Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Tyler Oliveira" channel.

  1. Several things wrong. First of all, how would you confirm any of these are actually real events? He’s certainly presenting them as facts, but are they actually? Never just blindly believe a dump of claims at face value. Second, they’re cherry picked examples that just happen to fit his model, where’s the control examples to make comparisons? Are there a few examples he could share that better fit the globe that don’t make much sense on flat Earth? I mean there’s thousands of flights per day, so the probability is actually pretty good that you’d find several flights that fit any map or model better. A good example fir the globe being the direct flight from Perth Australia to Johannesburg South Africa (yes, that’s a real direct flight). On his AE projection map (aka the Gleason) that flight would be MUCH longer, actually it would be impossible to do if they took a route over the ocean like they do in reality, they’d run out of fuel. The more direct route on his map goes over land, over India, the middle East, and much of Africa I believe. Does he mention flights like that? Nope…because they don’t support his claim. An objective research absolutely would though. Third, are there logical explanations for each example he has shared? For example the first one he shares Doha to Buenos Aires; first of all he didn’t actually use a globe for his presentation, he used a different flat map projection, it looks like the Robinson projection, but could also be the Winkel Tripel projection. In any case, he’s not actually using a globe, he’s using a flat map (basically the Mercator, but with curved meridians)…why wouldn’t he use a globe if that’s the model he’s trying to refute? So are those distances the same on the actual globe? Go to google Earth to find out, it’s a free online software that uses the WGS84 globe model, which is the most recent complete and accurate survey of the Earth (it’s also used in all systems of navigation I might add). On the Globe those distances aren’t the same, Rome is roughly 11,100 km, Doha is roughly 13,200 km, a difference of 2000 km. This matters, because he’s trying to paint it like they’re exactly equal distance, so why fly to Rome to refuel? But they’re not actually equal distance, Rome is a shorter distance by 2000 km. So maybe the jet they’re using for that flight isn’t fuel rated for that flight. But it’s still out of the way to go an extra 4000 km to Rome, so is there another logical reason for that? Yup, there is, see planes aren’t magic, they can’t just land anywhere, they need the proper infrastructure to operate, they require airports. Airports aren’t magic either, every airport is different, most airports simply can’t handle the traffic. Essentially, most airports are small, they can’t receive direct traffic from thousands of smaller airports, so what they do to manage this flow, is they will instead ONLY receive international traffic, from major airports…like the one found in Rome, which is a huge airport, with the infrastructure to handle traffic from thousands of smaller airports. So they didn’t just fly to Rome to refuel, they flew there because Buenos Aires probably doesn’t take direct flights from a tiny city like Doha. There’s also probably a LOT more customers in Rome as well, flights also need PAYING passengers to make them economically viable, they can’t just operate flights with 2 or 3 people on board…they gotta pack those jets, how many paying customers you think are leaving Doha to go to Buenos Aires? Probably not a whole lot, Doha to Rome though, ya, probably quite a few. Is there a major hub airport that’s closer? Maybe Johannesburg, but they still don’t have nearly the population as Europe does…and sadly, not exactly the same level of wealth, so not as many customers that can afford it. Though I’m sure there probably is direct flights from Johannesburg to Buenos Aires, but the other problem is…do the flight times line up? Or, is the jet that left Doha even rated for a trip to Johannesburg, which is further than Rome? See there’s a LOT of logistics that goes into a connecting flight…they’re not magic, they can’t just fly anywhere and land anywhere. Unless you got a private jet, then you’re stuck using the transit system, and even then, private jets can’t just go anywhere they want either, only so many airports that can handle private traffic as well. Point is, he’s ignoring all the logistics and economics, and he’s asking you to ignore it all as well…and painting a picture for you. He’s taking you on a ride of his design, cherry picking an example that happens to fit the map he likes, and then using a few subtle suggestion tricks to get you to go along with it without question. If that’s not basically an example of a sleight of hand trick through clever misdirection…then I don’t know what is. The first red flag there though is his claim that the distances are exactly the same, and then his second claim that they went to Rome just to refuel. Neither claim is actually true, Doha is actually farther by 2000 km, and there’s plenty more economical and logistical reasons to stop in Rome, than just simply refuelling. So why would he lie? Because it helps sell his main argument, and those lies are subtle enough that you wouldn’t catch them immediately. For me though, that’s enough to shatter his credibility. Does he ask any of