Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
3
-
@drvincentthomas68 It’s fine to disagree, I wasn’t expecting to change your mind of anything, just pointing out some glaring issues I am personally seeing in your arguments. It’s also fine to question established science, in fact it’s actually the one thing I admire about Flat Earth, but you’re being a bit of a hypocrite, if you somehow think that YOU are somehow the exception, acting as if you’re infallible and we shouldn’t question you. You think we’re blind and never listen? Try arguing with a Flat Earther...seriously, for a group claiming to be more open minded, you sure shut those minds off tight when anyone attempts to challenge your claims and offer some information you might have overlooked.
I think you do it more out of spite, because you have a strong distain and distrust of modern science, a great deal of contempt for scientists. But, to be fair, if the conclusions of modern consensus don’t add up for you, then by all means, continue to question anything you don’t feel is accurate. Just don’t expect others to turn a blind eye to your claims, expect that when you make claims, they will be challenged. Respect that we have reached our own conclusions, that we feel is accurate, through our own research and experience, and you might find a more engaging conversation. Respect our intelligence and others may respect yours in return. Keep your mind open and consider the possibility that you may have overlooked something, and we might do the same.
I wasn’t trying to force you to accept what I was saying, just sharing some information, up to you in the end what you do with it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ZighyBlue Don’t suppose you have pictures or video you can share? But no, doing the math it works pretty well. Including even just a standard refraction, you’d see the lighthouse just fine, and we all know refraction is much higher over large bodies of water. So it’s completely possible. This is the math I use for these observations https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/. There’s a great section on refraction as well, which is always present, especially over water https://www.metabunk.org/threads/simulating-atmospheric-refraction.7881/.
My next question I suppose would be if you see the light itself or just its beam? Shouldn’t have to tell you that a light houses beam of light would diffract through the air and be visible for several miles beyond seeing the direct light source itself. But no, this does not invalidate the globe. If it was 100 km distance, then perhaps, but your distance, height of object, and observation height work out just fine.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well, I feel it actually matters a great deal, and I’d rather not take that knowledge for granted, because we all benefit from it more than many seem to realize.
Also, we are a part of nature just as anything else is, creating things from the materials provided by nature, so quite literally nothing is “unnatural”. Are ants or bees, who also build their own mega structures for survival, anymore natural than us? No, it’s all part of nature. We just do it on a grander scale…that’s the only difference, but it’s all natural my dude. It’s part of our nature to build, explore and learn. It’s against our nature to just sit in trees and do nothing. Maybe that’s good enough for other species, but we’re not them, so I don’t think it’s good to pretend that we are.
To each their own though, do what makes you happy, but what might make YOU happy, is not the same for all of us. I personally do find joy from creating things, which adds to my happiness. For me, happiness isn’t one single absolute thing, it’s just a byproduct of living my best life. Doesn’t give me license to destroy nature, it’s good to harbour an appreciation and respect for it, I 100% agree, but there’s nothing wrong with learning and creating, it’s a big part of our nature, and for many it does also help their happiness.
3
-
@Nehner Boy, that’s a long way of expressing incredulity. Nothing you spouted in those two novels of ranting, falsifies the fact that motion itself is not felt, we feel acceleration, not motion.
Placing a person outside of a moving vehicle, you’ve now introduced drag force from the air outside that’s not moving with the vehicle at the same velocity. That’s not motion you’re feeling…it’s drag force, the air smashing into you. So you’re making a false comparison…and ignoring the fact that you don’t feel the motion of a 500 mph passenger jet while travelling inside of it. This doesn’t seem odd to you? Why don’t you feel that motion? Why ignore that? Your argument against that is a deflection from the obvious…we do not feel motion itself, we feel accelerations.
This is an undeniable fact about motion…sorry, but no amount of calling people idiots is ever going to change that. Drag force is not motion itself, quite frankly you’re an idiot if you think it is…or if you think we should agree that it is.
The air does rotate with Earth, you then claimed there would be a head wind. But you’re not quite understanding how relative motion works I’m afraid. Try this experiment; get in a passenger jet, once at cruising altitude, start tossing a paper airplane back and forth. With the planes motion or against it…the paper airplane will glide effortlessly in both directions, no 500 mph headwind going against its forward velocity. Also, are you throwing the paper plane at 500 mph? No, obviously not…so how is it keeping up with the plane? 🧐 Maybe because the laws of motion and relative motion are in fact very real. 😳
It’s the same exact physics occurring when the plane flys against rotation…relative motion creates an environment that behaves as though stationary, an inertial reference frame of motion.
So again…you’re just not quite understanding relative motion is all. No amount of calling us idiots, changes the fact that it’s actually you who’s the idiot here…sorry.
