Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
4
-
She’s not likely to answer you, these comments get buried pretty quickly and with the age of the video, it’s unlikely she bothers to read any of these exchanges. You’ve been provided with answers, with evidence supporting them, ad nauseam, but you decide to strawman or ignore every answer provided for you anyway. I was fine with having a civil discussion, but I can’t answer your questions and help you understand, if you’re just going to strawman or ignore everything I say. I’ll answer again, and I guess we’ll see if your strawmanning and ignorance unfolds again. I’ll answer in order.
“If gravity is supposed to make gas go down...and stop it from filling the space vacuum, how does it expand in all directions?”
The first half of your question here has almost nothing to do with the second. All you’re really asking is how does gas expand, the first half is a non sequitur. You know how gas expands already, it’s colliding with itself, this transfers kinetic energy and puts gas molecules in motion in various directions depending on the collision angles. You’ve attempted to word the question as if it somehow falsifies gravity, but just because gas expands due to collisions, does not mean gas isn’t affected by gravity, at the same time. Nothing within your question falsifies gravity, so it’s a loaded question, a non sequitur fallacy. You’ve done nothing to prove gas is not affected by gravity, only asserted that it’s not, even despite the evidence I and others have shared. So while you have empty assertions here, I have evidence. It may not be enough to convince you personally, but it does give me a far stronger position over your claim.
“Why do you say gas pressure doesn’t need a container when the definition says it does?”
Which definition? Care to provide a citation? Gas pressure only requires gas making contact with the surface of an object, there’s gas pressure squeezing on you right now, every collision of gas upon your body creating pressure, gas pressure. In this case it’s caused by the downward acceleration of gravity, causing atmospheric pressure, the weight of the gas above pressing down on the gas below. But feel free to provide a citation for your claim here. You claim it’s in the definition, so feel free to provide the citation for what you’re talking about.
“Why doesn’t gravity hold the steam down in your open system coffee cup example?”
Buoyancy, steam rises in large part due to buoyancy, explained again and again for you. Buoyancy is a force that requires an accelerating motion, in order to function. No accelerating motion downward, no buoyancy upward, as proven in simple drop tests https://youtu.be/YDXQ-VBjW7Q?t=171, https://youtu.be/rpP-7dhm9DI?t=167, and this great experiment demonstrating how an accelerating motion effects the motion of gases https://youtu.be/y8mzDvpKzfY. Remove the downward acceleration (that we call gravity), and then buoyancy will not occur. So buoyancy requires gravity to function. I hope this clicks eventually for you, but I don’t think it will at this point, you don’t seem very interested to understand this correlation between gravity and buoyancy...even though it answers your question here. It’s a domino effect, downward acceleration of gravity being the start and root cause of the buoyancy effect.
“If we applied the volume of the space vacuum to Boyles law, what would earth’s gas pressure be?”
Now this one I wasn’t answering, because I didn’t fully understand the context of the question, but now I see the correlation because volume is of course a variable in the equation for Boyles law. Had you articulated your point using the equation, I would have understood your point a lot quicker. You know, kind of like how I pointed out that gravity is a variable in buoyancy, Fb=Vpg <——notice the little g there? Pretty similar argument really. So I see now, this relates to your “gas pressure requires a container” argument from before, ok, so now I better understand the question, so now I can answer it.
Boyles law equation is not the only law used in ideal gas law, it’s one of many, but it’s also just a good approximation formula, for many conditions, but it has its limitations. One such limitation being atmospheric pressure, as you can’t accurately give a volume for an endless space. So Boyles law is useful and quite effective for determining how gases behave in smaller, controlled conditions, where we can give a volume figure, but it’s not useful for such things like the atmospheric pressure of Earth. So it’s not used here. We’re dealing with atmospheric pressure here, so no definite volume figure can be applied, so not useful, so it’s irrelevant.
So this illustrates further one of the biggest problems of FE minded people, thinking in absolutes. Boyles law is not useful in every case, it has its limitations, so it’s basically irrelevant to atmospheric pressure, can not be used, so it is not. So your point is moot. Wrong equation for the job. Better to use atmospheric pressure equations for this problem, like the one for surface pressure P=F/A=(m*g)/A. Oh there’s that pesky (g) again, the downward acceleration of gravity. You’ll find that a lot in atmospheric pressure equations, but you know what you won’t find? A variable for volume...that’s for a good reason.
You know, it’s stuff like this though, that points out a level of intelligence, which is what’s so frustrating about people like yourself, cause you should easily understand the correlation between gravity and buoyancy and atmospheric pressure. It’s why I don’t think you’re stupid (that being said, unless you’re Quantum Eraser or N Oakley, this isn’t really your argument originally to begin with, so you’re parroting), but it also points out YOUR cognitive dissonance. You’re happy to argue with the equations of Boyles law, because it supports your argument, but then you completely ignore maths and equations when they don’t agree with you, claiming math is basically useless, but only when they’re used against you to refute your clams. For example, again, the buoyancy equation (Fb=Vpg), which requires the downward acceleration of gravity. Funny how you selectively use math, but only when it suites you. We use these variables in math for a reason, because they’re proven variables in the cause effect relations found in physical reality. If they weren’t verified variables, then the equation simply would not work, it’s that simple.
“You claimed gravity makes steam fall. Can you show me falling steam?”
