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