Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
10
-
9
-
@brianbond6960 Ya we get it, but understand that the way you worded it implies a change over billions of years that you seem to think mankind somehow witnessed the entirety of. So yes, we’re trolling you a bit, but maybe word your arguments better and that won’t happen.
At its core though, it’s still an argument from both personal incredulity and ignorance, so still a bad argument. Incredulity because big numbers seem hard to grasp for you but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true, and ignorance because you don’t seem to be aware that the stars have changed, they’re constantly changing, it’s just a very slow process, because of the parallax effect. Any amateur astronomer who actually spends there nights watching and recording the stars every night will tell you that, it’s one of the first things they learn about the night sky and then confirm for themselves.
Maybe learn more about astronomy before you go reaching conclusions from ignorance. Start with stellar parallax and the star chart record.
9
-
It doesn’t…it’s physically impossible for light of any kind to make anything colder…that’s just basic physics. All light in existence, is basically a bundle of energy, energy is what produces ALL the thermal heat in the entire universe. When you don’t have energy, you have cold…cold is just the absence of energy…energy is never cold. So if energy always creates heat, and if light is just basically energy…how exactly does it make anything colder? What you’re claiming breaks simple laws of thermal dynamics physics.
Ever considered that maybe something else is occurring? That maybe there are variables that heavily biased Flat Earthers might have overlooked? Maybe these people aren’t scientists…and don’t have a clue how to conduct a proper experiment, one with proper controls? Do these questions ever come to mind? This is exactly why we have peer review and recreation of experiments.
Here’s a fellow who thought to include a proper control to the Cold Moon Light experiments that FE likes to peddle around https://youtu.be/zLsZwp4RWWg. If you’re not aware of what a control experiment is, it’s basically just running a parallel experiment in more neutral conditions, to eliminate and account for any hidden variables. The control this guy thought to conduct, was performing the same experiment on a night when the Moon wasn’t out, like during a New Moon cycle, where it casts no light. If this control yields the same results, then you cannot conclude it’s the Moon light causing the temperature difference, it’s likely something else.
If you watch that experiment, you’ll notice he gets the exact same temperature drop, even when the Moon isn’t casting light. So this adds conclusive evidence, verifying what any physicist could already tell you….light is not cold in any form. The more likely cause of this effect, is radiative cooling. Basically, all objects shed a little bit of thermal energy, and so an object under cover is closer to surfaces and objects shedding this thermal energy, making it slightly warmer. More experiments could be done to make that conclusion more conclusive (and they have…this is old science at this point), but bottom line is, the Moon LIGHT does not cool anything. The Moon does cause gravitational effects that can effect air pressure, that can effect temperatures, so if agriculture classes are teaching this as you claim, then I’d assume this is more the cause of such fluctuations…but I’m not a biologist or an agriculture student, so I don’t know for certain.
What I do know for certain from what I’ve seen, Flat Earthers are not very good at doing experiments. Even from their chosen title, they admit their biased stance to any conclusions. Do you see actual scientists calling themselves Globe Earthers? Is there an accredited class for becoming a Globe Earth scientist? No…because that implies a bias, so they’d never do that. They instead use neutral titles, like physicist, biologist, chemist, etc.
Anyway, I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. If you feel I’m wrong, go ahead and share a source from any agricultural department that claims Moonlight is cold, I’d be interested to see who exactly is peddling that nonsense, if they actually are.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I’ve never seen Dubay engage with any accredited expert in a debate of any kind…and not from lack of trying, he’s been called to many debates, and has so far accepted none, to my knowledge. Why would you expect Sabine to be any different? Aside from that though, Dubay’s claims are pretty simple to falsify with just a basic understanding of physics and geometry. They’re not new ideas or questions, they’re about 500+ years behind modern science, they’re old questions, long since answered…intriguing only to those who know very little about science, which is why he’s only been able to convince layman. So I’m sure he wouldn’t be convincing her of much, but many would love to debate him…he just never does, at least not to my current knowledge.
I would also pay attention if I was you, too his rhetoric…it’s very monotone and endlessly suggestive, very similar to hypnotic suggestion tactics, and I don’t think that’s just a coincidence. You’ll also notice he never shares any data or tangible evidence to support much of anything he says, maybe a few quick diagrams or blurry images here and there, but no sources are shared, no data…he just makes a lot of empty claims, with very little actual proof.
I understand if you’ve come to admire the guy…but I really don’t see why. He lies like breathing, it’s effortless for him, and it’s not hard to spot those lies if you try. Which implies sociopathic behaviour, and narcissistic tendencies. I suggest you try really dissecting a couple of his claims, check his research a bit more thoroughly sometime…you may find he makes a lot of it up as he goes, while providing only half truths, intentionally leaving out many key details.
Many have identified Dubay as a conman…and I think that’s a valid assessment. Just try questioning him on his channel sometime, I guarantee he’ll block you. Not exactly the behaviour of an open minded individual with the apparent truth on his side.
7
-
7
-
Oh boy. 🤦♂️That math has nothing to do with trigonometry...it’s a basic graph equation, that plots a parabola...it does not represent a sphere, let alone our spherical surface. If you’re using that equation to make line of sight observations...then that’s your problem right there, because it’s not the correct math. Pretty basic rule of thumb in mathematics, use the wrong formula for the job and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple. So did ya ever once stop to consider that might be your problem? Have you ever bothered to learn anything more about that equation, or did you just believe it was accurate from the first time you heard it?
One of many examples of how misinformation campaigns, like Flat Earth, successfully con people. Most people have no idea how to derive their own equations, so most people simply are not capable of recognizing when an equation is wrongfully applied. I feel the real perpetrators of FE know this...and they do it intentionally, using peoples mathematical and scientific illiteracy against them.
8 inches per mile squared plots a parabola, which is not representative of line of sight...which is what you’re trying to discern in long distance observations. It can’t be used here, because it’s missing variables required here, variables like height of the observer, horizon distance, refraction, arc length, tilt angles, surface hump, etc. It’s simply not going to give you an accurate figure, for what you’re using it for, so it’s essentially useless here. If you’re curious to know the correct formulas you should be using, here’s a link that can help you out https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/.
Also, the point of this video was not to prove or disprove either position, she was just analyzing the ideology of FE, providing an experts opinion for why she feels the spread of misinformation is rising within the general populace and what should be done about it. It’s mostly an opinion piece...so why would you expect she’d discuss any actual science in an opinion piece?
I think you should consider the very real possibility, that you are being conned by misinformation movements like flat Earth. At the very least, look into the math a little closer, and try actually challenging it a bit, rather than blindly agreeing it’s accurate, without checking first.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@YouTw1tFace Flat Earth already did, when they sent their own weather balloons up to “find the curve”. If you pay attention to these videos, they demonstrate our atmosphere next to vacuum in several ways. The balloon eventually pops due to being within vacuum conditions, and it shows a pure black space around our Sun, which is what we’d expect to see from a vacuum with nothing in it, nothing for the Sun to illuminate. It’s measured...atmosphere gets thinner the higher you go, until there is nothing, that’s all space is, the absence of matter. Flat Earth has measured this too without even realizing it...but guess what they’ve never found? A container.
Thermodynamics has more to do with energy, not matter, that’s where your misunderstanding comes from. For example, when a cup of coffee cools to match its environment temperature, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy that left? Matter tags along sometimes, but it can and will be contained by attracting forces, slowing its entropy greatly. Gravity is the container...no barrier required, science has verified this many many times and so has Flat Earth in their attempts to further confirm their bias.
You should pay better attention to your own user icon...it’s all the proof you need of atmosphere next to a vacuum.
7
-
7
-
7
-
@enkigilgamesh Of course you also have to realize that your assertion of the globe having no evidence isn’t true. What about sunsets? How exactly can a sunset occur, if the Sun occupies the same visual sky for everyone, everywhere on Earth? The geometry doesn’t add up...how exactly is our line of sight to the Sun blocked? What about the entire southern hemisphere, namely the different stars, the second celestial rotation around a second pole star, the 24 hour sun in Antarctica and the lines of latitude that are equal distances to the North? All of this we’d expect to see on a Globe, but doesn’t add up on any flat Earth model proposed so far. What about solar and lunar eclipses, not just that they occur but that they’re predicted decades in advance, down to the second and square mile, using the heliocentric model to do that? What about the fact that all world navigation uses the globe model as their foundation? Pilots and sailors all use the globe to find their destinations, that’s millions of people that aren’t getting lost everyday. I can keep going too...that’s just a small sample.
So you’re being very unreasonable when you say there’s no proof of a globe....there’s lots actually, and you likely know it too, you’re just being ignorant and bias. At the very least, you should acknowledge that maybe there’s actually good reasons for why people are here challenging your claims. I’m not saying you have to outright agree, but you could at the very least hear us out and consider the possibility that you might just be missing some information.
7
-
7
-
She’s not really debunking much of anything or even attempting too here, rather just offering an opinion on the psychology and philosophy of a group of people. It’s an interesting insight, as she’s actually an accredited physicist, with actual working experience in the field, which is very different from the usual people you see on YouTube talking on the subject. “Debunking” (or falsification as its known in science), requires a specific point with scientific evidence that refutes it or renders the original conclusion inconclusive...did you see her share any data, figures, or experiments? Neither did I...and neither does Dubay in his video. That’s because this wasn’t a debunk video, and really, neither is Dubay’s response really. So don’t let Dubay or anyone frame it as if she was really trying, she’s clearly just providing some quick commentary on the movement, as seen from her personal perspective, not much more.
7
-
7
-
7
-
@LJ...69. Ya…neither of those are from 100 miles distance, so you lied. Why would anyone take you seriously if you’re going to lie about the details right off the bat? 🤷♂️
The first observation ignores atmospheric refraction (shocker 🙄), do the correct math including a standard refraction, you get a hidden of 734 feet. Looking up a list of Chicago’s tallest buildings, you get roughly 30 buildings tall enough just by their height alone…but of course the downtown area isn’t at the water table, it’s also several feet in elevation (probably about 50-100 feet or so) above the lake. So more like 50 buildings…but that’s with standard refraction and refraction index is always higher over large bodies of water, so that number still goes up. Even if we ignored refraction, there’s still roughly 20 or so towers tall enough to be seen from that distance, at that observation height (the geometric calculation is 867 feet, there are about 7 buildings that are over 1000 feet tall). Do you see the streets? No…you only see the tops of buildings…as you’d expect, if they were being blocked by surface curvature.
So ya…the observation fits the globe just fine…you’re just not doing the correct math, or factoring every variable important for the observation.
Your second observation is clearly done from several feet up in elevation (probably from that sand dune I mentioned, cause it’s pretty common)….I’m sure you’re aware that the higher you go in elevation, the further you can see. Ever wondered why that is? Because you’re looking over a curvature…it’s like looking over a hill, the higher up you go, the more you can see over that hill. The real trouble here, is that he doesn’t share any details beyond how far he is….you don’t think elevation matters to these observations, or what? 🤷♂️ So his lack of information makes it a very inconclusive observation…do you know what inconclusive means? Details matter…if you don’t think they do, then you should stay far away from science. :/
See this is what I’m talking about….you’re conducting very poor research, sloppy observations, not scientific in the slightest. These observations do not falsify the globe, you’re just not doing enough to reach a conclusive conclusion. Don’t just stop once your bias is confirmed…you have to do better.
6
-
6
-
@ZighyBlue Refraction effects are always present within our atmosphere, especially over large bodies of water, even at night. You’re right to conclude that they do fluctuate, but you picked an observation that does fit within the realm of possible still. It’s right on the boundary’s of what’s possible, but that’s every observation flat Earthers make. You seek out observations right on the edge of possible, then claim it’s impossible with 100% certainty…when even just a brief analysis disputes that.
No…100 km would have been impossible, 200 km at a 6 foot viewing height, that would be impossible. 37.5 km, in a warmer climate, over a large ocean, with a light house 83 meters off sea level…that’s right on the edge of possible and even you have to know that. So you’ll have to do better than that.
Ask yourself why there’s not observations that are much further? If Earth was flat, then wouldn’t we expect to see even further? The answer is yes, we would. There would of course still be limits due to atmospheric density, but seeing a light house 100 km out from sea level observations, this would be a regular occurrence all around the world…if the Earth was flat.
6
-
Yes, we have pondered these things (some anyway, some of these are just stupid), except when we did, we figured out the answers…and it didn’t take much effort.
1) They have changed, it’s well documented and any actual astronomer (you know, people who actually watch and record the stars) will tell you that. 500k mph doesn’t mean much, when you got trillions of miles to travel before making any noticeable shifts from our perspective. Parallax effect…look it up sometime, distance has a profound effect on perceived motion.
2) Nope, doesn’t happen, you’ve been conned by blurry videos with a lot of glare. Try viewing with a solar filter lens, or at least lock the exposure and put the camera in focus. 😄
3) Distance isn’t the only thing that can cause a shift in temperature, the angle at which energy arrives upon a surface can also effect temperature. Pretty basic physics, focused energy versus scattered energy…surface angle will effect how focused the Suns solar energy is. That’s why the Equator is hotter…it faces the Sun, the poles do not…pretty simple stuff.
4) Horizon indicators also include another mechanism called pendulous vanes. Their function is to correct the gyro from any drift, caused by gyroscopic precession, extreme maneuvers, and Earth curvature. Maybe look them up sometime.
5) Well…ya, the Moon blocks the Sun during solar eclipse…sooooo, ya, it’s gonna be in the sky at the same time as the Sun…that’s how it works. 😄
6) Oh boy 🤦♂️….do you think the Sun orbits Earth? 😅 Holy crap, well no wonder you’re so confused. Earth orbits the Sun dummy…and the Moon orbits Earth…so it’s going to come between the Sun and Earth during its orbit around Earth…thus making it visible during the day. This is kindergarten stuff. Here, I think you need to see how Moon phases work https://youtu.be/wz01pTvuMa0.
7) Who told you that, and why’d you believe them? 😄 Go ahead and share the evidence of this claim, cause I’m searching and nothing comes up. I’ve actually been roughly 23 degrees South latitude (I’ve travelled quite a lot), and as an amateur astronomer I’ve made observations of the night sky while I was there…I’ve never seen the North Star anywhere in the South. You can see the Big Dipper for awhile, until about 26 degrees South latitude…is that what you meant? North star isn’t part of the Big Dipper, it’s in the little dipper constellation. I think you got your claims all scrambled bud.
8) Maybe learn to focus a camera, and try again. 🤦♂️
9) Did you know none of them thought to include a control for the experiment? Try conducting the same experiment during a new Moon phase, when it’s not casting any light, and you’ll get the same result…which means it’s not the Moon causing this effect, it’s radiative cooling. Just stop and think for a moment please…however difficult that may be for you. Light is basically just energy, energy is never cold…it’s the source of all thermal heat in the entire universe. So if you think light is cold, then you’re breaking thermodynamics laws to make that claim. The reality is that flatties are just terrible at conducting experiments…shocker.
10) Well, you all just love to whine on about gravity just being “density and buoyancy”…even though density is not a force and buoyancy actually can’t occur without gravity. Derive for me a new working equation for calculating weight, without using gravity as a variable…go right ahead, if you think you can. 😄 Here’s the current formula; W=mg. Mass is already a variable…soooo, how does taking out a force vector, and replacing it with another scaler variable, equal weight? 🤷♂️
Or how about “horizon always rises to eye level” which it actually doesn’t, none of you thought to try actually measuring it with a levelling rig or theodolite.
Or how about “the curvature math 8 inches per mile squared doesn’t work”…ya, no shit, that tends to happen when you use the wrong math. 😄
You guys just continue to piss into the wind with EVERY argument you make…and it’s quite the train wreck to watch. 😄
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
It wasn't so much an argument, as it was a diagnosis of the real societal problem at the core of the issue, from the perspective of someone within the scientific community. She briefly touched on a few points, sure, but she's not really making an argument, she's just giving her opinion on why she feels Flat Earth has had a resurgence of late. It's more an analysis of the ideology, not so much the arguments.
As for your "15 NASA government documents admitting the earth is flat", I think you should learn what a mathematical simplification model is. They're not literally stating the Earth is flat in any of those documents, they are simplifying variables for math equations...that's it. If you knew anything about how to read or interpret those documents, you'd know that. You might notice in most if not all of those models, they use the word ASSUME somewhere in the wording for the variables of the summary sections. They do that, to let the reader know which variables are being omitted for the math simplifications sections to follow...they are math simplifications. Because math is complicated, but if they can omit any redundant variables that don't really effect what the equations will be used for, say wind resistance capabilities of the vehicle, where Earths shape and motion do not effect anything, then they will do everything they can to simplify the math, by removing those variables......that's what those papers are doing. It just makes an engineers job a lot easier....math simplification is actually an entire field of work you can do, as a mathematician. :/
David Weiss is a conman, he knows a lot of people have NO IDEA how a mathematical model is written or interpreted in those kinds of mathematical papers. He was counting on it....that's how he sells his grift, by taking advantage of peoples general lack of scientific and mathematical literacy.
Get a better bullshit filter....stop falling for every online hoax that comes your way. Do some research on mathematical models and how they are written, then you'll understand how David Weiss has fucked you.
6
-
@vohannes If I’m chatting with you here, best not to assume I’ve never looked at flat Earth and researched it myself. I’ve chatted with hundreds of flat Earthers at this point, over 4 years of researching it, I know your arguments probably better than you do at this point. I’m just sayin, even in the more distilled core of flat Earth, you people have a hard tine agreeing on much, so it’s hard to pin down because you don’t have a unified working model. And any time something is without a doubt proven false, you hack it off like a dead limb and call it part of the psy op against you...rather than allow yourself to consider the other very real possibility, that flat Earth could just be bullshit. Leaning on the paranoia that got you here, not a very great method for allowing objective reasoning to kick in.
Sabine gave a quick opinion, she doesn’t have time to argue with the village idiots...when your day job involves working directly with people who are actively developing and putting satellites and spacecraft into orbit...you don’t really have much care for petty arguments online amongst the layman, that you know are settled arguments beyond any shadow of a doubt.
6
-
@vohannes The next part to tackle is gravity. I’ll make this a bit shorter.
Gravity holds everything to surface, the only difference the ocean has with living creatures and mechanical vehicles, is that water is not alive (or has no engine) and thus creates no energy to resist gravity. You are only able to stand and walk around, because your body is burning carbs, it converts to energy, that your muscles use to keep you standing. When you die though what happens? You fall to Earth and remain there...just like water does...are we understanding the role LIFE plays in resisting gravity yet? Gravity is always effecting you, you just have a means to always be resisting it, because gravity isn’t very strong on Earth, but it is however constant, it never shuts off and it sucks up energy like a sponge. You can resist it with energy, but stop producing energy and gravity wins.
Weight is created by gravity, you don’t have weight in freefall or in space, what you always have is mass...but weight, that is created by three things. Your mass, the force of gravity and the surface of Earth which stops you from falling any further towards center of gravity, this creates inertia on your body, that inertia is what you know as weight.
Why is this important to understand? Because flat Earth grossly misunderstands how gravity works...for some reason, I’ve noticed they seem to think it effects things differently, simply because some things are heavier by weight. What they misunderstand, is that It’s not gravity that effects that difference, it’s mass and density. Gravity effects EVERYTHING the same, it’s an objects density that determines how heavy it’s going to be. Ocean has a lot of mass, water is fairly dense, so it’s heavy. A butterfly (a counter example I hear a lot from FE) has very little mass, so it’s much lighter....gravity doesn’t change, it’s not effecting everything differently, that’s one of the biggest misconceptions flat Earthers have. Since a butterfly has less mass, it’s actually easier to resist gravity, because it requires less energy to move its much smaller mass.
I realize you didn’t directly make the “how can butterflies fly if gravity holds oceans” argument, but I do feel you were maybe implying it. Either way, it’s important to dispel this misconception of gravity, to better understand the last part of your question.
6
-
@vohannes Yup, as I figured, completely over your head. You’re too deep to help now, but I did already know that, just bored I guess, I enjoy the challenge of trying. What’s funny is you actually think I haven’t heard your counter arguments before either, you say I’m regurgitating science, but you’re just repeating the same script I’ve heard a thousand times from flat Earth. So we’re really not much different...except my conclusions are verified with actual tested science and are actually used in the real world for practical applications, but hey, who needs working science when you can just ignore reality and make up your own without any real effort. xD
I do hope you stop to actually listen and absorb the lessons I’ve attempted to share here today...but I won’t hold my breath. Just sad that paranoia, delusion and confirmation bias have gotten this bad, but gladly you’re infliction is far from a majority and has been dying down a lot the last couple years, so not really much of a concern anymore,.
6
-
6
-
Cartoon characters do not exist, Earth appearing flat at first glance however, that’s very real. So you’re making a false comparison. The reason I feel people are entertaining flat Earth today, is because trust has been eroding in the public for systems of authority, helped in large part by social media making a paradise for con artists to spread misinformation and stir doubt, increase paranoia, rob people of their better reasoning. It’s easy to stir up doubt, because most people form opinion around group structures they trust, not objective reality...that’s much harder to do. So, just get them to lose trust, by lying and spreading conspiracies, mankind’s base instincts will do the rest...it’s brainwashing 101, start by telling people they’ve been lied too, then claim you have the answers.
It works very well, because most people are not well versed in modern science or mathematics, they have very little first hand experience, so filling the gaps of their knowledge is easy. Just gain their trust and then you can feed them just about any bullshit you want, if you tailor it just right, full of half truths and clever misdirections they don’t have the prior knowledge to counter (8 inches per mile squared for example, or false gravity physics).
Flat Earth is in that sweet spot of conspiracy, in that Earth appears flat at first glance, so it has a base that’s rooted in our day to day that’s easy to agree on. It’s a question that was not easy for mankind to deduce, and most people have never asked themselves how science deduced Earth was spherical. So, it was actually pretty fertile ground for opportunists to seed, just get them curious in the science they’ve largely ignored their whole lives, get them asking the same questions scientists hundreds of years ago once asked, but pretend like the questions have never been asked before, simply because they’re not asked anymore today. Pretty easy to burst that damn really.
Anyway, just because people are talking about something, does not make it true by default. Don’t make decisions around a group...I thought that was the core tenant of flat Earth to begin with? Con artists exist, this a fact, today they have the best platform ever created to spread misinformation with, the internet. People with zero oversight, are more likely to lie too you, because they know that nobody is there to stop them. Ask questions all you want...but you know, don’t be lazy about it, don’t just trust something blindly simply because it’s not associated with the authority structures you no longer trust. Regular people online can and will lie to you, so remember to keep questioning, even the sources you’ve come to trust.
6
-
Well, I’d ask how much do you actually know about what the Mayans or other ancient cultures actually had recorded? Or did you just watch a bunch of Ancient Aliens over the years, believed every word of it or misinterpreted what was actually being said, and now form an opinion on misinformation or half truths? No disrespect, we all have bits of knowledge that’s probably flawed or faulty to some degree, but I think it’s good to be honest with ourselves.
The oldest known surviving star chart to my knowledge, is from an ancient temple in Japan, dating back about 400 BC, at least by some estimates. Nearly 2500 years ago and the stars are not as they are today on this record, they’re actually very different. The Egyptians, Greeks and Babylonians also kept records, but the only records that still survived that period are from the copies made by a Greek astronomer known as Hipparchus around 129 BC. These are the oldest known records that are more substantial and complete…at least for their region. The Chinese also kept pretty good records, but the surviving records from that region are from about 30 BC.
The Mayans may have recorded the stars too, but to my knowledge, none of those records exist today. The Calendars they created that do exist, were cycles of the seasons and eclipses, they followed the Sun and Moon pretty closely, but the stars are not really included much in Mayan artifacts or tablets, certainly none that accurately charted the stars for their time.
So you’re asking a question that really requires a question to answer it before hand. How much do you actually know about ancient astronomy records? Are you an astronomy historian, or even an astronomer? Any actual astronomer will tell you, that the ancient star charts we do have records of, depict stars that are actually very different from what we see today. Which fits with the geometry of our solar system and the scale of the galaxy. With a galaxy of our size, it would take hundreds to thousands of years to make any noticeable changes. Any astronomer would also tell you, that the stars do shift constantly, we measure shifts in positions over just a few decades of observing, some shift even faster, like for example Barnards star, which anybody can track for around a 5 year period and notice it shifting quite a bit in that time. Which is why that’s a popular star for amateur astronomers to begin tracking, feel free to look it up sometime, it’s an interesting star.
Fact is, the stars are shifting, quite a lot in fact, it just doesn’t happen very quickly. And that’s due to parallax. I’m sure you know what parallax effect is, the further something is from you, the slower it will appear to move. That’s why a passenger jet in the sky, moving at 500 mph, will appear to barely crawl across the sky, it’s distance from you having a pretty big effect on its rate of travel. The stars are moving very quickly, but you have to also understand that they’re also very far away, we’re talking trillions of miles away. That distance will greatly effect that perceived motion.
Anyway, I hope that helps provide a little further insight. I hope you find this information at the very least interesting.
6
-
6
-
6
-
@elfalte No, the stars in the South actually rotate around their own polar star, Sigma Octantis. This is basic astronomy knowledge, there is a second rotation in the South. So how’s that possible if Earth is flat, with only one sky? 🤷♂️
The stars are shifting, this is also basic astronomy. They take a long time to do it, but they are moving. The reason it takes so long is due to parallax effect. The distances between each star are in the trillions of miles, light years, moving at the rate they’re going compared to those distances, they’re not gonna appear to shift very quickly. Distance has a profound affect on perceived motion…that’s why a passenger jet in the sky, moving at 500 mph, appears to barely crawl across the sky. And that’s just at a few miles…what do you think trillions of miles would do?
If this subject truly interests you, then you shouldn’t ignore the Southern Hemisphere observations.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
No, paranoia and bias and lack of scientific literacy among the general public, allowed a few con men online to spread a hoax, exploiting people’s growing loss of trust in the system. Objective science has verified Earth to be a globe, many many times over, and that model is what’s currently used in every applied science today, from transportation, to communication, to engineering and infrastructure....with great success I’ll add, as I’m sure you’ve lived and experienced the modern world for awhile now. The fact that the model works in all these industries and applied sciences, is proof positive the main conclusion of a Globe is accurate. Stop letting huxters feed you bullshit science and come back to reality.
6
-
6
-
6
-
That said, I’ll humour your challenge here.
1. Yup, this observation would not occur unless surface was curving https://youtu.be/MoK2BKj7QYk?si=WJXhsyMa3mWs6quU&t=222. No math is required here, just some simple reasoning…how exactly is this tower sinking into and under horizon (and below eye level), by hundreds of feet, if the surface isn’t curving? He zooms right up to the tower upon each observation, no amount of zooming in brings the bottom back.
2. The Apollo missions took hundreds of photos of Earth decades before CGI, photoshop, software or satellites capable of making composites with. They’re well archived, should be simple enough to find if you actually try. So how exactly did they fake those photos before the technology existed to do it? And if you do think they still faked them, can you demonstrate how they did it? Can you actually prove they did, or are you just assuming they did?
3. Well let’s actually look at the figures. It’s a curvature, so a plane would arc by degrees to compensate. Takes roughly 70 miles to arc 1 degree of difference on Earth’s surface, a passenger jet flying at 500 mph covers that distance in roughly 8 minutes. Do you really think you’d notice a difference of 1 degree that takes 8 minutes to complete? Not likely. Do they compensate for this? Absolutely they do, pilots are constantly making tiny adjustments of pitch, yaw, and roll, all adding up to equal slight changes of position over time. It’s not a nose dive like you seem to think it would be though, Earth is massive compared to us, a change of 1 degree every 8 minutes is far too gradual of an angle shift over time, for any person to notice.
4. First of all, we are going back, look up the Artemis program sometime, the unmanned probe missions have already started, with manned missions happening within the next year or two. Secondly, funding was cut for further Moon projects, so nobody was developing and manufacturing new modules for deep space. Can’t exactly go into deep space unless you have a vehicle to take you…if nobody’s funding that production, then how exactly are we gonna go? 🤷♂️ You think space travel is easy or something? Can’t take the old the modules, they were decommissioned because they’re old and out dated…would you wanna go into space in a rusty broken down Model T? Probably not. Funding had to return before any further R&D and production could occur, but then every new system has to be tested and cleared for safety…we can’t just build a new ship without testing it first. The old ships were all analog systems which don’t break down in strong electromagnetic/radioactive fields, our modern computers however are a lot more susceptible to damage in that environment, so that presented an engineering hurtle…which was a little difficult to overcome if nobody is funding it.
NASA didn’t say we can never go back, only that we couldn’t at the time that interview had taken place. So you’re misinterpreting what was actually said. But that was then, now we are going back, very soon in fact.
It’s great that people are doing their own experiments and all…but that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily conducting these experiments without error. We have a system of peer review for a reason, because nobody is infallible, and confirmation bias is a real thing. Don’t be so quick to assume the conclusions of FE are without error.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@FLENTERTAINMENT1INC No, that’s not according to NASA, that’s according to the Flat Earthers who cherry picked from ONE technician, who was explaining how the 2002 Blue Marble composite of Earth was created. Composite images take many smaller photographs, taken from low Earth orbit satellites (100-400 miles distances) and stitch them together, this requires a photo editing software like photoshop. So only a composite image would require photoshop…and that’s all he was explaining. NASA is very transparent with their photos, they will always tell you when a photo is composite.
The part Flat Earthers conveniently leave out is that most photos from NASA are not composite; the very large majority are from geostationary weather satellites (roughly 25,000 miles distance), like Himawari, GOES, and DSCOVR, that they take a single frame photo of Earth, around the clock, every few minutes. So at this point, these satellites have taken probably millions of full photos of Earth, that are not composite and not photoshopped.
Aside from those photos, the Apollo missions took hundreds of photos of Earth, long before the days of CGI, photoshop, or even home computers. These photos are well archived, you could find them fairly easy with a search.
Then there’s the footage from the ISS, rocket launches, various probes…so there’s countless photos of Earth now, all showing a spherical Earth. So to say there isn’t…is just ignorant.
If you’re gonna claim they’re all fake, well that’s just an empty claim until you have some actual proof for the claim. And if that is your conclusion…then why bother asking for photos, or asking why they don’t take any? 🤷♂️ You don’t see that as a bit illogical? If you’ve already concluded they’re all just fake, then you already have your answer, and nothing anyone shows you will likely change your mind.
6
-
@FLENTERTAINMENT1INC Also, I think you might have misinterpreted what your friend and those pilots were actually saying. Of course maps are flat…a map by definition is 2 dimensional projection of a geographical surface. But the model that is used to make those PROJECTIONS, is the globe model. So they likely weren’t saying Earth is flat, only that maps are. Every pilot and sailor in the world uses the same geographic coordinate system, designed from the WGS84 globe model, feel free to look both those up sometime. Also look up what a projection map is…every flat map is merely a 2D interpretation of our globe Earth. These are facts, not opinions.
If you don’t believe me, then take a navigations course, or at the very least watch a navigation tutorial…would probably only take about an hour of your time. You learn pretty quickly what shape the Earth is in navigation…and why that knowledge is extremely important to have.
Fun fact, ancient sailors were actually some of the first people to realize the Earth was spherical. Look up the Greek geographer Ptolemy, he created the first spherical models for Earth nearly 2000 years ago. Sailors have used that information ever since….and it works, that’s when you know it’s accurate.
6
-
6
-
6
-
Oh boy 🤦♂️...seriously, just stop and think about that for a few seconds longer than the FE guru you learned that from did. How exactly does density put matter into motion? How does it know which direction to always go? The air is thinner above...so why didn’t it fall up into the even less dense area? How exactly do we apply that explanation as well? Can you derive me new equations for things like calculating weight (W=mg), calculating buoyancy (Fb=Vpg), calculating a projectiles arc (sin(2θ)v2/g)? Notice the little ‘g’ in each one of those? That’s the acceleration of gravity; 9.8m/s^2. Take that variable away...you’ll have a pretty difficult time applying these formulas. The whole point of science is to deduce certainties of reality, measure phenomenon and understand how they work, so we can then APPLY that knowledge in applied sciences, like engineering. So...can you derive me new equations without gravity as a variable?
Density explains nothing...it is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, it has no means of putting matter into motion. Falling is a motion...so density does very little to explain that motion. It’s PART of the physics, gravity physics already includes density and buoyancy...all Flat Earth is doing, is chopping out the bits it doesn’t like, anything that’s inconvenient for their core argument. It’s just plain ol’ denialism, for the sake of confirmation bias...it’s bullshit, to con scientifically illiterate suckers, like yourself.
6
-
No…the problem is some people not paying attention in school, and then reaching a great many erroneous conclusions, from misunderstandings that could have been avoided had they listened. 🤦♂️ It’s a common misconception, but theories never become laws in science, or vice versa…they are two different forms of a conclusion. One does not become the other, and neither is higher than the other. Laws describe WHAT is occurring, theories explain HOW and WHY they occur…that is their difference. Both are backed by facts and evidence, both are conclusions, but in a different form. Some concepts are both a law and a theory (gravity), others are just a law (thermodynamics, motion), others are just a theory (evolution). Theory does not imply it’s unproven, nothing graduates past hypothesis and into a theory until it has been thoroughly tested and reviewed. The same is true for laws of science…they’re considered equal in science.
Theories are not below laws, and they do not become laws…they are completely separate. Had you listened in any general science class growing up, you would have learned this…but unfortunately a lot of people didn’t it seems, because this misconception is quite common…unfortunately.
Tough to take the rest of your comment seriously, when you demonstrate a clear lack of understanding in the basic terminology of science.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@TheOricine I’ve reviewed many long distance observations from flat Earthers making many claims, in each, they always make at least one of these three errors. 1) using the wrong math, and never bothering to check it for accuracy (8inches per mile squared being the worst offender, but there are others); 2) Getting the details wrong or straight up lying about them (observation heights, distances, misidentifying the objects being observed, etc.); 3) ignoring important variables such as height of observer or refraction...in many cases, not even understanding why they’re important.
If I were to give a fourth error, never considering the possibility that they made an error...which is why their figures aren’t working.
I’m not new to this discussion, so you can save me the rhetoric of “research it yourself”, been doing that for years now, so far, every claim has been falsified or inconclusive. You’ve made a claim, I’m here to review it. I always offer a fair objective review of an observation, but I need details before I could even begin. Your claim is lacking information, so it’s barely a start towards what you’d need to provide, to even begin claiming it as a conclusive observation of no curvature. Peer review is an important step in the process of science, so I’m offering that review. So feel free.
6
-
Motion does not occur without a force to cause it, physics 101. Is falling a motion? Yes, it is. Okay…then force confirmed, it’s really that simple. What does science tend to do when it identifies a force or phenomenon of nature? They name it…so everyone is on the same page when discussing it, they called that downward motion gravity. They did the same for the upward motion, called it buoyancy force. Mass is not a force, it’s just a property of matter…it’s already defined in physics, it has its place already, it does not cause motion, it’s just a scaler variable.
Flat Earthers are a sad group of scientifically illiterate people. If you just understood the basics of physics, you wouldn’t fall into this mess. 🤦♂️
6
-
Train tracks are parallel as well, but appear to converge if you look directly down the track. I’d say Perspective is what causes Crepuscular rays, it’s an optical illusion. Ever seen light shine through trees? Can look like the Sun is directly behind the trees at times, but we all know it’s not actually…perspective is just a tricky bugger sometimes.
The Moon is not actually perfectly the same size as the Sun, during Annular eclipses, it appears smaller by a noticeable degree. That’s what Flookd was pointing out; the angular size (the apparent size of an object due to perspective) of the Moon is slightly similar to the Sun, it’s not exactly the same angular size. And coincidences do occur, it’s just probability, so science should never throw the baby out with the bathwater because of a coincidence. We may even learn someday (or maybe we already have), that it’s not actually a coincidence at all.
I think you’re perhaps misinterpreting that quote. Of course it would be easier to explain the non existence of something…if we didn’t have a Moon, what reason would we have to explain it? 🤷♂️ We typically do more work to explain the things that exist, than we do things that don’t. Also, just because something is difficult to explain, doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
Seems you really don’t like coincidences. That’s fine really, in deductive reasoning coincidences do typically mean somethings not right, but the law of probability does exist, so I wouldn’t let that bias lead you too much.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
No, that’s a real conman working his scam on people. Eric Dubay is good at selling half truths, spinning actual science and history, with a few cleverly placed lies here and there, to help convince people he’s onto something. For example, roughly one minute in and he makes the claim that buoyancy (more specifically Archimedes principal) and gravity, are treated as different in science, that they’re not taught together in physics, acting as if buoyancy isn’t even taught in physics….and that’s not true at all. It’s well known in physics that gravity is the direct cause of buoyancy, you do not have buoyancy effect without gravity. That’s what every scientist, engineer and expert agrees upon, thanks to the heaps of evidence that points to that conclusion. Plenty of experiments verify this, from density columns put in zero g environments, to vacuum chamber experiments negating buoyant effect, to the simple push pull demonstration with balloons of varying gases, showing how motion and fluid density together are what cause them to travel upwards. Motion like the downward acceleration of gravity.
So that’s what is taught in every physics class today, that buoyancy and gravity are basically the same force, they’re directly linked. It’s even in the math for buoyancy force. Here’s the equation for calculating an objects buoyancy in a medium; Fb=Vpg. That translates too, fluid volume, times fluid density, times downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2), equals buoyancy force. Without gravity, that equation is useless…because gravity causes the displacement of matter by density, which causes buoyancy. Gravity is the start of density displacement, without it, matter has no clue which way to begin orientating itself and ordering by density.
That equation I shared above, is the actual equation REAL engineers and experts use when designing the ballast tanks for ships, submarines, basically any kind of sea vessel/submersible. That’s the equation REAL ship and docking crews use, when determining how much weight a vessel can hold, before it’s buoyancy force becomes overwhelmed and it capsizes.
Does Dubay design ballast tanks for sea vessels? Does he have any experiencing loading a cargo ship to capacity without capsizing it?
Eric Dubay PRETENDS to know science better than actual experts…but you know how you know for certain when you someone is preaching pseudoscience? When they have NOTHING to show for all that “superior” scientific understanding. Real science is actually useful…junk science is not, it’s that simple.
You just go ahead and let me know how many WORKING inventions and engineering patents are under Eric Dubay’s belt. Until then…it’s very safe to assume he’s a modern day snake oil seller.
Learn some real physics…stop falling for the lies of conmen online.
5
-
@billnyethesciencedenier1516 “If I dive into a pool with a basketball and let the ball go when I’m at the bottom, the ball will move upward until it gets to the top of the water.”
Ya, buoyancy force is a thing…but why didn’t it keep going up? You claim there has to be a physical barrier to act as containment, yet there’s no physical container present in your example. There’s nothing between the top of the water, and the bottom of atmosphere. Sooooo…you basically just proved our point with your example, that forces are more than enough to contain matter, no physical container required.
“Why didn’t gravity hold the ball down?”
It did…it’s not shooting up through atmosphere is it? No, it sits on the water, held down by gravity. Buoyancy force is why it went upwards in the water, and buoyancy is actually caused by gravity…that’s physics 101. Without gravity, buoyancy does not occur, proven in countless zero G drop tests. That’s why gravity is included as a variable in the equation for buoyancy; Fb=Vpg. See that little ‘g’ there? That’s the downward acceleration of gravity. Without that motion, buoyancy does not occur. Buoyancy is not actually a force on its own, it is actually the end result of a chain reaction of events, that starts with gravity.
Here, I’ll give you the physics lesson you should have learned a long time ago. It works like this; all matter has mass, the more mass something has the more inertia it has. Inertia is basically just how resistant something is to being moved, more inertia something has means more energy required to move it, and vice versa. Meaning if there’s an object of greater mass (with more inertia) occupying a space, then an object of less mass will not be able to occupy that position, it is pushed away by the inertial forces of the molecules of that object. So now picture a 3 dimensional system of zero motion, with a bunch of mixed matter of various masses inside that space. Without any forces to cause them to be put into motion in any particular direction, what happens? Nothing, they just sit there, a mixed system of various molecules, no ordering by density, just a chaotic mixed system. But now let’s introduce a force into that system, that attracts all matter equally, and will put all matter into motion in a specific vector direction, now what happens? Well, the molecules of greater mass and density will occupy lowest potential energy state first, closest to the source of this attraction, and since less dense matter can not occupy that same space, guess what happens…it’s pushed out of its way, in the opposite direction of the attracting force. We observe that as buoyancy. It will continue to be pushed away from the attracting force, by more dense matter, until it reaches a point where it has the dominant mass and the most inertia.
That’s buoyancy force in a nutshell…it actually requires gravity for it to occur.
That is what is understood by every engineer and scientist today. Buoyancy force is caused by gravity. You people need to seriously take a physics class…you’re just demonstrating your own scientific illiteracy. Catch up please…for all our sakes.
5
-
5
-
The Saros cycle is based off of recorded observation, paying close attention to the patterns, refining the system slowly over a few centuries of continuous observation. Our solar system is pretty constant in all its motions, so it’s going to behave almost like clock work for that reason, really wouldn’t take much to pay attention, and log the patterns and create a rough timeline for future celestial events.
What the Saros cycle can not do however, is tell you an EXACT time down to the second, and the EXACT location of shadows totality, down to the square mile. Using Earth’s known geometry and scale and all its known motions through our solar system in careful calculations, can however predict every future eclipse, with incredible accuracy, down to the last detail. That’s not just a coincidence, it’s for a good reason...because Earth is a sphere and it’s in orbit around our Sun.
5
-
5
-
@dubrulphilippe3815 Water is inert, and conforms to whatever forces are acting upon it, including gravity. Gravity creates a field of force around a centre of attraction, this forms all matter into a sphere around that centre, holding liquid at equipotential distance, from centre. A bubble is another example of a liquid surface held at equipotential distance, if you’re wondering what that term means. It basically just means a sphere created by a force.
Look up the Lake Pontchartrain power lines sometime, pretty clear observation of Earth curvature and water curving with it.
Also do a search of the Turning Torso Tower observations sometime, you should easily find an image (or even the video) depicting a tall tower being viewed from various distances across a body of water. As the observer gets further away, the tower clearly drops more and more, by hundreds of feet, below horizon and below the observers eye level. You can physically see it’s dropping, because the tower has very clear sections, each are roughly 20 meters in height…you can count them disappearing. The observer uses a telescopic zoom lens, he zooms right up to the tower on each observation, no amount of zooming brings the bottom of the tower back into view.
So that begs the question, if Earth isn’t curving, then why is that tower dropping behind horizon and below eye level, by hundreds of feet? 🤷♂️ Look it up sometime, it’s a great observation of Earth curvature, one of many I could share.
For me though, navigation is the best evidence against Flat Earth. Do you honestly believe millions of pilots and sailors could successfully navigate the surface every day, with pinpoint precision, without knowing for certain the true shape and scale of the surface they’re navigating? 🧐 If you honestly think that’s possible…then you might need a bit of a slap upside the head. No offence.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@scotthadley92 Yes, I’ve seen the 200 proofs from Eric Dubay. But I have to disagree with you on there being any good points. Maybe it’s because I’ve had a life long interest in science, and so I’ve acquired a lot of general science and mathematics knowledge over the years before seeing his “proofs”, but I was stunned to learn people couldn’t see the 200 proofs for what it actually is…gish gallop. If you’re not familiar with the term, it’s a tactic used in arguments and in debate, that’s pretty common in general argument but that is greatly frowned upon in actual debates, because it’s a cheap dishonest tactic.
Basically, it’s just dumping a number of weaker arguments on a person in rapid fire. It does two things, makes it very difficult to address each point one at a time, basically overloading a person’s capacity to really think on each point, and it makes the core argument appear more impressive, by the sheer quantity of points made, but it’s essentially quantity over quality. Debates do not allow this tactic, it’s recognized and stopped immediately in a moderated debate, but it’s pretty common in regular arguments, I’m sure you’ve even used it before without realizing, it’s quite effective. But it’s cheap, because if each point were allowed the time to be addressed one at a time, they’d be revealed for how weak they really are. Dumping them all together, is what fools people into thinking they’re stronger arguments.
So if he’s willing to use a deceitful tactic like gish gallop to sell his argument, then that should be a red flag for people I feel. If they really had a strong position, they wouldn’t need to resort to deceitful tactics, and it’s not just Dubay, they all do it, you’ll find lots of conspiracy docs are hours long, dumping tons of information all at once, it’s pretty common. That’s by design I feel.
Anyway, just always remember to slow your roll and question each point made one at a time. It takes longer, but it’s worth the effort to find out whether they’re really sound arguments, or just empty claims and dribble. Many have already done this, and they’re not all that difficult to find online, so worth checking out I’d say.
5
-
5
-
@Ty-Leo We’ve read these documents too, and we recognize what they are…mathematical simplification models. Even if you disagree, which I’m sure you do, can a conversation ever be had, where you actually listen and consider what we’re trying to explain here? Have you really considered what we’re saying, or is consideration not even an option?
One last question, has David Weiss, or anyone of FE, tried tracking down the publisher’s of these reports, to ask them directly what these papers are saying? Has he or anyone ever asked an actual mathematician what’s actually being said in these reports? If not, then that should be pretty suspect…cause if you’re really not just chasing confirmation bias, then you should demonstrate that by doing everything you can to challenge and check any conjectures or speculations you might be making.
5
-
@vohannes “Explain a balloon filled with helium rising against a force (gravity) that holds millions of tons of water to a 1000 mile per hour spinning ball.”
Lots to unpack here, this question covers several different misunderstood concepts of physics you’re having, I count at least 3, so I’ll tackle them in order as quick as I can.
Helium rises in atmosphere due to buoyancy, the same force that displaces oxygen in water causing bubbles to rise. Helium is less dense than the surrounding air, so it is displaced by the denser oxygen and forced upward. Buoyancy is an apparent force (meaning not technically a real force) that is directly dependent on the downward accelerating force of gravity. Take away gravity and buoyancy can not occur, proven time and again in simple density collumns put in zero G environments. https://youtu.be/rpP-7dhm9DI?t=181
So helium actually does not rise in a vacuum, it drops. See, what’s happening is the downward force of gravity is what begins the displacement of matter by density, telling all matter which direction to fall and begin ordering by their density. Helium is a very light gas by density, so it can’t occupy the same column of density as heavier gases like oxygen or C02, so these heavier gases force helium upwards. Remove all other gases though (in a vacuum chamber), and helium actually drops, just like everything does. Helium isn’t visible to your naked eye, so the best way for you or anyone to test this is with another gas we know that commonly rises, that we can easily see, smoke. Here’s a common experiment done in many entry level physics classes, observing smoke in a vacuum chamber. https://youtu.be/Yb2YuC7UbwI?t=139 Notice how the smoke almost immediately falls to the bottom of the chamber, after the kinetic energy is spent that shot it up. Instead of the smoke rising (due to buoyancy) like we’re normally used too, remove the air and buoyancy can no longer occur, so it drops....just like all matter does on Earth due to gravity.
So it’s fine to have questions...but why does flat Earth just immediately assume there is no answer for their questions? You’re misunderstanding of helium and how it rises, begins with your lack of understanding of basic physics. Gravity is actually what helps cause helium to rise. It’s even quantified, the formula for buoyancy force requires gravity. Here’s the formula for buoyancy Fb=—pgV. Fb is buoyancy force, p is the density, V is the volume and notice the little g there? That’s the downward acceleration of gravity, 9.8m/s^2. You can’t have buoyancy, without gravity, so helium rises due to gravity.
Basic physics, though I understand that it’s not common knowledge...but still, I don’t feel that’s an adequate excuse living in the information age, where this knowledge is just a few key strokes away, with simple experiments and equations that help to verify the conclusions.
Now, I get that flat Earth thinks they’ve answered for gravity by saying it’s just density and buoyancy, but all they’ve really done is taken the already established law of gravity, and removed the parts they don’t like. Namely the parts that describe the downward acceleration...so their explanation is basically just gravity, but denying that all things fall consistently in the same direction (toward surface) and at the same rate (9.8m/s^2). You know...the useful information described in both the law and the theory of gravity...that has practical use in actual formulas, used in actual applied sciences like engineering.
Anyway, so that’s one misconception down, hope it helps you a bit to understand buoyancy better. But like I said your question falls under many concepts of physics, so I’ll provide a bit more insight for you in another comment.
5
-
@vohannes So the last part of your question is a misunderstanding of the physics of motion, namely rotational motion. I won’t go into the physics of motion to much, though you should learn the laws of motion and relative motion to better understand this, but I’ll just focus on Centripetal force here.
1000 miles per hour is a linear velocity, we do not measure rotations in linear rates, it’s much easier to understand it in rotational velocity, or revolutions per minute (RPM’s), because this has the larger impact. Basically, you’re focusing on the wrong figure here, the linear speed doesn’t have as much to do with Centripetal force increase, as the rate of rotation does. Basic rule of thumb, the more revolutions per minute, the higher the Centripetal force (or Centrifugal force if you prefer).
Here’s a simple thought experiment to help you understand this better. Imagine yourself driving in a race car at 200 mph, going around a perfect circle track that’s only 1000 meters in circumference. Would you expect there to be a lot of Centrifugal force in this example? Obviously yes, in fact the driver would probably have a heck of a time staying on the track, his body sucked to the door under all the Centrifugal force. Ok, now let’s make one change, let’s increase the size of the perfect circle track to 1000 miles, now going at the same 200 mph speed, would you expect the driver to experience the same Centrifugal force? Nope, not even close, in this example the driver likely wouldn’t notice any force at all, the track would probably feel almost like a straight highway with no turn at all. But hold on...the speed was the same, so why the decrease in force?
So what does this simple thought experiment teach us? That linear velocity itself has very little to do with what causes and increases Centripetal force, it’s the rate of rotation that matters most, because the rate of rotation is what has the larger impact on the rate of angular velocity change per second. The first car was making more complete circuits in a single minute, while the second car would only complete a single rotation every 5 hours...that’s all that changed, the revolutions per minute (RPM’s).
Now that we understand that, let’s look at the Earth rotation. What’s its RPM’s? Well, as we all know, a full day takes 24 hours. So that’s ONE complete rotation every 24 hours...which is an even slower rate of rotation than our second race track example above. So knowing this...why would you assume our Earth would create ANY noticeable Centrifugal force? It’s because you heard the larger figure (1000 mph), then put no further thought into it...you just jumped straight to your assumed conclusion, that this linear velocity would create a lot of force...your assumption is made worse in that you think it was also creating more force than the force of gravity on Earth. All just assumptions. If you understood the physics better, you’d recognize immediately where flat Earth is going wrong. There’s even more to it, but that’s the basics.
Truth is, Earths rotation does not generate enough centrifugal force to trump gravity, it doesn’t even generate enough for us to feel it. But it does generate some actually and that force is actually greatest at the Equator. Which is why you and everything actually weigh slightly less at the Equator, because there is more centrifugal force negating a little bit more gravity than anywhere else, which is actually a great proof of Earths rotation btw, because you can actually measure this yourself. Here’s a great experiment that you or anyone can repeat, that helps to verify this phenomenon https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o.
So your question is a very layered cake, but yes, science has accounted for every problem you’re having. These are good questions in all seriousness...the problem is that flat Earth thinks these questions are unanswered, because they assumed they can’t be answered. In reality, these are very old questions that science answered hundreds of years ago now...the trouble is that many flat Earthers seem to really have a hard time understanding the science, forming a lot of misconceptions and false conclusions. Form enough of these misunderstandings...you start to think the model isn’t accurate, instead of considering the other very real possibility, that maybe it’s YOU who is in error.
There is a bit more to your question, but that’s already a lot of explanation as it is, so I’ll leave it there. I’m sure it’s done very little to help you, as I’m sure at this point you’re not really interested in being persuaded anymore, you’ve probably made up your mind...but just know there are very valid reasons why many of us do not bat an eye at flat Earth claims, because we understand where they’ve gone wrong and we’re not just going to ignore that.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@elfalte Planes are bound to the same law of conservation of momentum, that we all are. Try this sometime, get on a bus, train, or passenger jet, any long corridor vehicle. Once it’s moving at a steady rate in one direction, start tossing a paper airplane back and forth between you and a buddy. You’ll notice it travels the same no matter which way you toss it, with the vehicle’s motion or against it, it won’t matter.
It’s the same physics, momentum is conserved at all times, the plane doesn’t just stop rotating with the Earth when it’s in flight. Basic physics of motion.
Eric Dubay, like all flat Earth con men, takes advantage of your lack of knowledge in things like astronomy and physics. It only makes sense to you, because you lack a basic understanding of many things, like physics.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
No, they fall in vacuum regardless of the medium surrounding them, everything does. This falling is a motion, no motion occurs on its own without a force to cause it. So your conclusion of “buoyancy and density sorting it out” doesn’t answer for that downward motion, it just ignores it. Further problems are that density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, how much mass occupies a certain volume, so it can’t cause a motion on its own. And buoyancy doesn’t occur without gravity, the downward motion is what kicks off the density displacement, which causes buoyancy….basic physics of buoyancy, proven time and again in multiple different density column zero G tests.
So all you have is butchered physics, designed to fool the ignorant and uneducated into believing bullshit. It’s just classic confirmation bias. At least the upward motion hypothesis (which actually was pretty popular anongst flatties a few years ago), had a premise that could actually account for the downward accelerating motion we observe and measure in falling matter. It had its own problems of course…but at least it was trying, while the density and buoyancy argument doesn’t even make an attempt, you guys just slot it in then pat yourselves on the back, no need to prove, test, or explain anything. It’s pretty terrible science…can’t even really call it an attempt.
5
-
5
-
5
-
Good, some evidence we’re making progress. We got them from “It’s Flat!!!”, to “It’s probably flat!”, to “There’s no proof it’s round, doesn’t mean you have to believe it’s
flat.” It’s rounding the bend now, few more months and we’ll get em back too “Oh, so...flat Earth was a con this whole time?”. Ya think!? :/
You’re just stating the obvious when you say people, corporations and governments lie...you’re not onto some great revelation the rest of us aren’t aware of, we’re all well aware. Doesn’t mean we toss out basic scientific facts, that are easy to verify if you just peeled your face away from your phone long enough to try. Facts that actual experts use every single day, to do their jobs. Ever talk to a flat Earth pilot or sailor? No? Hmmm...I wonder why that is?
You know who loves truth? Scientists...cause they know better than anyone that junk science gets us nowhere. You think you’re a “truther” cause you watched some conspiracy docs on YouTube and agreed to every single word blindly and without question? That’s adorable...you just let us know when they have a working model that’s actually used for anything in the real world.
5
-
5
-
@yingyang1008 Don’t confuse your limits as a shared experience. Anyone can verify the true shape of the planet with a few simple observations and a basic knowledge of geometry. Start with a sunset...don’t you think it’d be a little hard for a sunset to occur, if line of sight is never physically blocked? You betcha, makes no geometric sense at all, the math doesn’t work either https://youtu.be/-e9d4bjImHM.
Then you can even take it a step further. Start paying attention, record the suns daily positions, shadow angles, transit path, rate of travel, etc. Then plot that real world data on the proposed models, both flat and globe, and see which one the data actually fits on, with no contradictions or errors.
https://youtu.be/fEYsgP4CuSA
https://youtu.be/yrsaP7nBWt0
https://youtu.be/EF6Ojo9fJhw
https://youtu.be/W1al9aGartM
It’s super simple actually, for anyone to verify which shape is true...just have to actually try. You’re just arguing from ignorance and then pretending like we should all be impressed. :/
5
-
5
-
@bellottibellotti9185 Alright, here’s a far more accurate trigonometric equation, that accounts for an important variable that 8 inches per mile squared ignores, height of observation.
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
r= Radius of the Earth
d= Distance to observation in arc length
h= Height of observation
There are several reasons why 8 inches per mile squared is the wrong equation, but the simplest reason to understand is that it ignores height of the observer, which is a very important variable in how far you can see. It’s pretty common sense, the higher you go in elevation, the further you see. That equation though (8 inches per mile squared) gives you the same figure whether you’re at 6 foot viewing height or 1000 feet, it simply does not represent your actual line of sight. The equation I’ve shared does represent line of sight, and tells you exactly what is hidden by the geometric horizon, of a spherical Earth.
As pointed out though, refraction is another important variable to account for. The equation I shared is purely geometric, and does not include refraction, so that does require calculation as well. But refraction is an optical distortion, so you start with a geometric calculation, and then you calculate the distortion after the fact, so that equation is the first step. The Metabunk curve calculator is where I got that equation from, and they’ve created a calculator that accounts for a standard refraction as well, so that’s the calculator I recommend for most observations. But the best calculator I’ve come across so far is the Walter Bislen Earth curve simulator, because refraction index fluctuates and it’s always higher over large bodies of water, and that calculator allows you to adjust refraction index, where Metabunk uses a standard refraction…because it’s far easier to derive an equation for, cause it deals with the average.
It’s easy to understand why height of the observer is important to account for, but refraction is a little more difficult to understand, because most people aren’t aware of refraction. Which is understandable, most people are not physicists, so if you’d like a clear observation of refraction in action, look up the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, which is a modern recreation of the Bedford Level experiment. There’s a whole section on refraction in the official research blog, if you find it, scroll down to images 31 and 32, it’s a very clear observation of the effect. You can also find a time lapse of refraction from that experiment on YouTube. So if you really want to learn why it’s important to account for refraction, that’s the observation I’d look up sometime.
Anyway, I hope that information is helpful. Bottom line is that Flat Earthers are pulling the equivalent of a sleight of hand trick on people, that takes advantage of most peoples lack of mathematical knowledge. It’s a pretty standard rule of thumb in science, to always double check your math…it’s usually the first thing you check, when observation doesn’t match predictions. Never assume you can’t be in error…the Flat Earth math is very much in error, and so that’s the reason why the calculation doesn’t match observations.
5
-
5
-
No, it’s not that simple I’m afraid...because errors can be made and bias is real. That’s why we have peer review in science, to weed out errors and bias and lies. Here’s the harsh reality of information gathering of any kind, we do not know everything, for this reason old information always has the potential to change, when new information is acquired. So that’s why science chose to label its conclusions under theory and not fact, because a fact does not change, but if we don’t know everything and sometimes we get shit wrong...then what do we do if our facts are wrong? Just ignore it to appease bias? No, that gets us nowhere, science has to remain objective.
We build scientific theory with facts, but we can never be 100% certain about anything, because we do not know everything and we likely never will, so information has to have room to change or even be discarded. It is harder to do yes, but it’s necessary and it’s how we’ve achieved what we have. I’m sorry it’s not as simple as most would prefer, but objective reality really doesn’t care about what we want to be true.
5
-
@EZHostglo Certainly, I don’t mind sharing information, if you’re actually willing to listen and consider it. Here’s the actual consensus understanding of gas pressure and thermodynamics physics.
Atmospheric pressure is different from gas pressure in small containers. You and Flat Earth are confusing the two…they are not the sane and thus are not treated the same. For smaller scales, we use gas pressure laws and equations, like Boyles Law and the other gas pressure laws. But in larger scales, these equations are essentially useless, because it’s impossible in larger scales — especially in massive open systems like our planet — to get an accurate volume. Volume is the variable in gas pressure equations that is most important, the container basically. This is where Flat Earth gets confused, because they think gas pressure and atmospheric pressure are the same in science. But no, gas pressure equations are not used in larger scales, like in atmosphere. Instead, atmospheric pressure equations are used on larger scales, which uses gravity as the variable to replace volume. Go ahead and look it up any time you’d like, gas pressure laws are not used in larger scales, they are limited in their use. We instead use atmospheric pressure equations, which uses gravity.
Gravity is the container of our atmosphere and this fits with what we observe in reality as well. Because if gravity is creating our atmospheric pressure, then we’d expect a pressure gradient…and that’s exactly what we measure.
No laws of thermodynamics are being broken, because thermodynamics has to do with ENERGY transfer…not so much matter. Matter tags along sometimes, sure, but matter is subject to attractive forces, like gravity, so gas will not fill the void of space entirely, because gravity will eventually sap it of all it’s kinetic energy and bring it back down to surface, essentially slowing down entropy. Even gas is subject to gravity…if it wasn’t, then there wouldn’t be a pressure gradient. The lighter gases do escape into deeper space though, entropy does win eventually, that’s why there’s a massive cloud of hydrogen surrounding the Earth for hundreds of thousands of miles.
Another part Flat Earth forgets or simply just doesn’t understand or factor, is that entropy can be slowed, a simple thermos for your coffee does it all the time. But a great way to understand thermodynamics is with that coffee. When your coffee eventually does go cold, did the coffee also leave? No, just the thermal energy did…for matter, entropy is much slower. Especially if the system is constantly receiving energy…and it is, ever heard of the Sun? Energy is constantly escaping Earth, but it’s also being replenished…by the Sun. We are constantly receiving new energy into the system, which is used to create new gas at the surface.
In this way, it’s actually Flat Earth’s model that breaks entropy laws, or at least doesn’t fit with what we measure and observe in reality. Because if the gas is contained…yet new gas is constantly being created at surface with no way of escaping…then we’d expect pressure to rise astronomically in just a few years…heck, it would increase within days…killing us all. But it doesn’t, it remains consistent. In a system that’s constantly receiving energy, it can not be contained without some form of release. Our atmosphere allows for that, because it’s open.
So the trouble isn’t the globe model…the trouble is Flat Earths own personal misunderstandings of that model and the physics. It’s made worse by their stubborn refusal to even consider that they could be wrong. For a group claiming to be more open minded than the rest of us, they sure shut those minds off tight, the moment anyone tries to help point out what they’re missing.
Anyway, I hope this information is at the very least interesting. Let me know if you have any further questions or rebuttals. I do not mind a civil exchange of information.
5
-
Need some good places to start, ok. Just observe one sunset, then ask yourself how that’s geometrically possible if the Sun occupies the same directional sky, everywhere on Earth, at the same time? A flat Earth doesn’t make much sense of this well known daily occurrence, meanwhile a globe answers for it effortlessly. If you really study it closer too, it fits more than just the base observation, the math and measured geometry work out perfectly as well https://youtu.be/-e9d4bjImHM.
Another great proof is navigation. Everything from the lines of latitude that are equal for both hemispheres, to the consistent rate that stars drop to horizon by latitude, to the geodetic conversions required to plot an accurate coarse. Fact is, millions of sailors and pilots successfully navigate the planet every single day, if you think they can achieve that without knowing the true shape and scale of the surface they travel upon, then you might not be thinking about things very clearly. Learn to navigate, then you will know the true shape of the Earth.
It’s also worth noting that Earth has two hemispheres, both with their own stars, celestial rotation, midnight sun occurrences past the 60th parallel. None of this fits or makes sense on a flat Earth geometry, but it’s exactly what we’d expect to see occur on a Globe.
So there’s a small bit of info to get you started. I hope you find it helpful. If you have any questions or rebuttals, feel free to let me know.
5
-
You also asked about how science knows the inner composition of the Earth, so I’ll give you some insight into that science as well.
It’s true we’ve only physically dug down 8 miles, but as you know, mankind has found ways to expand its knowledge of certain things, with the aid of sensitive equipment that can be used to extend our senses past what they’re normally capable of. With the use of what’s known as a seismograph, we can gather data from the shockwaves and aftershocks of Earthquakes, which paint us a pretty clear picture of Earths inner workings, from the shockwaves that travel through the Earth and ping seismic reading stations on the opposite side of the planet. This field of research is known as seismology, tons of helpful videos here on YouTube that can help you out further to learn more. Here’s a good one to get you started https://youtu.be/HwY1ICqWGEA.
Hundreds of Earthquakes occur everyday around the world, that’s a lot of data, all of it pointing to the same conclusions and telling us a lot about Earths inner composition, as these waves travel differently depending on what they’re travelling through. This science also provides further proof of Earths true shape, as the shockwaves travel time data, only fits when interpreted on the Globe model.
The science also fits with two other fields of study, physics and geology. It’s well known that Earth generates a massive electromagnetic field...that doesn’t just happen on its own from nothing. A massive, hot, liquid, rotating and swirling mass of iron and nickel (the two most abundant metals found on Earth, spewed from every volcanic eruption), that would sure be more than enough to do it.
So there’s a lot of science that goes into the conclusions, the fact that it all fits together in tandem, none of it contradicting any other research, that’s how we can be confident in those conclusions.
Yes, mankind is limited physically in what it’s capable of, but we have something that helps counter these limitations, a powerful 6th sense, our intelligence. We don’t have to always go directly to something to learn about it, we can deduce a lot from just being clever with our use of tools designed to expand our senses. Of course travelling directly is more ideal, but unfortunately we don’t always have that luxury.
So that’s why we compile knowledge under “theory”, because our limitations mean there is a lot we may never know for absolute certain, it’s just the way it is sadly. So science doesn’t think or operate in absolute certainties, it operates in percentages of certainty. So that’s why they use the word theory, because a fact is rigid, it does not change, it just is what it is. The truth about information gathering of any kind is that old information always has the potential to change, as new information is acquired, so theory is used instead of fact, because a theory can be changed over time. Though there is a bit more too it as well, facts also don’t describe HOW something works, they don’t explain the details of how and why, so it’s not the proper wording either way. Facts make up the foundation of a theory, but there will never be a point where we can ever be 100% certain about any theory, so we can not call scientific conclusions fact, only theory.
A scientific theory is not like a regular theory in the regular use of the word, a scientific theory takes on a much higher status of certainty, it’s actually the highest level any concept in science can achieve. I think this is one of the bigger things most people misunderstand about science. Science does not operate in 100% certainties, they can’t, because there is just too much knowledge to learn, we’ll never know everything. For this reason, information always has the potential to change, so science was actually very humble and wise to label their conclusions as theory, not fact.
5
-
5
-
5
-
Sabine here wasn’t really intending her video as a “debunk” or as an argument against flat Earth claims, it’s more just a quick opinion piece, explaining what she feels is the broader issue here, the growing gap between science and the general public. So that’s why you won’t find any hard science here, because that wasn’t the point of the video.
That being said, it’s fine to ask questions here and part of her point was that science should be doing more to begin a dialogue to help answer those questions, less ridicule more engagement. To which I agree...at least for those willing to have a civil discussion that is, which it seems you are. So if you don’t mind, I’ll see if I can shed some light on some of your questions here, offer some insight from the globe perspective.
First of all, you were wondering how it’s possible for our atmosphere to exist next to an empty vacuum and why our movement through space doesn’t also shed our atmosphere. Those are great questions, but also quite separate topics, so I’ll start with the vacuum question.
This is a common misconception flat Earth has, and it starts with their misunderstanding of how the vacuum of space works. I hear them throw around that “negative Torr” measurement a lot, but I don’t think they quite understand what the unit “Torr” really means. It doesn’t mean space is at negative pressure...because that’s simply impossible, It’s easier to think of space in terms of psi, in the case with space it’s 0 psi. That’s the lowest pressure you can have, that’s all space is, 0 pressure, a space completely void of matter. There is no such thing as negative pressure, cause you can’t have negative of nothing...it’s like saying negative darkness, there’s nothing past darkness, you either have light or you don’t, space is similar, you either have matter or you don’t, it’s pretty simple. 0 psi is space, there is no negative psi.
Flat Earth just over complicated things by using Torr as a unit for vacuum of space, misunderstanding the negative function in the smaller number interpretations. They thought it meant negative pressure...it does not, it’s just how many zeros you place after a decimal. Math often shortens larger or small numbers that way by interpreting them like this for higher numbers 9x10^15, which is just 9 with 15 zeros behind it, or this for smaller numbers 9x10^15- which is just 0 then a decimal then 15 zeros then a 9. It has nothing to do with negative pressure...there’s no such thing.
So it’s a misunderstanding that created this illusion that space is somehow a powerful suction force of some kind...and no...that’s not how it works. Space isn’t sucking on our atmosphere, it’s not creating a suction force, it’s just empty space, 0 pressure, that’s all. So it’s a misconception that flat Earth created themselves...and the reason I’d wager you haven’t heard a viable answer for how our atmosphere doesn’t get sucked off, is because you’re still hung up on the notion that there is a suction force to begin with, that you think the heliocentric model has to contend with...and there isn’t. You have to completely remove that notion from your thought process here, to understand better how space works in relation to our atmosphere. There is no suction force, space isn’t sucking on our atmosphere, flat Earth made that up and misinformed you. The misunderstanding comes from the assumption/misconception of what Torr is a measurement of and what it means.
So our atmosphere isn’t fighting against force in space trying to rip it off, the only force effecting atmosphere is gravity. So our atmosphere simply has nowhere else to go except towards the only force that is attracting it, the force of gravity.
There is however entropy, the other argument flat Earth likes to make, having to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But, it’s just another misunderstanding of the physics here. The argument they like to make is that matter seeks equilibrium, that there cannot exist an empty space because matter (in this case the gases of our atmosphere), will seek to fill the empty space. But this misunderstands thermodynamics, which has more to do with energy equilibrium, not so much matter. It’s energy that’s constantly seeking equilibrium, matter just tags along for the ride sometimes. For example when a cup of coffee goes cold, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy?
There argument is typically in comparison to an empty vacuum container, when opened back up the air rushes in to fill it until equalized with the surrounding pressure, but this is a false comparison, as the fringes of our atmosphere are not at 14.7 psi like they are at surface. The gases at the fringe of our atmosphere would attempt to fill the empty space, if gravity wasn’t keeping them from doing so. The reason gas fills an empty space here at surface, is because the molecules here have a lot more kinetic energy, created by constantly colliding with other molecules, we measure these collisions as pounds per square inch or PSI, remember it’s energy seeking equilibrium under entropy...not so much matter. The same psi does not exist at the fringes of space, so the molecules up there don’t have the same kinetic energy as the gases at surface. Kinetic energy is required for molecules of gas to break free of our planets gravity, and because the air is thinner and thinner the higher you go, the psi decreases, meaning less collisions between molecules, meaning less kinetic energy, meaning the gas eventually runs out of the energy required to fight gravity any longer, so it eventually loses and falls back to Earth.
So it’s a misunderstanding of how the physics works. They’re focusing only on what they assume entropy implies, and not really going deeper into the science to understand it better. Our atmosphere does not break any laws of thermodynamics, flat Earth just misunderstood the physics of entropy. Entropy is occurring, but what they’re missing is that entropy can be slowed and even contained for long periods of time, by simple attracting forces. We do it all the time with insulators as well, a simple thermos keeps your coffee hot longer, slowing entropy. Our atmosphere does the same thing, with the help of gravity, gravity os the container flat Earth is looking for, it slows our atmospheric entropy greatly. Some gas does escape into space though, but it’s very slow and gradual.
Sorry if that got long, I just like to be thorough. Let me know if that helped at all.
5
-
@SuperMoshady Yup, I realize it’s confusing, but that’s the understanding all of modern physics has reached with buoyancy, it is directly caused by gravity. You will not find an engineer or chemist or physicist in the world, that disagrees with that, it is the consensus, and for very good reason, because it’s verified science. So you can laugh all you’d like, or you can learn a bit more how it works, up to you really. I’m more than happy to explain further how it works.
Mass is attracted to Earth due to gravity, yes, but this also means matter of more density will occupy lowest potential energy state first, because more dense matter is also creating more gravity of its own, causing more attraction to surface. This means less dense matter is forced out of the way, causing displacement. We observe this displacement, as buoyancy. It doesn’t mean gravity is not effecting gas, it’s just being pushed out of the way of more dense matter, which forces it in the opposite direction of the denser matters motion. Since the vector for gravity is down towards surface, this orientates the density displacement up, in the same vector but opposite direction. So gravity directly causes buoyancy, it does not occur without it. So a helium balloon is not defying gravity, its upward motion is actually a product of gravity.
Can we test this? Sure, in many ways, someone here has already pointed out Boyles Law to you, so I won’t go to deep into that again. Some simpler tests would be density columns put in zero G environments, demonstrating how buoyancy disappears the moment you remove the inertial pressure created by gravity and the surface. Another great experiment I like is a helium balloon within a moving vehicle, demonstrating how buoyancy is an effect caused by density displacement. https://youtu.be/y8mzDvpKzfY What this clearly shows is that denser matter (the air in the van) will displace the less dense gas (helium) and put it into an opposing vector motion, dependent entirely on which direction the more dense matter is going. In this example, the air is denser, so it sloshes to the back of the moving vehicle first (fluid dynamics), which forces the helium forward instead of backwards. I hope this helps make things a little clearer for you, that it’s the motion of more dense matter, that dictates the opposing motion of buoyancy. This gives us some insight into why a helium balloon rises up, because more dense matter is in motion downward towards surface, as we observe from falling matter, this accelerating motion displaces helium and forces it up, without the downward motion of gravity though, it would not do this.
So your argument is one from ignorance really, most people don’t have any experience with the physics, or upper atmosphere, or space, so you’re free to pray on people’s lack of experience and knowledge here...but it’s just arguments from ignorance from those of us in the know here. We experience helium going up, so you can argue that this appears to defy gravity, but eventually helium will reach a point where it’s no longer displaced and it will rest at a point in atmosphere, unable to climb any higher, just like all matter orders by density, thanks to gravity. This is measured, oxygen thins the higher you go, but hydrogen remains, why doesn’t oxygen climb any higher? Because of gravity, keeping it closer to surface, it’s more dense than hydrogen and helium, so naturally you won’t find much of it in upper atmosphere, this is also why you won’t find any clouds past a point.
It’s pretty simple deduction, studying buoyancy physics really helps a lot here.
But ok, because you keep asking. Gas pressure: basically just collisions between molecules, the more collisions, the more pressure due to kinetic energy of the molecules. More collisions occur when molecules are closer together, hence more gas pressure with more molecules packed together in closer proximity.
Now let’s define atmospheric pressure, because there is a difference. Atmospheric pressure: a gas pressure gradient caused by a downward accelerating force, ordering matter by their density and creating more pressure closer to surface, due to the molecules above constantly being squeezed down upon the molecules below, due to the downward force of gravity.
Gas has mass, gravity effects all mass, so it’s not very difficult to conclude that gas will be effected by gravity. And it is, we measure and observe this, the fact that a pressure gradient exists at all, is proof of this. Under your system, we’d expect gas to mix and disperse evenly, no gradient would exist, if there was no downward force effecting the gas molecules.
I haven’t even mentioned satellites yet, I try to keep things within the realm of what FE has experience with, but you are aware satellites are in orbit, correct? You are aware they’ve long since confirmed the vacuum of space, correct? You can claim satellites are fake...but it’s really just an empty claim until you can actually prove that. So I’m curious, why hasn’t FE done the funding, to put their own satellites into orbit? There are smaller rockets you can actually purchase, that can achieve this goal, why not crowd fund for both a rocket and design a probe or satellite for the purpose of measuring the vacuum of space, or to find the dome? Just saying, there’s more you could be doing, rather than just debating random strangers on comment threads. I’ve seen much evidence to confirm satellites are up there, but only empty claims to suggest they’re not. So again, I’ll go with the evidence over empty claims.
So, I’ve given you the observed phenomenon for gravity, but you do realize that’s only for the hypothesis, independent and dependent variables are required for experiments. That is of course the next step, but we’re not really done with hypothesis yet are we, so let’s not get ahead of ourselves. I first just wanted you to grasp, what gravity really is, it is an observed motion, a downward motion. This motion can not be denied, we all have experience with it. Deny the current consensus for how gravity works all you’d like, there’s still some room for argument there, but the downward accelerating motion itself, is not up for debate, it’s very obviously occurring. Name it something else if you prefer, it really doesn’t matter, just made it easier to discuss this phenomenon with a name given for it, they called it gravity.
When I find more time later, I’ll answer a few more questions and give you an experiment with an independent and dependent variable. You’re probably already aware which experiment I’ll share, but perhaps you can work out the details yourself before I’m able to respond. Feel free.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@drdusandr Yes, lasers refract just as all light does, they’re also not free from diffraction (scattering) over even just short distances. So it’s actually a common misconception that lasers shot through atmosphere remain perfectly tangent…they actually do not, there’s no such thing as a laser beam that’s free from refraction or diffraction through atmosphere, so they’re actually very unreliable at distances. So that’s a big part of their error (or if it’s intentional, then it’s part of how they con people), they sell these “experiments” under the misconception/assumption most people have, that lasers remain tangent at distances. They do not…and that is easily verified with just a quick bit of research on laser refraction and diffraction.
Another error (especially in pure observation), is bad math, that often ignores important variables. A very important variable ignored quite often being height of observer…I’m sure I don’t need to explain how you can see further the higher you go.
They’re doing experiments, sure…that doesn’t mean they’re doing them right, and without error. Then they skip over all peer review, acting like they’re somehow above it…that should be a major red flag for anyone, that maybe you should be a bit skeptical about these “experiments” they claim to be doing. :/
5
-
5
-
Planes require air pressure to maintain both thrust and lift, so no, they’d never end up in space, because air would become to thin to maintain the thrust and lift required to get into space, so they’d drop due to their inability to overcome gravity any further. That’s why we don’t use planes for getting into space, we use rockets, which don’t use the air for propulsion, they use Newton’s third law of motion, action and reaction. The same physics that causes a gun to recoil.
The plane would measure its shift in angle by degrees, so you have to think about this in terms of degrees, not drop from a tangent. Earth takes roughly 70 miles to arc 1 degree, a passenger jet moving at 500 mph covers that distance in roughly 7-8 minutes give or take…you really think you’d notice a 1 degree shift that takes 7 minutes to complete? Not likely.
We don’t feel motion itself, what we feel is sudden or rapid change in motion, acceleration and deceleration. A rotation is an acceleration, but it takes Earth 24 hours to complete 1 rotation…that’s not very fast at all, in fact it’s 2 times slower than the hour hand of a clock. Would you expect an hour hand on a clock to fling stuff off of it? Obviously not. You’re focusing on the wrong numbers, centrifugal force isn’t dependent on linear velocities like miles per hour, it depends on rate of rotation, and Earths rate of rotation is 0.000694 rpm’s, so that’s why it doesn’t fling anything off of it.
You can’t stick your hand out of a plane, because the air outside isn’t moving at the same velocity as the plane, so it’s smashing into you, it then creates friction in the form of drag force. Earth travelling through space doesn’t have the same problem, there’s no air in space, so no drag.
And thanks to law of inertia, conservation of momentum, and relative motion, we move with the Earth in all its motions. So just like you don’t feel the motion of a passenger jet moving at 500 mph, you won’t feel Earth’s motions for the same reason…because of the laws of motion.
This is all basic physics. I suggest you learn the basics before making any arguments on a science channel.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@tombass3288 So we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, because a few people don’t understand something? Just because YOU personally don’t understand something, doesn’t make it false. Do you ever consider the possibility, that maybe theres just some information or understandings, that you’re not aware of? For example, the Arctic is very different from the Antarctic, in that the Arctic is not a landmass, it’s an ice sheet on the ocean...and it’s nowhere near as thick of an ice sheet. The ocean traps and transfers a lot more heat...it’s basic physics, conduction and convection. Put an ice cube on a table, and another in a glass of water, which one will melt first? The ice in the glass of water will melt LONG before the ice on land ever will.
Variables that matter...physics and knowledge you ignored or are not aware of, that are important towards understanding your quandary there. There’s a lot of basic science like that, Flat Earthers don’t know or understand, and it’s why you reach such false conclusions and assume things are just impossible. Maybe learn some actual science and things would make better sense to you then. :/
5
-
5
-
5
-
@chrisskully1228 “No experiments have been given to me that don’t involve some sort of assumption…”
Ya…..and you never will, because every experiment has a hypothesis as its base. What do you think a hypothesis is? It’s an assumption! 😄 Every experiment starts with a hypothesis, which is basically just an educated guess reached from prior knowledge…then you test that guess, that’s the whole point of an experiment! 😄 You do experiments to test if a premise is true or not…you don’t have an experiment without a hypothesis…..that’s where EVERY experiment starts!
But is the falling motion we observe in dropped objects an assumption? No, it’s very clearly happening, and it always happens, you can drop almost anything and it will always fall. Don’t have to assume anything there, it’s a fact…and it’s also a fact that a force is required for any and all motion to occur, nothing just moves on its own. The hypothesis is in what causes it….that’s what science does, it tests cause and effect relationships. To do that, you make a guess….and then you test that guess.
Welcome to science, that’s how it works. You seem to think that’s an erroneous way to do things…even though it’s clearly brought results. May I ask how you think science should be done instead? 🧐 Go right ahead, you’re the one who seems to think you’re smarter than every scientist in the world, so you must have a better way of doing things that’s proven itself to be even more productive. So feel free to share.
5
-
Here’s a fact about Google Earth, it uses camera planes flying a bit lower than your average passenger jet, to photograph the closer details of the surface. You can look that up, it’s fairly simple information to confirm. I think many people assume it’s all done by satellites, but that’s actually a misconception. There’s very few satellites in orbit right now that can resolve crisp detailed images of surface that close up, so surveillance planes are used instead, for the really close detailed images of surface. These planes wouldn’t bother flying over any area that’s not inhabited…cause why would they? 🤷♂️ If nobody lives there, if there’s nothing there, then why bother scanning it? Do me a favour, zoom in on places in far Northern Canada, where nobody lives…you’ll find it’s just as blurry and pixelated.
The North Pole is an ice sheet over the ocean…so there’s no permanent structures, meaning no cities, towns, villages, not even research bases…so why would they bother with accurate visual data there?
You’re jumping to conclusions from pure speculation alone…doesn’t make for a very strong argument. But I hope that information helps you with your questions.
5
-
5
-
5
-
I don’t need fancy equipment, or an expensive university degree, to deduce that a sunset is an impossible phenomenon, if the Sun is never geometrically blocked from my line of sight over a flat Earth. Just one of many simple observations that falsifies a flat Earth, it’s not rocket science. Just a basic understanding of physics and geometry is all you need, a little world travel helps as well, but it’s not necessary.
You can ramble all day about how some delusions that you/others made up gives your life meaning and purpose, then assume that the rest of us somehow struggle with finding purpose — whatever helps you feel superior to others I guess — but I’m here to tell you, it’s not for everyone. If it works for you, great, I’m happy that you’re happy, but I’ve never been able to lie to myself and just believe made up superstitions, simply because they’re repeated over and over again. Doesn’t mean my life is meaningless, I find joy and purpose in just the simple fact that I exist, a conscious life born in an indifferent and chaotic, but also extremely beautiful universe, that I’ll never fully understand. I don’t feel small or insignificant, I’m not scared by that, I’m excited by the possibilities, I don’t take any of it for granted, I’m happy to be here just experiencing it all, right here, right now. That’s all I’ve ever needed. Maybe that’s just something YOU will never understand.
To each their own.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Okay, Flat Earthers use the wrong math for the observation they’re making. It’s a rough curvature calculation, yes, but it’s not a line of sight calculation, can’t even tell you where horizon is from any given elevation, let alone what’s hidden by horizon…because it doesn’t account for height of the observer. Should be pretty common knowledge, but you see further the higher up you go. So observation height kinda matters here, but the math that gets peddle by Flat Earthers doesn’t factor that, among other important variables it also doesn’t factor.
Use the wrong math, and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple. Why none of you thought to check the math you’re using, says a lot about the people who fall for Flat Earth.
5
-
5
-
Ok, but you’re making a lot of bias assumptions of your own...without even realizing it. You’re intentionally ignoring gravity in your Nile river example, not quite understanding how elevation works here...you’re instead just assuming that North is up and South is down and that’s not at all how it works 🤦♂️. So the problem is your own, in not understanding the model you’re attempting to refute. Little hard to debunk a model, if you don’t even understand how it works.
You in one breath said Eratosthenes assumed 93 million miles, then in the next were completely happy to assume 3000 miles is the “correct distance”, using the same experiment. You don’t see that as hypocritical and bias? Furthermore, you’re even misunderstanding that experiment, it didn’t measure the AU, that was never its intention nor could it. It was merely an effort to measure Earths circumference, that’s all. Yes, without any further data points taken, you have to assume a sphere with his original experiment...but take any more than two (or plot the data in 3 dimensions instead of 2), and you will not be able to pin point a local sun. Here’s an example from someone who thought to try that.
https://youtu.be/LeEw0Fw1qio
Eratosthenes already knew the Earth was a sphere...sundials pretty much already prove it, as did navigation, heck the phenomena of a sunset at all, in the manner in which we observe it, is proof enough of a globe. So he already knew Earth was spherical, the Greeks were masters of geometry, and he was one of the best mathematicians of his time...deducing the Earth was spherical, doesn’t take much. His experiment was merely to measure it...it was in no way an effort to measure the AU, that wasn’t achieved until millennia later.
Finally, not sure how you think a sextant verifies a flat Earth (but feel free to elaborate further), it would actually verify a globe. The stars drop to horizon at a consistent rate by latitude...if the Earth was flat, they would not drop consistently, they would drop less and less, at a rate that isn’t consistent, the further away you got...it’s basic geometry. In reality, stars drop consistently by latitude...as they should, if Earth is spherical.
These points have all been beaten to death at this point...but you guys just keep repeating them anyway. Though a part of me admires the stubborn tenacity, so by all means I guess, you’re free to do what you want here. The scientific method includes peer review, so it’s perfectly fine that you guys are asking questions of the Globe, but that review goes both ways. You don’t seem to realize it, but you’re assuming and asserting a lot in your conclusions and are being quite ignorant to all the details, almost like you did just the bare minimum of research on each point, until your bias was confirmed and then you stopped looking. And if you don’t think you have bias...just look at your username, then tell me you’re not bias.
I don’t think Sabine really reads these comments, but it would be interesting I suppose if she did get in contact. Though I’m willing to chat if you’d like, I can certainly shift gears to a more civil and respectful tone and hear you out. Though it’s fine, I can understand you’re probably tired of these comment thread discussions, you’d rather discuss with a face you can identify and seem to already respect. I would leave that to you, I might come off a bit short and frustrated, but I’m actually in agreement with Sabine on this. Nothing wrong with questioning established science, in fact it’s quite logical, nothing should ever be off the table for debate.
5
-
5
-
Well, I would say science should avoid reaching conclusions on single observations. There’s always gonna be someone looking to make a name for themselves by claiming to have falsified renowned science, it’s part of why we have peer review in the first place, to weed out potential huxters. The Eddington experiment that Edward Dowdye was recreating, has been reproduced many times over the last 100 years, why didn’t any of those recreations bring a similar conclusion to Dowdye’s work? I think that’s a valid question to ask. I’m currently not aware of any other recreations that came back with similar results to Dowdye’s experiment, but I certainly don’t know of every test, but currently I’m aware of far more that fit the GR predictions.
It’s pretty clear that there are holes in GR, it’s well known that the theory doesn’t work inside the quantum realm very much at all, but yet it still works pretty flawlessly on larger scales. I don’t think it’s from lack of trying to falsify GR, but every time they set out to test its predictions in the larger scales, it always yields positive results. So what would you prefer they do? Just ignore the data? From time dilation, to gravitational waves, to red shifting of stars due to space expansion, it’s done pretty well explaining and accounting for everything on the macro scale so far.
Science doesn’t know everything, but it doesn’t really set out with that goal either. There’s simply too much to know, it’s very likely we’ll never learn everything, so it’s a bit of a fool’s errand to even try and learn everything. Best we can do is just learn what we can, when we can, make observations, record data, do our best to interpret it with the rest of the knowledge we have at the time. Science gets things wrong all the time, but that’s not a bad thing, it’s always been a process of trial and error. New information always has the potential to change old information, and that’s the way it’s probably always gonna be. I think people just have this misconception of science, largely because the scientific community has allowed it to happen, that science is somehow infallible, that it has to be right always, or it falls apart. There’s really no need for that kind of pressure, science is just another tool in the belt, sometimes it builds some sturdy foundations, and other times it builds on quicksand. We shouldn’t be upset or angry if something is proven wrong, we learn so much more from errors than we do success. That said, the scientific community shouldn’t just roll over for the first guy claiming to have falsified something, takes a lot more than that.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@noel101082 How is YOUR understanding of thermodynamics? You’re aware that it has more to do with energy transfer and equilibrium right, not so much matter? For example, when your coffee goes cold, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy? Pretty simple example I hope. Matter of course tags along for the ride sometimes (and total entropy is always inevitable), but matter is subject to forces that can and do keep them contained, effectively slowing entropy. Forces like gravity, which is what contains our atmosphere. Flat Earth can claim all they like that an open atmosphere contradicts entropy laws, but it’s very ignorant to the role gravity plays on the system. We measure a pressure gradient, that’s a reality, the pressure gradient is consistent with what we’d expect with gravity containing our atmosphere, so much so it’s included in atmospheric pressure equations as a variable. Even flat Earthers have sent up weather balloons to the fringes of atmosphere, and you might notice in that video footage that the balloons all eventually pop, as they’re designed to do in vacuum conditions. So even FE has unknowingly measured the vacuum that exists up there…but you know what they have never found? A container…and neither has mainstream science.
So all they have is a butchered understanding of thermodynamics physics…no actual tangible evidence for this container they claim exists. Evidence is pretty key to scientific conclusions…we should never form conclusions without it. They can maybe form a hypothesis from their understanding, but it’s easily falsified just by understanding that gases are subject to gravity, just like all mass is. Though it’s dead in the water just by confirming satellites exist as well…but I understand they’ll fight tooth and nail to deny that technology exists, so I won’t use it for argument here.
