Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Thoughty2"
channel.
-
6
-
There’s plenty of examples of objects in the distance reaching a point where no amount of zoom brings the haul back into focus. The vanishing point is a real thing that occurs, but we’re not talking about the vanishing point…eventually, things begin to sink into horizon, and it won’t matter how powerful your telescope is, you won’t be able to bring it back. So perspective doesn’t answer for this observation. And it’s not just that objects become obscured, they are also dropping. In art fundamentals, you learn this about perspective; vanishing point converges AT EYE LEVEL, meaning anything above your eye level can’t go below it, and anything below it can’t go above it, from perspective alone. Yet we observe ships hauls clearly dropping below eye level…perspective can’t do that, you have to ignore that fundamental rule of perspective, if that’s the answer you’re going to go with. 😳 A curvature however, does answer for that observation…so we have really no reason to conclude that’s not what’s happening.
You must have a very low opinion of science, if you honestly believe they never once thought to use a telescopic lens at the beach. Or if you think they never once thought to consider perspective as a cause for this observation. Flat Earthers think they’re on the precipice of something new….dude, you’re about 500 years behind. None of this is new…it’s just new to you. I’m all for people finally taking an interest in science…but please catch up.
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
No, the globe has been the widely accepted model for at least 500 years now, even the church agreed to this and it’s well documented in many old scientific and historical texts, that this was true. Just read any old works from famous astronomers like Kepler, Copernicus, or Galileo, or any of their peers, many of them worked directly for the church. It’s geocentrism, the idea that the Earth was centre of the universe and everything revolved around it, that took awhile to be resolved.
However, just because Europe wasn’t on board with it right away, doesn’t mean the rest of the world wasn’t. The Greeks and Mesopotamians both have records indicating they had solved it thousands of years prior, as did the Hindu, who believed it to be an egg shape for thousands of years.
It’s a common misconception, that the globe was a recent development.
4
-
Water doesn’t seek level, it seeks lowest potential energy...just like all matter does. Lowest potential energy is always towards centre of gravity, so water flows toward that centre and amasses around it...just like all matter does. Because of water’s liquid chemical bonding, it also has surface tension, which forces it into the most balanced state possible under all forces acting upon it. This causes it to form an equipotential surface, within the field of force that is gravity. That’s what is meant by the term sea level, level in this context is implying that all points of the surface of the ocean is at equal distance from centre, that’s what an equipotential surface is, a surface that’s level, all points at equal distance from a centre. This forms a sphere. A bubble is an example of an equipotential surface...that’s what happens when water is squeezed towards a centre by a field of force squeezing it equally from all sides.
Water can rest perfectly fine with gravity that pulls to centre. If all parts are at equipotential, then they won’t flow. Water flows from high elevation to low elevation. Elevation on a sphere is measured from centre. Best way to understand this, stick a bunch of 2 inch pins into a ball, each one about 1 inch deep. The elevation of each pin, is now 1 inch from surface...all at the same elevation, even though they’re not tangent to each other, doesn’t matter, their elevation is the same, cause at the same distance from centre. That’s how elevation works on a sphere. Higher elevation is away from centre, lower elevation is towards centre.
Water will only flow, if it comes from a point at higher elevation, than the rest of the water. But a pool, pond, lake, or ocean, is at equipotential, every point at equal distance from centre. So water won’t flow in these examples. A river however, starts at higher elevations, and flows to lower elevations. Where’s it’s really flowing though, is towards centre of gravity...because that’s where lowest potential energy state is.
So your argument is flawed, because you’re just grossly misunderstanding gravity physics. If you’re going to argue against a scientific model, then you better make sure you understand the model first...otherwise you risk reaching a false conclusion, from your own misunderstandings.
I hope this information is helpful. Learn the model you’re arguing against please.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yes, that’s why we time our clocks to a solar day, not a sidereal day. A sidereal day is how long the Earth takes to complete a full 360 degree rotation, takes roughly 23 hours 56 minutes by the current measure of a second. A solar day is a full rotation, plus a little extra rotation so that Earth is back in line with the Sun at noon, that’s what we time our second too, so it makes for a perfect 24 hour day. Doing this ensures noon lines up every day, compensating for the extra rotation required to line up with the Sun.
Leap years are more a problem with aligning the solar day clock, with Earths orbit, which is not a perfect 365 days, it’s off by a quarter day, which is why they remove a day every 4 years...but even that’s not perfect. See something has to give, because Earths rotation and its orbit are not in perfect sync, so the years were chosen, cause it’s far more simple and efficient.
That’s the Julian calendar, but Even that’s not perfect, still requires another day be removed every so often, which is a bit more calculation to keep track of, but it’s the tiny change the Gregorian calendar made to the Julian. Gregorian is what we use currently...and even that’s not entirely perfect. Turns out making calendars is pretty tricky, when rotations don’t line up with orbits perfectly...it’s made even worse in that Earths rotation is also slowing down very very gradually.
Anyway, let me know if that information is helpful.
4
-
4
-
Don’t forget the South rotation, which revolves in the opposite direction, around its own pole star, Sigma Octantis. How does that work exactly on a Flat Earth geometry? Parallax effect more than explains why the stars don’t appear to change (but they do actually, any actual astronomer will tell you that), but how exactly does a flat Earth geometry account for the existence of two hemispheres?
Real science is about falsification, sure...but that goes both ways. The same standards of review and analysis apply to you and the rest dabbling in FE. You have good questions, but they’re easily answered, if you’d just take the time.
Also, learn the difference between a scientific theory and a regular theory please. They’re the not the same thing...scientific theories are basically a collective knowledge of verifiable facts. If you’re going to join the conversation of science...at least learn the basics please, so we’re at least speaking the same language. Here’s a video that can help. https://youtu.be/h0H-amOti_o
4
-
4
-
Ok, here’s some answers to your questions.
Gravity pulls everything to surface, even projectiles fired at incredible velocities, nothing is free from gravity’s influence. From the moment a projectile is fired, gravity is already affecting its trajectory, this causes all projectiles to fire in parabolic arcs. Can’t shoot a straight line through a hill of land…but you sure can shoot over it, then let gravity drop it down to your target…so that’s exactly what artillery gunners have done for centuries now…even rail guns.
Here’s the equation every long range gunner or artillery man uses for parabolic drop charting; sin(2θ)v2/g. Notice the little ‘g’ in the equation? That’s the downward acceleration of gravity, 9.8m/s^2. Snipers also have to account for projectile drop due to force of gravity, if they don’t account for this, then they will miss their target. Get it yet? Gravity helps them fire projectiles at great distances, just aim the projectile slightly up, then let gravity do the rest…it’s pretty simple.
How does a plane land on a spinning surface? Thanks to Relative motion and conservation of momentum…basic physics of motion. Any object moving WITH a system of motion, will maintain and conserve that momentum at all time’s, we call this moving relative to an inertial reference frame of motion…relative motion for short. You have experience with this, we all do. Next time you’re in a moving vehicle, toss something straight up into the air…then watch as it goes straight up, then straight back down into your hand. But wait a second, if you’re moving…how exactly did that object keep pace with the vehicles forward velocity, if all you did was toss it straight up? Conservation of momentum, that’s how, it’s the third law of motion. Anything moving with a system of motion, conserves that motion indefinitely. The same physics applies to a plane, it’s moving relative to Earth’s motions, so it conserves those motions…making landing pretty easy.
It’s just basic physics. I suggest you learn more about the laws of motion and relative motion.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
All good questions, so I don’t mind sharing some information that might help answer them.
The Van Allen radiation belt is really not all that harmful to life, especially with proper shielding, which is achieved pretty easily with simple materials. It presents an increased risk to certain cancers over time, but it’s certainly not as harmful as you’re assuming it to be, it’s not going to kill anyone immediately or even guarantee cancer development later in life. So a crew can pass through this field just fine, it just increases risk a bit, but luckily they don’t have to spend much exposure time here, they can pass through it pretty quickly. The larger problem we face today though, is the harm it does to our more sensitive computing systems today, microchips, magnetic strip data storage, that kind of stuff. See this wasn’t a problem during the Apollo missions, because the systems were all analog, which weren’t damaged by strong electromagnetic fields. So this presented an engineering challenge, because they’re gonna want more advanced systems so they can achieve more on their missions, but they kind of need everything to work without failing, so new computer innovations needed to be developed. Which fun fact is largely why we have better solid state technology today, which currently makes up your phones hard drives.
They didn’t lose all their data, they lost the telemetry data for a few Apollo missions, that’s about it. Telemetry data is really only useful in the moments during a mission, it helps the ground crew keep the astronauts on course, if they veer off for any reason during maneuvering. It’s really not all that useful after the fact, so it didn’t have very high importance for preservation, once those data reels began to deteriorate. It had some uses for learning more about orbital mechanics and improving future missions launch trajectories, but they’ve got so much data now from probes and satellites, it’s really not very useful to keep those old telemetry data reels, so it was likely a budget cut or two that led to those getting scrapped. NASA is a corporation at the end of the day, if their pencil pushers don’t see any need for spending money where it doesn’t need to be spent, then they won’t, so many things get scrapped like that, it’s pretty normal in any big company.
They can go beyond low Earth orbit any time they want and they are, just look up the Artemis program. The confusion here comes from an old documentary on a lunar module they were designing not to long ago, that at the time couldn’t go beyond low Earth orbit. That was because of the engineering hurdles I mentioned above, the microchips and data disks they wanted to put on the systems, were easily damaged in the electromagnetic fields found beyond low Earth orbit. So, what happened was, people took those words out of context and blew it out of proportion, confusing it as somehow meaning NASA has never been past low Earth orbit...so it’s a classic misinterpretation of what was really said. Get that idea rolling around enough conspiracy networks, all of a sudden it’s remembered as “NASA said it can’t go past low Earth orbit”, see how that works? It’s like a rumour mill, grossly misrepresenting the actual facts, by repeating a misunderstanding enough times, until it becomes truth to many people.
