Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
1. The Bible has a track record of inaccurate information that doesn’t fit reality and is not scientific in the slightest. So it’s really no substitute for actual science.
2. These observations really only occur when conditions are favourable for high refraction. So no, not impossible in the slightest, you’re just not considering all the variables.
3. Show me one example of a flight that doesn’t make sense, and we’ll discuss it if you’d like.
4. So you’ve been to Antarctica to confirm this? Something tells me you haven’t, you just listened blindly to some schmuck online who told you it was…and for some reason you believed them.
5. No, Flat Earthers took the AE globe projection map of Earth, and claimed it as their own. But that map is just a projection of the globe. Do you know what a projection map is? Here’s a video that can help you understand https://youtu.be/9Wq3GiJT2wQ. The UN uses that projection as their logo, for a similar reason Flat Earthers took it as their own, because of all the projection maps, it’s the most balanced in terms of its layout. So it’s pleasing to the eye, in creative design, it’s known as a triad composition. Humans are drawn to symmetry and balance, so it was a no brainer. The UN represents every nation, so it needed a logo that represents every nation. Since you can’t depict all of a globe on a flat 2D flag, a projection map was the obvious choice. It’s simple creative design.
6. They’re not hitting anything, they’re being despun with a mechanism known as a yo-yo despin. It’s basic rocket science, that putting a rocket into a controlled spin is the easiest way to maintain a stable trajectory. Trouble is, eventually you’re going to want it to stop spinning, especially if you have cameras on the exterior, otherwise what’s the point of having the cameras? So they design them with ways to stop the spin mid flight, a yo-yo despin is the most common mechanism used for that purpose, because it’s simple and cheap. It’s used in satellites too, look it up sometime.
I wouldn’t call you dumb, just not very knowledgeable in things like science and engineering…and that’s why you’re reaching so many false conclusions.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
No, you’re just getting your information from bad sources. The math FE has provided for you, and claimed was accurate, is actually incorrect. Use the wrong math and you will reach false conclusions, it’s pretty simple. Here’s where you can find the correct math https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/.
Bringing a boat back into focus only brings it back from the vanishing point, which is an effect of perspective and your eyes physical limits. So if you’re bringing an object back into focus, then it’s not gone over the horizon yet, you’re really just bringing it back from vanishing point. https://youtu.be/NKQI18jr8Oc
The real liars are those in Flat Earth, misleading you with half truths, speculations, and misinformation. It is a scam, exploiting people’s general lack of knowledge and our growing distrust in authority. You don’t have to agree, but at the very least don’t just listen blindly to what FE claims.
6
-
6
-
Hundreds of thousands of people per year visit Antarctica…and they have a base directly at the South pole, it’s called the Amundsen Scott South Pole Station. Look it up sometime, plenty of video footage from visitors of this base. A common observation made there is the 24 hour Sun in Antarctic Summer. An occurrence that’s not possible on a flat Earth.
There exists a treaty among nations of the world, that was signed mainly to keep Antarctica neutral. It’s basically just a peace treaty, stating that no single nation is allowed to lay claim to Antarctica, no private industry is allowed to exploit its minerals, and no military is allowed to operate there. It is to be shared by every nation as strictly a place for scientific research. At the time it was signed, the world was just coming out of WW2, and into the Cold War…the US was already scouting Antarctica for potential bases. The UN felt it best to avoid future conflicts over Antarctica, to just establish it as neutral…it clearly worked.
You can look up the treaty anytime, it’s not a long read. It doesn’t say anything about people not being allowed to go there…many people do each year. It’s just a peace agreement, keeps us from fighting over it. The terms of the agreement will expire soon, and then like all treaty’s it will be reevaluated.
6
-
6
-
@yestervue4697 Ok, keeping on your moon topic, what happens when we plot the angles of the Moon in relation to the horizon on your FE map? https://youtu.be/dEa0q5MWEvM Oh, goodness...seems your map can’t even pinpoint the Moon. How exactly is the moon in so many places all at once? Oh ya...cause the Earth isn’t flat, that’s why. This data works perfectly on the Globe...doesn’t make a whole lotta sense on your model though.
The data used here is from time and date dot com, but I’m sure you can figure out how a sextant works, then get 2 or 3 friends from various spread out locations, to measure the angles of the Moon at the same time, from their location. Then just plot the data on both models, see which one it fits. Pretty simple observation to make, taking only a bit of prep and planning.
A similar experiment can be ran for the Sun as well. Here’s a group, consisting of people from all around the world, collecting data and observations for the Suns angles during the Equinox.
https://youtu.be/J9w4KtHxZ68?t=906
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The ignorance is all theirs…because every physicist and engineer in the world knows, that gravity is what directly causes buoyancy…it doesn’t occur without it. That’s why it’s included as a variable in the formula for determining buoyancy force; Fb=Vpg. Notice that little ‘g’ in the formula? That’s the downward acceleration of gravity, 9.8m/s^2. Remove that variable, and engineers designing ballast tanks for ships and submarines are gonna have a real hard time doing their jobs.
So no…it’s them who are ignorant to a LOT of science….this is basic physics, thoroughly tested and proven in dozens of experiments concerning buoyancy. Buoyancy is not a fundamental force on its own, it’s part of a chain reaction of motion…that begins with gravity. While gravity occurs, regardless of the surrounding matter.
They’re just denying anything that’s not very convenient for their core arguments…that’s what’s really happening here. It’s just classic denialism, masked with pseudoscientific jargon. Gravity is a real problem for them, and they know it, so they make it go away by pretending it doesn’t exist. But jump off a building sometime…let us know if you think there’s no downward force putting your body in an accelerated motion towards the ground. :/
These are con men, not scientists…who SOMEHOW convinced some people that gravity doesn’t exist. What a world we live in…where strangers online, with zero credentials and zero scientific experience or training, and zero accomplishments, are considered the real experts now. Yikes…
No offence, but if you actually think they have any real scientific grounds, then I suggest you get a better bullshit filter…and maybe brush up on some actual physics.
6
-
@user-Rockstar1 My apologies, I thought you were asking about military laser targeting, I misread. Either way, that’s quite the claim, I don’t suppose you’d be willing to share this laser experiment to support your claim? I’ve seen none so far conducted from that distance, so feel free.
Lasers are a bit of a troubled topic however, most people really seem to assume that lasers stay perfectly tangent to starting location, but that’s actually not true, it’s a common misconception. Lasers shot within atmosphere will always be affected by both refraction (deflection causing it to bend) and diffraction (scattering). There is no way to overcome these atmospheric effects, it’s basic physics of light and lasers. So if you seen a perfect pinpoint laser hitting a target at 50 miles distance, then I’m afraid to tell you, but you’ve been conned. You’d probably have a good chance of seeing the light, as it’s bending due to refraction, scattering due to diffraction and skipping off the water layer, but hitting a target with the laser light still a pinpoint of light, no, I’d say you fell for some sleight of hand trickery. Wouldn’t be hard to fake, a closer laser that’s off camera, super simple trick to pull.
Here’s a simple demonstration of laser refraction https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0?t=274. And laser diffraction https://youtu.be/ysSp7G5UWT0. The simple fact is, lasers within atmosphere will not remain perfectly tangent at distances, nor would they remain a pinpoint of light, it’s a common misconception that people believe they would.
This is why peer review is crucial in science, and replication of experiments as well. We do not settle scientific research on single observations or experiments, peer review must occur before any real conclusions can be made. So has the experiment you’re referring too been properly peer reviewed? My guess is no, because I’ve seen several, and none so far were submitted for any peer review process.
You should also be very careful with information you receive online. It’s not hard to lie and fake observations online. With no peer review system in place to check the work and make sure it’s accurate, then people are free to fabricate information all they like…and they will, you best believe that. The modern online world is a con artists paradise.
But again, feel free to share the experiment you’re referring too, I wouldn’t mind taking a look to be sure of the details. I hope you find this information at the very least interesting.
6
-
It was meant more as a joke. The experiment is flawed, because it ignores gravity…so it’s an inconclusive experiment. You can’t determine Earth’s surface shape with a simple carpenters level, it doesn’t work that way. Gravity is what causes the buoyancy effect in the tube of liquid, it’s a device that is really determining centre of gravity, that’s its true function, and gravity vectors shift with your position on surface. So gravity renders the tool useless in this experiment.
He only conducted it as a gag, because Flat Earthers do it…and they actually believe it’s conclusive evidence. It really just points out their lack of understanding in basic physics. So it fits the theme of his video quite well, because he’s trying to determine why people come to believe the Earth is flat. That experiment they conduct reveals something in common many of them share…scientific illiteracy. They’re not necessarily stupid…just not very well educated in science and science practices.
With even a basic understanding in physics, a person can understand why that experiment is inconclusive and doesn’t really achieve anything…his point here is that some people can’t identify how it’s flawed right away (or at all in many Flat Earthers cases). That is part of the reason why they slip down the rabbit hole of Flat Earth, because they were ill equipped in scientific knowledge and understanding, enough to counter the claims being made.
Anyway, hope that helps.
6
-
6
-
@dick_richards Computers are pretty fast man...and it's just a parabolic arc equation...it's not like it's computing galaxy formation or sifting through quantum particle data...jesus. A good enough crew member with a simple calculator could figure out the drop rate of that projectile, without much effort. They've been doing it for centuries now, ever since they invented canons. Snipers do it in real time too. The fact of the matter is, projectiles IMMEDIATELY begin to drop the moment they leave the barrel of the weapon firing them AND they lose momentum which helps gravity more and more for every second they're in the air. It's forward momentum keeps it up for longer, but it will drop thanks to both gravity and air resistance...that's just basic physics. YOUR assumptions seem to ignore the drop rate of a projectile, as if it just fires straight forever...do you think it magically becomes free from gravity or air resistance somehow? Just because it's shot from an electromagnetic railgun and not a regular cannon, which is fired by kinetic energy. It's the same thing man...the fact that it's a railgun doesn't make it magically ignore gravity or air resistance.
But alright, feel free to share some calculations with me. This is not an aspect of the Flat Earth that I have run the numbers on yet, I just know the physics involved. I have however, done the math for curvature, many times....and have yet to find a legit claim from flat Earth that doesn't match globe Earth calculations. I'm not new to this discussion and I'm no slouch on the topic of physics, I've been looking at this mess for over 3 years now, I have yet to see a legit claim from Flat Earth that has stood up to review...they're always ignoring something.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@yestervue4697 Exactly, it doesn’t, you’re stawmanning the argument. I didn’t say the Sun shrinks, in reality it doesn’t...that’s the problem. On your model it would be much closer and smaller, so at 2k miles, it should appear to shrink in apparent size. YOU’RE claiming a sunset occurs because of vanishing point...but for that too occur, it would have to begin shrinking long before it reached horizon, which would be easily noticeable. Vanishing point causes a convergence from EVERY angle towards centre...it doesn’t pick and choose what to make disappear first, doesn’t work that way. And vanishing point is a complete convergence...which is what causes the vanishing effect. There would be no dropping into horizon. If what you’re saying were true, it would begin shrinking long before reaching horizon and then vanish completely before meeting...but as the model I shared shows as well, it wouldn’t even come close to horizon, if we assume the model most widely accepted by FE, the AE model.
Here’s the facts, we do not observe a Sun shrinking into a vanishing point, we observe it being blocked, bottom first. Perspective converges towards centre of object, shrinking it equally, before reaching vanishing point. So it’s not perspective causing a sunset, because that explanation doesn’t match with what we observe in reality. That’s reality...modelling the geometry and scales for both models, demonstrates that the Globe matches with what we observe in reality. Everything from the apparent size, to the path it takes through the sky, to the rate at which it travels, to the simplest observation of it being blocked by horizon...which would not occur on your model, if you were to actually model it.
So you can’t just slot in “vanishing point due to perspective”, then call your work done...fraid it doesn’t work that way. That is what’s known as an ad hoc response, slotting in an explanation, without ever testing or confirming it.
But I’ll give you a chance...what evidence do you have, to confirm your hypothesis for vanishing point? Go ahead...I’ll wait. Provide me some real world data and experimentation. I will then do the same for our model.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Refraction is a very well known and understood concept in physics, and it absolutely does effect what we see at distances, while making observations through our atmosphere. Simple demonstration for you here https://youtu.be/5lmmzvzz_Xs. So it's a variable that is well known in science, not outside the precepts of scientific knowledge at all. So it can not be ignored in these observations, it must be included as a variable. Science must factor every known variable, it can not ignore important variables, or it will reach a false conclusion. It's that simple.
Rowbotham did not include this and many other variables in his experiment. In fact his experiment was very sloppy, making only one observation, using only one marker, collecting only one data set, using the wrong math that skipped variables important to the observation...so his version is deemed inconclusive and his conclusion is biased.
Upon all peer review and recreation of this experiment, it is found to fit in support of the globe. Here you can find a link to one of the more recent recreations that I am aware of https://youtu.be/a79KGx2Gtto. The report has a whole section on refraction. This is exactly why we conduct peer review in science, to weed out errors due to things such as bias.
Johnny may have only briefly touched on the topic, that's true, but he was not wrong. Rowbotham's experiment upon review was indeed found to be in error, likely due to his extreme biased position on the subject. He ignored important variables, and basically only looked long enough to confirm his bias, then he stopped looking, stopped experimenting. That's not how you conduct a proper experiment, it takes a lot more work and effort than that, to reach anything conclusive.
5
-
This assumes the word level only means "a flat plane", but words in the English language have many different meanings given the context. When used in topography, level is defined as "being a surface perpendicular to all lines of force in a field of force : EQUIPOTENTIAL" Equipotential means basically, maintaining an equal distance from center, for example the surface of a spherical bubble is an equipotential surface, a surface that is all equal distance from a center point, which creates a sphere. You'll find that definition here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level in the third entry as an adjective, definition 5.
So no, it's not as simple as just concluding "well sea is level, level means flat...so Earth is flat". Words have many different definitions, in topography and geometry, level takes on a completely different meaning and that's the definition they use for sea level.
Hope that helps answer your question.
5
-
@yestervue4697 Well, you’re sure making a lot of guesses and empty claims and then expecting us to agree without question...so that’s a bit hypocritical I’d say. Science was very wise to file its conclusions under theory, because they know the true nature of information gathering is not simple in the slightest. We do not know everything, we likely never will, and new data/information always has the potential to change old data/information. That’s the reality of our situation, for this reason it becomes very difficult to reach definite conclusions on anything, so science chose not to think and operate in absolutes, it chose to operate in percentages of certainty. The theory with the most evidence, that has not been falsified, and that does not contradict any other part of the theory, goes on to become the accepted conclusion. We’re all free to challenge these conclusions...but science does not just roll over and accept blind claims made, you will have to go to great effort to falsify their conclusions. That’s just the way it is.
I can tell ya now...comments on a YouTube thread...aren’t going to make any dents in established science. But, it is a good and fun exorcise, so not entirely a waste of time.
Let me see if I got this clear, you’re claiming the force that attracts us to the surface is electromagnetism? Ok...do you have any experiments, data or information you can share that verifies this claim? Feel free to share the information that helped lead you to that conclusion, I don’t mind taking a look...but we’re not just going to agree blindly to every flattie that comes shouting at us. You want a conversation, you have to cool your jets and treat us as people and don’t insult our intelligence, you might find we’ll return that sentiment in kind, then you might actually get yourself a good civil conversation, where you can get your perspective across.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
And you seem to have a very low opinion of the scientific community. You really think they’re not questioning things constantly? That’s quite literally their job…to ask questions and too solve them. You really think scientists just agree with everything they’re told? Their careers are made from challenging consensus. For example; Einstein is famous today for that very reason, he did not conform to the modern consensus of his time, he questioned it…he challenged the work of Newton for Christ sake…without a doubt the top dog as far as physics is concerned. Sure there are plenty of people in fields of science who don’t go outside the lines very much or at all, but they won’t achieve anything groundbreaking if they don’t ask questions and challenge consensus. Einstein did that, over and over again…the difference he has with Flat Earthers, is that he was able to prove his positions were correct, beyond any doubt. Atomic energy (both fission and fusion) would never have been possible, without his contributions. So you can argue all day long it’s inaccurate, it’s still an applied science…and nothing confirms scientific knowledge as accurate, better than working applications of the science.
I don’t know how your education was, but my science teacher didn’t just talk at us…he demonstrated the science, then encouraged us to ask questions. Did nobody ever demonstrate the science to you, that led to the conclusions they were teaching? You had a very bad teacher if all they did was talk at you without demonstrating how it was accurate.
You seem to think yourself superior and you’re not giving others enough credit. Many of us agree with the conclusions of modern science, because the evidence is quite substantial…it’s difficult to disagree with things that are basically undeniable at this point. You can claim we’re agreeing blindly too what we’re told, but that’s just a blind speculation…something you hope is true, so you can pretend it’s everyone else with a problem, instead of considering the very real possibility that you’re just ignorant and really don’t know as much as you seem to think you do.
In any case, all that really matters is evidence. You can claim to have a superior understanding all you wish, but if you have no evidence to support a position, and no working scientific models that can actually be applied…then you really don’t have much.
5
-
5
-
@yestervue4697 Ok, but that goes both ways, do you ever look at the evidence others provide for you? You didn’t come off as very interested in a discussion, you came here guns blazing looking to force people to believe you...while providing no room for discussion, claiming victory before any review or rebuttal, using words like “inarguable”, and all while providing zero sources or evidence for your claims. This comes off as irrational behaviour...so how do you think people are going to react?
Some people are gonna be nasty no matter what, but some of us are more open and patient, and don’t mind discussing, it’s just frustrating when people demand so much...but don’t think they should be held to the same standards, for some reason. But I digress on that point for now.
You said you were going to share evidence, I was expecting something scientific. We can’t do much with scripture or ancient drawings, all we can do is speculate and make interpretations...but I don’t regard it as evidence of much, in a discussion of Earth science. Sure, it’s widely believed that the Egyptians believed the Earth to be flat, but Mesopotamians and Greeks are also ancient cultures, Hindus as well, and they all believed it was spherical. So it’s a tad bias to just look at one past culture, and not consider any others...but I can see why you have, you’re Christian, which has ties to Egyptian history. Point is though, if you’re going to bring up ancient cultures, then remain objective and don’t ignore the others.
Either way, it’s kind of irrelevant. I don’t much care about old cultures beliefs...many of them were simply just wrong, it’s as simple as that. They’re beliefs don’t matter much, when we’re putting satellites and astronauts into space on a regular basis. I care much more about tangible things I can observe and test right here, right now, in this present time. Not that studying old cultures is a waste of time mind you, it’s still interesting, and we can learn a lot still from the effort...but when pilots and sailors are navigating the planet, using the mapped scale and dimensions of a globe to help them do it...a few paintings on old walls don’t mean much.
I much prefer scientific evidence, not to interested in ancient relics. Sorry.
5
-
5
-
5
-
Alright, so it’s kinda like a sleight of hand trick. Rowbotham (Parallax) tells you that you shouldn’t see the boat after 6 miles…but that’s it. It’s basically “keep your eye on what I’m telling you”. If you never question his initial claim, then sure, you’re now primed to believe the conclusion. See how it works? Now let’s stop and actually think about it a bit…where’d he get that number from? What’s his math? What’s his observation height? How tall is the boat? Are there any other variables to consider, like refraction? Rowbotham doesn’t really provide many details, and doesn’t ask you to think about it beyond what he’s told you, just provides a claim and then a conclusion…if you never question it, then you’re just along for the illusion, keeping your eye on what he wants you too see. It’s a pretty simple trick…that sadly works on a lot of people. It works because most people don’t have the time to invest, they just want quick answers. Not their fault, we all have that tendency to some degree I believe.
Science requires a lot more thorough investigation, then there’s peer review, which is a crucial step to weeding out conmen, like Rowbotham. Upon peer review, his experiment is simply found to be extremely inconclusive, due to poor experimentation. He only made ONE observation, using only ONE marker, taking ONE data set, used the wrong math for his set up (8 inches per mile squared, which is a parabola equation, does not represent line of sight or horizon), and ignored important variables like height of the observer and refraction. Refraction was really the least of his troubles in his experiment…but yes, it mattered as well. Here’s a simple recreation of the experiment, demonstrating why https://youtu.be/IRywj88MsjA. This is a time lapse filmed over several hours, from a stabilized camera. I want you to pay attention to the ground here and watch that as refraction index increases, everything in the distance appears to rise up. This is the effect atmosphere can have, on what we see at distances, that’s a pretty clear demonstration of atmospheric refraction. Light Refraction is pretty standard knowledge in physics, you’ve experienced it as well, ever noticed a pencil in a glass of water distort the shape of it? I’m sure you’ve gone swimming, ever noticed things under the water are distorted and don’t appear to be where they actually are? That’s refraction and it does occur in atmosphere as well, that’s how things like mirages occur.
It’s a variable he ignored, didn’t even care to research it or consider it. But it matters, it’s a variable that effects how far we see, so it must be included in the math. Science has studied refraction for a very long time, even in those days they had a few equations worked out that could account for that variable. So you just do the geometric math first (but he did the wrong math right from the start, so his experiment is inconclusive right out of the gate, just from using the wrong math), then you do the math for refractive index, which you can measure, it’s just air humidity and pressure, which increases or decreases air density, which is what causes refraction. It’s also important to make several observations, because refractive index fluctuates, so making more observations, collecting more data, is how you find the average. You can find a great formula fir refraction and more information, at the Metabunk forum, just find the refraction calculator, should have links to the forum where they explore the math and science of it in greater detail.
This experiment has been repeated many times over the last couple hundred years, because to be fair, it was a great experiment…it was just conducted poorly. Rowbotham only did so much as to gather the observation he WANTED, looking only as long as to confirm his bias, then he called it a day. That’s bad science…his experiment actually stands as a perfect example for why we conduct peer review today, and why it’s such an important part of the scientific method. Peer review catches errors, an experiment must be repeatable…or it does not count.
One of the more recent recreations of the Bedford Level experiment, that I’m aware of, is the Rainy Lake experiment, conducted over 10 km of a frozen lake. You can find it in a quick search. That refraction time lapse I shared was actually from that experiment. Upon every proper recreation of this experiment, it actually is found to be conclusive for the globe, not the other way around.
Anyway, hope that helps shed a little more light on things. They actually teach this experiment to science students, to help illustrate the pitfalls of both confirmation bias and conducting sloppy experiments. It’s not enough to simply conduct an experiment…you have to make sure it’s not in error and you have to be quite thorough about every detail, from the math to the variables. Even then, it must then be peer reviewed, because some errors simply can’t be caught by the individual because of their biases and limitations, but your peers don’t share the same biases and limitations, so they likely will have no trouble finding those errors.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Conservation of momentum…basic physics. You learned this in grade school. That’s the problem…Flat Earthers think they have caught some glitch here, when in reality they’re just demonstrating that they didn’t pay attention in physics 101 class.
Try this sometime, next time you’re in a moving vehicle on a straight path with constant speed, toss a paper air plane gently back and forth between you and someone else. You’ll notice it will be effortless, doesn’t matter if you toss it with the vehicles direction or against it, it will behave the same no matter the direction, never speeding up or slowing down and it doesn’t go flying to the back the moment it leaves your hand.
But wait a second, say you’re in a passenger jet going 500 mph…can you toss anything at 500 mph to keep up with the forward velocity of the jet? Obviously not…so how exactly is it keeping up with the motion of the vehicle while in the air? 🤷♂️ Because momentum is conserved at all times, indefinitely…all things in motion stay in motion, it’s the first law of motion…and it’s what you learn on day 1 of basic physics.
Planes do a similar thing while in flight, they conserve the momentum of the Earth they’re moving relative too…their momentum doesn’t just stop the moment they leave the surface.
Physics…learn some please, then you’ll have a better chance of not being conned by these scientifically illiterate misinformation movements, like flat Earth.
5
-
@dick_richards The water doesn't fly off, because the Earths rotation is not fast enough to generate enough Centripetal force to overcome the pull of gravity. If you knew anything about centripetal/centrifugal force and how they increase, you'd know this. Centripetal forces increase by the rate of angular velocity change per second, which is caused by an objects RATE of rotation, it's revolutions per minute (RPM's). Earth rotates at the slow ass rate of ONE revolution every 24 hours...this means it's rotational velocity is VERY small, meaning very little centripetal force generated. But, the rotation of Earth does generate a tiny amount that does negate a little bit of gravity, which is greatest at the equator, about 0.3% of gravity is negated at the equator compared to everywhere else on Earth, which is why things weigh slightly less at the equator. Here's a simple experiment anyone can recreate that helps to verify this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t=562s Learn some physics, then you'll maybe learn your error here. Your error is that your focusing on the linear surface speed...and ignoring the more important variables to this problem, the rotational velocity, which is not the same thing.
"And i guess you can land an airplane on a ball spinning at 26,000 mphs because...... let me guess? Gravity???? Is... is... that it???
"
Gravity plays its roll sure, but no, it's mostly conservation of momentum and relative motion that makes this possible. The laws of motion...more basic physics you should probably learn more about.
Your butchering of physics isn't much of an argument though. You can misunderstand and twist science all day long, but you'll never be able to escape the fact that Flat Earth has no working model...and that's for a good reason, because it's not reality.
Flat Earth can't explain a simple sunset, let alone the southern hemisphere, which has it's own stars AND it's own celestial rotation around its own pole star, Sigma Octantis. Flat Earth has a pretty damn rocky time explaining solar eclipses and has nothing for a lunar eclipse, but again, the Globe answers for these with absolute ease, it also predicts them down to the second and square mile, DECADES into the future. Flat Earth can't explain flight paths and times, it can't explain Coriolis effect, it can't explain the 24 hour sun observed in the South, can't explain how the Sun and Moon orbit above, heck it can't even explain why things fall to Earth....the Flat Earth model is a fucking mess bud. It falls apart right from the moment you try to apply it to what we observe in actual reality. NOTHING in modern science is built on the foundation of a Flat Earth, from navigation, to communication, to engineering and infrastructure...it all uses the Globe model...and it all works flawlessly, which further helps to verify the model.
I think you should spend more time looking at the model you're supporting, and leave physics to those who can actually understand it. You're just allowing Flat Earth to con you and fill your head with bullshit.
5
-
@dick_richards A railgun shoots a projectile, just like any other projectile weapon. So just like any other projectile, like a bullet, an arrow, a missile, a rock you throw, it still conforms to the same physics. That projectile is not free from drag force or gravity...and so it will drop, it will not shoot straight indefinitely, which makes shooting over a curve, not only possible but pretty simple, all they have to know is the velocity of the projectile, it's mass and then run a simple parabolic trajectory calculation, to give them a firing angle...and then gravity and air resistance do all the rest.
Here's a page from a Naval railgun tech assessment. https://imgur.com/a/BvLi4#rpTODVY Just scroll through the whole report to learn more about railguns and how they actually work.
5
-
@dick_richards "A Leftist is a person that believes all the demonic lies of this world..."
Jesus man....how did people get so scrambled on things. The left is just a group of regular people, like the rightwing, that just tend to focus more on environment and the well being of people, over economy, military, corporations, etc. That doesn't mean they ignore these other things, they're just the softer hand that prefers we don't destroy our environment or butcher our citizens, just to make a profit or remain secure.
It doesn't mean they're right all the time, that's why we have the rightwing.
The right are just regular people who tend to put job security and economy over all else. The right is the firmer hand, that understands that a society can't survive without a strong economy, a hard working middle class and tough attitude towards anyone who would threaten them, local or abroad.
They are ying and yang bud...and they can't exist without the other. Life is about balance and so is society, you need the left more then you realize. The smart people don't lean far right or far left...they realize that BOTH are fucking insane. Both extremes lead to totalitarianism, if they don't balance the other out....that's the reality of things. Neither side is perfect, they need each other.
That used to be pretty obvious...but nowadays, all you hear about are the extremes, so now all you got are people thinking that's all that exists... are the extremes. Then you stay inside your bubbles and then we become divided...and then you start making stupid statements, like the left are just devil worshipers. No...they're just people, who value something other then money and security. We keep destroying the environment non stop...we will pay the price eventually. We keep blowing up our enemies instead of peacefully working with them...we will pay the price for being assholes.
Likewise, if we ignore the economy, then society will crumble. If we don't defend ourselves from those that would do us harm, then they will not hesitate to take from us.
BOTH SIDES have value...a smart person doesn't align himself firmly in one camp, a smart person doesn't think in absolutes like that. If the left has a good idea, then it should be recognized. If the right has a good idea, same thing.....we USED to work together like that, but society is dividing lately and it's not going to end well, if people keep spreading that agenda, with the ignornat bullshit that you posted above. :/
The left is not your enemy....the FAR LEFT are insane, but the same is true of the FAR RIGHT. They're both crazy as all hell, but you don't have to be like them. Nothing is as black and white as you'd like it to be. I think it's smarter to be in the middle, with a slight leaning to whichever you agree with more....like how it used to be, where we used to work together, to make the best possible society.
5
-
5
-
You’re referring to the Ring Laser Gyro experiment conducted by Bob “not a pilot” Knodel and his lackeys at Globebusters. Ring laser gyros are what modern airliners use to detect pitch, yaw and roll in the plane, basically they’re very useful for detecting rotational motion. Scientists have used these for decades to detect and measure Earth’s rotation as well, which is always found to be a steady 15 degrees per hour, consistent with a spherical object rotating at 0.00068 RPM’s, 1 revolution every 24 hours. So, not surprisingly, when Flat Earthers thought to try this experiment themselves, they got the same result.
It was pretty funny actually 😄, but as you’d expect, they just ignored it...as it didn’t confirm their bias, so it never happened in their delusional world.
5
-
Gravity was realized after the geometry of Earth was undeniable. See if you want to understand how science reached the conclusion of gravity, then you have to go in the same order they solved things in. It started with the geometry, which eventually came to a point where it could no longer be denied, that it was spherical. Some basic evidence being the consistent drop of stars to horizon by latitude, different constellations seen in both hemispheres, Sun shadow angles and transit paths only matching a spherical geometry, heck the fact a sunset occurs at all is a pretty good starter proof, eclipses, the list goes on.
Once it became impossible to deny the basic geometry, then they moved on to the physics, such as gravity. It was clear that no matter where you were on the sphere, you were always pulled down to its surface, this could only be possible if a force was present that kept you balanced perpendicular to centre of mass, always pulling you towards centre. We observe this force, it puts dropped objects into motion, always towards surface, so it’s just simple deduction after that. All things are held to surface, thanks to an accelerating force that pulls to centre of mass...and let me tell ya, after gravity was realized, a whole lot of other things started making sense, like orbits, and why everything in space is observed to be spherical...that’s the shape things tend to make, with a force present squeezing all matter around a centre. That’s why bubbles form spheres as well as water drops, it’s the most rigid shape in nature.
So why doesn’t it all get spun off? Good question and it has a simple answer, it’s not spinning fast enough to trump the pull of gravity. Centrifugal force is increased by the rate of revolutions per minute (RPM’s), the more rotations per minute, the more centrifugal force, pretty basic rule of thumb here. Earth completes 1 rotation every 24 hours...so to put that into perspective, rotate a ball in your hand so that it completes one rotation in a 24 hour tine frame...not going very fast is it?
So why do we think water will adhere to a spinning ball? Because we observe that to be the case. Earth is proven spherical and the physics checks out, so it’s not difficult to deduce why. The only people not able to grasp it, are those who haven’t bothered to really understand the physics, of things like gravity and centrifugal force, and who haven’t really tested the geometry of Earth very well.
From what I can gather, you’re just looking at the conclusions of science but not really going very deep into the science to learn how they reached those conclusions...so no wonder you think it’s impossible, you don’t know how any of it works.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@yestervue4697 “...you cannot fly in a perfectly level angle at zero degrees pitch indefinitely on any sphere of any size...”
Agreed, I’ve never been arguing with you on that, why do you continue to think I am? My point is that you will never notice the degree pitch, because of how gradual it would really be, on a globe at our scale. You also won’t notice, because gravity puts you in a field of force that’s equal distance from centre, at all times. So the inertial centre of gravity is constantly shifting with the surface, meaning as long as the plane maintains perpendicular to surface (which isn’t difficult to do at all with how many gyros they got helping them), then nobody will ever notice an inertial shift in gravity.
It’s easy to stay at altitude as well, because the altimeter tells the pilot when he’s off...so just like a car driving down a highway needs to gradually adjust the wheel to stay on the road, a pilot will gradually adjust the plane, to stay at altitude. This can mean, gradually adjusting pitch, but like I mentioned before, gravity can also do this, because gravity is always pulling the plane down, so it doesn’t have to pitch down as wildly as it did to get higher in altitude, it can just let gravity take it down when it needs too as well.
“...cannot fly along any sphere no matter the size in any aircraft...and maintain a set altitude...That’s simple physics...”
No, that’s geometry...why do you keep calling it physics? Do you know what physics is? Your points are largely discussing just the basic geometry, no physics is really being discussed yet (though I’ve brought up lift and gravity often, which is physics), just shapes and scales, which is all mathematical, all geometry.
Look man, you’re arguing a position that is going against millions of scientists and experts the world over...and acting as if they’re the ones in error here, claiming that you know better what science is...when you don’t even seem to know the difference between physics and geometry. Ever consider that maybe YOU are the one that’s missing something, not everybody else?
Yes, I do know a pilot you can chat with about this, look up Wolfie6020 sometime, he’s a licensed international pilot from Australia, who has several videos on this very topic. He’s pretty understanding and patient with people, and he’s quite knowledgeable. Look him up and bring your questions to his attention, he’ll help you out further.
5
-
You think projectiles like that are shot in a straight line eh…well there’s your problem, a false assumption. Any projectile, regardless of what’s firing it, is subject to gravity the moment it leaves the barrel. So these guns are not shooting in a straight line, they instead point the barrels up at an angle, and then the projectile fires in a parabolic arc, helped along by gravity, dropping it down. It’s pretty standard artillery knowledge, you can look up parabolic arc trajectory formulas that gunners use, they’re not firing these guns straight, that’s a false assumption you have. Can’t fire that far in a straight line on a curved surface, you’re correct…but you sure can fire over a curvature pretty easily. If you know the drop rate of your projectile from the gun you’re using, then it’s pretty simple to angle your gun up at the proper angle.
Typically those who feel the need to mention their IQ or boast about it, are often not as smart as they claim. If you fell for flat Earth, then that really puts that number into question.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Allstarsga We see curvature everywhere, if you can’t find it, then maybe step out of your echo chamber and try again.
https://flatearthbusted.blogspot.com/2017/10/curvature-on-parade-turning-torso-video.html?m=0
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
We don’t feel constant motion, we feel inertia that’s created by sudden or rapid change in motion. That’s physics of motion 101. Earth is constant in every single one of its motions, with only small gradual changes in Velocity. Science has however detected and measured Earth’s motions in several different ways now. Here’s a short sample of experiments that confirm rotation.
https://youtu.be/qy_9J_c9Kss
https://youtu.be/M8rrWUUlZ_U
https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o
Physics does not say atmosphere can’t exist next to a vacuum...flat Earthers say that, because they’re masters at misunderstanding basic physics and twisting it to fit their bias. Physics knows that gravity is the container of our atmosphere, which also creates the pressure gradient we measure, and no laws of thermodynamics are broken because the entropy is slowed by the attractive force of gravity.
You’re not really seeking truth, you’re layman thinking you’re smarter than actual scientists, who are chasing bias without realizing it. If you bothered to actually listen to people when they try to help you with the errors you’ve made, you might actually realize how you’re being conned.
Misunderstand and cherry pick the science all you want though, the basic fact remains that flat Earth has no working model and is not used in any applied science or technology today. So you’re right, in that there is no point debating this topic anymore, Earth is a globe, that has been a certainty for hundreds of years now. Stop getting your science from con men and non experts spreading misinformation, and rejoin reality. Learn some real science.
5
-
It's pretty common sense that you require an accurate map of an area, in order to find a destination, correct? Well, we have developed an entire system of navigation, built from the understanding that Earth is a sphere, with a circumference of roughly 25,000 miles, with two equal hemispheres. Lines of latitude are equal in both the North and South hemispheres, that does not happen if Earth is flat. So best proof of a globe, just learn how to navigate...like really take the time and learn, then apply that knowledge sometime, like many have done before. You really think millions of pilots and sailors around the world, can plot and navigate successful routes around the Earth, with precise accuracy, without actually knowing the true shape and scale of the surface they're navigating? If so, you might need to rethink that position...cause it's not very sound in logic.
Just one of many easy to verify proofs of Earths spherical geometry. Would you like more? Seems like you could really use some.
5
-
@filipebernardino2152 Why would you expect every photo to be the same? Different cameras, with different lenses, different colour and exposure settings, shot at varying angles and perspectives, and every photographer edits their photos slightly different from the next, I’m sure it’s not much different with whoever’s operating the satellites. Then there’s the difference between film photography (the Apollo photos), digital photography (satellites), what spectrum of light they’re filming in (radio, x-ray, infrared, etc), and then there’s composites which are heavily edited. Seriously…why would you ever expect every photo to be the same? 🤷♂️
Let me guess, you saw that meme where some Flat Earther put a few examples side by side, pulling from the most extreme examples, most of them being composites and some that were computer generated, and that’s the depth of your research? You need a better bullshit filter my man.
5
-
Well, no, he didn’t even do the measurement correctly. He used a parabola equation, with no variable for height of observer (among many other missing variables), so he wasn’t even using the correct math, so his calculations were way off. He did also ignore atmosphere refraction though, yes, that was a big variable he also ignored, but his whole experiment was just a mess all around. So upon peer review it was found extremely inconclusive, due to sloppy experimentation. He basically just did enough to confirm his bias, and then he called it a day. It’s the perfect example for why peer review is so important to science. Upon recreation of the experiment, it’s actually found to be conclusive evidence for the globe, not the other way around.
Look up the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, it’s a very in depth modern recreation of the experiment. It’s been repeated many times over the last couple hundred years.
5
-
@goggamer3012 Well, gravity physics was a long process to deduce...you’re not going to figure it out with a single observation or experience. But, you have experience with the Earth itself. Drop something...it will fall, that direction is always towards Earth, always at the same rate. Place an object on a scale, the force of gravity will press it down, creating pressure, the scale then registers as a weight value....wouldn’t do that without a force pushing it down, that’s how a scale works, you apply a force downward upon the top of the scale. Falling is a motion, and since nothing is put into motion without a force or an apparent force, it means a force does exist. So it exists...there’s no denying that, but that’s only half the battle.
Verifying HOW it works, that takes some work, it requires further experimentation, which starts with a hypothesis. The main hypothesis for gravity attraction was that mass attracts mass, so science had to test and verify if that was true or not. It was verified with the Cavendish experiment, here’s a great explanation and demonstration https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68. This confirms part of things, it verifies that mass does in fact attract other mass, the experiment also measures the force more directly, providing a value which was useful for Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation, which helps astronomers and astrophysicists calculate orbital motions more accurately, among other things.
But that doesn’t even explain how it works fully, just a part of how. The next big confirmed hypothesis was the bending of space time, first verified in the Eddington experiment of 1919.
It’s a process...to learn how gravity works, takes time. It took centuries to get where we are with gravity today, and we still don’t know everything about it yet. How mass bends space and time...nobody really knows for certain yet. So you see, asking HOW something works, is a bigger question than you might think, especially when it comes to gravity physics. It’s very difficult science to understand fully, but I hope this information I’ve shared is helpful.
5
-
FFS...peel your head away from that book for awhile and open your frickin eyes, you gotta hit your head pretty hard to believe anything in scripture is actually true. Don’t need a Phd to deduce this stuff, just your eyes and some basic logic. Maybe travel outside your home town for once in your life, visit a different country sometime and notice that the Sun is visible from somewhere at every hour...it’s not disappearing for 7 hours and then returning, it’s high noon for someone somewhere, that’s easily verified with just a little travel bud.
So here are the basic facts, the Sun does appear to rise and set, but it’s also visible at every hour somewhere on Earth, both are easy to verify. So basic geometry will tell you, these two facts of reality kind of contradict each other, if Earth were flat. Meanwhile, a globe Earth fits this geometry perfectly...so pretty simple to deduce which is actually true.
The Bible is pure BS from front to back, best to rip that bandaid off as soon as ya can.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@hershelpogue1745 Uh huh, just gonna ignore my point on Ptolemy and deflect to a new topic eh. Classic. 🙄
You’ve been across a bridge, while I have travelled the world. I’ve seen the second hemisphere sky, the different stars, the second celestial rotation. That geometry is simply not possible on a flat Earth, it does however make perfect sense on a globe. As for your causeway bridge, I assume you mean the Pontchartrain bridge (which clearly shows curvature by the way, it’s been photographed many times), it’s about 60 feet above the water table (and that’s just its baseline, each boat entry point rises to about 100 feet), so did you factor that observer height into your curvature math? And refraction is always occurring (especially over large bodies of water where humidity increases air density). You’re always looking through atmosphere, so there’s always going to be refraction…it doesn’t just shut off. So you don’t get to just ignore it.
No, I think you watched a few Flat Earth docs on YouTube, believed everything they said without question, and now you think you’re an expert on Earth science. Go ahead and repeat what you heard from these docs all you like, I’ve heard it all parroted many times before. You’re nothing special, just another sucker falling for an online hoax.
5
-
5
-
@OfficialElljay “there are a plethora of flight plans that prove the earth is not a globe.”
No, there’s a few flight plans that some conmen lie about and suckers like you fall for. Meanwhile, every actual pilot and sailor is navigating the Earth right this very second, using a global system of navigation to do it. Learn to navigate if this topic truly interests you…don’t just blindly agree to every piece of bullshit you watch or read online.
“There is also video evidence of rockets strapped with cameras hittin the ceiling of the firmament.”
No, there’s videos of small cargo rockets being put into controlled spins, to stabilize their trajectory, and then they’re despun using what’s known as a yo-yo despin mechanism. Think about it for a second longer than you have. Why would you put cameras on a rocket, if it’s just gonna be spinning uncontrollably the whole time? Look up the yo-yo despin mechanism sometime, it’s a pretty simple mechanism, used in rockets and satellites to stop them from spinning. You’ve jumped to an erroneous conclusion, from a lack of knowledge on the subject.
“And alot of declassified Cia files on fallen angles and their technology.”
No, there’s some bullshit somebody made, that you agreed was official, without any further research or confirmation.
“The globe model was created the same time Allistair Crowley drew the demon lam which he also summoned.”
Jesus…you’re off the deep end now. 🤦♂️ No, there are old globes in museums today, going as far back as the 15th century. You need to peel your face away from your computer screen and get out more.
5
-
5
-
Most satellites are the size of a small car, and to get a full picture of Earth in a single frame, you have to be at least 2x’s its diameter in distance, that’s optimal distance to photograph anything in full. So roughly 16,000 miles in the Earth’s case. As I’m sure you know, the further you are from something, the more perspective shrinks its apparent size until it’s no longer visible to you. You can barely see a passenger jet from 6 miles away flying above you…what makes you think you’d see anything at 16,000 miles away? I don’t think you’re quite factoring the vast scales and distances you’re dealing with in these photos, or how small satellites are compared to Earth.
If you were seeing photos of Earth with visible satellites surrounding it, then they were not real photos of Earth. Or they were, but the satellites were added.
5
-
@chris73brown Ok, but just stop and think about that observation for a few seconds longer than you have. If line of sight to the Sun is never physically blocked...then how does the Sun set? Should be a pretty simple and logical geometric question to ask...how does that work exactly, if the Earth is flat? You can take that observation even further, recording everything from the shadow angles, to the rate of travel, to the apparent size, to the path of travel, to the day time hours fir every location throughout a year, and then you can plot that data upon the geometry...to see which model it fits. People have actually done this...they’ve discovered that none of that data fits a flat Earth, but it fits a spherical Earth perfectly. Here are some examples from a mathematician who checked the data.
https://youtu.be/fEYsgP4CuSA
https://youtu.be/yrsaP7nBWt0
https://youtu.be/-e9d4bjImHM
https://youtu.be/EF6Ojo9fJhw
Just because YOU have never personally bothered to look, does not mean others have not as well. You’re just making an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. Real people do know for certain what’s true, and it really doesn’t take much effort these days, just some basic understanding of geometry. At any time, YOU can also make these observations and collect your own data. That’s why this conspiracy is kind of ridiculous, because anyone can test it at anytime they want, nobody can stop you from testing the very Earth you live on.
5
-
5
-
They actually do change, it’s well documented at this point and any astronomer (you know, the people who actually observe, track and record the sky night after night) would tell you the same.
Combustion is achieved in rockets in space with the use of a liquid oxidizer, most commonly liquid oxygen, but there are others https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/oxidizing/oxiziding_hazards.html. It’s just chemistry at that point, mixing a fuel with an oxidizer, to cause an intense chemical reaction.
Propulsion is achieved by the third law of motion, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So basically, gas explodes out one way, that kinetic energy is transferred to the rocket, sending it the other way, transferring that velocity and maintaining it. It’s basic physics of motion, in fact a rocket actually works better in space, because there’s no drag force.
Anything else you’d like help with?
5
-
Very well said, here’s a little more food for thought if you don’t mind. I’ll address these with respect to your effort here, apologies in advance if I ever become condescending or pushy, I’ll do my best to be respectful.
1. I feel you’re just making an argument from personal incredulity here. We follow the evidence, Big Bang is the current leading model of cosmology because it has the most evidence supporting it, that’s all. This evidence is commonly referred too as the 4 pillars of the Big Bang. It wasn’t really an explosion, more like an expansion, so you’re reading too much into that title…scientific titles are often pretty loose and arbitrary, it’s just a label so we’re all on the same page when discussing it, not much more.
Occams Razor is not an absolute rule, merely a suggestion. The flat Earth certainly has a heck of a time twisting perspective fundamentals, to make something as simple as a sunset make sense for their model. Meanwhile the globe model accounts for a sunset with far less effort; the Earth rotates away from the Sun, eventually surface blocks it from your view…there, explanation over. Why don’t you apply a little Occams Razor there?
All you’re doing is choosing between a cozier version of things, against a universe that’s indifferent to us. That’s not a superior logic…it’s a very clear example of a conclusion reached from a bias. None of us wants to believe we’re not something special…but it’s equally as possible that reality really doesn’t care about what we want. So better to remain objective, and just follow the evidence. That’s all science is trying to do, if better evidence comes to light that explains things better, then science adjusts accordingly. Learning is a process, that’s the reality of our situation, we’re just doing the best we can with what information we’re able to obtain for the moment.
2. Good, I don’t have to explain what tidal locking is, that’s refreshing. How it works though is a bit more complicated. The short answer to your question is that the Sun actually is slowing our rotation and it will eventually lock us to it. It’s already done this for Mercury (almost), it all has to do with the orbiting bodies proximity to the host. Our Moon is far closer to us, than we are to the Sun by comparison. Granted the gravity well of the Sun is far greater, so that has an effect, but nothing in our current understanding of things says this is impossible, in fact it tells us the opposite, it’s expected. It’s not rare in our solar system, most Moons orbiting other planets are tidally locked to their host planet, it’s actually very common.
The globe model can actually explain how and why planets and Moons orbit, because that’s what we’d expect from gravity (gravity explains far more as well, from the orbits, to why everything is spherical, to how nuclear fusion in stars occurs, etc, etc)…can the Flat Earth model explain how exactly the Sun and Moon circle around the North pole without falling? I’ve not seen any explanation and certainly no evidence, it’s mostly just a lot of ad hoc nonsense, or “it’s just designed that way, don’t think about it”. I personally don’t find that to be very scientific, do you? More than that though, the globe model can make accurate predictions for every celestial movement…can’t really say the same for FE. You ever seen the geocentric model mapping the movements of the celestial bodies? It’s chaotic. Meanwhile, I could take all the geometry for our solar system model, and use it to mathematically predict eclipse’s, decade’s in advance, down to the second and square mile. The Saros cycle can’t do that, it can tell you the day of occurrence, but it can’t map the shadows path of totality upon the surface. So what reason do we really have to agree that our current model isn’t accurate? 🧐 Because of yet another argument from personal incredulity that you’ve made? Hardly a great reason…think I’ll stick to the model that actually works when applied, and has answers.
3. Why even bring this up if you’re aware of the pendulous vanes? 🧐 It does kinda render the whole argument of Gyroscopes on planes as…moot. Well, points for intellectual honesty I guess.
I’ll stop here for now, reply the rest in a separate comment.
4
-
4. Gas rushes in and fills a container of vacuum at surface, because of the kinetic energy built up in the adjacent container, that is under a great deal of pressure, so a lot of molecular collisions, creating a lot of kinetic energy. So of course those molecules are going to rush in, they’re full of intense kinetic energy. What happens in upper atmosphere though, where collisions occur far less frequently, and at less kinetic intensity? There’s less kinetic energy to go around, less collisions to maintain and increase that energy, so eventually gravity wins…and completely saps those molecules of their kinetic energy, bringing them down, just like everything else. Gas is still a tangible substance, with mass…so it is not free from force of gravity. You don’t require a physical barrier to create pressure in atmosphere, just a force that attracts it to surface. Why do you think the gradient is in the direction it is? Because of the weight of the gas above squeezing down on the mass below. You even agree with that, I’m almost just paraphrasing really, it’s basically just like stacking any form of matter…but what happens when you have no more matter to stack? Why would you need a barrier for that? Does a pile of rocks sitting on the Moon require a barrier to keep them their? No, because of gravity. But then if gas is equally as attracted by gravity as any other matter is…then why would you need a barrier? 🤷♂️
It’s odd to me that you almost work this out yourself, that gravity eventually reduces kinetic energy of gas molecules…but you stop short on that line of thinking, before you get to the logical conclusion that gravity would eventually bring that kinetic energy to zero, converting to potential energy, and then accelerating it back down…just like anything else with mass. You came pretty close to that conclusion, but it seems to me you turned around once it started to conflict with the conclusion you wanted. Just my opinion, but maybe you’ll agree after reviewing, idk.
Nature doesn’t really abhor a vacuum, that’s just something Flat Earthers tell themselves again and again, so they can trick themselves (and some others) into believing it’s true, essentially brainwashing through repetition. In reality, even they have measured the vacuum of space without realizing it; ever happen to see footage from any of those high altitude balloons they’ve sent up? Ever happen to watch until the end, where the balloons eventually pop…just as they’re designed to do once reaching vacuum conditions? Planes as well have a ceiling limit…because the air becomes too thin to generate thrust and lift, which is why we use rockets for space travel, because they don’t use air for propulsion, they use Newton’s third law of action and reaction. For me personally, that’s all pretty good evidence for the existence of space vacuum, we don’t need to recreate it on a smaller scale at surface…we can just go to the vacuum that’s already above us.
5. Because of parallax effect, distance has a profound effect on perceived motion. It’s why a passenger jet in the sky moving at 500 mph, appears like it’s barely crawling across the sky from your observation on the ground. And that’s just at 3-5 miles…what effect do you think trillions upon trillions of miles would have? But, any amateur astronomer could tell you the stars are actually shifting, it’s a big part of astronomy’s job, to track and chart the stars every year. Been doing it for centuries, the old star charts confirm it, they are moving. Parallax effect explains why it takes so long.
That’s also how we know they’re far away. The first clue we had was that the stars don’t drift in parallax as we travel along Earths surface. If they were closer, then they absolutely would. Just travelling a few hundred miles would shift their positions. This doesn’t happen, so they must be very far away. But we do record a stellar parallax every 6 months or so…a big clue that led us to the conclusion that we orbit around the Sun. Took a few hundred years to accurately measure the precise distance, the best and most accurate method eventually arriving in the last hundred years, with the invention of radio and radar methods. So now we know for certain the Sun is millions of miles away…so it’s not a stretch at all to conclude that stars are even farther still.
It all comes full circle to help explain why stars don’t appear to shift…because of parallax effect. Because they’re REALLY far away.
6. Only magnets that HOLD a magnetic charge work this way, an electromagnet however, requires a lot of energy (like thermal energy), spiralling around a coil of metal alloy, like nickel or iron…the two most abundant metals found on Earth and inside our core. So you’ve only scratched the surface of how magnetic fields work. Our core is not a fridge magnet…it’s basically a giant electromagnet. They’re not the same thing. One merely holds a charge, the other produces it.
In any case what’s this falsifying really? Do we detect a massive electromagnetic field around Earth? Yes of course we do…a compass wouldn’t work if it didn’t exist. What else exactly could generate that field? Do we have evidence of some metal alloys under our surface? Yup, every volcanic eruption spews out tons of it…and it clearly is hot down there, as we’d expect it should be, because of all that gravitational pressure down there. Iron is the densest material, and gravity pulls the densest matter to centre of gravity first…so pretty logical to conclude that a sphere of iron would form directly at centre. And we know how electromagnetic fields are made, we recreate them pretty regularly ourselves….so if the shoe fits.
You might be interested in the science of seismology too, if this topic really interests you. More specifically the study of S and P waves generated by pretty much any seismic activity. It’s the same science that mining companies use to detect specific minerals under the surface. The very same science can actually be used to determine Earth’s deep inner composition, because Earthquakes of 8.0 or greater actually penetrate through the Earth, pinging seismic stations on the opposite end of the Earth…before the surface waves arrive at those same stations. Meaning they went through the Earth, taking a short cut.
It’s interesting science, you can learn all about it with a quick YouTube search, just search Seismology S and P waves. Point is, you’re barely scratching the surface with your point here…don’t stop at your bias.
Fun fact, Nikola Tesla was not a flat Earther, in fact his famous Wardencliffe generator that he had proposed, in his writings of it had many drawings where he depicted a spherical Earth in relation to his device. So just some food for thought. He didn’t like theoretical physicists very much…doesn’t mean he disagreed with them absolutely.
The trouble with Flat Earthers is not that they’re skeptical, that’s actually what I find to be very admirable about them…it’s that their skepticism is very thinly veiled over confirmation bias. They only seem skeptical…up until it’s there preferred Model that comes under the microscope, then they’re just as stubborn as any mainstream scientist. That’s my main gripe with them…the desire to verify something they WANT to be true, is painfully obvious most of the time. Makes it very difficult to take them seriously.
Anyway, let me know if this information has been helpful or at the very least interesting. Your points were very well made and engaging, and the intellectual honesty and level of detail was refreshing, so thank you for that. I hope I could be just as engaging. Take care for now.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@OSUBucknado I have, and no they do not. Flatties misquoted ONE GUY who worked on the 2002 Blue Marble COMPOSITE, and now they think his words stand as some kind of statement from all of NASA. It's just classic cherry picking, a form of confirmation bias, nothing more. Taking quotes out of context and blowing their meaning out of proportion.
The real truth, is that NASA has many different types of photos of Earth, some are composite, some are single frame digital images, some are regular old photos on celluloid film. Flat Earthers hear what they want...and don't dig any deeper than their bias allows, and you'll become a flat Earther if you just sit on the surface of what they say and never question their claims. There are thousands of photos of Earth taken during the various Apollo missions, taken long before the days of CGI or photoshop, taken in single shots, on regular film. You can find many websites that archive these photos, if you actually gave a damn to try. You can even go out to the various museums that display the actual photos if you'd prefer.
Then there are the Geostationary weather satellites, which all take full photos of Earth, around the clock, 24 hours a day. Satellites like the Himawari, GOES, EPIC and DSCOVR. All have their own online archives you can access. Here's a guy who used the Himarwari 8 satellite, to compare cloud cover for his area https://youtu.be/YCk-zVIvxvc. And here's a group of hobbyists who built their own radio telescopes, that they then used to link up to the GOES satellites 15-17, that they then pulled image data from https://youtu.be/jGWFg7EDnyY.
I have looked at this claim from Flat Earth...many times, it's bullshit. NASA has never claimed that ALL of their photos are CGI, that's just a bullshit claim that Flat Earth repeats...because it's part of their narrative, repeating lies over and over again, until they can convince some people into believing they're true.
Get yourself a better bullshit filter, dig a little a deeper.
4
-
@yestervue4697 If I may add some further insight to your points, you’re aware gravity is both a theory and a law in science, right? Look up the Law of Gravitation sometime, then look up what weight is defined as in physics and how it’s calculated. I think you could also benefit from brushing up on scientific terms like theory and law. https://youtu.be/h0H-amOti_o A scientific theory is actually a bit better than laws of science, because laws make no attempt to describe how things work, they merely describe WHAT is happening. Objects fall down, this requires a force for that motion to occur, it doesn’t just happen on its own, so that’s what’s happening, law of Gravitation in a nutshell.
Also, whoever said a plane doesn’t pitch down? What you’ve likely been told is that pilots won’t notice, because pilots are constantly making small adjustments to keep on track with the horizon indicator and the altimeter, among other instruments. The change would be so gradual, they’re not going to notice. On a planet at our size, it would take roughly 70 miles to make 1 degree of difference, so no pilot or passenger is ever likely to notice a shift that gradual.
There’s a content creator here that goes by the name Wolfie6020, he’s a licensed commercial pilot from Australia, who does many videos on this FE topic, providing insight and evidence from a pilots expertise. He’s quite informative on all things pilot and navigation related, so feel free to look him up sometime, might help answer some questions.
Just some information you might find interesting, I know it’s probably far from enough to persuade you of anything, but hope it’s at least interesting anyway.
4
-
@yestervue4697 Exactly, things in the distance SHRINK in apparent size before they reach vanishing point...so why doesn’t the Sun do this before it meets horizon? Here’s a timelapse of the setting Sun https://youtu.be/WtQiwbFD_Cc. You’ll notice, it maintains its apparent size throughout the day...so if we agree to your argument of perspective causing a sunset, then why doesn’t the Sun shrink?
You seem to think everybody else doesn’t know what perspective is, or how it works. No dude...we get it, we hear your argument, it just doesn’t fit with reality. Perspective has rules, and those rules can be quantified and modelled...do you want to see what the Sun would look like, if it were actually small and local moving above us? Here’s a simulation of that geometry and scale https://youtu.be/-e9d4bjImHM.
Science doesn’t say you shouldn’t use your senses, only that your senses are easily fooled, they’re not very precise and they can be wrong...so you shouldn’t jump to conclusions so quickly, that’s all science suggests. Is that really so unreasonable? It’s true, in the grand scheme of things, our senses are quite shit. If they weren’t, then we’d be able to see bacteria, or air molecules, or we’d have ability to see further and sharper and in every spectrum of light, not just the visible colour spectrum. But we can’t, because our senses are limited, they suck and are easily fooled.
That’s the reality...so science is just being honest and up front...while you’re asking everyone to just ignore these simple truths and agree with you without question. :/
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
A spirit level uses buoyancy force to find centre of gravity, gravity pulls to centre of mass (centre of Earth), and so its vector angles shift with surface, meaning the bubble actually levels to the field of force of gravity…so you can’t use a level to determine Earth’s shape, anymore than you can use a compass to determine the shape of a magnet, the bubble moves with the force in much the same way a compass needle would move with the force from a magnet.
So, it’s an extremely flawed experiment right from the start, and anyone with a basic understanding of physics can understand why. He only repeated the experiment as a joke…and to help make his point. By demonstrating the kind of bad science being used to sell this nonsense, which helps explain how people fall for it…which was the whole point of his video. It’s a focus on the people of flat Earth…not so much the science. This isn’t a science channel, Johnny is a journalist, so he focuses on people and places and events, not science.
But I hope this information is helpful, or at the very least interesting.
4
-
4
-
This isn’t a science channel, his point wasn’t to prove or disprove either position, it was just to discuss WHY people believe Earth is flat…that’s literally in the title. It’s dissection of the ideology and the group mindset of Flat Earthers…that’s all.
He shared those two experiments, because they’re both examples of inconclusive experiments, that Flat Earthers didn’t realize are inconclusive. It helps make his point, that some people become Flat Earthers, because they lack the scientific literacy to catch the errors in many of the experiments Flat Earth conducts. That was the whole point of sharing those.
I’ll cut you some slack though, it is true he could have made that clearer, by at least sharing some sources that help support that…but again, this isn’t a science channel, he’s not a scientist, so you really shouldn’t expect much.
He’s not wrong though, they are inconclusive experiments. The level on a plane ignores basic physics, and does not prove or disprove either position, and the original Bedford Level experiment conducted by Rowbotham was an absolute mess of an experiment. He used the wrong math, so his distance wasn’t even accurate. He ignored important variables like height of the observer, horizon distance, hump height, and yes refraction. He collected only ONE data set, made only ONE observation, using only ONE marker, and didn’t run any controls. Upon peer review and recreation of the experiment, it was found extremely inconclusive…yet he reached a conclusion anyway. He basically only did as much as he needed, to confirm his bias, tweaking the experiment to get him the result he wanted…that’s bad science.
The original Bedford Level experiment is the perfect example, for why peer review is so important in science. To catch inconclusive and erroneous experiments, like the one conducted by Rowbotham.
Here’s a modern recreation of this experiment https://youtu.be/a79KGx2Gtto. When conducted properly, with the correct math, including every variable, with many more data sets, it actually verifies the opposite conclusion. Earth is curving and at the rate it should be.
Flat Earth doesn’t seem to care about accuracy in science…they just care about bolstering what they want to be true. That’s the point he was trying to make, they don’t seem to care about peer review or inconclusive experimentation. If they’d just keep researching a bit deeper, take a closer look at their “evidence”, rather than stop once they think they’ve found something…they’d realize how poor their evidence really is.
4
-
Flat Earthers come here to mock, they should expect nothing less than to be mocked back in kind. I agree it’s petty, but it’s to be expected. Takes a tough skin to join these kinds of conversations, especially if you’re going to make claims that go against all of modern knowledge, then you really shouldn’t be surprised that people would push back. You’re arguing a position that has no working model and that is not used in any applied science today, so do you ever stop to consider, that maybe it’s you who have reached a erroneous conclusion, not everyone else? There is a reason a lot of us do not bat an eye at Flat Earth claims, because we know where they’re going wrong. If simply disagreeing with you makes us trolls, then there’s not much chance of having any meaningful discussion, you’re not here to discuss with an open mind then, you’re just here to force your perspective.
There’s a very good chance you’ve fallen for an Internet hoax that has exploited your lack of knowledge and experience, so you should at the very least be mindful to that possibility. If you’re willing to keep your mind open, I’ll do the same, then perhaps a civil discussion can occur, I don’t mind hearing you out. But don’t expect to change my mind so easily, and don’t softball me, I’m not new to this discussion, been researching it for years now and I know the arguments of Flat Earth probably better than most Flat Earthers at this point, so don’t patronize me, and I’ll try not to do the same. So feel free, I don’t mind having a discussion if you’re willing to participate on equal grounds.
4
-
4
-
Ok, Rowbotham didn’t do enough in his version of the experiment to reach a more conclusive result, so upon all peer review it has been deemed inconclusive. We don’t reach conclusions in science from inconclusive experiments. To reach a more conclusive result, he needed to first make sure his math was correct, it wasn’t, he was using the wrong formula; then he had to account for as many variables as he could through proper controls, he did not, he completely ignored refraction; then he would need to take many more data sets, yet he only made one observation, using one marker. So basically, it’s an example of a sloppy experiment, conducted only to confirm a bias. He experimented only until his bias was confirmed and then he stopped looking. So it was confirmation bias that led to an inconclusive result.
Here’s a modern recreation of this experiment, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. Notice how thorough this experiment is, that is how a real experiment is conducted. The conclusion is very conclusive here, the Earth is curving and at the rate it should be.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@joaopintovb “Explain to me…why can we jump, takeoff with planes, throw leaf planes, etc etc how’s that possible with such strong gravity holding oceans upside down?”
Well unlike water which is dead inert matter, you are alive and so your body produces energy it can then use to resist force of gravity for short periods of time. But when you jump up, you eventually come back down, correct? You don’t just jump up into the stratosphere, eventually the kinetic energy you produced in the act of jumping becomes spent, and so it can no longer counter force of gravity, so you come back down. You can jump because you are alive, and can produce energy to counter some forces…water is not, so it has no way of countering gravity, it’s pretty simple. Planes aren’t much different, they have engines which burn fuel to produce energy, it then uses to spin turbines to generate thrust, which puts it into motion. We learned from studying birds that flying just requires thrust, and wings, so we can then use the air for lift, we call that aerodynamics…and it also requires gravity, because the downward force puts a pressure force on the molecules of air, and the air resistance pushes back, generating lift under the wings. Water again, is inert, it has no energy to spend and no limbs or wings it can use to counter gravity, so it just rests at lowest potential energy state indefinitely, completely trapped by force of gravity.
Gravity pulls everything to centre of Earth, that’s how it works. So there technically is no bottom of Earth, so at no point on Earth’s surface is anything upside down. You’re right side up so long as your feet are on the surface, that’s the direction all matter is pulled towards. Seriously…if all motion requires a force to cause it, then what force would be present at the “bottom” of Earth, to cause things to fall into the sky? There isn’t any, there’s only the gravity of Earth, which pulls everything towards surface…so our oceans don’t have any trouble staying at surface, because there’s only one force present that’s attracting them…gravity. So Earth’s gravity doesn’t need to be very strong (and it isn’t), it’s the only force present, it’s not fighting against any other counter forces. Your question asserts that a second force would be present under the Earth, attracting our oceans towards it…but that force simply does not exist, so our oceans aren’t going anywhere, you’re just grossly misunderstanding how it works.
Anyway, hope that information is helpful or at the very least interesting. Take care.
4
-
@joaopintovb Before him nobody identified that falling motion as a fundamental force of reality. Before him we didn’t have a completely tested and written down knowledge of how this force works…that knowledge is VERY important in engineering today, and has been since the day it was penned, whether you realize that or not, that’s a fact, not an opinion. Whether he’s a mason or not is irrelevant. If the science works and can be demonstrated to work every time it’s applied, then a mans affiliations do not matter…but that sure tells me a lot about how your mind works, through appeals to emotion and paranoia, rather than clear objective reasoning.
Yes, a scientific theory is a collection of verified and tested facts, very different from a regular theory in the layman vernacular, you can look it up anytime.
This is basic middle school science, that I wish I didn’t have to teach people…you should already know the basics.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@joaopintovb Weight is gravity, you feel your weight, then you’re feeling the force of gravity…you feel it every day, you’re just not paying attention.
Ever heard of relative motion? Law of inertia? Conservation of momentum? Ever wondered why a pot of hot coffee can be poured out into a cup, then sit perfectly still in front of you on tray without spilling, while flying at 500 mph aboard a passenger jet? The reality is we do not feel motion itself, what we feel is sudden or rapid change in motion, what we feel is accelerations.
More basic physics for you, very easy to verify for yourself, little to no effort required. The laws of motion are the first laws of physics you learn about in general science classes…because they are so extremely easy to understand and verify for yourself. If you knew anything about them, then you would know and understand how balanced rocks are possible within a system of motion…and then you wouldn’t be so easily conned by dumb conspiracies online.
4
-
4
-
@joaopintovb It’s really not difficult at all, thanks to the laws of motion. By your dumbass understanding though, shouldn’t that coffee go firing across the plane getting sucked to the back of the plane? Yet it pours smoothly into the cup, and rests perfectly within the cup. Why is that? Or how is it possible at all to walk around the cabin of a jet without any trouble? Because everything in motion stays in motion…first law of motion, the law of inertia. And when everything moves together at a consistent rate, with no opposing forces (like drag force), then you’re now within an inertial system of motion (called relative motion), that operates as though stationary. Making it possible to do all of that, and more, while in motion.
Physics 101…proven very easily, with very little effort.
4
-
@joaopintovb The most promising hypothesis in quantum physics currently is a particle called the graviton, more and more evidence is mounting for this particle to be the most likely source of gravitational fields, most recently from the work done at the LIGO observatory, where they’ve successfully detected gravitational waves, collecting a lot of useful data that may correlate to the hypothesized graviton and hopefully solve that mystery. Welcome to the fringes of modern physics, still a lot we have yet to learn and discover! Science doesn’t claim to know everything, but it sure knows a heck of a lot more than the paranoid numpty’s in obscure comment threads on YouTube.
Identifying forces is always a lot easier than figuring out how they work and what their source is, but it’s definitely worth our time and effort to figure it out. A hundred and fifty years ago we didn’t really know much about the electromagnetic spectrum, today we use it for everything from radio, to sending texts and connecting to wifi, to clicking on your tv via remote, to microwaving our food, and examining our bones with x-rays…the list goes on. Gravity physics we currently use in orbital mechanics, flight aerodynamics, buoyancy calculation, parabolic arc trajectories, and more recently nuclear fusion. The more we learn about it, the more applications we find.
We don’t have to know everything about physical phenomena, to make it work for us. Gravity is the easiest force to verify…drop something. That falling motion does not just happen on its own, all change in motion requires a force to cause it.
4
-
@joaopintovb Far easier to help you understand how undeniable gravity really is. I’m sure you know how a scale works, you press DOWN upon the top surface, to apply force, which creates pressure, which the scale measures as weight. So the key variable to causing that weight pressure, is a downward force…it’s really that simple. So now if there’s no downward force, as flatties claim, then how exactly does an object that’s resting on a scale generate a weight value? 🧐 Pretty obvious that a force is present, regardless of what a few paranoid idiots claim…all they did was give this force a name, just like they do with every force they identify. Figuring out how it works and where it comes from is the next step, and that’s where we’re currently at.
So it’s pretty simple deduction that helps us with the rest though, lots of little clues. We’ve mapped and measured the entire Earth, it is most definitely spherical, every successful navigation proves that geometry accurate…so you know, millions of verified proofs every year. And we can’t help but notice that things always fall towards surface, no matter where you are on Earth…so pretty simple to deduce that this attraction force emanates from centre. Which makes sense of why Earth would form a sphere in the first place…because that’s the shape things tend to always make, when a force applies pressure in all directions inward towards a centre. It’s also no coincidence that almost everything we observe in space is spherical…gravity makes perfect sense for why. It also explains the orbits of planets, the formation of stars planets, solar systems, galaxies, the nuclear fusion that powers stars…the list goes on.
Gravity does a lot more than just explain why things fall, it quite literally explains pretty much every mystery of the cosmos. When gravity was realized, those mysteries fell like dominoes…it’s really no coincidence that scientific advancement took off running, around the time Newton first figured this out. Anyone is free to question it, but you’re not gonna get far…cause it’s held up to scrutiny for well over 400 years, from some of the greatest minds in history. It’s not from lack of trying, it’s just undeniable science…reality doesn’t lie, and it could care less about a person’s affiliations.
So you’re certainly not the one to falsify gravity I’m afraid…especially if you really don’t know anything about it. But I hope this information has been helpful.
4
-
@joaopintovb “…but I’m sure you know how the measurement was done and when right?”
It can be measured in many ways, the first time it was done was roughly 2000 years ago by a Greek mathematician named Eratosthenes. His method is easily repeatable, here’s a very recent recreation, done a lot more thoroughly with a lot more data points https://youtu.be/J9w4KtHxZ68?t=891.
Every navigation clocks their speed and time, and with millions of ships and planes completing voyages around the world every year, we have enough data about Earth’s surface to accurately conclude its shape and scale. You gotta face that fact I’m afraid, Earth’s geometric shape is vital information to have in navigation. If they did not actually know Earths true dimensions, then the systems of navigation they use simply would not work…it’s really that simple.
Have you ever travelled? I certainly have, many times, all around the world. I’ve been to almost every continent, I’ve tested this system of navigation, it’s something I’ve been quite interested in for at least the last decade now. It works…and that’s when you know you have accurate information, when you can apply that knowledge, and it will work every time. Can’t say the same for Flat Earth….they don’t even have a model they all agree upon, let alone a working one.
You fell for a scam my dude, it took advantage of your lack of knowledge and experience, and appealed to your desire to put a little dirt in the eye of experts whom you resent. That’s the reality.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@multymind4744 Well you're technically not wrong, gravity is a product due to density...it's an objects density that bends space and time, which puts mass into motion towards all other mass. So it's half true to say "it's just density", but that's still ignorant to the rest of the science. It's called gravity, because we needed a name for that motion. Density is already defined in science, it's just how much mass occupies a volume of space. So it's already defined in science, it has its place. Falling is motion, as is rising due to buoyancy. We give a name to buoyancy, which is the opposite motion upwards...so why can't we do the same for the falling motion downward? That's all they've done, gravity is just a name they gave to that motion, so that we could all be on the same page when we discuss the topic, so we know what's being discussed. You call it density, then it just gets confusing...cause are we talking about the state of matter, or the motion? It can't be both, so it's much easier to label that motion as gravity, makes it so much easier in terms of language, so that we can discuss it without confusion.
It does get muddled, that's because we do not know everything about it...science doesn't know a lot about a lot of things, doesn't mean we don't know a lot, doesn't mean some things aren't solved, doesn't mean we can't still measure and define some terms, that we can use in equations.
It's not hard to see what's really happening either. Flat Earth denies gravity, because it's not very convenient for their core arguments. That's the reality as I and many others see it. Much easier for them to just deny it exists, then that problem goes away...then they can argue from ignorance. It's just...not very productive, and it's very biased, and very obviously so.
It's fine if they could falsify gravity, I'm sure physics would actually love that! Cause it would open the door to a new discovery and that's what scientists are all about! But they haven't....they've just taken established gravity physics, and chopped out the word gravity....that's it. And then they deny experiments like the Cavendish, or the Eddington, or time dilation tests in upper atmosphere, or the more recent gravitational wave experiments, etc, etc. Then they conveniently forget that general relativity's field equations were pivotal to solving the peculiar orbit or Mercury, and currently is used to detect super nova and black hole events, before ever evening turning on the telescopes. As for more practical applications, satellites are in orbit, gravity physics certainly helps that, and it's helped scientists and engineers successfully recreate fusion reactions...and if they solve that, our energy problems will be essentially solved, at least in the technology sector.
So I'm sorry, but it's just frustrating is all...I'm fine if people have found an actual falsification for a theory or hypothesis, it's perfectly fine to entertain alternatives...but it's very clear what's really occurring. A VERY biased group of people, are just forcing the conclusion they want to be true, by ignoring and denying whatever science is inconvenient for them. It's just classic confirmation bias. They're biased, right from their title...do you see scientists calling themselves Globe Earthers? No, because they could care less what shape the Earth is, what they care about is objective accuracy. Can't do that...if you start with your conclusion, rather than build your conclusion from all available evidence.
Anyway, I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. Thanx for the civil dialogue in any case, it's a rarity in these chats, so thank you. It's fine to question things, so don't get me wrong, that's the one thing I actually do admire about FE. Though I do strongly disagree with the conclusions of FE, for good reasons, you're still free to explore them.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Several reasons:
1) He used the wrong math. 8 inches per mile squared is not a line of sight equation, it's for a parabola. So his figures don't represent what he was trying to disprove. Do the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, so you always must make sure you use the correct math in any experiment, otherwise it will throw off all your results and waste your time.
