Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
Good, some evidence we’re making progress. We got them from “It’s Flat!!!”, to “It’s probably flat!”, to “There’s no proof it’s round, doesn’t mean you have to believe it’s
flat.” It’s rounding the bend now, few more months and we’ll get em back too “Oh, so...flat Earth was a con this whole time?”. Ya think!? :/
You’re just stating the obvious when you say people, corporations and governments lie...you’re not onto some great revelation the rest of us aren’t aware of, we’re all well aware. Doesn’t mean we toss out basic scientific facts, that are easy to verify if you just peeled your face away from your phone long enough to try. Facts that actual experts use every single day, to do their jobs. Ever talk to a flat Earth pilot or sailor? No? Hmmm...I wonder why that is?
You know who loves truth? Scientists...cause they know better than anyone that junk science gets us nowhere. You think you’re a “truther” cause you watched some conspiracy docs on YouTube and agreed to every single word blindly and without question? That’s adorable...you just let us know when they have a working model that’s actually used for anything in the real world.
5
-
5
-
@yingyang1008 Don’t confuse your limits as a shared experience. Anyone can verify the true shape of the planet with a few simple observations and a basic knowledge of geometry. Start with a sunset...don’t you think it’d be a little hard for a sunset to occur, if line of sight is never physically blocked? You betcha, makes no geometric sense at all, the math doesn’t work either https://youtu.be/-e9d4bjImHM.
Then you can even take it a step further. Start paying attention, record the suns daily positions, shadow angles, transit path, rate of travel, etc. Then plot that real world data on the proposed models, both flat and globe, and see which one the data actually fits on, with no contradictions or errors.
https://youtu.be/fEYsgP4CuSA
https://youtu.be/yrsaP7nBWt0
https://youtu.be/EF6Ojo9fJhw
https://youtu.be/W1al9aGartM
It’s super simple actually, for anyone to verify which shape is true...just have to actually try. You’re just arguing from ignorance and then pretending like we should all be impressed. :/
5
-
5
-
@bellottibellotti9185 Alright, here’s a far more accurate trigonometric equation, that accounts for an important variable that 8 inches per mile squared ignores, height of observation.
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
r= Radius of the Earth
d= Distance to observation in arc length
h= Height of observation
There are several reasons why 8 inches per mile squared is the wrong equation, but the simplest reason to understand is that it ignores height of the observer, which is a very important variable in how far you can see. It’s pretty common sense, the higher you go in elevation, the further you see. That equation though (8 inches per mile squared) gives you the same figure whether you’re at 6 foot viewing height or 1000 feet, it simply does not represent your actual line of sight. The equation I’ve shared does represent line of sight, and tells you exactly what is hidden by the geometric horizon, of a spherical Earth.
As pointed out though, refraction is another important variable to account for. The equation I shared is purely geometric, and does not include refraction, so that does require calculation as well. But refraction is an optical distortion, so you start with a geometric calculation, and then you calculate the distortion after the fact, so that equation is the first step. The Metabunk curve calculator is where I got that equation from, and they’ve created a calculator that accounts for a standard refraction as well, so that’s the calculator I recommend for most observations. But the best calculator I’ve come across so far is the Walter Bislen Earth curve simulator, because refraction index fluctuates and it’s always higher over large bodies of water, and that calculator allows you to adjust refraction index, where Metabunk uses a standard refraction…because it’s far easier to derive an equation for, cause it deals with the average.
It’s easy to understand why height of the observer is important to account for, but refraction is a little more difficult to understand, because most people aren’t aware of refraction. Which is understandable, most people are not physicists, so if you’d like a clear observation of refraction in action, look up the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, which is a modern recreation of the Bedford Level experiment. There’s a whole section on refraction in the official research blog, if you find it, scroll down to images 31 and 32, it’s a very clear observation of the effect. You can also find a time lapse of refraction from that experiment on YouTube. So if you really want to learn why it’s important to account for refraction, that’s the observation I’d look up sometime.
Anyway, I hope that information is helpful. Bottom line is that Flat Earthers are pulling the equivalent of a sleight of hand trick on people, that takes advantage of most peoples lack of mathematical knowledge. It’s a pretty standard rule of thumb in science, to always double check your math…it’s usually the first thing you check, when observation doesn’t match predictions. Never assume you can’t be in error…the Flat Earth math is very much in error, and so that’s the reason why the calculation doesn’t match observations.
5
-
5
-
No, it’s not that simple I’m afraid...because errors can be made and bias is real. That’s why we have peer review in science, to weed out errors and bias and lies. Here’s the harsh reality of information gathering of any kind, we do not know everything, for this reason old information always has the potential to change, when new information is acquired. So that’s why science chose to label its conclusions under theory and not fact, because a fact does not change, but if we don’t know everything and sometimes we get shit wrong...then what do we do if our facts are wrong? Just ignore it to appease bias? No, that gets us nowhere, science has to remain objective.
We build scientific theory with facts, but we can never be 100% certain about anything, because we do not know everything and we likely never will, so information has to have room to change or even be discarded. It is harder to do yes, but it’s necessary and it’s how we’ve achieved what we have. I’m sorry it’s not as simple as most would prefer, but objective reality really doesn’t care about what we want to be true.
5
-
@EZHostglo Certainly, I don’t mind sharing information, if you’re actually willing to listen and consider it. Here’s the actual consensus understanding of gas pressure and thermodynamics physics.