And finally we have your pages long word salad, trying to force us to agree that linear velocities (mph, m/s) are more important to centrifugal forces, than rotational velocities like revolutions per minute (rpm’s). 🙄
I can demonstrate how you’re wrong here with one simple thought experiment. Picture yourself in a race car, travelling at a constant 200mph, around a perfect circle track, that’s only 1000 metres in circumference. Would you expect a lot of centrifugal force here? Yes, you would, in fact it would be near impossible to stay on the track, the centrifugal force would be so great. Okay, now picture yourself in the same car, same 200mph velocity, but this time the track is 1000 miles in circumference. Would you expect to feel the same centrifugal force as you did on the smaller track? Nope…in fact you probably wouldn’t feel a thing this time, the track would curving so gradually, it would feel almost straight.
So same 200mph linear velocity…different centrifugal force? 🧐 But why? You made such a big deal about linear velocities…yet they don’t seem to have much of anything to do with that force. So what’s really different about the two examples? The rate of rotation, the revolutions…not the linear velocity. In the first example, you’d be completing several circuits every minute, in the second you’d be completing 1 circuit every 5 hours…greatly reducing the rpm’s, which reduces the rate of angular velocity change per second…which is the true cause to centrifugal force.
You even know this…you mentioned it yourself. You mentioned how a carousel or that disk was rotating at 23 rpms…yet when you got to the Earth, you conveniently left out the Earth’s rpm’s, which is roughly 0.000694 rpm’s.
See you’re trying really hard to get us to agree with your incredulity…the core of your claim is that linear velocities are more important to centrifugal force, but any physics student knows that’s not the case at all…it’s rotational velocity that matters in a rotational motion. Earth rotates at 1 complete rotation every 24 hours, which is roughly 0.000694 rpm’s…hence why we don’t feel its rotation. 😳
Scream all you want…you’re not changing the facts, the laws of motion are pretty simple to understand and to verify. That’s why it’s usually the first thing you learn in any physics 101 class…they are without a doubt the easiest scientific laws to verify for yourself.
So…your entire argument is just…stupid, really, there’s no other way to put it. We do not feel motion itself, we feel acceleration. This is a fact, not an opinion.
So I’m sorry bud, but your argument is moot. In all those hours of research…you never once thought to learn the laws of motion? 🧐 Could have saved you a lot of headache.
Conduct these experiments please, then you can argue about whether Earth is in motion or not.
- Foucault Pendulum
- Foucault Gyroscope
- Coriolis drift
- Measuring Earth’s centrifugal force
- Ring Laser interferometer measuring Earth’s motion
Then research the Gyrocompass. This is a navigations tool used on most large sea vessels today, that actually males use of Earth’s rotation in order to function. So basically, if Earth was not rotating at the rate we know it is, then this device would not work as designed. So Earth’s rotation is an applied science today…meaning it’s pretty much undeniable. We are rotating. So look it up sometime, not hard to find its engineering specs and plenty of videos explaining how it works.
Call us idiots all you want…we’re not the ones ignoring simple physics, to make incredulous arguments.
3
-
Navigation is only possible, once you have accurate information of the surface you’re navigating…pretty common sense. The geographic coordinate system used by every pilot and sailor in the world uses the globe model. That is a fact, not an opinion. If this system was using the wrong model, then it simply would not work. It’s that simple.
Evidence for rotation can be found in experiments such as the Foucault pendulum and gyrocompass experiments, the ring laser interferometer, Coriolis and Eotvos effects, astronomy data, take your pick. The gyrocompass is probably the best evidence however; the gyrocompass is a device used on modern sea vessels today, that finds true North (in apposed to magnetic North). It actually uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function. So quite simply if Earth was not rotating, then this device would not work as it is designed.
That’s how you spot true science…..it works. On the flip side, that’s also how you spot junk science and bullshit…it doesn’t work, it reveals itself by how absolutely useless it is. Flat Earthers talk a lot and make a ton of empty claims…but it’s no coincidence that none of them are actual scientists, engineers, inventors, with actual working achievements under their belts. You know how you spot a huxter?
3
-
3
-
@1FeistyKitty 1) It’s fine to question, but you’re not disproving those distances with personal misunderstandings…where I come from, if you didn’t understand something that everyone else understands pretty easy, it meant you’re stupid…when did that change? 🤨
2) Then try watching a few from a user called Wolfie6020, he’s made several observations with solar filter lenses on his telescope, getting super clear shots of the Sun, and then he tracks the Sun for a full day. You know what happens in every video? The Sun maintains the exact same apparent size throughout the whole day…then sinks into and under horizon. You’re watching blurry videos, that don’t know how to work an exposure setting to control glare. I’ve seen the same videos, and they’re garbage…and for good reason, it’s how they trick you, it’s basically a parlour trick. Try watching the Sun with a filtered lens…go right ahead.
3) Do this simple experiment for me sometime; get a heat lamp, place it 90 degrees to a surface, place a thermometer under it, take a reading. Now tilt the heat lamp 45 degrees relative to that surface, place a thermometer in its light again, same distance from its centre as it was at 90 degrees, take a reading. You’ll notice the thermometer is cooler when placed in the light at an angle. Why? Because when it’s at 90 degrees, the energy is focused on the surface in one spot, when it’s tilted, that same thermal energy is now spread out over a wider area…essentially dispersing the heat rather than focusing it. That’s how it works on our Earth…the Equator gets more direct solar energy, the poles get that same energy at a far steeper angle…because of Earth curvature.
