Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
3
-
@nickmerix2900 Oh boy, you give Tyson far too much credit. He’s a big celebrity in science, sure, doesn’t mean he’s the smartest, with the most accomplishments under his belt….far from it. He’s a great personality to put in front of a camera, that’s about it, hence why he’s so well known, his career has been as more of a tv personality….but even he would be quick to admit and point out, that he’s FAR from a “high priest” of anything. Either way, Tyson has stated many times he has no interest in debates, so he’s under no obligation. But plenty of other scientists and experts are more than ready for such a debate, they’re just not celebrities…cause science is typically a pretty lonely profession, with very little acclaim outside of circles of science.
3
-
@kaptainkrampus I don’t much feel like unpacking any math at the moment (I’ll just briefly mention I’ve done the math for that particular observation many times, the globe checks out just fine…if Earth was flat, you’d see a LOT more of that mountain, not just the peak). I also don’t care to speculate on space programs I have zero first hand experience with, but I can quickly answer the questions you asked in your third point.
I'll explain what Flookd is referring too. The North hemisphere has different (circumpolar) constellations from the South hemisphere. A great example is the Big Dipper, you can’t see the Big Dipper in most Southern Hemisphere locations. Same for the North, we can’t see the Southern Cross, which is their most prominent (circumpolar) constellation, so much so that many Southern countries depict the Southern Cross on their flags. I’ve travelled pretty extensively in my life, I’ve confirmed this to be true.
Then there’s the seasonal constellations, you know many of them, they are the zodiac constellations. These constellations lie along the ecliptic (between the poles) and they change every month. Has nothing to do with Parallax, everything to do with our orbit around the Sun.
This is all geometry that fits perfectly in the globe/heliocentric model…neither make much sense on a flat Earth. Because we'd expect to see 2 different night skies with 2 different hemispheres…but how exactly does that work on a flat Earth, with only one directional sky? 🤷♂️ And we'd expect to see different constellations along the ecliptic as we orbit around the Sun, the Sun blocks different points of space from our view as we go around it…but why and how would these stars change on a flat Earth? 🤷♂️
That's not even mentioning the midnight Sun at both poles, and the two separate star rotations for each pole, each with their own pole star, Polaris for the North, Sigma Octantis for the South.
Polaris drops 1 degree to horizon every 60 nautical miles travelling directly South. That’s a fact, that’s how every line of latitude is determined…it’s how sailors use the stars to navigate. This only makes sense if the surface is curving like a sphere, because that curvature would be consistent, so it would change your angle relative to the stars at a consistent rate. Polaris drops to 0 degrees at the Equator, touching the horizon, how would that occur if Earth was flat? You could say “it’s just perspective” that causes this, but perspective has rules…one of them being the inverse square law, which means the drop of Polaris wouldn’t be consistent, it wouldn’t drop to horizon at a consistent 1 degree every 60 nautical miles, it would inversely square with the distance. Meaning, the angle would be less and less every 60 nautical miles, not a consistent 1 degree.
Why does Polaris stay where it is regardless of all our motions? Well, each motion is different; Axis is pointed directly at Polaris, so that’s not gonna do anything. But the other motions won’t either, because of Parallax. Distance has a profound effect on perceived motion…to cause a noticeable parallax, you have to travel just as far as something is away from you. Further something is from you, the further you have to travel to make any noticeable difference in parallax. The stars are trillions upon trillions of miles away…how far do we travel in our orbit around the Sun? Well, if the radius is roughly 93 million miles (1AU, distance to the Sun) then times it by two to get the diameter, so roughly 186 million miles. Compared to the distance of stars, that’s nothing, Earth might as well not even have moved.
Now, we can argue all day on the distance to the stars, I could share countless stellar parallax observations, but it would get us nowhere. Best evidence is really in the lack of parallax…if the stars were closer, then we’d see noticeable parallax shift in stars, just by travelling along Earth’s surface. The fact that we don’t, is evidence that the stars are really far away…in fact that was the first clue that led astronomers to that conclusion.
