Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Professor Dave Explains"
channel.
-
@efgtest That's fair, we both have our reasons for which side of this debate we align with. I have been doing the research a long time now, and so far the science has convinced me of a Globe. That's all. If I see any convincing evidence for a Flat Earth, then I will consider it, but most of the time I just find misunderstandings and paranoia. That being said though, I'm not aware of every experiment and every argument...even after all this time, I'm sure there are things I have yet to fully analyze. I think it's just the rhetoric I get annoyed by a wee bit...but as we figured out earlier, we just think differently, so we're going to articulate our responses differently and use our own rhetoric. I imagine Flat Earth gets annoyed with our stubborn tenacity as well, that's why I do prefer just looking at the science, rather then all the rhetoric of these debates.
The observation of the smoke in a vacuum is comparable I would argue, because smoke has mass...and pressure is just mass stacked on top of mass...so there is a pressure gradient in that smoke...it would just be so small, it would be difficult to measure. The point was, matter can exist next to empty space and that without other molecules of denser air around to cause the effect of buoyancy, smoke will fall to the bottom of a vacuum chamber instead of rising. If there was no gravity pulling that smoke down, then it would disperse evenly into the vacuum chamber due to entropy....gravity is just the name we gave to the force that causes things to drop down towards the ground...that's all. We don't pretend to know everything about it, but that doesn't mean we don't know anything about it, because we do. If we didn't...things like fusion reactions wouldn't be possible...fusion reactors require a lot of the science of General Relativity...so we do know something. My point in that observation, was just to point out that the claim "matter can't exist next to a vacuum" is false. Even the famous Dog Cam footage that Flat Earth paraded around for a time, is further proof of that. First of all, that footage shows us the black emptiness of space surrounding our Sun...which if the Sun were in an atmosphere, with molecules of any kind surrounding it, this wouldn't occur, so we can conclude that space is possibly empty. And second, the balloon in that video eventually pops, which indicates that it has reached vacuum conditions. So that's two pieces of evidence that I feel also show our own atmosphere, next to a vacuum. There are other experiments I can share as well...but I think you get my point...that argument doesn't fly with me. It's not true as far as I'm concerned currently.
Ring Laser Gyros are deadly accurate...so I feel you're just denying their relevancy in this argument, because they didn't come back with a result you were happy with. And as I explained earlier, the gyros in airplanes have pendulous vanes and electric motors that correct their orientation as they tilt. The question is then, why do these gyros require these corrective measures, if the Earth is Flat? If the Earth is Flat, then they wouldn't require pendulous vanes at all...the gyro would be enough. But the reality is, they do have these corrective systems in place...and many sources online can confirm that, not just Wolfie.
But, if you got any evidence that could refute any of what I just said above, feel free to share. From what I've seen, gyros do more to confirm the shape of our planet as spherical. I'm open to more information if you have it, but for the time being, my conclusion is that Gyros whenever tested confirm a spherical Earth.
The thing about the "water not being able to conform to a ball" argument, is that it also requires you ignore some things about water...and gravity. Water will conform to whatever force is acting upon it...it's not alive, it can't resist forces...so if a constant force like gravity were to exist, and if it pulled all matter to a center point (just like the theory of gravity has worked out that it does), then water absolutely can conform to the outside of a sphere...so too can our atmosphere. The problem Flat Earth has, is that they want to see a clear demonstration of this, and the reality is...unless you go up into space, you can't recreate this...simply because we are currently in Earths gravity well, which trumps all other gravity wells. So a ball in your hand, which has a mass FAR less than the Earth...of course the Earth is going to win and any water you put on the outer surface of a ball in your hands, is going to fall to the bigger attractive force below your feet...which is Earth. So it's not a demonstration we can produce for you guys...at least not here on the ground, because Earth is a variable you can't eliminate from this experiment, here on the ground. Get us far enough out into space though, and you bet your ass we can do it...but even if I showed you videos of water when tested out in space, you'd just call the video fake I'd bet. So it can be a bit pointless to share these things...but, here's some video anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8TssbmY-GM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZEdApyi9Vw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbKbVTllSd4 bit longer video, but older, long before the ISS. Bunch of different experiments here, some with water in zero G.
But no, it's not impossible under the theory of gravity. Water is just like any other matter...it stacks on top of itself and it conforms to whatever force is acting upon it. So here's a hypothetical thought experiment you can do. For this experiment, let's just assume gravity is a real force and works as the theory says it does. Now imagine you have a perfectly smooth ball in empty space, with no other gravity wells near by, and then you create single layer of water molecules covering every inch of the surface of that ball. It's going to curve as it covers the surface of the ball correct? But now, if you add more water but if there is no more room for any more water to sit evenly beside all the other molecules of water...then what does it do? It begins to form another layer of water on top...and it does this for every layer you add...it's not hard to understand really. Gravity is a constant force, it pulls everything to center from all angles...it would absolutely be able to keep water to the surface of a sphere.
