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