On top of all that, you do realize our system is constantly shedding energy and gas, right? So entropy does occur all the time in our atmosphere, that’s why atmosphere extends so far. The Karmen line is the official border of space, but it’s not a defined line, there’s still atmosphere even at that distance, it’s still a gradient of gas. FE might have a point…IF we didn’t have a source of new energy for our system. Luckily for us hough, we have a constant source of new energy, from the Sun. But that now presents a bit of a problem for FE’s model. If our system is contained, with no way for gas to escape…yet our system is constantly receiving energy that produces new gases every single day…wouldn’t we expect heat and air pressure to rise exponentially? I think you’ll find it’s actually flat Earth that breaks thermodynamics laws.
To your other points, curie point only effects metals HOLDING a magnetic charge…it has nothing to do with ELECTROMAGNETIC charges, which our rotating molten iron core could easily produce…in fact it’s the only thing that could create the magnetic field we know exists on Earth. Tell me…how does Flat Earth explain this magnetic field? What do you know about seismology? Do you know anything at all about the science that helped us determine the composition of our inner core? What do you know about S and P waves? I think you should do some research on that if this topic truly interests you.
Coriolis is observed, measured and proven, so it’s not a “pseudo effect” in the slightest…you’re just ignorant. Hurricanes and Typhoons are observed to rotate in opposite directions depending on their hemisphere, marksman and artillery gunners do absolutely have to account for this effect or they will miss targets, even pilots must adjust for this effect. Here’s a marksman explaining and demonstrating Coriolis drop charting https://youtu.be/jX7dcl_ERNs. Here’s an actual pilot explaining how pilots adjust fir this effect in flight https://youtu.be/eugYAfHW0I8. And here’s an accredited scientist and engineer directly testing the effect, verifying it exists through experimentation https://youtu.be/mXaad0rsV38.
So any other bullshit points from FE you’d like to address? You should really stop getting your physics lessons from huxters and conmen in YouTube videos. You do strike me as an intelligent person…don’t let your desires to confirm a bias you may have, rob you of your objective reasoning. Flat Earth is an online hoax, perpetuated by conmen…don’t be one of their victims. It’s perfectly fine to question things, in fact it’s logical to question everything and remain skeptical, but don’t forget to turn that skeptical eye around on even the sources of information you’ve come to trust. It’s not difficult to lie online…the modern internet is a con mans paradise. Just keep that in mind.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Yes you can, because direction is relative. That angle is relative to the Earth’s orbital plane, so that angle can be determined because a reference point can be determined. Earth doesn’t have a top or bottom though, because what would those distinctions be relative too? 🤷♂️ What’s your reference point for making that determination?
An axis of rotation is objective, an orbital path is objective, so a tilt in the axis of rotation can be objectively determined relative to that orbital plane. Top or bottom though…any point on Earths surface is equally valid for either designation, any and all points on Earth can be the top or the bottom, so none are. The axis of rotation however, is in one place, it’s not going anywhere. Earth only orbits along one path, so they are set in stone. So you can absolutely determine an axial tilt relative to that orbit.
It’s not our problem you don’t understand relative reference points. The rest of us understand that direction is relative just fine.
5
-
@zquest42 I find that’s where a lot of flat Earthers start, with the “faked space” docs about NASA. I find it’s key to note here though, that even if they did (or even could) fake going too space for this long, it still does not mean the Earth is flat. But I get it, it’s where some people seem to start losing trust in science, once that trust is gone, you start going deeper. Which is fine, nothing wrong with asking questions and I’m glad people are out there keeping an eye on authority, it’s actually the one thing I admire about flat Earth...but I think you start to lean heavy on that bias of not trusting them, and I don’t really think you’re being as objective about things as you seem to think.
What if I told you though, that those “faked space” docs, are taking you on a ride? That they’re the real liars and scammers, doing all they can to get you to believe what they’re selling you. It’s not hard once they have you doubting and getting people to doubt is easy (especially if you already don’t trust something or someone), just edit the information a little bit, lie and speculate endlessly. You’d likely disagree, but have you ever stopped to actually challenge any of their claims, or were you prone to believe them almost immediately, simply because you tend to trust the word of regular people, more than you do systems of authority?
I’ll take a moment to shed some more light on my point, addressing just a couple of your other points.
Neil saying the Earth is a pear/oblate spheroid. If you were really being objective here, you’d actually watch the full interview where this comment was made. Even Neil realized his comparison of a pear wasn’t accurate and then later he redacted the comment, restating several times that the Earth is classified as an Oblate Spheroid, meaning not a perfect sphere, slightly wider at the Equator, which is true. That’s the part you likely know, the part you’ve likely never asked yourself though is HOW OBLATE is it? The answer is, not very much at all. To the naked eye, it will appear perfectly spherical...but when you really measure it, technically it is not perfect. Scientists are all about accuracy, they know it looks perfectly spherical to your naked eye, but it’s not in reality, so he was being honest and telling people its true classification. It is bias that leads you to think this is somehow fishy...it is classic cherry picking and twisting of information to fit a bias, turning an honest answer into suspicion, all to confirm bias. If you’d like to visualize just how tiny the difference is, here’s a great video that can help. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjx0KcDH7pQ It’s a tiny difference, as this video demonstrates, you will not notice by simply eyeballing it.
Saying they can’t go back to the Moon cause they lost/destroyed the tech. Well, first of all, new missions are planned for later this decade, just look up the Artemis project, they are going back very soon. Secondly, there are details and an engineering perspective you’re not considering here. They only built so many lunar modules, and they are old and falling apart, so they were discontinued and destroyed, because they’re not safe for manned missions anymore. The plans of course still exist, but they too are out dated...it’s like building a model T car when our technology for building cars is far more advanced now, why would we build another model T to go into space? We wouldn’t, we’d engineer a new vehicle...the problem is, when you do this, there is a long process of research and development that needs to occur. Every new system has to be tested thoroughly, for the environment it’s going to be used in...this presented a problem over the last 40 years or so, because the old modules were all analog...which were not prone to breaking down in strong magnetic and radioactive fields, like the ones found in deep space. Smaller digital microchips however, they do not hold up very well in these harsh environments. So what do you think the ISS has been working on this whole time? They are a research lab in space, a testing environment for these new components. It took a lot of R&D, but now we have solid state technology, your phone is likely making use of it right now. These replaced the old disk drives that are damaged in strong magnetic fields, so now they have modern systems that are sturdy enough to withstand deep space missions. The other problem they had was funding, there was no interest to go back to the Moon right away, so they weren’t putting as many resources towards it...that and rocket launches used to be a LOT more expensive, about half a billion per launch...not including payload R&D. Thanks to Elon Musk though and his new Falcon rockets, that price tag is WAY down, now about 60 million per launch. So it’s a lot more economically viable now...so guess what this does, it brings in more investors.
The trouble is as I see it, when some people don’t understand something, they tend to assume it’s because it’s wrong...rather than consider the details and nuances of the actual problem. The other trouble is people’s general impatience...why do you assume that just because it’s taking a long time to perfect space travel, it somehow means they’re faking it? Space is probably the harshest environments we will ever explore...why would think this is somehow easy to do? It’s going to take time. There are good valid reasons why they haven’t gone back to the Moon in awhile...taking quotes from scientists out of context and twisting their meaning, is not being objective, it’s more cherry picking and confirmation bias, the very opposite of objective.
I could go down the list of these claims made by “faked space” conspiracy vids, but at the end of the day...neither you nor I can truly verify anything for certain here, we can both only speculate. I have logical answers to all their claims, but it’s still only speculation, unless I’m an astronaut or someone higher up in NASA. So I don’t like focusing on things I can only speculate on...but I do strongly believe the real con men here are the people who make these “faked space” videos. They use a lot of really dishonest tactics and endless speculation to get people to see things their way, showing you only what they want you to see, never considering alternative explanations. So They are the ones I do not trust.
This is why I prefer to stick to things like flat Earth, because I live here, I can test the Earth whenever I want, I don’t have to speculate, I can reach objective conclusions that I can actually verify. And I have done that...the geometry of Earth does not lie, the flat Earth model does not fit with observable reality. Meanwhile the Globe answers for everything.
Again though, it’s fine to question things, even logical, but seriously...if you think people on YouTube can’t lie to you and take you on a ride of their design, then you’re exactly what they are looking for. Don’t trust them blindly, turn that skeptical lens around and put their claims to question as well.
5
-
Actually, gravity is the root cause of buoyancy…so it very much is causing the beach ball to rise up in water. That’s why gravity is a variable in the equation for buoyancy force; Fb=Vpg. Notice that little ‘g’ there? That’s the downward acceleration of gravity; 9.8m/s^2.
It works like this; all matter has a tendency to repel other matter, because they can’t occupy the same physical space. More dense matter will occupy a position first, because it has more inertia (meaning it requires more energy to move it), so it easily pushes less dense matter out of its way. So now what happens if everything is just stationary, in a system where every molecule is not attracted towards surface and put into motion towards anything? Nothing will happen, it would be a mixed system of various molecules just assuming their origin positions in space, it would be unorganized, mixed and chaotic. But now introduce a force that attracts every molecule towards the same location, you now have every molecule moving towards that force of attraction, they’re now put into motion. Now these molecules will order themselves, because the densest matter will occupy lowest potential energy state first (closest position possible to the attractive force), which then forces molecules of lesser density out of the way, directly away from the force of attraction. So you see…buoyancy is directly caused by gravity, buoyancy is the end result of a chain reaction.
This is physics 101 today…gravity actually causes buoyancy. This is understood and accepted science by every scientist and engineer today. So you can’t just say it’s buoyancy…because buoyancy technically doesn’t even exist without gravity to cause it. Saying it’s just buoyancy, just tells everyone that you don’t really know much about physics.
4
-
@auraveenley.8743 Perspective, the ad hoc response of flat Earth, that they seem to think solves all their problems, pretending like the rest of us have never even heard the term before, let alone understand it. I’m sorry, but it’s just incredible to me how some people can actually act as though they’re the arbiters of perspective, while completely ignoring many of the basic fundamentals, of perspective…like angular size change, for example. I mean if you’re trying to just poke a stick in people’s eye and be annoying…hey, it’s working, but you must have a really low opinion of the scientific community, if you honestly think they never once thought to consider perspective as a hypothesis to these kinds of questions, at some point.
Please don’t just slot in an ad hoc response to a problem, and then call it a day…learn the fundamentals of perspective, learn the math…then really test the hypothesis you’re presenting. You’ll find it doesn’t actually solve the problems of flat Earth, when you really get into it. It’s fine to ask questions, but there’s a lot of problems with the conclusion of perspective here, and it’s just odd that so many in FE don’t seem to care, despite how paper thin some of the arguments are. For a group claiming to be just looking for the truth and asking questions…many sure don’t put a whole lot of effort into really analyzing their own conclusions.
For example, Flat Earth will also say that a sunset can be explained by perspective…while completely ignoring that things also appear to SHRINK in angular size, due to perspective, as they travel further away. The Sun when observed throughout a whole day, with a solar filter lens, is never observed to change size. So it begs the question, if you’re going to claim perspective is what causes a sunset, then why doesn’t the Sun change size, as it would do, if it was caused by perspective? Doesn’t add up…and it gets worse than that, the math doesn’t work out, the data doesn’t fit, perspective just does not work out when you really examine it further, and I think it time flat Earth was honest about that…or at least analyzed it closer for themselves, rather than pretend it’s perfect.
Idk, it’s just a bit ironic to me…you say it’s us who don’t question our model, then you come here with the perspective argument…which just tells me you’ve never really questioned or tested the claims of Flat Earth. If you’re really just looking for the truth, shouldn’t you put the same standards of review on the Flat Earth model? 🧐
4
-
@drvincentthomas68 Very good, at least it’s an attempt, which is more than most offer. Here’s a few counter points, since you’ve given me at least something to work with.
Well, pictures taken during the same mission, are going to look similar, they’re on a trajectory keeping them observing one surface, and they’re taking many photos at once. But you’re claiming they just used the same photo and adjust it slightly for every mission, is that about right? Ok, then it should be easy to take several images from different Apollo missions and cross reference them to spot things like similar cloud cover, film grains, sun reflections, surface features, etc. So did you do that? Did you even open the link I provided and take a look? Really shouldn’t be hard to prove this claim, if you can match even one photo from each mission, you’d pretty much have a case, but when I look at these photos, I don’t see any similarities...and that’s not from lack of trying. So I can only assume you didn’t really look at the photos I shared.
Besides that, you really didn’t answer the main question, so I’ll rephrase it. How did they create this first image you claim is being reused in every shot, before the CGI technology was created and refined enough to do it? Is it just a painting? Not likely, as an artist for a living, I can tell you how difficult that would be...and no matter how good your artist is, there is always an error that a trained eye could easily spot. Those photos I shared are very high resolution, clicking on one blows them up very big, I’ve gone over many of them, and I don’t see it possible for any artist capable of creating these images, especially not back then. Many don’t realize this, but there has never existed a perfect photo realistic artist, using traditional tools. They come pretty close, but like I said, there is always errors that a trained eye could spot.
You’re next point is talking mostly about low orbit photos and fish eye lenses, but I shared with you an archive containing mostly deep space photos of the entire planet. Little hard to use a fish eye to create a spherical shape, while keeping Earths recognizable land features from distorting and becoming unrecognizable, so your argument there has very little to do with the photos I shared. So I’m really getting the feeling you didn’t look at the links I shared. I’m well aware of FE’s claims of fish eye lenses, slotting that explanation in when it suites your needs, which is why I didn’t share an archive with many low altitude photos. But, even in low orbit photos, you’d have to confirm fish eye was used, that excuse won’t work every time, because they don’t use fish eye lenses in every instance, it’s largely just a lie saying that they do. Yes, fish eye is used in many examples, but not every example. Plenty of examples of launch footage and ISS footage that did not use fish eye lenses. Pretty much none of the examples I shared are fish eye and they’re mostly deep space images...so again, did you even look at the links I provided?
The Moon is actually 1/4 the size of Earth, but hey, correct details don’t matter much in FE, right? https://www.space.com/18135-how-big-is-the-moon.html So why would you think it’d look much bigger, from the exact same distance? So if the Moon is roughly the size of a dime, the Earth is about the size of a dollar, roughly, a silver dollar if I’m Being generous. You really think that would look much different to your naked eye, from the exact same distance, with no reference to compare it to while observing? Especially in a photograph that is likely zoomed, cropped, panned, etc...little hard to determine the true size of an object from a photograph. It’s not the size that’s off, it’s your assumed expectations that are off. You’ve seen too many movies, where Earth is depicted as filling the whole sky from the Moon, and this has created an extremely off scale expectation for you. Actually do the math sometime, you’ll find the Earth is exactly the size it should be, from that distance.
Neil made a poor comparison, when he made that comment. He even realized it himself, in the very discussion he said it in. If you watch the rest of that discussion (and not just the part Flat Earth cherry picks for you), you’ll know he later redacts that comment and explains that Earth is classified an oblate spheroid, meaning not a perfect sphere. From this, Flat Earth has spun this narrative out of context, making it out to be a huge difference...but have you ever bothered to see it visualized before? Here’s a video that quickly demonstrates how slight the difference is https://youtu.be/tjx0KcDH7pQ. As this video demonstrates, the difference is so small, you will not see it with the naked eye very easily. But just because it appears perfectly spherical to the naked eye, doesn’t mean it is, your eyes are not very good measuring tools...science prefers to be more precise. Science said Earth was oblate...it’s Flat Earth that spun Neils words into a lie, exaggerating things to make it seem like the difference was extremely noticeable. It’s cherry picking and simple dishonesty tactics like that, that should raise some red flags...but for some reason it doesn’t for some. I find that odd personally.
Sure, feel free to go on all you like actually, you’ll find your arguments maybe aren’t as air tight as you think they are.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@set3777 Parallax effect more than explains why the positions of stars don’t appear to shift night after night, but you might be interested to know that they actually do over long periods of time, any amateur astronomer will tell you that, just research stellar parallax. So now explain why there’s two rotations please…because again, that is an impossible geometry on a flat Earth with one sky.
I’ve been to the Southern Hemisphere many times, as far down as Invercargill, South Island of New Zealand. On those travels, I could not see the Big Dipper or any of the constellations I’m used too, but what I did see is a constellation I do not see here, the Southern Cross. That’s exactly what I would expect to see on a globe, a different night sky on a second hemisphere. That however doesn’t make much sense on a flat Earth. So again….don’t be biased please, it won’t get you anywhere.
4
-
@dominiccharvet546 All things stay in motion, until acted upon by an unbalanced force. The problem with attempting to harvest power from the law of inertia, is friction…which is an unbalanced force, which slows things down. Your car doesn’t keep rolling for the same reason, because of friction from the ground, air, and the parts inside the engine making contact with the other parts of the engine. Any motor that generates power has to rub on turbines…that cause a great deal of friction, which is an unbalanced force…which slows things down, eventually stopping their motion.
So swing and a miss…you ignored the second half of the first law of motion; pays to pay attention to every detail in science, not just the parts you cherry pick. The Earth doesn’t have the same problem…because there’s no air in space, meaning no friction, so it will travel indefinitely. Helped along by gravity…but gravity is not the main factor. Denial of gravity is really not an argument against it. So you just let us know when you have a better scientific theory for why everything is attracted and put in motion towards Earth.
There’s an entire fossil record that we have found, that traces our evolution back millions of years. We didn’t come from monkey’s, that’s not how evolution works. 🤦♂️ We share a common ancestor, but that ancestor was not a monkey or ape as we know them today, it was something different. We are a branch from that evolution, monkeys are a different branch, that occurred millions of years ago. And evolution doesn’t account for the start of living organisms, that’s abiogenesis.
Nothing you’re saying falsifies the globe, current cosmology, or evolution…you’re just demonstrating your own lack of knowledge on the topics you’re arguing against. And it’s no secret as too why…because they contradict your Bible, meaning your indoctrination is more than likely bullshit, so you’re attempting to avoid realizing that. But understand this…science is not out to disprove a God, your Bible and your religion have something to worry about, but God is an unfalsifiable belief, so it’s completely outside of science. Science deals with the physical, God is metaphysical, so science has no means of disproving a potential creator…but we seriously doubt you have any real clue what that creator is, or if it even exists. You’re just as clueless on that front as the rest of us…time to wake up. :/
4
-
4
-
@roystimaz1576 Where’s the assumption? Flat Earth has sent up weather balloons to high altitudes, you’d agree they have I’m sure, so no assumptions there. They eventually reach a point where they can’t climb any higher, because the air pressure has declined so much that buoyancy can no longer occur...because as everyone knows, air pressure decreases the higher you go in altitude...what happens when that air pressure reaches zero psi I wonder? Hmmm. Then if you watch until the end of each video, these balloons eventually burst, which is what’s expected to happen as they reach vacuum conditions. No barrier found along the way, just a black emptiness above our atmosphere, that is measured in barometric readings on real weather balloons as a vacuum.
So there’s your experiment, go look up one of your own flat Earth high altitude balloon videos, they provide all the evidence you need to verify atmosphere next to a vacuum, no physical barrier required. Gravity is the container, you are simply just misunderstanding thermodynamics physics, because you listened blindly to con men feed you bullshit about the science.
Let’s call it like it is, you are not scientists or experts with working experience or knowledge in any field relevant to the discussion of Earth science. You are layman, who were suckered by con men online, who are misunderstanding physics and twisting it so you can confirm your bias, nothing more. You may think you’re achieving something by having these ignorant “debates” on social media comment sections, where you show off your scientific illiteracy...but it’s just another delusion among many that you harbour.
Let us know when flat Earth has a working model...or is used for any applied science...you know, like the Globe model does and is.
4
-
1) They actually work better in a vacuum (no drag force) and action reaction (same physics that causes a gun to recoil) is exactly how they do it. If you honestly think they need to push off of air, then you clearly don’t understand the 3rd law of motion as well as you seem to think.
2) We only see the circumpolar stars all year (but only a single hemisphere, ask yourself why you don’t see the opposite hemispheres sky), the seasonal stars however do in fact change all year, and exactly for the reason you said, because we’re travelling around the Sun. You even know the constellation names, they’re the zodiac constellations. The circumpolar stars lie closer to our poles, which means the Sun never comes between them, that’s why we see them all year round. The seasonal stars however lie closer to the equator, so the Sun blocks them from view periodically throughout the year.
3) Biological systems don’t break the laws of entropy, in fact in the middle stages of any entropic system (so the universe) we’d expect a lot of chaos, disorder, and mixing, which creates a lot of different interactions between many different molecules, which can form into more complex structures thanks to natural forces of attraction. Entropy will cause the end of all things in time, but we’re nowhere near that end currently, we’re in the middle stages, the most diverse and chaotic of stages. We believe evolution, because that’s what all the evidence points too. We’re not just going to ignore that because of some old superstitions, with essentially zero evidence.
What is with some people completely misunderstanding science, and then thinking it’s everyone else who’s wrong? Couldn’t possibly be that you actually don’t know very much at all, noooooo sir. 🙄
4
-
@smack24 Also, I’m sure you’re aware that the English language has plenty of nuance. Most words have several different definitions, that depends on the context of its application. Level is one of those words...you seem to think it only means flat, but that’s simply not true. Level as an adjective, can be defined as a surface with all points at equal distance from a point of reference, also known as at equipotential. That’s how the word is used in the context of sea level. A surface that’s level, in the context that all points along the surface are at equal distance from centre of Earth, from centre of gravity. An Equipotential surface.
You don’t have to just take my word for it though, just read some of the official Webster definitions https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level. Entry 3, under adjectives.
You are being conned...by huxters who are taking advantage of your lack of knowledge and understandings. Spinning you a cleverly crafted lie, that you’re eating up like a good little numpty. Good job...these huxters are very proud of you, helping them spread bullshit.
4
-
4
-
Hi, just gonna answer these in the order you've presented them.
- As Scott pointed out in his excellent explanation, we don't need to create materials that resist these temperatures, because the convection rate in space is very very low, to non existent. 2000 degrees Celsius would be a problem...with a lot of air pressure to help the constant and consistent transfer of heat between molecules (convection), but in space, where the pressure is essentially zero, this is no problem. Do some research on convection and conduction, they matter greatly to understanding how temperature works in different environments and conditions. Basic rule of thumb, the higher the pressure, the more molecules of matter with mass to help transfer heat to you, the faster something will cook or be incinerated. Since space is a vacuum, convection heat transfer is basically non existent, making it easily possible for materials to withstand the environmental conditions.
- What problems are you referring too? I'm not too familiar with the problems you're claiming flight crews deal with. We have people on the ISS currently who are monitored for how much radiation they receive while on flight, but I wasn't aware flight crews had much worry. I will say, I used to work in a Uranium mine, insulating pipes for the large refineries. The radiation we received in these compounds we were repairing, probably far exceeded anything that people in space receive on a daily basis (depending), and we were fine. I think people tend to have a lot of assumptions on radiation exposure and space...but don't really know much about how much radiation an astronaut really receives, or how much the human body can actually handle. I wouldn't be so quick to assume space travel radiation is as harmful as you seem to think it is. Though I don't have all the answers here, but don't let assumptions lead you.
- Gravity....I know you've heard of it. We're all well aware of this force, we deal with it every day. If you're not convinced it's real, that's a whole other discussion we could have, but a question is not an argument and it's not evidence, so please don't assume a question alone should debunk established physics.
- Actually, 500 km is still not very high at all...though it's actually only 400 km, so you're off by 100 km. Still, if you were to put things to scale, get yourself a basketball, and then place your finger roughly 1 cm off the surface...that's roughly how far from the surface the ISS is by comparison. So you actually wouldn't be able to see the TOTAL curvature in its entirety. You'd be able to see a bit of it...and you do actually, have you ever actually watched ISS footage? The curvature is pretty clear.
- Well, water, like all dead matter, is inert, so it conforms to whatever force is acting upon it. Gravity vectors shift as you move, always drawing matter toward center of Earth, so the water in a swimming pool will be drawn to center, just like the ocean you're traveling upon. Learn some gravity physics please.
- As I'm sure you're aware, magnetism affects all matter differently. It might be stronger for metal alloys, but you're certainly not being sucked towards every magnet next to you, are you? They're not overlooking or discarding electromagnetism in their understandings...they just understand that magnetism affects matter differently and so this does not account for the consistent accelerating drop of matter to surface, at 9.8 m/s^2. They're not ignoring electromagnetism....they've just completely falsified it as a variable to what causes matter to be drawn to surface. Do some catching up to modern physics, and you'd very likely draw the same conclusion.
- Gravity emanates out from a center, so elevation is measured from that center. Water flows from high elevation to low elevation, that's how water flows. So if elevation is measured from center, then high elevation is away from center, low elevation is closest to center. So water is just flowing to center, that's where lowest potential energy is, center of gravity. I'm sure you've heard that term before, center of gravity. That's what everything balances too. When something is balanced, it's balanced to center of gravity, meaning its center of mass is level with center of gravity, perpendicular to it. When any point of a mass falls below center of gravity, when a majority of its mass is at a lower elevation than the rest of its mass, then it will fall to that lower elevation...toward center. So water flows just fine on a sphere, with gravity. Again...please learn some gravity physics, that's where you'll find your answers.
I'm sorry you're "tired of swallowing the facts", but you're asking the wrong questions. A lot of your questions here seem centered around gravity physics, but you didn't ask a single question around how science discovered or verified that gravity exists. You just acted as though it doesn't exist and then asked questions pretending like gravity has never even been hypothesized. You know very well that gravity is the answer to most of your questions...but then why not ask some actual questions pertaining to how gravity works, or to learn what scientific experimentation has helped to verify it? I just find it odd is all...and if you have concluded that gravity does not exist, then please provide your reasons...because science would strongly disagree with you. So if you feel you have somehow successfully falsified gravity, then by all means, provide your evidence and explanation. I'm happy to share what knowledge I have of gravity physics, so if that's what you're hung up on, then by all means, perhaps ask some questions relevant to your real quandary.
4
-
Learn to navigate, and then after you've acquired that knowledge, apply it by plotting and planning a navigation route, using only the stars, horizon and lines of latitude and longitude. Our entire system of navigation relies on the knowledge that the surface we navigate is spherical. If it were flat, mankind would have developed a system of navigation for that geometry, but currently, every pilot and sailor in the entire world, uses a system designed for a sphere, with a circumference of 25,000 miles. That's for a good reason, because Earth is spherical.
Navigation is one of the best ways to prove the Earths geometry for yourself. It's not hard to start learning, tons of videos on YouTube covering the topic.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Lordani66 So you honestly don’t see the motive in his actions? Why won’t Dubay debate the smaller fish on YouTube? Why only Neil? If he’s so confident, he shouldn’t be so picky, you’d think he’d just debate anyone. He wants Neil specifically, because he wants to market himself, it is a calculated move. See...the thing about debates is, it doesn’t really matter if you’re objectively wrong in the end, if you’re a better bullshitter, you can still convince a portion of the audience and pull them to your side, cause a portion of your audience is always going to be stupid and easy to persuade. It’s a liars game...and Eric has an edge in that department, he lies like breathing. You don’t even have to convince all of them or even a small majority, cause there is always gonna be suckers in the crowd easily dazzled by the underdog and that pool of people expands the larger your audience. He wants to debate Neil, cause he’s a celebrity, meaning he has followers, meaning it spreads his bullshit further...that’s the only reason he wants that chance.
Neil is a scientist, not a public debater, it’s not his arena, he’s got better shit to do other than to feed the conmen of the world, just looking to market their scam further. Call it a cop out if you want to, it’s still the wiser choice not giving into scammers. Eric wants to debate these big fish, he better get working on becoming one. Only when he’s on equal footing, should he ever be acknowledged.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Well, you'd need to still explain why things fall, why that direction is always down, why that rate of falling is always 9.8m/s^2, why that number can accurately be used to calculate everything from an objects weight (W=mg), to its buoyancy (Fb=Vpg), to a planes lift to weight ratio (ratio=F/W=ma/mg=a/g), etc. So ya...you'd still have a force causing a downward accelerating motion in all matter, that you'd have to account for in physics....you know, kind of like we already have. You can't just be ignorant to physical reality, or else we would get nothing done. Applied science kind of depends on us being objective. There is an obvious falling motion in all matter, motion does not occur without a force putting it into motion...it's basic physics.
You can pretend all you want that you're onto something big here, but you're arguing against applied science here, there's no debate on this topic anymore. Much of the technology and infrastructures YOU make use of on a daily basis, are only made possible because our knowledge of Earths shape, scale and geometry is accurate. Seriously, if you think scientists and experts can build EVERYTHING around you, but they can't solve something as trivial as the true shape of the Earth...then you might need some help my dude.
Of course there's lots of "evidence" for Flat Earth, the con men pushing that bullshit are working really hard to ensure there appears to be a lot of "evidence". They're taking you on a ride...and you're happy to take that ride, because they know how paranoid everyone is these days, they know it gives you a bit of peace of mind to pretend like you're back in control, that you can bag the bad guys and be a hero if you stick with the fantasy they're laying out for you. Must feel good...but it's not real, so hopefully you realize that eventually.
4
-
@falcor1969 Density is not a force, it has no physical capability of putting matter into motion, in any direction, it's just a property of matter, how much mass occupies a volume, that's all density is. Falling is a motion, I'm sure you'd agree to at least that much, it's pretty obvious. Nothing is put into motion without a force, it's the first law of motion. So if Density is not a force, but motion requires a force...then how exactly does density by itself put matter into motion? You're not really thinking this through very well, you're just being intentionally ignorant for the sake of your bias.
Density and buoyancy are already a part of gravity physics, you're just chopping out the parts you don't like and calling it a day. Not very objective of you, but then even by calling yourself a Flat Earther, you basically admit your bias. Do you see scientists calling themselves Globe Earthers? No, because they could care less what shape the Earth is at the end of the day, but they do require that information to be accurate, because we can't do anything with false information. Flat Earth is not used in the foundation of any applied science, that's a fact, not an opinion...and that should really be your first clue that it's false.
You have a great many misunderstandings about gravity. Yes, gravity is not a very powerful force at all, but it is a constant and it is far reaching. Doesn't take much energy at all to overcome gravity here on Earth, but the larger the object, the more mass it has, so the more gravity is effecting it...it's in the law of universal gravitation, gravity force is proportional to an objects mass. Hence why the Moon easily stays in orbit, it's not exactly small by any means, it's 1/4 the size of Earth...so it's going to be effected by gravity a lot more, and even produce a lot of its own gravity.
Your own personal misunderstandings are not evidence. Where I come from, if you don't know the answer to something everyone else understands perfectly well...it generally means you're stupid.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@dragoncosmico Actually gravity is a law as well, look up Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation…it’s where the foundation of gravity science began.
It’s also a common misconception, but laws are not higher than theory in science, they’re actually considered as equal, just a different form of conclusion. Laws of science describe what is occurring, but make no attempt to explain how or why. Theory’s are the explanation of how a phenomena of nature works. That’s the difference between the two. Both are supported by a body of evidence and facts that are verified and peer reviewed, they are both conclusions, nothing goes beyond them in science. But it could actually be argued that theories are above laws, because you will always have more power and control over a system if you understand HOW it works, rather than just WHAT it does.
Anyway, it just does more to reveal the scientific illiteracy of Flat Earthers really. By saying anything is “just a theory”, they basically admit they have no real understanding of the terminology and basic language of science. Electromagnetism is also a theory of science, but you won’t see them pointing that out. They only pick on gravity, because it’s not very convenient for what they want to believe….it’s just classic confirmation bias through intentional ignorance and plain ol’ denial.
4
-
4
-
@nickmerix2900 No, what really happened was that Rogan set up a debate that Neil didn’t know about or even agree too, I don’t think he even talked to Dubay about it, he just assumed it would happen. So nothing was set up officially, or agreed too by both individuals. I don’t know about you, but if someone pencilled me in for something I didn’t agree too, I’d tell them to kick rocks too. It’s pretty common sense that you should probably ASK a person well in advance if they’re cool with doing something like a debate, before you just assume they will. Neil has stated many times publicly, that he does not do debates, it’s not his thing…so Rogan should have probably done his homework first.
Meanwhile, Dubay has been asked many times too debate, by many different people and experts, here on YouTube and other platforms…so far he’s accepted none of them. So what’s he afraid of?
I say, if people don’t want to debate, it should be fine, it’s not for everyone. Debating is a skill like any other, it also takes time to properly prepare, some people don’t have the time or interest. Rogan shouldn’t be pencilling people in for things without asking first, he’s kind of an idiot for doing so.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@eyestoseefe7618 Those are math simplification models, for abstract simulations and hypotheticals…they’re not literally stating the Earth is flat, they are assumed variables. Go ahead and tell me what you know about mathematical models and how papers such as those are written. Go ahead…let’s see your expertise on the subject.
Mathematical models often simplify math, to make the math easier to use and easier to calculate. It’s actually a whole field of work in mathematics, to derive simpler equations, by removing redundant variables or variables that won’t effect what they’re being used for. When a math simplification is made, it must be stated very clearly what variables are being omitted in the simplification, so that the reader is aware. They’re not making a literal statement, or drawing a conclusion…that’s why these are often found in the summary sections, just before the equations to follow. They’re typically used in simulations…which are never a full representation of reality.
What we have here is a classic example of cherry picking, from layman, who have no idea what they’re reading. Further verifying that you don’t know much about math or science.
Here’s a thought…in all of these mathematical models, there is an author for the work…why hasn’t any Flat Earther ever thought to contact any of these authors? If you think I’m lying to you…go ahead and contact the authors, I’m sure with a little effort they wouldn’t be difficult to track down. You should be demanding that these people who present these papers too you, that they contact some of the authors, and ask them directly. If you really care about the truth, then you think that would be step one in your research.
Why people just assume they know what’s being said in a mathematical model, when they’re not trained mathematicians themselves, it just boggles me.
4
-
@eyestoseefe7618 Gases exist just fine next to space, thanks to gravity. Gas has mass, all matter with mass is affected by gravity, that includes all gases. Buoyancy is what causes lighter gases to rise, and buoyancy is directly caused by gravity…that’s physics 101, proven in countless different drop tests for buoyancy force. It’s also why gravity is the force variable in the equation for buoyancy; Fb=Vpg. Real engineers use that equation to build the ballast tanks for ships and submarines…even dock crews use it to know just how much weight a single ship can carry, before it capsizes. Remove the gravity variable, and that equation becomes useless. Learn how buoyancy works…it’s caused by density displacement, that displacement is caused by the downward acceleration of gravity. Physics 101.
Entropy does occur, and our system allows for it to happen, we’re constantly shedding both thermal energy and gas…thankfully we have a Sun providing us with a constant supply of new energy, which biological life uses to photosynthesize new gases at the surface. The entropy of gas though is slowed and contained by gravity. That’s another point you Flatties ignore…the fact that entropy can be slowed, by attractive forces. Heck, your body is proof of that. You are an entropic system…held together by many different attractive forces, working in tandem to keep entropy at bay. Entropy is easily slowed and contained, it will always win in the end, but it’s a slowly won battle, thanks to forces like gravity.
I think you’ll find it’s actually your Flat Earth system that breaks thermodynamics laws. If there’s a container not allowing any gas or energy out…then wouldn’t we expect our system to drastically increase in both heat and pressure over time? 🧐 I’m sure you’re aware of what occurs with a pressurized container of gas when a flame is held too it. The Sun is a constant provider of new energy…energy can not be destroyed only transferred….if it has nowhere to go, it eventually explodes.
That’s of course making a few assumptions of your model, that assumption being a dome that closes around just the Earth. But of course I’m aware there is no working model of Flat Earth, and not a single one you all agree on, you all just assume arguments from ignorance are good enough…so it’s pretty pointless to bother. But either way, you guys are butchering thermodynamics laws. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has more to do with thermal energy transfer, hence THERMOdynamics. It’s not so much applicable to gases, for that we use the ideal gas laws, in this case Boyles Law, which is basically the same law, but reworked to apply to the nuances of matter with a mass, gases. Energy has no mass, so thermodynamics doesn’t apply to gas so much…it’s referring to energy. For example, when your coffee goes cold, its thermal temperature coming to equilibrium with the surrounding air, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy? 🧐 Shouldn’t have to tell you, it’s just the energy. That’s an example of thermodynamics. Again, our Earth sheds energy all the time, and the open system allows it to do that.
When it comes to gases, we use the gas laws. But even those are limited in what they can be used for. In the ideal gas law equations, volume is used as a key variable in every equation, basically the container. This becomes a problem with the atmosphere, because it’s technically infinite, so no volume can be determined or measured. So for atmosphere, we use a completely different set of gas equations, that replace volume with gravity. Gravity is the container of Earth’s atmosphere, and it creates the pressure gradient we observe and measure. So gases are treated differently in physics, depending on whether it’s a volume of gas (ideal gas laws), or an open atmosphere of gases (atmospheric pressure).
That’s a quick summary of the physics you guys butcher, but that’s not evidence on its own, obviously. That’s what’s also key here…Flat Earth has reached a conclusion of the firmament container, on butchered physics alone…with ZERO tangible evidence. We can not reach conclusions in science without EVIDENCE. Yet you people have drawn a conclusion anyway…that’s all I need to know to understand that you are just another online group of layman pushing pseudoscience.
You have not found this dome you believe is up there. It has not been observed, measured, tested, or interacted with in any way….you have however found evidence for the vacuum of space, and without realizing it. I’m sure you’re aware of the many weather balloons the Flat Earth has sent up over the years in the attempt to observe curvature (which they’ve done successfully I might add, just take a ruler to anyone of those horizons), did you ever happen to notice the blackness of space above a blue atmosphere, and surrounding the Sun? That’s exactly what we’d expect to see in our model. And if you watch until the end, the balloons always eventually pop…as they’re designed to do, once reaching vacuum conditions. So even Flat Earth has verified the existence of space, with evidence that’s repeatable….but ya know what you guys have never found? A container.
You’re gonna have to face it eventually…you were conned by huxters online, who took advantage of your lack of scientific/mathematical knowledge and experience, to feed you absolute made up bullshit. What’s funny is that you’ll all blindly agree to their bullshit without question…….then call us brainwashed sheep. Oh the irony. 😂
Meanwhile, scientists and engineers are using the knowledge I’m explaining to you here, to build and innovate the modern world around you….while you flatties are in basements, clacking away on keyboards, contributing nothing. Not a hill I’d wanna die on…but you do you I guess.
4
-
@eyestoseefe7618 Already explained it to you, those are mathematical simplification models…they are assumed variables, not to be taken literally.
Just zero in on a few of them and read them closer. You’ll find the word ASSUMED in almost all of them. And many of them assume many other variables not applicable to reality as well. For example, the most famous of the examples Flat Earthers cherry pick from, the NASA document 1207 “Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model”, it also assumes and says quite clearly, quote; “a rigid vehicle of constant mass”. It’s says those exact words directly before “flat and stationary Earth” Those are both impossible variables in reality, no mechanical vehicle with scores of moving parts is perfectly rigid, and they do not maintain constant mass because of crew members that shift around and fuel that depletes.
Why don’t you zero in on those words? It’s simple, because they don’t help you confirm your bias. Can’t cherry pick things that don’t fit the narrative, so they can be ignored….isn’t that right?
4
-
4
-
@elfalte You didn’t shake anything, you’re not the first flattie I’ve chatted with. These are poor arguments you’ve presented, that I’ve heard many times…that I’ve answered probably hundreds of times at this point. The Stars don’t appear to move because of parallax effect, it’s pretty simple. But they are moving, it’s been determined, we’ve been tracking the stars for centuries, they are moving. If you were an astronomer, you would know this, it’s standard knowledge. As is the second hemisphere sky, which rotates around a different pole star, Sigma Octantis.
You can now either continue to ignore what I’m saying, or you can research it, see that I’m not lying to you, and then maybe realize how impossible it is on a flat Earth.
Flat Earth is a con, that takes advantage of peoples general lack of knowledge, and their growing paranoia that keeps them from looking at things objectively.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TShaun68 Do you sense you’re moving 500 mph when you get up and walk around the cabin of a passenger jet? No, you don’t…yet that’s typically how fast they fly at cruising altitude…so maybe our senses are actually pretty terrible at detecting motion? 🧐 Ya, they are actually…the reality is that we don’t actually sense/feel motion itself, what we sense is sudden or rapid change in motion, not motion itself. That’s actually the first thing you learn in any physics 101 class, the laws of motion. Earth’s motions are constant, with only a few examples of gradual acceleration over long periods of time, so we really wouldn’t expect to feel them, there’s no sudden or rapid acceleration. We have plenty of evidence now verifying that we are in motion (from Foucault pendulum and gyro experiments, to ring laser interferometers detecting and measuring Earth’s motion, to the Coriolis and Eotvos effect, to the gyrocompass, etc), so it’s an argument from ignorance really, to conclude that we don’t spin…simply because you don’t feel it. Learn the physics of motion, and you’ll understand why we don’t.
“Do you also look up to understand what’s under your feet?”
Typically no, but you absolutely can. Reality is bound by geometric rules that are constant, the shape of a surface will alter your position, relative to surrounding objects, by shifting your angle too them, so it’s actually pretty useful information that shouldn’t be ignored. Your argument there is just basically an excuse, to convince others (and yourself) that it’s fine to limit yourself by ignoring geometric information, even though it’s very useful information.
“The horizon is just the convergence point of your eyes…”
Then why does horizon extend the higher you go in elevation? If what you’re saying were accurate, horizon would be at 3 miles whether I’m at 6 feet elevation or 1000 feet…but that’s not what happens. The higher we go, the further we see…like seeing over a curvature. Your conclusion is barely a hypothesis, yet you’re asserting it’s accurate anyway…even though it’s easily refuted with little effort.
“A p900 camera can zoom things back into your range of vision that appear to have crossed the “horizon”…”
First off…what’s with Flat Earth’s obsession with the p900? 🧐 Seriously…telescopes have existed for centuries with focal lengths far exceeding the p900, and zoom lenses for cameras is not new technology…in fact they’re pretty standard in most professional grade cameras today (and have been for awhile), and again many are more powerful than the p900. I’m starting to think Nikon started the Flat Earth movement, so they could sell more cameras…cause it’s the only camera Flat Earthers ever mention. I just find that really odd.
Anyway…more to the point. You mentioned convergence before (vanishing point). Were you aware that vanishing point can occur in any direction, and before physical horizon? So how do you know for certain you’re actually zooming things back from horizon? I’ve seen plenty of examples where things are actually beyond the horizon, and no amount of zoom will bring them back…how are those observations explained by your conclusion? 🧐 In my opinion, if you’re zooming things fully back into focus, then they haven’t actually gone past the horizon yet, you’re just bringing them back from vanishing point, which has occurred before horizon. But once something actually has gone past horizon, no amount of zoom will bring them back. I’d suggest looking up the Turning Torso Tower observation, as a great example of what I’m talking about.
I think there’s a lot Flat Earth ignores or is not aware of and I personally feel they’ve done some pretty poor research honestly. But that’s my opinion after analyzing it, you’re free to disagree, but that’s my stance. I hope this information is helpful, or at the very least interesting. Take care.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@robertfish4734 I’m well aware of the gas laws, including Boyles…you’re still confusing gas pressure with atmospheric pressure. You should Google ‘Ideal Gas Laws’ sometime…says right on the first paragraph of the Wiki, that these laws have their limitations. And that’s true…they’re only used for gases in containers where the volume of the container can be determined, and where it can be reduced to increase pressure…example, the pistons pushing down into a valve compressing gas. They are not used when we’re talking about an open system with infinite volume, like atmospheric pressure. Atmospheric pressure equations replace volume with gravity…look it up bud, you don’t get to just cherry pick whatever you think supports an argument, and then ignore everything else. That’s called confirmation bias…maybe you should look that up too.
By all means, find us tangible evidence for this container. Is there any? Do you think we settle science on misunderstood physics? No…we settle it with evidence. There is plenty of evidence for gravity, from drop tests, to Cavendish experiments, to the satellites we’re putting into orbit with that knowledge. I’ve yet to see anything tangible that verifies this dome container you feel is up there.
You’re just another pseudo intellectual trying to rub dirt in the eye of an authority you’ve come to resent, it’s nothing new.
I DARE YOU, to plot a navigation route and travel it, without using the globe model to help you do it. 😂 Go right ahead.
4
-
@robertfish4734 So mostly a bunch of insults and further denial, but no actual evidence or rebuttals, gotcha. And you people wonder why nobody takes you seriously. 🤦♂️
Nowhere in the report for Operation Fishbowl, does it say they were nuking the dome. 😂 That’s just 100% made up bullshit…and then you have the gull to say we’re making things up? Kettle, meet pot. 😂 No, what it actually says is that they were performing tests of nuclear arsenal in upper atmosphere, to test what effect it has. Pretty standard when you develop a new weapon…you then test it in as many different environments as you can, to observe its effects. They detonated 6 nukes in this test, and gathered data on what occurs. They learned a lot actually, they learned that nuclear fallout travels further, the radio blackout effect also travels further, it does damage still but doesn’t completely decimate an area, it mostly contaminates it and cripples it. This is useful information to have…hence why they do these tests.
You just read the title and then speculated endlessly on what it meant…I bet you’ve never read it. 😄 The reason it’s called “Operation Fishbowl”, is likely because the blast would leave a perfect circle in the clouds where the detonation occurred…which would look a lot like a hole at the top of a round fishbowl, to an observer on the ground.
So feel free to try again. Any actual evidence for this dome?
Cavendish is very repeatable science, I first saw it repeated at a junior high science fair, then again in my high school science lab we had a bunch of old small scale cavendish apparatuses, that we used to learn the history behind the science of gravity. Now there’s hundreds of recreations of this experiment you can find on YouTube alone…it’s repeated all the time.
Your denial of a highly repeatable experiment, is not an argument. If you have any actual falsification to make, feel free to share it…but insulting us and making empty claims doesn’t do anything I’m afraid.
How about being a bit more mature about it? Instead of puffing your chest at everyone, why not drop the superiority act, and have a conversation? You’re just banging your head against the wall with your attitude here. It’s such a waste of time.
4
-
4
-
@robertfish4734 Let’s try this a different way. Gonna try steel manning your argument a bit. From what I gather, your point on Boyles law is simply that; gas always moves from high pressure to low pressure. Your point with breathing demonstrates this; by creating a system of low pressure in your lungs, the higher pressure outside your lungs rushes into the lower pressure, making us able to breath. So your argument is, space is a low pressure, our atmosphere is a high pressure, so it should move to the low pressure, if no physical container is there to keep it.
That’s the jist of it, correct?
Yes, but that’s just how gases work at the most basic level, with no other systems present to also effect things. Our reality is a BIG complex system, with many different systems and laws all working in tandem, each one having an effect on the other. So what if we were to introduce an attractive force to the gases moving from high pressure to low? Try this thought experiment; what if we just had a bunch of gas moving around a system in total equilibrium, now we introduce an attractive force, that attracts the mass of that gas towards it. Ok, so now we have all the gas moving towards that system, and building up around it. The system that was once in perfect equilibrium, now has several pockets of varying pressure all around, it’s now a chaotic system. So what happens when all the gas is now attracted and condensed to one spot? Does that attractive force just shut off? No, the gas still builds up around the source attracting it, and creates a pressure gradient in the mass of gas. The gradient just lasts as long as theres gas to create it, the end of the stacking of gas is where space is. Is the gas moving to the low pressure? Not unless the pressure difference is great enough to trump the attractive force. Sure, it’s 14.7 psi at surface, but at the top of the gradient it’s like 0.00000000000000001 parts per cm^3 and then it’s zero. Not a very big pressure difference…certainly not comparable to our lungs. So gravity easily trumps that.
You see? No laws are being broken here. Gas can and does still move to lower pressure systems, but only if that pressure difference is great enough to trump that force that’s attracting and holding it. Gravity easily keeps our atmosphere from fully expanding into space, this is also observed.
So your argument just ignores gravity, it doesn’t falsify it. We still measure a pressure gradient, we still observe all matter falling to Earth as if attracted by something. That falling is a motion, a force is required for all motion in matter, so a force is present causing that motion. That falling motion is consistent with the direction of the pressure gradient, towards surfaces, so it’s pretty clear that motion is causing the pressure gradient. You’ve done nothing to answer for that motion, or falsify the current conclusions of physics that already explain it.
You’re not the first to present this argument…I’ve heard it hundreds of times now, by many Flat Earthers, they make the same ignorant errors you’re making. You ignore gravity, you’re not falsifying it. That is why we don’t bat an eye at this argument. You’re focusing on one law, while ignoring the rest of the system, you’re not looking at the whole picture. Laws only describe single parts of the whole. Gravity doesn’t break Boyles law, gas still moves from high pressure to low pressure, gravity just introduces an attractive force that attracts gas, it’s just another small piece of the whole.
We understand your argument, we just notice it for what it is, intentional ignorance to confirm a bias.
4
-
4
-
@nicholashpitts I’ve been chatting with flat Earthers for 4 years now, I know your arguments as well, so don’t patronize me. In my experience so far, Flat Earth is a heavily bias movement, that doesn’t have answers, only misunderstandings and inconclusive conclusions they’ve slotted in to pose as answers, that upon closer inspection reveals they were really reached from sloppy bias research and cherry picked/twisted information...not objective analysis or experimentation. That’s my current conclusion so far, after hundreds of conversations on the topic.
I don’t mind getting into the science though, if you’re willing to pay attention and actually consider anything I’d have to share. If you do that, then I’m more than willing to do the same for anything you’d like to share. I don’t mind having an open and civil discussion, if we can both restrain from patronizing and trolling the other any further. I’ll respect your position, if you can respect that I have reached my own as well, with my own extensive research on the topic. So keep that in mind, I’m not interested in a chat if you’re just here to patronize and force an opinion.
One point at a time, so let’s start with the curvature you say doesn’t exist. Here’s a short sampling of observations and experiments I’ve come across on that topic.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment - in-depth recreation of the Bedford Level experiment
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2017/10/curvature-on-parade-turning-torso-video.html - simple observation of a building at different distances
https://youtu.be/RK93TfSYeQU?t=362 - analyzing what flat Earth would actually look like, using real world topography data and observation
These are all repeatable observations and experiments, all providing pretty conclusive evidence of the curvature you’re claiming doesn’t exist. Feel free to attempt at falsifying any one of these observations, I don’t mind hearing your reasoning for why you feel they’re not conclusive.
In the meantime, I’ll provide some reasons why I feel flat Earth fails to find curvature. The larger reason I feel, is because they’ve been conned to believe in certain bits of information, that keeps them from seeing it. The worst offender, the 8 inches per mile squared math, which is not the correct math to use for long distance observations, giving you the wrong figures for the observation...but very few of you seemed to bother with checking the math, so you could learn how flawed it is. If you’d like to learn more about why it’s flawed, I don’t mind explaining more in depth, but I’ll leave it there for now.
The other piece of misinformation, being fed false information on how perspective and optics work, mainly misunderstanding the difference between vanishing point and horizon, one being your eyes own physical limitation to process light, and the other a physical line of sight limit caused by a surfaces own geometry. Vanishing point, is not the same as horizon...they are two very different things, but flat Earth sells them as one in the same. Your eyes do have physical limitations, but there are many rules of perspective that flat Earth ignores, that are not in alignment with their main conclusion of a flat Earth. For instance, perspective will cause an object to appear to shrink, but not lower or sink into or under horizon...certainly not by thousands of feet, as seen in mountains obscured by horizon at hundreds of miles. Even if flat Earth could prove that it does, it still does not replace curvature, as the geometric curvature math (when done correctly) still fits with the observation as well. So at best, even if flat Earth could successfully prove perspective convergence, it would still have a long way to go, like using that for explaining all the other occurrences observed in reality. Like how Polaris drops to 0 degrees at the Equator https://flatearth.ws/polaris-angle or how Earth has two equal hemispheres that operate under the same geometry https://youtu.be/ZMtx5jVLUaU, just like we’d expect they would if Earth was a Globe. Among many other problems it can’t solve for with perspective as its answer.
See the problem? Flat Earths has to ignore a LOT about perspective and what we observe in reality, to make their broader conclusion work here. I feel this is what Flat Earth does across the board, ignores a lot, to force the conclusions to work. A lot of the time, it just feels like they’re ramming a square peg into a round hole.
But, feel free to point out where you feel I’ve gone wrong in that conclusion. You claim there’s no curvature, but I’ve been able to find evidence of it everywhere. So please elaborate further on why you feel this evidence is no good.
4
-
4
-
4
-
It’s also a bit easier to think of gravity in terms of a motion. Roll a ball up a slope, it eventually runs out of kinetic energy and rolls back down, two motions, one requiring energy, the other just gravity. So long as something can continue to create energy and use it for the purpose of resisting that motion downward, then it can continue to resist so long as it can generate energy and use it effectively for that purpose. Replace that ball with a living animal, now instead of rolling down it can continue burning energy to keep going up. Pretty simple and common sense right, living things burn fuel in the form carbohydrates, which gives them energy, then they use that energy to resist gravity, you’re resisting gravity every day, just from standing. Doesn’t take much energy to resist gravity, as trailbossdan1 pointed out, gravity isn’t very powerful, but it is constant, it’s always on, putting you in constant motion towards the surface. Run out of energy to resist it and gravity eventually wins, cause it never stops.
Birds fly by flapping their wings, burning energy to create motion, motion they use to resist the motion of gravity, pretty simple.
Now gases are a bit of a different story, it’s largely buoyancy that causes them to rise and the interesting thing about buoyancy, is that it’s actually caused by gravity. I realize that may sound a bit confusing or contradictory, but think of an air bubble rising up through water, the reason it’s doing that is because the surrounding water is more dense, and because of this it’s going to occupy lowest potential energy first, or closest position to centre of gravity if you prefer. So it’s actually the downward motion of gravity, that’s causing the displacement, forcing lighter molecules up, causing buoyancy. That’s why helium and hydrogen rise, and that’s also largely the reason why clouds float, because of buoyancy, the water vapour is lighter than the air directly at surface, so it’s forced upward. I mean, it is a bit more complicated than that also, but buoyancy plays a big part in why clouds rise. Point is, without gravity first putting all matter in motion down towards the surface, buoyancy could not occur, because if nothing has a starting direction in which to begin ordering itself by density, then it’s not going to, displacement will not occur, so gravity is the direct cause of buoyancy.
Now when it comes to planets and orbits, it’s again easier to think of it in terms of motion, a good visual experiment often taught in physics classes today, is this one with stretched sheets and marbles https://youtu.be/MTY1Kje0yLg. Mass creates a gravity well, a bend in the fabric of space, that extends pretty far out into space, much like the fabric in that example. The bigger the object, the deeper the gravity well, the further this bend extends. Planets are really just moving along this curved space, that’s all gravity is, a motion through space and time.
Anyway, let me know if that helps with your questions. They’re very good physics questions, so hopefully we were able to help you out.
4
-
@k3630 “Gravity seems to full of contradictions.”
Contradictions can often be confused with misunderstanding. Just because you don’t fully understand something, does not mean it’s wrong. As I mentioned before, Science builds on prior knowledge. You seem to be approaching things with no prior foundation. We don’t just have explanations, we have observed and measured reality. Does not understanding how a cloud rises, change the fact that it does? No. Does not understanding how the Earth is spherical, change the fact that it is observed and measured to be one? No. Does not understanding how orbital mechanics works, change the fact that planets are observed to orbit around the Sun, that moons are observed to orbit around planets? No.
You’re getting lost in the explanations of how, and forgetting the facts. What is occurring has been observed and is undeniable at this point, how it occurs is tricky, but Gravity wasn’t reached lightly, it’s the explanation that’s left over, after hundreds of years of observation, experimentation and the process of falsification. It is complex to understand, but not understanding something doesn’t make it false.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@sdmfcfh1283 Nobody is saying density doesn’t exist, what we’re saying is density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, it is just how much mass occupies a volume of space…that doesn’t cause motion, only a force can do that. You don’t seem to understand the very basic fundamentals of physics. All change in state of motion requires a force to cause it…that’s the basic definition of a force, anything that can cause and effect a state of motion. Is falling a motion? Yes, it is…….so there’s a force causing it, pretty simple. Density is already well defined as a scaler variable in science, a ratio of mass to volume…it is not a force, it does not cause motion. :/
So that’s the problem with your conclusion of density…it’s ignorant of basic physics. You’re doing nothing to explain the cause for a very obvious motion that occurs when you drop things…things don’t just fall without a cause for that motion.
It’s the whole point of science to find and identify cause and effect relationships…sayings things just fall because they do, isn’t achieving anything, you’re not solving any problems by pointing out the obvious and then calling it a day. First thing to understand is that a force is well defined in physics, it’s anything that can cause a change in motion in matter. Falling is a motion, so there’s a force present to cause it, that’s physics 101. Density is not a force, it’s a scaler variable, so it’s not density causing that motion…that’s not how this works.
4
-
@ekulenwaiku4654 The only theatrics I’ve seen, are from these conspiracy docs on YouTube. I’ve caught them lying far more than NASA...so in my experience, the people I don’t trust, are these people making those docs for the clicks. The video you shared is just gish gallop, a bunch of weak arguments mashed together and shot out in rapid fire, to make the main argument appear stronger than it actually is, achieving this goal by overwhelming anyone attempting to refute it, feeding the audience half truths to lead them to their bias, but not the full picture. I could go through every claim made in that presentation and point out the lies, speculations and errors on each one...but who’s got that kind of time?
Point is, gish gallop is seen as a dishonest and low form of argumentation, firing out endless speculations (but no real evidence), before your mind gets a chance to process the first point. So why should anyone take seriously, people who resort to disingenuous tactics of persuasion?
Also, I wasn’t saying the majority is always right, don’t twist my words, I said NASA has better things to do, than appease a few paranoid layman.
4
-
@ekulenwaiku4654 What have they gained? Are you serious? They achieved long distance travel through space....do you think that’s somehow a small achievement? Do you think space travel is just something we should have mastered in a day? How many rockets have you launched into space? What have they achieved...what an ignorant and arrogant thing to say. I swear, flat Earth has a lot of poisoned minds to atone for. :/
Space is the next frontier...and as a very curious species that thrives on exploration and expansion, why wouldn’t we continue to push ourselves as far as we can go? The ISS is a research base, in an environment we can’t recreate here on Earth. The value in a research base such as this, is more substantial than you seem to realize....you already owe the ISS more than you realize, for the advancements in technology it has already provided, such as the innovations to solid state computing technology, as just one example of many.
But yes, every argument put forth by flat Earth is just misinformation. In over 4 years of researching the topic now, I’ve more than reached that conclusion, because there hasn’t been an argument I haven’t been able to falsify yet...didn’t take much either, just some basic knowledge in physics and geometry and some common sense. I entered with an open mind, like they asked of me, and I continue to keep it open...but everything I’ve seen from this movement has just been layman doing what they do best, grossly misunderstand how things work but pretend like they’re the real experts anyway, favouring speculations over actual evidence.
You’re welcome to try and present something you feel is a good argument, I don’t mind hearing you out, but I’m not new to this discussion...so good luck finding something I’ve never heard.
4
-
@ekulenwaiku4654 As Scott pointed out, when you do all the geometry here, including every variable to scale, yes, the degree is negligible, they might as well arrive perfectly parallel to our surface. As the experiments I shared verify, that’s exactly what is happening, it’s measured and observed. Light from our Sun arrives parallel to surface, this is a proven fact at this point. This can only happen if it’s much larger compared to Earth. But since it also appears much smaller, that can only mean it’s also very far away, a trick of perspective, known as foreshortening.
Here’s the thing, it’s not that FE doesn’t ask great questions, cause they are...the problem is, you hold the questions up as your evidence, jumping to a conclusion before any real examination. Instead of taking the steps to further verify your claim of a local Sun, you just take an optical illusion, like crepuscular rays, and state with certainty that this can only occur for one reason, no further work required. Any attempts to show you the evidence that directly refutes your conclusion, is just ignored. It’s frustrating....and FE does it with pretty much EVERY argument.
Are you not even the least bit curious, to learn about how you could be in error? You’re asking great questions, the same kind of questions every scientist asks at some point while learning this stuff, but why do you work so hard to avoid learning the answers? The only reason I can figure, is because of confirmation bias, you don’t trust authority, so you’re searching for only the information that confirms, bolsters and justifies that distrust. It’s bias that leads FE, not objective reasoning.
We can keep going if you want, like I said, there hasn’t been a claim from FE I haven’t been able to falsify as of yet, with real world evidence. If you’re curious to see how FE has potentially conned you, I can share more of what I’ve found. Up to you really.
4
-
The second part you’re having trouble with is the motions of Earth and how our atmosphere stays to the surface. Well, first thing to note is that there is no air in space, it’s empty for the most part, so this is important to note because it means Earth is experiencing zero drag force, as it moves through space. Drag force (aka air resistance) is typically the effect we get here on Earth as we move really fast through our atmosphere, our body or vehicle smashing into the molecules of air as we try to move, which creates drag. Earth doesn’t move through air, so it doesn’t have the same problem, so there’s nothing in space to effectively rip our atmosphere off.
Just gravity and relative motion, relative motion being a whole study of physics on its own, mostly having to do with how motion is constant, objects in motion will stay in motion, that’s largely how the atmosphere keeps up with the Earth, because it’s motion is relative to the Earth. Gravity doing it’s part as well.
As Scott pointed out, there is a slight Centripetal acceleration, but it’s very small and not nearly enough to overcome the stronger force of gravity.
4
-
Do you really think careers are made in science…by following the status quo? 🤷♂️ On the contrary, science strongly encourages people think for themselves (what do you think a thesis paper is?)…they’re just not in the habit of blindly accepting claims made, without strong evidence to support them first. You can believe whatever you like, but don’t expect the rest of us to agree, if you can’t argue a position with evidence. Pretty common sense I would think.
Einstein, fir example, isn’t famous today because he went with the grain….he’s famous because he challenged the work of one of the greatest minds in history, Sir Issac Newton. The difference he has with Flat Earthers…was that he was successful in proving his hypothesis. He didn’t whine about his opposition…it was most likely what drove him. He was not very popular in his day, but he fought through his opposition, and beat them all. That’s the way it is, you’re not just gonna get things handed to you…so really, you just sound like you’re whining.
You think the education system creates servants…but I’ll remind you, that you are FAR more educated and better equipped to improve your standing in life, than many of our ancestors ever were. You take learning to read, write, do math for granted…but they didn’t have to open schools to the poor peasants, yet they did. The peasantry of old could only DREAM of receiving or having access to a Nobleman’s education, just a few hundred years ago. So I wouldn’t be so ungrateful.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@SuperMoshady You seem to think the atmosphere of the heliocentric model would contradict thermodynamics, but I’m curious as to why you’d think that? Gas is matter, gravity attracts matter, so why wouldn’t it attract gas? There is a clear pressure gradient we measure, air is thinner the higher you go, so something is attracting matter closer to the surface...under your understanding of atmospheric pressure, wouldn’t we expect gas pressure to be equal throughout the system? It’s clearly not, most of the gas is collected closer to surface, so this would suggest gravity is attracting it downward. Even FE has verified the existence of space, I’m sure you’ve seen the footage from the various weather balloons they themselves have sent up, maybe you’ve noticed at the end of these videos the balloons always eventually pop, as they’re designed to do once reaching vacuum conditions. So really, even FE has detected the vacuum of space, without really realizing it.
You know what they never find though? A container.
Thermodynamics isn’t broken here, because entropy still occurs, gas still does escape (that’s why the atmosphere extends so far), the process is just slowed by gravity. That’s the part I think FE ignores about entropy, it can be slowed and contained for long periods of time, with just a few attractive forces. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics has more to do with energy transfer, than it does matter. For example when a cup of coffee goes cold, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy? Entropy of course always wins in the end, but it can be slowed by attracting forces...you’re an example of that, you’re held together by many different attracting forces, all working in tandem to reduce entropy and slow it down. But make no mistake, you’re undergoing entropy every single second, of every day, but you’re still holding together just fine and staving off the end result of perfect entropy, right? Are you contradicting thermodynamics physics? Clearly not...so why do you think gravity couldn’t contain our atmosphere?
Are you just here to troll people? Cause you’re not stupid, but you’re sure doing your best to circle around the conclusion. If you’re just here to get a rise out of people, congrats I guess...but what’s the point? It’s fine if you’ve actually found something that is problematic with the heliocentric model, but from where we’re standing, it just appears like you’re intentionally ignoring what we’re saying, so you can continue to believe what you want. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, but reading these exchanges so far, it just seems like you enjoy making peoples heads spin. I fail to see the purpose myself, you do you I guess...but wouldn’t you prefer a civil exchange?
So I suppose my main questions are, what makes you think gases (a state of matter), are the one exception to gravity and are somehow not effected by it? Why do you think gravity couldn’t reduce a gas molecules kinetic energy to 0 and bring it back down to Earth? If you do believe this, what data or evidence do you have that has led you to that conclusion? Do you have evidence for this container you believe exists, or just a hypothesis you reached from your current understanding of thermodynamics physics? Have you ever considered the possibility that you’re just misunderstanding thermodynamics physics?
Anyway, I realize you’ve gone round and round on this topic, but hope you wouldn’t mind going a little bit further, with a more civil exchange. Not really interested in a pissing match, but if you’d be interested in answering some of my questions I’d be grateful.
4
-
@SuperMoshady I’m afraid as much as you’d like to dismiss the discussion quickly, probably best you not assume or conclude too much, before we’ve even started. Helium rises due to buoyancy, it’s less dense than the heavier gases at surface, so it’s displaced upwards, because more dense matter will occupy lowest potential energy first. It’s much like oil in water, forced upward due to density displacement, buoyancy. Gases are quite similar in that buoyancy effects them in a similar manner. I’m sure by now others have made you aware of this well known fact, and they’ve probably even mentioned that buoyancy is actually a product of gravity, that it does not occur without it.
The simplest formula for buoyancy is as follows Fb=Vpg, that little g in the equation, is the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2), remove that variable, and engineers designing the ballast of ships, submarines or the materials for weather balloons, would have a very hard time doing their jobs with any proficiency.
So it’s well understood in both physics and engineering, that buoyancy is why helium and lighter gases rise and it’s actually gravity that causes the effect of buoyancy. So no, helium is not free from gravity, what you are observing is just buoyancy effect occurring within gases. Now you may not have been aware of this, so I can see how you’d think helium and other gases are a contradiction to gravity, but they’re not, because buoyancy does not occur without a downward force, first giving matter a direction to begin the process of density displacement. Meaning it’s directly caused by gravity. This is proven time and again in density columns put in zero G environments, as well as in vacuum chambers where lighter gases are observed to fall, rather than rise. If you’d like examples I can provide them.
It’s a good attempt though, but it’s really just avoiding the observation I mentioned, popping weather balloons, which only do that once in vacuum conditions. It also avoids my questions. So feel free to try again, because I’m very curious to know what further evidence or explanation you have for your conclusion, other than just butchered physics.
4
-
@SuperMoshady Ok, I see you edited your post and provided more details, even addressing some of my questions. Thanks for that, and it is an interesting hypothesis. I’m referring to your explanation for the changing temperature that comes with the passing Sun. Of course temperature does have an effect on the fluid mechanics of a gaseous system, it’s part of things for sure and does play its role, so it has some baring in actual physics, so it’s not a bad explanation honestly. Though I would say it still lacks an explanation for the vacuum we measure and observe at the top of our atmosphere, which is observed and detected even in high altitude weather balloons. You can say the atmosphere of the heliocentric model breaks thermodynamics all you’d like, and yet we’ve measured and observed the vacuum of space...and found no such container, so what would you prefer science do, ignore the evidence?
Also, this fluctuation of temps still wouldn’t do much to explain the gradient as it is, I would still expect the system to be more chaotic and mixed under this system, and less ordered by density. With no downward force effecting the gases, what would stop any of these gases from expanding upward and dispersing evenly?
What I’m curious of though, have you looked into the physics of buoyancy yet at all, to see the experiments that have led to the current conclusions for why lighter gases rise? I could share many easy to recreate experiments that help to verify how buoyancy works, demonstrating how gravity plays its part, and that proves buoyancy as the cause for why lighter gases rise. If you’d like to see some, I don’t mind sharing.
It’s an interesting hypothesis, but I do feel it’s misunderstanding thermodynamics physics a bit and hinges largely on one claim, that gas is not effected by gravity. But I’ve seen enough experiments within vacuum chambers to know that it does, so I’m not likely to agree that gases are not effected by gravity, because the evidence is pretty clear that it does. I can understand if you’ve never observed these experiments, how you might reach your current conclusions, but it’s very well researched at this point. And as I mentioned, it’s also an applied science, as buoyancy physics is used in engineering, which does give it a bit more verification.
You’ve really given me no reason to agree that gravity doesn’t effect gases, except an empty claim stating that it doesn’t. Again though, gas is matter, gravity effects all matter, so why wouldn’t it have an effect on gases?
Also, it’s not that gravity gets stronger in upper atmosphere, it’s just that less collisions occur between molecules, because the spaces between them are greater. With less collisions, comes less transfer of kinetic energy, so eventually, gravity wins and brings the molecules back down. It’s not getting stronger, it’s just meeting less resistance. No laws of thermodynamics are broken here, the energy is moved from kinetic, to potential, back to kinetic, no energy is destroyed only transferred. Gravity will win for awhile, as will the other attractive forces of our universe, but entropy will win in the end...but for now, gravity keeps things in check.
We can go back and forth forever though, but really, for your main claim to hold any barring, you’d have to first prove that gravity does not have any effect on gas. So can you prove that? Until then, I don’t find that your argument really has much going for it. Interesting though, a good exorcise in atmospheric pressure physics and there are some good points there, so don’t feel too discouraged.
Anyway, off to bed I go. I hope I was able to provide at least some information of interest to you. Thanks for providing me a deeper insight into the FE perspective on this topic, it has been informative.
4
-
@SuperMoshady Well, as I said, we can go on forever and keep circling round, but you’re still avoiding the observation. Weather balloons eventually stop at an altitude, unable to climb any higher, they then eventually pop, as they’re designed to do within vacuum conditions. So if they’ve popped, doesn’t take much reasoning to conclude that there is vacuum conditions at high altitudes. No dome or barrier has been found, but a vacuum has been measured and observed. So again, all you have are two empty claims really, that gas is not effected by any downward acceleration like all other matter (gravity), and that thermodynamics is violated in a system without a container. You can repeat these claims again and again, but until you prove them with some form of evidence, they’re just empty claims. Meanwhile, there is a vacuum up there, we’ve experienced it, so it seems both your claims are simply wrong. I will go with the evidence, above your claims.
So, where’s the evidence for this container? Surely you have more than just twisted physics. Feel free to provide some evidence for this container you’re so certain is up there, otherwise we really have no reason to continue circling round.
The fact that a gradient in gas pressure exists at all, would suggest gravity is effecting the gas, as it does all matter. I would expect a much more chaotic system, with wild fluctuations in gas pressure throughout, if there was no downward accelerating force providing the starting motion, that begins density displacement, and puts matter into better order. Buoyancy is a byproduct of this density displacement, so if gravity is what causes density displacement, then it’s also what causes buoyancy. This is confirmed every time an engineer uses the formula for buoyancy, which includes a variable for a downward accelerating force, and it works for the purpose he’s used it for. It’s an applied science, so your misunderstandings of buoyancy doesn’t really do much to refute applied science.
I’m a bit busy today, but perhaps I’ll answer a few more of your questions later. I’ll answer one very quickly though, you asked what the observed phenomenon in nature is, that leads to the hypothesis of gravity. The observed phenomenon is the motion of falling objects, it is clearly a phenomenon of nature, in that we have no influence over this motion. We can influence the potential energy state (raising an object up), we can influence the time of release between potential energy state and kinetic energy state, but the motion that occurs once an object is released, that puts an object into kinetic energy state, we are not responsible for, that is a mechanism of nature. So that is the observed phenomenon of gravity. If buoyancy is the name we gave for the motion of matter that travels upward, gravity is the name for the opposite motion, so that’s really where the science begins. It is the downward motion we attempt to figure out, that is what gravity is. All matter is effected by this motion, we have no reason to suggest that gases are the one exception.
Anyway, that’s all for now, chat again later. Perhaps in the meantime you can provide some evidence of your own that has led you to your two claims, start with gases not being attracted by gravity, what evidence do you have that gas is not effected? I realize you’ve stated many times that helium balloons going up is your evidence, but a pressure gradient is still measured, and vacuum has been detected at high altitude, which would suggest gas is being attracted to Earth, so all I’m seeing so far is a misunderstanding of some physics and empty claims. Perhaps you can provide something better.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
UntamableFreeman The stars do change every 6 months...if you were an astronomer that actually spent his nights watching and recording the stars, it’s one of the first things you learn about the night sky. Do me a favour and search the term “seasonal constellations”, you’ll find several lists of these stars and constellations that change throughout the year and you likely even know many of the constellation names already...you’re born under a zodiac constellation just like we all are.
This is a fact you should be aware of if you’re going to make this ignorant argument of yours, there exists two types of stars and constellations. The circumpolar stars, which are close to the celestial poles, and therefore never blocked by the Sun, these are the stars we see all year round. Then there are the seasonal stars, which lie close to the ecliptic plane of Earths orbit, these stars become blocked by the Sun at various points in Earths orbit, many of which are the zodiac constellations but there are many others.
Go ahead and look those up sometime...any amateur astronomer will tell you, the stars do change. So it would serve you better to actually research these things...before you jump to false assumptions.
If you want to talk about the stars though, let’s talk about the two different hemispheres. You are aware that both hemispheres see different stars, correct? More then that though, both hemispheres experience their own celestial rotation, around their own pole star, Polaris in the North, Sigma Octantis in the South. Question is, how exactly does that work on a Flat Earth? This is exactly what we’d expect to see occur on a Globe...but I’ve never seen or heard any logical explanation for how this is possible on a Flat Earth, so feel free to let me know if you have a valid explanation for this observation.
4
-
UntamableFreeman You’re also taking that quote from Einstein out of context and grossly misunderstanding the physics being discussed....and you’re leaving out the end of that quote, which I’ll get to later. Pay attention to where he says “with respect to the ether”. See Michelson and Morley’s experiment wasn’t to prove or disprove the motion of the Earth, it was an attempt to find the Aether...which at the time was thought to be the medium that light propagates through. See they thought light was like sound, that it needed something to move through, like sound does through air and other matter...this is what Michelson and Morley were trying to find and verify, the Aether. What they did instead was find nothing...it was a sound experiment, should have easily have detected the proposed Aether if it really did exist, but it didn’t. So the experiment was inconclusive, it neither verified nor falsified the Aether, it was inconclusive. It’s null hypothesis was that Earth might not actually be in motion, but this was also inconclusive.
So here’s the issue here, upon all peer review this experiment is deemed inconclusive, even Michelson and Morley both agreed this was the case. What this ultimately means is, that if anyone claims this experiment supports either position, then they are doing so out of bias and ignoring its conclusion. It is inconclusive, both for the hypothesis and the null hypothesis...that’s the reality of this experiment. So when you blindly claim that they proved the Earth isn’t in motion...you are making that claim from pure bias and ignorance.
This is the real problem with Flat Earthers...you are bias researchers, not looking at things objectively at all.
So here’s what Einstein meant in his statement there. There was now a big problem in physics, an experiment that should have easily found the Aether...came back with nothing. So here were their choices, either the Aether didn’t exist, or Earth wasn’t in motion. The part YOU and all of flat Earth ignores, is that the Earths motion HAS evidence, it has lots of evidence even in that time, while Aether on the other hand did not. So it’s pretty obvious what direction to go with things...it was very likely that the Aether did not exist...that’s where all the other evidence pointed.
Like I said, you can’t use Michelson and Morley’s experiment to reach a definite conclusion, to do so is being bias...but you can form a new hypothesis from the outcome of that experiment and from all the other evidence that does exist, that’s what Einstein did. He proposed a new hypothesis, he was then successful in proving it...many times over in fact.
So here’s how the history has played out. Earths motion has been verified beyond reasonable doubt, it’s now an applied science, we have geostationary satellites and gyro compasses that both use Earth’s rotational motion to function...so this knowledge is now beyond theory, it’s now an applied science, which means it’s verified. Aether has meanwhile never been discovered, all attempts have failed...so it has been abandoned as plausible. General Relativity on the other hand has been verified...many many times over now. So what do you want the scientific community to do exactly? Just ignore things like Flat Earth does? Or would you prefer science remain objective? Not a hard choice for me honestly.
When Einstein said he was convinced there was no optical means to verify Earths motion, what he likely meant was that you couldn’t use light to detect that motion, he was of course wrong, because today we now use the Sagnac Effect in large area laser interferometers (ring laser gyros) to measure and detect Earth rotation. Yes, even geniuses can be wrong...they’re not infallible.
But here’s the worst part...that quote you cherry picked, is from his Kyoto address “How I created the theory of relativity” December 14, 1922. You conveniently cut his quote short...you left out the ending where he says “though the Earth is revolving around the Sun”. Go ahead and look that up sometime as well.
You see the problem here yet? Flat Earthers are not being honest...you’re bias researchers, only paying attention to the details that support the conclusion you WANT to be true and ignoring every other detail. I’ve outlined here 3 different ways you achieve that, 1) assuming rather than doing proper research; 2) misinterpreting science research, spinning it to fit your bias and lying about the actual outcomes; 3) quote mining, taking words out of context and only paying attention to the words you think you can use to confirm your bias further.
My guess is though, all this information you’re regurgitating here isn’t even your own. You’re likely just repeating it verbatim from some other sources, so you’re probably not even aware of these errors...my guess is you’ve never actually questioned them.
It’s fine that people are questioning things...but you have to be really careful where you get your information from. Don’t just question the mainstream science, turn that lens around and do the same with these conspiracies you’re now supporting...you might be surprised who the real liars are if you do.
4
-
4
-
@hershelpogue1745 "We have other mysteries. Like our sun traveling at a speed of 400,000 miles an hour in space with our earth traveling at a speed of 67,000 miles an hour, and the moon between us an the sun traveling between 68,000/ 70,000 miles an hour an none of the objects out of it's elliptical orbits. How odd."
A balance between masses and gravity, created over billions of years is odd to you? Why exactly? A chaotic system will always eventually harmonize and balance itself, with the help of attractive forces found in nature. Shake a bottle full of oil, sand and water, it mixes and creates a chaotic system. Leave that shaken bottle to sit over time, and gravity will eventually sort everything out into layers, organizing and separating the masses, balancing them. It's not much different for a solar system. We are looking at the end result of billions of years of gravity organizing a chaotic system, balancing our system. It's not odd at all, it's pretty common in nature.
Either way, just because something seems odd to you, doesn't make it wrong. You're just making an argument from personal incredulity, which doesn't really mean much in an argument of science.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Ok, but let’s think about this a bit deeper and isolate the force at work in a rotation. We call it a centripetal motion, felt by us as centrifugal force, so what’s the basic rule of thumb for feeling a centrifugal force? It depends on how many revolutions per minute, which increases the rate of angular velocity change per second. So if the increase of centrifugal force depends on the rate of rotation, then what is the RPM’s of the Earth’s motions? Let’s look at its fastest complete revolution, it’s rotation around axis. Earth rotates at 0.000694 RPM’s…to put that into perspective, a Gravitron ride at the fair is about 24 RPM’s….big difference right? 0.000694 RPM’s, amounts to one complete rotation every 24 hours, so 2x’s slower than the hour hand of a clock….you really think we’d feel that? 🧐
Don’t even need to crunch the numbers for the other motions, because they’re completing a revolution even slower. Earth completes one orbit every 365 days and one orbit around galactic centre every 270 million years….we might as well be moving in a straight line in all those other motions.
Fun fact, we actually can measure Earths rotational centrifugal force…that’s why things actually weigh less at the equator than they do anywhere else. Here’s a simple experiment anyone can repeat that can help you verify this fact https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great physics question, but you’re not really thinking about it very much beyond what confirms flat Earth for you. Rotational motions are best measured and understood in RPM’s…not linear velocities like MPH. Linear velocities are pretty much irrelevant to centrifugal force, rate of rotation is what matters and Earth simply does not complete a single rotation fast enough for us to notice or detect.
4
-
4
-
YouTube was really only intended for mild entertainment purposes…not a soap box to blast harmful bullshit and misinformation. Fact was that it was being overrun by conspiracy nut jobs using it as a platform to sell their grifts and bullshit claims…it was becoming an environment for anger and hate and negativity, and conmen were thriving. So I’m glad they decided to scrub the platform of that crap. If it were my platform that I had intended for entertainment, I’d do the exact same thing. From a purely business standpoint, a platform like this only survives online if it’s catering to a GENERAL audience, getting the largest amount of clicks and views as possible from the largest group, the general audience. Not everyone is into conspiracy bullshit, that’s a niche’ market and viewing numbers were dropping as this place was being overrun by that content. So it was either change, or risk being replaced by a competitor down the line, that could do things better…they chose to change, and it’s worked.
On top of that, it has stemmed the paranoia and hate, which has effected the division’s being created. Mob mentality was ripping America apart last few years, not sure if you noticed, that’s definitely gone down in frequency lately, I’m sure the cap on misinformation spreading has helped that a bit.
It’s not censorship, people are still free to push their opinions and misinformation on here, they’re just not favoured by the algorithms. You’re free to say almost whatever you want still, and they are free to promote it if they want or not, it’s not censorship to stem the promotion of someone’s opinion. Hate speech and harmful misinformation have never been allowed though. I think people are a bit ignorant to what freedom of speech laws actually protect. Anything that’s hateful, causes harm and insights violence is not actually protected by freedom of speech rights and freedoms…most people are not aware of that. You can be arrested for any speech that insights violence or breaks the law, you do not have the right to insight harm upon others…and that’s a pretty grey line, doesn’t mean only physical harm. Just look up the Imminent Lawless Action test sometime if you don’t believe me.
Luckily, flat Earth hasn’t gotten to that point (yet), but movements like Qanon sure did…and guess what platform helped that movement of bullshit grow? Point is, misinformation does happen online, and if left to fester it can cause a mob mentality reaction, that can cause harm and damage. So it’s far better to counter misinformation and stem its flow, rather than allow it to go unchecked or unchallenged.
4
-
@KangenAlec Mark Sargent doesn’t advocate hate speech or insight violence, so he’ll be fine so long as those lines are never crossed. But Eric Dubay for example, another prominent Flat Earth advocate, is a known anti semite and Nazi sympathizer. He has put out videos promoting hate speech, hence why his channel has been taken down before. See the difference? Both are wrong, but being wrong doesn’t break terms of service…hate speech does. One is not hateful, the other is…so Mark will likely be fine. Dubay has since cleaned up his rhetoric, but he’s still a piece of shit as far as many are concerned.
Mark Sargent is an okay dude as far as I’m concerned. I do strongly disagree with him, but I feel he’s doing this whole questioning reality thing the right way, through peaceful questioning and harmless curiosity, with no violent agenda or messages attached.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
She’s not likely to answer you, these comments get buried pretty quickly and with the age of the video, it’s unlikely she bothers to read any of these exchanges. You’ve been provided with answers, with evidence supporting them, ad nauseam, but you decide to strawman or ignore every answer provided for you anyway. I was fine with having a civil discussion, but I can’t answer your questions and help you understand, if you’re just going to strawman or ignore everything I say. I’ll answer again, and I guess we’ll see if your strawmanning and ignorance unfolds again. I’ll answer in order.
“If gravity is supposed to make gas go down...and stop it from filling the space vacuum, how does it expand in all directions?”
The first half of your question here has almost nothing to do with the second. All you’re really asking is how does gas expand, the first half is a non sequitur. You know how gas expands already, it’s colliding with itself, this transfers kinetic energy and puts gas molecules in motion in various directions depending on the collision angles. You’ve attempted to word the question as if it somehow falsifies gravity, but just because gas expands due to collisions, does not mean gas isn’t affected by gravity, at the same time. Nothing within your question falsifies gravity, so it’s a loaded question, a non sequitur fallacy. You’ve done nothing to prove gas is not affected by gravity, only asserted that it’s not, even despite the evidence I and others have shared. So while you have empty assertions here, I have evidence. It may not be enough to convince you personally, but it does give me a far stronger position over your claim.
“Why do you say gas pressure doesn’t need a container when the definition says it does?”
Which definition? Care to provide a citation? Gas pressure only requires gas making contact with the surface of an object, there’s gas pressure squeezing on you right now, every collision of gas upon your body creating pressure, gas pressure. In this case it’s caused by the downward acceleration of gravity, causing atmospheric pressure, the weight of the gas above pressing down on the gas below. But feel free to provide a citation for your claim here. You claim it’s in the definition, so feel free to provide the citation for what you’re talking about.
“Why doesn’t gravity hold the steam down in your open system coffee cup example?”
Buoyancy, steam rises in large part due to buoyancy, explained again and again for you. Buoyancy is a force that requires an accelerating motion, in order to function. No accelerating motion downward, no buoyancy upward, as proven in simple drop tests https://youtu.be/YDXQ-VBjW7Q?t=171, https://youtu.be/rpP-7dhm9DI?t=167, and this great experiment demonstrating how an accelerating motion effects the motion of gases https://youtu.be/y8mzDvpKzfY. Remove the downward acceleration (that we call gravity), and then buoyancy will not occur. So buoyancy requires gravity to function. I hope this clicks eventually for you, but I don’t think it will at this point, you don’t seem very interested to understand this correlation between gravity and buoyancy...even though it answers your question here. It’s a domino effect, downward acceleration of gravity being the start and root cause of the buoyancy effect.
“If we applied the volume of the space vacuum to Boyles law, what would earth’s gas pressure be?”
Now this one I wasn’t answering, because I didn’t fully understand the context of the question, but now I see the correlation because volume is of course a variable in the equation for Boyles law. Had you articulated your point using the equation, I would have understood your point a lot quicker. You know, kind of like how I pointed out that gravity is a variable in buoyancy, Fb=Vpg <——notice the little g there? Pretty similar argument really. So I see now, this relates to your “gas pressure requires a container” argument from before, ok, so now I better understand the question, so now I can answer it.
Boyles law equation is not the only law used in ideal gas law, it’s one of many, but it’s also just a good approximation formula, for many conditions, but it has its limitations. One such limitation being atmospheric pressure, as you can’t accurately give a volume for an endless space. So Boyles law is useful and quite effective for determining how gases behave in smaller, controlled conditions, where we can give a volume figure, but it’s not useful for such things like the atmospheric pressure of Earth. So it’s not used here. We’re dealing with atmospheric pressure here, so no definite volume figure can be applied, so not useful, so it’s irrelevant.
So this illustrates further one of the biggest problems of FE minded people, thinking in absolutes. Boyles law is not useful in every case, it has its limitations, so it’s basically irrelevant to atmospheric pressure, can not be used, so it is not. So your point is moot. Wrong equation for the job. Better to use atmospheric pressure equations for this problem, like the one for surface pressure P=F/A=(m*g)/A. Oh there’s that pesky (g) again, the downward acceleration of gravity. You’ll find that a lot in atmospheric pressure equations, but you know what you won’t find? A variable for volume...that’s for a good reason.
You know, it’s stuff like this though, that points out a level of intelligence, which is what’s so frustrating about people like yourself, cause you should easily understand the correlation between gravity and buoyancy and atmospheric pressure. It’s why I don’t think you’re stupid (that being said, unless you’re Quantum Eraser or N Oakley, this isn’t really your argument originally to begin with, so you’re parroting), but it also points out YOUR cognitive dissonance. You’re happy to argue with the equations of Boyles law, because it supports your argument, but then you completely ignore maths and equations when they don’t agree with you, claiming math is basically useless, but only when they’re used against you to refute your clams. For example, again, the buoyancy equation (Fb=Vpg), which requires the downward acceleration of gravity. Funny how you selectively use math, but only when it suites you. We use these variables in math for a reason, because they’re proven variables in the cause effect relations found in physical reality. If they weren’t verified variables, then the equation simply would not work, it’s that simple.
“You claimed gravity makes steam fall. Can you show me falling steam?”
Fog or Clouds. Fog and Clouds are basically the same as steam, just water vapour in a cooler state, unable to rise or rise any higher, due to gravity and other factors. The fact that they sit at an altitude and climb no higher, verifies that they’re being held in position by forces at equilibrium, buoyancy and gravity. Since we know buoyancy doesn’t occur without gravity, it’s basically just gravity. Many more examples I shared, like the fog from dry ice vapour, smoke in a vacuum, and the best by far being sulfur hexafluoride clearly falling instead of rising in this example https://youtu.be/mLp_rSBzteI?t=141. Isn’t it better to see an actual gas, like sulfur hexafluoride, falling? Why ask for steam falling, if I can already provide you with another clear example of gas falling? It’s the same thing really, a gas that’s clearly falling instead of rising.
To produce a similar effect with steam, we’d have to go pretty high. If I find an example, I’ll be sure to share it, but you already have many great examples of gas being clearly affected by gravity, so bit of a moot point already.
“You said the cause of mass attracts mass is the angle of a tortiuos bar...”
No, that’s what you keep saying. But alright, let’s get into this again and see why you keep strawmanning. I’ll attempt to word things differently, see if it helps. The cause of the motion is the mass itself, that’s what the Cavendish verifies. All you’re doing in experiment is falsifying or verifying hypothesis, so conclusion basically is the hypothesis or it’s null hypothesis.
