Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
4
-
@robertfish4734 I’m well aware of the gas laws, including Boyles…you’re still confusing gas pressure with atmospheric pressure. You should Google ‘Ideal Gas Laws’ sometime…says right on the first paragraph of the Wiki, that these laws have their limitations. And that’s true…they’re only used for gases in containers where the volume of the container can be determined, and where it can be reduced to increase pressure…example, the pistons pushing down into a valve compressing gas. They are not used when we’re talking about an open system with infinite volume, like atmospheric pressure. Atmospheric pressure equations replace volume with gravity…look it up bud, you don’t get to just cherry pick whatever you think supports an argument, and then ignore everything else. That’s called confirmation bias…maybe you should look that up too.
By all means, find us tangible evidence for this container. Is there any? Do you think we settle science on misunderstood physics? No…we settle it with evidence. There is plenty of evidence for gravity, from drop tests, to Cavendish experiments, to the satellites we’re putting into orbit with that knowledge. I’ve yet to see anything tangible that verifies this dome container you feel is up there.
You’re just another pseudo intellectual trying to rub dirt in the eye of an authority you’ve come to resent, it’s nothing new.
I DARE YOU, to plot a navigation route and travel it, without using the globe model to help you do it. 😂 Go right ahead.
4
-
@robertfish4734 So mostly a bunch of insults and further denial, but no actual evidence or rebuttals, gotcha. And you people wonder why nobody takes you seriously. 🤦♂️
Nowhere in the report for Operation Fishbowl, does it say they were nuking the dome. 😂 That’s just 100% made up bullshit…and then you have the gull to say we’re making things up? Kettle, meet pot. 😂 No, what it actually says is that they were performing tests of nuclear arsenal in upper atmosphere, to test what effect it has. Pretty standard when you develop a new weapon…you then test it in as many different environments as you can, to observe its effects. They detonated 6 nukes in this test, and gathered data on what occurs. They learned a lot actually, they learned that nuclear fallout travels further, the radio blackout effect also travels further, it does damage still but doesn’t completely decimate an area, it mostly contaminates it and cripples it. This is useful information to have…hence why they do these tests.
You just read the title and then speculated endlessly on what it meant…I bet you’ve never read it. 😄 The reason it’s called “Operation Fishbowl”, is likely because the blast would leave a perfect circle in the clouds where the detonation occurred…which would look a lot like a hole at the top of a round fishbowl, to an observer on the ground.
So feel free to try again. Any actual evidence for this dome?
Cavendish is very repeatable science, I first saw it repeated at a junior high science fair, then again in my high school science lab we had a bunch of old small scale cavendish apparatuses, that we used to learn the history behind the science of gravity. Now there’s hundreds of recreations of this experiment you can find on YouTube alone…it’s repeated all the time.
Your denial of a highly repeatable experiment, is not an argument. If you have any actual falsification to make, feel free to share it…but insulting us and making empty claims doesn’t do anything I’m afraid.
How about being a bit more mature about it? Instead of puffing your chest at everyone, why not drop the superiority act, and have a conversation? You’re just banging your head against the wall with your attitude here. It’s such a waste of time.
4
-
4
-
@robertfish4734 Let’s try this a different way. Gonna try steel manning your argument a bit. From what I gather, your point on Boyles law is simply that; gas always moves from high pressure to low pressure. Your point with breathing demonstrates this; by creating a system of low pressure in your lungs, the higher pressure outside your lungs rushes into the lower pressure, making us able to breath. So your argument is, space is a low pressure, our atmosphere is a high pressure, so it should move to the low pressure, if no physical container is there to keep it.
That’s the jist of it, correct?
Yes, but that’s just how gases work at the most basic level, with no other systems present to also effect things. Our reality is a BIG complex system, with many different systems and laws all working in tandem, each one having an effect on the other. So what if we were to introduce an attractive force to the gases moving from high pressure to low? Try this thought experiment; what if we just had a bunch of gas moving around a system in total equilibrium, now we introduce an attractive force, that attracts the mass of that gas towards it. Ok, so now we have all the gas moving towards that system, and building up around it. The system that was once in perfect equilibrium, now has several pockets of varying pressure all around, it’s now a chaotic system. So what happens when all the gas is now attracted and condensed to one spot? Does that attractive force just shut off? No, the gas still builds up around the source attracting it, and creates a pressure gradient in the mass of gas. The gradient just lasts as long as theres gas to create it, the end of the stacking of gas is where space is. Is the gas moving to the low pressure? Not unless the pressure difference is great enough to trump the attractive force. Sure, it’s 14.7 psi at surface, but at the top of the gradient it’s like 0.00000000000000001 parts per cm^3 and then it’s zero. Not a very big pressure difference…certainly not comparable to our lungs. So gravity easily trumps that.
You see? No laws are being broken here. Gas can and does still move to lower pressure systems, but only if that pressure difference is great enough to trump that force that’s attracting and holding it. Gravity easily keeps our atmosphere from fully expanding into space, this is also observed.
