Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
@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