Other than those space experiments in the videos above, I can't show you an experiment of water on the outside of a ball here on the surface of the Earth, but what I can show you is an experiment of water curving when a force is applied to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuXJwxr6U4M In this experiment, water is put under a constant inertial force, as the inertial force is applied, the water has no problem curving, conforming to the forces being applied to it. You'll notice also, that as the inertial force levels off, once the water has time to adjust, the surface of the water sits like glass...smooth as ever. Conservation of momentum and fluid mechanics explain why this happens. If this inertial force were to exist indefinitely, never turning off or slowing down, then the water would remain curved as it conformed to that force, and because of conservation of momentum and relative motion...it would remain to sit like glass. I know what you're going to say though "that's in a container, not the outside of a surface", yes, of course, but that's not the point of that demonstration. The point in that demonstration is to show you how water works, when a constant force is applied to it. If water is held by a force, then it will conform to whatever force is acting upon it. If that force causes it to curve...then it will curve and maintain that curve just fine. And that's exactly what gravity is...a constant accelerating force, that's always there. Gravity is a constant force, it never changes, it's always there and it pulls all matter to center...which causes all matter in 3D space to produce a ball...that's the only shape matter can take with a force like gravity pulling everything to center. Water, conforms to this force as well...so the reality is, the argument "water can't conform to the outside of a ball", is not true...because it absolutely could, with a force like gravity acting upon it at all times.
It's fair to ask for that demonstration though, but just know...that the physics does work and water would have no problem conforming to the surface of our Earth, if it's trapped in a gravity well that pulls all matter to center of mass.
So I suppose the part about that argument that annoys me is this...you're claiming it's not possible, but if you really think about it, it is absolutely possible. So I just wish Flat Earth would stop wording this argument in a way that makes it out to be impossible. It's only impossible if you ignore gravity...and don't bother to understand how gravity works. Which is why Flat Earth denies gravity so staunchly...but ok, then just leave it at "prove the existence of gravity", then I would personally be less annoyed by this argument. Cause that's a fair argument then, prove gravity, that's perfectly reasonable then.
But that's not where the argument goes...it flat out just assumes gravity is not a thing, because it has too for Flat Earth to work.
1
-
1
-
@efgtest Yes, I took the time and watched the videos you sent me. I've seen several of them before, the only one I had not seen was your second gyro video. But that first one is a pretty basic demonstration of a gyro, same lecture that gets taught in university classes all around the world and it's one of the first videos you find on YouTube when you try learning more about gyros. Yes, I know a fair bit about gyros as well and the problem with mechanical gyros is that they do drift over time due to friction in the gimbles and bearings. So over enough time, they won't maintain their calibrated position and will require adjustment either way. This is true, but from what I understand, this takes time...especially in the more well made gyro systems that have eliminated most of the friction, they will precess much slower. Either way, it is gravity and the pendulous vanes that tell the electric motors to tilt the gyro down when it has fallen out of alignment with the surface...and it tilts the gyro on its main gimble. Which means if the Earth were curved it could very easily re-calibrate it away from its original position from take off. You can adjust the main gimble all you want and it will maintain whatever orientation you leave it in from there, it's the other 2 gimbles that won't move the gyro from that orientation, but the electric motors of the pendulous vanes adjust the main gimble or the gyro itself if you prefer.
So in reality the gyro would work on both models (FE and Globe), because if gravity is what notifies the air vanes that the gyro is out of alignment with the ground, and if gravity vectors change as you travel on a curved Earth (which is what the theory of gravity says it does), then the vanes re-calibrate the gyro to the surface, leveling off to the gravity vectors. It would absolutely work on a curved Earth as well, but yes the argument could be made that because mechanical gyros are not perfect, that they precess over time, that this is the reason for the pendulous vanes on a Flat Earth, to keep precession in check and that would be true as well, it would then still require pendulous vanes even on a flat plain. But then the crux to that argument is time. It takes time for friction to cause the gyro to precess, much more time then it would take a change in gravity vectors to be noticed by the gyro on a curved surface. So the question then is this, how often does the electric motor of an artificial horizon kick in to adjust the gyro in reality? If the gyro while flying requires adjustment more times then it would on a flat plain, then you can conclude the ground below is curving. If the motors don't kick on nearly as often, then you can conclude the ground below as possibly flat.