Atmospheric pressure is different from gas pressure in small containers. You and Flat Earth are confusing the two…they are not the sane and thus are not treated the same. For smaller scales, we use gas pressure laws and equations, like Boyles Law and the other gas pressure laws. But in larger scales, these equations are essentially useless, because it’s impossible in larger scales — especially in massive open systems like our planet — to get an accurate volume. Volume is the variable in gas pressure equations that is most important, the container basically. This is where Flat Earth gets confused, because they think gas pressure and atmospheric pressure are the same in science. But no, gas pressure equations are not used in larger scales, like in atmosphere. Instead, atmospheric pressure equations are used on larger scales, which uses gravity as the variable to replace volume. Go ahead and look it up any time you’d like, gas pressure laws are not used in larger scales, they are limited in their use. We instead use atmospheric pressure equations, which uses gravity.
Gravity is the container of our atmosphere and this fits with what we observe in reality as well. Because if gravity is creating our atmospheric pressure, then we’d expect a pressure gradient…and that’s exactly what we measure.
No laws of thermodynamics are being broken, because thermodynamics has to do with ENERGY transfer…not so much matter. Matter tags along sometimes, sure, but matter is subject to attractive forces, like gravity, so gas will not fill the void of space entirely, because gravity will eventually sap it of all it’s kinetic energy and bring it back down to surface, essentially slowing down entropy. Even gas is subject to gravity…if it wasn’t, then there wouldn’t be a pressure gradient. The lighter gases do escape into deeper space though, entropy does win eventually, that’s why there’s a massive cloud of hydrogen surrounding the Earth for hundreds of thousands of miles.
Another part Flat Earth forgets or simply just doesn’t understand or factor, is that entropy can be slowed, a simple thermos for your coffee does it all the time. But a great way to understand thermodynamics is with that coffee. When your coffee eventually does go cold, did the coffee also leave? No, just the thermal energy did…for matter, entropy is much slower. Especially if the system is constantly receiving energy…and it is, ever heard of the Sun? Energy is constantly escaping Earth, but it’s also being replenished…by the Sun. We are constantly receiving new energy into the system, which is used to create new gas at the surface.
In this way, it’s actually Flat Earth’s model that breaks entropy laws, or at least doesn’t fit with what we measure and observe in reality. Because if the gas is contained…yet new gas is constantly being created at surface with no way of escaping…then we’d expect pressure to rise astronomically in just a few years…heck, it would increase within days…killing us all. But it doesn’t, it remains consistent. In a system that’s constantly receiving energy, it can not be contained without some form of release. Our atmosphere allows for that, because it’s open.
So the trouble isn’t the globe model…the trouble is Flat Earths own personal misunderstandings of that model and the physics. It’s made worse by their stubborn refusal to even consider that they could be wrong. For a group claiming to be more open minded than the rest of us, they sure shut those minds off tight, the moment anyone tries to help point out what they’re missing.
Anyway, I hope this information is at the very least interesting. Let me know if you have any further questions or rebuttals. I do not mind a civil exchange of information.
5
-
Need some good places to start, ok. Just observe one sunset, then ask yourself how that’s geometrically possible if the Sun occupies the same directional sky, everywhere on Earth, at the same time? A flat Earth doesn’t make much sense of this well known daily occurrence, meanwhile a globe answers for it effortlessly. If you really study it closer too, it fits more than just the base observation, the math and measured geometry work out perfectly as well https://youtu.be/-e9d4bjImHM.
Another great proof is navigation. Everything from the lines of latitude that are equal for both hemispheres, to the consistent rate that stars drop to horizon by latitude, to the geodetic conversions required to plot an accurate coarse. Fact is, millions of sailors and pilots successfully navigate the planet every single day, if you think they can achieve that without knowing the true shape and scale of the surface they travel upon, then you might not be thinking about things very clearly. Learn to navigate, then you will know the true shape of the Earth.
It’s also worth noting that Earth has two hemispheres, both with their own stars, celestial rotation, midnight sun occurrences past the 60th parallel. None of this fits or makes sense on a flat Earth geometry, but it’s exactly what we’d expect to see occur on a Globe.
So there’s a small bit of info to get you started. I hope you find it helpful. If you have any questions or rebuttals, feel free to let me know.
5
-
You also asked about how science knows the inner composition of the Earth, so I’ll give you some insight into that science as well.
It’s true we’ve only physically dug down 8 miles, but as you know, mankind has found ways to expand its knowledge of certain things, with the aid of sensitive equipment that can be used to extend our senses past what they’re normally capable of. With the use of what’s known as a seismograph, we can gather data from the shockwaves and aftershocks of Earthquakes, which paint us a pretty clear picture of Earths inner workings, from the shockwaves that travel through the Earth and ping seismic reading stations on the opposite side of the planet. This field of research is known as seismology, tons of helpful videos here on YouTube that can help you out further to learn more. Here’s a good one to get you started https://youtu.be/HwY1ICqWGEA.
Hundreds of Earthquakes occur everyday around the world, that’s a lot of data, all of it pointing to the same conclusions and telling us a lot about Earths inner composition, as these waves travel differently depending on what they’re travelling through. This science also provides further proof of Earths true shape, as the shockwaves travel time data, only fits when interpreted on the Globe model.
The science also fits with two other fields of study, physics and geology. It’s well known that Earth generates a massive electromagnetic field...that doesn’t just happen on its own from nothing. A massive, hot, liquid, rotating and swirling mass of iron and nickel (the two most abundant metals found on Earth, spewed from every volcanic eruption), that would sure be more than enough to do it.
So there’s a lot of science that goes into the conclusions, the fact that it all fits together in tandem, none of it contradicting any other research, that’s how we can be confident in those conclusions.
Yes, mankind is limited physically in what it’s capable of, but we have something that helps counter these limitations, a powerful 6th sense, our intelligence. We don’t have to always go directly to something to learn about it, we can deduce a lot from just being clever with our use of tools designed to expand our senses. Of course travelling directly is more ideal, but unfortunately we don’t always have that luxury.
