Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "ABC News"
channel.
-
10
-
8
-
None of that’s accurate at all. It’s not 60 cm…the radiation on average can barely penetrate 6 mm, at its highest 40 mm of aluminum. So not sure where you’re getting that figure of yours. The Van Allen Belt is harmful, but only for prolonged exposure…like several days. It’s a common misconception, but it’s really not as harmful as people assume, and by 1969 they were aware of how harmful it really was, which is not very. A lot of the radiation couldn’t even penetrate the hull, let alone the space suits as well. So they were fine.
They passed through in just a few hours. The first trek they passed through both inner and outer belts a total of 40 minutes, the second was around 60 minutes…so not even two hours of exposure. And as Daddy pointed out, they plotted a trajectory through the weakest portions, waiting to launch at a time when the belt was tilted to ecliptic, enough so they’d only enter a small fraction of it upon both coming and going.
So it was pretty simple…you’re blowing the facts way out of proportion.
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
The angle is a consistent 1 degree every 69 miles, if the surface were flat, that angle would not be consistent every equal distance, it would lessen by each equal distance travelled away from the stars geographical location…that’s basic trigonometry, and that angle would never reach zero…like it does at the equator in reality. A consistent curvature however, would cause a consistent angle of 1 degree every equal distance of 69 miles, eventually reaching 0 degrees at equator. I would also remind you that we have TWO equal hemispheres, where the circumference of each line of latitude is roughly equal for each…45 degrees North latitude is equal distance around, as 45 degrees South latitude…as we’d expect on a globe. Don’t forget, there’s also two perfect circle rotations of stars for each hemisphere, as we’d expect to observe, on a globe, that rotates on its axis.
All of this is consistent with what we’d expect to observe on a globe….doesn’t quite work if Earth’s surface is flat. You have to ignore a lot to conclude a flat geometry makes better sense of these observations and measures. Which is basically all you’re doing, ignoring that the globe model fits all these observations…that’s flat Earth in a nutshell though, intentionally ignorant to confirm a bias. Either way, even if you could force your conclusion to fit somehow, twisting perspective to ram it through…it still doesn’t falsify the globe. It’s basically the equivalent of ramming a square peg into a round hole.
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@scholageemusic9373 “Something can not move and still keep everything in it the same momentum while it’s moving too.”
Except it absolutely can and that’s exactly what does happen in reality…and this is one of the most proven concepts in all of physics. There’s thousands of different experiments I could point you too that proves conservation of momentum and relative motion, and you can look them up at anytime by searching those terms. But I won’t leave you hanging here, here’s an experiment YOU can do easily, that tests exactly what you’re claiming cannot occur.
Next time you find yourself on a plane, train, bus (any moving vehicle really, but the longer the better), make yourself a quick paper airplane, then once the vehicle is in a steady forward motion, gently toss it from the back to the front. You’ll notice it keeps up with the motion of the vehicle just fine and glides slowly to the front, maintaining the vehicle’s forward momentum to make this possible. Now go to the front and toss to the back, just as gently as before. You’ll notice it doesn’t go smashing into the back the moment you let go of it, it will glide gently to the back, as if it’s still keeping pace with the forward momentum but just subtracting some of that velocity a bit. The same thing occurs on Earth with planes in flight, they maintain the forward momentum of the Earth’s rotation, at all times, in both directions…all of its motions actually. That’s relative motion in a nutshell…basic physics.
If you graduated high school, then you definitely learned this at some point…physics 101 is included in pretty much every school curriculum, and the laws of motion is pretty much the very first thing you learn. If YOU don’t understand these laws of physics, then it is YOUR lack of knowledge that is the problem here. That’s the reality, you do not currently have the knowledge to understand how you are wrong in your current conclusion. So please research conservation of momentum and relative motion. If you have honest questions I don’t mind providing some information, but you gotta drop the attitude. You do that and I’ll do the same, then maybe these questions of yours can be answered.
4
-
@scholageemusic9373 One problem at a time. I addressed your question of how planes can fly, while Earth is rotating, by using a practical experiment for conservation of momentum, that you can repeat whenever you’d like too. That demonstration (and plenty more) tests and verifies conservation of momentum, more specifically tailored towards that question of yours.
But yes, to answer your new question, since pretty much all of Earth’s atmosphere was created at the surface, by biological processes, then it too is already in motion with the Earth, conserving Earth’s motions, moving relative to Earth. So it too moves with the Earth’s rotation. Not perfectly mind you…how do you think the winds occur in the first place? Our atmosphere is a fluid (you can look that up too), that’s its scientific classification of gases, so it’s subject to very similar fluid dynamics as any other fluid is. Sloshing around, mixing, moving against rotations, moving in layers, etc. Fluid dynamics. I’m sure you’ve heard of the Coriolis effect, something that does occur in atmosphere, that is something we’d expect to see occur if Earth was in a rotational motion.
I’m just saying…you’re presenting questions as if they’re evidence, instead of learning the answers. Since when did questions=evidence? 🤷♂️Your questions do have answers, and evidence to support those answers. So you’re not really presenting valid arguments, you’re really just demonstrating how little you personally know about physics and Earth science.