Fog or Clouds. Fog and Clouds are basically the same as steam, just water vapour in a cooler state, unable to rise or rise any higher, due to gravity and other factors. The fact that they sit at an altitude and climb no higher, verifies that they’re being held in position by forces at equilibrium, buoyancy and gravity. Since we know buoyancy doesn’t occur without gravity, it’s basically just gravity. Many more examples I shared, like the fog from dry ice vapour, smoke in a vacuum, and the best by far being sulfur hexafluoride clearly falling instead of rising in this example https://youtu.be/mLp_rSBzteI?t=141. Isn’t it better to see an actual gas, like sulfur hexafluoride, falling? Why ask for steam falling, if I can already provide you with another clear example of gas falling? It’s the same thing really, a gas that’s clearly falling instead of rising.
To produce a similar effect with steam, we’d have to go pretty high. If I find an example, I’ll be sure to share it, but you already have many great examples of gas being clearly affected by gravity, so bit of a moot point already.
“You said the cause of mass attracts mass is the angle of a tortiuos bar...”
No, that’s what you keep saying. But alright, let’s get into this again and see why you keep strawmanning. I’ll attempt to word things differently, see if it helps. The cause of the motion is the mass itself, that’s what the Cavendish verifies. All you’re doing in experiment is falsifying or verifying hypothesis, so conclusion basically is the hypothesis or it’s null hypothesis.
So let’s get into the experiment again. Introduce a mass to another mass, an attraction is observed. Mass causes the motion. Worded a bit simpler for you? It’s the observed motion that is the natural phenomenon (falling matter), that the hypothesis is formed from (mass attracts mass). The hypothesis here is just trying to answer for the question asked from the start of the process “what causes the phenomenon of falling mass?” The hypothesis (the educated guess made from prior research and knowledge) is mass attracts other mass. Cause=the mass; Effect=attractive motion between them. IV is what we manipulate in the cause, introducing the masses at a set angle is how we manipulate the hypothesized cause (mass), to see what effect, if any, it has on the motion. This motion (our DV) is recorded as a shift in angle. If there’s a shift, hypothesis confirmed. No shift, hypothesis falsified.
Now you’ve stated several times we’re skipping steps or getting them backwards here, so feel free to lay it out as you’re seeing it, to see if it does. Just getting a bit tired of the Socratic method here, it’s quite exhausting, I’d prefer you explain your reasoning better, in steps if you don’t mind. Then perhaps we’ll reach an understanding. When I work through Cavendish, it ticks every box for a valid experiment and goes through every step of the scientific method in the proper order, but feel free to articulate your point better if you’d like.
4
-
@SuperMoshady That’s the point I’m trying to make, that even at rest, objects are still accelerating down, the scale proves that. You apply a force to a scale to register a weight value, the moment you stop applying a force, the scale stops registering a weight value. So if a mass on a scale continues to register a weight value, then even at rest, it’s still being pushed down by a force, otherwise the scale wouldn’t register anything. I’ll agree it’s at equilibrium once at rest, in that it’s now in balance with two opposing forces, gravity and the electromagnetic repulsion of atoms. That’s the equilibrium occurring, both are constant forces, so they basically balance each other. Make no mistake though, even an object at rest, is still accelerating down towards surface, it never stops, the scale proves that. The motion we observe ceases, but the force of attraction, the acceleration downward, is still occurring within every molecule within that mass.
The formula for weight is as follows W=F=mg...which is basically Newtons second law equation that you keep sharing, just putting the acceleration of gravity in the acceleration field, to calculate weight. You’ll never get away from that I’m afraid, gravity is used everywhere as a variable, because it’s a proven fact of nature, a proven phenomenon, used everyday in so many different applications.
This is easy stuff my man. It’s physics 101. You’re happy to use the second law of motion when you think it suites you, then you just straight up ignore the simplest of applications for the formula? That’s cognitive dissonance and it doesn’t stop there, you’ve done this many times, every step of the way. Just denying reality, so you can continue to believe what you want, that’s all FE does.
There’s not much anyone can do for a mind that poisoned. You can deny it all you like, but denial is not an argument against a very simple phenomenon we all experience and that is undeniable. Deny it all you want, but you will never change the foundations of science that way.
4
-
There is though, there’s a Quantus flight Perth to Johannesburg, direct, about 11 hour flight. So what are you talking about? 🤷♂️
But to answer your question on why most flights are connecting flights in the South; flying isn’t magic, planes require airports and it’s a business like anything else…one that requires paying customers, and airports large enough to handle the traffic. The reality is that the very large majority of Earth’s population lives in the Northern hemisphere, and the largest and richest cities are in the North, so this means it has the most customers, and most of the flight infrastructure. So the South can’t handle to many direct flights to anywhere else in the South, doesn’t have the customers or the infrastructure…but direct flights do exist, so maybe do a little better research.
4
-
4
-
@cabbagefart7432 We don’t have an FE problem, in 2016 the interest spiked, but it’s since declined drastically to the point of nonexistent, it was a fad, now it’s over. I used to find tens of hundreds of Flat Earthers in these comments and many other comment threads, now it’s maybe 2 or 3 a day, some days there’s nobody. You’ve done what all fringe pseudoscience movements do, spike briefly, then lose the conversation horribly cause you give up once it’s obvious you have nothing sound, then recede into your echo chambers for a time, then fizzle out. Those echo chambers might grow at a slow pace for awhile, but you’re no longer on societies radar currently, and you’ve made ZERO dents in established science. That’s the reality.