So that’s why we compile knowledge under “theory”, because our limitations mean there is a lot we may never know for absolute certain, it’s just the way it is sadly. So science doesn’t think or operate in absolute certainties, it operates in percentages of certainty. So that’s why they use the word theory, because a fact is rigid, it does not change, it just is what it is. The truth about information gathering of any kind is that old information always has the potential to change, as new information is acquired, so theory is used instead of fact, because a theory can be changed over time. Though there is a bit more too it as well, facts also don’t describe HOW something works, they don’t explain the details of how and why, so it’s not the proper wording either way. Facts make up the foundation of a theory, but there will never be a point where we can ever be 100% certain about any theory, so we can not call scientific conclusions fact, only theory.
A scientific theory is not like a regular theory in the regular use of the word, a scientific theory takes on a much higher status of certainty, it’s actually the highest level any concept in science can achieve. I think this is one of the bigger things most people misunderstand about science. Science does not operate in 100% certainties, they can’t, because there is just too much knowledge to learn, we’ll never know everything. For this reason, information always has the potential to change, so science was actually very humble and wise to label their conclusions as theory, not fact.
5
-
5
-
5
-
Sabine here wasn’t really intending her video as a “debunk” or as an argument against flat Earth claims, it’s more just a quick opinion piece, explaining what she feels is the broader issue here, the growing gap between science and the general public. So that’s why you won’t find any hard science here, because that wasn’t the point of the video.
That being said, it’s fine to ask questions here and part of her point was that science should be doing more to begin a dialogue to help answer those questions, less ridicule more engagement. To which I agree...at least for those willing to have a civil discussion that is, which it seems you are. So if you don’t mind, I’ll see if I can shed some light on some of your questions here, offer some insight from the globe perspective.
First of all, you were wondering how it’s possible for our atmosphere to exist next to an empty vacuum and why our movement through space doesn’t also shed our atmosphere. Those are great questions, but also quite separate topics, so I’ll start with the vacuum question.
This is a common misconception flat Earth has, and it starts with their misunderstanding of how the vacuum of space works. I hear them throw around that “negative Torr” measurement a lot, but I don’t think they quite understand what the unit “Torr” really means. It doesn’t mean space is at negative pressure...because that’s simply impossible, It’s easier to think of space in terms of psi, in the case with space it’s 0 psi. That’s the lowest pressure you can have, that’s all space is, 0 pressure, a space completely void of matter. There is no such thing as negative pressure, cause you can’t have negative of nothing...it’s like saying negative darkness, there’s nothing past darkness, you either have light or you don’t, space is similar, you either have matter or you don’t, it’s pretty simple. 0 psi is space, there is no negative psi.
Flat Earth just over complicated things by using Torr as a unit for vacuum of space, misunderstanding the negative function in the smaller number interpretations. They thought it meant negative pressure...it does not, it’s just how many zeros you place after a decimal. Math often shortens larger or small numbers that way by interpreting them like this for higher numbers 9x10^15, which is just 9 with 15 zeros behind it, or this for smaller numbers 9x10^15- which is just 0 then a decimal then 15 zeros then a 9. It has nothing to do with negative pressure...there’s no such thing.
So it’s a misunderstanding that created this illusion that space is somehow a powerful suction force of some kind...and no...that’s not how it works. Space isn’t sucking on our atmosphere, it’s not creating a suction force, it’s just empty space, 0 pressure, that’s all. So it’s a misconception that flat Earth created themselves...and the reason I’d wager you haven’t heard a viable answer for how our atmosphere doesn’t get sucked off, is because you’re still hung up on the notion that there is a suction force to begin with, that you think the heliocentric model has to contend with...and there isn’t. You have to completely remove that notion from your thought process here, to understand better how space works in relation to our atmosphere. There is no suction force, space isn’t sucking on our atmosphere, flat Earth made that up and misinformed you. The misunderstanding comes from the assumption/misconception of what Torr is a measurement of and what it means.
So our atmosphere isn’t fighting against force in space trying to rip it off, the only force effecting atmosphere is gravity. So our atmosphere simply has nowhere else to go except towards the only force that is attracting it, the force of gravity.
There is however entropy, the other argument flat Earth likes to make, having to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But, it’s just another misunderstanding of the physics here. The argument they like to make is that matter seeks equilibrium, that there cannot exist an empty space because matter (in this case the gases of our atmosphere), will seek to fill the empty space. But this misunderstands thermodynamics, which has more to do with energy equilibrium, not so much matter. It’s energy that’s constantly seeking equilibrium, matter just tags along for the ride sometimes. For example when a cup of coffee goes cold, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy?
There argument is typically in comparison to an empty vacuum container, when opened back up the air rushes in to fill it until equalized with the surrounding pressure, but this is a false comparison, as the fringes of our atmosphere are not at 14.7 psi like they are at surface. The gases at the fringe of our atmosphere would attempt to fill the empty space, if gravity wasn’t keeping them from doing so. The reason gas fills an empty space here at surface, is because the molecules here have a lot more kinetic energy, created by constantly colliding with other molecules, we measure these collisions as pounds per square inch or PSI, remember it’s energy seeking equilibrium under entropy...not so much matter. The same psi does not exist at the fringes of space, so the molecules up there don’t have the same kinetic energy as the gases at surface. Kinetic energy is required for molecules of gas to break free of our planets gravity, and because the air is thinner and thinner the higher you go, the psi decreases, meaning less collisions between molecules, meaning less kinetic energy, meaning the gas eventually runs out of the energy required to fight gravity any longer, so it eventually loses and falls back to Earth.