Don’t forget about the South pole now…they get the same 24 hour Sun during their Summer, in winter Solstice around November. It’s well documented. How exactly does that work on a flat Earth? 2 hemispheres with 2 midnight Sun observations? 🧐 The globe accounts for both very easily, Earth’s axis is tilted relative to the ecliptic, so as it orbits one pole points more towards the Sun at certain periods…we call them the solstices.
4) Ya…cause that’s exactly what they’re designed to do. It’s a pretty simple mechanism really, uses gravity. When the gimbal drifts for any reason, weights on the gimbal drop open, which opens valves, that allow air into a chamber, signalling that they’re out of alignment. A torque is then applied to precess it gently back into alignment. Had you really done your research better, instead of stopping on e your bias was confirmed, you’d have learned about the pendulous vanes. And you tell us to look into it. 🙄 I suggest searching it, plenty of videos on YouTube explaining the pendulous vanes and their function.
And no…we think of curvature in terms of degrees, not miles. It takes 70 miles to cover 1 degree of Earth’s surface, a passenger flying at 500 mph covers that distance in about 8 mins. So it’s pretty easy for the mechanism to do its job gradually over time.
5) Then be more specific dum dum. Flat Earth can’t even account for a Lunar eclipse at all…soooo, not sure how you can think you have a stronger position here. 😄 So you’re referring too the Selenelion lunar eclipse no doubt. Are you aware this only occurs in places observing eclipse slightly before sunset, or after sunrise, so right on the terminator line of Earth’s shadow? Are you also aware that it only occurs if refraction index is high enough for it to occur? So this event actually does fit the Globe model…Flat Earth however, sure have a hard time with the lunar eclipse, and love ignoring that problem by deflecting to a single rare phenomenon…that the globe still accounts for if you actually bothered to research it beyond your bias. Oops. 😄
6) Oh boy. 🤦♂️ Moon phases aren’t caused by Earth’s shadow, that’s a lunar eclipse….you seriously need to learn how Moon phases work champ. Very basic stuff indeed…watch the video I shared in previous comment.
7) You can’t find it…because it’s a lie you made up. And instead of admitting that…you’re now deflecting, back to argument 1. 🙄 You’re a special one…but now I know who conned you, good ol’ Eric Dubay, king of the numpty’s.
8) Ya…cause that’s what it is. 😳 I’m an amateur astronomer who has spent a good deal of time observing planets. Focus the camera/lens right, set the exposure right, and you see the surface features of planets just fine. You’ll even see their shadow phases, sometimes you can catch their moons casting shadows on the surface, some even have rings, etc. You’re an idiot who fell for blurry out of focus video. Good job. 👏
9) Yup…they did, cause you’re all blind leading the blind…you don’t even know that moon phases aren’t caused by Earth’s shadow, so ya, I don’t expect any of you to know how to conduct a proper experiment. I’ve watched several of these “cold moon light” experiments, NONE thought to include a control experiment to isolate the variable they’re testing. A control for this experiment would be to conduct the experiment again on a night when the Moon is not casting light, during a New Moon phase. If you get the same reading, then it’s not the Moon causing this…it’s pretty simple. There is one guy who thought to do this, named Greater Sapien, look up his results sometime.
I’ll address 10 in a separate comment.
3
-
@1FeistyKitty 10) It’s the whole point of science to explain HOW physical reality operates. So ya…it is kind of important to explain gravity and figure out how it works…or else why even bother? :/ You can thank the scientists who agree with me, because every invention YOU make use of today, is thanks to those efforts…from people who felt it’s pretty important to figure things out, instead of staying on the surface of things.
Density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, a ratio of mass to volume. A force is required for all changes in motion. When you drop something, is it not immediately put into an accelerated motion towards Earth? Yes…is that falling a motion? Yes…does the dropped object make a choice and then use energy to cause that motion? No…okay, so a force is present causing it. Pretty simple. 😳 Basic physics of motion, and the basic defining principle of a force…something that causes a change in motion. We just gave that force a name…cause it’s pretty helpful to label things we discover, so we can all be on the same page when discussing it. Gravity is very real my dude…and you used to know that too, before Flat Earthers (somehow) conned you to believe it’s not a thing, even though it’s the easiest fundamental force to prove….drop something. You have to hit your head pretty hard to be convinced gravity isn’t a thing. :/
Do we know everything about gravity? No…but that’s why we keep digging deeper, until we do…that’s the whole point of science. One thing is for certain, things fall when you drop them…only a force can cause that motion…physics 101. Density is not a force, it does not cause motion, so your argument is extremely ignorant of basic physics fundamentals.