If I’m still here, it’s to provide some casual peer review, so potential misinformation doesn’t fly by the radar unchecked or unchallenged. Burden of proof is yours, so feel free.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Your equation is just a curvature from a tangent at surface…where’s the variable for height of the observer? 🤷♂️ It doesn’t represent line of sight, doesn’t tell you where horizon is at any given observer height, completely ignores atmospheric refraction, etc, etc….so how exactly do you think that equation is valid for the observation you’re making? 🧐 You are aware that you see further the higher you are in elevation…..so don’t ya think that’s kind of an important variable to include in your math? 😳
Here’s a far better equation for the geometric line of sight, using the same trigonometric functions.
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
r= radius of Earth
d= distance to object
h= height of observation
Even at 6 foot viewing height that makes the hidden by horizon drop about 726 feet (almost 200 feet less than your calculation that doesn’t factor horizon distance at all), add a standard refraction and it’s more like 600 feet. But hey, you are also aware that the Rock of Gibraltar is roughly 1400 feet high…you are aware of that, right? So even with your flawed calculation that still leaves about 550 feet still visible…a whole third of the rock! Soooo….even according to your math, you can still see it, so what’s the problem exactly? 🧐
But what’s the observation height of each observation? Did you even bother to look or ask? Cause it kinda matters. Even at just 20 feet, the hidden drops too 621’, with standard refraction it’s 517’. These details matter. :/
Most importantly, you are in fact using the wrong math. It’s accurate for curvature…but it’s not calculating for your line of sight, so it’s simply not the correct equation. Use the wrong equation for the job, and you will reach a false conclusion…it’s pretty simple.
4
-
Drop something…did it fall? Okay, then force confirmed. We call it gravity. Pretty easy to prove actually…we experience it every single day, it’s the most obvious force found in nature.
I think what you’re confused with is the difference between the force itself and the explanation of how it works. Nobody in science is contesting that an attraction force is present, what’s still in question is how it works, what causes it, where does it come from? But we don’t have to know everything about something, to determine that it does exist. Personally I don’t know how to engineer my own refrigeration unit…but I’d never argue that fridges don’t exist, simply because I don’t fully understand the mechanics. I see them clear as day, they exist.
This argument is not much different; it’s not the force itself we have yet to prove, that part is clear as day, it’s obvious. It’s how it is created that’s yet to be completely figured out. These are two different things.
So when you say “prove gravity”, it begs the question? Which part? The existence of the force itself? That’s easy, drop something…you’ll confirm the existence of that force pretty quickly and easily.
So you need to be more specific. It’s not the existence of the force itself we need to prove, that’s easily proven, it’s how it works that is still in question. You need to separate the two.
4
-
4
-
@chrisskully1228 You start the condescending tone when you finish your comments with “you can’t”. That’s a taunt, a response driven by your ego…so we respond in kind. Why should we be nice if you’re just here to be a snarky troll? If you’re going to act like a child, then we will treat you like a child.
Look up the Cavendish experiment, it’s a very clear demonstration of mass attracting mass. If you’d like evidence for Einstein’s General Relativity, then look up the Eddington experiment. Both are repeatable scientific experiments, with a valid hypothesis and a conclusive end result, verifying the main tenants of gravity as we understand it so far, that being mass bends the fabric of space and time, bringing masses together, creating the attraction force we experience every single day.
You want to be treated nice, then don’t come here like a snotty child trying to pick a fight, it’s pretty simple. We get that you don’t currently understand how these conclusions were reached, but maybe that’s because you don’t allow anyone to really help you understand, you close your mind before anyone can.
4
-
False, the math of the Eratosthenes experiment only works for a flat Earth if you only take 2 measurements, and also if you don’t plot that data in 3 dimensions. Take anymore than two shadow measurements, it will no longer pinpoint a local Sun, the angles will be sporadic, never crossing at the same point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeEw0Fw1qio
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=423
Doesn’t matter what version of flat Earth you plot the data upon, it does not work...the Globe at our scale however, works every time the data is plotted upon that geometry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t
Math is a useful tool for visualizing our reality in ways we cannot otherwise because of our physical limitations. It has been used to build everything around you...and yet you seem to think when it comes to using it for solving the geometry of Earth, only in this instance it’s not useful? What you’re doing is making an excuse, a bullshit reason to remain ignorant to the conclusions of science, because you simply don’t like those conclusions. Maybe if you understood math and science a bit better, you’d recognize how Flat Earth is conning people.
4
-
@jimygod So was the horizon flat or not? As I’m sure you’d agree, it was clearly flat...yet that surface was not, it was a Globe. Just ponder that for awhile to start off.
Now, at the start of the video, you don’t think the camera is resting level to its surface? I’d wager it was, but if you don’t think so, it’s a very simple observation to recreate, so by all means, get yourself a very large ball and a small camera and do it yourself. Keep in mind, even in that first initial frame, the lens is technically a few centimetres off its surface, which if you put things to Earths scale, would probably be a few thousand feet off surface (much higher than your drone would be flying). Yet that surface still appeared to raise up to eye level then formed a flat horizon...you really think if the camera wasn’t level, it would make all the difference? You’re really reaching here, level or not won’t change the surface curvature.
Your argument seems to really not grasp the true size and scale of Earth. It’s basic geometry and perspective, the closer you are to the surface of a large sphere, the flatter it will appear, and the more horizon will appear to rise to eye level...really doesn’t matter much how level your camera is, if it’s off the surface (even a standard 6 foot viewing height), level or not, a portion of its peripheral field of vision will always be looking down...level or not, won’t change the surface curvature, won’t change the horizon shape.