Anyway, let me know if that information helps answer some questions. If there’s anything else you’d like to know, feel free to ask, I might be able to provide more insight.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Flat Earth didn’t create that map, it is a globe projection map, a globe flattened from a reference point, in this case from North pole. Flat Earth just hijacked it and called it theirs, cause they don’t have a working model of their own. The UN uses that projection cause it has the most balanced composition and it doesn’t favour any one nation, it’s centred on a neutral point, the Arctic circle, so it was likely a design choice. The UN represents every nation on Earth...little hard to represent every nation of a 3D globe, on a flat 2D flag, so a map projection has to be used, if you’re going to represent every nation, which is what they wanted.
Flat Earth likely took that map for the same reason the UN did, because out of all the Globe projection maps, that one is the most pleasing to the eye, it has the best balance...humans are naturally drawn to balance and pleasing composition, even when they’re not aware of these things. As an illustrator for a living, I’ve done lots of logo design, that map has the best composition, so if I was to design their flag, I’d probably use the AE projection as well, it’s a no brainer.
Here’s a simple video that helps visualize how they create projection maps https://youtu.be/9Wq3GiJT2wQ.
3
-
3
-
3
-
At least the rising Earth hypothesis makes an attempt at accounting for the accelerating motion observed and measured from falling objects...the density argument makes no attempt at all to explain anything, just asserts it’s correct and calls it a day. Do you really think that’s how science should be conducted? I don’t think you quite understand just how useful the current understanding of gravity has been and is for much of modern society. And it’s very ignorant to claim it’s “never been proven”, it’s one of the most rigorously tested concepts in all of physics, and it proves itself accurate every time we use the constant of gravity in equations to make predictions in the real world, everything from orbital mechanics, to rocket science, to flight aeronautics, or even buoyancy equations used in the engineering and mechanics of submarines. You’d have to ignore a LOT of modern engineering and exploration, to conclude gravity has never been proven.
The big problem with the density argument is this, it does nothing to explain how or why matter falls at all, or why it’s always in the same vector direction, always at the same rate of acceleration? It’s best answer is “it just does”, and I’m sorry...but science can’t really do much with “it just does”. So basically, the density argument stops short, it just takes gravity theory and chops out the bits it doesn’t like...which is just extremely bias and ridiculous, it’s lazy science and it’s ignorant.
What it’s ignoring is that falling is a motion, when something is dropped, it is then put into an accelerating motion, that is free from any other influence. Which makes it a physical phenomenon of nature...which is what science is for, figuring out how physical reality works. It’s the motion that matters here, what is putting matter into motion? The first law of motion states, that nothing is put into motion without a force first acting upon it. So it’s pretty simple, forces are required to put matter into motion, dropped matter is put into an accelerating motion, so doesn’t take much to deduce that a force of some kind is present that is causing this.
Density is not a force, it just a property of matter, it has no means for putting matter into motion, and certainly not in any specific direction. So the density argument doesn’t answer anything, it just stops short. But understand that gravity wasn’t the top contender right away, it took awhile to reach that conclusion for certain. There were many other hypothesized answers before gravity was ever considered, like electromagnetism, static attractions, air pressure, etc, but the only one that held up was gravity under the idea that mass attracts other mass, through a yet to be determined mechanism (we understand it to be the bending of space time today). The experiment that first verified mass attracting mass was the Cavendish experiment, which has been recreated many times over the last couple centuries. Here’s a really great demonstration of the experiment https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68.
So it’s not as simple as you seem to think it is and it’s a bit ignorant to claim that gravity “has never been proven”. I think the confusion here stems from the language that’s used, you probably think that because gravity is a theory, it must mean it’s never been proven. To which I think you could really benefit from learning the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory https://youtu.be/h0H-amOti_o, they’re not the same thing. Scientific theory’s are basically proven concepts, nothing graduates to a theory of science, until it’s been rigorously tested and is the only model left standing after the process of falsification concludes.
3
-
They do not use the word theory in the same way layman do. In science, hypothesis takes the place of theory in the regular use of the word, and theory becomes a collective knowledge of verifiable facts and understandings of reality. Nothing graduates past hypothesis until it has been verified in experimentation and then rigorously peer reviewed, only then does something move on to become either a Law of science or a scientific theory.
People also wrongly assume a law of science is more important or more factual than theories of science, but that’s simply not true either. Laws only describe WHAT is happening, they do not attempt to explain HOW or WHY a phenomenon of nature behaves the way it does, that’s what theories are for. For example, there is the Law of universal gravitation, describing what occurs with gravity....but it’s the theory of gravity, that delves into HOW it works. Since being able to explain how something operates has the most use in applied science, a theory of science actually holds a higher standing, and thus has more importance.
So, nothing really goes beyond theory in science. It is the highest position any concept of science can achieve. They are basically certainties, having the most evidence supporting them.
They chose to call these conclusions theories for a good reason though...because we do not know everything and we likely never will. There’s just too much to learn, to many unknown variables, that can effect outcomes. So for this reason, old information always has the potential to change, as new information is acquired, that’s just the reality of our situation, there’s really no way around that. So they called them theory, because we do not know everything, sometimes we learn new things that completely change the outcomes of some prior knowledge. So calling them theories, gives them room to change, as new information and data is acquired. The theory of gravity again fir example, has changed many times over the centuries.
Many layman see these as errors that should mean we can’t trust them...but that’s ignorant to the reality of science. It’s a long, never ending process of refinement. Science is about refining information, that takes time to do. Scientists are actually pretty happy when they’re wrong about something, it means they have a chance to find something new...and that’s where careers in science are made. You think Einstein is famous today for toeing the line? Hardly...he challenged the work of Newton, and pretty much rewrote the science of gravity. That’s why he’s famous.
As for the letters that represent numbers they can’t prove, go ahead and show me one equation, that is used in applied science today, that makes use of a variable that’s not known or measured. These equations only work, because these variables are accurate. If they weren’t...then they would not work, when applied, it’s really that simple.
So it’s fine to have an opinion, just know that it’s an ignorant opinion.
3
-
3
-
It’s not exact, it fluctuates a lot actually and it can even have the opposite effect, bending light upwards…it’s just something that can’t be ignored, because it is a real thing that occurs in our atmosphere, it’s more than confirmed at this point. Here’s a pretty clear demonstration https://youtu.be/IRywj88MsjA, pay attention to how much the horizon rises up, as refraction increases throughout the day.
Science has to remain objective, that means factoring every known variable. Refraction is a very well understood phenomenon in physics, verified and rigorously tested and observed. It would only seem convenient to a Flat Earther pissed off that it’s something they overlooked in their research…meanwhile it’s common knowledge among scientists, and they’re just being objective…cause that’s how you conduct good science practices. Ignoring variables because they’re inconvenient for a bias you’re trying to confirm…that’s bad science, it’s confirmation bias.
3
-
3
-
3
-
No, ONE GUY who worked on the blue marble composite of 2002, told an interviewer how THAT particular image was made. Then conspiracy nuts took his words and blew them out of proportion, spinning a lie that all of NASA admitted they don’t have real images of Earth. That’s not the complete truth of things, that’s cherry picking and taking things out of context to confirm a bias, so pay attention.
SOME of the images of Earth are created by composite, stitching thousands of images together to create one single complete image. They are still real images, but you require a photo editing software to merge them together to create a single image. This a small drop in the bucket to the sort of photos NASA releases though, the original blue marble photo from 1972, was taken during Apollo 17, at roughly 18,000 miles away, using a regular old camera, capturing the Earth in a single shot.
Here’s an archive where you can find hundreds more like that photo https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums from various other Apollo missions.
Aside from those photos, there has been many geostationary satellites put into orbit (that’s satellites at roughly 25,000 miles altitude and further, that are in sync with Earths rotation), that take round the clock photos of the Earth. Most famous one currently being the DSCOVRY satellite, but there are many others, like Himawari 8 or the GOES satellites to name a few. Here’s a group of hobbyists, who build their own radio telescopes out of spare parts and cheap supplies, who then use these radio receivers to pull data from these geostationary weather satellites https://youtu.be/jGWFg7EDnyY.
Flat Earth likes to ignore the details and spin lies from cherry picked information they take out of context...that should be your first sign, that these people don’t really give a fuck about what’s true.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well, you could only apply it for about 100 miles or so, before it became pretty much useless. Because that’s a parabola equation, not a spherical equation, so it’s eventually going to stop curving and just drop straight down. But aside from it being the wrong math, your reasoning is flawed either way, because it misunderstands how elevation is measured on a sphere. It’s ignorant to how geodetic surveyors interpret elevation.
As I’m sure you’re aware, elevations are measured from sea level. Our ocean is an equipotential surface, meaning a surface at equal distance from a centre…that’s how level is used in that context. A spherical surface is level, in that every point of its surface is equal distance from centre, a bubble for example, is another example of an equipotential surface. So if the ocean is at equipotential, then if we’re measuring land elevation from that reference, then we’re really measuring land elevation from centre of Earth.
So a good way to understand it better, imagine a perfect spherical ball in your hand, now stick a bunch of 2 inch pins all along the surface of that ball, exactly 1 inch deep for each pin. Now what is the elevation of each pin from surface of the ball (sea level), to the top of the pins (land elevation)? Exactly 1 inch elevation. Even though every pin is dropping away from each other, relative to each other, the elevation from surface for each, is still 1 inch from surface, for every single pin. Land elevation works the same way. If an area of land has the same elevation for several miles, it doesn’t mean it’s “flat” in a geometric sense, it just means it’s all equal distance from centre.
That’s how elevation works on a sphere…and that’s how topography data is recorded and interpreted.
3
-
3
-
Oh boy 🤦♂️...you should really take your own advice. Here’s the facts FE intentionally ignores. There are several Blue Marble images, the very first was taken in 1972, during the Apollo 17 mission, and was taken on a regular camera, in one shot, on film. This was long before both digital rendering software and satellites were even produced, to make a composite possible. Hundreds of photos were taken of Earth during the various Apollo missions, you can find them all very easily, with just a short google search...they’re very well archived. I remember many of those photos from back before digital rendering software or the internet, so no...they’re not all “CGI”, that’s an ignorant claim, made by people who have no idea what they’re talking about.
