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