2) He ignored several variables that are important to factor, the biggest one being atmospheric refraction. Here's a simple demonstration of this effect https://youtu.be/IRywj88MsjA. You'll notice as refraction increases, everything in the distance rises up higher, making it possible to see things beyond geometric horizon. This footage is actually from a modern recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, this is taken from the Rainy Lake Experiment. Same experiment, done a lot more thoroughly, this time over 10 km of a frozen lake.
3) He only made ONE observation, using only ONE marker, he basically did the least amount of work to confirm his bias, then called it a day. In science, we never make just one observation, you have to take multiple data sets, several observations, then you take the average of each to help with your conclusion. There's always a margin of error in every experiment, especially when something like refraction can fluctuate throughout a day and give you many different measures and observations. So you have to take the average...can't do that if you only make one observation.
So in summary, it was a sloppy experiment, performed only to confirm a bias. It's the perfect example for why peer review and recreation of experiments is so important in science. Because people can and do make errors, and peer review is how we weed those errors out. Upon peer review, Robothams experiment was found to be inconclusive, due to many errors in experimentation. So it's basically useless, it's been falsified.
Recreate the experiment properly, and it actually fits with the globe measurements. Look up the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, by Walter Bislin. It's the most modern recreation I'm currently aware of.
4
-
4
-
All the original Bedford level experiment proves is how NOT to do an experiment. It's the perfect example of an experiment designed to confirm a bias, which is why it's taught to university students so they can learn from that failure. Rowbotham only went so far as to confirm his bias, and then he stopped looking, which is exactly how you do science wrong. True science is about remaining objective through falsification, continuing your experiments, covering every variable you can, falsifying as much as you can until you can't anymore, which leaves you with the purest conclusion.
He conducted a poor experiment that was designed to give him the result he was looking for, rather then what was true. Upon peer review, it's found that he skipped over many details and did not collect enough data to reach a conclusive result. The experiment has since been repeated many times and improved upon over the years, you wanna see what that experiment looks like when conducted properly? Here you go. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
Give it a look sometime, that's an example of how thorough you need to be in a REAL experiment...all Rowbotham did was watch a flag disappear, used some bad math and then reached the conclusion that supported his bias...so one observation, one data set, bad math, conclusion. Is that honestly how thorough you want our scientists to be? That sort of stuff works on the weak minded, easily conned suckers, who just want quick easy answers...but science has to do better, MUCH better, or we will stop advancing as a society.
The conclusion in this experiment, when conducted properly, always brings the same result, that Earth is indeed curving and it's curving at the rate it should given our planets true size, shape and scale.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The point of this video wasn’t to prove or disprove the theory, it was just to talk about WHY people think the Earth is flat. It’s literally right in the title. So it’s a discussion of the psychology of these individuals and the ideology of the group and the paths they took to get where they are currently, it was not so much a deep discussion of the science.
He shared those two experiments specifically, because they are both examples of inconclusive experiments, the first one being very obviously inconclusive. With just a tiny bit of understanding of gravity physics and the buoyancy effect that centers that bubble to center of gravity, anyone can see why it’s inconclusive. But some people don’t…like yourself…hence why some people become Flat Earthers. Because some people don’t seem to have the knowledge or understanding required, to understand how stupid that experiment really is. You understand now why he shared that experiment, for the topic he was discussing?
You pretty much demonstrated his whole point with your comment.
I’ll give a few more details on the science though, I won’t leave you hangin. The first experiment with the level doesn’t verify its conclusion, it only asserts it. We don’t reach conclusions in science upon forced assertions, that’s how you reach false conclusions. The experiment focuses only on what a level is used for — determining a flat horizontal plain — and then it assumes it is capable of doing this indefinitely, no matter how many miles you stretch it. But that last assumption is false, it ignores the physics of how a simple spirit level works and its limitations. Spirit levels can only level a small area, because Earth is so big, it takes roughly 70 miles to arc 1 degree of difference, so a few meters to even hundreds of square meters will appear perfectly flat, even though it technically isn't.
The Bubble is really levelling to center of gravity, it is buoyancy force that places the bubble at highest point in the tube, and buoyancy is directly caused by gravity. Buoyancy is the same exact vector as gravity force, just in the opposite direction. Gravity’s vector always points to center of Earth, so buoyancy’s vector is directly away from center. Point is, the bubble of a spirit level is really levelling to center of gravity, and gravity vectors on our globe, shift as you travel, always pointing to center. So as long as that level is kept perfectly perpendicular to center of gravity, it will not move. Since a plane is gradually arcing with Earth’s curvature as it travels, keeping in line with its horizon indicator and altimeter, it’s arcing in perfect sync with shifting gravity vectors. So level the spirit level with the plane, and it will never appear to move, because its going to be level to the current gravity vector it’s in.
So basically, the experiment doesn’t verify or falsify its hypothesis, it’s inconclusive. If Earth is flat, with only 1 gravity vector, the bubble won’t move. If Earth is a globe, with shifting gravity vectors, the bubble won’t move. So it doesn’t verify or falsify either conclusion. If you think it does, that’s because you don’t quite understand gravity and buoyancy and how it affects that bubbles movement.
See the problem yet? They’re reaching a conclusion, from an inconclusive experiment. That’s bad science. It’s relevant to the topic of this video, because it’s an example of an experiment that does successfully convince some people the Earth is flat, or at least gets them wondering if it could be. For others, we recognize right away that it’s inconclusive, proves nothing….but flat Earth doesn’t have to snag everyone, doesn’t even need a majority, just needs to convince a small few, and this experiment is an example of how.
The second experiment is also inconclusive, but it’s at least a good experiment. The level on a plane can never verify or falsify any conclusion, it ignores gravity physics, a level can not determine Earth’s shape, because it’s bound to gravity, it’s just a terrible experiment. But the Bedford Level experiment can actually be used to reach a more conclusive conclusion, the problem here is that Parallax conducted it poorly. It’s an example of sloppy science, conducted only to confirm a bias. Rowbotham (Parallax) only made ONE observation, using only ONE marker, taking only ONE data set, used the wrong math (8 inches per mile squared), ignored hidden variables like refraction, then he called it a day. That’s not how you conduct a thorough experiment, not in the slightest. So upon peer review, it was found to be inconclusive due to poor experimentation practices. It’s actually a perfect example for why it’s so important to have peer review in science, because people make mistakes, often without realizing it.
Upon further peer review and recreation of the experiment, it’s actually found to be conclusive for the globe conclusion. It’s a good experiment, it was just done poorly. It’s been repeated many times over the last couple hundred years, the recreations are generally a lot more thorough, including a lot more markers, more days of observation, collecting more data sets, factoring and controlling for variables such as refraction, using the correct math, etc. There’s a great modern example of this known as the Rainy Lake experiment, you should look it up sometime, it’s very thorough. It even has a full section on refraction, because yes, refraction is a big variable here, but Rowbotham missed so much more than just refraction…his experiment was just terrible through and through.
So what that experiment shows, is that some people don’t care for the details of an experiment, they just care about the conclusion. The general public doesn’t have the time to sift through data and go through every detail of an experiment…and people like Rowbotham know that. So what he did was almost like a sleight of hand trick…show you a conclusion, feed you false details, claim it’s impossible on a globe, then expect you to believe it without question. Sadly…it does work. Like an illusionist asking you to keep your eye on what he’s showing you, so you don’t catch the illusion, it’s not much different.
So, it’s another example of why people become flat Earthers, hence why it’s in this video, cause that’s the topic. Quite simply in this case, people are being tricked…because they don’t have the time to really get into the actual science of it all, so they’re happy to just go along with what Rowbotham or others are saying.
It illustrates the need for proper experimentation and it points out how ill prepared some in society still are. Things may seem convincing on the surface, but that doesn’t always make them true.
Anyway, hope you find this information at the very least interesting. I don’t mind helping with more if you got further questions or things you’d like to point out that I might have missed. Feel free. Have a good one.
4
-
So theres a few errors here. First is focusing on the definition of level and thinking it means only one thing, flat. This is thinking in absolutes, and it’s simply wrong, as I’m sure you know, words in the English language take on different meanings depending on the context. In the context of topography, level is defined as “being a surface perpendicular to all lines of force in a field of force : EQUIPOTENTIAL” equipotential is basically a geometric term, meaning a surface that maintains equal distance from a centre. A good example is a bubble, which typically has a surface that is equal distance from the centre of the bubble, forming it into a sphere. So that surface is level, in the context of topography, maintaining an equipotential surface. You’ll find that definition here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level the third entry under adjectives, definition #5.
Why does this matter? Because water seeks level by this definition. Water is really looking for lowest potential elevation, that lowest point is always towards centre on the globe, that’s where gravity pulls everything. This will cause the surface of water to become equipotential. A spirit level is not levelling to surface, it’s levelling to centre of gravity, so it’s level so long as it’s perpendicular to centre of gravity...which is going to shift as you travel along the Earth with gravity.
So flat Earth ignores gravity and the physics that is going on inside the spirit level and just focuses on what they think level means in this context. They’re making all kinds of arguments from ignorance here. Fact is, that bubble level will shift with the gravity vectors of Earth, so as long as it’s perpendicular to centre of gravity, it will be level with gravity.
The reason why we can use a spirit level to create flat surfaces, is because of how massive the Earth is, compared to us. It takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree of difference on Earth, how much do you think it arcs in a few square meters? Might as well be perfectly flat, so we can use bubble levels for keeping things horizontal to a surface no problem.
So the thing about this experiment, is that it’s inconclusive. If the Earth is flat and there is no gravity, then the bubble will read level. If the Earth is a globe with gravity, then the bubble will read level. See the problem here? It neither verifies or falsifies either model, so that means it is inconclusive. So if anyone were to use this experiment to reach a definite conclusion, then they are doing so out of bias. Flat Earth ignores gravity and then thinks this experiment supports their model, because of their poor understanding of both gravity physics and the English language...and how topography works. They just think “level means flat, bubble levels are for leveling flat surfaces, so if the bubble doesn’t move earth is flat, simple”. Simple minds thinking in absolutes, never bothering to learn how they’re in error.
Anyway, hope you find this information at the very least interesting. It’s an inconclusive experiment, they can’t just ignore the model they’re arguing against, and hope that defeats it...they have to stay objective and honest, but they are applying bias in there conclusion here. This won’t lead to any actual truth.
4
-
@OlamideAdelaNCC Welp, we conclude things on evidence, can’t make conclusions without it. If you do, then you are arguing from ignorance or appealing to belief , and neither is a logical argument to take seriously. Earth is spherical by every measurement done so far, and the model works when applied, from navigation, to communication, engineering and infrastructure. So Earth is spherical, until evidence can actually verify that it’s not. It’s fine to hypothesize, but we shouldn’t reach any definite conclusions from hypothesis alone. Simulation theory is fun to entertain, but in no way proven…heck we don’t even have a clear way to test it yet, so it’s not even a hypothesis yet, as testable is a prerequisite for that title. So it’s an idea at best.
I’m just saying, there is lots of evidence that you can acquire first hand, without much effort, that verifies Earth is spherical. You don’t have to just take people at their word, you can acquire the knowledge yourself.
4
-
4
-
@russellrattys6581 Centripetal forces are increased by the rate of angular velocity change per second, 1000 mph is a linear velocity, so it doesn’t mean much here. We typically measure rotations in revolutions per minute (RPM’s). It’s the rate at which something rotates, that has the larger affect on centrifugal force. A gravitron ride that sucks you to a wall, rotates at roughly 24 rpm’s. Earths rate of rotation is ONE complete rotation every 24 hours, this makes the Earth’s rpm’s about 0.000694, and that even gets smaller the further from Equator you travel. This is a tiny amount of rotational velocity...hence VERY little centrifugal force.
This is very well understood in physics, you can even confirm it with a simple thought experiment. Imagine yourself driving a race car around a perfect circle track, 1000 metres in circumference, at a steady speed rate of 200 mph. Would you expect to feel centrifugal force in this example? Yes, you’d have a heck of a time even staying on the track, you’d be experiencing so much centrifugal force! Ok, now let’s just increase the length of the track to 1000 miles. Traveling on this much larger circular track, at the same steady 200 mph, would you expect to feel much centrifugal force in this example? No, in fact the track would feel almost perfectly straight to you, you’d have a very easy time staying on that track, FAR less centrifugal force, well under anything you could detect.
So let’s now analyze that closer, what changed? The linear velocity was the same, yet the centrifugal force was greatly reduced. So what does this tell you? That linear rates of motion have very little to do with centrifugal force output. The main difference in both examples, was the rate at which they would complete one full rotation. The first example, the car would complete several revolutions within every minute...the second example, only one complete revolution every 5 hours.
So the trouble here is in not quite understanding the physics of centripetal force, which causes people to reach a false conclusion. This happens across the board with flat Earth arguments...hence why they’re met with so much push back. It’s becoming a real problem...people thinking they know everything already, thinking they’re perfectly qualified to spot errors in science, when the real errors are really within their own misunderstandings. It’s made worse on that many of these same people don’t like being corrected, or shown how they could be wrong.
But what you have is actually a really great physics question! It’s not a bad question at all, you can actually learn a lot about the physics here, by exploring these kinds of questions more, and being open to some answers. Flat Earth asks some great physics questions...they just don’t bother to seek the answers, instead choosing to hold the questions up as their evidence. But questions are not evidence.
Here’s another cool little tidbit on this topic of centrifugal force. There still is a tiny amount of centrifugal force generated by Earth’s rotation, which does negate a small fraction of gravity upon you. Did you know you actually weigh about 0.03% lighter at the Equator, then you would at the poles of Earth? I’m pretty sure that’s an accurate percentage anyway, might be off by a decimal place, been awhile since I calculated it myself, but it’s true and it’s also testable. Here’s a simple experiment anyone can try to test this phenomenon themselves, just requires some travel a set of simple weights and a scale https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o. It’s a great experiment, that confirms Earth rotation.
But no, one rotation every 24 hours, not even close to enough to replicate the force of gravity. But, fun fact this is actually how they plan to design space stations in the future, to replicate gravity for the passengers.
Anyway, hope you find this information at the very least interesting. They are good physics questions, so don’t feel discouraged. Let me know if you have any further questions or rebuttals. Have a good one!
4
-
4
-
You’re oversimplifying things, refraction is a variable, it matters, so it can not be ignored. It does effect what we see, it does bend light, so it can’t be ignored. The trouble is that they’re getting mad because science isn’t as easy as they want it to be...tough titty, we have to remain objective and factor every known variable, that’s just how it is. If we do not, if we’re lazy and ignore variables that can affect our conclusions, or if we ignore them intentionally for the sake of confirmation bias, then we risk reaching false conclusions.
Fact is, Rowbotham conducted a sloppy, lazy, bias version of this experiment, rendering it inconclusive. He took one data set, over one observation, using one marker, ignored refraction and height of observer and used the wrong math. You really think the scientific community should just roll over, and accept bad science without question? Kinda defeats the purpose of peer review, don’t you think?
Here’s a modern recreation of this experiment, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. Far more in-depth than Rowbotham ever thought to go. The conclusion here is conclusive, Earth is curving and at the rate it should be.
4
-
4
-
Gravity pulls to surface no matter where you are, towards centre of Earth, and you are drawn to surface by that force. So as long as you are oriented to your gravity vector, you will be right side up, feet on the surface. We know this because of two things we observe and measure. Earth is observed and measured to be spherical, we have a whole system of navigation today built on that knowledge, that simply would not work if it was inaccurate. And no matter where you are, America, Australia, the UK or South Africa, everything falls towards surface, this falling motion is undeniable and observed daily by everyone. That falling is a motion, nothing is put into motion without a force to cause that motion…so there’s a very obvious force attracting you and everything to the surface, no matter where you are. So if these two perimeters are true, spherical Earth and a force attracting us towards its surface, then it’s logical to conclude that it’s this force that orientates you to the surface. You are right side up, relative to gravity, so long as your feet are on the surface.
Your error is in making a false comparison, you think a ball in your hand is equal to the Earth, that they would be the same thing, but that ball doesn’t create nearly as much gravity as the Earth does. So you’re creating a false equivalence, you’re assuming they would be the same, and that’s your error. Poor water onto that ball in yours hand, where does it fall? Towards Earth, correct? So Earth is attracting that water, causing it to move towards it, that means a force is present, because no motion occurs without a force.
So now compare that ball in your hand to the Earth in space, is there anything below the Earth creating an attractive force, that could pull anything away from and off of it? No…the only force present in this example is the gravity of Earth, so everything is drawn towards it.
Also…there is no ice wall around Earth, you’re confusing the flat Earth model for the globe model. We have two polar regions, one a solid land mass the other just miles and miles of frozen ocean water. If anything, they’re surrounded by water, not the other way around.
Anyway, I hope you find this information helpful.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
You can film other galaxies yourself with a good enough telescope…anyone can get a pretty good shot of the Andromeda galaxy and many others, with a decent enough telescope and camera setup, it’s pretty basic Astro photography knowledge, we do it all the time. So your points are pretty ignorant. You can find many tutorial videos here on YouTube, teaching you how to do it and demonstrating it, so feel free.
We’re not smarter than people were 130 years ago, but we do have more information, more knowledge. That’s the difference. And we have better technology now, we have advance computing technology that can run calculations at a much faster rate than any single human ever could, this greatly speeds up productivity, makes developing new technologies even faster. Where the Wright Brothers had to build and test each plane, going through a long line of trial and error, taking years, we can now simulate our engineering projects on computers, and test them in real time, before any need to actually build one, shaving off years of production time. We’re not smarter, but we do know more and we do have better tools to help us today…that’s the difference.
Apple didn’t invent the computer, the first digital computer was built by scientists and mathematicians, in a lab, working for the military during WW2. They were used as code breakers, capable of making advanced calculations much faster than any human mind could, so they used them to crack cypher codes that the Nazi’s used in their radio transmissions. You’re pretty ignorant to reality if you think every invention was made by some guy in a garage. Science first had to solve how physical reality operates, before a guy in a garage even had a chance. You think the Wright Brothers were the ones to solve the thrust to weight ratios required for lift? No, those equations were worked out by mathematicians and scientists…then it became possible for the Wright Brothers to develop their planes. Without the work from scientists and mathematicians first developing and acquiring the knowledge needed, these technologies would not have been possible.
You seem to have a very low opinion of science…but it’s pretty clear why, you really have no idea what they do. There’s a pecking order to all invention, first scientists and mathematicians figure out how things work…then engineers and inventors can do what they do, using that knowledge…that’s the order of operations. So every single luxury you enjoy today, is thanks to scientists, that’s a fact, not an opinion. You should be more grateful. At the very least, less ignorant and biased.
I’ll give you another example, the Wifi that currently sends and receives your internet data, connecting your phones, tablets, computers to the internet. That technology first required the discovery of the electromagnetic spectrum, which was a two part discovery, first by Issac Newton discovering that light was a spectrum when he split light with prisms, then William Hershel discovering infrared, when he was testing the various temperatures of each spectrum of light. Small little insignificant discoveries to you…but huge in the grand scheme of things. These scientists discovered the electromagnetic spectrum, which we now understand is a long spectrum of different wavelengths of light, that we can manipulate to send data on…radio and microwave wavelengths, we now manipulate to send audio and visuals information on, at the speed of light, sending them around the world. Scientists made this discovery, then scientists and mathematicians worked together on learning everything they could about it, then they came up with the theoretical possibilities for this knowledge, in published research papers that engineers and other scientists could access. Then and only then, could engineers and inventors take that knowledge and figure out how to use it practically. That’s the order of things…that’s what scientists do, they acquire knowledge. We don’t just skip right to engineering…that’s not how it works.
So whether you like it or not, you need science. Maybe if you spent more time learning about it, rather than making these ignorant speculations, then maybe you wouldn’t be so ignorant and afraid of it. Learn some science please, you live in the information age, you really have no excuses to be as ignorant as you are.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@frodobaggins169 Well I felt a portion of your point was to tell this guy not to take the bait from conmen pushing misinformation, because it only helps perpetuate their nonsense, or at the very least keeps the joke going by becoming the suckered, is that an accurate assessment? I’m merely pointing out that it really doesn’t matter in capitalist society, if it’s a hot topic, then it’s going to be talked about, so you might as well capitalize. He capitalized, and it’s probably been nothing but a positive experience for him, so your opinion on whether he should or shouldn’t have would probably fall on deaf ears, as he purchases a house and feeds his family tonight on that decision. So why should he care that some conman or narcissist out there got some gratification? 🤷♂️ Can they eat gratification? Does that gratification take food out of his kids mouth’s? No? Well then I’m certainly not losing any sleep over it, I’m sure he won’t either.
4
-
4
-
Did you mean to say not personally verifiable? Cause I mean, nothing really graduates past hypothesis in science, until it has been tested and retested and verified and peer reviewed, going through an intense process of constant attempts at falsification, to a point where only the most objective conclusion is left standing. So really, most of the leg work is already done, it’s a bit of an argument from ignorance to say something in science isn’t objectively verifiable...cause how would you know, unless you’ve done it yourself? Are you a scientist? Did you really try?
It’s fair to say that some of the higher science experiments and observations are really difficult to recreate and therefore a majority of people haven’t personally verified them and likely never will, but this is just a discussion of the basic geometry...you don’t need a particle accelerator, or even a space shuttle, to verify the Earths basic shape. You live here, you have access to the surface every single day, you can test the Earth’s geometry at pretty much any time you’d like. Start with a sunset for example, shouldn’t take much knowledge of basic geometry, to understand that a sunset is a bit of an odd occurrence...if line of sight to the Sun is never physically blocked on a flat Earth with a Sun spiralling above. Little things like that...of course you can take even that observation further, but I think it’s a bit of an argument from ignorance to say science can’t reach objective conclusions, especially with something so basic. There is a nuance here though, you are right to say we shouldn’t reach absolute conclusions, because we will likely never know everything, so how can we really know anything for certain, but what would you prefer we do instead, not attempt to learn how things work at all? Science doesn’t think in absolutes, it operates in percentages of certainty...why do you think they file many of their conclusions under theory? Some things are far more certain than others though, Earth’s shape is one of them.
“And if two scientists disagree on the flat earth...”
Gonna have to stop you there, you’d be pretty hard pressed to find an accredited scientist today, who doesn’t agree the Earth is spherical...that’s for a good reason. On the flip side, it’s no surprise to me at all, that most everyone in the flat Earth community is not an actual expert, in any field relevant to the discussion.
“You can not personally prove a globe Earth.”
Actually, yes you can, become a geodetic surveyor (measuring Earth’s curvature is literally in their job title), or a civil engineer, or just learn how to navigate. I mean I’m sure you’d agree that pilots and sailors kind of require an accurate scale and dimensions, of the surface they’re attempting to navigate. Guess which model they’ve been using for centuries. None of these are out of reach for the average individual, just takes some effort.
I don’t know man, you’re really going to a lot of effort to make it sound like flat Earth is the more logical position to hold, and I mean bravo 👏 for the excellent manner in which you masterfully articulated your points, but they’re really only convincing on the surface...and sound more like excuses someone could make, to help them burrow deeper into ignorance. It’s not rocket science we’re talking about here...it’s basic spacial geometry. Anyone can verify the Earths surface geometry, just get outside sometime and make a few simple observations...there are plenty to choose from, there’s really no excuse for ignorance these days.
I swear flat Earth has a lot of poisoned minds to atone for. Flat Earth has no working model and is not currently used for any applied science today...that’s for a good reason and anyone can learn why that is for themselves, at any time they choose.
4
-
Well, people tend to trust the science...that actually works. It’s kind of the nice thing about junk science, it reveals itself as false...by the simple fact that it doesn’t work. So why do people believe science and academia? Because they’ve likely recreated the science themselves, and they’ve seen fir themselves that it is accurate. I can only assume you’ve never taken a secondary education in the sciences before...if you had, you’d notice pretty quickly, that they don’t just talk about the science and tell you how it works, they also DEMONSTRATE it. Heck, they demonstrate it for you in high school, you don’t even need secondary education to know that. In higher education, they’re not holding your hand most the time either, in labs YOU are encouraged to recreate the experiments yourself, even improve upon them. Thinking fir yourself is highly encouraged in science...that’s how scientists make their careers.
The only people I see making this notion, claiming scientists and experts are somehow sheep’s, forced to conform to consensus, are from layman who have zero experience in science, and really have no clue what they’re talking about. Do you think Einstein is famous today because he conformed to consensus? Heck no, he’s famous because he challenged consensus. He challenged the work of Newton for christs sake...and let me tell ya, he was not very popular in his time for doing so, the difference he has with your standard flat Earther though, is that he was able to prove his hypothesis correct...he was also able to accept when he was wrong.
Anyway, point is, you can be sure the science is accurate, when it’s actually useful and it works. Junk science does not have that same advantage.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Why would you assume that because someone is refuting the Flat Earth claims, it must by default mean that they then also trust the government without question, absolutely? Believe it or not, but we can disagree with and question strangers online pushing what we feel is misinformation, and still agree that governments are corrupt and not to be trusted. Yes governments lie, yes you should always be skeptical of what they say, that’s not a secret, it’s pretty standard knowledge. But they still can’t lie about everything…nothing is that black and white or absolute.
Government had very little to do with solving Earth’s surface geometry and you do not require them to make that conclusion for you. Anyone can deduce this for themselves with just a few simple observations and a basic knowledge of physics and geometry. Best way to prove the Earth is spherical for yourself, learn to navigate. Seriously, if you think the millions of sailors and pilots around the world can successfully navigate the Earth every day around the clock with precision, without knowing the true surface dimensions of the Earth they travel…then you might need a good knock on the head.
I agree that governments are lying huxters…but that doesn’t mean by default we should just lose our heads, give up on objective reasoning and analysis, and just assume it’s all a lie absolutely. Thinking in absolutes is a fallacy of logic, it’s not that simple. We have every reason to question and challenge the claims of non-experts online, it doesn’t mean we’re siding with government, it just means we’re calling out bullshit when we see it, no matter who it’s coming from. Like it or not, but con men exist, narcissists exist, pseudo intellectuals with agendas exist…and the modern online world is their playground. That’s one of many ways how these people successfully sell you false claims, by exploiting your distrust of authority, because they know it’s strong bias many have, so they plant their bullshit in that bias. It’s very effective.
4
-
4
-
4
-
First, a plane uses air to generate lift. Space has no air, so no lift can be achieved in space for these vehicles. This is why there’s a limit planes fly at, they can never break out into space for this reason. Air gets thinner and thinner as you go higher, so this limits their ability to rise any higher. This is what the altimeter is measuring, barometric pressure, which calculates a rough altitude.
Second, you wouldn’t use the 8 inches per mile squared math here (actually you wouldn’t use that math for the globe at all, that’s a very basic parabolic arc equation, not an accurate spherical equation at all, so FE has taught you the wrong math). Pitch is measured by degrees, and it takes roughly 70 miles to arc just ONE degree of pitch on Earth, so it would be a VERY gradual degree change, hence why you would never notice. Even at 500 mph, it’s going to take roughly 8 and a half minutes to reach 70 miles, so to put that into perspective, arc your finger gradually from 0 to 1 degree, over the span of 8 and a half minutes...not arcing down very fast is it?
Third, the plane is always resisting gravity, constantly, it’s never not resisting gravity, so a plane doesn’t have to pitch down to drop in altitude. Unlike going up, where it has to, in the case with going down, gravity will bring it down, and the plane can maintain level the entire time. I’m sure you’ve tossed a paper airplane around before, ever try just gently gliding it, gravity bringing it down slowly but consistently, remaining level the whole way down? I’m sure you have.
Your main argument is trying to say that a plane needs to pitch its nose at some point, and you’re right...but you’re assuming it doesn’t. One degree of pitch every 70 miles...that’s pretty darn gradual. Nobody is going to notice that. I’m sure when you drive down a slightly curved highway, you barely notice any adjustments you’re making to stay on the road, it’s just one tiny adjustment after another, you do it on auto pilot without even thinking about it. Now just add a third dimension of travel (z axis), and make the curved highway (Earth’s surface) 25,000 miles in circumference.
Gravity vectors also move with you, always pointing to centre of Earth, so level in this context has always been to centre of gravity. I’m sure you’ve heard that term before, centre of gravity, that’s what it’s implying. A spirit level and your body even, balance perpendicular to centre of gravity, which changes as you travel, but always pointing to centre.
You’re just missing variables is all, the biggest one I find people of FE have trouble with, is gravity. You’re not stupid, quite capable actually of formulating logical arguments, but you do almost seem blind to some concepts. The other problem is that you’ve largely been lied too, the curvature math you’re using being a good example. FE has a lot of poisoned minds to atone for
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Depends on what satellite pictures you're referring too. If you're talking about the low Earth orbit photos, that are later stitched together to form a composite image, they have no choice but to manipulate these photos in a photo rendering software, in order to create those composites. But if you're talking about the pictures taken by the many geostationary satellites in deep space orbit (Himawari 8, DSCOVRY, GOES), then not sure what you're talking about...cause these photos are not manipulated. Some photos from these satellites are taken in different spectrums of the electromagnetic spectrum (infrared, UV, microwave, etc.), and then they're digitally colored, cause we can't see these spectrum's of light, but that doesn't really make them manipulated.
Or what about the photos taken from the Apollo missions, of which there are thousands. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544. None of these are manipulated either, these are full images taken by a regular camera. The photo that was used on the cover of TIME magazine back in 72, was touched up and color corrected to make it a sharper more presentable image, but other then that, these photos are undoctored.
So which photos are you speaking of in particular exactly?
4
-
4
-
@aarondavis7826 Because that particular model deals with the flight dynamics of the vehicle itself, not the environment it’s flying in, and it’s for simulation purposes only. So the author is just letting the reader know, the variables in the math ignore Earth’s shape and its motion, and they assume the vehicle is perfectly rigid, with no change in mass over time. It’s basically just putting the variables into words. Mathematical models are abstract, not to be taken literally, many variables are assumed in pretty much every mathematical model. It’s just focusing on the vehicle and its dynamics, moving linear through a system that’s constant.
It’s important to mention these assumed variables, because then, for example, an engineer, pilot, mathematician, etc, will know that this math wouldn’t be very helpful for calculating things like Coriolis drift, or Eotvos effect, etc, but probably helpful for its thrust to weight ratio, or drag resistance, etc. Because it doesn’t focus on environment, just the vehicle itself.
4
-
Ok, Rowbotham used the wrong math, so his claim that you shouldn’t see the marker at the distance provided, is wrong right from the word go. Use the wrong math, and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple. Here’s why it is wrong, 8 inches per mile squared is a parabola equation, not a spherical. So it’s not representative of a steady curvature. Worse then that, it doesn’t include any variables for height of the observer, horizon distance, curvature hump, arc length, refraction, etc, etc. It simply does not calculate a figure that represents your line of sight, or what’s obscured by a curvature…it is missing many variables required for that. So it is wrong.
The experiment has been peer reviewed and recreated many times. His version is found to be inconclusive, due to sloppy experimentation practices. It’s clear he only did as much as he felt he needed too, to confirm his bias, then he called it a day. He used only ONE marker, made only ONE observation, included ZERO controls, used the wrong math, and ignored variables like atmospheric refraction. So it’s extremely inconclusive, yet he reached a conclusion anyway. It’s bad science, cut and dry.
Here’s a modern recreation of the experiment, this time done across 10 kilometres of a frozen lake https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a79KGx2Gtto. There is a link in the description where you can find the official report, I’d share the link, but YouTube no longer allows outside links in comments. That’s how a real experiment is done, it’s very thorough, covering every variable it can, collecting as much data as it can, making observations over several days to test hidden variables like refraction. The conclusion here is conclusive, Earth is curving and at the rate it should be, given its scale.
Rowbotham’s version of the experiment now stands as a perfect example for why peer review is so important to science. People make mistakes, and they often don’t think they did, because we all have biases that tend to blind us from remaining objective. His experiment was inconclusive, that’s what peer review revealed.
Anyway, hope you find that information at the very least interesting.
4
-
@patrickhickman8723 Why would I be? 🤷♂️ I understand how motion really works. I understand basic physics. There’s a reason nobody bats an eye at these points you’re making…we’re just stunned someone actually thinks they’re arguments. Maybe 400 years ago, before the laws of motion were figured out…but you’re a bit behind on things now.
You should be embarrassed though, displaying for everyone that YOU don’t understand basic physics of motion, that even kids in grade school can understand. It’s physics 101.
Here, I’ll help you out Patrick. We do not notice motion itself, that’s the truth about motion, doesn’t matter how fast we’re going, whether it’s 60 mph or 500,000 mph, if the speed is constant or gradual, then we will never notice it. What we feel is sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion, so quick acceleration and deceleration. Every single one of Earth’s motions are constant, with only gradual changes over long periods of time, perihelion and aphelion in its orbit for example, which is a gradual change, about 20 mph per day….so roughly 1 mph every hour. Not a very fast change is it? Ever tried accelerating a car from 0-60, at the rate of 1 mph increase every hour? Let me know if you think you’d feel anything.
The only motion great enough that we could really detect, is our rotation, because it’s the quickest change in angular velocity we experience. But at the rate of 0.000694 RPM’s, it’s still extremely slow. For comparison, a Gravitron ride at your local fair, rotates at roughly 24 RPM, hence why you feel that rotation…it’s a much faster change in angular velocity.
You can confirm all of this science at anytime. Do you feel the motion of a passenger jet moving at 500 mph? No…how come? That’s still pretty darn fast isn’t it? Yet you can get up and walk around the cabin unhindered? Place a cup of scolding hot coffee on the tray in front of you, and it’ll remain at perfect rest…odd, shouldn’t it be sloshing out by your logic? 🤷♂️ Motion is relative, everything conserves the momentum of the inertial system it is moving relative too…this is physics 101 Patrick.
So why should I be shocked by Earth’s motions? 🤷♂️ Why do you think your own personal misunderstandings of basic physics, should faze me or anyone?
4
-
4
-
@Allstarsga Don’t have too, because the debate is long settled and it’s under no obligation to make sense to those who are simply incapable of understanding. The heliocentric model is now an applied science, it proves its accuracy every single day, with every pilot that successfully uses it to navigate and every engineer who uses the established models to innovate and build our modern world, with working success. So you’re only fooling yourself.
Gravity is the easiest force to observe, drop something.
It’s also measured https://youtu.be/fcT_zUb3wis which gives us a value 9.8m/s^2 used in practical formulas for engineering, everything from fluid buoyancy equations, to lift aerodynamics, to parabolic trajectory arcs, to orbital mechanics, etc, this measurement is useful whether you agree it exists or not.
It’s also verified through many repeatable experiments, most famous being the Cavendish, which isolated what is occurring and also measured the Constant of gravity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYf-Glwtr68
https://youtu.be/ZiqTkpSh52g
Maybe you’re not clear on how science works, but arguments from ignorance are not how you falsify established scientific theory, clear evidence that successfully refutes the conclusions is how falsification is done. Not going to achieve much through whining I’m afraid.
4
-
4
-
Rowbotham conducted a sloppy, inconclusive experiment, that ignored important variables, did not take enough data sets, and reached a bias conclusion. Upon peer review, it was found he used the wrong math, ignored atmospheric refraction, had no variable for horizon distance or height of the observer and simply did not do enough to render a more conclusive result. So it’s a perfect example of bad science, conducted only to confirm a bias.
Think of it like a slight of hand trick. He TOLD his audience the flag should disappear at the given distance, but that’s about it, then he expected them all just to agree, no further information or questioning required. A general audience of layman would just agree without really thinking about it, and that’s when he’s got you. It’s a slight of hand trick, because he’s basically waving some math in front of your face saying to “keep your eye on the math I’m showing you”, while never bringing up its inaccuracies for the observation. Any scientist or mathematician would immediately recognize how inconclusive the experiment was, but the majority of people aren’t scientists or mathematicians, so they’re easily dazzled by stuff like this.
It wasn’t a bad experiment mind you, it was actually pretty clever, it’s just conducted poorly. He twisted the facts, to get his bias conclusion, he was not doing things objectively. Here’s what a thorough recreation of that experiment looks like http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. Rowbotham did nothing to this level of detail, he only took ONE data set, using ONE marker, during probably just ONE observation, ignoring variables, using the wrong math, going only so far as to confirm his bias, and then he called it a day.
This experiment is taught to science students today, as the perfect example for why conducting experiments poorly is a very bad thing, and it also makes it clear why peer review is so important in science. Peer review weeds out bias, errors and lies.
So there’s a little science history for you. Hope that helps make things a bit more clear. Flat Earthers are currently doing the same thing today, fooling a lot of people, with superficial arguments and experiments like Rowbothams. The sad thing is, it’s working...
4
-
4
-
4
-
The hell you talking about? The Greeks were some of the first people to discover the Earth was spherical...that’s why the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes assumed a Globe during his famous Sun shadow angles measurements to calculate the circumference of the a Earth. It was already well established by them that Earth was a sphere...and it wasn’t hard to deduce, just observe one sunset...then try your damndest to make sense of that on a Flat Earth...doesn’t fit with reality very well.
Also, not sure about your education, but in high school science labs we weren’t just told how things work...it was also demonstrated to us. Maybe you didn’t pay attention in physics, biology, or chemistry...but that’s your problem, not the rest of ours.
Fact is, real people are out there inventing, innovating, engineering and navigating the world around you...they can’t do any of that successfully with junk science. That’s just a fact, not an opinion. It’s fine to question things, but please don’t make such ignorant arguments that assumes the rest of us are just as ignorant as you are.
4
-
It seems harmless on the surface, and it is pretty harmless for an individual…but get enough of them together, people who can vote on policies, then you have a problem that starts to effect society. Fact is, when it comes to the physical sciences of how nature objectively is and how it operates, we can’t do anything with false knowledge here. The shipping industry that imports and exports everything…can’t do that job, if they don’t really know what shape the Earth is and how big it is. You start getting a majority to believe the Earth is flat…suddenly they’re forcing schools to teach that model in school, becomes pretty confusing when they then leave school and try and do something that requires accurate knowledge on Earth’s shape. Would probably stop them from pursuing those careers entirely, so now you have a confused adult who can’t really contribute much to society in any impactful way, it sets society back as a whole.
We’re already seeing that happen with Creationists. How many kids from deeply religious families, who were taught creationism in school, could have gone on to revolutionize medicine…had they been taught the proper science?
It seems harmless at first…until it becomes a majority position, or even just a large minority within a society, whole communities, then these fringe ideas can effect society through policy changes…which can potentially set society back.
Gotta look at the big picture, you don’t just allow an infection to fester, you treat it before it gets worse. I know that’s a crude analogy, but Flat Earth is symptom of a deeper problem brewing in (at least) western society today, so we’d be best not to ignore it. I’d agree ridicule probably isn’t the best approach, but it can be effective to push these kinds of movements into echo chambers where they won’t spread further. It’s not really a long term solution though.
Improving and adapting our education system to the modern misinformation machine of the online world today, is probably a better long term solution. Or updating the internet to filter misinformation better…but that’s a slippery slope, for a society that tries to avoid censorship.
Anyway, it seems harmless yes, but I think we’d be wise not to ignore it.
4
-
Jesus...how can people spend so much time looking at the science of the Earth and still miss and ignore so many variables? He makes a lot of empty claims in that video and dazzles you with a lot of half truths and math...but do you ever stop to realize, that he didn't do a single experiment that helps to verify any of his claims? Like his main claim at about 5 minutes 40 seconds, where he states "...the spin of the Earth is powerful enough to smoosh the ball, yet we can't measure even the slightest force of pull toward the equator". He's of course talking about the centripetal force that Earths rotation should generate if it is spinning, that has made Earth bulge slightly wider at the equator. He makes a claim here with absolute certainty, that we have never measured any centripetal force on our planet....and then offers NO EVIDENCE for that claim. Do you ever stop to realize that?
Here's an experiment that anyone can recreate, that measures the centripetal force of the Earths rotation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t It's a simple experiment, if Earth is rotating, then it should generate some centripetal force that will negate a bit of gravity, which will cause objects to weigh slightly less, the closer to the equator you go, as the centripetal force becomes greater the closer you get to the Equator. He first calculates by how much, breaking down the math for centripetal force calculation, then he makes a prediction graph for his experiment. Upon testing each location, he finds that objects do weight slightly less the closer he gets to the equator and not only that, they match with his prediction graph.
So his claim that it has "never been measured" is bullshit, as this experiment above verifies. Here are two more examples of this experiment being conducted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkhxPm15PFo&t
https://youtu.be/agQnj1q2Y08?t=383
This is a common conspiracy nut slight of hand trick. Dazzle you with half truths and a seemingly well put together demonstrations, show some math but never explain or break it down, and then provide ZERO experimental evidence that helps to support ANY of the claims being presented. It's just empty claim after empty claim...and you suckers eat it up every time.
EVIDENCE is all that matters...get a better filter, this video is exactly how these fuckers con you.
4
-
iq O And always when flatties can’t logically replace or argue against gravity, they just say it’s density, and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done. It’s not that simple I’m afraid...just making empty claims, is not how you falsify science. How exactly does density know which direction to fall? What is putting that dense matter into motion? Why down? You go all the way down the thought process of Density as your replacement, the answer you’re eventually left with is “it just does”. Well great...if science concluded everything with “it just does”, then we’d still be in the bush figuring out how fire works.
You require a force to put matter into motion, density is not a force and buoyancy does not occur without the downward acceleration of matter. Remove that downward force, and buoyancy displacement does not occur, proven again and again with density columns in zero G environments. So you’re not really thinking this through very well. Density is not a force...it has no means to put matter into motion, it’s just a property of matter...how much matter occupies a given space, that’s all it is. When you drop something, it is put into motion...it’s common sense that a force is required to do that, because nothing just moves on it’s own. So the question is, what force? Density by itself has no answer. It’s that simple.
Flat Earth loves to cherry pick science, but you sure don’t understand it all very well. Thermodynamics has to do with energy...not matter. It’s energy that is being dispersed, and matter tags along for the ride, but when the energy in upper atmosphere is dispersed and weakened (in this case kinetic energy), it can no longer carry the density of that matter, and so gravity wins and pulls it back to surface, and the cycle continues. Entropy will win eventually, it always does, some molecules of hydrogen and helium are lost to space every day, but it’s a slow gradual process that’s gonna take a long time. What you’re forgetting is that entropy can be slowed, you do it all the time with a simple thermos to keep your coffee hot. But when entropy eventually wins and the coffee is cool...did the coffee exit the thermos, or was it just the energy? I shouldn’t have to tell you that answer, I’m sure you can figure it out. I hope you understand thermodynamics a bit better now. Gravity does just fine holding our air to surface....denying gravity exists, is not an argument against it, it’s just plain ol’ denial. You are grossly misunderstanding entropy and thermodynamics, in your conclusion of atmospheric pressure.
So here’s the problem, you ignore established physics when it suites you (gravity), and then cling to and butcher it when you think it supports you (entropy). So you are scientifically illiterate layman being taken for a ride by con men exploiting that insecurity you have for this reason, and you are bias researchers, starting with a conclusion and gathering only the evidence that supports it, instead of looking at ALL the evidence and forming a conclusion from that evidence. Not a good combo. You think you’re smarter than everyone else...but you learned everything you’re talking about from a YouTuber...who likely had ZERO credentials, who is just as scientifically illiterate as you are...and you just repeat what they say verbatim and then call the rest of us sheep? It’s incredible. xD
Here’s a question, if you believe atmosphere is held in by a container...where is it? Why haven’t we discovered it yet? It is a physical barrier is it not, so where is it? What evidence do you have for it, other than a butchered understanding of entropy? Why haven’t we reflected or refracted lasers off of this dome yet? Why haven’t we done the same with radar, like we do with the Moon to gauge how far it is? Why do weather balloons sent to upper atmosphere eventually pop, like they would in vacuum conditions? So is there a vacuum between our atmosphere and this dome? How does that work under your idea of entropy exactly? Just sayin, you people demand so much from the scientific community...but don’t think YOU should be held to the same standards of review? What makes you think these strangers on YouTube, who you listened too blindly and without question, have actually falsified 500 years of established science? What makes you think they’re telling the truth?
See we have evidence and experiments that verify gravity, experiments anyone can recreate (Cavendish, Eddington experiment, drop tests, etc.). We have measured it, calculated it, derived it and we use it in applied sciences, like putting satellites into orbit....while you have NOTHING, but a broken understanding of entropy. Yet you believe this dome exists anyway...and you people say the rest of us are indoctrinated? You listened blindly to con men on YouTube, feed you bullshit science and believed them without question....now you repeat it like the good little flat Earth soldier you are. Good job.
Let us know when flat Earth science is used to invent, innovate, engineer, navigate, discover anything. In the meantime, get a better bullshit filter and stop listening to con men feed you bullshit science online.
4
-
4
-
“Johnny, in the first half you proved earth is flat…”
No, he shared an example of an inconclusive experiment, that any person with even a basic understanding of physics can see is inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Which fits the topic of the video perfectly, Flatties actually can’t see why that experiment is flawed…so it displays what we’re dealing with here, stupid people. That’s why some people become flat Earthers…they’re stupid.
“There are engineers and scientists working their ass off to write technical documents using math and physics to prove earth is flat”
Name one accredited scientist that’s working towards that.
“No physical devices like rockets or satellites defines the shape of the place we live in”
Ok, but they sure do take nice pictures and videos of it don’t they, confirming what all our observations and measurements have been telling us for thousands of years already. You might be fine with ignoring anything that doesn’t fit your biases, but the rest of us sure aren’t going to do that. Satellites exist, they’re in space as we speak, taking pictures and adding evidence to the mountain of evidence that was already there.
Science doesn’t care what shape the Earth is, they just need to know it’s shape, so that they can make use of that knowledge in applied sciences like navigation, communication, infrastructure, etc. Even in engineering, like rockets and satellites, which make use of orbital mechanics, which is a whole branch of mathematics and science that is built on the foundational knowledge, that Earth is spherical and produces gravity at a centre of mass. Your intentional ignorance does not change the facts of reality, like that Earth is spherical.
Get a better bullshit filter, flat Earth is an online hoax, built by conmen and perpetuated by their victims. At the very least, you should consider that very real possibility.
4
-
4
-
Well he briefly explained why, but I suppose a few more details is warranted there. The original Bedford Level experiment conducted by Samual Robotham (Parallax) is deemed extremely inconclusive. He used the wrong math, made only one observation, used only one marker (proper experimentation requires many data sets), he did not consider important variables such as height of the observer, and he ignored effects such as atmospheric refraction, etc, etc. So he conducted a very sloppy experiment and made a lot of false claims, that his experiment did not actually verify. It’s basically the scientific equivalent to a sleight of hand trick; keep your eye on what he’s claiming, and ignore the actual details.
Upon peer review and proper recreation of the experiment, this experiment actually verifies Earth curvature, not the opposite. For a very recent recreation, check out the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, it’s quite thorough and its conclusion is far more conclusive.
I hope that helps. Take care.
4
-
The topic of this video seemed to be more interested in why people come to believe Earth is flat, a discussion of the ideology, not so much the science. This isn’t really a science channel either, so not sure why anyone would expect anything more. Sometimes it’s just interesting to discuss the psychology or thought processes of a group mind set, seemed pretty clear from the title, that was more the point of this video.
Unfortunately, it is a bit more difficult these days to find videos discussing the science of this topic, so here’s a few channels I’m aware of that you could check out.
CoolHardLogic - has made a video series going through much of the core arguments, providing sources to good counter evidence.
Voysofreason - pretty similar to CHL.
Professor Dave Explains - same thing, with more of a focus on pointing out the many flaws of the FE model.
Bob the Science Guy - goes deep into the science and mathematics of Earth science, with demonstrations and thorough explanations.
Wolfie6020 - a commercial pilot from Australia, and an amateur astronomer, he goes deep into the topic of navigation and provides many astronomical observations.
Sly Sparkane - not sure of his background, but probably the best channel for recreating experiments and creating 3D models that put the geometry of each model to the test.
Jos Leys - a mathematician, who makes some very simple 3D simulations of the geometry for both models.
Soundly - a photographer who has worked with accredited professionals of engineering and science, to conduct curvature experiments and make observations of curvature.
Walter Bislin- not sure of his background, but he’s done many experiments testing Earth curvature and has created some of the best free curve simulation programs online.
You want answers, these are some of the better channels on YouTube tackling the actual science. I wouldn’t expect much from channels geared more towards presenting a few quick factoids and opinions, for mild entertainment purposes.
4
-
4
-
Lol, what are you talking about? I’m a digital artist, so I happened to have a good grasp on spacial geometry and the laws of perspective, and I’m an amateur astronomer who’s travelled the world, so I’ve made observations all around the globe, like the southern stars for example. Many of the people I’ve seen chat with you, are also hobbyists/experts in other fields, like Frankie the mouse, pretty sure he’s a sailor, with knowledge and experience in actual navigation. He can elaborate more if he’s reading this. Many others I’ve noticed over the years are engineers, pilots, physics teachers, mathematicians, etc. You’ve been chatting with experienced experts Yester...so don’t kid yourself.
But even if we were all just “skateboarders and gamers”, we’re still RIGHT at the end of the day...sooooo, if that’s what you choose to believe, then it’s worse for you, cause it means your arguments are so flimsy, you’re being proven wrong by average joes. xD
4
-
4
-
That wasn't the point of this video...it's pretty apparent from the title, that this was just intended as a discussion on HOW and WHY people fall for this particular scam. It is a psychological analysis of the people who believe in Flat Earth, not a video that delves into the science. He shared those two experiments in particular, because they best illustrate how people fall for this con job...by being lazy and scientifically illiterate. Both the level on the plane and the Rowbotham Bedford level experiment are examples of inconclusive experiments, but for some reason people still think these experiments prove a Flat Earth....so he shared those examples, to illustrate how scientifically illiterate people fall for scams online....by being fooled with inconclusive experiments like those two.
Some of us have reached the conclusion that Flat Earth is a scam, now we're looking for discussions that break down HOW and WHY people fall for that particular scam. So if you are still looking for evidence on the subject, then this video wasn't made for you. I suggest looking up these content creators, if the science is what you're looking for. Sly Sparkane, Wolfie6020, Soundly, Walter Bislin, just to name a few.
3
-
3
-
3
-
“The Mayans were advanced mathematicians and astronomers who never doubted that the earth was flat.”
How do you know that for certain? Cause a documentary on YouTube told you that? Are you an archeologist or historian? Even if they did believe the Earth was flat, so what, they were clearly wrong. You don’t think ancient civilizations could be wrong? What is it with people romanticizing ancient civilizations and thinking after a few ancient aliens documentaries, that now somehow makes you an expert on these cultures.
“Remember that water seeks its level and the surface of water is always flat.”
Flat to YOU because of how tiny you are in comparison to Earth, it’s basic geometry and perspective. And water doesn’t “seek level”, it seeks lowest possible elevation. On a sphere, lowest possible elevation is towards centre of object, gravity works the same way, pulling to centre of mass, which forces water to seek that centre and form around it, it’s surface then maintaining equipotential distance from that centre. A bubble does the same thing, so does a water droplet thanks to different forces squeezing them in towards a centre (pressure and surface tension). Spheres are the most rigid shape in nature, because the surface is at equal distance from a centre...gravity is a force that pulls to a centre, and so that force can and will keep water at equipotential distance from centre. If you want to even begin arguing here, you’d have to first successfully falsify gravity...and good luck with that.
“Don’t forget that it would be impossible for a layer of air (“atmosphere”) and vacuum (“outer space”) to exist side by side.”
And yet, it does, so not impossible at all really...we’ve seen it, we’ve measured it, a misunderstanding of basic physics doesn’t make clear observations and measured science just go away. Even Flat Earthers have sent weather balloons up into near space, and the balloon pops due to being in vacuum conditions. Soooo...YOU people have already measured the vacuum of space as well, and it’s right next to our atmosphere. But wait...first you claim you don’t agree in the idea of a “dome”, but then you make the “atmosphere can’t exist next to a vacuum” argument? So what’s holding in atmosphere then by your logic? Are you even listening to yourself?
I think you’ve been listening blindly to way too many conspiracy and flat Earth docs on YouTube bud. They’re feeding you a lot of really bad science and you’re just nodding and agreeing for some reason. None of what you’ve shared is evidence of your claims, they’re just speculations and misunderstood physics.
Here’s some real evidence for you, give this an honest look over. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
What you have above are misunderstandings and assumptions. Can’t do much with either.
3
-
3
-
@OSUBucknado We got a bunch of people continuously spreading misinformation online, believing bullshit over facts, happy to trust every word from some stranger on the internet, over actual experts…the hostility is pretty necessary, this spiral of misinformation and pseudoscience needs to stop. Seriously, what has happened to society, that many will educate themselves through memes and YouTube videos, then call that research? 🤷♂️ Did the education system just fail horribly in western culture? Right this very second, there are millions of people successfully navigating the planet, using a system of navigation built on the knowledge that Earth is spherical…you think they’d be able to do their jobs at all, if didn’t actually know the true shape of the Earth? 🤷♂️
I know a lot of trust has eroded for government and systems of authority, but has it really gotten so bad that you’re ready to believe anything the crack pots of the world are saying, without question? You think I enjoy sharing information that should be common knowledge? No…it terrifies me how ignorant the world has become lately. We’re supposed to live in the information age…but it’s more like the misinformation age now, where fear, distrust and paranoia rule, where people are happy to believe anything, so long as the government didn’t say it.
The age of the crack pots we used to all laugh at…great, can’t wait to see how that plays out…what are they credited for inventing or accomplishing again?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"People at the beginning of the world did know the world was flat. Helio theory came along later. Round earth is newer."
Yes, everybody knows that...but just because something is older, does not mean it is correct. All that time and Flat Earth still hasn't have a working map or model...how much more time do they need? The people of old were wrong...it's pretty simple.
"How does a ane land ina place if the world is spinning?"
Conservation of momentum and relative motion, the science of motion...learn some physics.
" Earthquakes make sense on a flat earth."
How? What is causing the plates to shift? Are you a seismologist? How much do you actually know about the science of seismology? Did you know that every time an Earthquake hits (which is hundreds of times a day around the Earth), the seismic waves that travel through Earth tell us a lot about the shape and composition of Earth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwY1ICqWGEA&t=182s
"How do we have a horizon? Things disappear after a certain distance because we can only see so far."
So why is that when you go higher, you can all of a sudden see further? Why is the horizon at 3 miles when at 6 foot elevation...but get in a plane and suddenly you can see for hundreds of miles in all directions? Seems your "we only see so far" argument has some holes in it. The horizon exists because the Earth is curving away...there wouldn't be a horizon on a Flat Earth. Learn some geometry. Here's how a horizon works on a sphere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Vz9r2yWO8&t notice how flat that horizon is at the start while the camera rests on the surface of that very large sphere? The closer you are to a sphere, the flatter it will appear...it's basic geometry and perspective.
"Long story short we believe what we've been told."
You mean like the bullshit you've been told about Flat Earth, from con men online, who actually convinced scientists are lying to you? Meanwhile scientists still create EVERY technology you use today. Can you build your computer from scratch? Can any of those flat Earth "experts" harness electricity and build the electrical grids that power your house? No...but guess who can...trained and experienced experts, scientists and engineers. They're not building this technology with magic...they're using the knowledge and science we have acquired over centuries of hard work, that Flat Earth is now telling you is all lies...and for SOME REASON you are just blindly believing them without question...while meanwhile taking full advantage of that progress. :/
"A compass doesn't make sense on a globe"
Why not? Explain your reason.
"The way sun rays hit the ground wouldn't make sense on a globe"
Have you ever thought that maybe things don't make sense to you...because you're not very smart? Does that ever cross your mind?
Sun rays actually do a lot to confirm the shape of planet. Here's a few great observations and experiments that help to verify what I'm talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=421
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HgFT9Yu0JY
It's actually the other way around...Sun rays when actually measured do not support the conclusion of a Flat Earth, they actually verify a Globe. As those videos help to demonstrate.
"We believe scientists because we're told their the smartest people."
We believe scientists, because their work has brought results. We don't trust conspiracy theorists, because they're paranoid bullshit doesn't produce any results...see the difference yet? You're making use of technology that only exists because of those scientists...you should be more grateful.
"A rainbow proves the dome over it."
How exactly? Provide your evidence for this claim. A rainbow is just scattered light through water droplets...that's why you only see them form after and during a rainstorm. Here's a video explaining how they form.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cVX3eq6NUQ
"All the spinning and tilting makes no sense. Why don't we feel it? If you spin around do you feel it?"
Finally, a good question of physics. We don't actually feel motion, it's a misconception of most people that we do. What we actually feel is inertia. Inertia is created by a sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion...but when it comes to motion itself, we do not actually feel that. We feel inertia. In the case of you spinning, that is a centrifugal inertia, and what matters most about this inertia, is the rate in which you rotate. You feel that inertia when you spin around really fast...because you are making many revolutions per minute (RPM's), which means your angular velocity is changing very rapidly as well...which creates more inertia. The Earth however, completes ONE rotation every 24 hours, so the rate of velocity change per second...is VERY tiny, much less then when you spin around on the spot really fast. So that's why we don't feel that Centrifugal force of Earths rotation.
That last one is a very good question that most scientists ask when they're first learning about the physics of motion. You see...if you didn't have such a hatred and distrust of science, then you'd learn these things...and then they wouldn't be a question for you anymore.
Much of your questions are simple physics questions that are easily answered...if you'd just take the time to research the physics and LEARN it first hand.
"just because they show you pictures and videos don't make it true..heard of Hollywood and fx?"
It doesn't mean they are fake either. To conclude they are fake without evidence to verify that, is called confirmation bias...and it is a fallacy of logic. We must avoid following bias at all times, it will not lead you to any real answers. Scientists know that EVERBODY has bias, they actively practice doing all that they can to remove bias from every conclusion...Flat Earth needs to learn the same, or they will continue to reach false conclusions.
3
-
Because it’s not just about distances, it’s also about what kind of traffic airports are capable of handling. Most small airports can only support international flights, to larger airports. Cape Town is a pretty tiny city, compared to New York…so its airport isn’t gonna be very good. You know planes aren’t magic…they can only operate within designated airports, but not every airport is LAX or London or New York or Hong Kong. They simply can’t handle traffic for every location around the world…certainly not smaller cities either. Make sense? The North has more land, so more cities and population, so the North has more infrastructure, so smaller airports have to reroute through larger networks that can handle the traffic. This also helps economically, as you’ll pick up more passengers in larger population centres.
So there’s logistical and economic reasons for things you have to factor here. That said, how exactly do you know for absolute certain they don’t? 🤷♂️ You could just be making that claim…or the person you heard that from did. I’ve seen a few examples from flat Earthers, where they found flights they first claimed didn’t exist, but then they denied they were real…so it’s pretty dodgy a lot of the time it seems.
I say, learn to navigate if this interests you so much. It’s an entire system built from the knowledge that Earth is spherical. So why not learn? It’s not difficult, plenty of tutorials snd lessons to be found online. Then…put it to the test, you just try navigating somewhere, and finding a direct longitude and latitude point, without using the globe model to help you do it…see how well you do.
In any case, you really should stop listening to crack pots online, with zero experience in these things. Not a single pilot or sailor uses a flat Earth model for navigation…so you know, millions of people. That’s for a good reason. But learn to navigate, go ahead, why bother with anything else when you can test it more directly for yourself?
3
-
3
-
Walt Sandford Look man, I have no trouble with people exorcising their spiritual faiths, but when faith alone gets us into space colonizing other planets, let us know. Until then, I’ll put my faith in the scientific method which has got us to where we are today, where this conversation is even possible in the first place.
I have my own spiritual beliefs I cultivate, they can be a strength like no other, but I’m not going to be naive and ignorant about things and claim that mans achievements were just handed to us out of faith. No, that’s just arrogant...we didn’t achieve everything by just hoping and praying, we achieved everything we have today by getting off our knees and making use of some of the best tools God gave us, our minds, our will and our curious creativity.
I just feel it’s arrogant to spit in the face of science...while at the same time, you’re still happy to make use of every technology that method has made possible and provided for you. I get that things are grim these days, lot of misinformation and uncertainties clouding our minds, but maybe put a bit more faith in your fellow man instead causing more rifts and we might see things improve for the better eventually.
3
-
@Globeisahoax Because to get that shot, from the angle required, would require them looking through thousands of miles of atmosphere. They’d also need a camera, capable of zooming in with such precision, that it could visualize a single person, and I’m not aware of any that are capable…especially since seeing through that much atmosphere would make it virtually impossible anyway.
So your argument is stupid Kangen, it’s ignorant to the technology and what would be required for such a shot. But let’s say they could take that picture, and so they do. So they go through all the trouble to appease just a few numpty’s online, and even after all that, even if they got you exactly what you’re asking for, you would just say it’s fake anyway….so what’s the point? 🤷♂️
They already took pictures of Earth, and they continue too still today. It’s spherical in all those photos, that’s good enough for the rest of us.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@joaopintovb Yup, because it’s testable, repeatable and it works when the knowledge is applied. That’s how you know your conclusions in science are accurate, when you can apply that knowledge, and it works, every single time. On the flip side, that’s how you spot junk science…it doesn’t work, and has zero applications. You can pretend you’re smarter than experts all you want, but they’re currently using this knowledge you feel is BS, to build every technology you use today. You should be more grateful for the work they’ve done, but instead you’re arrogant and ignorant, and take it all for granted, as if everything you have just popped into existence on its own…it’s quite sad. 😔
3
-
I think you you're just misunderstanding how gravity actually works and it's that misunderstanding that's leading you to some very false conclusions. Little hard to expand on knowledge, if you don't have the foundations correct...so have you ever considered the error isn't with the model, but really in your understanding of that model? Or do you just assume you have it correct and have never thought re-examine your current knowledge on the subject? After reading your comment here, it's pretty clear to me that you're understanding of gravity is a little flawed and that's why this doesn't make sense to you. My guess is you're the same as most Flat Earthers, thinking that gravity pulls south...and not to center, but hard to tell for sure from just this comment alone. All that's clear is that you have misunderstood gravity, I would need further context to know for sure exactly what that misunderstanding is, but it is your error here.
Planes fly what is called a great circle route, which is the shortest path between two points on a curved surface...so it's not a straight path they're flying, it's a curved path. Here's a video you might be interested in that clearly illustrates what actual flight paths look like when plotted on flat maps of Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiUklHodcho The question you should be asking yourself is, if Earth is Flat, then why are these paths curving? Why aren't they direct straight line routes? Why are planes flying these needlessly longer routes? If Earth is flat...shouldn't they just fly straight to their destination? If you watch to the end, he then places those same flight paths on a Globe, showing you what the circle routes are. Much more direct when the same paths are placed on a Globe, and it explains the curved routes...because they are flying over a curved surface. Here's another interesting video on the topic of travel distances you should take a look at. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMOp6PmDpp4
Anyway, I don't mind sharing some further insight on gravity. I do feel you're misunderstanding it a little bit and that's why you're reaching the conclusions you currently have.
3
-
Rockets actually work better in space, because there’s zero wind resistance and they’re not fighting gravity. They don’t propel forward the same way as other vehicles, cars use friction, boats propel off the water, planes use air to generate lift, all of these require a medium to move through or on...but rockets instead use the basic laws of motion, mostly the 3rd law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Do you think a gun kicks back because it’s pushing off the air? No, of course not, just like a gun firing, a rocket propels forward by the action/reaction of the gas igniting, the force generated pushing off the walls of the container it’s being ignited from and the tank then also pushes off of the ignited gas...they’re pushing off of each other, using each other to go opposite directions, action reaction...it’s basic physics of motion.
You can demonstrate the same physics with a medicine ball (or even just by simply pushing off something). Toss a medicine ball from chest level with both hands, if you don’t plant your feet, you will feel notice yourself being pushed back as you throw it, essentially pushing off the ball itself, you going one way, the ball going the other. Now pick up that ball again, but this time instead of throwing it, push it against the air as hard as you can...push all ya want, you won’t feel nearly as much counter force on your body, until you throw it.
They even burn just fine, using liquid oxidizers. Space rockets generally have a two part rocket fuel, one part gas the other part oxidizer, there are tons of different chemical combinations they can use, it’s just chemistry. Basic chemical reactions coming together to create extreme reactions.
So rockets work just fine in space, in fact they work even better, it’s basic physics of motion that makes it possible, so I hope this info helps shed some light on some details you might have missed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Not an equation or device is made still 400 years after the concept!"
Sure....except for the basic equation for calculating weight; W=mg. Or buoyancy; Fb=Vpg. Or calculating air pressure at surface; P=pgh. Or calculating a ballistic parabolic arc trajectory; y = (tan θ0)x – gx2/2(v0cosθ0)2. Or calculating a planes lift to thrust ratio; ratio=F/W=ma/mg=a/g. Notice the little 'g' in every single one of those equations? Guess what that is. It's also used in calculating an escape velocity, an orbital path, a fusion reaction, time dilation, to how much longer it will take for water to boil at certain altitudes, etc, etc, etc and on and on and on....gravity is used in quite a lot of equations within engineering, mathematics and physics.
So not sure what you're talking about....thousands of devices, some you make use of every single day, were only made possible because of our detection, measurement and understanding of gravity today. Do you have a smart phone? Guess how it knows which side is up, guess how it flips its screen. The tiny gyro within its structure is built with gravity physics...engineers could not design that clever device, without our current knowledge of gravity. That's a fact, not an opinion.
Seriously...why do people who clearly have no idea what they're talking about, love to assume they know everything...about the things they clearly don't know anything about?
You have questions, that's perfectly fine...but it's dangerous to assume, and you're sure doing a lot of it.
3
-
@multymind4744 You're asking questions, but lets be clear, questions are not evidence. You don't prove something is wrong by simply asking questions...you prove it with evidence. I'll do what I can to answer these questions, but just wanted to make that clear, you're not sharing evidence here currently, you're just asking questions...there is a distinct difference.
i) They actually do eventually travel sideways, pay attention the next time you watch a rocket launch. They will start their launch perpendicular to surface, and then they will over time fly parallel to it. They do this for the very reason you've pointed out, they use Earths gravity to help them achieve orbit, rather than fight against it constantly. It's pretty standard to rocket science and orbital mechanics, rockets do fly sideways, so look again.
ii) No, a jet uses the air pressure around it to generate both thrust and lift. A rocket does not, rockets propel forward, from the same physics that causes a gun to recoil, by Newtons third law of motion; for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So a jet can not enter into space, because the higher you go, the thinner the air becomes. Since it requires air to generate thrust and lift, it can only fly so high. They're also not generating enough velocity for an escape velocity, only a rocket can achieve that kind of velocity. Jets are not rockets, they use engines that take in air, just like aeroplanes do, just at a much higher rate. Rockets also fly in much thinner atmosphere, so higher velocities can be achieved, because they're not experiencing as much drag force...nowhere near as much in fact.
iii) The force we would feel is a centrifugal force, but our Earth does not generate a very powerful centrifugal force. You can deduce this yourself, by going a bit deeper into the physics of centrifugal force. First of all, 1000 mph is a linear velocity...we do not measure rotational motion with linear velocities, we use rotational units, like revolutions per minute (RPM's). Earth rotates at the rate of 1 complete rotation, every 24 hours. That's about 0.000694 RPM's. For a comparison, the Gravitron ride at your local fair, rotates at about 25 RPM's, hence why you feel a great deal of centrifugal force on that ride. It's the rate of angular velocity change per second, that increases centrifugal force output...not the linear velocity. Linear velocities have pretty much nothing to do with centrifugal force.
You can test that with this simple thought experiment. Imagine yourself driving in a race car, at a steady linear velocity of 200 mph, around a perfect circle track, that's only 1000 meters in circumference. Would you expect to feel any centrifugal force in this example? Yes, absolutely, there would be so much, you'd barely be able to stay on the track! Now imagine yourself in that same car, moving at the exact same 200 mph, only this time the track is a perfect circle that's 1000 miles in circumference. Would you expect to feel any centrifugal force in this example? No, in fact the track would be arcing so gradually relative to you, it would likely feel like you were driving down a perfectly straight road.
So what changed? It wasn't the linear velocity, speed was the exact same in both examples...but one would obviously have more centrifugal force than the other, right? So what's the difference? The difference is the rate at which you're completing a complete revolution. In the first example, you'd be completing several laps around the track in a single minute. In the second, you would complete 1 lap, every 5 hours. See the difference? It's not linear velocities like miles per hour that you should be focusing on, its the rate of rotation. Earths rate of rotation, is VERY slow, 1 complete rotation every 24 hours.
So that's why we don't feel anything, rate of rotation is actually far to slow to notice. The other part of this, is that we don't actually feel motion itself, what we feel is sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion. That's what we feel. 1000 mph may sound impressive, but you know a passenger jet fly's at roughly 500 mph cruising speed, and people can still get up and walk around the cabin of a plane just fine, even at that velocity. We do not feel speed, we feel CHANGES in speed, that's key to understanding why we don't feel any of the motions of Earth.
For your last part, there's actually a great Minute Physics video on that very topic, so I'll just share that. https://youtu.be/urQCmMiHKQk
Apologies if this comes off as condescending, but you're telling me you understand physics...but then you're demonstrating the complete opposite. It seems to me you skipped the basics of physics, cause you don't seem to have a very firm grasp on the physics of motion and what we physically perceive. That's physics 101 stuff...that's some of the first lessons you learn in any physics 101 class, the laws of motion. Centrifugal forces are a bit more advanced, but it's still pretty basic stuff in the grand scheme of things.
That's my problem with FE and those who push it. They tell me all the time they understand physics, that they have a firm gasp on the subject....yet I always have to repeat such basic physics to them. Your questions always seem to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding in basic physics...which just tells me that you don't really understand physics very well. Which is largely your problem...take a physics class, or brush up on the basics here on YouTube, then you probably wouldn't be asking these questions. It just feels like everyone in FE skipped physics 101 and went straight into General Relativity...and I just find that, odd. No wonder you have so many questions, you seem to have skipped over a HUGE portion of the physics that helps you answer those questions.
3
-
3
-
Point of this video wasn’t to delve deep into the science, it was just to discuss the ideology. The topic of this video is asking WHY people come to believe FE. Most people with a basic education can understand for themselves, why the level on a plane experiment is a bad experiment. He shared that example specifically, because it’s in obvious error, but if you can’t see that error, then that’s part of why people come to believe Flat Earth.
He was demonstrating that part of the reason why people become flat Earthers, is because of their own lack of knowledge and experience, their own misunderstandings. They don’t understand how a bubble level is subject to gravity and always maintains level to centre of gravity, so without this knowledge they jump to an erroneous conclusion, from their own misunderstandings.
So it serves the purpose of the video. Both experiments are flawed, but Flat Earthers can’t see why or how…that’s part of why they become Flat Earthers. Get it now? I do agree a little though, he could have provided a few more details, just to help anyone who might still be confused…not everyone is great at retaining science they learned back in school, doesn’t mean they can’t still learn and understand it. So he probably should have provided just a little more information, you’re right.
But this isn’t a science channel, so that’s not really what he does here. If you want a few more details, I don’t mind sharing some info though.
3
-
@danielzhivkov1187 Both experiments he shared are examples of an inconclusive experiment. The first one ignores gravity physics, the bubble would remain flat on both models, so it’s not a good experiment, it’s inconclusive. The second one is a good experiment, just done poorly. The original experiment didn’t do enough to reach a conclusive result, it ignored variables like refraction and height of the observer, and didn’t take enough data. Used only one marker, over one observation...it basically only went so far as to confirm a bias conclusion, and then he stopped experimenting. Making it an example of confirmation bias and inconclusive. This experiment has been repeated many times over the last couple centuries, here’s a modern recreation http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. This is far more conclusive, verifying that Earth is curving and at the rate it should be.
The purpose of this video wasn’t to prove or disprove FE, it was to discuss why people come to believe FE. Bad experiments with inconclusive results, are an example of how people become flat Earthers. You didn’t recognize how those experiments are inconclusive...guess how many flat Earthers didn’t either? That’s part of how they fell into this mess...hence why he shared those two experiments.
I’ll admit, he could have done more to explain the experiments better, he did gloss over them a bit much, seems to have led to a bit of frustration. Hope I was able to help provide a little more info.
3
-
Anyone can prove the Earth is a sphere...observe any sunset, then just try your damnedest to make sense of that on a Flat Earth. Or talk to a pilot or sailor sometime, and ask them what model they use to navigate around the world successfully...spoilers, it's not a flat Earth model. So we're talking millions of people, who find their destinations every single day, using a Globe model mapped with TWO equal hemispheres in 3D. Should be pretty common sense, but it's a little hard to find a destination if you don't have an accurate map...these people would be fucked if they didn't know the true shape of the planet they navigate. Or travel to the Southern hemisphere sometime and observe the different night sky and the second rotation of stars around their own pole star, Sigma Octantis...then try and make sense of that on flat Earth.
Stop letting huxters on the internet fill your head with bullshit...scientists and experts have ZERO reason to lie to you about this, but con men selling t-shirts, documentaries, con tickets, and collecting ad revenue from watches on YouTube, have a lot to gain by suckering you.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The point of this video was not to prove or disprove anything, this is not a science channel, so he’s not going to discuss the science here. All he was doing here was offering his opinion on a group mindset, looking at it from a psychological and philosophical point of view. But, just like the Bedford level experiment, the level on a plane experiment is inconclusive, because it completely ignores gravity physics. This is an example of a bad experiment, using these tools and that set up, there is no way to reach a conclusive result for either model. So it’s just a bad experiment, that demonstrates a lack of knowledge of basic gravity physics.
The reason he shared both experiments in his presentation though, was to illustrate the kinds of people we’re dealing with in FE. These are experiments that FE actually believe supports their conclusions, but even a basic understanding of physics and the scientific method, reveals how poor these experiments are. It means the people in FE are not very scientifically literate, because these are both clear examples of inconclusive experimentation, yet they use them in their arguments anyway.
So since this was a video discussing the thought processes of this particular group of people, it was good to share some examples of their scientific capabilities...which by those examples, proves that they’re extremely lacking.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Alright, I’ll bite.
1) Evidence to what end? That it’s well documented people figured out the Earth’s geometry hundreds to even thousands of years ago, or that this history is not proof in and of itself, that Earth is a globe? I assume you mean the latter, because the former (that being the history of events), can be verified with citations and sources documenting those past events. But to the latter I agree, just because there is hundreds of years of documentation verifying that science had largely concluded the heliocentric model as accurate, is in no way evidence that they’re correct in that conclusion.