So your argument just ignores gravity, it doesn’t falsify it. We still measure a pressure gradient, we still observe all matter falling to Earth as if attracted by something. That falling is a motion, a force is required for all motion in matter, so a force is present causing that motion. That falling motion is consistent with the direction of the pressure gradient, towards surfaces, so it’s pretty clear that motion is causing the pressure gradient. You’ve done nothing to answer for that motion, or falsify the current conclusions of physics that already explain it.
You’re not the first to present this argument…I’ve heard it hundreds of times now, by many Flat Earthers, they make the same ignorant errors you’re making. You ignore gravity, you’re not falsifying it. That is why we don’t bat an eye at this argument. You’re focusing on one law, while ignoring the rest of the system, you’re not looking at the whole picture. Laws only describe single parts of the whole. Gravity doesn’t break Boyles law, gas still moves from high pressure to low pressure, gravity just introduces an attractive force that attracts gas, it’s just another small piece of the whole.
We understand your argument, we just notice it for what it is, intentional ignorance to confirm a bias.
4
-
4
-
@nicholashpitts I’ve been chatting with flat Earthers for 4 years now, I know your arguments as well, so don’t patronize me. In my experience so far, Flat Earth is a heavily bias movement, that doesn’t have answers, only misunderstandings and inconclusive conclusions they’ve slotted in to pose as answers, that upon closer inspection reveals they were really reached from sloppy bias research and cherry picked/twisted information...not objective analysis or experimentation. That’s my current conclusion so far, after hundreds of conversations on the topic.
I don’t mind getting into the science though, if you’re willing to pay attention and actually consider anything I’d have to share. If you do that, then I’m more than willing to do the same for anything you’d like to share. I don’t mind having an open and civil discussion, if we can both restrain from patronizing and trolling the other any further. I’ll respect your position, if you can respect that I have reached my own as well, with my own extensive research on the topic. So keep that in mind, I’m not interested in a chat if you’re just here to patronize and force an opinion.
One point at a time, so let’s start with the curvature you say doesn’t exist. Here’s a short sampling of observations and experiments I’ve come across on that topic.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment - in-depth recreation of the Bedford Level experiment
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2017/10/curvature-on-parade-turning-torso-video.html - simple observation of a building at different distances
https://youtu.be/RK93TfSYeQU?t=362 - analyzing what flat Earth would actually look like, using real world topography data and observation
These are all repeatable observations and experiments, all providing pretty conclusive evidence of the curvature you’re claiming doesn’t exist. Feel free to attempt at falsifying any one of these observations, I don’t mind hearing your reasoning for why you feel they’re not conclusive.
In the meantime, I’ll provide some reasons why I feel flat Earth fails to find curvature. The larger reason I feel, is because they’ve been conned to believe in certain bits of information, that keeps them from seeing it. The worst offender, the 8 inches per mile squared math, which is not the correct math to use for long distance observations, giving you the wrong figures for the observation...but very few of you seemed to bother with checking the math, so you could learn how flawed it is. If you’d like to learn more about why it’s flawed, I don’t mind explaining more in depth, but I’ll leave it there for now.
The other piece of misinformation, being fed false information on how perspective and optics work, mainly misunderstanding the difference between vanishing point and horizon, one being your eyes own physical limitation to process light, and the other a physical line of sight limit caused by a surfaces own geometry. Vanishing point, is not the same as horizon...they are two very different things, but flat Earth sells them as one in the same. Your eyes do have physical limitations, but there are many rules of perspective that flat Earth ignores, that are not in alignment with their main conclusion of a flat Earth. For instance, perspective will cause an object to appear to shrink, but not lower or sink into or under horizon...certainly not by thousands of feet, as seen in mountains obscured by horizon at hundreds of miles. Even if flat Earth could prove that it does, it still does not replace curvature, as the geometric curvature math (when done correctly) still fits with the observation as well. So at best, even if flat Earth could successfully prove perspective convergence, it would still have a long way to go, like using that for explaining all the other occurrences observed in reality. Like how Polaris drops to 0 degrees at the Equator https://flatearth.ws/polaris-angle or how Earth has two equal hemispheres that operate under the same geometry https://youtu.be/ZMtx5jVLUaU, just like we’d expect they would if Earth was a Globe. Among many other problems it can’t solve for with perspective as its answer.
See the problem? Flat Earths has to ignore a LOT about perspective and what we observe in reality, to make their broader conclusion work here. I feel this is what Flat Earth does across the board, ignores a lot, to force the conclusions to work. A lot of the time, it just feels like they’re ramming a square peg into a round hole.
But, feel free to point out where you feel I’ve gone wrong in that conclusion. You claim there’s no curvature, but I’ve been able to find evidence of it everywhere. So please elaborate further on why you feel this evidence is no good.
4
-
4
-
4
-
It’s also a bit easier to think of gravity in terms of a motion. Roll a ball up a slope, it eventually runs out of kinetic energy and rolls back down, two motions, one requiring energy, the other just gravity. So long as something can continue to create energy and use it for the purpose of resisting that motion downward, then it can continue to resist so long as it can generate energy and use it effectively for that purpose. Replace that ball with a living animal, now instead of rolling down it can continue burning energy to keep going up. Pretty simple and common sense right, living things burn fuel in the form carbohydrates, which gives them energy, then they use that energy to resist gravity, you’re resisting gravity every day, just from standing. Doesn’t take much energy to resist gravity, as trailbossdan1 pointed out, gravity isn’t very powerful, but it is constant, it’s always on, putting you in constant motion towards the surface. Run out of energy to resist it and gravity eventually wins, cause it never stops.