The NASA employee who worked on the 2002 Blue Marble composite, wasn’t making a statement that EVERY photo of Earth is composite...he was just explaining THAT ONE PHOTO and how IT was made. Composites are just one of many ways NASA photographs the Earth, composites require a photo editing software like photoshop, because they’re made by stitching together thousands of real smaller photos...can’t do that without software. But they’re still real photos, your phones panoramic feature does that too, stitching together several small photos, to create a larger image.
So the basic fact is, that FE took ONE guys words out of context, then made a false claim that he was talking about EVERY photo NASA has ever taken...a claim which is simply not true and is super easy to falsify, with just a tiny bit more research beyond what FE provides for you.
It’s a classic example of cherry picking, to confirm bias...and it’s really easy to see that. Why anyone would blindly trust a group after that, without question, is beyond me.
3
-
Because the surface of the sea is all equal distance from centre of gravity, at the same LEVEL from centre, so it’s the perfect baseline to measure elevation from. Elevation is technically measured from centre, but since the sea is all equal distance from that centre, it creates an easier surface to work from. Now figuring out the elevation of surface features on Mars…that’d be a real bitch, because where would you start from? Where’s zero elevation start from on Mars? On Earth, we start at sea level, that’s where we’ve put zero elevation, and it’s because the sea is all at the same level from centre. That’s known as an equipotential surface.
The Earth is only about 4x’s larger than the Moon, so it’s like comparing a dime to a silver dollar. It’s the exact same distance in either direction, and the Earth really isn’t much larger…so why would you assume it would fill the sky? I think people been watching too many sci-fi movies that depict things wrong, they’ve never really thought about it much beyond that.
I’ve looked over the modules engineering specs and I understand the physics involved, and yes, they were more than capable. Space is difficult to travel, sure, but it’s actually harder to travel to the depths of our oceans, than it is space. The tricky part is getting into space, but once that’s done, it’s actually simpler than you’d think, cause we do gain a few advantages once we’re out of Earths atmosphere. No drag force in space, so motion can remain constant with very little energy required, and velocity can be increased almost indefinitely, so travel time can be reduced with little energy. Earth’s gravity well can be used almost like a slingshot to increase velocity without wasting energy, and the Moons gravity well can be used like a catchers mit or funnel to reduce it without spending energy. Much easier to escape the Moons surface because of weaker gravity and zero atmosphere. Moon is actually pretty close still (compared to everything else in our solar system), so don’t require a whole lot of supplies or energy.
It’s difficult to engineer and plan such a trip down to every detail required, I’m certainly not trying to undermine its difficulties, but with even just a basic knowledge of physics, and you can understand that’s it’s very much within the realm of plausible. It’s true we can only really speculate, unless we were directly involved, but the physics and engineering does check out.
3
-
3
-
3
-
So you think it’s NASA who solved Earths geometry? 🧐 If so, then I think you could use a science history lesson my dude.
But of course you’ll always get a seemingly better case, from a group forged from confirmation bias, they’re more invested…the rest of us could give a fuck. Seriously, the fact they even call themselves “flat Earthers”, is your first red flag they might have a bit of a biased opinion on things. Do you see scientists calling themselves “globe Earthers”? No, they’re just scientists, cause they couldn’t give a fuck what shape the Earth is, they just reach conclusions from all the evidence they have, rather than seek the evidence that support the conclusions they want.
Just cause the bullshit is consistent, doesn’t change the fact that it’s still bullshit.
3
-
@tubamirum007 So we’re just gonna ignore the fact that you lied about what year the Van Allen Belt was discovered? Alright then...but it does point out the kind of person I’m dealing with, so it’s noted. Here’s the problem as I see it, you’re not really forming conclusions around solid evidence, you’re finding a million and one things you can speculate on, that all add for you to confirm your bias, twisting a few details here and there to make things appear fishier, all under the guise of “just asking questions”. But when you really analyze everything you’re claiming, you find there’s logical answers for all of it and you’re just building a case on pure speculation and paranoia. It’s all flimsy bullshit, it’s gish gallop, nothing more. That’s the truth of your arguments. I won’t leave you hanging though, you’re here to argue, so I’ll take some time to provide some of those logical answers.
Telemetry data isn’t very useful...when you already know how to get to the Moon. It’s right there, it’s not going anywhere, we know where it is and how to get back, so why would we need to keep telemetry data? In the grand scheme of things, we don’t, it would have some historical value to the nerds and scientists who care, but that’s about it. The data was stored on reels of old magnetic strip tapes, that eventually erode over time, requiring that they be transferred onto new tape or other data storage systems...which costs money and time. So, the higher ups likely made a call to not waste money on something that didn’t really have very high importance on the scale of things. Only the scientists would really cars about that data...but they don’t run NASA, your typical money crunchers and pencil pushers do. That data isn’t as important as the modules, the space suites, the physical gear they can hang up in a museum...telemetry data though, where’s the marketable value in that? Waste of costs, waste of time, waste of storage, it’s going to eventually get the cut.
The UN flag was likely a design choice. As an illustrator for a living, I’ve done lots of logo design, the AE map has a nice pleasing composition, it forms a balanced triad composition, which is pretty common in logo design. It’s likely for the same reason flat Earth chose it as their map, it’s pleasing to the eye...humans are like that naturally, we’re drawn to balance and symmetry. Also, it fits well with what the UN stands for, which is to represent every nation. You can’t display the entirety of a 3D globe, on a flat 2D surface, so a projection map of the Globe must be used, if you’re going to represent every nation on a flag. It works even better, having that flag not favour any particular nation, having it centred in a neutral zone, like the Arctic circle. So it just ticks every box design wise, if I was tasked to design that flag and asked to include a map, that’s likely the projection map I’d use as well.
See I can go through every claim you make, and provide a logical answer...but in the end it’s just pointless, cause all we’re both doing is speculating. I don’t really know what went down and neither do you...so all we’re doing is speculating endlessly, it’s fucking pointless. Do you like chasing endless speculations? I sure don’t. Evidence is what I care about...not gish gallop.
This is how con men think...stirring doubt, and feeding your fears. It’s brainwashing 101, robbing you of your ability to spot the difference between speculation and evidence.
You don’t need NASA to verify the shape of the planet, you can do it for yourself, with some very simple first hand observations and some common sense. Focus more on the ground beneath your feet, you can test its geometry whenever you like, free from anything NASA or government.
3
-
Well, considering this geo corona of hydrogen gas, that has been discovered to extend past the Moon, is like 10 molecules within every mile, it’s still basically empty space. Technically, space officially starts at the Karman line, which is 100 miles elevation, far more molecules of gas are found at this elevation, but it’s still basically a vacuum for all intents and purposes, so it’s space. Though technically...everything is in space, so you could say we’re in space right now even. 😋
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@flyonthewall7026 1) A spirit level uses buoyancy in a simple 2 part density column, which is an effect directly caused by gravity, so the bubble is always leveling to centre of gravity, which always points to centre of mass. So it’s not going to prove shit, because the bubble will shift as you move, to remain perpendicular to centre of gravity. We can use these “leveling” tools to flatten off small areas, because a few hundred/thousand square feet isn’t going to have much degrees of change from end to end. Takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree of difference on Earth...how much you think there will be in a building site that covers nowhere near that distance?
2) What about em? You know they put them up on cliffs for a reason right? So they’ll be seen from much further out. You know they have crows nests on ships for a reason right? So they can see much further and spot things from further away. You realize that focused light rays propagates through the air and is super visible at night right? Meaning you don’t have to see the source of light, just the beam, which they’ll see for miles and miles before the light house itself.
3) Water bends pretty easily actually, especially when held at equipotential within a field of force...like gravity. Here’s a geodetic measurement taken of a long causeway bridge https://youtu.be/EIOs-PzNIZU?t=317. These are physical surveyors measurements, of that causeway. It’s clearly curving...which means the water is “bending” with the curvature.
4) No it does not, you just never bothered to actually measure it. Here are two examples of people who did think to measure it, using two different methods.
https://youtu.be/RUr9ymz_nVI - measuring horizon drop from various altitudes using a simple leveling rig.
https://youtu.be/WVTgP-KpyRc - measuring horizon drop from 45,000 feet using a surveyors theodolite.
Horizon does not rise to eye level, you people just never bothered to test that claim, just believed it blindly.
5) You mean ring laser gyros used in planes to spot pitch, yaw and roll, that have been measuring Earth rotation for over 60 years now? https://youtu.be/SrGgxAK9Z5A?t=50 Mechanical gyros used in horizon indicators and other plane navigation devices, use what are known as pendulous vanes, which are hinge mechanisms designed to use gravity to help apply a torque to the gyros which helps correct them during flight and keep them at level with surface. Here’s a simple explanation of how these work https://youtu.be/_MoS5Yw9ZgE. These can correct for extreme maneuvers, the gyros natural precession AND Earth curvature. So no, gyros don’t prove a flat Earth, in fact they’ve done the opposite, maybe do some research on the gyro compass sometime, a clever gyro device that actually uses Earth rotation and the gyros natural precession, to act as a perfectly set compass.
We don’t have to blindly believe anything, we can test the Earth for ourselves at any time and we can learn and recreate the science and technology achieved today, for ourselves, at any time. But it sure seems YOU listened blindly to online scam artists without much question. Maybe turn that questioning around on the Flat Earth sometime and do some research outside of what they tell you...you might learn who the real huxters are.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As someone who’s spent the last 4 years chatting with hundreds of Flat Earthers, I’m afraid you’re a bit off the mark on that one. A large majority of Flat Earthers (at least English speaking Flatties) are of Christian faith and beliefs I’m afraid, mostly born again Christian, but several devout lifers as well. Many were once Atheist (or claimed to be), but through flat Earth they found God again. I’ve heard that story now many times from them, and I’m sure many others like me have as well.