So you could actually test this, by purchasing an artificial horizon and taking it on a long distance flight. Counting the number of times the electric motor kicks on to adjust the gyro. You'd need to know exactly how long it takes natural precession to kick on the adjustment motor, and you could record that very easily by just spinning the gyro up at home before the flight test and recording the precession over time on a flat surface at home. So you test the two, I'm sure their would be a way to know when the motor kicks on to re-calibrate the gyro back to level position, so you would just count the times this motor is turned on and record the time it took between each.
On a curved Earth, you should expect the correcting motor to kick on far more often then if the Earth were flat. So it's a good experiment one could do, I'm not currently aware if Wolfie or anyone else has tried this, but would be interesting to see. Point is, if you're trying to claim that a gyro with pendulous vanes would not work on a curved surface, then let me just stop you there, because yes it would. That much I do know for sure. Gravity vectors would change as you travel along the surface of the curved Earth, these gravity vectors would drop the hinges of the pendulous vanes on the main gimble, which would cause the corrective motor to adjust and re-calibrate the gyro on it's main axis, which would re-calibrate it's orientation in open space. So to be sure of your claims, you'd have to put the gyro to the test. Even then, by itself it's not conclusive enough to make a conclusion from, but it's a good piece of evidence for either argument depending on the results.
1
-
@efgtest Yes, I have researched B and C. That being, "NASA fakery"...and I actually caught more "fakery" and lies, from the people who create those conspiracy videos on YouTube. Every time I take a look at those "faked space" documentaries...I find that the people making them do a lot to fool the viewer into buying their claims made in the videos. Let's see, I'll focus on one example. There is a famous claim in many of those videos where they break down a space walk done by the Gemini crew, which was one of the first successful space walks. Here's one such video, I'm sure you've seen this before. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEPuY_OmCps There is a scene in that video footage where the helmet of the space suit swivels. A claim is then made by the creator of that conspiracy video that those Gemini space helmets were not designed to swivel. Well, after some digging I was able to falsify that claim. Here is further footage of that same Gemini crew. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8ep2wSREno At 50 seconds into this video you get a very clear demonstration of the helmet swiveling. So his claim is false, those helmets do absolutely swivel...yet he presented it as proof that footage was faked anyway. He does later point out that they don't swivel once the suit is pressurized...but try as I might, I couldn't find any information that supported that claim and I looked up the actual suit specs, which you can actually find a pdf document online that is full of information on the Gemini space suits. There is also several YouTube videos that go into their specs as well. Nothing I found could confirm that his second claim was true, that they don't swivel under pressure. They absolutely can, because it's the same swivel joint system they use on all the joints, from the gloves, to the arms and legs of different space suits...these swivels are designed to function in a vacuum...otherwise what would be the point of them? If they do not work in a vacuum...why include them in space suits at all? They used these swivels in all kinds of joints, so that claim doesn't hold much weight with me. But he doesn't clarify the pressure comment until later, he first just straight up claims they were not designed to swivel at all...and yes, as that video I shared above demonstrates, they absolutely were designed to swivel. Before you point out that the footage looks "motion captured" or animated...just know that I'm an artist/illustrator for a living, who has done his own stop animation films...I have several more points I can make on that claim, that can and do refute that argument as well...so feel free to mention that if you like, just know I'm quite knowledgeable on the topic of stop animation and film techniques...I have first hand experience in both.
Later in his video, he makes another claim at 3 minutes 21 seconds he zooms in and puts text on the video that reads "nice patch", telling the viewer to pay attention to the american flag patch on his left shoulder. Not 3 seconds later he then presents a photo where you can't see that patch on either of their shoulders. Causing you to wonder, why there is no american flag patch in the second photo. Which leads the viewer to believe that space walk was further faked, and they just forgot to put the patch on the actual space suits for the photo ops. It's convincing on the surface...but I personally never take things at face value and neither should you or anyone else. For starters, he chose a photo where both astronauts arms are covered, you can't see their shoulders even if you wanted too...for another, you wouldn't be able to tell from this photo alone if it were flipped or mirrored. Either way, he presents that photo as evidence of his patch claim...when there are a few things wrong with his photo "evidence", it's not conclusive enough for him to make that claim...and I'd be willing to bet he chose that picture, just so he could lie and make that claim. If you rewind that video to 58 seconds however, you get a single frame of that patch on his left shoulder, clear as day. The funny thing is, the presenter of this video, was very careful not to include more footage with that patch...just so he could make that claim. If you watch the original footage from where he took that from, you see the patch a lot more...the question then is, why did he choose to cut out the rest of the footage? Probably because it would ruin his patch claim...so he was very clearly leading the audience, showing them only what he wanted you to see, to help make his claims seem more valid. Basically, smoke and mirrors...clever misdirection.