But alright, let’s look at your main question now. So if you know the heliocentric model at all, you’ll know that it states that Earth is orbiting around the Sun, and Earth’s axis is tilted from the ecliptic about 23.4 degrees. This tilt and its orbit, means that at various points in Earth’s orbit, one pole is more pointed towards the Sun than the other. When one pole is tilted towards the Sun, the other os pointed away from it, this is what causes the opposite seasons between the two hemispheres. I’m sure you’ve roasted marshmallows before, when you point one side to the fire, does it then cook faster than the side not facing the fire? Pretty common sense, right?
I’ve been to both hemispheres as well, I live in Canada, and have spent time in places like New Zealand and Australia, while it was winter here at home. So I’m well aware of the difference in seasons between the hemispheres, I’ve experienced it myself as well. I hope my explanation has provided some insight into why this occurs.
I’m curious if you happened to pay attention to the night sky while you were in the South Hemisphere. Did you happen to notice the stars were very different? For example you can’t see the Big Dipper in the South, but the Southern Cross is then something you can easily see. Did you ever stop to wonder how Earth can have two different skies, if Earth were flat with ONE sky? 🧐 Don’t forget to analyze Flat Earth with the same critical lens.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@scholageemusic9373 No, you’re getting the seasons wrong in general. The distance to the Sun is not what causes the seasons, the tilt of Earth’s axis is what causes the seasons. It’s a common misconception some people have, thinking seasons are caused by the distance changing, but that’s not accurate. The Earth does orbit in an ellipse, and the distance does change slightly, but it does not cause the seasons. That’s not to say it doesn’t have an effect, but the tilt in the axis is does a lot more here, because Earth is heated by direct solar energy, there is no convection heat transfer from our Sun, because there is no atmosphere in space, so no pressure to cause convection. The tilt causes the direct solar energy from the Sun to be dispersed differently upon the surface, areas with more direct and focused solar energy becoming warmer, than places with less direct solar energy…this causes the seasons. Understand it a bit better yet?
Your understanding of the model you’re attempting to argue against is just terrible…which explains a lot.
4
-
4
-
@scholageemusic9373 It’s perfectly fine to ask questions, it’s just the way you’re asking them, gives the impression you’re not really all too interested in the answers. But it’s fine, I don’t mind sharing information regardless. To be fair, they are great questions, they are the same questions once asked hundreds of years ago, before the experiments were done and the data collected. Many do tend to forget that before we had this knowledge, we had to learn it first, so nothing wrong with asking questions.
Anyway, I’ve been giving you the short version of everything, so apologies if it leaves gaps. I’ll address things as I can.
It’s not that light from the Sun is “only hitting a few targets” due to the tilt, it’s that solar energy is dispersed by the curvature and the tilt. Here’s another simple experiment. Shine a heat lamp straight down, 90 degrees to a surface, place a thermometer directly under it to measure the temperature. Now shine that same light at 45 degrees to the surface, place the thermometer in the area being heated (make sure it’s the same distance from the heat light as it was at 90 degrees). You’ll notice the second temperature reading will be significantly cooler, from the more direct placing of the heat source. The reason, is because as you angle the heat source, it now disperses over a wider area, instead of when it was more direct which made it more focused. The same thing happens on a curved surface, that’s why the Equator is warmer than the poles, it receives more direct solar energy year round. While the poles fluctuate, due to the Earth’s orbit and its tilt.
Does this prove the Earth is spherical? No, of course not, but it does answer for how it works. There are other observations and experiments that verify the shape and motion of Earth, what I’m doing here is just answering a few of your questions…cause it does seem there’s a lot you’re currently misunderstanding or are not aware of.
4
-
@scholageemusic9373 You’re only half right. Fighter pilots don’t really wear masks because of their forward velocity, they wear them because of the altitude, because fighter cockpits are not as pressurized as passenger jets are, they’re pressurized for an altitude equivalent of 10,000 feet, and they wear them for high speed maneuvers, which effects the oxygen pressure in the cabin. Notice the part that doesn’t matter there? Forward velocity. If a fighter jet maintained a steady forward velocity, they really wouldn’t require a mask at all, it’s there when they need it, for when going into combat, during high speed maneuvers. I’m sure you’ve noticed they typically only strap them on just before combat? When they know they’ll be performing high speed maneuvers.
It’s just another common misconception people tend to have, that G force is a consequence of forward velocity, of motion itself, but it’s really created by sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion, acceleration and deceleration, not velocity alone.
You’re arguing with us like we’re crazy, or stupid, but this is the very physics known and taught to everyone…especially pilots, and the engineers who design fighter jets. You know the best way to know when your knowledge is accurate? When it works when applied. If this was all bullshit, then they certainly wouldn’t be teaching this physics to engineers and pilots…cause nothing would work if they’re knowledge wasn’t accurate, and people would be getting hurt, or worse, dying.
4
-
@scholageemusic9373 Well, we could prove to you beyond any doubt that Earth is spherical, and you’d likely still argue with us, so the feeling is mutual, you’re not much different…the difference is, that actual engineers use the science I am explaining to you now, while your arguments are not backed by any field of applied science. You have to understand, that you’re making an assumption without verifying it. You certainly seem to think things would change around 700 mph, but then you’re doing nothing to verify that claim. So what reason do we have to agree with your assumption? 🤷♂️ See the problem?
Ever heard of the Concorde? It was a supersonic passenger jet that operated from 1976 to 2003. There’s a great video you can easily find on YouTube, of the flight crew walking around the cabin serving drinks and food, at Mach 2, which is roughly 1500 mph. The Concorde prided itself on its speed, it was a very expensive flight to take, because travel times were 3 times as fast as the average passenger jet. Look it up sometime, it’s one of many supersonic passenger jets that existed.
