Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
Actually, gravity is the root cause of buoyancy…so it very much is causing the beach ball to rise up in water. That’s why gravity is a variable in the equation for buoyancy force; Fb=Vpg. Notice that little ‘g’ there? That’s the downward acceleration of gravity; 9.8m/s^2.
It works like this; all matter has a tendency to repel other matter, because they can’t occupy the same physical space. More dense matter will occupy a position first, because it has more inertia (meaning it requires more energy to move it), so it easily pushes less dense matter out of its way. So now what happens if everything is just stationary, in a system where every molecule is not attracted towards surface and put into motion towards anything? Nothing will happen, it would be a mixed system of various molecules just assuming their origin positions in space, it would be unorganized, mixed and chaotic. But now introduce a force that attracts every molecule towards the same location, you now have every molecule moving towards that force of attraction, they’re now put into motion. Now these molecules will order themselves, because the densest matter will occupy lowest potential energy state first (closest position possible to the attractive force), which then forces molecules of lesser density out of the way, directly away from the force of attraction. So you see…buoyancy is directly caused by gravity, buoyancy is the end result of a chain reaction.
This is physics 101 today…gravity actually causes buoyancy. This is understood and accepted science by every scientist and engineer today. So you can’t just say it’s buoyancy…because buoyancy technically doesn’t even exist without gravity to cause it. Saying it’s just buoyancy, just tells everyone that you don’t really know much about physics.
4
-
@auraveenley.8743 Perspective, the ad hoc response of flat Earth, that they seem to think solves all their problems, pretending like the rest of us have never even heard the term before, let alone understand it. I’m sorry, but it’s just incredible to me how some people can actually act as though they’re the arbiters of perspective, while completely ignoring many of the basic fundamentals, of perspective…like angular size change, for example. I mean if you’re trying to just poke a stick in people’s eye and be annoying…hey, it’s working, but you must have a really low opinion of the scientific community, if you honestly think they never once thought to consider perspective as a hypothesis to these kinds of questions, at some point.
Please don’t just slot in an ad hoc response to a problem, and then call it a day…learn the fundamentals of perspective, learn the math…then really test the hypothesis you’re presenting. You’ll find it doesn’t actually solve the problems of flat Earth, when you really get into it. It’s fine to ask questions, but there’s a lot of problems with the conclusion of perspective here, and it’s just odd that so many in FE don’t seem to care, despite how paper thin some of the arguments are. For a group claiming to be just looking for the truth and asking questions…many sure don’t put a whole lot of effort into really analyzing their own conclusions.
For example, Flat Earth will also say that a sunset can be explained by perspective…while completely ignoring that things also appear to SHRINK in angular size, due to perspective, as they travel further away. The Sun when observed throughout a whole day, with a solar filter lens, is never observed to change size. So it begs the question, if you’re going to claim perspective is what causes a sunset, then why doesn’t the Sun change size, as it would do, if it was caused by perspective? Doesn’t add up…and it gets worse than that, the math doesn’t work out, the data doesn’t fit, perspective just does not work out when you really examine it further, and I think it time flat Earth was honest about that…or at least analyzed it closer for themselves, rather than pretend it’s perfect.
Idk, it’s just a bit ironic to me…you say it’s us who don’t question our model, then you come here with the perspective argument…which just tells me you’ve never really questioned or tested the claims of Flat Earth. If you’re really just looking for the truth, shouldn’t you put the same standards of review on the Flat Earth model? 🧐
4
-
@drvincentthomas68 Very good, at least it’s an attempt, which is more than most offer. Here’s a few counter points, since you’ve given me at least something to work with.
Well, pictures taken during the same mission, are going to look similar, they’re on a trajectory keeping them observing one surface, and they’re taking many photos at once. But you’re claiming they just used the same photo and adjust it slightly for every mission, is that about right? Ok, then it should be easy to take several images from different Apollo missions and cross reference them to spot things like similar cloud cover, film grains, sun reflections, surface features, etc. So did you do that? Did you even open the link I provided and take a look? Really shouldn’t be hard to prove this claim, if you can match even one photo from each mission, you’d pretty much have a case, but when I look at these photos, I don’t see any similarities...and that’s not from lack of trying. So I can only assume you didn’t really look at the photos I shared.