That's just a couple examples from a single video, I've caught this stuff pretty much every single time I watch these "NASA faked space" documentaries or video break downs. It leaves me to question the people who created those conspiracy documentaries...not so much the other way around. They present half truths...showing the audience what they want you to see and then making claims, knowing that very few people will actually check them on their claims. I find these tactics very deceitful and it causes me a lot of distrust in the people making them...essentially, it raises a few red flags for me, and makes me doubt the validity of these claims against NASA.
Here is one final video I'll leave you with. Another good example of claims made without much looking into them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiCthIVWIJE&t=102s The thing I'm trying to point out here is this...why do you trust these people who make these YouTube videos claiming faked space? I've caught them lying on several occasions, every single time I look at these videos in fact. They don't seem very interested in being objective with their evidence at all...they seem more interested in hypnotizing the viewer into believing what they're saying without question. It leaves me to question them...so no, I don't hold the "NASA faked space" docs in very high credibility. I have looked into it...the only liars and huxters I found were the content creators of those videos.
Gravity is an accelerating force, not to be confused with an inertial force which is more an objects resistance to a directional vector. Gravity as we know it is actually one of the 4 fundamental forces of the universe...so it's very much defined as a force. So not sure where you're going with that one. There are some technicalities in general relativity that understand gravity a bit differently, but we do define it as a force in general terms, because it behaves as such and is best understood as a force. Feel free to elaborate further though.
1
-
@efgtest Yes, but I think you're misunderstanding me. You can calibrate the gyro into any position you want in free space and THEN the gimbles will move freely around it without changing that orientation you have set. What the pendulous vanes do, is they reset the orientation, they move it's orientation in free space...they change it. Make sense yet? The part where gravity is a factor, is in the pendulous vane...not the gyro. The hinge that covers the air valve drops due to gravity, when it notices the orientation is not at 90 degrees to the surface anymore. Then the motors shift the orientation back to 90 degrees relative to the surface...which on a spherical Earth, changes as you travel along it. Nothing I have said, contradicts any of the videos you have shared with me.
What you seem to believe, is that the gyro either naturally sits at 90 degrees and then never moves from there, or that it can not be re-calibrated once it is in motion. This is false, the pendulous vanes do just that...they are there to ensure the gyro remains at 90 degrees from surface and they do this by using gravity in clever ways. I know what the gimbles do...forget the gimbles for now, that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the spinning gyro itself. The part that is spinning...the disk that you can angle in any direction and then once you have it in an orientation, the gimbles can move around it freely. The pendulous vane moves the actual gyro...it has nothing to do with the gimbles.
If you feel I'm missing anything, feel free to let me know.
1
-
@efgtest Yes, they can fake almost anything visually nowadays, though they do still have limits...and some things still will never quite look "real" in CGI. But what's important to remember, is that just because they can fake something, doesn't mean they do. The opposite is also true, it doesn't mean they don't either. So that's why I don't laugh at Flat Earth, I try to listen to what they have to say, because logically...we can't be certain of much. This is the difference between you and me though, as I see it, I believe I have a higher level of trust in people, namely scientists. I know that not everything I'm told is true...but then I know people are generally good and in order to fake something this big, would require a LOT of participation and effort, from MILLIONS of different individuals. Not just in NASA, or any of the space agencies, but ALL the various institutions of science, research, engineering, navigation, schooling, government, miltary...the list goes one, it is quite likely actually BILLIONS of people at this point. It's just not likely is all, but not just for those reasons...but also, because anybody can confirm the shape is spherical for themselves with a few simple observations.
So I choose to lean toward the former of my statement...just because something can be faked, does not mean it was faked. I think where you stand on either side of that spectrum, depends on your level of trust in people and society in general. As I was able to point out to you in my analysis of that single conspiracy video, these people who create these videos are VERY deceitful, in how they present their findings. It leads me to conclude, that they're most likely doing that with most (if not all) of their claims and they play off our growing insecurities of reality to help sell their claims. Now I should point out that though I generally do hold a higher level of trust in people...I do remain skeptical, and that trust erodes just like anybody elses does if I've been successful in catching people in lies often enough...I think this is what happens with Flat Earth...except from my perspective I feel they're being duped by these conspiracy videos. They think like you do and so they know how to gain your trust...by appealing to your disdain for authority.