those questions? Nope, he just adds it to his list of “evidence”, regardless of how flimsy it is when you really dissect it. But he knows basic human psychology pretty well (most conmen do), he knows your average person doesn’t want to do any of the actual heavy lifting or research, they just want their biases confirmed. Most people will just sit on the surface of these claims, but to really refute or confirm them, then you have to dig into them a bit. Another tactic he’s using is called gish gallop, it’s essentially dumping a bunch of weaker arguments and evidence all at once, to essentially overload your ability to respond to each, because to do so would take time…time you don’t have in a setting like that. That’s why he shares multiple examples all at once, not just one. In debating it’s seen as a deceptive tactic, and it’s not allowed in controlled debates. But it’s something we all do in arguments actually, it’s pretty common, quantity over quality essentially…it works, sadly. That’s just a few things off the top of my head that are wrong with his argument here. Main point is, don’t just take him at his word…he has a horse in this race, so he’s most definitely bias. Or worse, he’s a conman…can be difficult to tell the difference sometimes. I’d say, try also plotting that flight from Taiwan to LA on google Earth. It has a handy ruler tool that creates the most direct route…see for yourself if that flight actually flew closer to Hawaii than Alaska, cause that’s a big one they love lying about. If you’re not familiar with it, an emergency happened mid flight and they had to land at the closest airport, they landed in Alaska…Flat Earthers will claim Hawaii was closer. It’s the easiest of their flight route arguments to debunk though, just plot the route on an actual globe yourself…takes maybe 10 seconds of your time to learn that these people actually kind of lie about a lot. Anyway, hope that information is helpful. Take care.
    3
  2. Gravity is also a law of science, just look up Newton’s law of universal gravitation sometime. That’s where gravity physics started. Here are some more facts; things fall when you drop them. Nothing moves on its own, motion always requires a force to cause it…that’s what defines a force. So pretty simple deduction at that point; we observe a very clear falling motion from dropped objects, and nothing moves without a force…so force confirmed. What does science do when it identifies a force? It gives it a name…so we’re all on the same page when discussing it. They called that force gravity, really isn’t anymore complicated than that. They did a similar thing with the upward motion we observe in density differentials, they called it buoyancy force. This is physics 101. These are simple facts…we teach gravity as a fact, because it’s very obvious that there is a force that motions us toward Earth, that is undeniable, so that part is fact, so if it’s a fact of physical reality, why wouldn’t we teach it as such? You can call it something else if you’d prefer…but then you better have a pretty damn good reason, otherwise why muddy the waters? Just easier when we’re on the same page. Scientific theories go into the deeper explanation of how they work, that’s the difference between a law of science and a theory of science. Laws only describe WHAT is happening, but make no attempt to explain HOW or WHY they occur. That’s what scientific theories are for, that’s the main difference. In that way, theories can actually be considered higher than laws, because you will always have more power over a system if you understand HOW it works, rather than just what it does. The conclusions of a single theory are not necessarily facts, but they are comprised of data and information that are proven beyond much doubt to be factual. Nothing graduates beyond hypothesis until it has passed all experimentation and peer review. The only reason they continue to call them theories, is because our information isn’t finite, old information always has the potential to change as new information is acquired. So there really is no higher position in science than theory. Facts are too rigid, by definition they can never change, so we need a wording that actually fits the reality of our situation; that being that we do not know everything and likely never will, so things can change as we learn more. Calling things a theory allows it that freedom to change. Electromagnetism is also a theory in science…but you won’t see anyone bringing that up with as much fervour. But that is a fact, it is “just” a theory as well, so why not apply the same logic there? You could say “well I can prove it with a magnet”, well you can prove gravity by dropping something…so really, what’s the problem? 🤷‍♂️ I think it’s a bit bias to apply that line of reasoning to one and not the other. In any case, it doesn’t matter, because scientific theories are not as flimsy as your standard theory is, scientific theory is not the same as a regular theory in the layman vernacular, it takes on a much more sturdy position. When you say something is “just a theory, therefore not true”, it just tells everyone you don’t quite understand the basic terminology of science. I understand that’s not necessarily what you said though, so I won’t put words in your mouth. Point is, gravity isn’t just a theory, and theories are lot more scientifically proven than you’re maybe giving them credit for.