So let’s get into the experiment again. Introduce a mass to another mass, an attraction is observed. Mass causes the motion. Worded a bit simpler for you? It’s the observed motion that is the natural phenomenon (falling matter), that the hypothesis is formed from (mass attracts mass). The hypothesis here is just trying to answer for the question asked from the start of the process “what causes the phenomenon of falling mass?” The hypothesis (the educated guess made from prior research and knowledge) is mass attracts other mass. Cause=the mass; Effect=attractive motion between them. IV is what we manipulate in the cause, introducing the masses at a set angle is how we manipulate the hypothesized cause (mass), to see what effect, if any, it has on the motion. This motion (our DV) is recorded as a shift in angle. If there’s a shift, hypothesis confirmed. No shift, hypothesis falsified.
Now you’ve stated several times we’re skipping steps or getting them backwards here, so feel free to lay it out as you’re seeing it, to see if it does. Just getting a bit tired of the Socratic method here, it’s quite exhausting, I’d prefer you explain your reasoning better, in steps if you don’t mind. Then perhaps we’ll reach an understanding. When I work through Cavendish, it ticks every box for a valid experiment and goes through every step of the scientific method in the proper order, but feel free to articulate your point better if you’d like.
4
-
@SuperMoshady That’s the point I’m trying to make, that even at rest, objects are still accelerating down, the scale proves that. You apply a force to a scale to register a weight value, the moment you stop applying a force, the scale stops registering a weight value. So if a mass on a scale continues to register a weight value, then even at rest, it’s still being pushed down by a force, otherwise the scale wouldn’t register anything. I’ll agree it’s at equilibrium once at rest, in that it’s now in balance with two opposing forces, gravity and the electromagnetic repulsion of atoms. That’s the equilibrium occurring, both are constant forces, so they basically balance each other. Make no mistake though, even an object at rest, is still accelerating down towards surface, it never stops, the scale proves that. The motion we observe ceases, but the force of attraction, the acceleration downward, is still occurring within every molecule within that mass.
The formula for weight is as follows W=F=mg...which is basically Newtons second law equation that you keep sharing, just putting the acceleration of gravity in the acceleration field, to calculate weight. You’ll never get away from that I’m afraid, gravity is used everywhere as a variable, because it’s a proven fact of nature, a proven phenomenon, used everyday in so many different applications.
This is easy stuff my man. It’s physics 101. You’re happy to use the second law of motion when you think it suites you, then you just straight up ignore the simplest of applications for the formula? That’s cognitive dissonance and it doesn’t stop there, you’ve done this many times, every step of the way. Just denying reality, so you can continue to believe what you want, that’s all FE does.
There’s not much anyone can do for a mind that poisoned. You can deny it all you like, but denial is not an argument against a very simple phenomenon we all experience and that is undeniable. Deny it all you want, but you will never change the foundations of science that way.
4
-
There is though, there’s a Quantus flight Perth to Johannesburg, direct, about 11 hour flight. So what are you talking about? 🤷♂️
But to answer your question on why most flights are connecting flights in the South; flying isn’t magic, planes require airports and it’s a business like anything else…one that requires paying customers, and airports large enough to handle the traffic. The reality is that the very large majority of Earth’s population lives in the Northern hemisphere, and the largest and richest cities are in the North, so this means it has the most customers, and most of the flight infrastructure. So the South can’t handle to many direct flights to anywhere else in the South, doesn’t have the customers or the infrastructure…but direct flights do exist, so maybe do a little better research.
4
-
4
-
@cabbagefart7432 We don’t have an FE problem, in 2016 the interest spiked, but it’s since declined drastically to the point of nonexistent, it was a fad, now it’s over. I used to find tens of hundreds of Flat Earthers in these comments and many other comment threads, now it’s maybe 2 or 3 a day, some days there’s nobody. You’ve done what all fringe pseudoscience movements do, spike briefly, then lose the conversation horribly cause you give up once it’s obvious you have nothing sound, then recede into your echo chambers for a time, then fizzle out. Those echo chambers might grow at a slow pace for awhile, but you’re no longer on societies radar currently, and you’ve made ZERO dents in established science. That’s the reality.
If I’m still here, it’s to provide some casual peer review, so potential misinformation doesn’t fly by the radar unchecked or unchallenged. Burden of proof is yours, so feel free.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Your equation is just a curvature from a tangent at surface…where’s the variable for height of the observer? 🤷♂️ It doesn’t represent line of sight, doesn’t tell you where horizon is at any given observer height, completely ignores atmospheric refraction, etc, etc….so how exactly do you think that equation is valid for the observation you’re making? 🧐 You are aware that you see further the higher you are in elevation…..so don’t ya think that’s kind of an important variable to include in your math? 😳
Here’s a far better equation for the geometric line of sight, using the same trigonometric functions.
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
r= radius of Earth
d= distance to object
h= height of observation
Even at 6 foot viewing height that makes the hidden by horizon drop about 726 feet (almost 200 feet less than your calculation that doesn’t factor horizon distance at all), add a standard refraction and it’s more like 600 feet. But hey, you are also aware that the Rock of Gibraltar is roughly 1400 feet high…you are aware of that, right? So even with your flawed calculation that still leaves about 550 feet still visible…a whole third of the rock! Soooo….even according to your math, you can still see it, so what’s the problem exactly? 🧐
But what’s the observation height of each observation? Did you even bother to look or ask? Cause it kinda matters. Even at just 20 feet, the hidden drops too 621’, with standard refraction it’s 517’. These details matter. :/
Most importantly, you are in fact using the wrong math. It’s accurate for curvature…but it’s not calculating for your line of sight, so it’s simply not the correct equation. Use the wrong equation for the job, and you will reach a false conclusion…it’s pretty simple.
4
-
Drop something…did it fall? Okay, then force confirmed. We call it gravity. Pretty easy to prove actually…we experience it every single day, it’s the most obvious force found in nature.
I think what you’re confused with is the difference between the force itself and the explanation of how it works. Nobody in science is contesting that an attraction force is present, what’s still in question is how it works, what causes it, where does it come from? But we don’t have to know everything about something, to determine that it does exist. Personally I don’t know how to engineer my own refrigeration unit…but I’d never argue that fridges don’t exist, simply because I don’t fully understand the mechanics. I see them clear as day, they exist.
This argument is not much different; it’s not the force itself we have yet to prove, that part is clear as day, it’s obvious. It’s how it is created that’s yet to be completely figured out. These are two different things.
So when you say “prove gravity”, it begs the question? Which part? The existence of the force itself? That’s easy, drop something…you’ll confirm the existence of that force pretty quickly and easily.
So you need to be more specific. It’s not the existence of the force itself we need to prove, that’s easily proven, it’s how it works that is still in question. You need to separate the two.
4
-
4
-
@chrisskully1228 You start the condescending tone when you finish your comments with “you can’t”. That’s a taunt, a response driven by your ego…so we respond in kind. Why should we be nice if you’re just here to be a snarky troll? If you’re going to act like a child, then we will treat you like a child.
Look up the Cavendish experiment, it’s a very clear demonstration of mass attracting mass. If you’d like evidence for Einstein’s General Relativity, then look up the Eddington experiment. Both are repeatable scientific experiments, with a valid hypothesis and a conclusive end result, verifying the main tenants of gravity as we understand it so far, that being mass bends the fabric of space and time, bringing masses together, creating the attraction force we experience every single day.
You want to be treated nice, then don’t come here like a snotty child trying to pick a fight, it’s pretty simple. We get that you don’t currently understand how these conclusions were reached, but maybe that’s because you don’t allow anyone to really help you understand, you close your mind before anyone can.
4
-
False, the math of the Eratosthenes experiment only works for a flat Earth if you only take 2 measurements, and also if you don’t plot that data in 3 dimensions. Take anymore than two shadow measurements, it will no longer pinpoint a local Sun, the angles will be sporadic, never crossing at the same point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeEw0Fw1qio
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=423
Doesn’t matter what version of flat Earth you plot the data upon, it does not work...the Globe at our scale however, works every time the data is plotted upon that geometry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t
Math is a useful tool for visualizing our reality in ways we cannot otherwise because of our physical limitations. It has been used to build everything around you...and yet you seem to think when it comes to using it for solving the geometry of Earth, only in this instance it’s not useful? What you’re doing is making an excuse, a bullshit reason to remain ignorant to the conclusions of science, because you simply don’t like those conclusions. Maybe if you understood math and science a bit better, you’d recognize how Flat Earth is conning people.
4
-
@jimygod So was the horizon flat or not? As I’m sure you’d agree, it was clearly flat...yet that surface was not, it was a Globe. Just ponder that for awhile to start off.
Now, at the start of the video, you don’t think the camera is resting level to its surface? I’d wager it was, but if you don’t think so, it’s a very simple observation to recreate, so by all means, get yourself a very large ball and a small camera and do it yourself. Keep in mind, even in that first initial frame, the lens is technically a few centimetres off its surface, which if you put things to Earths scale, would probably be a few thousand feet off surface (much higher than your drone would be flying). Yet that surface still appeared to raise up to eye level then formed a flat horizon...you really think if the camera wasn’t level, it would make all the difference? You’re really reaching here, level or not won’t change the surface curvature.
Your argument seems to really not grasp the true size and scale of Earth. It’s basic geometry and perspective, the closer you are to the surface of a large sphere, the flatter it will appear, and the more horizon will appear to rise to eye level...really doesn’t matter much how level your camera is, if it’s off the surface (even a standard 6 foot viewing height), level or not, a portion of its peripheral field of vision will always be looking down...level or not, won’t change the surface curvature, won’t change the horizon shape.
The core of your argument though is just the classic “horizon always rises to eye level” argument, that flat Earth claims occurs in reality...but it doesn’t actually, flat Earth just never bothered to test it https://youtu.be/RUr9ymz_nVI. You seem to think the drop should be more apparent, but that conclusion doesn’t consider the scale you’re dealing with here.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Lords of science? Seems you have a bit of bitter resentment towards science for some reason. I’d be careful with that, it can develop into a bias, a bias that can cause you to reject clear evidence, just out of spite for the source of the evidence.
In my experience so far with Flat Earth (nearly 4 years over hundreds of conversations), flat Earth is conning people here with what basically amounts to a mental slight of hand trick. It works like this, present people with some math and make a claim that it is accurate for Earth curvature and long distance observations, then present an image of an object seen at long distances. Use the math you provided to make a calculation, that number won’t match with the observation, make a claim that we see to far, then ask the viewer why the Globe doesn’t work.
See how it works? It keeps your mind on the claims being made, that being that “we see too far” because “the math doesn’t work”...which keeps you focused on those claims instead of thinking about the details. Important details like; are the equations used for the math actually accurate for the observation? Were the figures used in the math correct (heights, distances, locations, etc)? Did they account for every variable in their math and observation?
The con works, because most people don’t have the kind of time to really go into the details, and most also aren’t very math literate...as long as you give them an equation, many will just assume that it’s accurate and won’t question it. Most people have no idea how to check a math equation for accuracy...and even less ability to derive their own equations. It’s just jargon to many people, so not hard to show them an equation and claim it’s accurate...very few will question it. I shouldn’t have to tell you though, that if you use the wrong math for the wrong job, you will reach a false conclusion...so it matters that you make sure the math is accurate.
So I find Flat Earth commits 3 errors, in pretty much all long distance observations they make. 1) They use the wrong math, typically the 8 inches per mile squared equation is the worst offender, but there are others. 2) They fudge the details, provide incorrect distances, viewing heights, locations, etc. 3) They ignore variables, a huge one being refraction...refraction is real, and will absolutely extend your viewing distance, which is why Flat Earthers will often make observations on hot humid days where refraction index is much higher.
Here’s a blog breaking down the correct curvature math to use https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ they’ve compiled things into a handy calculator you can find here https://www.metabunk.org/curve/.
If you’d like to learn more about refraction and why it’s important, here’s a quick video demonstration I find illustrates it perfectly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t To learn even more about why it’s an important variable not to ignore, just read the second half of this report where it goes into depth on refraction http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. Image 31 and 32 are what you should see from this report, if you wanna see the effect refraction has at distances.
Lastly, it’s not hard to lie on the internet...so it’s important to get the correct details (distances, heights, locations, etc). A couple months ago I was reviewing a claim by a Flat Earther, he claimed he could see every inch of a 150 foot tower, from a beach at 6 foot viewing height, that he claimed was 20 miles away. Doing the math for his claim, he was correct, all of the tower should not have been visible from that distance and observer height. But, pressing him for further details, I learned his exact location and found the tower he was viewing...and it wasn’t 20 miles away, it was actually only 8 miles away. Doing the math again with the true distance, and made a big difference, only roughly 12 feet would have been obscured. So he either lied, or wasn’t aware he got the details wrong...but either way, does that help illustrate my point here? It’s incredible what people can get away with...if you let them.
So I hope that helps provide some further insight on things. You don’t have to believe me, but next time you take a look at the “evidence” from Flat Earth of long distance observations they claim are impossible on a Globe...be sure to check their work and don’t just listen to it blindly.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yup, not even close. That equation isn’t even for a spherical curvature, it’s for a parabola, so eventually it’s not even gonna curve it’s just gonna shoot straight down. It also has no variable for height of the observer, which is pretty important, cause as everyone is aware, you can see further the higher you are, so viewing height is a pretty important variable. 8 inches per mile squared doesn’t represent line of sight either, it’s from a tangent line at surface, so I mean if your eye is resting directly at surface it might come close…but of course that’s never the case.
Other important variables it’s missing are horizon distance, because line of sight is always looking down, so horizon actually rises up in your field of vision, which forms the horizon dependent on viewing height…from there is where the drop really begins for your field of vision, at horizon. And that’s just a couple purely geometric variables to factor, then there’s refraction, which is pretty important to factor. Light does not travel straight in atmosphere, it refracts through atmosphere, causing what we see to either rise or drop, depending on the refractive index for that time and location. So this can greatly effect what we see at horizon, it can often help us see further, especially over water where humidity increases air density, which is what causes refraction.
So ya, the equation they’re using is absolutely wrong for what they use it for….then they wonder why the numbers don’t fit the observations. It’s basically a sleight of hand trick, clever misdirection, they conned a lot of people with that math…because they knew most people are not mathematically literate enough to check it for accuracy. If it interests you enough, here’s where you can find the correct equations for these observations https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/. You’ll notice it’s a lot more extensive, than just a simple parabolic arc equation.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Boy…you’re not kidding when you said you’re not qualified in any way.
1. Rockets use liquid oxidizers as part of their engines, it adds oxygen to the fuel, keeping it ignited in vacuum. Most common oxidizer used is liquid oxygen, look it up sometime, it’s basic chemistry.
2. No hot air balloon can reach 23 miles high…the furthest any weather balloon can reach is roughly 100,000 feet, which is about 18 miles, but those aren’t hot air balloons, they’re helium or hydrogen gas balloons. Any hot air balloon for passengers, barely gets a mile off the surface…go much higher and the air becomes to thin. So get your facts straight please. You likely saw footage from a weather balloon, but look again because you can see curvature. It’s slight, but it’s there. To see it much clearer, you still have to go a lot higher, 20 miles really isn’t that high, compared to an Earth that’s 8000 miles in diameter.
3. The smoke from a steam train is making contact with the surrounding air, which is not moving with the train at the same velocity. So that steam and smoke is being slowed by drag force, air resistance. So you’ve made a false equivalence, our atmosphere rotates with the Earth, so it’s more comparable to a cigarette smoke rising straight up in a moving car with the windows up. It will move with the vehicle…go ahead and try it sometime, it’s a great demonstration of conservation of momentum.
4. A rotational motion isn’t going to cause parallax, so that’s a terrible way to determine depth. Wait six months when Earth has orbited the Sun to its opposite side, then look at the stars again and compare them to 6 months prior. You’ll see a lot of stellar parallax then…which is how astronomers determine their distances.
This is why you really shouldn’t reach conclusions on a subject, if you’re unqualified and under educated on the topic.
4
-
@alexanderhugestrand Oh I’m no expert of GR, so apologies if I gave that impression, you probably know more about GR than I do honestly. I largely agree with your point, I was just pointing out that science should be viewed as more a tool and its findings as more a collection of current knowledge and understanding that’s free to be updated as we learn more, rather than an infallible institution with all the answers, that can never be questioned.
I’m knowledgeable on general physics, but my experience is more in astronomy. Nothing accredited, just as a hobby making my own observations. I’m aware of a few recreations of the Eddington experiment, the most recent I’m aware of that was published for review being one from an amateur astronomer and retired optical physicist Donald Bruns, done during the 2017 eclipse. He made his observations and data available for public, I’d share the link but YouTube doesn’t really allow outside links anymore. Just search ‘Gravitational Starlight Deflection Measurements 2017’, the paper is archived on arxiv dot org.
As for your other quandaries, I would say Quora is a better place to ask those questions, you’ll find actual accredited physicists to help you out there.
Anyway, hope that’s been helpful.
4
-
4
-
@rolandgerard6064 In just a few hundred years we’ve taken the Wolf and created chihuahuas…something that has more resemblance to a small rat, than it does its majestic cousins the Wolf. So what do you mean it’s not observable? We see evolution everywhere, from the bacteria that keep changing and resisting medications, to the vast differences in species evolved specifically for their environments, to the vestigial anatomy left over from a previous time in their evolutionary chain. We also observe it in the fossil record, as the further back in time we go, the more primitive the lifeforms, with no overlap. It’s a physical mechanism of biological life, we see all the time…it can even be simulated…so why would we ignore something so blatantly obvious? 🤷♂️
Look I get that some would love to ignore the science and pretend it doesn’t exist, because it gets in the way of some fantasy they want to believe so very badly, but studying evolution has led to many advancements in medicine, as well as in bioengineering. So it’s proved to be quite useful…and that’s the whole point of science in the end, to unravel the mysteries of reality, so that we can apply that knowledge for our benefit. So the study has proven useful, what has denial ever achieved?
In any case, simply stating it’s not science, is just an empty argument. You’re likely not a biologist…so you’re not qualified to make that assessment, but you could at the very least provide a reason for why you’ve reached that conclusion, and a reason for why you think anyone should take it seriously.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TheOricine Typical deflection when the pressure is on...good job.
One unanswered question can collapse it? Ok, if the Earth is flat, why are there two celestial poles, each with their own constellations and rotation around their own pole star? Why do the stars drop to horizon at a consistent rate by latitude? How does the tip of Africa, Australia, and South America all see the Southern Cross (two of which can even see it at the same time), if Earth is flat? How do pilots and sailors successfully navigate a flat Earth, while using the heliocentric model with two equal hemispheres? How does the sun set, if line of sight is never geometrically blocked? How does a Lunar eclipse occur, if nothing comes between the Sun and Moon? How do the shockwaves of every 8.0 Earthquake or greater circumnavigate the Earth and return to the epicentre? How does the South hemisphere get the same 24 hour midnight sun phenomenon in Antarctica as the North Hemisphere? How exactly do you hide simple geometry from 8 billion people, many of which are experts in fields working directly with that geometry?
Just a short sampling of questions we could ask of FE. You really think the model you’re supporting is air tight do you? I’m sure you don’t...I would hope you are well aware of these problems you have for the model you’re looking to support....I’m sure you’ll agree, even despite the many problems, you’re not about to give up on your model...now are you?
No...probably not, because you don’t just throw the baby out with the bath water because of unanswered questions. Often times, it’s more your own ignorance, that is the reason you THINK those questions are unanswered to begin with. Just because YOU don’t personally know the answers to the questions you have, does not mean they can’t be answered. I’m sure you have many ad hoc answers for the questions I shared just now for your model...the difference is, can you prove them? I could go through every one of your questions, I can answer them all, AND provide the evidence that supports the conclusions I have reached...but who has that kind of time?
Stop being an insufferable troll deflecting the argument when you can’t answer something...stay focused for a moment, stay on one topic long enough to at least CONSIDER where you might have gone wrong, actually LISTEN to what we might have to say or show you, you might learn that you’re in error...which could save you from falling into an online scam.
Up to you really. You’re being very unreasonable up to this point...and it’s likely because you’re scared to learn how you could be wrong.
4
-
4
-
@TheOricine Another misunderstanding. Aeronautics manuals (as well as any research paper), often simplify math equations, by removing variables that are not required, for the task they’re attempting to solve for in certain sections. When they do this, they have to state very clearly in the summary sections, what variables will not be included in the math to follow. For example, if they’re attempting to solve a problem for the vehicles wind resistance capabilities, variables like shape of the surface and Earths motion are redundant and just over complicate the equations. So they will remove those variables to simplify the math...when they do this, they have to tell the reader what variables are not being included. They do similar math simplifications, when running hypotheticals for a comparisons sake.
You’ll often find them worded like this “for this next section, we will be ASSUMING a flat non rotating Earth”. Key word there, “assuming”...they are math simplifications, not meant to be interpreted literally.
This is another example of cherry picking, looking at the words...but not understanding the context for which they’re being used. Another perfect example of how FE has fooled layman...who have no idea how to read and interpret those papers.
4
-
4
-
Alright, I looked it up, the Rocket launched near Reno Nevada, July 14th, 2014, at 7:32 am. I put all that information in at time and date dot com, under there section for Moon light visibility, and it places the Moon over Fiji…not Indonesia, which is about 6000 km East of Indonesia (yikes, really stretched it there didn’t ya 😬). The Moon was visible in Nevada according to the visibility layout on time and date. Soooo…swing and a miss there. Did you think nobody would actually check? 🧐 Ohhhh right…cause we’re not actually “looking into it” like you are, I forgot…we’re the ignorant ones according to you. 🙄
As for the Moons apparent size, you know that cameras have different focal lengths, right? Which actually makes it very difficult to determine actual apparent size from a single image or video. The Moon is actually pretty small when we view it from Earth, your brain just tricks you sometimes when it’s closer to horizon, because of an optical illusion known as the Ebbinghaus illusion, aka size perception illusion.
Soooo…nope, not a checkmate…not in the slightest. But your intentions are clear now…you’re just trying win, even though at this point you have to know you’re wrong, you’re still trying to ram a square peg into a round hole. 🤦♂️ Human psychology is so fascinating…you’d rather double down on a false conclusion, rather than accept you’re wrong and have been duped.
As a bonus, look up the Yo-Yo Despin mechanism sometime, it’s how rockets like that stop their spin mid flight. The thud you hear is from the mechanism firing, you even see the cable in a few frames of the second camera, verifying the despin mechanism. It uses conservation of angular momentum to stop the rockets spin, pretty simple physics actually, you can test the physics on a a spinning chair with weights in your hands. Spin the chair, then fan your hands out with the weights, you’ll spin slowly, bring your hands in you’ll immediately spin faster, bring them out again you’ll spin slower. Shoot a weighted cable out far enough, and it would stop your rotation almost completely…using basic physics.
Get a better hobby dude…
4
-
@bensonmofo “…but we do know that the Earth is not a spinning, wobbling, tilted ball of water and land…”
But…in a previous a comment above you agreed that there are valid experiments with gyroscopes that have detected and measured Earth rotation, which also further confirms Earth’s spherical shape. So are you just ignoring those experiments now…after basically agreeing they exist and are valid? 🧐 The gyrocompass is used today on most modern sea vessels, and those devices use the Earth’s rotation as part of their function. That’s a fact, not an opinion. Are you so deep down the rabbit hole you’re willing to ignore anything that contradicts a belief you have? Why exactly? 🤷♂️ And why would you think we should bat an eye at your arguments here, if it’s clear that you don’t mind ignoring evidence, in favour of confirmation bias?
If you truly think Earth is flat, then go right ahead and try navigating across any vast ocean, without using the current global coordinate system to help you do it. Go right ahead, see how well you do. With how many Flat Earthers there are, why have none done this yet? Surely one of you has a ship or plane, or at least the resources to charter one. Don’t really even need to put in that much effort though, could just test the 1 degree consistent drop of Polaris to horizon every 60 nautical miles traveling South, or vice versa, the consistent rise going North. That would not occur on a flat Earth, and it doesn’t take much knowledge of geometry to understand why.
Flat Earthers don’t understand physics as well as they think they do…and that tends to be the real problem. But you don’t have to understand the physics of how it all works, a basic understanding of geometry and a few simple observations is all you really need to falsify flat Earth, and verify the globe. This is not a debate anymore.
4
-
@Vkarlsen Cavendish experiment is quite repeatable science, so not sure where you got the impression it wasn’t. Even grade school students often repeat it with just a few house hold supplies, and there’s countless examples online of people repeating it, so I think it’s pretty ignorant to say it’s not repeatable. If you disagree with what causes the attraction, that’s fine…but the experiment itself is repeatable, and clearly demonstrates an attraction.
Static attraction is pretty easily falsified by several factors. It effects different materials differently, electro static can and will also repel and this is never observed, and you can absolutely place the experiment within an apparatus that negates static and electromagnetic attractions, like using a Faraday cage or screens. And the experiment will work regardless of the materials used.
Here’s a great recreation that uses boxes of sand with bottles of water, with a faraday screen placed between them https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68. The attraction still occurs and he even demonstrates the effectiveness of this screen in negating the static attraction. So what’s causing the sudden oscillation?
I’ve heard a lot of attempts at falsifying the Cavendish experiment, but most just bring up the same static attraction argument…without realizing the experiment already accounts for this variable. So I’ve not heard a valid falsification yet…and again, it’s very easy to repeat the experiment, so I don’t understand the ignorance on that.
4
-
@zquest42 No worries, I’m not too fond of attacking people for religious beliefs they hold. This is mostly a discussion of science, of physical reality and how it functions, which is more my knowledge base where I can offer insights, so as long as the chat stays in that realm for the most part, then we can have a good discussion I feel. Many flat Earthers do try to “prove” flat Earth with scripture though and that is where you’ll lose a lot of us, cause we’d rather focus on what we can physically test and see. It’s the same reason I don’t like arguing the moon landing conspiracy or faked space...cause I can’t test much of it directly for myself, I can mostly only speculate. I try to draw a hard line between speculation and evidence, but again, I won’t condemn anyone for having religious beliefs, I can’t prove or disprove God, so I stay out of it for the most part...just starts to lose me when the Bible is used to argue science is all.
It’s good to be cautious, and I’m sure you have been. I just know how tough it can be to overcome bias, and a strong distrust in authority is a powerful bias. It causes one to put more value on the source of information, rather than the information itself...which isn’t a good mind set to have I feel, if you truly want to be objective. It is harder and a longer process to absorb information from sources you don’t trust, but it’s a requirement to remain objective unfortunately. I’ve always used this piece of wisdom to help with that “it’s the mark of true intelligence to be able to entertain an opposing idea, without necessarily agreeing with it out right or at all.” I can’t remember who said that exactly, but it’s how I like to remind myself that the information should hold more value over the source, in the process of objective analysis. We all have our bias and what sucks most about them is we’re often not aware of them. Judging by your points made so far, I do feel you tend to overlook or simplify information from the systems of authority you distrust, possibly creating suspicion where there is none. Which is pretty normal really, I think we all tend to do that with things we distrust...but it does create a bias.
As for the flat Earth society, I understand that it’s been completely excommunicated from the core flat Earth movement, seen now as merely a controlled opposition, and who knows really...they’re sure not doing much to fight that claim. But, at least they have an answer/replacement for gravity that’s actually grounded in some physics...where I feel the core of flat Earth with their “density and buoyancy” argument, really don’t have much going for them there. That explanation just keeps everything about gravity they like and then cuts out the parts they don’t...in the end, it just creates more questions, cause it’s taking established science and, basically cutting it shorter...it’s not very logical, it’s just arrogant, forcing the science and ignoring large portions of it to make it simpler...which isn’t being objective at all, objective doesn’t mean you just get to cut out the parts that are inconvenient for you, that’s not how it works.
The electromagnetism argument does a better job, except it ignores the fact that science already considered this option and has long since falsified it. There are hundreds of different ways to falsify electromagnetic attraction as the true force that keeps us to the surface, so it takes a lot of ignorance in basic physics to reach that conclusion as well.
Anyway, though I’d agree the Flat Earth Society is just as nonsensical, they did take Einstein’s Equivalence Principle and worked it into their model in a clever way, that does actually do more to answer for the gravity problem the rest of flat Earth struggles with. Not to say it’s a perfect answer however, it’s just as flawed when you really get into it as well, so yes, I do agree it’s just as ridiculous in the end.
But yes, feel free to share any experiments or conclusions you’ve reached so far, I don’t mind offering some further insight from the opposing perspective, if you’re interested to hear it still.
4
-
@opxchaos5757 Now, I’ll let you know of some problems I see in his explanation. Continued from part 1.
So he compares the Southern star trails to crepuscular rays, making a claim that it’s an optical trick of perspective that causes the second rotation. First of all, the stars are not seen as beams of light like crepuscular rays, so right away they have no real similarity to crepuscular rays, so he’s made a false equivalence fallacy. Second, do crepuscular rays converge to a point in the opposite direction and form a second visual Sun? No, that’s never observed in the real world. This is relevant because he’s basically claiming a mirroring effect of the sky, but if the stars are mirroring, then why wouldn’t the Sun? The stars are just as bright in the South as they are in the North, so why doesn’t the Sun exhibit a similar perfect mirroring effect? You could say it’s because East to West doesn’t do that, for some reason, but no, the stars are just as bright in the East as they are in the West also.
Also...this mirroring effect doesn’t really correlate with reality, because the stars are completely different in the South...it’s not a carbon copy of the North. For instance, Sigma Octantis (the Southern pole star), is not actually visible to the naked eye, where as Polaris is one of the brightest stars in the Northern sky. If it were mirroring, wouldn’t you at least expect pole star to be just as bright and visible? Then there’s the trouble of all the other constellations that you can’t see, while looking in each direction. You can’t see the Big Dipper in the South and you can’t see the Southern Cross in the North, just to name some examples. Again, if the perspective convergence is causing a mirroring effect, wouldn’t we expect to see the same constellations?
I’ve confirmed this for myself, I’ve travelled the world, I’ve been to the Southern Hemisphere on two different continents now, on several occasions. As an amateur astronomer, I even joined a group photographing the star trails, during one of my visits to New Zealand. I’ve confirmed it, the night sky is different.
His explanation would suggest the stars would have to be perfectly mirrored...and they’re not.
So there are lots of holes in his explanation, that just do not fit with observed reality. Meanwhile the globe geometry fits and explains the observation with absolute ease. I imagine your trouble with the globe model is all the extra motions, the orbit around Sun, around galactic centre, etc, but we’ll get to that in a bit, I’d just like to focus on P-branes explanation a bit more for now.
FE likes to employ perspective a lot, when explaining things like the Sun and the stars, but they make perspective out to be this magical trick of optics that we can not test on a smaller scale or simulate in 3D...and that is a lie. I’m an artist for a living, let’s just say perspective is something I would consider myself an expert in, as perspective is an art fundamental that I’ve been studying for most of my life. It can be easily scaled down and tested, as well as simulated to scale with 3D software...the rules of perspective are not magic, they’re pretty easy to simulate. If they’re going to claim it’s perspective causing the effects we’re seeing, then why aren’t they doing more to actually test that?
So that would be the next step for FE, because like I said earlier, all they have here so far is a hypothesis. If you want to be a scientist someday, then this is important to know, you can not reach a conclusion from hypothesis alone. That’s not how science works. The next step is to test the hypothesis, you should not reach a conclusion until you’ve at least tested your claim. That can be done pretty simply, with either a physical scaled down recreation experiment, or with a 3D rendering of the model proposed.
P-brane claims the southern rotation is a trick of perspective, ok, then why doesn’t he simulate it or model it? He created not to scale visual aides, sure, but never once does he attempt to actually model the perspective to scale, to see if the perspective actually fits with reality, in an actual test. Yet he reached a conclusion anyway. Why would you think that’s good enough? That’s the problem I have with FE...I feel you tend to jump to conclusions a bit prematurely.
I shared two videos above, that conducted a digital experiment and a physical experiment, demonstrating how star trails work on the globe. Those demonstrations were then compared to real world observations, and they were shown to be a match in both. So does there exist similar demonstrations of the flat Earth “perspective” argument? P-brane certainly never made the attempt, so his video is merely the hypothesis. Doesn’t matter how much more it makes sense to you, it’s still only hypothesis, so you should not reach a conclusion from it. So let me know if there are actual modelled demonstrations of the perspective, otherwise, there’s really no reason to conclude his explanation as even plausible.
Now, it’s important to keep in mind that a single demonstration does not prove the hypothesis (the globe included), but it’s at least a start. What I’m getting at, is that FE has to start doing better. People like P-brane and Eric Dubay present hypothesis...but that’s about it. Yet people reach full conclusions anyway. That’s not very scientific, hypothesis is just the start...so FE has barely even begun.
Now, I’ll provide a few more points that support the Globe hypothesis. At some point in the video P-brane makes the claim that perspective would eventually drop Polaris to 0 degrees, where it’s now touching horizon, of course this would be at the Equator, because that’s what we observe in the real world. Ok, but there’s a problem with this on the FE model, because the drop of Polaris to horizon is consistent by latitude...that’s how sailors have used Polaris to find their latitude for centuries. See, perspective doesn’t work the way he’s claiming, he’s claiming that even on a flat Earth the drop of Polaris to horizon would be consistent by latitude. But in reality, on a flat surface, that drop would not be consistent, the apparent angle would drop less and less the further away you got. What I mean is, at first the drop would be quick and more apparent, appearing to drop towards horizon at a quicker rate as you travelled away from Polaris, but the further away you get, the drop would begin to slow, coming closer to horizon at a decreasing rate of apparent angle drop. Which is a problem for the FE model, because that geometry does not fit reality, Polaris drops at a consistent rate to the horizon in reality...so P-branes explanation of perspective causing Polaris to drop to horizon, doesn’t work, because if the surface were flat and Polaris never actually moves, then the drop would not be consistent. Do you see the issue here?
The same applies for the Sun, because FE also likes to employ perspective when explaining how a Sunset occurs. But have you ever seen the flat Earth Sun perspective modelled in 3D before? Here’s a fellow who thought to model it https://youtu.be/-e9d4bjImHM. See how the Sun never quite reaches horizon? Notice how it also doesn’t travel at a consistent rate? These are real geometric problems, for the FE conclusion of perspective.
So here’s the problem as I see it, and I can’t stress this enough. FE hasn’t proven their claim of perspective, they’ve just slotted that answer in and called it a day. When you actually challenge this claim by actually putting perspective to the test, you find there are many problems they are ignoring, when it comes to perspective. They are ignoring some pretty fundamental rules of perspective, it simply does not work the way they are claiming it does and testing it yourself quickly verifies that. The stars drop consistently by latitude, this is something we’d expect to occur, if the Earth were spherical, the geometry fits. Here’s a pretty simple diagram https://flatearth.ws/polaris-angle. You can even test the geometry pretty simply, with a globe and a camera, it checks out. Meanwhile, the Flat Earth model continues to have problems.
That being said, if there are any actual attempts to physically test this perspective claim, feel free to share. I’ve seen a few, but none so far that I would consider unfalsifiable.
Feel free to respond and offer some rebuttals, I’m really curious to understand your point of view here. Perhaps you can help explain a bit more, what it is about P-branes explanation that you feel is more convincing. I’ve explained why he doesn’t convince me, because it’s simply not good enough, he barely has a hypothesis from his explanation. That’s my feelings on that, and typically that’s always been my problem with FE, jumping to conclusions before actually testing them. Not in every case mind you, but in this one for sure.
Anyway, feel free to respond. Again, this was in no attempt to delve into the other motions, it was merely a focus on the basic geometry of the surface. I can delve into the motions of the planet and explain how they would not effect the star trails, in a separate comment.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@drvincentthomas68 It’s fine to disagree, I wasn’t expecting to change your mind of anything, just pointing out some glaring issues I am personally seeing in your arguments. It’s also fine to question established science, in fact it’s actually the one thing I admire about Flat Earth, but you’re being a bit of a hypocrite, if you somehow think that YOU are somehow the exception, acting as if you’re infallible and we shouldn’t question you. You think we’re blind and never listen? Try arguing with a Flat Earther...seriously, for a group claiming to be more open minded, you sure shut those minds off tight when anyone attempts to challenge your claims and offer some information you might have overlooked.
I think you do it more out of spite, because you have a strong distain and distrust of modern science, a great deal of contempt for scientists. But, to be fair, if the conclusions of modern consensus don’t add up for you, then by all means, continue to question anything you don’t feel is accurate. Just don’t expect others to turn a blind eye to your claims, expect that when you make claims, they will be challenged. Respect that we have reached our own conclusions, that we feel is accurate, through our own research and experience, and you might find a more engaging conversation. Respect our intelligence and others may respect yours in return. Keep your mind open and consider the possibility that you may have overlooked something, and we might do the same.
I wasn’t trying to force you to accept what I was saying, just sharing some information, up to you in the end what you do with it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ZighyBlue Don’t suppose you have pictures or video you can share? But no, doing the math it works pretty well. Including even just a standard refraction, you’d see the lighthouse just fine, and we all know refraction is much higher over large bodies of water. So it’s completely possible. This is the math I use for these observations https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/. There’s a great section on refraction as well, which is always present, especially over water https://www.metabunk.org/threads/simulating-atmospheric-refraction.7881/.
My next question I suppose would be if you see the light itself or just its beam? Shouldn’t have to tell you that a light houses beam of light would diffract through the air and be visible for several miles beyond seeing the direct light source itself. But no, this does not invalidate the globe. If it was 100 km distance, then perhaps, but your distance, height of object, and observation height work out just fine.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well, I feel it actually matters a great deal, and I’d rather not take that knowledge for granted, because we all benefit from it more than many seem to realize.
Also, we are a part of nature just as anything else is, creating things from the materials provided by nature, so quite literally nothing is “unnatural”. Are ants or bees, who also build their own mega structures for survival, anymore natural than us? No, it’s all part of nature. We just do it on a grander scale…that’s the only difference, but it’s all natural my dude. It’s part of our nature to build, explore and learn. It’s against our nature to just sit in trees and do nothing. Maybe that’s good enough for other species, but we’re not them, so I don’t think it’s good to pretend that we are.
To each their own though, do what makes you happy, but what might make YOU happy, is not the same for all of us. I personally do find joy from creating things, which adds to my happiness. For me, happiness isn’t one single absolute thing, it’s just a byproduct of living my best life. Doesn’t give me license to destroy nature, it’s good to harbour an appreciation and respect for it, I 100% agree, but there’s nothing wrong with learning and creating, it’s a big part of our nature, and for many it does also help their happiness.
3
-
@Nehner Boy, that’s a long way of expressing incredulity. Nothing you spouted in those two novels of ranting, falsifies the fact that motion itself is not felt, we feel acceleration, not motion.
Placing a person outside of a moving vehicle, you’ve now introduced drag force from the air outside that’s not moving with the vehicle at the same velocity. That’s not motion you’re feeling…it’s drag force, the air smashing into you. So you’re making a false comparison…and ignoring the fact that you don’t feel the motion of a 500 mph passenger jet while travelling inside of it. This doesn’t seem odd to you? Why don’t you feel that motion? Why ignore that? Your argument against that is a deflection from the obvious…we do not feel motion itself, we feel accelerations.
This is an undeniable fact about motion…sorry, but no amount of calling people idiots is ever going to change that. Drag force is not motion itself, quite frankly you’re an idiot if you think it is…or if you think we should agree that it is.
The air does rotate with Earth, you then claimed there would be a head wind. But you’re not quite understanding how relative motion works I’m afraid. Try this experiment; get in a passenger jet, once at cruising altitude, start tossing a paper airplane back and forth. With the planes motion or against it…the paper airplane will glide effortlessly in both directions, no 500 mph headwind going against its forward velocity. Also, are you throwing the paper plane at 500 mph? No, obviously not…so how is it keeping up with the plane? 🧐 Maybe because the laws of motion and relative motion are in fact very real. 😳
It’s the same exact physics occurring when the plane flys against rotation…relative motion creates an environment that behaves as though stationary, an inertial reference frame of motion.
So again…you’re just not quite understanding relative motion is all. No amount of calling us idiots, changes the fact that it’s actually you who’s the idiot here…sorry.
And finally we have your pages long word salad, trying to force us to agree that linear velocities (mph, m/s) are more important to centrifugal forces, than rotational velocities like revolutions per minute (rpm’s). 🙄
I can demonstrate how you’re wrong here with one simple thought experiment. Picture yourself in a race car, travelling at a constant 200mph, around a perfect circle track, that’s only 1000 metres in circumference. Would you expect a lot of centrifugal force here? Yes, you would, in fact it would be near impossible to stay on the track, the centrifugal force would be so great. Okay, now picture yourself in the same car, same 200mph velocity, but this time the track is 1000 miles in circumference. Would you expect to feel the same centrifugal force as you did on the smaller track? Nope…in fact you probably wouldn’t feel a thing this time, the track would curving so gradually, it would feel almost straight.
So same 200mph linear velocity…different centrifugal force? 🧐 But why? You made such a big deal about linear velocities…yet they don’t seem to have much of anything to do with that force. So what’s really different about the two examples? The rate of rotation, the revolutions…not the linear velocity. In the first example, you’d be completing several circuits every minute, in the second you’d be completing 1 circuit every 5 hours…greatly reducing the rpm’s, which reduces the rate of angular velocity change per second…which is the true cause to centrifugal force.
You even know this…you mentioned it yourself. You mentioned how a carousel or that disk was rotating at 23 rpms…yet when you got to the Earth, you conveniently left out the Earth’s rpm’s, which is roughly 0.000694 rpm’s.
See you’re trying really hard to get us to agree with your incredulity…the core of your claim is that linear velocities are more important to centrifugal force, but any physics student knows that’s not the case at all…it’s rotational velocity that matters in a rotational motion. Earth rotates at 1 complete rotation every 24 hours, which is roughly 0.000694 rpm’s…hence why we don’t feel its rotation. 😳
Scream all you want…you’re not changing the facts, the laws of motion are pretty simple to understand and to verify. That’s why it’s usually the first thing you learn in any physics 101 class…they are without a doubt the easiest scientific laws to verify for yourself.
So…your entire argument is just…stupid, really, there’s no other way to put it. We do not feel motion itself, we feel acceleration. This is a fact, not an opinion.
So I’m sorry bud, but your argument is moot. In all those hours of research…you never once thought to learn the laws of motion? 🧐 Could have saved you a lot of headache.
Conduct these experiments please, then you can argue about whether Earth is in motion or not.
- Foucault Pendulum
- Foucault Gyroscope
- Coriolis drift
- Measuring Earth’s centrifugal force
- Ring Laser interferometer measuring Earth’s motion
Then research the Gyrocompass. This is a navigations tool used on most large sea vessels today, that actually males use of Earth’s rotation in order to function. So basically, if Earth was not rotating at the rate we know it is, then this device would not work as designed. So Earth’s rotation is an applied science today…meaning it’s pretty much undeniable. We are rotating. So look it up sometime, not hard to find its engineering specs and plenty of videos explaining how it works.
Call us idiots all you want…we’re not the ones ignoring simple physics, to make incredulous arguments.
3
-
Navigation is only possible, once you have accurate information of the surface you’re navigating…pretty common sense. The geographic coordinate system used by every pilot and sailor in the world uses the globe model. That is a fact, not an opinion. If this system was using the wrong model, then it simply would not work. It’s that simple.
Evidence for rotation can be found in experiments such as the Foucault pendulum and gyrocompass experiments, the ring laser interferometer, Coriolis and Eotvos effects, astronomy data, take your pick. The gyrocompass is probably the best evidence however; the gyrocompass is a device used on modern sea vessels today, that finds true North (in apposed to magnetic North). It actually uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function. So quite simply if Earth was not rotating, then this device would not work as it is designed.
That’s how you spot true science…..it works. On the flip side, that’s also how you spot junk science and bullshit…it doesn’t work, it reveals itself by how absolutely useless it is. Flat Earthers talk a lot and make a ton of empty claims…but it’s no coincidence that none of them are actual scientists, engineers, inventors, with actual working achievements under their belts. You know how you spot a huxter?
3
-
3
-
@1FeistyKitty 1) It’s fine to question, but you’re not disproving those distances with personal misunderstandings…where I come from, if you didn’t understand something that everyone else understands pretty easy, it meant you’re stupid…when did that change? 🤨
2) Then try watching a few from a user called Wolfie6020, he’s made several observations with solar filter lenses on his telescope, getting super clear shots of the Sun, and then he tracks the Sun for a full day. You know what happens in every video? The Sun maintains the exact same apparent size throughout the whole day…then sinks into and under horizon. You’re watching blurry videos, that don’t know how to work an exposure setting to control glare. I’ve seen the same videos, and they’re garbage…and for good reason, it’s how they trick you, it’s basically a parlour trick. Try watching the Sun with a filtered lens…go right ahead.
3) Do this simple experiment for me sometime; get a heat lamp, place it 90 degrees to a surface, place a thermometer under it, take a reading. Now tilt the heat lamp 45 degrees relative to that surface, place a thermometer in its light again, same distance from its centre as it was at 90 degrees, take a reading. You’ll notice the thermometer is cooler when placed in the light at an angle. Why? Because when it’s at 90 degrees, the energy is focused on the surface in one spot, when it’s tilted, that same thermal energy is now spread out over a wider area…essentially dispersing the heat rather than focusing it. That’s how it works on our Earth…the Equator gets more direct solar energy, the poles get that same energy at a far steeper angle…because of Earth curvature.
Don’t forget about the South pole now…they get the same 24 hour Sun during their Summer, in winter Solstice around November. It’s well documented. How exactly does that work on a flat Earth? 2 hemispheres with 2 midnight Sun observations? 🧐 The globe accounts for both very easily, Earth’s axis is tilted relative to the ecliptic, so as it orbits one pole points more towards the Sun at certain periods…we call them the solstices.
4) Ya…cause that’s exactly what they’re designed to do. It’s a pretty simple mechanism really, uses gravity. When the gimbal drifts for any reason, weights on the gimbal drop open, which opens valves, that allow air into a chamber, signalling that they’re out of alignment. A torque is then applied to precess it gently back into alignment. Had you really done your research better, instead of stopping on e your bias was confirmed, you’d have learned about the pendulous vanes. And you tell us to look into it. 🙄 I suggest searching it, plenty of videos on YouTube explaining the pendulous vanes and their function.
And no…we think of curvature in terms of degrees, not miles. It takes 70 miles to cover 1 degree of Earth’s surface, a passenger flying at 500 mph covers that distance in about 8 mins. So it’s pretty easy for the mechanism to do its job gradually over time.
5) Then be more specific dum dum. Flat Earth can’t even account for a Lunar eclipse at all…soooo, not sure how you can think you have a stronger position here. 😄 So you’re referring too the Selenelion lunar eclipse no doubt. Are you aware this only occurs in places observing eclipse slightly before sunset, or after sunrise, so right on the terminator line of Earth’s shadow? Are you also aware that it only occurs if refraction index is high enough for it to occur? So this event actually does fit the Globe model…Flat Earth however, sure have a hard time with the lunar eclipse, and love ignoring that problem by deflecting to a single rare phenomenon…that the globe still accounts for if you actually bothered to research it beyond your bias. Oops. 😄
6) Oh boy. 🤦♂️ Moon phases aren’t caused by Earth’s shadow, that’s a lunar eclipse….you seriously need to learn how Moon phases work champ. Very basic stuff indeed…watch the video I shared in previous comment.
7) You can’t find it…because it’s a lie you made up. And instead of admitting that…you’re now deflecting, back to argument 1. 🙄 You’re a special one…but now I know who conned you, good ol’ Eric Dubay, king of the numpty’s.
8) Ya…cause that’s what it is. 😳 I’m an amateur astronomer who has spent a good deal of time observing planets. Focus the camera/lens right, set the exposure right, and you see the surface features of planets just fine. You’ll even see their shadow phases, sometimes you can catch their moons casting shadows on the surface, some even have rings, etc. You’re an idiot who fell for blurry out of focus video. Good job. 👏
9) Yup…they did, cause you’re all blind leading the blind…you don’t even know that moon phases aren’t caused by Earth’s shadow, so ya, I don’t expect any of you to know how to conduct a proper experiment. I’ve watched several of these “cold moon light” experiments, NONE thought to include a control experiment to isolate the variable they’re testing. A control for this experiment would be to conduct the experiment again on a night when the Moon is not casting light, during a New Moon phase. If you get the same reading, then it’s not the Moon causing this…it’s pretty simple. There is one guy who thought to do this, named Greater Sapien, look up his results sometime.
I’ll address 10 in a separate comment.
3
-
@1FeistyKitty 10) It’s the whole point of science to explain HOW physical reality operates. So ya…it is kind of important to explain gravity and figure out how it works…or else why even bother? :/ You can thank the scientists who agree with me, because every invention YOU make use of today, is thanks to those efforts…from people who felt it’s pretty important to figure things out, instead of staying on the surface of things.
Density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, a ratio of mass to volume. A force is required for all changes in motion. When you drop something, is it not immediately put into an accelerated motion towards Earth? Yes…is that falling a motion? Yes…does the dropped object make a choice and then use energy to cause that motion? No…okay, so a force is present causing it. Pretty simple. 😳 Basic physics of motion, and the basic defining principle of a force…something that causes a change in motion. We just gave that force a name…cause it’s pretty helpful to label things we discover, so we can all be on the same page when discussing it. Gravity is very real my dude…and you used to know that too, before Flat Earthers (somehow) conned you to believe it’s not a thing, even though it’s the easiest fundamental force to prove….drop something. You have to hit your head pretty hard to be convinced gravity isn’t a thing. :/
Do we know everything about gravity? No…but that’s why we keep digging deeper, until we do…that’s the whole point of science. One thing is for certain, things fall when you drop them…only a force can cause that motion…physics 101. Density is not a force, it does not cause motion, so your argument is extremely ignorant of basic physics fundamentals.
Small masses do attract, all mass attracts other mass, look up the Cavendish experiment sometime. But small masses are gonna have a difficult time attracting, when a much larger mass is right next to them…the Earth. That’s why testing gravity on smaller scales is so difficult…but not impossible, the Cavendish experiment is very repeatable science, so try it out sometime.
Space is expanding, not mass. Why is it expanding? Nobody currently knows for certain…welcome to the fringes of known science. We do not know everything, but that’s perfectly okay.
That’s what tends to happen when you leave gravity to do it’s thing over time. Shake up a bottle of oil, water and sand, then just let it sit…over time, gravity takes that chaotic system and organizes it. Come back to that bottle a few days later, it’ll be back in balance…gravity’s pretty cool huh. 😎 We’re essentially living in the period of time after gravity has cleaned up all the chaos…what’s left over is balance. Takes billions of years, but you know we have simulated this in super computers. Look them up sometime, they’re pretty fascinating.
Gravity does a lot more than explain why things fall…it quite literally explains, everything! What do you think really kicked off the scientific revolution? Once gravity was realized, the mysteries of the cosmos started falling like dominoes, everything suddenly started to make sense. It explains why everything in space forms a sphere, shy they orbit each other, it explains galaxy formation, planet and star formation, it explains nuclear fusion and how stars burn, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on.
Meanwhile…a bunch of numpty’s online, who have never contributed anything to applied science, and can’t even work out how moon phases work, think they’re incredulity and ignorance is an argument against reality. 😅 Strange times we live in. And it’s no secret why Flat Earth intentionally denies gravity…because it’s not very convenient for their argument.
Centripetal force doesn’t keep the Moon in orbit…it’s forward velocity does, its inertia. All things in motion stay in motion until acted upon by an unbalanced force…first law of motion, known as the law of inertia. An orbit is basically a balance of an objects forward velocity to gravity, causing it to essentially fall around the source of gravity, like a coin spiralling around a funnel. Because there’s no air in space, it means no friction (an apposing force), so unlike a coin in funnel, it’s forward velocity doesn’t slow down, it continues moving indefinitely.
The Moon isn’t the only celestial object tidal locked to its gravity host, it’s actually very common in our solar system. A lot of the other Moons from various planets are tidal locked to their planet…it happens when something orbits really close to a powerful gravity well. Even Mercury is tidal locked to the Sun…and in a few billion years, we will be too. It’s what gravity does over time. I’m sorry if you find that odd, but your incredulity isn’t an argument I’m afraid. Actually though it does wobble, so we do see a bit more of it over time, I believe we see about 58% of the moons surface over a years time…it’s very clearly spherical.
Well…you believe in a Sun and Moon that’s somehow floating above us with…magic I guess? 🤷♂️ Soooo…flat Earth has plenty of things it asks we just believe without any explanation.
11. Boy you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel now. I’ll check it out…but you know I’ve done this too, eyeballed something and guessed its distance from me, only to find I was way off. It’s pretty normal. Fraid it certainly doesn’t cause us to toss the baby out with the bathwater. Sorry bud.
3
-
Why would they apologize, for something completely out of their control? Maybe you’re not too familiar with how information gathering works, but because we don’t know everything (and likely never will), it means old information will always have the potential to change, as new information is acquired...it’s just the way it is, nothing we can do about that.
So science doesn’t, it doesn’t set out to prove things, it doesn’t operate in absolutes, only in percentages of certainty. It just sets out to collect information, then it compiles a conclusion from all the current data and evidence. New information is coming in all the time, so old information has the potential to be changed from that new data. That’s the way it will always be...science is a long process of refinement. They don’t start with a conclusion, then set out to prove it, they gather evidence and form conclusions from that evidence. They create hypothesis and then set out to FALSIFY it. Science is really all about falsification. If they can’t falsify it, then it’s very likely true...but they won’t conclude anything with absolute certainty, because new information found later might falsify old information. So they can’t conclude anything with absolute certainty, hence why they chose to call their conclusions, theories.
This presents a bit of a problem though, because the general public doesn’t like uncertainty, it demands definite answers. Best science can do, is provide the most plausible answers...so that’s what they do. It’s not their fault society doesn’t understand how things work...so they shouldn’t have to apologize, hence why they don’t. You see it as lying...but no, science is always pretty up front about things, the general public just doesn’t really listen...likely because most people can’t think in nuance and shades of grey, only in black and whites. It’s a problem, but more often then not, they don’t owe you any apologies...learn how things work instead how’s about? Science has provided you with every modern comfort and luxury, from the power that heats your home, to the water that comes directly to you, to the car you drive, to this computing device we’re exchanging messages on, you should be more grateful.
3
-
@dominiccharvet546 You believe in a literal magical being…that conjured reality into existence using literal magic…and you think it’s the rest of us that believes in magic? 🤨 That’s some powerful delusions you got there bud.
Here’s some basic physics for you; any change in motion requires a force to cause it. Is falling a motion? Yes, it is…so there’s a force present to cause it. You’re suffering from personal incredulity, but even you can’t deny that we clearly observe things falling towards Earth when you drop it…a motion occurs, that’s free from your control, meaning it’s a phenomenon of reality, and it’s the whole point of science to understand how physical phenomena of nature works. To do that, we start with the basics; change in motion requires a force to cause it…pretty simple. They just gave that motion a name, just like they named the upwards motion buoyancy. Makes it a lot easier to discuss these things when we name and label them…what would you prefer they do, ignore a very obvious motion that’s occurring? 🤷♂️ Skip over giving it a label? 🤷♂️ Truly…where’s the sense in that? 🤷♂️
Your other quandaries ignore the physics of motion, namely the laws of motion, and relative motion. Earth doesn’t have any trouble keeping up with the Sun, because everything in motion stays in motion, first law of motion, law of inertia. It’s moving relative to the Sun, so that’s its inertial reference frame. Gravity helps too, but it’s mostly just conservation of momentum and law of inertia. You can test this physics at any time, next time you’re in a moving vehicle, try tossing something straight up…and watch as it goes straight up then straight back down into your hand. But hold on a second, think about that now, let’s say you’re moving forward at 100 mph…if you toss something straight up, how exactly does it maintain that 100 mph, keeping up with the vehicle, to land back into your hand? 🧐 Because all things in motion stay in motion, until acted upon by an unbalanced force…basic physics of motion.
You’re making a lot of ignorant arguments, that you wouldn’t be making if you just learned some basic physics. :/
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ienjoyapples Yes, but they completely skip the process of peer review, which has helped science greatly in removing bias. It’s difficult to see where you go wrong, if you never consider that you can be wrong, that you might have simply overlooked something important to reaching the objective conclusion. Bias is very real, it keeps a person from seeing their own errors, leading them to false conclusions.
We all have bias, and it’s often near impossible to notice our own bias, it’s often only our peers that can recognize another individuals bias. So by ignoring outside opinion, comes with a drawback, flat Earth is currently demonstrating the dangers of confirmation bias, by completely ignoring the process of peer review, just asserting they’re right in every claim.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@sammylong3704 Sure, first of all you’re misunderstanding the physics of centripetal forces. Centrifugal force has very little to do with linear velocities and everything to do with rate of rotation. 1000 mph is a linear velocity, but Earth completes one rotation every 24 hours. This is a very slow rotational velocity, exactly two times slower than the hour hand of a clock. We don’t use linear velocity to figure out a centrifugal force output, because it doesn’t mean much to that effect. A better unit for that is a rate of rotation like RPM’s. For example, a gravitron ride at your local fair, rotates at a rate of about 24 RPM’s. By comparison, the Earth’s rate of rotation is 0.000694 RPM’s. Meaning centrifugal force on Earth is VERY minuscule. If you do all the math actually, it only negates about 0.03% of gravity at the Equator. Fun fact though, did you know everything actually weighs slightly less at the Equator for this reason? Here’s a neat experiment that verifies this https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o.
Centrifugal force is an effect of rotation, because of the rate of angular velocity change per second...that’s what causes it. So rate of rotation is what matters, nit the linear speed. Stop looking at the big numbers and assuming things, and instead learn some physics please.
I can prove to you why linear speeds don’t matter here with things you’re familiar with. Here’s a great thought experiment that might help you out here. Imagine yourself in a race car, going around a perfect circle track that’s only 1000 metres circumference, at a steady speed of 200 mph. Would you expect to experience a lot of centrifugal force in this example? Yes, absolutely, in fact you’d have a heck of a time trying to stay on the road you’d be experiencing so much centrifugal force. Ok, now let’s just increase the length of the track, to 1000 miles circumference. Driving the same car at the same 200 mph, would you expect much centrifugal force in this example? No, you wouldn’t expect to feel any, in fact the track would feel almost like a straight road to you, it would be way easier to cruise down this track at that speed.
Pretty simple thought experiment, now let’s examine it. So what changed? The linear speed remained the same...yet centrifugal force was different in both examples. So what does this tell us? That linear speed has very little to do with centrifugal force. The thing that really changed, was rate of rotation. The first example, the driver would complete several complete rotations every minute, while the second example, would only complete 1 rotation every 5 hours. This drastically reduces the rate of angular velocity change per second, which is what causes centrifugal force.
Earth completes 1 rotation every 24 hours...hence why nothing is flung off the Earth, the rate of rotation is far to slow.
See this is how Flat Earth cons people...by using their lack of physics and mathematics against them. They do this across the board, getting you looking at big numbers, without explaining anything. Then you run with your assumptions, instead of figuring things out. You’re asking great physics questions...but then you seem to think they can’t be answered.
Now when it comes to gravity, you’re forgetting that it’s directly proportional to an objects mass. The bigger something is, the more mass it has, the more it’s effected by gravity. So a tiny bird or butterfly, has less mass, so it requires less energy to resist gravity, pretty simple. But actually, a toddler and a fly aren’t really defying gravity...if they were, then they’d easily be able to leave Earth and go to space...that’s defying gravity. Last I checked, they’re barely lifting off the surface, gravity still contains them both.
The difference between them and an ocean....is that oceans are not alive. So they have no means of creating energy, they then put into muscles, they then use for motion. Motion that can be used to resist gravity for a little while. I mean...it’s pretty simple stuff. You are aware that oceans are not living things, right?
Anyway, hope this information is helpful. Feel free to ask me anything else you’re having trouble with, I don’t mind sharing.
3
-
@sammylong3704 Mathematical concepts are built from scientific experimentation....you do realize that, right? Examine a formula, we’ll use the formula for weight; W=mg. There’s two variables here, ‘m’ for mass ‘g’ for the downward acceleration of gravity, both discovered and measured within scientific observation and inquiry. Objects have mass (the little m) and they’re measured to drop towards Earth at a steady 9.8m/s^2 (little g). Take both together, you can accurately calculate an objects weight. Couldn’t do the math, until you have physical perimeters figured out first...that’s what science is for. Science comes first, we study physical reality, until we have deduced certainties, those certainties of nature become variables in mathematics...which then makes them useful for us. That graduates them to applied science. Applied science is the end goal of all science....then we can build things like your computer. That’s how it works...so mathematical formulas are not abstract, they’re built on physical premises...that’s what each variable is, a physical perimeter that is verified science.
Point is, do you ever consider the possibility, that you’re reaching a great many errors in understanding...because you don’t really know much about science? Does that ever cross your mind? I get that things don’t make much sense to you, but does that automatically make them wrong? No, it doesn’t.
Back to your question though. So first of all, weight does not exist without gravity, that’s your first error. Weight is actually just another name for gravity actually, feel free to look that up, it’s well understood in physics. This matters, because it’s why you’re misunderstanding things. Objects always have mass, your mass never changes, but weight depends on gravity and other forces. It’s why you weigh less in water, because buoyancy force is countering gravity a bit. Mass is what you have, weight is product of the downward force being exerted upon all of all that mass.
Gravity really isn’t that strong on Earth, it’s just constant. Where’s the water going to go, if not towards the only force attracting it? It’s pretty simple. The only reason the ocean is heavy, is because it has more mass...gravity is proportional to mass.
You have gravity all wrong, why would anything be crushed here? Gravity is really not that strong here...but it’s always here, it never shuts off, so it attracts anything that’s near to it...like our oceans. Water is inert, it’s not alive, so it has no means of producing energy to use against gravity, so it’s just gonna continue being drawn to it.
Why people have this notion that gravity is so powerful it will crush you...is beyond me.
Facts are simple, things fall towards Earth, this falling is measured to be a constant rate. It’s a fact that matter can not move without a force, falling is a motion, nobody is going to deny that...so it’s simple deduction at that point. Objects are in motion when falling+motion requires force=a force is present putting matter into motion. It’s not difficult. That motion of falling, we have named gravity...we could have called it anything, doesn’t matter, doesn’t change the fact that it’s there.
The example is Earth and other planets, we observe Earth and we observe planets. From these observations, we learn a lot about gravity. It’s difficult to scale down gravity, because it depends on mass. But yes, we can observe gravity in smaller quantities, here’s a great experiment testing it in smaller scales https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68.
Anyway, I hope this information is helpful. You need to understand that gravity is applied science at this point...so it’s far from belief, this knowledge has helped build the modern world around you, far more than you realize.
3
-
3
-
You’d actually have to have an agreed upon, standard, scientific model, that works and is actually used in applied science today, before she could ever really strawman anything. It’s not like we’re arguing an opinion here, this is about objective reality...and Flat Earth lost that debate pretty much immediately once mankind started analyzing the Earth with any real effort.
At least the accelerating Earth hypothesis had some logic and physics to it....the “density and buoyancy” argument the majority of you numpty’s seem to agree on, is just gravity...but chopped up to remove that word and removes the explanations, measurements and experiments that explain and verify the downward acceleration we all observe. It’s just denial...ignoring what you don’t like, so you can convince yourselves you’re right....ya guys, real winning strategy you got there. 😂
Let us know when flat Earth has a working model and is actually useful. Until then, you’re just fooling yourselves.
3
-
Atmospheric refraction can and does effect what we see at distances, this is an example of extreme atmospheric refraction allowing much more of those rigs to be seen than would be geometrically possible without refraction. Plenty of examples of those same oil rigs photographed on a day where refractive index is lower, and in those photos you see much less of those same rigs.
Look up the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, it has a whole section on atmospheric refraction, explaining what it is, how it works, and then demonstrating the effect over a frozen lake. There’s even a short video you can find here of a time lapse observation of the lake, verifying refraction.
Now some in FE would then argue that horizon is impossible to determine thanks to refraction, but refraction is very well understood in physics today, and under very low refractive index it barely effects much at all, and even it can be calculated. Metabunk has a great calculator for refraction index, as does the Walter Bislin blog.
3
-
@Lordani66 Again, science gains nothing from giving illegitimate fringe movements a platform to expand their nonsense. The only one who has anything to gain is Dubay, of course he wants to debate a big fish like Neil, it opens him up to an audience count he could only dream of. On the flip side, he runs from every debate call from his opposition here on YouTube. Guys like Reds Rhetoric, Fight the Flat Earth, Conspiracy Catz, Sly Sparkane, they’ve all offered to debate Dubay, but to my knowledge, he’s never accepted. This is for two reasons as I see it, the first reason being that there’s not going to be much of an audience, so he feels there’s no way of expanding his “empire”, which is all he really cares about. The second reason is that these guys are his direct opposition, they study flat Earth specifically and have been for awhile and they know his arguments inside and out, he’d likely only end up losing followers debating these guys...so he doesn’t dare.
Neil is wise not to debate a known conman, it just gives them what conmen really want, an audience to market too.
3
-
3
-
@RT-oc6iu No, ships sink hull first into horizon. If you can bring a ship back into focus with a zoom lens, then it has not reached the horizon yet, it’s just gone past your eyes vanishing point. Eventually, objects reach a point where no amount of zooming will bring them back…that’s when it’s gone past the horizon. What Frankie is saying is true, there would not be a horizon line, if Earth was actually flat, everything would just fade off into the distance. And we wouldn’t observe hundreds of feet of buildings and mountains, sinking below eye level, their bases obstructed by a clear horizon line.
Flat Earthers clearly have a very low opinion of science, if they honestly think scientists never once thought to use a telescopic lens in their observations of things going over horizon…that’s exactly how they make those observations in the first place, they weren’t using their naked eye. Vanishing point is caused by perspective, it’s the physical limitation of your eye to render an object visible due its distance and size. But this can and does occur BEFORE horizon…and that’s what Flat Earthers are demonstrating when they zoom something back into focus. Eventually, objects reach the horizon, and then they start to drop from line of sight.
Plenty of examples of this online, where objects are obstructed at their base, and no amount of zoom will bring them back. So we’re not trying to be difficult, we’re just pointing out details we feel Flat Earth has overlooked. You can chalk it up to ego if you like, but why should we ignore claims made, if we have information that falsifies them? You make claims on a public platform, you shouldn’t expect that they will be challenged. You’re not free from peer review and burden of proof, so don’t pretend like you are.
3
-
T Brown You shared a video with some heavy refraction occurring, then ignored that refraction was occurring, and then called your work done. How is that debunking anything exactly? You’re just ignoring everything you don’t like, which means you’re arguing from ignorance...ignoring the variables you don’t like and then forcing your own bias conclusion. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you, but arguing from ignorance is a logical fallacy...and a pretty clear one at that.
Refraction is very real, it does occur, so it can not be ignored in these kinds of long distance observations. A video was shared with you that went into great detail debunking your observation of those two oil rigs, explaining refraction and sharing another photo of those oil rigs when refraction index was far less...and it doesn’t appear like you even watched that video. So you’re just ignoring any evidence or explanation presented to you. So again, how is anyone supposed to have a rational discussion with someone, who won’t even look at the evidence when they ask for it?
Is that really unreasonable to ask that you actually look at the evidence presented to you? How can you honestly think ignoring it is an argument against it?
If you’d like to understand why refraction is a valid variable to be considered in long distance observations, I suggest you watch that video that was shared with you already, the one from BlueMarbleScience. Here’s another great source of information on the subject walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. This is a far more controlled observation of curvature, it is an in depth recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, only this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. Pay attention to the entire second half of this report, where it goes into great detail on atmospheric refraction and also demonstrates pretty clearly why it’s important not to ignore this variable.
3
-
3
-
T Brown No, not the end of the model at all. You’re assertions are not changing the fact that the Globe is established science...more than that, it’s an applied science. We’re not navigating the world using a flat model. We’re not predicting solar and lunar eclipses decades in advance using a flat model. We’re not designing communications and infrastructures using a flat model.
Truth is, Flat Earth has no working model...heck it can’t even properly explain a simple sunset, let alone conduct experiments that verify any of the proposed explanations. You keep asking for evidence...but where’s the evidence from Flat Earth for how a sunset works? Do you somehow think your model is free from the same standards of review you currently place upon the Globe model? Here’s another experiment you ignored, this one from Sly Sparkane that accurately measures Earth curvature using Sun shadow angles, and also verifies that light is arriving parallel to our surface. https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=422 Just watch from where I have it qued up, in just two minutes you can learn about some pretty concrete evidence for the globe.
A globe answers for every observation with absolute ease...meanwhile the Flat Earth has to really work hard to ram that square peg into a round hole. Either way, it’s a pointless debate, the Earth’s true shape has long been settled, you’re not changing that in these comments.
3
-
T Brown Wow, little Nathan Oakley junior here. Got your deflection tactics all mapped out for ya eh...what a good little Flat Earth soldier you are. XD
If you bothered to actually watch that video, you’d learn that it goes a bit further than just a simple Eratosthenes recreation. It’s true that if you only take 2 shadow measurements, you can then only assume a sphere. He assumed a sphere, because the Greeks had already deduced the Earth was spherical...it doesn’t take much either, observing a simple sunset is enough to realize Flat Earth does not fit with reality.
In the experiment I’ve shared, they take it a step further, and take several more measurements from all around the Earth, during the Equinox. When you take anymore than 2 measurements, you can actually use that data to pinpoint the accurate location of that Sun in 3D space. When that data is plotted on any flat Earth model proposed so far, it does not pinpoint a local Sun...heck it has no idea where the Sun is. Here’s that data interpreted on many different proposed models of flat Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t Guess what happens when they model the same data on a Globe...it fits, and fits perfectly. You should be more honest and ask yourself why that data fits perfectly on the Globe model. The angles recorded here can then be used to calculate the radius...just like Eratosthenes did, some 2000 years ago.
Independent variable of this experiment are the sticks you place perpendicular to the ground. The dependent is the sunlight. As I’m sure you know how this works, the independent is the variable the experimenter manipulates to test the dependent. So, independent and dependent verified, making this a valid experiment. Another independent variable of course is time, the experimenter chooses the time of day and the time of year, to test the sunlight (dependent) for that time and day.
Taking these measurements gives you data, that you can then apply to a proposed model or hypothesis, to see which model the data fits with. Upon all recreation of this experiment, the data fits the Globe...while the Flat Earth fails horribly.
So there you go, pretty simple stuff. Now, where’s your experiment that successfully falsify’s those results? I’ve never seen a Flat Earther even attempt at falsifying this experiment with tangible evidence and their own data....shocker, I wonder why? Cause it’s just easier to argue from ignorance, that’s why.
You people are a joke.
3
-
@vohannes Questions are perfectly fine, but no, we don’t just throw the baby out with the bath water, especially not when “theories falling apart” is actually just misunderstandings that you have. I can wrap my head around the possibilities just fine, but I’m not in the habit of listening blindly to people without evidence to back there claims, and I’ve yet to hear a flat Earth argument that I couldn’t falsify. So I’m not just going to roll over and agree with you blindly, if I know exactly where you’re going wrong, neither will science, nor should it.
The fact remains that flat Earth has no working model and is not used in any applied science. Pilots and sailors aren’t navigating with flat Earth geometry and scientists aren’t building and innovating our modern world with flat Earth understandings, that’s a fact, not an opinion. So let’s be real and call it like it is. You are layman, who have convinced themselves through ignorance, that you’re somehow the true experts of the world...even though you’ve contributed to nothing of significance. You’re only fooling yourselves...cause the rest of us are facepalming pretty hard on the daily, while we watch you people continue to demonstrate just how ignorant and scientifically illiterate you really are.
But alright, I do prefer to give you a chance first, so let’s shift gears from the dick waving and get to some science. I don’t mind hearing what you have to say.
3
-
3
-
@falcor1969 You're misreading me and creating a strawman argument. Forces are required for motion, nothing moves out of a state of rest without a force being applied too it, it's the law of inertia. You generate energy which generates a force, that you use to move your body...your car does the same thing. Motion requires a force...this is well understood in physics. There are many different forces, not just gravity...you are aware of that right?
Magnets also produce an invisible force that can and does put metallic matter into motion. This is a pretty odd phenomenon wouldn't you agree? Why couldn't an equally as odd force exist that keeps you to the ground? You act like it's magical, but things fall...that is a motion, motion requires a force. Physics is just the study of the natural world, and it's just recording what it observes. Falling is a motion, and so we gave a name to that falling motion, we called it gravity. We've also measured it and that measurement is used in practical applications.
Yes, things can still move in vacuum....apparently you've never seen things fall in a vacuum before? I suggest you look up vacuum drop tests.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@-Redemption- Just not seeing any clear Atheist connection is all, lots of ancient cultures believed Earth was flat as well, plenty of old paintings and carvings from cultures like the Mayan, Norse, Egyptian, etc, and they had plenty of their own theistic beliefs, these people were far from atheist. You’re claiming with absolute certainty, that flat Earth is a largely atheist concept (past and present) and I’m just curious what led you to that conclusion? Any evidence, or is it just a belief you have? You seem to have a clear distain for atheists, I’d be willing to bet you blame them for a lot of things without much effort, so that’s a bias you have. I get the feeling you don’t really spend much time trying to really understand atheists, just assume a lot about them instead.
Truth is, flat Earth is pretty universal, wasn’t created by any one group, it’s popped up independently from all types and many different cultures past and present...but in my experience, the majority has always had a clearer religious motive behind the belief, even in modern times. Chatting with them today, you’ll find a lot more theistic flat Earthers than atheist. So I just find your conclusion doesn’t really fit with what I’ve experienced so far, I think you’re being a tad bias, driven by a distain for atheists.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@nickmerix2900 Oh boy, you give Tyson far too much credit. He’s a big celebrity in science, sure, doesn’t mean he’s the smartest, with the most accomplishments under his belt….far from it. He’s a great personality to put in front of a camera, that’s about it, hence why he’s so well known, his career has been as more of a tv personality….but even he would be quick to admit and point out, that he’s FAR from a “high priest” of anything. Either way, Tyson has stated many times he has no interest in debates, so he’s under no obligation. But plenty of other scientists and experts are more than ready for such a debate, they’re just not celebrities…cause science is typically a pretty lonely profession, with very little acclaim outside of circles of science.
3
-
@kaptainkrampus I don’t much feel like unpacking any math at the moment (I’ll just briefly mention I’ve done the math for that particular observation many times, the globe checks out just fine…if Earth was flat, you’d see a LOT more of that mountain, not just the peak). I also don’t care to speculate on space programs I have zero first hand experience with, but I can quickly answer the questions you asked in your third point.
I'll explain what Flookd is referring too. The North hemisphere has different (circumpolar) constellations from the South hemisphere. A great example is the Big Dipper, you can’t see the Big Dipper in most Southern Hemisphere locations. Same for the North, we can’t see the Southern Cross, which is their most prominent (circumpolar) constellation, so much so that many Southern countries depict the Southern Cross on their flags. I’ve travelled pretty extensively in my life, I’ve confirmed this to be true.
Then there’s the seasonal constellations, you know many of them, they are the zodiac constellations. These constellations lie along the ecliptic (between the poles) and they change every month. Has nothing to do with Parallax, everything to do with our orbit around the Sun.
This is all geometry that fits perfectly in the globe/heliocentric model…neither make much sense on a flat Earth. Because we'd expect to see 2 different night skies with 2 different hemispheres…but how exactly does that work on a flat Earth, with only one directional sky? 🤷♂️ And we'd expect to see different constellations along the ecliptic as we orbit around the Sun, the Sun blocks different points of space from our view as we go around it…but why and how would these stars change on a flat Earth? 🤷♂️
That's not even mentioning the midnight Sun at both poles, and the two separate star rotations for each pole, each with their own pole star, Polaris for the North, Sigma Octantis for the South.
Polaris drops 1 degree to horizon every 60 nautical miles travelling directly South. That’s a fact, that’s how every line of latitude is determined…it’s how sailors use the stars to navigate. This only makes sense if the surface is curving like a sphere, because that curvature would be consistent, so it would change your angle relative to the stars at a consistent rate. Polaris drops to 0 degrees at the Equator, touching the horizon, how would that occur if Earth was flat? You could say “it’s just perspective” that causes this, but perspective has rules…one of them being the inverse square law, which means the drop of Polaris wouldn’t be consistent, it wouldn’t drop to horizon at a consistent 1 degree every 60 nautical miles, it would inversely square with the distance. Meaning, the angle would be less and less every 60 nautical miles, not a consistent 1 degree.
Why does Polaris stay where it is regardless of all our motions? Well, each motion is different; Axis is pointed directly at Polaris, so that’s not gonna do anything. But the other motions won’t either, because of Parallax. Distance has a profound effect on perceived motion…to cause a noticeable parallax, you have to travel just as far as something is away from you. Further something is from you, the further you have to travel to make any noticeable difference in parallax. The stars are trillions upon trillions of miles away…how far do we travel in our orbit around the Sun? Well, if the radius is roughly 93 million miles (1AU, distance to the Sun) then times it by two to get the diameter, so roughly 186 million miles. Compared to the distance of stars, that’s nothing, Earth might as well not even have moved.
Now, we can argue all day on the distance to the stars, I could share countless stellar parallax observations, but it would get us nowhere. Best evidence is really in the lack of parallax…if the stars were closer, then we’d see noticeable parallax shift in stars, just by travelling along Earth’s surface. The fact that we don’t, is evidence that the stars are really far away…in fact that was the first clue that led astronomers to that conclusion.
It’s fine to question the globe, but you’ll find the further you go, the more it actually is the only model that fits with everything we observe. Can’t say the same for Flat Earth.
What do you mean Flat Earth doesn’t have to prove anything? If they’re gonna claim the Earth is flat, then they absolutely do…that’s a claim they’re making, so they have a burden of proof.
You can pretend to sit on the fence, but I think you’re really a flat Earther that’s just realized it’s easier to argue from ignorance than to admit a side. Just my speculation, but I’ve seen it a lot from FE trolls as a tactic, called plausible deniability. Huxters and conmen have used it for centuries to spread disinformation…so I do hope that’s not your intent.
But, hope this information has been helpful or at the very least interesting. Take care.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@eyestoseefe7618 Oh I understand just fine, but outside of a plane you’d be met with drag force, air that’s not moving WITH the plane. When air moves WITH a system of motion, all that remains is conservation of momentum…proven time and again with any vehicle you travel with. Earth’s atmosphere moves WITH the Earth, in all its motions, including rotation. So it’s more accurate to compare Earth to the INSIDE of a vehicle, not out. If you really think about it, Earth is basically a vehicle, transporting us through space, all the air moves with it.
So again, you’re just reaching a false conclusion, through ignorance of basic physics. What’s worse is you people actually think you’re finding holes that science somehow overlooked…when in reality, you’re not saying anything that hasn’t already been considered and figured out. Just cause you stopped at page 1, doesn’t mean the book doesn’t keep going. It’s great that you guys are finally taking an interest in science, but can you please catch up.
3
-
3
-
@eyestoseefe7618 Depends on whether the treadmill gradually built up to 1000 mph, or accelerated far to quick for you to match its speed. But you’d also have to do it in a vacuum, because obviously the air around you won’t care about the treadmills motion, so it now becomes an opposing force, drag force. The air would more what you’d have to worry about even if a treadmill did slowly accelerate to 1000 mph. The Earth doesn’t have the same problem, because of two reasons; 1) gravity, and 2) all of Earth’s atmosphere was created at surface by biological processes, so it’s already in motion with the surface, so it conserves that motion.
So in a passenger jet, is the floor of the jet you’re standing on not moving? Obviously it is…so how is it different from a treadmill? Both are examples of a floor beneath your feet in motion…so why can you get up in a moving jet just fine, and not be thrusted backwards?
Ever hear of the Concorde? It’s a passenger jet that flew at Mach 2, roughly 1500 mph. There’s plenty of video online of flight staff serving drinks at Mach 2…never once do they have to worry about that speed, because they are conserving the momentum of their environment.
You’re arguing against basic physics…you’re certainly not the one to debunk the laws of motion. 😄
3
-
3
-
@elfalte Mmk, just gonna deflect and share a link to something unrelated then eh…alright. Have it your way.
Ah yes, the Convex Earth documentary…so you see a bunch of footage of people claiming to be scientists, doing science things, and then you immediately believe that they are what they claim to be? They certainly make a lot of observations and make a lot of claims, but where’s their work published? Why would you so quickly believe their claims, without any work to support it?
I think you should look up the blog, flat Earth lunacy. They have a whole section on that documentary, going through every claim, debunking each one. They even provide evidence verifying that these people were not actually scientists or engineers as they claim. One guy in particular, the head researcher Urandir Fernandes de Oliviera, also claimed to be a psychic, claiming he could bend spoons with his mind, and that he was in contact with Aliens. Before Convex Earth, he released another bullshit documentary about his contact with Aliens, he claimed he was talking to an alien named Bilu. He also spent some time in jail for fraud…he is a known conman.
So you really shouldn’t believe every conspiracy documentary that pops into your YouTube feed.
This is what I’m talking about…you weren’t asking those questions to learn something, you were presenting them as evidence. You’ve already made up your mind, you’re not really here for a conversation, you’re here to spread misinformation.
3
-
3
-
No, that’s what some people think though, but only because they don’t know enough to realize how they’re wrong. We don’t feel motion itself, we feel CHANGES in motion, this is well understood in physics...it’s part of the laws of motion and relative motion. If you knew anything about this physics, you’d know how stupid your comment is. As for the stars, you’re not thinking very intuitively. Parallax effect more than explains why the stars do not appear to move each night, but astronomers have been tracking them fir centuries now and it is confirmed today, they are moving, just very slowly. Either way, your being extremely ignorant...all the evidence points to the stars being extremely far away, which means parallax effect is why they don’t appear to move.
Hence why your senses can’t be trusted...because honestly, they’re not very good. You wanna talk about magic, Magicians make a living out of fooling your crappy senses, exploiting the blind spots in every trick. Math isn’t magic...but you’re sure gonna think it is if you continue to remain ignorant.
You could benefit from learning some physics and math...then maybe you wouldn’t fall for online scams like Flat Earth.
3
-
3
-
@pantheraleoromanus6241 Lot to unpack here, no time to tackle all the gish gallop, but I will answer one of your questions....cause it’s one that annoys me as an amateur astronomer. You asked why the stars don’t appear different in a 6 month period when we’re on the opposite side of the Sun, I’d just like to point out that they actually do. You have to keep in mind how a 3 dimensional spherical geometry works. There are two types of stars and constellations, there are the circumpolar stars, which are the stars locked to the polar axis, these are the stars that don’t change, because the Sun isn’t between them at any point in our orbit. Then there are the seasonal stars, these are the stars that lie along the ecliptic plain, and they do change a lot. You even know many of the seasonal constellation names, they are the zodiac constellations.
You’re reaching a false conclusion here, from an overconfidence in your knowledge on the subject. Any astronomer will tell you that the stars in fact do change along the ecliptic...as we expect they would, on a spherical Earth that orbits its Sun. It’s actually one of the things Galileo noticed, when he was realizing the geocentric model makes zero geometric sense, when it comes to the stars and planets.
You’re reaching a lot of false conclusions here, from very similar holes in your knowledge that you’re not aware of. Likely because your sources of information, haven’t been very honest with you.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@IrelandVonVicious I’m no expert in modern cosmology, in fact I know very little about it aside from a few general details, so I’m not about to argue something I know very little about. But you know what can be easily falsified? Flat Earth...with just a basic understanding of geometry and a few simple observations, FE is easily proven bullshit. Just an online hoax, perpetuated by numpty’s (with an extreme lack of spacial awareness) and the con men who feed them the bullshit. Meanwhile, the heliocentric model accounts for every observation, fits with all collected data, from every field of research and makes sense of everything, while also surviving all attempts at falsification...so that’s why it’s the leading model of Earth science. The empirical evidence in support of the heliocentric conclusion, is overwhelming.
My original point was simple though, science is best done through the process of falsification, through a long, never ending process of deduction, refining the current models as new information is acquired. Even Nikola Tesla would agree to that...he did it a lot. Though as Kevin pointed out, Tesla was far from flawless, he was a very stubborn man that refused to admit when he was wrong and that stubbornness did not serve him very well later in life. Tesla was a genius, nobody would argue that he wasn’t, but he was not infallible...nobody is.
3
-
@1FeistyKitty Why would I think that’s impossible? 🧐 People believe a lot of crazy things, so it’s pretty standard. 6 years I’ve been talking to Flat Earthers, I’m more of a globe Earther now than I ever was, because now I know exactly how that conclusion was reached…and it’s because it’s accurate. I’ve learned that these “1000s of things we can’t explain” is really just a few people stubbornly unable to listen (or grasp) when they are explained. You’re just another movement of confirmation bias, sifting through information with blinders on, with religious zeal.
Again, it all comes down to what you actually have that can be applied. We have a model that works and is actually applied in the real world, every single day. So this is not a debate anymore. I don’t mind answering questions and hearing your arguments though, so feel free, I’m actually among those who admire that people are willing to ask questions regardless of the ridicule they know they’ll face. What I don’t admire is the level of ignorance…your questions have answers, you’ve just never bothered to seek them. It’s also a tad arrogant to assume that just because others reached the opposite conclusion, it must mean they haven’t seriously looked into it. You try navigating across an ocean a few times…and then you can tell a pilot or sailor what’s what, until then it’s arrogant to assert you know more than they do on the subject…when all you probably did was watch a few YouTube videos. Just one of many examples of arrogance. It’s no coincidence to me, that flat Earthers are not experienced experts on any of the topics they argue…you’re right, the simplest answer is often the correct one, paranoia, distrust, and scientific illiteracy is the backbone of Flat Earth.
But go ahead, share your best evidence, I don’t mind discussing it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@robertfish4734 You’re confusing gas pressure with atmospheric pressure, they’re not the same thing. Gas laws are used for gases in a closed system under containment. With a container, we can determine a volume, so that is included as a variable in gas pressure equations. With atmosphere, these laws and equations are basically useless, because no volume can be determined, so gravity replaces volume as a variable. Look up atmospheric pressure sometime, pay attention to the equations, you won’t find a volume in any of them…but you will find the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2).
You’re just misunderstanding physics, twisting it to confirm a bias. That’s all you’re doing. It’s annoying sure, but it doesn’t change physical reality.
Your inability to recognize the difference between gas pressure and atmospheric pressure, doesn’t change the fact that Earth is measured and observed to be spherical. Just go ahead and try navigating anywhere on Earth without using the current system of GLOBAL navigation to do it…see how well you do.
Let us know when you have a working model that’s actually used in any field of applied science. Until then, you’re only fooling yourselves.
3
-
@robertfish4734 “The maps are produced by using a flat plain…No one ever considers the curve.”
Yet every actual experienced expert of navigation that I talk to says they do, and I’ve talked with many at this point. And I personally know how to navigate with the stars as well, I took interest and learned how to navigate not to long ago…knowing the true shape of the surface you’re navigating, is EXTREMELY important information to have, for navigation. You learn pretty quickly in learning to navigate, which model is the true model of Earth. And you learn it for certain, when you go to apply that knowledge.
So I think YOU could benefit from looking into it more. Nobody is navigating the Earth, with a flat Earth model…they absolutely have to consider curvature over long voyages, or they will absolutely get lost. I saw a post in comments from a Navy man just the other day, that said he knew the Earth was spherical, because he had to recheck his coordinates every 2-3 hours, just to make sure they weren’t drifting off course due to Earth’s curvature.
So you are just lying to yourself if you honestly think pilots and sailors don’t factor curvature into their navigation. They absolutely do. Learn to navigate, seriously…you won’t be a flat Earther after that lesson.
The Mercator map is a projection of the globe, it’s distorted simply because it’s interpreting a 3 dimensional surface in just 2 dimensions. This causes distortions, because you’re losing a dimension in that projection. Just think about it for a few seconds longer than you have…if Earth was really flat, then why wouldn’t we have completely accurate flat maps? Why is every flat map distorted? Why don’t we have a perfect flat map of Earth? Why does the Mercator get less and less accurate the further you get from the Equator North and South? Why not just make it perfectly accurate?
3
-
@robertfish4734 Yes, I’ve watched that full 15 minute interview, a few times now. He also doesn’t mention anywhere in that interview a “dome”. He says “land beyond the pole bigger than the US”, but you can interpret that in many different ways. Did you know you can actually fit the entire landmass of the US, directly below the South pole? So how do you know for certain that’s not what he meant? You don’t, you can only speculate. Did you pay attention to when he describes Antarctica as “at the bottom of the world”? He uses that phrase at least 3 times in the interview…why doesn’t flat Earth pay attention to those words? Why do they ignore that? Seems to me what we have here is just classic cherry picking….so confirmation bias.
Allow me to make that clearer, here’s a breakdown of that interview; 1) Zero mention of a dome of any kind, 2) never once does he claim Earth is flat, 3) he talks about land beyond the pole larger than the US, but that’s true, you can fit the entire landmass of the US beneath the pole, it’s a massive continent, 4) he also mentions that Antarctica is at the bottom of the Earth, several times…yet FE conveniently ignores that?