The core of your argument though is just the classic “horizon always rises to eye level” argument, that flat Earth claims occurs in reality...but it doesn’t actually, flat Earth just never bothered to test it https://youtu.be/RUr9ymz_nVI. You seem to think the drop should be more apparent, but that conclusion doesn’t consider the scale you’re dealing with here.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Lords of science? Seems you have a bit of bitter resentment towards science for some reason. I’d be careful with that, it can develop into a bias, a bias that can cause you to reject clear evidence, just out of spite for the source of the evidence.
In my experience so far with Flat Earth (nearly 4 years over hundreds of conversations), flat Earth is conning people here with what basically amounts to a mental slight of hand trick. It works like this, present people with some math and make a claim that it is accurate for Earth curvature and long distance observations, then present an image of an object seen at long distances. Use the math you provided to make a calculation, that number won’t match with the observation, make a claim that we see to far, then ask the viewer why the Globe doesn’t work.
See how it works? It keeps your mind on the claims being made, that being that “we see too far” because “the math doesn’t work”...which keeps you focused on those claims instead of thinking about the details. Important details like; are the equations used for the math actually accurate for the observation? Were the figures used in the math correct (heights, distances, locations, etc)? Did they account for every variable in their math and observation?
The con works, because most people don’t have the kind of time to really go into the details, and most also aren’t very math literate...as long as you give them an equation, many will just assume that it’s accurate and won’t question it. Most people have no idea how to check a math equation for accuracy...and even less ability to derive their own equations. It’s just jargon to many people, so not hard to show them an equation and claim it’s accurate...very few will question it. I shouldn’t have to tell you though, that if you use the wrong math for the wrong job, you will reach a false conclusion...so it matters that you make sure the math is accurate.
So I find Flat Earth commits 3 errors, in pretty much all long distance observations they make. 1) They use the wrong math, typically the 8 inches per mile squared equation is the worst offender, but there are others. 2) They fudge the details, provide incorrect distances, viewing heights, locations, etc. 3) They ignore variables, a huge one being refraction...refraction is real, and will absolutely extend your viewing distance, which is why Flat Earthers will often make observations on hot humid days where refraction index is much higher.
Here’s a blog breaking down the correct curvature math to use https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ they’ve compiled things into a handy calculator you can find here https://www.metabunk.org/curve/.
If you’d like to learn more about refraction and why it’s important, here’s a quick video demonstration I find illustrates it perfectly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t To learn even more about why it’s an important variable not to ignore, just read the second half of this report where it goes into depth on refraction http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. Image 31 and 32 are what you should see from this report, if you wanna see the effect refraction has at distances.
Lastly, it’s not hard to lie on the internet...so it’s important to get the correct details (distances, heights, locations, etc). A couple months ago I was reviewing a claim by a Flat Earther, he claimed he could see every inch of a 150 foot tower, from a beach at 6 foot viewing height, that he claimed was 20 miles away. Doing the math for his claim, he was correct, all of the tower should not have been visible from that distance and observer height. But, pressing him for further details, I learned his exact location and found the tower he was viewing...and it wasn’t 20 miles away, it was actually only 8 miles away. Doing the math again with the true distance, and made a big difference, only roughly 12 feet would have been obscured. So he either lied, or wasn’t aware he got the details wrong...but either way, does that help illustrate my point here? It’s incredible what people can get away with...if you let them.
So I hope that helps provide some further insight on things. You don’t have to believe me, but next time you take a look at the “evidence” from Flat Earth of long distance observations they claim are impossible on a Globe...be sure to check their work and don’t just listen to it blindly.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yup, not even close. That equation isn’t even for a spherical curvature, it’s for a parabola, so eventually it’s not even gonna curve it’s just gonna shoot straight down. It also has no variable for height of the observer, which is pretty important, cause as everyone is aware, you can see further the higher you are, so viewing height is a pretty important variable. 8 inches per mile squared doesn’t represent line of sight either, it’s from a tangent line at surface, so I mean if your eye is resting directly at surface it might come close…but of course that’s never the case.
Other important variables it’s missing are horizon distance, because line of sight is always looking down, so horizon actually rises up in your field of vision, which forms the horizon dependent on viewing height…from there is where the drop really begins for your field of vision, at horizon. And that’s just a couple purely geometric variables to factor, then there’s refraction, which is pretty important to factor. Light does not travel straight in atmosphere, it refracts through atmosphere, causing what we see to either rise or drop, depending on the refractive index for that time and location. So this can greatly effect what we see at horizon, it can often help us see further, especially over water where humidity increases air density, which is what causes refraction.
So ya, the equation they’re using is absolutely wrong for what they use it for….then they wonder why the numbers don’t fit the observations. It’s basically a sleight of hand trick, clever misdirection, they conned a lot of people with that math…because they knew most people are not mathematically literate enough to check it for accuracy. If it interests you enough, here’s where you can find the correct equations for these observations https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/. You’ll notice it’s a lot more extensive, than just a simple parabolic arc equation.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Boy…you’re not kidding when you said you’re not qualified in any way.
1. Rockets use liquid oxidizers as part of their engines, it adds oxygen to the fuel, keeping it ignited in vacuum. Most common oxidizer used is liquid oxygen, look it up sometime, it’s basic chemistry.