Many do believe Globe Earth was designed for the sole intention of pulling people away from God....which if you think on it, is really the only logical argument for WHY the “elites” of the world would lie about Earth’s shape. As much as I hate to admit it...there is logic there. That is, if I’m willing to ignore basic physics, geometry and geography of course...but for people who have probably never left their home town and aren’t very well versed in science or mathematics to begin with, that’s not hard to do....erhm, flatties not Christians.
I can really only speculate without hard data, but from my experience, at least 8 out every 10 I talked too...are Christian, or root their FE beliefs from Christian theology. It effects all walks of life of course, but from what I’ve noticed, it does have an even stronger effect on people of Christian faith....and I think it makes sense why, because for many, once they convince themselves the Globe was created to hide God...it’s game over, these people are not likely coming out if that delusion, because it means they get to take the Bible literally...and then everything else is just easy after that. Just think about it...It essentially turns faith into a certainty...no more questioning or doubt. For some of Christian faith, who tend to take things a lot more literal, I’m sure that would be a powerful feeling.
That’s just what I’ve noticed anyway, feel free to disagree, but in my experience it has a very religious following. To clarify though, I’m not saying Christianity is to blame or anything like that, it’s willful ignorance and paranoia that’s largely the problem, and of course the very large majority of Christians don’t believe this mess, I’m just saying it does appear to be more alluring for biblical literalists in particular.
2
-
What photos are you referring to in particular? They’re pretty transparent with their imagery, they let people know when something is generated and when it isn’t, but perhaps you’ve seen something I’m not aware of. So what photos did you see that have you convinced they’re faking imagery?
Light can also refract, it’s pretty common, you see it occur all the time in water, when an object appears to be in one place, but it’s actually in another. Light isn’t bending really, it’s just being bounced around as it passes through denser mediums, it’s still moving in straight paths, it’s just being deflected. This same effect can occur in atmosphere, so it’s a variable that must be considered in any long distance observation. Here’s a quick demonstration of the effect https://youtu.be/5lmmzvzz_Xs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, light bends https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0?t=281.
You can’t see curvature side to side because Earth is huge. It takes 70 miles for Earth to arc 1 degree of difference, if your horizon is only 3-5 miles (horizon distance near sea level) in a radius all around you, then you’re not seeing very much of the surface at all, not enough degrees of change in your field of vision. It’s basic 3D geometry https://youtu.be/U8Vz9r2yWO8, notice how flat the horizon is on this surface at the start, but as it pans out it’s revealed to be a globe? That’s just how perspective and geometry work.The closer you are to a spherical surface, the less of it you’re seeing, the less degrees of change that occupy your field of vision, making the horizon appear flat.
So just cause it looks flat, doesn’t mean it is. It’s a rushed conclusion to assume it is, just from a single observation like that, that ignores perspective and basic geometry.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You do realize that last guy is joking...right? Seriously, he knocks on the telescopes at the end, pointing out how hollow it is, making a joke that nothing is in there...you have to realize he’s just joking, right?
As for the rest, why is any of that alarming to people? Composites are a form of photography, stitching many pictures together to create a single image...your phone does it too, with its panoramic feature...it’s a pretty old and basic photography method. You require a photo editing software to create a composite...I don’t get how that’s somehow a conspiracy, they explain it pretty openly, it’s basic photography and photo editing.
One thing you should really stop and realize, where in any of those videos...do they say or make mention that EVERY PHOTO of Earth is a composite? They don’t...each person is just discussing the images THEY worked on. So why do people immediately just assume they’re talking about every photo of Earth? Why jump to the conclusion that every photo is a composite? And why is it such a conspiracy that they make composites of Earth? It’s just one of many ways you can photograph something...doesn’t need to be a big conspiracy, it’s just photography.
Fact is, millions of photos of Earth exist, most of them are actually single frame images taken from geostationary weather satellites. Just look up Himawari 8 or the GOES satellites sometime. Many more photos exist that were taken of Earth LONG before the days of CGI or satellites in low Earth orbit, capable of creating composites with. Just look up an archive of photos known as the Apollo project archive on the website Flickr. Click on the albums tab...and you’ll find an archive displaying the hundreds of photos taken of Earth during the various Apollo missions....taken long before CGI technology existed.
Point is, you’re spinning paranoid conclusions, around the words of experts just trying to explain a few things to the general public. Why is it so hard to accept that they would destroy old tech that was falling apart and was outdated? What’s so hard to understand about that? Why is it so difficult to understand that going to space costs A LOT of money...and so rebuilding these modules and testing them for safety is going to take time, R&D, planning, money? On top of that, it presents an engineering hurtle, because we’ve invented a lot of new technology in the last 50 years, any new technology they want to include on the new modules would need to be TESTED in space for safety, before it could ever be used in a manned mission...hence why its long painful process, as he described.
Listen, it’s fine to question things, perfectly logical...but Jesus...where are all these paranoid conclusions coming from? You’re taking rational explanations, removing them from the context and then intentionally spinning them into conspiratorial nonsense. These aren’t tough questions to answer...but you’re sure pretending like they are. :/
Even going so far as to not recognize a JOKE when you see it. Watch a few more of that guy’s videos...he’s still talking at length about photographing the stars, planets, galaxies. Little odd for a guy who appeared so rattled in the video you shared...don’t ya think? Poe’s Law...look it up sometime.
I’m not trying to be rude or mean...but it’s just shocking to me how these things actually fool people into thinking there’s a conspiracy here.
2
-
Of course not, but most of us don’t think in absolutes. We don’t think everything is a lie, it’s a lot more complex and nuanced than that. Of course they lie, it’s no secret, but just because they lie sometimes does not mean they lie all of the time....because nothing is that black and white. In the case with the shape of the Earth, pretty fuckin hard to hide that truth from billions of people, who can all test the geometry of Earth, anytime they want...not to mention the millions of experts, who have nothing to do with NASA or government, that require our information on Earth be accurate, in order to do their jobs at all...a good example being pilots and sailors. :/
Flat Earth is nothing but an online scam, that (among many other things) takes advantage of some people’s inability to think in greys, rather than black and white absolutes. NASA had very little to do with deducing the shape of the planet, that was figured out long before they ever came around...and you do not require their help in deducing it for yourself, just a few simple observations and some common sense.
One last thing, there is a reason why science labels it’s conclusions under theory...and it’s very simple, it’s because they do not know everything. Because they don’t know everything, it means old information always has the potential to change, as new information is obtained...that’s the hard reality of information gathering of any kind. So they were very wise to call their conclusions “theories”, it means they’re not assuming anything as certain, they leave room for unknowns, so they always leave room for possible adjustment, it means these theories are not rigid. So what that means is, science also does not think in absolutes, it thinks in percentages of certainty. Some theories are less certain...but there is probably nothing in all of science we are more certain of, than the shape of our planet, it’s where science pretty much started...it’s the foundation of most everything.
Get a better filter and stop thinking in absolutes, the worlds not that simple.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@icherishcrochetandknit309 Are you kidding me? THIS reality is beautiful, it’s everything I need, I don’t require anything else, I’m grateful I even get this much. If your life sucks, it’s on you. I can’t be certain of anything after this, but I can be certain about here and now, so I’ll make this life a heaven...so I have. Maybe if you spent more time thinking about now, rather than after, you’d stop squandering this life and start enjoying it.
If you are squandering it that is, I make no speculations on your life, it just sounds like you’re not seeing how incredible this life is...and that’s sad.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@icherishcrochetandknit309 And what if they’re not? Seriously...what if you’re wrong? Do you ever consider that possibility? From my perspective, you’ve decided to condemn a couple rich dudes...simply because you watched or read something online, and then agreed with all of it, blindly and without question. The real truth is just that they’re rich...and you hate rich people, it’s plain ol’ resentment and jealousy, left to fester. That’s the real truth...just the same ol’ peasantry, resenting the lords of the land. And It’s just turning into another witch hunt...justifying atrocities against people you don’t really know ANYTHING about, simply because someone told you they were “evil” and sent from “Lucifer”...and for some reason you believed them. 🤦♂️
I don’t deny at all that there are some rotten people out there, doing horrible things, that deserve to be punished...but blindly accusing people, and passing judgments without any real evidence, or before any due process...it’s mob mentality, it’s not how a healthy society should operate...it’s barbarism. You need to stop falling for every scary, click baity, bullshit video or website that comes your way and come back to reality.
I’m well aware of the Georgia stones and all the bullshit conspiracy dribble that surrounds them and other conspiratorial nonsense...you’re not the only one with an Internet connection, a majority of the world probably knows this stuff by now...we’re blasted with conspiracy bullshit almost daily, so save it. It’s all bullshit....you know what the real truth is more likely to be? We made it all up, society. We always need a villain to defeat or blame our problems on, cause we all get bored without one...and we don’t like admitting that WE are just as much the problem as any rich guy. But the truth is, NOBODY’S hand is really on the wheel, there is no shadowy overlord, just human stupidity that we can’t seem to rid ourselves of. Society cooked up this boogie man, and it’s slowly eroding our mental capacities, sliding us all into a shared paranoid schizophrenia. It’s gonna become a self fulfilling prophecy eventually...if people keep buying into the hysteria, rather than really thinking. Then real people get hurt...for no reason...and we’ll justify it by saying we we’re just snuffing out evil...and the other side will do the same, never realizing all we had to do to find evil was look in a mirror.
I’m tired of it...the world is tired of. I often think Religion needs to go...that it’s always been the real problem. That’s my opinion, and it gets worse with every nut job I encounter...but, I know it’s not going anywhere anytime soon, so I try to accept it...just wish people could learn to start using their heads...instead of blindly following online hysteria. 😔
2
-
@icherishcrochetandknit309 If medicine to cure the sick and save lives is considered “sorcery”, then bring on the sorcery. I don’t believe you, because you don’t have real evidence, just speculations and biased assumptions. Accusations before evidence, judgements passed before proof of guilt. It’s barbarism, and I refuse to join that sort of primitive mob mentality.
Sky News is basically Fox News for the South...heavily biased conservative media pundits...all they care about is drumming up hysteria, of course they’re gonna lie to you, fear gets the best ratings. Fear gets you angry which gets them more support...they gave up on unbiased objective news coverage a long time ago, because it doesn’t sell.