Besides that, you really didn’t answer the main question, so I’ll rephrase it. How did they create this first image you claim is being reused in every shot, before the CGI technology was created and refined enough to do it? Is it just a painting? Not likely, as an artist for a living, I can tell you how difficult that would be...and no matter how good your artist is, there is always an error that a trained eye could easily spot. Those photos I shared are very high resolution, clicking on one blows them up very big, I’ve gone over many of them, and I don’t see it possible for any artist capable of creating these images, especially not back then. Many don’t realize this, but there has never existed a perfect photo realistic artist, using traditional tools. They come pretty close, but like I said, there is always errors that a trained eye could spot.
You’re next point is talking mostly about low orbit photos and fish eye lenses, but I shared with you an archive containing mostly deep space photos of the entire planet. Little hard to use a fish eye to create a spherical shape, while keeping Earths recognizable land features from distorting and becoming unrecognizable, so your argument there has very little to do with the photos I shared. So I’m really getting the feeling you didn’t look at the links I shared. I’m well aware of FE’s claims of fish eye lenses, slotting that explanation in when it suites your needs, which is why I didn’t share an archive with many low altitude photos. But, even in low orbit photos, you’d have to confirm fish eye was used, that excuse won’t work every time, because they don’t use fish eye lenses in every instance, it’s largely just a lie saying that they do. Yes, fish eye is used in many examples, but not every example. Plenty of examples of launch footage and ISS footage that did not use fish eye lenses. Pretty much none of the examples I shared are fish eye and they’re mostly deep space images...so again, did you even look at the links I provided?
The Moon is actually 1/4 the size of Earth, but hey, correct details don’t matter much in FE, right? https://www.space.com/18135-how-big-is-the-moon.html So why would you think it’d look much bigger, from the exact same distance? So if the Moon is roughly the size of a dime, the Earth is about the size of a dollar, roughly, a silver dollar if I’m Being generous. You really think that would look much different to your naked eye, from the exact same distance, with no reference to compare it to while observing? Especially in a photograph that is likely zoomed, cropped, panned, etc...little hard to determine the true size of an object from a photograph. It’s not the size that’s off, it’s your assumed expectations that are off. You’ve seen too many movies, where Earth is depicted as filling the whole sky from the Moon, and this has created an extremely off scale expectation for you. Actually do the math sometime, you’ll find the Earth is exactly the size it should be, from that distance.
Neil made a poor comparison, when he made that comment. He even realized it himself, in the very discussion he said it in. If you watch the rest of that discussion (and not just the part Flat Earth cherry picks for you), you’ll know he later redacts that comment and explains that Earth is classified an oblate spheroid, meaning not a perfect sphere. From this, Flat Earth has spun this narrative out of context, making it out to be a huge difference...but have you ever bothered to see it visualized before? Here’s a video that quickly demonstrates how slight the difference is https://youtu.be/tjx0KcDH7pQ. As this video demonstrates, the difference is so small, you will not see it with the naked eye very easily. But just because it appears perfectly spherical to the naked eye, doesn’t mean it is, your eyes are not very good measuring tools...science prefers to be more precise. Science said Earth was oblate...it’s Flat Earth that spun Neils words into a lie, exaggerating things to make it seem like the difference was extremely noticeable. It’s cherry picking and simple dishonesty tactics like that, that should raise some red flags...but for some reason it doesn’t for some. I find that odd personally.
Sure, feel free to go on all you like actually, you’ll find your arguments maybe aren’t as air tight as you think they are.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@set3777 Parallax effect more than explains why the positions of stars don’t appear to shift night after night, but you might be interested to know that they actually do over long periods of time, any amateur astronomer will tell you that, just research stellar parallax. So now explain why there’s two rotations please…because again, that is an impossible geometry on a flat Earth with one sky.
I’ve been to the Southern Hemisphere many times, as far down as Invercargill, South Island of New Zealand. On those travels, I could not see the Big Dipper or any of the constellations I’m used too, but what I did see is a constellation I do not see here, the Southern Cross. That’s exactly what I would expect to see on a globe, a different night sky on a second hemisphere. That however doesn’t make much sense on a flat Earth. So again….don’t be biased please, it won’t get you anywhere.
4
-
@dominiccharvet546 All things stay in motion, until acted upon by an unbalanced force. The problem with attempting to harvest power from the law of inertia, is friction…which is an unbalanced force, which slows things down. Your car doesn’t keep rolling for the same reason, because of friction from the ground, air, and the parts inside the engine making contact with the other parts of the engine. Any motor that generates power has to rub on turbines…that cause a great deal of friction, which is an unbalanced force…which slows things down, eventually stopping their motion.
