Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "LADbible Stories"
channel.
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
SpaceX says Scientist: Instead of just making a single quick observation that confirms a bias, he keeps watching with the binoculars, sees the ship still dip into the horizon, disappearing slowly hull to stern. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDdwP0Ucomk Realizes that people who made these observations in the past, were not doing it with the naked eye...they were likely making these observations with the aid of a magnifying lens like a telescope or binoculars...and THEN they'd observe the ship going over horizon. Hands the binoculars back and asks the Flat Earther to keep watching, asks that he don't just stop looking once a bias is confirmed.
Flat Earther: "HISSSSSSS Indoctrinated shill! I know everything! I'm smerter than everyone!" Then makes claims that he's more open minded...even though he's not listening to anything we have to say that questions his claims...thus being the very opposite of open minded.
Jokes aside, the boats over horizon observation is wildly misunderstood. Flat Earthers seem to think that we reached our conclusion here on naked eye observations of ships disappearing bottom first...which is not accurate, cause a ship will reach vanishing point of your eye long before it reaches horizon and vanishing point does not make things disappear bottom first, it converges equally from all angles. Vanishing point is not the same as horizon, vanishing point is just the limits of your eyes ability to render an image visible due to perspective, it can happen in any direction. Horizon is the point where land blocks your line of sight and it will cause things to disappear bottom first and at a predictable rate.
Though ships are a bit tricky to discern, given that it's hard to know exactly how far away they are, and there's a lot of atmospheric refraction near horizon, makes it hard to reach a conclusion on this observation alone. Better to make observations of objects that remain in place, such as towers, mountains, or these wind turbines. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQI18jr8Oc&t=32s So how exactly are so much of the bottoms of these turbines missing, if there is no curvature? He's zooming in, do you see these turbines coming back into focus completely? Do you think zooming in any further will bring them back into view? Why doesn't zooming in work here?
But that's still childs play, cause Flat Earth will just claim these anomalies occur due to convergence. That's fine, but how exactly are they dropping? And what about mountains that drop by THOUSANDS of feet? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU
Call us indoctrinated all you want, I personally don't think Flat Earthers are being very objective about things, I thin your grossly misunderstanding a lot of science and your being misled by confirmation bias.
3
-
3
-
@msorrible153 " Besides, what the heck has gravity got to do with the shape of the Earth?" Are you serious? If a force is pulling all mass towards a central point, then the only shape that collected mass can and will make is a sphere. It's not much different from a bubble forming a sphere due to air pressure squeezing it equally from all angles towards a center, or a drop of water forming a sphere in free fall due to surface tension...gravity has everything to do with the shape of the planet, it's WHY planets and stars are spherical to begin with.
So this is what boggles me, you don't seem to understand much about gravity...and yet you seem to think the error is ours? Have you ever considered the very real possibility that maybe YOU just don't really know much about the topics you argue against and that's the reason why you reach so many false conclusions? Does that thought ever cross your mind?
Gravity does a lot more then explain why things fall towards Earth, it also explains the orbits of the planets, how planets and stars form, why they're all spherical, it even explains how stars burn, through nuclear fusion...which by the way we have recreated in labs. We achieved nuclear fusion by using our current understanding of gravity...the Sun can't produce nuclear fusion without gravity, it's what causes that fusion to occur. Realizing and discovering gravity quite literally unlocked the mysteries of the cosmos to us...once we grained a broader insight into this phenomenon, everything started making sense, the greater mysteries of reality started falling like domino's.
It's fine to question things, but I think it's wise to consider that you can be wrong. That's what you're asking the scientific community consider, why do you think you should somehow be exempt from that?
3
-
Hell N Degenerates Sure, being able to admit when you're wrong is a trait of intelligence, but just simply changing your mind does not make you intelligent, it's the ability to entertain a concept or idea, without necessarily agreeing with it outright, that is a true measure of intelligence. Being open, listening and paying attention to all the information available, recognizing the difference between empty speculations and actual evidence, and then reaching a conclusion if evidence is conclusive enough to verify a position as true. Staying objective and honest, keeping your bias in control...that is intelligence.
In my experience, Flat Earth is nothing but empty claims, misunderstood science, ignorance, paranoia and bias...not exactly a winning combo. Many of us have taken the time to hear them out, but it's pretty clear that they don't know what they're doing and have reached most of their conclusions on sloppy research and confirmation bias. So they're not changing any of our minds any time soon, because the work they do is not conclusive in the slightest...it's bias. The ability to recognize and resist bullshit is also a mark of intelligence.
3
-
3
-
Hell N Degenerates Your misunderstanding of physics doesn't change the shape of the Earth which is proven spherical upon all observation. The natural physics of ALL matter is to conform to whatever force is being applied too it, in our case gravity. Water doesn't seek level, with gravity pulling it to center of mass it seeks lowest potential elevation...and because of it's fluid nature, it keeps equipotential distance from center of GRAVITY. Your misunderstanding of basic physics is not an argument...it's just willful ignorance.
Here's an example of water being put into a curved surface due to a different inertial force, a centripetal force. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTCwhicKKwU See how this works yet? Forces can curve water just fine, so long as that force remains constant, water will remain in whatever shape that force puts it into. Gravity is a constant force, gravity is a force that keeps water at an equipotential distance from center of Earth...so water curves with the surface, as the many observations made by Soundly help to verify. I can share more examples if you'd like.
So you'd have to successfully falsify gravity for your argument to hold any water...so far all Flat Earth does is deny it and ignore the experiments that verify it, and then they think this is sufficient enough. Ignorance and denial are not how you falsify science...evidence is how you falsify science. So are you going to share any evidence for your bullshit claims? Cause I'll be happy to share evidence of gravity with you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYf-Glwtr68&t Go ahead and watch that...maybe you'll finally learn something.
Earth is observed to be spherical, water is observed to be curving along that surface, gravity is proven force that does exist, that force is what holds water in a curved equilibrium.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@k6827 No, you're the one saying the Earth is flat, which goes against all modern consensus, so the burden of proof is actually on you at this point in time. But alright, here's a great experiment that can be repeated, that helps to verify curvature. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment This is a simple observation that uses earth curvature math to make a prediction and then they go out and see if that prediction matches with the observation. Spoilers, it does.
A general land/construction surveyor does not require a working knowledge of curvature, because it won't effect building anything that spans a few hundred square feet. It takes 70 miles for the Earths surface to make 1 degree of change, so a few hundred square feet required for a building foundation, is not going to require any curvature calculation. A railroad or bridge just has to make sure it is level at surface perpendicular to center of Earth, and it's elevation from center and GRAVITY that will play the biggest role here, ever heard of it? A rail road just has to keep equipotential distance from CENTER OF GRAVITY, meaning it levels perpendicular to center of gravity...and then a train can travel along it just fine.
It's really hard having a conversation with people who don't understand how gravity works...it makes talking about topography and geodetic surveying and the definition of level almost impossible, because you have no idea how it works on a sphere. Then what's worse, is you pretend like your experts...telling actual experts how things work? You people are fucked.
3
-
3
-
Hell N Degenerates "Gravity/Relitivity has no forces involved, so thats gravity debunked!
"
Oh boy...if only it were that simple...only in Flattardia do they think this is good enough to falsify science. xD
"And bodies of water cannot bend, so whats the "exact" point when water begins to bend? No scientists are coming forward to demonstrate this? "
A sphere is always bending...no two points on a sphere are ever tangent to each other...so what kind of argument is this? Think before you talk.
"Why are 50% of the ocean beds table top flat ? Plateaus cover 45% of the earth's surface and are flat!"
Did you know that over 88% of all percentages are made up? :P
"Also explain how Euclidean geometry is still used today and is only concerned with plane and flat surfaces only?"
Because sometimes it has use in geometry...you're acting like everybody only uses ONE method for everything, all the time. Stop thinking in absolutes, it's Flat Earths biggest flaw.
"Explain a sellenellion?"
Why don't you? How does it work on a Flat Earth exactly? Ever stopped to ponder that? But Ok, I'll explain how it works on a Globe, it's an eclipse that occurs very rarely, only seen in areas of high refraction index, because refraction is what causes it, and only seen if the eclipse occurs while those locations are on the direct terminator line of the Earth to make it possible. Here's a simple diagram to help you out, cause I know idiots need pictures. https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c6YPbIzYhAM/W1uwZISwuxI/AAAAAAAAIlU/-Oiyc2zLhvMp0flWdHwhk4mHKDM1GCFHwCLcBGAs/s1600/selenelion.jpg Don't you find it odd, that these conditions must be met, before this eclipse can occur? How exactly does a Flat Earth explain this occurrence? Cause a Globe can explain why it happens...but how the fuck does a Lunar Eclipse happen AT ALL on a Flat Earth? I Think you should spend less time pondering small anomalies in the Globe model, and take a closer look at your own broken ass flat Earth model bud...it can't even explain a simple sunset, let alone a regular lunar eclipse. xD Why do you people always demand so much of the Globe, but NEVER do you bother to spin these questions back on your Flat Earth.
"Explain why every US states is above 97% flat! Kansas university said, the USA is flatter than a pancake!!"
Because topographically speaking, they are flat. Flat takes on a different meaning, within the context of topography. A bowling balls surface for example, would be considered topographically flat and smooth....but you're not about to go saying the overall geometry is flat are you? No, but in the context of topography, you can use the word FLAT or LEVEL to mean basically, smooth or, maintaining the same elevation from center of Earth to surface. So you're misunderstanding of how topography works, is your error here. You do realize words in the English language take on different meanings, when applied in different contexts, correct? Again...STOP THINKING IN ABOSLUTES! That's where Flat Earth goes wrong every time. Only idiots think in absolutes.
"Explain why the military and nasa use flat none rotating coordinates?"
They don't...and you're again an idiot if you think they do. I'm assuming you're referring to the aeronautics manuals yes? Firstly, those are not coordinates...so strike one there. Second, those are the SUMMARY sections for running hypothetical math calculations! A summary section of those manuals and research papers, are NOT for stating conclusions or making literal statements...they are for letting the reader know what variables will be excluded or included in the math to follow....that is it. That is why they will often word those sections with the word "ASSUME"...because it is a hypothetical calculation. YOU have no idea what you're reading, YOU have no training in how to read, write, or interpret those documents, so YOU have reached a false conclusion by taking words out of context and spinning a false narrative upon them. It is cherry picking 101...flat Earthers are masters at taking things out of context and spinning it to fit their bias. Good job bud...you're just confirming how bias you actually are.
"he North Atlantic the Sohm Plain alone has an area of approximately 900,000 square km (350,000 square miles) to say the abysaal plain is flat is considered an understatement!
So not "Level" (FLAT)"
Again........your misunderstanding of how elevation and topography works, is not an argument, it's just a personal misunderstanding that YOU have.
So no, not screwed...just slightly annoyed. Is life scary for people like you? Living in a world where you don't understand anything, constantly fabricating whatever bullshit will ease your paranoia. Must really suck being you.
3
-
Hell N Degenerates I think you're confused on a what relativity is for. Relativity is a theory that is there to help explain further how gravity works at the fundamental levels of physical reality, it's there to help us further solve the mystery of what causes it. If we can figure out what causes it, then we can use that knowledge for invention and innovation, and that's what we've done with it so far...so it's been useful whether you like it or not. That's all theories in science are there to do, to offer an explanation for why and how things work at the mechanical level....that's all. But it doesn't just graduate into theory over night, it requires evidence, which we have today...lots of it. All your camp does is ignores that evidence and then claims victory.....do you really think science can achieve anything with ignorance?
I don't really see why some people, like yourself, get so bent out of shape for science attempting to figure out how things work. Thanks to those efforts, you get a new piece of technology to enjoy and human society advances further. Thanks to the science of relativity, we've put satellites into orbit and we've unlocked the mysteries of nuclear fusion, and it's going to help us master space travel someday...so be patient.
Is the model of General Relativity complete? No, there's still LOTS to learn and they could be wrong still on much of their conclusions...but whining about that on YouTube comment sections doesn't achieve anything. You want to falsify relativity, go right the fuck ahead...you wouldn't be the first to try, scientists around the world have been trying to falsify Relativity for over 100 years since the very first experiment that verified it (the Eddington experiment of 1919). In all their attempts, all they've done is verified the science further...so I'm sorry, but it will remain the dominant model of gravity, until it can be falsified...that's how science works.
It's a process, we don't just go from 0 - 100 over night...learning how physical reality works at its core, is going to take us a long time still, relativity is helping us understand it better, so it's useful. It's also an applied science now, so your whining is falling on deaf ears bud. You have no idea how useful this science has been for the last 100 years of human advancement.
Again, if you want to falsify the theory, then get to school and learn about it further, then get to work on falsifying it....you're just wasting your time arguing with strangers online about it, displaying your ignorance on the subject.
3
-
Super naive about what exactly? Point out a position where you feel he was being naive. Not trying to be difficult, I'm honestly curious where you feel the scientist had the weaker argument, because I feel it's the opposite. You know what I saw that was quite arrogant and naive? A kid more then half his age, who has likely never stepped foot in a science lab and has likely zero experience conducting scientific research out in the field...actually thought he needed to explain the scientific method, to an ACTUAL scientist. Did he hit his head before going in and forgot who he was fucking talking too? What dimension did I slip into where people are actually that dense? Do people honestly think scientists just sit around pretending to know shit?
If you wanna talk about naive, you should remember that jobs like "welder" are only possible today thanks to the work of people first discovering and then harnessing electricity...which was done by scientists first obtaining that knowledge and then engineers putting that knowledge to use by inventing the components required to build the current electrical grids, that made it obtainable for everybody...so a welder could then do his job. The builder is quite literally the last step in that process...doesn't make their position any less important, but you can't get from A to C, by skipping over A and B....it doesn't work that way I'm afraid.
I do agree with you here though, of course a piece of paper doesn't make anybody more or less intelligent...what's naive to me though is when any individual assumes the work of others is not important or required...simply because they personally have no idea what the other person does all day, or because they just hate them for some reason. I've worked in the trades for years as an insulator, and I get that there is a lot of disdain for engineers...but you're naive if you actually believe they're not necessary to the process, and vice versa, they both should be treating each other with a little more respect. Builders need to remember that their jobs only exist thanks to scientists and engineers making it possible for them, and scientists and engineers need to be more grateful towards the builders who actually bring their ideas to physical reality. They are in a symbiotic relationship...I think this division and elitism bullshit needs to stop.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hell N Degenerates No, you're just doing all that you can to deflect the conversation, ducking and dodging the evidence that goes against YOUR belief of a flat Earth. You've just been dumping a lot of twisted physics on people to keep their heads spinning, and to keep yourself ignoring that evidence. I don't care about your misunderstood physics and empty rhetoric, evidence is all that matters and Earth is proven a sphere upon all observation. Here's an in depth recreation of the Bedford level experiment, that is yet another good solid piece of evidence for the curvature of Earth. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment Now take a look and falsify this experiment if you think you can...just one of many I can share.
