Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@CamperKev Ever considered the possibility that scientists warned the populace of something plausible, and then something was done about it, so that’s why we don’t hear about these problems anymore and why they didn’t come to pass? 🧐 You’re just sharing a bunch of gish gallop, without any of the actual context…do you honestly believe that’s how research is done? 🤷♂️
For example, here’s some further context to one of your points; Yes, the ozone layer was depleting, and the cause was determined to be from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons—gases formerly found in aerosol spray cans and refrigerants—that are released into the atmosphere. Scientists isolated the problem, and warned governments, who then limited the usage of these chemicals. Refrigeration units today do not use CFC’s, and Freon is limited as well, and the ban on these chemicals started around 1995. Since then the ozone layer has gone into recovery, thanks to those bans put in place…that’s why you don’t hear about it anymore…because scientists did their job, and solved the problem. Imagine that…actually listening to experts, stops these doomsday predictions from happening. 😳 We should probably keep doing that…just sayin.
Here’s another one; In the early 1900’s, it was realized that our modern society could not sustain global food production, because we couldn’t put enough nitrate back into the soil. A chemist/scientist named William Crookes warned the world would be doomed too global famine, if we couldn’t find a way to return nitrate back into the soil for larger yields to support the growing population. So he essentially gave a doomsday prediction…and science took it seriously. A german chemist named Fritz Haber then found a break through method of synthesizing ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen found in the air. Providing all the nitrate the soil would need during that time. So the global famine was averted…because a scientist took the warning to heart, and found a solution. That’s basically the story with every global famine prediction…a warning is given, then scientists do their jobs, and solve the problem.
You see where I’m going with this? These doomsday predictions haven’t happened…because scientists are doing their jobs! 😳 It’s the same with climate change…and all you’re doing is making it harder for them. In the past, the general populace really wasn’t getting all that involved with these problems…now everyone’s suddenly a fuckin climate scientist.
I bet I could go through your entire list, and provide more context to each of them, like I just did for the Ozone problem, and famine…and it would falsify your argument here. But you know I’m not going to take that time…that’s how a gish gallop works; bombard your opponent with a mountain of weaker arguments, to make it nearly impossible for anyone to take the time to debunk it. But I don’t have too…because at the end of the day, nothing you shared has any context, so it’s basically moot. That’s why you were asked to share an actual scientific paper that supports your position…but instead you shared a bunch of predictions without context…and called it good enough. 🤦♂️
You obviously haven’t been paying attention lately. Not sure how it is in your area, but over the last 10-15 years, the rate of extreme forest fires has more than doubled. In my area (central Canada) we now expect it every year…we now just expect a couple months of heavy smoke and poor air quality. I’ve lived here nearly 40 years, and I don’t remember a time until recently where this was a problem, we had fires…but blankets of smoke, every year? Nope…that’s new and it’s just getting worse. The rate of fires has increased, and they’re far worse…and it’s not just here, it’s all around the world. So I’m inclined to agree with scientists…that’s a prediction that has come true. They warned us fires would increase…and that’s what’s happening.
And if you really look into the evidence and look into what climate scientists are actually saying, you’ll find they do all agree this is happening. Here’s a great break down from a scientist, sharing some of the actual evidence for climate change and its link to human civilization.
https://youtu.be/OWXoRSIxyIU
Here’s what’s most mind numbing about all this; If scientists are wrong, nothing really changes, except we maybe have a few new technologies born from that warning. But if YOU’RE wrong, and if you continue to pretend you’re a scientist, and continue to fight against them…then we are essentially fucked, because you’ll have essentially slowed the process of solving the problem. So I don’t really care if they are wrong (though after seeing the evidence I feel they are bang on), I would rather be safe than sorry. :/
Let scientists do their jobs…they’ve steered the ship through plenty of global problems so far, I feel your list is really a list of their successes.
3
-
@konberner170 No…they have not. 100% effective is not the reality of vaccines, if you think it is, then that’s a misunderstanding you have. They are a great defence against harmful pathogens, much better than doing nothing at all, absolutely. But they’re not the one shot fixes all that people seem to think they are, and that’s never been what scientists claim either…defeating an ever evolving pathogen is never that simple.
There’s also no way to account for every single person’s varying health concerns and differing immune systems, with any single vaccine. The reality is, some people will always react negatively, to any vaccine we produce, there is no such thing as a 100% safe or effective vaccine. That’s the reality.
Why would we punish scientists for doing their best? 🤷♂️ Are they not allowed any room for error? That doesn’t seem very reasonable. Scientists are not perfect minds that never get things wrong.
