Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Thoughty2" channel.

  1.  @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. Ever seen a reflection of the Sun on any water surface? I’m sure you have, so then you’ll understand how a reflection of light works. Clouds are basically water vapour, so it’s pretty easy for them to produce a similar effect. You’re gonna need better evidence than that…we don’t just throw out hundreds of years of scientific knowledge, because a few numpty’s online couldn’t figure out light reflection on clouds.
    2
  3. There’s absolutely zero evidence of a “dome” firmament some believe is up there, so there’s nothing really to explain, it doesn’t exist. Firmament has many different definitions though, one being simply “the sky”, so there ya go, Earth is a sphere and has a sky firmament, so win win.
    2
  4. So that somehow means the Earth is flat?
    2
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Never, because a plane requires atmosphere to generate lift…that’s how they fly. So no atmosphere, means no lift, means they have a limit to how high they can go. Since atmosphere decreases in density the further from surface you get, this means a plane can only fly so high off surface, keeps them at equal distance from that surface. That limit is the same distance all around the planet, and pilots have no trouble keeping at that altitude thanks to the altimeter that they’re constantly adjusting with. Since it takes 70 miles to pitch even 1 degree of difference on Earth, they’re certainly not going to notice a 1 degree shift roughly every 15 or so minutes…just like you barely notice the tiny little adjustments you make to stay on a highway while driving, it’s not much different. Flat Earth is a hoax…don’t be another sucker please.
    2
  8. Don’t think he reads these comments bud, so fraid you’re wasting your time.
    2
  9. Lol...ok, then you just try using it sometime for actual long distance navigation, see how well that works. 😂 Flat Earth has no working model and is not currently used in any applied science. #fact
    2
  10. 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
  11. You don’t need to go to space to verify Earths true shape for yourself, just a basic understanding of geometry and some common sense.
    2
  12. Proper paragraph structure goes a long way towards letting the rest of us know you’re not a complete nut job. Break that shit up, you’re just giving us a headache.
    2
  13.  @haroldrathbone1228  You don’t have to delete it, that would imply you’re perhaps ashamed in a way, and for what exactly? Speaking your mind? Sharing something you feel is important? Don’t let me or anyone else discourage you, it’s your jam, so own it. Or well, delete if you want too I suppose, tis up to you. Just sayin, paragraphs help.
    2
  14. I think you meant to say they successfully explain this phenomenon with the tidal locking explanation. It’s not a rare occurrence either, there are plenty of other moons in our solar system that are observed to be tidal locked to their host planet. Even Mercury is tidal locked to the Sun due to its proximity, this is well documented astronomy. Also fits perfectly well with our current understanding of gravity, that’s exactly what we’d expect would happen. So while modern science has a logical explanation backed by evidence, you just have an empty claim supported by nothing but bias and speculation, and an argument from personal incredulity. Not a hill I’d wanna die on, but you do you I guess.
    2
  15.  @kobusviljoen6685  Yes, my bad, thank you.
    2
  16.  @kobusviljoen6685  Yes, but sidereal days aren’t used, a full year is timed to solar days, not sidereal days, solar days are the standard at which they clock a full calendar year, it’s the standard for clocks in general. Even the rate of a second is timed to better fit the solar day, if we used sidereal days, they’d probably time a second to better match a perfect 24 hours to a sidereal day, meaning slightly faster seconds. So it makes it much more difficult to use sidereal days to calculate for anything calendar related, because it’s not representative of how we even keep time.
    2
  17. Wow dude, you need a better filter...or just go back to school and learn some actual physics, then you won’t fall for scams on the internet that take advantage of your lack of scientific understandings. You watched ONE video online, believed EVERY word without question, and now think you’re Neo in the matrix. 😂 Good job bud. 👍 Meanwhile, flat Earth has no working model, isn’t used in the foundation of any applied science today and can’t even explain a simple sunset, let alone why things fall to Earth and remain there. It’s a scam, with zero answers, only designed to scramble your brains and stir up doubt....and it worked on you.
    2
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20.  @rispatha  Those who are unable to think in nuances and consider all the variables before reaching a conclusion, are doomed to be misled and conned by huxters who exploit their need for easy to digest answers. In other words...I should be the one laughing, but it’s mostly just sad, so I pity you.
    2
  21.  @rispatha  There’s something wrong with you alright...especially if you think the Earth is flat. 😂
    2
  22.  @icherishcrochetandknit309  Insects, as in small, insignificant, way below a God that could easily swat it away if it really bothered it that much. Just saying, if it can’t handle a little criticism and mockery, then it’s not all powerful, it’s actually extremely fragile. If it’s truly as omnipotent as they claim, then it would care less about being mocked.
    2
  23.  @icherishcrochetandknit309  Don’t remember saying I hate God. Mockery and criticism don’t equal hate...I just prefer exorcising my free will, my right to question anything I don’t agree with. If that’s worth an eternity in hell, then your God is a psychopath and doesn’t deserve any respect anyway, if that’s the case, than the mockery is more than justified. Your preaching means nothing to me, so save it, you might as well read me quotes from Harry Potter, it’s about as relevant. You don’t like me mocking YOUR version of God? Tough titty.