I don’t believe you, because in my experience, you people are not rational, you are delusional humans trapped in a dogmatic belief system, that’s done nothing but slow human progress down, and it can’t disappear fast enough. Now you’re going so far to believe the Earth is flat and scientists are all just lying to you...while holding a device in your hand that only exists thanks to the efforts of these people you think you’re smarter than...it’s incredible how deep the delusion goes.
You need to understand, for people like myself who have never been religious, within any of the thousands that exist, you might as well read me lines from Harry Potter, Scriptures are just as fictional to me. Stop trying to convert us, stop praying for us, or warning us...we’re tired of delusional people, attempting to rob us of our time here, in the only life we can be certain of. If your God has an issue with us just trying to exist, free from what we see as basically a cult like any other, then he’s an asshole, whether he exists or not. It’s that simple. Just cause he creates life, gives him no right to own it, or enslave it, command it, or control it. I will live my life how I choose, please respect that, and then I’ll do my best to respect your choice as well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
That’s a gross over simplification of the real situation. They didn’t lose the technology, they decommissioned the old tech that was already built, because it was old and starting to ware...this made them unsafe for manned missions, so they were dismantled.
Then NASA lost funding for future lunar missions, so for years R&D stopped on building new lunar modules. In that time, new technologies were developed, but none of it was being tested in space, so none of it was being cleared as safe for use in these modules. The old systems used were all analog systems, which are much sturdier but limited in what they could achieve. Our current computer technology is more susceptible to damage in strong magnetic/radioactive fields, like the ones found in deep space. This presents an engineering challenge for new lunar modules. Nothing can be put into these new modules, until they’ve all been tested and cleared as safe for use in space...that takes time.
Could they just rebuild the old modules? Of course, but why would they? They were limited in what they could achieve, and if we’re gonna go back (which we are btw, just look up the Artemis program), we need technology that is updated.
So it’s a lot more complicated than you’re making it out to be. You lack the full picture, so no wonder you find it so ridiculous.
2
-
The Van Allen Belt was discovered in 1958, a full decade before they ever went to the Moon...so get your facts straight before you go spreading misinformation. It’s not so much the crew that has to worry here, it’s more the new computing tech that is far more susceptible to damage from electromagnetic/radiating fields, than the old analog systems of the old modules. Yes, long term exposure to the field can be harmful to the crew, so it’s a risk they all take, but it’s really not as harmful as you’re making it out to be. It’s more the tech they have to make sure won’t fail, that’s the larger issue in the new modules. Maybe you’re not familiar with how engineering and R&D works, but EVERY new system has to be tested and cleared for safety, before they can send a manned crew up in a newly designed module. This takes time, especially when you’re basically redesigning every new computing component, so they can withstand this field without failing.
2
-
2
-
@ChristSOLO144 Ok, but you’re basically just trying really hard to deny gravity...you’re not really falsifying it, you’re basically just replacing it with a new word. A word that is already defined...and has nothing to do with motion or forces that put things into motion. Buoyancy and density as you’re describing them are already included in the theory of gravity, so you’re basically just cutting the word gravity out, then acting like you’re discovering something new. Which just makes it sound incredibly ignorant. But, let’s just look a little closer here at your problem, maybe it’ll help.
Let’s define what density is first of all. It’s just a state of matter, it is how much mass occupies a given space...that’s it, that’s all, full stop. So now let’s define the perimeters of both buoyancy and gravity. Both are considered forces, because both cause a motion in matter. That’s the main problem with your density argument...it leaves a very obvious question unanswered, how exactly does density by itself, put matter into motion? It’s the motions you should pay attention too. I mean if you want to talk of physical laws of nature, then don’t forget about the laws of motion. The first law of motion states, that a force is required to put matter into motion, without a force being applied then a mass will remain stationary and vice versa, matter will also remain in motion until a force acts against it to slow or stop it. Pretty simple.
So what happens when you drop something? Well, it’s immediately put into motion...and if motion requires a force, then this tells us a force is acting on that mass to put it into motion. The other possibility is that we’re in motion, not the dropped object, but that’s very unlikely as it would have to be an accelerating motion due to the effects of relative motion, and that’s unlikely because light speed would eventually be achieved and well..we also already know we’re in motion at a steady rate, but that’s a different topic, so I digress.
But matter does fall, it’s undeniable. This falling is a motion...density can not put matter into motion on its own, because density is not a force, it’s just a state of matter. So a name was given to this downward motion, just as buoyancy was given for the upward motion. That’s basically how gravity physics started out...it’s just the name we gave for a motion that is a fact of reality. Things fall...that is a motion, that motion is always consistent in one direction, so gravity is what that motion was called. It’s pretty simple. They’re not gonna call it density, density is already defined...it’s not a force, it does not cause motion.
So do you see a little better now why saying “it’s just density and buoyancy” is a bit flawed? Why is objects going up a “fundamental law of nature”, while objects falling down isn’t all of a sudden? You don’t think you’re being a tad bias...doing all that you can to intentionally deny a pretty undeniable fact of reality?
Let’s look at it mathematically, how do we mathematically apply your conclusion of density in useful equations? Let’s go with a simple one, like the formula for calculating weight, which in simplest form is just W=mg. Notice the little ‘g’ in the equation? That’s the downward acceleration of gravity, which on Earth is measured to be 9.8m/s^2. Ok, so instead of applying the downward acceleration of gravity, let’s put density there instead. W=mD....hmmm, well that’s a bit redundant now isn’t it, mass and density are basically the same thing...so there’s basically no way to calculate weight with this arrangement, there’s no force being applied now, no accelerating motion.
I mean, should be pretty simple to understand, I’m sure you’re able to understand how a scale works. You press DOWN upon the top surface, applying a FORCE, to generate a weight value. If there’s no downward force...then there’s no weight value, pretty simple, right? Ok...so if gravity doesn’t exist, then how exactly does a scale register a weight value, while a mass is resting on top? You have to apply a force to register a weight value, right? How does a resting mass, apply that force, if there’s no force of gravity pulling it down?
W=mg, that’s how a scale calculates weight...it requires a downward force. Remove that variable, and the formula no longer works. Equations like this use facts of reality, like the downward acceleration of gravity, in order to work at all. If we don’t have known facts...then we don’t have working equations, then we have no applied science, so nothing gets engineered.
Your density argument is ignorant. Yes, we know dense matter occupies lowest potential energy state, this causes a displacement of matter forcing less dense matter up, we call that buoyancy...thanks for stating the obvious. But that tells us essentially nothing about how or why that dense matter is always attracted DOWN. Why that direction? What causes that motion? Gravity goes on to explain what’s happening, many experiments have been done now that verify it’s an attraction between masses. Mass attracting mass, caused by a bending of space around masses. If you’d like to see the experiments that helped us reach that conclusion, I don’t mind sharing.
The density argument doesn’t explain anything...it’s just an argument Flat Earthers came up with, so they could convince themselves they didn’t require gravity. They know full well how inconvenient gravity is fir their core arguments, so they just decided to make that problem go away, by denying gravity exists entirely. The density argument is their current iteration of that attempt...but it’s just as flawed as all the other attempts. Mental gymnastics, meant to confuse people and get them ignoring basic fundamentals of physics. Flat Earth is just teaching people how to be ignorant...ruining any possibility for the end goal of science to occur, which is applied science.
But, if you still think they’re onto something, then by all means, go ahead and derive me a new equation for calculating weight, one that doesn’t require a downward force.
2
-
2
-
Misused? It’s a very standard thing that does occur in the atmosphere...especially over large bodies of water where air density will be greater due to humidity. So how is it misused? It’s a variable that has to be considered...if you don’t, then you’re not really being objective about things, you’re being ignorant for the sake of bias. There is always a standard refraction index on any given day, so it has to be included as a variable.
I’m sorry if flat Earthers are tired of hearing the term, but that doesn’t mean it just goes away, just cause they’re slightly annoyed by it. They’re annoyed because it’s not very convenient for their bias, but we don’t follow bias, we should factor everything. If you feel refraction isn’t important, here’s a great experiment you should see http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment it’s pretty extensive, but just scroll down to images 31 and 32, to get a pretty clear demonstration for why this variable matters.
2
-
2
-
Air density is always decreasing with altitude, so there is always a standard refraction index you have to factor in EVERY observation, not just some. It can fluctuate a little due to temperature humidity, but there’s always a standard refraction, and it does more than you realize. Ignoring that fact is not an argument against it, it’s just willful ignorance to confirm a bias, which is the very opposite of objective reasoning.
Also, 8 inches per mile squared is not the correct math to use for these observations, it does not represent your line of sight or horizon distance, so it doesn’t calculate any figures that can help you determine what is hidden from your line of sight. All it does is measures the drop from a tangent line at your feet, which means it’s really only accurate if your eye rests directly at sea level, which of course is never the case. It is missing many key variables, like height of the observer, horizon distance, arc length, refraction, it’s just a very limited equation. Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple.
Here’s where you can find the correct math https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ and here’s a handy calculator that puts this math to use https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ notice it includes a standard refraction index calculation as well. This math is accurate, this math is actually calculating your line of sight.
You can call us “sheeple” or whatever buzz word of the week you think should rattle us, but it’s not going to stop many of us from staying objective and pointing out the errors we’re seeing. Don’t get mad at us because you’re falling for an online scam.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@findingsolutions198 Enlighten YOU...don’t forget who the minority is here. Learn to navigate, you’ll find out pretty quickly how important it is to know exactly what shape and scale our planet is. Pilots and sailors aren’t getting lost every day and it’s a pretty well known fact that they use a global system of navigation, designed with a 3rd dimension of travel and lines of latitude that are equal in TWO hemispheres. Learn to navigate for yourself and you will know exactly what shape the planet is.