Sabines point was that they do have standards and safe guards in place, to ensure the safest possible consumable product, or in this case vaccine…it doesn’t mean it’s a 100% effective system. I think your problem is thinking in absolutes, it’s all or nothing…but the trouble is, 100% is simply not reasonable…it’s impossible to obtain, in anything concerning the population.
Also, which top scientists said “if 70% of people take first dose, it would be enough”? Citation needed…cause I’d be willing to bet you misread or misinterpreted something.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@EZHostglo 1) exactly, which is why we don’t use gas pressure laws and equations when working with atmospheric pressure. You can’t give a volume for our atmosphere, volume is an important variable for gas pressure laws, so they are not used in atmospheric pressure equations. Instead, gravity is the variable we use…that’s what creates the pressure gradient of our atmosphere. So the big error flat Earth makes, is they think gas pressure and atmospheric pressure are the same thing within physics. They are not, they are treated as different. You’re applying gas pressure laws, to atmospheric pressure…gas pressure laws are pretty limited in use within atmospheric pressure science.
2) Both are sufficient, you do realize that Einstein merely refined Newtons work, right? He didn’t invalidate it completely, we still use Newtons equations far more than we do Einsteins. You really only need Einsteins field equations for more precise measures.
3) Well, you actually can explode a basketball this way, if the rate of thermal input exceeds its ability to shed that convection transfer. But not a bad point, but then you’d have to assume your container sheds the Suns thermal input. You haven’t yet proven there is even a container, let alone know what it’s made of…so it’s just assumptions built on assumptions, not a very great foundation.
4) All gravity creates weight…that’s all weight is, it’s basically gravity. Mass is what you always have, your weight depends on the force of gravity. This is easily explained with the equation we use for determining weight; W=mg. Mass times acceleration of gravity, gives you weight. Think of it this way, you know how a scale works, right? You press down upon the top surface of a scale, applying a force, to generate pressure it calculates as a weight value. If there is no downward acceleration of gravity, then how does a mass resting on a scale apply any force to the scale? Mass and gravity create weight…basic physics.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hershelpogue1745 Science is all about constant rebuttal…it’s built on the never ending process of falsification. Your problem is you seem to think science is all about proving things, when in reality it’s all about falsifying every other possible hypothesis, until you’re left with the most likely conclusion. This is a never ending process of review, rebuttal and falsification, that’s the reality. If you set out trying to prove things, then you’ll just end up confirming your biases. It gets tricky, and people get confused, because of course the end goal of science is to verify truths of physical reality, what’s tricky about that is in how that’s best achieved. It’s best achieved through the opposite process, through falsification. That’s how you best combat the true enemy of science, bias.
I can respect flat Earth in what they’re doing somewhat, because they are refuting science that’s established, that’s great…the problem is they’re about 2000 years behind the rest of science. These are old questions, long answered. They’re free to rebuttal, but the arguments they make are just ignorant and biased…that’s the problem. It’s born more from a desire to spite the scientific community, not so much to find actual truth. That I can’t respect.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ekulenwaiku4654 Ever consider the possibility, that perhaps things aren’t lining up, because you lack some pieces to the puzzle...or because you’ve been given the wrong pieces, by huxters online? Does that ever cross your mind?
Here’s what you do know for sure...one side has created everything around you in the modern world, while the other has achieved nothing. Flat Earth has no working model and has contributed nothing that’s currently used in any applied science today, not a fact I’d so easily ignore. It’s easier than ever before to spread misinformation, so what makes you think you couldn’t have been lied too, by con artists feeding you bad information?
In any case, feel free to share some of these things you feel are not lining up, perhaps I can share some information or insight you may have missed. To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with questioning authority, in fact it’s quite reasonable and logical. But you should remember to remain skeptical, even for the sources you’ve cone to trust, don’t forget to hold them to the same standards of review.
3
-
3
-
@ekulenwaiku4654 Cannot answer, or cannot rhetorically persuade you, because of a lack of knowledge or understanding on your part? There is a difference. I can’t speak for everyone else, but I do my best not to ignore any arguments made...the only exception being gish gallop. If too many points are made at once, to the point where it becomes impossible to answer them all without writing a novel, then there’s not much point continuing a discussion I feel. I understand FE has many questions, doesn’t mean they can’t be answered.
So far, you and I have only discussed photographs and space travel, I don’t make a habit of reading all the other comments (though I do the odd time), so if you want me to address anything specific, then you have to ask me directly. So I’ll answer for the ones you’ve provided for me now.