Small masses do attract, all mass attracts other mass, look up the Cavendish experiment sometime. But small masses are gonna have a difficult time attracting, when a much larger mass is right next to them…the Earth. That’s why testing gravity on smaller scales is so difficult…but not impossible, the Cavendish experiment is very repeatable science, so try it out sometime.
Space is expanding, not mass. Why is it expanding? Nobody currently knows for certain…welcome to the fringes of known science. We do not know everything, but that’s perfectly okay.
That’s what tends to happen when you leave gravity to do it’s thing over time. Shake up a bottle of oil, water and sand, then just let it sit…over time, gravity takes that chaotic system and organizes it. Come back to that bottle a few days later, it’ll be back in balance…gravity’s pretty cool huh. 😎 We’re essentially living in the period of time after gravity has cleaned up all the chaos…what’s left over is balance. Takes billions of years, but you know we have simulated this in super computers. Look them up sometime, they’re pretty fascinating.
Gravity does a lot more than explain why things fall…it quite literally explains, everything! What do you think really kicked off the scientific revolution? Once gravity was realized, the mysteries of the cosmos started falling like dominoes, everything suddenly started to make sense. It explains why everything in space forms a sphere, shy they orbit each other, it explains galaxy formation, planet and star formation, it explains nuclear fusion and how stars burn, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on.
Meanwhile…a bunch of numpty’s online, who have never contributed anything to applied science, and can’t even work out how moon phases work, think they’re incredulity and ignorance is an argument against reality. 😅 Strange times we live in. And it’s no secret why Flat Earth intentionally denies gravity…because it’s not very convenient for their argument.
Centripetal force doesn’t keep the Moon in orbit…it’s forward velocity does, its inertia. All things in motion stay in motion until acted upon by an unbalanced force…first law of motion, known as the law of inertia. An orbit is basically a balance of an objects forward velocity to gravity, causing it to essentially fall around the source of gravity, like a coin spiralling around a funnel. Because there’s no air in space, it means no friction (an apposing force), so unlike a coin in funnel, it’s forward velocity doesn’t slow down, it continues moving indefinitely.
The Moon isn’t the only celestial object tidal locked to its gravity host, it’s actually very common in our solar system. A lot of the other Moons from various planets are tidal locked to their planet…it happens when something orbits really close to a powerful gravity well. Even Mercury is tidal locked to the Sun…and in a few billion years, we will be too. It’s what gravity does over time. I’m sorry if you find that odd, but your incredulity isn’t an argument I’m afraid. Actually though it does wobble, so we do see a bit more of it over time, I believe we see about 58% of the moons surface over a years time…it’s very clearly spherical.
Well…you believe in a Sun and Moon that’s somehow floating above us with…magic I guess? 🤷♂️ Soooo…flat Earth has plenty of things it asks we just believe without any explanation.
11. Boy you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel now. I’ll check it out…but you know I’ve done this too, eyeballed something and guessed its distance from me, only to find I was way off. It’s pretty normal. Fraid it certainly doesn’t cause us to toss the baby out with the bathwater. Sorry bud.
3
-
Why would they apologize, for something completely out of their control? Maybe you’re not too familiar with how information gathering works, but because we don’t know everything (and likely never will), it means old information will always have the potential to change, as new information is acquired...it’s just the way it is, nothing we can do about that.
So science doesn’t, it doesn’t set out to prove things, it doesn’t operate in absolutes, only in percentages of certainty. It just sets out to collect information, then it compiles a conclusion from all the current data and evidence. New information is coming in all the time, so old information has the potential to be changed from that new data. That’s the way it will always be...science is a long process of refinement. They don’t start with a conclusion, then set out to prove it, they gather evidence and form conclusions from that evidence. They create hypothesis and then set out to FALSIFY it. Science is really all about falsification. If they can’t falsify it, then it’s very likely true...but they won’t conclude anything with absolute certainty, because new information found later might falsify old information. So they can’t conclude anything with absolute certainty, hence why they chose to call their conclusions, theories.
This presents a bit of a problem though, because the general public doesn’t like uncertainty, it demands definite answers. Best science can do, is provide the most plausible answers...so that’s what they do. It’s not their fault society doesn’t understand how things work...so they shouldn’t have to apologize, hence why they don’t. You see it as lying...but no, science is always pretty up front about things, the general public just doesn’t really listen...likely because most people can’t think in nuance and shades of grey, only in black and whites. It’s a problem, but more often then not, they don’t owe you any apologies...learn how things work instead how’s about? Science has provided you with every modern comfort and luxury, from the power that heats your home, to the water that comes directly to you, to the car you drive, to this computing device we’re exchanging messages on, you should be more grateful.
3
-
@dominiccharvet546 You believe in a literal magical being…that conjured reality into existence using literal magic…and you think it’s the rest of us that believes in magic? 🤨 That’s some powerful delusions you got there bud.