So it’s a misunderstanding of how the physics works. They’re focusing only on what they assume entropy implies, and not really going deeper into the science to understand it better. Our atmosphere does not break any laws of thermodynamics, flat Earth just misunderstood the physics of entropy. Entropy is occurring, but what they’re missing is that entropy can be slowed and even contained for long periods of time, by simple attracting forces. We do it all the time with insulators as well, a simple thermos keeps your coffee hot longer, slowing entropy. Our atmosphere does the same thing, with the help of gravity, gravity os the container flat Earth is looking for, it slows our atmospheric entropy greatly. Some gas does escape into space though, but it’s very slow and gradual.
Sorry if that got long, I just like to be thorough. Let me know if that helped at all.
5
-
@SuperMoshady Yup, I realize it’s confusing, but that’s the understanding all of modern physics has reached with buoyancy, it is directly caused by gravity. You will not find an engineer or chemist or physicist in the world, that disagrees with that, it is the consensus, and for very good reason, because it’s verified science. So you can laugh all you’d like, or you can learn a bit more how it works, up to you really. I’m more than happy to explain further how it works.
Mass is attracted to Earth due to gravity, yes, but this also means matter of more density will occupy lowest potential energy state first, because more dense matter is also creating more gravity of its own, causing more attraction to surface. This means less dense matter is forced out of the way, causing displacement. We observe this displacement, as buoyancy. It doesn’t mean gravity is not effecting gas, it’s just being pushed out of the way of more dense matter, which forces it in the opposite direction of the denser matters motion. Since the vector for gravity is down towards surface, this orientates the density displacement up, in the same vector but opposite direction. So gravity directly causes buoyancy, it does not occur without it. So a helium balloon is not defying gravity, its upward motion is actually a product of gravity.
Can we test this? Sure, in many ways, someone here has already pointed out Boyles Law to you, so I won’t go to deep into that again. Some simpler tests would be density columns put in zero G environments, demonstrating how buoyancy disappears the moment you remove the inertial pressure created by gravity and the surface. Another great experiment I like is a helium balloon within a moving vehicle, demonstrating how buoyancy is an effect caused by density displacement. https://youtu.be/y8mzDvpKzfY What this clearly shows is that denser matter (the air in the van) will displace the less dense gas (helium) and put it into an opposing vector motion, dependent entirely on which direction the more dense matter is going. In this example, the air is denser, so it sloshes to the back of the moving vehicle first (fluid dynamics), which forces the helium forward instead of backwards. I hope this helps make things a little clearer for you, that it’s the motion of more dense matter, that dictates the opposing motion of buoyancy. This gives us some insight into why a helium balloon rises up, because more dense matter is in motion downward towards surface, as we observe from falling matter, this accelerating motion displaces helium and forces it up, without the downward motion of gravity though, it would not do this.
So your argument is one from ignorance really, most people don’t have any experience with the physics, or upper atmosphere, or space, so you’re free to pray on people’s lack of experience and knowledge here...but it’s just arguments from ignorance from those of us in the know here. We experience helium going up, so you can argue that this appears to defy gravity, but eventually helium will reach a point where it’s no longer displaced and it will rest at a point in atmosphere, unable to climb any higher, just like all matter orders by density, thanks to gravity. This is measured, oxygen thins the higher you go, but hydrogen remains, why doesn’t oxygen climb any higher? Because of gravity, keeping it closer to surface, it’s more dense than hydrogen and helium, so naturally you won’t find much of it in upper atmosphere, this is also why you won’t find any clouds past a point.
It’s pretty simple deduction, studying buoyancy physics really helps a lot here.
But ok, because you keep asking. Gas pressure: basically just collisions between molecules, the more collisions, the more pressure due to kinetic energy of the molecules. More collisions occur when molecules are closer together, hence more gas pressure with more molecules packed together in closer proximity.
Now let’s define atmospheric pressure, because there is a difference. Atmospheric pressure: a gas pressure gradient caused by a downward accelerating force, ordering matter by their density and creating more pressure closer to surface, due to the molecules above constantly being squeezed down upon the molecules below, due to the downward force of gravity.
Gas has mass, gravity effects all mass, so it’s not very difficult to conclude that gas will be effected by gravity. And it is, we measure and observe this, the fact that a pressure gradient exists at all, is proof of this. Under your system, we’d expect gas to mix and disperse evenly, no gradient would exist, if there was no downward force effecting the gas molecules.
I haven’t even mentioned satellites yet, I try to keep things within the realm of what FE has experience with, but you are aware satellites are in orbit, correct? You are aware they’ve long since confirmed the vacuum of space, correct? You can claim satellites are fake...but it’s really just an empty claim until you can actually prove that. So I’m curious, why hasn’t FE done the funding, to put their own satellites into orbit? There are smaller rockets you can actually purchase, that can achieve this goal, why not crowd fund for both a rocket and design a probe or satellite for the purpose of measuring the vacuum of space, or to find the dome? Just saying, there’s more you could be doing, rather than just debating random strangers on comment threads. I’ve seen much evidence to confirm satellites are up there, but only empty claims to suggest they’re not. So again, I’ll go with the evidence over empty claims.
So, I’ve given you the observed phenomenon for gravity, but you do realize that’s only for the hypothesis, independent and dependent variables are required for experiments. That is of course the next step, but we’re not really done with hypothesis yet are we, so let’s not get ahead of ourselves. I first just wanted you to grasp, what gravity really is, it is an observed motion, a downward motion. This motion can not be denied, we all have experience with it. Deny the current consensus for how gravity works all you’d like, there’s still some room for argument there, but the downward accelerating motion itself, is not up for debate, it’s very obviously occurring. Name it something else if you prefer, it really doesn’t matter, just made it easier to discuss this phenomenon with a name given for it, they called it gravity.