So swing and a miss…you ignored the second half of the first law of motion; pays to pay attention to every detail in science, not just the parts you cherry pick. The Earth doesn’t have the same problem…because there’s no air in space, meaning no friction, so it will travel indefinitely. Helped along by gravity…but gravity is not the main factor. Denial of gravity is really not an argument against it. So you just let us know when you have a better scientific theory for why everything is attracted and put in motion towards Earth.
There’s an entire fossil record that we have found, that traces our evolution back millions of years. We didn’t come from monkey’s, that’s not how evolution works. 🤦♂️ We share a common ancestor, but that ancestor was not a monkey or ape as we know them today, it was something different. We are a branch from that evolution, monkeys are a different branch, that occurred millions of years ago. And evolution doesn’t account for the start of living organisms, that’s abiogenesis.
Nothing you’re saying falsifies the globe, current cosmology, or evolution…you’re just demonstrating your own lack of knowledge on the topics you’re arguing against. And it’s no secret as too why…because they contradict your Bible, meaning your indoctrination is more than likely bullshit, so you’re attempting to avoid realizing that. But understand this…science is not out to disprove a God, your Bible and your religion have something to worry about, but God is an unfalsifiable belief, so it’s completely outside of science. Science deals with the physical, God is metaphysical, so science has no means of disproving a potential creator…but we seriously doubt you have any real clue what that creator is, or if it even exists. You’re just as clueless on that front as the rest of us…time to wake up. :/
4
-
4
-
@roystimaz1576 Where’s the assumption? Flat Earth has sent up weather balloons to high altitudes, you’d agree they have I’m sure, so no assumptions there. They eventually reach a point where they can’t climb any higher, because the air pressure has declined so much that buoyancy can no longer occur...because as everyone knows, air pressure decreases the higher you go in altitude...what happens when that air pressure reaches zero psi I wonder? Hmmm. Then if you watch until the end of each video, these balloons eventually burst, which is what’s expected to happen as they reach vacuum conditions. No barrier found along the way, just a black emptiness above our atmosphere, that is measured in barometric readings on real weather balloons as a vacuum.
So there’s your experiment, go look up one of your own flat Earth high altitude balloon videos, they provide all the evidence you need to verify atmosphere next to a vacuum, no physical barrier required. Gravity is the container, you are simply just misunderstanding thermodynamics physics, because you listened blindly to con men feed you bullshit about the science.
Let’s call it like it is, you are not scientists or experts with working experience or knowledge in any field relevant to the discussion of Earth science. You are layman, who were suckered by con men online, who are misunderstanding physics and twisting it so you can confirm your bias, nothing more. You may think you’re achieving something by having these ignorant “debates” on social media comment sections, where you show off your scientific illiteracy...but it’s just another delusion among many that you harbour.
Let us know when flat Earth has a working model...or is used for any applied science...you know, like the Globe model does and is.
4
-
1) They actually work better in a vacuum (no drag force) and action reaction (same physics that causes a gun to recoil) is exactly how they do it. If you honestly think they need to push off of air, then you clearly don’t understand the 3rd law of motion as well as you seem to think.
2) We only see the circumpolar stars all year (but only a single hemisphere, ask yourself why you don’t see the opposite hemispheres sky), the seasonal stars however do in fact change all year, and exactly for the reason you said, because we’re travelling around the Sun. You even know the constellation names, they’re the zodiac constellations. The circumpolar stars lie closer to our poles, which means the Sun never comes between them, that’s why we see them all year round. The seasonal stars however lie closer to the equator, so the Sun blocks them from view periodically throughout the year.
3) Biological systems don’t break the laws of entropy, in fact in the middle stages of any entropic system (so the universe) we’d expect a lot of chaos, disorder, and mixing, which creates a lot of different interactions between many different molecules, which can form into more complex structures thanks to natural forces of attraction. Entropy will cause the end of all things in time, but we’re nowhere near that end currently, we’re in the middle stages, the most diverse and chaotic of stages. We believe evolution, because that’s what all the evidence points too. We’re not just going to ignore that because of some old superstitions, with essentially zero evidence.
What is with some people completely misunderstanding science, and then thinking it’s everyone else who’s wrong? Couldn’t possibly be that you actually don’t know very much at all, noooooo sir. 🙄
4
-
@smack24 Also, I’m sure you’re aware that the English language has plenty of nuance. Most words have several different definitions, that depends on the context of its application. Level is one of those words...you seem to think it only means flat, but that’s simply not true. Level as an adjective, can be defined as a surface with all points at equal distance from a point of reference, also known as at equipotential. That’s how the word is used in the context of sea level. A surface that’s level, in the context that all points along the surface are at equal distance from centre of Earth, from centre of gravity. An Equipotential surface.