Here’s some basic physics for you; any change in motion requires a force to cause it. Is falling a motion? Yes, it is…so there’s a force present to cause it. You’re suffering from personal incredulity, but even you can’t deny that we clearly observe things falling towards Earth when you drop it…a motion occurs, that’s free from your control, meaning it’s a phenomenon of reality, and it’s the whole point of science to understand how physical phenomena of nature works. To do that, we start with the basics; change in motion requires a force to cause it…pretty simple. They just gave that motion a name, just like they named the upwards motion buoyancy. Makes it a lot easier to discuss these things when we name and label them…what would you prefer they do, ignore a very obvious motion that’s occurring? 🤷♂️ Skip over giving it a label? 🤷♂️ Truly…where’s the sense in that? 🤷♂️
Your other quandaries ignore the physics of motion, namely the laws of motion, and relative motion. Earth doesn’t have any trouble keeping up with the Sun, because everything in motion stays in motion, first law of motion, law of inertia. It’s moving relative to the Sun, so that’s its inertial reference frame. Gravity helps too, but it’s mostly just conservation of momentum and law of inertia. You can test this physics at any time, next time you’re in a moving vehicle, try tossing something straight up…and watch as it goes straight up then straight back down into your hand. But hold on a second, think about that now, let’s say you’re moving forward at 100 mph…if you toss something straight up, how exactly does it maintain that 100 mph, keeping up with the vehicle, to land back into your hand? 🧐 Because all things in motion stay in motion, until acted upon by an unbalanced force…basic physics of motion.
You’re making a lot of ignorant arguments, that you wouldn’t be making if you just learned some basic physics. :/
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ienjoyapples Yes, but they completely skip the process of peer review, which has helped science greatly in removing bias. It’s difficult to see where you go wrong, if you never consider that you can be wrong, that you might have simply overlooked something important to reaching the objective conclusion. Bias is very real, it keeps a person from seeing their own errors, leading them to false conclusions.
We all have bias, and it’s often near impossible to notice our own bias, it’s often only our peers that can recognize another individuals bias. So by ignoring outside opinion, comes with a drawback, flat Earth is currently demonstrating the dangers of confirmation bias, by completely ignoring the process of peer review, just asserting they’re right in every claim.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@sammylong3704 Sure, first of all you’re misunderstanding the physics of centripetal forces. Centrifugal force has very little to do with linear velocities and everything to do with rate of rotation. 1000 mph is a linear velocity, but Earth completes one rotation every 24 hours. This is a very slow rotational velocity, exactly two times slower than the hour hand of a clock. We don’t use linear velocity to figure out a centrifugal force output, because it doesn’t mean much to that effect. A better unit for that is a rate of rotation like RPM’s. For example, a gravitron ride at your local fair, rotates at a rate of about 24 RPM’s. By comparison, the Earth’s rate of rotation is 0.000694 RPM’s. Meaning centrifugal force on Earth is VERY minuscule. If you do all the math actually, it only negates about 0.03% of gravity at the Equator. Fun fact though, did you know everything actually weighs slightly less at the Equator for this reason? Here’s a neat experiment that verifies this https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o.
Centrifugal force is an effect of rotation, because of the rate of angular velocity change per second...that’s what causes it. So rate of rotation is what matters, nit the linear speed. Stop looking at the big numbers and assuming things, and instead learn some physics please.
I can prove to you why linear speeds don’t matter here with things you’re familiar with. Here’s a great thought experiment that might help you out here. Imagine yourself in a race car, going around a perfect circle track that’s only 1000 metres circumference, at a steady speed of 200 mph. Would you expect to experience a lot of centrifugal force in this example? Yes, absolutely, in fact you’d have a heck of a time trying to stay on the road you’d be experiencing so much centrifugal force. Ok, now let’s just increase the length of the track, to 1000 miles circumference. Driving the same car at the same 200 mph, would you expect much centrifugal force in this example? No, you wouldn’t expect to feel any, in fact the track would feel almost like a straight road to you, it would be way easier to cruise down this track at that speed.
Pretty simple thought experiment, now let’s examine it. So what changed? The linear speed remained the same...yet centrifugal force was different in both examples. So what does this tell us? That linear speed has very little to do with centrifugal force. The thing that really changed, was rate of rotation. The first example, the driver would complete several complete rotations every minute, while the second example, would only complete 1 rotation every 5 hours. This drastically reduces the rate of angular velocity change per second, which is what causes centrifugal force.
Earth completes 1 rotation every 24 hours...hence why nothing is flung off the Earth, the rate of rotation is far to slow.
See this is how Flat Earth cons people...by using their lack of physics and mathematics against them. They do this across the board, getting you looking at big numbers, without explaining anything. Then you run with your assumptions, instead of figuring things out. You’re asking great physics questions...but then you seem to think they can’t be answered.
Now when it comes to gravity, you’re forgetting that it’s directly proportional to an objects mass. The bigger something is, the more mass it has, the more it’s effected by gravity. So a tiny bird or butterfly, has less mass, so it requires less energy to resist gravity, pretty simple. But actually, a toddler and a fly aren’t really defying gravity...if they were, then they’d easily be able to leave Earth and go to space...that’s defying gravity. Last I checked, they’re barely lifting off the surface, gravity still contains them both.