Birds fly by flapping their wings, burning energy to create motion, motion they use to resist the motion of gravity, pretty simple.
Now gases are a bit of a different story, it’s largely buoyancy that causes them to rise and the interesting thing about buoyancy, is that it’s actually caused by gravity. I realize that may sound a bit confusing or contradictory, but think of an air bubble rising up through water, the reason it’s doing that is because the surrounding water is more dense, and because of this it’s going to occupy lowest potential energy first, or closest position to centre of gravity if you prefer. So it’s actually the downward motion of gravity, that’s causing the displacement, forcing lighter molecules up, causing buoyancy. That’s why helium and hydrogen rise, and that’s also largely the reason why clouds float, because of buoyancy, the water vapour is lighter than the air directly at surface, so it’s forced upward. I mean, it is a bit more complicated than that also, but buoyancy plays a big part in why clouds rise. Point is, without gravity first putting all matter in motion down towards the surface, buoyancy could not occur, because if nothing has a starting direction in which to begin ordering itself by density, then it’s not going to, displacement will not occur, so gravity is the direct cause of buoyancy.
Now when it comes to planets and orbits, it’s again easier to think of it in terms of motion, a good visual experiment often taught in physics classes today, is this one with stretched sheets and marbles https://youtu.be/MTY1Kje0yLg. Mass creates a gravity well, a bend in the fabric of space, that extends pretty far out into space, much like the fabric in that example. The bigger the object, the deeper the gravity well, the further this bend extends. Planets are really just moving along this curved space, that’s all gravity is, a motion through space and time.
Anyway, let me know if that helps with your questions. They’re very good physics questions, so hopefully we were able to help you out.
4
-
@k3630 “Gravity seems to full of contradictions.”
Contradictions can often be confused with misunderstanding. Just because you don’t fully understand something, does not mean it’s wrong. As I mentioned before, Science builds on prior knowledge. You seem to be approaching things with no prior foundation. We don’t just have explanations, we have observed and measured reality. Does not understanding how a cloud rises, change the fact that it does? No. Does not understanding how the Earth is spherical, change the fact that it is observed and measured to be one? No. Does not understanding how orbital mechanics works, change the fact that planets are observed to orbit around the Sun, that moons are observed to orbit around planets? No.
You’re getting lost in the explanations of how, and forgetting the facts. What is occurring has been observed and is undeniable at this point, how it occurs is tricky, but Gravity wasn’t reached lightly, it’s the explanation that’s left over, after hundreds of years of observation, experimentation and the process of falsification. It is complex to understand, but not understanding something doesn’t make it false.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@sdmfcfh1283 Nobody is saying density doesn’t exist, what we’re saying is density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, it is just how much mass occupies a volume of space…that doesn’t cause motion, only a force can do that. You don’t seem to understand the very basic fundamentals of physics. All change in state of motion requires a force to cause it…that’s the basic definition of a force, anything that can cause and effect a state of motion. Is falling a motion? Yes, it is…….so there’s a force causing it, pretty simple. Density is already well defined as a scaler variable in science, a ratio of mass to volume…it is not a force, it does not cause motion. :/
So that’s the problem with your conclusion of density…it’s ignorant of basic physics. You’re doing nothing to explain the cause for a very obvious motion that occurs when you drop things…things don’t just fall without a cause for that motion.
It’s the whole point of science to find and identify cause and effect relationships…sayings things just fall because they do, isn’t achieving anything, you’re not solving any problems by pointing out the obvious and then calling it a day. First thing to understand is that a force is well defined in physics, it’s anything that can cause a change in motion in matter. Falling is a motion, so there’s a force present to cause it, that’s physics 101. Density is not a force, it’s a scaler variable, so it’s not density causing that motion…that’s not how this works.
4
-
@ekulenwaiku4654 The only theatrics I’ve seen, are from these conspiracy docs on YouTube. I’ve caught them lying far more than NASA...so in my experience, the people I don’t trust, are these people making those docs for the clicks. The video you shared is just gish gallop, a bunch of weak arguments mashed together and shot out in rapid fire, to make the main argument appear stronger than it actually is, achieving this goal by overwhelming anyone attempting to refute it, feeding the audience half truths to lead them to their bias, but not the full picture. I could go through every claim made in that presentation and point out the lies, speculations and errors on each one...but who’s got that kind of time?
Point is, gish gallop is seen as a dishonest and low form of argumentation, firing out endless speculations (but no real evidence), before your mind gets a chance to process the first point. So why should anyone take seriously, people who resort to disingenuous tactics of persuasion?
Also, I wasn’t saying the majority is always right, don’t twist my words, I said NASA has better things to do, than appease a few paranoid layman.