2. No hot air balloon can reach 23 miles high…the furthest any weather balloon can reach is roughly 100,000 feet, which is about 18 miles, but those aren’t hot air balloons, they’re helium or hydrogen gas balloons. Any hot air balloon for passengers, barely gets a mile off the surface…go much higher and the air becomes to thin. So get your facts straight please. You likely saw footage from a weather balloon, but look again because you can see curvature. It’s slight, but it’s there. To see it much clearer, you still have to go a lot higher, 20 miles really isn’t that high, compared to an Earth that’s 8000 miles in diameter.
3. The smoke from a steam train is making contact with the surrounding air, which is not moving with the train at the same velocity. So that steam and smoke is being slowed by drag force, air resistance. So you’ve made a false equivalence, our atmosphere rotates with the Earth, so it’s more comparable to a cigarette smoke rising straight up in a moving car with the windows up. It will move with the vehicle…go ahead and try it sometime, it’s a great demonstration of conservation of momentum.
4. A rotational motion isn’t going to cause parallax, so that’s a terrible way to determine depth. Wait six months when Earth has orbited the Sun to its opposite side, then look at the stars again and compare them to 6 months prior. You’ll see a lot of stellar parallax then…which is how astronomers determine their distances.
This is why you really shouldn’t reach conclusions on a subject, if you’re unqualified and under educated on the topic.
4
-
@alexanderhugestrand Oh I’m no expert of GR, so apologies if I gave that impression, you probably know more about GR than I do honestly. I largely agree with your point, I was just pointing out that science should be viewed as more a tool and its findings as more a collection of current knowledge and understanding that’s free to be updated as we learn more, rather than an infallible institution with all the answers, that can never be questioned.
I’m knowledgeable on general physics, but my experience is more in astronomy. Nothing accredited, just as a hobby making my own observations. I’m aware of a few recreations of the Eddington experiment, the most recent I’m aware of that was published for review being one from an amateur astronomer and retired optical physicist Donald Bruns, done during the 2017 eclipse. He made his observations and data available for public, I’d share the link but YouTube doesn’t really allow outside links anymore. Just search ‘Gravitational Starlight Deflection Measurements 2017’, the paper is archived on arxiv dot org.
As for your other quandaries, I would say Quora is a better place to ask those questions, you’ll find actual accredited physicists to help you out there.
Anyway, hope that’s been helpful.
4
-
4
-
@rolandgerard6064 In just a few hundred years we’ve taken the Wolf and created chihuahuas…something that has more resemblance to a small rat, than it does its majestic cousins the Wolf. So what do you mean it’s not observable? We see evolution everywhere, from the bacteria that keep changing and resisting medications, to the vast differences in species evolved specifically for their environments, to the vestigial anatomy left over from a previous time in their evolutionary chain. We also observe it in the fossil record, as the further back in time we go, the more primitive the lifeforms, with no overlap. It’s a physical mechanism of biological life, we see all the time…it can even be simulated…so why would we ignore something so blatantly obvious? 🤷♂️
Look I get that some would love to ignore the science and pretend it doesn’t exist, because it gets in the way of some fantasy they want to believe so very badly, but studying evolution has led to many advancements in medicine, as well as in bioengineering. So it’s proved to be quite useful…and that’s the whole point of science in the end, to unravel the mysteries of reality, so that we can apply that knowledge for our benefit. So the study has proven useful, what has denial ever achieved?
In any case, simply stating it’s not science, is just an empty argument. You’re likely not a biologist…so you’re not qualified to make that assessment, but you could at the very least provide a reason for why you’ve reached that conclusion, and a reason for why you think anyone should take it seriously.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TheOricine Typical deflection when the pressure is on...good job.
One unanswered question can collapse it? Ok, if the Earth is flat, why are there two celestial poles, each with their own constellations and rotation around their own pole star? Why do the stars drop to horizon at a consistent rate by latitude? How does the tip of Africa, Australia, and South America all see the Southern Cross (two of which can even see it at the same time), if Earth is flat? How do pilots and sailors successfully navigate a flat Earth, while using the heliocentric model with two equal hemispheres? How does the sun set, if line of sight is never geometrically blocked? How does a Lunar eclipse occur, if nothing comes between the Sun and Moon? How do the shockwaves of every 8.0 Earthquake or greater circumnavigate the Earth and return to the epicentre? How does the South hemisphere get the same 24 hour midnight sun phenomenon in Antarctica as the North Hemisphere? How exactly do you hide simple geometry from 8 billion people, many of which are experts in fields working directly with that geometry?
Just a short sampling of questions we could ask of FE. You really think the model you’re supporting is air tight do you? I’m sure you don’t...I would hope you are well aware of these problems you have for the model you’re looking to support....I’m sure you’ll agree, even despite the many problems, you’re not about to give up on your model...now are you?
No...probably not, because you don’t just throw the baby out with the bath water because of unanswered questions. Often times, it’s more your own ignorance, that is the reason you THINK those questions are unanswered to begin with. Just because YOU don’t personally know the answers to the questions you have, does not mean they can’t be answered. I’m sure you have many ad hoc answers for the questions I shared just now for your model...the difference is, can you prove them? I could go through every one of your questions, I can answer them all, AND provide the evidence that supports the conclusions I have reached...but who has that kind of time?
Stop being an insufferable troll deflecting the argument when you can’t answer something...stay focused for a moment, stay on one topic long enough to at least CONSIDER where you might have gone wrong, actually LISTEN to what we might have to say or show you, you might learn that you’re in error...which could save you from falling into an online scam.