I won't even get into seismology that verifies a sphere upon pretty much every Earthquake, sunlight shadow angles that only fit on the Globe, the two different hemispheres with two different night sky's and rotations, flight paths that fit and work perfectly on the Globe at our scale, the satellites in orbit right now that are taking pictures of Earth...I can share evidence for all of these, I've been doing this probably about as long as you have, but unlike you I haven't been ignoring everything. Maybe stop focusing so much on the physics you clearly don't understand, and start paying attention to the visual evidence that verifies Earth is a sphere...evidence that shouldn't be so easily ignored.
"I've never seen mass attract mass, The Cavendish experiment was to measure the mass of earth, and it was ridiculous experiment, hanging 2 lead balls in a shed and looking through a telescope to observe a 1 in 50 million movement, all the variables could never be accounted for.
"
Jesus...you don't know fuck all about the Cavendish experiment do you...did you even watch that video I shared? I'll share it again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYf-Glwtr68&t=1s It's not a long video, 7 minutes and you can learn all about this experiment. Does it look like the mass only moves a tiny fraction? Does it look like it's a rare occurance? No, it's pretty obvious that it's moving and they move every time he places the other mass into position. Watch that video and tell me what variables he's not accounting for? They've removed tension variables, air current variables, static and electromagnetic variables...and yet those bottles of water still move and at a predicted rate that is consistent with gravity. So what would you prefer they conclude instead? Sure there could still be hidden variables, but then maybe instead of whining about this experiment you get to work HELPING to find those variables. :/
It's an easy experiment to recreate and it's done all the time, all around the world. Here's a highschool student who recreated this experiment so she could calculate the constant of gravity herself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkjqrlYOW_0&t This is also what it was trying to do, to measure the effect of gravity...not sure if you've heard, but it succeeded.
You observe mass attracting mass every single day, you just don't pay attention. But go ahead, give me a counter explanation for why you think objects fall towards Earth. Give me some evidence that helps to support your counter explanation. Go right the fuck ahead...I'll be waiting.
Again, you're just a troll who's pissed that YOU have nothing to add to modern knowledge. You think you're better than everybody...but you've done nothing in your life to earn that, you just sit online and argue with strangers and think that actually means anything. This conversation doesn't mean fuck all and we're both wasting our time...but at least I'm aware of that.
2
-
2
-
@k6827 Have you asked a surveyor if they factor in curvature, or did you just assume you know what they'll say? Be honest, have you talked to a surveyor about this? And what kind of surveyor are we talking about? Topography surveyor, Geodetic surveyor, or just a simple construction surveyor? The latter does not need to factor curvature, because there isn't very many times in construction that are going to require they factor curvature. But it does happen. Fun fact, the LIGO lasers in the US required that they build up one end a lot higher then the starting point, so they could keep the laser path tangent. That construction required they take into account Earth curvature, but it's actually pretty rare in construction, so construction surveyors don't really need to factor it in most cases, so many of them aren't even trained in how to do that.
What about this geodetic surveyor though, who has gone out and collected geodetic data from the Lake Pontchartrain bridge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU Looks pretty curved to me. These are physical measurements of the bridge, recording the arc of the plum angles relative to other plum bench marks taken on the bridge. Geodetic surveyors always factor curvature, they have too, so they are trained to do so and they have the equipment that can and will measure it.
So go out and talk to a geodetic surveyor sometime, and let me know what they say. I guarantee they will tell you all about Earths curvature, they work with it directly.
2
-
@VedicSpirituality Yes, this is a question of Coriolis effect. Remember though, those are linear speeds you are using in your math, not rotational velocities. Our rotation is of course not linear, so I think you're using the wrong figures and missing some physics here as well. I'm not entirely certain though, I'm a bit tired and haven't processed this fully yet, so just a quick thought. Your math is also quite basic here, have you considered that you might be deriving your figures incorrectly? Perhaps missing a variable or two as I mentioned above? So is it actually a "hole" or merely a rushed conclusion based on the use of improper figures and data? I think this question would be a great one to ask an actual pilot or aerospace engineer. Here's a great video I found on the topic, perhaps give it a look sometime and see what ya think. I skimmed it briefly and it seems to be what you're discussing here, so perhaps it'll interest you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eugYAfHW0I8
It's a great observation though and not one I've come across yet, so it's interesting and I'll have to ponder it further when I'm up again, but in my experience...every time Flat Earth claims to have spotted a "hole" in the Globe model, it just turns out to be a rushed false conclusion, that they reached due to a lack of knowledge and understanding on the topic. But, I do try to give the benefit of the doubt until I know more. I'll give it a closer gander later.
2
-
That's nice and all, but If everybody thought the way you do, we'd hit a wall in our understanding pretty quickly and then we'd never get anything done. You're basically just telling people ignore concrete evidence...because it's too hard, you're choosing incredulity and bias over objective reasoning. Truth is our senses have their limits and they can be fooled...so we can't rely on them for everything. You can't see bacteria with your naked eye, does this mean it doesn't exist? Of course not. You can't see most of the electromagnetic spectrum, but it's currently sending and receiving your WiFi data. You can't smell carbon monoxide, but that doesn't mean it isn't there, it will still kill you. Just a small example of why we can't rely on our senses for everything. It might be nice to live in a world where you can just simplify everything, but the reality is mankind can't advance very far forward on our senses alone.
I think you should be a little more grateful for scientists and the work they do, every modern comfort you enjoy today is thanks to their probing deeper, going beyond what our senses are capable of providing for us. From the electricity that comes direct to your home, to the car you drive, to the phone/computer you're using right now to read this message. Do you know how these things work? Do you think you could recreate these technologies and make these discoveries on your own? If no, then what makes you think your methods are better, than those who do know how these things work?
Just some thoughts to ponder, it's fine to disagree, but the Zetetic method is very limiting....and it just does not get us very far. Sure it's simpler, but nature is under no obligation to make sense to you. If we want to unravel the mysteries of reality, we have to use every available resource to our advantage...not just stop at our senses.
2
-
@arthurmack7026 The Moon orbits (just like all things in orbit do) due to two factors in balance, gravity and conservation of momentum. There’s gravity in space...you’re just misunderstanding the concept of zero G. It doesn’t mean gravity isn’t still effecting objects, zero G just means you’re feeling no inertial effects usually experienced on the surface, like the inertial feeling of weight, which is created when your body is squeezing against the surface of Earth due to gravity, the only thing that’s different in a zero G environment is the inertia created by the surface stopping you from going any closer to center of mass...but gravity is always there.
Orbits are achieved thanks to gravity and an objects forward velocity keeping it in free fall around the object pulling it in with its gravity well. Think of it like a coin spiralling around a funnel, orbiting around the center, the only difference is that a planet, moon, star, satellite, etc, is experiencing no friction, no air resistance, so nothing to slow its forward velocity, so it just continues to orbit indefinitely, the center of mass never sucking it in completely.
Your trouble here is your lack of knowledge on the subject. You’re reaching false conclusions due to your own misunderstandings and lack of knowledge of how things work here. It’s fine to have questions...but you for some reason just assume your questions don’t have answers. Which is just such an odd way of thinking...do you honestly think you know everything there is to know, that there’s simply nothing more for you to learn? Who thinks like that? Especially if you’re not an expert in any field relevant to the discussion.
No, you’re not catching flaws in the model...you just don’t understand the model. These aren’t real arguments, they’re a display of your scientific illiteracy.
2
-
@Nspeedtheone So a "real" scientist according to you, is somebody who agrees with you? Why would you want to watch a debate between two people that would agree? Not much of a debate then and that's not really the point of this channel. This was just a simple chat between two people of differing opinions...to qualify for the Globe side of the discussion, he pretty much just had to be a scientist that held the position of the majority of scientists, which is that the Earth is a Globe. That's what this channel does...it brings two people together of opposing views, for a simple discussion....it's interesting because they don't agree. Sure, they could have found an actual expert in Earth science, I'm really not sure what field this scientist specializes in, but it was still interesting getting a generalized opinion.
Just sounds to me like you wanted to remain within a confirmation bubble. I don't really get why people would prefer an echo chamber of information...you learn nothing new from only listening to people you already agree with. It's your opposition where you'll learn the most from.
Furthermore...are you asking that people not dispute flat Earth claims? Should everybody just listen and agree to them blindly and without question? Would you do that? When a claim is made, especially one that goes against general consensus, it should expect to be challenged for that claim. Science should never just blindly follow new information on the sole basis that it's new (though in this case, it's not, flat Earth theory has been around a long time). I think you're being a bit unreasonable, just because somebody does not agree with you, does not mean they haven't taken a look at your evidence. The other alternative...could be that you rare wrong, and just don't know it yet. That's why it's good to chat with an opposition, because they might help you see what you've missed. In that regard, I admire Flat Earth, but they have to grow up a bit and accept that when they make a claim, it will be challenged and reviewed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@trojax44 If we're angry, it's because we feel people are being very disrespectful and ungrateful towards the scientists who have worked very hard to make their lives easier and better. You think your laptop came into existence on its own? Do you think electricity has always come direct to peoples homes since the beginning of time? No...these things only exist thanks to the work and efforts of scientists, engineers and experts. To believe all of these people are lying to you (for no reason), is to spit in the face of these people. If we're angry, it's because we feel you're being very ungrateful...where did this divide and distrust come from? Scientists and experts know things you do not...the proof is in the technology they have created...none of it would work, if their knowledge was all lies and bullshit. You're happy to make use of the technology science has provided for you, and then use that technology to tell the rest of us how much smarter you are than those scientists? It's incredible that you people don't see how arrogant that is.
Do you ever stop to consider the possibility...that maybe it is YOU who just aren't getting it? Do you ever consider the possibility that you have fallen for a scam on the internet, perpetuated by the village idiots of the world? I'm not saying that to mock you, but these are real questions people need to ask themselves from time to time...and be honest with themselves when they do.
We're not so much angry, as we are frustrated...and we're frustrated, because you don't listen. There is a reason people don't bat an eye at Flat Earth claims, because we know how they are wrong and we're just doing our best to help you guys see that. It gets nasty, when you get offended for the attempt...I get it, nobody likes to be corrected, but Flat Earth should at the very least consider the possibility, that they might be in error. Flat Earth claims to be more open minded...but you sure shut those minds off quick the moment anyone tries to review your work and point out any errors you may have made. It's fine to disagree...but Flat Earth is being just as nasty in their handling of peer review.
Peer review is crucial whether you like it or not, if you make a bold claim on a public forum, then you should absolutely expect to be challenged for that claim. If you can't handle that review, then don't make the claim. It gets nasty because neither side is listening to the other...and that is frustrating. Be more open minded to your opposition how about. Flat Earth keeps asking that WE do that...but why don't you realize that you're not very open minded anymore, when it comes to the things we're saying? Flat Earth is just as much to blame for why these discussions get nasty, as Globe Earthers are. You're not listening, and that's frustrating...you don't want people getting nasty, then open up to the possibility that you could be wrong and treat the conversation with an open mind. The mark of true intelligence I feel, is in the ability to entertain a concept or idea, without necessarily believing it outright or even at all. You don't have to agree...but it would be nice if both sides LISTENED to the other. Then there wouldn't be so much nastiness.
You could be wrong in your conclusions, if you want people to listen to you, then you have to stop acting like you know everything and start opening up again. Have discussions, not debates. Some people will troll you sure, but some are willing to chat and share information, rather then talk at you, but that requires both sides keep their minds open...and I'm sorry, but Flat Earthers do not do that in most cases, they put their shields up the moment anyone tries to review their work. This is what starts the nasty discourse, I hope you can see that better now.
2
-
Just to add as well, the Beatles and Disney made countless copies and reproductions of their videos and songs...because they were selling them. They also restored and reproduced everything, because they could earn further money from that effort. Telemetry data is not the same, it's not a product intended for mass production to be sold, so you are making a false comparison. Besides that, telemetry data is just radio communication between two points to pinpoint a position in 3D space, doing it over several communications to form a sort of mapped path and to gauge a measured distance. We know where the Moon is...we know how far away it is...so this data is not exactly all that important. It's a historical treasure yes, but compared to the rock samples collected, the lunar module itself, the space suits and all other physical objects brought back from the trip...the telemetry data doesn't rank very high on that list of things needed to be preserved.
So look at it from a CEO of a big companies perspective. He will ask these questions "will it cost money to preserve, do we have that funding to spare and is this data valuable enough to keep?" The answer he will receive is likely "Yes, no and no"....what do you think he is going to choose? I'm sure the scientists of the time made a case to save that data, but it's not ultimately up to them...NASA is a company, and the final decisions are made by a board of directors....and all they really care about, is money.
But yes, that's not to say it still isn't odd, but mistakes are made all the time...and once they're done, they're done...not every conclusion has to be a suspicious one.
1
-
1
-
@Retrocaus Well, I would think it was a lot easier to make ground breaking discoveries, back in the time when we still knew very little about physical reality. There were a lot of Laws and theories that were pretty obvious, but they still needed to be recorded by somebody...so a lot of those scientists of old were pretty lucky for being first to the party. The deeper we go, the harder it's going to get for anyone to stand out and make new discoveries. We're not dumber then we used to be, it's just that all the easier science and physics has been worked out...and there's so much of it now, that it's getting harder for scientists to be a jack of all trades, because there is just so much to learn that no single person has the time to learn and retain all that knowledge and experience. That's only going to get harder the further we go and the more we learn.
There is also a lot more competition then there was. For example In Newtons time, there was probably only a few hundred scholars, networking and sharing information (thanks in large part to the printing press). Today, there are millions of scientists and experts around the world...good luck standing out when you're just a drop in the ocean.
Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you entirely, it would be nice if more scientists and engineers got their hands dirty and it'd be nice if the builders were learning a lot more science and physics in a laboratory setting, so they knew what they did all day...but they're just different minds. Very few feel comfortable or are capable of being all 3. A modern day renaissance would be nice though...and you'd think it'd have been easier thanks to the internet, but there's just so much misinformation spreading online, it's kind of made it easier for scammers and pseudo intellectuals to thrive then anything else...and that's kinda sad.
1
-
@deptfakex7472 The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has to do with energy not mass. Our atmosphere is contained by gravity, and it's also what creates the pressure gradient we measure. You're misunderstanding physics and holding that misunderstanding up as evidence...how do you think this is an argument? It's incredible.