We got a new conspiracy going around that we could be in a simulation....and stuff like this has wracked peoples minds to that possibility, some people becoming very paranoid about that idea, many very uncomfortable with that possibility. Truth is, as CGI and video manipulation software become more advanced...it does become harder and harder to separate facts from reality. People have a natural resistance to being duped...we don't enjoy it very much, and so we do everything in our power to eliminate the possibility that we're being had...even if it's not true at all. I think this plays a huge role in why Flat Earth has become so rampant lately...CGI. But, it's the reality we live in, so I lean to my statement again, just because it can be faked, does not mean it was. So I'm VERY skeptical, when I take a look at the claims made saying that things are faked digitally...because a lot of the time, these claims are coming from people with ZERO working knowledge of how CGI and digital video effects are created...they do still have limits in what they can do, so if you know these limits, you can spot where peoples claims might just be their paranoia leading them.
That's the big issue I have with Flat Earth...how can you be so sure, you're not just letting paranoia lead your thinking? Paranoia is a tricky beast...and the shitty thing is, you will rarely ever know when you're falling victim to it...because by that point, it's usually to late. I think these people in these fake space videos do a lot to erode peoples trust...and make them just as paranoid as they are. So I pay closer attention to see if I can spot them lying...which I have been successful in doing, every single time I watch those videos.
1
-
1
-
@efgtest Gonna do a double quote here. ""Its about this and i quote " You can calibrate the gyro into any position you want in free space and THEN the gimbles will move freely around it without changing that orientation you have set"
That is the key! that's what you have to understand. ""
But you're still missing what the pendulous vanes do. They change the orientation of the spinning gyro itself over time. The gimbles move around freely, but the pendulous vanes are designed to move the gyro itself, pitching it up or down depending on the gravity vector it's currently in. The gyro is not affected by gravity vectors...but the pendulous vanes are and they move the gyro. That's why they are there.
I think I kinda understand more your observation of that second video you shared, saying that the gyro in that demonstration is not designed to flip a full 180 degrees inside the housing. But if the entire housing is flipping with the plane it's attached too, then the inner components still flip with it correct? Which would be the case as a plane travels from one hemisphere to the next, the entire housing is flipping along with the planes orientation. I think I get your argument there though, saying that the gyro would keep it's orientation in free space, but again...if the entire gyro, housing and all, is flipping upside down from starting position...then the gyro inside doesn't need to be able to flip a full 180 degrees, it just requires a system inside the gyro that can pitch it up or down gradually as it travels from one hemisphere to the next, keeping it in line with the housing. Which it does...they're called pendulous vanes. That's the purpose of the pendulous vanes, to pitch the orientation of the gyro itself, to keep it level with the surface at all times.
Sorry, I know you wanted to move on, just felt there was more to say on Gyros. You seem to keep forgetting about pendulous vanes and what they do, so I'm just trying to shed some more light on what the purpose of these pendulous vanes are. Your observations would be sound, if pendulous vanes were not included in these gyro systems...but they are, and they do pitch the gyro to match with the gravity vector they are currently in. Even if they weren't though, they would still be required in a gyro because of precession. The question then becomes, are pendulous vanes in the gyro to account for gravity vectors or to account for precession? That would require further experimenting to figure out and as I said in the last comment, I'm not currently aware of any experiments that test this. Either way, pendulous vanes can and would account for the curve of the Earth, they are designed to re-orientate the gyro in free space, that is their purpose.
1
-
@efgtest If you're referring to me, I never said I didn't know anything about Gyros. I said I don't know much about the gyros used in submarines, but when it comes to the Gyros found in airplanes, in artificial horizons, I said I know quite a bit about those gyros. I said that from the very start.
So it's not like I'm just now learning about this stuff, but I am learning a little more about where I feel Flat Earth goes wrong with the gyro...and from what I've learned you seem to keep forgetting about pendulous vanes, or you choose to ignore them. Pendulous vanes exist, and their purpose is to shift the orientation of the gyro inside the housing, little by little, keeping it level with the surface as it travels.
So all your observations for a gyro are sound...but you're forgetting about these pendulous vanes that are included in airplane gyroscopes. I'm merely just trying my best to make you aware of this mechanism, even if you were aware of them...you seem to discount them in all your conclusions. The question is why? Maybe you don't much like or trust Wolfie, and you know most of us are learning about pendulous vanes from him, so you discount our observations simply because it came from a source you don't trust...but then you don't need Wolfie as a source to learn what these pendulous vanes are and what they do, there are plenty of other sources that will all say the same thing about pendulous vanes. Many that have nothing to do with the Flat Earth debate...just simple video demonstrations explaining the Gyros in airplanes for educational purposes.