So here’s how it looks from an objective standpoint. You’re cherry picking one phrase, and spinning your own speculations upon those words. He does not mention a dome, nor does he state that Earth is flat, not in this interview, or any of his writings and other TV appearances.
So what you have here is empty speculations…not actual evidence.
And then you act like just because we disagree with you, it means we didn’t research it…no, we’ve seen the same “evidence” you have, we’ve done the same “research” you have, we’ve just recognized it as empty claims and speculations, so we’re not buying it. You can get pissed off all you want, but that’s how it looks from our perspective and that’s OUR conclusion after doing the same research. You’re chasing a trail of confirmation bias that’s been laid out for you, and your following that trail without question, because you WANT it to be true, probably because you hate and distrust all authority. It’s created a bias, that keeps you from looking objectively.
That’s how we see it. We’re doing the same research on the topic you have, you’re not sharing anything many of us haven’t already seen before. Where you see evidence, we see endless speculation. So the real question is, who’s right?
Well, I asked for evidence of the dome, as in something tangible, an experiment that’s repeatable, data that I could look over, physical samples, etc….and so far your “evidence” has been a nuclear test that never mentions a dome, and an old explorer hired to explore the poles for potential military usage, that also never once mentioned a dome, in anything he’s ever said. So you’ve given two very paper thin sources, that you can only speculate on……do you honestly think that speculations are good enough?
It seems to me that people have forgotten the difference between speculation and evidence. That’s all I’m seeing…and you’re not the first. Fact is, I’m not going to blindly agree to speculations. Evidence…that’s what matters. Your speculations don’t mean anything to me, when I can go outside and plot a navigation route and then successfully sail or fly it….just like millions of people do every single day.
3
-
@robertfish4734 Does inverse square law eventually reduce to zero? No, it doesn’t, the number gets smaller, yes, but zero is never achieved. But thank you, that’s finally something better than speculations, that’s actually doing the numbers, so that’s something. Though I very much doubt you’ve caught something that all other astronomers and mathematicians somehow overlooked. It’s far more likely to me that there are just variables you’ve overlooked. The stars are quite dim, it’s not easy to see most of them, without better equipment to help. The stars we do see regularly, are far brighter and bigger than our Sun. The star you mentioned, Alpha Centauri, you actually can not see it with the naked eye…so bit of a poor example. You know they’ve actually used the same inverse square law, to determine a stars size and distance…so you are far from the first to use that equation here…except you’re working backwards, reverse engineering, but if you overlook a variable, of course your figures aren’t going to match. That’s why we have peer review in the first place, it’s easy to miss things.
And from my understanding, sonoluminescence only lasts for a fraction of a second, and is not sustainable. In any case, it’s just a false equivalence, comparing apples to oranges and assuming they’re the same thing, it’s ad hoc, slotting in an answer you feel solves your dilemma, but without any sufficient evidence to support it. The light produced looks like a star, so you conclude that must be what it is…no further analysis required. It’s a hypothesis at best, but a hypothesis must be testable, so I wouldn’t even call it that.
With Spectroscopy, we can accurately determine the Suns atomic makeup (mostly hydrogen and helium), as we can also do with the distant stars. Is it just a coincidence, they all share a similar light pattern when tested through spectral analysis? That’s pretty solid evidence that points to the stars being exactly like our Sun, do you have similar or greater evidence to support your assumption of Sonoluminescence? And what about stellar Parallax? Why do we measure a parallax that’s consistent with the size of our solar system and Earth’s orbit? Do you have a working model, that can accurately predict celestial events (solar and lunar eclipses), as accurately as the heliocentric model can?
3
-
@robertfish4734 Also…if you’re going to argue this stuff…why not share the more concrete evidence, rather than empty speculations? You insult our intelligence when you use only speculations you can’t prove, for the foundation of your arguments. I get that you’re frustrated, and it’s worn down your patience, so it’s just easier to run on speculations to snare peoples interest, but speculations aren’t gonna work on those of us who are able to recognize them for what they are. So you just do more to affirm our doubts in the actual honesty and non biased nature of Flat Earth.
I actually respect the spirit of Flat Earth, questioning things the rest have largely moved on from, and questioning it regardless of the ridicule you know you’ll face. That is admirable…what I can’t get behind is forcing us to agree, while throwing such paper thin evidence at us. We’re questioning things too…we’re questioning Flat Earth, because they are not above the same standards of review, that you’re currently putting on the globe. I think you should cool your jets a bit, then maybe we can respect that we’re both doing our best here, with all the information provided. We’ve reached opposite conclusions, but respect that we both reached those conclusions from our own personal experience and research. I think these conversations would be more productive then.
3
-
@robertfish4734 Ever heard of a spectroscope? Very similar to a telescope, except it diffracts a source of light into a spectrum band, that can then be analyzed to determine the light sources atomic makeup. You can purchase one pretty easily, they’re a pretty simple device actually. Astronomers and astrophysicists have used them for decades now, to identify stars….because every star has a similar spectral makeup, the same as our Sun….that’s not just a coincidence.
Spectroscopy is entry level science…you don’t go through an under graduate physics class, without going through a section on spectroscopy. It accurately identifies molecular structures in laboratories…so why can’t it also work on stars, planets, and other objects in space? It can and it has…your denial of spectroscopy doesn’t make it go away.
That’s what we call evidence. So I’ll ask again, do you have any actual evidence for your conclusion of Sonoluminescence? Cause right now you’re grasping, desperate to keep the Bible.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@aremissomar459 I also play music in a band, lead guitar in fact, and I know it’s very similar to a dance at times. You can follow whoever is leading and still be on cue, and the orchestra is very clearly following Chris’ lead. Notice how he starts the song and the orchestra then follows after? Which is exactly what they would do with that kind of delay, it’s the only way they could. Notice how there are a few points where the tempo changes slightly and the orchestra has to adjust slightly? There’s plenty of times where they’re not in perfect sync, just pay attention. The orchestra adjusted just fine, cause it’s really not that hard to do so. So if that’s your evidence, just more empty speculations…then I refer you back to my original comment above, because you seem to have missed my point completely.
It’s really not as difficult as you’re making it sound. When I play live with my band on stage, we typically follow the drummer, but sometimes I start the songs and so I set the tempo. There’s no percussion here though, so very easy to just follow the guitar. Also with my band, sometimes the drummer or someone messes up, and the band has to adjust on the fly, it happens, but it’s really not that hard to correct in most cases (unless you’re using weird timing signatures, but this is clearly 4/4 time) and most people watching would never even notice.
But thank you for sharing that beautiful moment in history with me. I’m Canadian as well, so I’ve always been quite proud of our man Chris Hadfield.
Point is, you’re basing an entire belief structure…around speculations and misinformation. It’s very poor evidence, that holds zero weight in a discussion of science. People really need to learn the difference between evidence and speculations. You really don’t have anything here but speculations and misconceptions, hence why nobody should take you seriously…but unfortunately, some more gullible probably will.
If you had better evidence, then you’d find less push back…but there is a reason we’re questioning the claims of FE, so please pay attention. We’d stop questioning FE, if they didn’t clearly form arguments around confirmation bias. To be clear though, I don’t mind that people question the mainstream, that’s a good thing, ask all the questions you want, I applaud people for that! Just make sure you’re not just following what you WANT to be true, get better evidence, make better arguments and listen to your opposition sometimes, cause that’s how you sharpen your positions. Be open to the possibility that it’s perhaps you who is currently falling for an online hoax, and we’ll remain open to the possibility that we’re maybe being had as well. Evidence is how we should conclude which position is true, not speculations.
3
-
3
-
@nicholashpitts Infrared doesn’t magically make the horizon line shift, but feel free to share any examples where you believe it has, that’s your chance to share evidence you think could falsify mine, so what are you waiting for?
Also, to my knowledge there are no videos from Jtolan or any flat Earther, where they have reached an altitude of “371,000 feet”, that’s an impossible altitude to reach without a rocket, so you’re either lying or tacking a zero on the actual height. But again, now is your opportunity to share that evidence you feel exists, so feel free. Can’t do anything with empty claims.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Is it a can of arsenic that will kill you instantly upon eating it? No, and you can trust that it isn’t, pretty much 100% of the time. So we all trust systems of authority more than we realize. You can say you don’t, but I’d be willing to bet you have plenty of food in your fridge and cabinet you didn’t harvest, or make yourself…we all do. You’re twisting her point to mean something entirely different from her actual point. It’s not about whether it’s the healthiest option long term, it’s just that you know it’s not going to immediately harm or kill you, and you trust that. You trust it for a reason, because it’s clearly working, you’re not dead.
Her point is that we all put trust in something or someone eventually, that’s how society functions in the first place, we trust each other, more than we realize. If we didn’t, then society as we know it wouldn’t be able to function. So our real super power for success as a species isn’t just our individual intelligence, it’s our ability to cooperate and share knowledge with each other. That’s how we’ve achieved everything we have, not alone, but together.
Lose that trust, and society breaks down. Zhetetic practices that Flat Earthers have adopted ask that we only trust ourselves at an individual level and nobody else, but while that may have some immediate benefits in a self comforting way, that’s a very limiting methodology overall, and is not a very good recipe for success as a whole in the long term. Unfortunately, we’re not very good at spotting our own biases…our peers however are quite good at it.
It’s not a perfect system, that’s no secret, but it has brought results, and we all trust it more than we perhaps realize. That’s not a bad thing really, but movements like Flat Earth seem to be actively trying to convince people it is. Truth is often found in the middle though, that’s why she’s saying “wrong, but not stupid”, because it’s good to be skeptical. Heck, these systems of peer review and standards of excellence wouldn’t exist if we weren’t skeptical, but it’s also beneficial to have a little faith in our fellow man. Both are required for a healthy and functional society.
3
-
@k3630 Well a cloud isn’t nearly as dense as a star, you’re making a huge false equivalence. Collect enough gas together, you eventually create enough gravity to cause fusion. Earth does not have enough mass to create this effect, it’s really that simple.
Clouds float largely due to buoyancy, which is actually caused by gravity. Denser matter occupying lowest potential energy first, because its collected mass leaves little room for less dense matter to occupy that same space, so the heavier mass displaces it, forcing it up. Atmosphere at surface is more dense than water vapour, so it forces it upward. If gravity here were much much stronger though, if a lot more mass was collected, then even buoyancy couldn’t occur, fusion would instead occur, creating a star.
That’s a simplified version of things, it’s not just gravity at work though, there’s so much more interactions and attracting forces occurring, it’s a very complex system. Which is why your questions will never end, one answer will just create more questions, that’s the process of science. We could be here forever, as trailbossdan1 said, it’s far to complex to conclude everything here in these comments. But I’m curious if we’ve at least been any help.
3
-
3
-
@dannymccarty344 Most Solar radiation bounces right off the heat shields, and couldn’t penetrate through the hull or the space suits. And if you’re referring to the Van Allen belts, even this area isn’t as deadly as people assume it to be….it’s no more deadly than a few Xrays. So as long as you don’t spend much time inside this area, you’d be fine. And they also went around it…not directly through it, if you bothered to actually research anything beyond what confirmed your bias, you’d know that they waited to launch during a period when Earth’s tilted axis could put them on a trajectory where they could launch themselves around the belt, only entering a small portion (the weakest part of it) for only a few minutes. Go a head and search how long they spent inside the belt…it was only like 45 mins total, there and back. It would take days of prolonged exposure inside the worst part of the belt, to receive a lethal dose.
Again…this is what I’m talking about…you people only do enough research to confirm your bias, and then completely ignore the details that directly refute your conclusions. :/
You shouldn’t be shocked I’m questioning you…you should be embarrassed that your research on these topics is so shallow. Confirmation bias…that’s what’s leading you. Go ahead and research how many rads is considered a harmful dose…then look up how much ionized radiation is measured in the belts and out in general space, then research how far these particles can penetrate into aluminum. That’s the research you should be doing here…but I bet you’ve never once looked, you just jumped immediately to your biased conclusion.
We can keep going if you want too…but personally I think arguing the Moon landing is stupid. At the end of the day, you’re right about one thing, if you’re not an astronaut who actually went to the Moon…then you can really only speculate. So it’s a moot argument for both sides. I can argue the physics, and the engineering and prove that it is sound…but can I prove they actually went? Nope…I can only speculate. So it’s a dumb fight to waste time on. Get a better hobby.
3
-
3
-
@GrahamA63 You have some pretty deep seeded trust issues my dude. How about we inject you directly with a flu virus, or smallpox, or measles, and then see if you don’t get sick…then you can argue whether viruses are real or not. Go talk to a virologist or any medical biologist…it seems you really need that conversation. Let them show you directly under a microscope…we can see viruses, we’ve isolated them, they’re very real…and you have to be absolutely insane to believe they’re not. 🤦♂️
Trouble with you here, is you’re claiming you see people on a beach 27 miles away, but then you haven’t provided any evidence that supports that claim…..so why should anyone believe you!? 😳 Seriously….you’re not very good at this are you. Got any photos to share, any videos? What’s your location? What beach were you observing? Nobody should ever address empty claims as if they’re legitimate…if you don’t have any evidence supporting the claim, then it probably didn’t actually happen! 😳 And holy fuck dude….binoculars use the same technology as any telescopic lens does….so a camera with a zoom lens is basically the same damn thing. 🤦♂️
The satellites you align your dish too are called geostationary satellites…they orbit Earth at the same rate as its rotation, which keeps them in position over one area. You could have learned that with one search…it’s not difficult. Here’s a group of hobbyists who built their own radio telescope, they then used to link up to a few geostationary weather satellites over their area https://youtu.be/jGWFg7EDnyY?t=260. Guess what direction they point the receiver dish…they even pull a few pictures of Earth directly from the satellites. These satellites aren’t whizzing by….they’re locked to a position, because they orbit at the same rate as Earth’s rotation.
You’re not just ignorant dude…you’re paranoid. You think you’re without bias, but that’s not true at all…you clearly don’t trust scientists or experts….that’s a bias! 😳 That lack of trust is leading your conclusions, that’s your bias….trust issues. It’s made you into a paranoid contrarian, you’re prone to going against mainstream information, simply by the fact that it’s mainstream.
Please share your beach observation so it can be reviewed. If you can’t, then we can only conclude it didn’t happen. If it did happen though, I can pretty much guarantee you fudged the numbers. I once had a guy tell me he could see all of a 150 foot tower, from a 6 foot viewing height at a beach, that he claimed was 22 miles away. After pressing him for more details, he eventually shared a picture that confirmed his observation…but then he told me his location, and I was able to find the tower he was observing. The tower wasn’t 22 miles away, it was only 8 miles away….pretty significant difference. Doing the math for that distance left about 135 feet of the tower still visible…so pretty close to all of it.
See why it’s difficult for me to just take people at their word? You are not infallible…I can pretty much guarantee you fucked up somewhere in your observation. My guess is the beach you’re observing isn’t actually 27 miles away.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@CamperKev Ever considered the possibility that scientists warned the populace of something plausible, and then something was done about it, so that’s why we don’t hear about these problems anymore and why they didn’t come to pass? 🧐 You’re just sharing a bunch of gish gallop, without any of the actual context…do you honestly believe that’s how research is done? 🤷♂️
For example, here’s some further context to one of your points; Yes, the ozone layer was depleting, and the cause was determined to be from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons—gases formerly found in aerosol spray cans and refrigerants—that are released into the atmosphere. Scientists isolated the problem, and warned governments, who then limited the usage of these chemicals. Refrigeration units today do not use CFC’s, and Freon is limited as well, and the ban on these chemicals started around 1995. Since then the ozone layer has gone into recovery, thanks to those bans put in place…that’s why you don’t hear about it anymore…because scientists did their job, and solved the problem. Imagine that…actually listening to experts, stops these doomsday predictions from happening. 😳 We should probably keep doing that…just sayin.
Here’s another one; In the early 1900’s, it was realized that our modern society could not sustain global food production, because we couldn’t put enough nitrate back into the soil. A chemist/scientist named William Crookes warned the world would be doomed too global famine, if we couldn’t find a way to return nitrate back into the soil for larger yields to support the growing population. So he essentially gave a doomsday prediction…and science took it seriously. A german chemist named Fritz Haber then found a break through method of synthesizing ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen found in the air. Providing all the nitrate the soil would need during that time. So the global famine was averted…because a scientist took the warning to heart, and found a solution. That’s basically the story with every global famine prediction…a warning is given, then scientists do their jobs, and solve the problem.
You see where I’m going with this? These doomsday predictions haven’t happened…because scientists are doing their jobs! 😳 It’s the same with climate change…and all you’re doing is making it harder for them. In the past, the general populace really wasn’t getting all that involved with these problems…now everyone’s suddenly a fuckin climate scientist.
I bet I could go through your entire list, and provide more context to each of them, like I just did for the Ozone problem, and famine…and it would falsify your argument here. But you know I’m not going to take that time…that’s how a gish gallop works; bombard your opponent with a mountain of weaker arguments, to make it nearly impossible for anyone to take the time to debunk it. But I don’t have too…because at the end of the day, nothing you shared has any context, so it’s basically moot. That’s why you were asked to share an actual scientific paper that supports your position…but instead you shared a bunch of predictions without context…and called it good enough. 🤦♂️
You obviously haven’t been paying attention lately. Not sure how it is in your area, but over the last 10-15 years, the rate of extreme forest fires has more than doubled. In my area (central Canada) we now expect it every year…we now just expect a couple months of heavy smoke and poor air quality. I’ve lived here nearly 40 years, and I don’t remember a time until recently where this was a problem, we had fires…but blankets of smoke, every year? Nope…that’s new and it’s just getting worse. The rate of fires has increased, and they’re far worse…and it’s not just here, it’s all around the world. So I’m inclined to agree with scientists…that’s a prediction that has come true. They warned us fires would increase…and that’s what’s happening.
And if you really look into the evidence and look into what climate scientists are actually saying, you’ll find they do all agree this is happening. Here’s a great break down from a scientist, sharing some of the actual evidence for climate change and its link to human civilization.
https://youtu.be/OWXoRSIxyIU
Here’s what’s most mind numbing about all this; If scientists are wrong, nothing really changes, except we maybe have a few new technologies born from that warning. But if YOU’RE wrong, and if you continue to pretend you’re a scientist, and continue to fight against them…then we are essentially fucked, because you’ll have essentially slowed the process of solving the problem. So I don’t really care if they are wrong (though after seeing the evidence I feel they are bang on), I would rather be safe than sorry. :/
Let scientists do their jobs…they’ve steered the ship through plenty of global problems so far, I feel your list is really a list of their successes.
3
-
@konberner170 No…they have not. 100% effective is not the reality of vaccines, if you think it is, then that’s a misunderstanding you have. They are a great defence against harmful pathogens, much better than doing nothing at all, absolutely. But they’re not the one shot fixes all that people seem to think they are, and that’s never been what scientists claim either…defeating an ever evolving pathogen is never that simple.
There’s also no way to account for every single person’s varying health concerns and differing immune systems, with any single vaccine. The reality is, some people will always react negatively, to any vaccine we produce, there is no such thing as a 100% safe or effective vaccine. That’s the reality.
Why would we punish scientists for doing their best? 🤷♂️ Are they not allowed any room for error? That doesn’t seem very reasonable. Scientists are not perfect minds that never get things wrong.
Sabines point was that they do have standards and safe guards in place, to ensure the safest possible consumable product, or in this case vaccine…it doesn’t mean it’s a 100% effective system. I think your problem is thinking in absolutes, it’s all or nothing…but the trouble is, 100% is simply not reasonable…it’s impossible to obtain, in anything concerning the population.
Also, which top scientists said “if 70% of people take first dose, it would be enough”? Citation needed…cause I’d be willing to bet you misread or misinterpreted something.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@EZHostglo 1) exactly, which is why we don’t use gas pressure laws and equations when working with atmospheric pressure. You can’t give a volume for our atmosphere, volume is an important variable for gas pressure laws, so they are not used in atmospheric pressure equations. Instead, gravity is the variable we use…that’s what creates the pressure gradient of our atmosphere. So the big error flat Earth makes, is they think gas pressure and atmospheric pressure are the same thing within physics. They are not, they are treated as different. You’re applying gas pressure laws, to atmospheric pressure…gas pressure laws are pretty limited in use within atmospheric pressure science.
2) Both are sufficient, you do realize that Einstein merely refined Newtons work, right? He didn’t invalidate it completely, we still use Newtons equations far more than we do Einsteins. You really only need Einsteins field equations for more precise measures.
3) Well, you actually can explode a basketball this way, if the rate of thermal input exceeds its ability to shed that convection transfer. But not a bad point, but then you’d have to assume your container sheds the Suns thermal input. You haven’t yet proven there is even a container, let alone know what it’s made of…so it’s just assumptions built on assumptions, not a very great foundation.
4) All gravity creates weight…that’s all weight is, it’s basically gravity. Mass is what you always have, your weight depends on the force of gravity. This is easily explained with the equation we use for determining weight; W=mg. Mass times acceleration of gravity, gives you weight. Think of it this way, you know how a scale works, right? You press down upon the top surface of a scale, applying a force, to generate pressure it calculates as a weight value. If there is no downward acceleration of gravity, then how does a mass resting on a scale apply any force to the scale? Mass and gravity create weight…basic physics.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hershelpogue1745 Science is all about constant rebuttal…it’s built on the never ending process of falsification. Your problem is you seem to think science is all about proving things, when in reality it’s all about falsifying every other possible hypothesis, until you’re left with the most likely conclusion. This is a never ending process of review, rebuttal and falsification, that’s the reality. If you set out trying to prove things, then you’ll just end up confirming your biases. It gets tricky, and people get confused, because of course the end goal of science is to verify truths of physical reality, what’s tricky about that is in how that’s best achieved. It’s best achieved through the opposite process, through falsification. That’s how you best combat the true enemy of science, bias.
I can respect flat Earth in what they’re doing somewhat, because they are refuting science that’s established, that’s great…the problem is they’re about 2000 years behind the rest of science. These are old questions, long answered. They’re free to rebuttal, but the arguments they make are just ignorant and biased…that’s the problem. It’s born more from a desire to spite the scientific community, not so much to find actual truth. That I can’t respect.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ekulenwaiku4654 Ever consider the possibility, that perhaps things aren’t lining up, because you lack some pieces to the puzzle...or because you’ve been given the wrong pieces, by huxters online? Does that ever cross your mind?
Here’s what you do know for sure...one side has created everything around you in the modern world, while the other has achieved nothing. Flat Earth has no working model and has contributed nothing that’s currently used in any applied science today, not a fact I’d so easily ignore. It’s easier than ever before to spread misinformation, so what makes you think you couldn’t have been lied too, by con artists feeding you bad information?
In any case, feel free to share some of these things you feel are not lining up, perhaps I can share some information or insight you may have missed. To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with questioning authority, in fact it’s quite reasonable and logical. But you should remember to remain skeptical, even for the sources you’ve cone to trust, don’t forget to hold them to the same standards of review.
3
-
3
-
@ekulenwaiku4654 Cannot answer, or cannot rhetorically persuade you, because of a lack of knowledge or understanding on your part? There is a difference. I can’t speak for everyone else, but I do my best not to ignore any arguments made...the only exception being gish gallop. If too many points are made at once, to the point where it becomes impossible to answer them all without writing a novel, then there’s not much point continuing a discussion I feel. I understand FE has many questions, doesn’t mean they can’t be answered.
So far, you and I have only discussed photographs and space travel, I don’t make a habit of reading all the other comments (though I do the odd time), so if you want me to address anything specific, then you have to ask me directly. So I’ll answer for the ones you’ve provided for me now.
Crepuscular rays are an optical illusion caused by perspective. The rays are actually parallel, but from your perspective, they can appear to converge at a point. You can test this pretty easily with a few simple tests, like the ones included here https://youtu.be/cTPLqbl-HGY. Every example here is done using parallel lines, viewed from different angles. This is pretty common knowledge in things like illustration and art fundamentals (I’m an illustrator for a living, so perspective is a topic I would consider myself an expert on), perspective can and will create this effect, of parallel rays appearing to diverge from a point.
Now, that’s just an explanation, backed with a simple, repeatable, optical experiment, it’s not enough however to reach a definite conclusion from. To reach a more conclusive conclusion, we’ll need something that can further verify that the Suns light is arriving parallel to Earth. So is there further evidence to support that light from the Sun is actually parallel? Yup, you bet there is. Here’s a few simple experiments that help to further verify, that the Suns light arrives parallel, by simply measuring the angles of shadows, as well as observing these crepuscular rays from different angles, much like the experiment above, but in a real world setting.
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno
https://youtu.be/z2quy8ur6Io
https://youtu.be/yrsaP7nBWt0
https://youtu.be/fl8Knew3xNU
Crepuscular rays are just one of many examples, where flat Earth presents a hypothesis...but then doesn’t bother to verify it with further evidence, to reach a definite conclusion. FE is riddled with stuff like this...asking great questions, but then completely skipping over the process of deeper examination, just jumping straight to conclusion. Then you say we’re ignoring the observation. :/
Sun “hot spots” are simply light reflecting off the clouds, no different than how a light reflects off a surface of water, acting almost like a mirror, creating a reflection of the light source. Catch the light from the right viewing angle, the clouds will produce a similar effect...clouds are just essentially water vapour after all. Do I need to explain much further? Not really, it’s logical that this can and would happen, and again, FE has provided nothing that really makes their claim conclusive, no further examination, they’ve just jumped straight to conclusion again. So in this case, if they can reach conclusions without evidence, we can discard that conclusion without evidence just as simply. Though the main claim here is that the Sun is local...and the experiments I shared above already falsify that claim, so we’ve already covered it.
Your next point is no visible curvature without fish eye lens. So are you aware at all how high you have to go, in order to see curvature on the horizon? Have you ever crunched the numbers or bothered to see the geometry simulated? If not, here’s a great program that can help you out here http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth. This is a too scale Earth curvature simulator, perfect for visualizing the scale and geometry we’re dealing with here. So first, take the blue cursor and slide it to 10,000 meters, which is roughly the altitude a passenger airliner flies at, then let me know how much curvature you see. Now pull the cursor to 35,000 meters, which is roughly the highest altitude that any weather balloon can climb too, now how much curvature do you see? Not a whole lot, right? Now try seeing that curvature, through the haziness of our atmosphere...good luck with that.
What we have here is a common misconception. You’ve been told your whole life, as we all have, that you can easily see curvature from an airliner, but that’s not necessarily true. You can see it...but it’s not easy to spot with the naked eye, not at all. Even at the 100,000 feet of your average weather balloon, still not high enough to really see it, without some effort. So, this reality conflicts with your misconception...causing you to assume something fishy is going on, when in reality, it’s just a simple misconception, repeated by layman verbatim...happens a lot actually. In that same simulation, you’ll see several yellow tabs, click the one labelled “Curve” and then watch the demonstration.
This is the larger issue here...a lot of people really don’t seem to understand how big the Earth really is. 100,000 feet, is pretty high...to you and me, the microscopic life living on the skin of a massive celestial body, but compared to the Earth, it hardly registers. You said it yourself earlier, you have to get pretty far up, before you can really see the Earth. Though if I were you, I’d rewatch any high altitude video you deem as not having a fish eye lens...and this time put a ruler or straight line across that horizon for comparison.
Your next point was on a lack of curvature observed on the ground, using official curvature calculations. Ok, first thing to note here, is that if you’re referring to the 8 inches per mile squared math, then this is where FE has conned you...cause that’s not the correct math to use here. There are other equations they also misuse, but this one is the worst offender.
That math is okay for surveyors to use to quickly and roughly determine benchmarks, but it’s not an accurate calculation and it is missing many key variables, required to determine an accurate line of sight observation. The most important variable it ignores, being height of the observer, but the bigger problem is that it does not represent your line of sight, at all. It’s just calculating a drop from a tangent line at your feet, that’s all. It’s a basic parabolic arc equation...it makes no determination for horizon distance, includes no variable for height of the observer, or refraction, it does not represent line of sight, so it’s simply not the correct math to use for this observation.
Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple. It’s not the mainstream science that says this math is what you should use for long distance observations, it’s FE that tells you it is. So the con was simple, convince people to use the wrong math, then of course they’ll be confused when the numbers don’t add up. Most people are not very mathematically literate, they’re not going to easily recognize when they’re using the wrong equation...and they certainly wouldn’t be able to derive their own. So it worked on a lot of people...by using their own lack of knowledge and experience against them.
Anyway, that’s just a majority I’ve noticed, I really cannot be sure at this point which equation you are referring too...but you know as well as I do, that 8 inches per mile squared is the math most commonly used by FE, and the fact is, it’s not the correct math. So why continue to trust a group, that intentionally misleads people?
Here’s where you can find the correct math in case you’re curious https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/. That curve simulator I shared above, makes use of this math, so it’s a very useful tool as well, though here’s a simpler version of the calculator https://www.metabunk.org/curve/. Perhaps give this a try next time.
It should also be stated, that refraction is another key variable to these observations. If you’d like to learn more as to why, I don’t mind explaining further, but I’ll leave it there for now. But, I will mention this, it’s not a variable FE can just ignore...yet they often do. Again, you claim we’re the ones ignoring things...
Lastly you claimed we see things further than we should. Basically the same problem really, do the math wrong, and then ya, I can see how you might reach that conclusion. It’s pretty important you make sure your math is accurate...so I hope the information above at the very least gets you questioning the math provided to you by FE.
In the meantime, here’s a few observations and experiments, that help to verify curvature. If you want more, I can share many more, so feel free to ask.
https://flatearthbusted.blogspot.com/2017/10/curvature-on-parade-turning-torso-video.html?m=0
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
https://youtu.be/RK93TfSYeQU
Yes, the list does go on....for how many different ways con artists have spun and twisted information, to make it seem like there’s a problem with the heliocentric model. It’s all bullshit though...lies, to get you going down a rabbit hole of misinformation, to rob you of your better reasoning. You don’t have to take my word for it though, I get that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to navigate truth from lies these days, so don’t let me discourage you. But if it interests you enough, I’ve shared what I feel is some good evidence, so feel free to examine any of it further if you’d like, at the very least I hope you find it interesting. Anymore questions or rebuttals, feel free to continue.
3
-
Well, the second law of thermodynamics has more to do with energy equilibrium, not so much matter. For example, when a cup of coffee goes cold, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy? The heliocentric model doesn’t break any laws of thermodynamics, this is just a misunderstanding flat Earth likes to twist for their bias narrative. Gravity is the container of our atmosphere, entropy does occur but the part FE ignores is that entropy can be slowed by attracting forces...like gravity. Entropy will win in the end, but thanks to the attractive forces that bind reality together, it’s going to take a very long time. Science has calculated this eventuality, it’s called heat death.
Anyway, I hope that helps a little. Flat Earth is twisting the physics to confuse people...that’s how they rope followers. Try not to fall for their bullshit, they have no idea what they’re talking about, but they’ll pretend to be experts. Don’t be dazzled by their overconfidence...it’s all for show.
3
-
3
-
@Retrocaus Have you ever looked at the planets through a telescope? They share similar characteristics to our Moon, having clear surface features that become more curved near the visible edges, and even displaying curved shadow phases, we even see them rotating around their axis, revealing their other sides…revealing them as spherical. Some even have their own moons that visibly orbit around their host planet. This is pretty standard knowledge for an astronomer, or anyone who’s actually spent some time looking through a telescope, doesn’t require much effort, anyone can make these observations today with pretty inexpensive equipment. We really have no reason to conclude everything in space is not spherical, they display all the visual characteristics.
Gravity makes sense of both the spherical nature of their geometry as well as their motions, so the pieces of the puzzle continue to fit very well, giving us even more evidence to support the larger model. Your argument doesn’t really refute that, it just deflects away from these observations, as if to ignore them. Astronomers don’t ignore these things, nor should anyone.
So what’s the highest video footage you accept? Do you have a link you could share? Then my next question would be; what is the altitude and did you do the math for how much curvature you’d expect to see from that altitude? I find a lot of people, Flat Earthers especially, just look at that footage and then assume there should be more curvature, without actually crunching the numbers to check.
What about the ISS, it’s live streaming every day, does that video not count? Clearly shows curvature at roughly 240 miles altitude. I’ve seen plenty of rocket footage going much higher than any weather balloons, they also show a clear curvature, do you also discount this footage?
Your point just lacks context, I can only assume you think weather balloon footage is the highest we’ve ever gone, because you’ve left your response very vague rather than providing specific observations…but weather balloons only go to about 100k feet, roughly 20 miles, the ISS is 240 miles altitude which is a heck of a lot further. And rockets go much higher as well, at least into low Earth orbit, which starts at 100 miles. So why discount all those other examples, which are far further than any weather balloon footage? You don’t think you’re possibly being a bit intentionally biased? Ignoring everything that may directly refute what you’d like to believe?
Also, have you ever tried putting a ruler up to the horizon on weather balloon footage? I have, and it is curved, just very slightly. Give it a try sometime.
You should also look into the math and geometry here a bit, 20 miles off of surface is really not that high. Earth is 25,000 miles in circumference, at 20 miles up you see about 387 miles to horizon, so you’re only seeing 1.5% of Earth’s curvature at that altitude. We see curvature in terms of degrees, that’s only 5 degrees…you think you’re naked eye could spot 5 degrees easily? There’s a great free simulation model you can use at the Walter Bislin blog, that can actually simulate the horizon at 100k feet, you should check it out sometime…it matches balloon footage perfectly, as well as the ISS observations.
Anyway, I hope this information has been helpful or at the very least interesting.
3
-
@SuperMoshady You’re just stating an obvious though, relative density is already a part of gravity physics, you’re just intentionally ignoring the gravity part. But you’re experiment and hypothesis does nothing to explain how or why dense matter goes down and less dense matter goes up, it doesn’t explain the motion and does nothing to determine what’s causing it.
Gravity takes that understanding further, and works on the how and the why. That’s why we do science, to figure out what’s going on. We call the falling gravity, the upward force buoyancy, but upon much experimentation it’s found that buoyancy does not occur without the downward force of gravity, first telling matter in which direction to begin ordering by density. So the downward force of gravity is the cause for all of it. Objects fall because of gravity, they order by density because of gravity, the buoyancy force occurs because of gravity.
It’s not difficult to deduce. Here’s the questions you’re left with, with your current understanding of things.
Why down? If mass is dropped in a vacuum chamber, where the surrounding air density is equal in all directions, why does it fall down every time? Why that direction? How is it put into motion in the first place? Nothing is put into motion without a force first acting upon it, and yet falling is a pretty clear motion, so what force is putting it into that downward motion? Why not up? The air is actually thinner above, shouldn’t dense objects fall up by your understanding?
You see the problem? You’re not accounting for the motion. What’s causing that motion? It can’t just be density, because density is just a state of matter, it’s not a force, so it has no means of putting matter into motion.
Please explain further what is putting matter into motion and why it’s down.
3
-
@SuperMoshady Oh I’m well aware smoke is mostly particles of heavier materials, but it doesn’t change the fact that it normally rises. If gas is still rising...why isn’t it bringing the particles up like it normally does? Why do they instead fall in a vacuum?
Again, I’m asking for the 3rd time now, how exactly does density alone, put matter into motion? Feel free to explain. In a vacuum chamber, where the space is just as empty above as it is below, why does matter travel down?
Steam rises due to buoyancy, which is directly caused by gravity. I’ve answered your question many times now.
Can I show you falling steam? Certainly, clouds are proof of this, they’re basically just water vapour (like steam), produced by rising moisture due to buoyancy. But why do they go no further? What’s keeping them from going higher? Dry ice produces a form of steam as well, I’m sure you’ve seen it fall.
You should care very much about math, it’s a big part of why we do science in the first place, so we can derive equations we can then use to make predictions with. When we understand every variable, like that gravity is what causes buoyancy, we can then create equations to make accurate predictions with. It’s that predictive power, that makes engineering possible...engineering like the computing device we’re having this conversation with, a device you could never hope to create using your “science”. So basically, when you say you don’t care for maths, you’re basically telling me your science is useless. It has no real predictive powers, so we can’t invent or innovate anything with it.
Not sure why you’d think that’s a better way to do things, but I think we both can agree it’s pretty useless. 😅
No, the reason you intentionally ignore math and don’t want to derive an equation for me here, is because you know that you can’t, because you know you’re wrong. It’s pretty simple. The moment you admit that buoyancy requires a downward force to start the density displacement, then your whole argument falls apart. But I’m afraid it’s true, science has derived an equation, that works every time it’s put to use, that equation includes the downward force of gravity acceleration. So it’s applied science, meaning it’s verified correct every time it’s used and every time it works.
When you can do the same using your model, then we’ll have reason to listen.
3
-
3
-
@andreiandries470 You absolutely do have bias...just cause you think you’re searching for truth, doesn’t make you free from bias. 🤦♂️ It’s people who think they’re not biased, who will never find actual truth, only further delusions. Cause you’re not listening, you’ve already made your conclusion long before any evidence, and anything that contradicts or falsifies that conclusion, you will just ignore...cognitive dissonance in a nutshell.
They didn’t extend the atmosphere...they discovered that molecules of hydrogen still exist in a cloud surrounding Earth as far out as the Moon, this is known as a Geo Corona. But it’s like 10 molecules for every meter...not exactly very dense. If we use your ignorant understanding of rocket propulsion, how exactly would a rocket be able to push off of that? Your logic is terrible...they didn’t extend anything, they made a discovery for something that was already there and then added it to the body of knowledge. They didn’t do it to make the moon landings possible, who told you that nonsense? They did it because when you discover something, you record it and then add it to everything else you know...it’s pretty basic common sense stuff.
Rockets do not push off of atmosphere...that’s not how rocket propulsion works. 🤦♂️ Your understandings of physics have been horribly scrambled. It’s a great deal of energy pushing off of and transferring into inertia, the ship pushes off the combusted gas, the combustion pushes off the ship...sending both in opposite directions, action reaction...basic laws of motion, demonstrated time and again. The rocket in vacuum video I showed you demonstrated it perfectly clear...rockets have no trouble in vacuum, in fact they work even better.
You’re grossly misunderstanding the science and reaching false conclusions that are your own...and you’re ignoring all attempts to help you, because they don’t agree with your bias. It’s really that simple.
3
-
3
-
Her point is that it’s edible, and you trust that it’s edible. Is it the healthiest food option? Of course not…but that’s not the argument. You still trust, with 100% certainty, that it’s not gonna be a can of Arsenic, right? That’s her point…it’s pretty simple, you’re really stretching it to be something it’s not. Her point is that like it or not, we all put our trust in others eventually, often without realizing it…it’s actually a huge part of human success, trusting each other. Does that mean we trust absolutely? No…of course not, but we still do it more often than we realize, and it’s not a bad thing.
3
-
What exceptions exactly? If you’re talking about helium rising a balloon, you should be aware that buoyancy is what causes helium to rise, and buoyancy effect is directly caused by gravity, it does not occur without it. Gravity puts matter in motion down towards surface, more dense matter will occupy the space closer to gravity, this causes a displacement of matter by density, that forces less dense matter upwards. That’s basic buoyancy and gravity physics, gravity causes buoyancy, so helium actually rises due to gravity, as more dense matter pushes less dense matter out of the way. But if that’s not what you’re referring too, then feel free to elaborate further.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@a.lavernefilan1888 Oh boy. 🤦♂️ I understood what you said just fine, but you do know that weight doesn’t exist without gravity, right? Here, this might help https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-physics/forces-and-newtons-laws-of-motion/newtons-first-law-mass-and-inertia/a/what-is-weight. An object always has mass...weight doesn’t exist without gravity, it’s just the pressure from squeezing you against the Earth...that’s what weight is, just another word for the force of gravity. Basic physics.
You’re grossly misunderstanding gravity...and that’s the problem. Ask yourself this, what force is pulling that ocean from the “bottom” of the globe? If the force present is gravity...and you understood it pulls everything to centre of Earth, and therefore the surface, then what other force is acting on the bottom to pull the ocean away from gravity?
In your magnet example, a great source of gravity is below your magnet....hence why the material falls towards that source of gravity when you add mass (more metal) under the magnet. So it’s a false equivalence experiment...compare it to the Earth, with only gravity pulling to centre and no other forces present to pull anything off of it.
Take all the time you need...maybe get someone smarter than you to help.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well, we measure and observe Earth to be spherical, those measurements are currently used in the system of navigation we have today, so anyone can test and verify it whenever they’d like to learn how to navigate, and we observe that everything dropped falls towards Earths surface no matter where you are on the globe. It’s understood in physics that nothing is put into motion without a force, falling is a motion, so this implies a force is present to cause that motion. So it’s pretty simple deduction after that, that there is a force attracting us to Earth.
What’s not logical is making arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity. If you just bothered to look at the evidence for these conclusions, if you recreated a few simple experiments and observations, perhaps you’d understand better how those conclusions were reached.
Figuring out that the Earth spins took time, science didn’t start with that conclusion, for centuries they believed Earth was at the centre of the universe, until the evidence became too great to ignore, that it was not. There’s a few simple experiments you can do that verify Earth’s rotation, like the Foucault pendulum experiment, or Coriolis tests, but I’d recommend you look up the gyro compass sometime and learn more about this device. It’s a device currently used commonly on modern sea vessels today, and it’s noteworthy here because it actually uses Earth’s rotation in order to function. If Earth did not rotate, then this device would not work as designed. It uses gyroscopic precession, calibrated to Earths rate of rotation and aligned with true North, to keep in sync with that rotation, so that it always points North. You can actually build a smaller version yourself with some motorized mechanical gyros, you can set the precession rate to sync up with Earth’s rotation, then you’ll never see it precess, because it’s now precessing with Earth rotation at the same rate.
Anyway, your current arguments are a bit on the ignorant side, there is evidence for these conclusions you scoff at currently, so you do yourself a disservice if you just assume there is none, before actually looking. You can say we’re just “memorizing and repeating”, but I recall my science classes actually doing more demonstrating and recreating experiments, than just talking at me. Maybe you had a bad teacher…if so then I’m sorry, but science is all about testing things yourself to see how those conclusions were reached. You don’t have to just take us at our word.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@michael.forkert The equation isn’t calculating a speed, it’s calculating mass to energy conversion, it’s mass times the speed of light AND THEN you square it, to give you the energy equivalence. So you’re just misunderstanding the equation, by taking a small part of it out of context...which is interesting, cause usually flat Earthers are quote mining and taking words out if context, but this is next level stuff taking math and misinterpreting it.
But seriously my dude...do you really think you caught something that millions of actual scientists and mathematicians missed...for the most famous equation ever derived? You do realize this equation is an applied science today, right? Meaning it’s used today in a lot of industry and technology....you really think it’s capable of that much, if it’s been wrong this whole time?
I mean, points for originality I guess, but the Earth still aint flat I’m afraid.
3
-
3
-
@luckyhaskins69 Have you tried? It just kinda puts your argument at a stalemate really, saying “nobody’s ever gone to see the midnight Sun”, making the claim that if you’ve never done something yourself then you can’t make the clam...but then I talk to people who have seen it, it really makes me turn around and wonder about your claim. I mean, claiming nobody has ever really seen it is a pretty strong claim, but seems to me you reached the conclusion from lack of personal experience. So just sayin, why not try it?
Either way, it’s a bit pointless, your claim of people never seeing it, is just about the same as someone claiming they have, so it’s a dumb argument really. It’s more for your benefit though...I mean if this argument really means that much to you personally, why not at least try to take the trip? I’m just curious why flat Earthers don’t do more...it just seems like they’d rather argue from ignorance, cause it’s easier. Which doesn’t really add much for their credibility.
3
-
@luckyhaskins69 Well, I’d rather talk about my own personal accounts of Southern Hemisphere travel, because I’m willing to concede that the midnight Sun is something I’ve never witnessed either, was mainly just pointing out that it’s a bit of a weak argument to reach a claim of fakery, when you have no first hand experience either, see the point? There are however plenty of time lapse videos online of the midnight Sun, but obviously nothing that would convince you, so bit of a moot point. Star trails on the other hand, anyone with a good camera and a bit of free time can verify this one easily.
So your new claim now though, is that it’s just the Northern pole rotation, but somehow being really far away creates an illusion like it’s rotating the other way? You do realize you have to point your camera South to capture the Southern rotation right? Soooo...if you’re looking south, how exactly does the Northern sky take up your view? You are also aware that the stars and constellations are different as well right? Most notably, the pole star, which is not nearly as bright in the Southern rotation...so, if it’s just the Northern rotation we’re seeing in actuality, as you’re claiming, how does the distance cause Polaris to dim until not visible...but the other stars don’t see the same dimming effect? Also, the opposite rotation is quite clear...and you are also aware that you can still capture the Northern rotation while in the South right? You can’t see it in full, but you can see its outer edge just fine, just turn the camera the other way and there you go. At the Equator, you can easily capture both...confirming there are two, not one.
See, you’re trying really hard to slot in an answer...but like, really stop and look at your explanation, cause it’s very flimsy and forced and illogical. I know you really want to believe this is true, so you can confirm a strong bias you have, that bias being you want the ultimate reason to justify your belief in an evil cabal ruling the world, but you really have to realize how ridiculous you’re being on this one.
It’s just incredible to me how someone can appear quite logical and articulate, reaching other conclusions that signify intelligence...but then when it comes to the most basic geometric stuff...it’s like you hit your head and are now 5. Sorry...it just raises red flags, you will claim to be unbiased then use very similar behaviour for a person looking to confirm bias at any and all cost, mental gymnastics and ad hoc explanations...meanwhile the globe answers for the observation with absolute ease.
3
-
3
-
@louway2400 The stars do change monthly, these are known as the seasonal stars, you know many of them as the zodiac constellations. This is basic astronomy knowledge. There are two types of stars and constellations, the seasonal stars, which lie close to the ecliptic plain and are periodically blocked by the Sun during our orbit, and then there are the circumpolar stars, which are closer to each polar axis, one for each hemisphere. These stars are never blocked by the Sun, hence why they’re always visible year round. You need to think in 3 dimensions here, and probably do your research a bit better before embarrassing yourself.
Your core question is just a lack of knowledge that is your own. You just assumed the stars never change, cause your knowledge of astronomy starts and ends at the Big Dipper…but if you actually knew anything about astronomy, you’d know the stars actually do change. That’s the problem with Flat Earthers, thinking you know everything, and thinking your questions somehow amount to evidence…never realizing your questions are easily answered, if you’d just bother to do a few extra seconds of research.
Someone else has already pointed this out as well, but there are two hemisphere skies, with two perfect circle rotations around their own pole star, Polaris for the North, Sigma Octantis for the South. You don’t have to be a genius of geometry to understand how impossible that is on a flat Earth with only one sky, it is however exactly what we would expect to see on a globe. So why does this simple geometry never click for you guys?
3
-
@louway2400 You gotta think in 3 dimensions my dude. The Sun never comes between us and the stars directly above both the poles. So when you’re on the night side of the Earth, you’ll be able to see those stars. You can’t see all the seasonal stars at one time, because you’re facing a completely different direction on the ecliptic, but the polar axis is always pointing in the same two directions. So here, picture it this way, if you’re facing the West wall of your room, you can’t see the East wall, correct? But no matter which direction you face, you can still see the ceiling and the floor, right? Just gotta think a little more 3 dimensionally. Our axis is always pointed at Polaris, think of that as our ceiling, the circumpolar stars are the ceiling, the ecliptic plain is the walls, so seasonal stars are the walls. Does that help?
Yes our orbit is millions of miles wide, but in the grand scale of things, that’s really not that far, compared to the distance of stars. If you were to scale that down, picture a street light 3 miles away, now move an inch to the left. That’s the difference in distances (roughly) scaled down. This is enough to create a parallax though, which is something astronomers do measure each year, just look up stellar parallax. Stellar parallax does occur, which is what we’d expect to see occur if the Earth was orbiting around the Sun. This was one of the first measured observations that led astronomers to consider the possibility that Earth was not at the centre, that the Sun was.
3
-
3
-
bob smith “I did not know you knew Mark Sargent and his qualifications.”
Well, here’s a big problem with Flat Earthers, they tend to assume that just because people disagree with them, it must mean those people haven’t done the research. Instead of considering the other very real possibility...that they could be wrong and they have been successfully conned by people like Mark Sargent. There is a very good reason why many of us do not bat an eye at Flat Earth claims, we understand what they’re getting wrong.
You’re misunderstanding a lot of physics in your questioning, and that’s another big problem of Flat Earth I find, assuming that just because you don’t personally understand something, it must mean it’s false. Flat Earth tends to hold questions up, almost as if they’re proof of something...instead of considering the possibility, that there might be some science you’re either not aware of, or that you don’t quite fully understand yet.
Honestly, the vacuum question is a great question to ask, the trouble is...Flat Earth isn’t really asking for an answer, they have already concluded it has no answer, and that’s why they’re asking it...cause they feel it is a proof of the Globe models flaws. But they are wrong in that assumption, modern science has done more than just answered for this...they’ve measured it, tested it, observed it, they do have an answer now, with evidence to support that answer. If Flat Earth really had an open mind (as they claim they do), then they’d be interested to hear that answer and look over the evidence...but that does take time and effort, and most people don’t have that kind of patience...unless they’re in school to become a physicist. Most people want quick, easy to digest answers...and that’s what Flat Earth offers.
A better question to ask though I find, is where is this dome/container? Why is there no tangible evidence for its existence yet? It is a physical object, correct? Surely we should have interacted with it in some capacity by now. But, so far I’ve not seen any evidence for this barrier, what I have seen though is mountains of evidence for the existence of space. Even Flat Earthers have sent their own weather balloons up to the fringes of our atmosphere, and those balloons always pop once they’ve reached vacuum conditions...so without realizing it, even they have measured the vacuum of space, while finding no dome barrier separating our atmosphere from space.
It’s fine to question things, but it’s become easier then ever before to spread misinformation...so I think people should remain sceptical of all sources of information, not just the mainstream. The internet as it is today, is a con mans paradise...and if you think you can’t be conned, then that’s just the right amount of over confidence they’re looking for.
3
-
@sittingstill3578 Free speech goes both ways, you may not like an opposition questioning you and sharing a different perspective, but if you claim to be a true advocate for freedom of speech, then you’d welcome differing opinions and engage with them. You don’t have to agree, freedoms of speech don’t mean we can force people to agree with us, it just means an opinion has the right to exist and be voiced. But even that has limits, freedom of speech is not absolute like people seem to think it is, there are limits that are recognized under law.
I was merely pointing out that YouTube has every right to promote the content it chooses, it’s their business, their space, they can do what they want in that regard. These people still have the right to speak, but that doesn’t mean they have the right to be promoted or advertised on someone else’s space or platform. That’s not something freedom of speech protects.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Now I have some questions for you. You stated in an earlier exchange and I quote “the object itself manifests as a force while it’s falling”. Many questions arise as to how exactly you’ve reached that conclusion, but the one I’d like to ask is this, if matter becomes a force itself (which I feel is nonsense, but hypothetically if I were to agree), does it stop being a force while at rest on surface? You said as much and I’ll paraphrase what you basically said on that “objects are picked up out of equilibrium, once they’ve fallen and are at rest, they are back in equilibrium”. Which I’ll interpret as a yes to my question. I mean, you’re basically describing potential energy, that’s the proper term used for what you’re describing here. When you pick something up, you’re giving it more potential energy, which can be transferred into Kinect energy, once it’s in motion, but I digress.
My next question then is, once at “equilibrium”, if it’s no longer a force, then how exactly can we still measure the objects weight with a scale? You’re aware how a scale works I’m sure, you apply a downward force to the top of scale, it then measures the force being applied through the pressure exerted. So if a mass sits on a scale, but no downward accelerating force is being created anymore, then how exactly is the mass squeezing down on the scale to measure the pressure? You said it’s at “equilibrium”, here’s a screencap from our previous exchange https://ibb.co/3Fb3Pcz. So I assume this means no downward force being applied...ok, so if no downward force while at equilibrium, how does it press down on a scale?
You’re making a lot of empty assertions and for some reason you’re fine with believing them, no evidence or explanation required. I’ve been very patient with you, providing what answers I can for you, providing as much evidence as I can in support of claims I make....what makes you think you shouldn’t be required to do the same?
I’m also curious about the way you put it “the object itself manifests as a force while it’s falling”...I pointed this out before, but you’ve basically admitted there’s a downward force, without directly saying it. It’s incredible to me what lengths you’ll go to, just to deny a very simple phenomenon of nature. Then you say it’s us who is experiencing cognitive dissonance.
3
-
3
-
@cabbagefart7432 You sure make a lot of assumptions. Frankie has been in these comments for years now questioning the claims made by people on this subject, as have many of those responding to you currently. From what I've gathered so far, Frankie is also an experienced sea mariner, with years of actual experience out at sea...so not a "noob" in the slightest when it comes to this topic, an expert would be a more accurate title. Though he doesn't require me to defend him, but now you know.
Now what is your evidence of seeing for 50 miles? Do you have any, or are empty claims how you intend to argue? It shouldn't be very unreasonable to ask for evidence for a claim, is it? Should be pretty standard practice...yet many in FE seem to think it's completely unnecessary. With your observation, what is your observation height? Because I'm sure you know, horizon is at 3 miles from a 6 foot viewing height from sea level...but that distance extends the higher you are, so observation height is pretty important to factor. What is the height of the object you're observing? That is also important to factor. Point is, there are variables to these observations that shouldn't be ignored, so I do hope you haven't ignored them in your observations.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tombass3288 So your argument now is basically “books are not always right”. I agree, so if we both agree that just because it’s written down, doesn’t mean it’s correct by default, then what makes you think the Bible is correct? Or that your “200 proofs” book is correct? Seems you’re quite selective on what you consider true or correct, probably choosing what’s correct mostly from pure belief and bias, than from rational reasoning.
I’m merely questioning your claims, because we have every reason too, and I did it with simply verified scientific evidence. While you’re arguing from ignorance and personal incredulity, then hoping nobody calls you out on it. Good job...but I’m afraid it doesn’t do much. Earth is still a globe, modern science has more than verified that. If you have any actual evidence, you just let us know...not really interested in your delusions of grandeur, or your arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TheCollages This isn’t difficult dude🤦♂️…you can’t successfully navigate a surface, with pinpoint precision, until you have accurate information of that surface. The shape of that surface will absolutely effect distances and locations…this is just basic geometry. A sphere adds a third dimension of travel, a flat surface only uses 2 dimensions…this matters. It means it’s one or the other, if we use the wrong model, then navigation simply will not work, locations will be wrong, distances will be wrong, navigation becomes impossible. Our system of navigation works, that system is geodesic designed for a globe, that’s a fact. So we prove Earth is spherical every single time we successfully arrive at a destination, while using that model to help us do it…so thousands of times per day. :/
You gotta hit your head pretty hard, to be convinced that navigation doesn’t require an accurate map of surface.
3
-
3
-
@tombass3288 Many of the stars actually do change periodically throughout a year...you’d know that if you actually spent any time observing and tracking them over a long period of time. There are two types of stars, seasonal and circumpolar. The seasonal stars lie along the ecliptic plain, and are periodically blocked by the Sun. You even know many of the constellation names...they are the zodiac constellations. The circumpolar stars are locked to each polar axis, and are never blocked by the Sun...hence why we see them all year round.
This is actually a great proof that the Earth is spherical and travels around the Sun, because there are two different hemispheres, with two different night skies, and the stars along the ecliptic DO CHANGE throughout a year...just like we’d expect, on a globe orbiting the Sun.
You reached an ignorant conclusion, from pure assumptions...verifying to us that you know absolutely nothing about astronomy, yet you seem to think you’re an expert. If you took even a second longer to research some basic astronomy, you’d know how wrong you are here. Then you tell the rest of us to wake up? Just wow. :/
3
-
@COLUMBUSISBACK Overcomplicating it? I’m sorry physics isn’t as easy as you’d like it to be (though it’s still pretty darn easy, for most of us anyway)...and I’m sorry I’m not as dumb as you were, to just agree blindly to strangers on the internet, who clearly don’t know fuck all about basic physics. 😄 Your ignorance and inability to understand things, doesn’t change reality bud.
“Remember most human beings first reaction to someone telling them they were lied to is frustration”
You mean like how frustrated you seem in these flustered comments? Eric Dubay is a Nazi sympathizing yoga teacher and a conman, and DITRH is a lying grifter...so you’ve been conned by huxters online, to believe bullshit....and now you think we should all be impressed by that? You fell for an internet hoax...because you’re an idiot. Good job. 👏 I know it’s frustrating to learn you were lied too by these conmen, but hopefully it doesn’t sting too much and you can eventually screw your head back on.
Here’s a great example of your idiocy.
“Why is your so called gravity strong enough to pull the apple down to the ground - But not strong enough to pull a feather down to the ground ? Why is it strong enough to hold thousands of pounds of water to a Ball but not strong enough to pull a kite down”
Last I checked...everything you just mentioned, still clings to the Earth, none of it goes flying off into space, right? It all eventually comes back down to Earth. Gee...I wonder why? A feather will drop slower in atmosphere because of AIR RESISTANCE...maybe you’ve heard of it? A feather has less mass and is far less dense, so it will be effected by the air a lot more, slowing its decent. See, density is already apart of the theory of gravity...but density did not move the apple or the feather, only a FORCE can move an object. Gravity is the name we gave to the force that PUTS EVERYTHING INTO MOTION. Get it yet? Drop a feather in a vacuum chamber, and then watch as it drops just as quickly as that apple, or any other dense object https://youtu.be/s9Zb3xAgIoY. It’s basic physics. Put a kite in a vacuum chamber, with no air or wind to whisk it upwards, and watch it drop like a paper weight. Everything falls, falling is a motion, motion requires a force, we called that falling motion gravity....it’s not complicated in the slightest. Gravity keeps everything on the surface, be it water, an apple, a feather, a kite, even air.
Your density argument does nothing to explain the motion that occurs in falling masses...and that’s why it’s useless. Falling motion is an undeniable fact if reality, it happens. Falling is a motion...motion does not happen without a FORCE, that’s basic physics. Density is not a force, so it has no means of putting matter into motion. So all you’re doing is denying simple facts of reality. Doesn’t make for a very good argument...just makes you look ignorant and stupid.
You’re taking gravity physics and chopping out the force that explains falling motion...that’s all FE has done. And again, as explained in my first comment, by doing so you’ve now made the physics useless. You’re missing variables now, so applied science can no longer use that knowledge. That’s the problem with FE...it’s teaching a whole lot of butchered physics, making people ignorant and essentially destroying any chance of you guys contributing to applied science, like engineering. Not like you were ever gonna be a scientist or engineer anyway, but good luck engineering anything now, with a butchered understanding of basic physics. 😂
3
-
@chrisskully1228 Density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, a ratio of mass to volume…it’s a scaler variable, it does not cause motion. All you’re doing is butchering established physics, cutting out a word you don’t like and replacing it with another word that already has its place in physics, all so you can confirm a bias you have. Density can’t be both a force and a scaler…it doesn’t work that way. 🤦
You’re just blindly repeating what Flat Earthers told you, without applying any real thought to it.
Density is not a force…a force is something that causes motion or generates pressure. Density is just how much mass occupies a volume of space…nothing more, that’s its role in physics. We need to identify forces in physics, and give them their own distinction and labels, otherwise we can’t use them in formulas to make predictions with. Almost every physics equation requires at least one force variable, and one scaler variable. Like the formula for calculating weight; W=mg. Mass times downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2). How would you write that equation without a force variable? W=mD? Well, mass was already a part of the equation, so now it’s just redundant…we need the variable that describes the motion, or we can’t calculate weight. So the formula makes no sense now, it’s now broken, and useless.
All you’re succeeding at is proving how scientifically illiterate you are, and how gullible you are, blindly believing huxters online, feeding you whatever butchered physics they want.
Like I said, Flat Earth has a lot of poisoned minds to atone for. 😔
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Apparently you skipped over the history portion of the globe Earth…the Greeks, Mesopotamians, Hindu religion, all just a few of the many cultures that over 2000 years ago, verified or believed the Earth to be spherical (the Hindus actually believed it was egg shaped, but close enough…but they’re also the oldest surviving ancient religion today). So she wasn’t lying, Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth 2000 years ago, and Ptolemy (an ancient greek geographer/cartographer, among other professions) created some of the first maps of the globe…around 1900 years ago. So she’s not lying…you’re just not very studied on your science history.
500 years ago they were arguing about whether the Earth was centre of the universe…not whether it was a globe. The large majority of scholars of that time already agreed it was spherical, and that’s what they taught. So you could benefit from learning some actual history here.
Also, I find it funny how you’ll scoff at modern science and criticize it heavily for employing theories…then in the next paragraph admit that flat Earth is built on theories, and that’s okay. It’s funny that when modern consensus creates theories, it’s wrong…but when independence researchers do it, it’s perfectly fine. You don’t see a bit of hypocrisy in that? So basically you’re biased…you’re just a contrarian, not really looking for “truth”, just looking to confirm whatever biases you have. That’s how your whole rant above reads to me.
Seems you really haven’t seen any of the real counter evidence to flat Earth and have spent most of your time listening to Flat Earthers talk. Not your fault really, the conversation has dwindled the last few years, so now the only people left talking about it still are flat Earthers. So it is hard to find the real counter arguments and science these days…just left with these big channels and their surface level reviews. But the real hard science against flat Earth is still out there, it’s just harder to find cause they don’t really upload as much anymore (compared to flat Earthers who are extremely invested in the topic), so here’s a few channels you should really be aware of if you truly are looking for counter positions.
Wolfie6020
SlySparkane
Walter Bislin
Soundly
Mick West
Greater Sapien
Bob the Science Guy
Cool Hard Logic
Voysofreason
BaldyCatz
These are all channels doing their own independent research on the subject, from observations to experiments, or just simply explaining the science and mathematics. They’ve all done some really impressive work, debunking and falsifying every claim made by Flat Earth. These channels (and many more) are where you’ll find the actual hard science against Flat Earth. So if you’re truly approaching this from a neutral position and just trying to seek out the best information for both position, then you should search these channels sometime and honestly pay them some of your attention.
3
-
@jordanemede Refraction is pretty easy to replicate, I’m sure you’ve seen how it distorts objects under water…ever seen a pencil that’s half in a glass of water? It’s easily replicated and very well understood in modern physics. For a more precise demonstration of atmospheric refraction that’s more relevant to this discussion though, I’d urge you to look up the Rainy Lake experiment sometime. It’s basically a thorough recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, done across 10 km of a frozen lake. In the report, there’s a whole section on refraction, with a great time lapse video observation, demonstrating very clearly the effect atmospheric refraction can have on what we observe. In that time lapse, as refractive index increases throughout the day, the markers in the distance are observed to rise up, more and more. You can find that video pretty easily on YouTube or at the official blog page for the experiment. It’s a pretty clear proof of atmospheric refraction in action.
So if this topic truly interests you, I’d urge you to check it out. Atmospheric refraction isn’t just an “old wives tale”, it’s a reality. One that Flat Earth thinks it can just ignore…but to ignore variables that are important to an observation, means you’re not being objective.
We don’t see too far, Flat Earthers just haven’t been very good with the math involved, nor are they honest (with themselves or others) about every variable important to the observations they’re making.
3
-
@jordanemede Okay, let’s analyze these emergency flight paths a bit closer. A common one Flat Earth uses is the emergency landing that occurred during a flight from Taiwan to LA. That flight diverted to Alaska. They’ll often draw this path on a Mercator projection map, showing the path flying closer to Hawaii and then draw it on the AE/Gleason projection map, showing how it works out better on the AE. Soooo…they basically used one flat map, to debunk another flat map. Thought this was an argument against the globe, so why don’t they ever use a globe? Go ahead and rewatch those videos sometime, when do they ever plot the courses on an actual globe, using the correct great circle routes? I’ve only ever seen them use either a Mercator map as a comparison, or a crappy model globe they drew on with markers, that didn’t plot the correct great circle route.
Do me a favour, and open up Google Earth, then click on its ruler tool. This tool plots accurate great circle paths, on the globe. Now use that tool and drop the marker in Taiwan, then again LA…and then take a look at the path it makes. You’ll find it does in fact travel along the coast of Alaska…and is nowhere near Hawaii. So the emergency landing in Anchorage fits the globe perfectly.
The emergency landings fit the globe…Flat Earthers are just lying to you, using a sleight of hand trick. :/ Go ahead and use Google Earth to plot even more routes, you’ll find they all fit just fine. You gotta actually plot these routes on an actual globe…that’s been your problem this whole time.
3
-
@jordanemede The UN represents all nations of the world, so a great symbol for an organization like that, is a map of Earth. But unfortunately you can’t put a 3D globe, on a flat 2D flag. So you have to use a flat projection map instead. The AE projection was likely used, because from a designers standpoint, out of all the projection maps of Earth (and there are hundreds), that map has the most balanced composition, it’s the most pleasing to the eye. So they chose it for the same reason Flat Earthers chose it, because it has the most pleasing layout. Humans are creatures of habit, we’re drawn to the same geometric symmetry and balance. That map also puts the centre of the projection from a neutral point, where there is no nation. So it’s perfect as a symbol for something like the UN, or any other world organization.
Whether you agree or not, your paranoid speculations don’t mean much.
3
-
@jordanemede Admiral Byrd was not a Flat Earther, and made no reference to a Flat Earth in any of his writings, or public interviews. He was just among the first to really explore the continent of Antarctica…that’s all. There’s an interview Flat Earthers cherry pick from, where he describes a region beneath the South pole, as being larger than America…and that’s true, you can fit the entire land mass of the United States below the Southern 90 degree pole. So he was describing the continent itself…it’s very big. He wasn’t implying the Earth is flat. Where Flat Earthers get this leap in logic…is just incredible. Seems these huxters could tell you pretty much anything, and you’d eat it all up without question, wouldn’t you?
He also said in that same interview, that Antarctica was “at the bottom of the world”, he says those exact words at least 3 times throughout that televised, 15 minute interview. Why doesn’t flat Earth zero in on those words? Because they can’t spin it into the narrative they’re trying to sell, doesn’t fit their confirmation bias.
Again, you really need to get a better bullshit filter. Flat Earth is conning you…don’t be another sucker.
3
-
@yhenry77 1) You’d have to completely falsify both gravity and the atmospheric pressure gradient we measure in reality, to make your claim that there’s even an issue here. So burden of proofs on you, not me. You’d also have to find evidence for the dome you feel is up there...haven’t seen any tangible evidence yet, but what I have seen is mountains of evidence fir gravity, a clear measurement of atmospheric pressure getting thinner the higher we go, I’ve even seen weather balloons POP in upper atmosphere...something they only tend to do in vacuum conditions. So you’re argument isn’t exactly as strong as FE likes to think it is. A misunderstanding of thermodynamics physics and a denial of gravity...not a hill I’d wanna die on.
2) Good for you, but now I’d ask how it’s an issue? It’s kind of irrelevant. Even if you could prove that nobody has circumnavigated by plane...they’ve still gone around it many times by ship, they’ve flown across MANY times, they’ve been all over the continent now, there’s bases everywhere. You even mentioned an explorer that’s traversed it, Admiral Byrd, there’s a documentary series all about his missions. Furthermore, it’s irrelevant to your point, because you’re claiming this is an issue for the globe...but why would it be? Just because an experiment has not been done, does not mean we toss out EVERYTHING ELSE that already verifies the larger conclusion. Your logic isn’t very sound here.
Also, there’s been several circumpolar navigations now going from Antarctica to Arctic, here’s two examples https://youtu.be/_kVC2AjtCc8.
3) Then you should know better than anyone, that the Earth isn’t flat...it’s not difficult to deduce. But going through your webpage, it’s clear what your motivation really is. Your a religious grifter...you’re selling books. So you are extremely bias on this point, using your engineering experience to sell a lie...shame on you.
4) Geodetic surveyors take measurements of the land, so they are very much a land surveyor, except they take it a step further, there job is to also measure the surface curvature and that’s what they do. Little pointless to have geodetic surveyors...if the Earth is flat, wouldn’t you say?
Oh I’ve watched the whole interview, you see I’ve done my research too. You might notice he also says “at the bottom of the world”, those exact words, about 2-3 times throughout the interview...funny how Flatties don’t latch onto those words. But they can’t, cause they can’t cherry pick those words and spin a narrative with them. Antarctica is huge and the land beyond the pole is larger than America, go ahead and place America on the continent sometime, it’s like 3 times larger...so he was likely talking about Antarctica itself. If Earth was flat...then Antarctica would be fucking HUGE, it would be WAY bigger than America...so why would he use that as his scale in that case?
You’re the very worst kind of Flattie...a grifter, using your education and experience to help sell lies and pseudoscience...as if we should all be impressed that you wired some military planes once. :/
3
-
3
-
@niklassarri108 That’s fair, I’m not here to tell people what they should believe (as far as their spiritual beliefs go), I am just sharing my perspective. Personally, I don’t require religious faith to be happy, never have, just looking at the world and realizing how incredible it is, the music, the art, the culture, the food, the life, and I’m filled with joy just from that alone. It’s incredible it all exists at all, that’s enough for me personally. I feel we’re already in paradise, I don’t need to wait for anything that may or may not come after…but it can be a hell, if you choose it to be, and some people don’t get it very good at all…which is why I try not to take what I have for granted.
Some people do choose nihilism, you’re right, and that’s unfortunate…but they choose that. We’re all responsible for our own happiness. For me it’s always been pretty easy, but I get that others struggle, wish I could help them. Just saying, atheists aren’t as miserable as the religious like to think. Many of us live very happy and productive lives. Doesn’t make us better than anyone, just saying, many of us do just fine.
Also though, I for one am not opposed to a God, nor do I rule it out as a possibility. I’m just not going to waste my time believing it, simply because someone else believes it very strongly to be true. I’ll entertain the possibilities, but I’m not going to believe them without evidence. It’s fine if others want to though, I can see how faith in a higher power can be very fulfilling, most atheists don’t really care…we just want to be left alone. That’s all most of us want.
As for Flat Earth, it’s fine if some want to believe that at the end of the day, but in that case it’s out of extreme ignorance and they’re just doing themselves a disservice. Science will likely never disprove the existence of a God, it’s unfalsifiable, but the shape of the Earth…that’s a pretty easy one, it has long been falsified, the evidence against a Flat Earth is staggering. Most of us aren’t really trying to change their mind, we know human psychology is tricky, that most people don’t like being corrected and will just double down even harder at any attempts, we get that. Most of us do it just to provide some counter information, to prevent others from falling into these rabbit holes of misinformation. Claims like these should not go unchecked or unchallenged, if they’re going to make wild claims on public forums, then they should expect to be questioned for it. They’re not free from peer review, nothing in science is. It’s not a waste of time either, I’ve talked with hundreds of Flat Earthers at this point, over a 4 year time frame, and I’ve learned a lot about Earth science. It’s actually been quite rewarding as far as increasing my own knowledge goes, and I have had some success changing a few minds. That’s good enough for me.
Fact is we can’t do much with false information…junk science does not work and it has no use, beyond fooling a few people online to release some dollars. If mankind is gonna continue to thrive, then we need to have all our ducks in a row, we need accurate information to continue innovation. Flat Earth has no working model and is not used in any applied science…that’s a fact, not an opinion. So I’m just doing what I can to help people realize that, to counter what I feel is misinformation. I feel it’s necessary, misinformation should not be allowed to fester unchecked.
Anyway, thanks for the civil discussion, I hope I was able to help provide some insight into a different perspective.
3
-
@dc95811 Well seeing as I catch him lying in every video I’ve watched of his (heck, every sentence almost actually), I’ll have to respectfully disagree with you about his honesty. If you don’t think he’s a liar, that’s fine, but I’d ask you perhaps take a look at this video when you get the chance https://youtu.be/knWCsonQVG4. This is 37 minutes of an actual experienced palaeontologist, breaking down like 5 mins worth of one of Dubay’s videos on dinosaurs. It’s incredible how many lies this guy catches in just a few mins of watching. I’ve been able to do the same with his work, it’s not hard when you really slow things down and take a moment to analyze his claims.The thing about lying is that if it works successfully, then you’ll never be aware of it...Dubay is great at lying, I’ll give him that much.
Doesn’t really matter how smart you are (or think you are), if you lack proper information to a problem, then you’ll likely never solve it. Gloating about IQ is just demonstrating over confidence, a good enough liar can and will use that over confidence against you. But just my opinion on things, from what I’ve seen from Dubay so far (which is quite a lot), he lies effortlessly, it’s like breathing for him. So just a friendly warning, you don’t have to agree of course, but just something to keep in mind.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TheOricine 8 inches per mile squared is a good quick reference calculation for land elevation and surveying, but not very useful for line of sight observation. It is flawed for several reasons. Firstly, it is not a spherical calculation, it is a basic parabolic arc equation, only good for up to about 100 miles, then it’s basically useless. Secondly, Flat Earthers use it for line of sight observations...and that equation simply has no variable for line of sight.
It’s lacking many variables required to make an accurate observation actually. It has no variables for height of the observer, horizon distance, line of sight, arc length, refraction, surface hump, drop angles, etc. It is simply NOT the correct math to use, for long distance line of sight observations.
It will not give you a figure, anywhere close to what you require, to make an accurate calculation...so no wonder your numbers aren’t matching...you’re using the wrong math. Pretty simple rule of thumb in mathematics, use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion...it’s pretty simple.
Now, here’s where you can find the information required to derive the correct equations, you should be using https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/.
If you click that link, you’ll notice a handy diagram in the first post. I can use that to further illustrate why 8 inches per mile squared is inaccurate. Do you see the dotted tangent line marked “Surface Level”, and the solid black line perpendicular too it labelled “Drop”? That’s all 8 inches per mile calculates, is that drop (and not even accurately). It claims that everything under that surface level line should not be visible...but that’s not how line of sight works. Notice now the solid green line coming out from the Eye...that’s line of sight. Do you happen to notice how much it sees, well under that surface level line? That’s why 8 inches per mile squared is not useful here...it’s completely wrong.
This is how FE has suckered and conned a LOT of people. They cherry picked an equation that is used by land surveyors SOMETIMES, and then completely misrepresented what it was used for. It’s basically akin to a slight of hand trick...they knew most people are not mathematically literate, so they knew you’d never question them, cause they knew you wouldn’t even know where to start.
That math is not the correct math for what you’re using it for, it’s as simple as that. Time to stop letting huxters online poison your mind.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@zquest42 Jeez you people are ignorant...navigation has been using lines of latitude and longitude designed for TWO equal hemispheres, for hundreds of years, designed for a globe. They also are required to use geodetic conversions or they will get lost on long navigations, that wouldn’t be necessary if the Earth was flat. Pilots fly what are known as great circle routes, which is the shortest distance between two points on a sphere, and GLOBAL positioning systems (GPS) use satellites that are in orbit...which requires gravity to function. Gravity is very much an applied science, everything from parabolic trajectory targeting, to flight aeronautics, to orbital mechanics and rocket science, all of these (and more) require both our understanding of gravity and our measurements of this fundamental force.
You have NO IDEA what you’re talking about...and that’s what’s most frustrating, because flat Earth just pretends like they’re experts anyway. And why exactly? Are you doing it out of spite or something?
There are hundreds of different ways science has falsified electromagnetic attraction as the force that keeps us to the ground. If you actually had any working knowledge or experience in science, you’d know this. If you were an actual pilot or sailor for a living, you’d actually know how navigation really works. Nobody in science, communication, navigation, or engineering, is using a flat Earth model to help them do their jobs, they all use the heliocentric model...that is a fact, not an opinion and it’s for a very good reason.
You’re also forgetting one key part to building a scientific model...does it match with reality? That’s what matters most at the end of the day...they’re not just shooting in the dark and making up numbers, they are comparing the model to reality, they are taking data collected out in the real world, the model is built around observations and experiments done in reality. Sure, you can make just about any model function on paper mathematically...but if it can’t be used to accurately make predictions of phenomenon and observations in the real world, then it becomes pretty obvious that it’s just bullshit. That’s what separates the heliocentric model from all other models...it fits with reality.
It’s just frustrating is all...real people are out there busting there ass to build the modern world...and you somehow think they’re lying to you, or that they don’t know what they’re doing? You must have a very low opinion of science, if you honestly think they can build everything that’s around you today...but they can’t figure out something as trivial as the true shape of the planet. :/
It’s fine to ask questions, but don’t be ignorant about it please...you know damn well the heliocentric model is used in everything today.
3
-
@opxchaos5757 Ok, you mentioned the rotation of stars around the pole, then forgot about the second rotation that occurs in the South. Why? If you’re going to claim to be objective, then why ignore that observation? I’m sure being in this mess as long as you have, you’re aware of the South celestial rotation, so why does every Flat Earther ignore it so easily? The South celestial rotation is real and it’s a problem for the FE model, meanwhile it’s exactly what we’d expect to see occur on a globe. This shouldn’t be ignored so easily.
You also appear very bitter towards science, almost like you have a need or an agenda to prove them wrong, which reveals a bias you have. It could explain why you’d ignore some information so easily, which makes an honest discussion very difficult...cause if you’re just picking and choosing what information to accept, then you’re not really being objective, you’re just looking to confirm bias. I agree the mocking is childish, but you seem to have a very low opinion of science in general, almost believing yourself superior in a way, which just invites mockery, because it’s perceived as arrogance. There’s nothing wrong with asking questions though, but I mean, everyone has an ego, so if you’re going poke people, they’re going to respond negatively...it should be expected.
Anyway, if you’d like a more level headed civil discussion, where information and ideas are simply shared and considered without ridicule or assumptions, I don’t mind. You seem quite well researched on the topic and willing to share information, so I wouldn’t mind picking your brain a bit and perhaps I can also shed some light on some topics, perhaps we can both learn something.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@auraveenley.8743 You deleted a response to me, but don’t worry I caught some of it. You said; “Isn’t the 23.4 deg axial tilt a little ad hoc? I see no tilt of the Earth in ANY of NASAs curved lens or CGI…”.
Ad Hoc is a form of argument that implies a quick response to counter evidence, adding information that’s untested and unverified, in the hopes that it will save a floundering claim or position. The tilt of the Earth was a conclusion reached AFTER extensive observation and data collection, it’s a conclusion formed FROM the evidence, rather than a conclusion you reached cause it kind of fit. It is a tested and verified conclusion, that explains everything from the seasons, to the solstices and equinoxes, to Sun paths and shadow angles, to the 24 hour day and night occurrences at each pole of the Earth, etc. It’s far from ad hoc…it’s no coincidence that it works mathematically with all of the data.
Also, why would you think to expect to notice this tilt in photos of Earth from space? Place a perfect steal ball bearing in front of you, now tilt it 23.4 degrees and look again…is the tilt readily apparent to you? 🧐 Little hard to notice a tilt from a spherical object…the Earth’s axis isn’t a solid mass we can observe, but rotating objects are rotating on an axis, and that axis can be determined by studying and observing that rotation. But any tilt angle needs a reference point to measure from, we measure Earth’s tilt from the ecliptic plain…which is also abstract and not a tangible mass we can just observe. So you’re not gonna notice this tilt in a photo…I assume you realized that after you made your comment.
Point is, you’re sure going to a lot of effort to ram a square peg into a round hole here…which says a lot about the flat Earth movement actually. You seem to just be arguing out of spite, just trying to put a little dirt in the eye of the scientific community, rather than arguing the most objective position. I think it’s Flat Earth that should try actually questioning their model for a change…seems to me you really don’t put the same standard of review upon the Flat model, which suggests a bias.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@daddyissues4278 Well couple of problems with lasers, they do refract (reflect and bend) and they do diffract (disperse) in atmosphere. So I hope you took those into account. Many seem to assume lasers remain perfectly tangent at distances, and that’s simply not the case.
A clear demonstration of laser refraction https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0?t=380.
Demonstration of laser diffraction https://youtu.be/ysSp7G5UWT0.
There is simply no way to overcome these limitations in lasers shot through atmosphere, so they’re actually not as reliable as most would assume. They do not remain tangent to starting location, so it’s actually not surprising you’d be able to see it, even over a curvature.
Also, what math were you using? It is very important to make sure you’re using the correct math, or your numbers of course won’t match observations. I see a lot of people within Flat Earth using 8 inches per mile squared (a basic parabola equation), but it’s simply not the correct math. It has no variables for height of the observer, horizon distance, curvature hump, refraction, etc, etc. It does not represent line of sight, so I hope that’s not the math you’ve been using.
2
-
2
-
@veiko23 True, I’m certainly not disputing that. But you’re making a false equivalence. Is our planet a galaxy or solar system? No, it’s a planet, just like the others that occupy our local solar system. The other planets are spherical, so what reason do we have to assume we’re not also spherical? Earth is one cohesive structure, correct? It’s not a bunch of different land masses, or objects, like the solar system and galaxy are, it’s one structure. Gravity emanates from a centre, which explains why things in the cosmos are spherical in the first place, we have gravity, and we’re one structure, so…why wouldn’t that structure build up around that centre like everything else does?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jasondavis8886 Sorry, I’m not new to this discussion. Been researching it for nearly 4 years now, I’m now more of a Globe Earther than ever before, because I know and understand the science and history that led mankind to that conclusion. You won’t convince me of anything with insults and empty claims I’m afraid, evidence is all I care about, and in my experience, I’ve seen exactly where flat Earth goes wrong on every claim they make....so good luck with that. I’m always willing to listen still, but I have concluded it’s just another scam on the internet, a cult of misinformation and confirmation bias, taking advantage of some people’s fears, paranoia, lack of general knowledge and their desire to feel special and superior over others. Learn to navigate, you’ll understand the true geometry first hand if you do.
2
-
Boy…it’s comments like yours that truly solidifies why some people become flat Earthers…because you’re not all there.😅
“…could never, regardless of any tilt or inclination, see the Sun for 24 hours straight.”
So if I tilted Earth a full 90 degrees, so one pole now faced the Sun at all times, creating an axis of rotation that’s parallel to its light, and an equator that’s perpendicular to the Suns Zenith, and always on the terminator line of Earth’s shadow…is that still not enough tilt to create a 24 hour day for everyone past the 89th parallel? 😅 Please think about that for a moment…you’re not quite visualizing how it works, hopefully that example helps.
Look up the MANY recorded observations of the 24 hour Sun in Antarctica…happens every year, and it’s quite a popular tourist attraction for Antarctica in their Summer months. There are no countries below the 60th parallel in the South…that’s why they don’t have the midnight Sun occurrence, only Antarctica does. But the Southern tip of Argentina experiences a 17 hour day at their Solstice…care to explain how that happens on your flat Earth?
Distance is not the only determining factor for temperature fluctuation upon a surface…the angle at which energy arrives upon a surface can also have a huge effect. Direct light is more focused, thus more energy upon the same area. Angled light is less focused, meaning it’s dispersed over a wider area….see how this works yet?
2
-
2
-
@1FeistyKitty They explain right in the paragraph before, that extreme refraction is common in Antarctica. 300 miles is a stretch, but without an actual recorded observation to analyze, it’s just words in a book. You don’t know what observer height that 300 mile mountain was seen at…could have been made while in a plane for all you know. Either way, you cherry picked words out of context and conveniently forgot to mention the parts before, where it explains that extreme refraction causes one to see much further than usual…you’re ignoring important context, and focusing only on what you feel confirms your bias.
You need to understand though…stuff like this is not evidence, because there’s nothing to analyze, do you understand that? Without the context, without a recorded observation, there’s no way anyone can check the legitimacy of what’s being said. Yes, even government officials can be wrong, or fudge figures on the fly…so you have to understand how flimsy this is from our perspective. It’s significant to you, because you have a bias to confirm…we don’t share the same bias, and so we recognize how moot this cherry picked “evidence” of yours really is…it’s very clearly confirmation bias, very weak stuff.
Space isn’t a vacuum like a vacuum cleaner…it doesn’t suck on anything, that’s not what’s implied by vacuum. 🤦♂️ It’s an empty space void of all matter…that’s the definition of vacuum being used here. Our atmosphere is created and contained by gravity, that’s why it’s higher pressure closer to surface and gets gradually less pressurized the higher you go. Even Flat Earth has verified the vacuum of space, I’m sure you’re aware of the many weather balloons they’ve put up into high altitudes…did you happen to watch the end of most of these videos, where the balloons eventually pop, as they’re designed to do once reaching vacuum conditions? So even Flat Earthers have verified space…you know what they’ve never found though? A container.
2
-
2
-
@1FeistyKitty I work from home, I’m a digital artist, so I’m pretty much always in front of a computer…nobody pays me to talk to idiots online, I just hate misinformation and feel it shouldn’t be allowed to fester, so call it a public service I guess…but it’s really just a sad hobby. What’s interesting to me though, is that you’re so unwilling to accept or even consider the possibility that you could be wrong, that you’re delusional mind reasons instead that we must be paid shills, instead of actually listening to what we’re saying…have you been on Earth long? Welcome to the Internet…correcting people is pretty standard here, it’s Cunningham’s law, look it up sometime. Nobody pays me to be here, I gladly do it for free…you’re helping conmen perpetuate bullshit, so I’m here to challenge that bullshit, so hopefully others don’t fall victim to those lies…that is all.
“What keeps the Moon from slowing down?”
Law of inertia, and Conservation of momentum…basic physics of motion. Motion is constant, unless there’s something present to slow it down, like air resistance, which creates friction. There’s no air in space, so no friction…so the Moon will travel indefinitely, that’s how motion works.
Water only has trillions of tons because of gravity…that’s what creates weight. You don’t always have weight, you have mass…but weight is dependent on gravity. I’m sure you understand how a scale works, you press down upon the surface to generate pressure that the scale registers as a weight value, so scale only works if you apply a downward force to create pressure. But if you place an object on the scale, and it applies pressure generating a weight value…who’s pushing down on it to apply force? Gravity…the force of gravity. It’s always there, attracting everything to surface…weight is created when gravity squeezes you to surface, that’s all weight is. That’s why you’re considered weightless in free fall, you still have mass, you alway have mass, but weight is created by gravity…this is basic physics. Water is inert, it has no means to resist gravity….you and me and all living things however, burn energy, we then put into muscles, we can then use to resist gravity for short periods of time. Does water have muscles? Should be pretty self explanatory…but what happens when you die and your body is no longer capable of producing energy? You come crashing down to Earth, unable to resist gravity any longer, you become inert…just like water. Gravity doesn’t just shut off cause you can walk around…do you feel heavy? That’s gravity…your weight is gravity. :/
What other force is present that would take water from off of Earth? Where would the “trillions of tons” of water go, if gravity wasn’t present? Seriously…use your head fir a moment, picture Earth out in space…take gravity away, what happens to the water, where’s it gonna go? What force is gravity fighting against? None…there’s just gravity. Your argument is implying that Earth’s water is actively resisting gravity…as if it has any means of doing that. It doesn’t, like us, it’s trapped in Earth’s gravity well, it’s not going anywhere.
Gravity doesn’t hold the Moon up🤦♂️, it just keeps it in orbit. An orbit is basically just a balance between forward velocity and gravity, the Moon is technically falling towards Earth, but its forward velocity keeps it falling around Earth…get it yet? This isn’t difficult, look up Newton’s cannonball analogy.
You’re not very bright…that’s how you fell for the dumbest con online.
2
-
@1FeistyKitty It’s not a mirage…it’s refraction, the bending of light, not the mirroring of light. Refraction alters what we see at distances, making it possible to see further than is geometrically possible. That’s what that paragraph is stating…not clear air, it’s talking about refraction…it even says it right in the paragraph. :/
If you require a clear example of refraction to prove it’s a real phenomenon, look up the Rainy Lake experiment. Shouldn’t be hard to find the research blog with a quick search. Click on the section labelled as “observation of refraction”, you’ll find some images taken at the experiment, images 32 and 33 being the clearest example of refraction. Then watch the time lapse video of refraction…clearly demonstrating how as refractive index increases, distant objects appear to rise up higher than they were. If they’re originally behind curvature, they then become visible over it.
Refraction is very real…and it’s why we see further than we should. Flat Earthers never factor refraction into any observation…but it’s very important. It’s why we see Chicago across Lake Michigan…sometimes. Did you know refractive conditions have to be just right to see Chicago from the shore from 50 miles? It doesn’t happen every day, only when refraction allows for it. It’s an Optical phenomenon…which is what that paragraph is describing. Please research refraction.
2
-
What math are you using to reach your figures? My calculations for Chicago, with a 6 foot viewing height at a shore, brings the calculated geometric hidden by horizon to 1473 feet…that’s a line of sight calculation. Your calculation doesn’t factor observer height…does it…so I can only assume you’re using the 8 inches per mile squared formula…typical. A lot of Flat Earths problems start with using the wrong math…and that math is the worst offender. It doesn’t represent line of sight, has no variable for height of observer…which is a very important variable in long distance observations. I’m sure even you understand that going higher allows you to see further…so it’s a pretty damn important variable. Your math doesn’t include that…so it’s wrong, it’s pretty simple. Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion…it’s not rocket science.
Then there’s refraction. With even just standard refraction (the average refractive index), it brings that down to 1249 feet. But, refraction is always more than standard over large bodies of water, so more like 1000 feet. Did you know there’s about 3 buildings over 1400 feet, and roughly 7 buildings over 1000 feet tall in Chicago downtown, without the adding surface elevation of roughly 100 feet? So if refraction is high enough, ya, you’ll easily see Chicago when conditions are favourable…and that’s what happens.
You’re not doing much here to provide valid evidence, just doing bad math and ignoring important variables.