Crepuscular rays are an optical illusion caused by perspective. The rays are actually parallel, but from your perspective, they can appear to converge at a point. You can test this pretty easily with a few simple tests, like the ones included here https://youtu.be/cTPLqbl-HGY. Every example here is done using parallel lines, viewed from different angles. This is pretty common knowledge in things like illustration and art fundamentals (I’m an illustrator for a living, so perspective is a topic I would consider myself an expert on), perspective can and will create this effect, of parallel rays appearing to diverge from a point.
Now, that’s just an explanation, backed with a simple, repeatable, optical experiment, it’s not enough however to reach a definite conclusion from. To reach a more conclusive conclusion, we’ll need something that can further verify that the Suns light is arriving parallel to Earth. So is there further evidence to support that light from the Sun is actually parallel? Yup, you bet there is. Here’s a few simple experiments that help to further verify, that the Suns light arrives parallel, by simply measuring the angles of shadows, as well as observing these crepuscular rays from different angles, much like the experiment above, but in a real world setting.
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno
https://youtu.be/z2quy8ur6Io
https://youtu.be/yrsaP7nBWt0
https://youtu.be/fl8Knew3xNU
Crepuscular rays are just one of many examples, where flat Earth presents a hypothesis...but then doesn’t bother to verify it with further evidence, to reach a definite conclusion. FE is riddled with stuff like this...asking great questions, but then completely skipping over the process of deeper examination, just jumping straight to conclusion. Then you say we’re ignoring the observation. :/
Sun “hot spots” are simply light reflecting off the clouds, no different than how a light reflects off a surface of water, acting almost like a mirror, creating a reflection of the light source. Catch the light from the right viewing angle, the clouds will produce a similar effect...clouds are just essentially water vapour after all. Do I need to explain much further? Not really, it’s logical that this can and would happen, and again, FE has provided nothing that really makes their claim conclusive, no further examination, they’ve just jumped straight to conclusion again. So in this case, if they can reach conclusions without evidence, we can discard that conclusion without evidence just as simply. Though the main claim here is that the Sun is local...and the experiments I shared above already falsify that claim, so we’ve already covered it.
Your next point is no visible curvature without fish eye lens. So are you aware at all how high you have to go, in order to see curvature on the horizon? Have you ever crunched the numbers or bothered to see the geometry simulated? If not, here’s a great program that can help you out here http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth. This is a too scale Earth curvature simulator, perfect for visualizing the scale and geometry we’re dealing with here. So first, take the blue cursor and slide it to 10,000 meters, which is roughly the altitude a passenger airliner flies at, then let me know how much curvature you see. Now pull the cursor to 35,000 meters, which is roughly the highest altitude that any weather balloon can climb too, now how much curvature do you see? Not a whole lot, right? Now try seeing that curvature, through the haziness of our atmosphere...good luck with that.
What we have here is a common misconception. You’ve been told your whole life, as we all have, that you can easily see curvature from an airliner, but that’s not necessarily true. You can see it...but it’s not easy to spot with the naked eye, not at all. Even at the 100,000 feet of your average weather balloon, still not high enough to really see it, without some effort. So, this reality conflicts with your misconception...causing you to assume something fishy is going on, when in reality, it’s just a simple misconception, repeated by layman verbatim...happens a lot actually. In that same simulation, you’ll see several yellow tabs, click the one labelled “Curve” and then watch the demonstration.
This is the larger issue here...a lot of people really don’t seem to understand how big the Earth really is. 100,000 feet, is pretty high...to you and me, the microscopic life living on the skin of a massive celestial body, but compared to the Earth, it hardly registers. You said it yourself earlier, you have to get pretty far up, before you can really see the Earth. Though if I were you, I’d rewatch any high altitude video you deem as not having a fish eye lens...and this time put a ruler or straight line across that horizon for comparison.
Your next point was on a lack of curvature observed on the ground, using official curvature calculations. Ok, first thing to note here, is that if you’re referring to the 8 inches per mile squared math, then this is where FE has conned you...cause that’s not the correct math to use here. There are other equations they also misuse, but this one is the worst offender.
That math is okay for surveyors to use to quickly and roughly determine benchmarks, but it’s not an accurate calculation and it is missing many key variables, required to determine an accurate line of sight observation. The most important variable it ignores, being height of the observer, but the bigger problem is that it does not represent your line of sight, at all. It’s just calculating a drop from a tangent line at your feet, that’s all. It’s a basic parabolic arc equation...it makes no determination for horizon distance, includes no variable for height of the observer, or refraction, it does not represent line of sight, so it’s simply not the correct math to use for this observation.
Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple. It’s not the mainstream science that says this math is what you should use for long distance observations, it’s FE that tells you it is. So the con was simple, convince people to use the wrong math, then of course they’ll be confused when the numbers don’t add up. Most people are not very mathematically literate, they’re not going to easily recognize when they’re using the wrong equation...and they certainly wouldn’t be able to derive their own. So it worked on a lot of people...by using their own lack of knowledge and experience against them.
Anyway, that’s just a majority I’ve noticed, I really cannot be sure at this point which equation you are referring too...but you know as well as I do, that 8 inches per mile squared is the math most commonly used by FE, and the fact is, it’s not the correct math. So why continue to trust a group, that intentionally misleads people?
Here’s where you can find the correct math in case you’re curious https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/. That curve simulator I shared above, makes use of this math, so it’s a very useful tool as well, though here’s a simpler version of the calculator https://www.metabunk.org/curve/. Perhaps give this a try next time.
It should also be stated, that refraction is another key variable to these observations. If you’d like to learn more as to why, I don’t mind explaining further, but I’ll leave it there for now. But, I will mention this, it’s not a variable FE can just ignore...yet they often do. Again, you claim we’re the ones ignoring things...
Lastly you claimed we see things further than we should. Basically the same problem really, do the math wrong, and then ya, I can see how you might reach that conclusion. It’s pretty important you make sure your math is accurate...so I hope the information above at the very least gets you questioning the math provided to you by FE.
In the meantime, here’s a few observations and experiments, that help to verify curvature. If you want more, I can share many more, so feel free to ask.
https://flatearthbusted.blogspot.com/2017/10/curvature-on-parade-turning-torso-video.html?m=0
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
https://youtu.be/RK93TfSYeQU
Yes, the list does go on....for how many different ways con artists have spun and twisted information, to make it seem like there’s a problem with the heliocentric model. It’s all bullshit though...lies, to get you going down a rabbit hole of misinformation, to rob you of your better reasoning. You don’t have to take my word for it though, I get that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to navigate truth from lies these days, so don’t let me discourage you. But if it interests you enough, I’ve shared what I feel is some good evidence, so feel free to examine any of it further if you’d like, at the very least I hope you find it interesting. Anymore questions or rebuttals, feel free to continue.
3
-
Well, the second law of thermodynamics has more to do with energy equilibrium, not so much matter. For example, when a cup of coffee goes cold, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy? The heliocentric model doesn’t break any laws of thermodynamics, this is just a misunderstanding flat Earth likes to twist for their bias narrative. Gravity is the container of our atmosphere, entropy does occur but the part FE ignores is that entropy can be slowed by attracting forces...like gravity. Entropy will win in the end, but thanks to the attractive forces that bind reality together, it’s going to take a very long time. Science has calculated this eventuality, it’s called heat death.
Anyway, I hope that helps a little. Flat Earth is twisting the physics to confuse people...that’s how they rope followers. Try not to fall for their bullshit, they have no idea what they’re talking about, but they’ll pretend to be experts. Don’t be dazzled by their overconfidence...it’s all for show.
3
-
3
-
@Retrocaus Have you ever looked at the planets through a telescope? They share similar characteristics to our Moon, having clear surface features that become more curved near the visible edges, and even displaying curved shadow phases, we even see them rotating around their axis, revealing their other sides…revealing them as spherical. Some even have their own moons that visibly orbit around their host planet. This is pretty standard knowledge for an astronomer, or anyone who’s actually spent some time looking through a telescope, doesn’t require much effort, anyone can make these observations today with pretty inexpensive equipment. We really have no reason to conclude everything in space is not spherical, they display all the visual characteristics.
Gravity makes sense of both the spherical nature of their geometry as well as their motions, so the pieces of the puzzle continue to fit very well, giving us even more evidence to support the larger model. Your argument doesn’t really refute that, it just deflects away from these observations, as if to ignore them. Astronomers don’t ignore these things, nor should anyone.
So what’s the highest video footage you accept? Do you have a link you could share? Then my next question would be; what is the altitude and did you do the math for how much curvature you’d expect to see from that altitude? I find a lot of people, Flat Earthers especially, just look at that footage and then assume there should be more curvature, without actually crunching the numbers to check.
What about the ISS, it’s live streaming every day, does that video not count? Clearly shows curvature at roughly 240 miles altitude. I’ve seen plenty of rocket footage going much higher than any weather balloons, they also show a clear curvature, do you also discount this footage?