So there you go, a demonstration you can look up at anytime, that falsifies your claim that conservation of momentum stops being a thing at certain velocities. We’re not lying to you man…I understand that your trust in science has eroded (for some reason), but this is basic physics you learned in high school and that you can easily verify for yourself. Conservation of momentum is a thing…the truth about motion is that it is constant, that’s the first law of motion, all things in motion stay in motion…it’s the first thing you learn in physics 101. This knowledge is what makes flight engineering possible…if this knowledge was inaccurate, then we wouldn’t be able to engineer and design passenger jets. You’re arguing against proven knowledge, used in thousands of practical applications…and worse yet you actually seem to think it’s everyone else who is crazy, instead of considering the very real possibility that there’s a lot YOU don’t actually know, which is currently causing you to reach a lot of false assumptions.
Flat Earth is an online hoax, that takes advantage of that lack of knowledge and experience…and it seems to work these days, because so many today seem to have lost trust in their fellow man. I hope this information was helpful but I would suggest brushing up on some physics…it might help you avoid falling into these rabbit holes in the future.
4
-
@pixelhy Apologies in advance, but your explanation of the seasons is not entirely accurate. It’s not really the distance to the Sun that effects Earth’s seasons, that’s a common misconception, it has more to do with the Earth’s titled axis, which effects the angle at which the surface of Earth receives solar energy. Depending on which pole is tilted towards the Sun during points of its orbit, that pole will be in Summer, because it’s receiving more direct solar energy, over longer periods of time, than the pole that’s tilted away from the Sun. That’s why/how the seasons are opposite for each Hemisphere, when North is winter, the South is in Summer and vice versa.
Just a slight correction, the distance does have an effect as well of course, we are within the goldilocks zone of our solar system after all, but did you know the Northern winter actually occurs at perihelion, when Earth is closest to the Sun? So it’s not the distance that causes the seasons, it’s the tilted axis.
In fairness to our friend here, I felt I should correct that small error. I spent a day sharing that information with him, so would only confuse and give him ammunition to get two different descriptions of how the seasons work. Best we’re all on the same page, if we’re going to help dispel misinformation, so I hope that’s helpful. Feel free to double check this information of course, have a good one. 👍
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Well, you’re just pointing out your bias, that is currently clouding your judgment. You WANT it to be true, because then it makes everything else easy for you, and we all like things being easy. But you’re just wasting your time, focusing on the wrong stuff. There are a lot of wrongs in society, but Earth being a globe isn’t one of them. Far too many fields of applied science, from engineering, navigation, communication and infrastructure, depend on that information being accurate, in order to do their jobs at all. Junk science reveals itself simply by being absolutely useless, and flat Earth is not used in any field of applied science, so that should be a persons first clue, that it’s just an online hoax, probably put there to distract you from real issues. I hope you eventually step back from your bias long enough to see the real objective truth someday. Put that energy to better use.
4
-
4
-
@JudaismIslamUnited Oh boy…clearly you don’t quite understand the control. 🤦♂️ The control is pretty simple, you conduct two experiments, the main one in Moonlight, then the control when the Moon is not out. You keep everything the exact same for both, two thermometers, one in the open, one under the same cover, the only difference is that the Moon is not out in the second, the control experiment. If you get the same reading, a colder reading in the same thermometer that was in the moonlight in the previous experiment with Moonlight…then that means it’s not the Moon light causing this effect, it’s something else. That’s why we conduct controls, to make sure we isolate the actual cause and effect relation being tested, by removing hidden variables that could also be the cause. It’s a pretty simple control, and very important for isolating your main variable of moonlight. If you can’t understand the importance of this…then you should stay far away from science. Watch that video I shared if you require further help with understanding.
Here’s a little physics lesson as well. All light in existence is basically energy…you know, energy, that thing that creates ALL of the heat in the universe? There is no such thing as cold energy…it’s a physical impossibility. Energy only produces heat, by its very intrinsic property, that’s what it does to physical reality. So to even suggest a cold light, breaks the laws of physics.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TheLastChapter2023 I unfortunately can’t share any outside links, YouTube pretty much filters out all outside links these days. But just draw it yourself. Draw the Sun at centre, Earth perpendicular too it, now put Venus and Mercury in their inside orbits but directly beside the Sun on the same tangent line, now place an observer past the terminator line on the night side, and then draw a tangent from that position perpendicular to surface representing the 180 degrees of that observers sky. The Sun won’t be visible, but you will find Mercury and Venus are still within line of sight and will be for awhile past sunset. And that’s just in stripped down 2 dimensions, doesn’t include the tilt of our axis, the tilt in every planets orbit relative to the ecliptic plane, the elliptical orbits of each planet, etc.
If you’d like, try going to a free online solar system simulator, that represents our solar system to scale, one like solar system scope, and test the geometry yourself. I assure you…YOU have not stumbled upon something so simple, that millions of astronomers and other experts just somehow overlooked.
