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