    2
  24.  @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
  25.  @icherishcrochetandknit309  If God is everything, including this life I get to experience, then yes, I do love “God”. I love my life, I love this universe, I appreciate it. If God is just some bitter old tyrant, who created me for nothing more than something to kiss his lonely ass, then no...I don’t. That thing deserves no respect or admiration.
    2
  26.  @icherishcrochetandknit309  You don’t torture someone for all eternity if you love them, that’s not love. It’s incredible anyone could be convinced that it is...but to each their own. You need to understand, I don’t care how much you believe in your version of things, it doesn’t mean anything to me, it has about as much affect on my life as any other book of fiction. So you’re really wasting your time, as I’m sure I’m wasting my time by even trying to convince you of anything. I was just simply saying, if any God has an issue with criticism or mockery, then they’re pretty fragile.
    2
  27.  @icherishcrochetandknit309  If you believe and fight for Odin at Ragnarok, you’ll be given a seat at the table in Valhalla. There, now we’re both preaching man made superstitious fictions. I like that one more though, I think I’ll believe that one.
    2
  28.  @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
  29.  @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
  30.  @icherishcrochetandknit309  You’re the only one right now trying really hard to strip me of my critical thinking. Maybe someday you’ll realize you’re just running with paranoid delusions, hopefully before it ruins your life...but I doubt you’ll stop. Just leave me out of it.
    2
  31. Clearly you’re not aware of the LAW of universal gravitation. 😅 Gravity is both a law and a theory in science...maybe go back to school and this time pay attention.
    2
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Well seeing as Bibles and “holy” scriptures are creations of man, you’re still believing man’s word, you just don’t realize it yet.
    2
  35.  @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
  36. You’ve never visited a science lab or talked to an actual scientist, if you think nobody researches more than a flat Earther. 😅 It’s quite literally a scientists job, to conduct research. All flatties do is watch YouTube videos, that typically don’t share any data or sources to support the arguments made, and then they pretend they’re doing research. They waste a lot a time watching bullshit online, sure…doesn’t mean they’re doing real research.
    2
  37. 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
  38.  @TheAmericanAnimal  You mean the Michelson and Morley experiment? Damn dude...if you can’t even get the name of the experiment right, I very much doubt you have any clue what it was actually all about.
    2
  39. 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
  40. Show me an example of either, at the distances you’re claiming. Go ahead…I’ll wait.
    2
  41. You mean like this extensive recreation of the Bedford Level experiment? http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment The conclusion is pretty conclusive, Earth is curving and at the rate it should be.
    1
  42. If you’re learning information from someone else...then it’s second hand information. Well, not hard to see how you fell for flat Earth I guess.
    1
  43.  @findingsolutions198  If you’re learning anything from somebody else, doesn’t matter what it is, it is second hand information...that’s the very definition of second hand. You read something from a book that SOMEBODY ELSE wrote, then ya, you’re still learning second hand information. You watch a video on YouTube, learning information from someone else, then you’ve learned second hand information...this isn’t a difficult concept.
    1
  44.  @findingsolutions198  Experience is first hand, from that you can acquire first hand information, but if you’re learning anything from someone else, then it’s second hand, doesn’t matter what it is...this isn’t difficult. Eric Dubay is a known con man...and I hate to burst your bubble, but he didn’t originate shit, he plagiarized his information from Samual Rowbotham. Either way, even if he did come up with this stuff himself...learning it from him is still not first hand, it’s second hand....I really shouldn’t have to explain this to an adult.
    1
  45.  @findingsolutions198  Nope, still only second hand...you really need to learn this concept.
    1
  46.  @findingsolutions198  Only if you want to remain ignorant, but plenty of ways anyone can verify it for themselves FIRST HAND, anytime they want, with just a little effort. Or...you can listen blindly to conmen like Dubay feed you bullshit and gish gallop. Up to you really.
    1
  47.  @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
  48. Does water fling off a ball rotating at one revolution every 24 hours? Cause that’s how slow we’re rotating.
    1
  49.  @MultiFisherofmen  Well it does illuminate all of them, you see them don’t you? But to answer your question more directly, perspective. Same reason why you see a bright spot on water, and appears to follow you. The shines are just from the light that’s more focused from your current position. Someone a thousand miles away observing the same Moon, with different clouds, will see shines around their clouds as well…from the position they’re standing. Its just perspective and the light that’s more focused from that current position.
    1
  50.  @MultiFisherofmen  To be fair, that was a great question, so if I came off as condescending, my apologies. Nothing wrong with asking questions like these, it’s when people just jump to conclusions and assume something is impossible, before they have all the information required to really reach a conclusion…that’s what irks me. I hope I was able to provide some information you perhaps hadn’t considered, if you still disagree, that’s fine, I just think it’s good to consider all the variables before assuming too much.
    1