3
-
@TheLastChapter2023 The church had money, it had the infrastructure, it was basically put in charge of education for those who could afford it at the time, so it had the scholars…because if you wanted an education, you had no choice but to get it through the church, there was no other options. So yes, the scientists of old, who established the scientific method and made all the base discoveries of science, were all mostly theists. Won’t argue against that all, it’s basic science history. But the scientific method is just a tool…it has no more belief or agenda than a hammer does. That tool is free to be used by anyone, no matter what their beliefs are. You can use a logical methodology of objective reason and deduction, without conforming to the belief structures of the source that developed it…..it’s incredible I even have to explain that to another adult. 😂
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TheLastChapter2023 You flatties have an odd understanding of what an experiment typically does. We often don’t replicate things on a perfect smaller scale in experimentation, that’s more something applied science would attempt to do, scaling down concluded knowledge, if possible, for applicable purposes. Experiments generally just test single variables of a hypothesis. We’re limited in our scale, but we know that gravity relies on an objects mass, so we understand that recreating a smaller Earth…is just stupid and ignorant of gravity physics.
A hypothesis of gravity physics, is that mass attracts mass. So can we test that? Absolutely we can, the most well known experiment of this being the Cavendish. Here’s a pretty clear demonstration and explanation of the experiment https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68. It’s not long, in 7 minutes you can learn all about the experiment. Here’s a high school girl recreating the experiment to measure the universal constant of gravity https://youtu.be/jkjqrlYOW_0. This measurement is used today in actual fields of applied science, such as orbital mechanics. If she can repeat this with simple household supplies, then anyone can.
Feel free to repeat it, it’s been repeated for centuries now, and it’s quite conclusive…mass attracts mass, which is consistent with our understanding of gravity physics.
3
-
3
-
@TheLastChapter2023 Alright, gonna keep ignoring the simple geometry of Venus and Mercury being seen again…that’s fine, lets chase your deflections a bit more.
Both masses are the attraction, reread the universal law of gravitation again please, you might notice the first part says “ALL objects attract each other…”, doesn’t matter if they’re smaller or larger, everything with mass creates an attractive force to all other mass. Which is proportionate to its mass, so the larger the mass, the more gravitational attraction. Basic physics.
PICO is an experiment to detect dark matter…a still hypothesized form of matter that is thought to account for the gravity that holds galaxies together, but is in no way proven. PICO did not detect dark matter…doesn’t mean it falsified mass attraction or Cavendish, just means theres still a lot to learn. You have a skewed idea of how falsification works. How does failing to verify a single hypothesis for the larger cosmology, falsify an experiment that DOES detect and measure a constant attraction? Feel free to elaborate.
We don’t know everything, but we never will because there’s simply too much to know…welcome to the reality of science. That’s all Neil was trying to get across. Doesn’t mean we don’t know many things…like that Earth is spherical, which is not an argument anymore. Just means there’s always gonna be variables not accounted for….which is why science doesn’t think in absolute certainties, only in percentages of certainty….but when you reach a percentage of certainty as high as globe Earth, might as well be absolute, but here we are, you’re still free to argue. Science also doesn’t set out to prove things, it sets out to falsify hypothesis, any hypothesis not falsified, goes on to be the most likely conclusion. If you think you have a better method, go ahead and enlighten me.
What’s most troubling is that Flat Earth demands so much from modern scientific consensus….yet they don’t seem to think the same standards apply to them. For example, Flat Earth has no evidence for the dome, just a broken understanding of thermodynamics physics…yet you all believe it exists regardless of evidence anyway. Flat Earth has no logical explanation for a Lunar eclipse, the Southern star trails, or even a sunset, yet you’re all happy to ignore all that and instead bitch about seeing Mercury and Venus slightly after sunset. Flat Earth also has no working explanation or proven replacement for gravity, or a working model for anything really. Flat Earth has nothing that’s actually used in applied science today, so you’re really not in any position to lecture anyone on things like gravity physics. Prove your dome exists…then we’ll talk.
On your other point with the ISS, you’re comparing the Earth to the space station…what part about “force is proportional to the mass”, do you not get? I’m sure you’d agree the Earth is quite a bit bigger than the ISS. Yes the attractive force diminishes by distance, but the ISS is still pretty damn close…400 km away isn’t very far, when you’re dealing with an object 12,782 km in diameter.
The ISS does attract other masses…but it’s so damn small, that rate of attraction is tiny. Again, what part about “proportional to the mass of the object”, do you not get? You do realize how long it takes for objects to attract in the Cavendish, right? Rate of attraction is pretty slow…and that’s because the masses involved are tiny.
3
-
3
-
@TheLastChapter2023 “And just how does gravity function as you move north from the equator? As you approach the poles the centripetal force diminishes until it becomes zero at the poles.”
I’m sorry….but do you think Earth’s centripetal force is powerful and counters Earth’s gravity to make living here possible? That’s quite an assumption and a misunderstanding if that’s the case. Centripetal force output is dependent on rate of rotation, so best thought of in measures of rotation, like RPM’s. Earth’s rate of rotation is about 0.000694 RPM’s. For comparison, a Gravitron ride at your local fair rotates at roughly 24 RPM’s, which how it’s able to suck you to a wall. It’s rate of angular velocity change per second is greater, so it’s centrifugal force is greater. Basic rule of thumb, the slower the rate of rotation, the less centrifugal force. Earth takes 24 hours to complete a single rotation…wow…what a blistering speed.
So Earth’s rate of rotation and the centripetal force it produces, negates about 0.3% of Earth’s gravity at the equator…fun fact, that’s actually why things weigh slightly less at the equator, than they do anywhere else on Earth. Here’s a simple experiment that verifies this btw https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o. This experiment also goes through the math I’m getting these figures from, so feel free to review it anytime.
