology of the heliocentric model as true, only requires a little time, understanding and investment in some relatively cheap equipment...so their position is still nothing more then an argument from ignorance, that's important to note.
As for why the conspiracy...the best argument I have heard so far, is that they're doing all of it to hide the existence of God. I do see the logic in that argument, because we really didn't begin becoming more and more atheist, until we started seeing the universe as much larger and the world much rounder then we once believed it to be. So ya, if Satan were real, and if he wanted to devise a scheme that would turn us away from God and harvest the most amount of souls...best way to do that would be to create a system that makes us believe God doesn't exist. So sadly...I do see the strategy in that...but that's where it ends for me. This explanation still has to ignore a LOT to become even remotely possible. There is just too much evidence supporting the heliocentric model and much of it is not hard to confirm for ones self. Not to mention, there are thousands of other religions today, many of them older then the Christian faith, who don't believe in the battle between Heaven and Hell. So it's a cute story...but again, it's just another paranoid, delusional theory, bred from ignorance and scientific illiteracy...and life times worth of indoctrination into a single belief, that most of the world doesn't even share...and not because they're atheist. The only logic is in the strategy...but just because the strategy makes sense to me, does not stand as evidence for the existence of these evil forces working against us, it's VERY flimsy stuff...but I can see how it would be appealing to somebody of a hardcore Christian faith.
Anyway, sorry for the long ramble, just felt like sharing some info regarding these arguments. It's important to know your enemy I suppose, so that's why I try to learn their positions as best I can and then pass that information on. In the end however, these are nothing more then arguments from ignorance and that's important to remember. Even if they have some logic buried in there somewhere, it's all about evidence...and they still have none to support these claims...only empty paranoia, ignorance and superstition. Sadly, they do work on the very religious...hence why most Flat Earthers are religious...and I feel confident in saying that, because I've talked to many of them...the numbers of them that start throwing bible quotes at me eventually is staggering! Not to say that only the very religious buy into this madness...you also have to be a little crazy and stupid, so faith isn't everything...what I mean is, I can see how having a religious foundation would make these arguments above seem more appealing and logical.
1
-
This 12 hours of day would only be true if you ignore the 23.5 degree tilt of the Earth. Yes, the Globe is still half in the light, half in darkness (though technically the Earth is slightly more lit than in darkness, because of light bouncing and reflecting through our atmosphere), but the tilt of our axis has a huge effect on how much sunlight each region sees in a given day. You can test this pretty easily, with a model Globe of the Earth, or even with just any old ball you got kicking around. If you use a ball, choose a point where North Pole and South Pole should be (shouldn't be hard, most balls have a point where you fill it with air), now find a flashlight or a lamp or anything you can use to simulate a Sun. Now draw a few lateral lines around your ball and place a marker somewhere on each lateral line (a dot, or piece of clay, or something to indicate where an observer would be standing). Now simulate the heliocentric model, put your light source on one side of the room, with your Globe or ball on the other so that one half of the sphere is lit up. Now, tilt your North pole towards the light source roughly 23.5 degrees (which a model of the Globe should already do for you). Now, rotate the ball or Globe and notice that the closer to the North you get, the longer an observer is exposed to daylight, even while rotating the ball. Especially if you're at the North pole, you'll notice that as you rotate the Globe...the North pole never leaves the light...meaning an observer on the ground would see 24 hours of daylight. If you go to the South pole now and observe it while you rotate the Globe, it is now in 24 hours of darkness...which is what we observe happening in reality, there is 24 hours of light in the North during their summer and vice versa 24 hours of night at the opposite pole during the same period. The tilt of our axis explains why this occurs...it's simple 3D geometry.
So you're observation is sound, and your question is a good one, except it ignores the fact that our Earth is tilted slightly...which is what causes us to receive hours of daylight that are different. Hope this helps to make this more clear. If you have anymore questions feel free to ask.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisque1171 I'm not sure, I know the Apollo the Moon missions took video footage as they were on route to the Moon, but other than that, I'm not aware of any personally. Again, it's more a matter of data and time. It takes hours to put these objects into an orbit that can break Earths gravity well and escape into space. What I mean is, nothing that is launched into space just flies straight up and out...that's not how it works. The only way we can escape Earths gravity, is by using Earths gravity to sling shot us out. So all spacecraft and satellites are put into an orbit around the Earth first...which takes hours to achieve the proper orbit and then once they're in a steady orbit, then they do controlled burns to get them into farther orbits and then farther orbits and again even farther orbits...until finally they can break free of Earth. It's a long process, that takes time, so the raw footage would be hours in length.
But, I'm sure there is some footage somewhere of this, but it's not likely a public thing, because they probably didn't think anybody would really care to see it...it's boring, it's long, and pictures from space do the exact same thing anyway. I'd say if you wanna find out for sure, maybe ask somebody from NASA directly, or anyone from the many other private companies that put rockets into space. Go on a forum, seek some people out, get in touch with real people who work in these industries. That would be likely the only way you'll find footage like this, if it does exist.