The difference between them and an ocean....is that oceans are not alive. So they have no means of creating energy, they then put into muscles, they then use for motion. Motion that can be used to resist gravity for a little while. I mean...it’s pretty simple stuff. You are aware that oceans are not living things, right?
Anyway, hope this information is helpful. Feel free to ask me anything else you’re having trouble with, I don’t mind sharing.
3
-
@sammylong3704 Mathematical concepts are built from scientific experimentation....you do realize that, right? Examine a formula, we’ll use the formula for weight; W=mg. There’s two variables here, ‘m’ for mass ‘g’ for the downward acceleration of gravity, both discovered and measured within scientific observation and inquiry. Objects have mass (the little m) and they’re measured to drop towards Earth at a steady 9.8m/s^2 (little g). Take both together, you can accurately calculate an objects weight. Couldn’t do the math, until you have physical perimeters figured out first...that’s what science is for. Science comes first, we study physical reality, until we have deduced certainties, those certainties of nature become variables in mathematics...which then makes them useful for us. That graduates them to applied science. Applied science is the end goal of all science....then we can build things like your computer. That’s how it works...so mathematical formulas are not abstract, they’re built on physical premises...that’s what each variable is, a physical perimeter that is verified science.
Point is, do you ever consider the possibility, that you’re reaching a great many errors in understanding...because you don’t really know much about science? Does that ever cross your mind? I get that things don’t make much sense to you, but does that automatically make them wrong? No, it doesn’t.
Back to your question though. So first of all, weight does not exist without gravity, that’s your first error. Weight is actually just another name for gravity actually, feel free to look that up, it’s well understood in physics. This matters, because it’s why you’re misunderstanding things. Objects always have mass, your mass never changes, but weight depends on gravity and other forces. It’s why you weigh less in water, because buoyancy force is countering gravity a bit. Mass is what you have, weight is product of the downward force being exerted upon all of all that mass.
Gravity really isn’t that strong on Earth, it’s just constant. Where’s the water going to go, if not towards the only force attracting it? It’s pretty simple. The only reason the ocean is heavy, is because it has more mass...gravity is proportional to mass.
You have gravity all wrong, why would anything be crushed here? Gravity is really not that strong here...but it’s always here, it never shuts off, so it attracts anything that’s near to it...like our oceans. Water is inert, it’s not alive, so it has no means of producing energy to use against gravity, so it’s just gonna continue being drawn to it.
Why people have this notion that gravity is so powerful it will crush you...is beyond me.
Facts are simple, things fall towards Earth, this falling is measured to be a constant rate. It’s a fact that matter can not move without a force, falling is a motion, nobody is going to deny that...so it’s simple deduction at that point. Objects are in motion when falling+motion requires force=a force is present putting matter into motion. It’s not difficult. That motion of falling, we have named gravity...we could have called it anything, doesn’t matter, doesn’t change the fact that it’s there.
The example is Earth and other planets, we observe Earth and we observe planets. From these observations, we learn a lot about gravity. It’s difficult to scale down gravity, because it depends on mass. But yes, we can observe gravity in smaller quantities, here’s a great experiment testing it in smaller scales https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68.
Anyway, I hope this information is helpful. You need to understand that gravity is applied science at this point...so it’s far from belief, this knowledge has helped build the modern world around you, far more than you realize.
3
-
3
-
You’d actually have to have an agreed upon, standard, scientific model, that works and is actually used in applied science today, before she could ever really strawman anything. It’s not like we’re arguing an opinion here, this is about objective reality...and Flat Earth lost that debate pretty much immediately once mankind started analyzing the Earth with any real effort.
At least the accelerating Earth hypothesis had some logic and physics to it....the “density and buoyancy” argument the majority of you numpty’s seem to agree on, is just gravity...but chopped up to remove that word and removes the explanations, measurements and experiments that explain and verify the downward acceleration we all observe. It’s just denial...ignoring what you don’t like, so you can convince yourselves you’re right....ya guys, real winning strategy you got there. 😂
Let us know when flat Earth has a working model and is actually useful. Until then, you’re just fooling yourselves.
3
-
Atmospheric refraction can and does effect what we see at distances, this is an example of extreme atmospheric refraction allowing much more of those rigs to be seen than would be geometrically possible without refraction. Plenty of examples of those same oil rigs photographed on a day where refractive index is lower, and in those photos you see much less of those same rigs.
Look up the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, it has a whole section on atmospheric refraction, explaining what it is, how it works, and then demonstrating the effect over a frozen lake. There’s even a short video you can find here of a time lapse observation of the lake, verifying refraction.
Now some in FE would then argue that horizon is impossible to determine thanks to refraction, but refraction is very well understood in physics today, and under very low refractive index it barely effects much at all, and even it can be calculated. Metabunk has a great calculator for refraction index, as does the Walter Bislin blog.