So you formed a whole argument on the assumption that Earth’s rotation produces a great deal of centripetal force…and in reality, it’s not very strong at all. The change in weight from equator to poles is maybe 0.5 grams…….oops.
3
-
3
-
3
-
So the first video is just speculations, an empty claim of a wire without any solid proof of the wire, just speculation. Seems some people really need to learn the difference between evidence, and speculation…cause evidence this is not.
The second video is also reaching a speculative conclusion, it’s more likely a reflection on glass. If you watch the original footage (which is much higher quality, funny how these people often use the worst versions of the footage as possible), you’ll see the shot was filmed from inside the cockpit looking through a window, the astronaut looking through the window is bald, and in the higher quality video you can even see the camera in the reflection. Here’s that footage https://youtu.be/wx8Ew1V_1tM. It’s also fishy to me that the people presenting these videos and claims, don’t show you the part from inside the cockpit, which provides important information regarding the reflection. If his conclusion is so air tight…then why’d he leave that out? 🧐 Probably because it doesn’t help the narrative he’s pushing very much.
So this is pretty terrible attempts at evidence, they’re just speculations. Learn the difference between evidence and speculation please.
3
-
3
-
@ajmpatriot4899 You fly any symbol or flag representing a group, and that right there declares you as a member. Whether that registers for you or not…you’re a follower of a group ideology, sorry to have to break it to you. At least own it…like why bother with deluding yourself?
You follow the bread crumbs from a cryptic online puzzle maker, that has led to extreme devision within nations, violence against communities, and has done harm to the family members who have to deal with you people…and then you justify it all as “freedom” and “healthy skepticism”? You’re not free 😂 you’re a hypnotized drone, following the cryptic bullshit of online propaganda, sold to you under the guise of freedom. It’s a song as old as nations, same bullshit, new paint job. Guess how the Nazi party sold their bullshit to the German people pre WW2? You think the swastika was always a symbol for oppression? You think the German people were all just evil? No, they were regular people, sold lies through propaganda, that convinced them they’d be freed from tyranny if they signed up. The Q keeps up what it’s doing, and it’ll be the new symbol of oppression in no time, you just watch.
3
-
3
-
@ajmpatriot4899 I’ll just list off some core Qanon beliefs I’m aware of, you just let me know which ones you feel are false.
1. High level politicians, specifically democrats, are running a child sex ring.
2. These evil politicians are part of a secret society that has been controlling governments around the world, for centuries.
3. There’s a plan Q is orchestrating to overthrow this “Cabal”, that you must have faith in.
4. Trump and some other higher level officials are secretly working to “drain the swamp”, in other words, dismantle the corrupt government through mass arrests.
5. Hillary Clinton is definitely part of the scandal and is near the top of the corruption.
6. You have a rally cry “WWG1WGA”, meaning “Where we go one, we go all.”
Feel free to check off any you don’t agree with…but I’m sure it’s gonna be really difficult to do so.
These are all beliefs that a group of people share…making it a group ideology. Seriously, they have a rally cry…that basically translates too “following one idiot like a herd of sheep, without question and with complete compliance, as soon as the first stone is cast.” How can anyone think they’re not part of a group mindset, when they have a fucking group rally cry they put on shirts and flags, that literally tells them to follow the group no matter what? 😂 It’s just incredible to me how delusional people can be.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@poormanshellcat Why does this matter? It’s pretty simple, it’s gravity that orientates you to surface. Your body is designed to handle the force of gravity, feet on the ground, head to the sky. You feel upside down, when you orientate the opposite way, because the gravity pulls the fluids of your body (blood, water, everything) to your head…where it’s not supposed to be, giving you a feeling of discomfort you experience as being upside down. It’s gravity that causes this motion of fluids when you disorientate yourself from your gravity vector…so gravity has everything to do with feeling upside down. If gravity pulls to centre, then it’s not gonna matter where you are on the surface of the globe, the force of gravity pulls you and all your fluids towards centre…towards surface, so you will be right side up, so long as your feet are on the ground, orientated to gravity.
If you’re not aware of this, then you need to go back to school.
2
-
@poormanshellcat You’re not quite getting it. At any given time you are in what’s known as a gravity vector. Its direction is always towards centre, that’s where gravity pulls you at all times, but the angle of these vectors changes as you move along the surface. So when you’re on a fair ride, going upside down, you’re upside down relative to that gravity vector you’re currently in. Key word here is relative. If you’re in the US (which I assume you are), a person in Australia is upside down relative to YOU, but relative to his gravity vector, he is rightside up, so long as his feet are on the ground, in line with the force of gravity pulling him towards centre. So upside down is a relative term…in relation to what are you upside down? Thanks to how gravity works here on Earth, you’re always right side up, if you’re orientated to your gravity vector…which isn’t hard, your body aligns with it pretty naturally, like breathing.
This is the same on every planet as well, every planet has gravity that pulls to centre…the planets are actually spherical because of gravity. When you squeeze a snowball together from all angles inward, what shape does it make? A ball, right? Because you built it by pushing in towards the centre. Gravity does the same thing, builds mass up around centre of mass…this forms a sphere around that centre, the most rigid shape in nature. Bubbles form spheres for similar reasons, raindrops as well, every star, planet, moon, all formed spherical because of a force that brought matter together, squeezing it towards a centre. Earth is no exception.