While you’re learning about navigation, put it to use and travel South (assuming you live in the North) and observe the second hemisphere, notice it has its own night sky, its own constellations, with its own celestial rotation of stars around its own pole star...you know, exactly like we’d expect to see occur on a globe. And here’s something that falls under navigation, on your way down, pay attention to the drop of Polaris...and when you get to the Equator, you just let me me know how you think Polaris can drop to 0 degrees, if the Earth is flat. https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/polaris-angle.jpg
Or here’s a super easy one, just observe a single sunset...then ask yourself how that’s geometrically possible, if line of sight to the Sun is never blocked? A pretty basic understanding of geometry is all you need for that one. I understand flat Earth likes to use perspective to answer for this...well perspective has some pretty standard rules to it, that don’t exactly fit that explanation, when you really break it down and analyze it, so I’m afraid it’s not that simple.
Just a short sample...Eric Dubay is a con man and you are falling for his scam bud. It’s fine to question things, but you need to be really careful where you’re getting your info from. Just remember that Flat Earth has no working model and it’s not used in the foundation of any applied science today...that’s for a good reason. I’d spend more time questioning Dubay if I were you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BeachMongoose Any astronomer will tell you, that the stars are changing, it’s very common knowledge amongst those who actually spend their nights watching and recording the stars each night. If you’ve never heard that before, surprise, it’s because you’re not an expert on this stuff and you’ve never really done research on it before...you just think you have, cause you watched a few YouTube videos, from people who are just as clueless as you are, who jump to conclusions based off of what you currently know, which is likely not much, cause you likely don’t have any real experience in science and research.
Look up a star known as Barnards star sometime, it’s one of the easier stars to begin noticing any deviation, only takes a couple years of tracking it to notice its obvious shifting from the surrounding stars. This occurs because of its relative proximity to us, as well as it’s orbital path which is wildly different from ours, not on the same orbital plane. All the stars are changing, this is a known fact, an astronomer with even just a few years experience under his belt can confirm this, there are lots of closer proximity stars that do a great deal of noticeable shifting within a single human lifetime. The reason it takes so long is due to parallax, which is effected by distance. The stars aligned with ancient temples (allegedly, I’ve never confirmed this, have you?), like Orions belt for example, are unique in both their distances and their orbital paths, they take longer to shift, because of how they’re moving relative to us...like cars on a straight highway, moving fast, but unnoticed by each other, due too them all moving in the same direction at the same relative pace.
So now you know, but don’t take my word for it, why not join an astronomy club in your area and start joining them on their observations sometime? You can learn a lot from the stars....like how there’s two rotations, around two separate pole stars, in two different hemisphere sky’s...exactly like we’d expect there to be on a globe that is rotating. I’m just saying...you can learn a lot online, but it’s all second hand information. All you’re doing is arguing from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy, but take your own advice, cause it’s not really research until it’s first hand knowledge, right? So peel yourself away from your computer sometime and learn first hand how flat Earth cons people, by exploiting your ignorance.
1
-
@BeachMongoose Repeatable, observable, measurable experiments...ya, like observing the stars every night, recording the positions for any measurable shifts in parallax between other stars, and then repeating it again and again over a few years to see if the constellations actually do change or not....which is pretty much a prerequisite for any astronomer worth their salt. Every astronomer will tell you the stars are shifting, whether you like it or not, this is common knowledge among these experts. You can acquire this knowledge yourself as well, first hand, at anytime you choose to begin actually putting in the real research. Claiming that it doesn’t happen, is not an argument against these observations...it’s just denial and willful ignorance.
You just demonstrated exactly what I was talking about...you flat out ignored everything I said, so you could go on believing your bullshit fantasy, where you’re right and the experts who actually do know what they’re talking about are just lying because...reasons. Barnards star, look it up, learn what it is, then get yourself a telescope and start tracking it...or don’t and remain in your ignorant little world where your “star gazing” every now and then, somehow qualifies you as an expert.
I thought the information age would make us all smarter as well....boy did I under estimate how much faster misinformation spreads. The internet has become a breeding ground for con men and pseudo-intellectuals...it’s just sad.
1
-
@BeachMongoose Listen, you brought up astronomy and made a claim that the stars don’t shift...I’m just letting you know, that this is not true in the slightest and any real astronomer would tell you the same. Barnards star is just a great example to start with, because it shifts quicker than most other stars, but it’s far from the only one, because pretty close to every star has been observed to shift over time...they are well documented and even single individuals have personally tracked and logged hundreds to even millions of these shifts, ranging from personal observation and cataloging, to being aided by modern tracking and computing technology. You want repeatable science, become an astronomer and actually learn this stuff first hand...like millions of others have. It takes time, but it’s not difficult. Arguments from ignorance won’t get you very far I’m afraid.
But, I get it, not everyone has that kind of time, so since you’re asking nicely, here’s some simpler observations and experiments you can recreate that help verify the Earths true geometry and scale.
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno
https://youtu.be/ZMtx5jVLUaU
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
Plenty more I can share, but I’d rather not overwhelm you. These are all very repeatable, just requires a little bit of effort, the last one being the most extensive in terms of effort, but still quite doable by anyone.
There is a very good reason why many people do not bat an eye at flat Earth claims, cause we have knowledge and experience that directly refutes those claims and we’re not just going to ignore what we know. It’s fine to disagree, but you’re only kidding yourself if you think there’s no valid arguments to your claims. I’m sorry if most would rather mock you than share information, and apologies if our conversation became tense or condescending at any point, but real experts are out there...and they’re more than happy to share what they’ve learned first hand, so long as the respect is mutual.
Flat Earth has no working model...this shouldn’t be so easily ignored, in my opinion. Anyway, I can’t force you to agree, but if it interests you enough, at the very least consider some of the information I’ve shared.
1
-
@awakenedwarrior5510 Ya, it’s cool, I do too. And to be fair, I do see your point as well, I’m just not one to lean towards the more paranoid conclusions is all. This is one of those things though, that we both can only really speculate on. I may be able to provide a logical answer, but that doesn’t make it true. I prefer sticking to the arguments I can actually verify for certain, rather than points I can really only speculate on, but it is fun to ponder alternative answers on those as well. Anyway, glad to know the info was at least interesting, have a good one.
1
-
@awakenedwarrior5510 Well, I personally know it’s a globe after years of studying Earth science and time spent travelling the world, where I was able to make a lot of my own observations. Anyone with enough interest and willingness to learn can recreate the science for themselves that led to the current conclusions, you don’t have to just take somebody else’s word for it. Learning to navigate will tell you everything you need to know, pilots and sailors require an accurate mapping of Earth, if they’re going to find their destinations with any accuracy, that’s just common sense. That extra 3rd dimension of travel matters a great deal to things, and they do make geodetic conversions when plotting courses, they wouldn’t have to do that if the Earth were flat.
It’s simple geometry, navigation is built around the knowledge that Earth is a sphere with two equal hemispheres, that’s just a fact. If the Earth was flat, then navigation would operate differently, it would be designed accordingly. So to believe the Earth is flat, you’d basically have to believe every pilot and sailor is lying to you for some reason. Take the time to learn what they know, learn how to navigate, and you’ll understand the true shape and scale of things. That’s how I was able to verify things for myself, well, one of the ways anyway, there are plenty more. Sailors aren’t scientists, but they’ve known the true shape for hundreds of years now, just by understanding some basic geometry.
As for your Moon question, this is just a simple misunderstanding. The phases of the Moon aren’t created by Earths shadow, you’re thinking of a Lunar Eclipse. The phases of the Moon are created by the Moon itself blocking the light from the Sun, casting shadow on the part not pointed at the Sun, not illuminated by the Sun. Here’s a simple demonstration that might help. https://youtu.be/wz01pTvuMa0 See the phases have more to do with the Moons position in its orbit relative to us. It spends about half its orbit on the day side, coming between us and the Sun, so the Sun illuminates the side pointing towards it, while the other side of the Moon is in shadow cause it’s not pointing at the Sun. It’s more basic geometry, the Moons a sphere, there’s only one major light source (the sun) so only one side of the Moon can be lit up at any given time. As it orbits us, our viewing angle shifts, creating the Moon phases.
Anyway, hope that’s at the very least interesting information for ya. Let me know if ya got any more questions or points to raise.
1
-
@skateup2291 Ok, or...you were fed bad information from huxters online, who lied to you about the details, and for some reason you believed them without question. For example, the math FE uses to make their long distance observations (8 inches per mile squared), is straight up wrong. That is not a spherical calculation, that is a basic parabola equation. It doesn’t represent line of sight, has no variables for height of the observer, distance to horizon, refraction, eye level, etc. It’s basically akin to a slight of hand trick....and if you used it without checking it first, then you fell for it. Just one of MANY ways they lie to people.
You’re not getting the facts from these people, you’re getting bullshit that they made up. You’re being conned...at the very least, you should consider that possibility.
1
-
Several experiments exist that have tested mass attracting mass, the most important and well known experiment being the Cavendish experiment, which is also easily repeatable. Here’s the best demonstration I’ve seen so far for this experiment https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68. It was also used to measure the force of gravity, here’s a high school student recreating the experiment and using it to measure the constant of G https://youtu.be/jkjqrlYOW_0. This measurement is used in many equations, from orbital mechanicse to aeronautics, so it’s very much an applied science today.
You’re getting a little tangled in the linguistics here, a scientific theory is very different from the regular use of the word theory. In science, hypothesis takes on the role of a theory in the regular use, while a theory in science, is the highest level any concept - that describes how something works - can achieve. Nothing graduates to theory, until it’s been proven beyond any doubt, through rigorous experimentation and data collection, even then it has to go through peer review, which can sometimes take years. Not to be confused with a scientific Law, which only describes WHAT is happening, not HOW it’s happening, that’s what theories are for. Also not to be confused with facts, which only make up the foundation’s of Laws and Theory.
So it’s not “just a theory”, saying that, kind of let’s us all know that you’re not very scientifically literate, no offence. It’s fine though really, science has a system it uses and it’s understandable how it could be confusing. But, hope that information helps, or at the very least you find it interesting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattosborne1233 Refraction is very real I’m afraid, so you can not ignore it in these observations. Here’s a really simple demonstration that illustrates why it needs to be factored as a variable https://youtu.be/5lmmzvzz_Xs. For even more info, here’s a modern recreation of the Bedford Level experiment walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. If you still think you can ignore refraction, please scroll down to images 31 and 32. The whole experiment here is quite conclusive, Earth is curving and at the rate it should, but feel free to give it a look sometime.
