Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Professor Dave Explains"
channel.
-
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