I see that argument from flat Earth all the time as well, and it irritates me to no end, stating that flat Earth is true, simply because ancient cultures like the Egyptians and Mayans believed the Earth was flat thousands of years ago, so it must be true. It’s just frustrating, because...no, history of a belief existing, is not evidence for that conclusions scientific accuracy. So depending on the context of your point, I’d agree. That being said, experiments and methods of observation were also documented in history, and many of them still hold true today. So there’s tons of easily repeatable experiments and evidence, documented through history.
2) Two things, this video was not intended to prove anything, and this is not a science channel. You’re not likely to see him ever conducting experiments with any level of thorough examination, because that’s not what he does here on this channel, so you shouldn’t expect he would.
This video was more intended as a psychological examination, of a group of people and why they believe what they believe. It’s an opinion piece, that’s all. He was conducting that experiment on the plane mostly as a joke, for entertainments sake. Most people can understand pretty quickly why the spirit level on a plane experiment is inconclusive, with just a basic understanding of physics, so that’s why it’s funny...it’s a small poke at Flat Earthers who don’t seem to understand why it’s inconclusive. It’s relevant to his point as well, it illustrates what we’re dealing with here, a group of extremely stubborn people, reaching a great many false conclusions, from there own personal lack of knowledge, experience, and understandings. They’re reaching full conclusions, from inconclusive experiments without realizing it, that was the main point.
The trouble is that many in FE do look at that experiment and think it’s a perfectly good experiment...in reality it’s inconclusive, it is ignoring the model it’s setting out to falsify, namely the physics of gravity. Denial is not science, it’s that simple...they can’t just ignore the physics that is occurring to make that bubble centre itself, then conclude Earth is flat, that’s not how it works. It’s a bad experiment, designed only to confirm bias, ignorant of the model it’s refuting. Conducted as it is, it will always be inconclusive, because it’s ignoring gravity physics entirely.
This is apparent to many people right away, so for the audience he was likely targeting, there was no need to explain it further. We already get it, explaining it further would just waste time in his examination, and cause the video to drag. YouTubers are in the business of clicks and retention time, and keeping their subscribers interested, that often requires sacrificing details, in favour of what has more entertainment value. This channel is mostly just for quick facts and tidbits of information that some might find interesting...it’s not a physics or science channel dedicated to explaining and demonstrating the laws of gravity to people, so it’s not going to ever do that.
So I hope that helps answer your questions a bit. If you’d like a more in depth explanation for why that experiment or the Bedford Level experiment are inconclusive, feel free to ask, I could shed a bit more light on that as well.
3
-
It was a sloppy experiment that ignored variables important to the observation. He basically only did as much as he needed to confirm his bias, and then he stopped looking…that’s just confirmation bias, science has to do better. Upon peer review (which is why science conducts peer review, to catch errors and weed out liars like Rowbotham), it was found his experiment was very poorly done, ignored variables like refraction, used the wrong math, didn’t take enough data sets, had basically no controls, etc. So it was extremely inconclusive, making it pretty much useless.
It was a good idea for an experiment however, so it has been properly repeated many times now, every proper recreation actually in support of the globe. Here’s a good example of one such recreation of the experiment https://youtu.be/a79KGx2Gtto. That is how thorough science needs to be, in order to render a more conclusive and objective results. Rowbotham pretty much just took one observation, then called it a day. Very sloppy science.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@alex-bohorquez-jimenez Here’s a question, if you don’t trust any space agency, then why bother asking for photographs from these organizations at all? If every photo I or anyone could ever show you, is just brushed off as fake, then why bother asking? You’re just going to conclude every photo is fake, before putting in any work proving that they are, simply because you don’t trust the source. So don’t you think it’s kind of pointless to ask? 🤷♂️
I could have pointed you towards the millions of photos taken by geostationary weather satellites in orbit currently, but I figured you’d prefer photos taken before CGI was even possible, because I know you’d just say they were CGI if I showed you anything more recent. Apollo was one of several examples of Earth photographed on regular film, long before CGI, so I figured you’d find them to be more credible.
You asked for photos, so I pointed you to where you could find some, that’s all. Why bother asking if you’ve already concluded they’re all fake, or if you’re not even gonna look? I’ve always found that odd behaviour from those arguing for FE.
3
-
@dtraub1 They do sloppy demonstrations, not really experiments, mostly tricks with distorted glass, that are not to scale and don't actually replicate the real world. What they're doing is creating demonstrations that replicate what they WANT to be true, and then once they get what they're looking for they stop and then tell the world "this is what's happening"...that's not how an experiment works. A true experiment has to correlate with reality. You have to go out and actually see if reality itself works the same way.
So it's a trick really, they trick people with these demonstrations (and I think they trick themselves as well). What sux is that it works, because people are bias and are only looking for ways to confirm their bias. Once they see a magic demonstration that supports their bias, they accept it with open arms and stop looking closer. That's the real problem with Flat Earth...as I'm sure you're aware by now, it is rampant with confirmation bias.
I've seen those demonstrations as well, one in particular was very convincing at the time I first saw it, one done by a Karen B, a prominent Flat Earther in the scene. She did a demonstration with a thick piece of distorted glass where she made a candle set on her coffee table.
It's convincing when you first look at it...but hold on, where are the details to the experiment? What glass did she use, what are its specs? How far away did she place the camera, how high and at what angle? How far away was the candle and how tall was it? The glass appeared to be designed to refract images downward, but in the real world we know refraction to make distant objects to rise up, not down.
She essentially shared ZERO of those details, which makes her "experiment" more akin to smoke and mirrors. A magic trick to fool a person at a glance and make them think this is actually possible.
Aside from that, the experiments are also never to scale...and do not match with their "models". Even Flat Earthers believe the Sun to be thousands of miles up and at least 70 miles in diameter...this matters. And it's very convenient to me how they'll deny refraction one minute with long distance photography, saying it doesn't needed to be included in the math...and then they'll do demonstrations that are basically refracted light through a distorted glass pain...that are designed to refract light the way they want to get the results they are looking for.
They are con men...not scientists, not experts and they're not doing actual experiments. They're JUST doing bias research, experiments designed to get the results they are looking for and then they just assert "this is how it works"...without doing any further work to fit it into their model or to actually test ACTUAL reality under the same conditions.
The trouble is, it's not simple to point these details out to a person, who just checks out after the first sentence. To point out the flaws of their perspective argument, at the deeper levels, requires some effort and explanation, there really is no simple way to cut through it I'm afraid, you have to really get down to the meat of it...most Flat Earthers will not listen to that explanation.
In the end though, when you really look at the details and think about them longer then any Flat Earther is willing to do (because they stop thinking the moment they get what they're looking for), it becomes pretty clear that they're bullshitting and a sunset still remains one of many of their biggest problems...it does not work. The Sun would not set on a Flat Earth.
Best you can do I'm afraid is just point out the errors, keep asking the questions they refused to ask while conducting their experiments. Just keep reminding them that they have to do more...a LOT more and not just stop once they've confirmed their bias.
3
-
@dtraub1 Yes, a lot of them do believe every word that they're saying, I'd say a majority even. But they are bullshitting, not just to us, but to themselves as well and that's more the problem. I think they're currently demonstrating the power of confirmation bias...they're so deep in it, that they don't realize it's happening to them. This is exactly what science has worked so hard to overcome, it's a flaw of mankind, to chase bread crumbs that aren't really there...because we get excited when we think we're onto something big, which makes us over confident. That's exactly why science developed the peer review system, to help weed out that over confidence. A person doesn't really like seeing their failures, but our peers sure do...we love tearing each other down, this actually works pretty well countering confirmation bias, but Flat Earth has zero oversight like this, so that's why it's spreading like a wild fire among the under educated, not properly trained in the full scientific method.
So I agree, in my experience most of them 100% believe these demonstrations of theirs are real science, that they are perfectly valid and don't require any further analysis. It's that blind confidence that has helped this movement spread so rampant, people are easily roped in by that confidence...even by themselves. People will rationalize just about anything to themselves when they don't know any better...if they'd just slow that excitement even just a little and take the time to listen when people point out their errors, maybe they'd finally realize how they've joined in on the con, but I think their drunk on the power it gives them believing their actually onto this big secret.
Anyway, I wish I could tell ya how to slow them down to help them see where they went wrong, but most of them are just too far gone. Once they're on forums like this spreading the same misinformation, it's pretty much to late for them, they've swallowed that pill and now think they're a bunch of Neo's. It's a mental health problem more then anything, not easy at all to snap people out of a delusion that makes them feel like they finally have some control over everything. I'd say it's harmless, but it's not really...if kids start believing this shit, then we're going to have fewer scientists and experts in the future, which essentially cripples our ability to advance further. So I suppose that's why I keep commenting, just trying to be a voice of reason, I find treating them civil is the best way to reach them, telling them what they're doing right and then critique their errors, people are more open to hearing you out if you treat them with respect...as hard as that can be sometimes, it's really the only way to get through to em I've found. Shouting down at them just makes them double down...though some of them really don't deserve anything less.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@OlamideAdelaNCC Ok, but you're just stating the obvious and it's just empty rhetoric for the most part. It goes without saying, there's still a lot to learn, it does not really bare repeating. The point still stands, we can only reach conclusions on evidence, we should not conclude anything on belief alone. The Globe model is not difficult to deduce, not anymore it isn't, there's far too much evidence, it's applied science now.
Just sayin, you can learn how we know things, or you can remain ignorant...the latter is not very useful.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@yestervue4697 1) Of course not, I just prefer not to think in absolutes. Just because someone lies often, does not mean they lie ALL the time, thinking in absolutes like that, will only lead you towards further bias. In science, to remain truly objective, you have to put more value on the information, rather than the source. This of course requires more time, and it’s more difficult to do, but I feel it’s the better way to think and reason. Yes, governments lie...but you lean too much into that paranoia and let it get the better of you, and you’ll become more prone to following bias and speculations, over evidence and objective reason.
2) Are you referring to this video, or something you shared? Yes to both, I watched the video (several times actually) and I checked your links, but if I missed something, feel free to let me know.
I agree actually, it used to be a lot easier to have a civil conversation a few years ago. That being said, I do find that’s generally still the case with in person conversations. I think we’ve all just been spending more time online, and it’s easier to be harsher when you can’t see the person you’re talking to. But since we’re having these chats more and more online, rather than in person, I think it’s skewing our reality. Spend a lot of time online arguing, it’s going to have a psychological effect, where you start to think that’s how it is in general. But I don’t think it is, I still find conversation in person to be far more pleasant, though I’m sure even that varies depending on where you are. Perhaps we all need to less screen time...it’s just difficult, as it’s a highly addictive platform. But I’d be willing to bet, spend far less time online, you’ll probably find the world a little less insufferable.
I looked at your images, my position is still the same. We’re discussing the basic geometry of the surface in this argument...so it’s physical reality, which falls under science. So scientific evidence will hold the most weight in this particular discussion. You’re not going to change anybody’s mind, with scripture and ancient drawings...we want tangible evidence. You started with an observation of the Moon, that was a good observation, which is why I decided to interact with you, it had some scientific grounds that I felt could be interesting to discuss. I fired shots though and I apologize for that, but I did have a point, you were missing proof for your claims, that was my only gripe at that time.
But yes, sorry it couldn’t be more productive, but I’m afraid I am only really interested in scientific evidence, not so much past relics. So if you’d not to interested in discussing science, then I suppose we’ll leave it at that. Take care out there, though I disagree with your conclusion, I do respect it.
3
-
3
-
They don't definitively prove anything in their experiments though, what they're doing is more akin to smoke and mirrors. Showing you what they WANT you to see, then hiding the details that refute their conclusion. It's sloppy science, and it works on people looking to confirm a bias. What's your bias? Well you obviously have a deep hate and distrust of authority, so you're looking for any other reason to hate them further...so you're not really looking for objective truths anymore, you're looking for only the science that supports a bias you have.
There is no peer review on YouTube...so I know you watched a few videos and now you think you're an "expert"...but it's not that simple. Flat Earth is currently demonstrating WHY it was so important that science implemented the peer review system into the process of science, to weed out this kind of bullshit, to stem the flow of misinformation. But the internet has cracked that shit wide open and misinformation is now free to flow.
Once you go deeper into the science, once you go past your bias, you realize that they're reaching false conclusions...cause they're intentionally hiding details, doing only what they need to, to confirm a bias. Science isn't easy, and Flat Earth is fucking it up a lot of the time, because they're not trained at conducting proper experiments designed to seek objective results. That's what is really happening, if you'd like I can go through a few experiments with you and point out their errors...and illustrate for you WHY peer review is so important in the process of science.
3
-
Flat in the context of elevation, which is measured from centre of Earth, making a surface with all points that are at equal distance from centre, in a large square area. This is known as an equipotential surface. A spherical bubble for example has an equipotential surface, a bowling ball, a water droplet as well, any spherical object really, with all points on the surface at equal distance from centre. A salt flat is just a land elevation that’s basically an equipotential surface. It’s not technically flat though, they just call it flat because we perceive it as flat, because of how large the Earth is compared to us.
Sea level is defined the same way, it’s not level as in flat, it’s level in terms of being equal distance from centre, at equipotential.
Anyway, let me know if this information helps. If you have any more questions feel free to ask.
3
-
Alright, here's a simple little experiment that can help you out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs This demonstrates pretty clearly that as the air density is increased, light refracts and makes it possible to see objects beyond a curve.
Refraction is a well known effect in physics, you see it all the time in fact, whenever you look in a pool of water and see an image shifted or distorted. https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftwistedsifter.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F11%2Flight-refraction-physics-is-fun.jpg%3Fw%3D800%26h%3D602&f=1&nofb=1
Basically, light slows down and deflects as it passes through a denser medium, like from air to water, or from less dense air with low humidity into more dense air with high humidity. The air closer to the surface is always going to be the densest where gravity creates the most density, especially over large bodies of water, where the air is humid. Since horizon is closest to surface, this means light is bending down and over that curve, which causes objects beyond that curve to appear higher then they actually are. Here's a great a video that explains it further, in the context of flat Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLufSkz-et0
So refraction is something that occurs, and so it is a variable that can not be ignored in long distance observations. Luckily, there exists mathematical formulas that take an index of refraction and tell you by how much something will rise at what distance, given that level of humidity in the air. Here's a great experiment for curvature that was done pretty recently, that did several visual tests on several different days with differing refraction index. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment Here's a photo from that section that helps to illustrate why refraction must not be ignored in these observations. https://ibb.co/Fh6Qm3x
Anyway, hope that helps. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.
3
-
3
-
@HaydenEvanoff I don’t believe, I know, because I’ve studied it and tested it directly. You know too actually...you’ve just never processed properly what you were seeing. I’m sure you’ve seen what a pencil does in a glass of water https://www.michigan.gov/documents/explorelabscience/Introduction_to_Light_606396_7.pdf. That’s refraction, it’s a very well understood principle of light physics and everyone is probably familiar with it in some way or another. Most have just never seen what it can do, and even less understand how it works.
For a more practical demonstration relative to this discussion in particular, I like to show people this simple demonstration https://youtu.be/5lmmzvzz_Xs.
Or you know, if you’d like to see light bending directly due to refraction, here’s another one, this time using a laser https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0?t=278.
I can share more if you’d like, but I’ll leave it at that for now. I’m sure these help demonstrate clear enough, why refraction can’t be ignored.
It’s fair if you’re not aware of the science though, most people aren’t well versed in physics such as this, so it’s fine. I would just caution that you should be careful not to jump to conclusions. The problem I’m seeing with Flat Earth, is that they ask a lot of great questions...but they don’t attempt to answer them, they instead assume they can’t be answered, simply because they themselves couldn’t. Then they form conclusions from a lack of knowledge and understanding.
Science is kind of similar, the difference is that they take steps to properly review every situation, making sure to account for every known variable and control for hidden variables as best they can. They don’t jump to conclusions until it’s conclusive, that’s the difference.
Science doesn’t really make mistakes, or at least that’s not the word I would use, it’s a bit more nuanced than that. It mostly just reaches conclusions based around the information it has at the time. Sometimes, they don’t have all the information they need, because the information is unknown to them at the time. You’re no different, you thought for sure refraction was bogus, until I provided information you were unaware of prior to your conclusion. Now that you have new information, you can review it and decide if it’s valid. If it falsifies your current conclusion, then to remain objective, you should change your conclusion. Science operates the same way...because that’s the reality of our situation. We do not know everything, so for this reason, old information always has the potential to change as new information is obtained.
So that’s why science changes through time, because we’re constantly learning more as we go, and sometimes we learn something new that forces us to change what we thought we knew. Science has to remain objective, so it changes when it has too. That’s the reality of information gathering, it’s a process.
That’s also why science is constantly reviewing itself. The trouble is...the general public has been led to believe that science reaches certainties. But it’s a common misconception, that’s not how science works. Science just studies physical reality to gather information, then we form conclusions from that information, as best we can. So it doesn’t operate in absolute certainties, it instead thinks in percentages of certainty. That’s how it works. But some things are more certain than others...there’s probably nothing in all of science, we’re more certain of, than the shape of the Earth. You’re free to try and falsify that conclusion, but good luck with that, the evidence is overwhelming.
Also no, 6 feet makes a difference, it changes the perspective, so it has to be factored. If you do not, then you’re conducting sloppy science. You can’t just ignore variables because you think it doesn’t matter...that’s bad science. It’s pretty common sense that you see further the higher you are....so if this is an observation to determine how far you see an object, then you bet height of the observer matters, so don’t be ignorant.
Yes, the math he used was incorrect. He used a basic parabola equation, that did not represent line of sight, that didn’t have variables for height of observer, horizon distance, refraction, etc. Use the wrong math, and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple.
Point is, you’re talking about confirmation bias...while at the same time trying to convince me that we should just ignore variables in experiments. You don’t see the hypocrisy in that?
Anyway, I hope the information I’ve shared is helpful, or at the very least interesting.
3
-
The only thing that blows my mind, is how ignorant people truly are and how powerful confirmation bias is. I know exactly what you're referring too, the flight manuals and aeronautics research papers right, where in several summary sections of those papers, they assume a flat motionless Earth, before doing some math. Are you aware how those papers are structured? Are you trained in how to write them and how to accurately interpret them? My guess is no...you have NO IDEA how to read them, you just skimmed them briefly looking for a few wordings you could pull out of context (or someone else did and you now repeat what you learned from them verbatim, acting like they're your own insights), then respun those wordings with your own bias explanations and assumptions attached.
So allow me to give you some proper perspective into how the summary sections work in those papers. They are not making a statement nor are they giving a conclusion, what they are for is simply to tell the reader what variables will be discussed and what will be omitted for the sake of simplicity. In most cases in flight manuals or aeronautic schematics or mechanics manuals, they do not require the variables of the shape of the Earth or its motion, in any of the math, especially when it comes to the body and design of the vehicle. But, in some cases they might, so before they start any of the math, they have to state VERY CLEARLY what variables will not be included, so that the reader knows how and where the math will be simplified.
That's it...they're not making any statements or disclosing any hidden truths to you people or anyone else for that matter...the summary section is just that, a summary of information for the reader, so they are aware of the variables that will be included or discarded. That's why the wording is usually like this "we will be assuming a Flat Stationary environment for this section", now the reader doing the math here knows what variables are not needed, which makes the math much easier.
An example would be wind resistance over the body of the plane...at what point is the shape of the Earth and its motion relevant to how the body handles wind resistance? But we do live on a Globe that rotates, so it might be a variable in some cases, so it still has to be mentioned so the reader understands when it applies and when it doesn't. Otherwise, they could be wasting time on some variables that don't factor or that are considered negligible, in the math they're currently trying to solve for. Make sense yet?
Hope that helps you understand a little better how these papers are structured. I don't share this to mock you, it's more just to share some information that Flat Earth sure isn't going to share with you...cause they'd rather stay bias in a fantasy world where they're the smart ones and scientists don't really know anything. Ya, tell that to the computer you're using to help spread misinformation and ignorance. You are a layman, doing what layman do best...misunderstand how things work and jumping to false conclusions, cause they're not trained in how things really work. That's not really your fault, very few people know how to read and write these sorts of manuals and research papers. Everyone is considered a layman, until they're trained at a specific task, and even then, everybody is always technically a layman at something. So this was a pretty easy one for Flat Earth to con people with.
3
-
Alright…first of all, these documents you’re referring to aren’t “declassified”, they never were classified (mostly, unless they’re military specs for weapons and aircraft that are new). Secondly, they’re not stating the Earth is Flat, they’re just making math simplifications….because these are mathematical simulation models, not to be taken literally.
Simulation models are used by engineers when designing, they only focus on specific aspects, so they don’t require a full simulation of reality, just the parts that are central too whatever design feature they’re focusing on. These particular models are for testing linear flight dynamics, so it’s focused on things like wind resistance for the shape of the vehicles exterior…you don’t require Earth’s shape or its motions, to test a vehicle’s drag, so you can omit those variables from the math in a simulation, and it’ll still give you accurate calculations for that specific purpose. When they make a simplification like this, they have to state very clearly what variables are being omitted and which ones are being assumed or altered slightly. This is so the engineer/mathematician/scientist/tradesman knows what variables are being used in the math to follow.
Those same documents often also assume a perfectly rigid vehicle of constant mass. Both are impossible variables in reality, because every vehicle is hollow with many moving parts (so they’re not perfectly rigid), and vehicles deplete fuel over time (so they don’t maintain a constant mass). Why don’t Flat Earthers zero in on those words? It’s simple…doesn’t help confirm their bias, so they are ignored.
What’s happened is that most layman don’t know what a math simplification is, and they don’t know what simulation models look like…so they assume it’s a paper describing Earth’s true form, because they have no idea what you’re actually looking at.
This is honestly why most layman should stay out of discussions of science and mathematics. There’s a structure and a format for every field of expertise, and if you’re not educated on how these structures work, then you do risk reaching false conclusions from that lack of knowledge. This in no way means they’re stupid, it just means they lack a base understanding of how things are structured in these fields of expertise…what is stupid however is reaching conclusions from assumptions alone, without any deeper effort to learn, or consideration to other plausible answers.
Anyway, I hope this information has been helpful. Don’t be so quick to fall into the confirmation bias trap that some huxters online have setup for you.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
We don’t settle matters of science in courts of law, we settle them by peer review and consensus within the scientific community. A court of law really only cares about if a law or stipulation in a contract has been broken...that’s it. So any con man pushing flat Earth can put fine print stipulations into a contract, that are impossible to produce in an experiment, and the judge will rule in favour because all they really care about is whether a law or contractual agreement was breached...that’s it.
In these cases where Flat Earth won their case, it was during their many bullshit bets or money challenges that they put forth, which typically come with written agreements and so the judge wasn’t ruling on which model he finds to be more conclusive...he was ruling on whether that particular contract, for that particular challenge, was breached or not...nothing else. It doesn’t mean they were agreeing the Earth is flat you numpty, just that the contracts stipulations weren’t met, because the clever wording these con artists use to make sure they can’t really be met. Typically, by creating a false premise experiment, that’s the most common way to con people on bets like these.
A common one I see is “show me water sticking to a small ball with its own gravity”, if you knew anything about physics you’d know this is impossible to do, while inside Earths gravity well. It makes testing the gravity of that tinier object impossible, because the water will just fall to the much stronger gravity below it, the Earth. Some in Flat Earth know this, some of them know it’s a stupid experiment to ask for because it ignores much of the physics of gravity, but, it’s very possible to make water stick to a ball due to the waters surface tension, so some people thinking they’re clever will answer the flat Earth challenge anyway, by sharing an example of water clinging to a ball due to surface tension...and that’s when they spring their trap. If any challenger attempts to collect on this bet, using that as their entry, then the FE will immediately argue in court that the water clings due to surface tension not gravity, and that is true, so the judge will have to rule in favour of the flat Earther. Doesn’t mean the judge is saying the Earth is flat, just that the challenge wasn’t completed as stated. Some people even will post pictures of Earth from space and say “there’s your ball with water”, but the fine print will state “a ball you can hold in your hand” or “only pictures you take yourself are valid”. So, they’ll win, because the challenge wasn’t met as stated...doesn’t mean the Earth is flat, or that the judge was ruling that, just means some suckers took a bet that was designed in a way that it couldn’t be won.
So they get media attention and then simpletons like you, who know nothing about neither science nor court proceedings, will just assume this means they proved in court the Earth is flat...when in reality, that’s not what went down at all. But, you people don’t really care about the accurate details do you, only the headlines and memes you can spin after the fact, to help confirm your bias a little more.
3
-
Wasn’t the point of the video to prove or disprove either position, it was merely to discuss WHY some people believe it’s flat…that’s literally in the title. It’s just an analysis of the ideology and psychology of a group mindset…not a discussion of the science. This isn’t a science channel, it’s independent journalism, focusing mostly on travel and geography.
Both experiments are examples of inconclusive experiments. His point was that people who fall for Flat Earth, typically have a big thing in common, they’re scientifically illiterate. The first experiment is just a bad experiment all around, it doesn’t prove or disprove either model, a spirit level is not capable of doing that, even a basic understanding of physics can tell you that. So it’s extremely inconclusive…yet Flat Earthers reach conclusions with it anyway…that’s the point he’s making. These people are doing experiments and reaching conclusions…without realizing their experiments are in error. It points to the real problem…people tend to over estimate their abilities, and they’re bolstering an argument with junk science, without realizing it’s in error or without even considering that’s possible.
The second experiment is better, it’s at least a good experiment that could reach a conclusive result…the problem here is that they gravitate to the original experiment done by Samual Robotham, and ignore the hundreds of recreations that completely falsify his conclusion. His version of the experiment was done very poorly, making only ONE observation, using only ONE marker, using the wrong math, ignoring important variables like height of the observer and refraction, and running no controls. So his version is inconclusive due to sloppy experimentation…but Flat Earthers don’t care about that, they only care about the result it gives, which is in favour of the conclusion they WANT to be true. It’s an example of confirmation bias…which further adds to his point. The scientifically illiterate typically don’t care about what’s inconclusive and what’s not, they skip right over that little problem and ignore it.
This is why we have peer review in science, and why experiments must be repeatable in order to be conclusive. Upon all proper peer review of the Bedford Level experiment, it’s actually found to be in favour of the globe, not the other way around. Here’s an example of a more recent recreation I’m aware of https://youtu.be/a79KGx2Gtto. There’s a link in the description there that leads to the full report and its conclusion.
Anyway, I agree he could have been a bit clearer on his point, but again, this isn’t a science channel, so I wouldn’t expect much science. He made his point still I feel, part of why people fall for this mess, is because they’re not as well versed in science as they think they are. That over confidence blinds them from their errors.
3
-
Unlike most conspiracy’s where people can really only speculate endlessly, or where it requires actual expert knowledge and experience on the topic, Flat Earth is in a sweet spot, because we all have experience with the surface of Earth and we can all put it to the test whenever we choose too. So we can all weigh in on this one, each of us having at least some expertise on this subject, seeing as we all live here, and we don’t have to endlessly speculate, we can reach more definitive conclusions.
So I believe these are at least some good reasons, for why this particular conspiracy gets so much more attention. It’s also interesting, because it’s just so much more nonsensical than all the rest...at least the others have some logic to them, this one is just...completely ridiculous. So we’re mostly just stunned that anyone actually falls for it.
3
-
Uhm...photographs from space. But I get that this seems to not be good enough for some people anymore, so here’s 3 easy pieces of evidence off the top of my head.
Sunsets, just think about it for a moment and then realize that the Sun would never appear to set if it was occupying the same directional sky, everywhere on Earth, at the same time. A Globe geometry answers for this phenomenon perfectly, and the geometry matches mathematically with what we observe in reality. Everything about the Sun fits and makes sense in the heliocentric model...while flat Earth really has to ignore and twist a lot of details, to ram that square peg into a round hole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeEw0Fw1qio
Navigation, do you really think pilots and sailors can successfully navigate around with perfect timing and precision...but they don’t know the true shape and scale of the surface they’re navigating? Everything about navigation is built from the knowledge that Earth is spherical. Polaris drops to the horizon by latitude, sailors have been using this trick to triangulate their position at sea for centuries. At the Equator, Polaris drops to 0 degrees...how exactly would that be possible if Earth was flat? https://flatearth.ws/polaris-angle There’s a lot of basic spacial geometry here that just doesn’t add up for a Flat Earth.
The Southern Hemisphere. It’s a fact of reality, we have two hemispheres on this Earth, that are equal in distance by latitudes. The South also has its own stars, it’s own celestial rotation around its own pole star (Sigma Octantis), it’s own 24 hour sun...heck the entire Southern Hemisphere is a bit of a problem for the Flat Earth hypothesis. But again, the Globe makes perfect sense of these observations and measured distances, they’re exactly what we’d expect if the Earth is a Globe.
Lots of evidence for the Globe actually, a lot of it doesn’t even require much effort...but you sure won’t learn about any of these proofs from watching Flat Earth channels and videos. They’re typically very bias channels, in my experience they have very little interest in remaining objective, their main goal is to push an agenda and they achieve that by twisting information to spread doubts...and it works, because most people are not scientists and so they’ve never really asked these questions before. It’s fine to question things, but it’s easier then ever before to spread misinformation, so you really gotta be careful where you’re getting your info from. So just don’t forget to question flat Earth as well, don’t just blindly nod and agree to everything they say...con men are very good at sounding convincing, but only on the surface.
3
-
@markusa4112 Yup, it’s pretty easy to observe stars and galaxies that lie outside of our galaxy…can do it with even a small refractor telescope, thousands of people do it every night, from all around the world. You’re not “seeing beyond light years”, it’s not like your eye is physically travelling light years, what’s really happening is it’s focusing light that has travelled light years to get here, which is all any telescopic lens is doing, focusing light that’s coming into the lens, increasing the focal length, increasing the lights resolution. So it’s pretty simple to do…I’m telling you from experience, because as an amateur astronomer, over the years I have photographed a few galaxies. The easiest one to see is the Andromeda galaxy, you can spot it with even a cheap Walmart telescope…with slightly better equipment, you can easily spot others like the Leo triplet, the Cigar and Bodes galaxies, the Markarians chain…just a short list, there are thousands you can observe with relatively affordable equipment.
Most science is easily repeatable, so I’m not sure why you’re stamping your feet so arrogantly. I’m just saying, engineers can’t do what they do, without first acquiring the knowledge…that’s where science comes in. You know before we solved air travel, there were people just like you saying it was an impossible dream, and now today you have electricity running through your home, and can switch on your tv with a remote…technology that would be seen as magic just a few hundred years ago. Wonder what people like yourself thought of that then? Probably thought it was stupid and impossible…but thankfully, some people were wise enough to disagree and try anyway. So maybe you should be a little more grateful to science and the scientists who fight through the ignorance of others, to bring us these technologies we all use and take for granted today.
Also, I’m not Christian or religious either, grew up atheist, so relax.
3
-
3
-
What tests are you referring too exactly? And even if they could verify no motion, it wouldn't immediately mean the Earth is Flat, it would do more to support the geocentric model, you'd still have a long ways to go to falsify a Globe. I know Flat Earth likes to hold up some inconclusive experiments like the Michelson Morley or failed experiments like Airy's Failure (gee, I wonder why it's called that), to help support the notion that the Earth isn't moving, even though they are botched experiments that can't be used to support any conclusion really, because they're either inconclusive or a failure. Meanwhile they'll ignore/deny successful experiments and technologies that demonstrate and verify the motion of the Earth, like Foucault's Pendulum, Ring Laser Gyros, Gyro Compasses, Satellites in geostationary orbit, etc. So feel free to let me know what tests you're referring too, cause I'll be willing to bet you're misunderstanding them and at the same time are simply ignoring or are unaware of the science that verifies the motion of Earth.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
That experiment ignores the fact that a spirit level is levelling to centre of gravity…that’s how they work. So it doesn’t prove a flat Earth at all, because if Earth is a globe, then gravity pulls to centre and gravity vectors shift with surface. If Earth is flat, then gravity has only parallel vectors, still down towards surface. Either way, no matter which shape the Earth is, the bubble wouldn’t shift…so it’s not a good experiment, it’s inconclusive, does not verify or falsify its hypothesis.
It ignores basic gravity physics, that’s a fact. You might think it’s just gibberish, but that gibberish matters. It’s a variable that can’t be ignored…simply because it’s difficult for some to grasp. Ignore variables in science and you will reach false conclusions, it’s that simple. So we can’t be lazy or ignorant.
Flat Earthers are free to ask questions and do experiments all they like, nobody’s stopping them. But just as they’re free to explore their alternatives, we’re free to question their conclusions and peer review their experiments. They seem to think the same standards of review don’t apply to them…and they’re dead wrong on that.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Spin that wet ball at the rate of 1 complete rotation every 24 hours, does any water fly off then? Centrifugal force is increased by rate of rotation, we measure it in complete rotations, which is why we use units like revolutions per minute (RPM’s), when dealing with rotational motions. A merry go round on average rotates at about 7.5 RPM’s (depending on its radius), by comparison the Earth rotates at 0.000694 RPM’s. Huge difference and far slower by comparison.
This matters and you can even test it with this simple thought experiment. Imagine yourself in a race car, moving at a steady 200 mph, around a perfect circle track, that’s only 1000 meters in circumference. Would there be a lot of Centrifugal force in this example? Yes, absolutely, in fact you’d have a heck of a time staying on the track, and you’d probably be clinging to the door. Now imagine yourself in the same car, moving at the same 200 mph, but now you’re on a perfect circle track that’s 1000 miles circumference. Would you expect to feel the same centrifugal force? Nope, in fact you probably wouldn’t feel any centrifugal force at all, the track would feel almost perfectly straight at all times, and you would never feel yourself being repelled to the door.
So what changed? The speed was the same, yet the centrifugal force was vastly different, but why? Because miles per hour is a linear velocity and it has very little to do with centrifugal force output. It’s rate of rotation that matters, which effects the rate of angular velocity change per second. In the first car example, the car would be completing several rotations every minute. In the second, it completes 1 rotation every 5 hours…hence the drastic drop in centrifugal force.
You don’t feel Earth’s rotation, because it’s actually very slow. 1 rotation every 24 hours…it’s not very fast at all, hence why you won’t feel it. Flat Earth gets people focused on the wrong numbers, the wrong variables…and sadly, it works. People should be learning some basic physics, then these things wouldn’t even be a question.
3
-
3
-
Level is just a word, we created it, it has no baring on physical reality, that’s important to keep in mind first of all. But, words in English also have many different definitions, depending on the context, also important to remember. They use the word in “sea level” to imply a surface at equipotential, meaning, a surface with all points at equal distance from a centre...all spheres are defined this way, having a level surface at equipotential distance from centre. That is what’s implied by the word “level” in the context of land elevation. The oceans surface is an equipotential surface, so it is level at equipotential.
3
-
3
-
They’re not threatened, they’re just not in the habit of rolling over and accepting claims made by non experts, without any substantial evidence to support those claims. Most of the “evidence” FE puts forth, is not really evidence, it’s mostly empty conjectures, cherry picked dialogue taken out of context, and misunderstood science. Then when they do finally provide anything that’s actually scientific, they get upset when any attempt to peer review the work is made...as if they think the same standards of review somehiw don’t apply to them.
Science isn’t threatened by you people, it’s fascinated that you somehow think your approach is rational. It’s not threatened, it’s just annoyed that you people seem to think forcing your conclusions and not allowing any rebuttal, is a reasonable way to conduct science. Peer review is important...you are not infallible. So you have to accept that people are going to question you, when you make a claim...that’s just how it is.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pavelinho1 We don’t actually feel motion itself, it’s a common misconception that we do. When you’re on a plane going 500 mph, do you ever really feel that motion? No, you’re not struggling to stand, you’re not constantly sucked to your seat. So why is that? 500 mph is pretty fast, wouldn’t you agree? So this can teach us something about motion, that we don’t really notice motion if it is constant, what we feel isn’t motion itself, it’s sudden or rapid CHANGES in motion. Vibrations, accelerations, friction causing drag, etc, anything that disturbs a constant motion suddenly, that is what we feel and notice.
Every single one of Earth’s motions are constant, with only small gradual changes over long periods of time. And since space is a vacuum, there’s no air to cause drag force, so we don’t experience any vibration due to friction. So we really wouldn’t expect to feel any motion.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@aarondavis7826 You’re trying really hard to deny what we’re telling you…those are mathematical models, that are simplifying variables, this isn’t difficult to understand.
The paper deals with a vehicle while in flight, so yes, the mass of the entire vehicle, fuel and all, does change over time. This model ignores that, because it’s not required for what that particular math is being used for. Shape of the Earth and its motions do not matter in the math either, so the author is just making it VERY CLEAR what variables are not included in the math….that’s how these papers work. They’re not making a literal statement about Earth…it is a math simplification, for a mathematical model.
You’re not stupid, so I know some of this is clicking with you. Flat Earthers are cherry picking information…do you know what that is? I’m sure you do, it’s when you take words or phrases out of their context, and then spin it into your own biased interpretation…it’s confirmation bias at its worst.
We’re just trying to help you….flat Earth is a con, don’t be another sucker.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@patrickhickman8723 Centrifugal force is dependent on rate of rotation…not linear velocities, like miles per hour. Here, I’ll even provide you with a simple thought experiment to help you realize this.
Picture yourself in a race car, going at a constant 200 mph, around a perfect circle track that’s only 1000 metres circumference. Would you expect a lot of centrifugal force in this example? Yes, absolutely, in fact it would likely be very difficult to stay on the track there would be so much centrifugal force occurring here. Ok, now lets do it again, same car at the same linear velocity of 200 mph, except now the track is 1000 miles circumference. Would you expect the same amount of centrifugal force in this example? No, not even close, in fact now the track would be curving so gradually it’d almost feel like a straight road, the centrifugal force in this example would almost non existent.
But wait…the velocity was the same, so why wasn’t the centrifugal force the same? Almost like linear velocity isn’t what really effects centrifugal force output. Hmmmm…🧐
The real difference is the rate of angular velocity change per second, which is increased by rate of rotation, or revolutions per minute (RPM’s). That’s what really effects centrifugal force strength…rate of rotation, not linear velocity. In the first example, the car would be completing several laps every minute. In the second, the car would only complete ONE lap, every 5 hours. So his rate of angular velocity change per second is greatly reduced.
Earth completes ONE rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes, that’s a sidereal rotation. This is roughly 0.000694 RPM’s at the equator, which negates only about 0.3% of Earth’s gravity…at the equator.
Fun fact, that’s actually why things weigh slightly less at the equator.
So again…you’re just proving to all of us your general lack of knowledge and understanding in basic physics. Great argument Patrick…just more personal misunderstandings of basic science. 👌
3
-
3
-
Well let’s think about it in terms of degrees, cause that’s the shift it’s going to be making, a degree shift. Takes about 70 miles to arc 1 degree on Earth, at 25,000 miles circumference. A passenger jet can cover that distance in about 15 minutes. So 15 minutes to arc 1 degree of pitch….you really think you’d be able to notice that extremely slow shift? Jeez that’s way slower of a shift than any curve you make on a highway…bet you don’t really notice, you just instinctively do it. Think it would be much different in a plane?
Pilots are constantly making tiny adjustments, to stay in line with both the altimeter and the horizon indicator. Tiny adjustments, over time, that all add up to a shift without any notice. Tiny adjustments, that are all instinctive, no thought required, that they’d never notice…not much different from the tiny adjustments you’re constantly making while driving, that you do on instinct and never notice.
Also, gravity is constantly adjusting their altitude as well. You think gravity just shuts off when a plane is flying? You think pitching down would be the only way to lower its altitude? No…just slow the thrust, and let gravity do the rest…no pitching down required.
3
-
You can’t use a simple spirit level for such an experiment, because gravity is what causes the buoyancy effect within the tube of liquid and air, so it levels to center of gravity, so it will shift with gravity vectors. So the results would be the same for both models, making it an inconclusive experiment. They’re ignoring gravity physics...you can’t ignore variables in an experiment, you have to factor every known variable and run control experiments to account for potential hidden variables, or you risk reaching a false conclusion...which is what they’ve done. So basically, it’s a very poor experiment, it does not render any conclusive results.
What it does do though, is demonstrate how bad these people are at conducting science experiments. No wonder they’re reaching so many false conclusions...they have no clue what they’re doing.
For the second experiment, he was talking about light refraction, which is a bending of light that occurs when light passes through a denser medium. I’m sure you’ve seen how objects distort while under water, that’s an example of light refraction. It’s very well understood in physics how it works, and it is well known that atmospheric conditions can cause light refraction, essentially distorting what we see at distances. There is always a standard refraction index in atmosphere, over water where the air above the water is cooler, it becomes more dense, which causes light to refract down, essentially causing distant objects to appear higher then they really are. This makes it possible to see objects further away, than what should be possible geometrically.
Here’s the clearest demonstration of this effect https://youtu.be/5lmmzvzz_Xs.
So again, it was a sloppy experiment. Rowbotham ignored variables and didn’t do enough to render a more conclusive result. At least in his case, it’s actually a pretty good experiment, unlike the level on the plane which can never give a conclusive result in its current form. In Rowbothams case though, all he had to do, was just a better job. Here’s a thorough recreation of that experiment today http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. The conclusion here is conclusive, Earth is curving and at the rate it should be given its known dimensions.
So here’s the problem...we’re dealing with people who don’t know what they’re doing, don’t know how to properly conduct experiments, but they’re doing it anyway...and then to make it worse, they’re publishing these erroneous findings on public platforms...skipping over all peer review. It’s becoming a real problem, because it’s spreading misinformation.
3
-
3
-
Two reasons, Rowbotham (Parallax) didn’t use the correct math, so his figures were off and because of atmospheric refraction, which can and will cause an object to be more visible over a curvature. Here’s a great video demonstrating this form of refraction https://youtu.be/5lmmzvzz_Xs. This occurs because moisture in the air makes it more dense, causing light to bend before it meets your eye. It happens most often, over large bodies of water, where air humidity is going to be higher.
There are a few other flaws in his experiment, like not collecting enough data sets or running any controls, etc, but basically it’s just an example of a poorly conducted experiment, done to confirm a bias. This is why an experiment has to be done properly, because if every variable isn’t accounted for and controlled, then you risk reaching a false conclusion. It’s also the reason why science has included peer review to the scientific method, it weeds out errors, bias and liars. His experiment was a good experiment, he just didn’t do enough to render a more conclusive result, he stopped once his bias was confirmed...which is how you do science wrong. Upon all peer review and recreation of his experiment, the Earth is found to curve and at the rate it should given its scale.
Here’s a very recent recreation of the experiment http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment this time done over 10 km of a frozen lake. This is what an actual scientific research paper looks like...it’s very in depth, accounting for every variable. Rowbotham didn’t go anywhere near this level of experimentation, he took ONE data set, with just ONE marker, then did some bad math and called his work done. So his experiment is rendered inconclusive due to sloppy experimentation.
Anyway, hope this sheds a little more light on things. This experiment is actually taught in most science/physics classes, as an example of how bias and poor experimentation can lead to false conclusions. It also perfectly illustrates the need for proper peer review.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Is it really that hard to observe a sunset, then realize how impossible that daily phenomenon is, if the Sun is never physically blocked from your line of sight? 🤷♂️ That’s just basic geometry, no “fancy science terms” required there. Shouldn’t be difficult to understand that pilots and sailors can’t plot accurate navigation routes, if they don’t know the true shape and scale of the surface they’re navigating, that’s pretty simple to understand I should hope. Guess which model they’ve been using for centuries?
You should be more grateful some people did decide they had time to learn some science, the device you’re using right now to read this message wouldn’t exist without their efforts. Same goes for pretty much every modern luxury you take for granted today, from your car, to your fridge, to the electricity running through everything, took a lot of hard work, from a great many people, who realized ignorance and laziness gets us nowhere. Knowledge takes effort to acquire, but it is worth the effort, at the very least it can help keep you from falling for online scams like Flat Earth.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Then by all means, go out and repeat the science, nothings really stopping you but yourselves really. Anything they do can be repeated by anyone. Some higher experiments do require you have the funds and equipment to do it, but it isn't impossible, very unlikely for most people sure...doesn't mean it's not repeatable. Just because you haven't personally done them or because you refuse to go out and try, doesn't mean others haven't either. If it interests you so much, go to school, receive a certification for any profession of your choice and then work towards participating in science for real. Then you'll likely get tons of opportunities to repeat the higher experiments that require a lot more equipment and funding to reproduce. Makes more sense to me, rather then spout off like some armchair pseudo intellectual, that you know more about science then ACTUAL scientists, who do it for a living...while you continue to discover and innovate nothing.
I'm interested in what thousands of scientists think actually, because they bring results and I'm grateful for the work they do, that benefits me directly. I sit in a cozy bed each night, with electricity and heat that comes direct to my house, so that I can get on a computer, that can access the internet, that sends communications through a wifi connection, that was ALL made possible by scientists. What have you built for my benefit? Any discoveries with your greater understanding of science? No? Huh....I wonder why that is...
What you're really saying, is you seen a few people do some experiments and they didn't get the same results. So since they didn't receive the same results, it wasn't actually repeatable, therefore the mainstream conclusions were wrong and have been wrong this whole time.
Ya...OR, they did a sloppy, poorly ran experiment, designed to ONLY confirm a bias, that likely used bad math and only took single data sets and didn't include controls...and that COMPLETELY skipped the peer review process. Then you reached a false conclusion from all that bad science, that you now seem to think we should take seriously...and when we try and point out your errors, you laugh and shrug it off like there's no possible way you could have made an error.
That's more likely to me...cause that's all I've seen from Flat Earth in the 3 years I've been looking at this mess. Please consider the possibility that the reason you couldn't reproduce the experiments, is because you didn't do them correctly. That is also always a possibility as well, so don't jump to conclusions and assume Flat Earth doesn't make errors...in my experience that's all they do is make errors.
3
-
3
-
@FAMMCUZ Do you think scientists were actually making these observations of ships over horizon with the naked eye? You must have a really low opinion of science if you think they’re that lazy and stupid. We’re well aware of the vanishing point of your eyes optical limits, but vanishing point converges from every angle...it doesn’t pick and choose what part of an object it starts to make disappear first...horizon does. If Earth is curved, then the bottoms of objects will disappear first. Here’s a bunch of large turbines at 20 or so miles from shore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQI18jr8Oc now do you notice how much of the bottom of these turbines are obstructed? He zooms the camera in, but the bottoms do not return....this is not perspective and vanishing point that is occurring, the bottom is being blocked by something, the horizon. That would not occur on a flat Earth.
Simple fact is, horizon and vanishing point are not the same thing. If you can bring a boat or object back fully into view with a telescopic lens, then it has not gone over horizon yet, it’s just reached a vanishing point of your eye. It’s the observation of the bottom of objects disappearing first that we’re observing...not the vanishing of the entire object due to perspective, that is completely different.
Here’s another great observation of this effect. https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2017/10/curvature-on-parade-turning-torso-video.html notice how more and more of the bottom of this tower lowers into horizon, the further back an observation is made? No amount of zooming will bring the bottom of this tower back, because it’s not vanishing point causing this, it’s a curved horizon.
You rushed your conclusion a bit here and assumed people don’t know how vanishing point works, you also assume flat Earthers are the first people to think to use telescopic lenses for this observation. Science is well aware of optics and the vanishing point and they’re not stupid, of course they’d think to use telescopic lenses as well, they’re not just using their naked eye.
3
-
@FAMMCUZ “You don’t have to be a “scientist” to CREATE.”
That’s a very broad statement that doesn’t apply to everything and you shouldn’t be so naive. For some things, you definitely will not know what you’re doing without a scientific background and training of some sorts. Engineers require a pretty extensive understanding of general physics and at least basic Chemistry. For example, it’s a little hard to create and engineer a wifi router from scratch, without an understanding of what wifi is and how you send and receive those signals...that isn’t knowledge that just came from nothing and with no effort, that’s scientific knowledge that took hundreds of years to acquire and refine...so don’t be stupid, you shouldn’t take this technology for granted, it doesn’t just happen over night. Everything from the car you drive, to the electricity that powers and heats your home, to the computer you’re using to chat with us...it’s all here thanks to science. You should be more grateful.
But yes, Science doesn’t claim to know everything, they’re very humble and up front about that...but you’re really being a bit arrogant and ignorant if you think they’re just lying to you on this one. Do you honestly think they can build everything around you...but they can’t figure out something as trivial as the true geometry of Earth? Do you really think pilots and sailors are navigating around everyday...but they aren’t using accurate maps and models to help them do it?
It’s perfectly fine to question things, but do you ever stop to consider the possibility that you’re maybe falling for a hoax on the internet, that exploits your general lack of scientific knowledge and your growing resentment for the system? It’s easier than ever before to spread bullshit online, it’s a con mans paradise...doesn’t take much to twist a few facts and stir up doubt to get you angry...then if you don’t have the knowledge and experience to counter that bullshit, becomes pretty simple to fall for it. A lot of what you’re arguing is ignorance of basic physics and astronomy...if you just bothered to learn a little more about how science reached these conclusions, you’d understand a little better why it’s all pretty conclusive. Just because YOU don’t personally understand how something works, doesn’t mean it isn’t true and it doesn’t mean you can’t learn if you wanted too.
I’m sorry, but you’re just making arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity mostly...but some questions you’re asking are good opportunities to learn some basic physics, so you really should.
3
-
Rick H I browsed it briefly, but he has a lot of different stuff, anything in particular you’d like for me to see and give my opinion on? From what I was able to catch, him and his group are pretty dead set on the Mercator projection of Earth being the true map and structure of Earth and they’re working on marrying modern religious scriptures with ancient hieroglyphs and stories (Egyptian, Mayan, Inca, etc). From what I watched, I noticed a lot of talking and not a whole lot of scientific evidence...just speculations, interpretations and pattern seeking. I’m more for scientific insights, observations and experiments, physics especially since that’s my interest and knowledge base.
The problem here is, if you’re going to go with a map and model like that, then it has to match with what we observe in reality. There are many questions it creates, many holes I see from a scientific standpoint, that need to be addressed.
All I was seeing was a group of people making empty claims...and not doing a whole lot of science. But I only skimmed 3 random videos, so perhaps there’s something more specific you’d like me to see?
For now, I’ll address one of the more obvious problems I have with the Mercator flat Earth model. So for the Sun to rise and set the way it does in the real world, running East to West, it would cut across the map, rather than circle, so what exactly does it do when it gets to the other end? Where does it go and how does it reappear in the East? The Sun is always visible somewhere, so they’re basically saying the Sun and it’s light does a “pac-man”, warping from one end of the Earth to the other. Planes, same thing, you do realize people fly and sail across the Pacific Ocean every single day right? I’ve taken that flight myself several times, going from LA, to New Zealand, there and back twice, and Japan to Vancouver as well. So are they saying things are magically warped from one side to the other? If so...how, and do they have experimental evidence or data that helps verify this? I think this is a big problem they’d really have to address, so let me know if they have or not.
That’s just one issue for now, I have many more, but I’d rather not pile on to much before you have more time to respond. I’m also off to bed, so I’ll have to comment again later. Catch ya later.
3
-
Rick H Ok, watched a few more videos, and it was much the same...a lot of talking and speculating, but no science. The trouble I have with stuff like this, is that it’s super easy for anyone to talk and make definite statements about things, super easy to make claims...it’s completely another to prove them. I could make a channel, and talk for hours about how the Sun is really a portal into another higher dimension, and it’s our trial in life to reach this portal so that we can ascend into a higher realm. See, everything I just said there is pure bullshit...but I bet if I made countless videos on the topic, talking for hours at a time, throwing around scientific jargon here and there...people would believe me too.
They’re just talking, and making a lot of false equivalence fallacies. That’s basically a fallacy where you compare things that look similar visually, and then say they’re the same with absolute certainty...without doing any further work to verify that claim. Like the sun dawgs that make these odd halos of light that they then associate and match to scriptures and ancient images...reaching full conclusions, from association, not actual testing or experimentation. So are you understanding my gripes yet? They’re pattern seekers...they’re not verifying their claims with science, they’re just SAYING these things are what they’re saying they are and that’s that.
I feel this is a bad habit of mankind, we’re pattern seekers...and it often gets us slotting in puzzle pieces, before we really have any proof that they’re actually pieces we should be adding. That’s why the scientific method was developed, to slow our roll and keep us objective. I’m hearing a lot of scientific jargon...but not seeing any scientific evidence.
So not much to go on really, except for that they use the Mercator projection map, which is easily falsified the moment you try to fit it to reality. I mentioned the Pac-Man warping of the Sun and travelling across the pacific...doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. It’s stuff like that, that people should really be focusing on more...instead of blindly listening to these guys make claims about things they can’t even verify. Another problem is the fact that the Mercator map is a projection of the Globe, that’s how that map was created. This creates a problem, because a 3D surface can not be projected in 2D, without creating distortions...the distortions created on the Mercator map, is the extreme North and South. Greenland is shown on that map, to be larger than Africa or roughly the same size, and that’s not accurate to its true scale at all. In reality, Greenland has a landmass that is MUCH smaller, maybe only 20% the size of the African continent in reality. This is measured, we know the land mass of both, but the Mercator map is a projection of the Globe, which means it is distorted. So they’re using a distorted map, but aligning it with there geometric overlay (that they use in pretty much every video) and then making claims that it fits perfectly...and no, it wouldn’t, the Mercator is a projection of the Globe, so it’s not an accurate map.
So no, I wouldn’t trust anything these guys have to say, but that’s just me personally. I get that people are fed up with systems of authority lying to them for so long, you’re now looking for answers outside of those systems, but people should really keep their heads on their shoulders while they do it. Just because these people are not associated with any system of authority, just because they’re more like you...doesn’t mean they can’t lie and make shit up. People do it all the time, the internet has made it even easier...it’s a con mans paradise. I say recognize the difference between speculation and evidence, that’s how you weed them out. People can pile on mountains of speculation and then it creates enough reasonable doubt that their positions SEEM logical...but speculation is not evidence, if you were to pause and pay attention to each claim and write down how many they make that are verified and solid...you might be shocked to learn that pretty much nothing they’re saying is solid evidence, it’s just one empty conjecture after the next. I don’t know about you, but I would rather form conclusions around solid evidence...not speculation, conjectures and interpretations.
Now, you had some points on some things about the Globe model you’re having trouble with. I do have some verifiable science I can share with you on those points, so I’ll respond again later and see if I can help you out.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@not_anybody_in_particular You’re welcome. Full disclosure, these channels are in support of the globe, so there is bias, and some are a little less patient, understanding, or respectful than others. Wolfie6020, Bob the Science Guy, Jos Leys, Soundly and Walter Bislin are the more neutral and respectful among the list there, but I’d argue they all do strive to remain objective, despite the attitude some do display.
3
-
3
-
Actually, the Greeks, Mesopotamian and Hebrews knew/believed the Earth was a globe, it’s well documented. In fact a lot of our current understanding of Earth’s geometry comes from the Greeks, who had made many experiments and observations that are easily repeatable today, that verify the Earth is spherical.
What you’re doing is making an argument from antiquity fallacy, assuming that because it’s old, it must mean it’s true. It’s a very common logical fallacy, but old does not equal true. These ancient civilizations believed that, because they didn’t know any better. Earth at first glance appears flat, so that’s what they believed, without much further thought. It’s easy to see how many different cultures would reach that conclusion…but it doesn’t make it true.
Also, NASA played a very small part in our conclusion of Earth’s spherical geometry. Scholars figured that out hundreds if not thousands of years before NASA ever came around. All NASA did was put the final nail in the flat Earth coffin, when they took a picture of Earth…but somehow, 50+ years later, it’s rising from the dead…because people are gullible and under educated, and the modern internet is a haven of misinformation. 🤦♂️
3
-
3
-
3
-
@yestervue4697 Yup, stated in the summary section, which is to let the reader know what variables will be excluded from the math to follow, to SIMPLIFY the math. They’re not making a literal statement, they are simplifying math, that’s all. Variables like surface geometry and motion of that surface are not required for what they’re solving here, and so they just overcomplicate the math. So when they simplify by removing variables, they have to state VERY CLEARLY which variables are being excluded. For example, they talk a lot in that report about wind aerodynamics...shape of the surface matters very little to those equations, it’s focusing on the frame of the vehicle, not the Earth, so it removes variables that are irrelevant.
Here’s what’s happened, you cherry picked a phrase, and didn’t think any further on the context for that phrase. What you’ve done is just demonstrated why layman should probably stay out of science...because you don’t even know how to read or interpret research papers such as these.
It’s classic confirmation bias. Now I’ve shared an entire paper on Geodesy, an official government document, you’ll find tons of information in there about Earth’s surface curvature...so why not read any of that? Or the thousands of other official documents that state Earths spherical geometry? I’ll tell you why, because you don’t really care what’s true...you just want desperately to be right.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@giorgiopoli7408 Well, dynamics has little to do with the geometry of Earth, it's the study of forces and their effect on motion in particular. So no...it doesn't "clearly state" anywhere in its framework, that the place we live on is flat...in fact it's quite the opposite, the laws of motion is the science that actually explains how a cup of water in motion will not be disturbed by that motion...so it does more to support the heliocentric model, than refute it. It's the physics that basically destroy's a whole swath of arguments from flat Earth concerning motion. Spinning your own flat Earth narrative on science that anyone can look up, study and recreate themselves...is not a very good way to start an argument, especially not with someone who's well read in physics and knows you're bullshitting.
But alright, ever seen a glass of water while in a moving plane, train, automobile? Pretty still, almost like the motion of that vehicle, if it maintains a steady velocity, the water will be completely unaffected. It's the first Law of motion, all things in motion stay in motion until acted upon by an opposing force or mass...it's conservation of momentum, and it's basic Newtonian physics of motion. There's nothing to dispute here, Newton was one of the first people who first penned the laws of motion and CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM. Relative motion is part of his body of work too, and it explains pretty thoroughly how objects moving within a inertial reference frame of motion, will conserve the momentum of that inertial frame of motion, and will not notice they are moving at all thanks to conservation of momentum, so long as that motion remains constant and steady...that includes a surface of water that is moving within that inertial reference frame of motion.
Opposing Inertia is what would cause that glass of water to ripple, bend, tilt, etc. Inertia that is caused by a sudden or rapid CHANGE in forward motion. The Earth travels at a steady rate of motion, in every single one of its motions, so there will be no inertia created by those motions...it's pretty simple physics. The only velocity we can measure easily without super sensitive equipment, is the rotation of the Earth, which creates a centrifugal force strong enough to effect gravity on a noticeable scale. This is greatest at the Equator, which is why things weigh slightly less at the equator. Here's an easy little experiment that helps to verify this, which also helps to verify Earths rotation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t give it a look sometime, it's quite thorough and also very easy to reproduce.
I suggest you relearn some physics and this time actually pay attention, rather then just cherry pick the parts you think you can twist into your bias narrative. It won't do you much good talking to me about physics you have clearly butchered for your own ends.
3
-
Michelson and Morley's experiment was inconclusive. Upon all recreation and peer review, that holds true and even those two scientists agreed this was true. Meaning if you apply any conclusion to it in support of any hypothesis, then you're doing so out of bias, not objective science. So no, it didn't prove "without doubt" that the Earth is stationary, the only people who say that it does...are bias flat Earthers, who don't know what an inconclusive experiment means.
All you're doing by making lies like that, is verifying that you don't know how science really operates.
"project high jump and operation fish bowl are not theory's it's documented facts"
True, but Flat Earth does a LOT of speculating on these documented experiments and not a whole lot of objective research. You make empty claims about these experiments, and twist them to fit your bias. Just further examples of confirmation bias really, you're not really paying attention to what those experiments were really doing, all you pay attention too is what Flat Earth tells you these experiments were attempting. Then you nod and agree without ever really looking for yourself. For example, Flat Earth will say project fishbowl was an attempt to blast a hole in the "dome firmament", while the documents states pretty clearly, that what it was really doing was testing nuclear arsenal in upper atmosphere, to study what it would do. That's what you do when you develop new arsenal, you test it in different environments to see what it can do. They learned a lot from those 6 detonations they did, they learned that the EMP blast travels WAY further, blocking out communications for a larger span. They also learned that the radioactive fall out travels further and sticks around longer as well, AND that it was possible to detonate nuclear arsenal in upper atmosphere. The tests were VERY helpful, they learned a lot...as you do in these types of experiments. The reason they were classified for so long, is because they didn't want their enemies learning this same information...it's pretty simple. When they detonated, it blasted a hole in the clouds, that made the sky look like a fishbowl...hence the name.
Getting it yet? All Flat Earth does is speculates...and doesn't really look at things objectively. You are bias researchers who don't really care what's actually true, only what you WANT to be true.
Jtolan is actually one of the best Globe Earth curvature finders. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU He's helped the Globe more then he realizes.
"even the Bible knows it's not a ball"
So does Lord of the Rings...but we're not using that book of fiction to help us solve mysteries of science now are we? The Bible holds no place in a discussion of science. The world has rules, physical laws that have never been witnessed to be broken. Magic does not exist, so we do not turn to books speaking of magic, to help us solve the mysteries of reality. You should probably grow up and stop reading so much fiction.
"United Nations logo is a flat earth map"
So what? Not sure if you're aware of this, but you can't represent all of a spherical 3D surface, on a single flat flag, without flattening it. The UN represents ALL NATIONS of the world, so how else are they going to create a flag that shows ALL NATIONS of the world on it? Just more paranoid bias and speculations. This is not evidence...learn the difference between speculation and evidence!
I think YOU really need to wake up bud. Flat Earth has successfully conned you and it's pretty obvious for anyone who actually gives a damn about what's objectively true.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@terry3002 Yes, perfectly fine to disagree, just nice to have an actual conversation for a change, where disagreements can be accepted and nobody gets upset, like mature adults. I’ve never thought Flat Earth was stupid, seeing the depths of some of the arguments, proves they’re actually quite well formed ideas. So at its core, it’s just good people, looking out for the rest of us, keeping an eye on potential threats. Though I do feel they’re lacking some scientific information, I do see the logic in their current conclusions.
I suppose my main point has been just to illustrate the difference between scientific knowledge and the scientific method. It’s fair to question the collected knowledge of science, even logical to ponder the possibility that much of it could be fabricated to sell us a grand illusion. But like I keep saying, the method itself is quite a different story. You don’t have to just take peoples word for it, most of the core sciences are easily repeatable. Most of Earth science, is just basic geometry and simple physics, all of which is simple to verify for yourself.
So question the body of knowledge, but don’t forget to also check it for yourself. The community of science does have some dogma too it, they have a system, that system can be corrupted. The method of science however, I do feel is the best method mankind has ever produced, for probing into the real truths of physical reality. It’s just a tool, like any other, it has no more agenda than a hammer does...it’s the individual who uses it, that’s where the agenda is. So conducting science yourself, can help you avoid potential corruption from others, the only thing you have to worry about after that, is your bias. But even that can be overcome, if you’re diligent. First by accepting you have bias, then identifying it, then it’s easier to keep it in check. My bias is a general trust in science, I tend to listen to experts more, rather than challenging them. I feel I combat that bias though, by having these kinds of chats, because where I might have overlooked something due to that bias, somebody without that bias is going to spot them and help me notice them. That’s part of why I engage in chats like this, to challenge what I think I know, it helps me remain a little more objective.
Anyway, off to bed, I’ll drop by again tomorrow perhaps, see what other questions I can provide information for.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@chrisross4898 I’ll elaborate further. Gravity causes the buoyancy effect within the density column of a spirit level. So the bubble is levelling to centre of gravity, the tube perpendicular to gravity, renders it level. So gravity on the flat model points in one vector, down towards surface, gravity on the globe points in many vectors towards centre of Earth. If Earth is flat and gravity works as they believe it does, the bubble won’t appear to move. If the Earth is a globe and gravity works the way they believe it does, the bubble still won’t appear to move. The bubble is conforming to gravity, then it’s going to move with it. So you see the problem? The experiment doesn’t prove either model, it is inconclusive. To conclude it proves FE, completely ignores and misunderstands the globe model physics.
This is immediately obvious to anyone who does understand the globe physics, while the only people who see this experiment as proof of FE, clearly never seem to understand how it would also work with globe physics...which means they don’t understand the globe physics. So the error is their own, not the model they’re trying to refute.
Either way, it’s an inconclusive experiment, proves neither conclusion, that’s the basic fact of things.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@chrisross4898 Gaia is most definitely a con job...did you pay a subscription for their service? Are they selling books, dvd’s, oils, any merchandise? That’s a rhetorical question, I know they are, I’ve been there myself. Odds are pretty good they have a financial motive to continue, no matter how full of shit their content is...so ya, it’s a con, they are modern day snake oil sellers, pushing their products on the scientifically illiterate. Spend some time on youtube or other websites like reddit, that break down in great detail how Gaia pushes pseudoscience on people for profit. It’s all BS.
3
-
@drackxman He did the level test as a gag, a quick jab at FE for entertainment value...because it’s actually a test many of them truly believe is conclusive evidence, but it’s easily debunked with just an entry level understanding of how gravity works. I’ll attempt to break it down a little better.
A bubble level is basically just a simple 2 part density column, a liquid and air, so the bubble of air is separated and moves around due to buoyancy, that part you probably already know, pretty simple so far right. Ok, but what some don’t quite understand, is that buoyancy force is directly caused due to gravity, it does not occur without it. Without a downward accelerating force giving all matter a direction to begin falling, no displacement can then occur, so no ordering by density will occur. Buoyancy is just less dense matter being forced up (displaced up), by matter that is more dense, because more dense matter must occupy lowest potential energy first, or lowest position point closest to centre of gravity if you prefer. That’s all buoyancy is, that’s why clouds float and helium balloons rise...the key ingredient, being gravity, gravity is what starts the displacement. The misunderstanding, is in their thinking that gravity only causes a downward motion, and it’s not that simple really, gravity is responsible for more things than they realize.
So the problem flat Earth has here with this experiment, is that it’s inconclusive, it does not prove their conclusion and here’s why. Because on the Globe model, gravity pulls to centre, doesn’t matter where you are, all mass is pulled toward centre of gravity, the centre of Earth. So the bubble is levelling to centre of gravity at all times, keeping itself perpendicular to that centre, which means on the globe, the bubble will shift with gravity vectors as you travel. Think of it like a stick you have tied in the middle with a rope, the other end of that rope is tied to a pole, now pull the rope taut, the rope now represents a gravity vector for this thought experiment. Now hold the stick perpendicular to that pole and rope at all times and now go around the pole, tracing a perfect circle. The gravity vector (the rope) fallows you and it keeps the stick shifting to maintain perpendicular to centre, the same thing is occurring in a bubble level, due to gravity. If the bubble stays perfectly in the centre of the current gravity vector, then it won’t shift, so that’s really what a bubble level is levelling to, centre of gravity.
So the experiment is flawed, in that it ignores the details of the model it’s attempting to debunk...which is the very opposite of objective science. Not entirely their fault really, not everyone is very well read in physics, and gravity vectors can be a little tricky to understand, so it’s easy to see how someone might think this is evidence. Either way, it is an inconclusive experiment, it does not prove a flat Earth, anyone claiming that it does is being bias and not looking at the science objectively...or they don’t quite understand the science, which is really the larger problem with FE, over confidence in their abilities, cognitive dissonance.
This is why they like to deny the existence of gravity...because they have to, because it’s very inconvenient for their main argument. But, gravity is very well established science, it’s not something they can just ignore. The fact that they do ignore things so easily, shows their true nature, a movement of confirmation bias...not objective reasoning.
Anyway, hope that helps a bit. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.
3
-
3
-
Refraction isn’t brought up as a proof of the globe, it falsifies the common claim by Flat Earthers that we see too far in some cases. It’s a falsification…not a proof. That is the proper way to conduct science and remain the most objective, through falsification…the theory/model that stands up to all attempts to be falsified, is the most likely conclusion. Flat Earthers claim we see too far, refraction is a valid explanation for how and why, in the cases where we do see further than what’s geometrically possible. This is verified further by the fact that refraction fluctuates, this is observable on pretty much any day if you observe long enough, and seeing further is only possible when refractive index increases…so it correlates.
As much as Flat Earth doesn’t enjoy the process of falsification, or being questioned, tough titty…science doesn’t just stop once a bias is confirmed, that’s how pseudoscience operates. Nobody is above the process of peer review. Refraction is a fact, easily verified, so it can not be ignored simply because some want so badly to be right.
What’s worse is that they’re more than happy to accept atmospheric refraction when it suits them…you should see the plethora of nut jobs who actually try using atmospheric refraction as an explanation for the South celestial rotation of stars. It’s akin to watching someone ram a square peg into a round hole. 😄
3
-
3
-
@dr.reubenbuthello2866 To add to what Scott said, the air above any body of water is always slightly denser, because of the humidity and the cooling that occurs just above the water. So refraction happens most commonly over bodies of water, and typically in the downward direction, refracting objects upwards. But it happens everywhere on the surface actually, just very common over water. If you don’t believe so, there’s a great observation I’d urge you to check out, called the Rainy Lake experiment. There’s a full blog post you can find outlining the experiment, and there’s a full section on refraction, containing a short sped up time lapse over several hours, clearly demonstrating refraction causing the horizon to rise up significantly over time, as refraction index increases throughout the day.
Refraction is very much a variable that matters here, it cannot be ignored. Rowbotham ignored it, so his observation is inconclusive, it’s a sloppy experiment. He’s actually famous today as one of the main reasons why peer review is so crucial to the process of science. The Bedford Level experiment is used an example today, to help teach young aspiring scientists the importance of peer review, by illustrating how false conclusions are often drawn in experimentation, peer review is how we catch human error.
3
-
Takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree on Earth…you think you’d be able to notice a dip occurring that gradually? Pilots follow the horizon indicator and the altimeter, constantly making small adjustments every second to stay in line with those instruments, the shift would be so gradual, you would never notice, like driving around a perfect circle track that’s thousands of miles in circumference, it’s not much different. Also, it’s impossible for a plane to “fly out into space”, because space is a vacuum and planes require the air to help generate lift…that’s how they fly. The air gets thinner the higher you go, so planes can only fly so high, before they reach a point where the air is too thin to generate enough lift to counter their weight/gravity. So that’s why we don’t use planes to get into space, we use rockets, which do not require the air to generate lift, they instead use the thrust created by action reaction, the 3rd law of motion.
You could benefit from learning a bit more physics. These aren’t bad inquiries, but you are forming some pretty false conclusions from a lack of information. So I hope you find this information at the very least interesting.
2
-
Because of light refraction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t=6s Light bends and refracts as it passes through denser atmosphere, which happens a lot at distances and especially over water where the air density is higher thanks to the moisture in the air. This causes a distortion in what we see, making it possible to see objects beyond a curvature. It's a variable that Rowbotham (parallax), did not account for in his experiment...either because he wasn't aware of it, or because he ignored it intentionally, either way, it was a variable that he did not control for.
So he conducted a sloppy experiment, that was designed to only seek out the conclusion he wanted to be true, that ignored variables and didn't provide any proper controls or collect enough data sets, then once he got his observation that supported his bias, he stopped experimenting and reached his conclusion. That's not how science is done...we don't just stop looking once our bias is confirmed, that is how you conduct a poor experiment. When this experiment is repeated and improved upon, by accounting for variables and adding further data sets, it actually comes back conclusive in support of a Globe. Here's a really thorough recreation of this experiment, this time done across a frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment Thankfully, peer review catches things like this...that's why an experiment must be repeatable to be officially conclusive. When it's repeated, it's found to be a sloppy experiment, conducting the experiment properly brings a more conclusive result.
That is how a proper experiment is done, it is very thorough, accounting for every possible variable that it can, making calculated predictions for all of them before hand. All "Parallax" did was make one observation of a flag disappearing...and then concluded Earth was Flat, no further work required. That's a perfect example of confirmation bias...it's the perfect example of how NOT to do an experiment. That's basically the problem with every Flat Earther, they're just chasing confirmation bias, seeking only the information that supports their bias and ignoring everything else. It's quite common actually, most people tend to do this...it's actually a natural tendency of people, we're kind of lazy like that, we like quick easy to digest answers...but things are rarely that simple and science is trying to find objective truths, so it has to go beyond bias. Science figured out a long time ago that this was a problem, so scientists now train themselves to remove bias as best they can, one of the ways they do that, is by controlling for variables in an experiment...like light refraction.
Anyway, hope you find this information at the very least interesting. It's a great question really, this experiment is actually often taught in universities to teach students about proper experimentation and why it's so important to make sure you're removing bias from the process. If you don't, you can run the risk of falling for scams like this.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ingeborgpostelnik4748 Sure, but it still means cars are producers of C02...which was the basic fact. Yes, plants use C02, but they can only do so much, the basic fact is that this extra C02 is ADDING to the amount of C02 already present, increasing temperatures slightly by trapping more heat. C02 is a greenhouse gas, cars increase those levels, those are the basic facts. Yes, we can plant more trees, and they do, but it still doesn’t change the fact that we’re pumping more C02 into the air than ever before...that’s the problem.
You speak of ignorance, then make an ignorant statement...thinking the trees will just take care of everything, so we have no reason to worry. That’s ignorant...meanwhile CO2 is still rising, carbon based fuels are a part of that problem. These are the basic facts...it’s not difficult to deduce or understand. Your over simplifying the problem and rationalizing it...meanwhile people in many urban centres walk and breath through a thick haze, and C02 levels rise in atmosphere, and you’re just like “it’s fine, the trees will get it”. :/
Nobody is saying to eliminate carbon based fuels entirely, we depend on it to much, that would likely never happen. The point is to make efforts to reduce it...because no matter how much some are willing to ignore it, our current emissions are not a good thing. I’d agree we should be planting more trees, heck that’s a great idea, especially in our major cities. Greenery should become a larger part of urban areas, for sure. Point is we shouldn’t ignore it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hinduism is the oldest surviving ancient religion (around 4000 years old) and they used to always say that Earth was egg shaped, until of course it was proven spherical, they’ve since adjusted (though they were half right, it’s not perfectly spherical). There’s also evidence that suggests the ancient Sumerians knew the Earth was spherical, they carved depictions of a spherical Earth in a lot of their structures. And the Greeks are well known for deducing the Earth was spherical roughly 2000 years ago, we still use the geographic coordinate system designed by Eratosthenes for navigation, and around the same time the Greek geographer Ptolemy created some of the first accurate maps, using a spherical geometry in his framework. Also, the Catholic church was at the centre of higher education in Europe for at least the last thousand years…and they’ve been teaching the spherical Earth for most of that time. Copernicus was a monk…he started the heliocentric model some 500 years ago, before that the church believed the Earth was spherical but at the centre of everything, the geocentric model. So it’s well documented that they believed the Earth was spherical and that’s what they taught their scholars for centuries.