It’s fine to question the globe, but you’ll find the further you go, the more it actually is the only model that fits with everything we observe. Can’t say the same for Flat Earth.
What do you mean Flat Earth doesn’t have to prove anything? If they’re gonna claim the Earth is flat, then they absolutely do…that’s a claim they’re making, so they have a burden of proof.
You can pretend to sit on the fence, but I think you’re really a flat Earther that’s just realized it’s easier to argue from ignorance than to admit a side. Just my speculation, but I’ve seen it a lot from FE trolls as a tactic, called plausible deniability. Huxters and conmen have used it for centuries to spread disinformation…so I do hope that’s not your intent.
But, hope this information has been helpful or at the very least interesting. Take care.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@eyestoseefe7618 Oh I understand just fine, but outside of a plane you’d be met with drag force, air that’s not moving WITH the plane. When air moves WITH a system of motion, all that remains is conservation of momentum…proven time and again with any vehicle you travel with. Earth’s atmosphere moves WITH the Earth, in all its motions, including rotation. So it’s more accurate to compare Earth to the INSIDE of a vehicle, not out. If you really think about it, Earth is basically a vehicle, transporting us through space, all the air moves with it.
So again, you’re just reaching a false conclusion, through ignorance of basic physics. What’s worse is you people actually think you’re finding holes that science somehow overlooked…when in reality, you’re not saying anything that hasn’t already been considered and figured out. Just cause you stopped at page 1, doesn’t mean the book doesn’t keep going. It’s great that you guys are finally taking an interest in science, but can you please catch up.
3
-
3
-
@eyestoseefe7618 Depends on whether the treadmill gradually built up to 1000 mph, or accelerated far to quick for you to match its speed. But you’d also have to do it in a vacuum, because obviously the air around you won’t care about the treadmills motion, so it now becomes an opposing force, drag force. The air would more what you’d have to worry about even if a treadmill did slowly accelerate to 1000 mph. The Earth doesn’t have the same problem, because of two reasons; 1) gravity, and 2) all of Earth’s atmosphere was created at surface by biological processes, so it’s already in motion with the surface, so it conserves that motion.
So in a passenger jet, is the floor of the jet you’re standing on not moving? Obviously it is…so how is it different from a treadmill? Both are examples of a floor beneath your feet in motion…so why can you get up in a moving jet just fine, and not be thrusted backwards?
Ever hear of the Concorde? It’s a passenger jet that flew at Mach 2, roughly 1500 mph. There’s plenty of video online of flight staff serving drinks at Mach 2…never once do they have to worry about that speed, because they are conserving the momentum of their environment.
You’re arguing against basic physics…you’re certainly not the one to debunk the laws of motion. 😄
3
-
3
-
@elfalte Mmk, just gonna deflect and share a link to something unrelated then eh…alright. Have it your way.
Ah yes, the Convex Earth documentary…so you see a bunch of footage of people claiming to be scientists, doing science things, and then you immediately believe that they are what they claim to be? They certainly make a lot of observations and make a lot of claims, but where’s their work published? Why would you so quickly believe their claims, without any work to support it?
I think you should look up the blog, flat Earth lunacy. They have a whole section on that documentary, going through every claim, debunking each one. They even provide evidence verifying that these people were not actually scientists or engineers as they claim. One guy in particular, the head researcher Urandir Fernandes de Oliviera, also claimed to be a psychic, claiming he could bend spoons with his mind, and that he was in contact with Aliens. Before Convex Earth, he released another bullshit documentary about his contact with Aliens, he claimed he was talking to an alien named Bilu. He also spent some time in jail for fraud…he is a known conman.
So you really shouldn’t believe every conspiracy documentary that pops into your YouTube feed.
This is what I’m talking about…you weren’t asking those questions to learn something, you were presenting them as evidence. You’ve already made up your mind, you’re not really here for a conversation, you’re here to spread misinformation.
