Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Dr. Todd Grande"
channel.
-
I’ve talked to hundreds of Flat Earthers now, over a 4 year period. I’ve shared probably hundreds of different experiments and observations that all help to verify a spherical Earth surface, or that help explain the physics and mathematics of the model…and despite my best efforts, it still has not changed anyone’s mind so far. I still like to be optimistic and so I’d really like to agree with you, but my experience so far says otherwise. I don’t feel they’re very interested in seeing evidence, they’re more interested in being right. I feel most conspiracy movements are too invested to turn back, they’d much rather have their biases confirmed. I do my best to be as civil and respectful as I can be, but people really don’t like being corrected…it’s pretty standard human psychology.
I think we all tend to react negatively to counter information to some degree, some more than others, preferring to double down on our positions to save face, rather than consider the possibility of being in error. The sharing of information is often interpreted as either an attack on their intelligence, or a challenge to be overcome, it’s very rare I find a good rational conversation, where the information I share is considered.
So I don’t feel it’s as simple as you’re saying it is. Doesn’t seem to matter what I share or how respectful I am, I think they’d still prefer to ignore me in favour of confirmation bias.
That all said, I do still enjoy the conversation regardless of my lack of success. Regardless of whether I change any minds directly, I do still feel strongly that it’s important to provide counter evidence and information, if at the very least just so potential misinformation doesn’t fly by the radar unchecked and unchallenged. For a group that asks that we question everything, I find they do seem to think that doesn’t include them, so I make an effort to remind them they’re not free from peer review, not in the slightest. I admire their stubborn tenacity and willingness to question things most of us have moved on from, I just feel they could do better in remembering to turn that skeptical lens around on themselves sometime.
Anyway, is there anything in particular you’d like some good evidence for? I don’t mind sharing if you’re actually interested and open enough to actually take a look. So feel free to ask.
1
-
1
-
@Rachie-nj3oi I don’t mean to pester or pry, but going over a few of your videos now, and reading the comments there, you’ve peaked my interest a little more. I see you’re actually quite well acquainted with general relativity physics and physics in general. Even deriving a few of your own equations for an alternative theory of gravity, with the relative density disequilibrium theory, which is a step above most Flat Earthers I encounter (assuming you count yourself as one), so that’s quite refreshing. Sadly, I do encounter so many, not just exclusively FE, that strongly believe mathematics and equations are just a fake system, created by scientists to fool the rest of us peons. So I just wanted to say, it’s refreshing to see that it’s not a shared opinion with everyone within FE. Mathematics are very crucial to the development of the modern world we all inhabit, I feel that’s undeniable considering all that we’ve achieved today with that tool in our belt, so I’m glad to see you would likely agree on that.
I hope I didn’t patronize you with my response, focusing on the basic surface geometry, I just wasn’t well aware on your background at the time. Though I will say, this is a discussion of Earth’s geometry at the end of the day, so rushing ahead to the higher physics has always kind of puzzled me with many of Flat Earth. The way I look at it, is that you can’t build a house without a foundation, so you can’t really expect to build an accurate mathematical model of reality, without a foundational geometry for the model, either. I know you lean to the flat model, so you do have your chosen foundation, but I just feel it is very shaky, not well established, could use a lot more attention. Your videos really do not seem to spend much time on the physical geometry of the model, seems you tend to focus on the higher physics, without really giving much thought to the basic geometry. So I do get the impression you’re rushing ahead a bit, or perhaps you just see it as trivial? Just curious is all.
I just see a lot more effort and thought going into your breakdowns of physics, which I found quite interesting and thought provoking, but you do have a few videos discussing the geometry, which are generally quite short and not nearly as thorough. It’s fine really, if physics is more your avenue of interest, by all means stick to what interests you more. Geometry is more my area of interest and expertise, and I do feel you may be overlooking the geometry, not giving it as much thought. As you know, that’s where science started, they didn’t start with gravity physics (or much of any physics at all), gravity was pondered and worked out long after the geometry had been settled. I’m mostly referring to one video in particular where you discuss the two celestial poles. In it you explain how you feel the opposite rotations work on FE, by describing a model of the sky where both poles rest at 0 degrees to horizon for the entire Flat Earth, and overlooked the fact that in reality both poles only rest at 0 degrees at the Equator, not everywhere at once. There’s more to that point, there’s many more variables overlooked concerning your breakdown of the celestial poles, but my main point here is that I do feel the foundational geometry of your model is quite shaky. I worry you’re a bit too focused on one aspect (the gravity physics) and not very focused on the foundation for your theory (the surface geometry). I feel you’ve just taken Earth being flat as a given, and now focus on just the physics. I find that odd, considering Flat Earth is a discussion of surface geometry at its core…so wouldn’t it be better to start there first?
Gravity physics was helped along, simply by the fact that Earth’s geometry couldn’t be denied any longer, too much mounting evidence all pointed to that conclusion. But then it became pretty apparent that something must be drawing us to that surface, otherwise how do we stay upon a curving surface? So gravity was realized after the fact, expanded from the foundation of the geometry. That’s also what you’re doing for your model, but I just feel you may have skipped ahead, skipping over the part where you verify the geometry for certain first.
It’s no secret that something is missing within our understanding of gravity physics, so I for one am all for people challenging established models, and exploring alternatives. Who knows what we may stumble upon by thinking outside the box, that’s how Einstein did it, by going against the grain. So if physics is more your interest, by all means, I just wanted to remind you that science builds upon itself. You should make sure your foundation is sturdy, before you move onto the finer details. As an artist for a living, I can tell you this is a fundamental error some first time artists make, skipping over the base sketch and rushing to the finer details, before the base is anatomically accurate. They end up wasting a lot more time, wondering why the image isn’t working or looking right, without realizing it’s because their base foundation was sloppy and rushed. Had they put more focus there first, and not rushed ahead, they’d have saved themselves a lot of headache. I feel science isn’t much different. I can only judge by the videos you’ve made, I don’t really know your full background or knowledge, but that’s the impression I got.
On a side note, I also see what you mean now by all the ridicule, yikes! You sure do seem to attract a lot of vile opponents. A lot of the same people really, bit sad that they would devote so much time and effort to piling up on you. Don’t worry, I won’t become one of them, I just found your presentations interesting, wanted to let you know I found them intriguing. I love to learn and general relativity I admit is a part of current physics that perplexes and puzzles me still, so it is interesting to see it challenged and questioned.
Anyway, I’ll leave it at that for now. I hope this is seen as more of a positive criticism, than a negative. I generally prefer offering neutral information rather than critiquing, just found your information interesting. Stay curious and stay safe out there. Have a good rest of your day.
1