When I find more time later, I’ll answer a few more questions and give you an experiment with an independent and dependent variable. You’re probably already aware which experiment I’ll share, but perhaps you can work out the details yourself before I’m able to respond. Feel free.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@drdusandr Yes, lasers refract just as all light does, they’re also not free from diffraction (scattering) over even just short distances. So it’s actually a common misconception that lasers shot through atmosphere remain perfectly tangent…they actually do not, there’s no such thing as a laser beam that’s free from refraction or diffraction through atmosphere, so they’re actually very unreliable at distances. So that’s a big part of their error (or if it’s intentional, then it’s part of how they con people), they sell these “experiments” under the misconception/assumption most people have, that lasers remain tangent at distances. They do not…and that is easily verified with just a quick bit of research on laser refraction and diffraction.
Another error (especially in pure observation), is bad math, that often ignores important variables. A very important variable ignored quite often being height of observer…I’m sure I don’t need to explain how you can see further the higher you go.
They’re doing experiments, sure…that doesn’t mean they’re doing them right, and without error. Then they skip over all peer review, acting like they’re somehow above it…that should be a major red flag for anyone, that maybe you should be a bit skeptical about these “experiments” they claim to be doing. :/
5
-
5
-
Planes require air pressure to maintain both thrust and lift, so no, they’d never end up in space, because air would become to thin to maintain the thrust and lift required to get into space, so they’d drop due to their inability to overcome gravity any further. That’s why we don’t use planes for getting into space, we use rockets, which don’t use the air for propulsion, they use Newton’s third law of motion, action and reaction. The same physics that causes a gun to recoil.
The plane would measure its shift in angle by degrees, so you have to think about this in terms of degrees, not drop from a tangent. Earth takes roughly 70 miles to arc 1 degree, a passenger jet moving at 500 mph covers that distance in roughly 7-8 minutes give or take…you really think you’d notice a 1 degree shift that takes 7 minutes to complete? Not likely.
We don’t feel motion itself, what we feel is sudden or rapid change in motion, acceleration and deceleration. A rotation is an acceleration, but it takes Earth 24 hours to complete 1 rotation…that’s not very fast at all, in fact it’s 2 times slower than the hour hand of a clock. Would you expect an hour hand on a clock to fling stuff off of it? Obviously not. You’re focusing on the wrong numbers, centrifugal force isn’t dependent on linear velocities like miles per hour, it depends on rate of rotation, and Earths rate of rotation is 0.000694 rpm’s, so that’s why it doesn’t fling anything off of it.
You can’t stick your hand out of a plane, because the air outside isn’t moving at the same velocity as the plane, so it’s smashing into you, it then creates friction in the form of drag force. Earth travelling through space doesn’t have the same problem, there’s no air in space, so no drag.
And thanks to law of inertia, conservation of momentum, and relative motion, we move with the Earth in all its motions. So just like you don’t feel the motion of a passenger jet moving at 500 mph, you won’t feel Earth’s motions for the same reason…because of the laws of motion.
This is all basic physics. I suggest you learn the basics before making any arguments on a science channel.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@tombass3288 So we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, because a few people don’t understand something? Just because YOU personally don’t understand something, doesn’t make it false. Do you ever consider the possibility, that maybe theres just some information or understandings, that you’re not aware of? For example, the Arctic is very different from the Antarctic, in that the Arctic is not a landmass, it’s an ice sheet on the ocean...and it’s nowhere near as thick of an ice sheet. The ocean traps and transfers a lot more heat...it’s basic physics, conduction and convection. Put an ice cube on a table, and another in a glass of water, which one will melt first? The ice in the glass of water will melt LONG before the ice on land ever will.
Variables that matter...physics and knowledge you ignored or are not aware of, that are important towards understanding your quandary there. There’s a lot of basic science like that, Flat Earthers don’t know or understand, and it’s why you reach such false conclusions and assume things are just impossible. Maybe learn some actual science and things would make better sense to you then. :/
5
-
5
-
5
-
@chrisskully1228 “No experiments have been given to me that don’t involve some sort of assumption…”
Ya…..and you never will, because every experiment has a hypothesis as its base. What do you think a hypothesis is? It’s an assumption! 😄 Every experiment starts with a hypothesis, which is basically just an educated guess reached from prior knowledge…then you test that guess, that’s the whole point of an experiment! 😄 You do experiments to test if a premise is true or not…you don’t have an experiment without a hypothesis…..that’s where EVERY experiment starts!
But is the falling motion we observe in dropped objects an assumption? No, it’s very clearly happening, and it always happens, you can drop almost anything and it will always fall. Don’t have to assume anything there, it’s a fact…and it’s also a fact that a force is required for any and all motion to occur, nothing just moves on its own. The hypothesis is in what causes it….that’s what science does, it tests cause and effect relationships. To do that, you make a guess….and then you test that guess.
Welcome to science, that’s how it works. You seem to think that’s an erroneous way to do things…even though it’s clearly brought results. May I ask how you think science should be done instead? 🧐 Go right ahead, you’re the one who seems to think you’re smarter than every scientist in the world, so you must have a better way of doing things that’s proven itself to be even more productive. So feel free to share.
5
-
Here’s a fact about Google Earth, it uses camera planes flying a bit lower than your average passenger jet, to photograph the closer details of the surface. You can look that up, it’s fairly simple information to confirm. I think many people assume it’s all done by satellites, but that’s actually a misconception. There’s very few satellites in orbit right now that can resolve crisp detailed images of surface that close up, so surveillance planes are used instead, for the really close detailed images of surface. These planes wouldn’t bother flying over any area that’s not inhabited…cause why would they? 🤷♂️ If nobody lives there, if there’s nothing there, then why bother scanning it? Do me a favour, zoom in on places in far Northern Canada, where nobody lives…you’ll find it’s just as blurry and pixelated.