All I'm saying is, if you're going to use the gyroscope as an argument for Flat Earth, then you have to account for these pendulous vanes...because anyone who knows about these gyroscopes is going to counter your argument by mentioning them. What's interesting is that you haven't really addressed these pendulous vanes...you haven't given me any reason to believe they are not used for the purpose I've described them for. So as much as I'm aware you'd like to move on, I'm still left to conclude that you either don't know exactly yet what Pendulous vanes do...or you do and you've chosen to ignore them...but I'd rather you address them, not so much for my sake, but for yours. That's really all I can conclude so far...so that's why I keep mentioning it, because I'm hoping you'll either see what I'm pointing out, or you'll have a counter answer that demonstrates what I'm possibly missing.
When we started this conversation, I asked if maybe there was something you were possibly missing. I was also posing that question to myself, which is why I have these conversations...to see which one of us is missing something. I fear that denial sometimes keeps us from seeing some things...so you have to ask yourself honestly, do pendulous vanes account for your observations of Gyros? Would pendulous vanes account for the curvature of the Earth? I've been trying my best to see if perhaps I'm wrong about pendulous vanes, but so far, no matter how I look at it, they do account for things...quite perfectly in fact and you've given me no reason so far to conclude otherwise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very scientific of you, have you taken measurements or recorded any data that backs up these claims? Have you modeled that data to scale to see how the eclipse would look over a flat plane? Well here is somebody who did, they modeled the 2017 American eclipse to scale over the AE Flat Earth projection, take a look at the results. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NppyjcSBUvA&t=177s
Just saying these things are so...without actually doing any work to verify them, without taking any scientific measurements or data, is not how you reach conclusive results in science. You're gonna have to do a LOT more then that, or else why should anyone believe a single word you're saying. This guy also modeled that same eclipse for the Globe, have a look sometime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgj--6EX-RE&t=917s
Eclipses are predicted YEARS in advance...they don't use flat Earth geometry or cosmology to do that...they use the heliocentric model, to predict these events down to the second of occurrence and square mile location. That is a fact...not an opinion. Here is a great website that displays the next solar and lunar eclipses for the next 10 years. http://www.eclipsewise.com/solar/solar.html Included here is also every bit of detail you require, in order to recreate these calculations for yourself.
So go ahead, ignore all this scientific research, measurement, math and data...it's what Flat Earth is best at, shoving their fingers in their ears and ignoring reality.
1
-
1
-
Sadly, having spent a lot of time chatting with Flat Earthers now (roughly 3 years), I have found out their reasoning behind much of their conclusions...those 2 in particular I hate to say, actually do have some logical answers to them. I do hate saying that, because Flat Earth is still the most illogical position to hold today, but Globe Earthers I feel should be aware of a few of their arguments that do render a few of our arguments...just as illogical, at least from their perspective.
In their world, the entire cosmology of our universe is a made up lie, so the reason they don't hold the argument "all other planets are round" to be a good observation or a good argument, is because they don't consider Earth to be a planet. At least not in the same sense as the other planets. Earth, is the universe basically...so the planet we stand on, is not like the planets we observe in the sky, so it can't be compared to them. Earth in their world view is basically the fabric of reality itself and is far more important and different from the "wondering stars" above, that they claim are just small dots of light. Many of them don't even consider the planets to be planets...just more lights in the sky we'll never know the truth of. Which I know...how can I say our argument is illogical when their position is so clearly bat shit insane...but, I've spent a lot of time trying to get inside the minds of these people, and if you want to argue against them, you have to understand where they are arguing from. Earth is not a planet like all the others, so this is why they feel that argument is illogical...and from their perspective, they'd be right. If that were the case, then ya, saying all other planets are round is a bad argument to make...so you see, they're not looking at the problem from the same cosmology as you and me, they're looking at it from a completely different perspective.
But...they have to ignore a LOT to make that argument work for them, such as all the laws of planetary motion, all the years of studying and photographing the cosmos, all the data, pictures and video sent back to us from probes, satellites and space craft...basically all the science for our cosmology, that has been gathered by millions of people, for thousands of years. Not a problem for them though, they're very good at ignoring all this evidence. Many of them don't even believe space is real...try arguing with people who don't believe space is real. What sux though, is that none of us have been to space...so they're right about one thing, how do we know for certain then if we've never been there ourselves? Which as much as it pisses me off to admit, they'll have us by the balls on that one for quite some time until we're finally all space explorers...which can't come quick enough. However, any amateur astronomer can confirm much of the cosmology of the heliocentric model as true, only requires a little time, understanding and investment in some relatively cheap equipment...so their position is still nothing more then an argument from ignorance, that's important to note.