Photos that are composites are photoshopped, photos that are non composite are not photoshopped...it's pretty simple. You're arguing a strawman, convincing yourself that all photos NASA takes are composite images...and this is just simply not true at all. That employee was describing what HE DOES at his HIS JOB. He never said that ALL PHOTOS are composite...just the ones HE WORKS ON! Open your ears and stop filtering everything through your bias. Here's an archive of photos that are all non composite, meaning they are full images of Earth taken from thousands of miles from Earth. If you want more I can provide many more sources...full images of Earth are not hard to find. Is your search bar broken or something?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
A helium balloon rises due to buoyancy...buoyancy is directly caused by gravity. It is less dense mass being displaced by more dense mass, forcing the lesser dense mass upwards...but for that displacement to occur there first has to be a downward accelerating force pulling that dense matter down, causing the displacement of less dense material...in this case Helium. It's no different from air bubbles rising in water, it's the same exact thing, except helium is doing it through air, because it is less dense than the atmosphere we breath. Gravity is the key to this upward motion, when you remove gravity from the equation, buoyancy does not occur. This is proven all the time in simple density columns put in zero G environments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpP-7dhm9DI&t=177s
Heat effects magnetic material that absorbed that charge through contact with electromagnetic fields...but electromagnetic fields are very different, they are generated by large quantities of energy...so basically heat and pressure, that flows through highly conductive material (iron, nickel, the two most abundant metals on Earth). Which is quite abundant in our inner mantles, we know, it gets spit out all the time in the form of volcanic rock. The Earth generates an electromagnetic field...we know this, we measure it, we detect it, it does exist. The question is how does Earth do this? Electromagnetic fields don't just generate themselves. We actually know a lot about this science though, we recreate electromagnetic fields all the time, and it requires a lot of energy, passing through highly conductive material. That same energy can be produced by a rotating system of iron and nickel, within a pressurized environment...like our core. You're error here is assuming that a regular house hold magnet that holds a charge, is the same as an electromagnet...and it's not.
So again, you're just reaching a very erroneous conclusion, formed from having ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what you're talking about.
We don't have to dig down into the core, to know what it is made of. We have other methods we can use, one being seismic data we collect from Earthquakes, which can tell us A LOT about the composition of our Earth. Here's a great video explaining how it works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwY1ICqWGEA&t=180s
You should really go back to school man...and spend a lot less time watching conspiracy videos on YouTube. You're not gonna learn anything of value from a group of people addicted to bullshit.
1
-
@erikrodriguez5143 "idk Im just so dissapointed with the scientists that imp they wont answer anything coherently"
Are you sure they're not answering, or maybe you're not really listening. Ever considered that possibility? Yes, Flat Earth does ask great questions...but they're not really seeking the answers, if you pay attention you'll notice that they tend to hold those questions up as their evidence and meanwhile ignore all explanation. Consider the very real possibility that you're not really listening, scientists understand that things are not as simple as most people would like them to be, these are great questions because they're the very same questions scientists once asked...but they took a long time to answer, so it's going to take a little patience from anyone wanting to catch up to where we are currently.
You really think you can learn those answers in a just few short words? Almost nothing in science is that simple, scientists are ready to help...but do you have an afternoon to kill where they could go through all that science and history required to give you a sufficient answer to even ONE of your questions? We didn't come to the conclusion of a Globe over night...it took hundreds of years to reach that point, but there is probably nothing in all of modern science that they are more certain of today, than the shape of our planet.
They can offer you one quick observation however, nothing in the world around you today uses Flat Earth science in its framework. From engineering, to communication, to navigation and infrastructure...it's all making use of global geometry. That's for a good reason.
That being said, it's perfectly fine to ask questions, but I worry that people are allowing to much emotion and bias lead them, rather then objective reasoning. There is so much misinformation on the internet today, and for some reason people just gobble it up and accept it all blindly, because it was presented to them in quick packages of information they could consume on the fly without much research. Someone may have made a claim that they were seeing a lighthouse from 100+ miles away...but what reason do you have to believe them outright?
1
-
@khayribeyah4480 So what would you prefer they do instead? The scientific community I mean. How would you prefer they tackle solving the mysteries of physical reality? The way it currently works is through a lot of trial and error, constant repeating of experiments, data collection, innovation of old experiments, peer review, constant falsification to leave nothing but the most conclusive conclusion left standing. The reality is that we do not know everything and we likely never will, there's just too muhc to know, so old information will always have the potential to change as new information is acquired...that's true of information gathering of any kind, whether it's solving the mysteries of science or figuring out the truth to rumors in your friend circle...new information always has the potential to change old information, that's just how it is.
Yes, of course nature is rigid and conforms to fixed rules...but it's a tough nut to crack and it doesn't just tell us what many of those rules are, we have to get clever. Again, we don't know everything, so we have no choice but to operate in a manner where old information can be changed as we acquire more knowledge. That's why they chose to call their end conclusions theories, and I believe they were wise to do so.
But what would you prefer they do instead? Flat Earth seems to think they hold the wiser position (even though they've achieved nothing and Flat Earth science doesn't make up the framework of any applied science today), so feel free to let us know what you think science should do instead. What changes to the scientific method do you think would make it better?
1
-
1
-
1
-
SpaceX says False, we know a lot more about the Sun than you realize...but let's just focus on what a regular person can deduce. You can see the Sun, right? You can feel its warmth? So we can deduce a lot from that alone. Here's what we know about the Sun, there is always a line of sight to the Sun, somebody can always see the Sun from somewhere on Earth, so from that we can deduce it's not going under the Earth at night...like some ancient civilizations once believed...and yet night still occurs, the question is how? So we can deduce that it's always in the sky above us, and it never goes below the clouds, no plane has ever reached it, so from that we can deduce it's very very high in the sky, in fact it doesn't occupy our sky locally...or we'd have reached it by now. So that raises some logical questions that shouldn't be so easily ignored. If the Earth is Flat and if the Sun is circling high above in a 24 hour cycle...then where does it go at night? How does night occur? How exactly does it set at all, if the Earth is flat, with a Sun so high in the sky? Flat Earth will often say it's due to perspective and then call their work done...but I'm afraid that's merely a hypothesis, the next part is verifying if that's plausible. So we can then do several little experiments to test the perspective hypothesis. Here's a few really simple experiments anyone can reproduce.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYVYa3BdI84
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njO5NPfur7I
So if we were to summarize what we know, it would look like this.
1. The Sun is visible from somewhere on Earth at all times, so it does not disappear during the night.
2. It is very high, because we have never reached it despite how high we are now able to travel.
3. Doing simple perspective tests can help us verify that a local Sun circling above is not very plausible and not a valid explanation for why night occurs. There are rules to perspective that Flat Earth ignores to ram this answer in, such as Sun angles, Sun's angular size, the speed of travel of the Sun, etc.
So none of the observations of the Sun fit with a Flat Earth hypothesis, but all of these observations are easily explained by a Globe Earth. So would you prefer we all just ignore this like you have?
These are logical questions and logical observations...and all you're doing here is ignoring them and deflecting, because you desperately don't want to consider the possibility that you're wrong. It's just odd to me though...you're asking for evidence, and then we share it....and then you just ignore that evidence? Why do you even bother asking? You people claim to be open minded, you claim to be "truth seekers", and then you ignore evidence? That's the very opposite of what you claim to be...so all any of us can really conclude then, is that we're not dealing with reasonable people here.
The deeper you go down this line of thought, the more you observe the Sun and collect observational data on the Sun, the less it supports a Flat Earth conclusion. But all observation fits with the Globe...so what reason do we have to listen to your bullshit, if your only argument is basically just ignore and deflect? Can't achieve anything with ignorance I'm afraid...so you're just not being very rational. I can share many more observations with you if you'd like, I've barely scratched the surface.
1
-
1
-
SpaceX says Evidently, you haven't been paying much attention to the comment replies I've been giving you and your group here. I have "looked into it", been doing that for over 3 years now. All I found so far is a small group of pseudo intellectuals, with zero expertise or credentials in any field of Earth science, navigation, mathematics, or engineering, but yet feel they're more qualified than actual experts anyway. People who can barely remember their multiplication tables let alone calculate curvature...and then they wonder why they can't find curvature.
You know why you can't find curvature? Because you're doing it wrong, from the math to your methods, Flat Earth only goes as far as to confirm a bias and then you stop looking. What's worse is that when others attempt to help you see where you might have gone wrong, you don't listen. Pretty odd coming from a group who claims to be more open minded...ya sure shut those minds off pretty quick the moment anyone tries to point out your errors.
I've looked at many Flat Earth claims of no curvature, and in going through the observations made by Flat Earthers, I have found that it's always the same errors. Either you've done the math wrong, used the wrong math entirely, or you fudged the figures, lied about the details such as the distances, viewing heights, viewing angles, height of the object, etc...and don't get me started on refraction, because it is always ignored...even though it is absolutely a variable that does matter and it should not be so easily ignored https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t=1s. What's odd is that you never think the error is yours...as if you could never be wrong...that is probably the biggest flaw of Flat Earth, over confidence and ignorance.
Here are a few experiments and observations that verify curvature. Here's what happens when you do things properly. Give them a look sometime if this truly interests you and you'd like to remain objective about things.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
https://youtu.be/EIOs-PzNIZU?t=3138
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=1s
Just a few examples, I can share more if you'd like. I can also go through some observations that you have if you'd like, I've done it many times over the years...and there is always an error in Flat Earth research, so I don't mind taking the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
SpaceX says Ok, I gotta ask...why do people idolize Nathan Oakley? He's a bit of an insufferable narcissist wouldn't you say? He only debates if he gets to have his finger on the mute button and he never listens. I'd love to see him debate someone outside of his channel, but he won't do it...and it's likely because he knows he'll lose the moment he can't mute or shout over his opponent. So I'm just curious, why does anybody admire this man? Wouldn't you rather have fair and civil discussions, where all information shared is listened to and considered? He's an ad hominem machine...and usually that's a sign of a person who realizes he holds the weaker or fallacious position, so name calling and volume are their only option. Granted, we all do that from time to time, it's hard not too, I've certainly done the same, but I wish it wasn't so much about winning an argument but more about a discussion where we put our shields down long enough to pay attention.
He has been proven wrong countless times, but when the going gets tough he just shouts over you and doesn't let you finish any points. Why does anybody think this makes for a fair discussion where ideas are actually shared and considered? I don't go on these channels, because you people are just too wound up...you're not listening to what we have to share, the moment I gain any bit of ground, I'd just be pounced on and silenced. I've seen it happen a lot...especially on Nathans channel. I feel you've already made up your minds and now you're looking for blood...so there is no civil discussion to be had.
So I don't share this information for you particularly, though it would be nice if you actually considered it as well and so thank you if you have been. Mostly I share this info for anyone on the fence who might be reading these exchanges, who is tired of being shouted at by Flat Earthers, who would like to know where they can find the information Flat Earthers over look and ignore and won't share with them.
In my experience, Flat Earth is deeply bias and they're not really listening...cause they feel they're done listening, it's time to pick fights. It takes a lot just to get to this point where we can stop ridiculing each other and start to have a civil discussion where we respect the other persons position and intellect...so it's hard enough to reach this point one on one...it would be impossible to do it against an angry mob of Flat Earthers, just looking to gang fuck the first idiot that wonders into their echo chamber. I'm not going to achieve much against an angry mob who has made up their minds...so I don't waste my time.
There is not much point talking to any group of people who have made up their minds already and are past the point of reasoning with. I see that in Flat Earth, I get this vibe that it's not really looking for the proof of a Globe anymore, it's looking to attack anyone who disagrees and strong arm them by force into believing the same thing. I've seen enough in 3 years to know that. I can actually have a discussion here, I can share my points without being interrupted and ganged up on, so this is what I prefer. I'm not interested in being shouted at. Flat Earth needs to grow up and cool their jets a bit...which is what you've finally done with me here and for that, I'm grateful. If I felt these channels and chat groups could ever reach that point, then maybe I'd be interested, but I haven't seen it yet is all.
1
-
1
-
@deptfakex7472 No, cause those are weather balloons collecting data from inside our atmosphere...they are not the same thing. What you're doing is making an empty speculation, an empty claim that fits a bias you have, not much more. These balloons are required still because they are something a satellite can't do, cause satellites reside outside of our atmosphere. Little hard to collect accurate pressure, humidity and temperature data, when you're not within that environment. So weather balloons are still used to collect that data.
Let's just look at this a bit deeper. Many satellites are in geostationary orbit...meaning they orbit at the same rate as Earths rotation, meaning they are fixed to one side of the planet, meaning they're always in the same position in the sky. This makes things like satellite tv possible, weather satellites are typically in geostationary orbit as well, for the same reason, so networks can always have a line of connection to these satellites. So how exactly does a balloon stay stationary in the sky? Wouldn't the air currents be constantly shifting its position? How does it remain in the sky indefinitely? Wouldn't it eventually need to come down?
Then there are the low orbit satellites that are travelling around the Earth several times in a single day, the ISS for example makes about 16 orbits around Earth in a single day (which you can track and photograph by the way), do you know how fast that requires they be travelling? Thousands of mph. So how exactly does a balloon move that fast? Even the best aerodynamic planes in the world can't reach those speeds...do you really think a balloon can move that fast? Let's assume it could, how does it move that fast within our atmosphere without burning up?
Furthermore, what evidence do you have these are satellites? Do you work at these facilities? Do you build these balloons and know what they're for? Do you at the very least spend your days tracking them? Here's a group of hobbyists who build their own radio telescopes, that they then use to track and pull data from geostationary satellites in orbit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t=309s Give it a look sometime, the data they pull is pretty interesting.
Just saying, did you really think this through...or did you just watch ONE video on YouTube, from a conspiracy channel making speculations, and then nodded and agreed with them blindly and without question? Learn the difference between speculation and evidence please. We don't reach conclusions on speculations...that's how we wind up following bias.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tigerboy4516 Alright, let's keep it civil, I'm just here to share what information I have, the rest is up to you really.
Here's a great observational experiment of Earth curvature, done many times over the last couple centuries, a recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, this time done across 10 km of frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment This is quite thorough, but the conclusion is the same in every recreation, the Earth is most definitely curving and at the rate it is supposed too. Feel free to give it a look sometime. It is a lot to absorb, so will take a bit of effort on your part, but if this truly interests you and if you'd like to remain objective about things, then it's definitely worth your time.
If you'd like a few simpler observations, here's some great ones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQI18jr8Oc&t=34s - let me know if you think zooming in any further will bring the bottom of those turbines back into view.
https://youtu.be/EIOs-PzNIZU?t=3166- Geodetic data measurements of the Lake Pontchartrain bridge...which are physical geometric measurements that pay attention to the angles between each measurement, which is used to measure and record curvature.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth - a few great observations recorded here, just click through the yellow tabs to watch the demos, the Soundly observation being the most interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU - An interesting demonstration of what we'd expect to see if the Earth were actually Flat.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544/with/21709833861/ - then of course our best evidence of Earth curvature, the physical photos taken during the many space operations. These are some of the best ones taken during the Apollo 16 mission, just click the "back to album" tab in top left to find hundreds more photos like these.
Radius is synonymous with spheres and circles, so no, you can't have a ball without a radius...of course you know this already, but you're just trying to be cheeky by declaring that we have never actually measured any radius, and that's just not true at all. Our Earths radius is measured in a lot of different ways today, from analyzing data from seismic activity, to measuring the distance of flight and naval paths, to analyzing satellite imagery, etc. but the first time it was achieved was roughly two thousand years ago from a guy named Eratosthenes, who had a really clever way of doing it, using a stick, a well and the shadow angles produced from the Sun. Well, more specifically he was looking to measure the circumference, but once you have that, you can calculate the radius pretty easily, it's simple deduction after that. I won't bore you with the details, here's a video that will do that for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6KOSvYHAmA&t=323s This video explains his experiment pretty clearly, breaking down the math he used.