    3
  3. You allow misinformation to spread, it eventually becomes damaging to a society. Best we don’t let any information just fly under the radar unchecked or unchallenged…especially foundational science. Nobody is navigating Earth using a flat Earth model, every pilot and sailor in the world uses the geographic coordinate system to help them plot successful navigation routes with pinpoint accuracy. That’s a fact, not an opinion. Allow these Flat Earth numpty’s to have their way, suddenly we have them rewriting textbooks that don’t conform to reality, then you get a lot of kids growing up with false information, you then have less people becoming scientists, engineers, pilots, sailors, and other various experts that actually get shit done, you essentially cripple a nations ability to perform even the most basic tasks…like navigating the surface successfully. It matters more than you realize. Do you like all your stuff? I guarantee most of it was imported…you honestly think they can operate a worldwide shipping network, without knowing for certain what shape the Earth is? On the flip side, to their credit, if the Flat Earthers are correct, then it’s certainly worth our time to investigate…however unlikely (and it’s very unlikely), the argument should be allowed to continue. Science is never really settled, it doesn’t operate in absolutes, it actually operates in percentages of certainty. That’s a double edged sword, but it’s necessary, because nothing and nobody is infallible. Science does get shit wrong sometimes, and it alway takes intense (often heated) reexamination to realize that. Galileo was nearly put to death for saying Earth isn’t the centre of the universe…turned out he was right. So these debates will rage on, and they should. Flat Earth will continue to lose, but it shouldn’t stop people from trying.
    1
  4. Two things; 1) Level has many different definitions depending on the context, it doesn’t just mean flat or straight. And; 2) Words we created don’t hold any real sway over physical reality. So your argument is quite fallacious. We call it “sea level” because it’s a surface held in a field of force, that’s all at equipotential distance from centre of force, every point on its surface is at the same LEVEL from centre. That’s how the word is being applied…it’s not implying the Earth is flat. Any spherical or circular surface can be defined as level in that context…it’s just geometry. But again, words are pretty irrelevant to actual physical reality, they have no power over it. So the points a bit moot either way. But, feel free to look up the expanded definitions for the word level sometime. Under adjectives, you’ll find a few definitions that describe it much like I have. Admiral Richard Byrd never once claimed Earth was flat, so I really don’t know why people in FE hold him up like some sort of hero for their cause. I’m sure he’d be rolling in his grave if he knew how future flat Earthers cherry pick and misquote him ad nauseam. The 🔑 to understanding Earth is a globe lies in navigation…we have developed an entire system of navigation around the knowledge that Earth is spherical. It’s called the geographic coordinate system, consisting of geodesic lines of latitude equal distance for TWO hemispheres, and lines of longitude intersecting through TWO poles. Ever wondered why they’re both measured in degrees? What do we use degrees for? 🧐 Angles within a circle. If that system were wrong, then it simply would not work when applied. Anyone can learn this system and the methods of navigation that use it…Admiral Byrd sure knew this system well, you don’t reach that level in the Navy if you don’t know how to navigate. This is the first thing you learn in navigation…and it’s probably the most crucial part. Nobody is navigating with a flat model of Earth, that’s a fact, not an opinion. Sorry to jump on ya like this, but Flat Earth is just another online hoax to keep your head spinning. You wanna know for certain what shape the Earth is, take a navigating course. Plenty of free tutorials online.
    1