2
-
@1FeistyKitty Oh boy.🤦♂️ You love lying don’t you…to yourself. No…Samuel Robothams Bedford Level experiment was flawed and was proven flawed upon peer review. He used the wrong math, made only one observation, with no extra data sets, ignored refraction, and simply did not do enough to render a conclusive result. Upon peer review his experiment was falsified, by way of being extremely inconclusive. But Rowbotham kept peddling his conclusion anyway. Eventually, he convinced a rich benefactor of his bullshit experiment, John Hampden, and he put up a bet for anyone to try and disprove the experiment.
A surveyor named Alfred Russell Wallace then took up the challenge…and he succeeded. He proved the experiment was flawed, improved upon it and conducted a far more conclusive version of the experiment verifying that Earth was curving. The money was initially won by Wallace and awarded to him, but then Hapden sued…over and over again, until he finally found a judge that overturned the wager. His reason? Because Hampden technically dropped out of the wager before accepting Wallace’s entry…so on a technicality he had to give the money back, as the wager was considered void (according to that judge) if he dropped it before any entry could be accepted. The ruling had nothing to do with Earth’s shape, courts do not determine matters of science…they deal with law, not science. It ruled on the terms of the bet itself, not the science or the scientific conclusions.
Hampden was also imprisoned for trying to kill Wallace…did ya know that? The guy was crazy, as are everyone who falls into the bullshit pit of Flat Earth…it eventually drives them crazy. Hampden couldn’t accept that he was wrong…and it drove him mad. Which is what’s gonna happen to you eventually.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fpvangel4495 Idiocy is believing the Earth is flat in 2022. Idiocy is falling for the dumbest con online today, simply because you’ve never travelled. Idiocy is arguing there’s no way of crossing the IDL…with someone who’s crossed the IDL several times now. 😂 Idiocy is thinking an argument from ignorance (and zero real world experience), against an established fact of reality, made on a YouTube comment section, isn’t anything but embarrassing.
If you knew how Google Earth works, you’d understand that to draw that line the way he did, you require GPS data. You upload what’s called a KML file (which is basically GPS data)…it then draws the line from that data, from a GPS device. To do that manually to draw a line like that, would take hours…hundreds to even thousands of little inputs to get all the locations data in correctly. He did it 3 times…you really think he’d go to all that trouble just to con a few numpty’s online who have never travelled? He even shows his GPS tracker data in the video, and correlates it…showing you how those paths were made. It’s GPS data…which is exactly what you asked for.
If you think it’s wrong, then by all means, get on a plane and fly it yourself…like millions of people do every year. Unless you’re afraid? 🧐
You need a better hobby dude…this is hands down thee dumbest conspiracy online today. And you can check your own argument with one flight…I’ve gone across the pacific so many times, it’s a fact for me…you can do the same, whenever you choose…then you can see for yourself how stupid Flat Earth is.
2
-
2
-
@dominiccharvet546 “Ask God”…what a cop out 🙄, typical answer from a person with no answers, and no real interest in finding them. The whole point of science is to study physical reality to deduce how it works, to deduce cause and effect relationships…that includes answering questions like why things fall, and why that direction is always down. God doesn’t answer these questions…so we have too solve them ourselves. If everyone just resorted to “asking god” every time we got stumped on a problem or question…we’d have accomplished nothing. Thankfully, scientists don’t waist their time, they do the work, they pay attention, they figure it out for themselves through experimentation…and guess who benefits for all that effort? Everyone does…you’re certainly happy to use all the technology science has made possible, yet you use it to spit in their face…such arrogance.
If your God truly loved us, then it would probably greatly admire and respect our tenacity to discover and learn for ourselves…what loving parent doesn’t want their children to succeed and stand on their own?
“Has anyone proven gravity?”
Yes, Henry Cavendish proved and measured the universal force of gravity by mass attraction, with his Cavendish experiment, roughly 200 years ago. It’s repeatable science, here’s a very simple demonstration https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68. It’s not a long video, in 7 minutes you can learn all about it. You say to test everything…so how about you take your own advise, and recreate the Cavendish experiment. Further experimentation has proven it further, everything from drop tests in vacuum, to the Eddington experiment, to the applied science of orbital mechanics, and every equation that uses the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2) in a working formula. Science is more than happy to learn of how they may be wrong about something, science is all about falsification…but you’re certainly not gonna falsify anything with ignorance…that’s a you problem.
Yes, gravity explains a great many things…it’s one of the 4 fundamental forces of reality for a reason, but so what? You’re acting like you have some form of argument here…as if it’s false simply because it accounts for so many things in our reality…but where’s the logic un that? 🤷♂️ Look up ‘argument from personal incredulity’, because that’s all your argument is. Denial and ignorance are not valid arguments I’m afraid…it’s just plain ol’ ignorance to confirm a bias.
You’re doing a fine job demonstrating that you don’t really know much about modern science…is it any wonder why you’ve reached so many erroneous conclusions? Not really…that tends to happen when you lack information.
2
-
2
-
@ramonortiz7462 Here’s an experiment you can do, super simple; get yourself two cameras, and find yourself a merry go round (or tape em to a yard stick and you can act as centre of rotation, doesn’t really matter). Now put one camera on the outer edge pointing straight out from centre, then the second camera put at rotational centre pointing in the exact same direction in line with the first camera. Now rotate…the outer edge will be going faster (in terms of linear velocity), while the centre camera will be going slower, yet they’ll both see the exact same degrees of rotation per span of time. Why? Because while the outer circumference is going faster, it’s also got a further distance to travel around…but they’re both on the same surface, all of it rotating at the same rate….sooooo, they’re gonna rotate at the exact same rate. Pretty darn simple. 😄
You need to seriously question the position you’re currently holding, because it is fucking stupid my dude.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Smhallways The teacher in your example would then explain the science of relative motion a little. Not a hard concept to test directly either, get in a car and toss a ball up in the air while driving down a highway, why didn’t the ball smash you in the face when it left your hand? Because of conservation of momentum, which is the first law of motion. Everything in motion moves relative to the system they’re in, a helicopter is rotating with the Earths surface, it will conserve that momentum and continue to rotate with it once it’s in the air.
Pretty basic physics, easily understood and easily demonstrated...like most of general physics. No big expensive equipment required.
Flat Earth thinks it knows everything...but the fact is they’re reaching a great many false conclusions, simply from a lack of basic knowledge of reality and how it works. With just a basic level of physics knowledge, anyone can debunk this internet scam.
Though I will agree that the kid asking questions shouldn’t be shamed for that, asking questions is how you learn...but if his intention was to hold the question up as some kind of evidence, as snarky kids and people often do, if he’s not asking with any interest in hearing an answer, because he’s convinced already that there is no answer...then that’s not critical thinking, that’s a closed mind who thinks it knows everything.
2
-
@Smhallways Well, I wouldn’t say that kid is a flat Earther just yet, just curious (hopefully) and interested to know things for certain. It’s human nature to scoff at the absurd, it’s generally everyone’s first reaction, so don’t be to surprised I say. Kids especially are bad for that, but a good teacher would recognize that all their students learn at different rates, and they would then take this as a good opportunity to teach those kids both the value of asking questions AND they would teach them all something new about physics, because truth is it was a very good question. I agree with you that it’s good to think for yourself rather than always agree with the group, but if you’re just asking out of resentment, to stick it to the teacher or the class, no intention to maybe learn something, that’s not critical thinking, it’s trolling, it’s asking questions for all the wrong reasons.
Also, the explanation does matter, if you didn’t know the answer. If not then I hope I was able to help you with that quandary.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JasonsMove You always look down towards horizon, that’s why viewing height is important to include because the higher you are the more you see over the curvature…it’s like looking over a hill. At 6 foot viewing height, your horizon would just be beginning at 3 miles, so nothing would be obscured from your vision for the first 3 miles, at that viewing height. Horizon is the point where Earth curve begins to obstruct your line of sight of surface, so horizon would be the point where things start to drop out of your vision…it doesn’t happen immediately.
8 inches per mile squared is the wrong math my dude…you’re never gonna understand how this works if you keep using it. But I can keep showing you the many ways it’s wrong if you’d like.
Go to the metabunk curve calculator, it’s a far more accurate curvature calculation that does actually factor height of the observer as a variable. There’s a pretty handy diagram included under the calculator, can probably help you understand better why height of observer is so important to include as a variable, also has a link in the calculator to a forum thread breaking down the math in greater detail, and it’s just basic trig functions, so pretty simple math. Not as simple as your parabola equation, but at least it’s accurate and actually represents line of sight over a curvature. 😄
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JasonsMove Well, as an amateur astronomer most of my life, who’s travelled quite a lot and seen both celestial rotations (North and South), I’ve known the science behind Earth’s rotation for a very long time now….long before you ever got conned by the huxters online, who somehow convinced you it was flat…and for some reason you believed them without any question.
Aside from Coriolis drift, and the lesser known Eotvos effect, the Foucault pendulum and Gyroscope experiments have been detecting Earth rotation for close to 200 years now. More recently we use large area ring laser interferometers to also detect and measure Earth’s rotation, look up the ROMY lasers sometime. But my favourite technology that detects Earth rotation is probably the gyrocompass. It’s a great device, used for finding true North not magnetic North, that actually uses Earth rotation as part of its function. Look it up, they’re used aboard most modern sea vessels today…and have been for at least the past 80 or so years. They’re pretty interesting…because they use Earth’s rotation, so it’s not just a proven fact at this point, it’s an applied science. If Earth is not spherical and rotating, then the gyrocompass simply would not work as designed.
But, doesn’t take a whole lotta education or experience to understand how impossible two celestial rotations are…if Earth is flat with only ONE rotation around Polaris. Only takes a basic understanding of geometry. That observation doesn’t exactly fit a Flat Earth…not even slightly. The globe accounts for it with absolute ease though…it’s exactly what we’d expect to see. I’m grateful I got to see the South rotation long before this bullshit of Flat Earth started taking off again. You people could benefit from getting outside more…maybe you wouldn’t be so gullible if you spent more time out in the real world, rather than falling for dumb cons online.
2
-
2
-
@patrickthomas2119 Yes, I agree, I’m in no way suggesting all religious, or even a majority (not even close), are Flat Earthers. It’s an even smaller minority than creationists. But after a good 6 years of actively conversing with members of FE (was a bit of sad curiosity bordering on hobby for a time) I couldn’t help but notice the large portion of their community that were religious. And yes, I’d agree as well, it’s because the huxters pushing it employ tactics very similar to the groups that push creationism. I don’t use that word “huxter” lightly in this case though, Earths shape is not up for debate in quite the same way biology is, and after dealing directly with many of the bigger names of FE, huxter is sadly an accurate title for many of those bigger advocates.
I do hold a lot of respect for religious communities and spirituality as a whole, so while I don’t personally subscribe or align with any particular group, it is sad that some would use a persons faith against them to promote ideas that do nothing but harm both their knowledge and our progress as a society. It does have a larger success on the deeply paranoid as well, that’s also true, and constant/heavy drug use is certainly no help to anyone’s mental health, so there are many who fall into that category as well, both secular and non-secular. But if you’re religious (or even just spiritual), then it is an easier sell, to anyone just looking for any reason to bolster their faith. That’s why it’s so incredibly difficult to reason with many, because a good portion of them really didn’t get there from any scientific means, they reasoned through other means that just made better sense for them.
But yes, while many are theists, the real root problem of course isn’t religion, most of the time it’s just plain ol’ lack of a good education. The number of them I’ve had to teach basic astronomy too, like how the Moon’s phases aren’t caused by Earth’s shadow (in this case they’re confusing Lunar eclipses with Moon phases), it’s quite alarming. So it just boils down to that most of the time really. That’s not a uniquely religious issue, that’s an education issue…which is pretty systematic. Lack of basic physics knowledge is also pretty key to whether the Flat Earth hooks sink in or not, because I admit I was curious about the whole thing myself because it really wasn’t something I gave much thought towards prior to looking deeper into the conspiracy, but many of the arguments they were making just reflected a deep misunderstanding of some pretty basic physics, the laws of motion being a big one. It’s once I learned that their curvature math was lacking key variables (namely height of the observer) that it became pretty clear to me that it was really a movement of the poorly educated, which is really what I suspected.
That’s not to say they’re stupid, far from it really, many of their insights can be quite clever actually, it’s just that they all seem to be starting from a zero (or near zero) baseline of basic scientific principles…like they’re starting from scratch, simply because that foundational knowledge wasn’t taught to them well enough (or at all) in order to properly sink in and make sense.
Anyway, I’m not as heavily involved with it as I used to be, but it’s still interesting to discuss from time to time. It has died down over the last couple years, having peeked around 2019 and resurging a little during Covid, but I’ve actually started to run into a few ex-flat Earthers who told me that once they distanced themselves from the constant arguing online for awhile, that’s when they started to finally realize how ridiculous it all was. Unfortunately it’s kind of a big part of human nature to double down first when challenged, rather than considering a different perspective. I think in large part because of how we conduct ourselves in arguments, always trying to win rather than discuss. The grifters really thrive off of that chaos. I wish social media was a bit better constructed to not help facilitate constant discourse and argument…but unfortunately it’s opposite.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
T Brown You sure are doing your best to ram a square peg into a round hole. There are many ways to get a radius value for the Earth...just stating over and over again that it’s not possible, is not an argument, it’s just ignorance and denial. Here’s that experiment again that you keep ignoring. https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=420 This is one such experiment anyone can reproduce, that absolutely can be used to measure the radius of our Earth. Give it a look sometime...maybe even try it out. Denying it doesn’t work, is not an argument against it, it’s just plane ol’ denial. Here’s another way we can measure the radius, with seismology. https://youtu.be/cLDHOU-aSDo?t=453
Here’s another point I’d like to make, even if we did assume a radius, if that number we assume fits with all observation...down to curvature, refraction, Sun angles, eclipse data, gps, geodetic surveying, etc, if that number fits with every observation and every calculation and it works every time it’s used and gives us accurate predictions for every one of these observations, then it’s very likely correct. So here’s the thing, the radius value we have, WORKS! If we were wrong about the shape of the planet, then plugging that radius value into many of these equations WOULD NOT WORK! Getting it yet? The fact that we can use that radius value, to pinpoint a solar eclipse down to the second and square mile, tells us the number is accurate. The fact that we can use that radius value within GPS coordinates and pilots and sailors can then find their destinations with absolute accuracy, tells us the number is accurate. If we can use that radius value to accurately calculate and predict how much an object will lower into horizon by distance, then that number is accurate. See how this works yet? If we don’t need that number...then WHY does it work every single time we use it in calculations for Earths geometry? Got an answer for that bud?
You’re just making an erroneous claim over and over again, as if repeating your delusion makes it truer somehow. You keep repeating that we can’t assume anything and we have no method for measuring the radius even if we wanted too. Both are wrong...we have more than demonstrated that to you now, but you’re just not listening. What you’re doing is the equivalent of a toddler ramming his fingers in his ears and shutting his eyes when he wants to annoy his parents. But again, it doesn’t matter really. Whine all you like, the Earth is still not flat...and you’re not changing anything here.
I watched that video you shared and that guy is just as delusional as you are...it’s incredible to me how someone can grasp so much, and appear to be quite intelligent, but yet they can’t see how bias and ignorant they’re being. First of all, GPS over the ocean is handled by satellites. You can’t have satellites orbiting the Earth...if the Earth is flat, so there’s your first ignorant problem here. Second, his explanation completely ignores the surface distances. Shouldn’t be hard to work out, but the Earth has TWO EQUAL HEMISPHERES, so one or the other is going to be shorter or longer on a Flat Earth...but they’re not in reality, they are the same...this is only possible on a 3 dimensional surface like a sphere. People flying in the South over open ocean to another point in the South, aren’t taking several more hours to reach their destinations than they should. The flight times that are well documented, work perfectly on the Globe...but sure don’t work very well on a flat Earth. They make no sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMOp6PmDpp4
Now, here’s an actual pilot plotting and explaining a flight path, that would be impossible on a flat Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FJG65nbUO8&t really soak this lesson in, this is a REAL pilot, explaining navigation to you and demonstrating something that is impossible on a flat Earth.
2
-
T Brown It doesn’t cause sunlight...it causes a shadow, which measures the sunlights angles relative to the surface...and no, an experiment doesn’t need just one independent. Your brain has been absolutely scrambled by flat Earth bud...you people are just an Internet joke. What you’re doing is straw manning, the hypothesis isn’t to test what creates sunlight...are you drunk or something? It’s to measure the sunlight angles, to see which model that data fits with, round or flat. The hypothesis is simple, if Earth is a sphere, then the Sunlight shadow angle data when plotted on the Globe model to scale, will produce parallel angles and the stick angles will all point to centre of Earth. The null hypothesis is for Flat Earth, if the Earth is Flat, then the data won’t work on the Globe model, but it should pinpoint the exact location of a smaller localized Sun. If the data fits for neither then it’s inconclusive.
See it only becomes a reification fallacy, if we’re not using data from the real world to produce our models, if we’re not testing our models against actual reality and real world observations...then it’s a reification fallacy. But the data is taken from real world observation and measurements, then it’s tested upon models that use REAL world data to pinpoint locations relative to each other. The distances to each location is known, there latitude locations are known...otherwise we wouldn’t be able to find them while travelling. The data is plotted on those coordinates, REAL WORLD COORDINATES, testing both hypothesized models...the Globe data fits every time, while no flat Earth model ever tested has ever matched with the data. YOU should absolutely be wondering why that data fits the Globe model so perfectly...that doesn’t just happen for no reason. It’s not just a coincidence, that those Sun shadow angles produce a near perfect spherical surface...that shouldn’t happen at all if Earth is really flat.
Ignore it all you want with whatever bullshit excuse flat Earth has prepared for you...deep down you know you’re just being ignorant.
All you’re doing, is the same deflection bullshit you learned from master trolls like Nathan Oakley and Quantum Eraser...repeating their bullshit pretty much verbatim...but not really thinking about it. Good boy...want a cookie? But again, you guys can whine all you want, it doesn’t really matter.
2
-
T Brown So these flat maps are accurate for navigating our Earth? I thought you said you didn’t conform to any model...but you feel there is a flat map that’s accurate? You’re the expert here, so how exactly are these coordinates triangulated? What formulas do they use? Can you mock up an example using this method you claim is used? So you don’t conform to a model...but you agree flat maps of the Earth are accurate? Which maps exactly? Seems like you’re reaching a great many conclusions from pure assumption alone. So can you demonstrate anyone navigating using these maps and your triangulation method?
If you know anything about triangulation, you’d know you require at least some of the details to be accurate in order to complete the triangulation. So if you don’t think Earth is mapped...then how do they triangulate anything...if they don’t know accurate distances to anything? If they don’t have any accurate data required for triangulation, how do they do it? You can’t triangulate a location, unless you have some information that’s already accurate...so distances, latitudes and longitude angles and positions...a map of some kind has to be accurate. So which one exactly? You’re the expert on navigation, so which map are they using to triangulate with?
“Absolutely nobody uses a spherical map for navigation”
There, that’s a claim...you said earlier you’ve made no claims, but you’ve actually made several, and this is another. This is a claim suggesting you know something for certain about navigation, and that claim is contrary to modern consensus. So what qualifies you to make this claim? Are you a pilot or a sailor? Have you ever used latitude and longitudes to navigate with? Ever flown or sailed across the ocean? Ever navigated with your triangulation method using Cartesian coordinates designed for a flat Earth? I’d very much like to know how you reached this expert conclusion. I hope you didn’t just listen to one guy ramble on about triangulation and then make an empty claim about curvature conversion, without actually demonstrating it, and then called it a day. XD
If they’re triangulating positions...then they have an accurate map of some kind. So present this map, then we’ll test it. Pretty simple.
2
-
2
-
T Brown Well your straw manning again. The surface isn’t an independent variable it is another dependent...and before you say “you can’t have two dependents”, yes you can, cause there is actually two things being tested and verified here. The Earths surface is one, and the Suns position/distance is another. You don’t manipulate the surface in this experiment, you manipulate the stick, by placing it plum to the surface. This then creates a shadow, that can give you a measured angle, which gives you data you can then use to figure out where the Sun is, and what shape the surface is.
Of course you can’t get exact distance or size of the Sun from this data, but you can absolutely confirm if it’s small and local, or big and far away. That much you can answer.
It’s great that people are questioning and attempting to falsify these things, that’s what science is all about...but Flat Earthers are just being very bias. I hope after going through it a bit more, you’ll realize you really should pay better attention and not just ignore these things. There are valid reasons why people are arguing with you. Arguments from ignorance are not valid arguments, they are just trolling methods. They annoy people...but they don’t accomplish anything outside of that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@falcor1969 What is gravity? It's many things, that's not a very specific question. It's kind of a pointless question to ask in science, cause it has many nuances, you really have to be more specific. Let me ask another question similar to that to help my point, what is magnetism? You won't argue it exists I'm sure...but what is it? We know a lot about it sure, but do we know everything? No, we don't really know why it exists, where it comes from directly, but does us not knowing everything about it, mean that it doesn't exist? No, of course not....so your question is a bit loaded. That's why you're asking it right? You're trying to make the old argument that because we don't know everything about gravity, it must mean it's not real. And I'm sorry, but that's just a bad argument. We observe a motion between matter, matter does not move without a force first putting it into motion, doesn't take much deduction after that. Not knowing a few things about it, doesn't change the fact that we observe it, measure it, and apply our current understanding in applied science today.
Let's answer my question a bit more in depth though and hopefully it'll point out the nuance I'm talking about. You could just say it's a force and just leave it at that. But that doesn't answer much, you wanna know how it works, so how is a far better question to ask in science. How it works is by the flow of electrons, flowing freely through a polar axis of conductive material, causing an attraction between highly conductive alloys. That's what we think we know, and I'm sure that answer is sufficient enough for you on that, because magnetism doesn't affect your bias quite like gravity does, now does it. But did I prove anything there? No, I just explained how it works, as best we understand it, using a few well defined words and terms.
I can do the same for gravity, it's the bending of space time due to an objects mass that puts matter into an attractive motion between two masses. Essentially, time and space bends around mass, putting it into motion towards other mass, best visualized with balls on a stretched out sheet. But again, did I prove anything there? No, I just explained what we know so far. There's also a lot we don't know, but again, does not knowing everything about something mean it doesn't exist? No, certainly not.
But WHAT is gravity? It's an observed attractive force between two masses. Or it's the force that makes all celestial bodies spherical. Or it's just simply the bending of space time. See the problem? Asking what something is in science, especially physics, is not very specific, so it's a bit of a sloppy question. "What's happening" that is a better question, "what it is" that's just...not very productive in physics, it's sloppy, leads to a lot of confusion as too what someone is referring to specifically.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@outoftime7740 So what’s the distance our vision ends, exactly? 🧐 Kit Canyon pointed out something very simple that refutes your claim there; the Southern Hemisphere is further from the Sun at many points (on your model of a Sun rotating around North pole), yet they receive the same daylight hours as the North does (during their summer months)…so if there’s a limit to our vision, and that’s what really causes sunsets, then how exactly is people in New Zealand seeing thousands of miles further than people in the North, to have the same day time hours? 🧐 Kinda contradicts your claims that sunsets are caused by perspective, and that we have a limit to our vision…don’t ya think?
You’re not thinking things through very well…meanwhile, how does the Globe describe a sunset? Earth turns away from the Sun…there, explanation over. And you think it’s the globe model that’s broken?
Reality simply does not fit what you’re claiming, sorry. If you can’t provide an answer to this simple quandary, then it’s likely because your claims really have no legs to stand on, and so you should really take a moment to reassess your current beliefs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
AVO If you’re attempting to verify gravity, you’re doing a good job. So ya, let’s work through this and see if something finally clicks for you. Density is part of the theory of gravity you numpty, but density is just a state of matter, it has no physical means for putting matter into motion, only a force can do that, it’s the first law of motion. Buoyancy is a force, but it doesn’t exist without gravity, without a downward acceleration first causing the density displacement. This is proven time and again with density columns put in zero G environments, and inside vacuum chambers where matter still falls even with no other matter around to cause the displacement of buoyancy.
Your conclusion is just pure denial...you’re just gonna tell me it’s density that causes things to fall and then completely ignore that density isn’t a force, and completely ignore that there is a motion occurring here that you are not accounting for. Falling is a motion, motion requires a force, the question is what force is causing that motion? Why is it always towards Earth? Why does everything drop at the same consistent rate? Your density argument, doesn’t answer any of these questions, it’s just a way you’ve convinced yourself to remain ignorant and convince yourself that you’re actually smarter than all of modern science. You need gravity to go away, cause it’s not very convenient for your main argument...so your bias demands you deny it exists. So it’s really all you have, denial.
It’s a fact man, things fall, this is a motion that Flat Earth has no real answer for. This motion occurs, it causes atmospheric pressure and it keeps our atmosphere to Earths surface...this is measured, you’re not gonna do your argument any favours by confirming your scientific illiteracy and ignorance.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@eyestoseefe7618 No, denial of gravity is the story Flat Earth conmen told YOU, so they could sell you a model that doesn’t work and has been long proven false.
For the third time, electromagnetic/static attraction effects all matter differently, so we would not expect everything to fall at the exact same rate. It’s not difficult to understand, but you’re sure trying your damndest to ram that square peg into a round hole anyway.
Drop something…it will fall, pretty clear demonstration of a consistent downward motion caused by natural phenomena, and since all motion requires a force, it means a force is causing that motion. Electromagnetism was considered from the very start, but it’s long been falsified, that hypothesis doesn’t fit at all with the properties of that motion, so it’s been discarded. This motion towards surface occurs no matter where you are on Earth’s surface, and Earth is measured and observed to be spherical…so it doesn’t take much deduction after that, to realize this force pulls to centre of Earth. If you don’t think Earth is mapped and measured, you just go ahead and try navigating anywhere long distance, by boat or plane, without using the current system of navigation designed from the knowledge that Earth is spherical.
The simplest way to verify and replicate gravity, is through the Cavendish experiment. It’s also a great experiment to falsify electromagnetism as the cause for the attraction, that is one of the variables you account for in the experiment, and yet an attraction occurs anyway. It’s easily repeatable…conducted in high school and university classes, all around the world, probably on a daily basis. Your ignorance and denial doesn’t change that.
Flat Earth is a falsified hypothesis…you have no working model, and no applied science, it’s that simple. You need to wake up and realize you’ve been conned.
2
-
@eyestoseefe7618 No, you listened blindly to some shmucks on YouTube, who used sleight of hand tricks, dramatic music, and monotone voices to put you in a more suggestive state, so they could sell you a con. It’s smoke and mirrors bud…and you fell for it.
Let’s take your new video for instance. Did you bother to test his claim at all, or did you just eat up every word he said, no questions asked? So he puts a line up on the screen and you just assume that’s an accurate representation of eye level? Good lord you are easily fooled.
You can actually measure the horizon to your eye level, using several methods. The best I’m aware of, is by using a surveying tool known as a theodolite. The other is with a levelling rig you can build yourself out of various household materials. With these tools, you can actually determine eye level and measure the drop as you go higher. Test it at the beach sometime (provided you’re close to an ocean), then get yourself higher and test it again…you’ll find horizon does not actually rise to eye level the higher you go, it does in fact drop. Many have done this simple test, verifying that horizon does not rise to eye level, and you can find their thorough observations on here if you try. Have you tested it? No…I’d be willing to bet you haven’t.
Your video isn’t scientific in the slightest…it is designed to sucker uneducated, paranoid zombies like yourself, that’s why they use many of the same tactics used by hypnotists, in those presentations. It’s brainwashing 101…and you numpty’s just eat it up, nod and agree to every bullshit claim….then you call us indoctrinated? 😅 Oh the irony.
2
-
2
-
@elfalte Well, there’s a completely different sky in the South hemisphere, with its own rotation, around its own pole star. Two poles with two rotations is exactly what we’d expect to see on a sphere, but doesn’t make any sense on a flat Earth with one sky…that’s why it’s relevant. I’m just curious why, if this topic truly interests you, if you’re going to use the stars as argument, then why ignore the Southern observation? 🤷♂️
You can verify the second rotation either by travelling there, and seeing it for yourself, like many of us have, or you can simply look up the probably millions of photos and videos online from various astronomers and photographers, who have documented this observation quite thoroughly. Here’s a great video to get you started https://youtu.be/ZMtx5jVLUaU?t=285. It explains what I’m talking about, with visuals of the geometry to help you understand it better, and it shares real world examples of the observation. Just one of many.
Point is, we can answer for the North star, it doesn’t contradict the globe model. Flat Earth so far has no answer for the Southern stars however…they all just ignore it instead. Why? If you’re going to claim to be objective about this, why ignore an observation that’s very relevant to the discussion? 🤷♂️
That reveals a bias…people who ignore evidence to make their point, are displaying confirmation bias. Filtering out any information that doesn’t agree with the conclusion they’d like to be true…that’s a clear example of confirmation bias.
2
-
@ftlbs928 Buoyancy is directly caused by gravity, that’s physics 101. More than 1 force can exist and work upon an object at the same time. If I pull a piece of metal from a magnet, does that mean magnetism doesn’t exist? No, of course not, it just means the force I’m applying to pull it away is greater than the force of the magnet. Things rise due to buoyancy, because the buoyant force is stronger than gravity, doesn’t mean there’s no gravity present when things rise, buoyancy is just greater in those instances. But again, you actually don’t have buoyancy without gravity, buoyancy is the end result of a chain reaction that begins with gravity. Pressure in a medium is created by gravity, that pressure forces anything not dense enough to withstand it, to be forced upwards, directly in line with force of gravity but in the opposite direction.
Density and buoyancy are already a part of gravity physics my dude…all you’re doing is cutting out the parts you don’t like, because it’s not convenient for what you’ve chosen to believe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@IrelandVonVicious Never said it was an either or situation...there you go arguing with yourself again, putting words in my mouth. The facts are, Flat Earth is easily falsified, while the globe fits with all available evidence, so it has not been falsified. If you have a different model of reality that fits even better with all available evidence, then by all means, present it...until then, the heliocentric model will be the leading theory for describing our physical reality, because it’s not been falsified and it does fit with all available evidence.
See how that works? Science is perfectly fine with discussing possibilities...but conclusions are reached with empirical evidence. It’s fine to present other possible models...but it’s not going to conclude them as accurate, until they can prove they fit and explain reality better than the current leading model. The current conclusions are Flat Earth falsified, Globe Earth verified. Until new evidence can come to light that falsifies the heliocentric model, until a better model is developed and verified that better explains physical reality, then the heliocentric model will remain the dominant theory...that’s how science operates, it’s not a tricky thing to understand.
2
-
@IrelandVonVicious Ah, very interesting. Ya, I typically don’t argue anything past Earth’s geometry. Earth is a sphere, I’ve travelled all around it, I’ve made observations, I understand the current systems of navigation and I’ve put them to the test. I also understand the general physics quite well (up to a point). There’s just far too much evidence in support of that conclusion today, so it’s pretty much non debatable as far as I’m concerned.
As for the expanded models, such as Heliocentrism, never been to space, so there’s much I don’t have experience with, so I don’t really care to argue it. Though I have made several astronomical observations (I do consider myself a bit of an amateur astronomer), so I do agree with the current model, but I’m far from an expert on the topic, so who knows. I’m far less confident in saying that topic is non-debatable, even if I do strongly agree with it. So I won’t argue. That said, that is an avenue of science where I trust the experts who do know what they’re talking about. I don’t feel they have any reason to lie...they’re not putting satellites up into orbit and calculating their trajectories with any other model, so I trust it’s accurate.
Interesting concept though, perhaps I’ll take a look. Have a good one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robertfish4734 Yes, I’ve heard of the Antikythera, a very cleverly designed analog computing device from the Greek and Mesopotamian era. I know that it’s been reversed engineered, and it actually tracks the orbits of planets, to predict celestial events more accurately…so it does more to suggest that the Greeks were slowly learning that Earth was part of a solar system, expanding on the knowledge they already acquired, that Earth is spherical. The two main components of the device, are the orbit of the Moon around the Earth, displaying an Earth in the centre, with the Moon orbiting around it. It’s pretty well known that the Greeks knew the Earth was spherical, I’m sure you’re aware of Eratosthenes by now and his experiment used to measure its circumference. Well, this device expanded on that knowledge.
But again, it’s largely speculation here yet again. The Antikythera device has been reverse engineered as best it can be, but who knows exactly what it was used for? All they had were a few gear components that survived, that were similar in design to the analog devices we used to build, before digital and binary systems took over. And unless you’re part of the team of experts that directly worked on reverse engineering it…I’m certainly not going to agree to any speculations you make about the device. That’s just common sense…or at least it used to be.
2
-
2
-
@robertfish4734 Still goin eh. Still haven’t caught the flaw of your argument yet I see. Well let’s keep trying then I guess. You said; “Again, a higher pressure will always fill the volume of a lower pressure”. Ok…then why doesn’t it in our atmosphere? You keep saying that over and over, and we understand it, but then you don’t really provide an answer to the immediate and obvious question it then creates. Why doesn’t the high pressure at surface, move into the low pressure above? Pretty simple question.
The best answer you’ve provided so far to our question; “The reason we have a higher pressure at sea level and a low pressure at higher levels happens exactly because we have an atmosphere and there is no infinite surrounding exceptionally low pressure that, using science here, always causes a higher pressure to fill the volume of a lower pressure”. Boy that’s one hell of a word salad to dodge the question entirely. You’ve not answered the question…you’ve basically said “it just doesn’t” and then circled back around to your vacuum argument, completely ignoring the question entirely. Your answer is basically “high pressure at surface doesn’t move into low pressure above, because atmosphere…”. 🤦♂️ Great…but that doesn’t answer the question.
You’re trying REALLY hard to ignore the obvious answer…gravity, that’s why. The pressure gradient is caused by the downward force we observe and measure from all matter on Earth, the weight of the gas above, pressing down on the gas below. Creates pressure like stacking anything does. I’m sure you’ve been in a pile up before, do you feel more pressure at the bottom of the pile, or near the top? Obviously the bottom…right? Why do you feel more pressure at the bottom? Because you’re supporting the weight of all the other bodies above you…gravity, pushing them all down upon you, creating more pressure, the more mass your supporting above you. Our atmosphere works the same way…it’s not difficult to deduce how a gradient pressure works. The downward force of gravity, creates the pressure gradient.
You have to be honest with yourself eventually…you’re just doing everything you can to not admit that a downward force is present, and that it creates a gradient of pressure. That’s the hole in your argument…we understand your point with Boyles law, we get it, but gravity more than accounts for your problem. It explains perfectly why atmosphere doesn’t fully expand out into space. You’re not doing anything so far to convince us that gravity is not a reality. And again, you’ve still provided ZERO tangible evidence for the dome you believe is up there. No physical samples, no physical measurements, no experiments that are repeatable that directly interact with it…all you have is a butchered understanding of gas laws and a few government documents you speculate on and forced your own biased interpretations upon. So personal misunderstandings, and biased conjectures…doesn’t make for a very strong argument.
So you have to at least see our perspective by now…you’re not falsifying gravity, you’re just denying it exists. Do you really think denial makes for a strong argument? 🤷♂️ You’ve done nothing to falsify gravity so far…and nothing to verify the dome. Do you see yet why we’re still questioning you?
We’re just gonna keep going in circles here, so let’s be clear. We have all concluded that gravity creates our atmosphere, because it makes sense of the gradient we measure and it fits with all the other evidence. So until you successfully falsify gravity (denial is not falsification), OR verify the firmament dome with ACTUAL evidence, until then you’re not gonna get anywhere here with this argument of yours.
So I’ll ask the question again a different way, we’ll just focus on the pressure gradient. What is causing the consistent pressure gradient we measure in our atmosphere? If not a downward force creating pressure, then what is it?
2
-
@robertfish4734 The core of the issue here is two fold. 1) You’re denying gravity exists without doing anything to falsify it. 2) You are concluding there is a dome above, without any tangible evidence supporting its existence, just a denial of gravity and the effect it has on gas to create an atmosphere.
I 100% agree that atmospheric pressure is caused by a stacking of air molecules, the weight of the gas above pressing down upon the gas below. But what is causing that downward motion? Why that downward direction? What is pulling matter in that direction to cause the pressure gradient in that specific direction? You can say it’s density of the matter, but that doesn’t really answer for that motion. Density is just a property of matter, it is not a force, it does not cause motion. Drop something, even in a vacuum, it will fall…that is a motion. First law of motion is pretty simple, nothing with mass is put into motion without a force. Falling is clearly a motion and it is always in a consistent direction, at a consistent rate here on Earth. This motion, implies an attractive force is present, we just gave that force a name, we called it gravity.
If that downward attraction exists, and we know it does, not even gas is free from this, then that explains how we have an atmosphere in a vacuum. Earth attracts molecules of gas to it, that gas builds up around the surface, that creates an atmosphere with a pressure gradient, going from 14.7 psi at surface, to eventually zero in space. The container is therefore gravity.
You’re agreeing with us…you just don’t realize it. We all agree weight causes the pressure gradient…but what is weight? It all comes back to gravity, you can’t get around it…as hard as you’re trying too. You have to be extremely stubborn, to deny something so obvious.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nicholashpitts Boy, you’re really doing all you can to deny and ignore some pretty simple evidence. A theodolite isn’t hard to understand, it’s pretty basic. You calibrate it at sea level, so eye level is set to horizon, then as you rise it remains calibrated...if horizon is seen is seen to drop below the eye level calibration, then it’s a problem for your claim of “horizon always rising to eye level”. It’s pretty simple. I understand your “apparent horizon” counter argument, but that’s why I shared two examples that made their observations during sunset. We can both agree that the Sun sets at horizon, the Sun is clearly seen below the eye level calibration in both examples...which is a problem for your “apparent horizon” counter argument, because the Sun pretty much removes all doubt of where horizon is.
But hey, at least you’re finally trying to make an effort, but you got a long ways to go.
2
-
2
-
@nicholashpitts Oh I’m well aware of Flat Earths explanation for a sunset, we can get to that next if you want, but if you want to move on then you’re now attempting to deflect from the point we’re already focusing on, which means you’re running out of explanations and falsification is running its course.
One last time, the claim is that horizon rises to eye level, but actually measuring the horizon as you rise in altitude reveals that claim is false, as I’ve demonstrated. Refraction will have an effect on what’s obscured by horizon, but it has no effect on the theodolite or the leveling rig measuring the horizon drop from eye level, so nope, you are just deflecting now. So the evidence I’ve shared stands, horizon does not rise to eye level as you go higher in altitude, it in fact drops.
As a bonus, It also drops at the rate it should given Earths scale. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth just click the first yellow tab labelled “Curve” and watch the demonstration found here, where they match geometric calculations with real world photos. So it doesn’t just drop, it also matches with the geometry and scale.
We can discuss sunsets next if you want, that’s a whole new problem for Flat Earth, so I’m game to show you where they go wrong here as well.
2
-
@nicholashpitts Well, by all means, share this evidence at “371,000 feet” then, why waste time? I can’t do anything with empty claims, you got evidence you think will shut me up, then why not share it? Your logic here is pretty odd...have you ever actually gone through a falsification process before? I have shared evidence that shows horizon drops at just a couple thousand feet and the drop at 45,000 feet is even greater. That same evidence shows the sun setting at a horizon line well under eye level, telling you exactly where horizon is, which falsifies your “apparent horizon” argument. While you’ve shared...empty claims and excuses and deflection attempts. 😂
Just sayin, you’re really not doin a very good job here so far...it was pretty clear at the start, but is becoming more and more clear who really has nothing going for their arguments.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@str8choc “Like Gravity, its suppose to be what keeps everything firmly pinned to the earth, like our oceans, :-( yet we’re able to walk, jump, fly, everything and gravity don’t touch us, lol. I guess we’re stronger than Oceans ha ha :-9 doh”
Wow....just wow. Last I checked, water wasn’t a living creature, that burns energy to put itself in motion. When you jump, what happens? You only jump so high...then you come back down, right? You didn’t just go flying up into space...you came back down, this happens every time you jump. Same with flying, when a bird stops flapping its wings, what happens? It comes back down, right? When you die and your body no longer creates energy to put through your muscles...what happens, are you standing anymore, can you walk, or does your body fall to the ground and remain there? I hope you’ve been living in reality long enough, that I don’t need to tell you.
How can you honestly think this is an argument? Like...it’s no wonder you fell for flat Earth, you’re stupid. There’s no other way to put it. Oceans don’t have wings dumbass...of course they can’t fly. Gravity doesn’t just shut off when you jump, all you did was produce enough energy to resist it for a short time. Oceans are not alive, so they have no fucking means of creating their own energy and no consciousness to make a decision like walking, jumping, or flying. :/
It’s just stunning....are you just joking, or what? Cause there is no way you can actually think there is anything intelligent about your argument here.
2
-
2
-
Okay, but what’s the alternative? Would you prefer a system without checks and balances, without any peer review amongst only accredited experts? It may not be a perfect system…but it’s better than doing nothing, and just allowing everyone to have a say…that gets messy and unorganized real fast.
It’s people who suck…not the system, the systems of peer review we create are to help regulate the errors, bias and outright lies of individuals attempting to poison the well of information. It’s not a perfect system, things do slip through the cracks and it can be corrupted, but how exactly would you fix that? Any solutions, rather than just pointing out the obvious?
It all gets ironed out eventually, nice thing about pseudoscience is that it reveals itself eventually, by how absolutely baseless and useless it is. It doesn’t work…and so anything that does make it through, eventually gets weeded out over time. Take the antivax movement of the 90’s and early 2000’s for example; the claims of vaccines causing autism. It all started with a bogus paper from a doctor (Andrew Wakefield) who claimed a specific vaccine called MMR (Measels, Mumps, Rubella) started in the bowels to cause autism after injection. The paper was published in a highly respected medical journal…but upon further peer review it was discovered the data was all fabricated, could not be replicated. Further investigation revealed that the doctor who published, had also put in a new patent for a vaccine just covering Measels…the argument he was fabricating was that the joined vaccine was causing autism, but HIS single vaccine that covered only one disease, wouldn’t. Essentially…he fabricated the whole lie of the MMR vaccine causing autism, so he could make millions selling HIS vaccine.
It of course got out of his control…because the general public aren’t doctors and so they generalized it into being “all vaccines cause autism” and then it became a shit storm. He then couldn’t even sell his vaccine…because he had just created the antivax movement.
It was later revealed his paper was bogus, and an investigation revealed a major conflict of interest as the source…he was trying to make millions selling his own vaccine, by essentially taking out the competition. He eventually had his license to practice medicine removed, and his paper was redacted from the medical journal it was published in.
So yes…it does happen, but it doesn’t last long BECAUSE of peer review. The scientific community eventually catches these errors and lies…that’s why peer review is there in the first place, it just takes time in some cases. Bullshit can only hold up so long…the very large majority of scientists are good people, who just want the best for society as a whole. So the huxters are grossly out numbered, they don’t dominate peer review. Even companies with agendas don’t last long against peer review…we’ve removed several harmful toxins from day to day life, thanks to peer review weeding out the bullshit science lobbied by big companies. It’s not perfect, but it’s certainly better than nothing.
The problem is the general public…they run with misinformation and take off with it, and then it becomes nearly impossible to sift through the mess they create. It’s mob mentality, taking over and pretending their experts, skipping over all peer review…that’s the real problem as I see it. The antivax movement of the 90’s started because the general public got confused and thought ALL vaccines cause autism…when the paper that the claim originated from was only claiming it was ONE vaccine in particular (MMR), and it’s never actually been proven that even that vaccine caused it.
So, yes, there are people who poison the well of information…but it’s not the scientific method that’s the problem, some people just suck, and there’s no way to really avoid that…bad people have always existed, and will always exist. So it’s a bit counter productive to point out the obvious…what’s the solution? That’s a better place to focus the conversation.
2
-
@riandcaz 2. If I could share outside links I would, but YouTubes algorithms auto delete comments with outside links attached…can’t even mention site names without the algorithm deleting them. But really, you couldn’t find any? I find that hard to believe, because I searched Apollo photos, and immediately found an archive with hundreds of them…it was the very first link. Is your search bar not working or something? 🧐
You asked for photos that weren’t CGI or composites, so I figured sharing photos that were taken long before CGI or composites existed, would fit that bill perfectly fine. If you want more recent photos, then just look up any photos from the ISS, or from geostationary weather satellites like Himawari, GOES, or EPIC.
3. Pilots won’t notice they’re compensating for any curvature, anymore than you realize when you’re curving around a big bend on a highway. You do it all by reflex, very little conscious effort…now imagine a bend that’s 25,000 miles circumference. When they say they don’t have to compensate for curvature, what they mean is that Earth’s curvature is so gradual, it has no rapidly changing or immediate effects on their ability to pilot…they’re not constantly nose diving like you seem to think.
You know a plane doesn’t have to nose down to drop in altitude though right? When a plane’s landing, is its nose down? No, it’s just allowing gravity to help it descend…that’s exactly what it does at all times while in flight, it remains in constant balance with gravity, no nosing down required, just allow gravity to help…which isn’t difficult, that’s how they fly in the first place, gravity is part of the equation for generating lift.
31.5 meters? Over what distance, where are you getting that figure? But yes, planes fluctuate in altitude constantly, but these are gradual changes, they’re not sudden or rapid by any means, any pilot can account for these fluctuations easily without much conscious effort, just keep the plane in line with horizon indicator and the altimeter, through thousands of little adjustments that add up over time…just like driving around a bend on a highway, but even far more gradual than that.
The mechanical gyroscopes in the nav equipment actually have a device for this, it’s called a pendulous vane. Feel free to look them up, they help keep the gyros pitched to surface if they fall out of alignment for any reason, including Earth curvature.
4. Yes, new does not necessarily mean better for every task, there’s pros and cons to every technology. For example; a direct phone line is far more stable than any cellular connection, so that’s one way it’s actually better than cellular. But you can’t have a direct line while in a moving vehicle, so that’s a con…see how this works! Every technology has pros and cons, new does not necessarily mean better for every task. Analog is sturdier, it’s not effected by strong electromagnetic fields, it won’t break down, that’s a pro. They are however limited in what they can do, they’re bigger, so to complete mire tasks with them, you require more of them, and that adds weight. That’s a con. Our modern computers have much tinier micro processors, they are gravely effected by electromagnetic fields, that’s a con. But they’re far lighter for the amount of tasks they can achieve…is any of this clicking yet?
It means if we want to include modern systems in a space vessel, then it has to be engineered and rigorously tested in that environment, before it can be cleared for safety. What do you think the ISS is for? It’s essentially a laboratory, in the environment of space…perfect for testing new equipment in that environment.
The reality is we wouldn’t go back to the Moon in the same old spacecraft, because they’re limited in what they can achieve…and we’d like to do a LOT more than just collect a few rock samples. But nobody was funding R&D for new lunar modules, so we weren’t developing spacecraft with modern tech, that could make the trip without failure. We have modern probes in deeper space, but It’s far easier to shield a system when you don’t have to worry about an interior cabin for a living crew, that also needs hundreds of other life support systems, that won’t break down on them mid mission. It’s easier to put unmanned probes out into deeper space, far easier than it is to send out manned missions.
Well funded? Do you know how much it costs for a single rocket launch? A few million dollars per day may seem like a lot to you and me…but to a massive company with thousands of buildings and (high end) employees, working on hundreds of different contracts at once…and operating in one of the most hostile environments that exists, they’re lucky if they can keep the lights on. You should compare their annual budget to the US military budget sometime…you’ll shit yourself. It’s pennies compared to them.
It’s also a resource management problem, in the 50’s and 60’s, the Moon mission was top priority, so every dime went into that one mission. Today NASA has hundreds of different projects on the go, so that’s going to spread their budget pretty thin.
NASA just got lucky, because private companies like SpaceX started developing reusable rockets, which has dropped the price tag for a single rocket mission from billions of dollars, to just a few million. So that’s why we’re able to go back to the Moon now, it’s now economically viable.
You can continue to believe what you’d like though, my biases are leading many of my conclusions as well, it’s unavoidable really. Which is why I prefer sticking to topics I don’t have to speculate on. We can really only speculate on the Moon missions, unless we’re an astronaut, neither side can really reach definite conclusions, we can only rationalize through speculations that appease our personal biases.
I don’t have to speculate when it comes to the Earth though…I can make my own observations, take my own measurements, and reach definite conclusions. So why focus so much on photos of Earth or the Moon? You could just learn to navigate, and then realize that every pilot and sailor in the world uses a globe for navigation, and that model works every time it’s applied. Do you honestly think it would work if it were wrong?
For me it’s not difficult to spot actual pseudoscience…it doesn’t work. Flat Earth has no working model and is not used in any field of applied science…that’s for a good reason, because it’s not reality.
2
-
2
-
@adewey33 Wow. 🤦♂️ It’s an optical illusion, easily demonstrated and explained…the Sun is not really in those clouds. The cloud density varies, and the intense light from the Sun washes the thinner portions out with its brightness. It’s not difficult stuff to understand. Here’s a simple proof…this guys even a flat Earther, but at least he’s honest https://youtu.be/cG6mJ8bHFxw.
Seriously, just stop and think about it for a second longer than you have. Clouds like that are generally 3-6 miles up…so you think the Sun is only 3-6 miles in the sky? 🤷♂️ Ok…then why aren’t pilots regularly hitting the Sun or at least getting close to it? You don’t think pilots wouldn’t regularly be trying to reach the Sun, if it was only that high? It would be a very regular occurrence. Heck, flying during the day would be a real hazard, pilots would be trained to avoid the Sun…but here’s the thing, they’re not…gee, I wonder why? Hmmmm…🧐
Furthermore, so the Sun heats half of the entire planet at once…the Sun from that elevation would be what, a few football fields diameter? How exactly does something that small heat half of the entire Earth? 🤷♂️ Even in FE, Earth is still REALLY big, so how does something so small heat it? It would have to be REALLY hot (and of course the Sun is, but hotter at that size), but then how does it just sit in the clouds (which is basically just water vapour), without completely evaporating the clouds? 🤷♂️
Also, so if it’s that close and that small, then how does half of the Earth see it all at once? Have you really thought about this at all? 🤷♂️
You can’t honestly think you have a sound argument with this, do you? Maybe leave the thinking to scientists…cause there’s a reason you’re not one. At the very least get yourself a better filter…stop falling for every hoax that pops up in your YouTube feed. Take a moment to THINK about these things a bit longer before you just blindly agree.
2
-
2
-
@ekulenwaiku4654 Boy...you say I’m ignoring things, then you completely ignore the experiments I shared, that physically measure the angles of the suns rays and verify that they’re parallel. The parallel lines simulation is just to demonstrate how parallel lines, when viewed from varying angles, can and will produce the illusion that the lines are converging at a point. I made it very clear that this was not a proof on its own, just a logical explanation demonstrating how the optical illusion works, but the 4 videos I shared afterwards, do verify that the suns light is arriving parallel. Which means it’s real world evidence, that supports the explanation and vice versa, no contradictions, which is a helluva a lot more than what you have. I suggest you watch them, absorb what they are demonstrating, then you can reply on that point.
The video you shared is not a proper rebuttal, nor is it evidence...you just completely ignored everything I shared and stated the same narrow conclusion, without evidence backing it. In what world do you think that’s good enough?
Are you just trolling me? There’s no way you’re that dense...just arguing a nonsensical position for the challenge and the lol’s are we?
2
-
2
-
Few things to point out if you don’t mind. Level does not only mean flat, the word itself has many different definitions depending on the context. For example, the surface of a bowling ball can be defined as level, in that all points along its surface are equal distance from centre of the mass, the surface is all at the same LEVEL from centre. In physics, a similar thing occurs when a mass is placed in a field of force that acts upon it equally from all sides, creating an equipotential surface. A water droplet, or a bubble, that both form a sphere due to surface tension/molecular bonding, are examples of an equipotential surface, a sphere with a level surface, all points at equal distance from centre, level from centre. Spheres are actually the most rigid shape in nature, and they’re more common than you think…it’s no coincidence every planet, moon and star are all spherical.
This is important to understand here, because the globe model isn’t just a sphere, it also generates a field of force emanating from a centre, that we call gravity. This force would absolutely put water at equipotential distance from centre of force, centre of gravity. Which would form it into a sphere around that centre…just like a bubble or a water droplet.
Even if you disagree gravity is not real, your comment does nothing to falsify gravity, it just ignores it completely. It also stubbornly refuses to recognize the nuance of a word such as level. Your comment I’m afraid only keeps you looking at the surface of the problem, keeping you from seeing or entertaining the other possibility’s. Just because the surface appears flat to us at our perspective, doesn’t mean it necessarily is, because geometrically speaking, the closer you are to a spherical surface, the flatter it will appear to you, as demonstrated here https://youtu.be/U8Vz9r2yWO8.
And here’s another example of what the surface of water can and will do, when put within a field of force, this time a centrifugal force https://youtu.be/cTCwhicKKwU. Notice the very pronounced curvature? What this demonstrates clearly, is that water (and all matter with mass really) will conform to whatever force is acting upon it.
So you really can’t reach a definite conclusion here, with your comment. It ignores physics, geometry and the nuance of the English language…as well as the evidence that more than proves today that Earth is spherical. So it’s basically an argument from ignorance at its core, which doesn’t make for a very sound argument.
I mean no disrespect though, I just see this argument made a lot and I do feel it’s a bit ignorant and flawed, for the reasons I’ve pointed out. If you’d like to see some evidence for the globe, I don’t mind sharing a bit more and discussing. Despite my strong disagreements with Flat Earth, I’m not here to scoff at people for asking questions and being skeptical, on the contrary, I think it’s great that people are out there still questioning the science and conclusions the majority have largely moved on from and don’t explore anymore. So don’t feel discouraged, and if you have some rebuttals to my comment, feel free to let me know. Cheers.
2
-
Ah, playing the classic wolf in sheep’s clothing bit eh. In my experience Flat Earth doesn’t really have evidence (nothing that can stand up to scrutiny anyway), mostly misunderstandings, half truths, and in the worst instances straight up lies.
Your points for example:
Claims of flight manuals describing a flat earth - these are really simulation models, pretty much all mathematical simulation models have simplified variables that are not to be taken as literal. Simulations are not reality, they merely simulate portions of reality and simplify the rest…they are using assumed variables. Many of these models also assume a perfectly rigid vehicle of constant mass. Both are impossible in reality, every vehicle has moving parts (so not perfectly rigid) and fuel that depletes over time (so does not maintain constant mass). Why don’t Flat Earthers focus on these variables? Because they don’t confirm their bias. This argument they blindly repeat is an example of cherry picking, classic confirmation bias at work. If they had any advanced mathematical training, they’d recognize a mathematical simulation model when they saw one.
Claiming that water doesn’t curve - an argument from ignorance, a clever misdirection by asserting something as a fact, without evidence to support that assertion. Water is inert, it conforms to whatever forces are acting upon it, it really has no problem curving within a field of force https://youtu.be/cTCwhicKKwU. This argument ignores the force of gravity, while doing nothing to falsify gravity. So it’s just an argument from ignorance, nothing more.
Claiming all photos of Earth are CGI - this is false, the very large majority of photos of Earth are taken by geostationary weather satellites, by regular cameras, in single shots. And some of the first photos of Earth were taken during the Apollo missions, hundreds of photos were taken during these missions, all on regular film, long before CGI was even a thing. The claim that all photos of Earth are CGI, comes from another bit of cherry picking, twisting words out of context, from a guy who worked on the 2002 Blue Marble composite image of Earth. He was merely trying to explain how a composite image is made, how THAT one image was made…but Flat Earthers took his words out of context, spinning them into a lie, claiming that he was implying all photos from NASA are composite and therefore photoshopped and CGI. So this argument from Flat Earthers is an empty speculation, born from a lie.
Flat Earthers don’t really have much when you really get down too it…there is a reason this model was abandoned. Today, it’s just a con that’s perpetuated online by huxters…huxters like yourself, who make sock puppet accounts, to play devils advocate, spreading bullshit under the guise of a neutral party. If they had any credibility, they wouldn’t require such deceitful tactics.
2
-
@SuperMoshady We agree that clouds do not climb any higher, oxygen does not either, sulphur hexafluoride barely gets off the ground, so what exactly is stopping them, if gas expands indefinitely? You keep saying gas should fill space, stating that it’s free to move about, even claiming that gravity doesn’t effect it...and yet there’s a gradient in pressure. Air getting thinner and thinner the higher you go, to a point of vacuum and no container detected at any stage, so what is keeping the gas from going higher? What exactly is stopping oxygen from expanding into the area where hydrogen resides? Not sure how you can claim gravity doesn’t effect gas, when a pressure gradient exists, or when clouds are observed to sit at a specific altitude, never climbing higher.
You mentioned smoke before. Of course we all know that smoke rises, but have you ever seen what smoke does in a vacuum chamber? Here’s a quick demonstration you might be interested in https://youtu.be/Yb2YuC7UbwI?t=139. Notice how instead of rising indefinitely, it actually loses the kinetic energy putting it upwards quite quickly, then falls to the bottom, even pooling at the bottom in a layer. Funny how that happens, when no other gas is around to displace it upward...almost like gas is effected by gravity and buoyancy is directly caused by gravity causing displacement.
Buoyancy is created by gravity, gases rise due to buoyancy, it’s not difficult, but you’re sure doing all that you can to deny what we’re trying to help you with. It’s the exact same displacement observed in other fluids, such as some oils rising in water. You’ve observed oil falling I’m sure...so what exactly keeps it from continuing to fall within water? Gas is a fluid, so it behaves similar. Your trouble is thinking in absolutes, you seem to think that because gravity is a downward attraction, it can’t have any influence or involvement in buoyancy, which is an upward motion. But I’m telling you, they’re one in the same, it’s the motion downward from denser matter (gravity), that pushes less dense matter upward, it requires gravity. The experiment I shared earlier in the van, does more than enough to prove what density displacement and motion of air fluids, is capable of. This is well understood in all of science. You’re free to challenge that I suppose, but good luck with that, as I’ve mentioned many times now, it’s an applied science today.
2
-
@SuperMoshady Yes, all matter with mass creates its own gravity, that’s the current consensus within gravity physics. But that’s a different topic entirely, we’re not even past the start of gravity physics, and that’s a huge topic to cover. So I’m sorry, but I don’t have all the time in the world to teach you General Relativity physics, you’ll have to catch up on that on your own time, I’m just here to have a light conversation on some basic physics 101 level stuff you had questions for. If there are holes in your current knowledge of science, then that is probably a big part of your problem.
I bring up satellites for two reasons. They’re in a vacuum and they have to be in order for their orbits to be possible at all (no friction in a vacuum, so high velocity orbits can be achieved). So it matters for the discussion, because they exist in a space you claim is not possible to exist...and yet that’s where they are. You’re very good at circler reasoning, but it doesn’t really matter what physics you misunderstand or twist, if technology already exists that defeats everything you’re claiming. I’m just saying, why bother wrestling with strangers in comment threads, when you could be doing more? But you’re right, it’s a bit of a distraction from what we’re discussing, so I’ll leave it at that.
I’m just calling things like I see them, there is a lot of physics you don’t seem to be aware of, or are intentionally ignoring for arguments sake, so you’re making a great many arguments from ignorance. You want to talk about logical fallacies, that’s a big one.
You seem to think repeating empty claims somehow makes them true, what a silly belief to have. Again, no laws of thermodynamics are broken, gravity puts gas back down to surface, you’re just misunderstanding entropy. You’d have to prove gravity doesn’t effect gas, but good luck with that, I’ve already demonstrated with a few examples that it does.
Now let’s see, you have some questions you keep mentioning, I’ll now address those quickly. I will mention though, you can be quite impatient you know, you do realize people have lives, right?
“Experiment is the part that pelroves the hypothesis.”
Yes, but you can’t set out to test a hypothesis...if you don’t first have a hypothesis. Gotta go in order here, we were just working on the hypothesis for now. You asked what the observed phenomenon in nature is, it’s motion between matter, we call it falling. We’ve all observed this motion, it happens, the question is why and how? That’s what science sets out to solve...what’s the point of doing science at all though, if some people are just going to deny a very simple phenomenon exists, just so they can cling to a bias? We have to remain objective, that requires we admit a few things. The motion of falling matter is a phenomenon of nature, it’s undeniable and you know it, so that’s where we start.
Ok, so a hypothesis can be formed here, that mass attracts mass. Like it or not, some guess work goes into hypothesis, we observe a phenomenon, but to figure out what’s causing it, we have to make a few guesses, then we test them. Several hypothesis were put forward to account for this observed motion of falling matter, the most prevailing being that mass is attracting other mass. Here’s where the cause and effect variables come in. So an experiment was devised to test mass attraction, it is known as the Cavendish experiment. I’m sure you’ve heard of it, but here’s a good explanation and demonstration in case you haven’t https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68.
Hypothesis is that mass is attracting mass. The Independent variable is the set angle of the suspended rod between the objects set to test the attraction. The dependent variable is the observed shift in angle of the suspended rod, once the mass is introduced. If no oscillation or shift occurs, then there is no mass attraction. If an obvious shift and oscillation is observed, then the hypothesis has evidence supporting it. So it ticks all the boxes for a valid experiment, observed phenomenon, hypothesis, independent and dependent variables all accounted for.
Feel free to watch the demonstration I shared, it explains in pretty good detail how the experiment is conducted and how variables such as torque, electromagnetism, air currents, etc, are controlled during testing. Upon all recreation, it’s quite conclusive, the masses are attracting each other, which does help support the larger hypothesis of why objects are attracted to surface. From there it’s been tested thoroughly, in many different forms, nothing so far has successfully falsified the hypothesis, so we can conclude it’s accurate.
“...would the gas stay at the bottom, or fill the space?”
Well, as I’ve already demonstrated with the example of smoke in a vacuum, it will fall to the bottom. With no denser matter around to force it upward, there’s just gravity, pulling the gas down, so it will fall.
“Is Earth an open system?”
Yes, but it also has the force of gravity, which attracts gas to surface and creates our pressure gradient atmosphere.
2
-
@SuperMoshady Another one for you, here’s another great experiment that verifies what I’m talking about https://youtu.be/YDXQ-VBjW7Q?t=192. I’ve stopped it at point so you can hear someone else say what I’ve already told you, that gravity directly causes buoyancy, but please feel free to watch the whole video. This is the understanding within all of science, that buoyancy is caused by gravity, so you’re not just arguing with me here, you’re arguing with all of science.
As stated before as well, the formula used in engineering for calculating buoyancy effect is Fb=Vpg, little g being the downward acceleration of gravity. Real engineers use this formula, when designing ship ballasts, or even when simply calculating how much weight a ship can carry. Without the downward acceleration of gravity within the equation, you couldn’t calculate this figure, that’s for a good reason, because gravity plays a part in the effect of buoyancy, as I’ve been trying to tell you.
So now you know, buoyancy is directly caused by gravity. Perhaps you’ll have a Eureka momentum here eventually like Archimedes, but we’ll see I guess. You really shouldn’t call someone stupid though, especially when it’s you who are in the wrong, you just get egg on your face that way.
2
-
@SuperMoshady If I may side track a little on a different topic. You know the nice thing about science, is that you can be pretty confident it’s correct, when the science works, when it is actually useful and is applied in the real world. The opposite is also true, the one nice thing about pseudoscience is that it reveals itself pretty quickly, the moment it demonstrates how useless it is. Tell me, where is FE science used in any applied science that you’re aware of? Just allow that to sink in for a bit.
Why no working scientific model? If Earth is flat, if no gravity, if a firmament is required for gas pressure...why is the heliocentric model still used for...everything? Better question, HOW is it used for everything? It shouldn’t work at all if it’s wrong. Millions of experts around the world, using the same science and formulas and geometry...and it always works. Hmmmm...I wonder why? Some pretty simple realizations I’d say...and yet it still doesn’t sink in for some. It’s truly incredible what ego and bias will do, the power of belief.
I think you’ve listened too far to many ramblings from pseudo intellectuals and grifters, like N Oakley or Bob “not a pilot” Knodel. You sound almost exactly like them. I’m curious though, what applied science have they contributed towards, that gives them authority over actual scientists who have contributed to applied science? Why do so many believe these people who have never achieved anything, beyond whining? Have these individuals derived any equations of their own, equivalent to the simple buoyancy formula (Fb=Vpg), that’s actually used in engineering today? Ever tried calculating a buoyancy force, without using the acceleration of gravity in the equation? Of course you haven’t, because none of you are scientists or engineers...just talkers. Talking all day long, but achieving nothing.
Becomes pretty obvious who’s pushing pseudoscience, when nothing FE rambles about, is useful in any way. I hope that sinks in someday.
Think I’ll stick to the science that’s actually working, thanks.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Welp…that’s gotta be up there as one of the dumbest arguments I’ve heard. Comparing objectively fictional characters and stories…to a plausible scenario, and pretending like they’re the same thing. Can you say False Equivalency fallacy? 😳 Optimus Prime is a fictional character…of course he doesn’t fucking exist. UFO’s however is a broad term for a phenomenon with plenty of evidence supporting it…and givin how vast the cosmos are, it’s within the realm of plausible that life and even intelligent life could happen again, somewhere else, and they could be more advanced than us…it’s absolutely possible.
And yes, I do know we can pass the Van Allen Belt, because I know the radiation levels within the belt are really not that strong! I know that if you can reduce exposure time within the belt, then the radiation dosage would be no worse than receiving a few X-rays. I also know that the Apollo missions plotted an orbital trajectory that went around the belt, not directly through it. Sooooo…yup, just another dumb argument from you really.
They didn’t lose the tech, what they lost was the funding to build and maintain new tech. This might come as a shock to you, but it’s costs a lot of MONEY to design, engineer, manufacture, test, maintain, and launch a single spacecraft. Would you want to go into the harsh environment of space, in a vehicle that’s been rusting in a warehouse for a few decades? Ya…probably not. So if there’s no funding for that purpose, how are they gonna go back chief? 🧐
Stupid people shouldn’t be allowed online….seriously, their should be a license required to comment online. 🤦♂️
2
-
2
-
@rogerdubarry8505 I didn’t say it does prove a spherical Earth, but a rotating spherical Earth does account for a sunset, in every way…from the steady 15 degrees per hour it traces through the sky no matter where you are, to the angular size of the sun which never changes, to the observable positions of the Sun from around the world, etc. All the data fits the Globe model…the geometry perfectly accounts for the occurrence of a sunset, requiring very little explanation. Earth rotates away from the Sun…there, explanation over. Meanwhile, the Flat Earth hypothesis of perspective accounting for this daily occurrence, really doesn’t account for it. When you really analyze the hypothesis closer, it does not hold up. You have to ignore several fundamental rules of perspective, to force that conclusion to make any sense…in fact it’s very akin to ramming a square peg into a round hole…that’s how many of us see the perspective argument.
Science is about falsification, the globe model holds up here, while the Flat Earth model does not…so while it doesn’t necessarily prove the Earth is spherical, it does falsify any possibility of it being flat. So that’s the point…your argument is not very good, you’re basically asking us to ignore simple geometry. Geometry that you should understand…it’s pretty simple stuff.
2
-
2
-
I understand this was just your example to help make your point, but just wanted to point something out unless you weren’t aware; the “birds are fake conspiracy” was actually a social experiment by the founders. It was started by high school kids who were tired with misinformation ruling the public information pool, so they were trying to make a point; by starting the most obviously bullshit conspiracy they could think of, as means to shine a light on a real problem plaguing society today…the problem of misinformation. It was a test of Poe’s law, to raise awareness of a real problem we’re facing today. Essentially, it’s a big inside joke, that anyone can be a part of, with the goal of hopefully teaching people not to blindly believe everything they hear online at face value.
Anyway, figured I’d share that info in case you weren’t aware. Unfortunately, Poe’s law is pretty effective…so even though it should be blatantly obvious it’s just a joke to teach society an important lesson, it still falls a bit victim to its own joke at times. 😅
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tranquoc-binh5287 All I’m saying is, we don’t throw out an entire scientific model...because of one person’s (or even a group of peoples) misunderstandings of engineering and physics. Does the second hemisphere just go away because you’re having trouble wrapping your head around gyros? Should we scrap current navigation systems, that use Earth’s spherical geometry, just cause you think gyros shouldn’t work on a globe? Do satellites just not exist anymore, because you think a flywheel couldn’t function on a spinning Earth? No...all of these things will still exist, they don’t change simply because someone has some personal misunderstandings that are their own.
When you really get down to it, it’s just one groups refusal to admit they don’t know everything about physics or engineering. That’s basically what Flat Earth boils down too.
I’m all for people questioning science, that’s what science is all about, asking questions...but when do people consider the possibility that they’re maybe reaching false conclusions, due to their own personal lack of knowledge or understanding? Flat Earthers are just so over confident...never accepting that they could be wrong, they never even seem to consider that as a possibility...and I just find that odd. That’s strange human behaviour to me, because I often question whether I’m right, I’ll always consider the possibility that I could be wrong, I never assume I’m infallible. Because nobody is infallible, not even genius’s.
You have some great questions concerning gyros, so I urge you to learn more. Not even I know everything about them. The technology is advancing so quickly now, that I’ve heard of tiny gyros with absolutely no moving parts...and I have currently no idea how that works, but it’s fascinating. The MEM gyros within your phone actually measure gravity and Coriolis, so they readjust constantly to the current gravity vector and Earth’s rotation. Tons of information online for how they work, so feel free to research them.
I’m sorry, but your argument is a bit flawed here. You seem to think they can’t engineer every gyro system with mechanics that can account for surface geometry and motion...but why exactly? If these are two variables that need to be accounted for, and if engineers can account for them (which I’ve demonstrated that they can), then why wouldn’t every gyro system include these mechanics? And if one doesn’t...then do you ever consider that maybe they’re either flawed designs, or perhaps the mechanism wasn’t important for the job being used for?
Just saying, your own misunderstandings, do not change science and engineering. The fact is they DO design gyros with mechanisms designed to account for surface geometry and motion...so why would they bother including these mechanisms, if they don’t really need them? That’s a good question you should ask yourself. But, keep researching I suppose, you seem passionate about this, so don’t let me or anyone else discourage you.
2
-
2
-
@luckyhaskins69 So I assume you have money, being an old tech CEO as you claim (unless you floundered pretty hard), so assuming you do why not take a trip down to Antarctica to see the 24 hour Sun for yourself? If it really means that much to you, seems like a really easy way to make sure, just a little bit if travel and money and you can know for certain what’s what. I’ve been as far South as a little town in NZ known as Invercargill, and their longest day in the summer is 15 and a half hours long...how exactly does that work on any flat Earth model?
It’s just a basic problem of geometry, if the Sun occupies the same visual sky for everywhere on Earth, then how exactly does it set? Your line of sight would never be blocked. So I’m sorry, but how good do you think your “critical thinking” really is, if you think the Sun could ever set the way it does in reality, if the Earth is flat. You have to at least see why anyone would stop and call BS on flat Earth. Doesn’t take much to understand basic geometry.
You know, in my times traveling South, I’ve also been fortunate enough to see the Southern rotation of stars for myself, long before I even heard about this whole flat Earth thing. I’ve seen the Southern Cross on two different continents...again, it’s just basic geometry that raises the question, how exactly does that work on a flat Earth? It’s exactly what we’d expect to see on a globe, but I’ve heard no solid arguments for how that works on a flat Earth, just a lot of stretched logic and mental gymnastics.
Also, here’s a very in depth recreation of the Bedford Level experiment http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. The conclusion here is pretty conclusive, Earth is curving and at the rate it should be given its scale. Feel free to have a look sometime.
Just sayin, you guys come around these chats acting like it’s stupid anyone would question flat Earth...but then expect everyone to just ignore some pretty easy clues that point to Earth being a Globe, all under the guise that you’re a “critical thinker”. Well, we don’t really care how smart you are or think you are, do you have any evidence that supports your claims, or do you think we should just kneel before you and accept everything you say blindly and without question? Just makes you sound desperate for attention...doesn’t really change any minds, so why bother?
2
-
@luckyhaskins69 Ok, but you didn’t really answer the question of the Southern rotation. The question is how does it work on a flat Earth? How exactly does the geometry work? Your answer was, go to a planetarium? I assume you’re making the “dome”argument. A rotating dome can sort of answer for one rotation (though it would appear to become more and more oval the further you got from center), but it does not answer for there existing two rotations. I’ve seen a lot of different flat Earth maps and models, none that quite fit every observation in...the globe however does it effortlessly...every observation.
Just sayin, this is something we’d expect to see on a globe...but that does not make much sense on a flat Earth, among many many other things.
And no, I’m not new to this discussion, for the last 4 years I’ve engaged in hundreds of conversations with flat Earthers, I know their arguments pretty well, it’s really not often I hear anything new anymore to be honest. Doesn’t mean I know everything, but you’d be hard pressed to present me with an argument that I’m not familiar with and haven’t looked into at least a little. The geometry is still something flat Earth has never given a straight answer for, from sunsets, to star trails, to navigation, etc, nothing they claim matches with what I’ve seen and experienced in reality.
So feel to try again, perhaps share some evidence you feel accounts for the flat Earths geometry problems.
2
-
@luckyhaskins69 No, I would claim that water flows from high elevation to low elevation, and elevation on my “ball”, is measured from centre as the starting point. High elevation is further from centre, low elevation is closer...so water is seeking lowest elevation, it’s seeking to be closest to centre. Gravity pulls to centre, so it’s an objects mass that is seeking centre of gravity at all times, if more mass becomes lower than its centre of gravity due to that mass being at a lower elevation than the rest of its mass, then it will all fall into the lower elevation, until it’s all at its lowest possible elevation again, and thus stops moving. Water is a fluid, which gives it an interesting chemical bonding causing it to pull on other molecules of water as it passes, will cause a flow of water with enough of it collected together in motion with each other, this generates momentum and then you have a current.
The lowest elevation water has found here on Earth, is typically the ocean, which has an equipotential surface, meaning a surface that is at equal distance from centre of Earth. A bubbles surface for example, is another surface that is equipotential, maintaining same distance from centre...which forms it into a sphere.
Your problem here is your own personal misunderstanding of how gravity works, elevation works, and that you seem to think North is up and South is down...as if gravity pulls in those directions. Last I checked, things fall towards surface...not South.
2
-
@luckyhaskins69 You know there is very good reasons for why people do not bat an eye at flat Earth claims, because we understand what they overlook and where they’ve gone wrong. Flat Earth likes to claim it has an open mind, but your closing statement in one of your last comments to me, sure doesn’t sound like an open mind to me...the very opposite in fact. Just sayin...what if you’re wrong? I know you don’t think you are, but personally, I don’t think anyone is infallible...the mark of true intelligence to me has always been to keep that very real possibility open that you could be wrong and allow for open discussions where further examination of information can be pursued, no matter how sure you might be.
I’m in these chats for two reasons, one being the same as your reason, to share information on a subject I’ve come to know a lot about, information that I feel my opposition ignores and doesn’t share. The other reason, is to engage in civil discussion with an opposing viewpoint, to challenge what I think I know and see if it really is accurate. This process will never end for me, because I do not know everything and never will, so old information will always have the potential to change as new information is acquired...but never before proper review. Modern Science operates in the same way and I’m sure you’d agree, it brings results. People who think they’re infallible though...these people tend to always end up on the wrong side of history and don’t get much accomplished beyond tyranny.
2
-
Well, I mean it makes perfect sense (to me personally) why an individual who made a discovery of such wide spread application, would feel emotional when someone spits in their face for it; why attack them when they’ve brought such benefit to all our lives? Why so ungrateful? What achievements do they have under their belts to give them any right to speak against those achievements, against applied knowledge?
I understand fully why an expert with years of experience in their field would be offended by layman pretending they’re anywhere near their level…I’m not as confident in understanding (exactly) why a layman would get emotional about it. Resentment? Jealousy? Inferiority complex? Conmen/troll just pretending to care because they know it gets them the attention they require/need? Not as easy to pinpoint, the motivations for the latter is further reaching and more nefarious I believe.
For me it’s simple; I’ve travelled around the world, I understand that knowing the true shape of the Earth is pretty vital information to have if you want any hope of navigating the Earth successfully, so who are these people to argue with thousands of years of applied knowledge? I get emotional because it’s sad that anyone could be so ignorant, uneducated, and un-cultured. That’s extremely sad too me, because I personally couldn’t imagine myself enduring such an empty existence devoid of exploration and experience.
So I can only speak from my own perspective, it hurts me deeply to see people taking such callous disinterest in the vast wealth of humanity’s history and knowledge, and how we achieved it all! Deducing the true shape of our world was a major discovery, more vital to our current prosperity than most discoveries could ever be…why do so many take that for granted today? It’s sad…that’s the only emotion I feel when I hear of this mess.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@captainmeow2771 It’s a heated topic for sure, but that’s expected, when a bold claim is made, that was thought settled hundreds of years prior. Especially when it’s a claim put forth by layman. From an trained expert’s perspective, it’s just interpreted as ignorance and arrogance...this sparks a reaction, that’s pretty natural actually, we all do this to some degree. Also, you have to understand that it can be very difficult to know when someone is being sincere, or when they’re just trolling. So the attacks are mostly, just from having spent a lot of time dealing with the grifters and con men of the conversation...and to be sure, these people do exist, and they’re not worth anyone’s time, so we have to weed them out, essentially fighting fire with fire.
But some of us are a bit more patient and empathetic to an opposing position, and don’t mind answering questions, if they’re sincere. I agree that there’s nothing wrong with asking questions, nothing should be off the table for discussion, no matter how well established. So feel free, what questions in particular would you like a little more information for? You strike me as sincere and mature enough for a civil discussion, so I don’t mind lowering the shields and seeing what I might be able to help with. No ridicule, I’ll just offer what information I can and leave it at that. So give me a question and I’ll see what I can answer.
2
-
@captainmeow2771 Ok, well first of all, unless we’re both involved in choices made within the organization of the UN, we can only really speculate on your first question. I prefer to stick to evidence I can verify, I personally prefer staying out of speculative “evidence”. I certainly believe speculations alone should not lead a conclusion, but I think a lot of people do form conclusions that way anyway. I just feel it’s important to point out, that we should all learn to spot the difference, between actual evidence and speculations. That being said, I do have an answer for you on this point, so I will give you one, just know that I’m happy to admit my answer is only one of many plausible answers, in the sea of speculations one can make here, so the answer I’ll provide here is speculative.
I’m not a member of the UN handling that sort of decision, but I am a digital artist/illustrator, so I have a lot of experience with graphic design, such as logo design. If I was hired to create a flag for the UN, that included a representation of the planet in map form, well, first of all I’d know I couldn’t represent the entire surface of a 3D globe, on a flat 2D surface. It’s impossible to represent (with complete accuracy) 3 dimensions, using only 2.
So a map projection would have to be used, a flattened projection of the globe. There are several map projections to choose from, the most common is the Mercator map, but another one being the Azimuthal Equidistant projection, or the AE map for short. This is the map FE uses, but do you know how this map is created? It’s a projection of the Globe, flattened out from the North polar axis, here’s a great video demonstrating how this map is made https://youtu.be/9Wq3GiJT2wQ.
So the UN is not using a flat Earth map, it’s actually the other way around, FE is using a globe projection map.
So the fact they both use the map, from my opinion, is purely coincidental. As an artist though, out of every projection map that exists, I can tell you the AE projection has the most pleasing composition, it’s the most balanced and pleasing to the eye. We are all drawn to pleasing, balanced compositions, so an artist would choose that projection for the flag, for the same reason someone from FE would be drawn to it and decide to use it, because it’s balanced and pleasing to the eye.
So if I was designing the flag, I’d probably choose that projection as well. The UN represents all nations, so it’s pretty vital to have an image that includes all nations. The bonus to the AE projection, is that it doesn’t favour any one nation, the North polar axis does not reside on any nation or even continent, so it displays every nation from a neutral standpoint.
So I hope you can now understand a bit better how a graphic designer would approach designing the UN flag. There’s actually an image somewhere, displaying the many different proposed rough flag ideas sketched for the UN, the majority of them not making use of the AE projection. If I find it, I will be sure to share it with you. Question is, if the UN knew what they’re flag was going to be, why would they bother with several different mock ups that don’t include the AE?
But anyway, that’s a plausible answer I feel, but again, I can only really speculate, unless I was involved with creating or deciding what design to use. What I don’t have to speculate on, is that FE did not create the AE map, they took it and claimed it as theirs, but they did not create it. You can look up the patents for the Gleason (basically another version of the AE), which is the earliest known use of the map from FE, the original patent states it is a projection of the globe, as is the AE. So FE can not claim they created this map.
And upon all review of the map regarding flight paths and sailing routes, it doesn’t work for navigation purposes either, because it’s not accurate to the actual surface dimensions of the planet. Because again, projection maps are not accurate representations, they are only projections of a 3D sphere, in 2 dimensions, meaning they are grossly distorted. In the AE’s case, the distortions get worse and worse the further from the North pole you get.
Anyway, hope you find this information insightful, or at least interesting. Let me know if you have any further questions. I’ll now take some time to answer your other question.
2
-
@captainmeow2771 So your second question starts with an assumption. You seem pretty confident that pilots and planes don’t adjust for curvature, but I’d be curious to know first what led you to that conclusion? The trouble your question has, is that a pilot follows the horizon indicator and the altimeter, which gives them readings they’re constantly adjusting too, in all vectors, constantly. So think of it like driving down a highway, you’re constantly making tiny little adjustments to stay on the road, none of which you probably notice, now just imagine adding a third dimension of travel, for a globe that takes roughly 70 miles to make 1 degree of arc difference. To get that figure, just divide 25,000 miles, by 365 degrees. You’ll get 68.493 miles, per 1 degree. Earth is massive, I hope that figure helps better understand just how slowly a pilot would be arcing down.
There’s also this to consider. If Earth is a globe, with all the physics that comes with that scientific model, then the horizon indicator and the altimeter would shift with the curvature, meaning the pilot will adjust to stay on track with these instruments. Altimeter is designed to read air pressure, indicating altitude, it’s basically a barometer designed to measure air pressure and calculate altitude from that reading. Air pressure would be equipotential (at equal distance from centre of the globe) on a globe with gravity physics. So the altimeter would adjust with the sphere, and so the pilot would adjust as well.
A horizon indicator makes use of mechanical gyros, which do not adjust to gravity on there own, but to overcome this they have included what’s known as a pendulous vane, in the mechanics of the device. What these are, are basically little hinges on the gyros gimbles, which are affected by gravity. They are designed to put the gyro back into alignment with surface, using gravity to do that. Because the hinges will drop once out of alignment with the current gravity vector, this applies a torque to the gyro, which pitches it back into alignment with gravity.
What this means is, even the horizon indicator is designed to adjust to gravity, so it too will pitch down any time it’s out of alignment with gravity. So a pilot will also adjust to this indicator, so if it’s pitching, then so too will the pilot.
You can learn more about both devices with a quick YouTube search, explaining how they work. Just search altimeter mechanics and then pendulous vanes for the horizon indicator.
Anyway, I hope that also helps provide some insight to your question here. I will mention I’m not a pilot myself, but I’ve spent a long time now researching the same question you’re asking here, and I’ve learned a lot about the mechanics of a planes instrumentation, in that time. A lot of it is also basic physics and geometry (equipotential is a geometric term), which I do have a lot of prior experience with, especially geometry being an artist as long as I have been. Let me know if you have any further questions.
2
-
@captainmeow2771 I’m sorry, are you saying that you have a friend who’s both a flat Earther and a pilot/expert in a field relevant to the discussion? Interesting, the majority of FE don’t typically hold any official titles relative to the topic, but there are a small few. You had mentioned it was a friend you were hesitant to argue with, because it just got toxic, but I was unaware of their background. I can see why you’d hesitate, official titles can inflate an ego.
Ya, see it’s very tricky to hold a conversation on such a topic, even without the other person holding actual credentials in a relative field. Unless you’re well versed and experienced in a wide range of subjects, it can be difficult...and since the majority of people are not very well versed in science, it’s easy to overwhelm them with jargon and gish gallop. The arguments of FE cover everything from general physics and geometry, to perspective, surveying, and optics, to aeronautics, engineering, mechanics, etc, it’s quite the long list of topics you almost have to become an expert in, just to have an opinion, let alone argue with any sway.
You have the right idea though I’d say, just be patient, don’t take anything personally, any immediate attack is mostly just from fatigue, lot of trolls in this conversation online...can put anyone on edge. Learn as you go, if it interests you enough, no shame in not knowing something, nobody knows everything and nobody is infallible. Avoid chats with the toxic side of things, those people only interested in forcing you what to believe, that goes for both sides. I’ve been actively chatting with people of FE for a long time and though I strongly disagree with them, I do still admire their tenacity in the face of overwhelming odds, so I do try my best to never talk at them, rather just share information. Doesn’t always work though, I have my limits too, but I find it’s the best way to approach things. It is a toxic topic, but you can find civil discussions still, just takes a thick skin and some patience.
Anyway, I’m happy to continue providing some further information and perspective on the topic, so feel free to ask me any other questions.
2
-
fred Not if those “facts” are completely false or fabricated. It’s true that we should never assume too much about an opposing position, but if the model being refuted is completely broken from the start of analysis, then it doesn’t really matter so much. The Flat Earth model is not used in any applied science today, so there’s really no argument here anymore, we know Earth is a Globe beyond any reasonable doubt. We’re putting satellites into orbit...that’s simply not possible on a flat Earth. World navigation uses a global coordinate system, with two equal hemispheres...millions of people use this mapping of our surface to find their destinations with perfect precision. If Earth was flat, a global coordinate system would not work for navigation.
It’s cute that the Buddhists and other old societies have maps, but just cause they’re ancient and we tend to romanticize them for that, does not make them right by default. Believe it or not, the Buddhists can be wrong...and in this case, they absolutely are, can’t just let our bias cloud objective truths, nobody is using that map or any other flat Earth mapping to navigate with.
And Admiral Byrd was not a flat Earther, he never once claimed to be, he was just the first to really explore Antarctica in great depth...and when he spoke of land larger than the United States, he was more than likely referring to the continent of Antarctica itself. So please don’t join the speculation game...taking another persons words out of context and placing bias upon their work, is not valid evidence, it’s just empty speculation and confirmation bias.
Stick to the science and pay attention to the world around you today. Do you really think scientists and experts could create everything around you in the modern world...but they couldn’t figure out something as trivial as the true shape of the Earth?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tombass3288 You’re right, there’s not ONE book, there are thousands if not millions of books written for modern science. I’m sure you know what a science text book is, research journals, encyclopedias, etc. I shared scientific information that directly refutes your claims, and then you just fling insults in response. Insults are not an argument, but it is usually a sign that you really have no counter argument.
Point still stands, your misunderstandings and clear cognitive biases, do not mean we just toss out centuries of collected knowledge. Insult us all you like, it doesn’t change anything, or defeat our positions, not even in the slightest...just gives us more reason to question you.
2
-
@Why_Contain_lt “Even when given photographic evidence you bury your head in the sand and shout FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY!!!”
And you’re not? 🧐 You see a photo of Earth from ISS, or weather satellites, or the Apollo missions, showing a very clear curvature, and you just immediately call them fake…so you don’t think that’s a bit hypocritical? 🤨 I think you’re projecting a bit…I’d say kettle, meet pot.
“Why is every single image of Earth CGI? Every single one, except for the ONE image they claim is real from 1972 which has been proven to be falsified based on the visible artifacts when imported into imaging software.”
Oh boy🤦♂️…they took a LOT more than just one photo during the Apollo missions…they took literally hundreds. They’re well archived too, you can find them pretty easy if you actually bothered to try.
Those artifacts you will find in ANY compressed jpeg image…every single image you’ve ever seen online, that’s compressed into low resolution jpeg format, has artifacts like that……..it’s jpeg compression, it’s what happens when you shrink an image file from high resolution to low resolution in jpeg format…it doesn’t mean the images are fake, you numpty. 😂
Every single one of your questions just verifies that you know pretty much NOTHING on the topics you’re arguing….and that right there is your real problem. You’ve been suckered by huxters online, who fed you some bullshit my dude…and it worked on you, because these are all topics you have little to no actual understanding of.
2
-
@Why_Contain_lt “It doesn’t have to be a force. An object finds its equilibrium…”
And how exactly does it “find” that equilibrium genius? Is it alive, did it make a conscious choice to move from one place to the next? You’re not quite understanding what classifies something as a force. Does a heavy object fall when you drop it? Yup, sure does. Is that falling a motion? Yup, sure is. Do you know of anything in our physical reality that’s put into a motion without a force to cause it? 🧐 Nope…nothing changes from one state of motion to another, without a force to cause it. There’s a very clear motion occurring, it even occurs in a vacuum where there is no medium, and it’s always in the same direction. That means a force is present to cause that motion…it’s really that simple.
All science did was give it a name, because that makes it a lot easier to discuss it, when we give naturally occurring phenomenon a name. We can name the upward motion buoyancy force…so why can’t we do the same for the downward motion? 🧐 Density is already defined in physics and mathematics, it’s just a property of matter, a scaler variable…it’s a ratio of mass to volume. It is not a force, because it does not cause motion, it’s just how much mass occupies a volume of space…nothing more.