I’m just saying, you’re currently misunderstanding how gravity works, and are reaching a false conclusion because of it. I hope this information can help, but I can only do so much, the rest is up to you and your ability to understand.
2
-
@poormanshellcat To be fair though, everything I’ve said so far is just the conclusion of gravity, it’s an explanation of how it works, but you’re right in saying that it in no way proves it. So go back to the history of the theory if you want to know how that conclusion was reached. Why would scientists conclude this? Because the evidence for a spherical Earth was overwhelming, the moment geographers realized the Earth was spherical, nautical navigation all of sudden got easier, maps became a lot more accurate. Once the latitude and longitude lines were proven to be curving around a sphere, through countless successful navigations, it couldn’t be denied anymore that Earth was spherical. It also explained how a sunset occurs, how different stars are visible in each Hemisphere, how lunar eclipses occur, etc, etc. So it also fit with many other observations and data.
So the geometry couldn’t be denied, the evidence was there, but wait how exactly does it all stay on the surface? That was of course the immediate question that followed. Well, let’s observe a fact of nature, when you drop something, it’s clearly put into a motion towards surface. That’s undeniable, most things fall when they’re dropped. Every motion is caused by a force, you don’t have motion, without a force to cause it, that’s motion physics 101. So something is causing that downward motion of matter, so there is a force present. At that point it’s as easy as 2+2=4, Earth is measured spherical, and there’s clearly a downward force that draws everything to surface, whether you’re in America or Australia, North pole or South pole, you’re pulled to surface. So if both perimeters are true, then it’s only logical that this force pulls to a centre, cause if you draw motion vectors all pointing towards the surface of a sphere, they will all converge at centre.
So that’s where gravity science began, they figured out Earth’s shape first, the rest was just paying attention to a phenomenon we all experience, the motion of falling objects. Your current argument ignores the science of gravity, and completely skips over the history of how they reached the conclusion that Earth is spherical. Of course nothings going to make sense to you, if you start at the end…you have to start at the beginning, that’s where the foundation of the information is.
Once all that was realized…the mysteries of the cosmos started falling like dominoes. It all of sudden made sense why everything we observe in space is spherical, why and how they orbit each other, how they form in the first place, it’s because they all have gravity…all mass does. Next step was proving that, which came in the form of the Cavendish experiment, that proved that mass attracts mass, because all mass has gravity. Get enough of that mass together, you get a planet capable of holding people and everything too it. Get even more mass together, then force of gravity becomes so great that certain atoms (typically hydrogen) actually begin fusing together (nuclear fusion), which creates a lot of energy…you then get a star. So gravity also explains how our Sun works, it’s just a lot of mass collected together, creating so much gravity it causes nuclear fusion. We currently use this knowledge in fusion reactors to recreate the effect…and it works.
If science was just talking bullshit, then nothing would work. You know your science is good, when you can apply it and it works. That’s how you know it’s accurate. Nobody is using a flat Earth model to navigate with…they are however using a globe model, and it gets them where they’re going every time it’s used. That’s how you know it’s accurate. Are Flat Earthers building nuclear fusion reactors? No…they typically don’t have any actual credentials, with no actual experience with an applied science, of any kind. Not a group I’d be quick to follow…
Anyway, that’s a brief history of gravity physics. I can go deeper if you’d like, explain the Cavendish, go through some equations that use gravity as a variable, explain Newtons law of universal gravitation a bit more in depth, I don’t mind, if it’s helpful.
2
-
2
-
2
-
There’s not more evidence for a flat Earth, there’s just more layman tackling the subject currently and they’re all basically starting from scratch, without any formal training in science. Took mankind collectively thousands of years to finally reach a general consensus on Earth’s geometry...now we have people throwing the baby out with the bath water and starting over, because they’ve lost trust in the system, of course they’re going to make the same mistakes, the scientific method took a long time to refine. Though it’s even worse now, because they’re determined to prove the government is hiding something...they want it so badly, they don’t even care if it’s accurate. This mind set blinds them, it’s called bias...and it’s a real problem in researching, that they need to get under control, or they will never find real answers.
If you really think there’s more evidence for a flat Earth...then you’ve clearly forgotten your physics classes, and have likely never taken any higher science education. But the simplest way to know for certain, is the modern world around you...every applied science in the world makes use of the heliocentric model, that’s for a good reason. Nice thing about junk science is, that it reveals itself as nonsense by the simple fact that it does not work...it’s not useful, because it’s not reality. Ask a pilot or sailor sometime what model they use to navigate the planet with...that’s millions of people confirming the Earth’s geometry, every single day. Navigation alone buries FE under a mountain of evidence...just one of many examples.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Colours can vary wildly between different cameras, lenses, film, etc. Plus every photographer I know, typically does colour correcting in post, adjusting hues, contrast and lighting, etc, on every photo they take. So if you expect every photo to be the same colour, then you’re clearly lacking a bit of photography knowledge.
And the Nazi’s knew the Earth was spherical just like everyone in the world did…so it’s pretty paranoid to conclude, or even make the leap in logic required to think making use of the worlds most skilled scientists and engineers=Flat Earth. Here’s a hard truth about the world, if you have a specialized set of knowledge or skills that a government can exploit for their gain, then you have value, and thus you can avoid potential prosecutions. Happens all the time…probably every single day in fact. It’s certainly not right, but it doesn’t mean the Earth is flat.