So no…every religion in history didn’t believe the Earth was flat…you just don’t know your history very well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@taciupryk I'm just saying, your argument is pretty much this "I personally have not verified gravity for myself, because I don't really know any of the science, therefore gravity isn't real to me personally. The Globe can't exist without gravity, therefore since gravity isn't real to me, the Globe isn't real by extension." There are so many logical fallacies here, I don't even know where to begin. We do not know everything about gravity, but we do not need to, in order to conclude the Earth is a sphere. We have observed the world to be a Globe, we have taken pictures of it, we have measured it, and ALL world navigation and communication and infrastructure, uses our knowledge of the planets true shape and scale, to work and function at all. Even if we knew nothing about what attracts us to the Earth, it does not mean it does not exist and it also does not mean the Earth is not a Globe. We have a lot to learn...the shape of the Earth is not one of those things. Stop listening to con me on the internet, teaching you how to be more ignorant to the world around you.
2
-
So what would you prefer they did instead? We do not know everything, and we likely never will, for that reason it makes certainty of the facts pretty much impossible. It means that old information always has the potential to change as new information is gathered. That is the stark reality I'm afraid, old information will always have the potential to change, simply because we do not know everything. So they really have no other choice but to operate the way they do, on consensus...otherwise nothing would get done, it would just be chaos. Would you prefer con artists be allowed to peddle there junk science, never to be checked or challenged, free to pass off their bullshit as if its fact, even though it's hurting a lot of people and causing a lot of problems for research and development? Doesn't sound very awesome to me. I much prefer the peer reviewed system of consensus, it works.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MultiChaoticus Germ theory has been proven true, beyond any doubt. We see bacteria in microscopes, we isolate them, we test their harmful effects. This is not a question anymore, it’s proven medical science, you can get a microscope at anytime and see for yourself…like millions of other people have done already. Pathogens cause most diseases, that’s a fact, not an opinion. You don’t believe me, then try infecting yourself with E. Coli, or Colera, or any other harmful pathogen we’ve identified…then we’ll see just how unproven you think it is then.
Either way, you’re certainly not changing anything with empty claims that it’s not verified science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. At the very least, you could provide your reasoning for why you believe it’s not proven science. Certainly can’t do much with empty claims…nothing scientific about that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Evolution doesn't imply there was no creator, and we did not evolve from apes, that's a common misunderstanding from people who would rather assume how things work then put any effort into understanding. We share a common ancestor with apes of today, that's all, and the fossil records verify that as does our genetic code which shares a LOT of the same coding. So maybe you're happy being ignorant of evidence, planting your face in a book that was most likely written by man and completely made up, but the rest of us would rather LOOK at the world around us, figure out how it works and not ignore what it's telling us.
If the Bible says the Earth is flat, then that's just another thing to add to the VERY LONG LIST of things it gets wrong about reality. Does the bible have a section for Dinosaurs, cellular life, atoms or the electromagnetic spectrum that currently brings you your wifi? No? Well fuck...I wonder why...MAYBE because the people who wrote that book didn't have a fucking clue how the world worked in their time, so they made it all up! Filling the gaps in their knowledge with superstitious bullshit. And somehow you people still follow it blindly...ya, real good logic you have. Superb logic. Let us know when you invent, innovate or discover anything.
Science doesn't have any problem with God, they'd just prefer having evidence before jumping to any conclusions. Many scientists today and throughout history are actually theists, not atheists. Science isn't working to get rid of God, that's not its goal, it's goal is just to learn how creation works at the mechanical level. Your bible might have reason to worry, but God is fine.
2
-
TJ Callaway A better question is, where is this barrier Flat Earth claims is up there? Even Flat Earth has sent up their own weather balloons to the fringes of space, and they eventually pop due to being within vacuum conditions, so even flat Earth has measured and verified the vacuum of space without realizing it. But you know what they’ve never found? A dome barrier. It is a physical object isn’t it? It would have to be according to flat Earth, so where is the tangible evidence that verifies its existence? Do you ever stop to think that maybe you’re just misunderstanding the physics here? Are you a physicist? Do you have actual experience in the science, or did you learn these things from a YouTube video? It’s not hard to lie on the internet, so what makes you so certain your source of information actually knows what they’re talking about? Just food for thought.
To me, this sounds like an error in understanding of thermodynamics. Entropy has more to do with energy, not so much matter. For instance, when a cup of hot coffee eventually goes cold, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the energy? Shouldn’t have to tell you, it’s just the thermal energy. It’s true that matter tags along sometimes, but matter is moved by kinetic energy, energy that is eventually lessened and converted to potential energy, due to attracting forces found in nature, such as gravity. Atmosphere doesn’t escape into space, because gravity is always there, pulling it back down. Molecules that make up our atmosphere moves around by constantly colliding with each other, which creates kinetic energy in the gas, keeping it in motion. Near the fringes of atmosphere though, the air gets thinner and thinner, reducing the amount of collisions, reducing the transfer of kinetic energy. But gravity is always there, it never stops pulling on these molecules, which eventually drains them of kinetic energy. Once that energy is spent, the molecules lose momentum and fall back to Earth, starting the cycle all over again.
So how does atmosphere exist next to the vacuum of space? Simple, gravity is what makes it possible, and no laws of thermodynamics are broken here, because the entropy still does occur, it’s just greatly slowed by gravity. And thermodynamics again has more to do with energies desire to move into equilibrium, matter not so much, matter tags along but it is always subject to forces that will attract them back down once kinetic energy is dispersed and spent.
Now Flat Earth likes to deny the existence of gravity, but they can’t really deny that matter falls. That doesn’t just happen on its own, nothing is just put into motion on its own, a force is required to put anything into motion, it’s the first law of motion. They also can’t deny that atmosphere is measured to get thinner and thinner the higher you go, you can test that yourself by hiking a hill with a barometer. So flat Earth is also confusing the difference between gas pressure and atmospheric pressure. Gas pressure is gas put under pressure by a container squeezing molecules into forced proximity, causing more collisions between molecules, pressure is consistent throughout these containers. Atmospheric pressure is caused by the weight of molecules above, squeezing down on molecules below, this creates a gradient in pressure and the downward force of gravity is what causes it to occur.
So in my opinion, there is just a whole lot of physics that Flat Earth is ignoring or isn’t aware of. You have great questions...but you’re not really seeking answers, you’re holding those questions up as your proofs, assuming they can’t be answered. I don’t say that to patronize, it’s just what I’ve noticed. Flat Earth asks a lot of questions, but if they had even a basic knowledge of physics, they’d know these questions have answers.
A good experiment commonly done in physics classes, is a simple test of observing smoke in a vacuum. It’s a good test that might help you with your quandary of gaseous matter and how it behaves in vacuum conditions. Here’s a good recreation of this experiment https://youtu.be/Yb2YuC7UbwI?t=138. Now we all know that under normal conditions in atmosphere, smoke rises, but what’s interesting is that in a vacuum, smoke actually falls and pools at the bottom. Rather than expanding out and filling the container, it will actually fall instead and form a layer, as the experiment above demonstrates. No matter on Earth is free from the effect of gravity, but buoyancy creates the illusion that some things are, such as gases. Buoyancy is what causes smoke to rise, the displacement of matter by density. Gas is the lightest (least dense) form that matter can take, so gases are pushed up by heavier gases, in much the same way air bubbles are forced up in water. Take away all other matter within a system though, and you take away the buoyancy displacement, leaving only the observation of gravity pulling the gas down.
So science doesn’t just conclude these things without testing them, you have to understand that their is probably a great deal of science and experiments the general public is not aware of. It’s my fear that Flat Earth exploits this general lack of knowledge and experience most people have in the sciences and they use these gaps to create doubt in people.
There’s nothing wrong with questioning things though, I just think people should be very careful where they’re getting their information from, and never forget to also question even the sources you’ve grown to trust. So I hope you’ve found this information at the very least interesting. If you have any questions or if there’s anything you feel I’ve overlooked, feel free to let me know.
I’m just addressing your questions one at a time for now, don’t want to bury you in pages of information if I can help it (though I realize this got long already). These are great questions though, they’re the same sort of questions all scientists ask when first learning about these things. But, let me know if you found it helpful, or feel free to rebuttal. I apologize if it’s knowledge you’re already aware of, I don’t mean to patronize, but at this point I really don’t know your level of education just yet.
2
-
TJ Callaway NASA has never said they’ve never been to space...Flat Earth and space deniers make that claim, not NASA, just bias anti NASA groups putting words in NASA’s mouth, hearing what they want to and spreading misinformation. The misunderstanding comes from a couple comments from NASA scientists, who merely reminded the interviewer that NASA hasn’t sent any manned missions past low Earth orbit since the Moon missions...which is true, so they’re just telling the truth. But, space deniers then take the words out of context and reframe them to their bias. Fact is, NASA has never once said they’ve never been to space, only space deniers say that...for obvious reasons, they need to confirm their bias. But, prove me wrong, go ahead and find me the interview where NASA states they’ve never been to space.
Another misunderstanding is the whole “atmosphere extending past the Moon” debacle. The Karmen line of our atmosphere ends at 100 miles, the gas that extends past the Moon is known as the Geo-Corona, and it’s just a few hundred molecules of Hydrogen every square mile. They always knew this existed, they just never knew how far it extended until recently. If you actually read that article past the title, you’d know that the distance to the Moon didn’t change, they just discovered hydrogen molecules that extend past the Moon...that’s how science works, it’s a never ending process of discovery, all they did was add knowledge to the current model, nothing was changed.
This is one of the big problems as I see it...Flat Earth just hears what it wants to hear, twisting information to fit bias. So it really makes it difficult to have an honest discussion...with people who just invent their own truth, rather than pay attention to the actual details.
Everything you’re stating in your new comment is off the rails a great deal with its facts. Eratosthenes is one you’re thinking of, he was the first scholar to measure Earths circumference, and he wasn’t assuming anything...the Greeks had already determined the Earth was spherical, so he was just building on prior knowledge. They built the sundial...studying the path of the Sun and understanding Earths geometry was key to that invention. Many don’t know this, but calibrating a sundial will change by latitude...because of Earths curvature, so they already figured out Earths geometry long before Eratosthenes measured its circumference. Either way, even if he did assume the shape, that is only required if you only take 2 measurements. If you take several more data sets from multiple locations around the world, then plot the shadow angle data using location data, you can actually pinpoint the Sun in 3D. Here’s a great experiment that did just that https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=422.
I’d rather not continue addressing gish gallop...so I’ll leave it at that for now. You really seem to have a very skewed understanding of modern science, which is just confirming my fears of what’s really occurring with movements like flat Earth. It’s just a lot of twisted facts and misinformation fed to the general public, that’s never had any interest in science and who lacks the knowledge to counter the lies. It’s misinformation and it’s robbing people like yourself of your better reasoning.
You’ve got it backwards...it’s not the Globe that starts with a premise then works backwards to prove it, if you’ll recall, flat Earth is where mankind started, from there we gathered more knowledge and made observations that falsified that model. We’ve since proved without much doubt that Earth is in fact spherical and from there the model has expanded as we’ve acquired more knowledge. What Flat Earth is attempting to do now is start over...and it’s doing that because of a great loss of trust between the general public and the community of science.
It’s fine that people are questioning things...but you have to be careful where you get your info from, cause it’s easier then ever before to spread bullshit. Con men are feeding you bad information, and it’s just messing with your heads. Your comment just got more jumbled as it went...and it should be your first warning sign, that maybe the information you’ve been getting hasn’t been accurate in the slightest.
Anyway, if you’d like to continue, please stick to single points, I’m not going to chase you up a mountain of gish gallop.
2
-
Oh good, you like science. Well here’s an in-depth study and observation of curvature http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. It’s pretty clear here that the surface is curving.
With lasers, you’re always going to have troubles, because they are subject to refraction (reflecting/bending) and diffraction (expanding) in atmosphere, which increases with distance. Both of which make it a lot more difficult to get an accurate reading, because at distances the laser will no longer be tangent with starting point...like many seem to assume it would be. But they only assume this because they don’t really know much about laser physics.
This is basic physics of light, if you don’t believe me that laser light (or any light for that matter) can bend, it’s just cause you’ve never seen it before, so here’s a quick demonstration https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0?t=278. Pretty simple experiment to recreate, demonstrating quite clearly why lasers aren’t as reliable and tangent as you think they are. So I’m afraid it’s not that simple...also, I can only assume you’re referring to the 8 inches per mile squared equation, which I’m afraid to tell you is not actually the accurate math for these observations. That is a basic parabola equation, not a spherical equation...it’s not very accurate in most applications I’m afraid, because it’s ignoring many important variables. Some key variables it’s missing for laser experiments would be height of the laser and refraction, just to name a few.
You can find a far more accurate equation here https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/.
As for the level on a plane experiment, it’s inconclusive, because it ignores gravity physics. Even a basic understanding of gravity would tell you that the bubble would shift with gravity vectors over a curved surface, so the experiment neither verifies or falsifies either model, meaning it’s inconclusive. So it’s a bad experiment really, not useful for determining anything conclusive.
If we actually were to look at each point scientifically, these are the problems they need to address. It’s not quite as simple as you want it to be I’m afraid. Flat Earth likes to claim it’s being scientific...while at the same time being completely ignorant to some pretty basic science.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@corporaterobotslave400 Their argument there is generally that we can’t assume the Earth is a planet like all the other celestial objects...cause space doesn’t exist either according to them. Which sadly...does have some logic to it, but only if you completely ignore all the evidence of space and all the evidence of Earths true geometry. They don’t seem to realize that the Globe model didn’t start with figuring out how space works, it started with the basic geometric shape and dimensions of the ground beneath their feet, and worked up from there. Once that was verified undeniably spherical, then we could move on to solving the rest...and it all makes sense together, cohesively, without contradiction, all other parts of model helping to explain the rest...while they have zero answers for anything....they’d prefer to just make up bullshit.
Which is the most absurd part about it really...they’ll go around yelling that we can’t assume the Earth is a planet...but then they have no problem turning around and assuming it’s an “endless plane” and there’s a “dome firmament” above our heads....while meanwhile having zero tangible evidence for either claim. So they don’t even stick to their own logic...which points out their hypocrisy.
Yes, if we were to ignore all other evidence of Earths geometry, and all evidence of the existence of space, then sure, we then can’t assume the Earth is similar to anything we observe in the sky. But we don’t live in 500 BC anymore...we do have evidence today, more then that we have a working model that’s used in every applied science today, so we’re not assuming anything. They’re just absolutely delusional people...though I’m sure I didn’t need to tell you that.
2
-
@joaopintovb Laugh all you want, but Newton penned a lot of the first laws of physics that real scientists and engineers actually use to build a lot of technologies you use today…what have you accomplished in your life so far? 🧐 One of the laws he penned was gravity, it’s where the concept started.
It’s a pretty simple observation he made; drop something, does it fall? Yup, sure does. Is falling a motion? Yup, it sure is. What is the fundamental cause for all change in state of motion? A force, nothing is put into motion without a force to cause it…that’s physics 101. So it’s pretty simple deduction after that; we observe a very clear falling motion when you drop something, that always falls in the same direction towards surface, that motion occurs free of any control you have over it, meaning it’s a phenomenon of reality, meaning there’s an attractive force present putting matter into motion downward towards surface…it’s really that simple. All he did then was give it a name, because it’s pretty important to label every force we identify in physics, so we’re all on the same page when discussing it.
Laws of science merely describe WHAT is occurring, but make no attempt at explaining WHY or HOW they occur, that’s what scientific theories are for…that’s the difference between them. Both of them are comprised of proven facts, nothing graduates past hypothesis and into a law or theory, without tangible evidence that is verifiable and repeatable. So don’t let the wording fool you, scientific theories are basically proven facts, they’re very different from regular theories. In science, hypothesis takes the role of a regular theory, that being educated guess. The word is used very differently in science.
You really need to learn some physics, these are good questions you’re asking, but they are not new questions, they’ve long been answered.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Refraction is one of the simplest concepts in physics to test and verify, ever observed a pencil in a glass of water? https://www.ck12.org/physics/refraction/lesson/Refraction-of-Light-PHYS/ Then you’ve verified refraction. It’s also not difficult to demonstrate how the effect can cause you to see over a curve. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t So it happens and so it can not be ignored.
If you’d like to learn more about how it works on our Earth over long distances, here’s a great resource that goes into pretty good detail and has also quantified it, which he’s then mocked up into a great simulator. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/simulating-atmospheric-refraction.7881/ The simulator you can find here. https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/
Here’s another great resource, this is a recreation of that Bedford Level experiment, only this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment Scroll down to the second half of this report, where it goes into great detail on atmospheric refraction. Images 31 and 32 are what you should really pay close attention too, if you honestly believe refraction is a variable we can just ignore.
The truth is simple, Rowbotham conducted a sloppy experiment that ignored refraction (among many other variables, he also did the wrong math), which renders his experiment inconclusive. Your ego may not like to allow you to admit it, but yes, smarter people than yourself are figuring these things out. While Flat Earth is conning people and teaching them it’s ok to ignore variables so you can confirm a bias...not exactly a winning strategy in peer reviewed science.
Science doesn’t ask that you listen blindly to them and never challenge them, it’s the media that tells you that nonsense. In reality, science is all about falsification, scientists make their careers by challenging the status quo, not by going along with consensus. Just look at Einstein for example, he challenged the work of Newton...the difference he has with Flat Earth is that he was successful and he did while remaining objective. So in reality, science strongly encourages people question everything...it’s Flat Earth that asks you to never question them. If I were you, I’d start questioning them a lot more...you might learn who the real liars are if you do.
2
-
@CalsTube They don’t ignore that, they just understand that centrifugal force generated by an object rotating at the rate of 0.000694 RPM’s (1 rotation every 24 hours) isn’t going to produce near enough centrifugal force to overcome gravity, not even close. But it does generate some, did you know everything weighs slightly less at the Equator where centrifugal force is greatest? About 0.3% less from the poles, where’s there’s no centrifugal force. You can actually test this with some travel, a set of weights, and a simple scale.
I can help most people understand centrifugal force a bit better, with one simple thought experiment. Imagine yourself in a race car, travelling at a constant 200 mph, going around a perfect circle track that’s only 1000 meters circumference. Would you expect a lot of centrifugal force in this example? Yes, in fact it would likely be very difficult to stay on the track, and you’d be flung to the door. Now let’s do it again, same car, same velocity, except now we’re driving on a track that’s 1000 miles in circumference. Would we expect the same amount of centrifugal force in this example? Nope, in fact you probably wouldn’t feel any, the course would be turning so gradually, it would be very easy to stay on track, no noticeable centrifugal force at all.
But why? You’re travelling at the same linear speed…so why is there less centrifugal force? Because rate of rotation has decreased due to the increase in circumference, which has decreased the rate of angular velocity change per second…which is the root of centrifugal force.
So why doesn’t Earth toss everything off of it due to its rotation? Because it’s not rotating fast enough, to overcome gravity. 0.000694 RPM’s is VERY slow, for comparison, a Gravitron ride at your local fair rotates at 24 RPM’s…huge difference. The tennis ball example Flat Earthers keep using, is an example of a ball rotating at hundreds to thousands of RPM’s…so lots of centrifugal force, far more than 0.000694 RPM’s will ever produce. So it’s a false comparison, comparing something with a very high rotational velocity, to a much much slower rotation.
Gotta factor every variable and consider the entirety of the physics.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Globeisahoax You’re not getting it, there is geometry you can test through travelling the surface. Celestial observations and phenomena that are not possible on a flat Earth geometry…you can confirm these observations, like the 24 hour sun in both hemispheres, the different stars, the consistent drop of stars to horizon, the two separate celestial star rotations, etc, you can confirm them all with a little bit of travel. With just a basic understanding of geometry, you can deduce that these observations, and many others, are simply not possible on a flat Earth. They are however EXACTLY what you’d expect to see, from the perspective upon a spherical surface.
I’ve tested Earth’s geometry with observations I made myself. You likely just watched a few cleverly crafted YouTube videos, spin a lie for you, that you fell for easily, because of your lack of personal experiences in life. You need to travel more…stop falling for bullshit you find online.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mrwallstreet1 That's really all I can ask anyone do, is look at the evidence, remain objective and honest while they do, and then come to their own conclusions after both sides of a topic has been properly analyzed. You are correct, that there is a lot more ad hominum and empty rhetoric in this particular discussion and I think it does more to drive people deeper down that rabbit hole, then it does to guide them out. People tend to double down on a belief, when somebody treats them like they're stupid for ever considering it...it's just basic human psychology, we do not enjoy being talked down too...it just pisses us off and makes us spiteful. There is nothing wrong with questioning what you are told, in fact it's quite logical, so in that respect, I actually admire Flat Earths stubborn tenacity, but that's about all I admire...at its core, I do find it's a movement born of paranoia and led by confirmation bias, neither of which are going to lead them to any actual truth.
Anyway, I can offer a few more points on Eric Dubay if you'd like. I do try my best to warn people about this man...because I feel he is a deeply disturbed individual, bordering on psychopath. I feel he's able to deliver his lies with such confidence, because he lacks empathy...that's what makes him so convincing, he never wavers in his delivery of information, and it creates the illusion of him being an expert. I didn't reach that conclusion lightly though, there are many sources online now that paint his true character, from his Nazi sympathizing beliefs, to his cruelty towards former love interests, to his public outbursts towards the other big names of Flat Earth, he displays a lot of the characteristics of extreme narcissism and a lack of empathy.
But, that's purely speculative, I'm no psychologist, so I really should avoid slander. That's just my personal opinion of Dubay, from what I've learned, he's not to be trusted.
But I can defeat his arguments with facts, that is easy to do actually. I'll give you one for now. I'm sure you've come across his "200 proofs of Flat Earth" video before. Pay attention to his second claim which states "horizon always rises to eye level". This is actually quite false and like all of his 200 "proofs" it is just an empty claim with no supporting evidence. His hope here is that nobody stops to question the claim...what's scary is that so many actually don't.
So lets look at the claim a little closer. Can you actually measure the horizon to see if it drops from eye level or not? Yes, you can. I know of two methods, one by using a simple leveling rig that anyone can build themselves using simple household supplies, the other is by using a surveyors tool known as a theodolite, which anyone can purchase or even download phone apps for. Here are a couple examples of people who have used both tools to help them discern if horizon drops or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUr9ymz_nVI - leveling rig.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVTgP-KpyRc&t - theodolite.
Both experiments confirm, horizon does not actually rise to eye level as you go higher in elevation, it actually drops. So he lied...more then that though, he made an empty claim and provided no evidence for the claim. This is why people should be careful and not just listen to Dubay blindly...question him, or you will risk falling for those lies.
The first red flag should be that he doesn't provide actual evidence for anything he says, he only spouts out speculations. I think people need to really learn the difference between evidence and speculation...it matters. Anyone can make an empty claim like "horizon always rises to eye level", but it means nothing unless they have evidence that supports the claim. Dubay does not provide any evidence in his 200 proofs video...in reality it is just 200 empty claims, they are not proofs, they are speculations. In debating it's called a gish gallop argument, dumping many weak arguments on an individual in rapid fire, to make their main argument appear stronger then it actually is. It also makes it harder to go back and challenge each claim one by one, in debating, this style of arguing is not only frowned upon, it's generally not allowed.
Anyway, apologies for the rambling, I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. Feel free to share your own insights if you still disagree, I don't mind listening to an opposing viewpoint.
2
-
2
-
1. No evidence of this dome, why is that exactly? If you believe it exists, then what evidence do you have in support of it? I hear a lot of butchered physics, confusing gas pressure with atmospheric pressure (which is not the same thing), but It is a physical object yes? It would have to be, to contain the atmosphere (as Flat Earthers claim), so why haven't we interacted with it yet? Why haven't we bounced or refracted lasers off of it? Why haven't we bounced radar off of it? We do both with the Moon and we also bounce radar off of Venus, it's one of the many ways we measure their distance to us...so why haven't we done the same with this dome? Basically, why believe in a dome that has never been discovered with tangible evidence supporting it?
2. Do you think it should be easy? Have YOU ever put a rocket into space? Do you know how hard it was to put even ONE rocket into space? Do you know how expensive it is? We just started space exploration not more then 60 years ago...we've had power for over the last 200 years, and it's really only been accessible to everyone around the world for the last 80-100 years or so....things take time. Infrastructure takes time to build, research takes time to establish, funding takes time to acquire. If you think space travel is easy...you're kidding yourself. In the grand scheme of things, space exploration is still in its infancy stage. Give it time.
3. All we can really do here is make empty speculations, and I'd rather focus on things that can be verified...but I will offer a counter argument anyway, just cause I know your bias leans you to believe there probably is no counter position to this one...there is. Operation Fishbowl was part of a much larger mission, to test Nuclear arms in various environments, to see what they did. This is quite typical during the testing process of any new weapon...you want to know its limits, its strengths, its weaknesses...you want to test it adequately. So they launched 6 war heads into the upper atmosphere, about 75 - 100,000 feet altitude (much to low to hit any perceived dome). What they learned was that when you detonate a Nuke in upper atmosphere, the EMP and radio black out travels MUCH further...as does the fall out. So they learned a lot from testing in upper atmosphere. They named it Operation "Fishbowl", because when you blast a nuke in upper atmosphere, it punches a large hole in the clouds.
Here's why I hate this argument from Flat Earth...you don't know shit about this operation...you just hear the words "Fishbowl" and learn that they were firing nukes in upper atmosphere...and then you go "hmmm...fishbowls are made of glass, the dome is made of glass, they were trying to punch a hole in the dome!" that's about as far as your research goes here...empty speculations, conjectures, paranoid claims that have NO evidence. It is a waste of time...and neither side can verify anything, but at LEAST the globe side digs deeper then the title and the basic information.
4. You pretty much forfeit yourself from conversation the moment you say things are "just a theory". It tells the rest of us...that you don't quite know or understand the language of science. If you don't even speak the language...what reason do we have to believe you're able to interpret much of what science says? A theory in science is very different from the usual use of the word theory. A scientific theory is the highest level, any concept that explains HOW something works, can ever achieve in science. Hypothesis in science takes on the usual definition of the word theory. Hypothesis is just an educated guess basically, that is untested and unverified, but that has scientific backing to be possible. A theory, is a tested, verified and peer reviewed concept, that does not reach that status, until it has been proven beyond much doubt, to be damn near a fact. NOTHING that explains how something works, graduates beyond a theory in science, it is the highest it can go.
They chose that word for a very good reason, because we do not know everything and because there is simply too much for us to learn, we likely NEVER will learn everything. So because we don't know everything and never will, this means that old information pretty much always has the potential to change, as new information is acquired. A fact is something that does not change, facts just are what they are...also facts don't describe how something works, that's not the position of a fact. Theory is the word they chose in science, not to be confused with a Law either, which is just describing WHAT is happening, not explaining or demonstrating HOW it works at the mechanical level. You were taught all of this in your science classes during school...it was likely the very first thing they taught you in science.
It's very frustrating to have a conversations with people...when they don't even have the basics down. It's not your fault entirely, nobody knows everything and not everyone has interest in science enough to learn its tenants to the letter...but I am getting tired of people saying "it's just a theory". No...it's not just a theory....it's verified, peer reviewed science, with mountains of research, data, observation, experimentation and evidence supporting it. NOTHING graduates to that level, until it has been verified past hypothesis.
So a theory in science holds a lot more importance then you think. If I give you any slack here, it's that you're a tiny bit right, a theory in science always has potential to change. But unlike the general public who tend to think more in black and white certainty's and absolutes, science prefers to operate in percentages and margins of error. Some theories are fare more established then others. They never conclude anything with 100% certainty, but when it comes to the shape of the Earth, this is probably the most certain science is about anything else, concluding to be probably a 99.99999% certainty. Not much margin of error there...they're pretty damn certain about this science. Evolution, a lot less certain, maybe about 99%, Big Bang maybe about 90%, Dark matter and Dark Energy, about 45%...you see how science operates yet? When something can come along that CAN successfully replace any existing theory, then it will take its place. But they're not just going to roll over and listen blindly to old theories and paranoid empty speculations. They're going to review it and challenge it...and we have, Flat Earth is not reality.
5. I'm not religious and never have been, so I don't believe in anything the bible says. It has no place in a discussion of science, so this is an irrelevant point to me, it holds zero bearing on science. Don't get me confused though, I don't believe in man made religions, God I actually do find to be a logical conclusion to reach, I just very much doubt any of us have that interpretation correct. I don't like arguing religion though, because I don't like being a dick about my beliefs in that regard. I know it means a lot to you most likely, it's not my place to tell you what to believe. I will argue against the firmament, because that is something that so far does not align with reality, it has no tangible evidence supporting it, but beyond that...nothing really here in this point to discuss for me.
I hope you find these counter positions at the very least interesting. I don't intend to mock or insult, I just prefer to be objective and I enjoy the discussion, you seemed like a civil enough person to maybe listen and discuss further. I don't mind learning new things, so feel free to continue if you'd like.
2
-
@multymind4744 So let's look closer at your "walking upside down video" quandary. So for starters, zooming in on people is stupid, they're just far too small, so that's out. Buildings are a better shot, but even buildings are tiny compared to the Earth, that much I do hope we both agree upon and understand, no need to delve further into that. So this means they'd require a camera with a very powerful telescopic lens of some kind. Do any satellites currently have such a lens equipped? I'm really not sure, but I do know it's not wise to assume. People seem to have watched a lot of spy movies...it's made it harder for some to separate some facts from fantasy. What I do know, is that Google Earth does not actually use satellites in its close up street mappings, they actually use planes to scan the surface. It says so right on their page...they do not use satellites in their close ups, probably because no satellites are currently in orbit, capable of zooming into surface...like we've all been led to believe, from spy movies. But that's just speculation, I currently do not know for certain.
There is the Hubble telescope, and other telescopes like it. But these are very large mirror telescopes, not designed for zooming into surfaces, that are only a few thousand kilometers away...they're built for viewing things TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of kilometers away and the objects they're viewing are the largest objects in existence, stars, nebulas, galaxies...they're not buildings. So it'd be like turning an extremely powerful telescope around inside your bedroom, and trying to focus in on something that's really small within your room....it's not gonna work very well, it's simply not designed for it. So the Hubble is out, it's not made for that kind of imagery.
But lets assume they could zoom in close enough to capture an image of buildings at the side, now how much atmosphere would they have to look through? To catch buildings on their side, they'd have to be on the edges relative to the camera, at a total 90 degrees perpendicular to the camera. So that means, from that angled shot, you'd be looking through a ton of atmosphere, hundreds of kilometers most likely...with clouds...clouds would be the hardest part, because they don't exactly care what picture we're trying to take...they do not just go away.
Through all that cloud cover and atmosphere, it would be likely impossible....and that's only assuming the technology does actually exist.
And even if they did go through all that trouble....you guys still wouldn't believe it anyway, you'd just call it computer generated, so what would be the point? They already take full pictures of the Earth, they have been for the last 60+ years, long before computer generated imagery was even possible. That's good enough for the rest of us.
2
-
@multymind4744 Yes, but the Moon is 1/4 the size of Earth....it's not exactly a tiny building, now is it? Each crater, is miles in diameter, some are hundreds of miles...they're not tiny in the slightest. Size kind of matters here, the bigger something is, the easier it is too see at distances...right? That's pretty common sense. Can you zoom in on the Moon lander with your P900 or cell phone? No...in fact I'm not even aware of any telescopes that are capable.
I'm not saying it's impossible to get the images you're asking for, because I truly don't know for certain if it is or isn't, my point is that people shouldn't be so quick to assume things. And also, why would they want too? If their goal is to see the curvature...then filming the Earth in its entirety would meet that goal...and so that's what they generally do. The only people who seem interested in the image you're asking for, are Flat Earthers...but those same people just say everything NASA does is CGI, how would that change even if they got you exactly what you asked for? It likely wouldn't, even if they gave you that video, it would be hand waved aside as fake. So it's a bit pointless.
2
-
2
-
Ya, all science starts with assumptions, that’s basically what a hypothesis is…a guess formed from prior knowledge. So what’s your point? 🤷♂️ You’re not mentioning anything we don’t already know. But those assumptions are tested, and tested, and tested again. If they hold up to all attempts at falsification, then they’re more than likely true…and they’re basically proven undeniable facts, once the models we form from the tested knowledge can be used in applied science. Like navigation…which has used the globe model for over 2000 years, since the geographic coordinate system was created, and is proven accurate every single day, by thousands of successful navigations. If you think it’s wrong, feel free to try plotting a course across the pacific without it, go right ahead. 😄
It’s pretty simple to spot junk science….it doesn’t work. It reveals itself by how absolutely useless it is. That’s kinda the nice thing about pseudoscience, it’s actually pretty easy to spot.
We navigate the Earth with the globe model, that’s a fact, not an opinion. We predict celestial events like eclipses, down to the second and square mile, decades in advance, using the heliocentric model…can’t say the same for any other model.
So what reason would we have to even entertain the notion that it’s wrong? 🤷♂️ It works and fits perfectly with everything we observe. I certainly don’t believe that’s just coincidence. I’ll stick with the model that’s proven to actually work, thanks. You can debate it all you want…or you could just learn some astronomy, and answer your questions here for yourself.
2
-
Mankind is expanding at a rate that is not sustainable by our planet alone (and even if it is now, it won’t be later), so we have 2 options, either we learn our surroundings and learn how to travel and navigate them, so we can expand out, or we kill a bunch of people...those are our options. You know why they probably don’t cure cancers and feed the hungry? Cause they’re among some of the best population controllers...that’s why. That might sound cold, but it’s nature, when a species over populates an area and can no longer expand, it begins having problems...there’s no way around that, it happens with every single species in nature when they begin to overpopulate.
Getting off this rock can change that...so it matters. Best way to save people in the long run, figure out how to expand further...that requires we first know the true shape and scale of things, can’t exactly travel anywhere new, if you don’t know how your surroundings work. It’s knowledge that helps greatly in that endeavour. That’s fine if it doesn’t matter to you, but it’s going to matter for the whole of mankind in the next few decades. Some people get that, so they’re doing what they can to figure things out...some just lack a lot of trust, and so now they’re looking in the wrong places.
Make sense? It’s solving our problems rather than putting band aides on them...or having a lot of people die, which can happen if we don’t expand.
2
-
E Higgins I’ve been looking at this Flat Earth mess for a few years now, and it had a spike back in 2016 but it’s since been dying down again. You’re correct that they do feed off of attention and the less we give them the better, but it was just interesting at one point to hear that people actually believe this stuff, so it was an interesting topic for awhile there, just to see how stupid and crazy some people can get. There isn’t as many people making Flat Earth videos anymore, so the fad is dying I feel, so I wouldn’t worry about it to much.
I’m glad though, that no big names in the scientific community have taken any of their challenges or debated them publicly in large events, cause you’re right, it would just give them legitimacy...and they really don’t have any, so I’d agree, best to just ignore them on larger forums. Trouble is, they were making a lot of noise for a few years and they were conning a lot people in the process. I personally don’t like when misinformation fly’s by the radar unchecked, so I think it was good that some people were challenging and correcting their claims, just so there was some information out there that people could turn too if they needed help. I feel their counter information has done a lot to turn people away from that insanity, so I’m glad some people were making the attempt.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Anyone can verify the Earth is spherical, whether it’s fully understood how, is irrelevant. Reality is under no obligation to make sense too you. Does your not understanding or agreeing to gravity physics, change the fact that millions of pilots and sailors around the world, can’t do their jobs, without accurate information of the Earth’s surface? No…it doesn’t.
Flat Earth is a discussion of Earth’s geometry…but it sure doesn’t seem to focus on the geometry very much. They seem to prefer focusing on the higher physics, and making arguments from personal incredulity and ignorance…physics that was all realized and worked out long after the shape of Earth was determined, through simple observation and measurement. Of course you’re not gonna understand gravity physics very well…if you skip the foundational science that led to that discovery.
You truly believe nobody knows? You think a rocket scientist designing and putting rockets and satellites into orbital trajectories around Earth, wouldn’t know for certain? Or an astronaut? 🧐 I get that YOU don’t currently know for certain…but don’t assume your lack of knowledge and experience is a shared experience.
Where would the water flow too, exactly? What force is present attracting it and pulling it off of Earth? Water is inert…it doesn’t move without some force attracting it, putting it in motion. So why would the water flow off of Earth? You’re reaching that conclusion, because water flows off any ball you can hold in your hand at your perspective…but where does the water flow? Towards Earth…doesn’t it? Yes, it does…everything falls to Earth in fact, as if attracted to it. So you’re making a false comparison…why would you think a ball in your hand is comparable to the Earth? The only thing they really share is geometry…but on vastly different scales.
So here’s how we reached the conclusion of gravity; it started by first realizing the Earth’s geometry was spherical. Thousands of different observations prove this as fact…and we have an entire system of global navigation, designed around that knowledge. That system simply would not work when applied, if that information was wrong…that’s how you know your science is good and accurate, when you can apply it and it works. So we then had two known variables, Earth is spherical and everything falls to Earth no matter where you are upon its surface. So it didn’t take much deduction after that, to determine a force was present, that emanates from centre of Earth, that attracts everything towards it…hence why water doesn’t flow off of it. It also explains why Earth would be spherical…because a force attracting mass around a centre, is eventually going to form that mass into a sphere…every single time. So gravity explains more than just why things fall…it quite literally explains everything about our reality. When it was realized, the mysteries of the universe started falling like dominoes…I don’t think you quite realize how impactful that discovery was for mankind, and even to your every day life.
Of course you’re not gonna agree with the conclusions of gravity physics though, if you don’t first verify the Earth’s shape for yourself, which is the foundation of gravity physics. So why does every flat Earther think skipping over the whole point of their argument (the geometric shape of Earth), is gonna help them determine it’s shape? 🤷♂️ I find that very odd.
Your argument basically boils down too “it looks flat, therefore it is”…you really think that holds up against all the evidence that says otherwise? It’s fine if you’re not personally aware of that evidence, but then you have no argument here if you’ve not yet made any attempt to research any.
My best advice for anyone seriously interested in this topic, who’s not just here to troll, but actually wants to know; you wanna know for certain what Earth’s shape is, then just learn to navigate. It’s not difficult, you can find tutorials on YouTube at anytime, would only take a few hours of your time…you learn pretty quickly in navigation how important it is to have accurate knowledge of the surface, in order to make it possible in the first place. You also learn pretty quickly which model is used…and how you can confirm it. So give that try sometime.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ok, here's a recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, this time done across a frozen lake, that verifies curvature. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment Go ahead and take a look, the experiment is quite thorough.
Stop letting con men on the internet fuck with your head and exploit your distrust in authority. The Earth is a Globe and it always has been, NOBODY out in the real world is using a Flat Earth model for ANYTHING, from navigation, to communication, to infrastructure, it's all built on the foundations of our knowledge of the Globe we live on. All the internet has done, has given con men a place to spread their misinformation and perfect their craft of taking people on a ride...and it's working.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@colorsfather1606 Bob makes a valid point about camera exposure. When they take photos of the Earth, the intention is to capture the Earth as clear as they can. This requires they lower the exposure rate of the camera, to allow less light in, to make a clearer image of Earth, otherwise the image will be too washed out by light and you won't see the Earths features. So they lower the exposure rate, when you do this, anything that's too dim to cut through the exposure rate you set, will not make it onto the final image. The stars are too dim to make it through the exposure rate you have to set to get a clear picture of the Earth in a photograph...so that's why you don't see stars in any photos of the Earth. It's basic photography, so learn a little more about exposure rate of cameras, if you want to understand more why stars are not seen in images of the Earth.
On top of that, if NASA was trying to really fool people...why would they create fake photos without stars in them? Don't you think they were really trying to trick people, that they'd think to include stars? Learn a little about photography, look up camera exposure rate, you can find tons of videos online about this topic that can help you out.
2
-
2
-
@richardrupert7046 No, those research papers were never classified, it’s pretty common to find that (or similar) math simplification in pretty much any flight aeronautics manual or research paper, you were lied too. Secondly, they are not making any literal statements or conclusions in the section you’re referring too...that is a summary section, that’s not what a summary section is for. All they’re doing is removing variables, so that the math is simplified, because there are often variables that won’t effect what they’re solving for in the current section of the report, and sometimes they even run complete hypothetical situations, to have comparison data. When they do this in any research paper or manual, they have state VERY clearly which variables are not being included, so that the reader is aware of what’s being solved for in the equations to follow, that’s all.
It’s pretty common practice in these research papers and engineering manuals, YOUR problem here is not having any real clue on how to read them, so you just cherry-pick phrases and then jump to conclusions, built from your own assumptions. All you’re doing is confirming your scientific illiteracy...which is exactly what people like Thrive and Survive don’t understand either...you are blind leading the blind essentially. In other cases, it’s con men exploiting your lack of knowledge and using it against you, but Thrive and Survive is genuine I feel, he’s just an idiot.
2
-
2
-
@alex-bohorquez-jimenez No problem, as long as it was informative and helpful. Let’s see if I can help with your other questions.
What I was trying to point out, was that a spirit level uses gravity to work, that’s the force the bubble is levelling too, center of gravity. Whether Earth is flat or a globe, that is how they work. On the globe, gravity pulls to center, and vectors move with you. On a flat Earth, there’s only one vector, straight down. Either way, a spirit level can’t determine which is which, it can’t falsify either model, so that experiment is inconclusive.
So that point wasn’t to conclude that planes definitely are arcing with surface, only that a spirit level can not tell the difference. How do I personally know a plane is arcing with surface? Because I’ve verified for myself that Earth is spherical, through many other means, so that conclusion concludes the planes arcing.
So a better question is how I’ve verified that for myself, but that’s not a short answer, so I’ll save it for now. If you’re curious you can ask.
No, I didn’t say Parallax effect is caused by refraction…sorry, you must have misunderstood me. Parallax was the pen name Samual Rowbotham used for his published books, he’s the guy who first conducted the Bedford Level experiment that was mentioned in the video above. Sorry for the confusion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alex-bohorquez-jimenez If you can confirm the Earth is spherical, beyond any doubt, then it verifies other points. It’s actually very difficult to measure an arcing for a plane over distance, using tools we have available today. My point was that a spirit level sure can’t do it, yet many in Flat Earth believe it can. They are wrong to believe that, gravity affects the measuring process. I’d assume a ring laser gyroscope could probably make that measurement, but I’ve not seen anyone make that measurement yet using that particular device, so I’m really not sure. What you can easily measure from a plane however, is the dropping of horizon from eye level. Using a simple theodolite tool, you can easily measure the drop of horizon, which would not occur on a flat Earth.
Verify the geometry, beyond any doubt, and you can conclude other points from that foundation. I’m sure you’d agree, you sure seem to have concluded all photos of Earth are fake, simply because you’ve concluded NASA can’t be trusted.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ok, here’s a modern recreation of the Bedford level experiment http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. There’s a whole section on refraction, just scroll down to images 31 and 32, to see a pretty clear demonstration for why refraction is a variable you can’t just ignore in these observations.
That’s the problem with FE, you think ignoring evidence you don’t like, somehow makes it go away...it doesn’t. Refraction is very common, it happens, it’s very well documented and understood in physics, so you can’t ignore it I’m afraid, it’s very real. If you do ignore this phenomenon, then you’re doing so out of ignorance to confirm bias...and that will not lead you to the truth of anything, it’ll just get you falling for scams on the internet.
Samuel Rowbotham was no genius, he was a con man. He achieved his goals by preying on the uneducated, designing experiments that confirm bias and dazzle anyone who has no clue how to spot errors in an experiment. He presents half truths, cause the Bedford Level experiment is a good experiment, but it’s an example of an experiment done only to confirm a bias, nothing more. He only made one observation, took only one data set, used only one marker, then used the wrong math and ignored variables like refraction. So quite frankly, he did not do enough to reach a conclusive conclusion, so upon peer review it was deemed inconclusive. Upon all recreation of the experiment, going further to account for more variables and running proper controls, doing the experiment properly, reveals the Earth is measured and observed to actually be curving and at the rate it should be.
Rowbotham’s version of the experiment is inconclusive, that’s the truth of things. He did a sloppy experiment to con layman, it’s basically like a slight of hand trick. This is why we have peer review in science, to weed out errors, bias and lying. But don’t take my word for it, take a look at the link above and see for yourself. It is quite extensive, but fairly easy to understand if you actually take the time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kumarslvr1 Well, unfortunately, people within Flat Earth are full on conspiracy nuts. Flat Earth is just the tip of the iceberg for them...these people believe a wide range of different conspiracies, basically none of them are just flat Earthers. If it’s a conspiracy against NASA or government, they believe it pretty much by default, no evidence required. I’ve yet to meet a single one that doesn’t also believe the Moon landing was fake, so it’s becoming a pretty safe assumption that if someone believes one, there’s a good chance they believe the other as well.
But yes, I’m finding that Moon hoaxers are usually a lot more rational, can still generally be persuaded if evidence is substantial enough. Can’t say the same for Flatties...there is no reasoning with these people, doesn’t matter what you show them, they are long gone. So ya, I can see why you wouldn’t want to be lumped in with that crowd.
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Bedford Level experiment isn’t really rejected, it was a good experiment, just performed poorly. Rowbotham’ version of the experiment is inconclusive, because he used the wrong math, took only one data set, with just one observation, using just one marker, ignored variables like refraction, height of the observer, eye level, etc. We can’t reach conclusions from inconclusive observations, so his experiment is rejected, because it’s an example of sloppy science designed only to confirm a bias conclusion. Do the observation properly and it will render a more conclusive result, here’s a modern example http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. Just like the ships over horizon, you do this experiment properly, you get the same result.
This is why we have peer review in science, to weed out scammers like Rowbotham.
2
-
@yestervue4697 Seems there’s more to say then I guess. I apologize in advance, but I don’t pull my punches, so I’m going to be a bit more frank.
Well, how would you prefer science be conducted instead? Would you prefer no process of peer review occur? Cause I sure don’t, that would be a real mess...nobody would ever be on the same page about anything, quacks, liars, and scammers would run rampant, and we’d get nothing accomplished. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s required, peer review is essential for weeding out bias, errors and lies. Seriously...what’s the alternative? Imagine the world without a process of review...where everyone with a strong opinion is just right, no questions asked. Not a world I’d want to live in. If you have a better alternative, I’m all ears...if not, then it’s a moot argument.
I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy really, because I’m reminded of a time when religion ruled the scientific process. At least you’re allowed to voice your positions, without fear of persecution or death...perhaps you’d like a history lesson on Galileo and his many colleagues, who weren’t so fortunate. So I’m sorry, I get that you’re frustrated, but forgive me if it falls a bit flat, because it just sounds like whining.
If you don’t have any actual scientific evidence, that can’t be falsified, then it’s very likely your position is wrong. You’re doing more flexing than actually sharing evidence, and I get you have a lot of pent up frustration to voice, but most of us are really not to interested in all that, would be more productive to just share evidence.
Let’s take our exchange for example, you started with an observation of the Moon. I then shared some counter evidence, and that’s where that conversation ended pretty much. So far, you’ve not addressed any of the points or evidence I shared...you’ve just gone on and on about how unfair everything is instead. So I’m sorry, but do you really think that’s how you rebuttal evidence presented that counters your claims? I get that you feel very strongly that you’re right and we’re wrong...but really, if you can’t continue down the path of scientific examination, then it’s very likely that you’re in the wrong here...not the other way around. The trouble is...you’re doing more talking, then actually arguing your initial claim...and that’s all I really care about.
I shared some pretty simple geometric evidence, one that half answered your original question, demonstrating how a spherical geometry allows for two observers to see the Moon from opposite sides of the planet. To go further I’d have to model your observation to scale, both on the Globe and on the FE, but you didn’t provide proof of your initial claim, so we didn’t even get past step one really. So I’d have to first verify your claim is even accurate first, which is really YOUR job to do, if you were going to argue in any true arena of science, you made the claim, it’s your job to prove it. Then I shared a simple observation of my own, showing Moon and Sun angle data, plotted upon both models. The data fit the globe in both, while making no sense at all on the FE map (the AE projection).
So do you see the problem? What reason do I have to be convinced of your initial claim? It seems you gave up on it, after I started sharing counter evidence. You haven’t even attempted to rebuttal the evidence I shared, you instead moved on to an entirely different point all together. That’s not how this works...you’re whining about how the system is unfair...but then you won’t even finish a thought process!
If you were right in your conclusions, then you’d be able to demonstrate it, you’d have no trouble arguing the evidence. There would be no need for deflection. We’re not discussing the system, we weren’t talking about quantum physics, theoretical physics, cosmology, etc, we were just talking about the Moon...and then we weren’t, and nothing was resolved.
You’re not going to change any minds that way. All I’ve heard is excuses, not science...that’s been my perspective during this entire exchange so far, I’m just being honest. I’m not interested in excuses, I’m interested in geometry, astronomy, data, math, observations, SCIENCE. You’re nit getting anywhere with anyone, because you’re all over the place...instead of focusing the argument, you ramble on and on about things that ate irrelevant to the discussion.
Most likely because YOU are wrong (about the Moon observation) and you don’t want to face that possibility.
Sometimes you have to admit when you’re wrong...that’s just life. If I am wrong, then I’m more than ready for you to demonstrate that, but I’m not going to just agree simply because you demand I should, I’m going to keep going with rebuttal, until I can not...that is how science operates. It doesn’t have to be a difficult discussion, it’s mostly just basic geometry.
2
-
@yestervue4697 Sure, this would be considered an echo chamber for my position, I’m fine with admitting that, I’m fine with also admitting I have my own biases as well...we all do. Mine would be that I trust science a bit more than I probably should. So I’m more likely to agree with them at first glance, that is a bias though, I’m well aware of that. But you’re naive if you think you are in any way free from bias...you have two that I can see pretty clearly. A chip on your shoulder for systems of authority, leading you to immediately distrust and desire to defeat them, and then there’s your religious beliefs, which is what you filter your information through, paying closer attention to any information that you feel confirms that belief structure, while largely ignoring whatever refutes it. I’m similar, I desire to defeat what I feel is misinformation, and I put more trust into science, so our biases are quite similar...but at least I’ll admit I have them.
Nice thing about physical reality though...it doesn’t care about our bias. Stick to the evidence, process it all objectively, you will reach the most likely conclusion. One of us is still ready to tackle the evidence, no matter where it leads...while the other would rather not and is doing all they can not too. It’s not really hard to discern why...in most cases, that’s typical from an individual, who is not really interested in learning how they could be in error.
Quite frankly, YOU came here to poke us...not the other way around. You knew full well you’d get a response here, you could have just asked a question nicely, but you taunted us instead. Which is fine, you’re only human, we all have ego. I’m here for several reasons, to challenge what I feel is misinformation being spread, to provide what counter information I have, so people on the fence reading these have that information as well, and to challenge what I think I know...so I can learn a different perspective. It’s not very productive though usually, these chats generally devolve into...well, this.
I’d prefer it stick to the science, but that’s difficult when there’s so much emotional attachment to a position...I just end up getting an ear full. Perhaps I’m partially to blame though, you’re right, I give as much empty rhetoric as I get...wastes a lot of time.
So if you want to get back on topic, that would be great. Refute my evidence I shared above, or provide more context and proof for yours. If not, that’s fine too. I’ll only address evidence from here on out.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hightech346 An altimeter is designed to measure elevation and most of them do that by measuring air pressure...they're in reality, more like a barometer. Because it's very well known that air pressure decreases the higher you go...which is exactly what we'd expect to see occur with a Globe and gravity holding our atmosphere in place, a gradient in air pressure, becoming less and less and less the higher you go, until there is no more air to measure. So air pressure then can be used to accurately measure elevation (altitude) and that's what an altimeter does. Earth doesn't need to be flat for this to work.
I've already explained to you how a river flows on a sphere, it works the exact same way for a locomotive. Rivers flow from high elevation to low elevation, low elevation is closer to center of Earth, high elevation is further from center of Earth. If the elevation is the same from center of Earth, then it is level from center of Earth...train tracks just require that they're perpendicular and level to the center of Earth, cause then they're level to center of gravity as well and then it's not hard at all for them to travel along the surface. If you're wondering how tracks curve with the surface, just remember that tracks are not one solid piece of metal, they are many pieces of metal linked together like a chain. A straight solid piece of metal may not wrap around a curve, but a chain sure can.
I feel like I might need to draw this one for you, cause you're just not getting how gravity works...that's your error here. Learn what a gravity vector is, that will help you understand how this works.
But again, this is all just higher physics that you are misunderstanding. Go back to the geometry, to the start of the foundations of the Globe model. You can't build upon knowledge, until you have a sturdier foundation. So answer my questions for a sunset, for the two hemispheres, honestly look at the geometry and be honest with yourself...does a sunset make any sense on a Flat Earth to you? For how smart you think you are, can you honestly tell us a sunset makes sense over a flat Earth? That should be simple stuff.
2
-
@randylinn9382 But alright, enough rhetoric and mockery, I'm more then willing to discuss things more civilly with you if you'd like. So let's focus on some science. This will require you open your mind and listen to me though, so that's all I ask that you do. I shall do the same in return, so feel free to point out anything you feel I have missed once I have concluded something.
""if the globe works as science says it does, then you have to believe airplanes can fly sideways at least twice as fast as they can forward."
Alright, so this a question of the physics of motion, so let's look at the physics of motion for a moment, and see how ridiculous this really is. Apologies if you've heard much of this before, I don't include it to patronize you, it's just important that every step be followed, so as to understand the full context of the explanation.
So the first Law of motion is pretty simple, and you've heard it many times before I'm sure, everything in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an opposing force or mass. What it's talking about is the physics of conservation of momentum, which is a very well understood concept in physics, here is a very clear demonstration of conservation of momentum in action.
https://imgur.com/gallery/70m3Fku
Pay close attention to this quick video above and notice how this guy lands dead center of the trampoline every single time, even though it is being pulled out from under him by the tractor, while he's in the air. So what's happening here? Why doesn't he fall behind and land on the ground? How does he manage to keep pace with the tractor, continuously landing in the center, even though he has no way of propelling himself forward at that rate while in the air? It's simple, he's able to keep pace because of conservation of momentum. His body is moving relative to the tractor and the trampoline, because he likely started bouncing once the tractor was moving, so his body now conserves the forward momentum of that motion at all times. This is also the same physics, that explains why you're able to get up and move around the cabin of an airplane...while it's moving at 500 mph cruising speed. At no point are you sucked to the seat or flung to the back of the cabin...conservation of momentum is why that's possible, objects conserve the momentum of the inertial reference frame they are moving relative too.
This is important to note, because it's the same physics that explains how a sideways vector is possible, while also traveling in a slower forward vector. If the Earth is rotating, then we're all rotating with it, which means we are always maintaining the momentum of that rotational velocity. Conservation of momentum, first law of motion in action. So what that means is, since a plane is taking off from the surface of that rotating motion, then it is also always conserving that momentum, moving with the Earths rotation at all times. This holds true even as it travels in a vector or direction that is adjacent or opposite to that forward velocity.
Here's a simple experiment you can do that helps to verify this. The next time you're in a moving vehicle of any kind, a car, a bus, a train, a plane, doesn't really matter, as long as it's moving in a forward direction, at a steady pace, with no sudden dips or turns, and you are inside it with the windows shut and the air flow contained. Throw around a ball with a friend, or better yet, a paper airplane. Sit in seats that run perpendicular to the length of the vehicle, so beside each other along the width of it, and start tossing that ball or plane back and forth, from side to side. You will begin to notice that though the vehicle is moving forward, throwing that object around is behaving no differently then if you were to toss it around while not moving. Throw it from any angle, in any direction...it will travel through the air just fine. But now think about that for a moment...say you're in a plane going at 500 mph...first of all, are you throwing the ball at 500 mph? Of course not, nobody can throw a ball that fast. Ok, so the ball or paper plane is conserving the forward momentum of the vehicle. Now realize that as you throw it from side to side, it's technically then moving both sideways and forward...at the same time. If you were to look at just those motions from an outsider perspective observing from outside of the vehicle, they would see a ball or paper plane traveling forward at an angle. From your perceptive however, tossing a ball across the width of the vehicle from side to side, is just going to look like you're tossing it straight back and forth...but it's not really is it, technically, it's moving forward as well, so technically it's moving at a forward angle. A plane in flight over the Earth is no different. It's not breaking any laws of motion at all, it's adhering to the very first law perfectly, the law of conservation of momentum. This knowledge is expanded further in the physics of Relative Motion.
What Relative Motion teaches us, is that motion is relative to inertial reference frames. An inertial reference frame is just the environment that is moving, the insider of a car for example is an inertial reference frame, as is the rotating surface of the Earth. Everything moving inside of a vehicle for example, is moving relative to that inertial reference frame. A general rule of thumb that this physics of motion teaches us, anything moving within an inertial reference frame, will behave as though stationary. Meaning anything moving relative to that same inertial reference frame, will behave as though it is stationary. That's why you can throw a ball straight up while in a moving vehicle and it will go up and come straight back down into your hand, and that's why you can also toss a ball around with ease from side to side, while inside a vehicle or inertial reference frame of motion. Anything moving relative to each other, operates under the physics of motion of that inertial reference frame.
From an observer within that inertial reference frame, it will appear as though stationary and it will operate under the physics of a stationary system, rule of thumb in relative motion.
Anyway, I do hope my explanations and those thought experiments can help you understand your error here a little better. Flat Earth is ignoring a LOT of physics of motion here. It's fine to disagree with that physics...but in all my years of talking with Flat Earthers, I have yet to meet one that even understands the basics of this physics. Disagree all you want...but I would hope you're disagreeing because you understand it and understand how it's flawed...rather then disagreeing because you're ignorant. You can call me indoctrinated all you want...but this is very easy science to verify for yourself, you demonstrate conservation of momentum and relative motion, every single time you get into a moving vehicle of any kind.
There is more to this science, a lot more...so I'm sure you'll have many more things to point out to me, but I can guarantee they have answers. These are not new questions you're asking, your question above is a great question, but the trouble is...you're not really looking for an answer to that question, you hold the question up as your proof. It is a great question, it's the exact same sort of question all scientists once ask themselves, when they're first learning about the physics of motion. Where Flat Earth goes wrong here, is assuming they're the first people to ask these types of questions...nope, I'm afraid not, this is basic physics 101. Good question yes...LONG been answered. I hope you at the very least consider my explanations and look a little closer at this physics, the Laws of Motion, Conservation of Momentum and Relative Motion. This is the science that answers ALL of Flat Earths questions pertaining to motion of any kind...and best yet, it's really easy stuff to verify today.
2
-
@randylinn9382 Sigh...you misunderstand me again, the atmosphere is not LITERALLY a shell like a glass, there is no solid line or membrane that separates space from atmosphere. It's a gradient air pressure going from high pressure to low pressure, which is measured. It is a fluid gas, that is kept to Earth by gravity, contained by it, that moves with the motions of Earth, via conservation of momentum. It's all well established science and quite well documented...you do yourself a disservice in life denying it all.
But anyway, actually yes, I can prove every one of the concepts I've discussed with you so far. All I have been providing so far are the explanations, these are not proofs of the wider model themselves, just a break down of how the physics operates. Though I have shared a few experiments of motion with you already that helped to verify conservation of momentum, but I digress.
What would you like me to verify for you specifically? I can share evidence and proofs for pretty much everything, from gravity, to rotation, to the atmosphere, to the measured and observed geometry, feel free to ask and I'm sure I could point you towards the experiments and observations that help to verify EVERYTHING about the Globe model, that you feel has no proof. Of course the best piece of evidence we have are the pictures from space, little hard to argue with those I would say...though you people are masters at denial aren't you.
Another great proof is that we have a working model, that explains everything we observe with tremendous accuracy. Flat Earth does not...and that's for a good reason, because Flat Earth is not reality.
I'm perfectly capable of providing evidence for everything I have discussed so far, so feel free to ask and I will share with you. In the meantime, you talk a big game about proof, but where's YOUR proof of a Flat Earth? You sure have many misunderstandings about physics, but these are not proofs, just misunderstood concepts that have stumped you. Feel free to share anything you feel verifies WHY you believed a concept that does no align with reality. Surely you have some evidence right? Only fair you provide some as well. Let's start with an easy one, what evidence do you have that helps to explain a sunset over Flat Earth? How exactly does the sun set on a Flat Earth and do you have a working model, with experiments, data, calculations and observations that can help to verify a small local Sun? Start there if you'd like...what evidence do you have that supports a small local sun? Annnnnnd go....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, scam artists online are bringing you half truths, cherry picked information, misinterpreted or misunderstood science, bad math and in some cases straight up lies, that they can spin a narrative with. What Flat is currently demonstrating is the power and dangers of confirmation bias and they're doing it all without proper peer review. It's great to ask questions and never take anything at face value, but then why do you people say that...and then blindly listen to strangers online? You are arguing against all of science when you make a claim that the Earth is Flat...the same science that makes ALL of our modern technology possible. You don't ever consider the possibility that MAYBE the error isn't with the model, but with your understanding of that model? That maybe YOU are missing something? Something Flat Earthers won't tell you, because they're deeply bias? In my experience in the 3 years I've been looking at Flat Earth, that has absolutely been the case, time and time again.
I'm not saying you're stupid, a lot of you are actually pretty intelligent...but you are being taken on a ride by con men, who have filled the gaps in your knowledge with bullshit. Confirmation bias runs rampant in this movement, you owe it to yourself not to jump to conclusions so quickly and absorb BOTH sides of the argument, instead of sitting in your echo chambers of information. This video above was not meant to share evidence, it was more directed at those of us who have looked at the science already and have concluded Flat Earth is a scam. It's a psychological discussion trying to figure out WHY or HOW people fall into this rabbit hole. So you won't find any facts, data or evidence here in this video and it's pretty clear from the title.
So what would you like help with exactly? I'm not here to mock you or insult you for asking questions, I'll just share information and leave it up to you. So feel free to ask. I enjoy the discussion, so long as its civil and ideas are shared and considered. I also like to learn, so feel free to share anything you'd like and I'll take a look.
2
-
2
-
@medmanbrand Well I’m just sayin…I know even a broken clock is still right twice a day, but the clock is still broken and the guy is still a scumbag. You certainly felt we should be concerned about project paperclip, for the same reason. So by your own logic now, we shouldn’t care that they were ex Nazi’s. So I guess that point is now moot, eh? Good job, you’ve done my work for me and defeated your own argument. 👌
That said, it was actually a pretty smart idea, can’t be denied. Germany had some of the brightest minds in science and engineering at the time, so had the US not done it, you can bet their enemies would have…in fact they probably did. It paid off, because Von Braun was a genius rocket scientist, and without him, we’d have never gotten into space as quick as we did.
Doesn’t mean I approve from a moral standpoint…he also built the first rockets used to murder people, so not a good dude either. But that’s the true nature of the world isn’t it…it’s just as ugly as it is beautiful, nothing is as black and white as we would like it to be. Archimedes built the pulley…but he also innovated the catapult. Einstein unlocked the mystery of mass to energy transfer (E=mc2), but it helped create the Nuclear bomb.
Now, what proof do you have Earth is flat? You are aware there are millions of pilots and sailors around the world, currently navigating the surface, with extreme accuracy and precision, using a system of navigation built on the knowledge that Earth is spherical, right? You really think they could do their jobs at all, if they didn’t know the true shape of the surface they’re navigating? 🤷♂️
If so…then I’d urge you to learn how to navigate, then apply that knowledge…see how far you get without using the current model. We can argue all day, but really…go and plot a navigation route without using the globe model…I dare you to try. Why bother arguing, if the topic truly interests you, why not do more to actually verify it? It’s cute entertaining these fringe online conspiracies…but join the real world again bud. Dubay is a Yoga teacher…with zero experience in any field of science, applied or experimental. Sure, like I said, even a broken clock is still right twice a day…but it’s still broken, and I’m not about to use that for keeping my time. Used to be pretty common sense.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@PrivateBackroom Because it’s a simulation model, so the mathematicians running the calculations for the model need to know every variable included in the math for that particular model. Mathematical models such as these are not to be taken as literal. Like pretty much all mathematical models, they don’t simulate all of reality, only the variables necessary for the task they’re used for. In this case, it’s important for the reader to know the environment the aircraft is in for that particular model. So they state the perimeters very clearly, so the reader knows what’s in the math for the simulation.
Not sure how I can make it much clearer than that…I’m really just repeating myself now. Look…you know what a model is, right? If I make you a model of the Empire State Building, you understand that it’s not the same as the actual real building, right? It’s merely a simulated version, not a literal recreation of the real thing. Mathematical models aren’t much different. They simulate portions of reality, while omitting and simplifying others. Mathematical models are useful though, in this case an engineer can find the best shapes to use for an aircraft’s flight dynamics, that have the best air flow, least amount of drag, best lift capacity (important if your aircraft is gonna be really heavy), etc. Don’t require Earth’s shape or its motions for that particular model, so they can be omitted…but a mathematician still needs to know the environmental perimeters for the simulation, so it has to be stated clearly.
Then along comes people who are not mathematicians…heck they probably failed math in grade school, always asking the teacher “what would I ever need this for”? Apparently so you don’t fall for dumb conspiracies online…that’s what YOU needed it for, but engineers and scientists needed it so they could build every technology you enjoy (and take for granted) today. :/
Apologies for the jabs though, I do hope the information is helpful. I get that not everyone is a mathematician or engineer (I’m not either, I just paid attention in math and kept up with it as an adult), so it’s easy to see how many could misinterpret documents like this. Just sucks that instead of maybe ASKING real experts…most would rather run with conspiracy instead. I think we’ve all watched way too much TV.
2
-
2
-
@omares9611 But it’s also a bit of a paradox, because who created this entity that kicked off big bang? If nothing can exist on its own, if nothing creates itself, then how does this god exist on its own? How does something that powerful and complex, just come into being, without something creating it? You could just say it has always existed, outside of time and space, blah blah blah, but it’s just a cop out really...cause you don’t really know, answers like that are just slotted in as if they’re good enough, no further analysis required. If you can use that argument though, then why couldn’t atheists? Maybe the universe is in a constant cycle of death and rebirth, and perhaps it has always just existed, constantly cycling back to big bang, over and over and over again. It’s been hypothesized, it’s not outside the realm of plausible.
Truth is though, we don’t know, nobody really knows what caused big bang or what preceded it...but some of us are not about to fill the gaps of our knowledge, with God...that’s a God of the gaps argument, and a fallacious argument. We’re still learning, who knows what we’ll discover.
Think it’s time both atheists and theists just let it go. What do you care what atheists think? Why are we still having these never ending fights? I personally don’t mind that people are religious, I see their logic, it’s just not for me. Do you really care if we join your religion? I’m not interested, just like you’re not interested in being atheist, it’s fine. It’d just be great if people left each other alone when it came to this topic...but here we are.
2
-
@omares9611 You are wasting your time. I have never been religious, born in a small atheist town, didn’t even really know what religion was until I left at 18, it was 18 years of peace...and boy do I miss it. All I see now, are a thousand different religions, all claiming their religion is the one true religion...all doing the same dance you are now, so proud of yourselves for rationalizing an indoctrination, through the tunnel vision of confirmation bias.
Good for you, but you could be less annoying about it maybe? Lord of the Rings holds about as much weight for me in the end. It’s a pointless argument, I’m just happy to be here. If there is a god, I’m sure it wouldn’t care much about me or others just enjoying existence, not troubling ourselves with such a waste of time as religion.
You’ve never heard of the god of the gaps fallacy? Best you look it up.
2
-
@omares9611 I will, thanks, and you can keep pretending you’re a good person...because you read a book of rigid rules that never change or adapt with the needs of an ever evolving society. Whatever works for ya. Personally, I do find it a bit sad that you need a God to justify your existence and give you morals, when good ol’ fashion empathy covers that just fine, basic survival instincts of cooperating with a group. But it’s fine, I know it’s pointless to argue, you do you.
You came here to poke as well, so don’t pretend you didn’t. I don’t fault ya for it, I doubt you’re a bad dude, just have ego like we all do, just couldn’t resist. We’re all assholes deep down, and I’m fine with that...but we’re also generally good, it’s a mixed bag. I annoy you, you annoy me, round and round we go.
2
-
@omares9611 I’m sorry, but it’s just kinda bullshit to me. You’re over complicating things by creating delusions, you think give you objective morality, so you can pretend you have a higher ground on others...when you’re really just kidding yourself. Look at it from my perspective...too me, your morals are just as subjective in the grand scheme of things, you just don’t know it yet.
But that doesn’t mean we can’t still choose morals. I’m not about to go hurting people, my empathy alone keeps me from doing that, and I’m molded by society and the morals they have chosen. Those moral frameworks become almost objective, for as long as I’m alive. I accept them and will adhere to them...don’t need a God for that, we’re quite capable on our own.
But listen, we can go back and forth like this all day...and I’d really rather not. It’s fine what you believe, these talks just tend to get nasty and I’d really rather not waste much more time with that kind of negativity. Thank you for sharing your perspectives and insights, apologies for any disrespect I have given. It’s actually interesting to learn these things, even if I strongly disagree and do not fully understand your perspective. Religion does annoy me though, so I can’t help but prodding, but it’s quite pointless to continue with a bad attitude, so best I leave it at that.
Have yourself a good day.
2
-
The first experiment he shared is not a valid experiment, so no, it’s not accurate in the slightest. You can’t use a spirit level to determine Earths shape, any more than you can use a compass to determine the shape of a magnet…the tool used conforms to the forces acting upon them, gravity in the case of the level, magnetism in the case of the compass. So it’s a dumb experiment, that just misunderstands how the tool actually works.
The second is extremely inconclusive, because the original experiment ignored important variables, a big one being light refraction. It’s very important in all experimentation to isolate the variable you’re testing, by removing all other possible variables that could cause the same effect. Light bends in atmosphere, this is a known fact at this point, but it’s not common knowledge amongst layman. It is a variable that matters in that particular experiment, so it can’t be ignored. Robotham (Parallax) ignored it…so that renders his experiment inconclusive, yet he reached a conclusion anyway. That’s bad experimentation practice. We do not reach conclusions in science from inconclusive experiments that ignore important variables, it’s that simple.
The experiment has been repeated many times since then, accounting for atmospheric refraction, and the results are conclusive; Earth is curving. The most recent recreation that I’m currently aware of is the Rainy Lake experiment, it’s well documented online, look it up sometime.
2
-
2
-
"Why do shooting stars only traverse downwards (hense the name falling stars) when spotted?"
Jesus...have you ever really looked at a meteor shower before? What a bullshit empty claim that is. Take some time and have a look at one for awhile, here's a great video for ya https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4KylmpOdvs Now just look at all the different angles those meteors come from. Parallell to the horizon, up from the horizon, you name it, they're shooting across the sky from all angles...and it's pretty clear here. There's a really clear shot of one coming up from the horizon at the 48 second mark in this video, big bright and orange, coming UP FROM THE HORIZON!
It's pretty damn clear to me, that you just form opinions from assumptions and you don't really take the time to look at anything do you. No wonder your a Evolution denier and a Flat Earther...you don't know anything, but you think you do. Dunning Krueger in action.
Here's a better question, what are meteors and how do they fall on a Flat Earth with no space and no gravity? Why do we have crater sites? Why do we sometimes have meteors that hit Earth, that we have collected many samples from? Where did they come from if not space? How did they fall into Earth if there is no gravity?
I think you've listened blindly to a con man who fed you some bullshit and then you didn't even bother to do the most obvious thing after that and actually LOOK at a meteor shower to see if that claim was accurate.
That's fine though, you keep posting ignorant shit and we'll be happy to point out how gullible you are. Just helps us prove even more how ridiculous Flat Earth is, so keep em comin.
2
-
You do not know how to read, or interpret those documents, so you have reached a false conclusions due to a lack of understanding...which is quite typical for layman to do if they're not careful. Research papers have a structure to them, and what you have done is taken words out of context in the summary section, and misinterpreted their meaning. What they're doing is simplifying the math a bit, by removing variables it didn't require for what it was going to be solving for in the sections to follow. They do this all the time in research papers, they run hypotheticals. When they do this, they have to state very clearly what variables they are removing, so that the reader knows what variables won't be included in the calculations...which is why they will use the word "assume" a lot in their wording of those sections.
A summary section is not for stating conclusions...it's simply there to let the reader know what is being discussed in the section to follow...it's never intended to be taken literally or as a conclusion. There is a reason layman shouldn't attempt to dive into these research papers without training...because without a basic understanding of how they are structured, you will risk misinterpreting the content of those papers, which will lead you to a false conclusion.
So maybe learn a little bit about what it is you are arguing against...before you allow con men to use your lack of knowledge and understanding against you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@LowerClassClique That's sad, well I hope you do obtain some secondary education someday...university, college, tech schools, are not like high school, at all. Highschool's are really kind of hit and miss...and really depends on how good the teachers are, but I find their role lately is more like a babysitter and that's how teachers seem to treat it...and they don't really seem to treat the kids with much care or respect these days, which is sad. I'm an artist for a living currently, but teaching was my second choice vocation that I wanted to pursue, because I love science and I enjoy communicating knowledge...so it's hard for me to hear story's like that, cause it makes me think I really should have, not enough patient and good teachers out there it seems.
Trust me though, teachers treat you a lot differently in the adult world of secondary education systems, then they did when you were coming up. They'll actually treat you like an adult and respect your intelligence. It's a much better learning environment...it is harder though, cause they won't hold your hand, but they do treat students better, so not as bad at all. Tech schools are where it's at if you're looking for least school, quickest return on investment. Lot of trades schools out there, definitely worth it. I'm a second year insulator as well, over 1800 hours in the trade, only a few months of school, and most companies will actually pay your school if you work for them first as a helper under that trade...so my school was free and I made money while doing it, because I took that route, working first. Best option for quickest return, definitely tech and trade schools. Had I stuck with that, I'd have been Journeyman in less then 4 years...and you know how much Journeyman trades workers make per hour? It's damn good money.
