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