3
-
@Lordani66 Again, science gains nothing from giving illegitimate fringe movements a platform to expand their nonsense. The only one who has anything to gain is Dubay, of course he wants to debate a big fish like Neil, it opens him up to an audience count he could only dream of. On the flip side, he runs from every debate call from his opposition here on YouTube. Guys like Reds Rhetoric, Fight the Flat Earth, Conspiracy Catz, Sly Sparkane, they’ve all offered to debate Dubay, but to my knowledge, he’s never accepted. This is for two reasons as I see it, the first reason being that there’s not going to be much of an audience, so he feels there’s no way of expanding his “empire”, which is all he really cares about. The second reason is that these guys are his direct opposition, they study flat Earth specifically and have been for awhile and they know his arguments inside and out, he’d likely only end up losing followers debating these guys...so he doesn’t dare.
Neil is wise not to debate a known conman, it just gives them what conmen really want, an audience to market too.
3
-
3
-
@RT-oc6iu No, ships sink hull first into horizon. If you can bring a ship back into focus with a zoom lens, then it has not reached the horizon yet, it’s just gone past your eyes vanishing point. Eventually, objects reach a point where no amount of zooming will bring them back…that’s when it’s gone past the horizon. What Frankie is saying is true, there would not be a horizon line, if Earth was actually flat, everything would just fade off into the distance. And we wouldn’t observe hundreds of feet of buildings and mountains, sinking below eye level, their bases obstructed by a clear horizon line.
Flat Earthers clearly have a very low opinion of science, if they honestly think scientists never once thought to use a telescopic lens in their observations of things going over horizon…that’s exactly how they make those observations in the first place, they weren’t using their naked eye. Vanishing point is caused by perspective, it’s the physical limitation of your eye to render an object visible due its distance and size. But this can and does occur BEFORE horizon…and that’s what Flat Earthers are demonstrating when they zoom something back into focus. Eventually, objects reach the horizon, and then they start to drop from line of sight.
Plenty of examples of this online, where objects are obstructed at their base, and no amount of zoom will bring them back. So we’re not trying to be difficult, we’re just pointing out details we feel Flat Earth has overlooked. You can chalk it up to ego if you like, but why should we ignore claims made, if we have information that falsifies them? You make claims on a public platform, you shouldn’t expect that they will be challenged. You’re not free from peer review and burden of proof, so don’t pretend like you are.
3
-
T Brown You shared a video with some heavy refraction occurring, then ignored that refraction was occurring, and then called your work done. How is that debunking anything exactly? You’re just ignoring everything you don’t like, which means you’re arguing from ignorance...ignoring the variables you don’t like and then forcing your own bias conclusion. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you, but arguing from ignorance is a logical fallacy...and a pretty clear one at that.
Refraction is very real, it does occur, so it can not be ignored in these kinds of long distance observations. A video was shared with you that went into great detail debunking your observation of those two oil rigs, explaining refraction and sharing another photo of those oil rigs when refraction index was far less...and it doesn’t appear like you even watched that video. So you’re just ignoring any evidence or explanation presented to you. So again, how is anyone supposed to have a rational discussion with someone, who won’t even look at the evidence when they ask for it?
Is that really unreasonable to ask that you actually look at the evidence presented to you? How can you honestly think ignoring it is an argument against it?
If you’d like to understand why refraction is a valid variable to be considered in long distance observations, I suggest you watch that video that was shared with you already, the one from BlueMarbleScience. Here’s another great source of information on the subject walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. This is a far more controlled observation of curvature, it is an in depth recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, only this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. Pay attention to the entire second half of this report, where it goes into great detail on atmospheric refraction and also demonstrates pretty clearly why it’s important not to ignore this variable.
3
-
3
-
T Brown No, not the end of the model at all. You’re assertions are not changing the fact that the Globe is established science...more than that, it’s an applied science. We’re not navigating the world using a flat model. We’re not predicting solar and lunar eclipses decades in advance using a flat model. We’re not designing communications and infrastructures using a flat model.
Truth is, Flat Earth has no working model...heck it can’t even properly explain a simple sunset, let alone conduct experiments that verify any of the proposed explanations. You keep asking for evidence...but where’s the evidence from Flat Earth for how a sunset works? Do you somehow think your model is free from the same standards of review you currently place upon the Globe model? Here’s another experiment you ignored, this one from Sly Sparkane that accurately measures Earth curvature using Sun shadow angles, and also verifies that light is arriving parallel to our surface. https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=422 Just watch from where I have it qued up, in just two minutes you can learn about some pretty concrete evidence for the globe.
A globe answers for every observation with absolute ease...meanwhile the Flat Earth has to really work hard to ram that square peg into a round hole. Either way, it’s a pointless debate, the Earth’s true shape has long been settled, you’re not changing that in these comments.