4
-
@ekulenwaiku4654 What have they gained? Are you serious? They achieved long distance travel through space....do you think that’s somehow a small achievement? Do you think space travel is just something we should have mastered in a day? How many rockets have you launched into space? What have they achieved...what an ignorant and arrogant thing to say. I swear, flat Earth has a lot of poisoned minds to atone for. :/
Space is the next frontier...and as a very curious species that thrives on exploration and expansion, why wouldn’t we continue to push ourselves as far as we can go? The ISS is a research base, in an environment we can’t recreate here on Earth. The value in a research base such as this, is more substantial than you seem to realize....you already owe the ISS more than you realize, for the advancements in technology it has already provided, such as the innovations to solid state computing technology, as just one example of many.
But yes, every argument put forth by flat Earth is just misinformation. In over 4 years of researching the topic now, I’ve more than reached that conclusion, because there hasn’t been an argument I haven’t been able to falsify yet...didn’t take much either, just some basic knowledge in physics and geometry and some common sense. I entered with an open mind, like they asked of me, and I continue to keep it open...but everything I’ve seen from this movement has just been layman doing what they do best, grossly misunderstand how things work but pretend like they’re the real experts anyway, favouring speculations over actual evidence.
You’re welcome to try and present something you feel is a good argument, I don’t mind hearing you out, but I’m not new to this discussion...so good luck finding something I’ve never heard.
4
-
@ekulenwaiku4654 As Scott pointed out, when you do all the geometry here, including every variable to scale, yes, the degree is negligible, they might as well arrive perfectly parallel to our surface. As the experiments I shared verify, that’s exactly what is happening, it’s measured and observed. Light from our Sun arrives parallel to surface, this is a proven fact at this point. This can only happen if it’s much larger compared to Earth. But since it also appears much smaller, that can only mean it’s also very far away, a trick of perspective, known as foreshortening.
Here’s the thing, it’s not that FE doesn’t ask great questions, cause they are...the problem is, you hold the questions up as your evidence, jumping to a conclusion before any real examination. Instead of taking the steps to further verify your claim of a local Sun, you just take an optical illusion, like crepuscular rays, and state with certainty that this can only occur for one reason, no further work required. Any attempts to show you the evidence that directly refutes your conclusion, is just ignored. It’s frustrating....and FE does it with pretty much EVERY argument.
Are you not even the least bit curious, to learn about how you could be in error? You’re asking great questions, the same kind of questions every scientist asks at some point while learning this stuff, but why do you work so hard to avoid learning the answers? The only reason I can figure, is because of confirmation bias, you don’t trust authority, so you’re searching for only the information that confirms, bolsters and justifies that distrust. It’s bias that leads FE, not objective reasoning.
We can keep going if you want, like I said, there hasn’t been a claim from FE I haven’t been able to falsify as of yet, with real world evidence. If you’re curious to see how FE has potentially conned you, I can share more of what I’ve found. Up to you really.
4
-
The second part you’re having trouble with is the motions of Earth and how our atmosphere stays to the surface. Well, first thing to note is that there is no air in space, it’s empty for the most part, so this is important to note because it means Earth is experiencing zero drag force, as it moves through space. Drag force (aka air resistance) is typically the effect we get here on Earth as we move really fast through our atmosphere, our body or vehicle smashing into the molecules of air as we try to move, which creates drag. Earth doesn’t move through air, so it doesn’t have the same problem, so there’s nothing in space to effectively rip our atmosphere off.
Just gravity and relative motion, relative motion being a whole study of physics on its own, mostly having to do with how motion is constant, objects in motion will stay in motion, that’s largely how the atmosphere keeps up with the Earth, because it’s motion is relative to the Earth. Gravity doing it’s part as well.
As Scott pointed out, there is a slight Centripetal acceleration, but it’s very small and not nearly enough to overcome the stronger force of gravity.
4
-
Do you really think careers are made in science…by following the status quo? 🤷♂️ On the contrary, science strongly encourages people think for themselves (what do you think a thesis paper is?)…they’re just not in the habit of blindly accepting claims made, without strong evidence to support them first. You can believe whatever you like, but don’t expect the rest of us to agree, if you can’t argue a position with evidence. Pretty common sense I would think.
Einstein, fir example, isn’t famous today because he went with the grain….he’s famous because he challenged the work of one of the greatest minds in history, Sir Issac Newton. The difference he has with Flat Earthers…was that he was successful in proving his hypothesis. He didn’t whine about his opposition…it was most likely what drove him. He was not very popular in his day, but he fought through his opposition, and beat them all. That’s the way it is, you’re not just gonna get things handed to you…so really, you just sound like you’re whining.
You think the education system creates servants…but I’ll remind you, that you are FAR more educated and better equipped to improve your standing in life, than many of our ancestors ever were. You take learning to read, write, do math for granted…but they didn’t have to open schools to the poor peasants, yet they did. The peasantry of old could only DREAM of receiving or having access to a Nobleman’s education, just a few hundred years ago. So I wouldn’t be so ungrateful.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@SuperMoshady You seem to think the atmosphere of the heliocentric model would contradict thermodynamics, but I’m curious as to why you’d think that? Gas is matter, gravity attracts matter, so why wouldn’t it attract gas? There is a clear pressure gradient we measure, air is thinner the higher you go, so something is attracting matter closer to the surface...under your understanding of atmospheric pressure, wouldn’t we expect gas pressure to be equal throughout the system? It’s clearly not, most of the gas is collected closer to surface, so this would suggest gravity is attracting it downward. Even FE has verified the existence of space, I’m sure you’ve seen the footage from the various weather balloons they themselves have sent up, maybe you’ve noticed at the end of these videos the balloons always eventually pop, as they’re designed to do once reaching vacuum conditions. So really, even FE has detected the vacuum of space, without really realizing it.