Great part is that it is easily repeatable today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP3AwtXfZio
Now the crux to this experiment is of course assuming the light is hitting the surface of Earth parallel...but that's only if you were to use only two shadow measurements. If you take several more data sets, from various locations, at varying distances, then you can actually use that data to verify that the light is coming at us parallel AND you can also still use those angles to measure circumference and thus radius. Here's a great example that was done fairly recently, back in 2017. https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=488 The evidence here is pretty damning for Flat Earth...these shadow angles do not fit with a Flat Earth model. Here is that same experiment repeated in a different year, and this time remodeled on several different Flat Earth projections. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=465s Again, the Globe is the only model that fits with these measurements, confirming the circumference and the radius.
Many more I can share, so feel free to ask. If you have any questions or would like to point out any flaws or errors in any of these, I don't mind hearing out any rebuttals you may have. I don't share any of this to mock you, it's perfectly fine to question what you're told, even logical, I share them because I felt you might be interested to know there are actually many examples of curvature and radius being measured and recorded. I hope at the very least you find this information interesting.
1
-
@tigerboy4516 Thanks for the reply, now I'll offer some rebuttals and some points I feel you have overlooked.
Firstly, you can't see curvature on the X axis (horizontal), while standing on the surface, that is true. And you shouldn't on a sphere at our size, that's just basic spherical geometry and perspective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Vz9r2yWO8&t But if the Earth is a sphere, then we would expect things on the Z axis (straight in front of you), to begin displaying signs of that curvature, by slowly dropping distant objects with that curvature at a predictable rate. Which you already know, it's pretty obvious stuff. Several of the sources I shared above make observations of this dropping, and all of them match with the math that is accurate. So it does occur, we see it visually and it matches with predictions. If the Earth were flat, then our math would not match with observation. If the Earth were flat, then thousands of feet would not go missing from the base of mountains, for example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU
So your argument here doesn't really hold up well, because it doesn't have evidence in support of it. You're claiming there is no visual curvature, but I've shared several examples that show that this claim is false. So you've offered no real rebuttal that's backed with evidence, only empty conjecture and ignorance because I don't think you really took a look at anything I shared. Feel free to take a look at any of those observations I shared above and absorb the info a little better and then offer me some counter evidence.
Second, a measurement can be taken in a number of different ways, all you've done here is denied that fact, because you feel personally that the only true measurement is one that we take physically by traveling to each point and touching it. It means you've decided to limit yourself and ignore the other methods you absolutely can use to make accurate measurements. If scientists and engineers thought like this, much of the technology that you enjoy today would not exist. Mankind has to get clever sometimes, and it has, you can measure the radius of Earth using the Sun's shadows and the surface....we benefit nothing by ignoring this clever method. You can do it with any sphere you hold in your hand, shining light upon it's surface, sticking sticks into that surface and then measuring the shadow angles...you absolutely can use this measure derive the radius of that sphere with great accuracy, so what makes you think we could not do the same with our Earth? And that's just one method as I mentioned, we physically measure it again every time an Earthquake strikes, and we measure how long the S and P waves take to travel through the Earth to rely stations on the other side of the planet. It's interesting stuff seismology, give it a look sometime, we can learn a lot about the shape and composition of our Earth, through studying the seismic waves that pass through the Earth on a daily basis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwY1ICqWGEA&t=180s
All you've done here is developed ways to ignore valid evidence. So these are just arguments from ignorance, not much more. You are limiting yourself to a very short range of methods of observation, and again, if scientists and engineers limited themselves in the same way, we wouldn't have much of the technology you see around you today.
If I take 2 cakes away from YOU, do YOU still have 4 cakes? No, you only have 2, yes the other cakes still exist physically but YOU do not have 4, YOU have 2. If you were to eat 2 of those cakes, do you still have 4 cakes? No, you only have 2. It's the context that matters in a question like that...ignore the context and you will reach a false conclusion. We can not achieve much with ignorance, and that is all Flat Earth has taught you to do...ignoring the details that don't fit what you WANT to be true. Ignorance is not an argument I'm afraid and we can't advance further with that fallacious manner of thinking. Math is a very useful tool and we use it to build the modern world. All you're doing is finding ways to convince yourself that these things don't matter...while at the same time reaping the benefits of all of that work.
There is no argument against math, your computer does not run on magic...it runs on mathematical algorithms. The same math that we can absolutely use to make observations of curvature with.
Please offer counter evidence, not ignorance and empty conjectures. Ignorance is not an argument, it may fool some people to think that it is...but in truth you're just teaching yourself how to limit yourself.
1
-
1
-
@tigerboy4516 False, flight simulators have to account for the Coriolis effect which is directly caused by both the Earths shape and its rotation. Pilots physically have to adjust their tail rutter to account for Coriolis and cross winds created by rotation, if they don't, then they will drift off course. SOME flight simulators don't require they account for Coriolis, because some flight simulators are more basic and are not specifically teaching for keeping a heading, so they simplify it a bit when they don't require it. Here's an actual pilot explaining how pilots adjust for Coriolis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eugYAfHW0I8&t=36s Flight simulators would need to account for this, if they are going to teach pilots how to stay on their heading and adjust for it.
Train tracks are not one continuous piece of metal, they are links, like a chain. You can't wrap a solid straight piece of metal around a sphere, but you sure can wrap a chain around one pretty easily. It takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree of difference on a sphere at our scale, each rail tie is about 2 meters in length, do you honestly think there couldn't be a minute angle of difference occurring between each link? All a train track has to do is keep equiopotential distance from center of gravity and a train will roll just fine along its surface. This requires you understand a bit more about gravity, but there is no trouble here as you seem to think.
You'll have to be more specific with this conversion you're claiming they do. Can you provide an example that better articulates your point? Topography gets misunderstood by flat Earth quite a bit, so I just want to make sure I know exactly what you're referring too before I offer any further rebuttal.
Talk to a geodetic surveyor sometime, they don't just measure topography, they also measure curvature. As this video I shared earlier helps to demonstrate pretty clearly. https://youtu.be/EIOs-PzNIZU?t=3163
1
-
@tigerboy4516 No, it proves that YOU don't know shit. You've cherry picked that from the summary section of a flight aeronautics manual/research paper. There is a structure to how those papers are written and you are taking those words literally, when that is not what a summary section is for. Summary sections are not for making statements or for stating a conclusion, they are for letting the reader know which variables will be included in the math/explanation to follow. That is why they usually word it with wording like "ASSUMING", it is to simplify the math and remove any variables that will not effect what they are about to solve for...but they have state that very clearly to the reader in the summary section, so that they know what variables will be included and what variables will not.
A great example you probably find any aeronautics manual, is in any section that has to do with the vehicles wind resistance capacity. You don't require the variables of Earths shape and motion, when trying to solve for many problems of wind resistance, so they let the reader know that these variables are not going to be included in the math for that section. So they state it...very clearly, so the reader knows...which is why that phrasing is found pretty often in manuels/research papers concerning flight. Your error here is in taking those words literally...and then giving it no further thought.
So it's just more ignorance, all you've done is skimmed the paper and looked for the words that support a bias...and then ignored everything else. YOU do not know how to read or interpret those papers, so YOU have reached a false conclusion due to that lack of knowledge and understanding...and thanks to your bias, you now don't listen when others attempt to point these things out to you.
This is called quote mining...removing words or phrases from their original context and then applying them to an empty made up conjecture that supports your bias. It is the very opposite of objective truth seeking...it is confirmation bias.
You are a layman, who doesn't know much about how the scientific world operates, and so con men have used those gaps in your knowledge and exploited them against you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tigerboy4516 Boy...you haven't taken a look at anything I've shared yet have you. That last video was an actual marksmen...explaining and demonstrating the importance of factoring Coriolis into your shots. He even mentions that those marksmen who do not factor Coriolis, will always be slightly off if they do not factor it...he said his company receives hundreds of calls from marksmen who can't figure out why their drop data is off. Accounting for Coriolis effect, fixes this...which he demonstrates pretty clearly. So are you really going to argue with actual marksmen on this? Alrighty then...
There is physics you're not factoring here in your jumping argument, you are either ignoring it or not aware of it. Coriolis effect is caused due conservation of momentum versus the difference in angular velocity at differing rates and positions of that rotation. When you jump straight up, you're not moving into a differing system of motion, you're conserving the momentum of the position you're jumping in...and you're also not up for long enough to make any significant difference...least of all 5 feet. A bullet at 1000 yards is in the air for close to 30 seconds, and Coriolis only effects it by a few inches...so do you really think the few seconds you take to jump is going to move you 5 feet? If you ignore conservation of momentum (the first law of motion), then yes, you probably would...but what have we learned about ignorance today? It's not an argument.
You're ignoring conservation of momentum...which is what causes Coriolis in the first place, so you should be aware of these variables if you're going to argue against them.
Again, it's a false comparison, and it's just another argument from ignorance. Ignoring variables to help confirm a bias.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tigerboy4516 Round and round we go...I just wish for once I was talking to a rational mind...sigh. Whether it's gravity, or electromagnetism, or density (as Flat Earth claims) that causes the accelerating motion of matter towards Earth, it doesn't change the fact that you still missed/ignored that variable in your rant about conservation of momentum not applying to objects in flight. Things still fall...that is undeniable, it is an accelerating motion that does occur and everybody knows it occurs, and yet you ignored it anyway. So you're just deflecting the argument whenever you lose a position (which has been all of them), and I'm tired of your running around and dodging the points...it's the same with every Flat Earther, no answers, just endless questions, like a toddler that always asks why until they're blue in the face. Eventually you reach the fringes of known science, which is bound to happen, we don't know everything and that's fine, science is happy to admit when they don't know something. But the shape of the Planet...this is not one of those things. The geometry of Earth is undeniable...whether you understand how Coriolis, gravity, conservation of momentum works, is irrelevant, to the mountains of evidence that verifies the geometry as spherical.
Let's focus please, I'll share this again http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment Now explain to me why you feel this is not a valid observational experiment of curvature. It's your "geometric horizon" that you keep asking for, in a pretty clear experiment and I've shared this and many others already...so you just let me know why you feel this does not qualify.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tigerboy4516 The whole experiment uses a perspective/curvature calculator to render two simulated predictions, one for a Flat Earth and one for a Globe, both include a perspective calculation...it absolutely factors perspective, so just more ignorance from you. Here's a free copy of the program they used to render the pre-calculated simulations. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator You'll notice the perspective grid right away, that you can easily edit with the sliders. Go ahead and slide the orange slider for the object...and pay attention to how its angular size grows and shrinks by distance. Below the sliders you can even switch it to a Flat Earth simulator and do the same.
It also has an entire section on refraction...and it's pretty clear if you actually looked at it, it's pretty much the entire bottom half of the study. Here's a couple images from that section on refraction. https://ibb.co/njvNmjL Not sure how you missed it...unless of course you didn't really bother to look, in which case...more ignorance.
I agree, refraction absolutely does need to be factored, thankfully they did, making several observations over several different refraction index's AND pre-calculating by how much the images would distort given each refraction index for that observation.
I mean...thanks for trying, but it's just more ignorance I'm afraid. Look it over again and pay attention this time, perspective and refraction are included variables. You aren't going to falsify anything with further ignorance.
1
-
@tigerboy4516 That's the trouble with Flat Earth, it's only a "real world result" if it supports your bias. All other experiments and observations to the contrary are invalid, on the soul reason that they don't confirm what you want. My observation was ALSO a real world result observed in nature, and what you offered me in reply this time, that was not much of a rebuttal to my observation and it far from falsified anything. You basically just said "math is dumb", then moved on to an observation of your own without properly falsifying my observation. So...deflection, again.
I've gone through lots of long distance observations with Flat Earthers, and it's always the same, either the math used is incorrect, or the figures were fudged (wrong heights, distances, angles, refraction index, etc.). The funny part is, they never think the error could be theirs...that's why peer review is so very important in science, which is what we're doing here now. But I always give the benefit of the doubt until I get to take a closer look, peer review goes both ways, which is why I don't mind hearing you out, just wish there was less bias and ignorance. I'll take a look at your video when I'm up again.
But you're not off the hook, you have not falsified my observation yet, so it still stands as a valid experiment that demonstrates the curvature of the Earth. I'm just trying to keep things focused for now, I'll answer your questions on gravity once we've got that geometric horizon you keep asking for.
1
-
@tigerboy4516 It's always pretty rich when Flat Earthers call people "close minded". As if we all should just listen to you blindly and without question...would you? Especially when Flat Earth science is not used in the framework of ANY applied science today. I'm listening to you, but I also know exactly where you're going wrong, so I point those errors out, I'm not just going to ignore them, because you start insulting me with buzz words designed to do nothing but rattle me. Save that rhetoric for the suckers it actually works on. You on the other hand, have ignored and dodged everything I've shared and said...not exactly the behavior of one with an open mind, you sure shut that mind pretty quickly once people start challenging your positions and pointing out your errors. Just because you have chosen a side that goes against established knowledge, does not mean you have an open mind tiger boy. An open mind STAYS open and considers when they might be wrong at all times. The mark of true intelligence is being able to entertain new ideas and considering them, without necessarily agreeing with them outright or at all. If you shared any evidence with me that actually had some merit to it, I'd let you know.
Now, I'm a bit busy today, but I'll get around to taking a closer look at your observation later, I don't mind taking a look and if there is any merit to your observation, I will be happy to let you know...but in my experience over the last 3 years of chatting with Flat Earth...they always lie and fudge something somewhere. I've caught them enough now to never trust you at face value.
1
-
@tigerboy4516 Alright, so I finally had the chance to look over your observation. Here are some errors I feel he and you have made in this observation. First, the details in your video are quite vague. When I presented you an observation, I gave you an entire scientific research study, with the exact locations, viewing angles, distances, sources, level of refraction, data sets taken, and the math for each observation. All presented in great detail, for anyone to review and even recreate...and your video has 3 minutes of a guy bragging about this being a "globe killer" but not really going into much detail as too how, sure he states why, but as for the details required to verify that claim...he's quite lacking. All he does is claim that the horizon is higher than it should be on a Globe...but offers nothing else, no math to let the viewer know how he reached that conclusion, nothing. If this were to be presented in an actual study for review, it would be labelled inconclusive, almost immediately, because he's done nothing past make an observation and then made a claim about that observation. So basically, this isn't enough to reach a conclusion, it's only enough to form a hypothesis from, nothing more. This is a big problem with Flat Earth, they are conducting sloppy experiments, providing very few details and then they think this is somehow good enough? This isn't how science works...and you people would know that, if you were actually trained scientists.
So if this is such a "globe killer", then why doesn't Flat Earth do more? Why don't they record this observation and do the work required to make it a more conclusive observation?
I also find it odd that you would ask for refraction in my observation...and then completely ignore it in yours. There is clearly a lot of refraction occurring here, so much in fact that the further platform is rising up a bit more than the first...which is pretty normal with high refraction, as seen here again. https://ibb.co/njvNmjL Do you see how in this image, the closer marker remains pretty much where it was, but the further in the distance you look, the higher each object rises due to the increasing level of refraction? This is pretty normal for high refraction, and it happens a lot over large bodies of water where refraction is greater.