3
-
3
-
No, that’s what some people think though, but only because they don’t know enough to realize how they’re wrong. We don’t feel motion itself, we feel CHANGES in motion, this is well understood in physics...it’s part of the laws of motion and relative motion. If you knew anything about this physics, you’d know how stupid your comment is. As for the stars, you’re not thinking very intuitively. Parallax effect more than explains why the stars do not appear to move each night, but astronomers have been tracking them fir centuries now and it is confirmed today, they are moving, just very slowly. Either way, your being extremely ignorant...all the evidence points to the stars being extremely far away, which means parallax effect is why they don’t appear to move.
Hence why your senses can’t be trusted...because honestly, they’re not very good. You wanna talk about magic, Magicians make a living out of fooling your crappy senses, exploiting the blind spots in every trick. Math isn’t magic...but you’re sure gonna think it is if you continue to remain ignorant.
You could benefit from learning some physics and math...then maybe you wouldn’t fall for online scams like Flat Earth.
3
-
3
-
@pantheraleoromanus6241 Lot to unpack here, no time to tackle all the gish gallop, but I will answer one of your questions....cause it’s one that annoys me as an amateur astronomer. You asked why the stars don’t appear different in a 6 month period when we’re on the opposite side of the Sun, I’d just like to point out that they actually do. You have to keep in mind how a 3 dimensional spherical geometry works. There are two types of stars and constellations, there are the circumpolar stars, which are the stars locked to the polar axis, these are the stars that don’t change, because the Sun isn’t between them at any point in our orbit. Then there are the seasonal stars, these are the stars that lie along the ecliptic plain, and they do change a lot. You even know many of the seasonal constellation names, they are the zodiac constellations.
You’re reaching a false conclusion here, from an overconfidence in your knowledge on the subject. Any astronomer will tell you that the stars in fact do change along the ecliptic...as we expect they would, on a spherical Earth that orbits its Sun. It’s actually one of the things Galileo noticed, when he was realizing the geocentric model makes zero geometric sense, when it comes to the stars and planets.
You’re reaching a lot of false conclusions here, from very similar holes in your knowledge that you’re not aware of. Likely because your sources of information, haven’t been very honest with you.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@IrelandVonVicious I’m no expert in modern cosmology, in fact I know very little about it aside from a few general details, so I’m not about to argue something I know very little about. But you know what can be easily falsified? Flat Earth...with just a basic understanding of geometry and a few simple observations, FE is easily proven bullshit. Just an online hoax, perpetuated by numpty’s (with an extreme lack of spacial awareness) and the con men who feed them the bullshit. Meanwhile, the heliocentric model accounts for every observation, fits with all collected data, from every field of research and makes sense of everything, while also surviving all attempts at falsification...so that’s why it’s the leading model of Earth science. The empirical evidence in support of the heliocentric conclusion, is overwhelming.
My original point was simple though, science is best done through the process of falsification, through a long, never ending process of deduction, refining the current models as new information is acquired. Even Nikola Tesla would agree to that...he did it a lot. Though as Kevin pointed out, Tesla was far from flawless, he was a very stubborn man that refused to admit when he was wrong and that stubbornness did not serve him very well later in life. Tesla was a genius, nobody would argue that he wasn’t, but he was not infallible...nobody is.
3
-
@1FeistyKitty Why would I think that’s impossible? 🧐 People believe a lot of crazy things, so it’s pretty standard. 6 years I’ve been talking to Flat Earthers, I’m more of a globe Earther now than I ever was, because now I know exactly how that conclusion was reached…and it’s because it’s accurate. I’ve learned that these “1000s of things we can’t explain” is really just a few people stubbornly unable to listen (or grasp) when they are explained. You’re just another movement of confirmation bias, sifting through information with blinders on, with religious zeal.