You know what they never find though? A container.
Thermodynamics isn’t broken here, because entropy still occurs, gas still does escape (that’s why the atmosphere extends so far), the process is just slowed by gravity. That’s the part I think FE ignores about entropy, it can be slowed and contained for long periods of time, with just a few attractive forces. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics has more to do with energy transfer, than it does matter. For example when a cup of coffee goes cold, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy? Entropy of course always wins in the end, but it can be slowed by attracting forces...you’re an example of that, you’re held together by many different attracting forces, all working in tandem to reduce entropy and slow it down. But make no mistake, you’re undergoing entropy every single second, of every day, but you’re still holding together just fine and staving off the end result of perfect entropy, right? Are you contradicting thermodynamics physics? Clearly not...so why do you think gravity couldn’t contain our atmosphere?
Are you just here to troll people? Cause you’re not stupid, but you’re sure doing your best to circle around the conclusion. If you’re just here to get a rise out of people, congrats I guess...but what’s the point? It’s fine if you’ve actually found something that is problematic with the heliocentric model, but from where we’re standing, it just appears like you’re intentionally ignoring what we’re saying, so you can continue to believe what you want. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, but reading these exchanges so far, it just seems like you enjoy making peoples heads spin. I fail to see the purpose myself, you do you I guess...but wouldn’t you prefer a civil exchange?
So I suppose my main questions are, what makes you think gases (a state of matter), are the one exception to gravity and are somehow not effected by it? Why do you think gravity couldn’t reduce a gas molecules kinetic energy to 0 and bring it back down to Earth? If you do believe this, what data or evidence do you have that has led you to that conclusion? Do you have evidence for this container you believe exists, or just a hypothesis you reached from your current understanding of thermodynamics physics? Have you ever considered the possibility that you’re just misunderstanding thermodynamics physics?
Anyway, I realize you’ve gone round and round on this topic, but hope you wouldn’t mind going a little bit further, with a more civil exchange. Not really interested in a pissing match, but if you’d be interested in answering some of my questions I’d be grateful.
4
-
@SuperMoshady I’m afraid as much as you’d like to dismiss the discussion quickly, probably best you not assume or conclude too much, before we’ve even started. Helium rises due to buoyancy, it’s less dense than the heavier gases at surface, so it’s displaced upwards, because more dense matter will occupy lowest potential energy first. It’s much like oil in water, forced upward due to density displacement, buoyancy. Gases are quite similar in that buoyancy effects them in a similar manner. I’m sure by now others have made you aware of this well known fact, and they’ve probably even mentioned that buoyancy is actually a product of gravity, that it does not occur without it.
The simplest formula for buoyancy is as follows Fb=Vpg, that little g in the equation, is the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2), remove that variable, and engineers designing the ballast of ships, submarines or the materials for weather balloons, would have a very hard time doing their jobs with any proficiency.
So it’s well understood in both physics and engineering, that buoyancy is why helium and lighter gases rise and it’s actually gravity that causes the effect of buoyancy. So no, helium is not free from gravity, what you are observing is just buoyancy effect occurring within gases. Now you may not have been aware of this, so I can see how you’d think helium and other gases are a contradiction to gravity, but they’re not, because buoyancy does not occur without a downward force, first giving matter a direction to begin the process of density displacement. Meaning it’s directly caused by gravity. This is proven time and again in density columns put in zero G environments, as well as in vacuum chambers where lighter gases are observed to fall, rather than rise. If you’d like examples I can provide them.
It’s a good attempt though, but it’s really just avoiding the observation I mentioned, popping weather balloons, which only do that once in vacuum conditions. It also avoids my questions. So feel free to try again, because I’m very curious to know what further evidence or explanation you have for your conclusion, other than just butchered physics.
4
-
@SuperMoshady Ok, I see you edited your post and provided more details, even addressing some of my questions. Thanks for that, and it is an interesting hypothesis. I’m referring to your explanation for the changing temperature that comes with the passing Sun. Of course temperature does have an effect on the fluid mechanics of a gaseous system, it’s part of things for sure and does play its role, so it has some baring in actual physics, so it’s not a bad explanation honestly. Though I would say it still lacks an explanation for the vacuum we measure and observe at the top of our atmosphere, which is observed and detected even in high altitude weather balloons. You can say the atmosphere of the heliocentric model breaks thermodynamics all you’d like, and yet we’ve measured and observed the vacuum of space...and found no such container, so what would you prefer science do, ignore the evidence?
Also, this fluctuation of temps still wouldn’t do much to explain the gradient as it is, I would still expect the system to be more chaotic and mixed under this system, and less ordered by density. With no downward force effecting the gases, what would stop any of these gases from expanding upward and dispersing evenly?