Your point just lacks context, I can only assume you think weather balloon footage is the highest we’ve ever gone, because you’ve left your response very vague rather than providing specific observations…but weather balloons only go to about 100k feet, roughly 20 miles, the ISS is 240 miles altitude which is a heck of a lot further. And rockets go much higher as well, at least into low Earth orbit, which starts at 100 miles. So why discount all those other examples, which are far further than any weather balloon footage? You don’t think you’re possibly being a bit intentionally biased? Ignoring everything that may directly refute what you’d like to believe?
Also, have you ever tried putting a ruler up to the horizon on weather balloon footage? I have, and it is curved, just very slightly. Give it a try sometime.
You should also look into the math and geometry here a bit, 20 miles off of surface is really not that high. Earth is 25,000 miles in circumference, at 20 miles up you see about 387 miles to horizon, so you’re only seeing 1.5% of Earth’s curvature at that altitude. We see curvature in terms of degrees, that’s only 5 degrees…you think you’re naked eye could spot 5 degrees easily? There’s a great free simulation model you can use at the Walter Bislin blog, that can actually simulate the horizon at 100k feet, you should check it out sometime…it matches balloon footage perfectly, as well as the ISS observations.
Anyway, I hope this information has been helpful or at the very least interesting.
3
-
@SuperMoshady You’re just stating an obvious though, relative density is already a part of gravity physics, you’re just intentionally ignoring the gravity part. But you’re experiment and hypothesis does nothing to explain how or why dense matter goes down and less dense matter goes up, it doesn’t explain the motion and does nothing to determine what’s causing it.
Gravity takes that understanding further, and works on the how and the why. That’s why we do science, to figure out what’s going on. We call the falling gravity, the upward force buoyancy, but upon much experimentation it’s found that buoyancy does not occur without the downward force of gravity, first telling matter in which direction to begin ordering by density. So the downward force of gravity is the cause for all of it. Objects fall because of gravity, they order by density because of gravity, the buoyancy force occurs because of gravity.
It’s not difficult to deduce. Here’s the questions you’re left with, with your current understanding of things.
Why down? If mass is dropped in a vacuum chamber, where the surrounding air density is equal in all directions, why does it fall down every time? Why that direction? How is it put into motion in the first place? Nothing is put into motion without a force first acting upon it, and yet falling is a pretty clear motion, so what force is putting it into that downward motion? Why not up? The air is actually thinner above, shouldn’t dense objects fall up by your understanding?
You see the problem? You’re not accounting for the motion. What’s causing that motion? It can’t just be density, because density is just a state of matter, it’s not a force, so it has no means of putting matter into motion.
Please explain further what is putting matter into motion and why it’s down.
3
-
@SuperMoshady Oh I’m well aware smoke is mostly particles of heavier materials, but it doesn’t change the fact that it normally rises. If gas is still rising...why isn’t it bringing the particles up like it normally does? Why do they instead fall in a vacuum?
Again, I’m asking for the 3rd time now, how exactly does density alone, put matter into motion? Feel free to explain. In a vacuum chamber, where the space is just as empty above as it is below, why does matter travel down?
Steam rises due to buoyancy, which is directly caused by gravity. I’ve answered your question many times now.
Can I show you falling steam? Certainly, clouds are proof of this, they’re basically just water vapour (like steam), produced by rising moisture due to buoyancy. But why do they go no further? What’s keeping them from going higher? Dry ice produces a form of steam as well, I’m sure you’ve seen it fall.
You should care very much about math, it’s a big part of why we do science in the first place, so we can derive equations we can then use to make predictions with. When we understand every variable, like that gravity is what causes buoyancy, we can then create equations to make accurate predictions with. It’s that predictive power, that makes engineering possible...engineering like the computing device we’re having this conversation with, a device you could never hope to create using your “science”. So basically, when you say you don’t care for maths, you’re basically telling me your science is useless. It has no real predictive powers, so we can’t invent or innovate anything with it.
Not sure why you’d think that’s a better way to do things, but I think we both can agree it’s pretty useless. 😅
No, the reason you intentionally ignore math and don’t want to derive an equation for me here, is because you know that you can’t, because you know you’re wrong. It’s pretty simple. The moment you admit that buoyancy requires a downward force to start the density displacement, then your whole argument falls apart. But I’m afraid it’s true, science has derived an equation, that works every time it’s put to use, that equation includes the downward force of gravity acceleration. So it’s applied science, meaning it’s verified correct every time it’s used and every time it works.
When you can do the same using your model, then we’ll have reason to listen.
3
-
3
-
@andreiandries470 You absolutely do have bias...just cause you think you’re searching for truth, doesn’t make you free from bias. 🤦♂️ It’s people who think they’re not biased, who will never find actual truth, only further delusions. Cause you’re not listening, you’ve already made your conclusion long before any evidence, and anything that contradicts or falsifies that conclusion, you will just ignore...cognitive dissonance in a nutshell.