Plus, there is a lot missing from the bottom of that second platform, as it should with curvature. If you look at this image here https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Platform_Hillhouse%2C_Dos_Cuadras_%2810%29.jpg That is a closer image of that platform. Notice how the whole bottom half is missing in your observation? Where did it go? If you punch the details into this calculator here https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ with normal refraction (now remember, there would be a lot more refraction here because it is over water) at about 1 foot viewing height as he claims, there is about 37.29 feet missing...now if you compare that image to your video, do you notice how much is missing? The entire first deck is gone and the water reaches up to the first support beams for the upper deck, how high do you think that is? About 37 feet? Ya, pretty darn close I'd say. So the math checks out for how much should be hidden due to curvature, where's the flat Earth math?
So I see an observation of some hardcore refraction and the math checks out for curvature. Then I see a claim for a horizon line, that he marks with a red line, but no real indication of this being the actual horizon. That looks more like a lot of heavy mist to me...not so much a horizon, but even if it was, where's the surveying information to help us indicate eye level? Horizon should meet eye level on a Flat Earth, so why isn't there any theodolite information? If you're not familiar with what a theodolite is, it's a surveying tool used to determine how much your eye level has risen from horizon. Furthermore, where's the math that helps us place the Flat Earth horizon and the Globe Earth horizon for comparisons sake?
Also, it would REALLY be nice if we knew the refraction index for that day, seems he's only made this observation on days when the refraction is really high...where are the other data sets? In other words, where are the other observations over varying days, with differing refraction?
All I'm seeing is an optical illusion that is being blown out of proportion, a lot of heavy refraction and looming, and then a group of people jumping on it, reaching rushed conclusions, while making a lot of empty claims.
Is that really how you want science to be conducted? Cause I sure don't.
This is a very sloppy and inconclusive observation, you can't reach a conclusion from what's been provided here. It would also need to be repeated, has it been repeated? Nothing in science gets a pass into plausible until it has been repeated. So I'm just curious, has it? Feel free to share with me any repeats and revisions of this experiment if you'd like. The Bedford Level experiment that I shared, has been repeated, many times...and I can share many more examples. Upon every recreation, the conclusion is always the same, Earth is curving at the rate it should.
Let's look at this a bit from the Flat Earth perspective, does the observation match with a Flat Earth? Well, how exactly does 37 feet of the second platform go missing on a Flat Earth? That is the exact amount that the Globe predicts should be missing, how does that curvature math match with a Flat Earth? On a Flat Earth, none should be missing, you should see the whole platform....so what is occurring here to cause the same amount of missing platform?
Lots of work left to account for in your observation, as it stands now, it's a bit inconclusive. It's a great start and I'll give you this much, the horizon appearing behind the second platform is odd...but refraction and looming cause all sorts of hard to pin down effects, so you'd have to cover every variable to make this a more conclusive observation. As it stands right now, you're ignoring how much of that second platform is missing...why does it match with curvature math predictions?
Either way, it's far from enough to falsify the entire Globe model. We do not reach such sweeping conclusions on single observations. So it's far from a "globe killer". Maybe spend some time on Critical Thinks channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCISF_4OoXm5xF8jNsoJle1g if you'd like to see a few more interesting observations of the horizon...that the Flat Earth hasn't been able to account for.
1
-
@tigerboy4516 Now I'll respond to your last post here.
1. I have shown you several, you have ignored them all. It's not my fault that you're ignorant.
2. We do not know everything about gravity, science is happy to admit that, welcome to the fringes of physics, is there a problem with that? Technically it is not a force, but it behaves like a force, so we can still call it one. No matter how you slice it though, things still fall and everything falls at the same rate. Mass also attracts other mass and at a predictable rate that we have calculated, so these are not things we can just ignore, simply because you have a fantasy you'd like to play out.
3. Go through my observation again...and this time pay attention to all the math that correlates with reality. That whole observation is mathematically verified to match with reality. Also, go through your own observation and this time do the math, why do the platforms go missing at their base and at the rate they should given curvature math? Here's a great calculator to help you out. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator I wish we could go through the refraction math for that horizon line...but they didn't bother to share that information, so we can't...which is typical of Flat Earth, skipping steps they don't feel are necessary, when they absolutely are.
"Your tree of knowledge has not beared any fruits, of yet."
Are you serious? What about EVERYTHING you use in the modern world? Like your computer for example...your car, the electricity that powers both, the electromagnetic signals that send and receive your WiFi data? Good lord you people are just arrogant as fuck...Flat Earth science is not used for anything, flat Earthers have never contributed anything to science, engineering, or navigation...and you're honestly going to tell me that our current knowledge has produced nothing? Have you lived in the modern world long? Look around you, the entire world is built on the science of a Globe Earth...it was one of the first things we solved. This is the biggest flaw in the Flat Earth argument and it's the first red flag we learn about Flat Earth, that tells us that you are not rational people.
You're thinking is very one dimensional and very limiting. Negative values happen for all sorts of things, so we need them in mathematics. Economics is a great example. You don't think you can go into the negatives with money, where you then owe people money? Sure it happens to you all the time. You don't think you could end up owing somebody 2 cakes, if you promise them 4 but only arrive with 2? Which puts you in the negatives. What about negative charges in energy? You do know that there is a positive and negative charge that can be calculated...we kind of require the negative values if we're going to accurately account for that change. What about the pH scale in chemistry, it operates on a plus and minus value that is indicated pretty simply by how much acid or base you add to a solution, 0 being where you've neutralized the solution. So just because YOU don't understand why we have negative values in mathematics, is not an argument against them...it just tells us how little you know.
I'm sorry, but you're just not being rational at all. It hasn't really been much of a debate, because you've done more dodging and deflecting then actually offering rebuttals, or listening and considering anything. I admire the stubborn tenacity of Flat Earth, I do, but when do you stop and realize that you're backing a side that hasn't contributed to anything? You wanna talk about a tree of knowledge that hasn't bared any fruit....look no further than Flat Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deptfakex7472 Well, the first video is just highlighting new technology NASA is using to study upper atmosphere for cheaper...so what do you think this proves? I can only assume you think these are "satellites", which is just a false and empty claim without any backing. Flat Earth is full of paranoid bullshit like this, and not much actual evidence...just empty speculations designed to instill doubt. You're not finding many answers...you're just trying to stir the pot and troll people, get them to join your cult. Just saying, nothing in that video gives me any reason to think they don't have actual satellites in orbit right now...especially when you really get into the science and history of satellites. As that video clearly states, it's a new technology they've created so they can do the same research...for much cheaper, which is something all companies do, they look for cheaper alternatives.
Now the second video is more interesting, and I've come across it many times before, but again it's just a lot more speculation than actual facts. When you dive deeper into that one, you find that every person on that list is actually a different person...and much of the claims made there are just made up, lies to sell a bias agenda against NASA. Though of course, that information debunking your video could have been faked as well, but It's just more speculation, on top of speculation. Unless you actually go out and interview each one of these people, talk to their families, their employers, learn everything about them, spend months of your life digging up the REAL facts...there's not much most can do here except endlessly speculate and chase bias. And even if this was a staged accident, still doesn't prove the Earth is flat...just means governments and institutions lie sometimes, which is not new information...we all know this already. Could have staged that event for many reasons, one being sympathy for further funding. NASA has struggled with funding in the past, would be a smart way to bring them back into the public eye and earn interest again, which leads to further funding. Who knows, but what I do know is that NASA at the end of the day is a business, and thanks to capitalism, corporations are basically living entities (many people don't realize that). Just like any living creature, it will do ANYTHING to survive...and for a corporate entity, staying alive means money. Blowing up an old rocket and lying about the crew dying, cold and evil to the rest of society, but if you look at it from a corporations perspective, who's just trying to keep the lights on, pretty small price to pay. So there are many alternative reasons why they could have staged an event like this, even if it was true...certainly doesn't mean the Earth is Flat.
Now, please don't take any of that as my actual opinion on that one, I'm just thinking outside the box and offering alternatives for why they would stage it. I'm not saying they did, and I'm not saying It makes it ok if they did, of course it's wrong...but from what I know about that conspiracy, I personally don't think they did...I think it's just another made up conspiracy, a scam designed to bring hate and doubt towards the science community.
So it's not that we're ignoring these things, but personally I'd rather not focus on things like this, empty conjecture, speculations, things that I can't verify. People can and will lie...nature on the other hand, does not, so I prefer to stick to the science. Science that is repeatable, that I can use at anytime, to prove a great many things about physical reality.
You can verify the Earth as spherical at anytime, by just observing a simple sunset...then try and make sense of that on a Flat Earth. If Earth were Flat, with a Sun that circles above, wouldn't you expect to see the Sun 24/7, from everywhere on Earth? Common sense says yes, and so does the math. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM Or what about the fact that Earth has two equal hemispheres, with different stars and two different celestial rotations, around different pole stars...little hard to pull that off on any version of Flat Earth proposed so far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMtx5jVLUaU&t=1s Or what about pilots, ship captains, military, rescue crews...anyone of the millions of people who require our data on Earth shape and scale be accurate, in order for them to navigate it with precision. Little hard to find a destination, if you're using inaccurate maps...wouldn't you agree? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMOp6PmDpp4&t=13s
Just saying, perhaps there is a lot that YOU are ignoring. Flat Earthers sure like to focus on the conspiracy...and not so much the science and I find that odd. We get it, you hate government...we all do, but the science doesn't lie...so why not spend a little more time focusing on the actual science for a change, and less time focusing on all the speculation that you can never truly verify?
1
-
Color corrected and sharpened, but other then that, not really sure what you mean by altered, can you share what else they have altered? You are aware that Photoshop didn't exist in 1972 correct? So how exactly were they digitally rendering full Earth images, before the technology and software even existed to do so? And that was far from the only picture taken during those missions. Here's a great site that has archived many of those photos, one of many online that shares hundreds of photos of Earth taken from space. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums They used that one image for the cover of a magazine, I believe it was TIME magazine, because it was the clearest and best of the images taken...not much different from any other photo shoot. It was color corrected to brighten and bring out the colors more and sharpened to render a clearer image, just like most magazine cover photos are. But there were hundreds more images taken, probably even thousands in just those Apollo missions alone...and they're not hard to find.
Here's some great shots from Apollo 16 https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544. These are in high resolution, so just click on one of these and blow them up to max...and let me know how you think they faked these in the 70's, before digital imagery was even invented.
So we still believe these are real, because we have no reason to believe they were faked, nothing substantial that is. No actual evidence that supports that claim...just a bunch of ignorant people making up empty speculations to feed a bias they have against NASA. That's all I'm seeing anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kentnoetico9867 Alright, you want to see an example of an experiment that helps to verify curvature. Here's an in depth recreation of the Bedford level experiment, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment The conclusion of this experiment is pretty conclusive, Earth is curving and it's curving at the rate it should given our planets shape and scale. Give it a look sometime, it's quite thorough and is also very repeatable science. Feel free to review it and if you find anything you feel is inaccurate, then by all means, share that insight, peer review is always welcome.
So there's one piece of tangible, repeatable evidence addressing one of your points like you asked. Would you like more? Truth is we don't have time to tackle all the gish gallop that gets shouted at us...if you want answers to your questions, maybe slow your roll a bit and actually THINK and do research on each point, one at a time, doing everything you can to falsify each claim, until you can't anymore, which will then leave you with the truest conclusion. That's how science is done, through extreme patience, rigorous falsification and remaining objective...then when you're done all that, open your findings up to review and consider that you may have still missed something, science is a long process. Like I said, science can and has answered all these questions you have...if it really interests you so much, maybe take the time to actually seek those answers, instead of shouting and assuming they have no answers. These are great questions you are asking, but I'm sorry, the answers won't be as simple as you'd like them to be...science is rarely ever simple, I hope that experiment above helps to illustrate that reality. We didn't reach the conclusion of a Globe overnight, it took hundreds of years...but I assure you, there is nothing in science they are more certain about, then the shape of our planet. Nothing in the modern world operates on Flat Earth science, that's for a good reason.
Question things all you want, it's perfectly logical and is even encouraged in science, just stop assuming you know everything already...especially when you don't have any real experience with the topics you argue against. It's easier then ever before to spread misinformation online, con men have it easier then ever to take advantage of peoples lack of knowledge and low patience for the actual work required to acquire that knowledge.
A lot of us would love to help, if we felt people were actually willing to listen...but in my experience, if you're already asking these questions with such aggression, then the scam has already taken root and it's a bit pointless after that, cause you're not actually interested in finding answers anymore, you're interested in winning a battle. But prove me wrong, take a look at that experiment I've shared, learn how it has reached its conclusion, and then engage with me in an actual discussion where ideas are considered and both participants are treated equal. At the very least, consider what I've shared, and if you want to chat about it further, I offer no further insult, just civil discussion.
1
-
@kentnoetico9867 Alright, thank you for the reply and for providing some rebuttals to those observations I shared. It's rare to find civil discussions in these debates, so first of all I'd like to thank you for that. We can't learn anything if we're just going to talk down and insult each other. There's nothing wrong with asking questions, in fact it's quite logical, so in that regard I actually respect what Flat Earth is currently doing, it's great that SOMEBODY is out there reviewing the science that the rest of us have moved on from, that should be encouraged more in science. That being said, this also does mean their work should be held by the same standards of review, so that's why I do these chats. So let's continue.
I've gone through many long distance observations with people and so far, two things have occurred on every break down I've done personally of these observations. Either they used the wrong math and reached a false conclusion due to faulty figures, or they fudged the details (gave inaccurate heights, distances, object being viewed, etc). I've gone through many examples with people over the years and I have yet to see one legit case where the curvature math did not check out once we went through it and got the correct details.
I'll give you an example. About 2 weeks ago I was chatting with a fellow who made a claim, that he could see all of a 150 foot tower, from the beach (6ft viewing height), that he claimed was 20 miles away. Here is the best easy to use curve calculator I have found so far https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ if you plug in those details here, he is correct, you should not be able to see that tower at all from the beach. Case closed right? Not quite...when I pressed him for the details of his exact location and the object he claimed he was seeing, he finally disclosed it to me, and it turned out the tower was not 20 miles from the beach, it was only 8 miles from the beach. Plugging those new figures into the calculator, gives you a geometric hidden of only 16.67 feet. Meaning roughly 130 feet of that tower would still have been visible from his position at 6 ft viewing height...which means pretty close to all of it could be seen...as he said. So his error was in the details, he only went so far as to confirm his bias and then he stopped looking. This is a real problem I run into with long distance observations claims. The error here is reaching a rushed conclusion, before considering the possibility that they may have just made some errors. This is exactly why peer review was included in the scientific method...because people make errors all the time, and more often then not, they do not take the time to double check their work. Flat Earth often feels they are above peer review...to which I can't disagree more, it is absolutely vital to the process of science, as I hope this point helps to illustrate.