Anyway, I hope the information I've shared so far was helpful and interesting. Good luck out there, and good chatting with ya.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
To your first question, no. Planes use atmosphere to generate thrust and lift under the the wings, this becomes increasingly more difficult to do, the thinner the atmosphere is. The atmosphere gets thinner the higher you climb in altitude and would be at equipotential on a globe (equal distance from centre). So it would be physically impossible for a plane to fly into space, it will drop as the atmosphere thins, unable to continue generating lift. There’s also gravity, which can’t be completely escaped very easily, it requires an escape velocity, which no plane on Earth achieves. They do not fly fast enough.
Now the second point, is a slight of hand trick they con people with. Most people aren’t aware of a thing known as vanishing point, which is just your eyes limit to render an object visible, due to its size and distance from you, it’s an illusion of perspective. As I’m sure you’re aware, things appear to shrink in apparent size the further away they are from you, this reaches its limit at a vanishing point, where your eye can no longer render it visible, it has shrunk so much.
So when they brought that boat back into focus, they weren’t bringing it back from horizon, they bringing it into focus, bringing it back from vanishing point. Keep observing that boat with that telescope and it would eventually do this https://youtu.be/WDdwP0Ucomk?t=52.
There is still a physical point, where things begin to dip and no matter how powerful your telescopic lens, you will never bring it back from. We call this horizon and it is a physical obstruction. These wind turbines for example, that are well beyond horizon, cut off by hundreds of feet at their base https://youtu.be/NKQI18jr8Oc?t=58. No amount if zooming will bring them back into view, because they are beyond horizon.
So the simple fact is, if you can bring a ship completely back into focus with a zoom lens, then it has not gone over horizon yet, it’s just being brought back from your eyes physical limitations. This is how they con people...showing you what they want you to see, keeping you focused on it, while then lying about what’s happening. It’s basically a slight of hand trick. So please be more careful.
2
-
Ok, very good question, so I don’t mind answering. It’s simple orbital mechanics. A rocket needs to get itself into an orbital velocity, that’s the best way to maintain flight without requiring more fuel to resist gravity. If a rocket continues straight, then it’s just fighting gravity with no end, meaning gravity will eventually win and pull it back down to surface. So instead of doing that, a rocket instead uses Earths gravity to help it sling shot around the planet, using that acceleration to put it into an orbit around the planet. So to do this, they need to eventually turn at an angle, so the trajectory starts to curve with the Earth.
From an observers perspective on the ground, this is going to appear like it’s curving back down into the ground, but in reality, it’s just eventually going behind the horizon from your perspective. Orbital trajectory is how rockets, satellites, the ISS space station maintain flight around the planet, they’re essentially using Earths gravity well to help them maintain orbit, the force of gravity always pulling them down, but their forward velocity keeping them falling around the planet. It’s pretty clever science actually, using gravity instead of fighting against it.
I know you have your doubts and it probably stems mostly from a growing resentment you have for science, but your questions do have answers if you’re willing to hear them out. Here’s a great video that can help explain the basics of orbital mechanics a little bit better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaJf71pcUak
It’s fine to question what you’re told, but it’s easier than ever before to spread misinformation these days, so you have to be very careful where you’re getting your information from. Should always never forget to question even the sources you trust...con men do exist, and the modern internet is a con mans paradise, so be careful out there. I’m not asking you blindly agree to what I’m saying, but does my explanation help and does it make sense? If I’ve provided an answer that does fit and make sense for an opposing position, then you should at the very least take it as a stepping stone to learn more about the side you’re now challenging. You might be surprised what you can learn.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It ignores important variables, like refraction, which can and does effect what we see at distances, especially over bodies of water where air density is greater. Eventually the boat will dip into horizon and be obscured, that wouldn’t happen at all if Earth was flat, you’d be able to see it far beyond just 6 miles. Rowbotham was also using the wrong math, 8 inches per mile squared is not a spherical curvature equation, it’s for a parabola curve, it also does not represent line of sight, it represents a tangent line at your feet. It has no variables for height of the observer, horizon distance, arc length and hump, perspective, tilt angles, etc. And he only made ONE observation, using ONE marker, just looking long enough to confirm his bias, then he stopped looking.
It’s the perfect example of a sloppy experiment conducted just to confirm a bias. Upon peer review, his version of the experiment is found to be extremely flawed and lacking controls for important variables. This is why we have peer review in the scientific method, to weed out errors due to bias, cognitive dissonance and lying. Upon peer review, conducting the experiment with far more controls accounting for all known variables, it’s found to actually verify Earth curvature.
It’s important to be diligent in science, covering every variable, or you risk reaching false conclusions due to poor experimentation. The original Bedford level experiment is a perfect example of this, which is why it’s taught in science history, to remind scientists why it’s important to be patient, careful and diligent during data collection and experimentation.
Hope that helps, or is at the very least interesting.
2
-
If all those things were true, then you'd be able to prove them with evidence. We're just here peer reviewing claims made, to challenge their validity, to check their evidence, because nobody and nothing is above the process of peer review. From what I've seen, the evidence is overwhelmingly against each counter position you've posited, so that is why they are not taken very seriously in science anymore. If these positions had the evidence, then these things would be fairing better in debates, discussions and peer reviews...but they do not.
The scientific community takes the time to tackle these issues, because it's part of their job to educate others in what they've learned, and it's important that potential misinformation never goes unckecked or unchallenged. Just as people are free to make claims online, others are just as free to review them. It's really that simple.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mgaamerica9185 Polls...oh boy, that relic of the past eh. Let me tell ya something about people of my age bracket and younger. I’m technically millennial, bordering on Gen X, and I’ve done several polls in my time...can’t say I’ve ever given accurate answers. Of course I can’t speak for everyone within my age demographic, but I do feel we generally don’t tend to give a fuck about polls. I personally see them as an opportunity for a bit of comedy, even if it’s only amusing to me at the time, it is still quite amusing, to fuck with the old systems, in some small way. Polls don’t really mean much to a majority of us I would say, they generally just annoy us, so they’re just trolling fodder.
In reality, you got probably 30% of millennials with a good sense of humour, and 10% of that 40% who probably answered truthfully. The other 60% are probably from the much younger end of the generation, who aren’t as jaded and experienced as of yet, and haven’t quite realized the small amusement to be found within fucking with the little things of the current system, that fails to evolve and understand the internet generations. I can really only speculate on that of course (though studies have been done that show public polls to be pretty inaccurate in general), but judging by my experience with my own demographic, who grew up on South Park and talking shit in video game servers, we’re a very sarcastic bunch. We’re the first kids of the internet, we invented trolling...polls annoy us, so they get heavily fucked with. So I would take them with a grain of salt...but I know the TV news generations grew up on polls, so they live by them....which is why fucking with them is so amusing.
Aside from that, in my experience chatting with hundreds of Flatties at this point...I would say most of them were older than me, many of them even bragged about it, as if that’s some kind of an achievement in our modern world of privileges. Just classic agism, older generations shitting on the younger gens, it’s nothing new, we’ll likely do it too eventually, it’s pretty normal societal behaviour. Just part of how the old cope with the loss of youth I imagine, it’s fine, I’m mid 30s now and I’m already feelin it, already a judgmental prick, as you can probably tell. 😅
Anyway, that being said, no disrespect, I’m really just trying to point out a perspective here you might not have been fully aware of. We’re the first internet generation, shit posting is our baby, if we can troll it, you can be sure that we will.
2
-
2
-
2
-
inquizative44 As Zrips pointed out, there are several observations one can make with the Sun, that don’t fit at all with the proposed flat Earth models. The first and simplest one being a simple sunset. We’ve all seen a sunset and a sunrise, but how exactly does that occur on a flat Earth? Think about it, if the Sun occupies the same directional sky, everywhere on Earth, then shouldn’t it be visible 24 hours a day, from everywhere?
So Flat Earth will often rebuttal with “it’s perspective that causes this. It’s just like how power lines you see in a straight row will appear to drop down to the horizon the further they get from the observer, and closer they to the horizon.” Ok, but then if it’s perspective causing a sunset, then shouldn’t the Sun also appear to shrink in angular size before reaching the horizon? See they like to slot in ad hoc explanations, and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done...thinking their work is done. Problem is, perspective has many rules that can’t be ignored, if they’re going use perspective as their answer, then they have to test the sun in reality and see if it actually ticks EVERY box, not just the one they claim is true.
Globe Earth proponents have actually set out to test this perspective hypothesis, to see if it fits. Here’s a short list of what they test for. Under perspective, 1) the Sun should appear to shrink; 2) it should appear to speed up the closer it gets to the observer, and then slow down the further it gets, like a fast moving vehicle appears to do as it gets closer and then further; 3) if circling above, it should arc North when leaving your position and descend from the North when rising and coming back towards your position; 4) longer days in the Southern Hemisphere should not be possible.
There’s a great channel that has put to work testing each of these and many more simple observations of the Sun. Look up a content creator known as Wolfie6020. Him and others he’s promoted on his channel, have done several observational experiments putting the Sun to the test to see which model actually fits reality. In each experiment, the Globe fits perfectly to the observations...while the flat Earth models fail every time.
In conclusion, a simple sunset makes no sense on a flat Earth, meanwhile the Globe answers for this with absolute ease. So it’s a good observation to start with, if you’re really looking to figure out why so many people are calling Flat Earth out on their claims. Their model doesn’t work, taking just a little bit of time to put each model to the test against observable reality, verifies that pretty quickly,
So there’s a good reason why many of us don’t bat an eye at Flat Earth claims, we’ve done the research they’ve asked that we do, we now know exactly where they go wrong. If you’d like any further help, feel free to ask. I don’t mind sharing what I’ve learned on the topic.
2
-
inquizative44 Did you even read my comment? I’m well aware of what Flat Earth considers to be their model, that’s the model I was challenging, is the very model you’re describing. I’m not new to this debate, I’ve been researching it for close to 4 years at this point...so please don’t patronize me. You said you were on the fence, so I’m just sharing some info that might help. Up to you if you want to take a look, I can’t force you to do anything. I agree with you on one thing, I don’t much care for the insults and sarcasm, though I’m guilty of it myself at times, I much prefer civil discussion where ideas and information is shared free of ridicule.
The UN represents every nation on Earth...little hard to represent all the nations of a 3D globe, on a flat 2D flag. So they had to use a flat projection map. They chose the AE projection, because it has a nice pleasing triad composition. It’s a common composition in logo design, a triad composition has good balance, it’s pleasing to the eye, if I was tasked to design that flag using a flat map projection that represents all nations of the world, I’d use the AE projection as well.
Don’t chase bias evidence like this that you can only speculate on, it won’t lead you to any actual truth, it’ll just drag you down rabbit holes of endless paranoia.
2
-
2
-
Refraction is very real, and at this point a proven fact of how light and vision works https://youtu.be/5lmmzvzz_Xs. So it can’t be ignored as a variable, it absolutely must be considered, or you risk reaching a false conclusion. We’re just remaining objective, rather than listening blindly to claims made online, by people who don’t appear to know how a proper experiment is conducted, where all variables that can affect the outcome are factored, rather than ignored. We’re just going through the process of peer review and falsification, not our problem if you don’t like the results, science doesn’t concern itself with what we or others WANT to be true.
If you feel you can falsify light refraction as a variable to be considered, by all means, present your evidence. Otherwise you’re just chasing confirmation bias, and aren’t aware of it yet.
2
-
2
-
You're not repeating all the facts though, you're cutting them up and taking them out of context and then respinning them to fit a narrative. You're cherry picking, which is a known tenant of confirmation bias.
Here's how I know that. NASA didn't say they have ONLY been in low earth orbit, they have never said that. They said CURRENTLY, we can only fly MANNED missions in low Earth orbit, because they currently do not have any new spacecraft developed for deep space. The devil is in the details here, they have never said that they HAVEN'T been past low Earth orbit, they have only ever said that CURRENTLY they can't, because they don't have any new ships built and no missions locked in and cleared for launch. Are Flat Earthers and space deniers even listening to them when they talk? Cause we're hearing two different things it seems...and it's clear why, your bias is filtering the details out...maybe stop doing that, and start being more honest and objective with yourself.
So Why don't they have any new spacecraft for manned missions at this present time? Because their isn't enough interest and enough funding to bother with MANNED missions past low Earth orbit. We've already been to the Moon, it's a rock...not much more reason to go back, so why waste the time, man power, energy and money? It's not like they're not working on it though, because they are, that's part of what the ISS does, is learning more about living in space for long periods of time, but they really haven't started much construction on anything new, that has included all the new tech we have today, which will ALL have to tested and cleared, before they can ever go back into space with a manned crew...which is going to take time to engineer and build, when they decide there is interest again to even bother. And you're actually in luck, because they do have new moon missions planned and mars missions, so be patient.
But they put satellites and probes past low Earth orbit all the fucking time, the DSCOVR Satellite is about a million miles from Earth right now snapping pictures every 2 hours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7j-0orCtYs There are several satellites in geostationary orbit right now doing the same thing, about 25 - 45, 000 miles from Earth. Here is a group of hobbyists that built their own radio telescope, so they could track these satellites and collect imagery from them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t=276s
You're choosing to take NASA's words out of context, only hearing what you WANT and then ignoring the rest of the details. This is cherry picking, a perfect example of confirmation bias and it means your "real research" is flawed and full of holes. Ignoring many details, keeping only what supports what you currently believe. This is why people have a hard time taking you people seriously, because it's not hard to see...if you actually take the time to dig up the details that you intentionally ignore.
Thanks to the laws of motion, conservation of momentum and relative motion, our Earth operates like a stationary system. Thanks to this physics, pilots do not need to factor the shape and motion of the planet into their variables, when making aerodynamic calculations. So the aerodynamic flight manuals summarize this, by CLEARLY STATING that these variables are not needed for the math to follow in the bulk of the manuals. Unless it's a manual for orbital dynamics and rockets, these variables will not effect atmospheric flight, at all, so they are omitted. They do this, to simplify the math, it's a very common practice in research papers and scientific manuals. But they have to let the reader know what is being simplified, they are not making a statement or a conclusion, they are just making the work a little easier for the reader.
So that's another example of confirmation bias. You don't know how to interpret those manuals, you're not trained in how they are structured, so you skimmed through them (or someone else did, likely someone else) and then you took the words you were looking for out of context and then resold them to people to spin your narrative on it. My guess is, you were told this by somebody else and then you didn't bother to learn anything more about those manuals, you just agreed with them blindly. For people claiming to be doing "real research", you sure stop pretty quick once your bias is confirmed. You are a layman, until you are trained in something specific, then you will always be a layman. It's dangerous for any layman to attempt at interpreting structured papers, they have no working knowledge of.
Compasses work just fine on a Globe, all you require are varying counter balances depending on latitude...that's why there are different compasses, calibrated for Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere. Go ahead and look them up, there are three main type, northern, equator, southern and about 5 latitude zones they calibrate for. Learn something about how things ACTUALLY work, before you make sweeping assumptions.
One last thing, maybe stop listening blindly to huxters on the internet, feeding you lies and hoping you don't check them on it. Question everything, don't just stop once your bias is confirmed. You have to be completely deluded and paranoid to believe the Earth is Flat at this point, it's fine to question what you're told, it's completely logical in fact, but a LOT of what makes our modern world tick, requires that we know the true shape and scale of our planet, in order to make it possible. Not a single company or industry or institution of science in the world, uses a Flat Earth geometry to help them build and navigate our world. They ALL unanimously agree, the Earth is a sphere...and that's for a good reason, because it is.
2
-
@dracofirex Ah, well then 😅. From my experience chatting with probably thousands of flat Earthers at this point (it’s a bit of a sad hobby)…yes, that’s the main goal as far as I can tell, to be right…no matter the reality. Most flat Earthers have one thing in common for certain, an inferiority complex. Being right means a lot to them, to the point where they will happily double down on this idea, no matter how much information you share, that will utterly destroy their current conclusions. It’s a normal psychological response really, being wrong does not feel good, it actually can cause a bit of psychological trauma. So denial is a pretty common first step in dealing with that. I believe the brain does what it can to mediate or lessen that trauma, which is why it’s difficult to accept when we’re wrong, it’s just the brain trying its best to regulate the emotional response that inevitably occurs from being wrong, it’s just easing that burden a little bit. But with someone with an extreme inferiority complex, it might as well be a death sentence, cause they just won’t change their mind, the trauma for them would be too severe, they can’t handle it…so they just go deeper.
I remember a clinic psychologist chimed in on this subject a few years back, and his response put it so perfectly, I actually saved the quote. This was his diagnosis of a common thread from patients of his who believed Flat Earth; “Severe inferiority complexes, compensated for by the rigidity of their own non falsifiable belief systems” Raymond Havlicek PhD. Basically, they’re mentally incapable of handling the experience of being wrong, so they gravitated towards a fantasy reality that can’t be falsified…because it’s entirely made up, an unfalsifiable belief system, so they can never be proven wrong again, in their fantasy. In reality the Earth’s shape is falsifiable, but not to them, whatever they say goes….so we’re not dealing with rational people here.
Anyway, I’m no psychologist myself, but it’s certainly something I’ve noticed as well, so I’m inclined to agree with his conclusion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It’s really not dude…we have a whole system of navigation today, built on the knowledge that Earth is spherical. If that knowledge was wrong, then that system simply would not work…but it does, with laser precision. Millions of people use it everyday, to plot successful navigation routes with, so it’s beyond speculation or assumption at this point, it’s a proven fact.
You’re just being ignorant, you can verify the Earth is spherical for yourself, at almost anytime you choose, with just a few simple observations and a basic understanding of geometry. Pull your face away from your screen for awhile and join reality again, go outside, touch grass…this ignorance is getting sad.
2
-
@jaydunn3251 No, I’ve travelled the world…I’ve experienced it first hand. In that time I’ve acquired knowledge and skills that helped me verify Earth’s geometry for myself…skills that anyone can learn. Anyone, at anytime, can learn how navigation works….you learn pretty quickly in navigation what shape the Earth is, and why that knowledge is important to have.
You’re the one speculating here…you are making arguments from ignorance. You don’t have too, if you just acquired some very basic skills, and then went outside and tested them yourself.
If I’m being a dick, it’s because I find ignorance to be very frustrating. It’s clear you don’t know for certain right now, and that’s fine, but you can learn…don’t ever believe you can’t. Learn to navigate, I’m telling you, no better way to verify Earth’s basic surface structure for yourself…millions of people do it every single day.
2
-
Water is inert, and so it conforms to whatever force is acting upon it. Here’s what water will do while put under a constant and steady centrifugal force https://youtu.be/cTCwhicKKwU. Water doesn’t “seek level”, it doesn’t seek anything, it’s not alive, it conforms to forces that put it in motion, like all matter, it just eventually reaches lowest potential energy state. In a field of force such as gravity, lowest potential energy state is closest to centre of force, so it forms around that centre, forming a sphere. A water droplet does the same thing due to surface tension, a bubble does it as well due to air pressure.
You’re not debunking the globe by ignoring forces such as gravity. With Earth as big as it is, water would only appear level from our tiny perspective, you’re not falsifying gravity, nor the globe with your statements, you’re just ignoring physics to reach the conclusion you want to be true.
2
-
Certainly, it’s a flawed experiment, the perfect example of a biased researcher not doing enough to ensure his conclusion is without error. It’s also a perfect reason for why peer review is so crucial to science, because nobody is infallible and huxters do exist.
Johnny is correct, Robotham ignored important variables like refraction, which does effect what we see at distances, but it’s worse than that, he also used the wrong math. 8 inches per mile squared can give you a drop from a tangent line at surface, but we do see further the higher up we are, so height of the observer should be part of the equation as well. He included no such variable in his calculation. So no wonder his calculation didn’t match his observation, that tends to happen when you use the wrong math. Even a standard 6 foot viewing height drastically changes how far you’re able to see. He also didn’t collect enough data or control for hidden variables using proper control experiments. He just took one marker, made one observation, and called it a day…it’s sloppy science. It works very well on an audience with no scientific backgrounds, but that’s about it…though that’s really all you need to sell a grift.
To be fair though, while it’s remembered in science history as a poorly conducted experiment, the experiment itself is actually a good one in premise. So it actually has been repeated (and done much better) many times in the last 200 years, all of which actually verify the Earth is curving. If you’d like a more modern recreation look up the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, it’s far more in depth, with far more conclusive results. The official blog for the expedition has a whole section on refraction too, with clear demonstrations of its effect, if you’re curious as to why it’s an important variable to account for. There’s even a quick video you can find here of the demonstration, just search rainy lake experiment refraction. Atmospheric refraction does effect what we see at distances, essentially allowing us to see further than the geometry alone would allow. That is common knowledge to any surveyor or sailor worth their salt, but not very common knowledge to most other people, so it’s understandable if one would overlook it as a key variable, but not something science should ever overlook, least of all to confirm a conclusion.
Anyway, hope that helps, take care.
2
-
2
-
@Jaredscary Boy....that sure was a whole lot of gish gallop and word salad, displaying for everyone here how little you actually understand about physics. Says he's "icky smart when it comes to this topic" yet didn't bother to do the math when it comes to our rotation. If you have a road that's 24,000 miles long and you're traveling at 1000 mph, how long will it take you to reach the end? Pretty simple...24 hours....not 1 minute. Earth is roughly 24,000 miles circumference...and it takes 24 hours to complete ONE rotation. Soooooo...not very "icky" smart from where we're standing.
Besides that, we do not measure rotations in linear speeds like mph, we measure them in rotations (rpm's). Centrifugal force is increased by the rate of angular velocity change per second, which is effected mostly by rpm's (revolutions per minute). Rule of thumb here is, the more rotations something completes per minute, the higher the rate of angular velocity change per second, the more centrifugal force is generated. Earth completes ONE rotation every 24 hours...that's a VERY slow rotational speed....so guess what, VERY little centrifugal force and VERY little chance of anyone ever noticing that motion by it's inertial output. :/
Learn some physics...or you will continue to be fooled by scams on the internet. I could go through every single one of your points here and point out your errors, but you likely won't listen, if I dump too much information on you at once, so it's pointless. I don't need to do that though, cause it's pretty easy to see your main error in all your conclusions, is your lack of knowledge and understanding of physics. You have rushed your conclusions before considering any of the physics involved and that's why you've reached such false conclusions.
It's very easy to disprove a flat Earth...just try your damndest to explain how a sunset works on a Flat Earth. It doesn't work, basic spacial geometry (and common sense) will tell you that the Sun would NEVER set over a Flat Earth, with a local sun that is rotating above. You would see it 24/7, from everywhere on Earth...even you have to be honest with yourself and realize this isn't logical. Meanwhile, the Globe explains a sunset with absolute ease. The Earth rotates away from the Sun, giving one half visible line of sight to the Sun, the other half facing away in darkness...there, explanation over. It's exactly what we'd expect to see occur, on a Globe. If you're wondering how the 24 hour sun works, just play around with an actual model of the Globe sometime. The tilt in the Earths axis relative to the Sun is why this occurs. Here's a great Globe model simulation you can play with sometime, give it a go. https://drajmarsh.bitbucket.io/earthsun.html
Explain a sunset over a Flat Earth...you'll find it's pretty fucking ridiculous. Again, learn some physics...it's the gap in your knowledge that keeps you from learning how things work. It's fine to question what you're told, even logical, but doesn't matter how smart you think you are, if you lack the pieces to a puzzle, then you will never solve it. The pieces you are missing is your understanding of basic physics...so now go find those pieces, or con artists will continue to take advantage of you.
2
-
@stevebrightmore4937 Depends on what you define as "genuine good research". The internet is full of non experts, con men and trolls, spreading a lot of misinformation. You have to be VERY careful you're not just being taken on a ride by bias researchers, showing you only what they want you to see and hiding the rest of the details that refute their claims. There is no system of peer review on YouTube or any social media, so it makes it pretty easy to make up bullshit and sell it as truth.
I fear that people are being misled by con men, some who are intentionally misleading people, others who are just so deep in their own personal bias, that they can't see how they're wrong. So be careful out there, don't let bias and paranoid lead your thinking, it will strip you of your better reasoning. Remember to turn that skeptical lens around sometime and question the claims made by Flat Earth, don't just listen to them blindly, question them with the same zeal you now question the mainstream with, it's the only way to remain objective.
That being said, have you looked at the Globe side of the debate at all? Are you aware of the main channels that are providing the counter arguments and evidence to the Flat Earth claims? I have been looking at this argument for a little over 3 years now, is there any arguments you are still on the fence with, that you require a little more insight with? I might be able to provide some help. I don't claim to know everything, but I do know this particular subject quite well at this point, so feel free to ask.
Anyway, point is, stay sharp and never turn off that skeptical lens, don't follow this movement blindly, question it as well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aceneto9386 You do not need to go to space, to deduce the shape of the Earth. Just a basic understanding of geometry and a few simple observations is all you need. Here’s what’s sad…for some reason people will believe a stranger online, tell them the Earth is flat, and they’ll believe them completely without question, while meanwhile millions of pilots and sailors around the world are navigating the surface every single day, with extreme precision, using a system of navigation built around the knowledge that Earth is a sphere. Do you need an accurate map to find a destination? Yes, of course you do…so how exactly do you think these people do their jobs, if they don’t have accurate knowledge of the scale and dimensions of the Earth in which they navigate? Stop being so gullible…maybe people should pull their dumb faces away from their phone or computer, long enough to go outside and experience the real world, or open a book.
2
-
2
-
ZACH Yes, people make mistakes, that’s why we have peer review. Of course that refraction demonstration I shared isn’t representative of the ocean...it’s merely to prove that light does indeed refract and it’s caused by changes in air density. Once you know that for certain, then the bullshit argument from Flat Earth saying “refraction isn’t real” becomes a real eye roller. Then it becomes pretty apparent, which side is ignoring variables. Science knows enough about refraction today, that we can actually calculate it, all we require is the refraction index for that day. Here’s a pretty in depth discussion breaking down the math for refraction https://www.metabunk.org/threads/simulating-atmospheric-refraction.7881/.
And here’s an depth recreation of the famous Bedford Level experiment, only this time done across 10 km of frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment Just scroll down to the second half of this report, where they focus on refraction...and let me know if they ignored any variables.
Science is doing it’s best for people...it’s layman who are not actually paying attention, just making a lot of assumptions about science. Science isn’t sure about a lot of things...but the true shape of the Earth, is not one of them.
2
-
2
-
@dominiccharvet546 No, the real trouble is that you're a layman, misunderstanding a LOT about science...not just the concepts it teaches but also the language and the way it operates as well. This leads you to a lot of false conclusions, you don't really know much about science, so you misunderstand it often. That's really all I've seen occur from Flat Earth so far...and it's a real problem.
Everything in physics that is verified and labelled under theory, is proven through experimentation and observation...it's not just numbers on a paper, nothing graduates from hypothesis into theory until it has been verified with evidence and then peer reviewed. Everything can be explained and verified to you if you actually take the time to review it. The real trouble is many people don't bother to look at these experiments and attempt at understanding them, so instead they just make empty claims that they don't exist...or they just make this common gem of an argument "it's just a theory". Which just forfeits you from conversation the moment you make that argument...cause it proves to us you don't know the difference between a scientific theory and a regular theory. Real science isn't easy...it requires a LOT of effort from you, a lot more care and diligence and it requires you remove all bias to seek objective truth only.
Theoretical science is just the sketching phase of science...it's where they draw up the blueprints for future experimentation. I don't think I need to explain to you how important blueprints are for building a house...why would you think they don't require a step like that in science? Tesla was an experimental scientist and an inventor, who felt that every scientist should get their hands dirty and do some experimentation from time to time, rather then just theorize...and he's right, they should. But he was doing just as much math as anyone else...he was a mathematical genius, but he wasn't funded by any university, he did everything himself, so he had no choice but to do the experiments himself...though he preferred it that way, he was a jack of all trades. Theoretical scientists don't generally get paid to do experiments...so they typically don't. Experimental scientists do...they are the next step after drawing up what the math says is possible. After that, it's up to experimental scientists to verify it further...nothing goes past hypothesis in science until it has been verified...so theoretical scientists are not verifying scientific concepts, they're just using math to help us probe deeper into what is possible.
If you understand that the universe functions on mathematical principles, then you can use that language of the universe to help unravel its secrets...that's all they're doing, using another tool to their advantage. You people would ask that they stop........but WHY!?! Because it doesn't make sense to you and that not knowing terrifies you? It's just incredible to me.
Anyway, is there any physics in general you would like to know more about? I might be able to help you with some answers. Use your video you shared for example, pick a proof in there you feel currently that is indisputable and I'll see if I can falsify it and help you with the physics that they're misunderstanding.
2
-
@dominiccharvet546 I will say this much for right now, it's not that Flat Earth doesn't ask great questions, they are the exact same questions scientists once asked on their path to learning more, so they are GREAT questions. The trouble is that Flat Earth holds their questions up as proof, rather then seeking the answers. It's just odd to me really, especially in the information age. I think Flat Earth focuses a bit to much on attempting to falsify our model, which is great and all, that's what science is all about is falsifcation, but focusing so hard on our model lead you to forget to pay attention to your own model...which can't even explain a sunset last I checked. A better question to ask, is why are there two hemispheres? With their own stars, constellations and celestial rotation? These are things the Globe answers with ease, while the Flat Earth does not.
I am a bit busy currently, but I can share this with you. https://drajmarsh.bitbucket.io/earthsun.html It's a very interesting simulation of the Globe that can help you to visualize some of your questions for why the stars don't appear to move during a rotation, it also explains the seasons by showing you how the angle of the Sun moves the direct solar path of the Sun from tropic of Capricorn to Cancer and back again. So play around with it sometime, flip it upside down so you're facing the poles and hit play, it'll rotate the stars for you.
2
-
@dominiccharvet546 "Why is it we can see farther than we should be able to on the ocean?
"
The short answer, we don't, we see exactly as far as we're supposed too. Flat Earth lies about the details or performs bad math or both...then some people don't bother to question things further to see if the information is accurate, it's pretty simple.
The long answer, well, first of all, how far do you think you should be able to see and what math were you using to verify it? A big problem with Flat Earth that I've come across, is that they use the wrong math a lot. A basic rule of thumb in mathematics, always make sure you're using the correct formulas for the proper jobs, or you will risk reaching a false conclusion. So it's simple really, use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion.
So how far do you think you should be able to see and what information are you getting? It's very easy to lie about how far we see...a person can just shoot a number out, tell you we shouldn't see that far and then unless you question him directly on his math and details, how are you supposed to know he's even telling the truth?
Two things you need to make sure you're getting right with long distance observations, you need to make sure you're using the proper math and you need to make sure the details you're receiving are actually accurate. 8 inches per mile squared is the worst offender in flat Earth...this is not the correct math to use for making long distance observations. It does not derive a figure for your line of sight, or for what is hidden from your line of sight due to horizon and curvature...it is missing many key variables that you require to help you discern that. But flat Earth blindly listens to this math anyway...even though it's wrong and it has successfully roped in a lot of people now, who didn't bother to look at it closer to see how it works.
8 inches per mile squared is a basic parabolic equation, it's not for calculating curvature on a sphere...it's only really good for about 100 miles and then it stops being accurate. As I said prior, it doesn't derive a figure for your actual line of sight either, all it's doing is measuring a drop from a tangent line at surface....which means the numbers it gives you are only accurate, if your eye rests at sea level...which is of course NEVER the case. You always look down at horizon and as you go higher in elevation, your horizon extends as your line of sight extends. 8 inches per mile squared does not include a variable for height of the observer....so it is the wrong math completely.
I've seen some other formulas that do a slightly better job, but they still ignore certain variables, such as refraction. Yes...you need to include a variable for atmosphere refraction. Here's a quick experiment that verify's why. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs Refraction is real, it does occur in our atmosphere and yes it does change what see at distances, especially over large bodies of water. It works by increasing the density of the air, which refracts light down, which raises objects behind a curve up. The demonstration I shared makes it pretty clear...this can't be ignored. To do so is being bias. We know enough about refraction today, that we can accurately calculate it.
So you have to make sure you're using the correct math that includes all the variables and doesn't ignore the ones you don't like. Here's a great calculator I have found that is quite accurate, calculating a geometric curvature and a standard refraction curvature. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ And here's a forum discussion breaking down the math in greater detail. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/
Basically, use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it's pretty simple. What's odd to me, is that Flat Earthers don't seem to ever bother to check their math...they just listen blindly to people sharing the same bullshit formulas and they just nod and agree that they're accurate and never check them for accuracy...it's incredible.
The other thing you have to be careful of, getting the proper details. You need to make sure the distances are correct, the height of the observer is correct, the location, etc...it's very easy to fudge the numbers, if you have the wrong details...and it's VERY easy for people to lie online and just give you bullshit numbers. It happens a lot.
So when you ask me "How come we see further then we should?" well give me an example, what did you see that convinced you we see to far and what were the detals, then I can go through the observation with you, cause I can pretty much guarantee you either did the math wrong or the person lied to you about the details of what you're seeing. So you have to VERY careful with this one...the trouble is I don't feel that people are and that's how they fall for this one.
A better question to ask, why do the bottoms of objects disappear first at distance? I've seen photos of distant mountain ranges and people will ask why we can still see them at hundreds of miles...then they'll completely ignore that the pictures were taken from several hundred feet elevation, that the mountain peaks drop from eye level the further they are and that you're only observing the very peaks, that THOUSANDS of feet are missing from the base of those mountains, every single time. How does thousands of feet go missing, if the Earth is flat? That's a much better question to ask.
Here's a few great observations for you if you think we're really seeing to far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQI18jr8Oc&t=28s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_Idg1MA10k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
2
-
@dominiccharvet546 "I have studied both sides for over three years now and have never seen a real picture of earth from space."
3 years and you've never seen a real picture from space? Have you really been looking? Is your search bar broken or something? Here's a great archive of images from the various Apollo missions. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums There are thousands of images archived here, just one of many places online that archives these photos. There are hundreds of pictures of the Earth in here, you just browse through these sometime and then let me know if you feel these are fake or not. I think the Apollo 16 photos are some of the clearest, so take a look at some of their photos found here. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544
If you think they are fake, then tell me how you verified that. Tell me the method you used to reach that conclusion. These are high resolution images, so click on a few Earth images sometime and blow them up as big as they will go and then analyze them closer. I am an artist for a living, to my trained eye, I have yet to find a single brush stroke, paint blotch, or flaw in these photos, which is present in ALL photo realistic paintings. There is no such thing as a 100% photo realistic painting...most people are not aware of that, cause they are not artists. There is always a flaw and a trained eye can spot them easily. So to my eye, these all look VERY legit, but feel free to let me know what you see.
No, you wanna know what I think....you're paranoid and you're allowing people online to feed that paranoia. You've been looking at only ONE side of the argument, I can tell...because you're still asking the same questions they ask, that have answers. Had you actually looked at the Globe side of the debate, you'd know the answers to these questions by now.
The true Globe proponents are out there, they're just not easy to find compared to the Flat Earth con men that have made it their life's obsession to feed you more of this misinformation on the daily. They're not as invested in this mess, so they don't get as many hits, so they are harder to find.
Let's get down to it. Look outside....do you REALLY honestly believe, that all of this amazing technology could exist, but scientists can't figure out something as trivial as the true shape of the planet? You REALLY believe that? At the end of the day....NOTHING out in the real world uses a Flat Earth model in its framework, from navigation, to communication, to science and technology, to infrastructure. Navigation being a big one, nobody is out there right now navigating the world using a Flat Earth model. It should be pretty common sense, but you can not hope to find a destination, if you do not have an accurate map to help you. If we were navigating around a Flat Earth, while using a Global geometry...people would be getting lost every single day. Pilots, ship captains, military personnel and rescue crews, these people rely on our knowledge of the shape and scale of our planet to be accurate, in order to do their jobs. There are two equal hemispheres, and we travel along great circle routes...this would not occur on a Flat Earth.
Just watch some videos from an actual pilot who's spent a lot of time in this mess. https://www.youtube.com/user/Wolfie6020 This guy is an example of some of the bigger names of the Globe Earth proponents on YouTube. When it comes to navigation and knowledge on flight charts, flight paths, the actual working mechanics of an airplane, this guy is quite knowledgeable. If you've really been looking at both sides of this argument, then you'd have found this channel by now. Just give it a look over sometime, lots of great videos making TONS of observations of his own, focusing a lot on world navigation. His videos on plotting flight paths are some of the more interesting, especially the challenge serious when he was asked to plot three 90 degree angles, that return back to starting location....which would be impossible on a Flat Earth, because a triangle can not have 90 degree angles on a flat surface....but a Globe can. He was successful in mapping this on THREE separate trials, using THREE different flight charting methods. And he's not the only one who has also done this. The simple fact is, those are real flight paths, he's charting on real flight charts that actual pilots use. If you can plot these charts, then you can fly them...and so if you can plot three 90 degree turns, tracing a triangle and returning back to starting location...then the Earth is a sphere. It's the only shape that can achieve this. Here's that series for you to have a look, it's quite interesting, it was a long back and forth between him and the guy issuing the challenge, documenting first hand how arrogant Flat Earthers can be....he did his challenge several times over, and still he refused to believe it. That's not thinking rationally...that's just good ol' fashioned denial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FJG65nbUO8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4Fi-86uSqs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU6oEOjk6Yk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_qP-r0asww
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVp_yJgSwfA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScJ4QW7gAlw
Flat Earth is just a paranoid fever dream man. They're filling your head with some bullshit, which is just designed to make you doubt your fellow man. I can keep answering your questions for you if you're still interested. I do enjoy the discussion...but after 3 years of looking for myself, I have now concluded that Flat Earth is a scam and it's getting harder for me lately to have patience with people. It's just incredible to me what these people have actually convinced other people of...and even more shocking that they'll then turn around and use a computer, accessing a massive online network, sending information instantly over WiFi signals...and then they'll tell us that scientists don't really know things? Like holy fuck...that's arrogant. You have to consider the possibility that paranoia and bias are leading you more then rational thought, it's fine to question what you're told, but do you ever turn that lens around on Flat Earth and question them? I'm sure you did at first, but do you still? I have successfully falsified pretty much every claim made by Flat Earth, so I have concluded now, that it is a scam. I can keep going and help you out with things if you'd like some further insight, I do enjoy the civil discussion.
2
-
2
-
Well, then you've just described your bias to us. You're not actually looking for truth, you're only looking for the information that confirms a bias you WANT to be true. Science doesn't operate that way, it doesn't care about what you WANT to be true. So this is not an argument, it just confirms that you have a very strong bias, that leads your thought processes.
Aside from that, how does a massive universe diminish God in anyway? That version of God is truly powerful...having created an IMMENSELY vast universe that we can NEVER fully grasp or ever hope to explore and fully experience. That to me is a truly all powerful God...your version built what exactly, a small terrarium? You really think that's more impressive? No, what you have trouble with is the possibility that YOU are not special...which means you're likely a narcissist who only thinks about himself. It's a very real possibility that YOU have to come to grips with I'm afraid. It doesn't mean you don't matter though, of course you do, nothing matters more in this universe then life! If you really think about it, the universe couldn't exist at all without life to experience it. In a way, you create the universe with your 5 senses, if you couldn't touch, see, hear, taste or smell...then nothing would really exist, cause if you can't experience it in anyway, then how would it exist? Consciousness creates the universe as much as the universe created you...so that means you are VERY special, you're apart of it all, because the universe really doesn't exist if there's no life to experience it...it would just be a waste of time without life. For a lot of us, this is actually very humbling.
That's how many scientists look at it, though actually, most scientists are actually theists like yourself...not the other way around. They have no trouble marrying the concept of their religion, with the current knowledge of the world. Science doesn't work to destroy the concept of God, it likely never will either. It just works to figure out how this reality operates at the mechanical level, nothing more. If you can't figure out how to make the most of this life you have currently, then that's your problem...science really doesn't care. You are not special, but at the same time, you're the most important thing that has ever happened. I know that's a bit fucky to grasp, but for a lot of us, it's quite humbling.
2
-
@JavierGarcia-pg4zg NASA didn't prove the world was round...we figured that out LONG before NASA ever came around. All they did was take the first photographs that HELPED to further verify the Globe. It's a body of knowledge that makes up the entire Globe model, pulling from thousands of different fields of study, compiling thousands of years of near countless research. NASA isn't the sole reason why we believe the Earth is a globe, they're just one of the many contributors.
You yourself can verify the shape of the planet by yourself in your own back yard, with a few simple observations. Just observe any sunset, then try and make sense of that on a Flat Earth. That barely scratches the surface though, but it's not something that can be taken lightly either. Aside from that, nothing in the modern world today uses a Flat Earth model, from navigation, to communication, to science, engineering and infrastructure...it's all built on the foundations of a Globe model. Many of these would not work or continue to function, if the Earth were in fact Flat but was using a Globe model system to operate. Navigation being the biggest one that would fall apart...should be pretty common sense, but you can't hope to find a destination, without an accurate map. If our Maps are not accurate...then people would be getting lost every single day and large scale navigation would fall apart. There are no ship captains, pilots, military personnel, or rescue crews, that use a Flat Earth model to navigate the world with. That's for a good reason.
All Flat Earth is doing, is making people paranoid by sowing the seeds of doubt in them. It's easy online to spread misinformation, just bullshit and share half truths, with a bias narrative attached. Snake oil sellers of old WISH they could have reached as many people as we can today! There are people out there that take real joy from fucking with you so they WILL lie to you. YouTube has no system for checks and balances, no peer review system that weeds out these con men, so they're free to spread misinformation freely. So you have to be very careful who you get your information from. I know their arguments sound convincing on the surface...but don't just listen to them blindly. Question Flat Earth just as much as you now question the mainstream. If you are then great, and it's fine if you are still reaching the opposite conclusion. As much as it might annoy some of us, we can't force you to believe anything you don't want to, as hard as we try, and you shouldn't be mocked for having your own opinion. So don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to mock or discourage you, it's perfectly logical to question what you're told. Just be careful where you get your information from, that's all I ask of people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Buoyancy...you just described the physics of buoyancy, which is directly caused by the downward force of gravity...which is physics 101. Ever noticed that things still fall in a vacuum chamber? No displacement occurring there, just straight down, towards surface, no matter the material dropped. The question is what causes that motion? A force is required for all motion, that's also basic physics. Guess what causes the displacement of matter that occurs in buoyancy? The downward force that pulls denser matter to lowest potential energy. If nothing is pulling that matter down and putting into motion, then how would it push anything out of the way? If nothing is putting it in motion, then how exactly does displacement occur? But go ahead genius, derive me a new working equation for buoyancy that engineers can actually use in the real world, to help them design thing such as ships and ballast tanks, derive an equation that does not use gravity as a variable. Here's the current formula for buoyancy; Fb=Vpg. Go ahead and remove gravity...see how useful it becomes.
Funny how you guys pay attention to the constellations...yet completely seem to forget that the South Hemisphere has it's own stars, its own constellations, its own axis of rotation, around its own pole star, Sigma Octantis. Wonder why that always seems to slip your mind? 🤔
Then you'll talk about physics as if you're the experts....yet completely forget about the laws of motion, namely conservation of momentum. There's nothing in all of physics that's more established and well understood, then the laws of motion...you wanna talk about Physics 101, it's the first thing you learn in physics. Yet you can't seem to understand how a plane lands on a moving surface....jeez dude, maybe go back to school and learn some PHYSICS?!
You're one to talk about "brainwashing" and "indoctrination"...YOU ARE RELIGIOUS! A bible was fed to you since birth and now you believe it all on faith alone, no evidence necessary or required, it's all just true and that's that...cause a book told you it was? And you're gonna lecture us on brainwashing? You have to stand in AWE, of the masters of bullshit and brainwashing, that is all religion. Nothing has robbed humanity of its common sense and better reasoning, more than religion.
Quite frankly, I'm tired of pretending Flat Earthers are not anything but stupid. You guys are absolutely delusional. Get back to us when you have a working model that can actually be used in ANY field of applied science. Until then, it's just another online hoax that some suckers fell for.
2
-
@richardhislop9928 Doesn’t answer at all for the motion, why it’s always in the same direction, why its rate of acceleration is always 9.8m/s^2…you’re not answering for anything, just denying a basic fundamental law of physical reality, that nothing is put into motion without a force first putting it into motion. Last I checked, falling is a motion. The whole point of science is to figure out HOW things work…all you’ve done is stated the obvious, that things fall. Great job…but HOW and WHY? Can’t achieve much if we’re just gonna be lazy and never dig deeper into the functions of reality.
I have no problem with people questioning consensus and challenging established science, go ahead, that’s encouraged in science. The trouble is your conclusions are flawed as shit, and it doesn’t take much thought or effort to see how. So we’re just calling out your obvious errors. So why should any of us just blindly agree with you, if we see right through your bullshit? No, what you’re asking of us is to NOT think for ourselves, that’s what you’re really asking. Welp, whine all you want, but we’re not just gonna roll over and accept information without question. So tough titty.
Again, get back to us when you have a working model. Let us know when you’re able to put it to actual use, in inventing and innovating new technologies. Until then, save your empty babbling.
2
-
@richardhislop9928 Still not answering for the why or the how. Why does matter orientate in the directions it does? How does it fall? Your best answer so far is “somehow”. Well great…if only science could do anything with “somehow”. I’ll give you a further answer, denser matter has more inertia, meaning it’s harder to move by kinetic impacts/forces, so as it’s pulled down by force of gravity to occupy the lowest spaces first, it easily pushes the less dense matter with less inertia out of the way, up in the exact opposite direction of gravity’s pull, because it doesn’t have enough inertia of its own to effect the downward motion of much denser matter, but the dense matter sure does, so it will occupy lowest position first. That’s why buoyancy is always in the same vectors, but opposite direction, of gravity….it’s gravity that causes the effect of buoyancy in the first place, it doesn’t occur without it. The downward force, is what starts the displacement, causing a chain reaction of motion.
This is proven in countless experiments of buoyancy, from dropping things in vacuum, to putting density columns in zero g environments, or free fall. And it’s applied science…that’s why the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2) is a variable in buoyancy equations. It’s no coincidence that this downward acceleration measurement works when applied in buoyancy equations…it’s because they’re directly linked, part of the same chain reaction of events. If it wasn’t, then the equation (Fb=Vpg) would not work when applied.
And either way, you’re babbling on about a lot of physics you only seem to know bits and pieces about…but none of that changes the fact that we’ve measured the Earth, millions of pilots and sailors navigate its surface every single day, it is undoubtedly a sphere. Do you really think they could plot accurate navigation routes around Earth, with precise accuracy, if they didn’t know the true shape and scale, of the surface they navigate? 🤷♂️ Does your personal misunderstandings of physics, change anything about the applied science of navigation? No, it doesn’t…it’s basically just a sleight of hand trick, keep us occupied on the physics that can be juggled and misinterpreted, while more obvious evidence is ignored…but you’re really just fooling yourselves.
Flat Earth is an online hoax, it always has been. You need to get a better bullshit filter…or at the very least, conduct your questioning with a less snarky attitude. You come here with a holier than thow attitude, you’re just inviting the same response in kind. Wouldn’t you rather have a civil conversation, rather than all this dick waving? You flash that ego around, it just gets other egos involved in a negative way…it’s not very productive. We’re thinking for ourselves too, so don’t claim or assume we’re not…if we weren’t, then you’d be having a much easier time here.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Gravity...and the fact that space does not suck. You're confusing the definition of vacuum here, space is not like a household vacuum cleaner that produces a suction, there is no suction in space. If you look up the definition for vacuum, the first definition is "a space completely void of matter", that's what is meant by vacuum in the context of space. It is jsut an empty space...that is all. Since space does not generate suction, there is nothing trying to suck our atmosphere off...but ya now what force does exist? Gravity, that attracts all matter towards the center of gravity, in our case Earth. Gravity is what keeps our oxygen and our atmosphere contained.
There is of course entropy, but what people seem to forget is that entropy can be slowed. You do it all the time, any time you use a thermos to keep your coffee hot. Our Earth does the same thing with gravity keeping entropy contained, slowing it down and keeping atmosphere from being lost due to entropy. It still does occur and it will eventually win in the end, it always does...but it's going to take a VERY long time. Gravity contains atmosphere and it slows the process of entropy as well, essentially keeping it contained.
So this is yet another reason why Flat Earth fights so hard to deny gravity. It's a real problem for their model.
But let's look at it another way, we've sent weather balloons to the fringes of our atmosphere and brought back pressure readings of near perfect vacuum...so where was the barrier? We've taken photos from these heights and there is clearly black space above our blue atmosphere below, so again...where is this barrier? It is a physical tangible medium isn't it? So why haven't we interacted with it yet? Why haven't we bounced or refracted lasers or radar off of it yet? Why haven't we hit it with anything yet?
See the issue? We have not found any evidence for this "container"...but we have found tons of evidence for gravity. So what would you like science to conclude? Would you prefer they ignore the evidence and follow bias instead?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, you probably believed the words of some stranger online without question, who was preaching about Flat Earth, so what makes you think you weren’t just deceived by conmen? Why believe the words of strangers online, who have most likely never contributed to any field of science or engineering? 🤷♂️ Why so quick to trust people who have never demonstrated that they actually know what they’re talking about?
Also, it’s not “see curvature every 8 miles”, it’s “8 inches of curvature squared every mile”, big difference…though that’s not even quite accurate, just another half truth Flat Earth uses to con people. As for curvature, here’s some basic geometry demonstrated for you https://youtu.be/U8Vz9r2yWO8. The closer you are to the surface of a sphere, the flatter it appears, so you can’t be so quick to assume that it’s flat, just because it looks flat.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Observe one sunset, then realize how impossible that is on a flat Earth. Or, learn to navigate like an old sailor, and ask yourself why they have to use geodetic conversions to properly complete their routes. Actually...the entire craft of navigation is built on the conclusion that Earth is a sphere, from measuring the angle of Polaris to the horizon to help find your latitude and thus triangulate your position, to being able to circumnavigate, to there being two equally sized hemispheres, the list goes on. Anyone who’s spent time actually navigating the Earth, knows for absolute certain that it’s a sphere. Because it should be pretty common sense, that if people are going to navigate successfully, they’re going to need an accurate map/model to help them do that. And since there’s millions of people out there doing that right now, finding their destinations with perfect precision, while using globe coordinates to help them do it...it’s pretty easy to realize that flat Earth is just an Internet hoax.
2
-
2
-
False, Earth’s rotation has been detected and measured in several different ways. From ring laser gyros and Foucault Pendulums experiments that do detect it, to the gyro compass which uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function, to Coriolis effect which is well documented and is exactly what we’d expect to see occur on a rotating sphere. Ignorance of the science is not an argument and it changes nothing.
No, neither Einstein or Tesla said that. Only Flat Earth peddles density and buoyancy, no actual scientists say or believe that nonsense, just layman online who were successfully conned by huxters. Einstein determined that gravity isn’t technically a force by the regular definition, just motion through curved space time, doesn’t mean he was saying it doesn’t exist. It still behaves as a force from our perspective, so it can still be treated as such, Einstein made that pretty clear. Tesla disagreed with Einsteins conclusion of General Relativity, but understand that in his time, the science wasn’t yet conclusive, there was still room for argument. Genius does not imply a person can never be wrong, people need to really stop thinking it does.
There is a small nugget of truth here though, density causes space time to curve, so in a way, density does cause the effect of gravity. Though it’s still an attractive motion we observe between two masses, so that attraction needs a name, makes it easier to know what is being discussed. Denying a very obvious motion of nature, just to win an argument, not a very sound strategy to reaching objective truth. Density is just a property of matter, that is already defined as how much mass occupies a certain volume of space, so it can’t be both a force and a state of matter, doesn’t fit the definition. Gravity is the name we give that downward motion, buoyancy is the upward motion. Buoyancy however, does not occur without gravity. The downward acceleration of matter is the direct cause of density displacement, which causes buoyancy.
FE is just trying desperately to rewrite physics to fit what they want to be true. That’s not science, it’s confirmation bias. It’s akin to ramming a puzzle piece into place, even though it clearly doesn’t fit.
2
-
2
-
@KangenAlec So a vaccine takes time to distribute, nobody is taking it at the same time, meanwhile people who have taken it are dying in droves, numbers that would be impossible to hide...don’t ya think people would stop taking it pretty much immediately after that? It’s not as simple as you think, that is a dumb strategy...people would be demanding the ring leaders heads on a pike, after a scandal like that. On top of that, many people won’t take it, cause they’re paranoid...so these paranoid people are all that’s left? Why would any ruling class want these paranoid people to be the only ones left? They wouldn’t, these are the first people they’d want gone, they’d want only the people who comply, to be around...so you’d make sure the virus is real and the vaccine works...kull the heard of these recklessly paranoid people, and then they look like heroes instead of murderers at the same time. Far better strategy.
But it’s more likely, the internet has created these boogeymen, and you fell for the hysteria...it doesn’t really exist. Either way, YOU can’t even figure out the Earth isn’t flat, so no reason to trust your judgment on anything.
2
-
@emeraldamb4771 The title of the video is “WHY people think the Earth is flat”. Where in that title does it say this was intended as a debunk? 🤷♂️ This isn’t a science channel, Johnny is an independent journalist, he’s just delving into the ideology of Flat Earth, not so much the science.
But the point of repeating that experiment was meant as a joke…and jokes aren’t as funny if you have to explain them, but I’ll explain it anyway. It’s an inconclusive experiment, it ignores gravity physics entirely, so it’s not a valid experiment, but many Flat Earthers don’t understand how it’s flawed. But anyone with even a basic understanding of physics (so most people) can almost immediately realize how it’s stupid…you can’t use a spirit level to determine Earth’s surface shape, any more than you can use a compass to determine the shape of a magnet. It will follow the force of gravity…rendering it impossible to determine Earth’s shape, using that tool.
So repeating the experiment was done as a jab at them…but it also helps make a point, and it fits with the main theme of the video. A big reason people become Flat Earthers, is because they’re stupid. This was a nice way of pointing it out, without directly saying it…he was being polite, through subtle mockery.
That’s the point. This video is not a debunk, it’s putting a lens on the people who fall for this shit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As was already mentioned, refraction is basic physics, it’s well documented and studied, it’s very real. I’m sure you’re aware of it’s effect, you’ve gone swimming before I’m sure, so I’m sure you’re aware that objects under the water appear in a slightly different location than they actually are, that’s due to light refraction. That shimmering effect off a hot road in the summer, that’s light refraction. Mirages, light refraction.
This is common knowledge for any scientist, surveyor, sailor, etc…refraction will effect what you see at distances, so it must always be factored. I get that it’s not common knowledge for many in the general public, but you live in the information age…you could search it anytime, and learn all about it, even see some simple experiments that verify it.
For a great demonstration, look up the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, has a whole section on refraction with some great video demonstrations and photos.
It’s great that Robotham (Parallax) was doing his own experiments, but that doesn’t automatically mean he was doing it correctly and without errors. This is why we have peer review in science, because errors are actually pretty common in experimentation, often takes a different set of eyes to catch them, because we all (unfortunately) have our own cognitive biases, and limitations in knowledge and experience.
2
-
@shahmielhakim1510 So if it renders, then the coding exists...so the destination technically exists, right? Listen, it’s well understood in philosophy that really the only thing you can be certain of is that YOU exist; “I think, therefore I am”. But so what? A person can go crazy thinking in nihilism, robs you of truly enjoying the only life you can be certain of. Get out and travel, you’ll be glad you did...believe it’s just “rendered” all you want, doesn’t really matter, if it’s there when you get there, then it exists within time and space. And if it un-renders when you’re gone, then it still exists in time and in a memory...so it still technically exists. It’s a waste of time worrying about existence in nihilistic terms, might as well just enjoy it.
I mean, technically, your five senses create your reality for you...so technically YOU create the universe, just as much as it creates you...so technically, life has never been anything but a simulation, doesn’t mean it’s not real...you’re experiencing it, aren’t you? Even a simulation exists physically in the form of coding and experienced through your physical sense of vision...so it technically exists. Best to just make the most of it.
But...what do I know, I’m just a bot programmed for optimism. 🦾🤖
2
-
2
-
2
-
@phiteonn3541 What subject exactly? You didn’t really share anything substantial or of relevance to Earth science, just shared the name and channel of a known conman, as if we should all be impressed. So I warned others of your source, just as you warned people of the FE society, seemed like that was the topic. Now I’ll mention some more info on your source, because I’m free to warn people of whomever I wish, if I feel it’s worth mentioning.
He’s not a recognized expert in any field relevant to the discussion, he’s a yoga teacher...to my knowledge, he has no secondary education or experience in anything relevant to Earth science. So why should anybody take him seriously on something he has no real expertise with? He just makes up bullshit, shooting off mountains of gish gallop and empty claims, while expecting everyone to agree without question, to pat him on the back...for what exactly? It’s only made worse by the fact he’s a Nazi sympathizer...though I agree, even a broken clock is still right twice a day, it still says a lot about his character.
You felt it necessary to let people know something about FE society, so I’m just doing the same, and warning them of Dubay.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@babystwo4003 Ok, his second claim from his 200 proofs video is that horizon always rises to eye level. Now have you ever stopped to realize first of all, that he doesn't share any evidence for that claim, just states is bluntly and then moves on to make 198 other empty claims with no evidence to support them? Have you ever bothered to question this claim or any of the others he makes? Let's look at this claim a bit closer. It's pretty simple really, if the Earth is flat, then horizon should rise with eye level as you go higher in altitude. If the Earth is a sphere, it should drop from eye level the higher you go in altitude. Very simple premise and accurate, according to spacial geometry and perspective.
So is there a way to measure eye level and see if it actually rises or stays the same? Yes, I am aware of 2 ways you can test it. One is with a simple leveling rig, you can build with supplies kicking around your home. The other is with a surveyors tool known as a theodolite, which is a tool designed to measure horizon for topography purposes. So let's look at an example of each and see what they can tell us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUr9ymz_nVI - leveling rig.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVTgP-KpyRc&t - theodoolite.
Both of these quite clearly demonstrate that horizon does not in fact rise with eye level, it actually drops, which is what it should do on a Globe. To take it further, can we calculate by how much the horizon should drop on a globe at our scale? Yes, here is website where you can watch a demonstration that has simulated that calculation and compared it to real world observations. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth Just click on the yellow outlined tab labelled "Curve" in the top left corner of the simulator, and then watch the demonstration. The calculations fit with reality perfectly...verifying the Earths projected scale is accurate.
So first of all, Dubay conned you here with a simple slight of hand trick, presenting an empty claim that you didn't bother to question, keeping you focused on his claim while he moved on without presenting any evidence to verify it. Second, had you bothered to question it and look into it further, you'd have maybe learned that there are valid ways to test this claim. Had you looked at those experiments that can be used to test this claim, you'd have learned that his claim does not support what we actually see in reality. Horizon does not rise to eye level, it drops the higher you go in elevation, that is what we actually measure in reality. So he lied...and had you stopped to question him, you'd have maybe caught that lie. What makes you think he's not doing the same on all 200 proofs?
Eric Dubay is a con man....and you're falling right into his lies like a sucker. Don't just listen to his ramblings blindy, QUESTION his claims...you might learn who the real liar is.
Now that was one claim that I picked from his list of "200 ways to lie about and misunderstand reality", feel free to pick another for me to debunk and I'll be glad to help you out.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@terry3002 So the Moon is what, about the size of a dime from Earth (in apparent size by distance). Ok, so Earth would be, maybe the size of a silver dollar by comparison? Maybe slightly bigger? Point is, it doesn’t sound like you’ve really thought about this very well, just leaning hard into bias. It’s not gonna fill the whole sky, like movies always portray it, so I think you’re just wrestling with preconceived expectations, and not really thinking about it much. Here’s a thought, if they were going to fake the Moon landing down to the last detail...why would they fuck up the Earths apparent size? It’s a pretty weak argument I feel, not really thought through very well.
The Suez Canal is a sea level canal, at the same elevation as the rest of the ocean is. The Panama canal is not, it climbs over a mountain range, so it’s not level with the sea, so the locks are required to go over the land mass, to raise its elevation. Though your main trouble here is in thinking the word level has only one definition, that being flat. Your argument here ignores or is not aware of what an equipotential surface is...which is another definition for level, a surface with all points at equal distance from a centre. Gravity keeps the surface of water at equipotential. I understand you don’t agree gravity is real, but you do agree matter is drawn to surface...what do you think it’s going to do if that field of force, whatever you choose to believe it is, builds around a centre point? Point is, you’re not really falsifying anything here, you’re just ignoring variables. It’s an argument from ignorance at its core.
Air bubbles...or ice and material debris? You’re just speculating really, so certain it’s air bubbles, when it could be many other possible things. Though have you ever seen how many bubbles are typically ejected from a breathing apparatus under water? You really think one or two tiny bubbles are all they’re going to produce?
So they train in a pool...so what? They kind of have to know how to do their jobs, before they go and actually do it, and a pool is the closest thing they can get, to simulate the environment, but it’s not perfect. There’s gonna many differences that would be perceivable, even after a post production. It’s just not a practical environment for filming that sort of stuff in, they would just use green screen and wires. Point is, all you can do is really speculate here...do you really like forming conclusions around speculations alone? Doesn’t make for a very strong argument.
So none of these are very good arguments...you’re just speculating, ignoring variables, making up your own science when it suits you, none of which is verified...it’s just a very convoluted mess of nonsense...all so you can rationalize a hoax made up by non experts online.
2
-
Ya…cause engineers don’t use any physics to design anything. 🙄 So how does your phone, tablet or computer access wifi? Is it magic that your remote is using to switch on your TV and adjust volume? 🧐 So the electricity that powers and heats your home was a simple undertaking that didn’t require scientists to figure out?
It’s incredible how privileged and ungrateful people have become…you take advantage of technology created with knowledge of physics, every single day, from your car, to the fridge, to the microwave, computer, phone, radio, etc, etc, etc. Engineers and inventors can’t create any of it, without a working knowledge of physics…that’s a fact, not an opinion.
When did people become so ignorant and ungrateful? 😔
2
-
2
-
@chrisross4898 You’re declaring victory before you’ve even heard the explanation, or bothered to understand it...how is that winning? You’re just denying the opposition any chance to respond, and you’re not even considering the possibility that YOU are the one that’s possibly missing something.
I don’t mind explaining how gravity creates buoyancy, but learning is a two way street, can’t learn anything if you’re not really interested in listening. I’m not asking you to agree with any conclusions outright, only asking that you take the time to actually listen to them and consider them. So I’ll take the time to explain buoyancy physics a little better, I don’t mind. What you do with this info after the fact, that’s up to you. I’ll try and keep it as short and simple as I can, but science is seldom simple.
So first of all, we’re settled on the force of nature that causes matter to fall, correct? We both agree It does occur, we all have experience with it, we can both agree that it’s a force of nature. This force is always orientated down, toward surface. Ok, so we also have buoyancy, you’ve observed this effect as well, bubbles of trapped oxygen under water, always rise up, these are the basic facts I’m sure we agree on. But have you ever wondered why they rise up? I mean, if everything else goes down, why do lighter objects in water rise up instead? Because of density. The water is more dense than the air, so it’s going to occupy lowest point first, so in doing that, it forces air up...causing buoyancy. Buoyancy is just density displacement, that’s all it is, heavier objects occupy lowest point first, forcing lighter objects up, pretty simple. That’s where even FE would agree with modern science.
What you might not be aware of, is that it’s the downward motion of gravity+contact with the surface, that starts this reaction. It’s gravity that is pulling dense matter down, so that’s why dense matter occupies lowest point, so it’s gravity that is basically telling matter in which direction to begin stacking by density. Have you ever seen a density column before? https://youtu.be/-CDkJuo_LYs?t=69 These are all different liquids, of varying densities, ordered by density, heaviest to lightest. It’s the direction you should pay attention too, heavier mass is always down, lighter mass always up. Ok, but have you ever seen a density column in zero g, in free fall? https://youtu.be/rpP-7dhm9DI?t=182 Notice how when the inertial force of gravity is removed (that is gravity+contact with surface creating weight inertia), the liquids begin to mix, forming no columns ordered by any density? Everything, no matter its density, falls at the same rate of acceleration 9.8m/s^2, so they’re going to mix rather than order themselves, while in free fall. This test teaches us something about buoyancy, remove gravity inertia, and buoyancy can no longer occur. So buoyancy requires gravity to function, it doesn’t happen without it.
This is well understood in engineering. This here is the basic formula for buoyancy: Fb=Vpg, that little “g” in the formula, that’s the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2). Remove that from this equation, and engineers would have a very hard time designing ballasts for ships and submarines. Gravity is a huge part of why buoyancy occurs at all, it doesn’t exist without it. This is knowledge currently used in engineering today, making it an applied science. So there’s no argument here, the downward motion of gravity, directly creates buoyancy. Every engineer knows this.
So a spirit level is basically just a two part density column, liquid and air, pretty simple. But the bubble is created by buoyancy, that’s what separates the liquid from the gas, and that’s also what moves it around within the column. So it’s simple deduction at this point, if gravity is the direct cause of buoyancy, buoyancy being just the opposite direction of gravity, then it shares vectors with gravity. So the bubble is levelling to gravity vectors. A vector is just basically a straight line path, in this case, a line of force, gravity up, buoyancy down, sharing the exact same vector.
On the globe, gravity vectors change angles as you move along the surface, but always point to centre of Earth. So this means, the bubble in the level will not appear to move as you travel along the curved surface, because gravity vectors are shifting, at the same exact rate as the angle shifts for the level. Opposite will occur on a flat Earth, if we assume gravity vectors only have one angle, that being 90 degrees to the flat surface. In either model, the bubble will not move...so if the bubble won’t move in either model, then it doesn’t verify or falsify either model. So this means, the experiment is inconclusive....that’s what we call an experiment that doesn’t verify or falsify anything.
Simply put, It’s just a bad experiment. FE thinks it proves their model...but the moment they conclude that, is the moment it becomes very clear, that they don’t understand gravity and buoyancy physics at all. That’s not really our problem, it’s theirs. Learn buoyancy physics, and you’ll better understand why it’s a bad experiment. I hope this helps a bit, at the very least to get you started into researching more on the subject.
2
-
2
-
2
-
It’s a great mental exorcise, some of us enjoy the challenge, we sharpen our debating and logic skills in these chats, and we can often learn more about science we didn’t otherwise know before, so it’s engaging in so many ways. The other benefit, is that we don’t just allow misinformation to go unchecked or unchallenged, we’re falsifying potential lies and keeping others from potentially falling for them. We’re conducting a sort of public peer review, and peer review is a very important step in science, it’s how we weed out errors, bias and lies. Which is needed, because people are free to say almost whatever they want online, and they can reach potentially millions of people...which makes it a con mans paradise. Misinformation spreads just as fast if not faster than actual information, by challenging claims made, we’re making an effort to create some oversight here.
The draw back here can be that we’re just helping spread their message/argument for them. Which is a real concern and is precisely why big televised public debates with big name scientists should never occur, because it would just do more for FE, spreading their ideas by giving them exposure. Stupid people will always exist, and they’re easily dazzled in debates, even if one side is demonstrably wrong, if that side is wittier, funnier, quicker, and charming enough, they can still win a debate in the audience eyes, even while being completely wrong. We all love a good underdog story too, and they’re the ultimate underdog of science...so they already have that edge.
But, videos on YouTube and comments made in chats, really keeps things relatively isolated. We can challenge them here, without really spreading their message very far at all, just provide the information they intentionally overlook, and maybe help keep someone who’s on the fence from falling in the rabbit hole. It’s fun, we learn a lot and we get to snuff out misinformation, it’s win, win, win.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It’s what plants crave!! 💪😎👍
But seriously, you seem to have a lot of misunderstandings of physics. It’s gravity that gives everything weight in the first place. You don’t always have weight, what you have is mass, but mass is directionless. Weight is a consequence of you being squeezed to surface, by gravity…hence why you’re considered weightless, while in free fall. I mean, I’m sure you understand how a scale works? You push down on the surface, generating pressure, it then gives you a weight value…without the downward force though, how do you generate that pressure? Hmmmm….I wonder…🧐
So it’s a bit telling that you think it’s “trillions of tons sticking to a ball”…well there’s your problem, you don’t quite understand how gravity works, or its correlation to weight for that matter. Tell me, how are YOUR own personal misunderstandings an argument? 🤷♂️ You’re just telegraphing how scientifically illiterate you are…not a great start.
It’s not “trillions of tons”, it’s really trillions of litres, stuck at the bottom of a gravity well. That’s a better way to think about it. Pour water into a hole, it falls to lowest position and rests at the bottom…where’s it gonna go from there? Does it have legs, arms, wings? Is it alive? Can it climb out? 😅 No, obviously it’s just gonna rest at lowest point…lowest point is at centre of Earth, that’s where the “bottom” of the gravity well is. Make better sense yet?
Now, you can obviously climb out of a hole with no trouble, correct? You’re alive, you generate energy you can then use to resist gravity. Water doesn’t, so it just conforms to whatever force is acting upon it, falling to lowest potentially energy.
Balloons and dandelions, are very nearly lighter than air, so the air around them displaces them…it’s called buoyancy. Yes, buoyancy occurs in the air as well, air is treated as a fluid in physics, in fact all gases are…feel free to look that up anytime you’d like. Buoyancy displacement is why balloons and dandelions float, the air is more dense, so ot occupies lowest position first, displacing everything lighter, forcing it upwards. Buoyancy is directly caused by gravity, hence the buoyancy equation Fb=Vpg. Notice the little ‘g’ in the equation? That’s gravity.
1000 mph is a linear velocity. Linear velocity means basically nothing, to centrifugal force. So you’re focusing on the wrong figure and not really thinking about it much beyond that. Centrifugal force is dependent on rate of rotation, so a better unit to use would be a rotational unit, like revolutions per minute (RPM). Earth rotates at the rate of 1 complete rotation, every 24 hours…that’s roughly 0.000694 RPM’s. Not very fast at all. Rotate anything at the rate of 1 revolution every 24 hours, would you expect much centrifugal force? 🤷♂️ Not likely. So gravity has no trouble at all overcoming this. So the oceans have nowhere else to go, but towards the only force that is present, gravity.
Either way, your misunderstandings of basic physics is your problem…your knowledge of physics is lacking, right across the board! These aren’t arguments or insights you have, they are personal misunderstandings, born from a lack of knowledge in basic physics.
In any case…I thought this was an argument of surface geometry, so shouldn’t it focus on the geometry first? 🤷♂️ You know…the whole point of the argument? Little hard to understand the larger model, if you don’t first know the foundation from which it’s built.
Lots of geometric evidence that Earth is spherical, from the two hemispheres with their own stars and rotations, to sunsets, to lunar eclipses, and I mean nautical navigation is all built on the knowledge that Earth is spherical…so how exactly are millions of pilots and sailor successfully navigating the Earth, if they don’t really know the true surface geometry of the thing they’re navigating? 🤷♂️ Do you really think they’d be able to do that?
We’re not being presumptuous…we know how Flat Earth is wrong, we’re just trying to help you guys wake up and see it as well. Learn some physics please.
2
-
2
-
@3MTurbo I will just point this out as well, when it comes to the lack of "measured curvature" that Flat Earth keeps ranting about with long distance photos, there is one simple flaw to what they're doing here, bad math. Flat Earth only does about as much research as it takes to confirm their bias and then they never go back and review their work, this has led them to making many errors, one of which is the math they use for long distance observations, the worst offender being the 8 inches per mile squared equation. It is the wrong math for what they use it for. Simple rule of thumb in mathematics, make sure you're using the correct math, or you will reach a false conclusion, it's pretty simple. They use the wrong math, which gives them bigger figures that don't match with their observations in the real world, and then instead of going back to make sure their math was correct, instead they just conclude the Earth is Flat. That's what they're doing wrong here and it's puzzling to me that they never go back and look if the error is actually with their work. But it's confirmation bias, that's how it works, they don't really care, as long as the figures support their bias, they consider the work done for them.
Here's the correct math in case you were wondering. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ This is a handy calculator that does most of the work for you, you just require height of the observer (one of many variables that is missed in the 8 inches per mile squared formula) and distance to the object being viewed. Here's a forum discussion breaking down the math being used here and explaining further why it's accurate. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ If you scroll down in the first metabunk link I shared, you'll even find a handy diagram that shows you what's being calculated. If you scroll down and take a look at the diagram, pay attention to the dotted black line labelled "Surface Level" and then the solid black line going down from there labelled "Drop". That's the 8 inches per mile math, that's all it's calculating, a tangent from surface with a drop from that tangent back down to surface. It does not represent your line of sight, so the figures it gives you are not correct. Now pay attention to the solid green line coming out from the "Eye/Camera", that is what this math is calculating for, you're actual line of sight. You'll notice that it is able to see things under the surface level line...that's why the 8 inches math is wrong. Flat Earth calculates from that tangent, which doesn't represent horizon or line of sight, and then they wonder why their figures are so big and why they don't match with reality...gee, I wonder why. Flat Earth knows most people are not very savvy with math, most people don't know where to even begin checking the math for accuracy, so they use that lack of knowledge against people and then just slot in some bullshit and hope people fall for it. Sadly it works.
The other thing they do here, is lie about the details, so it's very important you get ALL the correct details from them and not just the ones they tell you, cause they will lie about them as often as they can. I've found that as soon as you start digging for the correct details from them, they tend to stop talking to you, but just pay attention to locations and do your best to confirm them, if they have photos then great, you have something to work with. Lots of videos now from people analyzing long distance photos and checking their math, here's some great channels to check out that do this.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNgj9YOmYzAPIMGy-1BQDEw/videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCISF_4OoXm5xF8jNsoJle1g/videos
Refraction is another thing they ignore, and I understand why, most people don't realize refraction happens in our atmosphere and even less understand how it works. So they ignore it, cause they don't believe it's real or they haven't been convinced of it yet. That's fine really, can't expect anybody to believe something if they've never seen it demonstrated. So here's a pretty clear demonstration of refraction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs Refraction happens, especially over large bodies of water, it does cause light to bend which does change what we see, which does make things visible past geometric horizon, so it is a variable that can't be ignored. The math I shared above also includes a standard refraction index, it calculates both a geometric curvature and a refracted curvature, so it's important to know what refraction is and factor it in.
Lastly, I'll just leave you with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU It's a pretty interesting simulation of topography data, taking one of Jtolans infamous infrared long distance photos and showing you what it would actually look like if the Earth were flat. It's a very good piece of evidence that I feel is a final nail in the coffin for Flat Earthers claims about curvature. The whole demo is great, but If you're pressed for time just watch the final 2 minutes where he compares both models.
Anyway, sorry this got a bit long again, I just like to be thorough. Again, I hope the information is at the very least interesting. If you got anymore questions or points to make, feel free to ask.