Your conclusion basically boils down too “things just fall because they do”…great, if only science could be as lazy. 🙄 The fuck we gonna do with that? How do you put that into a working formula an engineer or scientist could actually use? 🤷♂️ Here’s the formula for calculating weight; W=mg. The formula for buoyancy force; Fb=Vpg. The formula for a planes weight to thrust ratio; F/W=ma/mg=a/g. Notice something in each one? That little ‘g’ is gravity…you might also notice that mass or density are also included already…..now why would we include density twice, and how exactly is a mathematician supposed to figure out the force vector for each, without a force? 🤷♂️
Like seriously…your conclusion just tells us all you have no idea what you’re talking about, but you sure ate up some bullshit that made you think you do. 😅
There’s no getting around it bud, only forces can cause acceleration and change in state of motion. Your conclusion provides no real answers…it just makes an observation we’re all very aware of, you’re just describing buoyancy force…you’re not explaining anything new, that science doesn’t already know. You’re just ignoring the parts you don’t like. It’s intentional ignorance, classical denialism to confirm bias…you’re not the first layman to attempt that, not even in the slightest. 😅
2
-
I think in the case of the wine (and similar statistical studies like it), we’ll find pros and cons to pretty much anything we consume. But headlines are sold on shock value these days…so one side of the story is often over exaggerated, while the other is overlooked, when it’s probably somewhere in the middle…but that’s boring, right?
It’s different for the fundamental sciences I feel, such as physics or chemistry. For me, it’s not difficult to spot junk science…does it work and can it be applied? If not, then it’s more than likely bullshit. Nobody is navigating the Earth with a Flat Earth model for example…they all use the globe model, and it works upon every proper application. So that’s how I sift through the muddy waters of information these days, at least with the fundamental sciences. It’s kind of the nice thing about junk science really, it eventuality reveals itself by how absolutely useless it is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@COLUMBUSISBACK We don’t see the same stars all year round, look up the seasonal stars sometime...it’s basic astronomy. These are the stars that lie along the ecliptic plain, you even know the names of the constellations found here...they are the zodiac constellations. The stars we see all year round are the circumpolar stars, they are locked to each polar axis, and therefore are never blocked by the Sun. You do realize we live in 3 dimensions, right?
Polaris does move, it’s shifting constantly, any astronomer will gladly show you the data on that. Parallax easily explains why it’s a slow process...pretty basic laws of perspective.
But alright, answer this question, since you’re all about the stars. If Earth is flat, how exactly does the South have its own celestial rotation of stars, around its own pole star Sigma Octantis? That geometry is exactly what we’d expect to see on a globe, but sure doesn’t work at all on a flat Earth with a rotating sky. Go ahead and give me a logical explanation for the Southern stars...heck, the entire Southern Hemisphere is a bit of a problem for you numpty’s. 😅
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@COLUMBUSISBACK I’m an artist, a digital illustrator of books, comics and video games to be more precise. Perspective and spacial geometry are a few things I’ve had a very simple time understanding, my whole life, and at this point I’d consider myself an expert on those perimeters. I don’t care how much you distrust the government...that doesn’t make the Earth flat by default. You’ve just traded one corrupt institution, for lying conmen...who have ZERO working experience in the topics they bullshit about.
Nobody trusts the government, but I do trust my knowledge of perspective, my common sense and my eyes...there would not be a second hemisphere of stars, on a flat Earth...and they certainly wouldn’t be rotating around their own pole star. Fuck even something as simple as a sunset disproves flat Earth! How exactly does the Sun set...if line of sight is never blocked? Hmmm? Any answers? It’s pretty basic geometry...don’t have to be a scientist to understand this. The geometry doesn’t work. FE will claim it’s just perspective causing a sunset...but then completely ignore the many fundamental rules of perspective, like angular size, rate of travel, parallax, etc. Variables that do not fit that explanation.
So sorry if I’m not impressed, sorry I don’t fall for obvious online scams...Flat Earth is the dumbest conspiracy online, super easy to debunk. You fell for a con...maybe you’ll realize that someday, and hopefully it’s sooner rather than later, cause it’s a waste of energy and time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@allentremper8243 Sure, I don’t mind, I’ll let you know now though that I’m not new to this discussion. Been researching it for several years now and I am currently concluded that Earth is spherical, but if you’d like to bounce some concepts or information off of me and see what I think, feel free any time. It’s good to chat with an opposing viewpoint I feel, to challenge what we think we know....just really difficult to find folks who aren’t just in these comments trolling. I respect that people are challenging mainstream ideas, that’s what science is all about really, falsification, so even if I may disagree, always open to hear a different perspective.
I just enjoy learning, even if I disagree, always something I can learn. Anyway, feel free any time, perhaps start with something that really sways you, some evidence for Flat Earth that you feel shouldn’t be ignored or that really convinced you.
2
-
@jordanemede As pointed out, a simple way to measure Earth’s circumference (and thus the radius), is by measuring shadow angles from various locations, with a simple stick that’s perpendicular to surface. You’re claiming this works on both models, but that’s pretty ignorant of the actual results…the trouble is that the angles recorded only fit on a globe, with parallel light from a much larger Sun. The flat Earth model can only account for two angles (and only if you plot the data in 2 dimensions), take any more than 2 shadows measurements, and you’ll start to notice that the Flat Earth with a local Sun can’t actually account for those angles.
It’s been repeated many times, a great example are the many presentations from a Jos Leys here on YouTube. He’s a mathematician who’s plotted the data many times now on both models, creating some pretty clear simulations, demonstrating how the angles only work on the globe model. I’d urge you to check them out.
2
-
@jordanemede 2nd law of thermodynamics has more to do with thermal energy transfer, hence THERMOdynamics. For example, when a cup of coffee goes cold, its thermal temperature reaching equilibrium with the surrounding air, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy? Pretty simple right…that’s thermodynamics in action. It’s referring to the energy, not so much the matter. Matter has mass, and all things with mass are subject to forces, like gravity, that can and do keep them contained. Entropy will always win in the end, but thanks to attractive forces such as gravity, it’s going to take a long time. Entropy of matter is easily slowed and contained, by attractive forces. You’re proof of that, your entire body is an entropic system, constantly resisting entropy, thanks to several different attractive forces working in tandem, to hold you together. Are you breaking thermodynamics laws? Clearly not.
So no…it’s not “disproven by the 2nd law of thermodynamics”, you’re just misunderstanding thermodynamics laws. There’s no laws of thermodynamics being broken here, and your personal misunderstanding doesn’t change that. Earth actually does shed energy and even gases, constantly in fact, every single day…and the open system of the spherical Earth with gravity, allows it to do that. And it’s not a problem for our atmosphere, since the Sun provides us with an abundance of new energy back into the system every day, which helps creates new gas.
For this reason though, it’s actually Flat Earth models that break thermodynamics laws I feel. If you believe atmosphere requires a physical barrier/container, then you believe in the firmament model of Flat Earth. Okay, but our Earth is constantly receiving new energy from the Sun, which also helps in the production of new gases at the surface every day. So if your system is contained…with no way for the energy or the new gases to escape, then wouldn’t we expect the heat and pressure to increase substantially over time? I’m sure you’re aware of what happens when you keep a constant flame on a container of pressurized gas, for a long period of time.
So I think you’ll find it’s Flat Earth that breaks thermodynamics laws…not the other way around.
Gases have mass, all mass is attracted by gravity. It’s pretty easy prove too…drop something. Ever seen what gas does in a vacuum chamber? It drops too…it is not free from gravity. All things with mass, are attracted to other mass, proven in countless different drop tests, and the Cavendish experiment. As Flat Earthers love to say, do your own research, I can only do so much for you.
You know even Flat Earth has confirmed the vacuum of space, without realizing it. I’m sure you’re aware of the many weather balloons they’ve sent up themselves. Ever happened to notice in the footage brought back, the blackness of space above our blue atmosphere? It even surrounds the Sun. Did you also happen to notice the balloons always eventually pop…as they’re designed to do, once reaching vacuum conditions. So even Flat Earth has indirectly measured and observed the vacuum of space…but you know what they’ve never found? A container.
Pretty important in science to draw conclusions from evidence…not broken understandings of physics. You can’t even really form a hypothesis here, because your understanding of thermodynamics is in error.
So it’s a pretty weak argument at the end of the day.
2
-
@yhenry77 Fair enough, apologies for being pushy or rude, it’s been a frustrating day. I can shift into a more civil tone, to be fair these are good questions and points, so I’ll drop the attitude.
1) Simple deduction, we observe gravity, it’s measured, it’s tested, it causes an accelerating motion down to surface. Gas is not free from this effect, lighter gases in vacuum chambers fall, instead of rising. The accelerating force is consistent with barometric pressure, it makes sense of it, and it’s even used in pressure math and buoyancy equations. Example Fb=Vpg is the simplest buoyancy equation, the little g being the acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s^2). Gravity is strongest closer to its source and it has direct relation between mass, all mass is attracting mass, more dense mass will produce more gravity of its own, causing it to reside closer to lowest potential energy. Creating a gradient in pressure...simple deduction of every variable involved, no parts contradicting each. Even the vacuum is measured, to some small degree even by layman, that’s why I mentioned the weather balloons that pop in upper atmosphere, they wouldn’t do that unless in vacuum conditions.
FE likes to think that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is that contradiction, and that’s a valid question, but then they forget that thermodynamics has more to do with energy than it does matter. When your coffee goes cold, did the coffee also leave, or was it just the thermal energy? entropy is still occurring, but entropy can be slowed and contained by attractive forces. You for example are an entropic system, held together by many different forces...you’re not contradicting thermodynamics, are you? No, and neither is our atmosphere...thanks to gravity. Also electromagnetism, nuclear force both strong and weak, static attraction, etc....our atmosphere has no problem existing next to vacuum.
This is observed and measured.
Now, I’m a bit busy currently, so I’ll respond later again perhaps. These are developing into better forms of your original point, so they’re good questions. Apologies again for the attack of character and assuming too much about you or your points. I try not to do that, I do try to treat people like people, but I get reactive sometimes.
2
-
@yhenry77 They are, that’s how an orbit is achieved. It’s their forward velocity that keeps them from falling to Earth, but gravity puts an arc on their trajectory, so they essentially fall around the planet, like a coin spiralling around a funnel hole, it’s basically the same physics...in the simplest form. Gravity is just motion, through curved space and time. An orbit is only possible thanks to gravity, that’s how everything orbits.
That’s the simple form of the explanation, if I have more time later, perhaps I can go a bit further and provide some further insight. There are some simple astronomy observation experiments that anyone can do, that help to verify mass attraction in celestial objects. Here’s the thing, understanding gravity did more than just explain how things fall...it quite literally unlocked the mysteries of the cosmos, mysteries that mankind had struggled to answer for millennia. Once gravity was realized, these mysteries fell like dominoes, everything from how orbits are achieved, to how planets form and why they’re spherical, to how the sun burns, it all started making sense and the math started adding up.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@flatearth5821 Science builds on prior knowledge, that’s part of how it works. No single person can solve every mystery...luckily we don’t have too, we have communication methods, like recording knowledge and data, it’s kind of a huge part of what gives us a major advantage over the other animals. The reason it works, is because of constant falsification...that process never ends, we will forever be reevaluating science, recreating experiments, tweaking theories and refining them. If Newton or Copernicus were lying, then it would be super easy to falsify their work. Millions of people have been trying for centuries...they haven’t succeeded, because they’re very likely right in their conclusions, that’s why falsification works, it leaves only the truest conclusions left standing. You can assert all you want that these people were just lying....if you can’t prove it though, then that claim means absolutely nothing.
But, sometimes falsification after a long period of established science does succeed, guess how Einstein got famous. He challenged Newton, and succeeded, he completely rewrote the physics and nearly replaced all of it. The only difference he has with FE, is that he was able to prove his conclusions...he wasn’t just asserting them and then calling it a day, he did the work.
The trouble here is...you’re not really falsifying anything. So far, your falsification of gravity is “no force is required”. Which if we look at it objectively, is just an empty claim, with zero experiments or data or prior knowledge supporting it. It’s frustrating...because you actually think you’re falsifying 400 years of science, simply by saying “no force is required”. But it just leaves some of us stunned as to how anyone could actually think an empty claim is a valid falsification. We’re left with only two reasons why anyone would think that, either that person is doing it intentionally to confirm bias...or they’re simply not aware of how proper falsification works.
We’re more than happy to go through the steps of how you reached that conclusion, but so far, there are no steps...your explanation for why things fall down, is basically “it just does”..........great, well what’s even the point of doing science at all, if we’re just going to conclude everything with “it just does”. If science just concluded everything that way, we’d likely still be in the bush, thinking fire is just something the gods make.
Whether you acknowledge it or not, you have no answer for the downward accelerating motion observed in every day life. But it happens, science just gave that motion a name, they called it gravity. Denial is not an argument against that motion, it’s not proper falsification, so it’s not science. You are not doing science, you are ignoring things you don’t like, so you can conclude what you want.
We can’t achieve anything with that method.
2
-
@flatearth5821 “the stone falls to the bottom, but nothing sets it in motion”
Yet it’s in motion....so HOW is nothing putting it in motion? In any other motion that exists, something is required to put it into that motion...so why is this the only one that does not require anything to set it in motion? And what evidence do you have that confirms no force is required? Simply stating that no force is required, is not falsification, it’s just an empty claim...nothing more. Do you really think empty claims should hold weight in any argument?
You have to realize how empty your assertion is, right? It’s incredible to me how someone couldn’t in this case.
I heard a great quote once that really sums up bias behaviour like this. I will paraphrase, but it roughly went as follows: “Science deniers often believe that power belongs to those who have the greatest will to take it, and what greater act of will, than the ability to override truth.”
I find that’s exactly how confirmation bias functions in many cases like this, I think it’s just people asserting dominance over something they feel they’re superior too...and often, people have no idea this is what they’re really doing and that’s the most frustrating part about it.
Here are the facts. You do NOTHING to falsify established science by simply saying “it’s not true”. You do NOTHING to falsify gravity physics by simply saying “no force is required”. These are just empty claims, and plane ol’ denial.
So try again. Explain why no force is required in the downward motion? I’m giving you a chance to continue with your explanation. What evidence has led you to that conclusion, that this motion is the one exception to the laws of motion?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jlstonejls123 If the bullying started with them, yes. If you’re gonna dish it out, you best be able to take what you dish out in return, or maybe don’t bother even saying anything…many flat Earthers come to these comments, simply to pick fights. They’ll find it here, and we’re more than ready to respond in kind, to any stones cast our way. I pop by here from time to time, because it fascinates me how the conversation here still continues, and I enjoy joining sometimes…and nobody pulls their punches here….so it gets ugly.
But in any case, most people are very emotional, reactive, and ego driven, I think that’s pretty common knowledge, would you agree? A thicker skin makes it possible to take the insults, without taking it personally. Then it becomes possible to cut through it, and not lower yourself to the same level, maybe even learn something. Sometimes it just takes one person to drop their sword and shield first, before a civil discussion can ever take place. You’ll probably take a few hits in the process, so best to toughen up and not take everything so personally.
Neither side of these types of discussions are bad people (for the most part), we both just get emotional. I can certainly forgive outbursts, cause I do it too. And we all have egos, you felt compelled to start your comment with a brag, that’s your ego doing that. It’s going to flare up other egos…it shows a level of disrespect for another’s intelligence…and people don’t like that, doesn’t matter what side you’re on. I get that you’re “deeply concerned” and feel we’re all falling for a deception, but then maybe explain why you feel that way, rather than taking a jab without context.
Anyway, I don’t feel I’m explaining anything that’s not common knowledge of basic human behaviour. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I don’t mind if people cast insults, go right ahead, but don’t be surprised if you’re insulted in return. I don’t take it personally, I don’t know you, so I could care less. I’d of course prefer a civil exchange though, but I had to risk a little insult to explain to you that I feel you came off a bit big headed in your original comment. So I risked being a bit big headed, to make that point. My apologies if you don’t agree it was a fair response.
But enough of the empty rhetoric, I won’t bore you with it any further…and I’m just rambling now anyway. Perhaps you’d like to elaborate a bit more though, on why you feel it’s us in the web of deception. I don’t mind hearing you out. What is an example of some globe science, that you feel can easily be disproven? I’m curious to learn your perspective, as you seem quite civil, mature and reasonable. Perhaps I can share some information you might have overlooked, or maybe learn something.
2
-
@jlstonejls123 No problem, and understandable, in all honesty Flat Earth does ask some great questions. I’ll just stick to the science now, and share what information I can from the opposite perspective.
So the problem I feel with these zooming in observations, is that there are plenty of examples where objects have reached a point where no amount of further magnification will bring them back into full focus. Look up the Turning Torso Tower observation sometime as one such good example. In that observation, hundreds of feet of the buildings base becomes more and more obscured, the further away the observer gets. So in the observations you’ve seen, how certain are you that they didn’t just claim it was simply vanishing point and not horizon, then expected you not to question it? Vanishing point can and does occur before horizon, especially with your naked eye, it’s just an effect of perspective, an objects size relative to its distance. I’ve seen plenty of the same observations, of people zooming in on boats and ships, bringing them back into focus…but as far as I’m concerned, they’re just demonstrating the vanishing point, they’re not really doing much to verify it as their conclusion. It’s enough to firm a hypothesis from, but that’s really about it….yet they draw their conclusion anyway?
Vanishing point is something many aren’t aware of it seems. I am because I’m an artist for a living, perspective is something I’ve studied most my life. I’m quite familiar with vanishing point and how it works…but I think Flat Earth isn’t being entirely honest here, I think they’re dazzling people with something they’re not all too familiar with, then blindly claiming horizon doesn’t exist. But…again, there are plenty of examples of objects obscured at their base, some things like buildings and mountains, are obscured by hundreds, even thousands of feet. You can try to zoom in as much as you’d like in these examples, they will not rise up. I can share many examples. So I get that they’re claim is vanishing point…but is that good enough? Does it actually account for what we observe, or is it just a rushed and biased conclusion, that’s not been proven conclusive just yet?
Many in FE will claim it’s simply ocean waves and swells obscuring the base, but most swells and waves will only go maybe, 6-10 feet max, give or take? The trouble here is another fundamental rule of perspective they seem to ignore. Objects aren’t just observed to be obscured at their base, they’re also dropping from eye level. Any art student who’s studied perspective well enough can tell you, that anything at eye level, will not drop below it due to perspective alone. And vice versa, anything below eye level will not rise above it. Vanishing point converges at eye level, and it converges equally from every angle inward. So in that tower example I recommended you check out, the tower has about 8-9 columns, all roughly 20 meters each. It’s probably 15 feet or so elevation from sea level, and I believe the observation is roughly that as well, so eye level for that tower would be the front entrance. It sinks from eye level, hundreds of feet…perspective will not do that. If an ocean swell is 6-10 feet (except in extreme conditions, they obviously can go much higher, but assuming relativity calm waters), then at 15-20 feet observation height, your eye level is well above those waves and swells. Yet that tower is observed to drop hundreds of feet below the observers eye level. I don’t feel perspective and the vanishing point can account for that, but a curvature sure can.
So I feel Flat Earth is taking advantage of people here, exploiting a gap in their knowledge, in making a inconclusive claim they haven’t fully tested. I also find it odd, that they almost seem to think they’re the first people to ever consider using a telescopic lens, at a shoreline. Do they honestly think scientists made these observations of ships disappearing hull first, with their naked eye? If so, then they must have a very low opinion of science and scientists.
There are plenty of other further problems as well. I find they’ve taught a lot of people the wrong math as well, 8 inches per mile squared being the worst offender. That is a parabola equation, representing a drop from a tangent at surface, it does not represent a line of sight over a curvature, it has no variable for height of the observer…among many other missing variables. So it’s simply the wrong math…yet they tell people it’s correct to use for these observations anyway. That tells me they’re either a bit mathematically illiterate, or they’re doing it intentionally to con people. Use the wrong math, and of course your numbers aren’t going to fit your observation…that’s pretty common sense I would think. That’s why it’s a basic rule of thumb in science, to always double and triple check your math, especially when you get real world results that don’t fit the predictions. I can go deeper into why that math is incorrect if you’d like, and share the correct geometric math, but I’ll leave it there for now.
Then there’s also the variable of atmospheric refraction, but that’s a whole other topic requiring further explanation. I’ll address it only if you’re curious, this is already getting quite long.
In my honest opinion here, I feel Flat Earth isn’t being entirely honest with these observations, and I don’t feel they’re doing enough to render a conclusive conclusion. It feels more like a sleight of hand trick to me, keep your eye on the explanation they’re giving you, and then they dazzle you with the completed trick when they demonstrate the vanishing point effect. Then they’ll claim there’s no actual horizon…but is that true? What evidence and further observations do they really offer to support that claim? Science is well aware of the vanishing point effect and how it works, as are most artists…but there are still observations of objects dropping hundreds of feet below eye level, and becoming obscured bottom first. I don’t feel perspective alone accounts for what we observe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheOricine 99% of the time you say? Citation and evidence required for that claim...sounds like a whole lot of confirmation bias to me.
Refraction index is well understood, and what you’re describing is a mirage effect, caused when the surface air density is warmer than the air above, typically a phenomenon occurring on land as a land surface absorbs and radiates more heat. Over large bodies of water though, or during winter conditions, light will typically refract down, as the air is cooler just above the water surface and warmer as you go higher. This creates a denser gradient of air closer to surface, and refraction is an effect caused by a materials density. Light refracts down when arriving at a denser medium, this is always the case, proven time and again in simple laser tests http://pascals-puppy.blogspot.com/2011/12/thurs-demo-one-with-frickin-laser-beams.html.
Here’s more direct observational experiment, more relevant to our discussion https://youtu.be/5lmmzvzz_Xs. A clear demonstration, of light refraction in the downward direction. Simply because the air is made denser just above the tank surface.
Here’s another good demonstration, again with a laser https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0?t=279. Again, the water is denser closer to the bottom of the tank, so light is refracted downward.
This is how refraction is understood. In most observations over water, light refracts down....not the other way around. Here’s a great observation on the subject of curvature and refraction http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. Just scroll down to images 31 and 32, then tell me light refracts up most of the time.
So I feel you’re being quite bias. Of course light can refract up as well, this is what causes the mirage or mirroring effect you commonly see on hot highway roads. But typically over water, where the air is coolest and densest just above the water surface, light refracts down. So your claim there is not scientifically backed I’m afraid.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheOricine Forgive me if I’m not swayed easily by empty claims, ad hoc explanations, bad evidence and ad hominem insults, guess I’m not enough of a blind sucker, better luck next time I guess.
It took me several days just to FINALLY get you to share something, then when you do, you pick one of the weakest arguments from FE, presenting the most inconclusive evidence for the conclusion you demand I adhere too. Then you get mad when I call it how it is.
Sorry, I’m afraid it’s just a poor effort, it’s not really my problem if you don’t have anything conclusive and thorough to share. Get a better argument, collect better evidence, stop making empty claims, you might find you’ll accomplish more that way.
2
-
2
-
@bensonmofo A gyro remains rigid in space, the sky has absolutely zero effect on it…but if the surface it’s set upon shifts, then you will notice a drift in the angle of its gimbles. The sky sure won’t do that, the surface orientation sure will…even you know this I’m sure. Seriously though, feel free to explain how you feel the sky changes and effects the angle of a gyro, either mechanical or laser. Go right ahead. Meanwhile the rest of us who haven’t lost sight of reality, know that gyros detect shifts in position of the physical body they’re attached too…the sky doesn’t do anything to a gyro.
Look, the core of your argument is Earth’s shape, so this point is very relevant. And even YOU agreed in an earlier comment above that gyros have detected and measured Earth rotation. Deflect my point all you want, it doesn’t change it…and it doesn’t make your ad hoc response of “the sky dit it” any less ridiculous, and deep down you know it, you’re not fooling anyone. :/
But I will agree with you on that one point, there’s so far no optical experiment (at least not that I’m aware of), that measures or detects Earth’s motion around the Sun. But there is a staggering amount of astronomical data, that like it or not, all fits the heliocentric model, both in its geometry and its physics. Can’t say the same for geocentrism…yet you actually think you have the stronger argument here? Since when has this ever been a thing; no evidence and no predictive powers>mountains of evidence and applied science? 🤨You’re just pissing into the wind I’m afraid…and worse you’re proud of it, and expect us to be impressed. :/
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zquest42 I have spent the last 4 years looking at flat Earth claims, I’ve chatted with hundreds of flat Earthers at this point, I know their arguments and positions probably better than most flat Earthers even do. I also know where they go wrong and how they’ve been scammed...I’ve seen the same “fake space” and flat Earth docs you probably have, the difference is I’ve successfully been able to falsify all of it. Point is, I’m not new to this discussion. My apologies if I’m coming off as pushy or short, but admittedly my patience for Flat Earth has been worn pretty thin over the years.
I don’t mind shifting gears into a more civil discussion where we respect each other’s opinions and information though, all I’d ask is that you don’t patronize me, and I’ll do my best to do the same. I will listen to what you’d like to share, just know there’s not much I haven’t heard at this point, and I won’t pull any punches. It’s my opinion that Flat a Earth is deeply bias in their conclusions, mostly formed from paranoia and misunderstandings, both of which have been twisted and exploited by conmen to sell a hoax to the average layman. It’s no coincidence to me that people in flat Earth are not experienced experts in any field relevant to the topic.
2
-
@zquest42 For thousands of years sailors have been navigating using the stars, with one very simple geometric constant in mind, that the stars drop to (or raise up from) the horizon at a consistent rate, by latitude. The reason this is a problem for flat Earth, is because the geometry doesn’t work, if the Earth was flat, then the stars would not move from the horizon at a consistent rate, they would vary in their degree shift to horizon due to simple rules of visual perspective, dropping by less and less or rising faster and faster depending on the star and the direction of travel...many would never reach the horizon at all, Polaris for example.
Here’s a great diagram that helps understand this better https://flatearth.ws/polaris-angle. Looking at this diagram, do you honestly believe Polaris could ever drop to 0 degrees at the Equator if Earth is flat? It does not work geometrically, and yet...Polaris does drop to 0 degrees in reality and at a consistent rate. Flat Earth can not account for this observation, but the Globe ticks every box, it fits perfectly with the geometry.
So sailors were actually some of the first to realize the true shape of Earth. It’s true they had no idea it was rotating, that wasn’t realized until Galileo and Kepler came along roughly 500 years ago, but the shape itself was undeniable. Remember, Science didn’t start with the higher physics, they started with the geometry...so I really don’t understand why flat Earthers rush ahead and talk about physics, if they haven’t even worked out the basic shape yet. At its core, flat Earth is a geometry discussion...so start with the geometry.
2
-
1
-
@opxchaos5757 Ok, I watched your video from P-brane, and let me tell ya, it was difficult, as I really don’t see how anyone can see this as a more logical answer for this observation. To me, it felt like I watched 20 minutes of somebody attempting to ram a square peg into a round hole...I’m just being honest, it was painful to watch. I’ve chatted with P-brane before, and I’ve actually seen this exact explanation for the Southern star trails from Eric Dubay before as well. He even used the same animations...which leaves me to wonder who plagiarized who, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume they shared their visuals under a mutual agreement. I find P-brane sure talks a lot, but doesn’t provide any evidence, just makes claims and expects people to accept it...so I’m sorry, but I do find his content quite frustrating and not very well done, for that reason.
It’s not just him though, it’s very common in FE. A lot of conjecture and empty claims, huge leaps in logic and conclusions made before any attempt is made to actually verify them, but no real science. What I’m curious about, is how you find an explanation like this more plausible?
Let’s clear one thing first, do you honestly believe this explanation of his makes more sense than the globe model? I’m not trying to mock you if you do, I’m actually curious as to why, so perhaps you can help shed some light on why you feel this explanation is better than the globe explanation.
Second, you do realize that he never once sets out to prove this claim of his, with any sort of experiment or data, right? He basically just presented a hypothesis, that’s all he has there, then he skipped over all experimentation, real world observation, simulation and jumped straight to conclusion. Again, I’m curious as to why you feel this is good enough? I find FE does this a lot, slots in an ad hoc answer, then asserts it’s correct before doing any further work to verify the hypothesis they’ve made. Which is one of the reasons why I have a very hard time taking them seriously I’m afraid...and trust me, I’ve tried over the past 4 years.
Third, this in no way falsifies the globe position, so even if I were to accept it as plausible (and that’s unlikely currently, which I’ll explain why in a bit), the globe model still explains this real world phenomenon with absolute ease, it fits the geometry perfectly. It’s what we’d expect to see on a globe. It’s easy to simulate that geometry actually, both digitally https://youtu.be/ZMtx5jVLUaU, and physically https://youtu.be/jRKMN_dJbmY?t=377. So his explanation in no way falsified the globe model, I feel that’s important to keep in mind.
I’ll continue this in a separate comment (got a bit long), I would like to next attempt to falsify his explanation. So the rest is in part 2 of this point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@opxchaos5757 I agree completely with Dirkardo, Eric doesn’t prove anything with his 200 proofs, merely makes 200 empty claims, with no evidence to back them...many of them are even repeated. In debate, it’s a dishonest tactic known as gish gallop, dumping a ton of small weaker arguments on a person in rapid fire, in an attempt to overload their ability to address it all or even process it all in real time, thus making you appear more bolstered in your argument while making your opponent look like a bumbling idiot while he attempts to address every point, but failing from being bogged down in explanation, it’s essentially a trap in debates, and it’s frowned upon...but sadly it works on an audience.
Psychologically, it does two things, overloads your ability to process information (I think the human limit is generally around 8-12 points at a time, before you’re overloaded and begin to get muddled and run off track), and it dazzles you, gets you thinking “wow, 200 proofs! He must know what he’s talking about! You have my attention.” It’s essentially quantity over quality...which some people tend to value more. But, a very similar list could easily be made for the Globe...but the scientific community is typically not in favour of low tactics like gish gallop, they care about the details.
Con men and huxters use that sort of tactic to sway people...which is a red flag for those who recognize it. Slow his presentation down, and actually challenge the claims one at a time, give yourself time to process them and you’ll find they aren’t really proofs, just claims without backing. Claims that can also be falsified, if you look and research well enough.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kaptainkrampus Okay, but due to Earth curvature your position relative to those rays of light are still angled, so it’s still like you’re looking down the tracks, just at a steeper angle. Only the sub solar point experiences a perfectly perpendicular to surface rays of light (which is only ever in one location on Earth at any given time), like you’re suggesting the suns rays are, everywhere else they’re not perpendicular to surface, relative to you, they’re angled. They’re parallel to each other, but not perpendicular. And when do we usually see crepuscular rays the most? Close to sunset or sunrise, when that angle is even steeper, basically arriving at you…like tracks.
I think you’d be interested in this modern recreation of the Eratosthenes experiment https://youtu.be/J9w4KtHxZ68?si=nP3Zw27oZzk0Ju5Z&t=903. This experiment is pretty good evidence that the Suns rays are in fact arriving parallel to surface, and crepuscular rays are just an optical illusion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeesh, chill dude, she’s just offering her opinion. There’s no cited sources or information here, because it’s mostly just meant as an opinion piece, that’s all. She’s an accredited Theoretical Physicist with a doctorates degree, she’s not a flat Earther...so she’s not arguing in their favour, she’s just presenting a case for why academia shouldn’t be so quick to ignore the broader issue here. That being, maybe the current system is doing more to alienate some people, than it is educating them. Perhaps the Flat Earth movement is a warning sign of a greater problem, the current gap that exists between modern science and the general public. I’d say she knows what she’s talking about, she is an actual scientist.
1
-
You’re assuming the air is stationary relative to the Earth, but it actually rotates with it, this is called relative motion, and occurs thanks to the law of inertia and conservation of momentum…the laws of motion, basic physics. It’s not a perfect system mind you, the air is sloshing about quite a lot…what do you think causes the winds in the first place? But for the most part, our atmosphere rotates with the Earth, so this is why we don’t have 1000 mph head winds. All things in motion stay in motion until acted upon by an unbalanced force, first law of motion, law of inertia.
There’s also fluid dynamics to factor here. Air is classified as a fluid in physics, so it behaves very similar to any other fluid, sharing similar characteristics like buoyancy and flow currents. Spin a bowl of water, the water will begin to rotate with it at the same rate, because of friction. Gravity creates a similar friction upon atmosphere, which further helps it adhere to Earths rotation.
So there’s physics here you’re not considering. Very simple physics that’s easy to learn and verify for yourself, whenever you choose to do that research.
I hope this information is helpful or at the very least interesting, take care.
1
-
1
-
Okay…but that does absolutely nothing to explain what causes the motion of falling, and everything you just mentioned is already included in gravity physics. They’re basically just taking established physics, and cutting out gravity…where’s the sense in that? 🤷♂️ it’s just intentional ignorance, to confirm a bias…it’s pretty obvious. It’s plain ol’ denial, Gravity is not very convenient for their arguments…so they made it go away, by simply denying it exists. How can anyone agree that’s a logical argument? 🤷♂️
The whole point of science is to figure out HOW physical phenomenon of reality works. How exactly can we do that…if we’re just gonna skip the whole process? Falling motion occurs, right? It’s something that our physical reality does, free from our control, so that makes it a physical phenomenon of nature. So it’s the job of science to figure out how it works…can’t really do that if we’re not even gonna try. The relative density argument basically boils down too “things fall…because they do”, great…the heck we gonna do with that information? :/
Here’s the basics; falling is a motion, any change in state of motion requires a force to cause it…nothing moves without a force, it’s pretty simple, that’s physics 101. So, a very obvious force is present…they just gave it a name, because it’s pretty handy to label things, so we’re all on the same page when discussing it. They named the upward motion buoyancy…why can the upward motion have a name and be rightly classified as a force, but the downward motion can’t? You really don’t see how illogical that is? 🧐 Doesn’t seem intentionally ignorant and biased too you?
Density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, it’s a ratio of mass to volume…that’s it. It has no means of causing motion, in any vector direction. And buoyancy actually doesn’t occur without gravity, proven in countless different drop tests and zero G experiments. That’s also why gravity is included as a key variable in the equation for buoyancy force; Fb=Vpg. Without that downward motion, density displacement does not occur, gravity quite literally starts the motion, that starts the chain reaction of events, that leads to buoyancy force due to density displacement.
So whether Flat Earth’s argument is relative density or the upward acceleration (which actually is an old argument of theirs), it’s pretty irrelevant…they’re both very stupid arguments. There’s no other way too put it…it’s a very dumb argument, that is very obviously intentional ignorance to confirm a bias. It’s shocking to me that it actually works on people…but that’s what happens when a large portion of society is scientifically illiterate…they’re easily taken advantage of by huxters and pseudo intellectuals. 😔
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 Except they’re not the oldest writings on Earth, we have writings from cultures all around the world that predates the Bible, some by thousands of years. Your religion isn’t the oldest religion, Hinduism is the oldest surviving religion (roughly 4000 years)…but there’s been plenty more before that even, the Egyptians, Sumerians, Mayans, all had their own spiritual and religious beliefs, all predating Abrahamic religions, by thousands of years. And a lot of what you just said isn’t even mentioned in the Bible. Point me to the Bible verse that says Moonlight is cold. Speaking of testing things, here’s an experiment that falsifies that claim btw https://youtu.be/zLsZwp4RWWg.
You continue to dodge the real point here; where’s the Bible verse or verses that explains why things are attracted down towards Earth and why it’s a consistent rate of 9.8m/s^2 for all matter? Is there a Bible verse going into great detail on buoyancy force and what causes it? Did God ever mention the electromagnetic spectrum…that you’re probably using right now to send and receive your wifi data, to read this message? Any mention of the atom and how to split it? Any mention on bacteria and the cellular life that comprises all living things? Nope…not a word of it…just a bunch of false claims, that have since been proven wrong.
You just don’t seem to get it…God didn’t create your computer, man did, and we achieved this technology (as well as many others), by doing the work ourselves, acquiring knowledge of physical reality ourselves. God was certainly no help…if anything, you people have slowed us down, and you continue too to this day. That’s the reality…you blindly believe a fiction, without proper evidence…then you expect the rest of us to just nod and agree, no questions asked. :/
Where’s the tangible empirical evidence for this dome you believe is up there? Feel free to share some, cause while you may blindly believe words in a book without evidence supporting it, the rest of us require evidence. What evidence is there of geocentrism? Cause I could share mountains of evidence for the heliocentric model.
This is why there’s really no point talking to biblical literalists…you’re not here to have an open minded discussion, you’re not interested in the actual evidence or facts, your mind was shut long ago and doesn’t matter what evidence anyone provides you.
Sorry bud, but it’s pretty clear your religion has blinded you from the real world…and that’s the problem. You’re not really looking with any intellectual honesty, you’re filtering all information through your Bible first, and it’s given you tunnel vision. You’re chasing confirmation bias towards the conclusion you want to be true, it’s no secret, it’s painfully obvious.
You are wasting your time here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ramonortiz7462 Okay, I’ll try one more time to help ya out, with a different approach. Let’s take two latitudes, the equator and the 60th North parallel, which is roughly half the circumference of the Equator. We’ll round everything up to make it simpler; so Equator at 25,000 miles, 60th N latitude 12,500 miles. Equator with a linear velocity of 1042 mph, 60th N at 521 mph.
So, 521 miles is 4.168% of 12,500 miles. Now just convert that to a decimal to find degrees; multiply 0.04168 by 360 degrees to find how many degrees 4.168% of 360 degrees is, you get 15 degrees. Oh…would you look at that, the same 15 degrees per hour as the Equator…and it’s not difficult to understand why, because they’re on the same surface, rotating at the same rate of rotation, 1 revolution every 24 hours. Pretty simple. 😄
You are wrong, time to realize that and accept it.
1
-
1
-
@ienjoyapples Well, perhaps dangerous is the incorrect word for it, as I actually do agree that the skeptical spirit is a good thing, it’s actually the one thing I admire about flat Earth as well to be honest. I feel it is a warning sign of a deeper issue though, that I do worry could eventually become dangerous. It’s a loss of trust in most people, a growing paranoia that’s wedging its way into the group mind of society as a whole, that if left to fester could lead to a mob mentality reaction where real people get hurt. Flat Earth convinces a lot of people and these people are angry...for good reason really, they feel they’ve been lied too their whole lives. They’re convinced of a great evil in the world...it’s not just as simple as the Earths geometry for a lot of them, if it’s correct (and they strongly feel it is), then it confirms one of their worst fears...how long before they’re tired of trying to pinpoint or prove it and just start taking action?
That’s what I worry about, it’s great to question things...but I fear too many people lose their heads and allow too much speculation and misinformation to make up their thought processes...reaching false conclusions, from quicker easier to process information, rather than keeping their head on their shoulders, slowing their roll and tackling the information with more patience and unbiased analysis. And they do it this way, simply because they’re starting from scratch, skipping over the best methods for processing information and deducing objective truths, that science has refined over the years and is proven to work.
Distrusting institutions of science is perfectly fine and should be allowed, maybe even encouraged...but the method of science itself, I feel is the best method for discerning objective truth, and so I don’t think it should be skipped over. It’s just another tool in the belt, it has just as much agenda as a hammer does, but just like a hammer, it has to be used properly for best and most positive effect. Most times you have to be taught how to use a tool properly, the scientific method is no exception.
I talk to a lot of flat Earthers, and bias always seems to be their larger issue...science learned this was a problem a long time ago and now it actively practices and teaches students how to best keep bias in check. Flat Earth could benefit I feel, from acknowledging that it has bias, then learn how best to combat it. It may not seem dangerous now, but “just asking questions” has been shown in history to become “demanding answers” pretty quickly...then people get hurt. I’m all for revolutions, but I’d prefer to know for sure they weren’t just sure, they were right...in my experience talking with them so far, they’re just bias.
Anyway, some good points though, I hope I didn’t come off as condescending, it’s a slippery slope really, of course freedom of speech and information should be preserved, so I do agree with you on much of your point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thedayhayfilms I’ll give you an example; I disagreed with mandatory vaccines, and vaccine passports, and still do. I think we should never be forced to put something into our system, that we do not know much or anything about personally. And I don’t think we should be barred from access to daily luxuries or services, or fired from our jobs, because we chose to not be vaccinated…that to me is simply wrong. I’m not an antivaxxer, I got the vaccine twice, but I did it because I chose too after much research, and I didn’t want to risk getting my parents sick, who are elderly. I believe that choice should belong to everyone…regardless of whether it causes an influx in the sick or not. The government would strongly disagree with me…and I don’t care, they can get fucked. You treat your people like cattle, you’ll be reminded pretty quickly that they’re not. I live in Canada, and currently we have convoy protests going to the capital (for a second time), to protest that shit, and I’m all for it.
But…I’ve seen the world, I’ve been to overpopulated countries, I’ve seen countries with a billion in them alone….so I very much agree there’s billions of people on Earth.
Point is, you can still agree with a source you don’t trust, in some ways. It doesn’t automatically mean you agree with everything they say.
Stop thinking in absolutes. :/
1
-
@Smhallways If someone learns something they didn’t know prior to the question, then it’s always worth it. Flat Earth has been asking a lot of questions out of resentment I feel, but it’s had a positive effect in that it’s actually caused a lot of people to take more of an interest in science again. Myself for example, I’ve always dabbled but I never really thought about Earth science all that deeply to want to understand how we came to the conclusion the Earth is a Globe, now I have. Now I have that knowledge, so even if their intent was to spread doubt and destroy a system they hate, it got many of us curious enough to take a look and learn things we had either forgotten or never knew. Questions, even asked with poor intentions, can keep us on our toes, keep us sharp, which is good in the long run, so it’s not all bad I suppose.
My point is though, resentment can form bias...and bias often will not lead to any actual truth, so I really don’t think it’s a great place for an individual to start from. I think it does more to close a mind off, then it does to open it, cause then your goal isn’t to learn the truth, it’s to confirm your bias...which will just lead you astray. Questions are great, no such thing as a stupid question, but they can be used as a weapon too, so it really depends on the intent, how deep does the resentment run? I think it’s a bad thing for the individual, I don’t personally feel it’s a good way to learn, but it does happen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iodfsk Ah, you blindly follow the claims of the lying con man Dubay, now I see where you get your script from, thought your rhetoric sounded familiar. I get that he may sound convincing to you, but you should really stop and break down one of his videos slowly sometime and then really take in how many times he speculates and makes empty claims, but provides zero tangible evidence for any of it. It’s pretty staggering once you realize, all he’s doing is dumping gish gallop and his delivery is very similar to methods used in hypnotic suggestion, that’s why he speaks consistently monotone. The dudes a con artist, and I’ll give him this much, he’s good at it.
Anyway, here’s some photos taken from space https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544. Was your search bar broken or something? Found these in like 5 seconds. If you click the back button at top left on the page, you’ll find an archive with many more. But go ahead...just tell me they’re all fake, while not demonstrating how you proved that claim, it’s always the same with you lot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JasonsMove It’s funny how some people think just saying “scientific method, start there” is in anyway something of substance that adds anything to a point. 🤦♂️
8 inches per mile squared is not the correct math for what Flatties use it for. It has no variable for height of the observer….I shouldn’t have to explain this to an adult, but you know we see further the higher we go in elevation, right? You’re aware of that, right? Okay…so then don’t you think that’s a pretty important variable to include in the math for line of sight observations? 😳 Ya…it is.
We know how to do math……do you? 🧐 Cause I don’t think you do…if you did, you’d recognize a parabola equation when you saw it, and you’d understand that the formula FE uses is missing important variables. So it’s the WRONG MATH for what you’re using it for…use the wrong math, and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple.
You know a big part of the scientific method is called PEER REVIEW…what do you think we’re doing right now? 🧐 We do peer review because people are not infallible, they make mistakes, often without realizing it because of bias or their own cognitive limitations. You are in error, your math is extremely wrong…and so we’re just pointing that out. 8 inches per mile squared is a parabola equation (not for a spherical curvature), and has no variable for height of the observer…which is an extremely important variable here. So please get that through your head.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JasonsMove You missed; 7. Submit/publish results…which is where the peer review process begins. Also, should be pointed out that you presented it as a linear step process that eventually ends, but it’s more like a loop that never ends. Science is an on going process, after you publish, the process then starts over for the people reviewing…we call that peer review.
Experiments must be repeatable, or else they are not valid…because just cause someone went through the steps, in no way implies they did it without error. You went through the scientific method of experimentation, that’s great, but the process of science is more than just experimenting…the next big step of the scientific process is discussing the results and recreating them, probing for any possible errors YOU may have missed. The next step is checking the work, to see if it holds up to review and recreation.
Without that process of review, then anyone is free to say and claim whatever they want, and it’s all equally valid. Peer review is how we weed out the bullshit…like Flat Earth.
Like it or not, that’s how it works. The only people who don’t like peer review and wish it would go away, surprise surprise, are conmen and pseudo intellectuals. Why do you think Flat Earth does everything it can to pretend it doesn’t exist? Hmmm…gee, that’s a tough one…🧐
Ironically though, what FE is doing is a form of peer review, which is great! I’m all for people questioning, even the most established science, truthfully, that’s awesome. But that doesn’t make you immune to the same process of review…YOU are not the one exception to the standards of review and burden of proof. Doesn’t work that way. The scientific method isn’t linear, it’s a wheel, a never ending process that loops back in on itself…we call that peer review.
1
-
1
-
@seesaw1969 No problem, everyone is entitled to their opinions and asking questions is a good thing. In all fairness they were actually great physics questions, many of them were the exact same questions many scientists ask at some point. I just worry people are leaning more into their fears and paranoias, than they are actually thinking about these questions. My fear is that instead of seeking to really answer these and other questions, you instead collect the questions as your evidence, and ignore any possible answers to them, because the questions compiled together gives you a case, and it’s your only weapon against a system of authority you’ve come to resent and hate and above all, distrust. So to answer those questions, kind of disarms you in a way…I fear that people are currently preferring to remain in ignorance, because that ignorance is their weapon, helping them muster some power and control over a system that is indifferent to them. That’s what I worry about...people being misled by their fears and distrusts, rather than using their heads.
You basically described your reasons for doubting science, with your perspective on 9/11. You’re not wrong there I personally feel, it was odd, and I would agree, from what I’ve seen, it’s very plausible that it was a controlled demolition, with inside meddling. So I get it, you’ve lost a great deal of trust that day and who can blame you. But even if the government or some rich shadowy cabal was proven to be responsible for bringing down those towers, it wouldn’t automatically mean the Earth is flat, or that NASA is faking space travel…those are still exclusive issues, it’s a dangerous leap in logic to think in sweeping absolutes like that. People shouldn’t lose their heads, they should leave it on their shoulders and continue to look at everything objectively, not be led by their desire to bag the bad guy. That just develops into confirmation bias, and then people begin inventing things like flat Earth…that’s when you lose. When you start going so deep into that paranoia, that you’re now denying a fact of reality that’s easily verified with one sunset, or one successful voyage plotted and planned using our current system of geodesic navigation…at that point, it’s pretty clear you’ve allowed this distrust to fester and cloud your better reasoning.
You’re not wrong to think something is wrong, because something is wrong, your distrust for some systems of authority is justified…but the Earth is still not flat and anyone can verify that, if they just stopped collecting questions, and instead started answering them. Questions are not evidence on their own, there is a distinct difference. Questions are good to ask, but if you assume the answers instead of actually answering them, and if you do that enough times, then you wind up following confirmation bias down a path of complete bullshit…and it can be hard to turn back if you’ve gone too far down, even if you do learn it’s nonsense. Because then it’ll just feel like you wasted time.
I feel Flat Earth is a purely psychological phenomenon, that reflects how mentally unhealthy society as a whole is becoming. We’ve been abused by our governments, lied too, cheated and even murdered in many cases, it’s making us crazy…causing us to abandon our better reasoning, in favour of pretty much any wild theory. It’s sad….especially now that this distrust is bleeding out into science. Scientists are not your enemy, and the very large majority are not out to harm anyone. They are your neighbours, you likely grew up with many of them, they’re mostly good people, they want the same things you do, a better world. On top of that, there is a very simple way to sniff out pseudoscience…it doesn’t work and it’s not useful in any applied science. Real science is the opposite, it works, that’s how you tell what’s true and what isn’t. Anyone can learn to navigate, it’s not difficult. The current system of navigation is built on the knowledge that Earth is a sphere with two equal hemispheres. Millions of people use this system of navigation every single day and it works every time it is applied properly. That’s not just a coincidence. If the Earth was flat, then current navigation models would not work. It’s really that simple. So I do strongly feel people are wasting their time on flat Earth, looking for answers in the wrong places.
Anyway, I’m starting to ramble a bit. If there’s anymore questions on the science, feel free to ask, I’d really prefer staying focused on answering whatever scientific questions you might have. My point here is just to remind people to be careful, avoid following confirmation bias, keep your head on your shoulders. It’s good to be skeptical, it’s good to ask questions, but be honest and objective while you do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 Actually, the very large percentage of flat Earthers are religious, spending even a little time chatting with them reveals that. Many have been using flat Earth as a means to confirm their larger belief structure, and to further their distancing from modern science. So they’re not much different from young Earth creationists in that way, in fact it’s a pretty safe bet that if they’re a religious flat Earther, then it’s very likely they’re also a creationist. Not difficult to make the connection anyway, many theists have long been vocal about their distain for science slowly eroding the core concepts of their beliefs, so how do you combat that? Simple…you just catch science with its pants down. If one can disprove (at least for themselves) a major scientific tenant such as the shape of the Earth, then what else is science hiding? At that point, becomes a lot easier to restore ones faith to maximum, now that science can’t be trusted. So it’s easy to see the appeal for many.
So she’s really just making an observation, one that many of us have noticed as well after spending some time chatting with this particular group, just is what it is really. Not all flat Earthers are religious, but I would argue it’s a majority.
Also, people are born gay…they don’t just become gay, and they don’t convert either. If you’re gay you’re gay, doesn’t go away. This always seems to be the thing religious groups don’t quite understand about homosexuality, or perhaps just something they don’t want to admit. We do also observe homosexuality in other species, it’s not exclusive to homo sapiens, so there is substantial evidence to verify it is actually part of nature. Some crossing of the wires during fetus development, just happens sometimes, nothing we can really do about it, it’s always going to happen eventually. All religion has achieved by suppressing that minority is caused a lifetime of suffering for individuals who were forced to hide who they are, today they don’t have too, and personally I feel that’s far more humane and ethical.
Not to bash on religion though, it does provide a strong community foundation, which is an important pillar for a healthy and productive life and society. And yes, I’d actually agree that there needs to be some restraint of our personal vices, and religions do help people strive for a better control of such things…the trouble I do see though is that the way they go about it can foster a bit of naïveté and in worst cases delusions about how the natural world actually operates. We all have our fair share of delusions, so I hope that’s not taken to personally, just an outsider from religion making an observation from that perspective.
Every decision we make as a society will always come with its own pros and cons, collectively deciding to provide a more welcoming environment for queer people doesn’t solve every problem, in fact it creates its fair share of new ones, but declining birth rates are a far more complex issue that certainly can’t be chalked up to a single minority group. Coming from the older end of the millennial generation myself (I’m 38), many of us (especially in more secular left leaning upbringings) we’re just not as interested in having kids, because we were constantly told by our parents that we should strive for our highest potentials, rather than marriage and family and strictly blue collar jobs like previous generations. So we focused on our careers and passions instead. I’d say that has contributed far more to declining birth rates, than a minority group that wasn’t having kids in the first place. Cause gay people have always existed, they just hid themselves before, all that’s changed is they’re not really hiding anymore. So it seems more prevalent, but the reality is those numbers haven’t changed. They’re not forcing themselves to have kids like they used too, that’s true, so I’m not saying it’s not a contributor, but it’s far from a huge contributor.
I do find it a bit odd that theists and especially conservatives tend to focus so much on LGBTQ, to a point they really seem to stretch their real cultural impact. These are still very much minority groups, so I think it’s safe to say they’re not making as much of a dent in the issues you’re painting them as having a large impact upon. What is this obsession for blaming the gays for everything? Just a means to justify hatred perhaps?
Personally, I feel declining birth rates are more because of a generational shift in thinking. Having families are just not as much of a priority anymore to younger generations today, and parental controls over their child’s lives are greatly diminished today as well, so nobody’s forcing us either. One of many contributing factors, but far more impactful than the queer community I’d say.
That’s my opinion anyway, no disrespect to the religious community as they do provide a strong communal foundation for living I do admire and see the benefits of. I just think they’re putting far too much blame on the shoulders of another community that’s really not as harmful or impactful as they’d like to think.
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 Thing is marriage is no longer just a religious thing (nor was it ever really, if we’re looking at its history objectively). Marriage has always been more of a social contract —between the couple but sometimes even between the families— giving each individual certain rights and privileges recognized under the law. So the real reason gay couples want the right to marry is so they too can be assured of those same rights and privileges. Everything from tax incentives, to next of kin privileges, to common law regulations, that’s the real reason they want the right to marry. They’re not fighting tooth and nail just to annoy religious people, the real truth is that marriage comes with many legal benefits. Personally I don’t see why that would even be a problem, all they want basically is to not be second class citizens, simply because of a sexual orientation they didn’t choose. They want basic human rights essentially…so what real reason do others have to deny them that, other than they don’t want a definition to change? Change is really the only certainty in life, and that’s kind of a problem I have with religion, it’s too rigid, it doesn’t adapt to change very well…more often than not it does everything it can to oppose change, which sometimes can even lead to violence. That’s where I personally lose a bit of respect for religion, like it or not it has been used many times as a weapon to justify some pretty rotten deeds throughout history, and still today that’s true.
Denying people basic human rights, benefits and privileges because of a definition…it’s not a great argument imo.
1
-
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 “Marriage predates rights and privileges.” Then you say “the purpose was to protect woman…and government to officially recognize a family for inheritance.”
You’ve just described rights and privileges, so marriage doesn’t predate these things, it was the whole point. You really can’t see why gay couples want the same rights? Two consenting adults love each other, they want the same rights and privileges recognized under laws, that any other couple receives, that protect them and help them greatly during things like receiving inheritance, getting family tax benefits, or just going to a hospital to visit when your partner is ill…it’s really that simple.
It’s a social contract, laying out terms that protect the family. By fighting against them here, you’re basically saying they’re not allowed to be regular humans, they are forever to be second class citizens. What’s odd to me is just…why? For what purpose? Them being able to marry doesn’t change heterosexual marriages, there’s still going to be plenty of that happening…they have absolutely zero effect on heterosexual marriages. So why do you really care so much, I’m not seeing a good line of reasoning here…other than to just deny some people basic human rights.
If gay people are suicidal, it’s because they continue to be treated like freaks, for something they didn’t choose. My best friend is gay, coming from a very old fashioned conservative family (his father’s an old farmer), his brothers are your typical sports and construction jobs types. He’ll likely never tell his parents or his family, because he loves them too much to rattle there world, and that’s where his depression stems from. He’s going to be depressed and alone for the rest of his life likely, so long as he remains shackled to this notion that he’s some kind of problem…which is a message that strict conservative values have instilled in him. It’s nothing he’s doing, he was just born…it’s old fashioned ways of thinking that are why he will suffer.
Meanwhile, I have several other friends who aren’t hiding, they’re living far more normal, productive, and happier lives.
So I would argue these problems like depression, drug abuse, suicide, aren’t there because they’re gay…it’s because there’s still a psychological stigma against them, that they’re constantly reminded of, by all the older ways of thinking, that just refuse to change.
For the record I’m not gay, in case you were thinking that’s why I’m going off on it so vocally. I’m just a regular blue collar dude, grew up on a farm myself, living in a very conservative farming community, never had to worry about this stuff a day in my life because I’m as straight and boring as it gets. But I have lots of gay friends, they don’t bother me in the slightest…but my best friend struggles greatly with this, and while it’s his own decision to stay closeted that’s ultimately causing him his suffering, it’s the society around him that he feels he needs to hide from that’s doing all that damage. Just old ways of thinking that I personally think need to change.
And they have really…it’s not like this is a new thing, but lately it feels like we’re regressing backwards. Nobody cared 20 years ago, the gay community had pretty much won and the dust felt like it was finally settling…then social media came around, and now it’s all anyone talks about again. Media pundits that found a way to monetize discourse, so they bullshit endlessly.
I’ll give you the perfect example that happened recently; a new Star Wars show came out, it wasn’t very good honestly, so naturally it was panned, but the director and lead actress were in an interview joking about how R2D2 might be a lesbian in canon…and it blew up. Every conservative media outlet had something to say, even filling hours long podcasts on the discourse. Over a joke….if you actually watch the interview, they’re clearly not being serious, it was a joke. And it’s not a new one either, the Simpsons made the same joke 30 years ago, making C3P0 and R2 into a gay robot couple, that then fight 2 massive Battlestar droids in a wrestling match. It’s funny…and it’s a pretty easy joke to make given the characters. But conservatives lately don’t seem to know what a joke is.
The reality is it’s not conservatives, I’m sure they got the joke just fine, it’s the media pundits who took it out of context and spun it into some extreme bullshit….that’s the problem, right there. We all gotta stop listening to these media outlets, who thrive on bullshit, cause it’s slowly poisoning all of us. Gay people have always been here, and always will be. 20 years ago we largely stopped caring, it really wasn’t a big deal anymore…what changed? I say it was social media…it’s doing more damage today than anything else we think is the problem.
Even your wording from earlier “war on the family”, nobody on the left says that shit, that’s a strictly right wing phrase. It implies that there’s some kind of conscious premeditated effort from the left, when the reality is left leaning thinkers just don’t appreciate allowing the suffering of others. We don’t do this consciously, it’s just how we naturally are…we see suffering, we do what we can to stop it or at least mediate it. Sometimes we overreact…but that’s a human flaw not unique to the left. My point is, most of us are not actively attacking the nuclear family through any concerted effort…we’re just reacting and adapting to how society raised us. We were raised not to put priority on family, not because someone wanted to abolish families, but because it didn’t seem as important anymore, we finally created a society where we could chill more and enjoy life…so that’s what we’re doing, that’s all. Is it selfish? Maybe, sure. Does it create a whole bunch of new problems? Yup, absolutely, any changes in society do. But these aren’t conscious efforts like right wing pundits would have us all think. “War on the family” is just a buzz word to piss off a certain group, to generate income from their outrage….it’s clearly working, and it sucks.
In fairness, I’m wholly aware of the extreme left wing pundits who do rile up kids in universities taking gender studies classes, to “abolish the nuclear family”, but they’re dumb kids and these media outlets are just as shitty, and they do not represent a majority of the left, any more than the extreme right represent all conservatives.
That’s my opinion any way. Off to work for the day, thanks for the discussion. Apologies I can’t really respond to everything, just not enough time in the day it seems. 😅 Take care.
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 Where I do agree with you though, so it’s not just me piling on disagreements; I do agree that the nuclear family is a healthier structure for one’s mental health. It’s just how we’ve evolved over thousands of generations, men need something to protect and provide for, and women need something to nurture and care for, it’s just how we’re wired. So depression and instability can arise more often than not when we resist our ingrained instincts. The nuclear family is the best way to align with those natural conditionings, it’s a system that works.
So don’t get me wrong, I understand your perspective more than I’ve let on, and so I do see why many strive to preserve that structure. It’s basically a “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” kind of approach. Trouble is some people simply don’t fit that mold, and so they shouldn’t be forced too.
Our society is pretty good for that I feel, for the most part we do allow people to choose their own way, freedom is a big part of what America is founded upon after all. I think we peaked in the 90’s personally, felt like a pretty perfect balance of right and left leaning concepts…then the internet came along and stirred the pot and we’ve been regressing ever since.
I think we were slowly striking a good balance is all I’m saying…last 10 years especially with social media making discourse so profitable, it’s just made the worst people of society popular and rich, thriving off of drummed up hysteria. That to me feels like the real problem…and I wish I could offer a solution of any sorts, but what do you do, honestly? I really don’t know how you fix greed and a current online culture that seems to thrive from it.
1
-
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 More to that statistics point; suicide in general has gone up, so while I feel you’re trying to draw conclusion that they killed themselves strictly because they’re gay, people kill themselves for all kinds of reasons, so how would you conclude it was from being gay itself? Here’s a hypothetical to help with my point; what if we could absolutely pinpoint suicide rates were rising across the board because of current social media and online habits sapping everyone of their time and lives? Would the stats reflect that if we looked at purely just the numbers? Nope…if you’re just looking at the numbers, how could you ever draw that conclusion?
Personally I feel I’m bang on about that, people aren’t depressed because they’re gay or not having kids…depression is skyrocketing because we spend more time online, and less time living and experiencing our actual lives.
That’s purely my speculation, but I do feel it’s a good one. Point is, you can’t just look at some stats, and draw sweeping conclusions for a complex issue like that. We both can speculate, but the only real conclusion either can draw from pure death tolls is that suicide rates are increasing. Not much else.
1
-
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 Sorry if this is a dead thread to you at this point, more time to respond now that it’s a day off for me, just had a few things I had wanted to address yet if you don’t mind, feel free to respond or ignore, it’s all good, I get that these ramblings are long. 😅 Firstly though, while we may not agree on everything, I just want to say thanks for being civil, rational, and all around pleasant to discuss with, it’s refreshing for sure. I also agree with healthy dialogue over disrespect of peoples viewpoints, that’s how we ultimately see each other’s perspectives and hopefully reach agreement or at least compromise. It’s how society used to be, we used to be adults. So thank you.
I just want to clarify one of my agreements that comes with some nuance. While I agree the nuclear family is the healthiest family standard, that’s only because some in society make it very difficult for the others to prosper. Nobody’s threatening a heterosexual couple with death threats simply for being a couple. Nobody’s actively trying to take their kids away because they see heterosexuals as an abomination. Nobody’s telling heterosexuals they can’t marry.
These things really do happen to gay couples and families. It creates a stigma that makes it very difficult for these families to truly thrive, it’s a lot of psychological baggage I’m sure, a lot of pressure, and a lot less privacy depending on the community. I’ve been amongst many families that have accepted their gay family members, and quite frankly these families are doing just fine, a lot happier than some of the stricter more “proper” families I also know, at least I know which gatherings are more cheerful and fun anyway.
Point is, gay families can be just as prosperous, when they’re amongst family who actually love and care about their well being. So they can fit just fine in that nuclear family dynamic, if they’re supported. They’d only struggle if/when their community and other family members give little to no support…but at that point, did they ever really love them to begin with? A parent shouldn’t want for their children to suffer, if they do, then I say they got into parenting for the wrong reasons. You might feel it’s selfish that a person comes out and stirs up the family dynamic, but I think it’s far worse to pretend to be something you’re not (some families pretend to be happy and more successful, when in truth they’re miserable and hate each other), and I’d say it’s more selfish to want total control over your kids, for your own selfish wants and desires. How many people have kids just so they can hold them up as some kind of achievement of their life? I wouldn’t be surprised if the number was a majority…I’d also say that’s the wrong reason to have kids. It’s fine to reflect on your life and add it as an achievement, of course it is, I’m just saying it shouldn’t be the only reason you had children…as little trophies for yourself.
I feel that’s very often the type people who really seem to care when their children come out as gay; the ones who placed a lot of their own expectations upon them…instead of just loving them for who they are. It then ruins THEIR self centred wants and desires….as if someone forgot to tell them you don’t own your children, they have their own hopes, dreams, and ambitions. You’ve created a life…not a slave. I do feel some parents treat their kids as such, and they’re generally the ones who make things so difficult in these situations.
Also, my friend would be fine, he’s just a shy introvert who’s afraid of a lot of things, this struggle is all in his head, as it is with all gay people before they come out, some are just braver. I’ve known him for almost 20 years, he finally told me he was gay just 2 years ago, saying it was because he was afraid to lose me as a friend. All I said was “Uh, ya…I know, I’ve known from day one. Bout time you idiot.” Seriously…he doesn’t look outwardly gay, but the moment he starts talking, yup…that guy is gay, it was the first thing me and my other friends noticed. I’m sure his family has known for a very looooooong time. 😄 His parents are old fashioned, but they’re also the sweetest old couple, and I’ve never once underestimated how much they love their son.
So no, I don’t think it’s good to suffer. While it might seem like a noble sacrifice, that pain just festers and manifests in bad ways, it doesn’t sit quiet and do nothing. Better to be honest than live a lie. Nobody should live in fear of their families…that’s not a real family if that’s the case, and so you’d be better off not being in it. I’m not worried about my friend though, his family cares about him, just like I cared about him…guess who’s still my best friend. He’s loved, so he’ll be fine, but it’s up to him, so we all just wait until he’s ready. As his friend I just don’t want him missing out on the time he has…life is short.
“Allowing homosexuals to marry literally changes the definition of what a marriage is and fundamentally changes its purpose as an institution centered around producing and raising children…”
I still strongly disagree here. I may just be repeating myself here, but I think it does bare repeating. Marriage isn’t just for the sake of children, plenty of heterosexual people who got married who never had children, it was still just a social contract between them to reap the legal privileges and benefits, while at the same time strengthening their union through a more binding agreement. Allowing gay people to marry does absolutely nothing to change heterosexual marriage, it just changes a wording from “union of man and woman” to “union of two people”. This does nothing to effect your marriage, or any other heterosexual marriage, you can still marry just fine. It also does nothing to effect your ability to have children or raise them, heterosexual people aren’t going away because the gays can marry. And what’s the difference between calling it marriage or a civil union? 🤷♂️ It’s just a word…if they mean the exact same thing, what’s the difference if they call it marriage? Just seems like petty semantics to me.
So again, I’m not seeing any real argument here…it really just seems to boil down too wanting to remain an exclusive club of sorts, where undesirables are not welcome. Just wanting things to remain as they were, even though society is changing and these old ways of thinking don’t fit or help every individual or family, like they’re supposed too. I know you’re trying very hard to be respectful, and I don’t mean to push you into uncomfortable realms, but it just seems like very thinly veiled religious dogma. The church has deemed it unnatural, therefore god has as well because they say so, so that’s that, no discussion to be had. This is kind of why we removed church from state though…it creates a deep bias that can lead some decisions being made without much rational thought behind them. Not saying you’re not thinking rationally, you are willing and able to discuss these things and your points aren’t without merit, I’m just not seeing much reason to agree.
We’re certainly of two different minds, but again it’s nice to have a discussion for a change. Apologies though if I ever got too pushy. If there’s one thing I personally dislike about the left it’s how smug and pushy they (we) can be, it’s certainly not helping the pendulum swings from balancing again…if I can be so on the nose with analogy. 😄 The reality is that cooperation is messy, it always will be, but that’s the society we struct out to achieve just 200+ short years ago, a freedom for all, not just the majority. I hope we don’t lose sight of that, because I really do believe it’s working. It’ll never be perfect, but it’s better than the outright fascist alternatives. The left has pushed a bit to far the last few years, I don’t disagree, so the current response shouldn’t be a surprise…in fact I actually agree with a lot of the push back, because cancel culture just goes waaaaay to far most times, and I feel ya, it is exhausting.
Anyway, take care.
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 “We are better people when we sacrifice our own wants and desires for others”
But taking your kids to gay conversion therapy isn’t just you placing your own wants and desires on your kids? 🧐 While I do agree some what, our vices are what lead us to misery, I don’t think you’re really applying that logic very well for yourself.
I 100% agree you shouldn’t have your kids taken away for raising them how you see fit (unless of course there’s a lot of physical, mental, or sexual abuse occurring), but if your child is gay…then they’re gay, there’s no getting around that. I don’t think you should lose your kids for taking them to gay conversion therapy, but gay conversion doesn’t “take the gay demon away” it just masks it. They’re still gonna be gay, you can’t really change what they’re attracted too, it’s hard wired into who they are. You’re only putting them into a world of suffering for the rest of their lives, for no real reason. I’m sorry but, this is what I mean…some people simply just don’t fit the normal molds. I don’t think it’s right to force them too…most kids just end up hating their parents for stuff like that, so you’ll just be causing a rift…a rift that could lead them down some dark roads. It doesn’t happen all the time, but you’re certainly taking a gamble, so I’m just warning you.
Gay couples can be just as happy, and the kids they raise can and do grow up just as normal under that dynamic. I know, I’ve met them…I’m friends with many. Kids don’t hate anything…that’s a learned trait, all they really need is a family and a community that cares for them and supports them. Plenty of nuclear families where the kids end up depressed, suicidal, abusing drugs and getting into crime…most of the time that happens when parents stop caring and supporting them, and start controlling every facet of THEIR lives.
My parents are pretty old school too. I grew up on a farm, my dads an old trucker/cowboy type…but god bless him for still nurturing all my interests instead of controlling them. I work a trucking job currently, but I’m also an artist who’s done work for comics, games, logo design and band merchandising. I’m also a musician (guitar) playing in multiple bands in my local area…and while my dad doesn’t understand any of that (except music, though I like punk, he likes blues), he still never once got in my way or tried to stop me pursuing a career in art, never tried stopping me from being me. He comes to my gigs, he helped me build my art studio, he’s a great dad and a good man that cares about his kids. That’s all it takes…THAT’S why I don’t hate or resent him, and we have a good relationship, and I grew up fine. I love my parents, because they hold old school beliefs, but they actually DO sacrifice their own wants and desires to allow others to be who they are, and they support people even if they don’t completely agree. We’re a pretty good family thanks to that, even though I’m the polar opposite of my dad, we actually hang out now as adults (we both love music and we go to concerts together all the time) and we get along. He’s a rough old guy who definitely has opinions, definitely opinions I disagree with strongly, but at his core he’s a big damn softy. Support and love, that’s all a kid really needs to grow up normal….by forcing them to become someone they’re not, you’re just crippling them for life in ways you won’t notice until it’s too late.
That’s my opinion, something I’m glad my dad agrees with too. We disagree though, and that’s fine, you make some good arguments though, so again, it’s been pretty good conversing with you I feel.
I did have one more question, but I get the feeling I already know the answer…but I’m curious, so I’ll ask anyway. Have you considered the possibility of one your own kids being gay? What would you do if they eventually told you they were? Would you still love them, or would you shun them?
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 Well I don’t think gay conversion camps have been very charitable to gay people…so not sure why I should pull my punches against them. The parents…alright, I don’t mean to disrespect them, I understand they’re just trying their best. I can’t imagine how hard it is to raise children…especially today, it myst be incredibly daunting. So my apologies to you.
I get that parents are doing it mostly from a place of love, but I do feel It’s just resisting nature…you’re fighting the current of a river. It just causes more damage than it sets out to achieve. You know how many gay people left their families and now don’t speak with them at all thanks to gay conversion therapy? Instead of listening too them…they opposed their will upon them. Some will comply, sure…doesn’t change the fact that they’re gay, and that will manifest eventually in far less healthy ways. You know how many “strong” men are gay, but hide it? Usually they’re the ones beating their wives or kids…or worse…
Meanwhile, the people who came out as gay and that are accepted by their friends and family, are now living healthy productive lives. I’ve already told you I’m friends with many, and I love going to those family gatherings over the stricter family gatherings where they’ve shunned their gay kids. Far more relaxed and enjoyable settings, a lot more fun and openly loving.
Just saying, you keep trying to convince me these people cause problems and they live in misery…while the opposite seems true from my perspective, a person who has gay friends and sees their happiness first hand. The only time it becomes a problem is when they’re not accepted…soooo, the real problem for me seems clear, it’s those people…not gay people.
Do you think my relationship with my best friend is worse now? No, it’s actually better, cause we can openly talk about it now! 😄 I never cared, I think it’s awesome he can finally feel comfortable to truly be himself around me, I’ve never seen the guy happier! That makes me happy…seeing my friends happy makes me happy, as I’m sure it would make me happy if I was a parent. It’s a MASSIVE weight off of his shoulders…you have to understand how good that must feel. Surely you can understand that.
It’s a fact, my friend is gay…you’re fighting against a fact of nature, some people are gay. They’re tired of hiding that fact. I’m all for them getting to be happy and have the same basic human rights as I do.
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 “…seem to be based on an ideology driven by how you think the world ought to be, not how it really is.”
Gay people exist and they are a fact of nature. By denying them the right to be who they are, you basically are imposing your own ideology on these people, thinking how the world ought to be, not how it really is.
My hobbies are not equivalent in its “deviancy” (for lack of a better word), but I play in punk rock bands, and how many deeply conservative/religious parents still to this day try and ban that music and stop their kids from listening too it? So it’s equivalent in that way…conservatives have a bad track record for pushing their children away, simply for finding enjoyment in something they do not understand, and then trying to rob them of it. My dad never got in the way of that interest, we have an awesome relationship thanks in large part to that decision. He instead nurtured it, he bought me my first guitar…I’ve been playing in punk rock bands ever since. Most of my friends are metal heads and punk rockers, bikers and tattooed deviant’s, none of which are in crime, don’t do drugs, we’re all grown up, have regular jobs, have healthy normal families, live normal lives…heck one of my more tattooed and biker heavy friends is a Doctor, and has been married for 20+ years, with 2 kids. Rest of my friends are mostly in the trades (or farmers), making heaps of money as journeymen, with families. They’re not all perfect, but they’re good people, living productive lives.
Anyway…point is, you see them as non functioning members of society, but I’m directly living amongst the lives you’re so afraid. Do I strike you at all as a bad person? Or as an irrational delinquent?
I’m telling ya, the only one of my friends I’ve worried about over the years, are the ones with families who cast them out for being who they are. Those are the ones with drug and depression problems…because they’ve lost a pillar of support that they thought they could always rely on. Or it’s the friends who had (closeted) fathers who beat their kids and had drinking problems…who probably wouldn’t have done that, if they were allowed to be gay when they were younger, or were allowed to be free from whatever it was that turned them rotten. Like I keep saying, it doesn’t just go away…it just manifests into something rotten.
You’re going from statistics…I’m going from lived experience. That’s the difference here. Your stats only tell you the trends, they can’t give you a cause. You can make correlations, and draw biased conclusions, but that’s about it. Not saying it’s not useful, not even saying I disagree with many of your conclusions, but it’s not the best measure of how things really are. I’d much rather talk to the people directly experiencing these outcomes, and/or the people living amongst them…experiencing it yourself is how you really open your eyes to what’s real.
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 Thank you for your honest answer to my question. See you did surprise me actually, and I think that’s a small example of what gay people experience. We don’t give you guys enough credit, and that’s why they’re so afraid to come out.
But you know I already disagree about the nature/nurture aspect. Gay animals don’t have any interest in the opposite sex. And I mean, do you understand why you’re attracted to the opposite sex? No…it just is how it is. Same with me, I’ve never been attracted to same sex…but why is that? It’s just how we’re naturally wired, it’s nothing we chose it just is what it is.
Gayness isn’t a gene (at least I don’t think, though I’m not a biologist so take my opinion with a grain of salt), I believe it’s just something that happens during fetal production, the wires get crossed somewhere in the process of the sex being determined, the mind develops with some more of the opposite gender traits than it should have. Essentially, a man acquires the sexual attractions it should have received if the fetus had developed female instead, and vice versa. I hold this opinion because I myself have no clue why I’m attracted to the opposite gender…is just is what it is. You can’t nurture that…people don’t just become gay, they know they’re gay from a very early age, just like how I knew I was straight from a very early age.
I think that’s where a lot of the confusion between our two camps comes from; you believe it’s nurtured, we believe it’s natural. That’s why have such a disconnect when discussing it. Because don’t get me wrong, I getcha, homosexual sex grosses me out too, but since it’s between 2 consenting adults, and I’ve seen them experience love first hand, then it’s within the realm of mutual, consensual, love between mature adults who can BOTH make their own partner decisions, then it’s really none of my business. If they’re happy, then I’m happy. Nobody in the coupling is getting or being hurt, in fact the opposite is true, then I’m all for it.
But the core of our difference of opinion lies in the science really, I have looked at the science, and I do feel it supports my understanding of how people become gay, it’s not learned, it’s a born trait.
Now I’ll answer your question, since you answered mine…and I’m sure this conversation is perhaps getting a bit much, I’ll probably wrap it up and leave it at this. 😅
You make a great point. I do feel it’s warranted to guide our children as best we can, and keep them from dangerous situations or habits. If my child was showing signs of a clear sexual or pornographic addiction, then I’d take steps to mediate it and warn them of the dangers. I’d lock their internet access and I’d closely monitor their friend circle, probably even keep them from seeing some of the more extremely lost and obviously bad kids. More importantly though I’d TALK to them about it, I don’t think I’d just leave it at that, I’d want to understand the problem better. But at the end of the day, they are their own human beings, and they need to be allowed to make their own mistakes. To a point…if they’re committing clearly criminal behaviour, sexually abusing partners for example, then they deserve the full brunt of the law. I’d never give up on them, they’d have that support, but there are lines of course.
It’s terrifying, I completely understand your fears here, being a parent today would be extremely difficult with everything that’s going on, and I hope I’m not acting like I’d do any better, because that’s likely not true. I just think it’s a balancing act, you gotta trust your kids a little, but you do have to catch them and reel them in when they’re going to far. I suppose we differ on one aspect of where they go too far, I don’t feel your examples are equivalent, because I don’t see being gay as an addiction or a habit. It’s a sexual attraction, what you’ve compared it too is very clear examples of excess that can be harmful. Being gay doesn’t determine whether a person will fly off the rails into a sex or porn addiction…actually most gay couples still very much believe in single partner relationships and get just as upset when they’re cheated on, or if their partner develops porn addictions. Aside from liking the same sex, they’re actually very normal.
The difference is you lump being gay into the same realm as being a sex and porn addict, problems of excess and bad habit, and it’s not hard to see why. It’s because you believe being gay is a learned trait…but I grew up with full access to internet porn, why aren’t I gay? I’m sure perhaps you did as well, are you gay? No…so why not? If it’s a learned trait, then why didn’t we turn gay? Why is it still a minority? It was always been there to access, never once have I been curious…because I too knew what I was from the first moment I started becoming attracted to the girls around me. I’m sure you did too, being gay probably never once crossed your mind.
Why is that? Because we’re just simply not gay…it just is what it is. If I can change your mind about anything, it would be that; I do strongly feel this is a natural born trait, not nurtured, and I do feel the science supports this…but again, I need only observe my own experience in life and ask myself why I’m straight? Because that’s how I was born.
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 Again though, people are born gay, this isn’t an experiment. They’ve always been here, and always will. Nobody who isn’t gay is really experimenting with this, they may not be entirely sure right away, but if they’re gay they’re gay, and they do eventually figure it out. And vice versa, people who aren’t gay know it…if they are curious, they find out pretty quick. But this is of course where we differ, nature vs nurture. I think we’ll just be going in circles if we continue that point, I think we’ve isolated the core of our differences on how we view that. While you’re correct in pointing out that my argument is mostly anecdotal, personal experience, there is data and science supporting it. I’d look into what biologists and neuroscientists have actually researched on that point.
But now I think you’re giving fast music a bad light. So I’m sorry to shift gears to a vastly different topic, but it’s a passion of mine. 😅 Just not every day I get to defend the music scene I love, and share some inside perspective.
No greater source of joy in my life personally, than rocking on stage with my friends (if I had kids then they would be, but I don’t, so rocking it is). Jamming, playing gigs, writing songs, recording, it’s always been extremely fun and rewarding for me. Can’t help the music I like, anymore than gays can help being gay. If it moves me it moves me, don’t even care it’s not punk, I love so many genres of music. But sadly, some in religious circles still do protest the music, and advocate for bans. Not sure what Christians have against people having fun and experiencing joy…are they trying to make this life as dull as ever? Don’t they have music they enjoy? I’m almost certain they do, how would they feel if a group tried to ban them from listening to the music that enriches their life? Music that just brings them joy? I’m sure they’d think they’re over reacting and are no authority to ban their music, simply for not understanding it. They wanted to ban the Beatles too back in the day…the happiest, softest, most positive music ever created, preaching the same love and respect for others that Jesus advocated for, and it’s just odd to me when they can’t see the similarities. I get that some pleasures can lead to destructive addictions and vices…but music is not destructive in the vast majority of genres, it’s actually quite the opposite, a creative and positive outlet that does nothing but better peoples lives.
Punk and metal get a bad wrap. Metal sings mostly about fantasy fiction, wizards and dragons and such, except for death and black metal…those get pretty dark (demons and satan), I’ll give ya that.😅 But most metal is pretty harmless, even the darker bands don’t take things to seriously, some people just love rougher, louder, faster jams. I’m not a big metal guy, but I think it’s because we’ll never completely take the warrior out of some men, they just found a healthier outlet, trading in axes and swords for guitars and drums. And these people are the modern Beethovens as far as I’m concerned…most metal musicians are incredibly skilled virtuoso musicians without many equals, dedicating their lives to perfecting every aspect of music composition, performing, and recording.
It brings joy to many people, it’s greatly misunderstood by many because of its rough exterior, and a few bad apples; death, black, doom and some hair metal. But there’s good apples in those genres too, the lead singer of Cannibal Corpse for example is well known for his contributions donating a lot towards children’s hospitals and child abuse centres. Why? Because he was likely abused as a child, and so he found a healthy outlet for that pain and trauma through music. It made him very successful, so now he gives back to those he relates with, his music is brutal, but his heart is pretty big. He plays harsh music, yes, but it’s saved his life and now saves many others…getting pain and anger out through art is what most metal is all about.
While the core of punk rock is very positive; be yourself, do things for yourself because why wait on others to do it for you (DIY), don’t let your traumas or addictions win over you, be kind and helpful to others but don’t be afraid to stand up to fascists and tyranny. The lyrics are always pretty positive actually, or humorous, lyrics are often satirical, not to be taken literally, teaching valuable lessons through comedy and music. But I mean just listen to ‘Swan Dive’ by Strung Out, then tell me that’s not a powerfully uplifting song, I’d even call it beautiful. There’s a lyric that goes “I don’t wanna let another day go by without creation”, sung with such passion you just can’t help but feel good, reminding us why art and creativity is so important. It’s a song about beating depression and dealing with loss and grief as we get older, rising above it all. A lot of punk rock is like that, positive messages to improve your life. That’s the core messaging in punk in fact, it’s mostly music to lift people up and empower those who have been kicked down by society..,so you know, pretty much everyone. That’s why it’s often called “music for the people”, people often referring to the poor and downtrodden that society largely gave up on…but also because almost anyone can play it, most of its pretty easy and accessible. Hence why the youth like it, can’t play a lick when you’re just starting, but anyone can learn power chords in a day! 😄
So I gotta ask, what’s wrong with all that? I’ve seen nothing but good come from punk in my life. I think people fight against it because they don’t really understand it, and we tend to fear what we don’t understand. Or they fight it because they have an agenda…and punk often stands up to them and gets in their way. We’re just not push overs is all…anything to keep another Nazi regime from taking over, we’re always ready to push back against…even within our own scene. Nazi punks are a real thing, but the vast majority of punks don’t allow those clowns through the door.
I also think they often get confused and think these genre’s promote drugs and sex…but that’s mostly gangster rap, and some hair metal…not punk. Punk largely only sings about that stuff when it’s about recovering from addictions, or while making satirical commentary. There’s actually a movement in punk called straight edge, it’s against drugs and alcohol, promoting a healthy sober lifestyle. It’s been part of the scene since the 80’s. You ever see anyone with two big black X’s tattooed on the top of their hands, it means they’re straight edge. Nobody really gets the tattoo as much anymore, but straight edge is still a big part of punk. And punk is very pro feminist, so we don’t treat women as sex objects…you’ll get your ass kicked at any punk show if you treat women badly in any way. Majority of bands don’t promote sex or porn addiction…we do have a few immature groups, yes, but they’re few and far between.
So we get a bad wrap…because the people who criticize the genre, don’t actually listen to it and don’t actually know much of anything about it, they just assume a lot. I’d be more worried about certain rap genres today, but even rap has been taking steps to cut that out, with more positive sub genre’s rising up over the years taking the music back.
Of course you’re free to disagree, but just trying to maybe share some perspective from a part of the world you don’t quite understand.
Point is, while I do see how these genres can be pretty off putting and even scary from the outside —being as they’re whole shtick at times is to intentionally offend to shake people out of comfort zones, to get them questioning and challenging their own beliefs— the overall point is as a healthy creative outlet, to hopefully better people’s lives, not effect them negatively.
There’s even a right wing genre of punk called Oi punk, sometimes religious, mostly working class, family focused, and the left leaning majority welcome them, because the music and the messages are actually really awesome! Punk has matured a lot over the decades, far removed from the gangs and thugs of old. Just look up a guy named Greg Graffin, lead singer and song writer of the band Bad Religion (the names more tongue in cheek and meant to challenge ideology, they don’t really think it’s bad, they’re widely known as one of the most intelligent bands of the genre), he’s a PHD in Zoology, a biologist, a part time professor at UCLA and Cornell. Looks like a high school English teacher, not a tattoo on the guy, as white bread as they come, fronts one of the biggest and best punk bands of all time, has since 1980. One of many examples actually.
Anyway, I could rant about music for hours, 😅 but I’ll leave it at that. Just a passion if mine I love sharing.
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 Well we’re all bias, that’s why we have peer review in the first place, but I get you. Yes, it’s difficult to navigate a (now) heavily politicized talking point, because they do get tied up in agendas, and then it just gets messier. I’m working, but when I do find time maybe I’ll do some digging. I do recall a study on homosexual behaviour observed in other animal species, but I’d have to find it. I’m actually not sure what neurological studies have been done on the subject, but I know psychologists have studied it pretty thoroughly, and neuroscience often falls within their realm of research, in terms of hard data collection. So perhaps I’ll brush up on the science when I have a moment.
Though I wouldn’t brush off my point so quickly, regardless of its anecdotal state; my gay friends are not sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and I’m not attracted to the same sex. Why is that? It’s a good question. Do you feel our personality traits are ingrained from birth? I’m sure you do, so why couldn’t this as well? Our personalities guide our decisions and our tastes, so it’s pretty logical to me to conclude it’s a born trait. More first hand experience, my parents said I never cried, was the most relaxed baby, not afraid of the dark…while my sister was the opposite; cried constantly, especially if you put her alone in a dark room, not relaxed, very moody. That’s still us today. I’m very chill, very patient, and don’t get bothered by much, my sister is pretty vocal and easily riled to anger, but generally just more outgoing. Traits we were born with…we’re not just blank slates when we’re born. I’m sure all your kids have personalities you recognized from pretty early on. Where do these traits come from? I don’t think it’s much different, we’re very clearly born with some traits and preferences right from the start. I think it’s more wishful thinking from a biased perspective, to hope this isn’t a born trait…but I do strongly feel you’d be wrong on that.
Every gay person I ask say they knew very early in life, and my community is a farming community, so very conservative. Meaning nobody in these circles was pushing it on them, quite the opposite. They still turned out to be gay, regardless of the nurturing. You could say it was from outside “propaganda”, but when I ask how they first knew…it’s usually something completely unrelated, like a muscle magazine, or a scene from an action movie, etc…manly things, far from that propaganda, that don’t have that effect on most boys.
You can brush that off as anecdotal if you want, but for me that’s research data. A small sample pool yes…but I’ve been alive long enough, and listened to their community long enough to know this experience is pretty standard across the board. Just talk to a few of them, hear their stories.
And again, it’s not hard to see how it’s possible, when you just stop and wonder why you’re straight, where does that instinct come from? Why couldn’t it get mixed up during fetus development? Again, I’m no biologist, I’m really not sure which holds the gene for sexual orientation, the sperm or the egg, but what if the sperm or egg was mutated slightly? Mutations in these cells do occur, it’s the driving force of evolution. I can only speculate on that without the knowledge base to really back it up, but I do still have the ability to wonder why I’m straight, and if I don’t have any interest in same sex, then it’s pretty easy to draw the conclusion that we’re just born this way. I grew up under the same “propaganda”, so did millions of others…why did it only work on a small few?
As for music, seems I’m preaching to the choir here. 😅 I misinterpreted your point it seems, thought you yourself were also against rock and faster musical genres in general, but if you like Metallica then you understand and get why I’m so passionate. Well, I hope that rambling was at the very least interesting then. 😅
Anyway, been swell as usual, perhaps I’ll do some searching into the science again, it’s been some time. I do agree, bias agendas do muddy the waters…and I mean, the well of information is obviously poisoned pretty badly lately, why do you think we have flat Earthers?
Take care.
1
-
@Lordani66 A better question is, when has he ever debated? He’s been invited to debate on the Non Sequitur show many times, Reds Rhetoric, Sly Sparkane, Godless Engineer, FTFE, Team Skeptic, Conspiracy Catz, these guys regularly hold Flat Earth debates, Eric Dubay and Nathan Oakley are offered debates all the time by these guys and to my knowledge, neither of them have ever answered. Nathan Oakley won’t step away from his mute button and Eric...does he even debate at all? I’m not really aware of him ever debating anyone before. So feel free to share an example where he has, cause I’m not currently aware of any.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markandrews6054 Let’s look at it this way, if you jump from a building, does it matter which way you are orientated towards Earth, you’re still falling down, correct? Now if you’re flying, and you put your plane into a nose dive, you’re still falling towards Earth, even though you’re technically flying and could correct at any moment, you’re moving towards Earth, then you are falling towards Earth. Same for your example, what you need to understand, is that if you’re moving towards Earth in any way, then you are falling towards Earth. Even if you were to enter from space, with an orientation that to you feels like you’re flying up, you’re not, if you’re moving towards Earth, then you are falling towards it, because gravity will eventually become to strong to overcome.