The North Pole is an ice sheet over the ocean…so there’s no permanent structures, meaning no cities, towns, villages, not even research bases…so why would they bother with accurate visual data there?
You’re jumping to conclusions from pure speculation alone…doesn’t make for a very strong argument. But I hope that information helps you with your questions.
5
-
5
-
5
-
I don’t need fancy equipment, or an expensive university degree, to deduce that a sunset is an impossible phenomenon, if the Sun is never geometrically blocked from my line of sight over a flat Earth. Just one of many simple observations that falsifies a flat Earth, it’s not rocket science. Just a basic understanding of physics and geometry is all you need, a little world travel helps as well, but it’s not necessary.
You can ramble all day about how some delusions that you/others made up gives your life meaning and purpose, then assume that the rest of us somehow struggle with finding purpose — whatever helps you feel superior to others I guess — but I’m here to tell you, it’s not for everyone. If it works for you, great, I’m happy that you’re happy, but I’ve never been able to lie to myself and just believe made up superstitions, simply because they’re repeated over and over again. Doesn’t mean my life is meaningless, I find joy and purpose in just the simple fact that I exist, a conscious life born in an indifferent and chaotic, but also extremely beautiful universe, that I’ll never fully understand. I don’t feel small or insignificant, I’m not scared by that, I’m excited by the possibilities, I don’t take any of it for granted, I’m happy to be here just experiencing it all, right here, right now. That’s all I’ve ever needed. Maybe that’s just something YOU will never understand.
To each their own.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Okay, Flat Earthers use the wrong math for the observation they’re making. It’s a rough curvature calculation, yes, but it’s not a line of sight calculation, can’t even tell you where horizon is from any given elevation, let alone what’s hidden by horizon…because it doesn’t account for height of the observer. Should be pretty common knowledge, but you see further the higher up you go. So observation height kinda matters here, but the math that gets peddle by Flat Earthers doesn’t factor that, among other important variables it also doesn’t factor.
Use the wrong math, and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple. Why none of you thought to check the math you’re using, says a lot about the people who fall for Flat Earth.
5
-
5
-
Ok, but you’re making a lot of bias assumptions of your own...without even realizing it. You’re intentionally ignoring gravity in your Nile river example, not quite understanding how elevation works here...you’re instead just assuming that North is up and South is down and that’s not at all how it works 🤦♂️. So the problem is your own, in not understanding the model you’re attempting to refute. Little hard to debunk a model, if you don’t even understand how it works.
You in one breath said Eratosthenes assumed 93 million miles, then in the next were completely happy to assume 3000 miles is the “correct distance”, using the same experiment. You don’t see that as hypocritical and bias? Furthermore, you’re even misunderstanding that experiment, it didn’t measure the AU, that was never its intention nor could it. It was merely an effort to measure Earths circumference, that’s all. Yes, without any further data points taken, you have to assume a sphere with his original experiment...but take any more than two (or plot the data in 3 dimensions instead of 2), and you will not be able to pin point a local sun. Here’s an example from someone who thought to try that.
https://youtu.be/LeEw0Fw1qio
Eratosthenes already knew the Earth was a sphere...sundials pretty much already prove it, as did navigation, heck the phenomena of a sunset at all, in the manner in which we observe it, is proof enough of a globe. So he already knew Earth was spherical, the Greeks were masters of geometry, and he was one of the best mathematicians of his time...deducing the Earth was spherical, doesn’t take much. His experiment was merely to measure it...it was in no way an effort to measure the AU, that wasn’t achieved until millennia later.
Finally, not sure how you think a sextant verifies a flat Earth (but feel free to elaborate further), it would actually verify a globe. The stars drop to horizon at a consistent rate by latitude...if the Earth was flat, they would not drop consistently, they would drop less and less, at a rate that isn’t consistent, the further away you got...it’s basic geometry. In reality, stars drop consistently by latitude...as they should, if Earth is spherical.
These points have all been beaten to death at this point...but you guys just keep repeating them anyway. Though a part of me admires the stubborn tenacity, so by all means I guess, you’re free to do what you want here. The scientific method includes peer review, so it’s perfectly fine that you guys are asking questions of the Globe, but that review goes both ways. You don’t seem to realize it, but you’re assuming and asserting a lot in your conclusions and are being quite ignorant to all the details, almost like you did just the bare minimum of research on each point, until your bias was confirmed and then you stopped looking. And if you don’t think you have bias...just look at your username, then tell me you’re not bias.
I don’t think Sabine really reads these comments, but it would be interesting I suppose if she did get in contact. Though I’m willing to chat if you’d like, I can certainly shift gears to a more civil and respectful tone and hear you out. Though it’s fine, I can understand you’re probably tired of these comment thread discussions, you’d rather discuss with a face you can identify and seem to already respect. I would leave that to you, I might come off a bit short and frustrated, but I’m actually in agreement with Sabine on this. Nothing wrong with questioning established science, in fact it’s quite logical, nothing should ever be off the table for debate.
5
-
5
-
Well, I would say science should avoid reaching conclusions on single observations. There’s always gonna be someone looking to make a name for themselves by claiming to have falsified renowned science, it’s part of why we have peer review in the first place, to weed out potential huxters. The Eddington experiment that Edward Dowdye was recreating, has been reproduced many times over the last 100 years, why didn’t any of those recreations bring a similar conclusion to Dowdye’s work? I think that’s a valid question to ask. I’m currently not aware of any other recreations that came back with similar results to Dowdye’s experiment, but I certainly don’t know of every test, but currently I’m aware of far more that fit the GR predictions.