You don’t have to just take my word for it though, just read some of the official Webster definitions https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level. Entry 3, under adjectives.
You are being conned...by huxters who are taking advantage of your lack of knowledge and understandings. Spinning you a cleverly crafted lie, that you’re eating up like a good little numpty. Good job...these huxters are very proud of you, helping them spread bullshit.
4
-
4
-
Hi, just gonna answer these in the order you've presented them.
- As Scott pointed out in his excellent explanation, we don't need to create materials that resist these temperatures, because the convection rate in space is very very low, to non existent. 2000 degrees Celsius would be a problem...with a lot of air pressure to help the constant and consistent transfer of heat between molecules (convection), but in space, where the pressure is essentially zero, this is no problem. Do some research on convection and conduction, they matter greatly to understanding how temperature works in different environments and conditions. Basic rule of thumb, the higher the pressure, the more molecules of matter with mass to help transfer heat to you, the faster something will cook or be incinerated. Since space is a vacuum, convection heat transfer is basically non existent, making it easily possible for materials to withstand the environmental conditions.
- What problems are you referring too? I'm not too familiar with the problems you're claiming flight crews deal with. We have people on the ISS currently who are monitored for how much radiation they receive while on flight, but I wasn't aware flight crews had much worry. I will say, I used to work in a Uranium mine, insulating pipes for the large refineries. The radiation we received in these compounds we were repairing, probably far exceeded anything that people in space receive on a daily basis (depending), and we were fine. I think people tend to have a lot of assumptions on radiation exposure and space...but don't really know much about how much radiation an astronaut really receives, or how much the human body can actually handle. I wouldn't be so quick to assume space travel radiation is as harmful as you seem to think it is. Though I don't have all the answers here, but don't let assumptions lead you.
- Gravity....I know you've heard of it. We're all well aware of this force, we deal with it every day. If you're not convinced it's real, that's a whole other discussion we could have, but a question is not an argument and it's not evidence, so please don't assume a question alone should debunk established physics.
- Actually, 500 km is still not very high at all...though it's actually only 400 km, so you're off by 100 km. Still, if you were to put things to scale, get yourself a basketball, and then place your finger roughly 1 cm off the surface...that's roughly how far from the surface the ISS is by comparison. So you actually wouldn't be able to see the TOTAL curvature in its entirety. You'd be able to see a bit of it...and you do actually, have you ever actually watched ISS footage? The curvature is pretty clear.
- Well, water, like all dead matter, is inert, so it conforms to whatever force is acting upon it. Gravity vectors shift as you move, always drawing matter toward center of Earth, so the water in a swimming pool will be drawn to center, just like the ocean you're traveling upon. Learn some gravity physics please.
- As I'm sure you're aware, magnetism affects all matter differently. It might be stronger for metal alloys, but you're certainly not being sucked towards every magnet next to you, are you? They're not overlooking or discarding electromagnetism in their understandings...they just understand that magnetism affects matter differently and so this does not account for the consistent accelerating drop of matter to surface, at 9.8 m/s^2. They're not ignoring electromagnetism....they've just completely falsified it as a variable to what causes matter to be drawn to surface. Do some catching up to modern physics, and you'd very likely draw the same conclusion.
- Gravity emanates out from a center, so elevation is measured from that center. Water flows from high elevation to low elevation, that's how water flows. So if elevation is measured from center, then high elevation is away from center, low elevation is closest to center. So water is just flowing to center, that's where lowest potential energy is, center of gravity. I'm sure you've heard that term before, center of gravity. That's what everything balances too. When something is balanced, it's balanced to center of gravity, meaning its center of mass is level with center of gravity, perpendicular to it. When any point of a mass falls below center of gravity, when a majority of its mass is at a lower elevation than the rest of its mass, then it will fall to that lower elevation...toward center. So water flows just fine on a sphere, with gravity. Again...please learn some gravity physics, that's where you'll find your answers.
I'm sorry you're "tired of swallowing the facts", but you're asking the wrong questions. A lot of your questions here seem centered around gravity physics, but you didn't ask a single question around how science discovered or verified that gravity exists. You just acted as though it doesn't exist and then asked questions pretending like gravity has never even been hypothesized. You know very well that gravity is the answer to most of your questions...but then why not ask some actual questions pertaining to how gravity works, or to learn what scientific experimentation has helped to verify it? I just find it odd is all...and if you have concluded that gravity does not exist, then please provide your reasons...because science would strongly disagree with you. So if you feel you have somehow successfully falsified gravity, then by all means, provide your evidence and explanation. I'm happy to share what knowledge I have of gravity physics, so if that's what you're hung up on, then by all means, perhaps ask some questions relevant to your real quandary.