Again, it all comes down to what you actually have that can be applied. We have a model that works and is actually applied in the real world, every single day. So this is not a debate anymore. I don’t mind answering questions and hearing your arguments though, so feel free, I’m actually among those who admire that people are willing to ask questions regardless of the ridicule they know they’ll face. What I don’t admire is the level of ignorance…your questions have answers, you’ve just never bothered to seek them. It’s also a tad arrogant to assume that just because others reached the opposite conclusion, it must mean they haven’t seriously looked into it. You try navigating across an ocean a few times…and then you can tell a pilot or sailor what’s what, until then it’s arrogant to assert you know more than they do on the subject…when all you probably did was watch a few YouTube videos. Just one of many examples of arrogance. It’s no coincidence to me, that flat Earthers are not experienced experts on any of the topics they argue…you’re right, the simplest answer is often the correct one, paranoia, distrust, and scientific illiteracy is the backbone of Flat Earth.
But go ahead, share your best evidence, I don’t mind discussing it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@robertfish4734 You’re confusing gas pressure with atmospheric pressure, they’re not the same thing. Gas laws are used for gases in a closed system under containment. With a container, we can determine a volume, so that is included as a variable in gas pressure equations. With atmosphere, these laws and equations are basically useless, because no volume can be determined, so gravity replaces volume as a variable. Look up atmospheric pressure sometime, pay attention to the equations, you won’t find a volume in any of them…but you will find the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2).
You’re just misunderstanding physics, twisting it to confirm a bias. That’s all you’re doing. It’s annoying sure, but it doesn’t change physical reality.
Your inability to recognize the difference between gas pressure and atmospheric pressure, doesn’t change the fact that Earth is measured and observed to be spherical. Just go ahead and try navigating anywhere on Earth without using the current system of GLOBAL navigation to do it…see how well you do.
Let us know when you have a working model that’s actually used in any field of applied science. Until then, you’re only fooling yourselves.
3
-
@robertfish4734 “The maps are produced by using a flat plain…No one ever considers the curve.”
Yet every actual experienced expert of navigation that I talk to says they do, and I’ve talked with many at this point. And I personally know how to navigate with the stars as well, I took interest and learned how to navigate not to long ago…knowing the true shape of the surface you’re navigating, is EXTREMELY important information to have, for navigation. You learn pretty quickly in learning to navigate, which model is the true model of Earth. And you learn it for certain, when you go to apply that knowledge.
So I think YOU could benefit from looking into it more. Nobody is navigating the Earth, with a flat Earth model…they absolutely have to consider curvature over long voyages, or they will absolutely get lost. I saw a post in comments from a Navy man just the other day, that said he knew the Earth was spherical, because he had to recheck his coordinates every 2-3 hours, just to make sure they weren’t drifting off course due to Earth’s curvature.
So you are just lying to yourself if you honestly think pilots and sailors don’t factor curvature into their navigation. They absolutely do. Learn to navigate, seriously…you won’t be a flat Earther after that lesson.
The Mercator map is a projection of the globe, it’s distorted simply because it’s interpreting a 3 dimensional surface in just 2 dimensions. This causes distortions, because you’re losing a dimension in that projection. Just think about it for a few seconds longer than you have…if Earth was really flat, then why wouldn’t we have completely accurate flat maps? Why is every flat map distorted? Why don’t we have a perfect flat map of Earth? Why does the Mercator get less and less accurate the further you get from the Equator North and South? Why not just make it perfectly accurate?
3
-
@robertfish4734 Yes, I’ve watched that full 15 minute interview, a few times now. He also doesn’t mention anywhere in that interview a “dome”. He says “land beyond the pole bigger than the US”, but you can interpret that in many different ways. Did you know you can actually fit the entire landmass of the US, directly below the South pole? So how do you know for certain that’s not what he meant? You don’t, you can only speculate. Did you pay attention to when he describes Antarctica as “at the bottom of the world”? He uses that phrase at least 3 times in the interview…why doesn’t flat Earth pay attention to those words? Why do they ignore that? Seems to me what we have here is just classic cherry picking….so confirmation bias.