2
-
@DirtyTalkTv No, he’s actually correct. It’s called the universal law of gravitation, and Einstein’s relativity does not invalidate this law. Laws merely describe WHAT is occurring, relativity is a scientific theory which goes a bit deeper into explaining HOW it works. The law is that mass attracts mass, relativity just explains how, through a bending in space and time. The law itself still holds true, mass does attract mass.
What Einstein invalidated was Newton’s idea that time is a constant…he proved it is not, it’s relative, it depends on the acceleration of the observer. The rest he didn’t falsify, he just improved upon the already existing model that mass attracts mass. The universal law of gravitation still holds true to this day.
He’s also correct that you do sort of forfeit yourself from conversations of science the moment you argue that something is “only a theory”. It’s not that simple, because a scientific theory is not the same as a regular theory. If you’re not aware of how, then that tells us your real problem, scientific illiteracy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
In my 3 years of researching the Flat Earth topic, I have not come across any mathematical evidence of a Flat Earth (not in the literal sense anyway, hypotheticals sure)...what I have come across though is people using the WRONG math, and then calling their work good, never bothering to check if maybe the math they were using was inaccurate. There's a very simple rule of thumb in mathematics, use the wrong math for the wrong job and you will reach a false conclusion...it's pretty simple. That's how they fool a lot of people into believing the Earth is flat, because most people are not mathematically literate...and they know that, so most people can easily be fooled with simple math presented with a claim of accuracy. Present them with a half truth, a formula for a basic parabolic arc (8 inches per mile squared), which is an easy formula anyone can understand that can be used for curves (up to a point), and then tell them that this formula is how you discern curvature on Earth and what is hidden from sight by curvature.
What they don't tell people, is that a parabolic arc equation does not represent your line of sight, it does not tell you where horizon is, it does not include a variable for height of the observer, or height of the object being viewed, it does not calculate arc length, and it completely ignores the science of atmospheric refraction. All that math does is calculates a drop from a tangent line at your starting position...that's it. The figures it generates don't even represent eye level...and they also don't represent true circular curvature, it's only good for about 100 miles.
It's basically the equivalent of a slight of hand trick or misdirection, dazzling dumb people with an equation that they focus on...but know NOTHING about, and then convincing them that this is all they need, that the figures it generates are accurate for what they're attempting to solve for. In truth though, it's bogus, it is the wrong math to use...and any real mathematician would tell you this, but they use it anyway. 8 inches per mile squared is the worst offender of this clever misdirection illusion, but it's not the only example of bad math I've seen used in Flat Earth...it's pretty common...it's one of their best tricks, which is exploiting peoples lack of knowledge and using it against them.
There are no scientists or mathematicians finding evidence that suggests flat Earth is in any way possible...not to my immediate knowledge anyway. The only way it's possible, is if all of these people were to ignore gravity...but that's not something any of them are about to do, unless they're willing to put their careers on the line. Mocking up hypotheticals however, sure, mathematicians do this all the time...an example is the simulation theory, that being that we are all just in a simulation. In that context, it could be possible...but this is a hypothetical (currently) that assumes a lot and it ignores a lot of physics to make it work out. If that's what you're referring too, is hypothetical calculations, then you have to understand that these are not evidence...they are hypothetical, the moment you use them as evidence, they only become speculative....meaning still not evidence.
Anyway, sorry for the ramble, in all honestly I don't know what evidence you are referring too, so I shouldn't assume to know what you're talking about. But, in my experience so far, I have not seen any scientists or mathematicians finding mathematical evidence for a flat Earth, quite the opposite in fact. But, feel free to share with me what you are referring too, and I'd be happy to take a look.
1
-
False, one successfully plotted navigation, using the current system of navigation designed on the knowledge Earth is spherical, and you pretty much prove Earth’s shape right there. Considering the millions of successful flights and sea voyages occurring on a daily basis, all using this system, I’d say this discussion is long over.
Those are math simplification models…they’re not making literal statements, or stating conclusions. They are taking complicated equations, and stripping their variables of anything that are not required for what they’ll be used for…it makes the math simpler, which speeds up production. When they remove variables to simplify math in these models, they then have to state VERY CLEARLY what variables are being omitted or changed.
Many of those papers also assume a perfectly rigid vehicle of constant mass…two variables that are also not reality, that are impossible for any aircraft to obtain. Why doesn’t Flat Earth mention that? Cause it doesn’t support their bias narrative they’re trying to sell. What we have here is classic cherry picking, a form of confirmation bias. Layman, misinterpreting something they do not understand.
1
-
1
-
@n54ll64 Earth does all 3 of those...see you're just ignoring a huge part of the physics, that gravity can not be scaled down,...especially not while INSIDE of a powerful gravity well. You're making up bullshit experiments and ignoring basic physics, it's the equivalent of a slight of hand trick. This is why very few people takes you people seriously...cause they realize right away how stupid it is to ask for what you're asking for. It ignores the key tenants of gravity, and pretends it doesn't exist. Meanwhile, the Earth is doing all of those things, so it's Earth you should put to the test if you wanna see these things....it does all 3.
I have a challenge for you. Explain why the Southern hemisphere has its own stars and its own celestial rotation around their own pole star, Sigma Octantis? This is exactly what we'd expect to see occur on a globe....doesn't make any fucking sense on a Flat Earth.
Just one of several simple observational examples that Flat Earth has you ignoring, while they get you focusing on misunderstood physics that turns you into idiots. It's not our problem you think denial is adequate enough to falsify gravity....the Earth is doing exactly what you're asking for right this second, so make observations of the Earth, and pay attention when you do.
1
-
1
-
@n54ll64 I don't have too recreate them, and neither does anyone else. All you really have to do is realize and point out why your "challenges" are illogical.
1) Any water you put on a tiny ball, while you're on Earth, will be pulled to the stronger gravity well of Earth, and drop off that ball...rendering it impossible to give a conclusive observation of the gravity of that tinier ball. This means it's an impossible experiment to do while on Earth, because you won't be able to get a conclusive result...doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist, just means your experiment is stupid because it ignores how gravity works. The gravity of Earth doesn't just shut off when you put water on a smaller ball...the gravity of Earth is going to pull all that water off your ball. It's incredible some people have trouble understanding this.
2) To produce a vacuum while inside of a pressurized environment (Earths atmosphere, which we live inside), you need something to keep that atmosphere from entering your vacuum you're attempting to create...this requires a barrier, that's why vacuum chambers are made in CHAMBERS. Little hard to create a vacuum, with atmosphere all around you. So what's really the impossibly hard part is creating a vacuum while INSIDE of a pressurized environment. But if you've ever seen what smoke or gas does in a vacuum chamber, you'll know that it falls to the bottom and doesn't disperse into the chamber....basic physics. https://youtu.be/Yb2YuC7UbwI?t=142 Doesn't mean true vacuum doesn't exist outside of our atmosphere...just means you're focusing on the wrong details and ignoring everything else. It's a fact that pressure decreases the higher you go, it's a gradient. It's also a fact that weather balloons gone up in high atmosphere eventually pop...like they would in a vacuum. So while the vacuum HAS evidence, your dome does not. So the real question is, where is this fucking barrier that you think is up there? Why haven't we discovered it? Where's the evidence that proves it exists? We've measured space, we've been there, it's uneniable, there's a vacuum up there...so all your challenge does is distracts people from looking at things objectively. You're getting people to focus on physics, twisting lies around it to keep them from reazling...there is no evidence of the dome....just a broken argument of the dome. Pretty ironic that a group that demands so much from the Globe, doesn't think the same standard applies to them. You believe in a barrier, that has no evidence for it....pretty funny.
3) Level does not mean flat. If you've been speaking the English language long enough, you'll know that single words take on different definitions, depending on the context. Level in geometry and topography for example, can be defined as "maintaining a 90 degree perpendicular to a point of reference". In the case of topography, that reference point is center of Earth. So first you have to stop forcing words to mean what you want them too, you have to stop thinking in absolutes. Sea level keeps equipotential distance from center of Earth. It works the same for a bubble or a rain drop that forms into a perfect sphere. You could define the surface of both as level from a topographic or geometric standpoint. The surface of those keep equal distance from center (equipotential), so they are level perpendicular to center. Getting it yet? Flat Earth focuses on what they WANT to be true...and ignore everything else, it's bias. You just say level has one definition, saying it just means flat and nothing else matters to you....this is a black and white way of thinking, which is a logical fallacy. Only idiots think in absolutes. It's also ignorant.
It's all just misdirection, keeping people focused on what you want them to be focused on, fabricating illogical conditions that you know can't be met, but when you really look at them you realize that they're inventions to keep people from looking at real evidence.
1
-
@n54ll64 While you're focusing on illogical "challenges" designed to keep people distracted, you're ignoring all the problems of the bullshit you're supporting.
Flat Earth has no working model, no working map for navigation, no pilot or sailor uses Flat Earth for finding their destinations on the daily. Flat Earth can't explain sunsets, phases of the Moon, lunar eclipse, solar eclipse, the entire southern hemisphere, satellites in orbit, 24 hour sun in both hemispheres, star trails, radio communication, earthquakes, how the electromagnetic field is generated, the list goes on and on. So while you have people focused on your slight of hand trick, you're getting them ignoring that Flat Earth is a model of PURE bullshit and there's no denying that.
You are a movement of ignorant and arrogant pieces of shit, who are just angry that they get no say in what gets added to human knowledge. So you've decided to stir the pot, by muddying the waters with misinformation, creating these "challenges" where you get to make the rules, so that you can pretend like you're in control. I know it, you know it, and most people around the world know it. And if you can't tell yet...I'm fed up with people like you. You need to be pointed out for the huxters you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
There's nothing wrong with it, but he didn't run a very good experiment. He made ONE observation, that collected ONE data set and then ignored variables like refraction. When the experiment was done again (as you do in science under proper peer review systems), they created a better experiment that was capable of giving them more data. They used several more flag markers, set at varying distances down the canal and they paid attention to more variables. See Rowbotham ONLY did enough experimenting to confirm his bias...then he stopped and concluded Earth was Flat. That's what the Zhetetic method is...a method for conducting bias research. When the experiment was reviewed however, they paid more attention and more data sets revealed a few things.
They discovered that the flags curved, rising up and then dropping down...which is indicative of a curvature. They noticed that the markers were higher then the bridge in the distance...so horizon does not actually rise to eye level, it drops, also indicative of a curve. And they paid attention to refraction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs including a variable in their math to account for that refraction at distances. Their numbers fit with a Globe.
Nobody is saying Rowbotham is wrong for attempting to conduct his own experiments, that's perfectly fine and it's encouraged in science, but confirmation bias is a flaw of man that MOST PEOPLE don't seem to think applies to them. It absolutely does...and conducting poor experiments is going to render you a false conclusion. That's why we conduct peer review, to weed out the errors of confirmation bias and sloppy experimentation. Upon peer review of his experiment, it was found that he had ran a SLOPPY experiment, designed only to confirm his bias. Upon further reproduction of that experiment, the same thing is found every single time...the Earth is curving.
Here is an in depth reproduction of this experiment done over a lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment This experiment takes it to the next level and it is QUITE thorough. I suggest you give it a look sometime, if you want to see how a REAL experiment is conducted.
1
-
Well, stop merely listening and start observing yourself. It really doesn't take much effort to confirm the Earth is a sphere, just a few simple observations. Like a sunset for example, how exactly does that work on a Flat Earth? Ram that square peg into that round hole all you want, you'll still have to admit...the Globe makes sense of this occurrence with absolute ease, while the Flat Earth takes quite a few leaps of logic here to make sense of this and it still doesn't really if you remain objective about it.
All you've done here is made an argument from personal incredulity. Just because you don't understand currently how it's possible, doesn't mean it isn't possible. I suggest learning some physics and studying some astronomy. Start with understanding stellar parallax, it answers for why the stars never appear to move...and then travel to the South and observe the second night sky, and the second rotation of stars around their own pole star, Sigma Octantis...and then try again to make sense of that observation on a Flat Earth. Another simple observation, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense on a Flat Earth, but the Globe sure accounts for it with absolute ease, it's exactly what we'd expect to see occur on a Globe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMtx5jVLUaU&lc
It's fine to question what you're told...but don't just look at one side of things. The Flat Earth model has it's holes, don't ignore them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@philindeblanc No, it doesn’t, because the article in no way says the Van Allen Belt no longer exists, it of course still does. And it’s not technically atmosphere (it’s officially known as a geocorona), they just found hydrogen molecules out that far, but it’s still basically a vacuum, it’s like 10-100 molecules of hydrogen for every cubic meter…it’s mostly empty space still.
Actually READING the article, instead of just reading the title and then endlessly speculating on it, would really do you some good. :/
Also, the Van Allen Belt is only harmful if you were to spend days inside it, but the Apollo crews Averaged about 45 minutes to an hour inside it…receiving a radiation dose equal to a few X-rays. It’s really not as harmful as you think, it’s actually more harmful to microchips…like the ones found in all modern computer systems, which is why it’s been a challenge to build a new space module that includes our new tech. The old modules were analog systems.
1
-
1
-
@OSUBucknado Earth has always been classified as an oblate spheroid…it is slightly larger at the Equator, slightly below it, this is measured. But the difference is so tiny, that from the naked eye observed from space, it looks perfectly spherical…this is because our eyes are not very good measuring tools, in fact they’re pretty terrible. You wanna see how slight the difference is? Here’s a great video that can help https://youtu.be/tjx0KcDH7pQ. It’s only about 2 mins long, so doesn’t take long to learn just how slight the difference is and why you can’t notice it with the naked eye.
It may look perfectly spherical, but it’s not. Science cares about accuracy…Earth is slightly wider at the Equator, so it’s technically not a perfect sphere.
Only one scientist has ever used “pear shaped” to describe the Earth…and if you bothered to watch the rest of that interview of NDT, you’d know that even he realized it was a poor comparison, because he later redacted the comment, clarifying that the official classification for Earth is an oblate spheroid. But Flat Earth doesn’t care about context, they just cherry pick what they need to help push their narrative…that’s how I know they’re not to be taken seriously, because honest researchers don’t require disingenuous tactics like cherry picking. He was just trying to help others understand…he wasn’t literally trying to say the Earth is a pear. You gotta pay attention to the nuance in the wording educators use, they’re not often speaking literally. It was a poor comparison, but his point was just that Earth isn’t a perfect sphere, it’s measured to be wider at the Equator, a pear was the best comparison he could think of on the fly.
1
-
1
-
@OSUBucknado It’s fine really, I wouldn’t have responded if I didn’t also still enjoy the discussion. Apologies for my attitude, I’ve just been chatting with Flat Earthers for a lot of years now, and I have lost a lot of patience is all. I admire their skepticism, I do, but I do feel they’re spreading misinformation, so just doing what I can to counter it…but it gets difficult to just share information, they’re not exactly the friendliest of groups…but who can blame them really, they truly believe that we’ve been deceived in a huge way, so I get it, I’d probably be pretty pissed too if I was in their shoes. But still…frustrating group is all.
Just keep in mind, it wasn’t NASA who solved Earth’s geometry, mankind reached that conclusion centuries before NASA ever came around and that knowledge is still as true and accessible today, as it was back then.
If it truly interests you, here’s a good tip. The best way I feel to verify Earth’s shape for yourself, just learn to navigate. It’s really not difficult to learn and acquire this skill, plenty of information and simple tutorials online, you’d probably be surprised how easy it actually is. It’s useful knowledge to have here, because it’s an entire system, designed around the knowledge that Earth is spherical. Millions of pilots and sailors are using that system right this second, to help them find destinations around the planet, with extreme precision. If Earth was not spherical, then this system simply would not work. So I feel that’s a great place to start, if NASA is no longer an organization you feel you can trust.
It is a discussion of Earth’s geometry after all, so might as well start there, with the surface geometry. Anyway, take care, and thank you for being so civil.
1
-
1
-
1
-
We did not verify gravity first, that came much later. All evidence pointed to the shape of the Earth being a globe, that's where we started, with Earths geometry, it's important not to forget that. They didn't have a concept of gravity back then and they didn't require it, because all observation and experimentation was already pointing to the conclusion of a Globe. Observe any sunset and then try and make sense of that on a Flat Earth, with a Sun that rotates above. Your common sense will tell you, that you would never expect to see the Sun set or rise, if the Earth were flat like this, with a Sun that spirals above. Just one of many simple observations, that don't add up for a flat Earth hypothesis. Here's a couple simple experiments anyone can repeat to help you realize this as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njO5NPfur7I&t=4s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYVYa3BdI84&t=41s
1
-
@taciupryk EVERYTHING in science that describes HOW something works at the mechanical level, is a theory. Electromagnatism is also a theory, and you currently use it to send signals over wifi connections. You basically forfeit yourself from conversation the moment you say something is "just a theory". By saying that, you are declaring your lack of understanding of science and how it operates. Learn the language of science, a scientific theory is completely different from the regular use of the word theory. Scientific theories are the highest pinnacle a concept in science can achieve, that describes HOW something works. NOTHING graduates past hypothesis and into theory, until it has been verified and peer reviewed. There is nothing higher then a theory in science...they CHOSE that word, for a very good reason, because we do not know everything and will likely never will. So because we don't know everything, as we acquire new information, old information always has the potential to change. That is the real truth of any information gathering of any kind.
Science does not think in absolutes, because it can't...because we will never know everything. But we don't need too...but we do know enough, to be pretty damn certain about many things...we call those things we're certain about theories. That will never change and it works. That's how we get shit done...your computer is proof of that. So stop being so damn ignorant.
1
-
@taciupryk That's exactly what we'd expect to see occur under gravity...a force that effects everything the same, with the same rate of acceleration. I'm sorry, but what exactly are you trying to argue here? Do you think gravity effects everything differently? Because if you do, then that's where your misunderstanding is and so that's where your error is. So the problem then is not with the theory of gravity, the problem lies with your ability to understand it. You have misunderstood how gravity works...and that misunderstanding is what is now leading you to make false assumptions and claims.
Gravity effects all things equally, at the same rate of acceleration, that's exactly what two objects of varying mass dropped in a vacuum verifies...it's actually a proof of gravity, because that's what gravity predicts under its main tenants. This is how gravity works, that is exactly what it predicts would occur, if the theory is true, so that's what gravity has to say about that observation. Things fall at the same rate regardless of their weight...this means there is a constant force there that effects all things equally. This is a proof of gravity, not a proof against it.
A better question to ask is, how do things fall in the first place, if no force is being applied that puts them into motion? In physics, we know that nothing is put into motion without a force being applied too it, that is a law of motion, the first law in fact. So how do things drop, if there is no force present to put objects into that downward vector path towards Earth? That's a far better question to ask. Density can't do it by itself, because density is just a property of matter...it is not a force. Buoyancy can't do it by itself, because buoyancy is directly caused by the downward force that begins the displacement of matter by its density, it only exists BECAUSE of gravity. So what force is telling matter to fall towards Earth? If not gravity, then WHAT is causing matter to always fall to Earth? WHY do things fall and WHY is it always towards Earth? The best answer I've heard so far from Flat Earth is "it just does"...great...but here's a little wake up call for you if that's the answer you're happy to go with...if science was to conclude everything with "it just does", then we'd still be in the bush trying to figure out how fire works. :/ Do you see how fucking stupid that answer is now? Science knows better...science is looking for ANSWERS, not "it just does". We can't do anything with an answer like that...that's not how invention, innovation and further discovery is achieved.
Do you ever consider the possibility, that MAYBE the error is not with the globe model, but with YOUR own personal ability to understand it? Does that possibility ever cross your mind? Stop listening to huxters on the internet, blindly and without question. All they're doing is teaching you how to more ignorant and incredulous.
1
-
@taciupryk You likely already can deduce that I'm not an astronaut, so of course I do not have my own personal photos of Earth, but you do not require personal photos of Earth to verify it is a Globe for yourself. Anyone can verify the shape of the Earth, with a few simple observations and experiments. Start with a sunset, how does a sunset work on the Flat Earth exactly? I've seen Flat Earth do a lot of jumping through hoops to try and stretch logic here as best they can to make this work, in the end it just amounts to ramming a square peg into a round hole, but at the end of the day, try as they will...it still does not work. Neither does the Southern hemisphere...there are TONS of observations that can be made in the South, that do not make any sense on any flat model of Earth proposed so far. It does not work. The Globe however, answers these all perfectly.
On top of that, modern technology already confirms a globe as well. I've already mentioned this, but every single international network of navigation and communication and infrastructure, uses our current knowledge of spherical shape and scale to make it all possible. We don't put satellites into orbit with Flat Earth geometry and science, we don't navigate the world with flat Earth scale and distance in mind, we don't send communications over a system designed for a Flat Earth. NOBODY is using flat Earth geometry to make the world tick...that should be your first clue.
The only people who think there is a debate about the shape of the Earth...are under educated layman, who have ZERO experience with the broader world and who really don't know much about much. That shouldn't be a coincidence to you.
But here, if you'd like some photos of Earth, here is a great archive of the Apollo missions, one of many you can find online. There are hundreds of photos of the Earth here, taken long before the days of CGI. I especially like the photos from Apollo 13 and 16, they're pretty clear and in high resolution. Feel free to let me know the methods they use to fake these and feel free to point me towards any source that has verified that. I don't mind taking a look.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
If you don't believe satellites are put into orbit, well, here's a group of hobbyists who have build there own radio telescope, using scraps they had lying around. They then use they radio receivers to lock onto geostationary satellites in orbit right now, focusing on the GOES satellites 15-17, which are weather satellites that take high resolution pictures of the Earth in varying filters of the electromagnetic spectrum, to track weather patterns. Just watch some of data they pull from these satellites...then tell me there are no satellites in orbit currently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t=280s
Here's a man that tracks several low orbit satellites with his telescope from the ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC8g3gj4CAE
I can keep going if you'd like, I don't mind sharing the information that I have uncovered pertaining to this particular argument. I think it's fine to question what you're told, quite logical in fact, but in the 3 years I've been looking at Flat Earth, I have concluded that it is a con job, that spreads among the under educated, who are paranoid about the world around them, because they don't really have much experience with the world around them.
1
-
@taciupryk Ya, mass attracting mass, that's how we understand gravity to work currently. If you're making an argument that because a bowling ball has more mass, it should drop faster, you're forgetting...that the Earth is the larger source of attraction...and it trumps both the bowling ball and feather by a LOT. So if there is any slight variance between the ball and the feather, the Earths gravity will render that difference virtually undetectable.
Yes, but there is a difference between a vacuum and atmosphere, air. In a vacuum you remove the air that would otherwise cause a drag force, air resistance. In atmosphere, there is still molecules of air in the way, so there is air resistance. The object with more mass is going to have an easier time displacing the air and getting it out of the way as it falls, the object with less mass will have a harder time, which slows it down...hence why a bowling ball falls faster than a feather, while not in vacuum. There's also more surface area to a feather, which also makes it harder to displace the air, a better comparison would probably be a plastic ball compared to bowling ball, something with generally the same surface area. But either way, removing the air in a chamber, removes the air resistance, so you can test the acceleration of gravity directly...with nothing else getting in the way. Things fall at the same rate when tested, this confirms a tenant of gravity.
Feel free to point out what I'm misunderstanding exactly. I don't mind challenging what I think I know.
Well good, you believe in satellites, that's a start. Do you know HOW they maintain an orbit? Do you know what keeps them in orbit? Gravity...gravity keeps them in orbit. Without gravity, an orbit is not even achievable...it's very important we know how gravity works and how strong it is here on Earth, or else we could NEVER accurately achieve an orbit with satellites.
"You mentioned sunset. Wouldn't it be earth set on a moving spinning round ball?"
No, it's the Sun that you see rise and set, that would be the case whether you're on a spinning ball or a stationary ball with a moving Sun. That's how relative motion works...you can't tell the difference between stationary and moving...but either way, this occurrence requires the Earth be round, in order for the observation to fit and make sense with reality...and it's the shape of the planet we're arguing here, not its motion. A sunset does not verify the motion of the planet, just it's geometry. The fact is simple, a flat Earth can not account for what we observe the Sun doing in reality. A Globe can, and very easily in fact. Only half the Earth would be able to see the Sun at any given time, the Earth rotates moving the observe from day to night...causing a sunset and sunrise, done, explanation over, no mental gymnastics required. What's sick is that you people know this...you know a Flat Earth can't account for a sunset, while the Globe does it with ease...yet you'll argue tooth and nail anyway.
It's fine though...the true krux to science is falsification, not verification, so at the end of the day, at least SOMEBODY is still trying to falsify things the rest of us have moved on from. But the shape of the Earth is probably the most verified science we have today...so you're just gonna be wasting your time in the end.
1
-
@taciupryk Alright, lets look into that a bit further. If gravity were to work on a Flat Earth, then where exactly is the source? Wouldn't there be gravity vectors all over the place then, going in all sorts of conflicting directions? It's not just that gravity pulls us to the surface, it's also that gravity is consistent and we feel it's pull in a steady vector we call the center of gravity...it's a point at which we can balance anything from. Gravity Vectors and the center of gravity make sense...on a ball with a source of gravity at center of mass, but how does that work on a Flat Earth with no direct singular source of gravity's pull? How would we be able to balance anything, without a center of gravity? Which brings up another great question, one that Einstein was also very curious about, how does mass attract mass exactly? How does that attraction occur and what causes it? These are some questions that are left unanswered by a Flat Earth....maybe gravity could exist on a Flat Earth, but you'd have to account for these questions...but even still, the Earth is observed to be a sphere, it's not just gravity at the end of the day, we have measured and observed it...and that's where we started, we didn't start with gravity, gravity just helps make sense of what we observe.
From what we understand today, mass bends the fabric of space time, which creates a central point of gravity's attraction, which is the source of where all mass is drawn towards. Which makes sense of why the Earth would then be a sphere...if mass collects around that center, then the only shape that could form from a center expanding in all directions outward from that center, is a sphere. Bubbles are doing something similar, as do water droplets, spheres are actually quite common in nature and it makes sense why and how.
The Sun, the Moon, the other planets, all observably spheres as well...and thanks to what we know about gravity today, it helps makes sense of that shape for all of these objects. The Sun is especially interesting, because we now know how the Sun burns, through nuclear fusion reactions of Hydrogen molecules, which is caused by it's own intense gravity, forcing molecules of Hydrogen together until they fuse, which creates Helium and then sheds a massive amount of energy in the process as well. We know we're on the right path there, because we've now created fusion reactions of our own in labs. We learned how to do that, from studying gravity and the Sun...yet another accomplishment we can thank Einstein and his theory of General Relativity for.
So Idk, maybe gravity could work on a Flat model, but it's got a lot of questions to answer for...questions that the Globe model has already answered and that make sense of what we observe in reality even further. So much so that we now use that knowledge in a great many applied sciences, from orbital mechanics that put satellites into orbit, to nuclear fusion reactions, to calculating the escape velocity of rockets, to calculating parabolic arc paths for hitting targets at distances, to knowing exactly where to point the telescopes to capture gravitational events like super nova and black holes, the list goes on and on. Our knowledge of gravity right now goes a lot deeper then most care to look into. Flat Earth has a lot of catching up to do.
1
-
@taciupryk Do I know why the stars remain the same night after night, for seemingly our entire life times? Sure, the heliocentric cosmology explains this pretty simply. There are trillions of miles between each star, while in comparison to those distances, they are just not moving fast enough to close that distance in any noticeable way within our lifetimes.
Allow me to put it into better perspective. The Sun is calculated to be moving around the galactic center at the rate of roughly 500,000 mph. That may seem like a lot to you and me...the microscopic life that sees a mile as a distance of significance, but to the Sun...understand that in one hours time, it has only moved HALF of its diameter in distance. To put that into perspective even more, if you were to pretend like you were the Sun, move your body about half a foot forward in front of you, over the course of 1 hour. That's how slow the Sun moves through the vastness of space...it might as well be crawling. Speed is relative, to something as massive as the Sun, 500k mph, is nothing, it's slower then a snails pace.
Now realize that all the stars are traveling at a similar pace, in the same direction, like cars on a wide lane highway, all going at the same steady speed in the same direction, with trillions of miles separating each one. If even one of those stars were to stop moving to allow us to catch up to it, lets say our closest star Alpha Centauri, which is 4 light years away, which is about 25 trillion miles. Going at just 500k mph, it would take about 5700 years to catch up and close the distance and reach that star at that pace...IF it stood still.
So when you really think on it and start thinking about those vast distances, the heliocentric model again makes perfect sense of why the stars don't appear to move in our lifetime...and I didn't even once mention parallax in that explanation, that effects what we see as well.
If you'd like to know more about the science that verifies the distances to the stars, I can point ya towards that information too if you'd like.
However, the truth is the stars are moving, and any astronomer would tell you that. We have been tracking the stars for hundreds, if not thousands of years now. It is confirmed, the stars are moving...it just takes a VERY long time to notice any shift occur and it varies per star. Generally, the closer the stars are, the more they shift relative to us, this causes a parallax in stars over time, that we can measure...which is one of the methods they use to measure the stars distances to us, the parallax method. So the stars do shift, it is measured and recorded...but unless you're out there each and every night watching the stars and recording them...you will never notice. So it's just more ignorance to say "the stars never move"...are you an astronomer? No? Then how do you know for sure?
But anyway, none of that proves the heliocentric cosmology, it just explains it. But while you're focusing on why the stars don't appear to shift...you're ignoring that there are TWO celestial rotations in each hemisphere, and TWO equal hemispheres, each with their own constellations and stars. Which is another thing the Flat Earth model can't account for...the ENTIRE southern hemisphere.
We observe two different night sky's, one for each hemisphere...this doesn't make a whole lot of sense on a Flat Earth, but it's exactly what we'd expect to see again, on a Globe, with TWO equal hemispheres. Here'a a great video that illustrates this point further. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMtx5jVLUaU&t=1s
Anyway, hope you find all this information at the very least interesting. I don't take issue with people questioning what they're told, it's quite logical to do that in fact, that's what science is, asking questions...I take issue with them being so ignorant and arrogant and ungrateful towards science...especially while they USE the fruits of science (computers, laptops, wifi, internet, phones), to tell the rest of us...how science is somehow false. :/ At some point, you have to consider the possibility, that maybe you're being a tad bias and maybe even paranoid in your conclusions.
1
-
1
-
@digbiffer7672 Consensus through what system? White suburban soccer moms pushing crystal therapy? Con men create the illusion that their science is peer reviewed on consensus...but it's pretty easy to sniff out when they're lying...and the white soccer mom society is not making any BIG decisions on science for a very good reason. That's why we have official peer reviewed systems, to weed out this sort of bullshit. It's not perfect either, but it has a safe guard...in the fact that junk science simply doesn't work. If something doesn't work, there is no objective system of consensus that it would ever survive in. If something doesn't work, it becomes pretty apparent after awhile...and it's in nobody's best interest to cling to concepts that are not working, because we can't engineer, invent, innovate anything with science that just does not work. So at the higher levels, there really is no point for bullshitting, cause it gets us nowhere.
Our current science works, the proof is in the technology we currently have, it got there on peer review and consensus. But don't get me wrong, I do agree a little, sometimes it takes bold steps to look outside of established norms, to think outside the box of consensus, it's the only way to find the cracks really. But you seem to think that doesn't occur in the current system, but I assure you that does happen with the current system. Almost every time we hit a wall in science, people then take a look at what we might have missed. It happens a lot in science, so they do think outside the box quite often actually.
For example, only just 100 years ago the Aether was the agreed upon consensus of the scientific community, they all believed that it existed and to argue otherwise was shot down pretty quickly. That was until Michelson and Morley, conducted an experiment that pretty much falsified the concept of Aether in one go...what should have been a pretty clear cut experiment to verify the Aether drag of light propagation, came back with a null result...it was inconclusive. This was a problem, now there was a very apparent hole in the current established model of science and it was glaringly apparent. It meant we were missing something, and it couldn't be ignored, so this now gave those outside the box thinkers a chance to examine those cracks and find the issues. It rattled the current consensus of the time, but science did what it had too and it looked at the problem objectively until it could be solved.
So yes, I do agree that consensus can make our thinking a bit rigid, which slows its progress down at times, but I do feel it's the best way to solve problems, because otherwise it would just be chaos and we wouldn't be sure about much of anything. Peer review is the most crucial step in science, people lie, cheat, follow bias, mess up and get things wrong all the time, if we didn't have a filter for all that...nothing would be established because everything would be. But when things don't work, it means we're wrong about something, that's the counter to the rigid system of peer review...eventually, we will hit a wall in innovation if we are wrong about something. That gives the inner community of science an opportunity to be bolder and to look at alternatives, so it may be stubborn and rigid but it's not a perfectly rigid system, it does require that it bend on occasion and it does.
My main point is this, what would you prefer they did instead? No system we currently have is perfect, but that doesn't mean we discard it completely for that reason. But we can tweak it and fix the cracks, so by all means, what would you prefer we did instead?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Doesn’t take millions of dollars of equipment to verify refraction...with just a pencil and a glass of water, you can verify refraction. https://www.ck12.org/physics/refraction/lesson/Refraction-of-Light-PHYS/ It’s a fact of reality...you see it happen all the time, you’re just not paying attention. Here’s another super easy refraction experiment, this time more relevant to this particular discussion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t
Refraction is very real, it happens in atmosphere where humidity is greater, namely really close to the surface, and especially over large bodies of water. People need to stop assuming they know everything...if you’re not a physicist or expert in any field relevant to this discussion, then there’s probably a lot you don’t actually know. Stop assuming and start learning.
Here’s another great observation http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment, scroll down to the section on refraction, images 31 and 32 are what you should see, if you honestly believe refraction is a variable we can just ignore. Proof enough for you?
1
-
What has it brought us? 🤨An advanced society where food is plentiful and doesn’t rot because of fridges, water and electricity is brought right to our heated homes, we can travel thousands of miles in just a few hours, where the majority of society can read, write, do at least basic math, doctors are at the ready, and population numbers are higher than ever before in recorded history….Ya, seems to me we’re thriving, rather than just surviving.
But go ahead…explain to me how freezing in a cave, running from predators, and chasing down smaller animals on an empty stomach is somehow better. Think I’ll play some guitar and forget about your dumbass opinion. 😄
1
-
Summary sections of those papers and manuals are not for making statements or for stating conclusions, what they're doing is simplifying the math and letting the reader know exactly what variables will not be included in the math to follow. That's why they'll often read like this "for this next section we will ASSUME we're flying over a flat non-rotating surface". This lets the reader know exactly what variables will not be factored. You will find this a LOT in aeronautics manuals, because they will always include a section for the plane/rockets wind resistance capabilities. They do not need to factor the Earths shape and motion when discussing direct drag force across the body/frame of these vehicles, they're not working on solving problems for Coriolis effect in those sections, so they let the reader know in the summary, what variables won't be included in the math to follow. That's how they're structured...most people don't know this though, because you're not scientists, mathematicians or engineers.
What Flat Earth is doing here is cherry picking information they have no idea how to interpret, because they are not trained in how to read, write or interpret research papers or engineering manuals...but they sure know how to take things out of context and spin a bias narrative on it. Don't just listen to these people blindly and without question...they do this across the board, with every single argument. It's confirmation bias and it's how they con people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jayne Nord Well, your first problem is the math, that’s not the correct formula for making long distance observations. The reason why it’s incorrect is because it’s missing variables. As it is in that form, it’s just a basic parabolic arc equation, it doesn’t calculate a figure that represents an observers line of sight, doesn’t tell you where horizon is and it doesn’t tell you what is hidden from your line of sight due to horizon. It just calculates a drop from a tangent line at your feet...which is going to shoot way over horizon and line of sight, giving you inaccurate figures.
Here’s a blog that can help you with the correct math for these observations. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ And here’s a handy calculator that puts the formula found here to use. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
Plenty of observations of curvature actually...the trouble is, Flat Earth has convinced some people to use the wrong math, so now you have some people making
observations, then wondering why the numbers don’t fit. Pretty simple, the math is wrong...and it’s tricky now, cause the moment you try to point out the math is just incorrect, people tend to take it as a direct attack on their intelligence, rather than take the time to see if it’s true. Well, truth is most people are not very math literate...so not hard to feed them half truths and make false claims of accuracy.
Here’s a few great observations of curvature. I can provide many more if you’d like.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth
https://youtu.be/EIOs-PzNIZU?t=3178
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU&t
1
-
Jayne Nord I’m not changing the equation, I’m just telling you that it’s the wrong math to use for the observation you’re making...that’s all. It is missing variables and so it does not give you accurate figures, that is a fact, not an opinion. And you’re not very consistent with your argument, you seem to only accept numbers and mathematics when they suit your purpose and support your bias...and then make excuses for when they don’t. That’s pretty text book confirmation bias...ignoring any facts or information that refutes what you want to believe, rather than remaining objective. Do you see the problem in that? Bias is not how you find truth...it’s how you remain in a lie.
Whether you like it or not we live in a reality that has geometric and physical rules that never change, and that can be measured and quantified. You may not like math, but the modern world wouldn’t exist without it. Just like your computer which is made possible through mathematics, our Earth can be measured and calculated as well...so near as I can tell, you’re just rejecting what I’m saying rather than listening, because you don’t want to accept that I might be right, that Earth is not really flat and you’ve just be conned by an Internet hoax.
I don’t really care about what you want to believe, I’m just sharing the information I feel you’re overlooking. If you’re honest with yourself you won’t just hand wave it aside and ignore it so easily, you’ll learn it and consider it. You’re always free to disagree, can’t force you to do anything...but the only people who make arguments like in your last comment to me, are people who are mathematically illiterate and don’t really know much about it, so they tend to make a lot of ignorant assumptions and excuses.
You are correct about one thing though, numbers can be manipulated to sell an agenda...what do you think Flat Earth is doing when they lie to people and sell them on a parabola equation like 8 inches per mile squared? That wouldn’t happen if you learned some mathematics...the manipulation only works on those that don’t really have much of a clue about what’s being said to them. If you learned even some basic mathematics, you’d recognize pretty quickly that a parabolic equation isn’t going to represent a spherical surface, and it certainly does not calculate a line of sight. So, up to you if you’re willing to learn some basic math, and then see who the real manipulators are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@airisming9 If I'm angry at all, it's because people use the technology created by scientists, made possible with their efforts and hard work...to tell the rest of us that science is bullshit...meanwhile you reap all the benefits of their efforts anyway. It's like spitting in the face of a chef, who personally brings you the food and then you eat it anyway and love every bit of the meal he's given you. You're ungrateful and that's what pisses me off. Didn't anyone teach you to have some respect for your fellow man? Maybe your religion perhaps?
I get why you attack science though, you feel it has treated your God poorly, something that brings you purpose and joy. So I get it. But science itself, is not trying to destroy your god...science is just a tool, it has no more agenda than a hammer. It's people who have agendas...people who attack your religion, science just cares about objective truth, how reality operates at the mechanical level...that's it. It will likely never replace God...it can't. I wasn't attacking your faith (originally)...I was pointing out errors I felt you were making, because I feel misinformation shouldn't fly by the radar unchecked...I could care less about what faith you adhere too, it has no place in a discussion of science. It is your bias...and that bias keeps you from learning, just like any bias does.
Here's a fact, most people throughout history, who helped build our current understandings of science, were and are still theists...not the other way around. Deeply religious people, who put that bias aside for a moment, so they could focus on figuring out how reality works. For many of them, it just made them MORE devoted to their God, knowing how powerful and amazing he truly is. What's more impressive, a God that created a small little flat terrarium, or a God that created an endless universe the depths of which we will never fully explore or understand?
Either way, all I did was share information that I feel you overlooked in your conclusions. I don't care what you WANT to believe, evidence is all that matters in a discussion of science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TJ Callaway No, you’re all over the place, I’m not here to discuss the Moon landings and you’re dumping several points all at once, burying me in gish gallop. It’s a disingenuous form of argument, and you’d be dispelled from any actual debate for employing it. Sticking to a single point at a time, would be for instance discussing the atmosphere next to a vacuum question and focusing on just that point. Space is a topic, a big one with many thousands of points within, but you’ll notice when I addressed the point of atmosphere and vacuum, I didn’t stray from that point, I went into great detail on that point and only that point...while you’re asking a bunch of different questions all at once, from various topics and jumping all over the place.
Now, let’s get back on track. Another point you keep bringing up is the equations involving the Suns rays, so let’s focus on that for a moment. You’re claiming that they also work on a flat plain. Ok, show me your math that supports your claim here. Surely you have evidence that supports this claim, right? You’re not just making an empty claim I hope...so show me the evidence that led you to your conclusion here. In the meantime, I mentioned in a prior comment that this only works if you take only two Sun shadow angle measurements...you wanna see what happens when you plot more than 2 angles mathematically upon a flat Earth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeEw0Fw1qio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0&t
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=422
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t
So you’re lying...or you’ve never actually done the math or examined it yourself. Everything from the Suns path, to its shadow angles, to the eclipses both solar and lunar, to even the simple rising and setting of the sun, the math does not support a flat Earth conclusion, not even in the slightest...but easy for people to lie about the math, when they’re mathematically illiterate and don’t bother to actually do the math. Here’s a couple more simple mathematical observations of the Sun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6Ojo9fJhw&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t
The Sun is not local, none of the math and observations point to that conclusion.
1
-
1
-
TJ Callaway You wanna talk about working backwards? Let’s focus on the gas next to a vacuum argument again. You started at the end, with the physics of gases and then worked backwards...so it’s not science that is working backwards, it’s flat Earth. Do you think science started with the physics of thermodynamics? No, that’s a very recent discovery in the grand scheme of things. All your arguments so far have started at the end, attempting to work backwards from the physics. Well, here’s a brief history lesson for you, on how science reached its current conclusions. Then we’ll see who’s really working backwards.
First, they started with a Flat Earth, which was largely assumed from one observation, it looks flat. But simple spherical geometry and perspective, makes it very clear that this is a rushed conclusion. The closer you are to a sphere, the flatter it will appear, so the geometry was eventually questioned. The Greeks and other ancient cultures, then verified Earths spherical geometry beyond reasonable doubt, observations of the Sun, stars, planetary motions, as well as mapping the Earths surface and discovering it was curved with two hemispheres (navigation relies heavily on our knowledge of the globe being accurate, and that was true even in the time of the Greeks), these and many more observations led to mankind realizing Earths geometry being undeniably a sphere.
Then, once that was settled, came time to figure out more of the astronomy and physics, we started with a geostationary model, but it was still undeniably spherical. Studying the stars, planets, Sun and Moon a little closer, it was found to be impossible for everything to be revolving around Earth and repeating these observations and doing the math is very basic stuff astronomers learn today. The math of geocentric Earth does not add up, so it was discovered that Earth revolves around the Sun, at this point it is also undeniably true. Just learn some basic navigation sometime, using stars, sextants and geodetic conversions...then you’ll learn that.
So the geometry was settled first, but this did create a lot of further questions pertaining to physics, like for instance the motions, how are we moving? How does everything stay to the surface? Stuff like this, was still relatively unknown 400 years ago, but the shape of our planet and it’s path around the Sun, was settled science, all from pure observation and recorded data.
See...they weren’t working backwards, they were working forwards, slowly improving upon prior knowledge. Flat Earth is where they started, it was quickly falsified after it was demonstrated that it did not fit with observations...as they still don’t today, which is why I’m trying to bring you back down to Earth, to start with the geometry. Don’t know why you people jump immediately to the physics, when this is a discussion of geometry, but whatever. So Flat Earth was discarded for the model that could explain observations, a Globe shape. From there it was geocentric, but even this was soon falsified after the motions of the other planets were found to orbit the Sun, which also helped explain our orbit.
Now to the physics. It’s clear that there were many things that were certain within physical reality, that motion is relative and things fall when you drop them, so the laws of motion and the law of gravity were penned. Now, understand that nothing becomes a law in science until it has been adequately tested beyond reasonable doubt. These two laws in particular helped explain the motions of our planet, and helped explain how everything stays to our planet. Though gravity did more than that, it explains planetary orbits, it explains planetary and star formation, galaxy formation, how stars burn...gravity was one of the most pivotal discoveries in all of science, because when gravity was realized, hundreds of mysteries of physics and astronomy began to fall like dominos. So it’s not just some theory...it explains almost everything, it gives us answers, where flat Earth science just created questions (and still does). It’s also an observed fact, things fall when you drop them, always towards Earth.
Thermodynamics was also penned around the same time, but it’s never contended with our atmosphere, because physicists understood that it had to do with energy transfer, not matter transfer (which is what Flat Earthers misunderstand about entropy). Then the gradient pressure of our atmosphere was measured and it pretty much sealed the science, it all fits. Gravity holds atmosphere to surface, it creates this pressure gradient, no barrier is required, no laws of thermodynamics are broken. Science has gone on to verify that further with all our space exploration...though I get that you ignore and deny all of that, though again, weather balloons have been sent up many times...and they always pop once they’ve reached vacuum conditions. So empty space confirmed, while still no dome barrier found.
So, that’s a history lesson...now tell me, where exactly did science work backwards? This is a forward progression...not a backwards recession. Science started with a flat Earth, it was soon falsified...that’s where they started, with the geometry.
It’s YOU who are now trying to work backwards. You’re starting in space, with things like the Moon landing and atmosphere next to a vacuum...and that’s not where science started. You’re working backwards...and it’s incredible to me you actually believe it’s the other way around. By your logic, if the Moon landing is fake, then space is also fake...and no, that’s a huge leap in logic. Even if the Moon landing was faked, it doesn’t mean space is fake and it certainly doesn’t mean Earth is flat either. You’d still have to prove both of those conclusions, you’re work isn’t just magically done, because you’re convinced of these and other conspiracies, built mostly from paranoia and endless speculation.
Simpletons think in absolutes like that...working backwards, thinking that if even one flaw can be found it means we start over...so don’t confuse your method of thinking for how science reached its conclusions. No, that’s not how science works I’m afraid, we don’t just throw the baby out with the bath water. And you haven’t found any flaws either, just a great many misunderstandings of basic physics. These “flaws” you think you’ve found, aren’t really flaws at all...they’re just YOUR own personal misunderstandings.
So I think you really need to reanalyze your argument, cause YOU are the one starting at the end, and working backwards. It’s not our problem if you skipped science history and are not aware of how science reached its current conclusions, but they didn’t start with the physics, they started with the geometry and worked from there.
1
-
TJ Callaway Ok, you can’t just make empty statements like “the Moon and all other planets are their own luminaries” and then be expected not to prove that claim. This is why nobody takes you people seriously, you just blast off a bunch of empty claims in rapid fire, speaking as if they’re facts, and then provide zero evidence to support those assertions. When you make a claim, doesn’t matter what it is, you then have a burden of proof...but you clearly don’t give a shit, just saying whatever fits your bias, no work needed to prove any of it, skip the hypothesis and testing and go straight to conclusions. And then you honestly expect anyone to believe you?
Now, I’m sure you’ve “tested” these things or at least done third party research on these topics...but don’t you think it’d be nice if during a debate with someone, when you make a claim, you also share some links to some information that led you to that conclusion? Do you think people should just listen to you blindly or something? Would you?
Luckily for you, I’ve researched the same stuff you have, so you don’t have to share...I’m just pointing out how pointless it is to debate with a person, who doesn’t feel they have any burden of proof for their claims. Have you noticed, whenever I made a claim, I then also shared some information that led me to that conclusion? Sure would be nice if Flat Earthers could do the same sometime. :/
Now, on to those claims. No, the Moon does not have a cold light, this is a perfect example of layman conducting sloppy experiments and then reaching bias conclusions. I’ve seen these “cold Moon light” experiments you’re speaking of...and I’ve never seen any Flat Earther conduct a control experiment along side their main experiment. If you’re not familiar with a control experiment and why it’s relevant, it’s basically an extra experiment you run to help control for any hidden variables that might also render you the same results as your main experiment. In any experiment, you’re trying to isolate the independent variable, control experiments are often crucial for helping you do that.
So, what’s a good control experiment we can do for the Cold Moon Light experiment? Well, a good one would be to run the experiment again, on a night when the Moon isn’t out, like during a New Moon phase. Because the claim is that the Moon light is cold...but what happens if you get the same results, on a night when the Moon isn’t out? Well, it’s pretty simple, if you get the same results regardless of whether there is moonlight or not, then you really can’t conclude that it’s moonlight causing this effect, it’s likely from something else.
So here’s an example of this experiment done with proper controls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLsZwp4RWWg&t The result is pretty clear, the same cooling effect occurs on a night when the Moon isn’t out...so I’m afraid you really can’t conclude that it’s the Moon causing this effect.
This is why we have peer review in science...because people can and will make mistakes in experimentation. Flat Earth merely demonstrated how bad they are at conducting experiments...doing only so much as to confirm a bias they have and then doing nothing further to question and review their own work. Upon peer review of this experiment though, it’s not the moonlight causing this effect, it’s more than likely radiative cooling. More experimentation can be done of course, to truly isolate that conclusion, but one thing is clear, the Moon does not produce a cold light.
Even if it did though...how exactly would that prove it is its own luminary? Still a bit of a leap in logic to me...like you’re just slotting in the answer that you like. You barely have enough after that conclusion to form a hypothesis around for further testing...but you’re just skipping right to the conclusion that the Moon is it’s own luminary, from one poorly conducted experiment. Skipping peer review, skipping the proper protocols of recording your findings...it’s just incredible how lazy the Cold Moon Light experiment truly is. Not to mention the laws of physics this would break. Seriously, what light do you know of that makes things colder? Light is basically a bundle of energy, and energy is what creates all the heat in the universe. Cold is just the absence of thermal energy...cold isn’t something you create, cold occurs when you take energy away. So how would that even be logical, that light (which is basically energy) could remove energy and make things colder? Kinda breaks physics a wee bit, so it’s really not logical at all.
You guys are really stretching logic on that one I’m afraid. In truth, it’s just another sloppy experiment from flat Earth, designed to confirm bias, nothing more.
As for the planets...what you said is probably the most ignorant thing I’ve ever heard. The planets are not like the other stars...not even in the slightest. If you focus the planets properly through a telescope, they will have recognizable features, that none of the stars have. Planets have there own shadow phases, their own distinct surface features, some have rings, some have Moons...like, you’re completely out to lunch, if you honestly think a few out of focus images of planets is going to falsify what we know about these celestial bodies. Learn to focus the planets, then you’ll notice they’re not anything like the other stars. Here’s a couple videos that can help you out.
https://youtu.be/fj-P031VlbU?t=349
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQYbtzsnQ3E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dICIKYn5w4w&t
I’m sorry man, but you have to be an absolute idiot to fall for those out of focus planet videos, that claim they’re the real photos. Focus the planets correctly and you will capture their many features. Learn some basic Astrophotography...you’re just gonna make yourself look like a fool if you argue that planets are just blurry lights like all the others.
I think we’re done here...you’ve got nothing new to show me, and your arguments are empty and just sad. Just another sucker who fell for a hoax on the internet, so I don’t see any reason to continue further.
1
-
@tjcallaway7524 Learn to navigate, just using the stars, lines of latitude and longitude and geodetic conversions...and you can prove the Earth is a sphere for yourself. Travel to the South and observe the different night sky, and the second celestial rotation of stars, and you will verify Earths spherical geometry. Run a controlled test of curvature like the Bedford Level experiment, using proper geometric calculations, and then you will verify the Earths true shape. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
Actually pay attention to the world around you and you’ll find proof of the Globe everywhere, no third party research or information required. Just takes a little time, effort and travel and a few simple observations. The experiment I shared above is easily repeatable, and there are many others that are even easier.
I can share tons of evidence for the Globe with you, but you didn’t shut up long enough for me to do so...just kept dumping claim after claim, so that’s where I focused. You made claims, so I pointed out the errors in those claims. Flat Earth makes lots of empty claims, it has filled the gaps in people’s knowledge with bullshit, so I was focusing on dispelling that bullshit, but if you want me to shift gears and offer evidence for the Globe, I’m more than happy too do so. Science didn’t just reach that conclusion from nothing...as you’ve been led to believe.
I won’t drown you in gish gallop though, start with that link above, it’s more than enough for now. What I’ve shared above is an actual research paper experiment, notice how thorough it is? Controlling every known variable, isolating the independent variable (in this case surface curvature). The conclusion is quite conclusive...Earth is curving and at the rate that it should be given our scale. I’ll share much much more if you’re interested...you won’t see this kind of evidence from any flat Earth channels on YouTube, so if you’re interested, I don’t mind sharing. That one has been repeated many times over the years, and it is fairly simple, though does require more effort. I’ll share a few simpler observations and experiments next time...if you’re interested.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CalsTube Why would you think space should be lit up? Space is an empty vacuum…and light requires physical matter to be reflected off of for it to illuminate an area. This isn’t difficult…I’m sorry, but every argument you make is just terrible, always lacking some detail…most of the time details that are pretty common sense.
What’s worse is that there’s no tangible evidence for this firmament you believe is up there. Meanwhile there’s actual evidence of space…we’ve been there, physically, several times. Even if you don’t agree we have, I’m sure you’re aware of the pressure gradient in our atmosphere…which is exactly what we’d expect to measure with an atmosphere created and contained by a field of force such as gravity. And I’m sure you’ve by now seen some of the videos of weather balloons, some launched even by Flat Earthers. Did you ever happen to pay attention to the end of these videos…where the balloons eventually pop, as they’re designed to do once reaching vacuum conditions. So even flat Earthers have detected the vacuum of space, but you know what they’ve never found? A container.
It’s no secret why you fell into believing the Earth is flat, because it helps confirm your religious bias. Makes it very difficult to take any of you seriously, when it’s painfully obvious why you lean towards such nonsensical conclusions, that defy common sense, and ignore reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
NASA gets pennies compared to the military...maybe look up their annual budget sometime, you’ll shit yourself. NASA has thousands of research facilities all around the world, you think it’s cheap to staff and power these facilities? Not to mention every rocket they launch is upwards of half a billion to pull off, have you been to a rocket launch...they’re very real alright. So not a very good money making scheme I’d say, with what they earn from the annual budget, they’d likely be struggling every year. Meanwhile...real scientists and engineers are working at NASA, real people, who you can talk to at almost anytime and learn about the things they’ve created for the benefit of society...but I see you’d rather jump on the online speculation train instead, so I doubt you’ll ever take the time to actually contact any of these people.
NASA is a research and development organization...any country that hopes to thrive, HAS to fund the sciences, in some form or another...or they’ll be left in the dust by the country’s that do put resources into science and R&D. It’s necessary, for any nation that wants to be at the top.
How do you know they don’t allow companies to map Antarctica? Have you tried? Is this something you have actual experience with? Lots of scientists and research bases there right now...you can even work at these bases as a labourer, so maybe actually go there before speculating endlessly again?
Stars do change, any amateur astronomer will tell you that, it’s common knowledge among those who actually spend there nights tracking the stars. The reason they take so long to shift, is because of parallax, which has to do with scale. Understand that these massive speeds everything is flying around at in space, are only great speeds to you and me, the microscopic life living on a spec of dust in the vast cosmos, that thinks a mile is a great distance. For example, the Sun is travelling at roughly 500k mph, but please realize that its diameter is twice that, so in 1 hours time, it has only moved half of its own diameter. To put that into perspective, over the span of 1 hour, move your body half a foot forward...wow, really moving fast aren’t you. It takes 230 million years for our solar system to make one complete orbit around galactic center...I hope you can agree, that’s a long time. In the grand scheme of things, the stars and planets are barely moving. Learn a little about the scale you’re dealing with here, it matters.
Maybe take your own advice and use that grey matter, and stop falling for every con and hoax on the internet...at the very least, learn the difference between speculation and evidence. You have some good questions, but questions are not proof...don’t assume that just because you don’t know the answers right away, that it must mean they can’t be answered.
1
-
They’re good questions sure, because they are the same sort of questions pretty much all scientists and experts ask when first learning their craft. But most people don’t ask these questions...cause most people aren’t scientists, most people aren’t engineers, mathematicians, astronomers, etc, so most people generally live life with no experience or interest in these things...until some conspiracy nut comes around looking to exploit the gaps in people’s knowledge and fill them with half truths and misinterpretations.
It’s fine to question things, but it really doesn’t seem like you’ve been attempting to find the answers to these questions. A lot of them are just basic physics knowledge, physics that’s pretty easy to learn and demonstrate, answers to these and more are just a quick google search away. So have you really bothered to try, or have you just been watching flat Earth conspiracy videos from people who also are not experts in any relevant field, and who also couldn’t answer these questions? If you really think scientists and experts can build everything around you...but they couldn’t figure out something as trivial as the true shape of the planet, then you might be a little delusional.
Someone has already answered your questions here, but if you’d like a little more info, feel free to ask. You should always consider the possibility that you could be getting roped in by a clever online hoax, so don’t forget to turn that lens around and take the time to question the flat Earth model as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eddiezweifel3652 Alright, enough dick waving then, personally I'd rather not talk down to people, I'm just human and I have an ego I need to feed, so ya, it did feel good...but I know it's just perpetuating the problem by alienating you further...so honestly I'd really rather not. It's not worth it in the end, so I apologize. There's nothing wrong with questioning what you're told, in fact it's quite logical...I just personally feel you're reaching some false conclusions currently and I would like to point out where I feel those errors are. I'm not new to this discussion and I have a lot of information I can share that might be interesting to you, at the very least.
So let's just focus on the science and leave our dicks at the door if you want. I'm more than willing to shift gears into a more civil tone if you'd prefer and just discuss the information. I'll drop my shield if you do. Currently I feel you have reached a false conclusion, but feel free to prove me wrong, I don't mind putting what I think I know to question, so long as you don't mind doing the same.
So you seem to think the spinning of the planet is a problem, so why do you feel this is a problem? Let's start there, if you want.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ITpanda Uncloak the Bigfoot species...wow...now I’ve heard it all. Really gonna throw out the batshit arguments right outta the gate huh. Now I know you’re joking.
But, again, in case you’re not, If you understand the psychology of object permanence...then I assume you’ll have no trouble understanding my calling bullshit, on that one. Never seen a Bigfoot...so there certainly isn’t any permanence in my mind for that object. 😅 So shouldn’t be very surprising to you, that I have effectively NO reason at all to believe you, so I’m not going too. But I do know how microwave transmissions work...and I’ve seen no studies or science, that show cell towers can control our minds. Meanwhile, I’ve seen plenty of evidence suggesting that the claims for brain manipulation through these towers, is just made up paranoid bullshit. Because it seems people are losing their fucking minds these days.
If you really do believe that nonsense, then wow. But feel free to try and convince me, but you’ll have have to do better than just dumping empty claims on me, cause it ain’t gonna do much I’m afraid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@April85... I'm just saying, your argument is a logical fallacy...you're ignoring the pictures of Earth that do exist https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544 that shows a perfectly spherical Earth...which is what the argument is all about, the Earths shape, and then paying attention to only what YOU assume is how things should work. It's a fallacy of logic, because it doesn't take any consideration into account that YOUR assumptions here, could be COMPLETELY false assumptions. It's Dunning Krueger effect in action really, overconfident in your abilities and intelligence, to the point where you are blinded by how stupid you really are.
Either way, doesn't matter what video or picture I show you, even if I did get you exactly what you wanted to see, you'd just say it's fake anyway and then move on...so it's a bit pointless to ask for photos and videos, if you're just gonna say they're fake right out of the gate. So stop asking....it's pointless if you're not really looking for any, you're just looking to be an arrogant dick.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Couple problems here though concerning the physics of gyros and the mechanics of the ones used in airplane equipment. There isn’t a single mechanical gyro in existence, that is free from friction precession. So over time, gyros will tilt out of alignment no matter what. So thanks to the friction in the gimbles, caused by gravity and material contact, that creates a torque that causes precession, it’s really hard to discern if the gyro is tilting due to curvature or precession....which is why you rarely hear of flat Earthers use gyros in experimentation, because it never gives them the results they’re looking for, the gyro will always eventually tilt out of alignment. So they usually avoid these experiments I’ve noticed. Which is typical of bias researchers, they only share the experiments that confirm their bias and gyro precession messes that up for them.
But, airplanes and jets still use mechanical gyros in their artificial indicators. So how do they overcome curvature and precession? They do it with what are know as pendulous veins. These are basically hinges on the gimbles of the gyro, that drop open anytime the gyro dips out of alignment with centre of gravity. Once the hinges are open, they allow air into a chamber that triggers a sensor, which kicks on a motor, which torques the gyro back into alignment until the hinges are centred with gravity again, which closes off the air chambers. You’ll find these pendulous veins are included in all artificial horizon indicators, as well as many other equipment used for navigation. They can and do overcome the issues of both precession and Earth curvature.
So gyros on planes make use of gravity to keep them from tilting out of alignment, it also helps them maintain level perpendicular to the surface of curvature.
So it’s not as simple as you’re saying it is I’m afraid. There is physics and mechanics here that can’t be ignored.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Both sides find their position to be absolutely true. So when the arguments drag on and no ground is gained for either position (in terms of convincing either side), both sides then start trying to rationalize in their own ways why and how that could be occurring.
As best I can tell, Flat Earth rationalizes things by assuming we're all just brainwashed, that we can't understand their positions because our pre-programmed indoctrination won't allow us too. This fits into their narrative of a big bad conspiracy that is occurring, led by an evil entity, that is trying to enslave humanity. So this rationalization fits for them and makes sense, so no need to listen to the Globe counter arguments, they're just brainwashed and can not see it. They feel they're special, by resisting the mainstream science and the heliocentric model, they feel they are free from that systems control, which frees them from that enslavement. Meanwhile however...they're not innovating, inventing, engineering, discovering, or navigating anything...which should be a red flag for anyone, but it doesn't seem to do much good pointing this out to them, everyone arguing against Flat Earth is just brainwashed, so no need to listen to them.
On the flip side, heliocentrists feel that Flat Earthers just do not understand modern science and they have reached a great many false conclusions because of that. Try as they might to teach them, Flat Earthers either don't understand it or they don't want to understand it, for the reasons mentioned above. So when met with people who don't seem to understand the physics and who ignore all attempts to teach them, the Globe position also rationalizes how that's possible, and their best conclusion is that these people are just stupid and/or willfully ignorant. Symptoms of paranoid delusion, falling into the pitfalls of confirmation bias, which science has worked to overcome in humanity as best it can, through peer review systems and objective falsification.
So both sides are just trying to rationalize why each side can't see the others perspective, which is normal to do in any debate. The thing is, this is not an argument on opinion, it's an argument of physical reality and it's a little hard to argue against the reality we all inhabit, something that can be observed and tested directly, at any time. Physical reality doesn't lie, it's quite rigid in what it is and how it operates, and so if we are wrong about what we understand about physical reality, then anything we try to build just will not work. It's pretty simple, junk science does not work, this is great for us, because it keeps things objective whether we like it or not. No matter how many pseudo intellectuals try to muddy the waters of information, if their science doesn't work, it becomes pretty obvious pretty quickly.
Our technology works, the proof is in the pudding and the reality is that scientists make this possible...whether Flat Earth is willing to listen or not, this fact remains true. The people they claim to be indoctrinated, are currently building EVERYTHING...and they're achieving that, using the very science that Flat Earth argues is not real.
Anyway, it is interesting to step back and look at the whole debate from a neutral outsider perspective from time to time. It's a really good study on human psychology and pretty interesting to examine both sides. Inside the debate, I myself am on the side of the heliocentric position, I feel they hold the far more rational position with far more objective truths and evidence supporting that conclusion. I feel Flat Earth is currently falling into the pitfalls of confirmation bias and paranoid delusion, which robs people of objective thought. That's where I stand currently, after 3 years of looking at this mess...though it really only took a few minutes to reach that conclusion, and it's never changed.
Looking at things from a neutral position gives me the chance to entertain the idea that perhaps I overlooked something, but every time I do, I still can't deny that my computer exists and it is working for a reason....because modern science knows what it's doing. The plus side is that I have also learned for myself how it all works, it's not hidden knowledge by any stretch. Anyone can learn this science at any time, and build these things for themselves after enough study and practice (limited only by their own cognitive ability of course). It's simple for me, if modern science were lying, then nothing would work as it does. Those who choose to remain ignorant, will continue to live in fear and paranoia and will continue to achieve nothing. It's really that simple for me, but to each their own.
It's not wrong to question reality, so in that regard, I appreciate the reminder that we should remain skeptical at all times and never be afraid to question anything. Einstein didn't become successful for agreeing with modern consensus of his time, he is a household name today because he challenged the work of Newton...the difference between him and Flat Earth however, is that he was successful in proving his hypothesis correct and his work is still doing that even today. So science is built on asking questions...the difference is staying out of the pitfalls of confirmation bias and paranoia.
Anyway, I'm really rambling now...I hope I was able to give you some further insight to your main question. Sorry if I strayed from the main point and got a little derogatory with my opinions.
1
-
@tyshonjackson783 I just didn't want to jump to conclusions and assume your position, without proper context is all. So I didn't want to bombard you with information on gravity right away, until I knew for sure the point you were trying to make, so I could better isolate exactly what it is you're misunderstanding here. So now that I know more, I'll see what I can do to help you out.
Well, alright so lets isolate what it is that your body actually feels. What you feel as the airplane is rising is inertia upon your body, that's what your body is designed to feel. Inertia is felt in several different ways, you feel it every day in the form of weight upon your body, that is directly caused by gravity, the constant downward accelerating force that is always pulling on your body every single day, that you feel and we measure as weight. Another way you can feel inertia is by sudden changes in forward or angular velocity. This is the inertia you feel while moving, we call it G force in forward velocities and Centrifugal or Centripetal force in angular velocities. What's important to note here though, is that you don't really feel motion itself, what you feel is sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion, that creates inertia, inertia is what you feel...not motion itself.
So yes, gravity is something your body feels, it is a force that puts your body into motion, that motion is always down. The part about gravity that Flat Earth ignores, is why down? Why that direction? Why not any other direction? From what we understand about motion, nothing is put into motion unless a force is applied to it to put it into motion. So density can't cause that downward vector, density is not a force, it is just a property of matter, how much mass occupies a certain area of space, it has no means at all to put things into motion. So the density argument makes no sense, because HOW does density put objects into motion in the first place? It can't, only a force can do that. So the other explanation Flat Earth gives is Buoyancy. Buoyancy is a force, but what Flat Earth doesn't understand is that it's not a fundamental force and technically it's not even a real force at all. What it actually is, is an observed left over effect CAUSED by a downward force, forcing the displacement of less matter upwards as more dense matter must occupy the lower position first...we called that downward force that starts that displacement gravity. Without a downward forcing telling matter which direction to begin displacing it by density, there is no buoyancy. This is proven in simple density columns put in zero G environments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpP-7dhm9DI The moment you remove gravity from the equation, buoyancy disappears and nothing orders by density anymore. So without gravity, there is no buoyancy force, buoyancy is directly caused by gravity...that's the part Flat Earth ignores about buoyancy.
Some other explanations are that it's just electromagnetism or even static attraction...but if you know anything about the physics of either, you realize pretty quickly there are probably hundreds of reasons why neither of these can accurately explain why things fall on Earth when you drop them. The most obvious reason being that all matter is attracted by electromagnetic and static attractions differently...and well, everything still falls at the same rate when dropped in a vacuum chamber. So that's just one of many things that quickly debunks those explanations. Another is that everything is dipolar, magnets and static attractions have a negative and positive attraction that attracts but also repels, depending on the alignment of the positive and negative poles...so basically, we would too...and so if electromagnetism or static attraction caused the downward force, then we would have polar attraction and polar repel...meaning we could essentially stand on our head and the Earth would shoot us up, essentially now repelling us rather then attracting us. This does not happen and it does not happen with anything else on Earth either, everything just falls, nothing falls and aligns the same way every time...except for cats of course...but they're not of this world. All jokes aside though, there are many reasons why we can't conclude electromagnetism or static attraction, as the answer for why things fall, that's a small sample of some reasons why.
So I have yet to receive an answer from Flat Earth, that adequately answers the question, WHY and HOW does matter fall down when dropped? Why that direction? The best answer I have received so far from Flat Earth is "it just does"...well, I'm sorry, but if science concluded everything with "it just does", then we'd still be in the bush trying to figure out how fire works. We can't do anything with "it just does" that is not an answer, it's a cop out when you don't have any answers. Things fall when you drop them, which means they are put into motion when you drop them. Nothing is put into motion without a force, so there is a force present acting upon that matter causing it to fall down. It's very simple stuff...and Flat Earth is just in stark denial when they argue against gravity pretending it doesn't exist. It is probably the easiest force to verify...drop something, now why did it fall? Logically, Flat Earth has no answer...just desperate ramblings that are more akin to ramming a square peg into a round hole.
Anyway, that gets into Flat Earths flawed argument for gravity itself. Feel free to let me know if you feel I've missed anything here, next comment I'll get back to your airplane observation and questions and answer that question a little further.
1
-
1
-
@tyshonjackson783 Alright, back to your main question with the plane.
So yes, as you rise up you are resisting gravity. Your body is always accelerating down, so that force is increased as you rise up and away from it, which creates inertia on your body as you rise up, which you feel. It doesn't go straight up though, you rise at an angle in planes, and not a very steep one for most the flight either. The steepest angle is during take off and landing, but I digress.
So you're trying to make an argument, that because a plane has to arc with the Earth, it's technically dropping down relative from a starting position...and you seem to feel that it's as considerable of a drop as when the plane is rising to elevation, so why don't we feel that? It's a good question, but again, it tells me that you're misunderstanding how gravity works.
What you're saying would only be true, if you actually were falling, while the plane arced downward with curvature of the Earth...and you're not. Gravity always pulls you to center, so what this means is that elevation is measured from that center. The closer you are to center, the lower your elevation, the further from center, the higher you are. So long as your distance from center of Earth remains the same, then your elevation from center of mass remains the same as well. So you're not really falling at all as you arc with the curvature, and that's what you're misunderstanding.
Gravity is the same everywhere, always pointing towards center, so this creates what is called an equipotential surface, that is the same all around the Earth. Here is a great description I've found from the Walter Bislin blog on exuipotential gravity, explaining it a bit further; "Each equipotential surface on earth is a sphere (or more accurate an ellipsoid) around the center of the planet, because on such a sphere the distance to the center of the earth is the same everywhere and thus the gravitational potential (attraction) on this sphere is the same everywhere. The equipotential spheres build layers of spheres with decreasing potential (attraction) with increasing distance from the center of the earth. So every equipotential surface is a sphere around the earth." You can find that quote here at the Walter Bislin "finding the curvature" blog http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth#H_How_Gravity_bends_Water_around_the_Earth. Which is also a great resource that has documented many examples of observations and experiments done to find curvature on our Earth, so definitely worth checking out if this discussion truly interests you that much.
So you're not really falling as a plane dips or rises to meet curvature, because distance from the Earth is what defines falling and also how gravity works. If gravity is always pulling down to center, then the gravity vector direction shifts with you as you travel across the surface of Earth.
So when Flat Earth makes an argument like that...all you're doing is misunderstanding how gravity works. Your argument fails to realize the direction gravity is really pulling you on a sphere. I realize for some to wrap there heads around a gravity vector paths on a sphere...but if you want to argue against the model, then I'm afraid you have to understand it better.
Aside from that, it takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree of angular change on our Earth. So a plane is only really arcing 1 degree of inclination...every 70 miles. That is SUPER gradual, which means even if I were to agree they were falling, it's certainly not fast enough for your body feel any G force inertia.
1
-
@tyshonjackson783 "You didn't want to jump to conclusions but you did anyway.
"
Sigh...typical Flat Earther, thinking in absolutes. I knew you were misunderstanding gravity, so I could conclude that much, that you were misunderstanding something about gravity. That much was clear from your original comment, what wasn't clear right away and why I didn't want to go any further at first, was exactly WHAT you were misunderstanding. Your original comment was a bit garbled and honestly a bit hard to follow, because of the way you worded things. So I didn't want to jump to any further conclusions about WHAT exactly you were misunderstanding about Gravity. One of the biggest problems with this whole argument, is miscommunication, I prefer knowing all the details and getting to the core of your arguments, before I assume to much and misrepresent your arguments, that's how strawmans are made unintentionally...and I try my best to avoid that if possible.
1
-
@tyshonjackson783 There aren't a million satellites in orbit right now...there's only about 2200 currently in orbit at the present time. Far from a million I'd hope you'd agree. There hasn't even been a million satellites launched yet in total...that number is still only about 9000, maybe 10,000 at the most. 2200 are all that's currently operational and that hasn't fallen back to Earth yet. So...maybe get your facts straight.
"we don't ever see one viewing the planet outter space no matter how many times THEY CLAIM TO CIRCLE IT"
Not true, we have several in orbit right now that are currently taking live video and pictures every few minutes around the clock. Himawari 8, DSCOVRY, GOES 15-17, just to name a few. You can search any of those satellites at any time, to see some of the many photos they have taken already, Himawari 8 even has a live feed website, so just give them a search sometime. Here's a neat trick you can do with these weather satellites. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOYssZQ3D2Q
Most satellites are not built for that purpose and most are only in low Earth orbit. It requires they be in geostationary orbit to take full images of Earth, which is about 25,000 miles from surface and currently only a few hundred of those satellites occupy these regions. I can share many videos and pictures from these satellites if you'd like, but here's one video I will share for now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t=348s This is a group of hobbyists that build their own radio telescopes out of cheap materials, which they then use to track these geostationary weather satellites in orbit and pull data from. They have pulled several of their own images from these satellites, so it's worth taking a look if you are not convinced as of yet that satellites exist. I can provide further resources that help to verify them even further if you'd like, so feel free to ask anytime. I find these guys quite interesting though and most convincing, just because of how much they understand about this technology...it's quite impressive what they're capable of and it really shows you what REAL experts can tell you about these things, shining a real light on something that Flat Earth approaches with nothing but pure ignorance.
The day YOU can build your own radio telescopes from scratch AND use them to track and pull data from satellites...is the day we will MAYBE take the words of a conspiracy nut seriously. You are a layman, that has generated shallow conclusions, from a lack of knowledge. Jumping to conclusions based on assumptions and misunderstandings...but not from actual knowledge and experience. You're just doing what Layman do best, chase bias, over react and GROSSLY over estimate yourselves...with no real reason too.