It’s pretty clear that there are holes in GR, it’s well known that the theory doesn’t work inside the quantum realm very much at all, but yet it still works pretty flawlessly on larger scales. I don’t think it’s from lack of trying to falsify GR, but every time they set out to test its predictions in the larger scales, it always yields positive results. So what would you prefer they do? Just ignore the data? From time dilation, to gravitational waves, to red shifting of stars due to space expansion, it’s done pretty well explaining and accounting for everything on the macro scale so far.
Science doesn’t know everything, but it doesn’t really set out with that goal either. There’s simply too much to know, it’s very likely we’ll never learn everything, so it’s a bit of a fool’s errand to even try and learn everything. Best we can do is just learn what we can, when we can, make observations, record data, do our best to interpret it with the rest of the knowledge we have at the time. Science gets things wrong all the time, but that’s not a bad thing, it’s always been a process of trial and error. New information always has the potential to change old information, and that’s the way it’s probably always gonna be. I think people just have this misconception of science, largely because the scientific community has allowed it to happen, that science is somehow infallible, that it has to be right always, or it falls apart. There’s really no need for that kind of pressure, science is just another tool in the belt, sometimes it builds some sturdy foundations, and other times it builds on quicksand. We shouldn’t be upset or angry if something is proven wrong, we learn so much more from errors than we do success. That said, the scientific community shouldn’t just roll over for the first guy claiming to have falsified something, takes a lot more than that.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@noel101082 How is YOUR understanding of thermodynamics? You’re aware that it has more to do with energy transfer and equilibrium right, not so much matter? For example, when your coffee goes cold, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy? Pretty simple example I hope. Matter of course tags along for the ride sometimes (and total entropy is always inevitable), but matter is subject to forces that can and do keep them contained, effectively slowing entropy. Forces like gravity, which is what contains our atmosphere. Flat Earth can claim all they like that an open atmosphere contradicts entropy laws, but it’s very ignorant to the role gravity plays on the system. We measure a pressure gradient, that’s a reality, the pressure gradient is consistent with what we’d expect with gravity containing our atmosphere, so much so it’s included in atmospheric pressure equations as a variable. Even flat Earthers have sent up weather balloons to the fringes of atmosphere, and you might notice in that video footage that the balloons all eventually pop, as they’re designed to do in vacuum conditions. So even FE has unknowingly measured the vacuum that exists up there…but you know what they have never found? A container…and neither has mainstream science.
So all they have is a butchered understanding of thermodynamics physics…no actual tangible evidence for this container they claim exists. Evidence is pretty key to scientific conclusions…we should never form conclusions without it. They can maybe form a hypothesis from their understanding, but it’s easily falsified just by understanding that gases are subject to gravity, just like all mass is. Though it’s dead in the water just by confirming satellites exist as well…but I understand they’ll fight tooth and nail to deny that technology exists, so I won’t use it for argument here.
On top of all that, you do realize our system is constantly shedding energy and gas, right? So entropy does occur all the time in our atmosphere, that’s why atmosphere extends so far. The Karmen line is the official border of space, but it’s not a defined line, there’s still atmosphere even at that distance, it’s still a gradient of gas. FE might have a point…IF we didn’t have a source of new energy for our system. Luckily for us hough, we have a constant source of new energy, from the Sun. But that now presents a bit of a problem for FE’s model. If our system is contained, with no way for gas to escape…yet our system is constantly receiving energy that produces new gases every single day…wouldn’t we expect heat and air pressure to rise exponentially? I think you’ll find it’s actually flat Earth that breaks thermodynamics laws.
To your other points, curie point only effects metals HOLDING a magnetic charge…it has nothing to do with ELECTROMAGNETIC charges, which our rotating molten iron core could easily produce…in fact it’s the only thing that could create the magnetic field we know exists on Earth. Tell me…how does Flat Earth explain this magnetic field? What do you know about seismology? Do you know anything at all about the science that helped us determine the composition of our inner core? What do you know about S and P waves? I think you should do some research on that if this topic truly interests you.
Coriolis is observed, measured and proven, so it’s not a “pseudo effect” in the slightest…you’re just ignorant. Hurricanes and Typhoons are observed to rotate in opposite directions depending on their hemisphere, marksman and artillery gunners do absolutely have to account for this effect or they will miss targets, even pilots must adjust for this effect. Here’s a marksman explaining and demonstrating Coriolis drop charting https://youtu.be/jX7dcl_ERNs. Here’s an actual pilot explaining how pilots adjust fir this effect in flight https://youtu.be/eugYAfHW0I8. And here’s an accredited scientist and engineer directly testing the effect, verifying it exists through experimentation https://youtu.be/mXaad0rsV38.
So any other bullshit points from FE you’d like to address? You should really stop getting your physics lessons from huxters and conmen in YouTube videos. You do strike me as an intelligent person…don’t let your desires to confirm a bias you may have, rob you of your objective reasoning. Flat Earth is an online hoax, perpetuated by conmen…don’t be one of their victims. It’s perfectly fine to question things, in fact it’s logical to question everything and remain skeptical, but don’t forget to turn that skeptical eye around on even the sources of information you’ve come to trust. It’s not difficult to lie online…the modern internet is a con mans paradise. Just keep that in mind.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Yes you can, because direction is relative. That angle is relative to the Earth’s orbital plane, so that angle can be determined because a reference point can be determined. Earth doesn’t have a top or bottom though, because what would those distinctions be relative too? 🤷♂️ What’s your reference point for making that determination?