They didn’t extend the atmosphere...they discovered that molecules of hydrogen still exist in a cloud surrounding Earth as far out as the Moon, this is known as a Geo Corona. But it’s like 10 molecules for every meter...not exactly very dense. If we use your ignorant understanding of rocket propulsion, how exactly would a rocket be able to push off of that? Your logic is terrible...they didn’t extend anything, they made a discovery for something that was already there and then added it to the body of knowledge. They didn’t do it to make the moon landings possible, who told you that nonsense? They did it because when you discover something, you record it and then add it to everything else you know...it’s pretty basic common sense stuff.
Rockets do not push off of atmosphere...that’s not how rocket propulsion works. 🤦♂️ Your understandings of physics have been horribly scrambled. It’s a great deal of energy pushing off of and transferring into inertia, the ship pushes off the combusted gas, the combustion pushes off the ship...sending both in opposite directions, action reaction...basic laws of motion, demonstrated time and again. The rocket in vacuum video I showed you demonstrated it perfectly clear...rockets have no trouble in vacuum, in fact they work even better.
You’re grossly misunderstanding the science and reaching false conclusions that are your own...and you’re ignoring all attempts to help you, because they don’t agree with your bias. It’s really that simple.
3
-
3
-
Her point is that it’s edible, and you trust that it’s edible. Is it the healthiest food option? Of course not…but that’s not the argument. You still trust, with 100% certainty, that it’s not gonna be a can of Arsenic, right? That’s her point…it’s pretty simple, you’re really stretching it to be something it’s not. Her point is that like it or not, we all put our trust in others eventually, often without realizing it…it’s actually a huge part of human success, trusting each other. Does that mean we trust absolutely? No…of course not, but we still do it more often than we realize, and it’s not a bad thing.
3
-
What exceptions exactly? If you’re talking about helium rising a balloon, you should be aware that buoyancy is what causes helium to rise, and buoyancy effect is directly caused by gravity, it does not occur without it. Gravity puts matter in motion down towards surface, more dense matter will occupy the space closer to gravity, this causes a displacement of matter by density, that forces less dense matter upwards. That’s basic buoyancy and gravity physics, gravity causes buoyancy, so helium actually rises due to gravity, as more dense matter pushes less dense matter out of the way. But if that’s not what you’re referring too, then feel free to elaborate further.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@a.lavernefilan1888 Oh boy. 🤦♂️ I understood what you said just fine, but you do know that weight doesn’t exist without gravity, right? Here, this might help https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-physics/forces-and-newtons-laws-of-motion/newtons-first-law-mass-and-inertia/a/what-is-weight. An object always has mass...weight doesn’t exist without gravity, it’s just the pressure from squeezing you against the Earth...that’s what weight is, just another word for the force of gravity. Basic physics.
You’re grossly misunderstanding gravity...and that’s the problem. Ask yourself this, what force is pulling that ocean from the “bottom” of the globe? If the force present is gravity...and you understood it pulls everything to centre of Earth, and therefore the surface, then what other force is acting on the bottom to pull the ocean away from gravity?
In your magnet example, a great source of gravity is below your magnet....hence why the material falls towards that source of gravity when you add mass (more metal) under the magnet. So it’s a false equivalence experiment...compare it to the Earth, with only gravity pulling to centre and no other forces present to pull anything off of it.
Take all the time you need...maybe get someone smarter than you to help.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well, we measure and observe Earth to be spherical, those measurements are currently used in the system of navigation we have today, so anyone can test and verify it whenever they’d like to learn how to navigate, and we observe that everything dropped falls towards Earths surface no matter where you are on the globe. It’s understood in physics that nothing is put into motion without a force, falling is a motion, so this implies a force is present to cause that motion. So it’s pretty simple deduction after that, that there is a force attracting us to Earth.
What’s not logical is making arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity. If you just bothered to look at the evidence for these conclusions, if you recreated a few simple experiments and observations, perhaps you’d understand better how those conclusions were reached.