4
-
Learn to navigate, and then after you've acquired that knowledge, apply it by plotting and planning a navigation route, using only the stars, horizon and lines of latitude and longitude. Our entire system of navigation relies on the knowledge that the surface we navigate is spherical. If it were flat, mankind would have developed a system of navigation for that geometry, but currently, every pilot and sailor in the entire world, uses a system designed for a sphere, with a circumference of 25,000 miles. That's for a good reason, because Earth is spherical.
Navigation is one of the best ways to prove the Earths geometry for yourself. It's not hard to start learning, tons of videos on YouTube covering the topic.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Lordani66 So you honestly don’t see the motive in his actions? Why won’t Dubay debate the smaller fish on YouTube? Why only Neil? If he’s so confident, he shouldn’t be so picky, you’d think he’d just debate anyone. He wants Neil specifically, because he wants to market himself, it is a calculated move. See...the thing about debates is, it doesn’t really matter if you’re objectively wrong in the end, if you’re a better bullshitter, you can still convince a portion of the audience and pull them to your side, cause a portion of your audience is always going to be stupid and easy to persuade. It’s a liars game...and Eric has an edge in that department, he lies like breathing. You don’t even have to convince all of them or even a small majority, cause there is always gonna be suckers in the crowd easily dazzled by the underdog and that pool of people expands the larger your audience. He wants to debate Neil, cause he’s a celebrity, meaning he has followers, meaning it spreads his bullshit further...that’s the only reason he wants that chance.
Neil is a scientist, not a public debater, it’s not his arena, he’s got better shit to do other than to feed the conmen of the world, just looking to market their scam further. Call it a cop out if you want to, it’s still the wiser choice not giving into scammers. Eric wants to debate these big fish, he better get working on becoming one. Only when he’s on equal footing, should he ever be acknowledged.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Well, you'd need to still explain why things fall, why that direction is always down, why that rate of falling is always 9.8m/s^2, why that number can accurately be used to calculate everything from an objects weight (W=mg), to its buoyancy (Fb=Vpg), to a planes lift to weight ratio (ratio=F/W=ma/mg=a/g), etc. So ya...you'd still have a force causing a downward accelerating motion in all matter, that you'd have to account for in physics....you know, kind of like we already have. You can't just be ignorant to physical reality, or else we would get nothing done. Applied science kind of depends on us being objective. There is an obvious falling motion in all matter, motion does not occur without a force putting it into motion...it's basic physics.
You can pretend all you want that you're onto something big here, but you're arguing against applied science here, there's no debate on this topic anymore. Much of the technology and infrastructures YOU make use of on a daily basis, are only made possible because our knowledge of Earths shape, scale and geometry is accurate. Seriously, if you think scientists and experts can build EVERYTHING around you, but they can't solve something as trivial as the true shape of the Earth...then you might need some help my dude.
Of course there's lots of "evidence" for Flat Earth, the con men pushing that bullshit are working really hard to ensure there appears to be a lot of "evidence". They're taking you on a ride...and you're happy to take that ride, because they know how paranoid everyone is these days, they know it gives you a bit of peace of mind to pretend like you're back in control, that you can bag the bad guys and be a hero if you stick with the fantasy they're laying out for you. Must feel good...but it's not real, so hopefully you realize that eventually.
4
-
@falcor1969 Density is not a force, it has no physical capability of putting matter into motion, in any direction, it's just a property of matter, how much mass occupies a volume, that's all density is. Falling is a motion, I'm sure you'd agree to at least that much, it's pretty obvious. Nothing is put into motion without a force, it's the first law of motion. So if Density is not a force, but motion requires a force...then how exactly does density by itself put matter into motion? You're not really thinking this through very well, you're just being intentionally ignorant for the sake of your bias.
Density and buoyancy are already a part of gravity physics, you're just chopping out the parts you don't like and calling it a day. Not very objective of you, but then even by calling yourself a Flat Earther, you basically admit your bias. Do you see scientists calling themselves Globe Earthers? No, because they could care less what shape the Earth is at the end of the day, but they do require that information to be accurate, because we can't do anything with false information. Flat Earth is not used in the foundation of any applied science, that's a fact, not an opinion...and that should really be your first clue that it's false.