1
-
Dave isn't really in this argument full time, he's just an onlooker that felt like addressing some points...that's all. This videos goal is not to solve their problems for them...merely just point out some errors, it's just basic peer review...the rest is left to them. What's frustrating, is they won't listen...they'll likely just ignore these points. Flat Earth likes to claim they have more of an open mind then the rest of us...but they sure close those minds off pretty quickly when we try to share information that refutes their beliefs. So do they have a more open mind...or is more likely they just enjoy the feeling they get from going against the grain, even despite being wrong? I think that's the more likely case. On a psychological level, we all enjoy to varying degrees the feeling of being special or above others in some status...so to achieve this, some people invent a world where they are the avatars of truth and intelligence, it helps them feel superior, which helps feed those desires of feeling special. This makes it very hard to reason with some people...they just will not listen to anything that might take that feeling away from them, so they choose feelings over reason. In my experience so far, that seems to sum up Flat Earth very well. They're not being very reasonable most of the time...it's fine to question reality and it's awesome that people are trying to think outside the box...but there is a fine line between thinking outside the box and chasing bias to keep a delusion alive.
1
-
1
-
@marvel5671 Yes, Dave's equation he provided in the video was inaccurate, I believe he even stated that later in a separate video and corrected it. But, going back to your claim that the math supports a flat Earth, In my experience looking over Flat Earth claims and observations, the opposite has been true so far. From what I've seen so far, the math works out in favor of the Globe. When the math doesn't work out, It's always been because they didn't give the proper details, they fudged the figures to throw off the results...so I've learned to be diligent.
A couple months back I had a Flat Earther make a claim, that he was seeing all of a 150' tower, that he claimed was 20 miles away, from a beach observing from a 6' viewing height. Doing the calculations, he was correct, even with standard refraction, roughly 160' would have been hidden at that distance, making the observation quite impossible on a Globe, unless of course refraction for that day was much higher, but even then, seeing all of it would have been very unlikely.
But, after pressing him for further details, he finally told me his exact location and pointed out the tower he was observing...and he lied, the tower he was observing was not at 20 miles away, it was only 8 miles away. Redoing the calculations, only 12' would have been hidden from that distance, making the observation very possible on a Globe.
So you have to be VERY careful with these people. Either their math is off, or they lie about the details and in the worst cases, it's both. Now I'll give him this, maybe he didn't really lie but he measured the distance incorrectly, and his bias kept him for checking a second time. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, cause he was a nice man, but either way, he was wrong about a key figure and it threw off the whole result. In my experience so far, I have not seen one legit observation that did not fit the globe calculations. If you have any you feel are conclusive for a flat Earth however, feel free to share, but I have not seen any...just a lot of empty claims, missing variables, fudged figures and bad math.
If this subject really interests you though, perhaps you'd be interested in a more controlled experiment of calculated and observed curvature. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment This is basically a recreation of the famous Bedford level experiment, only this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. I prefer observations like this, because unlike observations of mountains, where the variables could be off slightly, and figuring exactly how much of a mountain is being obscured is hard to really discern, this kind of experiment is much more precise and controlled. Heights are known, distances are known, angles are precise, zoom and lenses are factored, every detail is controlled and factored. The conclusion here is conclusive in support of the globe, so go ahead and give it a look sometime if it interests you. That blog has several more observations as well that you might find interesting, so worth your time to check it out.
If the math is your interest as well, you might be interested to check out a content creator named Jos Leys. He's made several in depth 3D renderings focusing primarily on observations of the Sun. Because lets face it...we can mull over curvature calculations all day, but a sunset doesn't make any sense on a Flat Earth, if you really break it down objectively. Jos Leys has made several really good videos demonstrating how the Sun we observe in reality, does not work on the Flat Earth model, but it works perfectly on the Globe at its projected scale. Here's one of his videos you might find interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6Ojo9fJhw&t
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeffgillard4865 The math is wrong, because 8 inches per mile squared only gives you curve drop tangent from surface. What this means is, those figures it gives you, are only accurate, if your eye rests at sea level. It is a limited equation, that does not factor in the other variables you need to make an accurate observation. It does not include height of the observer, height of the object, line of sight, arc length or the science of refraction...which is a real thing that bends light and it occurs in our atmosphere, especially low to the ground and over water where humidity is greater.
Here is the correct Math. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ Included here is a handy diagram that shows you what's being calculated. This gives you two calculations, the geometric calculation that ignores refraction and then the geometric calculataion plus an average refraction index. Of course, refraction changes by temperature and humidity, but even an average index of refraction is going leaps and bounds beyond what 8 inches per mile squared provides you. Hope that helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1