What I’m curious of though, have you looked into the physics of buoyancy yet at all, to see the experiments that have led to the current conclusions for why lighter gases rise? I could share many easy to recreate experiments that help to verify how buoyancy works, demonstrating how gravity plays its part, and that proves buoyancy as the cause for why lighter gases rise. If you’d like to see some, I don’t mind sharing.
It’s an interesting hypothesis, but I do feel it’s misunderstanding thermodynamics physics a bit and hinges largely on one claim, that gas is not effected by gravity. But I’ve seen enough experiments within vacuum chambers to know that it does, so I’m not likely to agree that gases are not effected by gravity, because the evidence is pretty clear that it does. I can understand if you’ve never observed these experiments, how you might reach your current conclusions, but it’s very well researched at this point. And as I mentioned, it’s also an applied science, as buoyancy physics is used in engineering, which does give it a bit more verification.
You’ve really given me no reason to agree that gravity doesn’t effect gases, except an empty claim stating that it doesn’t. Again though, gas is matter, gravity effects all matter, so why wouldn’t it have an effect on gases?
Also, it’s not that gravity gets stronger in upper atmosphere, it’s just that less collisions occur between molecules, because the spaces between them are greater. With less collisions, comes less transfer of kinetic energy, so eventually, gravity wins and brings the molecules back down. It’s not getting stronger, it’s just meeting less resistance. No laws of thermodynamics are broken here, the energy is moved from kinetic, to potential, back to kinetic, no energy is destroyed only transferred. Gravity will win for awhile, as will the other attractive forces of our universe, but entropy will win in the end...but for now, gravity keeps things in check.
We can go back and forth forever though, but really, for your main claim to hold any barring, you’d have to first prove that gravity does not have any effect on gas. So can you prove that? Until then, I don’t find that your argument really has much going for it. Interesting though, a good exorcise in atmospheric pressure physics and there are some good points there, so don’t feel too discouraged.
Anyway, off to bed I go. I hope I was able to provide at least some information of interest to you. Thanks for providing me a deeper insight into the FE perspective on this topic, it has been informative.
4
-
@SuperMoshady Well, as I said, we can go on forever and keep circling round, but you’re still avoiding the observation. Weather balloons eventually stop at an altitude, unable to climb any higher, they then eventually pop, as they’re designed to do within vacuum conditions. So if they’ve popped, doesn’t take much reasoning to conclude that there is vacuum conditions at high altitudes. No dome or barrier has been found, but a vacuum has been measured and observed. So again, all you have are two empty claims really, that gas is not effected by any downward acceleration like all other matter (gravity), and that thermodynamics is violated in a system without a container. You can repeat these claims again and again, but until you prove them with some form of evidence, they’re just empty claims. Meanwhile, there is a vacuum up there, we’ve experienced it, so it seems both your claims are simply wrong. I will go with the evidence, above your claims.
So, where’s the evidence for this container? Surely you have more than just twisted physics. Feel free to provide some evidence for this container you’re so certain is up there, otherwise we really have no reason to continue circling round.
The fact that a gradient in gas pressure exists at all, would suggest gravity is effecting the gas, as it does all matter. I would expect a much more chaotic system, with wild fluctuations in gas pressure throughout, if there was no downward accelerating force providing the starting motion, that begins density displacement, and puts matter into better order. Buoyancy is a byproduct of this density displacement, so if gravity is what causes density displacement, then it’s also what causes buoyancy. This is confirmed every time an engineer uses the formula for buoyancy, which includes a variable for a downward accelerating force, and it works for the purpose he’s used it for. It’s an applied science, so your misunderstandings of buoyancy doesn’t really do much to refute applied science.
I’m a bit busy today, but perhaps I’ll answer a few more of your questions later. I’ll answer one very quickly though, you asked what the observed phenomenon in nature is, that leads to the hypothesis of gravity. The observed phenomenon is the motion of falling objects, it is clearly a phenomenon of nature, in that we have no influence over this motion. We can influence the potential energy state (raising an object up), we can influence the time of release between potential energy state and kinetic energy state, but the motion that occurs once an object is released, that puts an object into kinetic energy state, we are not responsible for, that is a mechanism of nature. So that is the observed phenomenon of gravity. If buoyancy is the name we gave for the motion of matter that travels upward, gravity is the name for the opposite motion, so that’s really where the science begins. It is the downward motion we attempt to figure out, that is what gravity is. All matter is effected by this motion, we have no reason to suggest that gases are the one exception.
Anyway, that’s all for now, chat again later. Perhaps in the meantime you can provide some evidence of your own that has led you to your two claims, start with gases not being attracted by gravity, what evidence do you have that gas is not effected? I realize you’ve stated many times that helium balloons going up is your evidence, but a pressure gradient is still measured, and vacuum has been detected at high altitude, which would suggest gas is being attracted to Earth, so all I’m seeing so far is a misunderstanding of some physics and empty claims. Perhaps you can provide something better.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
UntamableFreeman The stars do change every 6 months...if you were an astronomer that actually spent his nights watching and recording the stars, it’s one of the first things you learn about the night sky. Do me a favour and search the term “seasonal constellations”, you’ll find several lists of these stars and constellations that change throughout the year and you likely even know many of the constellation names already...you’re born under a zodiac constellation just like we all are.