1
-
1
-
@tyshonjackson783 I really don't care about a persons associations, only that they have evidence I can verify for myself. Maybe YOU prefer speculating endlessly about a persons associations, putting more value on the source of information rather then the information itself, but I'd rather examine the science and information itself and see if it holds up upon my own review. You can babble on all day about some evil "they" that you can speculate about endlessly and blame all your problems on, but I really don't give a shit. If the science is good and it's accurate, and if it's now graduated to applied sciences we can use for innovation, invention and engineering...then I really don't care where that knowledge came from, we have it now and it works. The proof is in the pudding, you're currently making use of that science with pretty much every modern technology you take for granted today....so whine about where it came from all you'd like and speculate about some evil entity you believe exists, all I care about is whether the science makes sense to me or not. And it does, I understand a lot of it perfectly well and I reached those understandings on my own, through my own research and reproduction of certain experiments.
1
-
1
-
@tyshonjackson783 Why just one? I'll share several.
Here is a simple recreation of the Eratosthenes experiment, except this is expanded to include many more data sets, from several different locations all around the world, during the Equinox. The original Eratosthenes experiment was only designed to measure the Circumference of the Earth, but it is true that with only 2 data sets taken, it does not actually prove a Globe. But taking several more shadow angle measurements can help to not just measure curvature, but also verify it as well. The hypothesis is simple, do shadow angles support a local Sun with angled sunlight over a Flat surface, or a large far away Sun with angles of sunlight that arrive parallel over a Globe Earth? If the shadow angles when plotted on a Flat Earth by latitude pin point a local Sun, then the data will support the Flat Earth hypothesis. If they do not pin point a local Sun but do line up parallel when the data is plotted by latitude on the Globe, then the data supports a Globe Earth hypothesis. Pretty simple stuff. So here is two times, during two different years that this experiment was conducted by this user.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno - mostly just data recording and a further break down of the test being done, so if you're pressed for time, just start watching at the 6 minute mark where they share the results of the experiment. The shadow angles did not pin point a local sun, but they did line up parallel when plotted on the Globe. Conclusion, the experiment supports the Globe Earth hypothesis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=317s - this time they plotted the data over several different proposed versions of the Flat Earth. Again, none of the angles line up and pointed to a local Sun, but they did again line up parallel over a Globe Earth. Conclusion, the experiment supports the Globe Earth hypothesis.
Now here's a version of this same experiment done by a different user, this time using time and date dot com data, and plotting the data over a 3D version of the AE Flat Earth projection, to help you see with a little more clarity, that the shadow angles do not intersect and point to any local Sun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nzEhDX-xzg
These are all repeatable experiments, taking real world PHYSICAL measurements of Sun shadow angles. Each time this experiment is repeated, it verifies curvature AND a distant Sun, with parallel sunlight. I have yet to see Flat Earth recreate this experiment...for good reason, much easier to just stay ignorant.
Here's another great experiment that helps to measure and observe curvature. A recreation of the simple Bedford Level experiment, recreated over a frozen lake surface. This time done MUCH more in depth, taking physical measurements, photos and video, as well calculating predictions before hand. This is how a REAL scientific experiment is conducted and this is generally what actual published scientific papers look like...so it's quite thorough, so pay attention.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
The Beford Level experiment has been repeated many times and upon every recreation of the experiment, the conclusion is the same, the Earth is curving. The original experiment conducted by Rowbotham is now confirmed to have been an example of a sloppy experiment to confirm a bias. The Flat Earth conclusion he reached fails upon all peer review of his experiment, falsifying his conclusion and confirming that he reached his conclusion due to an experiment that was poorly done and designed to confirm his bias.
Now for an easy one that even YOU could recreate. A common claim of Flat Earth is that horizon always rises to eye level. They say this because if the Earth were Flat, then it would rise to eye level. If the Earth were a Globe, then it would actually drop from eye level as you go higher in elevation. But in all the years I've been researching this topic (3 years at this point) I have NEVER seen them actually bother to TEST or MEASURE their conclusion. Which makes their claim here...an empty claim with no backing.
So can you measure horizon drop? Of course you can, here are two ways you can do it. Two VERY simple experiments that confirm horizon drop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI - a simple leveling rig you can build with basic supplies anyone can find around they're home. The video isn't long and it's pretty simple to understand, so give it a look. As you'll see in this video, as he climbs higher, the horizon begins to drop below the rigging level...which means, as he goes higher, horizon is actually dropping from eye level, which does further support Earth curvature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVTgP-KpyRc - The other method used to measure horizon drop is with a surveyors tool known as a theodolite. It's pretty simple equipment to use, calibrate the theodolite at sea level by lining the cross hairs up with the visible horizon line. Then it can be used to help measure horizon drop as you climb higher, because it is now calibrated for eye level at sea level. As you see in this video above, he has used his theodolite while flying at several thousand feet elevation. The theodolite reading indicates that horizon has dropped, therefore further verifying Earth curvature and horizon drop.
There are more ways to confirm horizon drop...what you should learn from this though, is that Flat Earth makes empty claims like this all the time. Never once have they provided evidence for the claim that horizon always rises to eye level...yet people believe that statement blindly and without question. WHY exactly? For a group who claims to be more skeptical, claiming to never take information at face value...you sure eat up a lot of bullshit empty claims made from Flat Earth gurus online who feed you this garbage information.
So by how much should we expect to see horizon drop on an Earth at the scales we know it to be? Here's a great simulator that can help you out. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth Just click the first yellow tab labelled "Curve" and watch the demo from there. What this simulator does is calculates the drop from eye level for you, using a to scale representation of the Globe. It's pretty handy and you can actually use this simulator to help further confirm the two videos I shared pertaining to horizon drop due to curvature.
Alright, so that's a big dump of information, I have more I can share of course...but I think you'll be ok with just these...I think you get the point...if you even bother to take a look that is. That last link also provides several more observations of curvature, so just go through the yellow tabs and watch the demos sometime, they provide EVEN MORE physical experiments and observations done to verify curvature, so feel free to check em out sometime. My favorite observation in that simulator is the Soundly observations of the Lake Pontchartrain causway bridge in New Orleans. It's a great visual demonstration of curvature, if you want to see it with VISUAL evidence, so I highly recommend you click and watch the Soundly tab in that last link above.
1
-
Alright, so what would you prefer they did instead? Do you have a better method you'd like to propose? You come off as if you're better than all of science...like you have a better more efficient method of science we should be using, so tell me, what have you discovered, engineered or invented? Anything of note that you feel should give you this sort of arrogant confidence in yourself? You just sound smug and envious to me...and most of all ungrateful. It's fine to question science, in fact it's quite logical, but damn dude...you really have a chip on your shoulder for science don't you. Why exactly? You do realize this conversation here is only possible because of science, right? Seems pretty obvious to me that their method is working...you're currently holding a device in your hands that only exists thanks to their current methods. I hope you at the very least can realize that much...I find it a tad amazing that anyone can be this arrogant and ungrateful in today's age...seems we've been a privileged society for far to long if this is the sort of rhetoric we're now getting.
We do not know everything and we likely never will, there is just too much to know, that is the stark reality. Scientists are well aware of that, this is not news to them, they humbly admit it and they welcome any discoveries that CAN prove them wrong...that's what science is really all about, falsification. You really think Einstein got famous for going with the flow? Fuck no...he challenged the work of Newton and he succeeded. That's why he's a household name today...but he was not very popular amongst his peers while he was doing it. The same will happen the day anyone can successfully falsify his work today...but even if they can (and they have been trying) that doesn't mean he'd be completely wrong. He didn't completely obliterate the science of Newton, he merely improved upon it. When Einstein is falsified, the same thing will likely happen, we'll have a more complete picture....that's how science works, one little piece at a time...it's a long process, but it works.
It's impressive we're even able to get this far, given that we basically started with nothing. Little hard to solve a puzzle, when you don't have many of the puzzle pieces...doesn't matter how smart you are (or think you are), you will never solve that puzzle if you don't go looking for the pieces. At least they're trying...what are you doing exactly? Trolling on public forums about your delusions of grandeur...ya, really getting a lot done, way to contribute. :/
So you really think NASA is getting a lot of money do ya? Do you know how many facilities they own around the world and how many employees they pay? 70 million may seem like a lot to you...but to a company that big, it's impressive they can even keep the lights on...especially when ONE rocket launch carries a price tag of half a billion dollars. They really don't get that much of the pie, do me a favor and look up the annual military funding for the US sometime...NASA barely makes pennies compared to the military. If anyone could "solve world hunger", it's the fucking military. Even just 1% of what they get per year would be enough...so why aren't you mad at them? Go ahead and look up their budget sometime...you'll shit yourself.
NASA is a research and development organization...it's important to fund the sciences, that's how a society advances. Any nation that does not fund science and research, is left in the dust...they do not thrive, they struggle. So it is quite necessary, whether you like it or not...or would you prefer we were also one of the poor and hungry? You should be a little more grateful...a lot of technology you use (and likely take for granted), is thanks to the funding of these science institutions, that you seem to think are not important.
All I'm saying is, why such arrogance and disdain for science? Is it envy or do you really feel they're that overrated? Did you have a bad experience or something, or do you just generally hate on any institution of authority? They literally make EVERY technology you enjoy today possible...so why so ungrateful? Do you want more or something? Why? I'm just curious why people are turning their anger on science these days...I fear this is what over privilege looks like.
Again, it's fine to question science, but science is just a tool, it's not your enemy...with respect, I feel your anger is a little misplaced.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@swanm3ta850 Ok, Rowbotham conducted a sloppy experiment, that was only designed to confirm his bias and then he stopped looking. He only took ONE data set, from ONE observation and then somehow thought this was good enough. Then he made it worse by doing some bad math, and then never checked to make sure he was using the proper math for his observation. Which means, his experiment is inconclusive, due to the experimenter not doing enough to reach an actual conclusive result. It is the perfect example of a bias experiment and it's taught to undergraduates of science today, to illustrate the dangers of conducting sloppy experiments. It is a clear cut case of confirmation bias, it's also one of the many examples for why peer review is so important to the process of science. Peer review catches errors and bias such as this...which is exactly how science dismissed his conclusion. Upon all peer review, his version of this experiment is labelled inconclusive. Not because it's a bad experiment mind you, it's actually pretty clever (I'll give him that much), just because he wasn't objective in his efforts, he was deeply bias and because of that, he only went so far to confirm that bias...which is pretty typical from flat Earth actually.
Here is a proper recreation of this experiment. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment THIS is how you do things properly. Account for every variable, take multiple data sets over several days, create the experiment so you can control for every known variable and conduct control experiments to account for any hidden variables. Most of all...use the correct math, that adds variables for height of the observer, height of the objects and refraction. If you'll pay attention to the second half of that report, it has a whole section on refraction...it is a very important variable to factor. Rowbotham took no such effort to account for any of these variables...all he cared about, was confirming his bias.
So that's why his experiment was dismissed and deemed inconclusive. It's the perfect example of science done wrong.
1
-
Been looking at the Flat Earth mess for over 3 years now....still a Globe Earther. In fact I'm more of a Globe Earther today then I ever was before, because now I know and understand how mankind reached that conclusion, from the science to the history. And I agree with that conclusion, the evidence is more than substantial. I'd agree though that not all Flat Earthers are stupid...and that's what makes it even more frustrating and a little scary. It's proof that even intelligent people can lose their minds to paranoia, if they don't learn how to control their bias.
Science learned a long time ago that confirmation bias was a flaw of man, so they developed the peer review system to combat this flaw. We are intelligent and curious creatures, but our ego is a problem...it gets in the way of ability to remaining objective...which is VERY important in science. Some people realize this...others, never figure that out, even though they're quite intelligent by all other measure. That is why the peer review system is so crucial to the process of science...it is there to weed out errors, lies and bias. It works, because though a individual is limited in its own ability to spot its flaws...our peers on the other hand, have no such limitation. Our peers can't wait to tear us apart.
Eric Dubay though...I'm sorry, but he is nothing but a lying narcissist. His claims sound convincing on the surface, because of his mastery of hypnotic suggestion and gish gallop argumentation, but when you really look at his claims one by one, and break them down objectively...you learn pretty quickly that he has NO IDEA what he's talking about. Just watch this video here of an actual experienced paleontologist, breaking down one of Eric Dubay's rants on how dinosaurs are fake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knWCsonQVG4&t=668s Give it a watch, and pay attention to how many lies this guy catches in just a short time. They don't even get through 5 minutes of Eric's video...and he probably points about 30 or so lies.
Eric Dubay lies like breathing....this is not a man anyone should just listen to blindly and without question. He is the poster boy for what a con man is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because he was an Astrophysicist (among other things), and that requires he studied the sky...a lot. Firmament has many interpretations, but it’s largely meant in the context of sky. So it was his life’s work to observe and study the sky and space, so it is a fitting passage for his life’s work. When you go and place suspicion upon it and start assuming possible nefarious narratives for its meaning, you’re now speculating and forming patterns that likely are not there. All you can really do with that tombstone is speculate, so it’s not really evidence, it’s just a waste of time.
I think it’s important to recognize the difference between speculation and evidence, one is tangible and the other is assumed. I don’t know about you, but I would personally much rather follow tangible evidence over speculative conjectures. One I can be certain of and reach definite objective conclusions with, the other I can only form bias opinions with.
Flat Earth is full of little bread crumbs like these, that are fun to chase...but they don’t really mean anything, and if you’re not careful, you can fall into the trap they’re really leading you towards. Stick to the science I say, these kinds of speculations are just bread crumbs used to con people and rob them of their better reasoning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, we have taken pictures now, it is pretty darn set in stone at this point. You're quite deluded if you actually believe the world can operate as it does, with the technology we have and the industries that exist, if we do not actually know the true shape and scale of our planet. It's fine to question what you're told, perfectly logical in fact, but if you're wrong...no amount of being "woke" is going to change that and people are not just going to roll over and accept empty, ignorant, incredulous claims...from individuals, who clearly have zero experience or actual expertise, with contributing to society in science, math, navigation, research and development.
You use a computer likely every day...do you honestly think the people who made that possible for you, down to the silicone in the microchips, to the binary code that runs the software, to the wifi that travels on the electro magnetic spectrum, and connects you to a world wide global network, do you honestly believe they could achieve all that, but they couldn't figure out what shape our planet is? Wake up...somebody has filled the gaps in your knowledge with some real bullshit, using your growing paranoia and lack of experience against you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, that experiment is an example of an inconclusive experiment, it does not verify or falsify either model, it is inconclusive. So when Flat Earth uses it as evidence, they are doing so out of bias, completely ignoring the globe model and all the science that comes with it...like gravity, which is the biggest factor for why this experiment is inconclusive. A bubble level uses buoyancy to work, which is directly caused by gravity. That bubble is leveling to center of gravity at all times, which will shift as you travel along the surface of Earth, following center of gravity...which means it will read level the entire flight thanks to gravity.
So if Earth is a sphere with gravity, the bubble will read level. If the Earth is flat without gravity, it will still read level....so this experiment proves nothing, it is inconclusive. Flat Earth doesn't care though, ignorance is their bread and butter, they just ignore the heliocentric science (even though it's 100% verified science) and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done. Denial is not an argument, it's just good ol' fashion ignorance.
1
-
1
-
Yes, the Bedford Level experiment has been repeated many times now. Upon every published recreation, it’s found in favour of a Globe. Here’s a very recent recreation, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
The reason Rowbotham (Parallax) came back with a flat result, is because he was ignoring variables (like atmospheric refraction) and he conducted a very rushed experiment that only made one observation and only collected one data set. He also did the wrong math, so his experiment was just poorly done. Upon all peer review of his work, it’s found that he didn’t do enough to render a conclusive result, so his work is inconclusive. It’s now a perfect example of how a good experiment done poorly, can lead you to a false conclusion if you’re not careful. He only went as far as he needed to confirm his bias, and then he stopped looking. But, that’s why we have peer review in science, to weed out errors, bias and lies.
1
-
It actually has been done many times now, they just don't listen. Here's a few that I am aware of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=390s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=480s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0&t=9s
These YouTubers actually dedicate their channels to this mess, debunking each claim with actual experimentation. They're pretty thorough, so they're good to check out and keep on deck if you're gonna chat with these nut jobs. Cause trouble is channels like these are just not easy to find online, so people assume nobody is out there doing these sorts of experiments....but they are. That being said, I agree, we should keep repeating these experiments, this sort of things should be common knowledge.
When it comes to Flat Earthers though, we're not dealing with rational people here...we're dealing with paranoia, ego, and confirmation bias...at least for the true believers, the rest are just trolls and con men who spend their time fooling these people...for some fuckin reason I have no idea why. For the true believers, we're dealing with a mob mentality that is done trusting science, their better reasoning robbed from them by their fear and complete distrust of authority. You can show them experiments like this, but it won't put out that fire, it'll likely just stoke it. They're just not listening anymore...pretty ironic from a group of people who claim to be more "open minded".
1
-
1
-
So we shouldn’t call out obvious bullshit when we see it? Do you think Flat Earth is somehow free from analysis and skepticism? Why can’t we question them, just as thoroughly as they question others? 🤷♂️
It’s fine to be skeptical, but when you’re just a contrarian for the sake of being different, then you’re not thinking rationally or objectively anymore, you’re just a hipster of misinformation. We are just being skeptical as well…skeptical of strangers online, with no background in science, pretending they’re the real experts, while pushing misinformation, that’s easily falsified with just a base understanding of physics and geometry.
You make claims on a public forum…you should expect to be checked for it. Flat Earth does not get a free pass from peer review. It’s unfortunate that ridicule occurs, but it’s human nature, so it’s gonna happen…and it happens from both sides, not just the globe proponents. Get a thicker skin I guess.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok, but many of the photos were taken during the Apollo missions (and even earlier), decades before CGI was really possible or viable for such imagery. Long before photoshop any way. I remember these images, long before the internet or computers were largely used. So how exactly did they fake these photos? Furthermore, what you really have here is just an empty claim, a conclusion reached from speculation. If you really were a professor as you claim, I’m surprised you’d form such a flimsy conclusion from speculations alone. It’s logical to infer the possibility of fakery, but no conclusion can really be drawn here, only speculated upon. That being said, I’d agree, unless I took the picture myself, I can’t really use it for argument either, so it’s fair not to accept photos as evidence. I’m fine with that, in this case at least.
Point is though, no, NASA does not claim every image they’ve produced is CGI. So you’re not off to a good start if you’re claiming they do. That is a lie...so why should anyone engage in conversation with anyone so willing to lie or twist facts? If you feel it’s not a lie though, feel free to educate me with a citation where NASA made that claim.
I don’t mind sharing and discussing evidence, but I’m not really interested in a debate where I’m going to be lied too constantly, just to win an argument. We have every reason to question Flat Earth, so don’t pretend like we don’t. It’s not delusional at all to be skeptical about a potential online hoax.
On that note, I’ll share some information on your points, I don’t mind.
1. Well, first of all, 8 inches per mile squared is not the accurate math to use in long distance observations. It is missing important variables required to make an accurate calculation here, things like height of the observer, horizon distance, refraction, etc. So if that’s the math you’ve been using, then that’s your first problem. Here’s where you can find the correct math you should be using https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/. Feel free to check the math here, you’ll find it’s far more accurate, than a basic parabola equation.
As for the evidence you’re looking for, here you go http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. This is a very in-depth recreation of the infamous Bedford Level experiment, only this time conducted over 10 km of a frozen lake. The conclusion is quite conclusive, the surface of that lake is curving and at the rate it should be given Earth’s scale. But feel free to analyze it closer if you’d like.
2. No, Michelson and Morley’s experiment was inconclusive. Upon all peer review, that has continued to be its conclusion, even Michelson and Morley agreed to this. What this means is, it neither verifies nor falsifies Aether, or its null hypothesis of a stationary Earth. So no, it did not prove the Earth is stationary, it is inconclusive, so anyone using this experiment to support any definite conclusion, is doing so out of pure bias.
What it did mean however, was that there was a possibility that Aether did not exist. Which was a problem at the time, because they were very certain it did exist...this experiment was supposed to find it, and everyone within physics at the time expected it would. They weren’t as concerned with the null hypothesis of a stationary Earth, because mountains of evidence already existed verifying that Earth rotation did exist. Foucault pendulum experiments, the gyro compass, observations of Coriolis effect, not to mention the plethora of observations already amassed from astronomy records, verifying the motions of our solar system, there just was no evidence suggesting Earth was not rotating, meanwhile there was tons in support of it. Today we have even more, with things like ring laser interferometers, used to measure Earth’s rotation.
So here’s how science looked at it, there was no evidence yet for the Aether and all other attempts to find it continued to find nothing, either failing completely or rendering an inconclusive result. Meanwhile, Earth rotation was being confirmed more and more, with tons of verified evidence...so you see a little better now why science would continue to support Earth rotation, while abandoning the concept of Aether?
So it’s another lie, saying Michelson Morley confirmed a stationary Earth, truth is it’s inconclusive. But feel free to provide me with any evidence to the contrary. In the meantime, I’ll now share some simple experiments verifying Earth rotation.
https://youtu.be/qy_9J_c9Kss - Ring laser interferometer measuring Earth rotation through the Sagnac effect.
https://youtu.be/M8rrWUUlZ_U - Foucault pendulum experiment repeated in a stairwell, refined a bit to calculate latitude.
https://youtu.be/mXaad0rsV38 - Simple Coriolis experiment, testing the swirling water of each hemisphere.
https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o - Measuring Earth’s centrifugal force by latitude.
3. Well...no, the heliocentric model was already pretty well established, special relativity physics just helped solve of few of the issues presented by the missing Aether (among other things). It filled in some blanks and solved a few problems, that’s about it. It helped refine gravity physics, to which much of Newtonian physics couldn’t account for. But proof? I mean, just look at any nuclear reactor or nuclear bomb. Both use this equation and understanding, to help understand, calculate and create the massive energy outputs of both. It’s just an equation to calculate how much energy you can get from a mass and vice versa...and it’s been pretty useful for that purpose, history proves that, current nuclear fission and fusion technology proves that.
But, I’m not a physicist, so I don’t pretend to know every facet of special or general relativity, just a baseline understanding really. But regardless, even if it could be falsified, does it change the observations made for a spherical Earth? There’s so much nuance in higher physics like that, that you could probably argue against these equations and maybe even falsify them...but does that really change the fact that I can travel to the South hemisphere, and observe the second rotation of stars around Sigma Octantis, for myself? Which I have done btw. Does it change the fact that I can put the current system of navigation to the test, by using it to plot my own navigation courses? Should we just throw the baby out with the bath water, because of some higher level physics that we’re aware is not completely worked out yet, even if it could be proven false? No...I’m not about to do that. Science is a process, it’s been wrong many times...but the geometry of the Earth, is an applied science today...it’s not really up for debate any longer.
You think GR is false and falsifiable, by all means, give it your best shot. But good luck with that, because every attempt so far, has just verified it further.
Anyway, that’s my two cents for now. Feel free to respond if you’d like. I don’t have all the time in the world for a full on debate, but I’ll try and respond when I can, if you have anything you’d like to address.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CalsTube Every mechanical gyroscope used on aircraft have a mechanism included on the gimbles known as pendulous vanes, that are there for this very reason, among others. Basically, they’re designed to correct any drift in the gyroscope, due to any reason, be it gyroscopic precession, extreme maneuvering, or Earth curvature. Look them up sometime…or go ahead and ask a pilot, every pilot is trained on the equipment they operate, and nothing more important than the horizon indicator, so very good chance they’d remember the pendulous vanes and their function.
Again, you’re reaching false conclusions from a lack of knowledge. Learn more about what you’re arguing…this is exactly how Flat Earth cons people, by exploiting the gaps in their knowledge.
1
-
1
-
@rodneybaker2629 Or maybe I’ve worked it out on my own, through my own observations and experiments, and now know exactly why these conclusions were reached. You think we’re just blind followers, but you really have no idea…it’s just something you need to tell yourself, so you never have to consider the possibility that you fell for an online con.
I’ll listen to anyone’s presentation of evidence, but I’m not just going to blindly agree with it. Science is about falsification, if your theory was accurate, then I wouldn’t be able to falsify it…but Flat Earth is actually pretty easy to refute, hence why I don’t subscribe too it. It’s really that simple. If you couldn’t…well, then that’s a you problem.
Feel free to share more information on your position, but yes, don’t expect me to agree with any of it out of the gate. Unless it can’t be refuted upon reviewing, then I have no reason to conclude it’s accurate.
1
-
1
-
Yes, it is a theory, but it's not as simple as most seem to think it is. A theory in science is very different from the general use of the word theory. Theory in the regular sense means a best guess based on prior evidence, so not proven yet. But in science Hypothesis takes on this role and a Theory in science becomes the highest form for explaining a phenomenon, it's what hypothesis graduates into after it's been proven, not before. Nothing in science graduates to the level of a theory until it is basically proven science, with multiple forms of evidence backing it. Nothing is beyond a theory in science when it comes to explanations for how and why something works the way it does at the mechanical level.
Not to be confused with Laws of science, which only describe WHAT is happening, they do not further explain HOW or WHY that something works the way it does. Because there is also the Law of gravity, which just describes the motion we observe from gravity, the downward acceleration towards the surface, but this Law does not describe HOW it is happening, it just records WHAT is happening. To describe HOW it works, we have the scientific theory of gravity to explain that part of things.
Also not to be confused with Facts, which also do not explain how something works, they just describe something that's undeniably true about something. Facts make up both Laws and Theories, but Facts by themselves are not what we use to explain things in greater detail, by themselves they do not explain HOW something is the way it is, that's what theories are for.
So the word 'theory' in science is not as simple as people like to think. When people use the argument "it's still just a theory", all you're really doing is displaying your scientific illiteracy....which pretty much forfeits that person from any conversation of science immediately after saying it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GT_Void Alright, I'll pick one since you're to much of a coward. At 41 minutes of your doc, the presenter brings up an Encyclopedia entry from a 1958 edition. Reading an entry from the book it reads as fallows "These flights proved the inland areas to be featureless in character, with a dome 13,000 feet high at about latitude 80°S, longitude 90°E". Then he makes a claim that this is talking about the "dome firmament". So he reads the word "dome" and immediately assumes this must mean "the dome firmament". Boy...didn't realize the dome was only 13,000 feet high...the highest elevation points in Antarctica go higher then that, shouldn't this dome firmament go MUCH higher, if planes are flying under it? Gee, I wonder if they could have meant anything else by word "dome"? Upon a quick search, yup, it's very likely they did. Ever heard of an ice dome before? They're a form of glacier that are pretty common all over Antarctica, here's a map of some of the larger ones. https://static.sphaericaest.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/image-131-1024x701.png Wow...lotta domes around Antarctica...I wonder which one is the firmament?
Alright, so let's see if we can find more info. Here's an entry found in a book titled 'Antarctica in the International Geophysical Year, Issue 1'.https://books.google.co.id/books?id=j44Kw31FSboC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false On page 15 in the section on Antarctica Geography you'll find this quote "The latter is believed to be a massive Precambrian shield superimposed by a great dome of snow and ice, and toward its center reaching in excess of 13,000 feet elevation". They're describing a glacier ice dome in this article...which are very common in Antarctica, as stated earlier.
So the researcher in your doc series really has nothing to verify, that what is being discussed is the "dome firmament", but he has no problem saying it is anyway...even though it states that this thing is only a measly 13,000 feet high. If he found the wall of this firmament...wouldn't he call it a wall, not a dome? And again, why is it only 13,000 feet high? What exactly gives him ANY INDICATION, that what he's reading is a discovery of the "firmament"?
No, I think he's applying his bias here and just making an assumption, because it says a word that he can spin into some bullshit. He just pulled a single word from a book and spun his own bias narrative upon it....selling you a claim that they were talking about the "dome firmament". They were not, they were likely talking about ice dome glaciers found all over Antarctica...that is far more likely, since the elevation of many of these ice glacier domes, are roughly around the elevation stated in the Encyclepidia. So he's being bias...this is just classic cherry picking, meaning it's confirmation bias, nothing more.
So that's one down, how much you wanna bet if I tackled every claim made one at a time, I'd be able to spot the bullshit in each claim? I know I would be able too....I've done it many times...it's all bullshit, that's why I'm no afraid to you have you pick a point yourself, it's ALL BULLSHIT....so pretty easy to dismantle if you really take the time.
I've watched your fucking bullshit documentaries bud....they're nothing but empty speculations, quotes taken out of context and respun with a bias narrative, misunderstood physics, bad math and paranoid delusion. They are 3 hours long, to impress idiots like you....with what's known as GISH GALLOP. Which is a deceptive debate tactic, where you bury your opponent in an onslaught of weak arguments, that one at a time can't stand on their own, but together they seem more impressive. It's designed to overwhelm your ability to counter the bullshit being spewed....and sadly, it works.
Now go ahead, pick another point...I don't mind at all.
1
-
@karynwaithera3207 I just don't like bullshit. It's fine to question things...but why lie to yourself and others in the process? Why cherry pick information and spin bias upon it and reach conclusions from pure speculations and bias conjectures? The fact is, that entire documentary G.T. shared is nothing but gish gallop and bias. It's deceptive and bias, cherry picking only the information that supports their conclusion and ignoring all the other details that directly refute it....and it's incredible that I have to sit people down and tell them this. You should NEVER form full opinions around speculations....and that's all this documentary does, from start to finish, it speculates, endlessly.
I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to keep people honest, objective and reasonable. Bias is real, we all have it...it can and will lead you to false conclusions if you allow it. I try my very best not to form opinions around pure speculations and I do everything I can to keep bias in check....that's how you get to the REAL truth of things. I do that, by reconizing the difference between speculation and actual evidence. I do that by recognizing that I have bias, identifying what mine is, and then keeping it in check when evidence is presented to me....I wish everybody else did the same, but sadly, I don't see that happening...I see people chasing it, like moths to a flame.
From what I've seen, Earth is not flat...the evidence for the Globe is overwhelming. People would know that, if they could just step away from their bias long enough...to actually LOOK at that evidence and understand it.
I don't doubt there are very corrupt and evil people out there, pulling the strings for their own agendas...trust me, I get why everybodies on edge, but that doesn't mean we just lose our heads....that's very likely what they want us to do, lose our minds and confuse us, which divides us further and gets us fighting amongst ourselves. But, they can't hide the natural world from us, anyone can put reality to the test any time they want too, it's right outside every single day...you can learn the physics and discover the science on your own, at any time, the elites can't take that from you. I have done that, I know for a fact Earth is not flat, it doesn't take much effort to realize that either. So I'm challenging anyone who claims that it is, both to challenge myself to see if I might have missed something AND to challenge what I feel is misinformation. Misinformation is easier to spread then ever before thanks to social media, I'm just doing what I can to stem that flow, because NOTHING should just fly by the radar unchecked and unchallenged.
Just wish I met more rational people...who could keep their head on their shoulders, and recognize the difference between speculation and actual evidence. But I don't find a lot those...and that is just scary.
1
-
@karynwaithera3207 What you might as well have just said is "ignore everything else and agree with me"...sorry Karyn, but I will not do that. Religion is your bias, it keeps you from paying attention. All I care about is physical evidence, because reality is not magic, it can be measured, observed, studied and understood. That proof is all around you. You're not talking to me through a bible, you're talking to me on a computer...mankind didn't invent this technology, by keeping their nose in a bible...they did it by studying the natural world and figuring out how it works. We can absolutely do the same for the true shape of the Earth...and we have, pilots and sailors are not using a flat model of Earth to navigate with, that's for a good reason. So physical evidence is all that matters to me, leave your book of superstitions at the door please.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hakan8997 That's fine
Håkan, it's great that you'd rather have solid intel rather than maybes, but why are you ignoring the several times they have pointed out a different flight, from Australia to South America, that does fly direct as well, that on the Gleason would fly over Canada to make the shortest route...but it doesn't fly that way in reality. There are also flights from Australia to South Africa direct, that I know people have flown, here's a guy who has tons of info on these flights...he's a commercial pilot from Australia. https://www.youtube.com/user/Wolfie6020 Here's one such example of a flight he breaks down and explains better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOY2BSfdbc8&t=514s So how does the Gleason map account for some of the Southern hemisphere flights that don't match with what is flown in reality? Why do Flat Earthers focus so much time on the North...and completely ignore the South? You'll find a lot of flights down there, that don't make much sense on a Flat Earth, so I do find it very conveniant that Flat Earthers only focus on the flights that maybe kind of sort of fit their model better...while ignoring the ones that COMPLETELY make no sense on a Flat Earth.
There could be a lot of reasons why that flight is reverted closer to Sweden, the Globe still accounts for it, it's not like it's flying WAY of course now is it. But there are TONS of flights in the South, that would fly off course immensely, if the Earth were flat...so why do Flat Earthers ignore these flights and focus on the North? Take a look at some of the flights being mentioned above to you and some of the flights being mentioned by Wolfie in the link I shared.
Jeranism and Karen B and those guys ARE being put to task just as much and we're finding them in error as well. We're concluding now that they are the true perpetuators of this scam online...feeding you the information they WANT you to see and ignoring all others.
Wolfie6020, Critical Think, Sly Sparkane, Blue Marble Science, Bob the Science Guy, Greater Sapien, Soundly, Reds Rhetoric and many others, those are the true Globe Earth channels looking at the bigger claims and challenging them. People like Jeranism, Rob Skiba, Eric Dubay, Karen B, Bob Knodel, Mark Sargent, Nathan Oakley, and many others, THESE are the people that are being checked by the ones I just mentioned above...they ARE being put to task and they are STILL being caught out in error.
It's great your name dropping the bigger proponents of Flat Earth, but are you aware of any of the bigger Globe Earth proponents? If not, then you've being doing bias research, looking at just ONE side of the argument. Just take a look at some of the work that has been done by the true Globe Earth proponents sometime...and THEN you'll have both sides of things in a little clearer focus.
1
-
@hakan8997 Likewise, explain the Southern flights to me please. You've received several comments now explaining that flight and it has been noted. My question is why focus on one flight, while several others don't support your claims at all? That's what seems convenient to me.
Yes, I didn't drop Scimandan for a good reason, he's more a commentator and not really a dedicated researcher, his work is mostly for entertainment. He's the largest channel for that reason, because most people use this platform for entertainment...not education. Scimandan is great and all, but I agree, he's not the best source for information pertaining to the Globe side of the argument. Wolfie is a pilot...so I don't get why you hand wave him aside so quickly. Explain to me why you don't believe his work is valid. Maybe I'll listen, if rather then laughing you gave me a reason to agree with you. Soundly is the same, show me where he has fudged things, he's done some really impressive work, but if you have spotted some flaws then by all means, I'm all ears. Go right ahead, I don't mind taking a look.
Do YOU? Cause it just always seems like Flat Earthers would rather laugh and make empty claims and ignore any information that refutes them, rather then give us ANY reason to see their side of things, past their empty claims they will repeat over and over again, even after they've been refuted. So please, point me towards the reasons why you don't trust Wolfie or Soundly. Have you looked at Sly Sparkanes work yet? He's another huge one that has done some pretty impressive work as well, what about his work? Feel free, I don't mind taking a look at any information you have that might help me see why you distrust them.
Ask me about pretty much any Flat Earth researcher, and I will SHOW YOU exactly why I don't trust them. I will find the videos I have watched of theirs and I will point out their errors to you and I will explain to you where they go wrong. I don't just watch a little bit of their videos and then laugh and shrug it off, I pay attention and I hear them out. It is harder now to take them seriously, but I prefer to be objective, so I will still. I always find a flaw in their work, and I can share those flaws with you, so just ask which one you'd like me to get into with you and I'll let you know if I've looked at their work yet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, it has been scientifically verified. We've measured Earths rotation now in several different ways, starting with the Foucault pendulum experiment, then later with gyro compasses, now today we do it with large area Sagnac interferometers (also known as ring laser gyros). The Earth is measured to rotate at a steady rate of 15 degrees every hour, which is roughly 1000 mph linear speed, to cover a 24,000 mile circumference, 1 rotation every 24 hours. This is long settled science that you're arguing against...the only reason you've reached the conclusion you have currently, is because you're very ignorant to what science actually knows and you instead listened blindly to con men feed you misinformation and bullshit, and for some reason you believed them without question, over actual experts. When somebody told you there was no scientific proof of Earths rotation, I bet you just nodded your head and agreed, didn't even bother to look if that statement was true or not. It's incredible how we can live in the information age, and people are STILL this ignorant. SMH.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Flat Earthers repeat every argument they hear, almost verbatim, from strangers on YouTube channels, so how can you honestly think they’re not just believing what they’re told as well? They choose to believe these con men over actual experts, despite their lack of credentials and experience, because they trust them more than current systems of authority, because these people are generally like them, average joes...but they’re still just blindly following what others tell them, so nothings really changed for them, they just think it did.
The difference is, science has developed a working model of reality that is testable and repeatable and USEFUL for applied science. Everything from engineering, to navigation, communication and infrastructure, it all makes use of the heliocentric model...and it works. That’s for a good reason, because it’s accurate. While FE just has paranoid bullshit, nothing that’s actually useful. They all just simply believe they’re somehow superior, simply because they’re part of a niche’ group of people, who believe something contrary to everyone else. They’re more like hipsters of knowledge...it’s exciting to think you know something others don’t, even if that something is completely nonsensical and doesn’t fit reality.
Also, ever think maybe that guy in the car was just being prepared? Is he hurting himself or others wearing a mask in his car alone? No, so why do you care? Probably even forgot he had it on...it’s pretty easy to forget when you’re wearing them off and on all day. Fact still remains, masks help limit the spread of pathogens ejected from every breathing individual, so it’s just smart. You’re not special or ahead of the curb for not wearing a mask...you’re just a selfish asshole.
I’m sorry if you don’t believe this pandemic is real, try spending some time in an ICU for a few hours. I had a doctor friend tell me a story of a dying man in his care, gasping his lungs out, saying the government had poisoned him, over and over again, never thinking he was sick with anything...believing right down to his last breath, that it was all bullshit. It’s incredible how deep this paranoia goes...it’s sad. We’re lucky this thing is only slightly worse than the flu in terms of mortality rate...or we’d be fucked. Even if you’re not sure, the least you can do is mask up. I get that you feel it’s a breach of your freedoms, but we’re in a society, that always comes with a certain level of manners and cooperation. Thinking of others sometimes, rather than just yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Moon orbits the Earth...and during about half of that orbit, it’s going between the Sun and the Earth. So seeing the Moon during the day is exactly what we’d expect to happen, if the Moon is orbiting around Earth. Pretty simple stuff to figure out. If you need further help, just watch this very simple demonstration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz01pTvuMa0&t
Why would you think oceans would be floating in the universe, if gravity is real? The strongest gravity well in our local area is created by our Earth, so water is going to be drawn to that gravity...it has no way of breaking free of that gravity. So what’s holding our oceans...gravity is. And yes we can conclude that, because gravity has been proven with evidence, if you’d like to see that evidence, I don’t mind sharing it.
Yes, governments lie, people lie...but science is just a method of thought for deducing the mysteries of physical reality, it’s just another tool in the belt...it has about as much agenda as a hammer does. The nice thing about science, is that anyone can learn how to use the method...then you can test these things for yourself and see if they’re true. People will lie, but evidence won’t. So learn the method if you’d like to learn how science came to the conclusions that it has. Then the world becomes a lot less scary and uncertain.
1
-
Wow...you really didn't pay much attention in physics class did you. Soooooo many misunderstandings. You're forgetting about the laws of motion, most notably conservation of momentum. Here's a helium balloon hovering inside a moving train https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18Dyl2msozc wow...didn't know a balloon could move that fast! Once something is in motion, it stays in motion, conserving the momentum of the inertial reference frame it is moving with. A helicopter took off from the surface rotating with the Earth 1000 mph, it will conserve the momentum indefinitely and hover just fine in place, thanks to conservation of momentum and relative motion.
Pretty simple physics that is quite easy to demonstrate. Here's more proof of conservation of momentum. https://imgur.com/gallery/70m3Fku Wow...how is this guy landing dead center of the trampoline on each bounce, even though it's in motion? Now here's a guy hovering a drone inside a moving van, demonstrating the same physics of a helicopter hovering over the Earth as it rotates. https://youtu.be/HIycHlAsDZk?t=151
Our atmosphere does the same thing, it moves with our rotation at close to the same relative rate...so no, there won't be 500 mph winds and of course there isn't. But there are winds, and what do you think creates those winds in the first place? You guessed it, Earths rotation, which creates a fluid dynamic system of motion to occur in our atmosphere, generating winds. What causes the winds in your Flat Earth system of non motion? Shouldn't everything just remain still? Of course it's a lot more complex then that, storms and winds are generated in many ways, from pressure differences, to temperature, to buoyancy, but a HUGE factor is rotational motion. We know this, because our atmosphere behaves as it should if it were in a rotational motion, the Coriolis effect we observe in larger storms, is more proof of that motion.
Our spin does not create gravity...who the hell told you that? No wonder you're so mixed up about things.
A car doesn't have wings....a butterfly does, pretty simple to see how it's able to fly. It's incredible anyone has to explain that to an adult. So now what happens when a butterfly is not flapping those wings? You guessed it, It falls to Earth...like everything does...it is not free from gravity, it just has less mass making it easier to resist it. Gravity effects mass, if you have more mass, you will have a harder time resisting gravity. A car has more mass, so it's going to be effected much more by gravity...this is simple stuff. All things fall at the same rate of acceleration, because gravity attracts everything at the same rate, but with more mass, that means more matter being attracted, meaning heavier...meaning more energy is going to be required to resist gravity enough to get off the surface. This is demonstrated in flight aerodynamics and rocket science...we know how much energy is required per unit of mass, we put rockets into space all the time, we put planes into flight every single day. YOUR misunderstandings of physics will not change that. :/
So how does weight by itself put matter into motion towards the ground? That is an accelerating motion, but what causes that motion? First law of motion again is that nothing is put into motion without a force, so how does weight know to fall down towards Earth every time? Weight is caused by gravity for one thing, weight is a measurement of inertia caused by the downward acceleration of matter and the resistance of the surface keeping it from getting closer to center, which creates inertia, which we measure as weight. Density is what exists but density is not a force, it is just a property of matter and has no means to put anything into motion on its own. You require a force to put matter into motion...there is no way around that I'm afraid. So what force is causing the accelerating motion we call falling?
You really need to stop being so ignorant. Do you see all the technology out there today? Do you really think it got there because scientists don't know what they're doing? Maybe if you payed better attention in school, you wouldn't be so paranoid and afraid of the modern world. Learn some physics.
1
-
Well, he probably could have explained things better, I do agree, but this isn’t a science channel, so that’s not really what he does here. Johnny is an independent journalist, so he focuses more on the people and the group, not the science.
But if you require a bit more info, here it is. Both experiments he used were examples of inconclusive experiments. The first one (level on a plane) is just flawed from the start, because that’s not how a level works. A spirit level uses buoyancy in a two part density column, to find centre of gravity. Flat Earthers are ignoring the force of gravity, so they’re ignoring important variables and reaching a false conclusion, from the wrong assumptions. Put simply, you can’t use a spirit level to determine the shape of surface, any more than you can use a compass to determine the shape of a magnet; the bubble moves with force of gravity, just like a compass needle moves with the force of the magnet.
So it’s flawed right from the start, his point is that people who become flat Earthers don’t see or understand how that experiment is flawed…that’s a big part of why they become flat Earthers, they lack some knowledge and/or understanding, so they reach false conclusions. So he was basically trolling them, that’s the whole point of recreating that experiment, to make fun of them a little. He knew it was flawed before doing it, he only included it as a joke…but it does also help to make his main point; why do people become flat Earthers? The answer is because they’re kinda dumb and uneducated…if we’re being brutally honest. He was a bit more gentle about it, but that’s basically what it boils down too.
The other experiment is a bit better, in that it’s a legit experiment with a good premise, but the flaw it makes is sloppy experimentation. Robotham’s version of the experiment is inconclusive, because he simply did not do enough to render a conclusive result. And it was riddled with errors. He used the wrong math that didn’t factor height of the observer. He only used one marker, only making one observation, and included zero controls; proper experimentation requires multiple data sets, with controls to help isolate the variable you’re testing. And he ignored important variables like atmospheric refraction, which does occur, and can effect what you see at distances. So his experiment is extremely inconclusive…that’s the problem. You can not use inconclusive results to reach a conclusion with, if you do you are more than likely doing so out of bias. The problem here is that they do reach a conclusion, regardless of its flaws…and then they ignore any attempts to point out how it’s flawed.
Proper recreation of this experiment actually verifies the opposite of what he claimed, that Earth is curving. A great example of a modern day recreation of that experiment is the Rainy Lake experiment, look it up if it interests you, it’s not difficult to find the official research blog.
Anyway, I hope that information is helpful or at the very least interesting. Take care.
1
-
Ok, but that's assuming all the air isn't rotating WITH the Earth, at the same relative rate of motion. While driving in your car, are you feeling any of that drag force from the air that's moving with you, inside the vehicle? No...cause it's moving with you at the same rate, so it's not smashing into you, so no drag force. It does this thanks to relative motion and conservation of moment, which is basic physics of motion. So...what evidence do you have to assume the air of our Earth is not moving with the surfaces rotation? You'd have to falsify conservation of momentum, gravity, and fluid dynamics to make your assumption even remotely plausible...and it's all pretty established physics, so good luck with that.
Flat Earth loves to ignore physics when it suites them, but that's not how you remain objective. I'd suggest learning more about fluid dynamics and relative motion. It's all real physics that's pretty easy to demonstrate and understand, and it does matter here, so kind of important to understand this physics...before you jump to any false conclusions due to a lack of knowledge on the subject. So feel free, lots of videos and information here on YouTube that could help you out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@April85... People don't bat an eye at Flat Earth claims, because we know where you're going wrong. It's pretty simple. It's fine to question things, but after enough research it becomes pretty clear that Flat Earth is the perfect example of confirmation bias and misinformation run amok. But allow me to address some of your points now.
Yes, the LINEAR surface speed of the Earths rotation is 1000 mph, but viewing it from thousands miles away to get a full image, and parallax will cause that speed to appear to grind to a halt. Ever wondered why a 500 mph passenger jet that traces across the sky, doesn't look like it's traveling at 500 mph across the sky? It's simple, because of parallax, which is effected by distance. Basically, the farther away something is, the less it will appear to move...it's the same thing that makes objects you drive past on the side of the road appear to whiz by you at blistering speeds when they're close to you on the side of the road, but the further away you look (distant trees, houses, buildings, hills, mountains, etc), the farther these objects are away from you, the slower they appear to move relative to. Parallax is why this occurs. So knowing this...if you were to observe the Earth from thousands of miles away, which is required to get a full image of it, how fast do you think the surface would appear to move, due to parallax?
To get a full snap of the Earth, requires the observer be several thousand miles away...a passenger jet fly's at roughly 6 miles altitude, and travels at 500 mph, and from only that distance it looks like it's barely crawling across the sky...what do you think a few thousand more miles is going to do to the Earth? 500 mph is half the speed of the Earths rotation...so think about that for a moment. Take all the time you need.
Really though, you don't even need to go through all that trouble of understanding how parallax works (though it's not hard and you probably should anyway), all you need to realize, is that the Earth completes ONE ROTATION every 24 hours. So if you're an astronaut, and if you were look at the Earth...it would take 24 hours for it to complete a full rotation and come back around with the same face towards you that it started with when you started observing. To put that into perspective, pick up a basketball, now spin it so that it takes 24 hours to complete ONE ROTATION. That's 2x's slower then the hour hand of a clock! Do ya think you'd notice it rotating? Do you notice an hour hand moving? No...you don't....so what makes you think you'd spot it moving if it was rotating twice as slow?
No, I'm sorry, but I'm not looking for evidence of Flat Earth anymore, I'm not new to this discussion, I've been looking at this conspiracy for over 3 years now, I have concluded the Earth is a sphere. I know this argument inside and out and I've heard it all, I have successfully falsified every claim made by Flat Earth and compiled an absolutely overwhelming mountain of evidence that supports the Globe in every way.
So it's VERY clear to me, that Earth is a globe, it always has been...and it's not hard for anyone to verify it for themselves. The only people who think it isn't, are people who can't grasp simple concepts like parallax, and simple physics concepts like relative motion, gravity, entropy, etc...basically physics in general. Not just that though, it generally effects people who also have a great lack of trust in systems of authority, so a strong bias against them. Which causes them to often listen blindly to strangers on YouTube over actual experts.
Anyway, sorry for the ramble. It's not wrong to question what you're told, but you have to be careful where you're getting your info from when you do. So I hope you find this information at the very least interesting.
1
-
@April85... Are you referring to the continent sizes and varying colors from picture to picture? If so, I didn't address them, doesn't mean I don't know where you've gone wrong here as well. Just didn't wanna bury you in too much text...I rather prefer sticking to one point at a time.
I'll address the continent size with one piece of valuable evidence to that point. https://i.redd.it/8hao2aez62251.jpg Perspective is why the continent sizes change, as demonstrated in that photo there. Here's a video demonstration of this same effect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEzcPJsDohA
Why do the colors look different in each photo? Because of the varying lenses used in photography, that all have their own color settings and presets and capabilities. This is going to vary the colors from photo to photo...it's unavoidable in photography. Even the lighting will effect color, if the camera has to adjust it's exposure to allow less light through for certain shots, then it's going to effect the color a bit as well, either saturating it or desaturating it.
Then there are the composite images taken in low Earth orbit, which are digitally touched up, and the colors here will vary from who's doing the composite rendering. As an artist myself, with hundreds of hours experience in photoshop, I'm constantly tweaking the hues and saturation of any art or photos I take....this will alter the colors of whatever I'm working on, that's what the hue and saturation control does, it's super easy to adjust the color of any photo. So this is also going to cause the colors to vary from photo to photo. This doesn't mean these are faked photos...it just means the colors were tweaked. Composites are not fake images, they are hundreds of smaller REAL images of Earth, stitched together to form ONE single image. Your phone does the same thing, with it's panoramic feature.
The claims by Flat Earth though are just "colors different, means these are all faked" or, "continents are all different sizes, means they're all faked". And no...no it doesn't, it just means your bias is leading your thinking. There are valid reasons why each photo of Earth is different, from colors, to continent sizes...you don't help your arguments much by ignoring these explanations we share.
Anything else you'd like me to address? Like I said, I know this argument probably better then most Flat Earthers...I know where you're wrong on every point.
1
-
@April85... And yet...that image and video I shared demonstrates how perspective changes the continent sizes on those model globes. Perspective isn't JUST about vanishing point....there are MANY more fundamentals of perspective then just vanishing point my friend. I suggest you spend a day watching some drawing tutorials on the fundamentals of visual perspective and they'll tell you all about it.
See, you learned about vanishing point from a con man singing you songs about Flat Earth on YouTube....I learned it from art classes DECADES ago, long before YouTube was ever a thing, long before flat Earth was a thing, and I've been studying the fundamentals of perspective for most of my life now ever since then, because I'm an illustrator for a living. Artists need to know a lot about perspective...we need to know those fundamentals so well, so that we can apply it, every day in the work we do.
So when it comes to perspective, please don't patronize me...I consider myself an expert on that topic in particular. I have earned that, from studying art most of my life. Distance and perspective make it possible to see more of the surface of sphere, so the farther back you go, the more of the spheres surface you see, the smaller those continents will appear, because your eye compares the continent size to the surroundings. It's an optical illusion known as a relative size illusion, illustrated best in this ebbinghaus illusion https://www.cleareyes.com/eye-care-blog/201711/exploring-relative-size-optical-illusions/.
1
-
1
-
@April85... My guess is, your guy was talking about taking photos in different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. Different wavelengths include infrared, UV, microwave, radio, gamma, etc. We can't see this light with our eyes, but digital cameras that collect this light with special filters and then interpret it into raw data can. But, because we still can't see this light, it means the camera has to collect it as data, and then reinterpret that data into the visual light spectrum for us. This means they have recolor it digitally to make the data visible. These types of photos come out looking like this. https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs40623-018-0789-5/MediaObjects/40623_2018_789_Fig1_HTML.gif Sometimes they color code the data like this. https://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Moon-multiwavelength-.jpg So that's why they recolor these images, they have too...because we can't see these spectrums of light, we can only see things in our visual light spectrum, red, green, blue, yellow, orange, violet, etc.
They do this with the Sun, the Moon, other planets, asteroids...we can learn a lot of extra information from these types of pictures, taken within a different wavelength of the light spectrum. Look at different images of the Sun in different wavelengths. https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2013/11/717632main_Sun-Wavelength-Chart_full.jpg Some things that were not visible in other wavelengths, suddenly become noticeable and easy to see. So this is why they take photos in the different light spectrums.
If I had to guess, that's what your scientist was really talking about...and you just heard him wrong. Probably just heard the words "can't take photos in space" and then completely tuned out the rest. But context is important...that phrase can mean anything given the context.
But, can't know for sure what exactly he was saying, until I know exactly what he said, so you'd have to produce that footage for me so I could have a look. But I've seen flat Earthers misinterpret words and meanings many times, so this more then likely just another case like that. Taking words and phrases out of context and spinning a bias misinterpretation upon them is called cherry picking...and it's a form of confirmation bias. It's important to get the details of what's being said correct, or you risk reaching a false conclusion.
You really gotta stop attacking things with bias...that's how you overlook information and misinterpret it....you've had your brain scrambled by con artists man. Why do people listen to non experts on YouTube so blindly, nodding and agreeing with every word they say and every piece of cherry picked information they share....but then you people don't bother to go out and actually talk to REAL experts and scientists about these things? It's incredible....that you think MILLIONS of people are lying to you....that you can't be wrong.
1
-
@April85... Now you're just rambling Mark. Focus your thoughts for a moment and articulate a response that's clear and cogent please. Are you saying radio, infrared, x-ray, gamma, etc has limitations on how far they can travel? No, they do not, these are all apart of the electromagnetic spectrum just like visible light is, they can travel infinitely far...it's basic physics. Light has no limit for how far it can travel, this is known physics. That means every spectrum of light as well. What WILL happen though at distances, is the frequency will distort and become harder to pick up, so it requires better transceivers to pick them up, you also have to be pointing that transceiver in the right direction and have it tuned to receive that specific wavelength...like tuning a radio in, but much more precise and sensitive.
Do hobbyists do this? Yes, they do. Here's a group that builds their own radio telescopes for super cheap, that they then use to pull data from satellites in orbit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t Take a look at some of these photos of Earth they're pulling from these satellites, you might find them interesting. They even explain how to build these so you or anyone can do the same thing.
Radar has its limits, because of the curvature of the Earth. Radar requires a direct line of travel to the object you're pinging, if it's blocked by something, then it's not going to show up on radar. It's the curvature of the Earth that limits radar here on Earth, as well as atmospheric effects. But did you know they bounce radar off the Moon, bouncing radio frequency's off the surface which they can then use to determine how far away it is? They do the same for Venus as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mXBPZXyMHw
You really need to stop getting your science lessons from conspiracy documentaries and movies. Take an actual physics class, your information is all scrambled. You're just doing what every bias researcher does, paying attention to only the details that support your bias and ignoring everything else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@April85... Physics is the study of physical reality...you live in and experience physical reality every single day, so there is no excuse, you can put physical reality to the test any time you like and learn about it yourself, any time you want. Little hard for them to lie to you about something you can test yourself at any time, with very easy to do experiments in most cases. So you've made a claim that they push false results...ok, so it should be pretty easy then for you to give me an example of some physics where they gave us the false results. I assume you've put these results to the test yourself, to know for certain they were wrong, so feel free to tell me which results in physics were wrong in particular? So go ahead.
I've seen the speech by John F Kennedy, it's a great speech and I have no doubt he was murdered for attempting to stop some really crooked people. Do I claim to know who those people are and what their agenda was? Nope, and I'm not going to speculate about things I can't verify either...I focus on conspiracy's I can verify or falsify with certainty, with science. I focus on the science, because I can verify science myself at anytime, so there's no room for speculation when I've done the science myself. I don' t like forming opinions around empty conjectures and insufficient evidence, so I don't argue other conspiracy's, because that's really all I can do with most of them, speculate. Flat Earth however, is complete bullshit and it's easy to falsify...doesn't take much effort and I can falsify it with certainty through very basic science and observation. I admire John F Kennedy, I think he was a great man and I agree, he was onto something big, or they wouldn't have killed him...and it really sux he got shot...but people often forget that he also signed the order to send people to the Moon and he was still alive while much of the testing was going on...meaning his office helped put some of the first people into space and helped fund NASA's first successful missions. Just cause he was onto something big...does not mean that something was flat Earth. All anyone can really do is speculate about that shit...and I personally refuse to join that bullshit. I will not chase bread crumbs that aren't really there. Humans are experts at finding patterns, especially when they're not really there...it's important to remember that last part and keep yourself from chasing bullshit.
1
-
@April85... Now lets focus on some science, cause that's all I give a shit about and I'm tired of your rambling.
"unless they need to convince you of matter and light bending to debunk other things"
Light bends...this is well known, it's called refraction. You know this, you've seen it before many times in your life. https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/light-refraction-physics-is-fun.jpg It matters for long distance observations, it will distort what you see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t So it's a variable you can't just ignore...https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0?t=551
It's not hard to prove that light bends and refracts as it passes through denser air....it's easy physics to prove and verify for yourself at ANY TIME, with just a few simple experiments, many of which I have just shared above...so go nuts, do some catching up.
"even rocket thrusters need to push off something"
No they do not...that's not how a rocket thruster propels...at least not the kind of pushing you think. You have this assumption that rockets push off of air...and that's not at all how they achieve flight. Rockets propel by Newtons third Law of motion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It's the same reason a gun recoils, it's not the air, it's the bullet pushing off the barrel and vice versa...they push off of each other. You can demonstrate this pretty simply with a simple experiment. Imagine you're skating on some ice, in your hand is a 20 lb medicine ball. Now stay in place so you're not moving, skates parallel to each other, now put the medicine ball at chest height and toss it as hard as you can with both hands away from your chest. What happens? You go one way and the medicine ball goes the other, essentially pushing off of each other. Action, reaction...simple physics of motion. Now, pick up the medicine ball and do the experiment again, except this time, don't throw the ball, but push it against the air in front of you as hard as you can. Now, what happens? Nothing...you don't go anywhere this time. See it's not the air the fuel is pushing off of...the tank is pushing off the fuel, the fuel is pushing off the tank, they push off of each other, to propel the rocket up. The air does very little to help...in fact, it's actually doing more to slow the rocket down, thanks to the drag force it's creating.
It's actually easier to propel around in the vacuum of space, because there is no air resistance. But Ok, I hear the crickets in your ears from here, so I won't leave you hanging without a demonstration. https://youtu.be/T8MOoUuLnug?t=356 Notice how this can of pop when it explodes, doesn't require any air to push off of. It's in a vacuum, and the moment it explodes the can moves violently. Action, reaction, Newtons third law confirmed. Many different ways you can verify this...it's simple science. Rockets don't just propel in vacuums....they propel BETTER in vacuums. They do not require air to make this propulsion possible. You're thinking of a jet engine, which uses air to generate thrust, which then uses the surrounding air under the wings to generate lift. Air is needed for airplanes and jets...not rockets. Easy science to confirm for yourself.
"...that something will have an effect on signals"
You're right, atmospheric conditions absolutely do have an effect on many wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum, especially certain frequencies of radio...just like it does visible light when it bends and refracts it. It's also how radio propagation works. You should know what radio propagation is...being in communications as long as you claim you were. This is when you bounce radio signals off the upper atmosphere (mainly the ionsphere) and back down to surface...so you can send radio communications further. Now, if the Earth wasn't curving, why exactly would bouncing radio signals off the upper atmosphere send them further? Those signals would be traveling further technically...so wouldn't they crap out much sooner then direct radio signals? That is, if radio signals had a limit to how far they went....Hmmmm. Radio has a limit yes....because of curvature. Little hard to hit a receiver and interpret a message...if the Earth is curving away and blocking those receivers. But...guess we'll just go with your assumption, that radio signals have their limit...just because.
The thing about space that's great...there is no air in space. So signals have NOTHING to stop them, reflecting them, slow them down. So unless a radio signal hits a solid mass, like a planet, star, asteroid or any other solid space debris...it will travel indefinitely. We know this, we bounce signals off of the Moon and other planets. We receive signals from satellites. We receive signals from probes we've sent out into deep space. We build radio telescopes that help us see things regular telescopes can't pick up....so they're seeing further than regular telescopes that have a known light visualizing distance.
You speak of these people faking science...but then explain none of it, just give me snarky, holier than thow responses that are open ended and don't verify your claims one bit. Meanwhile, I'm falsifying each point you make, with evidence and logic. Giving you explanations for how the science works...giving you simple experiments that verify them. You just don't seem to get it, science isn't hard...physics isn't a made up curriculum to fool the masses, it's the study of the natural physical world around you...and when you learn this stuff, they don't just talk about it, THEY DEMONSTRATE IT! Through practical experiments that prove their conclusions.
School starts out by telling you how things work...but the further down the line you go in the educatoin system, the more they demonstrate things to you and PROVE IT with experimentation. Even further down the line, they don't just demonstrate it for you...they ask YOU to demonstrate it for yourself. Then later, before you graduate university level courses and get your degree/diploma, they ask you to CHALLENGE something old or DISCOVER something new. You do this in the form of a THESIS paper. These require you PROVE the science or falsify it, through your own means. Nobody holds your hand and tells you what to do or what to think. YOU make the calls.
1
-
1
-
@April85... It's always amazing to me how religious people throw out these proud school yard insults that involve their brand of fiction...as if it should mean anything to me. You might as well just say "best of luck when Thanos comes and snaps his fingers", do you see how ridiculous that sounds? Well that's what you sound like from my perspective, it means about that much to me. I've falsified pretty close to all of your points with evidence and logical explanations that anyone can test for themselves...and you can't reply back with a counter rebuttal, because you know I'm right and you have nothing.
I'm not trying to be a dick (well, not all of it anyway), I just don't like bullshit and people who spread it. If you had any actual arguments, they would stand up to review...you wouldn't have to be cryptic about anything, you would just rebuttal my points with evidence and logic and then I'd maybe agree with you if you successfully falsified anything I said. I don't think I'm being unreasonable at all...if you're going to make claims, you should be able to back them up with something. Instead, you spouted gibberish and never even attempted. Just ignored, deflected, ignored, deflected....the same bullshit from every modern science denier.
1
-
@April85... Then by all means, refute something for a change. Instead of deflecting to the next argument, pick something and stick with it and refute my science. Should be easy, I've given you plenty of opportunities to verify your claims as accurate and to falsify mine. Don't get mad and hissy at me for being checked on your claims...falsify my counters with your own science and explanations, that's all you had to do. If you can't, then it's more then likely because you're wrong...and it just hasn't set in yet. It's pretty simple.
Instead you just danced around everything I said and then rambled off a bunch of nonsensical, cryptic (as you put it), jargon. If I "cling to my silly information"....it's because it's undeniably true and you people do NOTHING to change that. You want science to change....then ok, prove the current science is false, prove your positions are correct with FACTS and logic and evidence. It's that simple. Otherwise, we have no reason to listen to you or accept your bullshit claims....why you think you can just rattle off empty claims one after the other and we should just believe you blindly, is insane.
1
-
@April85... Oh no Mark, I'm WELL AWARE that Flat Earth "claims" all the photos from NASA are fake....you guys won't shut up about it. But just because an image is touched up in photoshop....does not mean it's fake. I take REAL photos all the time, then I color correct them in photoshop to adjust brightness, saturations, colors....does that now mean my REAL photo is fake? No, it doesn't....photoshop does not imply fakery, but you only think in black and white absolutes, and so too you it does.
And they don't do this to every single photo....that's an empty claim that flat Earth makes. A lot of the pictures they take and have taken, are regular single frame photographs...that have never been touched up in photoshop. Heck, Himawari 8 takes a new photo like this every 10 minutes or so. None of these photos are rendered in photoshop, they are high resolution single frame images, taken by a digital camera. But...I bet you'll say digital cameras take fake photos, cause it's digital...cause that's how your brain works. Even though your phone takes digital images too, it's the same technology.
The real trouble with you people, is your tendency to think in absolutes...AND to make assumptions when it suites you. You did both right in the first paragraph of your last comment here.
First you ASSUMED that I've "never heard that NASA photos are all fake and composites", nope, heard it a million times from Flat Earth...you people won't shut up about it, it's one of the first empty claims we learn from Flat Earth. What was new information to me, was your claim that "cameras don't work in space"...THAT was a new claim to me, I hadn't heard that from Flat Earth before. But, you just respun what I said to fit into your narrative you have for me and now you have this opinion that I've never heard of the faked images claim before. Starting to see how your broken brain works yet? You pick and choose what you want to hear and then spin empty claims about people and things using the fragmented information you have chopped up and respun into your bias.
Then you said with ABSOLUTE certainty, that ALL THE PHOTOS are composites and fake....and that's not true at all. They're not ALL composites. These photos here for example https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544 none of these are composites, these are single frame photographs, taken on film. And you've done NOTHING to prove that they're faked...yet you'd probably say that they are anyway. On top of that...composites aren't even fake photos, they are REAL photos stitched together to make a full image. So you really need to get your facts straight on what constitutes fake and real.
I'm guessing if you were to show me this video where you learned that "cameras don't work in space", I'd learn that you took those words out of context....like Flat Earth always does. Then I'll learn that this claim isn't true at all...that you just heard him wrong. So go ahead, find me that video please, and I'll be glad to take a look to see if it's not just another false conclusion you reached, from misinterpreting what was actually being said.
The thing is, photos can be faked today, so it's near impossible to know if they were or weren't. So for this reason, I don't argue photographs for very long...because it's true, with photo rendering technology, it's nearly impossible to know for certain now, unless you're an expert on faked photography and CG rendering. But here's the thing...I'M NOT GOING AROUND SAYING THEY ARE FAKE, WITH 100% CERTAINTY! That's what YOU and flat Earth does. Without doing ANY work to prove that claim....you just say it, as if saying it enough times makes it true....and it doesn't. Stop saying these photos are faked, unless you know for DAMN SURE that they are, and you can prove it. I'm just tired of all the empty claims from Flat Earth, with ZERO backing evidence to support them. If you're going to say a photograph is fake...THEN PROVE IT! Or don't make the claim...because you really don't know then if you can't actually prove it. It means you reached that conclusion on assumption.....which means you're lying. THAT is what I hate about you people the most...making empty claims, with no backing....and then you think we should just nod and agree and then you get mad at us for questioning you.
I ONLY CARE ABOUT SOLID EVIDENCE! Which is why I focus on science. Science I can verify or falsify MYSELF, with my own experiments and observations. So that's why I focus on the science, because I can prove it wrong or right with absolute certainty. Like much of the physics you butchered...I can prove that wrong easily and then there's NOTHING you can say to refute it. And you haven't so far...that's why I focus on the science. Cause you can make all the empty claims you want about NASA, about JFK, about Angels and Demons and God and faked photos....but science, you can't weasel your way out of that with bullshit.
So let's talk some science, cause I don't care about empty claims....that's what I've been trying to tell you. Evidence to back up your claims, that's all that matters to me.
1
-
@April85... A fisheye lens that happens to get the continent of America exactly right, without distorting it? Hmmmm...nope, not seein any logic in that. Besides, a fisheye lens doing the trick you're referring too will have visual anomalies on the outer edges and will always render a perfect circle. I know exactly the trick you are referring too...this does not explain these photos here at all. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544
As for the claim they're taken from an aircraft cockpit...ya, a space shuttle...which is a type of aircraft. You have not sufficient evidence in your claim that falsifies that the photos are taken from a space shuttle cockpit....you're just saying what you want, and calling it done. At least I'm willing to admit that I don't have sufficient evidence either for it being a space shuttle cockpit, doesn't change the fact that neither do you, and you're just making more baseless claims.
Laugh all you want, but you don't even realize you're just making speculations....which is not evidence. This is what I was talking about in my last comment...baseless claims is NOT evidence, it's just empty speculation, nothing more. I don't want to focus on bullshit like this.
This is why I don't focus on photographs, because I know you people. You'll just make empty speculations "it's a fish eye lens", or "it's an airplane cockpit, can't you see the brace?"...and then you think this is good enough. It's not...it's just speculations, empty conjectures without sufficient evidence to support it.
I can falsify your first claim of a fisheye lens though, that's easy, because these photos do not fit that description. There would be visual distortions that are easy to pick out in this kind of trickery. There is no bending or warping near the edges, so it's not a lens effect....so you're just grasping at the ol' Flat Earth excuse manual. What ever bullshit fits.
Do you like being proven wrong again and again Mark? When do you learn the difference between speculation and evidence I wonder?
1
-
1
-
@April85... Jesus...you are a by the book Flat Earther. Just consuming all the same stuff they all do and nodding and agreeing blindly to all of it. You REALLY think, I've been in this mess for as long as I have (3 and a half years now) and you think I've never seen this interview? You people man....just always assuming the reason we don't agree with you, is because we must not have seen the same "evidence". I'VE SEEN ALL THE SAME STUFF YOU HAVE! For the most part...I bet that's true. The only claim you've said so far that I am not aware of, is a scientist saying "cameras don't work in space", which I'm still waiting on evidence of.
Alright, so what is your point here? It's ONE guy who works in NASA's composite image department, explaining what HE DOES at HIS JOB. He doesn't speak for the entirety of NASA, and he's not claiming that ALL photos ever taken by NASA are composites.
He even explains here, that every composite is comprised from data taken by ACTUAL satellites in orbit....little hard to get satellites in orbit, if the Earth is not a sphere with gravity influencing it. An orbit is not possible without these two conditions.
Second, by "data" he's likely talking about the digital hard code that those photos get sent to him as, when they're taken. A digital camera doesn't print images on film, it stores it in the form of data...high resolution jpegs or PNG's, it's all data...but they are REAL PHOTOS none the less. A camera has to get into position above the surface, and then take a photo, with a regular viewing lens, the same as the one on your smart phone...and then that photo is stored in the form of data, on a harddrive. Which is then sent to this guy, after they've taken enough photos from these satellites.
He then puts them in photoshop to stitch the photos together, to render a composite image. He adds clouds, because they unfortunately move a lot...and if he doesn't edit the image at all, then the image will look like this. https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/76000/76674/global_vir_2011328_lrg.jpg
So there's no choice but to edit them in Photoshop, if you want to render a composite image as it's supposed to look.
So you just keep acting like I don't know any of this stuff still.......MARK! Pay attention bud! I know what you're fucking talking about....I've been in this Flat Earth mess a long time. This is some of the first shit you learn about in this kooky conspiracy.
Composites, are images of Earth taken from low Earth orbit.
This is that guys Blue Marble image from 2002. https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/76000/76674/global_vir_2011328_lrg.jpg
Here's the Apollo Blue Marble image from 1972. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble#/media/File:The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg
The first one is a composite, the second is a FULL image taken at 27,000 miles distance, using a single frame of film...on a regular color camera. They didn't have Satellites back in 1972. There were no low earth orbit satellites back then taking digital photographs and sending them too anyone for composite work.
You're CHOOSING to believe what you want when you read those kinds of interviews. You seem to think this is evidence of something, but it's not. You're just choosing to ignore what's being said and then spinning your bias on it.
This is now considered low hanging fruit in this whole Flat Earth argument and it's kind of insulting that you'd bother sharing it, assuming I've seen seen it or heard his other interviews. "It is photoshopped...but it, has to be" Ya, exactly....FOR A COMPOSITE! Which is what HE DOES for a living. :/
This DOES NOT mean ALL the photos taken by NASA are composites. You need to stop claiming that they are....and PAY ATTENTION!
1
-
@April85... And yet, I've showed you several photos from space of the Earth, that are not CGI and not composite images...that you hand wave aside and just make excuses for and I've heard them all. But again, get this through YOUR mind...speculations are not evidence. It is difficult to verify a photo these days, that's why I focus on science I can verify. I also don't cherry pick quotes from people, to falsify an entire archive of photography. People misspeak all the time, and then fools jump on their words as if it actually means anything, blowing them out of proportion, waving it around as "evidence", while they ignore ACTUAL evidence.
You focus on only what confirms your bias, I focus on ALL the evidence. I do look at both sides Mark, that's how I know the flat Earth has no working model and no functioniong map for navigation. I know they can't explain a sunset, the southern hemisphere, star trails in the South, 24 hour sun the South, lunar eclipses, solar eclipses, earthquakes, the magnetic field that surrounds the Earth, satellites, gravity, orbits, coriolis...the list goes on and on. Meanwhile the globe answers for all of these AND has the evidence to back them up.
While you have cherry picked quotes that you spin out of context and misinterpret, and misunderstood physics that you lie about and make empty claims with that you can't back up. Flat Earth is a model that can't explain anything...and you cling to it for ONE reason, because if all the science goes away, then YOU can go on believing your book of superstitions without any interruptions to that fantasy.
The simple fact is, nobody is navigating the planet with a flat Earth model...that's a fact, not an opinion. You need to wake up, Flat Earth is putting you to sleep with bullshit...and you're missing reality.
1
-
1
-
@April85... Compared to you, I might as well be Einstein. If you want to refute the physics I've shared, then do it. I can't do anything with whining. Share evidence that I'm wrong, or stop crying about it. You sure do ramble a lot and make empty claim after empty claim. Share real evidence please.
Real evidence includes: observations made in the real world, experiments that are conclusive, data, calculations, technology that applies the science. As a bonus, explanations with logic behind them doesn't hurt either.
What is not evidence: Quote mining, empty claims with no backing, delusions of grandeur, speculations, conjectures, the bible, nonsensical rambling, crying.
Really simple stuff. Stop wasting both our time.
I'll give you a topic. Explain a sunset on the Flat Earth. Should be simple, give me an explanation you can form into a hypothesis for how the sunsets on a Flat Earth. Then show me your evidence that verifies your hypothesis. Simple stuff.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Really? EVERYTHING is a lie? Or maybe you just weren't paying attention enough to realize how they were right? Were they lying about 2+2? Were they lying about how to read and write? Were they lying about the scientific method when they taught you the steps? They didn't have too teach you these things...your ancestors sure didn't get that kind of knowledge given to them, most people throughout history didn't have any education, they couldn't read, write, do basic math, and they certainly had no concept of the best method for deducing how physical reality works step by step. But you do...because of school.
Let's keep going, were they lying to you about how vinegar violently reacts to baking soda in your simple volcano science fair experiment, which demonstrated some basic chemistry to you? Were they lying about how electricity works when they were teaching you circuits in your physics 101 class or mechanics class? Were they lying about the Laws of nature, such as conservation of momentum and the Laws of motion, which you demonstrate every time you get into a moving vehicle of any kind? Throw a ball up in the air next time you're a passenger in a vehicle...did the ball smash you in the face, or did it go straight up and land straight back down in your hand? They run pretty clear demonstrations of motion like that as well in your science classes, were they lying to you then, or trying to help you see how things actually work? I think you should maybe go back to school and this time pay attention.