Just one of many examples I've gone through...I did one just a few days ago as well, where another person claimed he was seeing an island that was 150 miles away, from a 60 cm viewing height. This one is fresher in my memory, the location was a place in Croatia known as Prevlaka, the Island he claimed he was seeing, was called Lastovo. Pressing him for the details again, he gave me a photo of both his location and what he was seeing through his telescope. Turned out he was seeing a different island from what he claimed. I was able to match the peaks on peak finder dot org and I learned that the island he was actually seeing was only 70 km away, known as Mljet, that is about 515 meters in elevation at it's peaks. Switching to metric and then punching those details into the calculator above, gives a geometric hidden of roughly 350 meters, meaning 150 meters of those peaks should still be visible...and they were, all you could see were a few peaks that were high enough....and I haven't even mentioned refraction once yet, even by purely geometric measurements, you would still be able to see those peaks from the beach just fine...even from 60 cm viewing height.
You see the problem yet? A lot of claims are made about the curvature of the Earth, but upon review, it always turns out the math for curvature checks out after all...when you get the details correct. Another problem I run into is when people use the incorrect math....thankfully, people have realized the error in the 8 inches per mile squared math and have since stopped using it (if you'd like to know why this math is incorrect for long distnace observations, I can explain it further), but they do still ignore refraction...which is bias. Refraction occurs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t=1s so it can not be ignored, it must be included as a variable in your math. That calculator above provides a calculation for a standard refraction index, which is still not perfect, but it's better then not including that variable at all.
I have more, so I'll put that in a second post.
1
-
@kentnoetico9867 Continued from my last post.
So in my experience, when people make claims about long distance observations that should be impossible on a Globe, it always turns out that they just rushed their observation, going only so far as to confirm their bias and then they stopped looking. This is how you conduct bias research...it is a perfect example of why peer review is so important in science.
JTolan is one of the worst for that...but thankfully, he's provided a lot of Globe Earth evidence in the process with his observations. If you're not aware, he's the one who snapped that Mt. San Jacinto image you shared with me.
Here's a video you might find interesting, since you did share the Mt. San Jacinto observation, photo by Jtolan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU Flat Earthers like to focus a lot on the Globe model, but how many actually consider what should be seen on a Flat Earth? It's funny to me how little they seem to focus on their own model, it's fine to put the Globe under the microscope and pick apart the math...but shouldn't the same standards also be put upon the Flat Earth? Yes, absolutely it should. Many people have crunched the math of Mt. San Jacinto (and other Jtolan photos), but what this person has done in his video above, is something different from crunching the math for the Globe. Instead what he's done is he's taken the topography data for that area of California where the Mt. Jacinto image was taken, and then he's laid that data out onto actual satellite imagery of the area, and then modeled it in a 3D program that he then used to recreate the observation through a simulation, placing an observer at the exact location of those photos, from the same viewing height.
Now, you might cry CGI, but I assure you this observation matters. What this allows him to do is observe what should have been seen, if the Earth were actually flat. The whole presentation is interesting, but if you're pressed for time just start watching at the 6 minute mark, where he shows you what that observation of those peaks would look like, if Earth were actually flat. It's thousands of feet that are missing from the base of those mountains, it's not just that they're being seen...they're dropping by several thousand feet. Perspective alone can not account for this, the demonstrations I have seen for perspective merely just cover and block, they do not cause the observed object to crunch and drop. Those peaks are dropping into the horizon by thousands of feet, which matches with curvature math.
Now, as the creator of that video said at the end of his presentation, is this by itself enough to make a solid conclusion? No, of course not, but it can't be ignored either. Topography data does demonstrate here that Mt. San Jacinto is doing exactly as it should on a Globe at our scale, so even if flat Earth could provide evidence for perspective causing the same effect...the Globe also accounts for this. And so far, Flat Earth has a hypothesis that perspective causes this, but no actual peer reviewed experiments for evidence, just a few quick demonstrations...that could be easily faked by con artists.
Is perspective causing a curved optical effect that science is yet unaware of? Perhaps, but then can Flat Earth provide a practical scientific experiment of this optical effect caused due to perspective? I've seen several demonstrations myself, but I've also seen these demonstrations debunked as well, as things don't just appear to be covered by horizon, but they also drop.
Flat Earth likes to say we're just making excuses when we bring up refraction, but isn't it pretty convenient that they can ignore refraction (which is verified by science) and at the same time use perspective to explain away all of their observations? The difference is, we have experiments that demonstrate refraction and we have math equations for refraction that are used in the real world to make predictions on refraction. We're not just saying refraction occurs, we have evidence for refraction and we have the math figured out, as my first post of the Rainy Lake Bedford level experiment provides in great detail. We also have photographic evidence showing the refraction occurring over multiple days of observation, the more humid the air for that day, the higher the image distorts. https://ibb.co/s6MRsDz
So from what I'm seeing, flat Earth appears to be ignoring things by choice, ignoring anything that refutes their bias...but then at the same time they support any flimsy explanation (Perspective) that they feel supports that bias, without providing any evidence that verifies their hypothesis. I'm sorry, but this is confirmation bias by definition...it's a perfect example of it. This is how you do science wrong, by following only the evidence and explanations that support a bias while ignoring all evidence that refutes it. This is my biggest issue with Flat Earth...I feel they're being very bias in their conclusions. In my experience, I have no reason as of yet not to conclude that this is the case...and it's not from lack of trying.
But let's take a closer look at perspective next, I'll cover that in another post later. Feel free to respond in the meantime. I don't want to clutter things with to much explanation, without giving you a chance to refute.
1
-
@kentnoetico9867 So you actually think this means the Sun is in the clouds? No other explanation for why it appears as such? What about this here https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=fwkq4-id5t0&feature=emb_logo Is that strip of film behind the light source here, or is the intense brightness of the light source just drowning it out, which makes it appear behind the light? Watching the video makes that pretty clear, It's the latter of course, what you're seeing here is an optical illusion, so why can't this also be the case for the clouds that appear to be behind the Sun? You don't think the intense light from the sun could drown out lesser dense clouds to make them appear to fall behind the sun?
What if we were to make these observations through some filters to lessen the suns luminosity? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG6mJ8bHFxw When you do this, like they have in this video here, suddenly those clouds that appeared as if they were behind the Sun, suddenly then appear in front of the Sun, confirming our hypothesis that this is just an optical illusion created by the suns own luminosity. Optical illusions occur all the time, our eyes can not be trusted in every conclusion, sometimes we have to dig deeper. I feel this is just another example of a rushed and bias conclusion.
Let's just unpack this a bit further and think about things a little deeper for a moment. If the Sun were to be in those clouds, how close would the Sun then be? Well, clouds are generally about 3-5 miles off the surface, sometimes even closer, some even further, but that's a general ball park distance. So if the Sun is in those clouds, then the Sun is only 3-5 miles off the surface as well? Ok, so planes fly about this high as well, why have no planes ever hit the Sun? If the Sun were really that close, shouldn't it be super easy to reach it? Wouldn't it be pretty common knowledge among all pilots, that the Sun is super easy to reach? It was the first thing we likely tried doing, the moment we obtained flight for the first time...you don't think we'd have caught up to the Sun by now if it were really that close?
Also, the Sun is VERY hot, it has to be to heat an entire planet, so how exactly does something that hot sit within the water vapor of those clouds? Wouldn't those clouds immediately be evaporated? Does this really sound logical to you?
So if it's only that high off the ground, then perspective should be able to tell us how big it is. We have mathematical formulas that we can use to give us the size of an object given it's distance, and at that distance (3-5 miles), the sun would be what, maybe a few football fields in diameter? How exactly does someone in England, see that tiny Sun...at the same time as somebody in the US (which is only about 5 hours difference), if the Sun is that small and that close? How does it possibly heat up both at the same time?
So basically, if you're going to conclude the Sun is close and local like that, don't you think this would create some problems? Have you stopped to think about what a sun in the clouds would mean? I don't think it's very logical to conclude the Sun is in the clouds. What is logical is that intense light can drown out less dense material and make it appear to disappear or fall behind that light source, creating an optical illusion. The sun is very bright, nobody would argue against that fact, you can't stare directly at it for too long without damaging your eyes, so it is VERY bright. Clouds vary in density, thicker clouds will be seen, less dense clouds can and will be drowned out by the suns intensity. Does this not seem more logical too you? It sure does for me.
We can even take this a little further. There are good reasons why we have concluded the Sun is not close and local. Whenever we go out to measure the angles of the Suns rays and shadows, it paints a pretty clear picture for us that this light is arriving to us parallel.
Here's a couple great experiments done fairly recently that took sun angle measurements from locations all around the world, during the same time at Equinox.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=396s - at 7 minutes they share the results, mapping the data on both a flat Earth and then again on a Globe, the data is pretty clear, the sun is shining on us in parallel rays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=465s - same experiment done in a different year, this time the data was plotted on several different flat Earth maps...again, the Globe was the only model that accounted for these sun light angles.
Here's a great channel that does the same thing, mapping data from time and date dot com, into quick and easy demonstrations of sun angle data. This guy makes lots of videos on this very topic, I believe he is a mathematician. His demonstrations are pretty clear, the Sun is not local.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0&t=3s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM
If you'd like to use crepuscular rays as an argument as well, this is a good time to bring up perspective. Here's some great videos demonstrating what perspective can do to parallel rays of light, creating another optical illusion that can fool you into thinking a light source is much closer then it actually is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3x0saRH8Es
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTPLqbl-HGY
There is just to much evidence and logic you would have to ignore, if you were going to conclude that the Sun is close and local. I've shared a small sample of that evidence. We did not conclude the Sun was millions of miles from Earth from nothing at all, we verified it through a long process of observation, experimentation and analysis. I know these large numbers are harder to comprehend for us given how tiny we are and the tiny distances we experience in our lives, but incredulity is not an argument against the evidence.
1
-
@kentnoetico9867 That's fine, I can't force you to believe or accept any position that you do not agree with. All I ask is that people consider that they might have overlooked something and that they could possibly be the one in error. Bias is very real and I believe strongly that we all have our own bias that tends to lead our thinking...it's a great flaw of man, that science has worked to overcome, and I believe it works, it's our light in the darkness. Thank you for the civil discussion again though, it's good that two people of opposing views can treat each other fairly and not resort to ridicule, simply for thinking for themselves.
I will address this one quick though "Have you also seen those videos where the moon is zoomed in and the very surface is visible, I don't know if there's a civilian camera that can see the surface of the moon at 200k+ miles? How do we explain this?."
Don't forget though that the Moon is also 1/3 the size of Earth, that's thousands of miles in diameter. So each one of those crators that you're seeing, are also tens to hundreds of miles wide. They're not tiny by any means. There are perspective formulas you can use to calculate the apparent size of an object by distance, so rather then assume it's impossible, instead try learning how it is possible. Of course though, this alone does not prove that the Moon is as far as we believe it to be, but it also doesn't mean that it is impossible. Incredulity is not an argument, it's a fallacy that just keeps us in a box of thinking.
We're not over explaining anything, we're just making observations and recording those observations...it is physical reality that is vast and complicated, which requires a lot of work to unravel the mysteries of. We're doing pretty good so far, and I would hope our progress in technology would be proof of that fact. I do hope you have been watching the many experiments I have shared so far and absorbing the lessons, but perfectly fine if you still disagree after the fact.
Anyway, thanks again, and feel free to continue, if there's any other questions or observations you'd like addressed, I'm more then happy to provide some further insight. I hope you've found everything I've shared so far at the very least interesting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sandyjohnson4636 It's the same process of buoyancy (also thermo dynamics), smoke is also less dense then the surrounding air (same as helium), so it travels up due to buoyancy. But have you ever observed smoke in a vacuum? It doesn't travel upwards, it actually falls to the bottom and pools at the bottom of the container. Once the initial energy of the thermal reaction is spent, the smoke will fall to the bottom due to gravity and remain there, it will not rise. https://youtu.be/Yb2YuC7UbwI?t=138 There is no air inside to displace it, so buoyancy can not occur. Buoyancy plays a large role in why smoke rises. You don't have to believe me, all I ask is that you consider it and maybe do some further research that helps to verify or falsify what I'm saying. Up to you really, can't force you...but ignorance is the very opposite of keeping an open mind.
A closed mind is someone who refuses to listen and consider other explanations that they themselves did not consider. A closed mind ignores people, especially people of opposing views...which is what you're doing the moment you tell me you'd rather not waste your time with my explanations. An open mind would listen and consider any explanation, and then offer counter arguments or agree...that's what an open mind does. You may think you have an open mind, just because you're considering knowledge that is counter to general consensus...but in reality, your mind has never been more shut. Flat Earth is interesting, but in reality, all they're teaching you is how to be more ignorant.
Do you wanna know the best way to brainwash somebody? Tell them they're being lied too and then offer them a way to overcome those lies by learning your teachings, offer them a way to rise above the lies and become "special" among the "sheep". So the best way to brainwash somebody...tell someone that they've been brainwashed for years but they can be freed if they listen blindly to you...it's brainwashing 101. Cults use this method to brainwash followers...and it's exactly the same method I'm currently seeing from Flat Earth.
1
-
Well, let's focus in on what telemetry data is and look at it objectively. It's just a time measurement taken between a radio transmission and the receiver to pinpoint a location, or to record a distance between each send and receive. You can use it to map the flight path and gauge the distances. So if that's all it is, is this data useful for future endeavors? Well, we know where the Moon is, and we know its distance...so keeping that data around is just not really worth saving, from that stand point. Space is empty and it's a straight shot, so not like they need to remember directions. Knowing the exact distance is important...but again, it's well known, the distance changes depending on the point in orbit and they have many other methods for figuring out the exact distance at any given time...otherwise they couldn't have gone the first time, having that telemetry data is not really going to help them much planning future trips. I get that it's an achievement of history, but in the grand scheme of things, the telemetry data isn't as historically important as the lunar module, the space suits, the photographs, or the rock samples retrieved. Only a niche group of scientists would really care about that data.
So it's cost vs value and interest. Do they require this data? No, they do not, the Moon is well documented to be in a steady orbit and so its distance is also well documented. Would it cost money to transfer that data to a digital format? Yes, it would. Does it rank high on the radar of historical relics from those endeavors? Not really. So look at it from a company's perspective, that is trying to cut costs at any opportunity. A CEO is going to ask "do we need to keep it and does it cost money to preserve?", the answer he will receive is "no we do not and yes it would", so what do you think he's going to choose? I'm sure the scientists who worked at NASA were trying to make a case that they should save that data, because they care, but at the end of the day they don't get the last word, the pencil pushers and the suits do...and money is all they really care about.
When you really weigh the cost to worth of that data...it's not really that hard to understand why they'd decide to just scrap it...it's far from comparable to the original mix recordings of Led Zepplin records, that can be remastered and resold. And it's a pretty quick decision, once it's done it's done and so maybe it was rushed through the decision making process before anyone could really object. People seem to think that companies can't make mistakes...and they sure do, all the time in fact, they are far from perfect. So as much as we'd like to apply our bias and think they'd never make this mistake...objectively speaking, they can and they have many times before, so we really should avoid applying that bias here.