This is a fact you should be aware of if you’re going to make this ignorant argument of yours, there exists two types of stars and constellations. The circumpolar stars, which are close to the celestial poles, and therefore never blocked by the Sun, these are the stars we see all year round. Then there are the seasonal stars, which lie close to the ecliptic plane of Earths orbit, these stars become blocked by the Sun at various points in Earths orbit, many of which are the zodiac constellations but there are many others.
Go ahead and look those up sometime...any amateur astronomer will tell you, the stars do change. So it would serve you better to actually research these things...before you jump to false assumptions.
If you want to talk about the stars though, let’s talk about the two different hemispheres. You are aware that both hemispheres see different stars, correct? More then that though, both hemispheres experience their own celestial rotation, around their own pole star, Polaris in the North, Sigma Octantis in the South. Question is, how exactly does that work on a Flat Earth? This is exactly what we’d expect to see occur on a Globe...but I’ve never seen or heard any logical explanation for how this is possible on a Flat Earth, so feel free to let me know if you have a valid explanation for this observation.
4
-
UntamableFreeman You’re also taking that quote from Einstein out of context and grossly misunderstanding the physics being discussed....and you’re leaving out the end of that quote, which I’ll get to later. Pay attention to where he says “with respect to the ether”. See Michelson and Morley’s experiment wasn’t to prove or disprove the motion of the Earth, it was an attempt to find the Aether...which at the time was thought to be the medium that light propagates through. See they thought light was like sound, that it needed something to move through, like sound does through air and other matter...this is what Michelson and Morley were trying to find and verify, the Aether. What they did instead was find nothing...it was a sound experiment, should have easily have detected the proposed Aether if it really did exist, but it didn’t. So the experiment was inconclusive, it neither verified nor falsified the Aether, it was inconclusive. It’s null hypothesis was that Earth might not actually be in motion, but this was also inconclusive.
So here’s the issue here, upon all peer review this experiment is deemed inconclusive, even Michelson and Morley both agreed this was the case. What this ultimately means is, that if anyone claims this experiment supports either position, then they are doing so out of bias and ignoring its conclusion. It is inconclusive, both for the hypothesis and the null hypothesis...that’s the reality of this experiment. So when you blindly claim that they proved the Earth isn’t in motion...you are making that claim from pure bias and ignorance.
This is the real problem with Flat Earthers...you are bias researchers, not looking at things objectively at all.
So here’s what Einstein meant in his statement there. There was now a big problem in physics, an experiment that should have easily found the Aether...came back with nothing. So here were their choices, either the Aether didn’t exist, or Earth wasn’t in motion. The part YOU and all of flat Earth ignores, is that the Earths motion HAS evidence, it has lots of evidence even in that time, while Aether on the other hand did not. So it’s pretty obvious what direction to go with things...it was very likely that the Aether did not exist...that’s where all the other evidence pointed.
Like I said, you can’t use Michelson and Morley’s experiment to reach a definite conclusion, to do so is being bias...but you can form a new hypothesis from the outcome of that experiment and from all the other evidence that does exist, that’s what Einstein did. He proposed a new hypothesis, he was then successful in proving it...many times over in fact.
So here’s how the history has played out. Earths motion has been verified beyond reasonable doubt, it’s now an applied science, we have geostationary satellites and gyro compasses that both use Earth’s rotational motion to function...so this knowledge is now beyond theory, it’s now an applied science, which means it’s verified. Aether has meanwhile never been discovered, all attempts have failed...so it has been abandoned as plausible. General Relativity on the other hand has been verified...many many times over now. So what do you want the scientific community to do exactly? Just ignore things like Flat Earth does? Or would you prefer science remain objective? Not a hard choice for me honestly.
When Einstein said he was convinced there was no optical means to verify Earths motion, what he likely meant was that you couldn’t use light to detect that motion, he was of course wrong, because today we now use the Sagnac Effect in large area laser interferometers (ring laser gyros) to measure and detect Earth rotation. Yes, even geniuses can be wrong...they’re not infallible.
But here’s the worst part...that quote you cherry picked, is from his Kyoto address “How I created the theory of relativity” December 14, 1922. You conveniently cut his quote short...you left out the ending where he says “though the Earth is revolving around the Sun”. Go ahead and look that up sometime as well.
You see the problem here yet? Flat Earthers are not being honest...you’re bias researchers, only paying attention to the details that support the conclusion you WANT to be true and ignoring every other detail. I’ve outlined here 3 different ways you achieve that, 1) assuming rather than doing proper research; 2) misinterpreting science research, spinning it to fit your bias and lying about the actual outcomes; 3) quote mining, taking words out of context and only paying attention to the words you think you can use to confirm your bias further.
My guess is though, all this information you’re regurgitating here isn’t even your own. You’re likely just repeating it verbatim from some other sources, so you’re probably not even aware of these errors...my guess is you’ve never actually questioned them.
It’s fine that people are questioning things...but you have to be really careful where you get your information from. Don’t just question the mainstream science, turn that lens around and do the same with these conspiracies you’re now supporting...you might be surprised who the real liars are if you do.
4
-
4
-
@hershelpogue1745 "We have other mysteries. Like our sun traveling at a speed of 400,000 miles an hour in space with our earth traveling at a speed of 67,000 miles an hour, and the moon between us an the sun traveling between 68,000/ 70,000 miles an hour an none of the objects out of it's elliptical orbits. How odd."