Figuring out that the Earth spins took time, science didn’t start with that conclusion, for centuries they believed Earth was at the centre of the universe, until the evidence became too great to ignore, that it was not. There’s a few simple experiments you can do that verify Earth’s rotation, like the Foucault pendulum experiment, or Coriolis tests, but I’d recommend you look up the gyro compass sometime and learn more about this device. It’s a device currently used commonly on modern sea vessels today, and it’s noteworthy here because it actually uses Earth’s rotation in order to function. If Earth did not rotate, then this device would not work as designed. It uses gyroscopic precession, calibrated to Earths rate of rotation and aligned with true North, to keep in sync with that rotation, so that it always points North. You can actually build a smaller version yourself with some motorized mechanical gyros, you can set the precession rate to sync up with Earth’s rotation, then you’ll never see it precess, because it’s now precessing with Earth rotation at the same rate.
Anyway, your current arguments are a bit on the ignorant side, there is evidence for these conclusions you scoff at currently, so you do yourself a disservice if you just assume there is none, before actually looking. You can say we’re just “memorizing and repeating”, but I recall my science classes actually doing more demonstrating and recreating experiments, than just talking at me. Maybe you had a bad teacher…if so then I’m sorry, but science is all about testing things yourself to see how those conclusions were reached. You don’t have to just take us at our word.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@michael.forkert The equation isn’t calculating a speed, it’s calculating mass to energy conversion, it’s mass times the speed of light AND THEN you square it, to give you the energy equivalence. So you’re just misunderstanding the equation, by taking a small part of it out of context...which is interesting, cause usually flat Earthers are quote mining and taking words out if context, but this is next level stuff taking math and misinterpreting it.
But seriously my dude...do you really think you caught something that millions of actual scientists and mathematicians missed...for the most famous equation ever derived? You do realize this equation is an applied science today, right? Meaning it’s used today in a lot of industry and technology....you really think it’s capable of that much, if it’s been wrong this whole time?
I mean, points for originality I guess, but the Earth still aint flat I’m afraid.
3
-
3
-
@luckyhaskins69 Have you tried? It just kinda puts your argument at a stalemate really, saying “nobody’s ever gone to see the midnight Sun”, making the claim that if you’ve never done something yourself then you can’t make the clam...but then I talk to people who have seen it, it really makes me turn around and wonder about your claim. I mean, claiming nobody has ever really seen it is a pretty strong claim, but seems to me you reached the conclusion from lack of personal experience. So just sayin, why not try it?
Either way, it’s a bit pointless, your claim of people never seeing it, is just about the same as someone claiming they have, so it’s a dumb argument really. It’s more for your benefit though...I mean if this argument really means that much to you personally, why not at least try to take the trip? I’m just curious why flat Earthers don’t do more...it just seems like they’d rather argue from ignorance, cause it’s easier. Which doesn’t really add much for their credibility.
3
-
@luckyhaskins69 Well, I’d rather talk about my own personal accounts of Southern Hemisphere travel, because I’m willing to concede that the midnight Sun is something I’ve never witnessed either, was mainly just pointing out that it’s a bit of a weak argument to reach a claim of fakery, when you have no first hand experience either, see the point? There are however plenty of time lapse videos online of the midnight Sun, but obviously nothing that would convince you, so bit of a moot point. Star trails on the other hand, anyone with a good camera and a bit of free time can verify this one easily.
So your new claim now though, is that it’s just the Northern pole rotation, but somehow being really far away creates an illusion like it’s rotating the other way? You do realize you have to point your camera South to capture the Southern rotation right? Soooo...if you’re looking south, how exactly does the Northern sky take up your view? You are also aware that the stars and constellations are different as well right? Most notably, the pole star, which is not nearly as bright in the Southern rotation...so, if it’s just the Northern rotation we’re seeing in actuality, as you’re claiming, how does the distance cause Polaris to dim until not visible...but the other stars don’t see the same dimming effect? Also, the opposite rotation is quite clear...and you are also aware that you can still capture the Northern rotation while in the South right? You can’t see it in full, but you can see its outer edge just fine, just turn the camera the other way and there you go. At the Equator, you can easily capture both...confirming there are two, not one.
See, you’re trying really hard to slot in an answer...but like, really stop and look at your explanation, cause it’s very flimsy and forced and illogical. I know you really want to believe this is true, so you can confirm a strong bias you have, that bias being you want the ultimate reason to justify your belief in an evil cabal ruling the world, but you really have to realize how ridiculous you’re being on this one.
It’s just incredible to me how someone can appear quite logical and articulate, reaching other conclusions that signify intelligence...but then when it comes to the most basic geometric stuff...it’s like you hit your head and are now 5. Sorry...it just raises red flags, you will claim to be unbiased then use very similar behaviour for a person looking to confirm bias at any and all cost, mental gymnastics and ad hoc explanations...meanwhile the globe answers for the observation with absolute ease.