Allow me to make that clearer, here’s a breakdown of that interview; 1) Zero mention of a dome of any kind, 2) never once does he claim Earth is flat, 3) he talks about land beyond the pole larger than the US, but that’s true, you can fit the entire landmass of the US beneath the pole, it’s a massive continent, 4) he also mentions that Antarctica is at the bottom of the Earth, several times…yet FE conveniently ignores that?
So here’s how it looks from an objective standpoint. You’re cherry picking one phrase, and spinning your own speculations upon those words. He does not mention a dome, nor does he state that Earth is flat, not in this interview, or any of his writings and other TV appearances.
So what you have here is empty speculations…not actual evidence.
And then you act like just because we disagree with you, it means we didn’t research it…no, we’ve seen the same “evidence” you have, we’ve done the same “research” you have, we’ve just recognized it as empty claims and speculations, so we’re not buying it. You can get pissed off all you want, but that’s how it looks from our perspective and that’s OUR conclusion after doing the same research. You’re chasing a trail of confirmation bias that’s been laid out for you, and your following that trail without question, because you WANT it to be true, probably because you hate and distrust all authority. It’s created a bias, that keeps you from looking objectively.
That’s how we see it. We’re doing the same research on the topic you have, you’re not sharing anything many of us haven’t already seen before. Where you see evidence, we see endless speculation. So the real question is, who’s right?
Well, I asked for evidence of the dome, as in something tangible, an experiment that’s repeatable, data that I could look over, physical samples, etc….and so far your “evidence” has been a nuclear test that never mentions a dome, and an old explorer hired to explore the poles for potential military usage, that also never once mentioned a dome, in anything he’s ever said. So you’ve given two very paper thin sources, that you can only speculate on……do you honestly think that speculations are good enough?
It seems to me that people have forgotten the difference between speculation and evidence. That’s all I’m seeing…and you’re not the first. Fact is, I’m not going to blindly agree to speculations. Evidence…that’s what matters. Your speculations don’t mean anything to me, when I can go outside and plot a navigation route and then successfully sail or fly it….just like millions of people do every single day.
3
-
@robertfish4734 Does inverse square law eventually reduce to zero? No, it doesn’t, the number gets smaller, yes, but zero is never achieved. But thank you, that’s finally something better than speculations, that’s actually doing the numbers, so that’s something. Though I very much doubt you’ve caught something that all other astronomers and mathematicians somehow overlooked. It’s far more likely to me that there are just variables you’ve overlooked. The stars are quite dim, it’s not easy to see most of them, without better equipment to help. The stars we do see regularly, are far brighter and bigger than our Sun. The star you mentioned, Alpha Centauri, you actually can not see it with the naked eye…so bit of a poor example. You know they’ve actually used the same inverse square law, to determine a stars size and distance…so you are far from the first to use that equation here…except you’re working backwards, reverse engineering, but if you overlook a variable, of course your figures aren’t going to match. That’s why we have peer review in the first place, it’s easy to miss things.
And from my understanding, sonoluminescence only lasts for a fraction of a second, and is not sustainable. In any case, it’s just a false equivalence, comparing apples to oranges and assuming they’re the same thing, it’s ad hoc, slotting in an answer you feel solves your dilemma, but without any sufficient evidence to support it. The light produced looks like a star, so you conclude that must be what it is…no further analysis required. It’s a hypothesis at best, but a hypothesis must be testable, so I wouldn’t even call it that.
With Spectroscopy, we can accurately determine the Suns atomic makeup (mostly hydrogen and helium), as we can also do with the distant stars. Is it just a coincidence, they all share a similar light pattern when tested through spectral analysis? That’s pretty solid evidence that points to the stars being exactly like our Sun, do you have similar or greater evidence to support your assumption of Sonoluminescence? And what about stellar Parallax? Why do we measure a parallax that’s consistent with the size of our solar system and Earth’s orbit? Do you have a working model, that can accurately predict celestial events (solar and lunar eclipses), as accurately as the heliocentric model can?