So I get that it may seem odd on the surface, especially when spun into the Flat Earth narrative, but it's certainly not outside the realm of plausibility. Objectively, it's a dumb argument to make, all they can do here is speculate, and we really can't do much with empty speculation.
1
-
1
-
No, we agree with him because he's undeniably right and anyone can verify that science for themselves whenever they're willing to try. You really think all they do in university, is sit around and memorize jargon? Wow...I wonder how engineers are able to build stuff with such precision, if everything they know is just made up bullshit. Pretty incredible that your computer runs at all, given that it runs on hocus pocus, am I right? :/
Might be news to you, but we don't really benefit much from lying about how physical reality works...and it's not exactly easy to lie about our discoveries either, given how competitive the scientific community is. Their careers are made from challenging consensus and their peers...and it works, the proof is in pretty much every technology you use and take for granted. You just let us know when Flat Earth science is used to invent, innovate, engineer, discover, or navigate anything.
1
-
@MultiJaybaker No, that's not what I was saying, but sure, we do put satellites into orbit, and that wouldn't be possible unless Earth were a Globe with gravity. So ya, modern technology does prove that Earth is spherical...we even use those satellites to take pictures of it, so again, modern technology proving the Earth is a sphere. You can go out on any night with a telescope and spot these satellites, even photograph them, the ISS being the easiest to observe, it's not hard. Here's a group of hobbyists who take it a step further, by building their own radio telescopes, that they use to track and pull data from satellites in orbit, give it a look sometime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t=309s
Now, all I was trying to say before you respun my argument into a strawman, was that it's a little arrogant of people to claim they're superior to actual experts...when they really have no idea what they're talking about. Layman tend to always be so ignorant and over confident...spitting in the face of the people who create...everything, while meanwhile having ZERO understanding into how those things were made. I just find that a bit arrogant. My point is, I'm going to trust the people who built my computer, over some dumb ass keyboard warriors on the internet who have likely contributed nothing to society...listening blindly to conspiracy videos on YouTube, never once questioning them for some reason.
Just saying, you'd have to be a bit of an idiot, if you think scientists can create EVERY modern comfort and technology that's around you, but they can't figure out something as trivial as the shape of our planet? Could they be lying? Not likely...too many minds and too many eyes working directly in positions that require our understanding of the Earth be accurate, in order to do their jobs at all. Pilots for example...little hard to find your destination, if you're using maps that are not accurate...wouldn't you say? Yet these people arrive on time, at their destinations, like clock work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMOp6PmDpp4&t=13s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiUklHodcho
I have done my own research on this topic, been digging into this mess for over 3 years now...and I'm now more of a Globe Earther then I ever was, because now I know how we reached that conclusion, from the science to the history. I wasn't trying to prove to you in my last comment the Earth is a sphere, I know where you stand, would probably take nothing short of a lobotomy to get you to come back to reality. Which is fine, believe whatever you'd like, I can't force you to do anything and I respect your opinion. But If you'd like me to share more of what I've learned in 3 years of my own research, feel free to ask, I don't mind sharing. I know Flat Earth is wrong and I've concluded that Flat Earth is nothing but a scam, perpetuated online by layman who have no real world experience in the sciences, driven by confirmation bias, incredulity, ignorance and over confidence.
1
-
@MultiJaybaker Eric Dubay eh...the nazi sympathizer who lies like breathing? Ya...I think you should start questioning what that narcissist says, he's the biggest con artist of them all. Here's a great video to get you started...just listen close to how many lies this guy points out in just a short time frame. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knWCsonQVG4&t=8s Far from the only example of Eric being dismantled.
Honestly...do you really think I'd not know who he is, after 3 YEARS of researching Flat Earth? I don't just research one side of an argument (like Flat Earthers do), I look at both sides...and Eric is the first nut job you learn about in this mess. With his "200 ways to completely lie about and misunderstand reality", that's what the video is called right? It should be...it's far more accurate.
I suggest you watch that again, and pay attention next time, cause he's got hypnotic suggestion tactics down pat and he sure knows how to dump a lot of gish gallop in rapid fire. It works on the weak minded who don't stop to question each bullshit claim he makes one at a time...but slow your roll and actually stop and challenge each claim made, and you find out pretty quickly he's just making it all up as he goes. Ever heard of lying? It's not hard to do, especially online, just have to be confident when you do it. I'll give him that much, there is nobody more confident in his lies than he is. With Eric It's just Empty claim after empty claim from that guy, no scientifically verifiable evidence of any kind, just well crafted lies and mountains of speculation and conjectures, that he spits out without guilt or shame, because he's likely a psychopath and has zero empathy and zero problem lying to people. Honestly, just watch him breaking down publicly after he found out that other big names in Flat Earth were getting more attention then he was. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9li-xf3ycs Shouldn't he be happy that Flat Earth is spreading? But he's not, all he cares about himself, all he cares about is that he gets all the attention and nobody else. He displays all the characteristics of a psychopathic narcissist with extreme delusions of grandeur...not somebody I'd admire, but hey you do you.
John Carpenter on the other hand is one of my favorite horror directors, is that the same John Carpenter? Didn't realize he was a Flat Earther, but I find that a little hard to believe coming from the guy who directed some of the best COSMIC horror movies ever made. But maybe, I'll have to look into it, just first I heard it, unless it's a different guy.
David Wardlaw Scott...a small fry author, who used scripture to verify his hypothesis of a Flat Earth. Ya...you lose all credibility the moment you start using made up superstition to start explaining a made up fantasy reality. Stacking bullshit on top of more bullshit...real strong argument. Scripture has no place in a discussion of science.
I think you need to find some better idols, but that's just me...I just can't believe people actually admire these nut jobs. Question the mainstream all you want, it's perfectly logical, but these guys should be setting off red flags in anyone who can spot when they're being conned...it's incredible to me that more people don't.
1
-
1
-
@MultiJaybaker Well, apologies but I won't be giving my email out to strangers online, I don't mind chatting here though.
That's a fair point, but what evidence does he have to point these people out as "agents"? What confirms they are "agents"? Are they actually "agents", or is he just making more shit up as he tends to do? That to me is an example of a speculative claim with no backing, and it just looks like a guy throwing a tantrum. Which is not very mature. True scientists and researchers welcome peer review and discussion...and he should be more grateful that others are following his lead and spreading his message...Orphan Red is a Flat Earther...they're basically on the same side, you don't see Globe Earthers calling each other agents and shills...we're listening to each other and absorbing lessons from each other. They're quite supportive of each other.
I hear that a lot from Flat Earthers...whenever somebody challenges them long enough, they just hand wave them aside as shills or "agents"...then there's no need to consider what they're saying anymore, they're just paid to lie, so they shut their minds off to any further dialogue. That's a typical tactic from people who generally don't like be challenged and would rather ignore their opposition than face them. It's also quite typical of people who are tad afraid of being proven wrong, so best to just come up with excuses rather than admit defeat.
In my opinion, if your evidence and arguments are so strong...then they should stand firm on their own, and even if somebody is a paid agent, you should be able to defeat them pretty easily by sharing that evidence. I think calling people shills, agents, sheep, idoctrinated...all just buzz words and deflection tactics used to keep you from listening to what opposition has to say. The thing is...Orphan Red is on his side...she's a Flat Earther.
That being said, of course I see the logic in "agents" being planted, controlled opposition does occur, but all I'm saying is, it's a little hard to lie about physical reality...nature doesn't lie, so if your position is truly aligned with objective reality, then you shouldn't be afraid of any discourse, real or unreal, your positions should defeat them easily and you should welcome the attempts. I hope you'd agree.
Idk, I just find buzz words like agents, shills, idoctrinated, all deflection tactics...not much more. Without substantial evidence to support that claim, then all you can really do is speculate, and I don't like joining speculation, I try to avoid that as best I can. Stick to the science, people can and will lie, nature does not.
Anyway, enough of that rhetoric, if you'd like to focus more on the science feel free...I don't particularly like babbling on about my opinions, I'd rather focus on the actual evidence. I do feel Flat Earth is wrong, but I actually do try to respect their opinions. I don't mind shifting gears into a more civil discussion where we just focus on the facts and the evidence. Don't get me wrong, there is one thing I actually do admire about Flat Earth and that's their stubborn tenacity in the face of overwhelming odds and despite the ridicule they face. It's perfectly logical to question what you're told and to challenge mainstream consensus, in that respect, I do admire Flat Earth, so I'm not here to discourage you or laugh at you. I take my jabs sometimes, cause I do have an ego of my own, but easier to keep that in check when we just focus on the evidence.
So feel free, what in particular would you like to discuss? Pick a topic, I'll share what I have and I'll listen to you're position.
1
-
1
-
@amayaaztec4218 The Sun is very high in the sky, and you do realize perspective has rules to it, correct? You're work isn't done here, you can't just slot in perspective as your answer and then think your work is done here....it doesn't work that way. That only gives you enough to form a hypothesis from, but you then have to test it further to see if this holds up to experimentation. You can't reach a conclusion with what you've provided here, all you have is a guess, now you have to put that guess to the test. Here's a few simple experiments anyone can try that poke holes in your perspective conclusion, give them a look sometime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYVYa3BdI84
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njO5NPfur7I
That's barely scratching the surface, there are many other observations we can make that just do not support a local Sun circling above. If this were true, then we should be able to pinpoint that Sun using its shadow angles. Here's a couple great experiments that give this a try, by collecting data on sun shadow angles from locations all around the world during the same time of the day, during the Equinox.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t
This observation of yours also does not match with the Suns projected path through the sky. Common sense would tell you, if the Sun is that high circling above, then you would expect to see it all day from everywhere on Earth. The math verifies this as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t=39s
So no, upon experimentation and closer observation, your hypothesis of perspective answering for why a sunset occurs is just not accurate. It fails upon closer inspection, so you can not conclude that it is perspective alone that is causing a sunset and sunrise. A globe however, fits all of these observations...so on the other hand, we can now conclude that a sunset is caused by the fact that our planet blocks the Sun as it rotates away from it each day.
You don't seem to realize how much more work YOU are required to do, to verify your conclusions. All you're doing is jumping on whatever explanation fits your bias...and then patting yourself on the back for a job well done. If scientists worked like this...we'd have achieved very little today.
1
-
@amayaaztec4218 Nobody has ever been hiding anything, there is nothing to hide...but there is a lot of information to digest and most people just do not have the time to learn it all, unless they are directly studying it. You're basically blaming your lack of knowledge on others...and that's bullshit. They tried teaching you this stuff in high school, it's all covered in basic physics 101 classes...but you likely didn't pay attention. That is not their fault, that is YOUR fault...teachers can only do so much, if you're not going to listen, that's on YOU. Your anger is misplaced...you have nobody to blame but yourself really.
I understand that some people don't have access to a basic education and if that's what happened with you, then my apologies...but NOTHING is being hidden from you, science is VERY transparent, YOU can learn this knowledge at ANY TIME you wish...and you're right, in the current information age, it's now easier then ever to acquire that knowledge. But it's also easier then ever for misinformation to spread. Con men, scammers, village idiots, they have it easier then ever before to spread bullshit around...so you have to be VERY careful where you're receiving your information from. Bias is real and people will lie to you to keep a bias alive and kicking...it's a great flaw of man, we tend to follow bias more then we realize.
The nice thing is, nature does not lie...people will lie to you, but physical reality is very rigid and it abides by rules and laws that hold it all together. So that's what science tries to do, it has created a method that probes deep into nature and tries to find OBJECTIVE truths to how that reality functions. If done correctly, with care, patience and attention to detail, the method works...and the proof is in the pudding, in all the technology that is around you today. It didn't get there by magic, science made it possible. The nice thing about science, is it's just a tool, it has no agenda and ANYONE can learn it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewthomas4636 The scientist also realizes that it would take a lot more than a simple conversation to prove to him the Earth is a sphere. The Flat Earther didn't provide evidence, he made a lot of conjectures that pose as evidence...empty claims that when spit out in rapid fire will impress an audience and make him appear smarter and more researched, but if they actually took the time to tackle each claim one at a time, slowly, providing actual evidence for each point made, you'd find out pretty quickly who is bullshitting. Real evidence is hefty and requires a lot of work to compile, analyse and present. You can't prove the Earth is a sphere in a single quick sit down, especially with no data, recorded observations, or experiments to share...and this guy wouldn't listen anyway. The scientist is trying to avoid speculating, taking his time and pondering what's being said...while the Flat Earther has no problem with speculating endlessly.
"Just following general consensus is not a good idea"
I feel this is a big misunderstanding of most people today...scientists do not just follow general consensus blindly and without question, they are trained and encouraged to challenge everything they come across. Do you really think Einstein got famous for going with the general consensus of his time? Hell no! He's famous because he challenged the work of Newton, who was (and still is) one of the top dogs of science...the difference between him and a Flat Earther, was that he was successful in proving his hypothesis correct, starting with the Eddington experiment of 1919 that shot him to fame, which successfully falsified and improved upon a lot of Newtons work. He didn't stop there either, pretty much all of his body of work was challenging the consensus of the time...and he was found to be correct in most cases. All attempts to falsify his work today, have only helped verify it further.
Point is, people seem to think all scientists are just mindless drones following the herd...and it's sad that people think this, because that's not accurate at all. Scientists make their entire careers on challenging consensus, they are very much encouraged to do their own research and reach their own conclusions. Heck they can't even graduate without first doing a thesis paper, which requires they add to the current body of science, by conducting their own extensive research on something original, or by challenging prior knowledge and improving upon them, filling the cracks. History favors the bold, sure a lot of scientists will conform to consensus, but these scientists rarely find as much success.
1
-
@andrewthomas4636 Doesn't take much courage, when you truly believe you're never wrong. Trust me, these people LOVE the attention, this is not hard for them, they crave it. I've been chatting with Flat Earthers for a little over 3 years now...they honestly believe they're the smartest people on the planet, while meanwhile having never invented, innovated, engineered, discovered or navigated anything. It's incredible.
I do agree with you a little, that genius is not defined by a piece of paper and nobody should feel discouraged for questioning what they're told. Absolutely agree with you there, but in my experience Flat Earthers are not in this to find objective truths...they're in it cause it helps them feel superior, and because following bias over reason is just way easier. Why learn all that hard to understand science and math (that is proven to be accurate by the fact we use it all in the applied sciences that build the modern world), when they can just make up their own science and live in a fantasy world where they are the authority on what is true.
All they're doing is currently demonstrating why it was so important to include a system of consensus and peer review to the scientific method...because most people are not rational when you really get down to it, and some are just beyond reasoning with...and sadly, those people tend to also be the loudest.
