Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "LADbible Stories"
channel.
-
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