3
-
@robertfish4734 Also…if you’re going to argue this stuff…why not share the more concrete evidence, rather than empty speculations? You insult our intelligence when you use only speculations you can’t prove, for the foundation of your arguments. I get that you’re frustrated, and it’s worn down your patience, so it’s just easier to run on speculations to snare peoples interest, but speculations aren’t gonna work on those of us who are able to recognize them for what they are. So you just do more to affirm our doubts in the actual honesty and non biased nature of Flat Earth.
I actually respect the spirit of Flat Earth, questioning things the rest have largely moved on from, and questioning it regardless of the ridicule you know you’ll face. That is admirable…what I can’t get behind is forcing us to agree, while throwing such paper thin evidence at us. We’re questioning things too…we’re questioning Flat Earth, because they are not above the same standards of review, that you’re currently putting on the globe. I think you should cool your jets a bit, then maybe we can respect that we’re both doing our best here, with all the information provided. We’ve reached opposite conclusions, but respect that we both reached those conclusions from our own personal experience and research. I think these conversations would be more productive then.
3
-
@robertfish4734 Ever heard of a spectroscope? Very similar to a telescope, except it diffracts a source of light into a spectrum band, that can then be analyzed to determine the light sources atomic makeup. You can purchase one pretty easily, they’re a pretty simple device actually. Astronomers and astrophysicists have used them for decades now, to identify stars….because every star has a similar spectral makeup, the same as our Sun….that’s not just a coincidence.
Spectroscopy is entry level science…you don’t go through an under graduate physics class, without going through a section on spectroscopy. It accurately identifies molecular structures in laboratories…so why can’t it also work on stars, planets, and other objects in space? It can and it has…your denial of spectroscopy doesn’t make it go away.
That’s what we call evidence. So I’ll ask again, do you have any actual evidence for your conclusion of Sonoluminescence? Cause right now you’re grasping, desperate to keep the Bible.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@aremissomar459 I also play music in a band, lead guitar in fact, and I know it’s very similar to a dance at times. You can follow whoever is leading and still be on cue, and the orchestra is very clearly following Chris’ lead. Notice how he starts the song and the orchestra then follows after? Which is exactly what they would do with that kind of delay, it’s the only way they could. Notice how there are a few points where the tempo changes slightly and the orchestra has to adjust slightly? There’s plenty of times where they’re not in perfect sync, just pay attention. The orchestra adjusted just fine, cause it’s really not that hard to do so. So if that’s your evidence, just more empty speculations…then I refer you back to my original comment above, because you seem to have missed my point completely.
It’s really not as difficult as you’re making it sound. When I play live with my band on stage, we typically follow the drummer, but sometimes I start the songs and so I set the tempo. There’s no percussion here though, so very easy to just follow the guitar. Also with my band, sometimes the drummer or someone messes up, and the band has to adjust on the fly, it happens, but it’s really not that hard to correct in most cases (unless you’re using weird timing signatures, but this is clearly 4/4 time) and most people watching would never even notice.
But thank you for sharing that beautiful moment in history with me. I’m Canadian as well, so I’ve always been quite proud of our man Chris Hadfield.
Point is, you’re basing an entire belief structure…around speculations and misinformation. It’s very poor evidence, that holds zero weight in a discussion of science. People really need to learn the difference between evidence and speculations. You really don’t have anything here but speculations and misconceptions, hence why nobody should take you seriously…but unfortunately, some more gullible probably will.
If you had better evidence, then you’d find less push back…but there is a reason we’re questioning the claims of FE, so please pay attention. We’d stop questioning FE, if they didn’t clearly form arguments around confirmation bias. To be clear though, I don’t mind that people question the mainstream, that’s a good thing, ask all the questions you want, I applaud people for that! Just make sure you’re not just following what you WANT to be true, get better evidence, make better arguments and listen to your opposition sometimes, cause that’s how you sharpen your positions. Be open to the possibility that it’s perhaps you who is currently falling for an online hoax, and we’ll remain open to the possibility that we’re maybe being had as well. Evidence is how we should conclude which position is true, not speculations.