1
-
@andrewthomas4636 Oh, I don't think you're stupid for giving an opinion, far from it actually. Also, I don't really think Flat Earthers are stupid either (many of them anyway). That's what is so frustrating, a lot of them are actually quite intelligent...they're just so damn stubborn, self absorbed and paranoid, they won't open up to the possibility that they could be wrong. They are so over confident it blinds them from ever considering their own errors. What's worse is they always claim they're more open minded than everyone else...yet their minds shut off pretty quickly the moment you try to question their positions. Which is actually pretty normal, wouldn't you agree, we're kind of wired that way. Nobody enjoys being wrong, so people tend to ignore opposition and double down on there ideas when they're being challenged, rather than open up. I think it's a natural response from the brain, to avoid potential trauma, pretty sure that's even proven in psychology.
But anyway, I try to respect their opinions, my patience has worn down a bit, but I always try and let them know that it's perfectly fine to question things, so same to you, don't let me or anyone discourage you from having an opinion. I don't claim to know everything and you're right, the current systems of science and peer review are not perfect, so there is room for improvement. Best not to stay silent on it, that's how things never change. I will give Flat Earthers this much, I actually do admire that SOMEBODY is out there questioning the science that the rest of us have moved on from, that's great...cause they might actually find something if they keep digging. We have kind of hit a wall in our current understanding, and it's been that way for roughly the last 100 years. It's very possible, that we could have overlooked something, so it's great that some people are out there looking. In that regard, I respect what they're doing...I just wish they'd stop being so paranoid and stubborn.
Anyway, thanks for the chat. Lots of great points to ponder.
1
-
1
-
Guess you haven’t been speaking English long, but words have many different definitions depending on the context. In the context of geometry, topography, and gravity, level can be defined as “a surface perpendicular to all lines of force in a field of force: EQUIPOTENTIAL”. You can find that definition here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level Entry 3 Adjectives, definition 5. Definition 1a under adjectives should interest you as well.
Your trouble is that you’re misunderstanding something and then being to stubborn to re-evaluate what you think you know. Earth is an equipotential surface, level in this context is maintaining equal distance from a center...a bubble is an equipotential surface, so is a bowling ball, or a water drop, all of these things have a level surface in terms of equipotential distance from centre. Getting it yet? Level does not always mean flat...learn the proper context.
Tons of curvature, you’re just being ignorant and bias.
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://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544
Do you speak Hewbrew? My guess is no, so how would you know for certain? Following this Quora link https://www.quora.com/Does-NASA-in-Hebrew-actually-mean-deceive you get a lot of differing answers, but scrolling down and reading from the people who actually read and speak Hebrew, they all say there is no word matching Nasa. And the word that’s kinda spelt that way, is pronounced way differently according to one fellow there, But even if Nasa did mean to deceive in hebrew, so what? Ever heard of a coincidence? Do you think all the tangible evidence for a globe just disappears because of a group’s shared paranoia? Of course not. Evidence is what matters, not paranoid pattern seeking.
Red Hot Chili Peppers are rock stars....not scientists. I’ll get my information and facts from actual experts thank you very much.
1
-
@k6827 No, I haven't proven anything to YOU, because you have your fingers buried in your fucking ears and won't listen or pay attention to any of the proof and evidence I have shared. But I don't share this information for you specifically, I share it for the folks reading these, who are tired of Flat Earths ignorance and bullshit and would like to know where they go wrong.
"Show me a replication of water sticking to a sphere."
All you're doing is confirming you don't understand much about gravity. Water is held to our surface by gravity, anything with mass produces gravity but it requires A LOT of mass before gravity becomes strong enough to hold things to it indefinitely. So it's a little hard to do the test you are asking for, on a smaller scale, while standing in a much stronger gravity well, our Earth's gravity well. Earth will always have a stronger force of gravity, compared to anything else you interacted with here on the surface, so Earths gravity will pull off any water you put on a sphere in a smaller demonstration...like you're asking...and it's INCREDIBLE that I have to explain that to an adult. So the experiment you're asking for is a HUGE straw man and it's a dumb argument...it just tells the rest of us, your lack of understanding in basic physics.
If you knew anything about gravity, you'd know we can't scale down Earths gravity and reproduce that same output, but it can be tested directly on smaller objects. I'm sure you've heard of the Cavendish experiment that tests the attraction between two objects directly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYf-Glwtr68 This is very repeatable science and more then that it's how we measured the universal constant of gravity we use as G in many equations, from parabolic projectile equations, to plotting orbital paths, to simple aerodynamic lift equations.
But go ahead...tell me gravity isn't real...and then offer no proof of that claim, while meanwhile ignoring the very easy experiment (that I shared above) that does verify its existence.
1
-
@k6827 Did I say we knew what it was? No, I said we know how it works. We have observed a phenomena that occurs in nature, and we have measured its effects, these effects are undeniably true, things fall when you drop them, mass is attracted to other mass and at a predictable rate, that does not correlate to other known forces. General Relativity gives us a broader insight into how it works (proven by the Eddington experiment, Red Shift observation in stars, Time Dilation experiments in upper atmosphere, detection of gravitational waves, etc), but yes, we do not know everything about it, is there a problem with that?
Welcome to the fringes of modern science, did you think science was supposed to have everything figured out? Nope, still a lot we don't know, and that's fine, science is happy to admit where it's currently at...but just because we don't know what gravity is or what exactly causes it, does not mean it isn't real. We'll keep working on it, and if we discover something new that can replace our current theory of gravity, then we'll adjust accordingly...that's how science works, but so far, all attempts to falsify general relativity, have only helped to prove it further. And now, we use our understanding of gravity to do everything from put satellites into orbit, help build better planes, or unlock the mysteries of nuclear fusion reactions. Science has accomplished a LOT more with this understanding, then you realize...and it's arrogant of you to spit in the face of that progress, especially when you don't really know shit about anything...you just watched some conspiracy videos on youtube and now you think you do.
You people are just trying to play make believe pretend. Just ignoring or denying anything you disagree with, rather then trying to understand it further, filling in the blanks with bullshit, demanding so much from mainstream science, while pretending your own science doesn't require the same level of skepticism and review. It's incredible.
Just simply claiming that gravity doesn't exist, is not an argument in itself...it's just empty conjecture, providing some evidence that verifies where we're going wrong, THAT'S how you join the conversation. Proving your claims accurate, with actual scientific evidence, falsification through experimentation. Can't do fuck all with empty claims and paranoid bullshit. You are falling for a scam on the internet, perpetuated by village idiots. It's fine to question what you're told, in fact it's logical, but chasing confirmation bias through empty speculations and bullshit...is not how you find answers, it's how you join cults.
1
-
1
-
@arthurmack7026 No, you haven’t been rhetorically persuaded, there’s a difference. I’ve answered your question empirically, but you either don’t understand or don’t want to understand, so the explanation went over your head. But, just because you don’t understand, does not mean what I said is wrong, just means you were incapable of understanding. We put our own satellites in orbit around Earth today, using the knowledge I just explained to you above, so this is far beyond a hypothesis, it’s an applied science now, which means it’s accurate.
It matters very little if you understand or not, science continues onward full knowing most people won’t ever grasp how most things work. Doesn’t really matter in the end though, so long as some people can grasp the knowledge enough to continue using it for mankind’s advancement. Point being, you’re not achieving much in these comments, you’re just sharing with us all how incapable you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arthurmack7026 Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim...that used to be seen as pretty standard and also quite reasonable. Whenever I make a claim, I do my best to remember to share a source or citation, it’s just faster, easier and makes your position stronger....it used to just be common sense, but these are truly dark times it seems.
In short, I’m not going to do your work for you. If you can’t share a source that supports your claims, then I will just conclude you’re lying, because you’ve given me no reason to believe otherwise. The other reason being that I risk finding the wrong sources if I’m completing YOUR arguments for you, and then I risk reaching false assumptions and conclusions for YOUR arguments. It’s a waste of time. Either share your evidence, or you have no argument, it’s pretty simple.
The truth has nothing to fear from closer analysis, so sharing sources shouldn’t be a problem if you’re telling the truth. Not providing evidence for your claims, just makes it appear like your making up bullshit as you go.
1
-
@arthurmack7026 Well why can’t you just share it? Why rattle on and waste time? Would take you 2 seconds, then it’s done, yet you just whine and whine. You wanna prove your points, then do the work required to do so. I’m fine with questioning authority, I’m just not doing YOUR job for you to prove YOUR arguments. You made the claim, so your job to prove it, not mine. Pretty basic stuff. When I make a claim, you can bet I’ll share as much information that supports it as I can, cause that’s how arguing your own position works.
So is your computer science fiction? Is the electricity that powers it also just fiction? What about the wifi connection, that uses precise wave frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum to send and receive these messages, guess scientists didn’t have to discover these invisible wavelengths, then deduce how they work, so they could put them to practical use? You really take everything around you for granted...it’s really sad. Such arrogant ignorance.
You’re an idiot, who doesn’t know how to prove a point or argue with evidence, so I’m questioning YOU for obvious reasons, because you don’t actually know anything, you just pretend to. I’ll question authority when YOU actually make any valid points, that YOU can actually prove. Until then, I will question YOU, because you are the one making up the bullshit. See how this works yet? You wanna “wake people up”, then do a better fucking job of it, instead of acting like a whiny crazy person, with nothing but empty claims and clear delusions of grandeur. :/
We’re hearing you just fine idiot, but we’re not just going to listen to you blindly and without question, why would you ever think we should? You either have actual arguments with solid evidence, or you don’t, and so far you don’t...just endless arguments from ignorance and incredulity. So we’re not convinced for obvious reasons, cause so far you have nothing. Do better, or you’re just another delusional layman, who’s been successfully suckered by con men online. Pretty simple.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nspeedtheone No, that's exactly what you're saying, he disagrees with you, so he's not a scientist in your opinion. You even said it, he's a "globe Earther", so not at scientist according to you...well the very large majority of scientists agree that the Earth is a Globe...sooooo, by your understanding, they are not scientists either then, simply because they agree the Earth is a Globe? So that's exactly what you're saying, he disagrees with you, so he's not a scientist. I just find it odd that you on one hand say "A scientist will consider everything and then put it to the test" and then say "...not a scientist. He was a globe Earther". You're not giving him a choice...he has to be a Flat Earther by your rhetoric, or he's not a scientist, it's bullshit.
You're being pretty irrational. A person becomes a scientist, when they go through the process that is required of them to reach that job title. He has earned that title through his schooling and experience, so he is a scientist...you don't get to decide that I'm afraid. Scientists are allowed to align themselves with whatever position they agree with, they do not lose their title for simply making that choice, that's just absurd and irrational.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trojax44 It sounds like you're paranoid to me, that wouldn't happen though if you just took the time to LEARN some science, and stop letting conspiracy nuts scramble your brains. Paranoia and fear of science is a byproduct of scientific illiteracy, if you don't know how anything works, it's natural for the mind to start filling the blanks with worst case scenarios...that's how our brains are wired, we're prone to reacting first and thinking much later. Worry and dread tend to rule our thoughts more then optimism, I feel paranoia increases the less you know about something...the opposite is true the more knowledge you acquire, but it's harder then ever these days, because misinformation spreads around so much easier then ever before. So you really have to be careful where you're getting your information from.
In my experience, Flat Earth (as well as many other conspiracies) are conning people...fooling you into believing that science has been lying to you for malicious purposes, and these con men do it so they can sell you more books and documentaries. It's a scam, they are modern day snake oil sales men. They exploit peoples laziness and lack of knowledge, feeding you quick and easy to digest bullshit, that is more akin to misdirection then actual facts. If you had any knowledge of physics, or astronomy, or mathematics, you'd know right away how these people con you...but in my experience, Flat Earthers are not people who have backgrounds or experience with ANY of those fields.
It's perfectly fine to ask questions, it's even logical. It's also perfectly logical to demand higher standards from science. If there are groups of swindlers in science that are up to no good, then those individuals should be held accountable, absolutely. But when it comes to the shape of the Earth....this is not something that can be so easily hidden or brainwashed into us. There are just too many minds out there, working in industries where they rely heavily on our knowledge of the Earth to be accurate, in order to do their jobs with any level of efficiency.
I know you feel very strongly that the Earth is flat...but what exactly led you there? Was it actual evidence, or just pure speculation, bias and paranoia? Speculation is dangerous, cause it can feel like evidence...but most people seem to really have a hard time discerning the difference...and we all have our bias, that we also tend to follow more so then objective truth. Your bias seems pretty simple, a lack of trust of authority and your faith. Both are powerful bias. My bias is probably a deep trust and respect for science, it's just as powerful, but at least I'm aware of my bias, that helps me to keep it under control. I feel it's important to be aware of your bias, if you want to really keep it from getting in the way of objective truth.
Either way, the shape of the Earth is easy to discern, anyone can deduce the true shape with just a little bit of effort and critical thought. Observe any sunset for example, and then just try to make sense of that over a Flat Earth. Very basic things about reality just fall apart the moment you try and make sense of them on a Flat Earth...meanwhile, the Globe answers for these same occurrences with absolute ease. A sunset for example, the Earth rotates away from the Sun each day causing it to rise and set...there, explanation over. But how exactly does the sun set on a Flat Earth? Where does it go at night? Somebody always sees the Sun somewhere on Earth, so it's not just disappearing. So it has to occupy the same visual sky, so if that's the case...then how does it set? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t=5s
The Earth is not flat, but of course I can't force you to believe that statement, you'd have to go through the evidence and make up your own mind. I am sure you have done that, for at least one half of the discussion, you wouldn't be a Flat Earther otherwise. If it interests you though, I could share some information with you that you may have overlooked. Up to you really, my aim is not to mock you or ridicule you for having a belief that is opposite of mine, just here to offer some information from the opposite side of the argument, if you'd like to know more about it. At this point I know quite a lot about Earth science, so feel free to ask and maybe I can help provide some perspective.
1
-
@trojax44 No, cause that's not possible. I don't think it has ever been the goal of science to destroy or disprove the concept of God, so it's not my intention either. Science is just another tool in the belt, it's a method of thought that we use to deduce how physical reality works, nothing more. In my opinion, science has done more to prove God even more grand then ever before. What's more impressive, a God that created a tiny terrarium we can never escape, or a God that created a cosmos so vast and expansive we will never hope to explore it all or even comprehend it...but we're free too explore all we like, so long as we're willing to try? For me it's the latter, and being a very curious person, I don't like limitations, I am personally more excited by a universe so vast it's impossible to see and understand it all. But, that's my bias right...point is, science will likely never disprove God, that's not what science is for anyway.
Anyway, no, I won't argue against a God, I have my own spiritual beliefs on that point, so I'd merely just share information on the points of Globe Earth.
1
-
1
-
Knowing the correct scale and geometry of Earth matters a great deal to fields of navigation, communication, engineering and infrastructure. Kinda need to know this stuff, if they’re gonna have any chance of doing their jobs with any accuracy. Also just helps to be on the same page in general, saves a lot of time. May not notice the effect, but spreading misinformation actually slows human progress, by crippling future generations chances at entering fields of work that fuel innovation. If a kid grows up believing misinformation, it really makes it harder for them down the road, if they ever attempt some form of secondary education. If they grow up thinking fields of math and science are pointless, makes for fewer scientists, doctors, and engineers...the people who pretty much keep the wheels of innovation turning. So it matters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1