You have a great many misunderstandings about gravity. Yes, gravity is not a very powerful force at all, but it is a constant and it is far reaching. Doesn't take much energy at all to overcome gravity here on Earth, but the larger the object, the more mass it has, so the more gravity is effecting it...it's in the law of universal gravitation, gravity force is proportional to an objects mass. Hence why the Moon easily stays in orbit, it's not exactly small by any means, it's 1/4 the size of Earth...so it's going to be effected by gravity a lot more, and even produce a lot of its own gravity.
Your own personal misunderstandings are not evidence. Where I come from, if you don't know the answer to something everyone else understands perfectly well...it generally means you're stupid.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@dragoncosmico Actually gravity is a law as well, look up Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation…it’s where the foundation of gravity science began.
It’s also a common misconception, but laws are not higher than theory in science, they’re actually considered as equal, just a different form of conclusion. Laws of science describe what is occurring, but make no attempt to explain how or why. Theory’s are the explanation of how a phenomena of nature works. That’s the difference between the two. Both are supported by a body of evidence and facts that are verified and peer reviewed, they are both conclusions, nothing goes beyond them in science. But it could actually be argued that theories are above laws, because you will always have more power and control over a system if you understand HOW it works, rather than just WHAT it does.
Anyway, it just does more to reveal the scientific illiteracy of Flat Earthers really. By saying anything is “just a theory”, they basically admit they have no real understanding of the terminology and basic language of science. Electromagnetism is also a theory of science, but you won’t see them pointing that out. They only pick on gravity, because it’s not very convenient for what they want to believe….it’s just classic confirmation bias through intentional ignorance and plain ol’ denial.
4
-
4
-
@nickmerix2900 No, what really happened was that Rogan set up a debate that Neil didn’t know about or even agree too, I don’t think he even talked to Dubay about it, he just assumed it would happen. So nothing was set up officially, or agreed too by both individuals. I don’t know about you, but if someone pencilled me in for something I didn’t agree too, I’d tell them to kick rocks too. It’s pretty common sense that you should probably ASK a person well in advance if they’re cool with doing something like a debate, before you just assume they will. Neil has stated many times publicly, that he does not do debates, it’s not his thing…so Rogan should have probably done his homework first.
Meanwhile, Dubay has been asked many times too debate, by many different people and experts, here on YouTube and other platforms…so far he’s accepted none of them. So what’s he afraid of?
I say, if people don’t want to debate, it should be fine, it’s not for everyone. Debating is a skill like any other, it also takes time to properly prepare, some people don’t have the time or interest. Rogan shouldn’t be pencilling people in for things without asking first, he’s kind of an idiot for doing so.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@eyestoseefe7618 Those are math simplification models, for abstract simulations and hypotheticals…they’re not literally stating the Earth is flat, they are assumed variables. Go ahead and tell me what you know about mathematical models and how papers such as those are written. Go ahead…let’s see your expertise on the subject.
Mathematical models often simplify math, to make the math easier to use and easier to calculate. It’s actually a whole field of work in mathematics, to derive simpler equations, by removing redundant variables or variables that won’t effect what they’re being used for. When a math simplification is made, it must be stated very clearly what variables are being omitted in the simplification, so that the reader is aware. They’re not making a literal statement, or drawing a conclusion…that’s why these are often found in the summary sections, just before the equations to follow. They’re typically used in simulations…which are never a full representation of reality.
What we have here is a classic example of cherry picking, from layman, who have no idea what they’re reading. Further verifying that you don’t know much about math or science.
Here’s a thought…in all of these mathematical models, there is an author for the work…why hasn’t any Flat Earther ever thought to contact any of these authors? If you think I’m lying to you…go ahead and contact the authors, I’m sure with a little effort they wouldn’t be difficult to track down. You should be demanding that these people who present these papers too you, that they contact some of the authors, and ask them directly. If you really care about the truth, then you think that would be step one in your research.
Why people just assume they know what’s being said in a mathematical model, when they’re not trained mathematicians themselves, it just boggles me.
4
-
@eyestoseefe7618 Gases exist just fine next to space, thanks to gravity. Gas has mass, all matter with mass is affected by gravity, that includes all gases. Buoyancy is what causes lighter gases to rise, and buoyancy is directly caused by gravity…that’s physics 101, proven in countless different drop tests for buoyancy force. It’s also why gravity is the force variable in the equation for buoyancy; Fb=Vpg. Real engineers use that equation to build the ballast tanks for ships and submarines…even dock crews use it to know just how much weight a single ship can carry, before it capsizes. Remove the gravity variable, and that equation becomes useless. Learn how buoyancy works…it’s caused by density displacement, that displacement is caused by the downward acceleration of gravity. Physics 101.