An axis of rotation is objective, an orbital path is objective, so a tilt in the axis of rotation can be objectively determined relative to that orbital plane. Top or bottom though…any point on Earths surface is equally valid for either designation, any and all points on Earth can be the top or the bottom, so none are. The axis of rotation however, is in one place, it’s not going anywhere. Earth only orbits along one path, so they are set in stone. So you can absolutely determine an axial tilt relative to that orbit.
It’s not our problem you don’t understand relative reference points. The rest of us understand that direction is relative just fine.
5
-
@zquest42 I find that’s where a lot of flat Earthers start, with the “faked space” docs about NASA. I find it’s key to note here though, that even if they did (or even could) fake going too space for this long, it still does not mean the Earth is flat. But I get it, it’s where some people seem to start losing trust in science, once that trust is gone, you start going deeper. Which is fine, nothing wrong with asking questions and I’m glad people are out there keeping an eye on authority, it’s actually the one thing I admire about flat Earth...but I think you start to lean heavy on that bias of not trusting them, and I don’t really think you’re being as objective about things as you seem to think.
What if I told you though, that those “faked space” docs, are taking you on a ride? That they’re the real liars and scammers, doing all they can to get you to believe what they’re selling you. It’s not hard once they have you doubting and getting people to doubt is easy (especially if you already don’t trust something or someone), just edit the information a little bit, lie and speculate endlessly. You’d likely disagree, but have you ever stopped to actually challenge any of their claims, or were you prone to believe them almost immediately, simply because you tend to trust the word of regular people, more than you do systems of authority?
I’ll take a moment to shed some more light on my point, addressing just a couple of your other points.
Neil saying the Earth is a pear/oblate spheroid. If you were really being objective here, you’d actually watch the full interview where this comment was made. Even Neil realized his comparison of a pear wasn’t accurate and then later he redacted the comment, restating several times that the Earth is classified as an Oblate Spheroid, meaning not a perfect sphere, slightly wider at the Equator, which is true. That’s the part you likely know, the part you’ve likely never asked yourself though is HOW OBLATE is it? The answer is, not very much at all. To the naked eye, it will appear perfectly spherical...but when you really measure it, technically it is not perfect. Scientists are all about accuracy, they know it looks perfectly spherical to your naked eye, but it’s not in reality, so he was being honest and telling people its true classification. It is bias that leads you to think this is somehow fishy...it is classic cherry picking and twisting of information to fit a bias, turning an honest answer into suspicion, all to confirm bias. If you’d like to visualize just how tiny the difference is, here’s a great video that can help. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjx0KcDH7pQ It’s a tiny difference, as this video demonstrates, you will not notice by simply eyeballing it.
Saying they can’t go back to the Moon cause they lost/destroyed the tech. Well, first of all, new missions are planned for later this decade, just look up the Artemis project, they are going back very soon. Secondly, there are details and an engineering perspective you’re not considering here. They only built so many lunar modules, and they are old and falling apart, so they were discontinued and destroyed, because they’re not safe for manned missions anymore. The plans of course still exist, but they too are out dated...it’s like building a model T car when our technology for building cars is far more advanced now, why would we build another model T to go into space? We wouldn’t, we’d engineer a new vehicle...the problem is, when you do this, there is a long process of research and development that needs to occur. Every new system has to be tested thoroughly, for the environment it’s going to be used in...this presented a problem over the last 40 years or so, because the old modules were all analog...which were not prone to breaking down in strong magnetic and radioactive fields, like the ones found in deep space. Smaller digital microchips however, they do not hold up very well in these harsh environments. So what do you think the ISS has been working on this whole time? They are a research lab in space, a testing environment for these new components. It took a lot of R&D, but now we have solid state technology, your phone is likely making use of it right now. These replaced the old disk drives that are damaged in strong magnetic fields, so now they have modern systems that are sturdy enough to withstand deep space missions. The other problem they had was funding, there was no interest to go back to the Moon right away, so they weren’t putting as many resources towards it...that and rocket launches used to be a LOT more expensive, about half a billion per launch...not including payload R&D. Thanks to Elon Musk though and his new Falcon rockets, that price tag is WAY down, now about 60 million per launch. So it’s a lot more economically viable now...so guess what this does, it brings in more investors.
The trouble is as I see it, when some people don’t understand something, they tend to assume it’s because it’s wrong...rather than consider the details and nuances of the actual problem. The other trouble is people’s general impatience...why do you assume that just because it’s taking a long time to perfect space travel, it somehow means they’re faking it? Space is probably the harshest environments we will ever explore...why would think this is somehow easy to do? It’s going to take time. There are good valid reasons why they haven’t gone back to the Moon in awhile...taking quotes from scientists out of context and twisting their meaning, is not being objective, it’s more cherry picking and confirmation bias, the very opposite of objective.
I could go down the list of these claims made by “faked space” conspiracy vids, but at the end of the day...neither you nor I can truly verify anything for certain here, we can both only speculate. I have logical answers to all their claims, but it’s still only speculation, unless I’m an astronaut or someone higher up in NASA. So I don’t like focusing on things I can only speculate on...but I do strongly believe the real con men here are the people who make these “faked space” videos. They use a lot of really dishonest tactics and endless speculation to get people to see things their way, showing you only what they want you to see, never considering alternative explanations. So They are the ones I do not trust.
This is why I prefer to stick to things like flat Earth, because I live here, I can test the Earth whenever I want, I don’t have to speculate, I can reach objective conclusions that I can actually verify. And I have done that...the geometry of Earth does not lie, the flat Earth model does not fit with observable reality. Meanwhile the Globe answers for everything.
Again though, it’s fine to question things, even logical, but seriously...if you think people on YouTube can’t lie to you and take you on a ride of their design, then you’re exactly what they are looking for. Don’t trust them blindly, turn that skeptical lens around and put their claims to question as well.
5