A balance between masses and gravity, created over billions of years is odd to you? Why exactly? A chaotic system will always eventually harmonize and balance itself, with the help of attractive forces found in nature. Shake a bottle full of oil, sand and water, it mixes and creates a chaotic system. Leave that shaken bottle to sit over time, and gravity will eventually sort everything out into layers, organizing and separating the masses, balancing them. It's not much different for a solar system. We are looking at the end result of billions of years of gravity organizing a chaotic system, balancing our system. It's not odd at all, it's pretty common in nature.
Either way, just because something seems odd to you, doesn't make it wrong. You're just making an argument from personal incredulity, which doesn't really mean much in an argument of science.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Ok, but let’s think about this a bit deeper and isolate the force at work in a rotation. We call it a centripetal motion, felt by us as centrifugal force, so what’s the basic rule of thumb for feeling a centrifugal force? It depends on how many revolutions per minute, which increases the rate of angular velocity change per second. So if the increase of centrifugal force depends on the rate of rotation, then what is the RPM’s of the Earth’s motions? Let’s look at its fastest complete revolution, it’s rotation around axis. Earth rotates at 0.000694 RPM’s…to put that into perspective, a Gravitron ride at the fair is about 24 RPM’s….big difference right? 0.000694 RPM’s, amounts to one complete rotation every 24 hours, so 2x’s slower than the hour hand of a clock….you really think we’d feel that? 🧐
Don’t even need to crunch the numbers for the other motions, because they’re completing a revolution even slower. Earth completes one orbit every 365 days and one orbit around galactic centre every 270 million years….we might as well be moving in a straight line in all those other motions.
Fun fact, we actually can measure Earths rotational centrifugal force…that’s why things actually weigh less at the equator than they do anywhere else. Here’s a simple experiment anyone can repeat that can help you verify this fact https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great physics question, but you’re not really thinking about it very much beyond what confirms flat Earth for you. Rotational motions are best measured and understood in RPM’s…not linear velocities like MPH. Linear velocities are pretty much irrelevant to centrifugal force, rate of rotation is what matters and Earth simply does not complete a single rotation fast enough for us to notice or detect.
4
-
4
-
YouTube was really only intended for mild entertainment purposes…not a soap box to blast harmful bullshit and misinformation. Fact was that it was being overrun by conspiracy nut jobs using it as a platform to sell their grifts and bullshit claims…it was becoming an environment for anger and hate and negativity, and conmen were thriving. So I’m glad they decided to scrub the platform of that crap. If it were my platform that I had intended for entertainment, I’d do the exact same thing. From a purely business standpoint, a platform like this only survives online if it’s catering to a GENERAL audience, getting the largest amount of clicks and views as possible from the largest group, the general audience. Not everyone is into conspiracy bullshit, that’s a niche’ market and viewing numbers were dropping as this place was being overrun by that content. So it was either change, or risk being replaced by a competitor down the line, that could do things better…they chose to change, and it’s worked.
On top of that, it has stemmed the paranoia and hate, which has effected the division’s being created. Mob mentality was ripping America apart last few years, not sure if you noticed, that’s definitely gone down in frequency lately, I’m sure the cap on misinformation spreading has helped that a bit.
It’s not censorship, people are still free to push their opinions and misinformation on here, they’re just not favoured by the algorithms. You’re free to say almost whatever you want still, and they are free to promote it if they want or not, it’s not censorship to stem the promotion of someone’s opinion. Hate speech and harmful misinformation have never been allowed though. I think people are a bit ignorant to what freedom of speech laws actually protect. Anything that’s hateful, causes harm and insights violence is not actually protected by freedom of speech rights and freedoms…most people are not aware of that. You can be arrested for any speech that insights violence or breaks the law, you do not have the right to insight harm upon others…and that’s a pretty grey line, doesn’t mean only physical harm. Just look up the Imminent Lawless Action test sometime if you don’t believe me.
Luckily, flat Earth hasn’t gotten to that point (yet), but movements like Qanon sure did…and guess what platform helped that movement of bullshit grow? Point is, misinformation does happen online, and if left to fester it can cause a mob mentality reaction, that can cause harm and damage. So it’s far better to counter misinformation and stem its flow, rather than allow it to go unchecked or unchallenged.
4
-
@KangenAlec Mark Sargent doesn’t advocate hate speech or insight violence, so he’ll be fine so long as those lines are never crossed. But Eric Dubay for example, another prominent Flat Earth advocate, is a known anti semite and Nazi sympathizer. He has put out videos promoting hate speech, hence why his channel has been taken down before. See the difference? Both are wrong, but being wrong doesn’t break terms of service…hate speech does. One is not hateful, the other is…so Mark will likely be fine. Dubay has since cleaned up his rhetoric, but he’s still a piece of shit as far as many are concerned.
Mark Sargent is an okay dude as far as I’m concerned. I do strongly disagree with him, but I feel he’s doing this whole questioning reality thing the right way, through peaceful questioning and harmless curiosity, with no violent agenda or messages attached.
4
-
4
-
4