Entropy does occur, and our system allows for it to happen, we’re constantly shedding both thermal energy and gas…thankfully we have a Sun providing us with a constant supply of new energy, which biological life uses to photosynthesize new gases at the surface. The entropy of gas though is slowed and contained by gravity. That’s another point you Flatties ignore…the fact that entropy can be slowed, by attractive forces. Heck, your body is proof of that. You are an entropic system…held together by many different attractive forces, working in tandem to keep entropy at bay. Entropy is easily slowed and contained, it will always win in the end, but it’s a slowly won battle, thanks to forces like gravity.
I think you’ll find it’s actually your Flat Earth system that breaks thermodynamics laws. If there’s a container not allowing any gas or energy out…then wouldn’t we expect our system to drastically increase in both heat and pressure over time? 🧐 I’m sure you’re aware of what occurs with a pressurized container of gas when a flame is held too it. The Sun is a constant provider of new energy…energy can not be destroyed only transferred….if it has nowhere to go, it eventually explodes.
That’s of course making a few assumptions of your model, that assumption being a dome that closes around just the Earth. But of course I’m aware there is no working model of Flat Earth, and not a single one you all agree on, you all just assume arguments from ignorance are good enough…so it’s pretty pointless to bother. But either way, you guys are butchering thermodynamics laws. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has more to do with thermal energy transfer, hence THERMOdynamics. It’s not so much applicable to gases, for that we use the ideal gas laws, in this case Boyles Law, which is basically the same law, but reworked to apply to the nuances of matter with a mass, gases. Energy has no mass, so thermodynamics doesn’t apply to gas so much…it’s referring to energy. For example, when your coffee goes cold, its thermal temperature coming to equilibrium with the surrounding air, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy? 🧐 Shouldn’t have to tell you, it’s just the energy. That’s an example of thermodynamics. Again, our Earth sheds energy all the time, and the open system allows it to do that.
When it comes to gases, we use the gas laws. But even those are limited in what they can be used for. In the ideal gas law equations, volume is used as a key variable in every equation, basically the container. This becomes a problem with the atmosphere, because it’s technically infinite, so no volume can be determined or measured. So for atmosphere, we use a completely different set of gas equations, that replace volume with gravity. Gravity is the container of Earth’s atmosphere, and it creates the pressure gradient we observe and measure. So gases are treated differently in physics, depending on whether it’s a volume of gas (ideal gas laws), or an open atmosphere of gases (atmospheric pressure).
That’s a quick summary of the physics you guys butcher, but that’s not evidence on its own, obviously. That’s what’s also key here…Flat Earth has reached a conclusion of the firmament container, on butchered physics alone…with ZERO tangible evidence. We can not reach conclusions in science without EVIDENCE. Yet you people have drawn a conclusion anyway…that’s all I need to know to understand that you are just another online group of layman pushing pseudoscience.
You have not found this dome you believe is up there. It has not been observed, measured, tested, or interacted with in any way….you have however found evidence for the vacuum of space, and without realizing it. I’m sure you’re aware of the many weather balloons the Flat Earth has sent up over the years in the attempt to observe curvature (which they’ve done successfully I might add, just take a ruler to anyone of those horizons), did you ever happen to notice the blackness of space above a blue atmosphere, and surrounding the Sun? That’s exactly what we’d expect to see in our model. And if you watch until the end, the balloons always eventually pop…as they’re designed to do, once reaching vacuum conditions. So even Flat Earth has verified the existence of space, with evidence that’s repeatable….but ya know what you guys have never found? A container.
You’re gonna have to face it eventually…you were conned by huxters online, who took advantage of your lack of scientific/mathematical knowledge and experience, to feed you absolute made up bullshit. What’s funny is that you’ll all blindly agree to their bullshit without question…….then call us brainwashed sheep. Oh the irony. 😂
Meanwhile, scientists and engineers are using the knowledge I’m explaining to you here, to build and innovate the modern world around you….while you flatties are in basements, clacking away on keyboards, contributing nothing. Not a hill I’d wanna die on…but you do you I guess.
4
-
@eyestoseefe7618 Already explained it to you, those are mathematical simplification models…they are assumed variables, not to be taken literally.
