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