3
-
3
-
@nicholashpitts Infrared doesn’t magically make the horizon line shift, but feel free to share any examples where you believe it has, that’s your chance to share evidence you think could falsify mine, so what are you waiting for?
Also, to my knowledge there are no videos from Jtolan or any flat Earther, where they have reached an altitude of “371,000 feet”, that’s an impossible altitude to reach without a rocket, so you’re either lying or tacking a zero on the actual height. But again, now is your opportunity to share that evidence you feel exists, so feel free. Can’t do anything with empty claims.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Is it a can of arsenic that will kill you instantly upon eating it? No, and you can trust that it isn’t, pretty much 100% of the time. So we all trust systems of authority more than we realize. You can say you don’t, but I’d be willing to bet you have plenty of food in your fridge and cabinet you didn’t harvest, or make yourself…we all do. You’re twisting her point to mean something entirely different from her actual point. It’s not about whether it’s the healthiest option long term, it’s just that you know it’s not going to immediately harm or kill you, and you trust that. You trust it for a reason, because it’s clearly working, you’re not dead.
Her point is that we all put trust in something or someone eventually, that’s how society functions in the first place, we trust each other, more than we realize. If we didn’t, then society as we know it wouldn’t be able to function. So our real super power for success as a species isn’t just our individual intelligence, it’s our ability to cooperate and share knowledge with each other. That’s how we’ve achieved everything we have, not alone, but together.
Lose that trust, and society breaks down. Zhetetic practices that Flat Earthers have adopted ask that we only trust ourselves at an individual level and nobody else, but while that may have some immediate benefits in a self comforting way, that’s a very limiting methodology overall, and is not a very good recipe for success as a whole in the long term. Unfortunately, we’re not very good at spotting our own biases…our peers however are quite good at it.
It’s not a perfect system, that’s no secret, but it has brought results, and we all trust it more than we perhaps realize. That’s not a bad thing really, but movements like Flat Earth seem to be actively trying to convince people it is. Truth is often found in the middle though, that’s why she’s saying “wrong, but not stupid”, because it’s good to be skeptical. Heck, these systems of peer review and standards of excellence wouldn’t exist if we weren’t skeptical, but it’s also beneficial to have a little faith in our fellow man. Both are required for a healthy and functional society.
3
-
@k3630 Well a cloud isn’t nearly as dense as a star, you’re making a huge false equivalence. Collect enough gas together, you eventually create enough gravity to cause fusion. Earth does not have enough mass to create this effect, it’s really that simple.
Clouds float largely due to buoyancy, which is actually caused by gravity. Denser matter occupying lowest potential energy first, because its collected mass leaves little room for less dense matter to occupy that same space, so the heavier mass displaces it, forcing it up. Atmosphere at surface is more dense than water vapour, so it forces it upward. If gravity here were much much stronger though, if a lot more mass was collected, then even buoyancy couldn’t occur, fusion would instead occur, creating a star.
That’s a simplified version of things, it’s not just gravity at work though, there’s so much more interactions and attracting forces occurring, it’s a very complex system. Which is why your questions will never end, one answer will just create more questions, that’s the process of science. We could be here forever, as trailbossdan1 said, it’s far to complex to conclude everything here in these comments. But I’m curious if we’ve at least been any help.
3
-
3
-
@dannymccarty344 Most Solar radiation bounces right off the heat shields, and couldn’t penetrate through the hull or the space suits. And if you’re referring to the Van Allen belts, even this area isn’t as deadly as people assume it to be….it’s no more deadly than a few Xrays. So as long as you don’t spend much time inside this area, you’d be fine. And they also went around it…not directly through it, if you bothered to actually research anything beyond what confirmed your bias, you’d know that they waited to launch during a period when Earth’s tilted axis could put them on a trajectory where they could launch themselves around the belt, only entering a small portion (the weakest part of it) for only a few minutes. Go a head and search how long they spent inside the belt…it was only like 45 mins total, there and back. It would take days of prolonged exposure inside the worst part of the belt, to receive a lethal dose.