As for why the conspiracy...the best argument I have heard so far, is that they're doing all of it to hide the existence of God. I do see the logic in that argument, because we really didn't begin becoming more and more atheist, until we started seeing the universe as much larger and the world much rounder then we once believed it to be. So ya, if Satan were real, and if he wanted to devise a scheme that would turn us away from God and harvest the most amount of souls...best way to do that would be to create a system that makes us believe God doesn't exist. So sadly...I do see the strategy in that...but that's where it ends for me. This explanation still has to ignore a LOT to become even remotely possible. There is just too much evidence supporting the heliocentric model and much of it is not hard to confirm for ones self. Not to mention, there are thousands of other religions today, many of them older then the Christian faith, who don't believe in the battle between Heaven and Hell. So it's a cute story...but again, it's just another paranoid, delusional theory, bred from ignorance and scientific illiteracy...and life times worth of indoctrination into a single belief, that most of the world doesn't even share...and not because they're atheist. The only logic is in the strategy...but just because the strategy makes sense to me, does not stand as evidence for the existence of these evil forces working against us, it's VERY flimsy stuff...but I can see how it would be appealing to somebody of a hardcore Christian faith.
Anyway, sorry for the long ramble, just felt like sharing some info regarding these arguments. It's important to know your enemy I suppose, so that's why I try to learn their positions as best I can and then pass that information on. In the end however, these are nothing more then arguments from ignorance and that's important to remember. Even if they have some logic buried in there somewhere, it's all about evidence...and they still have none to support these claims...only empty paranoia, ignorance and superstition. Sadly, they do work on the very religious...hence why most Flat Earthers are religious...and I feel confident in saying that, because I've talked to many of them...the numbers of them that start throwing bible quotes at me eventually is staggering! Not to say that only the very religious buy into this madness...you also have to be a little crazy and stupid, so faith isn't everything...what I mean is, I can see how having a religious foundation would make these arguments above seem more appealing and logical.
1
-
This 12 hours of day would only be true if you ignore the 23.5 degree tilt of the Earth. Yes, the Globe is still half in the light, half in darkness (though technically the Earth is slightly more lit than in darkness, because of light bouncing and reflecting through our atmosphere), but the tilt of our axis has a huge effect on how much sunlight each region sees in a given day. You can test this pretty easily, with a model Globe of the Earth, or even with just any old ball you got kicking around. If you use a ball, choose a point where North Pole and South Pole should be (shouldn't be hard, most balls have a point where you fill it with air), now find a flashlight or a lamp or anything you can use to simulate a Sun. Now draw a few lateral lines around your ball and place a marker somewhere on each lateral line (a dot, or piece of clay, or something to indicate where an observer would be standing). Now simulate the heliocentric model, put your light source on one side of the room, with your Globe or ball on the other so that one half of the sphere is lit up. Now, tilt your North pole towards the light source roughly 23.5 degrees (which a model of the Globe should already do for you). Now, rotate the ball or Globe and notice that the closer to the North you get, the longer an observer is exposed to daylight, even while rotating the ball. Especially if you're at the North pole, you'll notice that as you rotate the Globe...the North pole never leaves the light...meaning an observer on the ground would see 24 hours of daylight. If you go to the South pole now and observe it while you rotate the Globe, it is now in 24 hours of darkness...which is what we observe happening in reality, there is 24 hours of light in the North during their summer and vice versa 24 hours of night at the opposite pole during the same period. The tilt of our axis explains why this occurs...it's simple 3D geometry.
So you're observation is sound, and your question is a good one, except it ignores the fact that our Earth is tilted slightly...which is what causes us to receive hours of daylight that are different. Hope this helps to make this more clear. If you have anymore questions feel free to ask.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisque1171 I'm not sure, I know the Apollo the Moon missions took video footage as they were on route to the Moon, but other than that, I'm not aware of any personally. Again, it's more a matter of data and time. It takes hours to put these objects into an orbit that can break Earths gravity well and escape into space. What I mean is, nothing that is launched into space just flies straight up and out...that's not how it works. The only way we can escape Earths gravity, is by using Earths gravity to sling shot us out. So all spacecraft and satellites are put into an orbit around the Earth first...which takes hours to achieve the proper orbit and then once they're in a steady orbit, then they do controlled burns to get them into farther orbits and then farther orbits and again even farther orbits...until finally they can break free of Earth. It's a long process, that takes time, so the raw footage would be hours in length.
But, I'm sure there is some footage somewhere of this, but it's not likely a public thing, because they probably didn't think anybody would really care to see it...it's boring, it's long, and pictures from space do the exact same thing anyway. I'd say if you wanna find out for sure, maybe ask somebody from NASA directly, or anyone from the many other private companies that put rockets into space. Go on a forum, seek some people out, get in touch with real people who work in these industries. That would be likely the only way you'll find footage like this, if it does exist.