Also, the 8 inches per mile squared math is inaccurate for this observation, as it’s missing many other key variables required for the observation, the biggest being observer height. It does not tell you where horizon is, or tell you what is blocked from your line of sight, the equation is simply not the correct equation to be using here. Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple. Here’s where you can find the correct math https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ and here’s a handy calculator putting it into use https://www.metabunk.org/curve/. This calculator also includes a standard refraction index, which is good for use on clear days, but if you really wanna get deep into an observation, here’s the best calculator I’ve found so far, that includes an adjustable refraction index http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth.
Point is, I feel you’re being a bit ignorant in your conclusion, intentionally ignoring refraction to help a bias, rather than remaining objective.
1
-
1
-
The ISS has a 24 hour live feed of Earth, and several geostationary weather satellites are in orbit right now taking round the clock photos of Earth, most with their own feeds you and anyone can access. Like Himawari, GOES, EPIC, DSCOVR, just to name a few.
Flat Earth doesn’t have arguments, what they have is willful ignorance. They’ll certainly tell themselves (and others) that NASA has no 24 hour live feed…but it’s really just a lie they perpetuate, one amongst many.
Also, so when they showed you these odd flight paths, did they ever demonstrate them on an actual globe, using the actual great circle flight paths? Or did they use the Mercator map (a flat map) and then the AE map (most commonly accepted Flat Earth map) to demonstrate with? If they used two flat maps of Earth, and never used a globe…then how exactly does that debunk a globe? 🤷♂️ Seems to me they just used a flat map, to debunk a different flat map…wouldn’t you say? Go back and rewatch those flight path demos, I guarantee they never once use a globe with their actual great circle routes, they used a Mercator map and then the AE map. A great circle route btw, is the shortest path between two points on a sphere, it’s what all airliners use. You can go on Google Earth at anytime and the ruler tool uses the great circle as well, so try plotting those paths on an actual globe sometime…you won’t find their “evidence” so compelling afterwards.
Here’s the world flights paths laid out on flat maps and then an actual globe https://youtu.be/MiUklHodcho…you might notice something interesting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It’s true Flat Earth isn’t exclusive to the religious, nor are the majority of religious flat Earthers, far from it, but within flat Earth the majority are religious…and it’s a big reason why they became Flat Earthers, because it helps confirm their religious beliefs. I’ve talked with hundreds of flat Earthers, and there’s no doubt…the majority are drawn to it because it helps confirm that particular bias. So it’s relevant to mention, even if some would find it hard to accept.
Though yes, I’d agree, I believe the bigger names are typically atheists, but that’s not reflective of their followers. These people are conmen, they’ll lie, and exploit any fears or biases they can to sell their grift…and sadly, the desire to confirm a creator and an after life is a powerful desire for many, that can cloud their ability to reason objectively, making them perfect targets for a conspiracy/con like this. That’s not to say they’re stupid, but it does create a strong bias that can be exploited.
1
-
You said it’s an “undeniable fact” that stars have not moved in 4000 years, claiming that it’s been charted. Care to share this ancient star chart you claim verifies this? Then if you’re capable of that, please point out on this chart what stars haven’t changed, show your work that has led to your “undeniable”conclusion.
In the meantime, it’s pretty common knowledge among those who actually spend there nights observing and recording the stars every night (astronomers), that they are in fact changing. There are several stars you can even begin tracking now, and spot noticeable shifts (without the aide of sensitive measuring equipment/software) within just a 2-5 year span, the most popular being Barnards star http://monteboo.blogspot.com/2011/03/barnard-star-constantly-in-motion.html, which is also the second closest star to us after Alpha Centari. All the stars have been tracked over hundreds of years now, that much is true, and they are found to be shifting...any astronomer will tell you that.
Here’s a simulated projection, created using actual star chart data, showing some constellations and what they looked like in the past and what they’ll actually look like over time https://www.wired.com/2015/03/gifs-show-constellations-transforming-150000-years/.
So I don’t think your claim is as “undeniable” as you seem to think it is. I feel you’ve just reached your conclusion on pure assumption, from a lack of actual star tracking experience. I would encourage you to start making your own observations, if it really interests you that much. Doesn’t take much to get started, just need a decent camera and telescope...or you can visit your local observatory and actually talk to an astronomer, might save time.
If you’re curious as to why the stars take so long to shift, I’d urge you to learn more about the parallax effect. Distance plays a huge factor here, yes, things are moving fast...to you and me, the microscopic life living on a spec of dust in the cosmos, who think a mile is a distance of significance...but understand that when there’s trillions of miles between each star...a few thousand miles per hour, doesn’t really effect much.
1
-
1
-
1
-
It’s not really slowing its velocity, but what’s happening is light passing through a denser medium is bouncing off of more particles, having more interactions. Which in a way slows it down as far as time is concerned, but it’s not velocity that’s changing, it’s rate of travel that’s being changed as the light meets more resistance. Light is a photon, so basically a bundle of energy, so it can interact with mass, even without having any, as energy effects matter.
It’s important to know for certain how physical reality operates, if we’re going to have any hope of innovating technology and advancing forward. It matters a great deal that a majority of us are on the same page and actually understand how these things work, or progress will slow...maybe even grind to a halt, if enough misinformation poisons the well of information.
1
-
@tubamirum007 Ok, and yes, questioning things is perfectly fine, I’m not here to discourage that, only here to point out that I feel evidence should hold more value over speculations...no matter how many speculations you have, it’s evidence that matters more. Even if I disagree with you, I do see your points and they have logic to them as well, otherwise you wouldn’t have reached those conclusions...I’m just a stickler for speculating. I won’t waste too much more of your time with long responses, just address a few things quick...cause if you can’t already tell, I have been doing my own research, I’ve been doing this a very long time now in fact.
It’s true that the Eratosthenes stick experiment works for both models, if you conduct it like the original test with only two shadow measurements, but if you take any more than two data sets, from locations all around the world, then you can actually pinpoint the Sun and figure out which model actually fits. Here’s a couple experiments that did just that.
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=424
https://youtu.be/yrsaP7nBWt0
8 inches per mile squared is not the correct math to use, the only people who use it are Flat Earthers...which is why your numbers don’t add up. Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple. Here’s where you can find the correct formulas to use https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/
Yes, I understand your point, sometimes the best way to hide something is in plane sight...but, still, all we can do is speculate and I’m just not one to do that. It’s good that some people are, but to me it’s chasing bread crumbs that you could be creating. I prefer to stick to things I can verify or falsify scientifically.
I’ve watched the 15 minute interview with Admiral Byrd and I’ve watched his documentary. I think flat Earth are misinterpreting his words, spinning them to fit their bias. From what I saw, he slipped up and chose his words poorly...which is easy to do on live television in front of millions of people, he was also very old at the time of the interview. Flat Earth likes to focus on one comment he makes about “land beyond the poles, bigger than the United States”, but then fail to pay attention to the 3 times he says the words “at the bottom of the world”. Either way, it’s just more speculations, even worse, it’s cherry-picking and confirmation bias. Hearing what you want to hear, instead of considering the alternatives. Watch his documentary...you’ll learn he was no Flat Earther, never was.
Yes, I can see how an object a third the size of the Earth could appear as it does from 270,000 miles distance. I’m an illustrator as I said, I have a pretty keen eye for scale and perspective, after years of training it...that’s what got me into this mess in the first place. When I first heard flat Earthers say a sunset is caused by perspective...ya, I had to call bullshit on that. Perspective has many other pretty basic rules you can’t ignore, objects don’t just drop to horizon, they do many other things as well that I find Flat Earthers are far to happy to ignore. Same with the argument for why ships appear to disappear, saying it was just vanishing point and perspective. While you may have recently learned what vanishing point is, I’ve studied it for more than half of my life. Vanishing point and horizon are not the same thing, vanishing point can and does occur before horizon...so if you can bring a boat back from vanishing point, then it means it has not gone over horizon yet...it’s pretty simple. I’ve seen enough observations at close to full zoom to confirm this, once an object has gone over the actual horizon, no amount of zoom will ever bring it back. Vanishing point also converges equally, it doesn’t pick and choose to make the bottoms of something disappear first. https://flatearthbusted.blogspot.com/2017/10/curvature-on-parade-turning-torso-video.html?m=0
Your Moon argument is just an argument from personal incredulity. Actually do the perspective math sometime, you’ll learn the Moon is exactly as it should be.
Anyway, thanks for the civil discussion, I hope I didn’t come off as to pushy, I’m not trying to discourage anyone from asking questions, just trying to get people to remember the difference between speculation and evidence again. I feel it’s important.
1
-
1
-
Remember back in school when some kids used to ask “what am I ever going to need physics knowledge for?”, this...this right here, so you have the knowledge and understandings required to debunk misinformation and con men like Eric Dubay. These are good questions you have, but they are basic physics questions. People like Dubay use what’s called gish gallop (many weak arguments and speculations dumped all at once in rapid fire, to make their main argument appear stronger than it really is), and they exploit most peoples general lack of experience and knowledge in science, to get you doubting. All they have to do is get you doubting, then they gain your trust while at the same time eroding the trust in the systems they’re targeting, it’s brainwashing 101...tell someone they’ve been lied too, then offer the “real” answers. You can pretty much feed someone any ol’ bullshit once you’ve gained their trust and turned them against something they used to trust.
But, these are great questions, the thing is they’re not new questions. They’re the very same questions science once asked and has since solved...but if you didn’t pay attention when this stuff was first being taught to you, then it becomes pretty easy to think these questions have simply never been asked before, because YOU’VE never asked them before.
Anyway, let’s see if I can give you some information that might help answer your questions, because again, these are great physics questions. I’ll start with your ocean vs the bird analogy. It’s a three part problem, cause you’re misunderstanding the physics of motion (namely inertia), gravity and centripetal force, all at once.