Again…this is what I’m talking about…you people only do enough research to confirm your bias, and then completely ignore the details that directly refute your conclusions. :/
You shouldn’t be shocked I’m questioning you…you should be embarrassed that your research on these topics is so shallow. Confirmation bias…that’s what’s leading you. Go ahead and research how many rads is considered a harmful dose…then look up how much ionized radiation is measured in the belts and out in general space, then research how far these particles can penetrate into aluminum. That’s the research you should be doing here…but I bet you’ve never once looked, you just jumped immediately to your biased conclusion.
We can keep going if you want too…but personally I think arguing the Moon landing is stupid. At the end of the day, you’re right about one thing, if you’re not an astronaut who actually went to the Moon…then you can really only speculate. So it’s a moot argument for both sides. I can argue the physics, and the engineering and prove that it is sound…but can I prove they actually went? Nope…I can only speculate. So it’s a dumb fight to waste time on. Get a better hobby.
3
-
3
-
@GrahamA63 You have some pretty deep seeded trust issues my dude. How about we inject you directly with a flu virus, or smallpox, or measles, and then see if you don’t get sick…then you can argue whether viruses are real or not. Go talk to a virologist or any medical biologist…it seems you really need that conversation. Let them show you directly under a microscope…we can see viruses, we’ve isolated them, they’re very real…and you have to be absolutely insane to believe they’re not. 🤦♂️
Trouble with you here, is you’re claiming you see people on a beach 27 miles away, but then you haven’t provided any evidence that supports that claim…..so why should anyone believe you!? 😳 Seriously….you’re not very good at this are you. Got any photos to share, any videos? What’s your location? What beach were you observing? Nobody should ever address empty claims as if they’re legitimate…if you don’t have any evidence supporting the claim, then it probably didn’t actually happen! 😳 And holy fuck dude….binoculars use the same technology as any telescopic lens does….so a camera with a zoom lens is basically the same damn thing. 🤦♂️
The satellites you align your dish too are called geostationary satellites…they orbit Earth at the same rate as its rotation, which keeps them in position over one area. You could have learned that with one search…it’s not difficult. Here’s a group of hobbyists who built their own radio telescope, they then used to link up to a few geostationary weather satellites over their area https://youtu.be/jGWFg7EDnyY?t=260. Guess what direction they point the receiver dish…they even pull a few pictures of Earth directly from the satellites. These satellites aren’t whizzing by….they’re locked to a position, because they orbit at the same rate as Earth’s rotation.
You’re not just ignorant dude…you’re paranoid. You think you’re without bias, but that’s not true at all…you clearly don’t trust scientists or experts….that’s a bias! 😳 That lack of trust is leading your conclusions, that’s your bias….trust issues. It’s made you into a paranoid contrarian, you’re prone to going against mainstream information, simply by the fact that it’s mainstream.
Please share your beach observation so it can be reviewed. If you can’t, then we can only conclude it didn’t happen. If it did happen though, I can pretty much guarantee you fudged the numbers. I once had a guy tell me he could see all of a 150 foot tower, from a 6 foot viewing height at a beach, that he claimed was 22 miles away. After pressing him for more details, he eventually shared a picture that confirmed his observation…but then he told me his location, and I was able to find the tower he was observing. The tower wasn’t 22 miles away, it was only 8 miles away….pretty significant difference. Doing the math for that distance left about 135 feet of the tower still visible…so pretty close to all of it.
See why it’s difficult for me to just take people at their word? You are not infallible…I can pretty much guarantee you fucked up somewhere in your observation. My guess is the beach you’re observing isn’t actually 27 miles away.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3