2
-
@sam-cn9gf Well, I could ask you the same, are you afraid to be wrong? I’m sure it would feel pretty crappy to learn that you fell for an online scam, that successfully conned you to believe bullshit. I’ve seen Frankie around in these comments, and from what I’ve gathered he is an actual sailor, with real first hand knowledge and experience with world navigation. So I very much doubt you know more about it than him. It’s a pretty simple deduction, pilots and sailors require the knowledge of Earth’s shape and scale be accurate, in order to do their jobs at all. We have built all systems of navigation around the knowledge that Earth is spherical, with two equal hemispheres. There’s no getting around that. You want to really learn the true shape of Earth? Learn to navigate…then apply it.
You have questions, but questions are not evidence…just because YOU couldn’t answer those questions, doesn’t mean they can’t be answered.
2
-
@sam-cn9gf For example, you asked why our Earth doesn’t get pulled into the Sun, or why our Moon doesn’t get pulled towards us? It’s actually a great physics question, but it’s easily answered. The answer is because they are also in motion, that’s how an orbit works, their forward velocity keeps them falling around the larger mass. They are being pulled in, but they’re also moving, this keeps them in an orbital trajectory, like coins spiralling around inside a funnel. But unlike the coins that deal with friction and drag, which slows it down, which eventually draws it closer to the centre, celestial bodies in orbit don’t have that problem, because space is a vacuum, meaning no friction and no drag. So they orbit indefinitely. It’s basic orbital mechanics…that’s how we learned how to put satellites in orbit around Earth, by studying the orbits of Moons and Planets.
See, you have questions…but they’re pretty easily answered, if you’d only bother to try. I very much doubt you were a “space nerd”, if you didn’t understand the basic physics of an orbit. 🙄 If you were a real “space nerd”, you wouldn’t even have to ask these kinds of questions, you’d know them already.
I bet we could go through every one of your questions and we could easily answer them. Questions are not evidence, so I hope you didn’t build your conclusion on questions alone.
2
-
2
-
1
-
@tbrown3356 This isn’t difficult man, try getting a 0 degree angle from a right angle triangle, on a flat surface. 😳 The angle will never reach zero and it will not be a consistent 1 degree every equal distance travelled. You measure the angle from a tangent line on the globe, the stars drop consistently…because the surface curves consistently, changing the angle of that tangent line, relative to the star. This isn’t difficult…but you’re sure doing your best impression of a head trauma victim to make your conclusion work….and worst of all, you’re trying so hard to get us to agree, when your conclusion is so incredibly stupid and ignorant of basic geometry.
It’s cute to pretend you’re having any effect on modern science, with these sad little bouts of attention you seek online, but no…everyone in the entire field of navigation uses the globe model…that’s a fact, not an opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@synergy082294 I have researched this topic, pretty thoroughly. As well as physics and general Earth science. Do some research on an equipotential surface sometime. Water doesn’t “seek level”, it “seeks” lowest potential energy state, like everything does. In a field of force like gravity, lowest potential energy is closest to centre of gravity as possible. Since gravity emanates out from a centre, it puts water at equipotential distance from centre, forming all mass around that centre, including water…which forms a sphere, the most rigid shape in nature.
Whether you like it or not, you’re not falsifying the globe with your point there, you’re actually doing more to demonstrate your own lack of understanding in basic physics. Same with your point on uniform circular motion. They’re not really arguments, they’re misunderstandings.
1
-
@synergy082294 Science is all about theory, that’s the chosen word to label the most tested and proven concepts within science, that describes HOW phenomena operate at the mechanical level. Not to be confused with a scientific law, which only describes WHAT is occurring, but makes no attempt to understand HOW it happens. Nothing goes beyond theory in science, that’s the reality. Because you will always have more power and control over a system, if you understand HOW it works, rather than just WHAT it does. So, scientific theory’s are as high as all knowledge within science goes. When you go around saying “theory isn’t science”, you’re just demonstrating your scientific illiteracy, again. Why should anyone take seriously, a group of people arguing against science…if they don’t seem to really know anything about science? It’s really no wonder then why you’re reaching so many false conclusions…you’re misunderstanding even the basic language of science.
They were very wise to use that wording for their top conclusions, and here’s why. Whether you like it or not, we will never know everything there is to know. That’s the reality of our situation. So this means that old information will ALWAYS have the potential to change, as new information is acquired. So, we can never conclude anything with absolute certainty…so science doesn’t, it doesn’t think in absolutes, it instead thinks in percentages of certainty. So a theory is the best word to use for our conclusions, because a theory is not rigid or absolute, a theory has room for expansion, room for errors, it even allows us to discard information if it’s later proven false.
That’s why they use that word. They were very wise to do so. Please at least learn the basics, if you’re going to argue against science…otherwise you just end up demonstrating exactly why you’re reaching such false conclusions…because you don’t really know much of anything about it.
1
-
No, that’s not how science works. We do not reach sweeping conclusions on a single experiment alone. As much as people would prefer it be that simple, it will never and should never be that simple, because reality simply is NOT that simple. To help my point; your proposed experiment ignores (or is not aware of) how light actually behaves in atmospheric conditions over distances, namely refraction (bending) and diffraction (scattering). You’re assuming a laser would remain perfectly rigid and straight over great distances, but that’s not the reality, lasers actually refract and diffract by increasing margins, the further it has to travel through any medium, in this case atmosphere.