Up to you really. You’re being very unreasonable up to this point...and it’s likely because you’re scared to learn how you could be wrong.
4
-
4
-
@TheOricine Another misunderstanding. Aeronautics manuals (as well as any research paper), often simplify math equations, by removing variables that are not required, for the task they’re attempting to solve for in certain sections. When they do this, they have to state very clearly in the summary sections, what variables will not be included in the math to follow. For example, if they’re attempting to solve a problem for the vehicles wind resistance capabilities, variables like shape of the surface and Earths motion are redundant and just over complicate the equations. So they will remove those variables to simplify the math...when they do this, they have to tell the reader what variables are not being included. They do similar math simplifications, when running hypotheticals for a comparisons sake.
You’ll often find them worded like this “for this next section, we will be ASSUMING a flat non rotating Earth”. Key word there, “assuming”...they are math simplifications, not meant to be interpreted literally.
This is another example of cherry picking, looking at the words...but not understanding the context for which they’re being used. Another perfect example of how FE has fooled layman...who have no idea how to read and interpret those papers.
4
-
4
-
Alright, I looked it up, the Rocket launched near Reno Nevada, July 14th, 2014, at 7:32 am. I put all that information in at time and date dot com, under there section for Moon light visibility, and it places the Moon over Fiji…not Indonesia, which is about 6000 km East of Indonesia (yikes, really stretched it there didn’t ya 😬). The Moon was visible in Nevada according to the visibility layout on time and date. Soooo…swing and a miss there. Did you think nobody would actually check? 🧐 Ohhhh right…cause we’re not actually “looking into it” like you are, I forgot…we’re the ignorant ones according to you. 🙄
As for the Moons apparent size, you know that cameras have different focal lengths, right? Which actually makes it very difficult to determine actual apparent size from a single image or video. The Moon is actually pretty small when we view it from Earth, your brain just tricks you sometimes when it’s closer to horizon, because of an optical illusion known as the Ebbinghaus illusion, aka size perception illusion.
Soooo…nope, not a checkmate…not in the slightest. But your intentions are clear now…you’re just trying win, even though at this point you have to know you’re wrong, you’re still trying to ram a square peg into a round hole. 🤦♂️ Human psychology is so fascinating…you’d rather double down on a false conclusion, rather than accept you’re wrong and have been duped.
As a bonus, look up the Yo-Yo Despin mechanism sometime, it’s how rockets like that stop their spin mid flight. The thud you hear is from the mechanism firing, you even see the cable in a few frames of the second camera, verifying the despin mechanism. It uses conservation of angular momentum to stop the rockets spin, pretty simple physics actually, you can test the physics on a a spinning chair with weights in your hands. Spin the chair, then fan your hands out with the weights, you’ll spin slowly, bring your hands in you’ll immediately spin faster, bring them out again you’ll spin slower. Shoot a weighted cable out far enough, and it would stop your rotation almost completely…using basic physics.
Get a better hobby dude…
4
-
@bensonmofo “…but we do know that the Earth is not a spinning, wobbling, tilted ball of water and land…”
But…in a previous a comment above you agreed that there are valid experiments with gyroscopes that have detected and measured Earth rotation, which also further confirms Earth’s spherical shape. So are you just ignoring those experiments now…after basically agreeing they exist and are valid? 🧐 The gyrocompass is used today on most modern sea vessels, and those devices use the Earth’s rotation as part of their function. That’s a fact, not an opinion. Are you so deep down the rabbit hole you’re willing to ignore anything that contradicts a belief you have? Why exactly? 🤷♂️ And why would you think we should bat an eye at your arguments here, if it’s clear that you don’t mind ignoring evidence, in favour of confirmation bias?
If you truly think Earth is flat, then go right ahead and try navigating across any vast ocean, without using the current global coordinate system to help you do it. Go right ahead, see how well you do. With how many Flat Earthers there are, why have none done this yet? Surely one of you has a ship or plane, or at least the resources to charter one. Don’t really even need to put in that much effort though, could just test the 1 degree consistent drop of Polaris to horizon every 60 nautical miles traveling South, or vice versa, the consistent rise going North. That would not occur on a flat Earth, and it doesn’t take much knowledge of geometry to understand why.
Flat Earthers don’t understand physics as well as they think they do…and that tends to be the real problem. But you don’t have to understand the physics of how it all works, a basic understanding of geometry and a few simple observations is all you really need to falsify flat Earth, and verify the globe. This is not a debate anymore.
4
-
@Vkarlsen Cavendish experiment is quite repeatable science, so not sure where you got the impression it wasn’t. Even grade school students often repeat it with just a few house hold supplies, and there’s countless examples online of people repeating it, so I think it’s pretty ignorant to say it’s not repeatable. If you disagree with what causes the attraction, that’s fine…but the experiment itself is repeatable, and clearly demonstrates an attraction.
Static attraction is pretty easily falsified by several factors. It effects different materials differently, electro static can and will also repel and this is never observed, and you can absolutely place the experiment within an apparatus that negates static and electromagnetic attractions, like using a Faraday cage or screens. And the experiment will work regardless of the materials used.
Here’s a great recreation that uses boxes of sand with bottles of water, with a faraday screen placed between them https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68. The attraction still occurs and he even demonstrates the effectiveness of this screen in negating the static attraction. So what’s causing the sudden oscillation?
