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