3
-
3
-
@louway2400 The stars do change monthly, these are known as the seasonal stars, you know many of them as the zodiac constellations. This is basic astronomy knowledge. There are two types of stars and constellations, the seasonal stars, which lie close to the ecliptic plain and are periodically blocked by the Sun during our orbit, and then there are the circumpolar stars, which are closer to each polar axis, one for each hemisphere. These stars are never blocked by the Sun, hence why they’re always visible year round. You need to think in 3 dimensions here, and probably do your research a bit better before embarrassing yourself.
Your core question is just a lack of knowledge that is your own. You just assumed the stars never change, cause your knowledge of astronomy starts and ends at the Big Dipper…but if you actually knew anything about astronomy, you’d know the stars actually do change. That’s the problem with Flat Earthers, thinking you know everything, and thinking your questions somehow amount to evidence…never realizing your questions are easily answered, if you’d just bother to do a few extra seconds of research.
Someone else has already pointed this out as well, but there are two hemisphere skies, with two perfect circle rotations around their own pole star, Polaris for the North, Sigma Octantis for the South. You don’t have to be a genius of geometry to understand how impossible that is on a flat Earth with only one sky, it is however exactly what we would expect to see on a globe. So why does this simple geometry never click for you guys?
3
-
@louway2400 You gotta think in 3 dimensions my dude. The Sun never comes between us and the stars directly above both the poles. So when you’re on the night side of the Earth, you’ll be able to see those stars. You can’t see all the seasonal stars at one time, because you’re facing a completely different direction on the ecliptic, but the polar axis is always pointing in the same two directions. So here, picture it this way, if you’re facing the West wall of your room, you can’t see the East wall, correct? But no matter which direction you face, you can still see the ceiling and the floor, right? Just gotta think a little more 3 dimensionally. Our axis is always pointed at Polaris, think of that as our ceiling, the circumpolar stars are the ceiling, the ecliptic plain is the walls, so seasonal stars are the walls. Does that help?
Yes our orbit is millions of miles wide, but in the grand scale of things, that’s really not that far, compared to the distance of stars. If you were to scale that down, picture a street light 3 miles away, now move an inch to the left. That’s the difference in distances (roughly) scaled down. This is enough to create a parallax though, which is something astronomers do measure each year, just look up stellar parallax. Stellar parallax does occur, which is what we’d expect to see occur if the Earth was orbiting around the Sun. This was one of the first measured observations that led astronomers to consider the possibility that Earth was not at the centre, that the Sun was.
3
-
3
-
bob smith “I did not know you knew Mark Sargent and his qualifications.”
Well, here’s a big problem with Flat Earthers, they tend to assume that just because people disagree with them, it must mean those people haven’t done the research. Instead of considering the other very real possibility...that they could be wrong and they have been successfully conned by people like Mark Sargent. There is a very good reason why many of us do not bat an eye at Flat Earth claims, we understand what they’re getting wrong.
You’re misunderstanding a lot of physics in your questioning, and that’s another big problem of Flat Earth I find, assuming that just because you don’t personally understand something, it must mean it’s false. Flat Earth tends to hold questions up, almost as if they’re proof of something...instead of considering the possibility, that there might be some science you’re either not aware of, or that you don’t quite fully understand yet.
Honestly, the vacuum question is a great question to ask, the trouble is...Flat Earth isn’t really asking for an answer, they have already concluded it has no answer, and that’s why they’re asking it...cause they feel it is a proof of the Globe models flaws. But they are wrong in that assumption, modern science has done more than just answered for this...they’ve measured it, tested it, observed it, they do have an answer now, with evidence to support that answer. If Flat Earth really had an open mind (as they claim they do), then they’d be interested to hear that answer and look over the evidence...but that does take time and effort, and most people don’t have that kind of patience...unless they’re in school to become a physicist. Most people want quick, easy to digest answers...and that’s what Flat Earth offers.
A better question to ask though I find, is where is this dome/container? Why is there no tangible evidence for its existence yet? It is a physical object, correct? Surely we should have interacted with it in some capacity by now. But, so far I’ve not seen any evidence for this barrier, what I have seen though is mountains of evidence for the existence of space. Even Flat Earthers have sent their own weather balloons up to the fringes of our atmosphere, and those balloons always pop once they’ve reached vacuum conditions...so without realizing it, even they have measured the vacuum of space, while finding no dome barrier separating our atmosphere from space.
It’s fine to question things, but it’s become easier then ever before to spread misinformation...so I think people should remain sceptical of all sources of information, not just the mainstream. The internet as it is today, is a con mans paradise...and if you think you can’t be conned, then that’s just the right amount of over confidence they’re looking for.
3