3
-
T Brown Wow, little Nathan Oakley junior here. Got your deflection tactics all mapped out for ya eh...what a good little Flat Earth soldier you are. XD
If you bothered to actually watch that video, you’d learn that it goes a bit further than just a simple Eratosthenes recreation. It’s true that if you only take 2 shadow measurements, you can then only assume a sphere. He assumed a sphere, because the Greeks had already deduced the Earth was spherical...it doesn’t take much either, observing a simple sunset is enough to realize Flat Earth does not fit with reality.
In the experiment I’ve shared, they take it a step further, and take several more measurements from all around the Earth, during the Equinox. When you take anymore than 2 measurements, you can actually use that data to pinpoint the accurate location of that Sun in 3D space. When that data is plotted on any flat Earth model proposed so far, it does not pinpoint a local Sun...heck it has no idea where the Sun is. Here’s that data interpreted on many different proposed models of flat Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t Guess what happens when they model the same data on a Globe...it fits, and fits perfectly. You should be more honest and ask yourself why that data fits perfectly on the Globe model. The angles recorded here can then be used to calculate the radius...just like Eratosthenes did, some 2000 years ago.
Independent variable of this experiment are the sticks you place perpendicular to the ground. The dependent is the sunlight. As I’m sure you know how this works, the independent is the variable the experimenter manipulates to test the dependent. So, independent and dependent verified, making this a valid experiment. Another independent variable of course is time, the experimenter chooses the time of day and the time of year, to test the sunlight (dependent) for that time and day.
Taking these measurements gives you data, that you can then apply to a proposed model or hypothesis, to see which model the data fits with. Upon all recreation of this experiment, the data fits the Globe...while the Flat Earth fails horribly.
So there you go, pretty simple stuff. Now, where’s your experiment that successfully falsify’s those results? I’ve never seen a Flat Earther even attempt at falsifying this experiment with tangible evidence and their own data....shocker, I wonder why? Cause it’s just easier to argue from ignorance, that’s why.
You people are a joke.
3
-
@vohannes Questions are perfectly fine, but no, we don’t just throw the baby out with the bath water, especially not when “theories falling apart” is actually just misunderstandings that you have. I can wrap my head around the possibilities just fine, but I’m not in the habit of listening blindly to people without evidence to back there claims, and I’ve yet to hear a flat Earth argument that I couldn’t falsify. So I’m not just going to roll over and agree with you blindly, if I know exactly where you’re going wrong, neither will science, nor should it.
The fact remains that flat Earth has no working model and is not used in any applied science. Pilots and sailors aren’t navigating with flat Earth geometry and scientists aren’t building and innovating our modern world with flat Earth understandings, that’s a fact, not an opinion. So let’s be real and call it like it is. You are layman, who have convinced themselves through ignorance, that you’re somehow the true experts of the world...even though you’ve contributed to nothing of significance. You’re only fooling yourselves...cause the rest of us are facepalming pretty hard on the daily, while we watch you people continue to demonstrate just how ignorant and scientifically illiterate you really are.
But alright, I do prefer to give you a chance first, so let’s shift gears from the dick waving and get to some science. I don’t mind hearing what you have to say.
3
-
3
-
@falcor1969 You're misreading me and creating a strawman argument. Forces are required for motion, nothing moves out of a state of rest without a force being applied too it, it's the law of inertia. You generate energy which generates a force, that you use to move your body...your car does the same thing. Motion requires a force...this is well understood in physics. There are many different forces, not just gravity...you are aware of that right?
Magnets also produce an invisible force that can and does put metallic matter into motion. This is a pretty odd phenomenon wouldn't you agree? Why couldn't an equally as odd force exist that keeps you to the ground? You act like it's magical, but things fall...that is a motion, motion requires a force. Physics is just the study of the natural world, and it's just recording what it observes. Falling is a motion, and so we gave a name to that falling motion, we called it gravity. We've also measured it and that measurement is used in practical applications.
Yes, things can still move in vacuum....apparently you've never seen things fall in a vacuum before? I suggest you look up vacuum drop tests.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@-Redemption- Just not seeing any clear Atheist connection is all, lots of ancient cultures believed Earth was flat as well, plenty of old paintings and carvings from cultures like the Mayan, Norse, Egyptian, etc, and they had plenty of their own theistic beliefs, these people were far from atheist. You’re claiming with absolute certainty, that flat Earth is a largely atheist concept (past and present) and I’m just curious what led you to that conclusion? Any evidence, or is it just a belief you have? You seem to have a clear distain for atheists, I’d be willing to bet you blame them for a lot of things without much effort, so that’s a bias you have. I get the feeling you don’t really spend much time trying to really understand atheists, just assume a lot about them instead.
Truth is, flat Earth is pretty universal, wasn’t created by any one group, it’s popped up independently from all types and many different cultures past and present...but in my experience, the majority has always had a clearer religious motive behind the belief, even in modern times. Chatting with them today, you’ll find a lot more theistic flat Earthers than atheist. So I just find your conclusion doesn’t really fit with what I’ve experienced so far, I think you’re being a tad bias, driven by a distain for atheists.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3