Just zero in on a few of them and read them closer. You’ll find the word ASSUMED in almost all of them. And many of them assume many other variables not applicable to reality as well. For example, the most famous of the examples Flat Earthers cherry pick from, the NASA document 1207 “Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model”, it also assumes and says quite clearly, quote; “a rigid vehicle of constant mass”. It’s says those exact words directly before “flat and stationary Earth” Those are both impossible variables in reality, no mechanical vehicle with scores of moving parts is perfectly rigid, and they do not maintain constant mass because of crew members that shift around and fuel that depletes.
Why don’t you zero in on those words? It’s simple, because they don’t help you confirm your bias. Can’t cherry pick things that don’t fit the narrative, so they can be ignored….isn’t that right?
4
-
4
-
@elfalte You didn’t shake anything, you’re not the first flattie I’ve chatted with. These are poor arguments you’ve presented, that I’ve heard many times…that I’ve answered probably hundreds of times at this point. The Stars don’t appear to move because of parallax effect, it’s pretty simple. But they are moving, it’s been determined, we’ve been tracking the stars for centuries, they are moving. If you were an astronomer, you would know this, it’s standard knowledge. As is the second hemisphere sky, which rotates around a different pole star, Sigma Octantis.
You can now either continue to ignore what I’m saying, or you can research it, see that I’m not lying to you, and then maybe realize how impossible it is on a flat Earth.
Flat Earth is a con, that takes advantage of peoples general lack of knowledge, and their growing paranoia that keeps them from looking at things objectively.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TShaun68 Do you sense you’re moving 500 mph when you get up and walk around the cabin of a passenger jet? No, you don’t…yet that’s typically how fast they fly at cruising altitude…so maybe our senses are actually pretty terrible at detecting motion? 🧐 Ya, they are actually…the reality is that we don’t actually sense/feel motion itself, what we sense is sudden or rapid change in motion, not motion itself. That’s actually the first thing you learn in any physics 101 class, the laws of motion. Earth’s motions are constant, with only a few examples of gradual acceleration over long periods of time, so we really wouldn’t expect to feel them, there’s no sudden or rapid acceleration. We have plenty of evidence now verifying that we are in motion (from Foucault pendulum and gyro experiments, to ring laser interferometers detecting and measuring Earth’s motion, to the Coriolis and Eotvos effect, to the gyrocompass, etc), so it’s an argument from ignorance really, to conclude that we don’t spin…simply because you don’t feel it. Learn the physics of motion, and you’ll understand why we don’t.
“Do you also look up to understand what’s under your feet?”
Typically no, but you absolutely can. Reality is bound by geometric rules that are constant, the shape of a surface will alter your position, relative to surrounding objects, by shifting your angle too them, so it’s actually pretty useful information that shouldn’t be ignored. Your argument there is just basically an excuse, to convince others (and yourself) that it’s fine to limit yourself by ignoring geometric information, even though it’s very useful information.
“The horizon is just the convergence point of your eyes…”
Then why does horizon extend the higher you go in elevation? If what you’re saying were accurate, horizon would be at 3 miles whether I’m at 6 feet elevation or 1000 feet…but that’s not what happens. The higher we go, the further we see…like seeing over a curvature. Your conclusion is barely a hypothesis, yet you’re asserting it’s accurate anyway…even though it’s easily refuted with little effort.
“A p900 camera can zoom things back into your range of vision that appear to have crossed the “horizon”…”
First off…what’s with Flat Earth’s obsession with the p900? 🧐 Seriously…telescopes have existed for centuries with focal lengths far exceeding the p900, and zoom lenses for cameras is not new technology…in fact they’re pretty standard in most professional grade cameras today (and have been for awhile), and again many are more powerful than the p900. I’m starting to think Nikon started the Flat Earth movement, so they could sell more cameras…cause it’s the only camera Flat Earthers ever mention. I just find that really odd.
Anyway…more to the point. You mentioned convergence before (vanishing point). Were you aware that vanishing point can occur in any direction, and before physical horizon? So how do you know for certain you’re actually zooming things back from horizon? I’ve seen plenty of examples where things are actually beyond the horizon, and no amount of zoom will bring them back…how are those observations explained by your conclusion? 🧐 In my opinion, if you’re zooming things fully back into focus, then they haven’t actually gone past the horizon yet, you’re just bringing them back from vanishing point, which has occurred before horizon. But once something actually has gone past horizon, no amount of zoom will bring them back. I’d suggest looking up the Turning Torso Tower observation, as a great example of what I’m talking about.
I think there’s a lot Flat Earth ignores or is not aware of and I personally feel they’ve done some pretty poor research honestly. But that’s my opinion after analyzing it, you’re free to disagree, but that’s my stance. I hope this information is helpful, or at the very least interesting. Take care.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4