I’ve heard a lot of attempts at falsifying the Cavendish experiment, but most just bring up the same static attraction argument…without realizing the experiment already accounts for this variable. So I’ve not heard a valid falsification yet…and again, it’s very easy to repeat the experiment, so I don’t understand the ignorance on that.
4
-
@zquest42 No worries, I’m not too fond of attacking people for religious beliefs they hold. This is mostly a discussion of science, of physical reality and how it functions, which is more my knowledge base where I can offer insights, so as long as the chat stays in that realm for the most part, then we can have a good discussion I feel. Many flat Earthers do try to “prove” flat Earth with scripture though and that is where you’ll lose a lot of us, cause we’d rather focus on what we can physically test and see. It’s the same reason I don’t like arguing the moon landing conspiracy or faked space...cause I can’t test much of it directly for myself, I can mostly only speculate. I try to draw a hard line between speculation and evidence, but again, I won’t condemn anyone for having religious beliefs, I can’t prove or disprove God, so I stay out of it for the most part...just starts to lose me when the Bible is used to argue science is all.
It’s good to be cautious, and I’m sure you have been. I just know how tough it can be to overcome bias, and a strong distrust in authority is a powerful bias. It causes one to put more value on the source of information, rather than the information itself...which isn’t a good mind set to have I feel, if you truly want to be objective. It is harder and a longer process to absorb information from sources you don’t trust, but it’s a requirement to remain objective unfortunately. I’ve always used this piece of wisdom to help with that “it’s the mark of true intelligence to be able to entertain an opposing idea, without necessarily agreeing with it out right or at all.” I can’t remember who said that exactly, but it’s how I like to remind myself that the information should hold more value over the source, in the process of objective analysis. We all have our bias and what sucks most about them is we’re often not aware of them. Judging by your points made so far, I do feel you tend to overlook or simplify information from the systems of authority you distrust, possibly creating suspicion where there is none. Which is pretty normal really, I think we all tend to do that with things we distrust...but it does create a bias.
As for the flat Earth society, I understand that it’s been completely excommunicated from the core flat Earth movement, seen now as merely a controlled opposition, and who knows really...they’re sure not doing much to fight that claim. But, at least they have an answer/replacement for gravity that’s actually grounded in some physics...where I feel the core of flat Earth with their “density and buoyancy” argument, really don’t have much going for them there. That explanation just keeps everything about gravity they like and then cuts out the parts they don’t...in the end, it just creates more questions, cause it’s taking established science and, basically cutting it shorter...it’s not very logical, it’s just arrogant, forcing the science and ignoring large portions of it to make it simpler...which isn’t being objective at all, objective doesn’t mean you just get to cut out the parts that are inconvenient for you, that’s not how it works.
The electromagnetism argument does a better job, except it ignores the fact that science already considered this option and has long since falsified it. There are hundreds of different ways to falsify electromagnetic attraction as the true force that keeps us to the surface, so it takes a lot of ignorance in basic physics to reach that conclusion as well.
Anyway, though I’d agree the Flat Earth Society is just as nonsensical, they did take Einstein’s Equivalence Principle and worked it into their model in a clever way, that does actually do more to answer for the gravity problem the rest of flat Earth struggles with. Not to say it’s a perfect answer however, it’s just as flawed when you really get into it as well, so yes, I do agree it’s just as ridiculous in the end.
But yes, feel free to share any experiments or conclusions you’ve reached so far, I don’t mind offering some further insight from the opposing perspective, if you’re interested to hear it still.
4
-
@opxchaos5757 Now, I’ll let you know of some problems I see in his explanation. Continued from part 1.
So he compares the Southern star trails to crepuscular rays, making a claim that it’s an optical trick of perspective that causes the second rotation. First of all, the stars are not seen as beams of light like crepuscular rays, so right away they have no real similarity to crepuscular rays, so he’s made a false equivalence fallacy. Second, do crepuscular rays converge to a point in the opposite direction and form a second visual Sun? No, that’s never observed in the real world. This is relevant because he’s basically claiming a mirroring effect of the sky, but if the stars are mirroring, then why wouldn’t the Sun? The stars are just as bright in the South as they are in the North, so why doesn’t the Sun exhibit a similar perfect mirroring effect? You could say it’s because East to West doesn’t do that, for some reason, but no, the stars are just as bright in the East as they are in the West also.
Also...this mirroring effect doesn’t really correlate with reality, because the stars are completely different in the South...it’s not a carbon copy of the North. For instance, Sigma Octantis (the Southern pole star), is not actually visible to the naked eye, where as Polaris is one of the brightest stars in the Northern sky. If it were mirroring, wouldn’t you at least expect pole star to be just as bright and visible? Then there’s the trouble of all the other constellations that you can’t see, while looking in each direction. You can’t see the Big Dipper in the South and you can’t see the Southern Cross in the North, just to name some examples. Again, if the perspective convergence is causing a mirroring effect, wouldn’t we expect to see the same constellations?
I’ve confirmed this for myself, I’ve travelled the world, I’ve been to the Southern Hemisphere on two different continents now, on several occasions. As an amateur astronomer, I even joined a group photographing the star trails, during one of my visits to New Zealand. I’ve confirmed it, the night sky is different.
His explanation would suggest the stars would have to be perfectly mirrored...and they’re not.
So there are lots of holes in his explanation, that just do not fit with observed reality. Meanwhile the globe geometry fits and explains the observation with absolute ease. I imagine your trouble with the globe model is all the extra motions, the orbit around Sun, around galactic centre, etc, but we’ll get to that in a bit, I’d just like to focus on P-branes explanation a bit more for now.