I get that this is a hard thing for you to grasp, because of the usual form of falling to you is always used in the context of the word down, which is generally towards your feet, but down on Earth isn’t your feet, down is always towards surface, regardless of whether your feet are pointing that way...it has very little to do with you and your orientation. If you’re moving towards Earth, then you are falling towards Earth. If you can’t understand that, then it’s personal incredulity that’s stopping you from being able.
1
-
1
-
T Brown No, people are arguing Earth is flat, because they don’t trust systems of authority anymore and many are also doing it to confirm their biblical beliefs. All calculations and observations match with a Globe, the only reason people are being so stubborn about that, is because they’re deeply bias. The math for curvature works, I’ve gone through many observations and found that to be true. When it doesn’t work it’s because a deeply bias flat Earther has either used the wrong math, or they lied about the details, or they ignored variables in their math like refraction...in the worst cases, it’s all 3 of those errors.
While you’re wasting your time arguing, the rest of us are putting satellites into orbit, flying passenger jets directly to anywhere on the globe with ease, mapping infrastructure with accurate geodetic data, making technologies that directly make use of Earth’s geometry to function at all. You are wasting your time on a hoax...perpetrated by con men, trolls and the village idiots of the world that fall fo these scams.
1
-
T Brown But we use those maps to find our destinations...so it’s good enough to find destinations, but not good enough for plotting Sun shadow angle data? Why not exactly? We occupy a 3 dimensional space, correct? We have mapped our world enough that pilots and sailors can navigate those locations and distances with absolute precision...so those coordinates are accurate to our 3 dimensional reality, correct? We know where everything is, in relation to each other, in 3D space...so the coordinates are accurate. They’d have to be, otherwise we couldn’t use them for navigation. So we can use that data collected in reality to form a working model of our surface...even with this data alone, we can confirm a sphere, as we’ve mapped the entire surface and we’ve found it has two equal hemispheres...so it’s not a reification fallacy, because the model fits with reality. A reification fallacy is when you build a model from nothing but assert that it’s reality anyway...kind of like what Flat Earth does. You use no data collected in the real world to create it and you don’t constantly test it against observations in the real world to verify it further...yet you believe it true anyway, that is when you commit a reification fallacy.
So there’s really no argument here, we know where locations are on our Earth, they are confirmed every single day by millions of people, navigating our planet perfectly...so locations are known. What’s also known is that sunlight moves in a perfectly straight path from its source, unless refracted through a medium. The density of our atmosphere would deviate it roughly 1 degree, so we account for that, it’s not a large margin of error at all. Ok...so when placing a stick perpendicular to the surface, making sure it’s plum, then the Sunlight should produce shadow angles we can compare to the surface and our location. From there it’s just simple geometry...do those angles match up when placed on a flat surface? Well sure, you can match them up so that they intersect, but then they won’t be at their proper latitude locations...they won’t fit at all if you line up those angles on a flat surface. But when we keep them relative to their latitude and then make those shadow angles all completely parallel to each other, the stick angles now create a perfect sphere...but how? If Earth is flat, then those angles should not form a sphere....this should not be ignored, this tells us something about our geometry.
Getting it yet? You can ignore the data all you like, but this data does give us further evidence for the Earths true geometry.
1
-
1
-
T Brown YOU believe the Earth is flat, you’ve stated it several times, so whether you like it or not, YOU have conformed to a geometric model. I get that you don’t know anything else about that model...because arguing from ignorance is much easier then actually accomplishing anything, but a flat surface is a geometric distinction...so the moment YOU claim the Earth is flat, YOU are absolutely supporting a geometric model bud. You support that model...despite all the evidence that refutes it and as near as I can tell, Flat Earth forms that conclusion from “it looks flat, therefore it is”...which is itself another logical fallacy, it’s an affirming the consequent fallacy. If A therefore B, B therefore A. It goes like this “if Earth is flat, then it should appear flat from our perspective. It appears flat, therefore it is flat”. If you feel this is not how you’ve reached the conclusion of a flat Earth, then by all means, explain why you’ve reached that conclusion then, provide your reasoning.
Either way, you’re supporting a geometric model, the moment you say Earth is flat, you’ve made a choice. Now, because that model you’re supporting was formed with no real world data, just a conclusion FE has reached from a fallacy in logic, it means you are indeed committing a reification fallacy, the moment you conclude Earth is flat. You’re forcing that model to be reality, when it has no real world data or application...while we have collected data in reality that we’ve compiled together which all points to the same conclusion and that all has the exact same geometric measurements...that we apply in physical navigation of that surface.
Ignorance may help you remain annoying...but it’s not useful for advancing society forward.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
T Brown No single entity was responsible for mapping the entire surface of Earth, it was many thousands of different individual efforts, compiled together to complete one single mapping. Though single companies have today mapped it with satellite imagery, further confirming it. We know it’s accurate, because we currently use it for successful navigation. If the mapping was wrong, then we would not be able to predict and plan for any long distance navigation, people would be getting lost every single time they attempt to travel with that mapping...it’s incredible I have to even explain that to an adult. Pilots need to know how much fuel they need, sailors need to know how much food to store...having an accurate map of the world is key to millions of people’s jobs, it’s key to hundreds of thousands of daily voyages...you have to be completely idiotic and ignorant, to think we haven’t mapped the Earth in the modern age...and somehow we navigate it successfully? You wanna talk logical fallacies...then holy shit, you don’t really care about logic at all at this point.
Anyone can learn global navigation and apply it with precision, at anytime they choose. So YOU can verify this knowledge, anytime you please, many of us have done that...so ignorance is not an argument here. The model we use for world navigation is the Globe model, with lines of latitude and longitude that are equal for two hemispheres...that is a fact, not an opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
T Brown The model isn’t assumed, because it correlates with other data, data taken from the real world. We’re not just shooting in the dark with the model we’re using to interpret those shadow angles upon. The locations are known and measured...and those distances don’t work when interpreted flat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMOp6PmDpp4 The only geometry that does make sense of them...a sphere. So we have more than enough evidence to confirm the spherical model, so we’re not assuming anything, we have enough evidence from real world data to confirm the model is accurate. When we interpret the shadow angle data on a flat Earth to check if it also works this way...then we’re assuming a model, cause as you said...flat Earth has no working model. We do this though, to isolate and control variables, to verify further that the data plotted flat doesn’t identify a local Sun. There is only one model this data works on...this shouldn’t be ignored, those stick angles correlated with latitude locations don’t just form a sphere for no reason.
You’ve not demonstrated anything, all you’ve done is made empty statements. You stated that navigation is used with strictly flat maps...but then refused to point out which map that is exactly, because you know the moment you do, you won’t be able to defend it once we start testing its distances against reality. So instead you’re choosing to argue from ignorance...which is easy sure, but it’s also a fallacy.
1
-
T Brown Sorry, but not done at all actually, because all you have are empty claims of accurate flat maps with no evidence supporting that claim, and a cleverly prepackaged argument from ignorance, designed to keep you and other flat Earthers ignorant to evidence. You’ve made a claim that flat maps are all accurate, so now it’s time to demonstrate it. You claim to know for certain how geodetic data is converted, but you haven’t shared a demonstration yet, that accurately verifies they take flat Earth coordinates and interpret them spherical...so until you demonstrate it, until you provide the map you believe is accurate for navigation and work through an example with me, I have no reason to believe anything you’re claiming.
Just empty claims, and arguments from ignorance. Can’t reach conclusions with either...but you have anyway.
1
-
1
-
T Brown You don’t quite get it. You’re trying to argue from ignorance because you feel if you don’t hold any position, then you can’t be defeated. It’s a common tactic used by trolls and Poe’s (the latter I’m growing more and more suspicious of). What you’re not getting though, is that it’s a flawed logic, when you don’t make a chose...you’ve actually made a choice...though in your case, you’re actually lying to yourself. You claim to not conform to a model, yet you argue for flat Earth...so you’ve chosen the flat Earth model. Then you say you don’t have a model...but somehow maps work? Maps are a recording of distances and locations of our physical surface...once you start creating maps, you’re creating a model...so if maps work, then you have a model.
You said we navigate with triangulation methods. Ok, that’s true, but triangulation doesn’t work, unless you have some accurate details to help you finish the triangulation...like an accurate distance, or angle, or location, typically you require at least two pieces of correct information, to complete a triangulation. So a map has to be accurate...in order to use it for triangulating a position, for navigation purposes. So you may not realize it...but you are absolutely saying that maps are accurate, if you’re going to say people use them to navigate with.
But flat maps are all inaccurate, they have errors...hence why you need the geodetic conversion. You can’t accurately interpret a spherical surface onto a flat surface, without creating errors...so when you navigate with a flat map, you have to convert to spherical...or you will get lost. This has been known by sailors for hundreds of years.
I’m basing that off the work done by pilots and sailors the world over, actual navigations experts, who actually know how to navigate the planet and are happy to demonstrate why and how flat maps of Earth are inaccurate. Spend some time on an actual pilots channel sometime https://www.youtube.com/c/Wolfie6020/videos and learn how navigation really works.
I’m happy to share examples with you. Here’s a fun example, of something that is impossible to do on a Flat Earth, but completely possible on a Globe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FJG65nbUO8&t Perhaps you can explain, how three 90 degree angles can lead back to starting position...if the Earth is flat? This is an actual pilot, plotting that exact flight path...using his actual navigation charts. Creating a triangle flight path...with three 90 degree turn angles. Not possible on a flat Earth, completely possible on a Globe.
1
-
T Brown I’m telling you triangulation doesn’t work unless you have an accurate map, the Globe has accurate maps of the Globe surface, we use it for navigation, it’s accurate. But YOU’RE claiming that people triangulate accurate positions using just flat maps, which means those flat maps with no geodetic conversion are accurate, so where’s the map you used to reach your conclusion? If you know for certain how navigation works, then you must have a map you used to test it in the real world, where no geodetic conversion was necessary. If you never did test it, then you’ve reach that conclusion on an assumption. So what map did you use to test your triangulations on?
They do the geodetic conversion for a reason...if Earth was flat, they wouldn’t need to do that. You think they do it just to fool people...so ok, prove it. That’s what I’m asking for. You must have tried navigating using a flat map with no conversion and it worked...or, you’re just assuming your conclusion. It’s pretty simple.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
T Brown Forget the model for a moment, cause you’re not paying attention to the distances of each location in that video and that’s what is important. Flights go to and from each of those locations, every time they do, they’re clocking a distance...so those distances are measured and recorded, they are undeniably true distance measurements at this point. Ok, so if those distances are accurate, then we can lay them flat, as he has, and see how they fit.
The distances don’t match when laid flat, there will always be one distance that won’t fit...but basic spacial geometry (and common sense), tells us they should all line up and work....but they don’t. That right there should be enough for anyone to go “oh, well maybe the Earth isn’t actually flat”.
I know you get this, you’re not stupid...but you’re plenty ignorant. So aren’t you even the least bit curious why those distances don’t match when laid flat? It doesn’t make you wonder at all? Or are you just a Poe, who enjoys endless circular debates like this?
1
-
T Brown If you believe mankind’s efforts to map and model are impossible or futile, then here’s a very historical painting by Leonardo DaVinci you should see. https://integrated4x.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/leonardo-da-vinci-map-of-imola/ On the right is a modern aerial view of the city of Imola in Italy, on the left is a scale painting of the city created by DaVinci. This painting is quite famous, for its incredible accuracy, you can overlay the drawing with aerial photos today, and it matches almost perfectly (some infrastructure is obviously changed today). Point is, in his time he could only really assume it was accurate...there was no way to fly up and see it. And yet, through math and geometry, he was able to map the city perfectly....so what makes you think we can’t do the same?
I get that you think it’s wrong to conclude anything unless it’s 100% visually confirmed...but you don’t seem to understand how limiting that method of thinking is. You can annoy people on YouTube with that kind of reasoning, but it’s not useful...and won’t lead to any real truths of reality, it really just keeps you stuck living a lie. The Earth is not flat...but you’ll never know that if you stick to this ignorant mind set you have.
You and all of flat Earth are trying desperately to force your will upon reality...that’s what you’re really doing. What greater display of will...then to override truth. I get the appeal, but it’s just not going to achieve anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
T Brown A model is formed the moment you decide a geometric distinction. You say with absolute certainty Earth is flat, so in that act you have chosen a flat geometric surface, that’s basically your model then...you have started a model in that act. If you were to say “I don’t know what shape the Earth is”, then you can argue a little deeper in ignorance, but you haven’t done that, you have chosen a flat Earth. We do know for certain we occupy 3 dimensions, so that automatically adds to it, so your model is pretty basic, flat surface, can move and see in 3 dimensions upon that surface...that’s it. I agree it’s a crappy model with lots of incomplete holes, and with very little data supporting it, but then you’ve chosen it, not me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
T Brown Ok, but you’re reaching a conclusion of your own, from no real science of your own...just an assumption, that it looks flat, therefore it is. So I feel you’re being hypocritical. You’re saying with certainty the Earth is flat...but how do you know that for certain? You haven’t really shared any science of your own, just made empty statements that you hold to be true, the core statement being of course “Earth is flat”, but you’ve made many others.
Flat Earth demands so much of science, but they don’t seem to think they should be held to the same standards of review. It’s a valid question, how do YOU know the Earth is flat? It seems to us, that all you have is a base observation, “because it looks flat”. But if that’s how you reached that conclusion, then you’ve assumed it...because you can’t really make that conclusion on one observation. It’s a rushed conclusion and that’s not science, that’s a start, but there’s really been no attempt to prove the conclusion....yet you make it anyway? At least the Globe has something, it’s deduced its conclusion from recording every detail of an observation, creating data collected in the real world and then applying it with concepts we DO know for certain, such as geometry. All the data points to the same conclusion, but your camp is basically saying we should just ignore it all...simply because you’ve decided models aren’t scientific, you have this hang up with models.
You have a different idea of what science is, you seem to believe that models are not scientific...that we should not use them. So you’re asking that science start over and basically hack off a limb for next time, “don’t build models” is your real argument here, from what I can gather. But everything mankind builds today is based off models....your computer is made possible, through many different scientific models all working in tandem...so this conversation was made possible through models. So you’re asking we shouldn’t build models, but it’s still pretty undeniable that they are extremely useful, the proof of that is all around. So why should we listen to you and stop using something that’s been extremely useful for human advancement? Why should we essentially cripple our deductive capabilities? Good questions don’t you think?
At this point I’ve just been trying to get you to realize, YOU have assumed a model of your own...you assume Earth is flat, so you’re kind of a hypocrite. But I’m also trying to learn your point a bit better. I don’t just argue with people on these subjects to win something, I argue to learn and to test what I think I know. Difficult to learn when people are just trolling though...that’s on both of us. I hate the trolling aspect, it really gets us nowhere, would get more accomplished if the shields were down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
T Brown There’s no reification here...you’re just grossly misunderstanding that fallacy. The data is collected in the real world...solar path of the Sun is confirmed, you confirm the Sun is directly above, when you get a 0 degree shadow angle...which is confirmed, in the same location, every year during Equinox. That is the reference point, if you know both the surface and the Sun are perfectly perpendicular to each other in that one location, and if you know the exact direction, location and distance to every other stick from that reference point, then you’re not assuming anything in those known variables, or using a model to represent reality, you’re using reality (known variables) against reality (observation you’re currently making). So no reification committed.
Your biggest trouble is misunderstanding that particular fallacy, and using it to ignore data. Fallacy’s are tricky, they’re easy to misinterpret and misuse...you’re misusing the fallacy, it happens all the time. You think a reification fallacy is committed anytime you use a model or data to help solve for any other part of a broader model. That’s not reification though, because you’re using real world data and applying it to other known variables collected from the real world. It’s other real world observation, compared against more of the real world. You’re using the real world to solve for more of the real world...no reification is committed.
You commit a reification fallacy, anytime you attempt to use incomplete models with errors, to represent reality. A good example is when Flat Earth looks at a model of the solar system that’s not to scale, planet’s aren’t spaced correctly, aren’t in proper orbits, sizes aren’t to scale, etc. Then they attempt to argue how broken it is, while using that not to scale model to make their argument, and then conclude Earth is flat. See how that works? That’s a reification fallacy. But you seem to think...anytime a model is used at all, you’ve committed reification...which is why you don’t conform to any known model of Flat Earth.
But, as we’ve been over again and again, the moment you say Earth is flat with certainty, you’ve chosen a model...so, even if you disagree you’re not misusing reification, it’s still a fact that you’ve chosen a model, and you’ve chosen it from one observation, that you can’t draw any conclusions from...but you have anyway.
1
-
Science does work…look at every technology around you, that’s only possible thanks to science. From the power that comes direct to your home, to the car you drive, to the fridge that keeps your food fresher for longer, to the computer you’re accessing to join a global network, to read this message. I think people have been a little spoiled and privileged the last century or so, we’re starting to take these things for granted.
I’d suggest, stop thinking in absolutes, because nothing is that black and white. She wasn’t saying it’s a perfect system, she’s just saying it’s clearly brought results, so it does work. Does it work every single time? No, but nothing does…there’s is no such thing as a perfect system, there’s always going to be errors, best we can do is diminish those errors as much as possible. Any scientist would agree with you though that science can be fabricated and lied about…that’s why they included peer review into the scientific process to begin with. But can it be lied about absolutely? No…and here’s a couple reasons why. Because the majority of scientists are good people, who care about accurate information, and want the best for mankind as a whole. The other reason is because junk science simply does not work…so it eventually reveals itself as bullshit, from the fact that it’s absolutely useless, and eventually it gets weeded out by peer review.
You can say the last couple years have been a scam, that vaccines don’t work, or go off the deep end and suggest it was a depopulation conspiracy…but we’re still here, and the very large majority of people got vaccinated. So unless you have solid evidence that verifies your hunches, then you’re just reaching a conclusion mostly from paranoia. We’re just lucky this pandemic wasn’t more deadly…cause we’ll be fucked next time, if we get complacent on a far more deadly pathogen, with how paranoid everyone behaved recently.
Scientists aren’t out to get you…they had to do something about a growing health concern, so they did. What’s truly alarming is the response given to their efforts, to me the last 2 years have really revealed the current division in society…we are not doing very good mentally as a society right now, a lot of trust seems to have eroded. Misinformation is rampant and paranoia and distrust is growing…that’s not a good place to be with how many challenges we currently face.
Anyway, science does work, the proof of that is all around you. Is it perfect? Certainly not, so you’re not wrong to question it…but please don’t take it for granted.
1
-
1
-
@fallin4676 So you think we’re able to create new technologies without first making scientific discoveries eh? Oh boy. 🤦♂️ So you think you’d be able to send and receive your internet data over wifi, if William Hershel hadn’t first discovered the electromagnetic spectrum outside of visual light? Interesting….not sure how any engineer or inventor could make use of something they wouldn’t have known exists otherwise, but alright, you’re the expert by the sounds of it. 🙄 So do you also think we would have harnessed electricity…without scientists first figuring out how it travels, how it’s generated, and which materials are best for conduction and insulation? You really think we’d ever have split the atom and unlocked Nuclear power, without Einsteins relativity? You’re right about only one thing, technology is a long process of trial and error, but scientific discovery sparks that innovation…advancement in technology really can’t occur without it, that is a fact, not an opinion.
You have no idea what you’re talking about…and that’s exactly the reason why you fell for one of the dumbest cons online today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@outoftime7740 Classic…when you can’t refute something, just deny it exists. 🙄 Plenty of video evidence for the 24 hour Sun in the South, thousands of tourists go every year to see it. I assure you, it’s very real, your denial does not change that fact. And how can anyone think denial is a valid argument anyone should take seriously…like are you people okay? Cause you’re certainly not very rational.
Also, did you bother researching your other claim of no vegetation before spewing it? Look it up, Antarctica has lots of WEEDS and other foliage growing there! 😄
And again, even if you don’t believe in the midnight Sun down South, what about the 17 hours of daylight in Southern countries like Argentina? You gonna tell me nobody actually lives in these countries? I’ve been to New Zealand twice now myself, during their Summers, I assure you the days get pretty long! So how exactly is that possible? 😄
Your model is cooked bud…it doesn’t match reality, sorry, that’s just a fact.
The physics of water is that water is inert, and will conform to any force’s that are present and capable of containing it. You should see what the surface of water does when under a constant centrifugal force, the surface will remain curved for as long as the centrifugal force remains constant. Gravity is a radial force (attraction around a central point) so what shape would you expect something to form, with a force squeezing everything in towards a centre equally in all directions? 🧐 Gee..I wonder why everything we observe in the cosmos is spherical? Hmmmmmmm…🫠
It only appears flat to us, because we only experience fractions of a degree, even at great elevations, we barely experience much more than a few degrees…out of 360 degrees…you really think you’d notice fractions of a single degree ?
You’re not very bright are you…certainly would explain a lot.
1
-
@outoftime7740 Okay, I understand perfectly fine what you’re saying, but like I said, water is inert, it doesn’t “seek” anything, it just conforms to whatever forces are acting upon it. So your conclusion ignores the physics of gravity, it ignores what forces can do to a surface of water. That’s why we disagree with your conclusion, it ignores physics.
I know Flat Earthers would love to argue there is no downward force we call gravity, but it’s quite frankly the easiest force in nature to verify. Do we observe a force pulling everything to surface? Yes, we do, things aren’t put into motion without a force to cause it, that’s the most basic principle that defines a force. Things fall when you drop them, that’s clearly a motion, okay…so force confirmed. That’s as simple as it gets in physics.
So a force is most definitely present that attracts us (and water) to surface, do we observe that same force everywhere else on Earth? Yup, you’ll fall to surface at the same rate no matter where you are on Earth, Australia, America, doesn’t matter, it’s always present.
So it really comes down to Earth’s shape, because whether Earth is flat or spherical, there’s clearly a force present that would contain and influence the water of Earth. Pointing out that “it’s level everywhere” isn’t really an argument, when you consider how massive Earth is…because we’d expect to only ever interact with fractions of a degree of curvature at any given time…which is going to appear flat from our tiny perspective. A skin cell probably thinks (hypothetically if it could think) it’s living on a flat surface too…it’s just how geometry and perspective works at small vs massive scales.
So you’re not really making an argument against the globe, you’re just making an observation that is part of a larger puzzle, while reaching a conclusion that has to ignore some pretty basic physics in order to fit.
Gravity absolutely could form the surface of our oceans spherical, and we absolutely would perceive that as flat, simply because of how small we are by comparison, making us experience only a fractions of a single degree of 360 degrees, at any given time.
For me it’s pretty simple, what model do pilots and sailors use to plot pinpoint navigation routes with? The globe…okay, so Earth’s a globe. Which means gravity is a radial force, pulling everything equally in all directions towards a centre. What shape forms from a force like that? A sphere…bubbles form spherical for the same reason, because of the surface tension of the liquid, and a radial pressure force (atmosphere) squeezing it equally inward from all angles. The surface of s bubble is just water and soap…yet it’s very spherical. So forces can very clearly have more of an effect than you’re bothering to realize, or research.
So do we make other simple observations that verify Earth is spherical? Yup, we sure do; the Sun sinks under horizon, doesn’t shrink and then converge at a vanishing point like Flat Earthers claim it should due to perspective. Mountains and tall buildings sink below eye level by hundreds even thousands of feet depending on distance, something art students —who study perspective fundamentals— will tell you is impossible if surface is flat. We observe a midnight Sun in both hemispheres. We observe two very different night skies. We observe stars that drop a consistent 1 degree to horizon every 60 nautical miles travelling South. The 60th parallel in the North is the same distance around as the 60th parallel in the South (so two equal hemispheres, look up the Vendee’ world boat race sometime, it’s a race that circumnavigates Antarctica every 4 years, it’s quite interesting).
The list goes on, there’s plenty of evidence for the globe if you’re actually willing to look. So you have to understand why we disagree with you, we get what you’re trying to say, we just have lots of information that refutes every claim you’re trying to make.
You might think it all sounds “magical”, but heck everything in existence is kind of magical if you really think about…how the heck does any of it exist? Do you know how the Sun burns, or how it got all that mass to keep its nuclear furnace going? It’s all pretty nuts when you really ponder it…so is gravity really all that impossible to imagine existing? We experience a downward pulling force every day of our lives, so it really shouldn’t be. All science did was define what constitutes a force, observered a very clear force that fits that definition, then gave it a name. And since that discovery it’s helped us unlock the secrets of everything from how planets and stars form, to how nuclear fission and fusion works (which we recreate in reactors all the time now), and how water and atmosphere remains tethered to surface.
You have to ignore quite a lot of evidence (especially in physics) to believe Earth is flat. So please understand why we disagree with you, we have every reason too.
1
-
@outoftime7740 I’m sorry…but do you think gravity just shuts off, or something, the moment things start to fly? 🤨 Why do so many Flat Earthers not understand gravity?
What do all of those flying things have in common? They’re alive for one, so they’re able to generate energy they can then use to help them overcome forces such as gravity for periods of time, and they have wings that they can flap to make use of the surrounding air to overcome gravity. Gravity is still very much effecting them while they’re flying…what happens when they stop flapping their wings? They fall. All life has that in common, we burn energy we put into muscles to overcome forces like gravity…that’s the part you’re not understanding, gravity isn’t a very strong force (here on Earth at least), it’s just the only force present. Really only takes a little energy to overcome it…life does that every single second of every day. But stop using energy, and guess what happens. What else is out there that would pull us or anything away from gravity? Nothing…so guess what force wins?
Flight actually requires gravity as well, lift is achieved by gravity pushing down on the wings, to put a pressure force on the air, it’s a balance between gravity and forward velocity, both forward velocity and gravity are what forces air under the wings to generate lift…that’s how flight is achieved. That’s why gravity is included as a variable in the equation for weight to thrust ratio, the equation real engineers use to help design planes.
And weight as well doesn’t actually exist without gravity…in physics, weight is actually just another word for gravity. What you always have is mass, that never changes, but your weight is determined (and caused) by your mass times the downward acceleration of gravity squeezing against the surface…that’s why you’re considered weightless in free fall. You can understand this very easily with a scale; how does a scale measure weight? Simple, you press DOWN on the top surface applying a FORCE, that generates pressure, that the scale measures. So it doesn’t read anything without a downward force being applied to it, no downward force, no pressure…no weight. See how this works yet? So when something is just resting on a scale…how exactly it applying a downward pressure force, if there’s no force according to you? 🧐 You see the problem there?
Weight requires gravity…that’s why it’s also a variable in the equation fir weight; W=mg, mass times downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2).
And gravity isn’t being picky, it effects all matter with mass the same, but more mass means more molecules being pulled down at the same rate, means more weight. So smaller things have an easier time overcoming gravity, because they have less mass…so the smaller something is, the easier time it has with gravity. The larger something is, the more it’s effected by gravity…hence why planets and moons and stars are so easily kept in orbits. Because both objects are generating gravity, so the larger something is, the more gravity there is between both objects. That’s Newton’s law of universal gravitation in a nutshell. (Yes, gravity is both a law and a theory in physics)
All basic physics my man…you learn this in any physics 101 class.
Point is simple; you’re misunderstanding gravity physics…and reaching a great many false conclusions because of it. You seem to think it’s a powerful force…but it’s actually the weakest of the 4 fundamental forces.
Also, some more basic physics for you; buoyancy actually doesn’t exist without gravity either. Buoyancy force is actually directly caused by gravity, it’s the end result of a chain reaction, that starts with gravity. Again…that’s why gravity is a variable in the equation for buoyancy force; Fb=Vpg, another very real equation that real engineers use to build things like the ballast tanks in ships and submarines, and even blimps.
It works like this; all matter has mass, no two molecules of mass can occupy the same space, thanks to electromagnetism (another fundamental force) they repel each other. The mass with the greater density will occupy a space before a mass if lesser density, this is the part Flat Earthers agree with science on…now here’s the part they don’t or are not aware of. If there’s no other forces present, then buoyancy will not occur…it’s not until gravity is introduced into the system, that motion between these molecules truly begins. Now everything is put into motion towards the same central point, the densest material will occupy lowest potential energy state first (closest position to centre of gravity), and everything else is pushed out of its way. We observe that pushed out of the way motion as buoyancy force. That’s also why buoyancy force is in the direct opposite direction but same exact vector as gravity force. That’s not just coincidence…it’s because gravity causes it.
That’s basic physics…and something every engineer and scientist in the world agrees upon. Proven in countless different drop experiments, the moment you put a density column into free fall, buoyancy force disappears and all the different matter of varying density begins to mix and becomes chaotic. It’s not until the density column is placed on a surface, then gravity takes the reigns and begins ordering the molecules, through buoyancy force…always in the same vector; densest material closest to force of gravity.
This is why it’s so frustrating talking with Flat Earthers…you’re so very close to reaching these same conclusions that physicists solved centuries ago, but you’re do damn stubborn and want to beat modern science so badly, that you’re not really LISTENING to what we’re trying to help you with. You want very badly to prove you’re smarter than every other person that’s come before, and that desire blinds you. None of what you’re arguing is new science…these questions are 500 years in the past, that’s the reality.
You’re reaching false conclusions from a broken understanding of physics…physics that real people out there are using everyday, to help them build every technology you see around you. This isn’t just theories you’re attempting to argue with here, it’s applied science. :/
That’s how you tell real science from pseudoscience actually…which one can actually be applied and will work when applied? That’s kind of the nice thing about pseudoscience…it reveals itself by how absolutely useless it is. It’s no coincidence to me that no Flat Earther I’ve ever met is an engineer or scientist actually developing and designing new technology…that should be a red flag for anyone. You people aren’t stupid…but damn are you stubborn.
Do some actual research, read a physics 101 book.
1
-
Chris Monk Sellye What an absolute load of bullshit. It’s funny, cause you’re basically demonstrating why science requires a system of checks and balances like consensus and peer review. Because people like you exist...ego driven, led by bias, spiteful...an individual will make errors because of these things (and more), often times without realizing it. Peer review weeds out those errors. You’re not falsifying anything, you’re just cherry picking information that you misinterpreted. They’re great questions, but you’re not really looking for the answers, you assume they have no answer...you’re just holding your questions up as proofs. You’re being bias, effectively demonstrating why we need peer review.
Peer review isn’t perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. If any and all information was allowed to join the body of knowledge, then we’d be royally fucked...cause unfortunately stupid people exist, con men exist, ego and bias and narcissism exist. These are flaws of mankind that will poison the well of knowledge, if we don’t have some system in place, that can counter these things. So peer review is necessary, we’d get nothing done without it.
Yes, it does mean we have to slow down the flow of information, which slows us down...but it’s far greater than the alternative, which is humanity’s progress grinding to an absolute halt. It’s not perfect, but it works...that proof is all around you.
Muttonchops has answered your questions, I suggest you don’t ignore them.
1
-
1
-
Is the canned food gonna be what it says it is? Yes. Can you trust that you won’t die immediately after eating what’s inside? Unless you have an extreme allergy, then Yes. You’re trying to argue the nuance…acting like we’re all taking a risk every time we eat a can of soup, when even you know that’s not true. You don’t fear for your life every time you buy a can of food…do you? No, you trust that it’s edible and not a can of arsenic, probably 100% of the time.
So that’s her point. Is the content inside a can the most ideal and healthy food? No…but that’s not her point. You trust that it’s EDIBLE, 100% of the time, right? That requires putting faith in a 3rd party who handles the food making process and packaging, without your involvement. We do this more than people realize…and we really have no choice. Trusting our fellow man is something we do quite regularly, and it’s a big part of our success as a species actually, being able to cooperate as a society for mutual benefits, putting faith in others is required of us, quite often. That’s her point.
1
-
@-Redemption- Alright, I think I see your position a bit better now. If I understand it better now, you’re not saying atheists started the spread of flat Earth, in terms of directly championing that belief and science, they helped spread the misconception that surrounds our knowledge of the past, pertaining to flat earth. And I do agree, it is a common misconception that people of the past thought the Earth was flat. In reality the majority of scholars and even society has believed it to be a sphere for well over 500 years, even longer if you go back to ancient Greece, though I’d argue after the burning of the Library of Alexandria, mankind probably took a step back on that knowledge for at least a few hundred years, but I digress.
I can see that, atheists and agnostics did/do have motive to slander religion, so I’m sure a few non theist historians were bias in there retelling of history. Though Scott is right, and any person who’s spent a lot of time chatting with flat Earthers would agree, that the modern belief in flat Earth is largely due to the work of Samuel Rowbotham, who was plagiarized by Eric Dubay in the modern day, who is one of the larger perpetrators for today’s renewed interest in the idea.
Rowbotham was Christian and used flat Earth as a way of verifying his religious beliefs. Dubay is just a conman looking for attention, I’m not certain what his beliefs are at present, but what I do know is his work is stolen directly from Rowbotham.
I think I just misunderstood you a little, but then feel free to respond and let me know.
1
-
So what would you prefer, that they didn’t teach us some basic knowledge? You learned how to read and write, you know how many of your ancestors were illiterate? You learned how to count, how to do basic math, you know how many poor saps throughout history couldn’t even count to ten? You learned some history so that maybe it hopefully won’t repeat. You learned a bit of science from every core field of science, so that maybe it could peak some interest and you’d be inspired to join in the help for innovating our technologies. You think it was all just to make subservient workers? Just look at it without that paranoid lens for a change and be rational. Your ancestors and mine, were poor and uneducated, unable to elevate themselves up past their peasant status…they would have killed for the opportunity to receive a basic education. Today you have FAR MORE opportunities, thanks to the basic education you were given. I think it’s sick how many people take that for granted….life could have been a whole lot harder for you, if you didn’t know how to read or write, let me tell you.
We need more education, not less…and the fact that Flat Earth is even being discussed today, is proof of that.
1
-
1
-
We don’t have to physically travel into the Earth, to deduce its inner composition. Ever heard of seismology? Look up the study of S and P waves, which are seismic wave patterns that travel through the Earth during Earthquakes, that interact with materials differently. These waves are then picked up at seismic stations on opposite ends of Earth, that can tell us quite a lot about the inner composition of Earth. How do you think oil and mineral mining companies find what they’re looking for…you think they have to drill holes everywhere to find what they’re looking for? Nope…they send a seismic crew.
Your ignorance is not an argument….you can learn all about how science came to the conclusion of Earth’s inner composition, in just a few short minutes of searching. You live in the information age…you have questions, then seek the answers.
The difference between science and religion, is that science is repeatable and provable. They can only teach so much in your general science classes in high school though, so you typically only get the foot notes….but if you bothered to delve deeper into any of it, you’ll learn how the conclusions were reached. If you never bother to extend your knowledge though…you risk reaching ignorant conclusions, about things you really know nothing about, but pretend you’re an expert anyway. :/
1
-
@magicvide0 I’ve been chatting with Flat Earthers off and on in comment threads since 2017 (it’s a sad hobby of mine that I indulge when I have time), so I’ve most definitely thought about it…I’m confident enough to say I know their arguments, probably better than they do at this point.
If you want to get philosophical about it, sure, there’s actually very little we can outright prove, except for that we exist. That’s why René Descartes's famously said “I think, therefore I am.” Because he struggled with that concept too…this could all be a dream for all we know.
So that’s not a new philosophical or even ideological position to have…that’s why scientists no longer set out to prove things, only falsify. It’s also why they chose to call their conclusions “theory’s”, instead of facts. Because facts are rigid, theories however allow a lot of wiggle room as new information is obtained.
For me, it’s whatever knowledge can actually be applied. Do pilots and sailors use a flat model of Earth to navigate with pinpoint accuracy? No, they do not. Do they use a globe model? Yup, every single one of them, it’s called the geographic coordinate system; lines of latitude equal length for two hemispheres, and lines of longitude intersecting at two poles. This is spherical geometry, not Euclidean. If Earth was flat, then this geometry simply would not work when applied. Doesn’t get simpler than that. Because you can’t interpret 3 dimensions with only 2 dimensions, you lose depth, so you lose distance. This effects navigation…these people absolutely require accurate knowledge of the surface they’re navigating, in order to do their jobs. This used to be common sense…but here we are.
Navigation isn’t all that difficult to learn, you can learn how they do it pretty easily with a few hours of your time. Then you can even apply that knowledge yourself. That’s the real crux of true science…can the knowledge be applied? If not, then it’s likely bullshit. Flat Earth isn’t used for anything, okay, then it’s not reality.
That’s how you spot real pseudoscience…it reveals itself by the fact it’s absolutely useless and cannot be applied. So you’re wrong, plenty of people know what shape the Earth actually is…they couldn’t do their jobs with any level of proficiency if they didn’t.
Flat Earth is a con, I’ve talked to thousands of Flat Earthers at this point, and that’s not an exaggeration. You’re being had by huxters who love pissing in the well of information, and who resent real experts who actually do things. That’s the reality. Don’t be just another sucker please.
1
-
Like what? Sure it’s probably not the most nutritious meal, the preservation process of that form of canning does remove some of the more nutritious content, so it shouldn’t be the ONLY thing you’re eating...but you’re treating it like it’s a poison, as if death or sickness is pretty much guaranteed. The point was that canned food is safe for consumption, you can eat the contents and be just fine, it’s not going to kill you instantly, or even at all. Of course there’s nuance there, people have allergies, the preservatives used can have negative effects over time, she wasn’t arguing that they were perfect...but canned foods are safe for consumption, I’m sure you’d agree it’s far from eating a can of arsenic.
Too much of anything is bad for you. If you ate only bananas for a week, you’d likely get potassium poisoning. We can all likely agree that bananas are good for the body, but too much of even a good thing, is harmful. That goes for everything we eat. Point is, I think you’re being a tad nit picky.
1
-
1
-
Flat Tarn Helium rises due to buoyancy, which is caused from the downward force of gravity, causing a displacement of matter by density. Proven time and again in density columns put in zero G environments and within vacuum chambers, where things like smoke, helium and other lighter gases actually fall...instead of rise. And no, you are responsible for the pick up and the release, but when something begins to fall, that is a motion completely free from your influence. You are not the cause of that motion...and yet, things fall anyway. The question is what causes that downward motion? Why that direction? Why at the same constant rate? Flat Earth has no answers, it just has taught people to ignore and deny any facts of reality that are inconvenient to their bias conclusions.
Learn some actual physics, then you’ll learn how Flat Earth cons the scientifically illiterate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kaptainkrampus If it’s a clear observation of curvature you’re looking for, I’ll give you one that requires no math, just a basic understanding of geometry and perspective, which you seem pretty well versed in.
https://youtu.be/MoK2BKj7QYk?si=pu2A0BTqI1_jl6YT&t=234
That’s a great observation of a tower viewed from various distances, from roughly the same observer height each time. As he gets further away, the tower is clearly observed to sink more and more below horizon…by hundreds of feet. At the end he creates a handy comparison shot of each observation, and the tower is clearly dropping with each observation. He zooms right up to it, so the angular resolution is the same for each observation, so it’s not just perspective causing this, the base of that tower is clearly disappearing under horizon, being obscured by hundreds of feet.
No math is required here, that’s what’s nice about it. You can crunch the figures if you’d like…but Flat Earth has fooled a lot of people, by providing the wrong math for these observations. The worst offender being 8 inches per mile squared, which doesn’t represent line of sight, doesn’t have a variable for height of the observer, or horizon distance, or refraction, and can not tell you how much something is being obscured by horizon. Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion…it’s really that simple, that’s why a rule of thumb in good experimentation practices, is to always double and triple check your math, especially if it seems off for any reason. Cause the error could be yours, nobody is infallible. So when people go around saying “no visible curvature”, my first question is always what math did they use to determine that? I guarantee they’ve made an error, cause whenever I do the math, it fits the globe just fine. When flatties bring up the 8 inches formula, then I know that’s exactly what the problem really is…it’s the wrong math. I didn’t go to deep into the calculator you mentioned, so I can only assume for now, but my point here is that you should always make sure your math is accurate before you reach a conclusion. Most Flat Earthers don’t…and that’s their problem, probably 80% of the time.
This observation though requires no math, just some simple reasoning; why is the building sinking under horizon more snd more, the further away he gets? If you know your perspective fundamentals, another question you can ask, is why is the tower dropping below eye level by hundreds of feet? Things converge AT eye level due to perspective…they don’t drop below it. A curvature would absolutely account for this observation though…that’s exactly what we’d expect to see on a curved surface.
So give the observation a look, if the link isn’t working try just searching the Turning Torso Tower observation, even in google images, shouldn’t be difficult to find the end comparison shot.
1
-
1
-
@JonALewis “There are many anomalies that work on both models but nothing works solely on a globe.”
Pretty ignorant statement, tells me you really haven’t been looking very hard. Confirmation bias tends to do that. Here’s some things FE has to ignore, to believe that claim.
1. Lunar Eclipse - heard a lot of ad hoc bullshit about a third object that’s “invisible”, but somehow blocks light...somehow. But still nothing substantial in way of actual evidence. Just empty claims and ad hoc bullshit, no empirical evidence. Globe makes perfect sense of this occurrence, with ease, no mental gymnastics required.
2. Southern Hemisphere - everything from the different stars, to the lines of latitude that are equal in distance to the opposite hemisphere, to the southern star trail rotation, never heard of any FE model proposed so far that can accurately account for the second hemisphere. And yes, it exists, I’ve been there several times, so good luck trying to claim it doesn’t.
3. Coriolis effect - a well documented and well understood phenomenon, that FE has no answers for. A rotating globe accounts for this perfectly. Don’t believe me though, hear it from a marksmen https://youtu.be/jX7dcl_ERNs and a pilot https://youtu.be/eugYAfHW0I8, explaining how they account for this effect.
4. Satellites - they’re in orbit, how exactly does an orbit work on a flat Earth? Simple fact is, It doesn’t, orbits require gravity, a spherical geometry and an empty vacuum of space for objects to maintain forward velocity within. Again, I’ve heard a lot of bullshit claims for them not existing, and yet I can look up there transit times and positions and then spot them with a telescope https://youtu.be/PRgLlLtF4hs. I can even do what these guys did https://youtu.be/jGWFg7EDnyY, building my own radio telescope to spot AND pull image data from these satellites. Funny how you can point a radio receiver at these orbiting objects, and pull data off of them...gee, I wonder why?
5. Sunsets - FE will just say it’s perspective that causes a sunset, then they pat themselves on the back...but they’re ignoring some pretty basic rules of perspective, in that ad hoc explanation. A simple one being angular size, objects shrink in angular size due to distance...so why doesn’t the Sun before it sets? The transit time would also change, speeding up as it gets closer, slowing down as it gets further...problem is, the Sun tracks a steady 15 degrees per hour, never deviating. Sunsets make zero sense on a flat Earth...seriously, you have to hit your head pretty hard to think that would work at all over a flat surface, where line of sight is never lost. It’s basic geometry.
6. 24 hour Sun in both hemispheres - again, the geometry makes no sense...show me an FE model that can accurately account for both midnight Sun occurrences. Remember, I’ve been to the Southern Hemisphere, I’ve experienced the longer days in their summer, even just 17 hours of Sun down South makes no sense on FE at all, so don’t tell me “it doesn’t exist”.
7. Sun angles and transit path - the data simply does not fit a Flat Earth. Here’s some examples you really need to contend with.
https://youtu.be/J9w4KtHxZ68?t=905
https://youtu.be/W1al9aGartM
https://youtu.be/yrsaP7nBWt0
8. Flight Paths - I know you think you know everything about flight paths, but they do not work on FE I’m afraid, you’ve been fed a cleverly crafted lie. They’ll be relatively straight on a Gleason projection (but not really)...for the North hemisphere, but have you ever seen any for the South? https://youtu.be/MiUklHodcho These are real flight routes, the only model they fit is a globe.
9. Sextant navigation - the stars have been used to navigate for centuries now, with the help of a sextant, measuring the angle of known stars like Polaris, against the horizon, which helps determine latitude. Trouble is, on a Flat Earth with a domed sky, the stars would not drop to horizon at a consistent rate, they would drop less and less the further you went (you’d also see a lot more parallax). Stars drop consistently to horizon...that’s how sailors are able to find their latitude. Seriously, do you honestly think this geometry is possible? https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/bp8rrt/why_cant_polaris_be_seen_from_these_observatories/.
10. Gyro compass - most accurate non magnetic compass, used on most modern sea vessels today. Little known fact is that it actually uses the Earth’s rotation and its spherical geometry to function. Here’s a video going in depth into how they work https://youtu.be/d1tQcGAgYMc.
Just a short sample of things you have to be willing to ignore, in order to continue believing there’s nothing supporting only the globe model.
Point is, I get that you’re invested in this, you’re trying really hard to win something here...but you’re not being very objective and honest with yourself. There’s a lot more evidence for the globe than you seem to be aware of, we have every reason to question the claims of Flat Earth, so don’t pretend like we don’t.
1
-
@JonALewis Ok, but you didn’t address any of the points I shared. Point was, Flat Earth is not as air tight as you seem to think it is. Those are some examples of things I feel you have overlooked. Do you think ignorance is the best way to reach truth? I’m sure you don’t, but then why are you ignoring these points? It’s a good question you should ask yourself. These are simple observations anyone can make, and they matter to the larger conclusion here. If you can’t provide an answer for these observations, then they stand as evidence against the model you’re currently supporting. Doesn’t have to be much more difficult than that, I just prefer remaining objective.
You said the evidence falls within three baskets, Flat, Globe, or both. So can you explain how these points fit in both models, or explain how they make better sense in FE? If not, then they fall in the basket of only working on the Globe.
Just using your logic, so you have a choice, either ignore them, or really think about and consider them and be honest while you do. If you ignore them though, then it’s clear you’re not really looking for truth, you’re really just looking to confirm a bias...which means you only care about what you want to be true, not what is true. Just trying to keep people honest, so feel free to rebuttal the points I’ve made, I don’t mind discussing.
1
-
@JonALewis When you make a claim, the burden of proof is then yours to prove that claim...that’s how a rational discussion of ideas works. It’s not my job to prove your claims for you. I don’t mind discussing claims, I’ll research anything you provide, but it’s a waste of my time to do YOUR work for you. You want to convince someone, then it’s only logical you provide the evidence for your argument, that’s just common sense. If you can’t...then it’s more likely that you do not have any, and that’s what I’ll conclude if you do not. Lack of evidence doesn’t mean I’m automatically right of course, it just means you forfeit yourself from argument...that’s the structure the majority has agreed upon when it comes to debate. Burden of proof, it’s very simple stuff. You might have noticed when I made a claim, I provided video evidence in support of that claim...that’s how you prove a claim, with evidence...that’s how it works.
So, you have provided some information on a couple points, so the ball is now in my court to address them if I can. So I will, because that’s how a rational discussion works. I’m not just going to believe a person blindly, so stop trying to strong arm me into agreeing without question. It’s only rational to question, Flat Earth is not immune to the process of peer review, the same standards of review apply to them, so that’s what I’m doing.
Ok, so your point on the Moon being a luminary, you didn’t provide any evidence for that claim, so it’s just an empty claim currently. What evidence do you have that has led you to that conclusion? This is the problem...it’s the same ad hoc responses without empirical or verifiable evidence. You briefly touch upon seeing stars through the Moon...but where’s the evidence for that claim? A video, a picture, anything? Sure I could go hunting for the evidence myself, and I have before...I’ve heard this claim many times before, but nothing so far that holds up as verified evidence. But feel free to show me what evidence YOU have that helps your claim. But understand this, you’re not falsifying anything through empty claims. Meanwhile, universities around the world regularly bounce lasers and radar off of both the Moon and Venus. Venus and Mercury also regularly transit the Sun...as does the Moon during a solar eclipse.
https://youtu.be/2r_nX3hui10 - bouncing lasers off the Moon to confirm both distance and it’s physical properties.
https://youtu.be/MW99qNiM7bA - Venus transit.
https://youtu.be/fAGCwitHWgE - Mercury eclipse.
Here’s the facts so far, your claims are void of evidence, so they do not falsify the heliocentric conclusions, it’s that simple. I know you think simply calling the moon a luminary means your work is done...but it’s not, you’ve made a hypothesis, that’s all you have. We do not conclude science on hypothesis, so you do not have a substantial claim, it’s that simple.
Consider this as well, if the Moon is a luminary that you can see the stars through...then how exactly does it block the Sun during a solar eclipse? How does a star shine through it, yet the Sun can’t? It’s not adding up. Meanwhile, the heliocentric model makes perfect sense of both solar and lunar eclipses, and the math and geometry fits...it fits so well, that the heliocentric model can predict an eclipse down to the second and square mile. And before you say “they predict eclipses from the Soaros cycle”, explain to me how that cycle predicts location and exact time, because it barely gets the days right, let alone shadows location and perfect viewing time. Here’s a website that breaks down the math for how they really predict eclipses http://eclipsewise.com/solar/SEdecade/SEdecade2021.html. You can find the information for how it’s really done, from this website.
So here’s the score as I see it. Flat Earth has a hypothesis of the Moon being its own luminary...but nothing substantial that verifies that claim. If you have data and evidence confirming that claim, by all means present it, but so far it’s just an empty claim. That’s not good enough...so that’s why it will be questioned.
Meanwhile the heliocentric model has evidence, some of which I’ve provided and the information fits, it makes perfect sense. So as far as I’m concerned, lunar Eclipse only fits the globe model.
Now I’ll address your other rebuttal in another comment.
1
-
@JonALewis Alright, so your other rebuttal was on the Southern Hemisphere observations. Your argument hinges on one premise, that the stars should change periodically on the heliocentric model, due to the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. This is correct, the Sun should come between certain stars during certain periods of that orbit, so the stars should change periodically. So the question is, do they? Yes actually, any actual astronomer will tell you the same.
There are two kinds of star classifications, the circumpolar stars and the seasonal stars. Circumpolar stars are the stars locked to each polar axis, and they’re seen all year round due to them never being blocked by the Sun, because the polar axis never points directly at the Sun. Seasonal stars however are closer to the ecliptic plain, and so they are periodically blocked by the Sun https://youtu.be/zo_gg9GmSvg. You even know most of the constellations that reside here, they are the zodiac constellations.
It’s very basic knowledge within astronomy, you can even test it on any clear night. Find a list of seasonal constellations not visible during this monthly period, then go out and try and find them. Then do it again a few months later and find the constellations with ease.
It’s an easy one to debunk...the fact that Flat Earthers assert the stars never change, shows just how much they don’t actually understand about the things they argue. Which also reveals your willingness to conclude things...on pure assumptions, rather than actual knowledge, experience and evidence.
Perspective is another problem...cause that geometry just does not add up. There’s a second rotation of stars in the South, it’s not just that they’re seeing different stars in each hemisphere, there’s a whole other rotation around a central pole star, Polaris for the North, Sigma Octantis for the South. How exactly does that work on a flat Earth? There should only be ONE rotation of stars on the FE model...but two exist in reality. That’s exactly what we’d expect to see on a Globe that’s rotating, the Globe model accounts for this second rotation of stars with absolute ease...but I’ve seen no model of FE so far that can account for this.
So no, your arguments here on this point are VERY easily debunked. Learn some actual astronomy, it’s very easy to confirm these observations for yourself.
THIS is why we have every reason to question FE. You’re a group of non-experts, with no real first hand knowledge or experience, trying to tell actual experts how things work. Reaching conclusions from empty claims and assumptions...then you wonder why everyone keeps pestering you. It’s pretty simple why, because you’re bullshitters...you are lying and spreading misinformation, THAT is why we’re questioning Flat Earth. We have every reason too.
1
-
@JonALewis The shape is important...if THAT’s the lie you’re saying is being fed to us by the “mainstream”, then wouldn’t it seem pertinent to see if that claim is true or not? Of course it would...so what are you even talking about? Do you even listen to the bolder dash YOU are saying? I’ve successfully debunked your points and instead of listening to me and considering the information I’ve shared, you’ve decided instead to ignore everything I’ve shared that directly refutes a Flat Earth. Then you basically just told me “it’s not important, pay no attention to the fact that Flat Earth is paper thin and doesn’t hold up to review, it’s the lie that matters!” What lie? If I can easily show someone how wrong Flat Earth is...then why should I just ignore that? What reason do I have to believe there’s any lie at all, when it comes to the shape of the Earth?
You’re wrong, I would consider any information you shared, but I’m not just going to agree to it blindly. Fact is simple, you know I have some good points. You can’t keep going in this discussion...because I think you and I both know, you don’t really have any answers to these questions. I’ve seen that glass dome trick FE thinks is good enough to explain the southern rotation...and again it’s not evidence, it’s just another untested hypothesis. One that’s easily falsified, the moment you start paying attention to the angles, the geometry, the fact that perspective does not really work the way they’re claiming it does. That glass half sphere demonstration...is basically akin to a slight of hand trick, that’s the reality of it. It’s designed to fool anyone looking to confirm their bias for FE, anyone not willing to look through how obviously paper thin the explanation is, but for anyone looking objectively, they will immediately recognize how unscientific it is, how unproven it is, how little it fits reality. Things I can not just ignore...simply because a few people online are so certain they’re right. Doesn’t matter how right you THINK you are...can you prove it? That’s all that matters to me. So far, no, you can’t...so guess what, I’m not going to be convinced...shocker. Meanwhile, the Globe model CAN prove its accuracy, with absolute ease, hence why it’s the dominant model of reality, hence why I and many others agree it’s the true shape of the Earth. It’s not complicated.
You know what I think...I think you don’t really care about what’s true, I think you just want a reason to justify hating institutions of authority, like the scientific community. I think the REAL lie, is from Flat Earthers, who fabricated this fantasy, so they could place real blame on the things they resent. I think it’s a fiction you tell yourselves, so you can feel some sense of control over everything, gives you power over authority, even if it’s fabricated. I think it’s psychological, an extreme group paranoid delusion.
Just my opinion, but you should REALLY consider that very real possibility.
1
-
@JonALewis Why would I step into an echo chamber, full of drones loyal to a madman, who will just mute and then shout at anyone who attempts to voice an opposing viewpoint, or make an opposing argument? Nathan Oakley is a classic narcissist, he only appears convincing, because he never shuts up long enough for anyone to demonstrate how he’s wrong. Little hard to get a point across, when you have a snarling dog barking over every word...wouldn’t you agree? Do you really think shouting at people is how information is best discussed? Cause I sure don’t. Seriously, I don’t know how anyone can admire that nutjob, but to each their own I guess.
I’d love to see him step away from the safety of his channel and join a REAL debate sometime though. A moderated debate, just him and one other opponent, with rules of engagement, where he can’t shout at people, or mute them. THAT is something I’d love to see. Then we’d see how well he really does or how convincing he really is. When he can’t shout over someone and strawman their arguments, wonder how convincing he’d be then. If you’re a fan of his, I’d be curious to know why you guys aren’t pushing for that? If he’s such a great debater, then why doesn’t he ever step out of his channel and challenge people on other platforms?
I think that’s a good question, personally. But no, I’ve seen enough from Nathan to know he’s just an attention junkie. He forces his opinions, he does not have real arguments.
1
-
@JonALewis Allegedly Dave is a bit better, he’ll at least listen and discuss...though he also drinks his own urine, and thinks air is all you need for sustenance, so bit of an oddball. But, I suppose he’s more of an experimenter of alternative lifestyles, so can’t fault him for that really. I strongly disagree with his conclusions, but he’s far more civil, so that earns some respect.
As far as I’m concerned, Dubay is a con man. From what I’ve seen, he lies like breathing, it’s effortless for him. I’ve taken the time to debunk his 200 claims, and it’s shocking how paper thin each argument really is....shocking that people actually fall for it. Most are just repeats of the same argument, spun in a different way, so it’s more like “75 ways to completely misunderstand physics and lie about Earth science”...but at its core, it’s just gish gallop, several weak arguments compiled together, to make the larger argument appear more impressive and substantial. Essentially quantity over quality. He’s also a Nazi sympathizer and an anti semite...so far from anyone to admire, in my opinion.
I know David Weiss, but not well enough to form an opinion yet. He seems to be gaining traction lately, so perhaps I’ll check him out more.
Owen Benjamin is a comedian with a bit of a superiority complex, thinks he knows everything and doesn’t really listen to anyone but himself. He tends to go off on tangents, that appear rational on the surface, until you question him...then he snaps and you’re auto banned. If he’d just shut up for a second, and LISTEN to an opposition when they try to explain something, maybe he’d learn something then...but he’s not the best listener. I watched his spiral down the paranoid rabbit hole a couple years ago, and honestly it was a bit troubling, looked like a man losing his mind. Haven’t checked in with what he’s up to lately, but he’s still Owen Benjamin I’m sure, probably just as crazy as ever.
I’ve been looking at this mess a long time now, not to many speakers or arguments I haven’t heard yet. Some are more rational, more open to discussion and the sharing of information, but I’ve been banned by both Dubay and Owen now, simply for asking questions and pointing out information they were ignoring or were not aware of. I can understand blocking someone for trolling or constant harassment, but simply asking questions? I get that I can be stubborn and I don’t just agree to things blindly, but that’s certainly not worth silencing me over, I feel.
I just prefer remaining objective, I’m not just going to ignore evidence, in favour of empty claims and speculations. You can claim I’ve not dug deep enough, but that’s just empty rhetoric, doesn’t mean much. Evidence is all I care about...so far, the Globe has it, while Flat Earth has empty claims and misinformation, that’s easy to falsify, with just a few simple observations.
1
-
1
-
@JonALewis I don’t argue NASA or the Moon landings, just doesn’t interest me as much. I understand the physics, I know the moon landings are indeed possible from a physics and engineering standpoint, but I feel theres very little I can verify for certain, because I don’t work for NASA and I’ve never been to space or the Moon. So most of the information, I can only speculate on, doesn’t matter how logical my argument is, I don’t have first hand experience, so I can only speculate. I choose to avoid chasing speculations.
Flat Earth is different, because I live here...I have first hand knowledge and experience here. I can test the Earth’s geometry whenever I want. I can test the physics, I can make my own observations, I can do first hand research. I don’t have to speculate here, I can reach more definite conclusions. Conspiracy’s tend to fester in ignorance...much easier to argue from ignorance, within conspiracies nobody can really verify the details for, unless they’re directly a part of it. Flat Earth is different, because we all live here, we’re all experts of Earth in our own little ways...hence why it gets more attention.
But just because its subscription base is larger than other conspiracies...does not mean it’s automatically valid. Still should question these things rather than agree blindly...simply because you don’t trust an authority.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eyestoseefe7618 Oh good…gish gallop…when the Flat Earther can’t refute any arguments, just bury a person in mountains of bullshit and call it a day. Classic. 😄
The ground can be both positively and negatively charged…and so by your conclusion, we should be flying upward some of the time. But then you say it’s density eh…so which is it, density or electromagnetic attraction? You have no idea…you just listened blindly to some con man online feed you nonsense, and for some reason you believed them.
Electromagnetic attractions also effect all matter differently, attracting them at different rates…this is a problem, because everything in a vacuum falls to Earth at the exact same rate of acceleration, 9.8 m/s^2. Some materials aren’t affected at all…shouldn’t they be floating? 🧐 You can also negate electromagnetic effects with a faraday cage, or gauss chamber…so why don’t things float when put inside these environments? Again…you’re just slotting in ad hoc bullshit, and calling it a day…you have no idea. 😂
Earth spins at the rate 1 complete rotation every 24 hours. That’s roughly 0.000694 RPM’s. For comparison, a gravitron ride at your local fair spins at a rate of roughly 24 RPM’s, that’s a HUGE difference. Rotation is what causes centrifugal force, higher rates of rotation are what increases its output. 0.000694 RPM’s is a pretty darn slow rotational rate…hence no significant centrifugal force, so gravity trumps it no problem.
Boy you sure swallowed all that Flat Earth bullshit pretty hard……tell me, have any of these people you learned this from, invented or innovative any technology with their knowledge? Any working models that are actually used in applied science? Can you derive me any new working equations that actually use your understandings as a variable?
No…you got nothin, because Flat Earth is a con….and YOU fell for it. Good job. 👏
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eyestoseefe7618 1038mph is a LINEAR velocity, has very little to do with rotations. When thinking in rotational velocity, we use rotational units, like revolutions per minute (RPM’s). Earth takes 24 hours to complete 1 rotation, that’s roughly 0.000694 RPM’s. So what this means is, that the jet is basically traveling straight at 500 mph…because it takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree, which takes your average passenger jet 15 minutes to track. You think you’d notice a rotation that takes 15 minutes to complete 1 degree of difference? 🧐 The Earth takes 1 hour to arc 15 degrees…rotate yourself at the rate of 15 degrees every hour, you think that’s fast?
You are an idiot…that’s the bottom line here. There is so much physics YOU don’t understand. You don’t understand the difference between a linear velocity (mph) and a rotational velocity (RPM’s). There’s a big difference between linear and rotational velocity…you’re not thinking this through very well. If you’d just listen, then MAYBE you’d understand this….it’s basic physics. What’s sad is the village idiots and dumb jocks who didn’t pay attention in school, now have this paranoid assumption that scientists have been lying to them all this time. Meanwhile…scientists are still inventing everything, while you guys are still about a million inventions behind. Gee…I wonder why….doesn’t take much deduction.
I’m sorry simple physics doesn’t make sense to you…but that’s not our problem. If you don’t have the cognitive capacity to understand the difference between a linear and rotational velocity, then you seriously need to stay out of matters of science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elfalte If you want to understand, if you’d like to learn, then keep an open mind. You can verify the second rotation at anytime, with the good enough camera, you can film both rotations from almost anywhere on Earth. You won’t see the pole star unless you’re in that stars hemisphere, but both rotations can both be seen from pretty much anywhere, except the poles.
Just saying, it’s fine if you don’t currently know, but the rest of us do, we’ve seen the second rotation, we’ve confirmed it. If this topic truly interests you, then why not at the very least do some further research on what we’re saying? 🤷♂️
You have questions, we’re just providing answers. We’re not policing anything, we’re just telling you what we know and telling you how you too can know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Do any if your questions change the fact that millions of pilots and sailors per day, are successfully navigating around the surface using the globe model to help them do it? No, it doesn’t. Questions are not evidence, they’re great questions, but don’t pretend like questions and unproven hypothesis alone, should in any way sway scientific consensus.
Yes, every physicist today has heard of sonoluminescence. It’s not some hidden knowledge that Flat Earthers dug up, it’s well known. It’s not entirely understood however, many hypothesis exist for how it occurs, but nothing concrete. Of course it’s easily replicated in a lab, so they do know a little about it, but it really hasn’t been tested enough to truly understand the full effect. I understand that many flat Earthers and space deniers claim it’s how stars are made, but they have no evidence or proof of this claim, they’re just making a false equivalence fallacy, it looks like a star so it is. It’s further helped along by the need to confirm a bias, that being the biblical notion of space really being water, the waters above. So bias and a false equivalence, that’s just bad science. They’ll require a lot more before anyone will take the notion seriously. What is understood though, is that Sonoluminescence only lasts for fractions of a second, very hard to maintain for long periods of time.
Gravity is how gas can create pressure next to a vacuum. All gas has mass, so it’s all subject to gravity. So pressure is created the same way stacking anything creates pressure. If you were to stack 100 mattresses (or anything really), would you expect more pressure at the bottom, or near the top of the stack? Obviously the bottom…why is that? Because the bottom is supporting the weight from all the mass above it, being squeezed down upon the bottom. It’s the down part you need to pay attention too. I’m sure you understand how a scale works, you press DOWN upon the scale, to generate force, which creates pressure, that the scale measures as weight. Okay, so if it’s a downward force that generates this pressure on the scale, then how exactly does an object resting on a scale, press down upon the surface, if there’s no force present? This occurs in vacuum as well, so a force is present. Gas is proven to also fall in vacuum, towards Earth. So it is subject to gravity. So it doesn’t take much deduction to realize that gravity is what holds our atmosphere to surface, and creates our air pressure.
Flat Earth insists that this breaks thermodynamics laws, but that’s just an empty claim they like to make, because they know their audience doesn’t know much about thermodynamics…or physics in general, not really anyway. Our atmosphere actually does shed a lot of gas and energy, and the open system allows it to do so. But thermodynamics is being misunderstood and twisted. It has more to do with energy transfer…not so much matter transfer. For example, when a cup of coffee goes cold, it’s thermal temperature coming to equilibrium with the surrounding air, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy? Should be pretty simple, it was just the thermal energy…that’s thermodynamics. Gases have mass, so they are subject to attractive forces, which can slow and contain them. For gases, we use the gas laws, in this case Boyles law, not thermodynamics. But even the gas laws have limitations, because they’re only useful in situations where a volume can be determined. In an open system like Earth, it’s impossible to determine a volume, because the volume of space is infinite. So atmospheric pressure doesn’t use the gas law equations, it uses its own set of equations, that all use gravity in place of a physical container.
So Flat Earth has been lying to you, taking advantage of peoples general lack of understanding in physics, twisting it to favour their bias.
In any case, whether you agree to that or not evidence is still required before any conclusion can be drawn. Butchering physics is not evidence, so don’t let conmen online fool you into thinking it is. You simply can’t conclude there’s a dome above, without tangible evidence to support it. So far, there is no tangible evidence for the dome container many of you believe is up there. If you know of any, feel free to let me know, but I currently do not know of any. Just a rocket that’s speculated to have hit it, but further research determined it didn’t hit a dome, it was just engaging it’s despin mechanism. And operation fishbowl says nothing about a dome, so it’s not evidence either, it’s just misinterpreting the title to fit a bias.
On the flip side, even flat Earth has measured and observed the vacuum of space, they just haven’t realized it yet. I’m sure you’re aware of the many weather balloons they’ve sent up to find curvature…ever notice that they observe a blackness above the blue atmosphere, even surrounding the Sun? Ever notice the balloon also eventually pops…as it’s designed to do after reaching vacuum conditions? This is all evidence that supports the globe conclusion, but you know what they’ve never found? A container. So they’ve measured vacuum above…how is that possible if a container is present? Shouldn’t there be gas pressure between atmosphere and dome?
Also, if you really think about it further, you’ll realize it’s actually the flat Earth that breaks thermodynamics laws. If a solid container of water (or some other substance) exists above, then how does all the new gas created at surface every single day escape? Or the thermal energy for that matter. The Sun provides a constant stream of new energy into the system, our model allows for this energy to be released, as well as any new gas over time…but wouldn’t we expect the heat and pressure to increase substantially over time, with a closed system? I’m sure you’re aware what happens to a container of compressed gas when it’s held over a flame for a long period of time.
Not an evidence in and of itself, but I don’t think your model is as ironclad as you seem to think. If you’re going to apply thermodynamics to our model…don’t forget to hold your model to the same standards.
Anyway, I’ll address the other points in a separate comment, this is already long enough.
1
-
Oxygen is not the only way to sustain a thermal energy state. The Sun is not like any fire we create or observe here on Earth, it is a nuclear reaction, more specifically a Fusion reaction. This keeps the Sun in a plasma state…plasma is not the same as fire, it is not created the same way, nor is it sustained the same way. So you’re making a false assumption.
We know the Sun is a nuclear fusion reaction for a few reasons. First of all, ever observe the Sun with a solar filter lens? It’s clearly a mass of compressed plasma…it has shape and form, with features on its surface like sunspots, that are cooler and remain for hours, sometimes days at a time. Using spectroscopy, we can identify the gases that make up its structure, the two gases that are most prevalent, are hydrogen and helium. When you fuse two molecules of hydrogen, you produce helium, this has been done in fusion reactors. In fact, by studying the Sun, we’ve been able to deduce the science of nuclear fusion reactions. Hydrogen gas is the key to nuclear fusion…and that’s exactly what spectroscopy has identified on the surface of the Sun. Another key ingredient is gravity. The Suns mass creates enough gravity, to force molecules of hydrogen together. We use Einsteins relativity, to help determine how much pressure is required to create a fusion reaction…it’s also why recreating fusion is so difficult, because we obviously can’t scale down the Suns gravity, and even if we could, it would tear the Earth apart. So scientists find work arounds…it’s been very difficult, but they have recreated it in reactors, which does verify the science is accurate. Every fusion reactor creates a vacuum…so it burns just fine without oxygen.
Rockets use liquid oxidizers, like liquid oxygen actually. Did you know you can put oxygen in a liquid state? No…it’s not water, it’s just oxygen cooled to a point where it becomes liquid…you can actually recreate liquid oxygen, anyone can, it’s not illegal to purchase the tools and materials required. Once in a liquid state, it can be used as an oxidizer in vacuum, and it will work just fine. It’s just chemistry man, and pretty simple chemistry at that.
Rockets actually thrust better in vacuum. They don’t push off of the air, they don’t use the air in any capacity…they’re not classified as aircraft for that reason. They create thrust by using Newton’s third law of motion; for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It’s the same physics that causes a gun to recoil. Essentially the rocket pushes off the inertia from the gas, and the gas pushes off of the inertia of the rocket. They push off of each other, the gas going one way, the rocket going the other. They work better in vacuum, because there’s no drag force to slow them down.
Law of mass density? Never heard that before, so you’ll have to be more specific on this point. I’m not aware of any “law of mass density”. There’s the ideal gas laws, is that what you’re referring too? There’s the theory of buoyancy and density displacement, is that what you’re referring too? Some more context would be helpful, I don’t want to assume to much.
A toroidal field is just a magnetic field, generated by a magnet/electromagnet, that’s shaped like a ring or donut. Did you know that nothing of the sort is detected on Earth’s surface? Only at its core, do we detect a toroidal field, which is consistent with a liquid iron outer core spiralling around a solid iron core. Please explain your point though. What relation do you feel this has to Flat Earth? I can only assume you think the outer ring of the South, creates a toroidal field that keeps our Sun and Moon in orbit above us, but that’s all I can assume for now. Please feel free to provide further context, most flat Earthers I’ve spoken with (and it’s been hundreds now) don’t really discuss any particular model, so it’s rare to get any info from them on this point. So perhaps you can elaborate further.
The noble gases light up when introduced to a Tesla coil, differently for each gas. Are you suggesting our Earth operates like a giant tesla coil, that illuminates pockets of gas in the firmament? What about Sonoluminescence? That’s caused by sound waves, not electromagnetic or static fields. And again, you run into the same problem of forcing your assumptions towards a conclusion, before it can be tested or verified, before any solid evidence can be linked to your conclusion. Though again, I don’t want to assume your point too much, feel free to provide more context.
1
-
1
-
@joeperry7891 Don’t have to be a scientist to debunk Flat Earth claims, anyone with a basic understanding of geometry and physics, can see its flaws. Here’s the thing, unlike other conspiracy’s that are either completely speculative (waste of time to address because there’s no way to know many details for certain, we can only speculate), or require very specific knowledge in a field of science (most people are not virologists or doctors, so addressing something like vaccines, for example, is difficult), this conspiracy is in a much larger pool of potential experts who can chime in. Because we all live here, we all have experience here, so in our own little ways all of us are experts on the topic of Earth. So you’ll see a lot more push back, because there’s far more people with accurate knowledge of the subject, who would feel comfortable and certain enough to respond to claims made.
That’s a big reason why Flat Earth receives more attention. I don’t have to be an ex army general with secret military clearance, or a doctor with decades of experience in that field, to argue against flat Earth…have you seen a sunset? Then you can argue against Flat Earth, because that’s a daily occurrence that simply does not work on a flat Earth geometry. Doesn’t require much, it’s very easy for anyone to refute.
1
-
1
-
@mcclemons89 The whole point of science is to eventually get to a point where we can explain WHY and HOW physical phenomena works…that includes figuring out WHY objects always fall DOWN towards surface. You think you’ve explained why, but you haven’t…you might as well have said “it just does”…that’s basically your explanation. If only science could be so lazy and incurious…might as well not even bother at that point. And saying we’re “overthinking it”, is pretty funny…since it’s clear that you’re not thinking at all, which explains a lot.
Whether you like it or not, falling is a motion, motion does not occur without a force…that’s basically the definition of a force in physics, anything that can put physical matter into motion. Density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter…it’s already defined in physics, it doesn’t cause motion, it’s just a ratio of mass and volume…that’s all.
You really need to wake up and start thinking more, it’s well overdue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mcclemons89 Again, you’re still only describing WHAT happens, you’re not explaining how it occurs. Science is well aware that objects go up when lighter than air, it’s called buoyancy force, but remove all the air (to create a vacuum) and everything falls…even lighter gases that typically rise at surface level. You’re not really paying attention. Falling is a motion, rising is a motion, all motion requires a force to cause it…density is not a force, it’s a ratio of mass to volume, so it can’t cause motion. This isn’t difficult.
Also no, whether you like it or not, the whole point of science is to determine WHY physical phenomena occurs and HOW they work. Whether the Earth is a globe or flat, this remains true. Answering the questions of why and how is relevant in science, regardless of what shape the Earth is. The only reason you deny gravity, is because it’s inconvenient for what you WANT to believe. Sorry, but science doesn’t care about what you want to be true…reality just is what it is.
1
-
1
-
@paulsmith8510 So me experiencing a time delay from live video relayed from the opposite side of the planet, is someone telling me what’s what? 🧐 No, pretty sure that’s me experiencing lights travel time, demonstrating exactly what’s been demonstrated, proven, and explained by science. That’s the difference between science that’s bullshit and science that’s accurate, it’s repeatable, and it works. Your arguments from ignorance don’t really mean much. There are plenty of experiments that verify light travels in straight paths, even technology that makes use of this, like the ring laser gyro for example. If light did not travel, then there would be no measurable drift in these devices…so it’s applied science. Go to any science lab from any real university in the world, and they will have a laser interferometer…that all work on the function of light having a travel time in straight paths. It’s all repeatable science….so, save me your ignorance.
Tell me, have you been on the ISS, or did someone TELL you what you were seeing, and you believed their speculation without question? Was it really a screw dropped, or was it just a spring latch that clapped on the plastic panel as it was released? Did you actually see a screw drop, because I sure didn’t. Was it really an astronaut fading out of a green screen fakery, or was it just a simple fade transition from one clip to the next, the next clip containing the same background? You know fade transitions are very commonly used in simple video editing, the original video that fading astronaut was pulled from had lots of fade transitions throughout the whole presentation. So have you really not considered any other explanations?
Oh yes, I’ve seen the very same “faked space” documentaries on YouTube that you have, you know what I learned? That these people sure tell you a lot, speculating endlessly on what they WANT you to believe, but in the end, it’s always just that…empty speculations. Do you know the difference between speculation and evidence? Cause by your comment, I don’t think you do.
That’s how these huxters con you, it’s akin to a sleight of hand trick. Present a video with an oddity that requires some explanation, then provide your explanation that’s purely speculative, then hope nobody attempts to challenge the speculation. It’s “keep your eye on what I’m saying, and don’t consider any other explanation”. It’s smoke and mirrors my dude…you have been conned.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@k3630 “I’d think that with such a powerful force like gravity, that it would be playing havoc with such a solar system.”
It used too, the universe at one point used to be a very chaotic system, a much denser cloud of free roaming molecules, crashing into each other constantly. But over enough time, most of these molecules combined, leaving more gaps, lessening the amount collisions, forming stars and planets, eventually settling into stable orbits. Earth and all the planets orbiting the Sun, are all that remains, in the 1 in a trillionth chance of a stable orbit. It’s just simple probability’s at that point, the universe is big enough, with enough matter within it, with enough time going by, that stable orbits are bound to happen eventually. Earth is one of those eventualities of probability. The geometry and the physics is all mathematically possible, so we have no reason to believe it couldn’t.
“It seems to me that some of the explanations of gravity appear to be after the fact, as in, what is gravity, after everything’s been formed, rather than accounting for gravity as the very compressive force that formed everything.”
Well ya...because we didn’t create the universe and we didn’t observe it’s formation directly, we’re just plopped in the middle of it all, so we really have no choice but to reverse engineer reality, through deduction and paying really close attention. Science builds on prior knowledge, it didn’t start with gravity, it started with the basic geometry of the planet we live on, then it looked to the stars and noticed they moved and behaved in peculiar ways, realizing gravity came much later...after every other observation was basically proven fact. The next question was figuring out why and how? If the Earth is measured and observed to be undeniably spherical, then how exactly does everything stay to the surface? A force had to be present to account for that...does not fully understanding how it works, make the basic observed geometry just go away? No, of course not. But gravity did so much more than just make sense of falling objects, it created a domino effect in understanding, once gravity was realized, every other mystery began to fall in place and make sense.
You have some great physics questions, so here’s a great channel that I think might help you out https://youtu.be/uhS8K4gFu4s. That particular video should help with many of your questions here, so give it a look sometime.
1
-
@k3630 “so how is it that light objects can free themselves from that force. Because that force is powerful enough to bind this earth together, and compressed gas enough to form into a sun??”
You’re forgetting how much larger the Sun is compared to us. Gravity is increased with mass, so a Star has collected so much mass, where lighter gases can not freely move, instead they’re forced together into fusion reactions, hence why and how the star burns. Our Earth is in the sweet spot, where it can hold most everything to the surface, but lighter gases are still loose enough to form an atmosphere, rather than compress, and life (which is comprised of more solid matter) is able to resist it by creating energy. The Moon for example is too small, not able to contain lighter gases, so it doesn’t form an atmosphere. Earth is in the sweet spot.
You might think “oh that’s a convenient coincidence”, but is it? With an infinite universe, containing so much matter you could never hope to quantify it...odds are pretty good that a planet would eventually arise with perfect conditions for life. In fact odds are pretty good that it could occur billions of times, even within our own galaxy...that’s how big the cosmos are.
It’s a complex system, took a long time to answer these very questions you’re asking. Not being aware of, or not understanding all the variables involved, makes it a whole lot harder to answer these kinds of questions though...which is why they feel like contradictions at first.
1
-
@k3630 “Why are things on our surface not compressed?”
Well, they kind of are though, they’re on the surface, being compressed to it. That’s what weight is, it’s basically inertia, that’s created by mass compressing against mass. But it’s only compressing if there is contact, otherwise there is no compression, but gravity is still effecting the objects. What makes you think we’re not experiencing compression? You feel heavy don’t you? You feel your body compressing don’t you? Takes effort to lift yourself up?
What you’re not quite getting, is that gravity between two masses is proportional to both masses. The Earth isn’t just attracting the Moon, the Moon is also attracting the Earth, these masses are huge...gravity wells also extend pretty far for large celestial objects. You and me are not very big at all though, so we don’t require much energy to resist Earths gravity, a butterfly requires even less. We have less mass to move, so less gravity effecting us. The less mass an object has, the easier time it will have resisting another objects gravity, because it’s own gravity is not creating much more attraction and it has less mass being attracted. If an elephant had wings though, it would require a lot more energy to resist gravity and fly, because it has more mass.
You’re thinking about it to much like a magnet force, and that’s not really the best way to picture it. It’s easier to imagine it as a motion along curved space.
1
-
@k3630 It’s easy to spend all your time with the explanations, and then think they were reached by speculations alone, if you take essentially little to zero time to look at the actual facts and evidence that supports the conclusions. There is a difference between explanations and evidence, I should hope that’s pretty common sense, but I do feel the line gets blurred sometimes. We’ve talked all this time discussing the explanations and end conclusions, but no time at all really looking at the evidence that led to them. I think that’s what some people like/prefer to do (especially when discussing topics they don’t like/want to agree with), is focus on only the explanations and conclusions, because then they can pretend as if there is no evidence supporting these conclusions, because nobody has presented any yet. That’s why I feel you’ve been attempting at a form of socratic method with us, your mind is already made up and has been this whole time, you’ve really just been attempting to make the rest of us reach that conclusion as well, by attempting to get us to see the contradictions you’re seeing as well.
The difference is, we don’t just know the explanations, we’ve looked at the evidence, the facts, the data that has led to these explanations. So you won’t find us agreeing there’s contradictions, because we’ve seen the evidence that supports these explanations, which gives us a foundation. Don’t have to know every detail (and no single person does, there’s just too much to know), if you observe it happening, you’ve measured it, and now use that knowledge and understanding in applied sciences like engineering.
If you’d like to now shift gears and examine some evidence that helps support these conclusions, I’d be happy to share some.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, we know the Earth’s mass and we know the distance of certain celestial objects, like the Sun. With direct measuring methods like reflecting radio signals off of planets, we can measure their distance and their mass. Much of these objects are much larger than Earth (the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, etc), or similar in size (Venus, Mars, etc). So if gravity is dictated by an objects mass, then it’s just not likely at all that these other celestial masses, are orbiting the Earth...it’s nowhere near large enough.
So the evidence is in our understanding of gravity physics (among many other fields of study). Earth does not have the mass required to be centre of gravity for the entire universe, it’s just a bit of wishful thinking to even consider that it could be. A better question is, where is the evidence that could ever suggest we are centre of the universe? There is really none...just human ignorance and wishful thinking.
You can even look at astronomy data, the orbital paths of everything within our solar system, do not suggest everything is orbiting Earth. When you actually plot that data with Earth as the reference point, here’s the kind of mess you get https://pasteboard.co/K1bTea3.jpg. The geocentric model is on the right, the heliocentric is on the left. The paths of the other planets are all over the place...and make no sense in the geocentric model. Put the Sun within the centre and suddenly the orbits make far better sense, and it fits with our current understanding of gravity physics.
Also, what makes you think the universe is finite? We can really only assume that, we don’t know everything about it. But we do know how gravity works and Earth certainly does not have enough mass to be the centre of the universe. Whether the universe has a centre, that’s really quite debatable, we don’t currently have enough knowledge to make that call. We do know that our supercluster of galaxies is being drawn towards something, that astronomers and cosmologists call the great attracter, but whether this great attracter is the centre of the entire universe, who knows.
What we do know for certain though, Earth is certainly not the centre of the universe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@steelyatron You’re right, I don’t know of any other alternatives…that’s why I’m asking you. Do you have any suggestions for an alternative?
If you’re going to argue against peer review, then offer an alternative…cause it’s no secret that peer review isn’t perfect, you’re really not pointing out anything new here, you’re just stating the obvious. My point is that it is far better to have a filter for information, rather than not have it. And if you’re going to argue that we remove that system…then you should offer an alternative, otherwise it’s a bit pointless.
If there was a better system, then we’d have thought of one by now…you’re going to have trouble coming up with an alternative, because many have tried, but peer review is still the best system they could come up with in the end. If you think you got a solution though, then feel free to share it…but I very much doubt you’ll be able too.
1
-
1
-
@steelyatron “…you have no idea what would happen without the peer review system. None.”
Oh I think I could provide a pretty accurate prediction. Without any system to filter information, then ANYONE, regardless of credentials or actual experience, could say and claim whatever they want, and it would all be equally valid…because if nobody actually checked it, with a higher level of expertise and thorough analysis, then what’s stopping them from claiming whatever they want? The well of information would be an absolute mess, misinformation would reign supreme in that system. Conmen, grifters, pseudo intellectuals would have a field day…it would be a huxters paradise. That’s what would happen, and I’m pretty confident most would agree with me here…it’s not difficult to understand who really benefits from abolishing peer review…under educated pseudo intellectuals, who just want a free pass to claim whatever they want. And in worse cases…corporate entities who would absolutely love for standards of review to be removed, so they could sell you whatever they want!
I’m all for improving peer review systems, but removing them completely, absolutely not. You’re a bit naive if you actually think removing all systems of review would stop corruption…it would just give them a free pass to do whatever they want. It would be a thousand times worse, not better.
1
-
@riandcaz Okay, but your belief in God is your bias here, don’t you see that? You’re rationalizing things so that they better fit a belief you have, so that bias is leading your conclusions, more than you realize. I’m not without bias, nobody is, but that’s why we have peer review in science. Is there any system of review with fringe conspiracy movements online? No…just echo chambers and arguments with opposition’s, that don’t achieve much. These conversations are as close as you’ll get to peer review, so I hope the information is at least considered. But whether you realize it or not, your bias is quite clear to me, it’s your spiritual beliefs, you filter information through that lens.
1. The video proves that a building is clearly dropping below eye level by hundreds of feet. If you know your perspective fundamentals, you’ll know that things above your eye level will never drop below it due to perspective alone. They will appear to converge AT eye level, but never will they drop below it if surface is actually flat. So what can account for that dropping? A curvature. A flat surface however cannot. So forget the math for a moment, and just ponder the pure observation; if the surface is not curving, then how is that building dropping below eye level by hundreds of feet? It’s a good question, and you really shouldn’t ignore it.
In my experience Flat Earthers make two major errors when reviewing long distance observations; they don’t use the correct math, or they don’t have the correct variables (distances, observation heights, locations are wrong, etc). 8 inches per mile squared is a common formula they use, but that doesn’t have any variables for height of the observer, horizon distance, refraction, etc, and it simply does not represent line of sight. It’s not even a curvature calculation for a sphere or circle, it’s a parabolic arc equation, so it’s not even accurate in terms of a steady surface curvature, it eventually drops off. So it’s the wrong math…use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple. Whenever I do the math for these observations, it fits just fine, and I’ve reviewed many. I use basic trig, you can find a great formula at the metabunk curve calculator. It’s far more accurate, it does the geometric math as well as a standard refraction calculation, so feel free to check it out sometime.
Sure, I can admit the surface of water is level. Are you able to understand that level doesn’t just mean flat? It’s one of those words in the English language that has many different definitions depending on the context. In geometry, a spherical surface can be defined as level, in that every point of its surface is equal distance from centre, at the same LEVEL from centre. That’s how the word is being applied in “sea level”. Water is held at equipotential distance from centre of gravity, much like how a bubble is held at equipotential distance from centre of the bubble, by forces of air pressure and surface tension. Forces can do that, so I have no trouble understanding how Earth’s oceans can curve and adhere to the curvature of Earth, gravity is a central force.
In any case, words we create have no real power or influence over physical reality. So even if the word ‘level’ did mean only one thing, it wouldn’t really matter as far as physical reality is concerned. You still have to account for that observation; how is that tower dropping below eye level by hundreds of feet?
Please do not deflect away from the question. If you can’t answer it, then perhaps it’s time you consider the possibility that Flat Earth may be wrong here.
I’ll address your other 3 points in separate comments.
1
-
1
-
@dustinbusche274 No, the Michelson Morley experiment was not an experiment for Earths motion, it was an attempt to detect the Aether…it did not succeed. Neither did any of the other experiments that were also an attempt to find Aether. So physics has absolutely ZERO evidence of Aether…meanwhile they had plenty of evidence for Earth rotation; the Foucault pendulum and Gyroscope experiments were already well established and understood by this time, as were observations and experiments done for Coriolis and Eotvos effect, and Astronomy had long since verified that the only model that fits and explained all celestial positions and movements, is the heliocentric model. And today we have further proof, the gyrocompass is a great example you should really try researching sometime…it’s a navigations tool used today on most large sea vessels, that actually uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function. There’s also the gyro theodolite which is very similar. So there’s really no debate anymore whether Earth is rotating.
So which do you think physics is going to reevaluate? Aether which still has zero evidence, or Earth rotation which had plenty? Hmmmm….tough decision. 🧐
Flat Earth has to really stop lying about things to force their conclusions…it doesn’t help their arguments, it just reveals your intellectual dishonesty. MM was nit a test for Earth rotation, and it most certainly did not prove Earth was stationary. The experiment in actuality is inconclusive, in both the hypothesis and null hypothesis. We don’t use inconclusive results to form conclusions with…anyone that does is doing so out of bias and intentional ignorance.
Get a better bullshit filter, DITRH is a known conman. You are being conned…worse yet you are helping them spread misinformation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@godschild7486 Yes, I get that you don’t understand...but you’d know how this technology and science works, if you’d just stop for a second and do some research on it. You wanted to know how science determined the inner composition of Earth, so I’ve pointed you towards that science...that’s all. You can either educate yourself on seismology, or you can continue to ignore what I’m trying to help you with and continue pretending like science just reaches conclusions like this from nothing...which is pretty much the argument flat Earth always makes, arguments from ignorance. Do you want to remain ignorant on the topic, or do you really want to learn more about it? Seriously, why are getting angry at me for just pointing you towards answers to your questions? :/
I didn’t say it’s exactly like sonar, it’s similar, in that just like sonar, it’s measuring wave propagation through a medium. In the case with sonar, that’s sound waves through air, bouncing off surfaces and returning to a receiver that measures direction and return time. In seismology, they use seismographs which are measuring vibrations in shockwaves that travel through the Earth during and after every Earthquake, these seismic waves are registered on these sensitive measuring devices, telling you the shockwaves intensity output, the type of wave (s or p wave, or surface wave, among others), logging the time of arrival for each seismic wave, pinpointing the most likely point of the epicentre, etc...it’s recording the shockwaves and creating data from the readings. Data that once you analyze it, can and does tell you a LOT about Earths inner composition and as a bonus even Earths shape.
I’m trying to help you understand how this technology works, but you’re not really listening. Why ask for the technology and science that helped scientists reach a conclusion...and then just completely ignore the answer provided for you? My guess is you just assumed there was no answer, you were really posing the question as part of your evidence for your larger argument...not because you actually wanted an answer.
Sorry to disappoint you, but there is an answer. If you want to actually learn more about the science, here’s a great video to get you started https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwY1ICqWGEA. There are plenty more videos and articles explaining the science, so it’s really not hard to research...it’s a very well established field of study in science. You can also visit the official data archives for all seismic activity, just do a search on the IRIS seismology database sometime, this is the central hub for all the worlds seismic data, completely free and open to the public...so go nuts.