So it’s not actually a reliable tool to use here. Any physicist, engineer, or surveyor could tell you that, but you’d never know that without their knowledge and experience, so you’d continue to assume your experiment is without flaws….and you’d reach a false conclusion because of that. The only way we combat such errors, is through REPEATED experimentation, through rigorous peer review, from countless other experts of varying fields, with various scopes of knowledge. That’s how science operates, and that’s it should absolutely operate. No single person can reach a scientific conclusion on their own, so they shouldn’t be allowed too. Peer review is vital too reaching actual scientific conclusions, much more than most layman realize.
It actually took great effort to conclude Earth is spherical, thousands of years in fact, we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater from a single erroneous experiment, that you can be assured of.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sam-cn9gf The Moon does rotate, that’s why the same side is always facing us. In order for that to happen, it has to rotate as it orbits us…it’s called tidal locking. It’s not rare either, pretty close to every other Moon in our solar system is also tidal locked to their planet…that’s what happens when an orbiting body is very close to their host. Though it’s actually an inevitability of all orbiting satellites and even planets. Mercury is also tidal locked to the Sun. In a few billion years, even Earth will eventually be tidal locked…it’s part of how gravity slowly effects a rotation. It’s very common and it’s expected under gravity physics.
Just because you don’t understand something currently, does not make it false, nor does it imply you can’t still learn it. Currently, I understand the physics of the globe model and it fits observable reality perfectly, really doesn’t take much to verify that either. It’s used in the foundation of pretty much every applied science, from navigation, to engineering, communication and infrastructure….and it all works, that’s not just a coincidence, applied science requires knowledge be accurate, or it doesn’t work. You know how to spot junk science? It’s simple…it doesn’t work and it has no use, besides squeezing a few dollars out of the gullible. Flat Earth has no working model and is not used in any applied science. So it’s not a debate anymore. You fell for an online scam, that’s the reality, and you were happy to believe it without much question, because it helps confirm a bias you have, that being the Christian story of things.
I’ve been chatting with Flat Earthers for about 4 years now, I’ve heard the arguments and I’ve reviewed the supposed evidence. In all that time, there hasn’t been a single claim I haven’t been able to falsify…and with very little effort. Just a basic understanding of physics and geometry and a few simple observations, is all a person needs to debunk Flat Earth. So I’m sorry, but I’m not going to just ignore what I know and have verified for myself, simply because others can’t seem to understand. I don’t mind entertaining other perspectives and conclusions still, I think it’s perfectly fine to ask questions and I try my best not to patronize or be condescending, but it’s pretty simple for me, Flat Earth lacks evidence and a working model that can actually be used in applied science, so it’s pseudoscience.
I don’t care how badly someone wants it to be true, no matter how much it confirms their biased beliefs, no matter how many questions they have. Questions and speculations are not evidence, Flat Earth has no working model, not a single field of applied science uses FE. The globe on the other hand, has actual evidence, has a working model and is used in every field of applied science. That’s the reality.
You know tons of Christians have no problem with marrying their faith and beliefs with our modern knowledge. The Earth being spherical in vast cosmos doesn’t falsify the existence of a God or creation. Most scientists throughout history, and even still today, are actually theists, not atheists. They just prefer to remain objective when it comes to science, because they understood how useless false information is for human advancement.
1
-
@sam-cn9gf You sure say a lot, without saying much at all. You keep saying things in science are a lie, but you really haven’t done anything to prove that claim, just made a lot of empty conjectures, claiming over and over again that they just are. I don’t mind being wrong, but flat Earth has yet to provide anything that actually demonstrates where I and modern science has gone wrong. Evidence is what you’d require for that end, questions are not evidence, neither are speculations and empty claims.
We can speculate all day on why Von Braun put that passage on his tombstone, but speculations are not truth. I would say it’s because he was an astro physicist, which had to do with studying the sky and space above us, the firmament translates to mean “the sky”, so it was a poetic passage that reflected his life’s work, nothing more. You would probably say that he was hinting at the existence of a dome firmament above our heads, a clue left behind to be deciphered. But understand this, both of those are just speculations at the end of the day, and I for one do not reach conclusions on empty speculations alone. I require real evidence…not speculations.
So far you’ve just given me a bunch of questions (good questions, but still only questions), which I’ve answered, and empty speculations/claims….that’s the problem. You seem to think that’s all been good enough. Some people really don’t seem to understand what constitutes as actual evidence anymore and that’s a real problem. I don’t mind being wrong, but you have done nothing so far to prove that I am. But feel free to give me something better, I don’t mind analyzing actual evidence, but so far you haven’t given me any.
1
-
1
-
Globe Hoax is just a troll, he doesn’t care what you or anyone has to say, he’s firmly dug into the bullshit, so pretty pointless to even acknowledge him. Just another Flat Earth zombie, helping the huxters seed misinformation.
But yes, it’s extremely delusional to think such an extremely important knowledge like Earth’s geometry, would just slip by billions of people without noticing. Not a single whistle blower in the scientific community…after hundreds of years since the scientific method was established? Millions of successful voyages a year, by plane and ship, all using the same system of navigation designed from the knowledge that Earth is spherical…you’d have to be an extremely paranoid individual, with zero life experience, spending every day in front of a computer screen, with zero understanding of basic geometry, to think these people could do what they do, if the surface geometry they’ve been using this whole time was wrong.
We’re not dealing with rational people in Flat Earth…many of these people belong in padded rooms.
1