FE likes to employ perspective a lot, when explaining things like the Sun and the stars, but they make perspective out to be this magical trick of optics that we can not test on a smaller scale or simulate in 3D...and that is a lie. I’m an artist for a living, let’s just say perspective is something I would consider myself an expert in, as perspective is an art fundamental that I’ve been studying for most of my life. It can be easily scaled down and tested, as well as simulated to scale with 3D software...the rules of perspective are not magic, they’re pretty easy to simulate. If they’re going to claim it’s perspective causing the effects we’re seeing, then why aren’t they doing more to actually test that?
So that would be the next step for FE, because like I said earlier, all they have here so far is a hypothesis. If you want to be a scientist someday, then this is important to know, you can not reach a conclusion from hypothesis alone. That’s not how science works. The next step is to test the hypothesis, you should not reach a conclusion until you’ve at least tested your claim. That can be done pretty simply, with either a physical scaled down recreation experiment, or with a 3D rendering of the model proposed.
P-brane claims the southern rotation is a trick of perspective, ok, then why doesn’t he simulate it or model it? He created not to scale visual aides, sure, but never once does he attempt to actually model the perspective to scale, to see if the perspective actually fits with reality, in an actual test. Yet he reached a conclusion anyway. Why would you think that’s good enough? That’s the problem I have with FE...I feel you tend to jump to conclusions a bit prematurely.
I shared two videos above, that conducted a digital experiment and a physical experiment, demonstrating how star trails work on the globe. Those demonstrations were then compared to real world observations, and they were shown to be a match in both. So does there exist similar demonstrations of the flat Earth “perspective” argument? P-brane certainly never made the attempt, so his video is merely the hypothesis. Doesn’t matter how much more it makes sense to you, it’s still only hypothesis, so you should not reach a conclusion from it. So let me know if there are actual modelled demonstrations of the perspective, otherwise, there’s really no reason to conclude his explanation as even plausible.
Now, it’s important to keep in mind that a single demonstration does not prove the hypothesis (the globe included), but it’s at least a start. What I’m getting at, is that FE has to start doing better. People like P-brane and Eric Dubay present hypothesis...but that’s about it. Yet people reach full conclusions anyway. That’s not very scientific, hypothesis is just the start...so FE has barely even begun.
Now, I’ll provide a few more points that support the Globe hypothesis. At some point in the video P-brane makes the claim that perspective would eventually drop Polaris to 0 degrees, where it’s now touching horizon, of course this would be at the Equator, because that’s what we observe in the real world. Ok, but there’s a problem with this on the FE model, because the drop of Polaris to horizon is consistent by latitude...that’s how sailors have used Polaris to find their latitude for centuries. See, perspective doesn’t work the way he’s claiming, he’s claiming that even on a flat Earth the drop of Polaris to horizon would be consistent by latitude. But in reality, on a flat surface, that drop would not be consistent, the apparent angle would drop less and less the further away you got. What I mean is, at first the drop would be quick and more apparent, appearing to drop towards horizon at a quicker rate as you travelled away from Polaris, but the further away you get, the drop would begin to slow, coming closer to horizon at a decreasing rate of apparent angle drop. Which is a problem for the FE model, because that geometry does not fit reality, Polaris drops at a consistent rate to the horizon in reality...so P-branes explanation of perspective causing Polaris to drop to horizon, doesn’t work, because if the surface were flat and Polaris never actually moves, then the drop would not be consistent. Do you see the issue here?
The same applies for the Sun, because FE also likes to employ perspective when explaining how a Sunset occurs. But have you ever seen the flat Earth Sun perspective modelled in 3D before? Here’s a fellow who thought to model it https://youtu.be/-e9d4bjImHM. See how the Sun never quite reaches horizon? Notice how it also doesn’t travel at a consistent rate? These are real geometric problems, for the FE conclusion of perspective.
So here’s the problem as I see it, and I can’t stress this enough. FE hasn’t proven their claim of perspective, they’ve just slotted that answer in and called it a day. When you actually challenge this claim by actually putting perspective to the test, you find there are many problems they are ignoring, when it comes to perspective. They are ignoring some pretty fundamental rules of perspective, it simply does not work the way they are claiming it does and testing it yourself quickly verifies that. The stars drop consistently by latitude, this is something we’d expect to occur, if the Earth were spherical, the geometry fits. Here’s a pretty simple diagram https://flatearth.ws/polaris-angle. You can even test the geometry pretty simply, with a globe and a camera, it checks out. Meanwhile, the Flat Earth model continues to have problems.
That being said, if there are any actual attempts to physically test this perspective claim, feel free to share. I’ve seen a few, but none so far that I would consider unfalsifiable.
Feel free to respond and offer some rebuttals, I’m really curious to understand your point of view here. Perhaps you can help explain a bit more, what it is about P-branes explanation that you feel is more convincing. I’ve explained why he doesn’t convince me, because it’s simply not good enough, he barely has a hypothesis from his explanation. That’s my feelings on that, and typically that’s always been my problem with FE, jumping to conclusions before actually testing them. Not in every case mind you, but in this one for sure.
Anyway, feel free to respond. Again, this was in no attempt to delve into the other motions, it was merely a focus on the basic geometry of the surface. I can delve into the motions of the planet and explain how they would not effect the star trails, in a separate comment.
3
-
3