1
-
1
-
@godschild7486 Ok, but for someone who claims he’s just looking for the facts, you sure shut your mind off pretty quickly the moment anyone attempts to share some information with you. It’s hard to share facts...if the person you’re sharing with, won’t even look at what you’re sharing, just writes it off as false before giving any consideration at all. It’s a common thing people do when they don’t really want their mind changed, they’ve already made up their mind and are now just gloating about a position they feel is superior.
Just sayin, you asked a good honest question about how science determined the inner composition of the Earth. I then pointed you to the science, and then you just called it “scientism”, without really giving any reason for why it doesn’t qualify as science for you. Did you look at anything I shared? How exactly did you become an expert in seismology, enough to discern it was nonsense science, in such a short window of time? I can think of only two reasons, either you are an expert with years of seismological research under your belt, or you don’t understand it, don’t really want to understand it, so you just assume it’s wrong, no need to look or extend the effort to be sure.
See how that can be a bit frustrating? I’m all for sharing information, if you have the open mind, the intellectual honesty and patience to actually listen and consider anything I share. I’m more then ready to extend that effort for anything you have to share, I just don’t see much point if the person I’m chatting with isn’t really interested in having an open discussion. I’m not asking you to agree with me, just asking that you keep an open mind and consider a different perspective.
1
-
@godschild7486 But alright, I’ll extend a further invitation for civil discussion. You asked another great question about sound propagation on an Earth that’s moving, I’ll take a moment to answer as best I can, then I’ll pose my own question for you about flat Earth.
So this has to do with a term in physics known as relative motion. Apologies in advance if I’m just repeating science you’re aware of, you asked the question so I can only assume you’re not aware of the science that helps answer it, so bare with me if you have. The jist of it, is that anything existing in the same inertial reference frame of motion (that being anything moving together, in the same exact direction, at the same rate), will be moving relative to each other in that system of motion. Once you’re moving relative to something, it becomes impossible to know if you or it are even moving at all and everything within that same relative system of motion, will basically behave as though you’re in a stationary system. It’s why you’ll have no trouble talking with someone in a plane going 500 mph (which is pretty close to the speed of sound), or why you could easily jump and land back in the spot you left from, or throw a ball back and forth in the plane like you’re playing catch in a park.
Relative motion, is what makes it possible for you to interact within a frame of motion, and have everything inside that relative frame of motion behave as if you were stationary. It’s why motion is a tricky one...not so simple to pin down, as some would like to assume it is.
The hard reality is that we do not actively perceive motion very well, it’s Einsteins famous equivalence principle. Today it’s just basic physics of motion though, it’s very well researched and verified science and it all explains how the motions of Earth and reality are possible. It just seems like some people either never learned this science, or they don’t understand it.
It’s fine really if it’s either possibility, but then if you’re going to argue about the heliocentric models motion...then you should know this science inside and out, otherwise, any attempt to falsify it, just makes you appear ignorant. But, this is a discussion of Earths geometry, so I really don’t get why flat Earthers start with the physics...that’s not where science started, it started with the geometry, so why not start there? Becomes a little hard to understand or accept the science that helps explain a model...if you’re skipped ahead and don’t know the foundations of the model first.
Like with something very simple, like a sunset. Here’s my question for you, if the Sun occupies the same directional sky, everywhere on Earth, and it’s seen somewhere on Earth, 24/7, how exactly does it set? It’s a simple question of basic geometry, take a flat surface, now place an object on it to represent an observer, now put an object slightly off that surface to represent the Sun...is there always going to be a geometric line of sight to that object? If you were to draw a line from that observer to the Sun, does the surface ever block that line? The answer is no. So it’s a good question, how does a sunset occur on a flat Earth? It should be noted, the Globe answers for this effortlessly, the Earth turns away from the Sun, blocking it from view, explanation over.
But that’s just the basics of it, cause I know flat Earth will just say “it’s perspective”, then they just call their work done...no further explanation or scientific evidence. See, it’s a good enough answer to form a hypothesis from...but FAR from good enough to reach a conclusion from. You want to talk about scientism...ok, I’d say reaching such big conclusions before even testing them, qualifies as scientism, don’t you? And seeing as the Globe still answers for this occurrence as well, even at just the hypothesis stage...it means if you decide to conclude “perspective” as your conclusion, before testing it, you are doing so out of bias. Science is a process...we don’t just assert conclusions and call it done. I know it can feel that way, because from the general public’s perspective, all we typically hear are the conclusions...but no, nothing in science is concluded before the process of science. That process is just long...and the general public doesn’t have the time or even the interest in most cases, they just care about results...so that’s what they get, the conclusions, rarely the facts that led to them. But, this creates a disconnect...where people just assume they’re rushing things.
Anyway, so let’s look at a few tests for this “perspective” conclusion that Flat Earth has reached. Here’s a simple one challenging the scale https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njO5NPfur7I. Or this one looking into another fundamental law of perspective, that things tend to shrink in apparent size as they get further away https://youtu.be/MYVYa3BdI84. Then we can test the path of the Sun https://youtu.be/-e9d4bjImHM, it’s position relative to the ground https://youtu.be/LeEw0Fw1qio. Then we can go out and observe what it does in reality to see if it matches any tests for either hypothesis, here’s one testing the shadow angles from various locations around the world at the same time, using the shadow data to pinpoint its location https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=425, or this one testing its size change using a solar filter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtQiwbFD_Cc, or this one tracking its path with what’s known as an equatorial telescope mount https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD0ygI4ggnc.
You go down the list of everything you can test...you find out pretty quickly that the perspective argument, does not hold up very well when actually tested. However, none of these experiments contradict or falsify the globe model, they in fact match it perfectly.
So it’s just one of those simple things. How does a sunset geometrically work on a flat Earth? Not a hard question to understand I feel and a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Question is, have you asked it? If so, have you successfully answered for it? Not just with a hypothesis answer, but an actual tested and verified answer that fits with observations made in the real world? This is where flat Earth should focus first I feel...where science focused its efforts first, with the basic geometry.
It just kind of boggles me a bit is all, how people can ask so many great questions about the physics of the heliocentric model, indicating intelligence, but then when it comes to simple geometry like this, it’s like they’ve hit their head all of a sudden.
1
-
@godschild7486 I didn’t mention Einsteins relatively theory at all...I said relative motion, which is under the physics and laws of motion, they are two separate things entirely. See, this is the problem, you seem to have a really hard time staying focused and you jump to assumptions a lot...instead of staying on a single point and following the proper process of falsification to its end, you went on a rant of gish gallop that had nothing to do with the points we’re discussing. What does any of that have to do with my questions for a sunset? A very basic geometric concept...that you COMPLETELY deflected from and ignored. It’s a simple question...how does it work on a flat Earth? I answered your motion question, now answer the Sun question, or just say idk. Once you answer a question, THEN you can ask another question...can you see how that’s a lot easier to maintain a coherent conversation with?
I get that you have questions, but maybe stay on point long enough to learn the answer to even one of them, before you dump a hundred more questions. I can answer most if not all of them...but I can’t help you if you’re just going to deflect and dump gish gallop on me. We’re not talking about Big Bang, or relativity, or evolution or any of the thousands of other things you make assumptions for, we’re focusing on Flat Earth here...cause staying focused, is how you get your answers.
1
-
@godschild7486 If it’s so common sense, then why do you not understand how talking and having people hear you is possible, within a relative frame of motion? I’m referring to the classical form of relative motion, which was started with Galileo yes but it’s more properly refined by Newton. The physics here leads to special relativity yes, but they’re still quite separate in their core descriptions. You don’t need to understand Einsteins relativity, to understand the basics of relative motion, you need relative motion to understand relativity, but they are classified as separate, relative motion being a stepping stone to the higher understanding of Einsteins theory.
The point isn’t in who or what started the science, the point is in HOW it works. Deflect and make assumptions all you want, the point still remains that relative motion is very real, and it does explain how the motions of Earth are possible...and as you said, it’s also common sense, I’m glad you agree, because it is very simple stuff to understand. So why ask questions, if you already know the answer and you agree with it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@godschild7486 One more point to make though before you respond. So it’s an argument I hear a lot from flat Earthers and science deniers, the classic “you’re literally copy and pasting the same shit we all learned dude”. First of all, you’re just repeating the same arguments flat Earth endlessly repeats verbatim, so you’re a hypocrite, and second...if information is accurate, then how exactly does it being second hand information change that? It doesn’t...sure, we first learn this stiff in school from teachers, but then we can test it for accuracy at any time, we don’t just have to believe something blindly. If I learn about relative motion in a class, and then I get on a 500 mph plane and start throwing a ball around, then I see for myself that the science is accurate...does it matter if I first learned of it from someone else? No...accurate information is accurate, regardless of who told you about it. That’s the beauty of science, it’s repeatable...and physical reality doesn’t lie.
It’s just such a weak, desperate argument from science deniers...and I’ve heard it a thousand times, which is pretty ironic. For a group that claims they’re thinking for themselves, you sure repeat a LOT of the same arguments.
But that’s fine, I won’t fault you for it, because communication and the sharing of ideas is what’s so special about our species, it’s one of our biggest major advantages. But, you don’t like what science says, so you’re best argument against it in the end is just an ad hominem attack “INDOCTRINATION”...a word you don’t seem to fully understand, because that implies science can’t back up its conclusions with evidence, you know...like how the Bible and religion actually can’t, which is real indoctrination. Science meanwhile, anyone can go out and verify most of it for themselves, with just a little effort. Which is how you can be certain it’s accurate.
So save that poor argument for the suckers who actually don’t know how to think for themselves. It just tells me though, that you’re struggling.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@demetriusroy Alright, thank you, I’m seeing the link now. Firstly, I’ll just mention that abundance of experimentation, does not by default constitute accuracy. Conmen often use a devious debate tactic known as “gish gallop” to rope in followers to an outlandish new idea. It’s basically just dumping so much information at once, impressing people with sheer quantity over substance and overloading an individual’s ability to process a single point or experiment to its fullest. Makes it harder to falsify because it takes much longer, it’s a dishonest tactic, one that I’ve noticed flat Earth uses a lot...which just makes them appear less trustworthy.
So just cause it’s 27 experiments, doesn’t mean they can’t be 27 flawed experiments, good to always keep that in mind. But, also doesn’t mean they’re wrong by default, so I’ll give the benefit of the doubt. Still, to falsify all of these would take hours of my time, which I don’t have, so I’ll just pick a couple to focus on and then get back to you if that’s alright.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMoshady An independent variable for things falling? You mean a dependent? The independent is the variable the experimenter manipulates to test the dependent, which is the variable of nature we’re testing. In its purest form, picking something up and then releasing it would be considered an independent, then the act of falling would be a dependent. But this test does nothing to explain how or why objects fall, it merely demonstrates what is happening. To make it more conclusive, you drop things in vacuum, from this we learn the falling is the same, always in the same direction, always at the same rate. Falling is a motion, and since nothing is put into motion without a force, it means a force is present that attracts matter to Earth.
That test tells us what is happening, but doesn’t explain how, for that we go deeper and test further hypothesis, the main hypothesis here was mass attracts mass, the Cavendish tests this hypothesis, successfully I might add. Should we just ignore the oscillation observed in the pendulum, because one person thinks it’s not scientific? It ticks all the boxes of a valid experiment, observed phenomenon, hypothesis, independent, dependent, it’s all there. I’d say what you’re doing is unscientific, denial for the sake of bias.
The pendulum oscillates, but only after a second mass is introduced, this can not be ignored, and so science doesn’t.
I’ve considered what you’re saying quite a bit, I’m not seeing anything unscientific about it. What I am seeing though is somebody working really hard to make excuses, in an attempt to make something go away, that’s very inconvenient for their arguments. Just good ol’ fashion denial, for the sake of confirmation bias.
Are you saying we shouldn’t test the phenomenon of falling motion? What experiment would you conduct to determine what’s happening here? Are you trying to say falling is not a phenomenon of nature? The purpose of science is to study the mechanics of physical reality, the motion observed in dropped objects is a phenomenon of nature, so don’t you think science should test it? Doesn’t seem very scientific to me to ignore undeniable truths of reality, just because it’s inconvenient for something you want to believe. Intentionally ignoring something for the sake of bias, that’s what I would consider unscientific.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMoshady “How do you weigh gas?”
Several different ways actually, depending on the gas, you can search these methods pretty simply at any time. But in chemistry, the best way to find the weight of a volume of gas, is by first determining the mass https://youtu.be/cRev-6StZhs. Once you have the mass, you can determine the weight, through this equation F=mg, mass times acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2). There’s our old friend gravity again, playing it’s part. Though I’m not a chemist, I know it’s a but more complicated than that, but it can and has been done...hence how chemists are capable of manipulating elements to create materials in the firstborn place...gravity physics plays its part, as it always does, because gas has mass, and so it’s effected by gravity. This knowledge matters in chemistry.
1
-
1
-
@SuperMoshady I’ll share this again for you https://youtu.be/Yb2YuC7UbwI?t=138, this is a simple observation of what smoke does in a vacuum chamber. Notice how it immediately falls to the bottom of the jar and pools at the bottom? We’re of course all familiar with smoke that rises, but remove the other heavier gases, and buoyancy can not occur, so the downward force of gravity on the smoke becomes much more apparent. This helps verify that gases are just as effected by gravity, as everything else with mass.
Now, you’ve claimed again and again that it’s just “relative density”, no downward acceleration of gravity required, according to you. Ok, so can you derive a new equation for buoyancy force, that doesn’t require the downward acceleration as a variable? Here’s the formula again Fb=Vpg. Can you derive a new equation, from your “relative density” hypothesis, that does not require any variable for a downward force?
You can actually use the equation I’ve provided, in a very simple experiment, where you can accurately predict how much weight a floating mass can hold, before it’s submerged. Can you derive a similar equation, using just your “relative density” conclusion, one that would have the same prediction power as the equation currently used? If you can, I’d very much like to see that, because so far all you’ve done is ignore gravity in buoyancy physics, you haven’t really falsified gravity, just denied it.
You’ve still yet to answer for me, how exactly does density put matter into motion by itself? I feel I’ve answered enough questions for you for now, so feel free to provide some further information and evidence for your conclusion.
1
-
@SuperMoshady “The smoke usually rises because the gas below is rising up, not gas go down go boom boom.”
There we go, so you admit the gas is going down in that example and that’s why the smoke particulates can’t rise, gas is no longer going up, so the smoke falls . So gas does go down in a vacuum chamber. Good, now we finally agree, gas is effected by gravity. Gravity is the downward motion. Gas travels down in vacuum, so it’s effected by gravity. 🙂
Now, we’ve determined that gas goes down, so the one constant motion for all mass, is attraction to surface in the downward vector. Now we need to figure out, what exactly is causing the downward motion in the first place. Your “More dense go down, less dense go up” is obvious under buoyancy physics, and we agree with it, but as it is, it does nothing to explain how or why any of it happens the way it does. If you claim to care about science, well, part of its main function is to figure out how things work, so science must continue then, and figure out why and how the motions of matter occur. Motion of matter does not occur on its own, it requires a force. That’s the first law of motion, so what force is causing those motions?
So now we’ve isolated which of the two motions, Gravity or buoyancy, is always occurring. It’s gravity, the downward motion, it’s always there, effecting all matter, gas included. So, like a domino effect, it’s gravity that starts all the motion and is what tells all matter, in which direction to begin ordering by density, it’s why the arrangement of mass is denser matter down, less dense matter up, always in that order, never different.
The hypothesis that was established to account for this downward force, was mass attracting mass, which was then successfully verified in the Cavendish experiment. The rod moves once a mass is introduced, it moves free of our influence, this confirms the hypothesis of mass attracting mass. Which answers for WHY the downward motion of matter occurs, because mass attracts mass.
Still many questions left to answer, but at least science doesn’t just ignore things, so it can cling to a bias.
Main point is, gas has mass, mass attracts to other mass, so our atmosphere is contained by that attraction, no physical barrier required. This is measured and observed, space is confirmed a vacuum, while no physical barrier has yet to be detected.
And now that we know that gravity is a variable in buoyancy physics, all we have to do is measure that acceleration here on Earth, so we have, it is 9.8m/s^2, so now we can derive an equation we can actually use, to make accurate predictions with concerning buoyancy. You can’t do that, because you’re in denial of gravity...little hard to measure a force, you stubbornly think doesn’t exist. Little hard to derive an accurate equation, if you don’t have all the variables. See how this works yet?
Science must also measure these phenomenon of nature, that’s a huge part of science as well...it’s how we get to applied science, which is the end goal of science, putting our knowledge to work for us. To do that we have to be honest and objective, denial will get us nowhere.
Thankfully, the majority agrees with this, and so we get a lot done...as I’m sure you’ve noticed, your computer didn’t just spontaneously occur. Tell a chemist who developed all the materials and an engineer who comprised all the materials together in a working order, and a software engineer who pit the binary codes together, you just tell them how useless math was in that process...see what they say. 😅 The variables they use in equations, are the measurements taken for phenomenon. First we isolate and confirm the existence of a phenomenon, then we measure it, it then becomes useful information, used in mathematics.
Math is extremely useful and measuring phenomenon so we can use it in mathematics, is a huge part of why we conduct science at all. This is why people like yourself never achieve anything though, you’re basically crippling yourselves, by denying yourself access to the full range of tools at your disposal. You just stay on the surface of things and stop once your bias is confirmed. Dense matter goes down, less dense goes up, great, that’s obvious and science has determined this as well...but why, how, and can we isolate a force causing the motions and can we measure it? Can’t really do much with the information you’re stuck at...which is why you’ll never derive an equation we can actually use in applied science. So your methods are effectively useless, in that they only serve to limit what you’re capable of.
Not a hill I’d want to die on.
1
-
@SuperMoshady One more time for you. Observed phenomenon to get the hypothesis, observed phenomenon is matter falling, hypothesis is the guess we make and then test, to figure out why matter falls. The hypothesis proposed is mass attracts mass. IV is the angle we place the rod at in relation to the mass being introduced, that’s the variable we manipulate, to then observe the dependent, the variable we don’t manipulate that is a phenomenon of nature. We set up the angle, manipulating it, then observe the angle shifting once mass is introduced, confirming the hypothesis. There’s not two independents here, the oscillation occurs on its own, it’s the phenomenon of nature we’re testing...mass attraction. Manipulating the independent, to observe a dependent. If oscillation detected, hypothesis confirmed, no oscillation, hypothesis falsified.
Slice it however you like, do you have a better explanation for why the rod oscillates after the mass is introduced? Always at a consistent rate?
“The object itself manifests as a force while it’s falling”
So you agree a force is required for motion, good...so there’s a force acting upon the matter. Why not just call that force gravity? Makes it easier to discuss something, when we put a name to it, wouldn’t you agree? Buoyancy has a name, you’re fine with giving the upward motion a title, why can’t we call the falling motion gravity? Heck, whatever you want, droppity if you prefer. But at least now we agree, a force is putting matter downward.
So we’re back to square one, your claim still hinges on one thing, that gas is not effected by the downward force...even though gas has mass, it would have to in order to lift a balloon or keep a boat afloat. It is a physical thing, just like all other physical matter, so why wouldn’t it also go down, when no other mass is around to cause displacement? Why does the visible smoke particulates not expand out in all vectors, with the gas, in every case? Why does it go in a distinct motion upward? Why does it go down in vacuum?
So your claim largely hinges on gas, never being effected by the downward motion, and yet we have a very clear pressure gradient of gas particles. In your own words and understanding, less dense go up, more dense go down. If gas is more dense than the surrounding space of an empty vacuum...then by your own logic, it should go down. Don’t ya think?
1
-
1
-
@SuperMoshady No, YOU’VE been saying the IV is mass attracts mass, I’ve been saying that’s the hypothesis, which is basically an educated guess, we derive from an observed phenomenon, that phenomenon being falling motion. The hypothesis science established to account for this motion, is mass attracts mass, but hypothesis has to be tested, before it can be established as plausible. The IV is the angle we set the apparatus at in relation to the masses, the change in angle that occurs is the dependent. Because we’re not doing anything after that, we’re just observing what happens, testing the phenomenon through the hypothesis. If the oscillation occurs and is consistent with the hypothesis of mass attraction, then hypothesis confirmed, because a phenomenon is bringing the masses together. If no oscillation occurs, or it occurs in an opposing vector, or at an inconsistent rate not consistent with predictions, then it’s inconclusive or even falsified.
Your trouble I think is in the steps, confusing them along the way, getting them muddled. I’ve noticed you always forget the step of hypothesis, the guess we make that we set out to test. It’s almost like you think the observed phenomenon is the hypothesis, or that IV is the hypothesis...it seems to me your method attempts to remove guessing. But I’m afraid, it’s a big part of things, simply because we don’t know everything, so we can only make guesses at the start, that’s basically all a hypothesis is. You keep missing hypothesis, the observed phenomenon is falling motion>hypothesis is mass attracts mass>the Cavendish experiment sets out to test that. It is conclusive, mass attracts mass, consistent with the phenomenon of falling motion, so hypothesis confirmed.
1
-
@SuperMoshady That’s how gas does it in smaller examples, because you are right about one thing, gas is not bonded, it’s free to move about. This creates constant collisions, which creates kinetic energy, causing them to expand out. Each kinetic transfer of energy, putting the gases in motion all over, in so many ways, it can be difficult to determine if it’s being effected by gravity. But we know it us, simply by the pressure gradient, more gas is pooling at the bottom than the top, even in small examples, so there’s a downward force effecting them. If there was no downward force, there would be no gradient, it would be an equilibrium.
Gas has mass, we know it does, it’s able to create pressure after all, so it’s clearly physical and so it has mass. And as you keep saying, more dense falls....gas is more dense than a vacuum right? So, gas falls in vacuum...it’s pretty simple deduction.
It’s tricky to observe this, yes, because most gases get really volatile within small vacuum chambers, they’re colliding with each other so much, this causes them to expand, so it’s difficult to observe gas falling directly, in the vacuum chambers we’re able to create, because they’re not big enough. There are very precise experiments in chemistry though, where we observe tiny amounts of gas falling in vacuum, detecting them with lasers, where the collisions are lessened enough, so we can just observe the falling motion, but they’re quite difficult to arrange for any layman, without the equipment. I’m even having trouble tracking them down in searches, because these experiments have specific titles and I don’t remember those titles...I’m not a chemist, or particle physicist, it’s not my job to remember these titles.
But, luckily we don’t need a super massive gas chamber or super precise measuring/detection equipment, Earth provides the clues already, the pressure gradient we measure in atmosphere, is one of those clues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMoshady The IV isn’t the bar itself, it’s the angle set between the masses. With drop tests, you could manipulate a similar variable, a drop distance, raising an object up then allowing it to fall, but this doesn’t isolate mass attraction, because there could be other variables. So to isolate mass attraction and make it more conclusive, it had to be seen in a direction between masses on an equal plane. Which it does.
But ya, no, I’m not going to believe you to be honest here, on just your word alone. 😂 You’d have to provide your experiment, or at the very least an example of the experiment where the rod didn’t move. Because your bias is quite clear. It’s fair though to ask me to provide mine as well, I can not, because it was a long time ago, but what I can do is provide many modern examples, which is good enough for me. On the flip side I’ve not seen any yet, that do what you’re claiming, perhaps you could provide one?
1
-
@SuperMoshady Because it’s attracting more dense matter even more, that matter will occupy lower position first, so less dense matter is pushed up. It’s a domino effect, beginning with the downward motion. Helium rises in a specific vector, it’s not moving wildly in all directions, it goes straight up, like gas in water, goes straight up, opposite of the gravity vector. It’s not difficult, very easy to understand actually. Again, the variable is required for the buoyancy equation, remove it and it becomes useless. Gravity is required.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMoshady Gas expands, because it’s colliding with itself. This would happen with gravity or without it, so the trouble with your argument is that it doesn’t falsify gravity. You think it’s good enough, but no, you’d have to verify that gas is not effected by gravity. You have not done that. Meanwhile, gravity explains buoyancy, it explains the pressure gradient, it explains why our atmosphere doesn’t leave into space.
Satellites, probes and astronauts have been into space, they’re even there right now as we chat, so there’s no real argument on your side.
You have not verified your claim that gas isn’t effected by gravity, you’ve just argued from ignorance that it doesn’t. So you haven’t falsified gravity. While I’ve shared much evidence that verifies gas is effected by gravity. You’ve ignored those lessons and experiments for the most part, because of cognitive dissonance.
That’s where we’re at currently. I can accurately calculate how much weight a mass can carry with buoyancy force and you can’t. That’s for a good reason, because the latter is in denial.
1
-
1
-
@SuperMoshady It’s not double speak, it’s a domino effect, one event directly causing the next. I’m sure you’re capable of understanding a domino effect. Gravity puts matter into motion>this motion is down for all matter with mass>more dense matter will be effected more by gravity>so it occupies lowest potential energy state first>which forces less dense matter out of the way>in the opposite direction but in the same vector as gravity>causing an upward motion. Domino effect, not double speak at all, you’re just intentionally not listening to whole sequence of events. Because of cognitive dissonance, gravity is not convenient for your main argument, so it needs to go away for your arguments to hold. It’s denial, for the sake of confirmation bias.
Gas will eventually stop rising, as gravity drains it of the kinetic energy from collisions, because less collisions with less pressure, leaving only gravity. So it converts the kinetic energy to potential energy, back to kinetic energy due to the downward acceleration of gravity, causing it to fall back down.
Domino effect, not double speak. I understand the confusion, but I hope that clears it up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMoshady I’ve explained them several times, but you just ignore the explanations and then pretend I never gave you them.
Gas expands because it’s colliding with itself, these bouncing interactions transfer kinetic energy, causing them to expand in all directions. But gravity is always there, cause mass goes down, gas has mass, so in vacuum where it’s the densest mass, it will go down, we both agree to this, you’ve stated quite clearly over and over, that dense mass goes down. Just because gas expands, does not mean gravity does not effect the individual particles, you’re not falsifying gravity by pointing out how gas interacts with itself, so you really can’t claim you have. Especially with so much evidence mounted against that claim.
If gas puts smoke particulates in upward motion within atmosphere, why doesn’t it do the same in vacuum? The gas is still interacting with the particles, so why when you remove atmosphere, does it suddenly not put particles upward? Why doesn’t the smoke immediately expand into the container, like the gas you’re claiming is expanding?
I’m going to be busy soon, so will have to answer again later. I’ll continue to search for more experiments that are far more conclusive to my point, just don’t have all the rime in the world to continue searching, but be patient. Just cause I haven’t presented one yet that’s not convinced you, does not mean I can’t. The experiments I’ve already shared already do prove my point enough, but it’s fine if you require more, I enjoy brushing up on these things myself, so I don’t mind.
1
-
@SuperMoshady Here’s another one, since you’ve made another claim many times now, that pressure gradient is because gas is produced at surface. So would you agree then that gases, that includes every gas, if they’re presented to a system from a higher elevation, they should expand from the source, but not pool at bottom? Are these perimeters we can agree on, if we apply your hypothesis that gases do not interact with gravity?
Ok, so if we were to introduce methane, or carbon monoxide, or sulphur hexafluoride, to a system, your hypothesis would be it should expand from source and not fall. Temperature is the same throughout, only air and then a heavier gas like sulfur hexafluoride, introduced from a higher elevation, not produced at surface.
Ok, so let’s see an experiment like that https://youtu.be/3MEqKvnD6ys. The gas here is denser than air, so it goes down. Do you see it simply just expanding? No, it’s clearly moving down. If this was helium, or the carbon dioxide produced in flames, it would travel up due to buoyancy. Here’s a more complete demonstration https://youtu.be/mLp_rSBzteI, showing the motion of various gases, pay attention to the end where they demonstrate sulfur hexafluoride, clearly falling down from a higher elevation.
So, this by itself falsifies your claim, that pressure gradient is only a product of gases being produced at surface. The gas is clearly falling down, from a higher elevation. Why is that? Simple, because gas has mass, and all things with mass are effected by gravity.
If you were correct in your claims, we’d expect this gas, to only expand, not fall at all. We’d expect helium to only expand, not also rise.
These experiments are easily reproducible. Explain if no gravity, why then does heavier gas fall? It’s a gas just like helium, why down for this gas?
1
-
@SuperMoshady No, it means I know you’re wrong, and I won’t ignore that, simply because you claim It’s the other way around. I’m not going to simply agree with someone, just cause they want me too. I know you have no real argument, and your science is useless, you’ve more than demonstrated that now. No credentials, no experience, no way to derive any useful equations, because you deny whatever doesn’t fit your bias. So guess what pal, it means I’m not going to agree with you blindly and without question. The evidence I’ve shared is overwhelming at this point, while all you’ve done so far is talk.
I like entertaining these concepts, to challenge myself, it’s great motivation to learn more and to sharpen what I already know and yes, if I’m wrong, to learn how I’m wrong. But you’ve done nothing so far to demonstrate that I am wrong, so I have no reason to agree with you.
1
-
@SuperMoshady It looks like water, because gas is classified as a fluid and behaves similar to it, so what you’re seeing is the flowing of gas fluids more clearly than you’ve probably ever seen before. It’s hard to visualize, because most gas is transparent to us, so we don’t see how it flows on a regular basis, so many people don’t think gas is a fluid...that tends to happen when you don’t have any real experience with science, you form conclusions around what you have experience with.
This is an optical method used to visualize gases. The sulfur hexafluoride is at the same temperature as the helium, one goes up, the other down. You won’t find heavier gases like sulfur hexafluoride in upper atmosphere, that’s not because of temperature, it’s simply because it’s being attracted more by gravity than lighter gases. All gas is attracted to Earth due to gravity, some are just lighter than others, and expand up to point we don’t have day to day experience with. Experiments and observations such as this provide evidence to the conclusion, that gases are in fact just as effected by gravity, as everything else.
1
-
@SuperMoshady It expands because it’s not molecularly bonded, so the molecules are constantly colliding, more interactions due to more pressure, causes it to appear like it’s resisting gravity. But, get high enough, and even lighter gases go no higher...no physical container required, gravity is the container.
Gas pressure is just collisions with other matter, we create more pressure with a container, yes, but pressure within the gas can also be created by forces, we call that atmospheric pressure. You’re trouble is thinking in absolutes, instead of all the nuances.
Buoyancy, steam rises due to buoyancy, this is probably the 5th time I’ve answered that question.
So seeing sulfur hexafluoride falling isn’t good enough? Why not? It’s a gas too...why ignore that? Could it be because of cognitive dissonance and bias? I’d say so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMoshady Tomato tahmahto, but yes, thanks for correcting my english a little.
They can’t all occupy the same space though, correct? More dense material is affected greater by gravity, so it occupies lowest point first, which forces less dense gas up, explained to you several times now. And yes, more dense goes down, this is true with all matter, even gas, that’s why sulfur hexafluoride goes down. So this means gas has mass, which means if no other mass is present (vacuum), guess what happens? It goes down...as we both agree, by your own logic. More dense than surrounding area, matter will travel down. Gas is the densest mass in vacuum, so by your logic, it’ll travel down.
Pour sulfur hexafluoride into vacuum, it’ll go down, just like it does in any other system.
They do all go down, that’s why our atmosphere doesn’t expand into space. Gravity starts the domino effect that creates buoyancy force...you are aware how a domino effect works, right? It’s been explained ad nauseam.
So pressure gradient in liquid and solid is observed, it’s clear as day that downward force creates that inertial pressure. Gas is observed to fall as well, and a similar pressure gradient is observed in atmosphere...so are you saying we shouldn’t pay attention to this clear correlation?
Again, you’re not providing any reason for me to disagree with scientific consensus. You can’t derive a useful equation from your theory, and you haven’t falsified gravity, so why would I ignore the fact that pressure gradient is measured in all 3 states of matter and why would I ignore that downward force explains all 3 very well? Why would I ignore the evidence that verifies gravity, verifies how buoyancy works and that verifies gas falls? You’re not doing much to convince anyone, denial is not an argument, so I’ll go with the evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We measure and observe Earth to be spherical, and every successful navigation verifies those measurements as accurate every single day. Navigation simply would not work, if we were wrong about the Earth’s scale and shape…that’s a fact, not an opinion. We also observe a falling motion towards surface, that attracts all matter with mass, proven in many various drop test experiments…and you experience it every single day too, so don’t be dumb. This falling motion occurs everywhere, no matter where we are, we’re attracted to the surface. So it’s pretty simple deduction at that point, Earth is measured spherical, and everything is observed to be attracted to surface, so there’s a force present attracting us to the surface of the globe.
We’re not flung off by the rotation, because it’s really not a very fast rotation. Centrifugal force output is increased by rate of rotation…that’s how it works. Linear velocities, like miles per hour, have almost nothing to do with rotations…you should instead use rotational velocities in relation to forces created by rotations, a rotational measure like revolutions per minute (RPM’s). Earth rotates at the rate of 1 complete rotation every 24 hours, that’s roughly 0.000694 RPM’s. For comparison, a gravitron ride at your local fair that generates enough centrifugal force to cling you to a wall, rotates at about 24 RPM’s. That’s a huge difference.
Gravity on Earth easily trumps the centrifugal force generated by a rotating surface of 0.000694 RPM’s. You’re focusing on the wrong numbers…and you’re doing that because you clearly don’t understand much about any of the actual physics.
Evidence for Earths rotation is found in many different experiments and observations. There’s the Foucault pendulum experiment, the North aligning gyro experiments, ring laser interferometers we use to measure Earth’s rotational drift (15 degrees per hour), etc. Then there’s observations of Coriolis effect and the lesser known Eotvos effect we experience everywhere. Then there’s the scores of astronomy data that all fits with the model of a rotating globe Earth…and I’m talking every single measurement fits that geometry. Then there’s applied sciences like the gyro compass, which actually uses the Earth’s rotation to function…if the Earth was not rotating, then this device would not work as it’s designed.
So take your pick really…the evidence for rotation is staggering. You only think there’s no evidence, because you haven’t actually tried to look…so your arguing from ignorance. That’s what Flat Earth expects from you though, never actually look at the evidence, just remain ignorant and pretend your not knowing something is an argument.
You need to wake up, and stop allowing these Flat Earth huxters to con you. Do better research, I hope the information provided is helpful to get you started.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tranquoc-binh5287 Ok, thanks for providing more context. But you are missing some details about gyros. Are you aware of gyroscopic precession? It’s actually not hard at all to change a gyros axis, you just apply a torque and it will precess naturally. This is well understood in physics, here’s a demonstration https://youtu.be/ty9QSiVC2g0.
This actually presents a problem for all mechanical gyros, because there will always be friction in the gimbles, which will apply a torque, which means a gyro will always eventually undergo a steady rate of precession. There’s no stopping this in mechanical gyros, it can be reduced, but the axis will actually not stay flush forever, it will precess over time. Some clever engineers took full advantage of this to create what is known as a gyrocompass, which actually uses the Earth’s rotation to create the most stable compass. Here’s an explanation for how this device works https://youtu.be/d1tQcGAgYMc. It works on two principles, gyroscopic precession and the Earth’s rotation, take away either variable, and the gyrocompass will no longer work. So it’s actually a proof of Earth’s rotation, an applied science that uses Earth rotation and Earth’s geometry, in order to function.
And no, it’s not actually bs, mechanical gyros on planes do have a mechanism for correcting its axis over time, they’re known as pendulous veins. https://youtu.be/_MoS5Yw9ZgE They’re a simple mechanism, they’re essentially weighted hinges on the gimbles that will fall when the axis is not perpendicular to the current gravity vector. When they drop, they open a valve, that allows air into little channels on the gimbles, which applies a torque, which causes the axis of the gyro to precess back to level with gravity. Once level, the hinges close, the precession then stops.
These are used on every mechanical gyro within an airplane, you can easily pull them apart and find them. Here’s a pilot taking a horizon indicator apart to find the veins https://youtu.be/z1QGRPVBZvw.
So there are some details you’re overlooking, details that matter to the larger conclusion here. I can only assume it’s because of a cognitive bias. You could benefit from learning more about the physics of gyroscopes and the engineering that goes into the devices used in air and sea navigation.
I should tell you, I’m not new to this discussion. I’ve been researching Flat Earth for over 4 years now. I’ve reached the opposite conclusion, Earth is most definitely a sphere and it is in motion. I hope I was able to help provide some information you may have missed or overlooked. Feel free to ask me anything else if you’d like, I don’t mind sharing more info.
1
-
1
-
@tranquoc-binh5287 Destructive moving force? It’s just a bit of angular momentum, but you’re treating it like it’s a bomb or something. How exactly is it “destructive”? You’ll have to be a lot more specific. Do the math on Earths rotation, which ends up being 0.000694 RPM, about 15 degrees every hour...how is that going to be hard for a fly wheel to account for? Gyros will easily precess, with just a little torque, and fly wheels are pretty well contained...even a little bolt is going to apply a torque, it’ll precess with Earth’s rate of rotation just fine.
No, we don’t throw out everything...because of unanswered questions, where did you get that assumption? Because a lot of the time, questions that YOU personally think are unanswered, generally just turns out to be misunderstandings from the person questioning. Physics is difficult, just cause someone doesn’t fully understand something...doesn’t mean it’s a “win” for the opposite conclusion. That’s not how science works at all. Seriously, why do people think that’s how it works? Please elaborate.
You need to consider this very real possibility, that you’re not really building an objective “score card”, you’re really just building a stronger cognitive bias. You’re ignoring a lot of physics and then deflecting with a slew of other information, which will effectively confuse a layman, sure...but that’s what con men do, not objective researchers.
Sorry, but I just feel like you’re jumping to false conclusions, from personal misunderstandings that are your own. I hope you do research more though, I just feel you might have a bias leading your conclusions, so you should keep that in mind. Science doesn’t just throw the baby out with the bathwater, because of questions.
1
-
1
-
@krystastyles8089 It was a poor comparison, even Neil realized that later and clarified it more clearly that Earth is an oblate spheroid, slightly wider at and below the equator. You’re not supposed to take comparisons literally…he did not mean it was literally a pear shape, it’s just slightly wider below the equator, so a pear was the best comparison he could think of on the spot to help people better understand that, but probably not the best example. It’s actually a very slight difference, from the naked eye observing it in space, it would look perfectly spherical to you. But it’s not, it’s measured, and so science has to be accurate, Earth is oblate. Heres a way to make it more apparent https://youtu.be/tjx0KcDH7pQ, this short video can demonstrate how oblate the Earth really is, by comparing the equator to the poles.
Every planet in the solar system is oblate actually, because they all rotate on an axis, so that’s what’s gonna happen, it’s expected and that is what we observe and measure. The most obviously oblate being probably Saturn, give it a look again sometime, it looks squashed at its poles, much wider at its equator.
The trouble here is that people seem to take things too literally…or they’re just trolling Neil. Either way, it’s difficult to take some questions seriously…because some should be obvious, he wasn’t making a literal comparison. And if you’re just trolling him…then why should anyone bother answering jaded questions? 🤷♂️ You can ask questions of science all you want…but it’s difficult to know a persons intentions for those questions. If someone is asking a question to genuinely learn something, then great, that’s when people would be happy to answer those questions. But when the questions are presented more as evidence, where there’s a feeling you’re not really interested in an answer…that’s when people would probably rather not waste their time.
1
-
1
-
Alzerr Facts can be distorted and misinterpreted, as is the case with Flat Earth “facts”. From what I’ve seen, you are people with a strong bias and a poor understanding of most things, and you have egos just like everyone does, which is why you get so angry, so don’t act so holier than thow, ridiculing and trolling occurs on both sides, not just the Globe. But, I’d rather not attack character, it’s the information that matters, so let’s go through your facts and see if they actually hold up.
Fact 1) True, but of course curvature becomes trickier to see the larger the sphere is and the closer you are to its surface. Just basic spherical geometry and perspective.
Fact 2) Yup, no disagreement.
Fact 3) False, the actual fact here, is that Flat Earth has convinced people to use the wrong math (8 inches per mile squared being the worst offender, but there are others) and ignore important variables (like height of the observer and refraction)...and people fell for it, because sadly most people are mathematically illiterate, and have no idea how to even beginning checking or deriving equations. That’s a fact, not an opinion, so it’s easy to dazzle and fool people with false math. So you use the wrong math, get a figure that doesn’t match with your observation, then you conclude we see to far...never taking a moment to wonder if MAYBE your work was just in error.
But, I’ll give you a chance here. Feel free to provide a long distance observation where you feel we see to far, and provide the math you used, I don’t mind going through an observation with you, I’ve done it many times now. In the meantime, here is where you can find the correct math you should be using https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ and here’s a handy calculator that puts the equations here to use https://www.metabunk.org/curve/. It has a geometric calculation as well as a standard refraction calculation, good for most observations, except for on days with high refraction, for that, I’ve found this calculator to be most accurate. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator little harder to use though, but it has many more variables included, such as refraction variables.
4) This is a misunderstanding on 2 levels, linguistics and physics. First of all, water isn’t “seeking level”, it seeks lowest possible elevation, like all matter does. From there it stacks on top of itself, like all matter does. Water is a fluid though, so unlike solid or gaseous matter, it has a chemical bonding that is free to bind and unbind and that has surface tension. It is fluid, that seeks to form a surface that is equipotential within a field of force. So really, it seeks to be a sphere, a sphere is the most rigid shape in nature, a surface with perfect equal distance from a center, that is an equipotential surface. That’s why bubbles form into a sphere, water droplets as well, planets, stars...everything forms into a sphere because of forces that squeeze them to a center, forming the most rigid shape in nature, a sphere. Bubbles and fluid droplets form spheres because of air pressure and surface tension, planets because of gravity. That’s what gravity does, it pulls all matter to a center.
Gravity keeps waters surface at equal distance from center, water seeks equipotential.
The second part you’re misunderstanding is the definition of level. You assume it has just one meaning, you seem to think it can only mean “flat”. But as I’m sure you know, words in the English language take on new meaning given the context. Look up the word level in a comprehensive dictionary. Here’s a link https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level. Under adjectives (3rd entry), read definitions 1 and 5. Definition 5 under adjectives is as follows: “being a surface perpendicular to all lines of force in a field of force : EQUIPOTENTIAL”. This is what is meant by “sea level”, the surface of our ocean is level perpendicular to center of Earth, maintaining equipotential distance from that center.
So it’s a misunderstanding of the proper definitions being used. Level doesn’t always mean flat and flat is not what is being implied by “sea level”.
This is the trouble I see with Flat Earth...they’re twisting the facts to fit their bias, then pretending as though those “facts” are air tight and can not be disputed. They absolutely can...so that’s why people are.
You want some facts? It’s a fact that a very large majority of flat Earthers are not scientists or experts in any field relevant to the topic they’re arguing. It’s a fact that the world does not use the Flat Earth model for any applied science, it’s not used for navigation, engineering, infrastructure or invention/innovation. Quite frankly, flat Earth science is not creating the modern world, so do you ever stop to maybe consider that MAYBE you’re just layman, being conned by huxters online, who are taking advantage of your lack of knowledge and using it against you? It’s your ego that keeps YOU from listening to your opposition, so again, don’t go assuming you don’t have ego...we all do.
I’m not saying you should agree to what I’m saying without question, all I ask is that people remain objective and never assume they’re positions can’t be disputed. I feel people are being conned by Flat Earth, you should at the very least consider that possibility and listen when an opposition offers some information from the opposite perspective. Don’t just assume your facts are accurate, there’s always a chance that you’re just missing some details.
1
-
@anthonytucker7229 Yes, they publicly stated which conspiracies they felt were the larger problems of misinformation, so they took direct steps against the more popular ones, they weren’t hiding anything, they directly mentioned Flat Earth as a problem they would be addressing. They also focused on antivaxxers, Qanon, climate change deniers, space/NASA deniers, and a few others. Nobody’s about to storm congress over 2pac, UFO’s, or Bigfoot…but some conspiracies do get people upset, and do cause real harm to people, both mentally and physically. Mob mentality is still a real threat in society, some conspiracies do wind people up and motivates them to do harm.
So far Flat Earthers have been peaceful, but I’ve talked with hundreds of them now…and they are angry. Understandably so, they’re convinced the entire scientific community has lied to them and hidden something big from them. It’s misplaced anger, drummed up by conmen, who exploited the gaps in most people’s actual scientific knowledge, and fed their fears and paranoia. I think it’s good that something was done to at least slow the spread of some of the more harmful conspiracies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brettparker7395 The trouble is that you’re not quite understanding what constitutes as a force in general physics. Density is already defined, it’s not a force, it’s just a property of matter, in mathematics it is a scaler variable, it’s just how much mass occupies a volume of space, that’s it. It has no means to cause motion on its own, and that’s what a force does, anything that can cause motion, is a force. Density can not cause motion on its own, so it is not a force.
In any equation involving motion, you need at least two things, a scaler variable (density) and a force (gravity). Here’s the simplest use of gravity in a working equation, the formula for calculating weight; W=mg. Mass times the downward acceleration of gravity, equals weight. A scaler variable and a force. Your trouble with your conclusion is this; how would you ever derive a working equation…without a force variable? Look at the equation for weight again, but let’s put density in place of gravity, so it’s now derived as W=md. Mass times density? Where’s the motion? It’s now become redundant…because mass and density are basically the same thing, except mass deals with individual particles, and density deals with how many of those particles there are in a volume of space, basically. So you can’t calculate weight now, because that requires the mass to be in a motion…but there is no force variable now, so no motion, so the equation doesn’t work now, you can’t calculate weight with it derived as W=md.
Force=motion….that’s the part you’re not getting. To a physicist, when you say it’s density not gravity…they’ll get confused, because density is not a force, it can not cause motion on its own. Falling is a motion, a motion that occurs free from our control, meaning it’s a mechanism of nature, a phenomena of nature. Motion does not occur without a force, so there’s obviously a force present causing that motion…it’s pretty simple. All they did was give that motion a name. If we can name the upward motion buoyancy, why can’t we give a proper name to the downward motion? We can’t name it density, density is already defined in physics, so it would just get confusing to use it twice, as both a scaler and a force. So they called it gravity, makes it much easier to discuss these things when we separate everything into different names. Buoyancy is the upward motion, gravity is the downward, density is how much mass occupies a volume.
You also don’t seem entirely aware, but you’re just explaining how buoyancy works basically. It’s well understood that gravity causes buoyancy, the downward motion of matter, starts a chain reaction of displacement by density, which causes buoyancy force. So you’re basically reaching the same conclusion that science already has…but you’re just replacing the word gravity, with density.
Density is not motion though, without a force variable to cause motion, nothing will happen, it would just float in place. Density does not answer for the motion, and it certainly does nothing to explain why that motion is always down towards the surface.
See the problem yet? You’re really doing more to demonstrate your lack of understanding in the basic fundamentals of how physics is structured. No wonder so much science doesn’t make sense to you…you don’t quite have a firm grasp on the basics, so you don’t have a foundation.
That’s the problem we’re really having with discussing this topic with Flat Earthers I think, we’re not really speaking the same language, not entirely. So we’re lost in translation, because we’re not on the same page with the basics.
Anyway, I hope that information is helpful, or at the very least interesting.
1
-
fred Not true, bring up any emergency landing example, and I’ll demonstrate the flight path on a Globe. Pilots fly what are called great circle routes, flat Earth tricks people here by not using great circle routes when plotting the emergency path on a Globe...they just create there own path, call it the shortest path and then conclude things. If you know your geometry though, you’ll know that on a sphere, the shortest distance between any two points is a great circle...that’s what pilots fly, so you have to understand what that is, then you’ll understand how flat Earth cons people here.
A lot of times they’ll even use a Mercator map to demonstrate the flight path for a Globe...which is, pretty ridiculous. A Mercator map isn’t a Globe...so why would you think it’s accurate for a Globe? So go ahead, bring up any emergency landing example and I’d be happy to show you how a great circle route works.
1
-
fred I didn’t say they were stupid, I just said you shouldn’t romanticize old knowledge simply for being old. The ancients didn’t know everything, they can be wrong. The truth is it doesn’t matter how smart you are (or think you are), if you lack the pieces to a puzzle, then you will likely never solve it. Our ancestors are no more intelligent or stupid than we are now, they just lacked information, that is all. Flat Earth is muddying the waters of information by giving people false puzzle pieces...and lots of them. So it’s not so much intelligence that’s the issue...it’s bad information. It’s made worse by people’s tendency to chase bias and put speculation above actual tangible evidence.
I’ve already gone through these emergency flights, I know how flat Earth tricks people here. I’m not new to this discussion, I’ve heard it all at this point. I’m not saying you shouldn’t question things, go right ahead, but it’s easier than ever before for con men to spread misinformation...so I’m just saying, be careful where you get your information from and don’t forget to also question the Flat Earth claims with just as much skepticism. Cause if you think you can’t be tricked, then that’s the perfect amount of over confidence they’re looking for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very interesting take on the whole situation and I agree, it’s definitely a sign of the current disconnect between modern science and the general public. The deeper and more complex the science gets...the harder it becomes to communicate that knowledge to everyone else, who are not actively spending their day’s smashing particles into each other, or sifting through gravitational wave data. I think we need to find a better approach to teaching kids the scientific method...this forced memorization method in western educational systems is just not working, it’s just causing kids to grow up resenting science...and then we get Flat Earthers, fighting against science as if it’s a villain that needs to be defeated.
I would disagree with you though that the science community take Flat Earth more seriously. I don’t think science should further legitimize this movement, by giving them the attention they crave. We’re not dealing with rational people here, these are damaged minds, who are fuelled by fear and hate...we’re dealing with paranoid delusion here, you can’t reason with that, so it’s foolish to give them platforms where the delusion will only spread further. Only thing we should really take seriously is improving our educational systems. There is a root cause here and I think it begins with people not fully understanding the method of science and how to keep bias in check.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@COLUMBUSISBACK Ya, and it would on a Globe, because there would be TWO polar regions, that are never blocked by the Sun...these are the circumpolar stars, the stars locked to BOTH polar axis. The stars along the ecliptic though, the seasonal stars, change periodically throughout a year, because they’re blocked by the Sun...as they would, on a globe orbiting the Sun.
It’s pretty basic astronomy knowledge. So if you’re an astronomer, how about you go out on any clear night and try to find some seasonal constellations that are out of season currently? Not hard to find a list of seasonal stars online, so go ahead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@COLUMBUSISBACK So do a test for me sometime, pretty simple test. Get in a vehicle at night, on a good smoothly paved road, prop a camera up at a single star, like Polaris, through a window or on the vehicle, doesn’t matter really, just as long as the camera and its angle never move. Now drive perfectly straight for a good while. Review the footage, watch as the stars never deviate from starting position, they’ll appear as though perfectly stationary in your camera. Now drive again, situated on the same star, but this time, rotate the camera in a perfect circle around the axis of the star you’re zeroed in on. Then review it and notice the perfect circle rotation.
You’re ASSUMING the different motions don’t work, before actually testing it. You’re ignoring simple variables like parallax...which fits in explanation, and in every observation. Stellar parallax is something astronomers test very regularly, a simple observational experiment that verifies we’re moving around the Sun AND helps us determine how far away the stars are. You can look up stellar parallax at any time...you can test what effect parallax has on apparent motions any tome you want. It’s simple geometry and perspective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jimygod Ok, it’s incredible I have to explain basic geometry to an adult, but here it goes anyway. Horizon is directly caused by curvature. It is the point where your line of sight is now blocked by a surface, due to its own curvature rendering it no longer visible, blocking itself from further sight. That’s why there is a horizon line here on this sphere I showed you earlier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Vz9r2yWO8&t. Pay attention to the first frame, even though this object is later revealed to be a sphere, the horizon line is flat while the camera is closest to its surface. The higher the camera goes, the further the horizon extends. This is basic spherical geometry.
Horizon distance depends entirely on viewing height and rate of surface curvature, so both variables are important in any math you use to calculate what’s going to end up hidden by curvature. That is why the 8 inches per mile squared math is flawed, because it does not include a variable for height of the observer. It’s also a parabola equation, which doesn’t represent a sphere, so there’s that as well.
Earth is huge...you know that, your senses tell you that, so don’t play dumb. Your core argument is just the classic “horizon always rises to eye level” argument, just a little more padded and convoluted, but it’s basically the exact same thing. You’re not factoring the scale of the Earth, the rate at which horizon drops from eye level, will change depending on the size of the object. On Earth at its known scale, even at 45,000 feet, the drop is only about 0.37 degrees...which your naked eye will never detect. Here’s a quick video measuring that drop with a theodolite. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVTgP-KpyRc Your argument is pretending as if the Earth is far smaller than it is, it’s not quite grasping what occurs on a massive sphere if you’re really close to its surface.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@allentremper8243 Ok, but you’d agree that this rising and falling is a motion, correct? Matter is moving, the question is how and why is it always oriented down towards surface? You are aware that when you remove all the air to create a vacuum environment, that anything dropped inside this vacuum will fall, correct? Doesn’t matter what it is, lighter gases that normally would rise due to buoyancy force, instead fall inside a vacuum, tested and proven time and again all the time in almost every basic physics class, the gas falls to the bottom, always towards Earth. Again, the question is how? Your answer of density does nothing to explain what puts that matter into motion and why it’s always towards Earth.
It’s the motion you’re intentionally ignoring. The first law of motion states that nothing is put into motion without a force. Density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, how much matter occupies a given space. It has absolutely no means of putting itself into motion on its own and yet, everything falls in a vacuum, in the same direction, at the same rate, every time. Buoyancy technically is a force, but it is not a force that exists on its own. It is the byproduct of the downward acceleration that occurs first, which causes the buoyancy displacement. Without that downward motion of matter, buoyancy does not occur, also proven time and again in density columns put into zero G environments.
So what’s causing that motion? Why down? Your conclusion does nothing to answer these glaring questions, it stops at “it just does”. Maybe you’re happy with “it just does”, but we wouldn’t get very far in science with that kind of lazy bias answer, so I’m for one glad that science didn’t stop there.
You’re also very wrong about gravity being impossible to measure, it’s measured in many different ways, from simple drop testing to measure the rate of acceleration (a constant 9.8 m/s squared), the Cavendish experiment detects and measures the force directly, and even a simple scale that measures your weight, which is measuring mass plus gravity acceleration to give you a weight value.
Point is, you’re really being ignorant if you think you’re actually falsifying the science of gravity by simply ignoring the science and denying it exists. Your conclusion of density and buoyancy just leaves questions unanswered, and as far as I’m concerned it’s just confirmation bias.
You know what I think? I think Flat Earth intentionality ignores and denies the science of gravity, because they realize how inconvenient it is for their main argument of a flat surface. Best way to solve that problem, deny it exists. Well I’m afraid it’s been measured, something is definitely causing matter to fall to Earth...more than that though, gravity explains a lot more. It explains how planets form, how they maintain orbits, why they’re all spherical, how stars burn...you don’t seem to understand how pivotal this discovery was for mankind. When gravity was realized, thousands of mysteries of science and astronomy began to fall like dominos. It explains so much about what we observe in reality, not just why things fall. Do we know everything about it? No, still much we don’t understand...but at least science didn’t stop at “it just does”, all so they could continue to support a bias they have...which as near as I can tell is all Flat Earth is doing, ignoring any science they don’t like and keeping the parts they do, confirmation bias in a nutshell.
It’s also an applied science now, gravity measurements are used in equations for everything from parabolic trajectory equations, to orbital mechanics, to flight aeronautics, to material stress testing, and so on, so that science helps us build the modern world. Flat Earthers are being very naive, if they honestly think denial is how you falsify science.
That being said, it is somewhat a valiant effort, science is all about falsification, so I’m glad that somebody is still out there challenging even the most established science, nothing should ever be off the table for discussion. But you’re a few hundred years behind, because you’re not really arguing anything new is the real trouble. This is all the same stuff they argued back in the day when Newton was first proposing his theory...the conclusion is the same, density and buoyancy do not explain why and how things fall, they don’t explain the motion and what causes it, gravity makes the attempt to delve into those questions. At some point you have to ask yourself, are you really onto something groundbreaking...or are you just being ignorant so you can keep a bias fantasy alive?
1
-
@allentremper8243 You can’t have lift without a medium such as air, you also can’t have a combustion without an oxidizer...like air, so a hot AIR balloon won’t do anything in a vacuum, it won’t work at all. It’s air that causes a hot AIR balloon to rise...so what do you think will happen if you remove the key ingredient it requires to function at all?
Buoyancy is caused by displacement, it’s denser matter forcing less dense matter out of its way, essentially...but what direction does denser matter desire moving in? Towards Earth, everything does, take away all other matter and leave only helium for instance, helium will now occupy the lowest point...because there’s nothing else there to force it upwards. With nothing there to displace it upwards and start buoyancy, buoyancy will not occur at all...but gravity sure will, the downward acceleration will still occur, helium will fall to surface, because that helium is still attracting to Earth.
That’s the part that’s lacking in the density and buoyancy explanation from flat Earth...that downward motion. It completely ignores it...which to me is just not being objective about this. Things fall, it’s observed. That is a directional motion you have no control over, so what causes it? That’s all science is trying to figure out...who cares what they chose to call it, it still happens, so it shouldn’t be ignored.
I think you’re a bit confused as to what weight is, you’re twisting things around a bit. An object always has mass, it’s weight is just the inertia we measure when that mass is pulled down to a surface and squeezed against it. The equation for calculating weight is a very simple one it’s F=mg, where F is the inertial force (weight), m is your mass multiplied by g which is the downward acceleration of gravity, 9.8 m/s squared. You don’t have weight, without that acceleration and a surface to stop you...that’s why you’re considered weightless while in free fall. You always have mass, that’s what is always constant...not weight.
Look, I’m glad that people are taking an interest in attempting to falsify established science, I really am...but mankind has always had a really big flaw that gets in the way of being objective and honest sometimes, it’s ego. Ego drives us, it motivates us in many cases, so it’s not all bad...but it also forms bias and often without us realizing. You don’t trust science and authority anymore, I get that, you’re not wrong to either. People and organizations have agendas, they will often lie and twist information to sell that agenda...but whether you want to admit it or not, just because someone lies sometimes, does not by default mean they lie all the time. It’s thinking in absolutes like that, that’s where bias forms, it keeps you from staying objective...it makes your brain work on auto pilot, filtering information in accordance with your bias, putting more value on the source of information rather than the information itself.
Scientists train themselves to remain objective, to control their ego and bias as best they can....the rest of society doesn’t practice this at all, most are blissfully unaware of their bias and have no idea how much it can really lead their lives. And it’s their ego that keeps them from seeing it...the moment you tell yourself you have no bias, is the moment you’ve stop being objective. We all have bias, because we all have ego. Science is an attempt at countering this flaw of man, scientists practice removing bias...the general public do not. That’s where flat Earth fails I feel....it’s great that you’re questioning things, but this movement is starting over and it’s making the same mistakes the scholars of old made, before they realized how damaging bias was to obtaining truth.
Anyway, I don’t mean to lecture or patronize you, you’re actually quite reasonable and intelligent, so I’m sure you’re well aware of these things. I’m just a bit worried for people lately is all, I dislike the divide these debates create...scientists aren’t bad people, they’re your neighbours. I get that we all have our fears and anxieties for the current system and you’re right, something is wrong and we should be investigating further...but the nice thing about science is that it’s repeatable. People will lie to you, but reality does not, so consult with reality and don’t lie to yourself while you do. Junk science simply does not work...that’s kind of the nice thing about it, it’s revealed false the moment something doesn’t work. You wanna know the best way to verify the Earths true shape? Learn the art and science of old sailor navigation, like really...if this movement truly interests you, take a class and learn how to navigate the old fashioned way. I’m talkin sextants, stars, horizon, longitudes and latitudes and geodetic conversions...it’s all built on the understanding that Earth is a sphere and the fact that it works, is a great proof of Earths true geometry.
1
-
@allentremper8243
As for the Apollo missions, now see that’s trickier and I’ll tell you why. I can understand the physics, I can debunk the claims made against these missions and run the figures and make reasonable counter arguments, but at the end of the day...all I can really do is speculate here and same goes for anyone arguing they were faked. Unless you’re one of the few astronauts who actually took the trip and stepped on the Moon, all you can do is speculate. I do not like speculating, so it’s not an argument I like getting involved in. I used too...but it’s just endless speculation, on both sides and I hate that. Flat Earth is different, because I live here...I can go out and test the Earths geometry at any time and reach definite conclusions...I really can’t do the same with the Moon conspiracy, so I don’t spend much time discussing it anymore. My bias puts faith in scientists, and the physics does check out, so I believe they happened but I’m also willing to admit that is a bias conclusion and it weighs heavily on my trust in my fellow man. Even if they were faked, doesn’t mean the Earth is flat, that is important to note.
I will mention this though, there is one other group that can verify these missions and that’s anyone who has access to long range radio telescope transmitters or powerful laser transmitter/receivers. You are aware that they left reflectors on the Moon, correct? Well, both of these technologies can bounce signals off of these reflectors, so out of all the evidence, this would be some of the strongest in favour of these missions actually occurring. But...not many people have access to this kind of tech, so again, we can really only speculate.
Anyway, apologies for the long rambles. You do not have to agree, but I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. Thank you for being civil, not easy to find in this debate sadly.
1
-
@jordanemede But you are claiming the Earth is flat, so you do have your own burden of proof, so don’t pretend like you don’t. Claiming the Earth is flat is a claim of its own, so you have your own burden here. You can personally conclude whatever you want, that’s fine, but you don’t change scientific consensus by doing essentially nothing. You have a conclusion, it’s then your job to prove it, otherwise that conclusion will just be ignored.
I find Flat Earthers have this weird sense of entitlement, as if science really cares if a small group of people are convinced or not. There’s always going to be a minority that’s unconvinced, that goes for any conclusion, so we need only convince a majority. The majority are convinced, so the debate is essentially over, but it’s more than that, it’s also applied science. We currently use the globe model for applied sciences like navigation, it works every time that model is applied for that purpose (and many others), so it’s a working scientific model. Are we about to toss out a working model of Earth, because a few people online were successfully conned to believe that it’s false, by inexperienced layman with zero scientific accomplishments? No…it doesn’t work that way…and certainly not when you refuse to provide an alternative model either.
You can be sure your conclusions are accurate, when the knowledge obtained can be applied and it works every time it’s applied. That’s how you spot the difference between science and pseudoscience…real science works. Does the globe model work? Yes, it does…so for that reason, I’m not really all that interested in convincing you. Your opinion does not matter, when millions of pilots and sailors prove the Earth is spherical every single day, with every successful voyage. You want to be convinced? Learn to navigate, then go out and apply that knowledge…I mean if you were really that interested in this topic, and really wanted to know for certain, then this would be a no brainer.
It’s no secret why you refuse to provide a model, because it’s much easier to argue from ignorance. The moment you’ve settled on the details for a model, then it can be picked apart. So avoiding a model, is how you avoid the questions being spun around on you, creates this illusion that you’re winning arguments. It seems to me Flat Earthers are more just addicted to arguing, and arguing from ignorance is the easiest way to avoid being proven wrong, so that’s why you choose not to settle on a model. I get it…it’s just kind of….pointless. The whole point of science is to acquire knowledge, that we can then build into working scientific models, for applied purposes. If you’re not interested in deriving working scientific models, then you might as well not even bother…because you’re skipping over the end goal of science.
In any case, whilst you may not have a full model fleshed out…it’s still a flat surface you claim, so that’s enough. We can still pick that apart, because that surface structure comes with a specific geometry, one that simply does not fit with what we observe and measure in reality.
I’m sorry a few conmen online, with zero scientific accomplishments or credentials, successfully made you believe they were more knowledgeable than actual experienced scientists, with actual real world achievements. Flat Earth has a lot of poisoned minds to atone for.
Anyway, perhaps I’ll address your science questions a little more in depth later, just wanted to dispel this methodology these FE conmen have convinced you is somehow more logical. The whole point of science is to eventually create working scientific models from knowledge obtained. We can’t accomplish much of anything through ignorance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dc95811 Ok, but Elon was just posing a possibility...he wasn’t stating it as fact, he was just starting a discussion that could eventually become a hypothesis. He wasn’t being factual, that’s not how the scientific method works, it’s a long process...Elon knows this very well, he’s a pretty smart dude. You don’t just get to make claims and then assert it as fact, that’s not how we should ever reach conclusions such as this. Evidence, experimentation, data collection, peer reviewed research...that’s how we do it in reality. This used to be seen as the most logical path, the most reasonable...but now people like Dubay want to create a world where the best bullshitter gets the last say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dc95811 And I have, as I might have mentioned, in my experience I’ve caught him lying on nearly every sentence and he spends more time speculating and making empty claims, than he does providing evidence. It gets to the point where I start to feel he doesn’t know the difference between speculation and evidence...or his followers for that matter. Any actual evidence he does share, is always heavily edited or taken out of context, not giving the whole truth, but a half truth edited to support his bias. I’ve been able to falsify his claims, not just some of them but all of what I’ve seen, besides information I myself can only speculate on as well, such as NASA fakery and similar topics outside of personal experience. Which is why I focus on flat Earth, because I can test the Earth for myself, I can gather evidence and avoid speculation.
I’ve also noted the quantity in which he lies and his delivery. Always monotone, in rapid fire (gish gallop), and with absolute confidence...all of which are harmless on their own (minus gish gallop, which is a dishonest debate tactic), but all of which together are common in basic hypnotic suggestion methods. It is easy to get lost in his rants and not stop long enough to question them, I feel it’s his method and I think it’s very intentional. It’s the confidence as well that’s troubling, as a person who can lie that often, usually begins to show noticeable signs of guilt in their speech and body language. The only known type of individuals who don’t, are psychopaths, who have no problem lying continuously with absolute confidence. Though most of this is only speculative, I have caught him lying but I can’t be certain on his intentions, just some mannerisms and methods that raise red flags for me.
And after hearing about his treatment of former partners (abuse and violence in each), his Nazi sympathizing, and seeing his melt down where he called out other Flat Earth youtubers for stealing his spotlight...it became pretty clear that he’s a clear narcissist with some pretty twisted ideals. Those last three points are not speculation, they are well documented and can be found with some easy searching.
Point is, I have looked into his work quite thoroughly, I’ve seen enough from Dubay to reach my own conclusion on him and his work. In my opinion he is a lying con man, with strong self centred, narcissistic desires of leading an army of flat Earth cultists, to spread his bias beliefs and gain more attention. In my opinion, he’s not to be trusted and is possibly even dangerous. But, that’s what I see, I kept a very open mind but in 4 years since learning of his work, this is my conclusion of him.
So now I do what I can to warn others of Dubay, but I understand if others see him differently. It’s fine really, I can’t force anyone to agree, it’s just my opinion so far.
1
-
@dc95811 You’re getting my comments confused with another. It wasn’t me who mentioned plate tectonics, I merely asked if you had evidence for your claim, that’s all. I don’t just agree to blind claims, you say the continent shifted, great...but why do you think we should believe you?
As for Dubay, I’ve successfully falsified his claims...so why would I offer any further time towards someone who I have determined is clearly lying? I understand the ramifications if he’s correct...doesn’t mean I’m just going to listen to his claims blindly, that goes for anyone who makes a claim, evidence is all I care about. I get that a broken clock can still be right twice a day, so the information should matter more than the source, but still doesn’t change the fact that evidence matters more than speculation and blind claims. So far he’s failed and his credibility is shot now because of his wanton lying and his actions, which point to his true character and reason for doing what he does. He is a con man...I’m not in the habit of listening to huxters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@flatearth5821 When does it ever run uphill? Rivers flow from high elevation to low elevation, elevation on the Globe is measured from centre of Earth. Farther you are from centre, the higher your elevation, closer you are to centre, the lower your elevation. Nile runs from high elevation to low elevation, just like every river does, it’s not difficult.
Eratosthenes experiment doesn’t prove anything as it is, with only two shadow measurements you can only measure the circumference, or find Flat Earths AU, but it doesn’t prove either, only infers. Take any more than two measurements though, and you can plot the data on known distance points, and then you can prove which model is reality...and I’m pretty sure I shared an example, so did you bother to watch it?
No, sextants do not prove a flat Earth, measuring the angle of stars by latitude to the horizon, gives measurements consistent with a spherical geometry, verifying the Earth is spherical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@flatearth5821 Why is no force required for the downward motion? It’s a motion, correct? First law of motion states that nothing is put into motion without a force first putting it into motion. Is falling the exception? You’re responsible for the lift and the release of an object, yes, but the motion that occurs after you release it, that happens without your input, making it a phenomenon of nature, a force putting matter into an accelerating motion. Perhaps it’s better stated this way. Toss a ball up, you’re responsible for the kinetic force that put it into motion upward, but a counter force is always draining that kinetic energy, until that energy is spent, then it stops and drops back down...completely free of your influence. You’re still not giving any answer for why or how, that downward motion occurs, but you sure are trying really hard to deny that a force is required here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@flatearth5821 Gravity has an answer for why, and it’s even proven its hypothesis. Science has observed it, it’s tested it thoroughly, it’s measured it, it now applies this data in equations used in actual applied science, for engineering and making predictions for celestial events. Density and buoyancy are just stating the obvious, you must have a very low opinion of science if you think these aren’t already included concepts in gravity physics.
You can’t falsify science by stating an empty claim...that’s not science, it’s ignorance for the sake of confirming bias. Believing what you WANT to believe, instead what is objectively true. Then you really think anyone should take you seriously? We can go back and forth all day, you will never get past explaining the downward motion we observe in physical reality. Meanwhile gravity physics is centuries beyond that problem, solving much bigger mysteries, and building the modern world.
It’s time to grow up.
1
-
@flatearth5821 And why does it require effort? Maybe because an opposing FORCE is constantly trying to pull you back down? Ya, I’d say so. You’re describing a force, whether it clicks in your mind or not. Falling is effortless, because of a FORCE, that pulls you to ONE direction, toward surface. If gravity didn’t exist, there would be no falling, there would be no buoyancy. Density would still exist, but it wouldn’t go anywhere, without a force to put it into motion, it won’t move at all. Basic physics and undeniably true.
1
-
1
-
@flatearth5821 That’s because you don’t really understand it, my guess is because you’ve never really tried, you just wrote it off as nonsense then never bothered to listen to any further talk of it. And I’m sorry if that is condescending, and you’ve probably heard it many times before, but you have to understand that it’s the only conclusion that makes sense, so that’s why you’re hearing it a lot. You’re getting ahead of yourself, we’re not even past the starting point for understanding this phenomenon of nature, so until you get the foundation, you’ll never be able to grasp the rest.
Gravity started simple, it was merely the name given to the downward motion of falling, that we all observe in nature, the one we both agree is undeniable and is a fundamental truth of nature. Falling is a motion, gravity started as simply the name given to that motion. From there science has to answer for how it works, that’s the point of science, to figure out how physical reality functions. Falling is a property of nature, so it falls under science to learn more about it.
I agree, simply stating and concluding outright it’s a force between masses, created by both masses, concluding that without verifying it first, is not how science is conducted. Luckily, that’s not how science reached that conclusion, they TESTED it first. The hypothesis was put forth that this motion was a mass attraction, caused by a yet to be determined mechanism. The next step was to test that hypothesis. The first test they did was in astronomy, testing this principle against the orbit of Earth around the Sun, with what information they had. It seemed logical to account for the celestial orbits of all things, so a formula was created F=Gm1m2/r2. For awhile, the big G could only be assumed, it was not measured yet, nor was it proven. Some experiments were done with oscillating pendulums, but nothing conclusive. But then Henry Cavendish conducted the first successful experiment, an experiment that was conclusive and has been repeated now many times. It not only proved the hypothesis of mass attraction, it measured the force directly.
If you’ve never seen the experiment conducted before, then here’s the clearest demonstration I’ve seen so far https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68. It’s a very clear experiment, demonstrating an attraction between masses. It’s not long, in 7 minutes you can see it demonstrated and learn all about it. It’s easily repeated too, here’s a high school girl repeating the experiment, and taking it a step further, demonstrating how to measure the constant of G https://youtu.be/jkjqrlYOW_0.
So science now had its figure, the next step was to test it again, for the orbits of planets. Almost every single planet tested, with Newtons laws of universal gravitation (and of course Kepler’s planetary motion geometry) came back with incredible accuracy...the only planet not accounted for being Mercury, which had an orbit that did not fit the numbers perfectly.
Not surprisingly though...the Cavendish test only verified mass attraction and measured its constant, it didn’t explain HOW mass attracts mass, that wasn’t realized until centuries later, with Einstein, who did eventually solve the orbit of Mercury.
See how this works? Science didn’t just conclude instantly that it was mass attracting mass, it tested that hypothesis thoroughly, until it couldn’t be denied. Electromagnetism was falsified, static attraction falsified, Aether falsified, all that was left standing was mass attraction...and now it’s understood that mass is bending space and time.
It’s a process and we can tell the science is accurate, when it becomes useful, when it becomes an applied science. We now put satellites, probes and rockets into orbit, we predict celestial events decades in advance, even centuries...understanding gravity helps us do that. We’ve even recreated nuclear fusion in lab experiments...the very reaction that fuels the Sun, science has created this reaction...it did that, with gravity physics. So gravity is proven true, with every time we successfully put it to use.
Point is, you’re getting ahead of yourself and you’re being ignorant. You’re thinking about gravity all wrong and that’s why it doesn’t make sense to you. You’re not considering the very real possibility, that YOU are misunderstanding the science and THAT is why it’s not making sense. Instead of considering every variable, you’re concluding it’s nonsense, simply because it doesn’t make sense to you. But, just because something doesn’t make sense to you, does not mean it’s wrong.
There’s also the fact that Earth is measured and observed to be spherical. You don’t have to understand gravity physics, you just have to observe the truth in the geometry, proven every single day, when pilots and sailors find their destinations using the globe model. Not understanding gravity physics, does not make the geometry just disappear...I don’t care if you can’t reconcile the two, the rest of us can...if you can’t, then that’s your problem, not the problem of science.
Either way, density does not even get out of the starting gate...it can’t even answer the very first questions and it does nothing for applied science. That’s the horse you’re betting on, a dead horse. You can beat it all you want, but it’s still a dead horse at the end of the day.
1
-
@flatearth5821 But yes, for every mystery solved, 2 more questions are raised...that’s the process of science and it’s unavoidable. We will always have questions to answer, but questions are not evidence and creating further questions isn’t a falsity, it’s expected. FE holds questions up, as if it’s evidence, as if we toss the baby out with the bath water, simply because many mysteries are still not solved. And no, we don’t just stop because we have further questions, we keep going and we answer those questions too. We will likely never answer every question, that’s just the reality of our situation. But it doesn’t mean we stop...and it doesn’t mean we’re wrong. Modern technology is proof that we’re on the right path......you just let me know how much technology FE is responsible for sometime.
1
-
@flatearth5821 Ok, so let’s go into your spider and train thought experiment. You’re making a false equivalence here, a spider on a ceiling is upside down relative to the surface and the gravity vector it’s in. The train is not, relative to surface and the gravity vector, it is right side up. Make sense? The trouble in reasoning here, is that you (and most people of FE) seem incapable of understanding how gravity works here, gravity pulls to centre of mass and gravity is what gives everything it’s inertial orientation. You’re right side up, so long as you’re orientated to gravity, feet on the ground, head toward the sky. People in Australia are not upside down, you’re misunderstanding gravity vectors.
You seem to think gravity goes from North to South, the error here is in visualizing it like a ball you hold in your hand, where gravity runs through it in one direction, down to the ground you’re standing on. Then you think there’s the extra force of gravity pulling to centre, so it’s like you seem to think there are two forces, acting like the North to South force gives the train its weight...and that’s not how it works. There’s just the one force, pulling to centre, that is what’s giving the train weight.
Gravity is what gives an object weight, an object always has mass, but weight is created by gravity+contact with the surface. Weight is just inertia, created by every molecule in your body being squeezed into the surface, by the force of gravity. And again, everything with mass creates its own gravity, so the more mass something has, the more gravity is effecting it. The spider has far less mass, so this is actually part of the reason why it’s so easy for it to resist gravity, the less mass something has, the less it’s effected by gravity. All falls under the law of gravitation.
You’re making a false equivalence fallacy with your spider and train argument, also an argument from ignorance, because you’re ignoring the basic physics of the model you’re refuting.
1
-
1
-
@flatearth5821 And yet, everything around you in the world of applied science, uses the globe model...and it all works. When FE can provide the same results, then perhaps it will have legs to stand on...but not likely, because everything already works and Earth can only have one distinct geometry, in the 3 dimensions we occupy. If your science was so superior, it would be useful and you’d have no trouble demonstrating it. But you spend more time looking for holes in our model, than you do looking at your own...then you just expect everyone to agree blindly and without question, even though FE has never been used to innovate or engineer anything.
Can you really blame any of us for challenging your claims? You’re not doing a very good job and the globe demonstrates every day how useful it is...doesn’t take much to deduce which position is true, even if you’re not scientifically literate enough to understand how. But many of us are, and we do see how FE is flawed, so we do what we can to share those details.
I think it’s time YOU woke up...not the other way around.
1
-
@flatearth5821 Because they’re not upside down...because gravity isn’t from North to South, it’s towards centre. Just stop and think about it for one second longer than your bias allows. If gravity pulls to surface everywhere on Earth, then down is always towards surface, correct? If your feet are on the surface, then you are right side up, correct? Ok, then people in Australia, who walk around with their feet on the surface, gravity pulling them toward surface, then they are not upside down at all, they’re orientated correctly to their gravity vector.
It’s so simple...it’s frustrating that some people actually can’t get this.
1
-
@fxeconomist You’re making a false equivalence and misunderstanding motion physics. You can lose momentum due to friction...of course physics is aware of drag force, what makes you think they’re not? jumping from one car to another, you’re smashing into a lot of air and THAT slows your momentum in that example. The air around the car is not moving at the same speed as the car, so it’s not moving relative to the car, so it becomes an opposing force, it creates drag, slowing momentum. But what happens if the air were moving with the vehicles at the same relative rate? There would be no drag, no opposing force, so momentum would not slow. A plane and the air around it, are both moving with the Earth, so they’re both within that inertial reference frame of motion...which greatly reduces drag on the plane in air. Most of the planes momentum is conserved, always moving WITH the Earth. So is the air.
It’s the same exact physics that occurs in any moving vehicle, or complete system of motion. Next time you’re in a fast moving vehicle down a straight patch of road, toss a paper airplane around sometime inside that system of motion. You’ll find it’s just as effortless as when you toss it around in a room. But then ask yourself...how does your little paper airplane, keep up with a fast moving vehicle? Because motion is always conserved, motion is relative. Try it with a drone sometime if you wanna take it a step further, you’ll find it will fly with the vehicle just fine. It’s basic physics of motion...relative motion.
You really need to learn some basic physics, the laws of motion and relative motion for starters. Most of your problems stem from misunderstandings of basic motion physics.
The more alarming thing is that people seem to really think science hasn’t figured this stuff out already. You must really think less of science, if you honestly think they don’t factor drag force into motion physics. You really think you’re finding holes that nobody in the scientific community has thought of yet? You’re asking great questions of physics...but you’re not really listening to the answers. They’re good questions, but they’re old questions, solved hundreds of years ago. I’d suggest watching some lectures and demonstrations on the laws of motion and relative motion. Tons of resources online that can help you out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ever considered the possibility that it’s actually Flat Earthers who have been deceived, by huxters online who took advantage of the gaps in your current knowledge and experience? The ridicule is unfortunate, but it’s a natural human reaction towards the absurd, so I’d say grow a thicker skin if you’re going to challenge common knowledge. But a lot of the time…it is deserved, just as many nasty Flat Earthers coming to these videos to troll, so don’t pretend like they’re innocent.
Science doesn’t mind questions, but Flat Earthers rarely ask questions with the intention to learn anything, or to spark discussion. Most of the time they’re trying to force us to agree…before they’ve even presented us with a scientific model that actually works and is proven. Then they’re surprised when people react aggressively? Even here in your comment above, you’re basically bragging at the start, more than you are introducing a topic to be discussed.
Why do you feel the globe is nonsense? Why should we agree that your conclusion has any merit? I think you’d find that people would harass you less, if you didn’t start your comments with thinly veiled jabs, followed by zero evidence to support your claims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That’s her point…you trust that it is edible. 99.9% of the time it will be, because we have standards in place that ensure it…science isn’t much different. Up until recently people were happy to trust the science that Earth is a globe….so what happened? Flat Earth is a symptom of a loss of trust in society. They’re not really forming good conclusions or doing objective research, most Flat Earthers seem to form their conclusions from lack of trust alone. I’ve talked with hundreds of them now (it’s a sad hobby), that’s something I’ve noticed for sure that they all share. They just don’t trust science, so they’re running on instinct alone.
They’ve created a boy who cried wolf scenario, they’ve stopped listening, because they don’t trust the source anymore, concluding that it must be the opposite of what they’re saying. But people tend to forget how the boy cried wolf story ends…the boy wasn’t actually lying in the end, but it was already too late.
It’s really not always a logical way to conclude things, concluding things must be opposite of what someone said, just because you don’t trust them…it can keep you from thinking and reasoning objectively.
1
-
@StephenJelinek The Sun is clearly dipping into and under the horizon, being obscured by surface. If a sunset was caused by the limitations of light propagation, then wouldn’t we expect the Sun to fade out, instead of becoming obscured by horizon? And you’re reaching a definite conclusion on how you feel light works, without first verifying your conclusion as conclusive. Do you have any evidence that verifies light is finite and has its limits? Do you think simply stating a conclusion without evidence is how science works?
Seems to me that when I successfully falsified your claim, instead of reanalyzing the main conclusion (Earths shape), you just found an ad hoc response that agreed with your bias. Instead of considering that the Sunset is caused by surface physically blocking it from line of sight, you slotted in an ad hoc conclusion instead. You don’t see that as confirmation bias?
Again, you have a bit more work ahead of you if you’re going to conclude a sunset is caused by what you now believe it is. I’m seeing some immediate problems with your current conclusion. Why doesn’t the Sun fade out slowly if light is finite? Another problem is it ignores some fundamental rules of perspective, such as eye level. If an object is above your eye level, then it will never drop below it, neither physically, nor due to perspective. Everything will converge at your eye level due to perspective, but it will not go below it. The Sun clearly goes below eye level…how does it do that if it’s never physically below your eye level?
The globe model still accounts for this observation better. Even if you could rectify these issues, you’re still not falsifying the globe. So I wouldn’t be so quick to ignore the globe conclusion here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheOricine You gave me very vague details, not enough for me to complete a review for your observation, to test it for myself. So I asked for more details, that are very important for the observation to be reviewed. Such as height of the observer, exact location, math used, etc. These are simple details to provide, but you've so far not provided them. Photos and proof of experiment are of course required to make a proof of claim, but even with just the details, I can at least test your claim mathematically.
I'm trying to keep the discussion focused...but you're deflecting to new topics in every new post. I've been chatting with people on this topic for years now, I'm aware of pretty much all the same information you are. Not many arguments from FE I haven't reviewed at this point...but I'm not here to chase gish gallop, I'm here to review a single claim that you're making and you're being very difficult about it. Shouldn't be hard to at the very least provide the basic details.
Observer height, exact location, direction you were looking, math being used, these are some of the details you've yet to provide, that are required for me to even begin a review of the claim. To make it even more conclusive, yes, photographic evidence to confirm what you're seeing, is essential as well. But for the most part, at this point, I'd be happy with even just the details.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheOricine You mean the argument where “stars” are supposedly seen through the dark side of the Moon? Ok, I can provide some information to that. Ever heard of image noise? It is something that occurs during the processing of images, both in film and digital, resulting in white or oddly coloured dots to form on the final image, often coming through the most, in darker portions of an image. It’s common in low quality film and in low resolution images...which is why photographers shell out big bucks for quality equipment and software. There’s also burnt pixels to worry about, double exposure effects, there are many things to consider.
So that’s some explanation, but can we test it? Certainly, first of all, you can confirm image noise with a good enough camera with dpi controls. Just snap a picture of an object at varying resolution settings, then watch as the lower the setting, creates more and more noise.
But a better thing to do, cause people claim it’s stars they’re seeing through the Moon, how about actually get a star chart...and find those stars you’re claiming to see? It’s not difficult, the stars are charted, so you can find their current position, and see what stars they could be. Has anyone in FE thought to do that? Or just observe the night sky for a bit, the stars parallax around the Moon a lot more...shouldn’t take to long to see if when the moon isn’t in that spot anymore, are the white dots still there or not? Or just take several pictures, with separate cameras, cause if it is just image noise, then the noise shouldn’t fall in the same positions. You can also increase the exposure, and get this effect https://www.flickr.com/photos/138889787@N03/49827139353. Notice how the Moon shadow is now visible? That’s called Earth shine, showing that the Moon doesn’t just disappear when in shadow. It’s still very much there. If they are really stars...then cranking the exposure should make them shine even more.
Lots of things you can do...so has FE ever bothered? Not in my experience they haven’t, they just jump straight to conclusions, no further analysis required, the Moon is just transparent and that’s that. I’ve never seen any adequately test this claim, just spout it as a proof...one of many weak arguments, they stack upon other equally as weak arguments, to make they’re core argument appear stronger. But it’s just part of the gish gallop.
I’d urge you to test this sometime...it’s pretty simple to test. Let me know what you find out.
1
-
@TheOricine I can make a similar claim, I’ve been to the Southern Hemisphere, several times now, New Zealand being a country in the South I’ve visited the most, I’m originally from Canada. While there, I joined an astronomy group that was taking long exposure shots of the South rotation. They took one for the North, one for East and West and one for South. This was back in 2012, long before I ever even heard of FE, or got involved with it in any way. I was in a small university town on the coast known as Dunedin, which is on the South Island of New Zealand, near a port town called Invercargill. While I can share my many photos taken from the town during my trip, the long exposure images were not my photos, so I do not have copies of them, but I did see them completed.
I have personally confirmed, that there are indeed two rotations...though even just going to the South and seeing the Southern Cross, while never spotting the Big Dipper, was really good enough to confirm there are in fact two hemispheres, but seeing that rotation of stars, was just amazing.
I’m not about to sit here and tell you to believe me though, if I don’t have those photos, the claim means nothing...that’s just how it is.
But what I CAN do, is share images from others...at the very LEAST, that would be good evidence still. I can search the Southern rotation any time, and find you an observation others have made. So do you got any examples YOU can share, for the claim you’re making? Mars is pretty bright in the sky at night...so should be tons of photos online of what you saw.
So go ahead...find me an image of Mars through the Moon, and share the source.
1
-
1
-
@TheOricine Thank you. Now your first video is just a photo being analyzed, so it’s a bit to inconclusive, as he could easily have double exposed or just photoshopped. So I would conclude that as inconclusive. Had he shared video footage and made several more observations, it would have been better. The second video is better, as it is video, the trouble it has is that the star is not really being observed through the dark side, it’s close, but you can clearly see it’s on the edge.
To make something like this MORE conclusive, could have used a tripod or mount to steady the camera/telescope, a good mount would be an Equatorial mount set to pan with the moon, and it could have been exposed more to spot the Earth shine which would have also over exposed the star.
Good attempts, but are still far too inconclusive to reach a conclusion from. But thanks for finally providing something.
The biggest problem here, it’s not very great evidence. No definite conclusion can really be made here and it’s certainly nothing that is enough to toss out all of modern science over.
This is the problem...they are weak efforts, enough to convince a general layman maybe, but there’s very little that’s scientific about these...very poorly presented and conducted. Which is typical of FE.
1
-
1
-
@scottbaker9337 I think you’ve spent a bit too much time in the flat Earth echo chamber of misinformation. You’re being scammed by con artists, experts at lying who convinced you to listen blindly to what they’re selling you, but never check it for accuracy. 8 inches per mile squared is a basic parabolic arc equation...it does not represent your line of sight, horizon distance, or a sphere. It does not include variables for height of the observer, height of the object being viewed, arc length, refraction index, etc...it is the wrong math to use, for the observation flat Earth is trying to make.
Flat Earth knows most people are not very well versed in mathematics and general Earth science...they exploit that lack of knowledge and fill the gaps with bullshit. Now you’re head is filled with mountains of gish gallop, that would likely take years to deprogram.
There is no working model of flat Earth...that is for a good reason. I know you’ve lost a great deal of trust in modern science (due in large part to these con artists lying to you endlessly), but you really need to pull your head away from your computer/phone screen for awhile and join reality again. Billions of people aren’t lying to you here...nothing in the modern world is built on the foundations of flat Earth science and geometry. That’s a fact, not an opinion. I get that a lot of it doesn’t make sense to you, but it doesn’t mean it’s wrong simply because you don’t get it.
1
-
@1FeistyKitty Of course you only read the first part, people who know they’ve been proven wrong in the first few sentences often do. 😄 You were wrong about the location, off by 6000 km, that’s a fact, so don’t weasel your way out of that, man up and acknowledge it. Should be pretty simple for you to understand that a whole half of the Earth sees the Moon at any given time, So a whole 180 degrees of the Earth. Fiji is close to the prime Meridian, which is only about 70 degrees off from NV…so actually pretty easy to see why they could see the Moon….and they’re 73 miles up…shouldn’t have to explain to an adult how looking over a curve works, we all know we see further the higher we are.
So I’m sorry, but your argument deflates pretty quick when you actually look at it closer…what do you want me to do about that? 🤷♂️ It is what it is. You should read the whole thing though, maybe it would snap you back to reality…however doubtful.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1