Your first question is a question of Centripetal force vs. Gravity. The trouble I feel you’re having, is in assuming the Centripetal force would be greater than the gravity force, if the Earth is moving as fast as it is. This however misunderstands how Centripetal force is increased. First off, the 1000 mph is a linear velocity...but we’re not moving in a linear motion, we’re in an angular motion, which is actually, much much slower. Flat Earth uses bigger numbers though, cause it shocks people easier...which stops you from really thinking about things deeper.
Anyway, centripetal force is increased by many different variables working in tandem, but the biggest variable is the rate of angular velocity change per second, or revolutions per minute (RPM’s). For example, a gravitron ride rotates at the rate of roughly 24 revolutions per minute, which creates a centripetal force that is about 3x’s stronger than the force of gravity. Now, in comparison to the Earth, our Earth completes ONE complete rotation roughly every 24 hours, which is two times slower than the hour hand of a clock. This generates a centripetal force that’s about 0.3% the force of gravity, which means, gravity easily wins here and nothing will go flying off Earth, gravity is much stronger than Earths centripetal force output, in fact it barely registers.
The centripetal force is even smaller in our other motions, because it takes 365 days to orbit the Sun and roughly 260 million years to orbit galactic center...so in these motions, the rate of angular velocity change per second, is almost immeasurably small...we might as well be travelling in a straight line.
I can give you a simple thought experiment to help understand this better. Picture yourself driving a race car, at a top speed of 200 mph. Now, which scenario do you think the driver will experience the most centripetal force from? Driving at top speed around a perfect circle track that’s 1000 meters in circumference, or 1000 miles in circumference? The answer is obviously the first one, but why? The car is moving at the same exact linear speed, 200 mph, so why don’t they both experience the same centripetal inertia? Because the smaller track is completing more revolutions per minute, while the other would take hours to complete even just one rotation. This drastically changes the rate of angular velocity change per second, which drastically changes the inertial output...see, it’s not so much the mph speed you should be focusing on...but flat Earth wants you focusing on the larger number, cause it’s easier to play it against your assumptions.
So that’s your first misunderstanding, you assumed centripetal force on Earth would be greater than it actually is. Analyzing the science closer, reveals that it’s not.
1
-
Your second problem is with gravity and the relation it has with mass vs energy.
First of all, water is not alive, it has no means of burning carbs to generate energy, that it can then use to create movement. So it’s not actively trying to resist gravity, it’s dead matter, so it conforms to whatever force is being applied to it or attracting it. A bird is alive, it burns energy to generate movement in its wings, so it can create another form of energy, kinetic energy. It uses that energy, to resist the force of gravity for short bursts of time, but what happens when a bird stops flapping its wings? It falls, just like all things do. So I hope I shouldn’t need to further point out the difference between water and living creatures. One generates energy it uses to resist the force of gravity, the other does not.
The other factor, is that mass plays an important role here as well. Gravity effects all matter equally, but if something has more mass, then it has more particles of matter being effected by gravity all at once, means it becomes heavier. Objects on Earth don’t always have weight you see, what they always have is mass, weight is created by gravity+mass+the surface, without these three things, you don’t have weight, you just have mass. Weight is an inertia you feel, from gravity squeezing your mass against the surface, that’s all weight really is.
Why’s this important? Because the more mass something has, the more energy is needed to resist gravity. A bird has very little mass, so it requires less energy to overcome gravity. So basically, smaller things actually have a much easier time resisting gravity. Gravity still effects it the same, but it doesn’t take as much energy to move less mass, so it will have an easier time.
See the tricky part here is from pinning down exactly what it is you’re misunderstanding about gravity. I think many people have this misconception, that because things weigh differently, it must mean they’re effected by gravity differently...but then they hear that gravity effects all matter the same, and this clashes with their understanding. I think what you’re missing is mass and energy. More mass, means more gravity applying to every piece of mass creating that matter, which means it’s heavier, which means more energy is going to be required to move it.
Anyway, the simplest thing to remember, is that oceans don’t have wings (obviously), they’re not alive (obviously), so they don’t create energy they use to resist forces such as gravity. Even if they did, they’d require a LOT of energy to move their mass.
Hope that helps.
You’re last problem is with the physics of motion in general, you’re assuming we should feel Earths motions somehow...but no, this again is misunderstanding some physics. I won’t bog you down any more, I’ll just point you in a direction. Do some reading on the Laws of Motion and Relative Motion. Understanding the physics of motion is extremely helpful for answering this question.
1
-
1
-
@szekelysandor9530 Ok, but there’s no real defining line between 2 molecules in atmosphere, it’s not perfectly layered in sections, it’s a mixed gradient...which makes for a gradient in the volume density of molecules in atmosphere, meaning volume is a huge factor in refraction index. It’s many factors, but it’s almost like you’re intentionally trying to find a way to ignore or twist how some of these variables are, so you can force refraction to work for you, rather than against you. Bias tends to do that, but I won’t fault you for it, we all have bias and these are still good and valid attempts at falsification.
The horizon being apparent is not really that much of a problem, because science understands refraction now well enough to include it as a variable in calculation. And so they do http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Strong+Refraction+Simulation+and+Reality+for+2+Oil+Platforms. Here’s another great example http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. Just scroll down to the section on refraction, you’ll find they’ve accounted for refraction index in their calculations. It’s only a problem in so much as it adds to a level of difficulty in these observations, but that doesn’t mean we can’t still try.
It does make observations a little more complicated, but it’s not impossible to factor these variables. On much cooler days, these observations do come closer to the geometric. Now you can say that’s expected, due to refraction in the inverse on colder days, so you think this means you can argue horizon is apparent, so we can’t get an R value from something that’s constantly shifting, but that argument ignores that we get an R value from many different methods...all giving us the same value, it’s not just from these observations. Conclusions like the globe are not reached on single pieces of evidence or data, it’s when everything else points to the same conclusion, then we can conclude it’s accurate. Even if you could successfully make long distance observations inconclusive due to refraction, you’d still have quite a long ways to go. But it’s a valid scientific attempt, I just worry it’s more driven by a desire to win something (ego and bias), than it is to find out what’s actually objectively true.
1
-
1
-
@szekelysandor9530 R value is measured in many different ways, all giving the same value. So it’s not a coincidence that can just be ignored. Simply stating it’s a hoax, does nothing. You’d have to successfully falsify every method, from seismic waves, to Eratosthenes shadow experiments, to the consistent rate at which stars drop to horizon by latitude, and that’s just a short list from off the top of my head.
Your observation is a great one, thank you for sharing, but I wonder what effect the tide would have on that rising and falling. It certainly adds quite a bit to the elevation of the water, which would effect the refraction. This is why I prefer the Rainy Lake observation by Walter Bislin, it was made over frozen ice, so no chance of the water swelling, it better isolates the effect of refraction, leaving no other variables that could be responsible for the rising and falling of the distant markers and horizon.
1
-
1
-
@szekelysandor9530 I’ve done many similar experiments to the one Mick produced, it’s a very simple experiment to reproduce. Just cause I chose a second hand demonstration, doesn’t really refute easily reproducible science, so please save your excuses. Did a lot of these kinds of experiments way back in my school days as well, it’s basic refraction physics, which is a topic touched on and experimented on in pretty much every entry level physics class.
That’s great you’re writing your own articles and making your own observations, but the fact you’re posting in an FE blog, demonstrates a bias. Do you see real scientists publishing articles in a globe Earth journal? No, they typically publish within a broader field, like simply physics or biology. They are reaching conclusions from the research and data, while you’re starting with a conclusion and then seeking the evidence that supports it. You see the problem there? It’s confirmation bias. It’s why people are hesitant to take you and FE seriously.
1
-
@szekelysandor9530 Who said I was interested in a debate? I was just correcting something I felt you were in error of, and now I’m pointing out my hesitations towards entering any further conversation. Your bias is quite clear, I’m well aware of FECore and what they do, if you’re affiliated with them, it’s clear to me your motivations are not sincere and your reasoning is not objective in the slightest, so there’s not much point in a debate. I’ve seen enough fraudulent and dishonest activity from them to reach the conclusion, they’re not to be taken seriously or respected.
Even your laser experiment you shared has been reviewed by many and found to be lacking in important data and evidence, required for its conclusion...yet it makes its conclusion anyway. So I don’t really see any reason to continue wasting anymore time with a potential con artist, who supports a fraudulent organization, could really care less if that annoys you.
I’m all for people conducting their own research and experiments, but the credibility of the group you’ve chosen to associate with, has long been tarnished. So no need to continue.
1
-
1
-
NASA made no such claim, it’s flat Earth that makes this claim, repeating this lie enough times that they’ve made it a true statement in their minds. One guy who worked on creating composite images of Earth was explaining what he does at his job, flat Earth cherry-picks his words during an interview and takes them out of context, making the claim that he was talking about every photo NASA has taken is created on a computer. This is simply not true. The real truth is, composite images of Earth are just one of many different types of photos NASA takes of Earth, but even composites are technically real photos, taking hundreds of real photos and stitching them together to make one image, that’s all a composite is, your phone does the same thing with its panoramic feature. But still, many single frame photos of Earth exist, there’s many geostationary satellites in orbit right now taking full image photos around the clock.
CGI has only existed for a short time, it did not exist during the early days of space travel, so thousands of early photos exist that were shot on regular film. Here’s an archive showcasing many of those old photos https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums.
The pear comment (made by Neil Degrasse Tyson) was a poor comparison, that even Neil realized was a bad comparison in the very interview he made it. If you bothered to watch it all, you’ll notice he later redacts the comment and clarifies that Earth is classified as an oblate spheroid, slightly wider at the equator. This is true, but it doesn’t do much to tell you HOW oblate it is, and that’s where the misunderstanding arises. It’s a tiny difference, not noticeable to the naked eye, looking at a photo of Earth, it will look perfectly spherical to you, but here’s a helpful trick you can do to help you see the difference https://youtu.be/tjx0KcDH7pQ.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1