1
-
Dave isn't really in this argument full time, he's just an onlooker that felt like addressing some points...that's all. This videos goal is not to solve their problems for them...merely just point out some errors, it's just basic peer review...the rest is left to them. What's frustrating, is they won't listen...they'll likely just ignore these points. Flat Earth likes to claim they have more of an open mind then the rest of us...but they sure close those minds off pretty quickly when we try to share information that refutes their beliefs. So do they have a more open mind...or is more likely they just enjoy the feeling they get from going against the grain, even despite being wrong? I think that's the more likely case. On a psychological level, we all enjoy to varying degrees the feeling of being special or above others in some status...so to achieve this, some people invent a world where they are the avatars of truth and intelligence, it helps them feel superior, which helps feed those desires of feeling special. This makes it very hard to reason with some people...they just will not listen to anything that might take that feeling away from them, so they choose feelings over reason. In my experience so far, that seems to sum up Flat Earth very well. They're not being very reasonable most of the time...it's fine to question reality and it's awesome that people are trying to think outside the box...but there is a fine line between thinking outside the box and chasing bias to keep a delusion alive.
1
-
1
-
@marvel5671 Yes, Dave's equation he provided in the video was inaccurate, I believe he even stated that later in a separate video and corrected it. But, going back to your claim that the math supports a flat Earth, In my experience looking over Flat Earth claims and observations, the opposite has been true so far. From what I've seen so far, the math works out in favor of the Globe. When the math doesn't work out, It's always been because they didn't give the proper details, they fudged the figures to throw off the results...so I've learned to be diligent.
A couple months back I had a Flat Earther make a claim, that he was seeing all of a 150' tower, that he claimed was 20 miles away, from a beach observing from a 6' viewing height. Doing the calculations, he was correct, even with standard refraction, roughly 160' would have been hidden at that distance, making the observation quite impossible on a Globe, unless of course refraction for that day was much higher, but even then, seeing all of it would have been very unlikely.
But, after pressing him for further details, he finally told me his exact location and pointed out the tower he was observing...and he lied, the tower he was observing was not at 20 miles away, it was only 8 miles away. Redoing the calculations, only 12' would have been hidden from that distance, making the observation very possible on a Globe.
So you have to be VERY careful with these people. Either their math is off, or they lie about the details and in the worst cases, it's both. Now I'll give him this, maybe he didn't really lie but he measured the distance incorrectly, and his bias kept him for checking a second time. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, cause he was a nice man, but either way, he was wrong about a key figure and it threw off the whole result. In my experience so far, I have not seen one legit observation that did not fit the globe calculations. If you have any you feel are conclusive for a flat Earth however, feel free to share, but I have not seen any...just a lot of empty claims, missing variables, fudged figures and bad math.
If this subject really interests you though, perhaps you'd be interested in a more controlled experiment of calculated and observed curvature. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment This is basically a recreation of the famous Bedford level experiment, only this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. I prefer observations like this, because unlike observations of mountains, where the variables could be off slightly, and figuring exactly how much of a mountain is being obscured is hard to really discern, this kind of experiment is much more precise and controlled. Heights are known, distances are known, angles are precise, zoom and lenses are factored, every detail is controlled and factored. The conclusion here is conclusive in support of the globe, so go ahead and give it a look sometime if it interests you. That blog has several more observations as well that you might find interesting, so worth your time to check it out.
If the math is your interest as well, you might be interested to check out a content creator named Jos Leys. He's made several in depth 3D renderings focusing primarily on observations of the Sun. Because lets face it...we can mull over curvature calculations all day, but a sunset doesn't make any sense on a Flat Earth, if you really break it down objectively. Jos Leys has made several really good videos demonstrating how the Sun we observe in reality, does not work on the Flat Earth model, but it works perfectly on the Globe at its projected scale. Here's one of his videos you might find interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6Ojo9fJhw&t
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeffgillard4865 The math is wrong, because 8 inches per mile squared only gives you curve drop tangent from surface. What this means is, those figures it gives you, are only accurate, if your eye rests at sea level. It is a limited equation, that does not factor in the other variables you need to make an accurate observation. It does not include height of the observer, height of the object, line of sight, arc length or the science of refraction...which is a real thing that bends light and it occurs in our atmosphere, especially low to the ground and over water where humidity is greater.
Here is the correct Math. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ Included here is a handy diagram that shows you what's being calculated. This gives you two calculations, the geometric calculation that ignores refraction and then the geometric calculataion plus an average refraction index. Of course, refraction changes by temperature and humidity, but even an average index of refraction is going leaps and bounds beyond what 8 inches per mile squared provides you. Hope that helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1