1
-
@jeffss04 "The earths SPINNING 1000mph and no one can feel it. Lie"
Consider the possibility that maybe you're just overlooking something...just cause you don't understand it yet, does not mean it's a lie, there's is always the very real possibility that YOU just don't understand something yet. So below is some info I'd like you to consider, feel free to ponder it or question it if all you'd like...or ignore it, it's up to you. I'm just here to share information.
When you're traveling in a plane going 500 mph at cruising altitude, you may notice that you are able to get up and walk around the cabin of the airplane just fine. Why is that? 500 mph is pretty fast, but at no point you're sucked to the seat. In fact, you barely feel anything in this instance and if there were no vibrations from the engines, no hum from the friction, or the wind resistance of the air outside, you wouldn't hear or feel ANY motion at all. Earth doesn't have engines causing a friction vibration and there is no air in space to cause a drag force...so what do you have now to help you feel the motion exactly? Truth is you don't have anything, motion is felt by your body in the form of inertia, inertia that is caused by a sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion. But once your body is moving at a steady constant rate, with no drastic change in forward velocity over time, with nothing to slow you down or stop you, then truth is, you won't feel any motion...because there won't be any inertia upon your body anymore. That's the science and physics of motion in a nutshell, conservation of momentum and relative motion. It is tricky to understand a little bit, but we're not lying to you when we try to help you see what we're seeing, we're trying to help you realize this science as well as best we can. It's fine to disagree still though, but first consider all the variables first before you do, that's all anyone asks of you.
"The earth was FORMED by NOTHING FUCKING nothing 13 billion years ago and no one saw it. Blatant lie"
Big Bang cosmology is just the leading theory currently, because that's what has the most evidence supporting if currently, nothing more. And NOBODY is quite certain on the starting details. Some people say it came from nothing, some people say its a constant never ending loop of creation and destruction, others in science are perfectly fine with concluding that a higher power created it, which is where I actually fall on that spectrum as well. Your error here is thinking in absolutes, science is happy to admit it doesn't have all the answers...but for some reason people seem to think they are all in agreeance, 100%, all the time, about everything. No, that's not how science operates...Big Bang is the leading theory currently, because it has the most evidence, until something else comes along that can trump that evidence, then it will continue to be the leading theory in cosmology, that's how it works. If you're curious, we called that evidence for Big Bang the 4 pillars of the big bang and you should give them a look sometime before writing them off and assuming things...though if the basic physics still isn't quite there yet, then I wouldn't personally suggest you learn to run before walking, but now you know where to look if you want to learn more about it. Or not...it's up to you.
God still fits within that framework, nobody is saying he can't exist, some would just prefer they had solid evidence before making that conclusion, that's all. I really don't get why people can't see that as rational. I know that your logic concludes that everything must have a creator, but there is very good evidence and arguments now that give us reason to question that conclusion, we're not just going to ignore that evidence, because some people would rather we don't ruin their fantasy. On the flip side though, science will likely never disprove the concept of A God and that's not really its goal either. Science just works to figure out how physical reality operates at the mechanical level, so that we can use that understanding to invent, innovate, engineer, navigate and discover more...that's all science is, it's a tool more then anything else, not much different from any other tool. And it works...your computer, your internet, your wifi connection...science made all that possible, the same science you were taught in school, that others listened too and learned more about, so that they could make these things for you. If teachers were lying to you...then nobody would be inventing anything and none of this technology you enjoy today would exist...that's not an opinion, that's a fact.
Trust me, I didn't reach any of these insights above by not thinking about them. I think about them constantly and that's also why I'm here commenting, to put what I think I know to the test and challenge it, by talking to people of a different perspective. My apologies if you didn't want the discussion, but this is a public forum, so if you're going to make claims here, then expect to be checked for them.
1
-
1
-
Ya, see, that's your problem. You won't even look at the science...because a book of made up superstitions, has convinced you that it's lies...even though you really have no reason to believe anything that book says is true. Blind faith, over actual tangible evidence. You don't know the evidence is tangible, because you haven't really taken a look at any of it, because you're afraid if you do...that you'll lose that warm fuzzy feeling your blind faith in that book gives you. Ignorance is bliss...but it's still wrong at the end of the day. That book just keeps you from participating in the world that is RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF YOU and keeps you from learning and understanding how it works.
The bible didn't create your computer, it didn't connect you to the internet and didn't send your comments through the wifi that connects you to people....SCIENCE did that. Man accomplished that...WE BUILT THESE THINGS, from studying the natural world and deducing how it works. If God provided everything for us, then great, but I very much doubt he'd give a shit if we didn't believe in him...he's given us no reason too, or at least no reason to believe in bibles, that could have just as easily have been written by man, scamming people by exploiting our natural tendency to build superstitious ideas around the gaps in our knowledge, all for the purpose to gain control over others. God might be real, science isn't out to destroy the concept of a God...but I VERY MUCH DOUBT that any of us have that interpretation correct.
Science is just a tool, an extension of ourselves, a method of thinking we use to figure out how things work...and it works. You'll never know that though...because you'd rather stay ignorant and believe it's something to hate and fear. What sux the most is that you'll still reap all the rewards of mankind's collective efforts...all while never really knowing how any of it works. While you whine about evolutionary biology...doctors are using that knowledge to engineer cures for you. While you whine about the shape of the planet, scientists and astronauts are using that knowledge to put satellites and rockets into space. While you whine about the Big Bang cosmology, scientists are figuring out how to manipulate the fabric of space time, so that we someday get off this rock and explore the cosmos in greater depth.
If God gave us life and free will, then he's now created life that he is responsible for and must respect...just as much as he demands respect, he has to respect us...or he will never get that respect. Respect is earned, not given...my parents gave me life, doesn't mean they own me, that's the mistake lots of parents make and that's how they lose their children's respect. I believe a true God would not just understand that, he'd be well ahead of me, not expecting anything of me, except for that I don't squander the life I've been given.
Maybe he's testing you, seeing if you'll fold and become a slave to fear, rather then reach for the stars and become something greater, a being with self respect.
Maybe give science a try sometime, it's not your enemy and you don't have to be afraid of it. Most scientists are actually theists, not the other way around. God becomes even greater to them, just knowing how vast this universe is that he created! THAT is a truly powerful creator, wouldn't you say?
1
-
@karolyapostol7213 Yes, I've noticed that Flat Earth helps a lot of people get closer to their faith, and I'm sure that must be a very powerful feeling, finally having something that gives you a bit of hope that all that time and bible study wasn't wasted. But it is your bias...even if it were true, it's still a bias that leads you and sometimes even takes the reigns completely. What I mean is, I think it keeps you from looking closer. Rob Skiba, Mark Sargent, and especially Eric Dubay, have been outed many times to be con men...Eric Dubay being the worst offender, bordering on cult leader.
They're very convincing on the surface...especially when you allow them to take you on the ride they've prepared for you. But if you remove all bias and look at what they're claiming objectively, you find out pretty quick...they're lying and they're damn good at it. Eric Dubay is the best at it, he seems to have learned a lot about hypnotic suggestion and he uses that skill effectively. Which keeps you from realizing...that he's crazy, he's a Nazi sympathizer and an extreme narcissist, with psychopathic tendencies as well. Just watch Bob the Science Guys break down of some of Eric's videos of him losing it when he learned that people were following other Flat Earth researchers instead of him...it's pretty eye opening how crazy and narcissistic he really is.
Anyway, I'm not saying you can't have faith, of course you can, I actually find faith in a higher power to be a very noble practice and many religions harbor and teach a lot of really great values, that are starting to fade away in society and that's sad. So religion of course has it's pros, even for a guy like me who has never been religious, coming from a 100% atheist community. And of course you should ask questions...I just think people should recognize when they have bias and realize that some really shitty people WILL use that bias against you, to sell you all kinds of lies. My bias is my trust in science, I'm aware that I can tend to treat it with a bit more faith then I should. Thanks to recognizing that bias though, I can then keep it in check a lot better, so that's really all I ask of people, to be aware of their bias, identify it and learn to control it.
In my experience, it's not NASA that's been lying to you, it is the people cutting up these videos and digging for things they can pull out of context and respin for you, packaged with empty speculations, that you will confuse as truth...if you're not careful. Give me any NASA faked space video and I almost guarantee, I can point out how they've conned you.
But personally, I don't focus on NASA, because at the end of the day, I'm not an astronaut and I don't work for them, so I'd rather not speculate on things I really have no first hand experience with. Instead I prefer to focus on the Earth that is right below your feet, it's not hard to verify the Earth is a Globe for yourself, with very simple observations and experiments you can do right in your back yard. So that's what I prefer to focus on, cause it's a little hard to lie about something I can touch and test directly.
That's what I focus on, the science, because THAT is something I can verify or falsify directly, for myself. When it comes to NASA, all I can really do is speculate...but so can they, that's all they're doing, is feeding you speculative claims, that could be bullshit and likely are. It's important to know the difference between speculation and actual evidence...MOST of the claims made on those NASA faked space docs...are just speculation and conjecture. One good way to disprove their claims, dig up the full video that they cut up...there are a few occasions where they intentionally edit certain parts out, to help sell their speculation to you even more. If they were really trying to be truthful, they would not need to resort to such deceitful tactics.
I'd just like to make one more point. Your computer, your internet, your wifi...this stuff didn't happen cause scientists were lying to each other, its made possible because they're sharing information openly and honestly, networking about every discovery made with complete transparency. It does not benefit society AT ALL to lie about the shape of the planet. There is more technology and infrastructure that relies heavily on our knowledge of the shape and scale of our planet being accurate, then you probably realize and there are just to many people working on it directly, to cover something like that up. So I'm just saying, it's worth your time to question Flat Earth just as much as you now question the mainstream. Yes, some of the things they claim are very convincing...but only if you're not aware of how they're lying to you. Sometimes it's not lies though, sometimes it is just simple misunderstandings that they run with, cause they don't realize how they've gone wrong. Rob Skiba for example, I think he just leans on his bias to much and he doesn't know enough about physics to know where his errors are. Mark clings to speculations, attacking the conspiracy with more conspiracy...but when does he ever get his hands dirty and do experiments? He sure talks a lot, feeding you reasonable doubt and you'll fall for it because he's great at making things sound logical...but most of what he says, is just speculation, smoke and mirrors, clever misdirection designed to dazzle you...and he's gotten damn good at it.
Eric Dubay though...that guy is an absolute liar and I would be very cautious about the things he says. In my honest opinion, that guy is a psychopath, so be cautious.
Anyway, I'm more then happy to share more information if you'd like, I've been looking at this particular conspiracy for a long time now, I've identified where they go wrong and where they lie, on just about every argument. At the very least, you'll learn a different perspective, so up to you really. I also don't mind learning more from the opposing perspective, so feel free to share, I don't mind taking a look. I don't claim to know everything, I just don't like potential misinformation spreading unchecked and unchallenged. Thanks for the civil dialogue thus far, it's nice to find level heads in these more heated topics.
1
-
@karolyapostol7213 That's fine, I get that, and my intention is not to discourage you or mock you in any way, only to share some information from the opposing viewpoint, so that you have a broader range of the facts to reach a conclusion from. I think it's important to try our best to recognize our bias and then remove it as best we can and it's important to look at BOTH sides of an argument, not just sit firmly in our own echo chambers of information. So I'm just sharing information, the rest is up to whom ever is listening.
Well, ol' Rob Skiba is at least trying, he at least goes out and tests things for himself...but he is led by bias just as much if not more so, and it's clear when you really dig into his work, that he seems to intentionally keep some details from people. He'd have to be, because if you look at his work and review it, a lot of what he claims becomes pretty easy to spot the errors, when you don't allow the same bias that led his conclusions to get in your way. Which I don't have, I'm not religious, so it's pretty easy for me, I don't share the same bias. There's always some detail he leaves out, and I think it's intentional...though I give him the benefit of the doubt, because he does appear more honest then the others at times, but it could just be a clever rouse, peppering in a few instances of honesty and kindness, to help you trust him more, it's a tactic used by police sometimes during interrogations...the good cop they call it. Allow me to show you a few places on his own front page there, where he intentionally hides some details.
If you scroll down to the part where he starts talking about composites and the size of continents he says this "Yet, when you do a search for "earth from space" you find very few "authentic" pictures of our own planet." Then he shares a few pictures he's dug up, one a composite of thousands of images taken from low Earth orbit, the other a composite by color filter, the GOES image is a full image, the only part that is composite is the colors. I see them sharing these same odd looking photos a lot...yet I NEVER see them sharing photos like these ones below.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157657289512883
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
This is an archive of the thousands of photos taken during the various Apollo moon missions. They're not hard to find, a quick google search looking for the Apollo photos will bring you to several online resources that archive these photos. Do these photos I just shared look fake to you? These are not hard to find, yet when do you ever see Rob Skiba or anyone else in Flat Earth sharing them? They just repeatably say it's difficult to find, all while sharing the most odd looking photos they could find of Earth, composites, that are typically not full images of Earth. Then they'll often even make the claim that ALL images are composites, that no true images exist. Again, do those photos I shared look like composites to you? Do they look as wonky and fake as the photos Flat Earthers share? No, I don't think they do, they look very authentic to me...which is why you never see Flat Earthers sharing these kinds of photos...which is a red flag for me personally.
Then they'll pepper in little things like this, as Rob Skiba did on his page quoted here "To make matters worse, when fabricating the "blue marble" pics of our earth, they can't even get the proportions of the continents or color of the water consistent from one rendering to another". He's making the claim that because the continents and colors vary from photo to photo, it must mean they're all faked. But I'd like to share a video with you that demonstrates what perspective can do to the shape and scale of the surface of a ball. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEzcPJsDohA Here is an image that does the same thing, that's a little quicker and easier to understand https://www.metabunk.org/sk/globe_comparison_with_distance.jpg.
Perspective can and does change the scale of those continents quite a lot, as those resources I just shared demonstrate pretty clearly. What I find truly odd, is that Rob NEVER mentions this on his page...he JUST tells you that it's odd the continents and colors are different in each photo, without providing any further context as to why. For as long as Rob has been doing this for, he would be aware that perspective and distance can alter the continent sizes...yet he never mentions it. Why doesn't he mention it? Because he's trying to lead you through a bias thought process. Showing you what he wants you to see, to help sell you a bias conclusion, in hopes that you'll be roped in by it. Some people follow his thought process there, completely unaware of what perspective can do to the surface of a 3D ball, and then they reach a conclusion without factoring that information in. Once that conclusion is reached...it becomes very hard for them to go back and take a look at what they might have missed. Rob knows this, that's why he doesn't share that little detail.
He does it again slightly lower in his argument, with the Galileo video of the rotating Earth. This is what he says about it "This is supposedly a time-lapse video of a 25-hour period of Earth's rotation and yet none of the clouds are moving or morphing at all?" If you take a look at the video he's provided, it's a very low resolution, very grainy copy of this video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVuqcEuIRgs. Watch the entire video if you could but pay attention to the last 20 seconds or so where it zooms in, and shows you a much clearer view of the clouds moving and shifting.
Rob no doubt has seen the higher resolution video (it's still a little grainy, but much better then his video he shared), and he is then no doubt aware that the higher resolution makes it MUCH easier to notice the clouds are moving...yet he makes that claim anyway on his website, while sharing a much lower resolution video? So he's lying then...cause there's no way he hasn't seen the higher resolution video, he would have had to have pulled from it, to create his lower resolution copy. Again, intentionally misleading people...does that sound like the kind of person who is being honest with their research and presentations?
Believe what you want, but if you don't pay closer attention, these people will lie to you and take you on a ride of their design. It make their claims VERY convincing on the surface...but ONLY if you stay on the surface and don't go digging where they don't want you too. If Rob was an honest researcher, he would not intentionally hide things from you. Here I have pointed out just a short sample of some things he's lied about, right on his own web page. So I hope that helps to illustrate why you should also question these people, just as much as you now question the mainstream. Don't just listen to them blindly either.
Now I hope you can see why people like me are here constantly commenting...some of us are just trying to help people, and keep them from falling into these traps. Rob is not the only Flat Earther that does this...pretty much ALL the larger channels do this, spinning information to fit their narrative, they are far from objective. So I hope this information is at the very least interesting to you, thanks again for the civil discussion. Stay safe out there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Don Traub Nothing really works with them, but that’s really all you need to disprove a Flat Earth. The Sun would never set on a Flat Earth, you would always see it. Even if it could set due to perspective (as they claim), we’d expect it to shrink in angular size before it ever reached the vanishing point at horizon, among many other problems they create with their circling Sun explanation...that they refuse to look at. Ignorance is a sport for them, so you’ll never really win with them, they’re not listening, but that is a great proof either way, whether they like it or not. Our setting sun makes zero sense on a Flat Earth, no matter how many ways they try to ram that square peg into a round hole, the Globe is still the only model that fits with reality here.
1
-
Alright, here's a few good ones I found in a quick google search. Is your search bar broken?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGGYYqDDfRI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMfQHzjNvRU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlURVCK5ujo&feature=youtu.be
These are all showing footage of rockets being launched, uncut, from ground to space. However, these are still only low Earth orbit launches, to get a full picture of the Earth, you need to reach a geostationary orbit (about 25,000 km). That takes hours to days to achieve, so any footage like that would be super long. I think the shortest time they can put a Satellites into GEO is about 5 and a half hours, so if you're willing to watch 5 and a half hours of raw footage, be my guest, I'm sure it exists online somewhere, but these are good enough for me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinensunsa That's not the only actual picture of Earth, the Blue Marble photo was one of THOUSANDS of photos taken during the Apollo missions...why people think they took just one photo, is just odd to me...why would you think they'd only take one photo? These photos are archived all over the internet, here's one such archive. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/with/72157656739898544 And that's just the Apollo missions, then you got the Galileo spacecraft footage, the ISS, the Sky Lab footage and all the geostationary satellites (Himawari 8, GOES 15-17, DSCOVRY) that are in orbit right now that take round the clock footage of Earth from space. We have more than enough footage of Earth...it still doesn't do anything for these people. They are delusional...we're not dealing with rational people here, we're dealing with paranoia and ignorance. Nothing short of launching them into space will convince them...but even then, they'd find a way to rationalize it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The math doesn't work because it's the wrong math, It's really that simple. 8 inches per mile squared is a simple parabolic arc equation and it only measures a drop from a tangent line at your feet....it doesn't represent horizon or tell you where it is, it doesn't represent line of sight and doesn't derive a figure for what is hidden from your line sight, it doesn't include variables for height of the observer, height of the object being viewed, tilt angles, arc length, refraction index, etc. So it is simply the wrong math to use for what Flat Earth uses it for, it is missing a LOT of variables required to make the observation conclusive. Simple rule of thumb in mathematics, use the wrong math for the wrong job and you will reach a false conclusion. It's important to double check your equations to make sure you're using the correct ones. If you're curious what the correct math is, here's a blog that can help you. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/
If you click this link, pay attention to the diagram you see in the first post. Notice the dotted line labelled "Surface Level", that is the tangent line 8 inches per mile is measuring from, now notice the solid black line going down from there to surface labelled "Drop" , that's the drop that 8 inches per mile squared is calculating for, the numbers it gives you are from that tangent line down to surface (though it even does that poorly, it's only accurate for about 100 miles, cause it's not a spherical equation it's a parabola equation). Now pay attention to the observer labelled "Eye" and the solid green line coming out from there down to the horizon labelled at X. THAT is your actual line of sight, notice how that green line is able to see WELL UNDER the "Surface Level" line? Flat Earth claims you can't see anything below that surface level line, that's what they're bad math is basically telling you, anything under that surface level line, is not visible...but in reality, we see WAY BELOW that tangent line...the horizon is way below it and so is your line of sight, and so are objects within your line of sight.
I hope that helps illustrate things better. It is the wrong math, it's really that simple. Most people are not mathematicians though and don't know where to even begin looking for the correct math. Flat Earth knows this, and they use peoples general lack of math knowledge against them. It's basically the equivalent of a slight of hand trick. They tell you "this is the math for curvature" you believe them, keeping your eye on the math they're waving in front of you, rather then questioning it to make sure they're not just lying to you. But they are lying, so it should be the first red flag for anyone, that these people are huxters. They don't really care about what's true, they care about what they WANT to be true. These use bad math to convince people of a great many things....what's sad is people generally don't have the time or knowledge to refute them, so they fall for it.
Not the general public's fault really, math is hard and kind of boring, it's these flat Earther people who are to blame...many of them know full well their math is wrong, they still push it anyway.
1
-
1
-
Clouds are moving if you haven't noticed and there absolutely is parallax occurring in the stars...that's exactly how they measure their distances from us, using what's called the parallax method. If you were a trained astronomer who actually spent their nights observing and recording the sky, this would be common knowledge to you...but you're not, because if you were then you wouldn't be so damn ignorant. You're just another layman making assumptions, based around a lack of knowledge and experience, doing what layman do best. Chase bias, jump to false conclusions and over estimate themselves.
Learn some physics, start with the Laws of Motion and Relative motion, it explains the movements of the planet and how they're possible. Look up the parallax method for measuring the distance of stars, it's just a quick YouTube or google search away and it's one of many methods they use. Then if you're still not satisfied, try recreating the method...actually LEARN about these things first hand, instead of assuming you know everything already. Then maybe you won't be so damn ignorant.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 You gotta do a lot more then just watch a time lapse in a single night. They measure the parallax in arc seconds...which is a measurement FAR to small for your crappy human eyes to see alone, you gotta look a lot closer to see the parallax but it is there and any amateur astronomer would confirm this. You know, actual experts who know what they're talking about. It is also typically recorded months apart from each other, while the Earth has moved significantly over several months, making these arc seconds of measurement much easier to see. Again, if you were an astronomer, you wouldn't be making these sorts of ignorant arguments...but you don't have to be, maybe just take the time and talk to one.
"And if the earth is a spinning ball, rotating at 1024 mph at the equator, it would create strong winds in one direction." Ever heard of the jet stream? That's how they believe the jet stream occurs, or at least part of the reason. But no, you're also reaching a conclusion based around an assumption you have, an assumption born from a lack of knowledge and understanding of both motion and the atmosphere. You don't really know, you just think you know, filling the gaps in your knowledge with assumptions. This is an error in reasoning.
"Also you can't have a pressurised atmosphere and a vacuum alongside each other" Says who? I think you've spent too much time listening blindly to Flat Earth con men, telling you some bullshit about how atmospheric pressure works. First of all, space doesn't suck, it's not a vacuum cleaner, the word vacuum has two definitions, one being this "a place void of matter", which is all space is. It generates no suction force, it can't physically do that, so it can't pull on our atmosphere. There is entropy, but what Flat Earthers don't tell you is that entropy is a constant but it can be slowed and contained. A simple thermos you use to keep your coffee hot is perfect example of that, slowing entropy. Earth does that as well, but much more efficiently. Entropy will always win, but it's going to take billions of years in the case of our Earth, because new gas is being generated constantly and not much ever really escapes, thanks to gravity.
There is also a difference between gas pressure and atmospheric pressure. One is created by a container forcing gas into a smaller volume causing more collisions between molecules to create a consistent pressure throughout the container, while the other is created by the weight of the gas above pressing down on the gas below to create a gradient of pressure, going from most pressure at surface to least pressure at the top (more molecular collisions at surface, less and less the higher you go). This is confirmed, the atmosphere is measured to grow thinner as you climb higher in altitude, anyone hiking up a hill with a barometer in hand can confirm this. This is because as you go higher, there is less and less molecules of air, matter stacking on top of matter...so what happens when you run out of matter to stack? You essentially have space and we've measured it, there is empty space up there...yet no container to be found. Gravity is the container, gravity causes atmospheric pressure, it starts the motion of these molecules DOWN towards the surface, beginning the stacking of matter which generates pressure. This is a measured pressure gradient, which is not seen in containers undergoing gas pressure, only our atmosphere has this gradient...and it correlates with what we understand about gravity. GRAVITY is the container. And since space has no means to trump gravity, that gas has nowhere else to go except towards the only force in the area attracting it.
You're reaching a false conclusion based around a lack of knowledge again, basic lack of understanding between the difference of gas pressure and atmospheric pressure. We have measured the vast emptiness of space, so there is evidence for it. On the flip side we have never found a dome, there is no evidence in support of it. Yet you have chosen to accept this dome, even though there is ZERO tangible evidence for its existence, only a lot people misunderstanding physics. Meanwhile we have measured the atmospheric pressure of our Earth and it reaches zero eventually. So what do you want us to conclude exactly? It's not from lack of trying, but we have no evidence in support of a dome. We have not interacted with it in anyway. It is a physical object correct? It would have to be in order to be this container you seem to think is there, so why haven't we been able to bounce lasers or radar off of it yet? We do both with the Moon and we even bounce Radar off of Venus to clock its distance....why haven't we hit a dome yet? We're talking hundreds of thousands of miles, still we have not hit a dome with either lasers or radar. So we have no evidence for this dome, so why are you so quick to assume it's up there?
Have you ever considered the possibility, that MAYBE you're just misunderstanding how physical reality works? That MAYBE the very people you listen to blindly, ALSO don't really know shit about how reality works and are LYING to you? Does that thought ever cross your mind?
I have researched deep on this topic, been doing so for 3 years now, and I didn't just stop once my bias was confirmed, I kept going. So don't mistake me for a person who is new to this topic, on the soul basis that I did not reach the same conclusion as you did.
The Flat Earth is convincing on the surface, but that's all. Once you REALLY go through it, you find where it goes wrong every single time.
The artificial horizon has what are called pendulous veins, these are designed to correct it while in flight to remain level with the surface. The way they work is by dropping hinges that open up channels of air, that let a sensor indicator know that it is not level with surface anymore. This then kicks on a motor, which applies a torque, which corrects the gimble. It uses gravity vectors to achieve this, as you travel along Earth, you shift in gravity vectors, which are always pointing down towards center of mass. Gravity causes the hinges to drop, so they use gravity to correct the gyros in an artificial horizon. If the Earth wasn't curved, they would not require these pendulous veins. Do some more research on artificial horizons, you're reaching more bias conclusions based around a lack of knowledge on their mechanics.
That's the trouble here. You're not an expert on any of these subjects...but you HAVE to be, in order to REALLY see how Flat Earth is conning you. They've gone down deep, deeper then most people are willing to go and there is so much science you have to learn to figure out how they've lied to you.
I commend people for asking questions, that's exactly what science is all about, asking questions. So don't let me discourage you, it's completely logical to question what you're told. But I believe you're assuming a lot and chasing a lot of bias, so all I ask is that people learn to counter their bias and maybe for a change question the people feeding you all this Flat Earth info. Don't just listen to them blindly either, question everything.
I'm more then happy to keep going if you'd like to have a civil discussion from the opposite perspective. I do not do this to mock your efforts, but I don't pull my punches either, I'm just here to offer some information you may have not come across as of yet and I'm here to help you challenge what you think you know, in the process I hope to do the same for myself. So feel free.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 Just one more point I missed I'd like to give some explanation for. "And there is a reason why a helicopter can't give hover over the equator and wait for its destination to arrive." Sure, a Flat Earth can explain why a helicopter doesn't hover away, but so can a Globe, because of the Laws of Motion, most notably Conservation of Momentum and Relative Motion, which is real physics that does occur in our reality. Are you aware of this physics? Do you understand it? If not, then it's pretty simple to see how you've reached the conclusion you have above. Without an understanding of this physics, of course you're going to assume the Globe doesn't make sense.
A helicopter took off from the surface of the Earth and so it was conserving the momentum of the Earth, it is moving relative too the Earths rotation. The same physics can be seen while in any moving vehicle. Next time you're in a moving vehicle of any kind, toss a ball up in the air and catch it...did the ball go smashing into your face, or did it go straight up and then drop straight down back into your hand?
Here's a pretty good demonstration of conservation of momentum and relative motion, to help confirm this science a little more for you. https://imgur.com/gallery/70m3Fku Notice how this guy keeps landing dead center of the trampoline, even though it's being pulled out from under him by the tractor while he's in the air? By your understanding of motion, he should fall behind and the trampoline should pull ahead, but that's not how motion works in reality. He will forever conserve the momentum of the surface he left from and that he is moving relative too. This is true of all things in motion, it is the first Law of Motion. All things in motion stay in motion, the only thing that will slow him down is an apposing equal or greater force or mass. In his case wind resistance (drag force), because the air is moving relative to the Earth, while he is moving relative to the Trampoline, so he's moving through an apposing mass. But it's pretty negligible at his speed, so there isn't much drag force occurring here, so it's a great test for conservation of momentum.
A helicopter is no different, when it takes off it is conserving the momentum of the Earth, moving WITH its rotation at all times, so at no point will the ground shift beneath it, because it's always going to be moving with it. Which is the case with our atmosphere as well. Here's another great experiment demonstrating conservation of momentum with a drone in a moving vehicle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIycHlAsDZk&t=152s Here's another with a helium balloon on a moving train. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18Dyl2msozc
Does this prove motion? No, of course not, it's just a short explanation on the physics of motion. But it does explain how the motions of our planet are possible, that is just a small sample of what the Laws of Motion and Relative Motion can help you understand about motion in our physical reality. You probably heard all of this before in high school, it's physics 101, but did you understand it at the time? Do you even really remember learning it? We do learn this stuff in school...but very few of us absorb it and understand it I feel.
So the Globe does account for its motions, so this is not a hole of the model like so many seem to believe. Again, people are just reaching false conclusions, due to a lack of knowledge of physics.
But it is fair to ask for proof of a rotating, orbiting Earth. Like I said, nothing I said above verifies the motions of the Earth, it only explains how it's possible. So if you'd like I can share a few of the ways we've verified our Earths rotation.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 No, I'm not just reciting from books, I've learned a lot of this stuff first hand, but you sure are reciting a lot of the same things from Flat Earthers. Which is ironic, I think Flat Earth should really look up the definition of indoctrination, if they would like to keep using that word, they better make sure they're not falling victim to it themselves. With a good enough telescope and just a few months of your time, ANYONE can measure the parallax and drift of certain stars. The further away they get, the harder it gets to use this method, requiring stronger telescopes, but there are a few choice stars pretty much any amateur astronomer can track and measure parallax with. Look up Barnard's star, this is a great star a lot of astronomers begin tracking when they're just starting out. You can notice it's drift from opposing stars in just a few years of tracking and parallax within a couple months. Here is a great research paper done on this very star, should help give you some further info. https://vanderbei.princeton.edu/tex/BarnardStar/BS.pdf
1
-
@rayrayner4426 "They disappear into the "vanishing point" and any good zoom lens or telescope will show that." Is that right, tell me if you think zooming in any closer will make the bottom of this boat return. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ObTd7DLMw&t=20s Or these boats https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKF7D7XsyTA. These turbines https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQI18jr8Oc&t=21s. Just a small sample of the hundreds of examples that exist today, that I'm sure no Flat Earth channel will ever show you. Leave the camera on while you have it zoomed in, these boats will still disappear bottom first, doesn't matter how much zoom you apply. So the simple explanation here, is that if you can bring a boat back with a zoom, it has not reached horizon yet, it has just reached vanishing point. They are not the same thing.
This is an avenue where I do feel patronized a bit, because I am an artist for a living, illustration is my profession, so I don't just understand perspective, I practice it, I study the fundamentals of it (including vanishing point), and then I apply that knowledge in the work that I do for a living. Of course you couldn't have known that until now, but just know that I'm far from a slouch on that topic. It's what got me into this whole argument in the first place, because I knew right away they were bullshitting about perspective and the vanishing point, filling the gaps in peoples knowledge with the bullshit of their choosing...like they've done with most things. These are concepts I work with directly and have worked with for decades now. You might have learned about the vanishing point a few months ago, maybe a couple years ago....heck maybe even yesterday, but I've been practicing these concepts for a very long time. So in this avenue, I would consider myself an expert on the topic. Not saying I can't still learn something, I don't claim to know everything, just try not to patronize me here, when it comes to perspective or optics in general.
The vanishing point is not the horizon, they are two separate things. Vanishing point can happen from any angle, it does not always converge at horizon. Vanishing point is just the point where something has shrunk so much in angular size due to perspective and distance, that it is has gone past your eyes visual limits to render that light visible to you. People assume it always converges at horizon, because most of the time we observe it happening with objects relative to the surface with us...but with objects that are high in the sky, if they were to keep going perpendicular to our eyes in a direction that is not towards horizon, they will reach a vanishing point here as well, without ever coming close to the horizon. If the Earth were Flat, then we would expect certain things to NEVER reach the horizon, they would reach vanishing point long before then. This rule would hold true the higher they are. A perfect example is the Sun and the Moon.
Your vanishing point argument is great and all, but it ignores the Sun and the Moon. With how high these objects are (even on a Flat Earth model), clocked at several hundred to thousands of miles off the surface (for them to make any logical sense), at these heights they would never reach horizon due to perspective. Even if I agreed they could, they would shrink immensely before ever getting there, and they would do that because of perspective. So I find it convenient that some fundamentals of perspective are called upon to explain one occurrence and then ignored when talking about another.
When we model this in 3D to scale, this is exactly what we see occur. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg&t=85s This is a model demonstrating a Flat Earth with a Sun traveling above in a circle. Notice how the Sun never comes close to the horizon? There's even a point where they place the Moon directly on the surface, looking at it from a 6ft elevation and it never sets, even while placed directly on the surface at thousands of miles from observer.
Perspective could MAYBE do what you're claiming to boats that are on the surface with us. Refraction is a bitch and makes it very hard to determine a lot of things in our atmosphere, especially close to horizon, but not the Sun, not the Moon. These objects would never set on a Flat Earth, perspective and vanishing point, not even mirages or refraction, these do not explain sunsets and sunrises for a Flat Earth. I'm open to people attempting to look further into these concepts, but I do think they're ramming a square peg into a round hole here.
You're leaning on a bias with your boats over the horizon argument and my guess is you're also using some bad math, cause even that argument is not very sound if I were to get into it. Flat Earth has been using bad math with curvature since the beginning, the 8 inches per mile squared math being the worst offender, but there are plenty of other examples. There is a rule of thumb in mathematics that I think is pretty common sense. That being you ALWAYS make damn sure you're using the correct math for the correct purpose. Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it's that simple. 8 inches per mile squared is absolutely the wrong math for what Flat Earth uses it for, so it generates the wrong figures for them...and then they wonder why they can still see objects further then they think they should. A good researcher would re-examine his math first, and see if maybe it's his math that's wrong...but I don't see any of that occurring with Flat Earthers. They still use the 8 inches math, doesn't seem to matter how many times people tell them it's incorrect for what they're using it for. I can explain it further if you'd like and point you towards the correct math, even go through some examples if you'd like, so feel free to ask.
Anyway, I hope this information is at the very least interesting to you, feel free to let me know if you feel I have overlooked anything and if you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Again, I don't think it's stupid or illogical at all to question what you've been told, it's quite logical in fact, I just hope people remember to be just as skeptical for all information they hear second hand, that includes what they learn from Flat Earth. Even question yourself from time to time, there is always the possibility that YOU are just misunderstanding or lack the details of a concept, to fully understand it. So that's why it's good to review and open up to peer review as well, over confidence can lead down some dark rabbit holes.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 That's fair to point out, but my argument with Barnard's star wasn't to say that I have tracked it, it was just to point out that neither have you, yet you're making absolute claims about the stars anyway. My guess is your only real experience with the stars is the few nights of your life you spent gazing at them for a little bit, and now you think you know everything about them? I may not have tracked Barnard's star (yet), but I have done a lot more then just look at the stars from the ground with my naked eye. I'm what you'd call an amateur astronomer and I have done a few of my own observations. You are likely not an astronomer, you have not actually gone out and tracked the stars or tested and recorded their parallax, so you can't say with any certainty that they do not parallax, and yet that's exactly what you're doing here. You're asserting then that you know more than actual astronomers, while meanwhile arguing with non astronomers or amateurs just getting started (like in my case). Talk to a real astronomer, somebody who has done this research first hand, and see how far that argument will get you. Until then, you're only half right, because I can't make any certainties either without testing it directly myself, so it's a moot argument to make with me, because we're in the same boat at the end of the day.
However, I have done some light astronomy myself, I have observed Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus on many occasions, I have seen their phases and their moons and correlated them with the position of the Sun. I have also traveled to the Southern Hemisphere (New Zealand on two occasions) and observed their different constellations and I have seen the Southern celestial rotation for myself. All of these are problems for the larger Flat Earth model as well, but you'd be correct in saying that I have not tracked Barnard's Star for myself or conducted any 6 month parallax tests of my own, just a lot of second hand research from others who have. But I do plan too actually and more then that, I'll be tracking a few other stars as well, that are also good stars for any amateur astronomer to track to test parallax for themselves. That's the nice thing about this, anyone can do it, they just have to put in a little effort. I'm not lying to you when I say it's a common practice, join up with a local astronomy forum and you'll likely find a section on people tracking parallax. So ya, I'm going to believe these people, over random people on YouTube, who clearly are not astronomers.
The point wasn't to say I have, the point was to make it clear that Flat Earthers make a lot of speculative claims, from the position of a non expert, while meanwhile having zero real training or experience on the subject they argue against and they do that with pretty much every argument. It's not me who is making the claim that the Stars don't Parallax, it is Flat Earthers and they say it as if they know for certain. The difference is, they have not made the observation for parallax, while astronomers have. Burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, so what's boggling to me is that they haven't gone out and become amateur astronomers and TESTED anything for themselves, before they make their claims. There are astronomy clubs you can join in pretty much every community, you don't even need to own the equipment yourself, just tag along and join them sometime, it's very easy to get started. Maybe go out and meet some people who actually HAVE tracked that star and many others. If you know of any Flat Earth astronomers currently doing this, feel free to share, I don't mind taking a look, but to my knowledge currently, there are none...and it's not hard to see why, because then they can't be as ignorant about this. But prove me wrong.
All I'm saying is, If it means that much to Flat Earthers and yourself, then why aren't you doing more? There are many different observations like this that you and anyone can make, that can help confirm or falsify a great many things about our reality. So give it a try, I am just getting started with my astronomy journey and have confirmed a few things already for myself, give me a couple years and that will be one more thing that I have tested for myself.
So I just find it odd is all, that for a group of people who claim to have "done the research", you're really not doing a whole lot, except making speculations. It's not my job to prove the Earth is a Globe to you, only you can do that, I'm just here to share information and have a discussion where ideas are challenged, nothing more. You can take the information or leave it, it really doesn't matter to me, but I do believe you're spreading ignorance, so I'm sharing the information I feel shines a light on that ignorance.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 It's not the only star with visible parallax and there a lot more factors that have deduced these objects to be stars. Planets don't give off their own light, only reflect it, this creates phases that can be visualized. There is also luminosity experiments that tell us how far these objects are by their brightness alone. There is also spectroscopy that can identify that light given off and tell us what the object is made of at a molecular level (stars, like our Sun, are mostly Hydrogen and Helium, it's the same for every star).
Spectroscopy is a very repeatable science in labs, identifying molecules of gas, simply by what patterns of light they absorb. This method works for thousands of light years of distance, as those patterns of light do not change, only shift more and more in the red spectrum the further the stars are...which makes it another useful method for helping us determine the distance and it also confirms a lot of General Relativity, as red shift in stars at distances is predicted under GR.
Spectroscopy is taught in entry level science classes at college and universities (it's also touched on briefly in high school physics) and there are tons of videos on it here on YouTube, so it's not hard to learn about and very simple to reproduce, purchase a spectra emissions spectroscopy kit online or talk to a physics teacher, they'd be happy to show you. Here's a great video explaining what it is and how it works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uPyq63aRvg&t=248s and another one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMCzA9rqJy8. It's settled science and very well understood today, light can be (and is) used to identify gases out in space.
We can't touch a star or planet directly, but we can interact directly with its light, which can actually tell us a LOT more about these objects then most people are aware. Spectroscopy is used to identify gases in laboratories and it helps us identify stars at great distances. Stars are all made of the same components, planets are different, we know when something is a planet, an asteroid, or a star, by identifying what they're made of.
Spectroscopy was used to tell us what our Sun is made of (Hydgrogen and Helium), with that knowledge combined with our understanding of gravity under General Relativity, we were able to deduce how the Sun produces energy, through fusion reactions. Now we use that knowledge to reproduce fusion in labs. When you fuse two molecules of Hydrogen together, you create Helium...what a coincidence, almost like scientists know what they're doing.
So again, there's a lot of science you need to catch up on and stop being so ignorant about. Barnard's star is not the only star that shifts, they all do. Barnard's Star is one of the closest stars to us, which makes its parallax far greater than most, which makes it a great star for amateurs to track, because you don't require much to get started and it doesn't take long to see some motion from this star.
Yes, Orions belt is interesting, the belt itself won't shift out of alignment for millions of years, but the rest of the stars surrounding it that make up the greater Orion constellation, are shifting a lot actually. Astronomers are mapping these motions, and they've plotted future predictions for where they'll be should those shifts continue the way they have since we've been tracking them. But yes, they're well aware Orion's belt shifts slower.
This can be for a lot of reasons, its distance, its path around galactic center relative to us, most likely it could be moving along the exact same ecliptic plane as our Sun, which would make it not much different from cars on a highway traveling at the same speed on a perfectly straight patch of road, in the same direction, at night. You wouldn't see much shift from a cars headlights off in the greater distance, if they were traveling under these conditions, so why do people think the same wouldn't be true for Stars at great distances? From what I understand the rest of the stars however are moving a lot more rapidly, they'll still take thousands of years to make any drastic shifts, but compared to the belt they're shifting a lot more.
I think you're wrestling with your own expectations and making a lot of assumptions because of those expectations. You seem to think the stars should move a lot more then they do, but you are aware how parallax works right? The farther something is, the less it will appear to move, that's parallax in a nutshell. Put Trillions of miles between you and a light source, meaning trillions of miles also separate every other star in the sky, why would you think you'd see more movement? We can only measure the stars in arc seconds, that's all we're able to notice...do you know how far an arc second is in terms of distance, when we're talking about these stars and their distances? I don't exactly know either, but the best information I could find still clocks the average at trillions of miles.
The Earth sweeps a diameter of only 8000 miles, and has only moved about 10 million miles (along with the Sun and solar system) around galactic center in a 24 hour time frame. Sounds impressive to you and me sure, the microscopic life that lives on a spec of dust in the cosmos, who seem to think a mile is a measurement of significance. But to the Stars, this distance is comparable to moving a nano meter in the grand scheme of things, probably even a lot less then that actually.
You're not thinking about this from the galaxies perspective at its true scales, you're thinking about it from your tiny perspective and so these big numbers sound impressive to you...when in reality, they're not at all. Millions of miles is nothing compared to Trillions of miles.
If you REALLY were to think deep on these scales, the stars not moving in our lifetime is actually exactly what you'd expect to see, if the stars actually are at those distances.
So really, what you need to prove to yourself or falsify is those distances, so why not do that? Start the same way we did, start with Moon, figure out all the ways we've figured out that distance, start with the stellar parallax method, then seek out a university doing radar bouncing methods sometime, or even contact someone on an astronomy forum, I guarantee you'll find someone with the equipment who can help you out with laser or radar methods, tech savvy people live everywhere these days. Then do some further research on how we figured out the Astronomical Unit (distance to the Sun, shortened to AU in formulas). There are simple experiments you can try that can help you verify these distances first, then you can move on to the bigger picture, the galaxy and the stars.
There's not much I can do to convince you of anything really, you have to do these experiments for yourself. Some of them we did back in high school, though I understand some people didn't have access to that sort of education...but then there's also a lot who did who just weren't paying attention, so which camp are you? The former can't be helped but the latter...sadly, is far to common.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 My apologies for these responses getting a bit long, I'll try and keep each point as brief as I can, but I like to be thorough.
You keep asking for proofs of rotation, so I'll provide some good ones that I am aware of. Thanks for sticking it out and reading these btw, I do enjoy the discussion, so glad you've found it engaging enough to keep goin. I got some other points on science as a whole, but I'll focus on this for now, just know I'm actually all for Flat Earths current questioning of things, that's exactly what science is all about and these people are not stupid from what I can gather, maybe a little under educated, but who knows, could be a good thing in the end.
So in a previous comment I explained and demonstrated the Laws of Motion and Relative Motion. This science explains how the motions of our planet are possible, but they don't provide proof of that motion, they merely just explain and verify how it's possible. So now here are some great proofs of Earths rotation, all of these are repeatable, some require a bit more time and effort and equipment, but they are all repeatable for the average person, who's willing to put in the time. Some are even done in high school. So I'll start with hardest to easiest.
Ring Laser Gyros - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXYV6wNdZm8&t=9s These gyros are used in planes today to detect pitch, yaw and roll of the plane. They are deadly accurate for detecting rotational motion and they use the sagnac effect to achieve this. Here's a more in depth experiment done with a home built sagnac interferometer (basically a stripped down laser gyro), detecting Earths rotation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_9J_c9Kss&t=348s Here's the best visual representation of the Sagnac Effect I've seen demonstrated so far, if you're like me, I tend to find visuals like these more helpful for learning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk0RvzaHq_Q To summarize, light is shot through a splitting mirror that then travels along two alternate paths, arriving back at a detector. When not in motion, both beams of light arrive at the detector at the same time, when put into a rotation, there is a detectable difference in arrival times between the two, that's the simplest way to explain it. This shift can be measured to give the rate of rotation, which is how it's used in planes. We have been using this very technology to detect Earths rotation for decades now and even Flat Earth has done the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGgxAK9Z5A&t=10s
Gyro Compasses - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPynV68Bg&t=8s The gyro compass is a device used by most modern large passenger/cargo ships who travel internationally. They're far more accurate then your standard magnetic compass because these compasses always point to true north, rather than the magnetic north of standard compasses. What's interesting here, is that they actually use the rotation of the Earth to achieve this. Here's how they do it, ALL mechanical gyros precess. It is a flaw of the mechanical gyro that can't be overcome, because the moving parts have to be touching each other in mechanical gyros, which creates friction, which creates torque, which will move the gyro out of rigidity over time in a steady precession. What some clever engineers noticed however, is that while you can't completely eliminate friction in these mechanical gyros, you can control the friction to set a rate of precession. So what they've done with these gyros, is they have calibrated them to align with the polar axis of our Earth and then have set the precession rate to align with the Earths rate of rotation. Because gyros do keep their rigidity aside from precession, these gyros now will always point to true North and they precess with the rotation of the Earth at the same rate, to achieve that. The fact that these gyros work as intended, verifies the Earths rotation, as the ground would have to be rotating beneath the free spinning rigid gyro, to keep up with that precession. So it's worth looking into and learning more about. You can even purchase your own gyros and create your own Northern aligned precessions.
Foucault Pendulum experiments - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U&t=132s This is one I have seen demonstrated myself, and it's fairly simple to recreate. I'm sure you've heard of these by now, if you've been looking at Flat Earth long enough, this was the very first experiment done that helped verify Earths rotation. So what's happening here, a free swinging pendulum passes through a short change in latitude/longitude while it swings back and forth, which causes it to undergo some Coriolis effect. The Coriolis effect dictates a few rules of thumb, if Earth is rotating, then we'd expect to see a pendulum swing rotate in a specific direction depending on what hemisphere you run the experiment. What the experiment above also points out, is that you can also do more then that, you can also calculate your latitude, by paying attention to the rate at which it rotates. The closer to the Equator you are, the slower it will rotate, the farther you are, the faster. If you were to run this experiment at the Equator, then it wouldn't rotate at all. Here is a quick visual to help understand how it works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s6LrZKgRqY And here's a great video breaking down how you can recreate this experiment for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQoGY3-zGAY&t=391s
I have 2 more experiments, so I'll post those in a separate comment, getting a bit long.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 Here are two more I feel are pretty good proofs of rotation.
Measuring Centrifugal Force at the Equator - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t=241s Many people are not aware of this, but you (and everything) actually weigh different around the world. The equator being the place where you weigh the least. This is due to the centrifugal force generated by Earths rotation, negating a small amount of gravity, about 0.3% at the equator, which causes everything to weigh slightly less. Which is about 0.5 grams difference from a place closer to the tropics of Cancer or Capricorn, not much, but the great thing here, is that it is measurable with cheap standard equipment. So what this guy above has done is a great little experiment anyone could repeat with a bit of travel. What he did was take the same 500 gram weight, using the same scale and then just simply weighed it over and over again, as he traveled closer and closer to the Equator. He took several data sets in a day, throughout the morning evening and night in each location and also over several days in each location, just to make sure he controlled for any flaws of the scale and to test for any time of day effects due to pressure variations in temperature, humidity, weather, etc. Before he left on his trip, he even calculated some predictions for how much Centrifugal force our Earths rotation generates at each latitude and then plotted his predictions onto a simple x and y grid. At the end of his experiment, the math predictions matched with the tested results. The weight weighed less and less the closer he got to the equator, as it should if the Earth were rotating at the rate that it is.
People assume that our Earths rotation should generate a lot more Centrifugal force....but they reach this conclusion, because they really don't know how Centrifugal force works or how to accurately calculate it. All they hear is the 1000 mph rim speed of Earth, and then jump to conclusions based around that. You can tell me I'm wrong, but that's exactly what Flat Earth does, I've never once seen them attempt to understand the physics of Centrifugal force, they just make assumptions about it. Centrifugal force is caused by a sudden or rapid change in angular velocity and the biggest factor to its increase is not so much speed, as it is RPM's (rotations per minute). These are not the same, as you increase the circumference of a rotation, it requires more linear speed to complete the same rotations, but the rotations are still the same and the angular velocity decreases. The more rotations per minute, the more Centrifugal force, that's a good rule of thumb really. Distance and speed do play their rolls, but it's more the rotational rate that increases this forces output. The Earth rotates at a rate of 1 full rotation every 24 hours, which is twice as slow as the hour hand of a clock. So the Centrifugal force generated by our Earth, is not as great as many would assume...Flat Earth throws around the 1000 mph rim speed of the Earth, but pays zero attention to understanding the physics of Centrifugal force. When you actually figure out the science, you can then figure out how much our planet generates at it's peak (the equator), it only negates 0.3% of Earths gravity. Which is nowhere near enough to overcome gravity and toss you into space, but it is enough for us to be able to measure it. So this makes for a great experiment to verify rotation. If the Earth is rotating at the rate we know it to be, then those weights should decrease in weight the closer to the equator they get. When this is tested, that's exactly what we find. Here are a couple more of the same experiment, done by others, all receiving the same results. Feel free to repeat it, it only requires weights, a scale and some travel, pretty simple stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkhxPm15PFo&t=282s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agQnj1q2Y08
Coriolis Effect experiment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38&t=16s You know what Coriolis effect is I'm sure, so I won't go into this one to much. This experiment is pretty simple to repeat, just requires some set up and if you want to get really crazy with it a buddy in the apposing hemisphere repeating the test to observe the opposite rotation. The video also breaks down Coriolis a little more in depth, cause I get the feeling a lot of people aren't even quite aware how it works. They know what it is, but very few seem to know how it works, so this video explains it pretty well. It's just a difference of distance vs speed caused by conservation of momentum while passing through increasingly shorter lines of latitude from Equator to pole. Objects conserve the momentum of the place they left from, but a rotating globe surface is going to be rotating increasingly slower the closer to the poles you get, meaning the object conserving a faster momentum is going to pull ahead of the slower inertial reference frame (the slower moving latitude), causing it to arc (or appear to arc, it's just pulling ahead really) and in the case of draining water, rotate in a specific direction. This experiment verifies the difference between the hemispheres, but you can verify at least one rotation on your own without a buddy, it's just better to have a buddy to really confirm.
So that's a short list of some great experiments and proofs that help to verify Earths rotation. These are the easily repeatable experiments, of course the larger science community has taken things even further, by placing satellites into orbit that basically confirms things at the visual level. There are also purely observational and mathematical proofs, that have to do with tracking the various planetary motions of our solar system and then calculating predictions...but these are not easy to reproduce, unless your math and knowledge of astronomy are way above average. Also included is the mathematics that predicts solar and lunar eclipses...they require our knowledge of the Earths shape, scale, rotation be accurate in order to accurately calculate, but again, not simple math at all to reproduce, not impossible for the average joe, but far from easy.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 Yes, it's all good, I suppose we're all a bit patronizing to each other until we really get down to what people know and have experience with. Gotta have a thick skin to have these discussions I find, so I don't take anything personally, I understand it's a heated topic and everybody has their shields up, I just enjoy sharing and discussing what I've learned and hopefully I learn something new in the process. Teaching was my other choice position before I decided to become an artist, so I've always enjoyed sharing knowledge and explaining it as best I can, physics and science especially.
Anyway, yes, I have looked into the other explanations, though I wasn't aware of the claim that the Aether moves at a steady 15 degrees per hour, I'd be interested to see what experiment verifies this claim though, as that is new to me. The Michelson Morley I feel is a very misunderstood experiment, that gets tossed around from one bias to the next. What's important to note with this experiment is that it's inconclusive, for any of the conclusions it was setting out to verify. It's main goal was to find the Aether, it failed. It also failed in its other possible conclusion, is the Earth stationary, Flat Earth seems to think it succeeded here, but that's not true, it's inconclusive as well. So the entire experiment is inconclusive, even Michelson and Morley agreed with that final verdict, so because it is inconclusive, it can't be used to verify or support any position...to do so would be applying bias. So here's what happened, back in that time (and still today) the Aether had zero evidence, only hypothesis, while the motion of the Earth had evidence and now today has even more. So it was a bit of a no brainer for the scientific community, they are going to support the position that has evidence over the one that doesn't. But others kept trying to find the Aether and they failed too, one experiment is even named for that failure (Airy's failure).
But science is all about peer review, so it's great that people are going back into the science and reviewing it.
I'm also aware that Flat Earth uses Electromagnetism to explain a lot of things...everything from gravity, to Coriolis, to pendulum rotation, to explaining what keeps the Sun and Moon in the sky. The trouble here is that magnetism is also well understood in physics and I've seen no solid attempts at proving that it is magnetism that explains all these occurrences, it's mostly just a hunch they seem to have, so it's a lot of speculative claims and not much actual evidence. I've even looked into the Thuderbolt project and all their claims...and boy do they got some wild theories about magnetism, yet still nothing tangible that has verified any of what they claim, just a lot of hypothesis that has not been verified yet. Have you heard of their claim that craters on the Moon are not actually from asteroids, but from lightning that is shot out from Earth? Even though no such occurrence has ever been documented...yet asteroids hitting the Moon has. Even though Mercury, Mars, Titan, Pluto, etc. all have craters as well. No, I think it's a lot of wishful thinking, to explain away these occurrences with magnetism. Especially since a Flat Earth can't even explain HOW our electromagnetic field is even generated.
Have you ever looked into the field of Seismology? It's pretty interesting stuff, because it's the science that we've used to figure out the Earths inner composition. Using the shockwaves of great Earthquakes, to help tell us a lot about our Earths inner core. Not only that, it also adds even more evidence confirming the Globe. We have thousands of seismic reading stations all around the planet, what's interesting is that when an Earthquake greater than 8.0 strikes on Earth, the shock waves from that Earthquake circumnavigate the Globe, and then return back to the epicenter of the quake. The only way these shockwaves could do that, is if the Earth were a Globe. On top of that, these shockwaves also travel through the Earth and ping stations on the other side of the planet, long before the surface waves arrive, because they took a short cut through the Earth. Again, they can only do that if the Earth is a Globe. While traveling through the Earth, these waves even behave differently, feeding us further information. There are 2 types of waves (body waves) that pass through the Earth, P waves (Primary) and S waves (Secondary). P waves are faster and can pass through anything, except they will deflect depending on the material they pass through. S waves are much slower and do not pass through liquids. This is useful because this creates what are called shadow zones, areas on the Earth were S waves don't arrive on the opposite end of the planet. The conclusion is because they have hit something that is liquid...the outer core. The P waves deflect and create interesting patterns that tell us what the core could be made of and its size and how many layers it has. This is how we've figured out what's at our core and they've been studying these shockwaves for over a century now. Here's a great video explaining it further https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwY1ICqWGEA and here's a video focusing on these waves and how they paint a pretty clear picture of our planets shape and composition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr1jjl32iCU
This also correlates with what we know about Electromagnetism, because it doesn't just create itself. We know how to create our own electromagnets and they require some key ingredients. Energy looped around a coil made of a conductive metal (iron or nickle most commonly). If our Core is of a solid metal alloy, most likely iron because it's the densest and most abundant metal found on Earth, and if there is a massive hot liquid iron ocean rotating around that core...that would explain how our Electromagnetic field is created in the first place. It fits with what we understand about creating electromagnetic fields.
So it just seems to me like one side has a lot of wishful thinking when it comes to electromagnetism, slotting that answer in whenever it has hit a wall and has no further answers, while the other side has actual data and evidence for how things work. So I'm going to go with the side that has data. I suggest you check out the field of Seismology, it's further proof of a Globe. There is a great website that they use to archive all seismic data, going back decades, called the IRIS archive. https://www.iris.edu/hq/ They archive everything here, data for pretty much every Earthquake. Here's a great simulation the university of Princeton has done interpreting this data onto a Globe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRtQf70JDoU The shockwave circumnavigates the entire Globe and then returns back to the epicenter. This happens every time there is a quake around 8.0 or greater, so it's also worth looking into, because this data also confirms a Globe.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 So that's some of the problems I have with those explanations, not only that though, magnetism is pretty simple to manipulate (even negate entirely)...we already do it with the electromagnetic spectrum of light, that's how your wifi connection works, radio signals, cell phones...it's all magnetic manipulation and transference, stretching and compressing the frequencies to send data. Which by the way is exactly the work Tesla was doing, you can actually thank him for wifi and cell phones today, his science directly influenced those technologies. So he is absolutely recognized by the broader scientific community, I really don't get why people believe that he wasn't. He sure did get screwed by a few of his greedy peers (most notably Edison), I won't deny that, but his work is not understated in history, he is recognized as a genius and his work is recognized and taught as well. But a genius though he may have been, it doesn't mean he was right about everything. Same goes for Einstein, the man was a genius, but he didn't know everything and he was wrong about a lot as well. I think people kind of assume that genius implies these people can never be wrong about something and that's far from the truth...no single person knows everything, nor will that ever be the case. So everybody has gaps in their knowledge, and well, people don't really like that, the feeling of uncertainty, so we tend to fill those gaps with assumptions...and bullshit. Everybody does this, we all have our gaps we fill with assumptions, that goes for our great thinkers of history too.
I will also say this, Tesla was not a Flat Earther...so I don't get why Flat Earth holds him up as if he speaks for them. I've read some of his papers, and he often used Globe geometry in the framework for his experiments done with manipulating electromagnetic frequencies, so he'd likely be the first to tell them they're wrong about the geometry of the planet. He had a lot of gripes with GR, but not gravity...everybody accepted Newtonian gravity by this point, even Tesla. But you have to understand that in Einstein and Tesla's time, a lot of GR was not directly verified yet, I believe the only proponents that were really verified while they were both alive, was the bending of space (the Eddington experiment of 1919, which is what shot Einstein to world fame) and the red shift of stars, discovered by Hubble. Oh, and it helped solve the orbit of Mercury, which Newtonian gravity couldn't account for, there were a few anomalies it just couldn't answer well enough that GR solved.
Anyway, yes, I am aware of the counter positions of Flat Earth when it comes to the motion of the planet, but I feel those arguments fall apart when you start to ask HOW electromagnetism answers for those experiments. How exactly does electromagnatism cause the sagnac drift in laser gyros? If so, how are planes able to use them? They detect physical rotation, no magnetic interference is detected, so how does electromagnetism factor exactly? I think people are just slotting that answer in and accepting it with blind faith, I have seen no reason to believe electromagnetism can be the cause to explain anything they're claiming. Coriolis is also physically demonstrated pretty easy, with a ball on a carousel, so even IF they could (and they haven't yet) proven that it could be an electromagnetic occurrence, the Globe still would also explain it as well, same goes for pendulums, same goes for laser gyros and gyro compasses...so I'm sorry, but I'm personally going to go with the science that is verified and not just wishful arguments that have no backing.
On top of that, here's a group I found on YouTube that does something interesting. Hobbyists, tracking satellites, with their own home made radio telescope equipment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeah3fFYlnA Here's some of the crazy stuff they've pulled from some weather satellites in geostationary orbit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY
So Flat Earth is just a very wishful position to hold I feel, you have to deny a LOT of science to believe the Earth is flat. I get that people don't trust authority and that distrust is growing more and more, but is that any reason to toss the baby out with the bath water? No, I don't think it is.
But I do agree a little, I'm fine with people going out and reviewing and challenging what we think we know. There is a LOT that we still don't know, and there is a very good chance we've missed or overlooked a lot along the way. It's a lot harder for experts to go back and review that work, because it's really hard to unlearn what you've learned. So in a way, society is kind of demonstrating a strange sort of biodiversity of thought, covering all our bases and who knows, it might actually lead to something tangible someday. So for that reason, I'm all for it, and so long as things never get too heated where it leads into violence, then all the power to them. I don't think it will, I have come across some nasty people, but those people exist either way and they're just rotten people, they didn't need fringe movements to be that way, they always were that way. And they're a very small minority, for the most part people are just asking questions, and that's awesome, that's science at the end of the day, challenging what we think we know.
Anyway, this got long again, so I'll wrap it up.Thanks again for the chats, feel free to continue if you'd like to address more. Sorry if I've dumped a lot to address, I do tend to ramble...but I am still interested in chatting if you've got some more points to make, so feel free. From here I'll promise to keep things short.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 Yes, science is always under scrutiny, that's the true beauty of it. That's why they chose to call their end conclusion theories and not facts, because facts don't change, but theories can. So they were very wise to call them theories, because as new information comes to light, it always has the potential to change old information, that's the true nature of information gathering of any kind, because we do not know everything and likely never will. Science is happy to admit that, so it should be enlightening to watch actual scientists speak, because they're quite humble about knowledge, they all understand that there is still LOTS we don't know and so science tries its best to never think in absolutes, instead it thinks in margins of errors and percentages. The rest of society doesn't do that though, mankind tends to naturally think in black and whites, in absolutes. Nature operates that way too, but nature is complex, not simple in anyway. So complex, that we can't pin down anything with certainty, it's a fools errand to try. So because we don't know everything, it is smarter to think in shades of gray, rather then absolutes. That's what science tries to do, but the average individual does not, so that's a big reason why they clash, it's a difference in methods of thinking. I think society just up and assumes that scientists think like they do, when they hear Big Bang theory, they assume that science is 100% sure about it. When they hear Dark Matter and Dark Energy, they assume it's only being reported on because they're absolutely certain...but that's not the case at all, those two in particular are still just hypothesis, like the Aether was 100 years prior, it's no different.
So science is never 100% certain about anything and they're proud to admit that, that's the way they should operate, it's the most efficient way for us to learn further. However, they do operate in percentages and some theories are a lot more certain than others, the shape of the Earth for example. There is no debate in the community of science when it comes to the shape of the Earth, this debate only exists on YouTube and public forums between people that are not scientists or experts. They are probably about 99.9999% certain of the geometry of the Earth, because that's where all the evidence points, and that's what all our applied sciences use today, so if they leave a margin of error at all here, it's because we still don't even know what the universe is and how it got here, could be a simulation at the end of the day and there are new theories sprouting up that the universe is actually a flat projection, so they reserve a little uncertainty no matter what...but there is no debate here, because it is a LOT more certain then other theories. Big Bang for example, is maybe only a 75% certainty, so there is still a lot of room here for debate, so it will continue until we're a lot more certain or until a new theory can come along that can replace it. Big Bang is just the leading theory, because it has the most evidence supporting it, that's all. Until something can come along that has even more, it will remain the dominant theory, that's how science operates when it comes to the fringes of known science.
The debate over the shape rages on here, because people at their core are confirmation bias machines, until they learn how to overcome that, which requires they recognize this flaw and then practice methods that best counter it. Trained scientists practice these methods, the average individual does not, so society as a whole is a few pages behind scientists, and this is one of the many reasons why. It's not that under educated people are dumber, far from it, but if you don't practice something...you're not going to be very good at it and it doesn't matter how smart you are, if you lack the pieces to a puzzle, you will never solve it, that's pretty common sense I feel. On top of that, the average individual doesn't work directly with these sciences and so they don't see first hand how things work, it's all second hand for them and that's not nearly as convincing, which is understandable. But I find also, these are questions most people have never thought to ponder, until recently and so now people online are just filling the blanks for them with paranoid bullshit, because people have lost trust in authority, but they will always trust people like them, people with no connection to the authorities they are growing to distrust by the day, so they're going to believe these people over authority, because they trust them more almost by default.
It's sad really, but most people don't know or understand a lot of physics, even though they were taught it in high school, most weren't really paying attention and at that time they didn't know why this knowledge was important to know (teens have a lot of other things on their minds), and so they didn't bother to retain that information or even listen to it at all the first time. So now when somebody tells them "the Globe Earth model tells us the Earth is spinning at 1000 mph, whizzing around the Sun at 66,000 mph and blasting through space at 500,000 mph" the average person looks at those big numbers and goes "that's impossible!", simply because they have no idea how it's possible, because they have no concept or experience with speeds so vast, all they know is, extreme speeds cause G forces...but they don't know HOW or even WHAT a G force is. So they form an opinion before they even consider the physics. They tend to jump to conclusions. Had they paid attention in highschool when they were being taught about the Laws of Motion and Relative Motion, they wouldn't have been so quick to jump on board the Flat Earth train.
But now since they also don't trust authority or anything connected to authority, it's all just indoctrination...even you hit me with that above a few times. The trouble is, indoctrination implies that we can't demonstrate anything, it's all just words we believed blindly, that's what indoctrination is. What these people don't get is that the only time in school where they really just tell you how things are, is in kindergarten. After that, they don't just tell you, they SHOW you how it works...they demonstrate it. People would realize that if they paid attention in school. Then in highschool they ask kids to do their own research, to demonstrate these concepts to themselves and that continues even more in college and university. NOBODY holds your hand in secondary education, they lecture sure...but while they lecture, they SHOW YOU how it works, they don't just talk about it. Then they do labs in secondary science education courses, labs are basically where they recreate the big experiments...like bouncing radar off the Moon, or measuring the universal constant for G. Here's a great example of a lab Physics Core Practical, having students run their own gravity drop tests, to measure the 9.8 m/s2 acceleration rate of gravity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcT_zUb3wis This is basically a run down of what they do in advanced physics classes...you'll notice here, they don't tell them anything, they just ask the students to measure gravity acceleration using the drop test (which is one of several ways they measure this)...and then it's up to the students to figure it out. This encourages them to try their own ways of doing it, or even to question it if they think they can. This exorcise teaches them the entire scientific method, by making them perform it themselves step by step on their own and failure is just as useful here as succeeding. That's the point of this practical in particular, these students know the scientific method...this practical teaches them to UNDERSTAND why it's the most efficient method for deducing reality and it does that on their own terms.
That's the difference between indoctrination and truth, one is just known the other is understood. Knowing and understanding are two different things, anyone can repeat knowledge verbatim...understanding why that knowledge is correct, that's much harder and that's what separates indoctrination from truth.
The only level kids are "indoctrinated" is kindergarten, from there teachers begin SHOWING them how that information is true, not just saying it to them, but demonstrating it as well. So conspiracy channels throw around that term "indoctrination" in hopes that you'll bite and stop looking deeper at the explanations that the scientific community has. It's a buzz word to stop you from looking at what we have to say, essentially closing your minds off to that information...what's ironic, that's how they indoctrinate you to Flat Earth, by making you feel like the rest of us are brainwashed and that you almost were too. That's brainwashing...that's how it works, by telling you that everyone else is indoctrinated, lying, shills but that THIS knowledge will help you break free of that. That's brainwashing 101, throw in a little hypnotic suggestion and methods used by hypnotists like a bombardment of information in quick rapid fire videos, with loud overly dramatic music playing that puts you in a more suggestive state of mind and overloads your brains ability to process, then you can feed a person just about any information and if it's not something they have any experience with prior, you're going to rope them pretty easily.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 Anyway, that's a bit of why I feel this debate continues online between the layman. I do agree it's a bit wrong that YouTube would censor them, but not entirely. I look at it from a perspective where if I were to create YouTube, I would have preferred it be a place for entertainment mostly, a place where less fighting occurred and more creative expression blossomed. But I'm an artist and I prefer to focus on creating things, so I suppose that's why I'd be a bit let down if my website intended for entertainment, suddenly just became a big conspiracy network. But here's the logic on their part I feel, this website has to look at its bottom line as well, if the site were to be completely overrun with conspiracy videos or hate videos, then most people would eventually stop coming here. The bottom line is this, the site has to appeal to a wider audience or it will die, the online market is very competitive, so it adheres to the majority...and well, the majority is a bunch of drones who just want to be entertained, so to do that, it has to regulate what gets put here so that it appeals to a wider audience. Flat Earth is a small minority, but they were loud, for awhile there, all I was seeing was conspiracy videos spreading potential misinformation day after day, and it did get a bit tiring...when all I wanted to do was unwind and get some light entertainment for a bit.
It is also a knowledge platform though, which is something else I love about YouTube, and if I have gripes with their current censorship of Flat Earth, it's that I do prefer that freedom of speech and expression of ideas never be censored...but a company still has to worry about how it's going to keep the majorities interest, or it will eventually die, that's true of any company, so unfortunately I do see why they did what they did.
Could it have been a cover up like you're suggesting though? I don't think so, but I do see the reasoning there, it's not lost on me.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 Yes, Jtolan has taken some pretty incredible infrared photos, in fact his pictures are some of the best Globe proofs available because of how clear they are. One of the most successful cons of Flat Earth, is the 8 inches per mile squared math, it's not the correct math to use for what Flat Earth uses it for, but very few in Flat Earth have realized that. A basic rule of thumb in mathematics, make damn sure you're using the right equations for the right jobs, or you will reach a false conclusion. Use the wrong math, get the wrong figures, it's pretty simple. 8 inches per mile squared is the worst offender of bad math in Flat Earth and it's successfully convinced a lot of people that there is no curvature to be found. What's odd to me is that instead of checking to see if maybe the math is wrong, people just conclude the Earth is flat. Well, not that odd actually, that's how confirmation bias works, do just enough work to seek out the information that supports a bias, then stop and never review. The same is done with Jtolan photos, when he cuts through the haze of our atmosphere and brings mountain ranges back...in this case, people don't even bother to do the math sometimes, they're convinced by this simply by him bringing mountains back from the haze, coming back with a new idea that things just fade into the distance and that's why they appear to disappear...but no, doing the math again is important, things don't just fade, they also drop. Those mountains are still missing thousands of feet at their base, doing the correct math here reveals that.
Here's a great video I found not to long ago that uses one of Jtolan's photos of a place called Mt. Jacinto and makes some observations of his own, using topography data of that same area and then demonstrating just how much that mountain range is dropped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU What he's done here is he's taken the topography data for that area and then placed it over satellite imagery of that area and then basically simulated/rendered it in a high resolution 3D mapping program, that basically recreates the landscape using topography data. Then he's placed a camera at the same location and elevation where Jtolan took that photo and then what's great about this program here, is you can then look at the landscape from the ground using either a flat surface or a globe to scale surface. The Globe to scale rendering matched the photo, while the Flat rendering revealed just how much of that mountain should have been visible if the Earth were flat. It's a pretty interesting experiment, worth a watch if you're curious to see just how much higher mountains would be if the Earth were flat. What people don't seem to get, is that there is thousands of feet of mountain missing at the base of all long distance photos of mountain ranges...that doesn't just happen on its own, and on a Flat Earth that wouldn't happen at all. So it's more smoke and mirrors and confirmation bias from Flat Earth. Just because Jtolan made mountains visible that weren't previously, does not mean you can conclude they just fade into the distance, more work has to be done here, you can't just stop once your bias is confirmed.
What you're describing with the fading or blending of color of distant objects is called distance fog in art. In the real world it happens cause you're looking through more atmosphere the further away things are too you, the atmosphere gets denser and denser and so the air is essentially washing out distant objects. The trouble is this wouldn't create a solid horizon on a Flat Earth, at least as far as I'm concerned, things would just appear to fade away as they got further away, not descend into the horizon like they do. It's not just that things appear to vanish at horizon, they also descend into it, they drop...a lot. The Sun especially, even on Flat Earth models, the Sun is hundreds to thousands of miles off the surface, so it makes zero sense that it would ever set on a Flat Earth. And it clearly doesn't fade away either, if things just fade away like you're now suggesting...why doesn't the Sun or Moon do this too? Why do they set? How do they maintain the same angular size all throughout the day and then how do they set under the horizon on a Flat Earth? These are good questions Flat Earth should consider more.
It's not that this isn't important though, this is an important thing to note about atmosphere at distances and it has to be factored as well. Over the ocean for example, the horizon isn't actually where it appears to be, for this very reason, it's actually a bit higher then it appears, because the dense atmosphere has miraged on the surface of the water making the actual horizon line pretty much vanish. But this would occur whether the Earth is flat or round, it's the thousands of feet of missing mountain at their base that would never happen on a flat Earth and as I keep mentioning, a sunset or sunrise would also not occur the way that it does, on a Flat Earth.
Anyway, if you want to know more about why the 8 inches math is incorrect, I can help you with that a bit more and help point you towards the correct math. The 8 inches math is the worst offender of bad math in Flat Earth and it is troubling to me that confirmation bias is that powerful, that it keeps people from reviewing their math to check it for accuracy. In the case with Jtolan though, people don't even bother with math, they stop looking as soon as they see mountains coming back into focus, concluding exactly what you have. Jtolan has taken some great photos, but despite being told his math is wrong countless times, he still persists in telling people otherwise, but, as I said, he actually provides some of the best proofs of curvature, because lots of people have taken the time to analyze and review his photos, using the proper math and the figures match the Globe perfectly. Here's a couple good channels that have done this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoQFXSIOHA4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z62WGtePCc
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Doesn't work like that and if you continue to think it does, then you're never going to understand it. It's not an instant change, a horse does not just become a dog for example. Think of it this way, in just a few hundred years we've taken the wolf and created the chiahuahua...something that appears closer to a small rat, than it does a wolf. If we keep going, it'll eventually become something new, something we can't call a dog anymore, but that has a new distinction, something completely new that has never existed before. That's more like how evolution works. We speed that process up through selective breeding, but nature does that as well through a much longer process of natural selection, usually brought about by a change in environment, and we see it happen everywhere.
If you want some proof, just spend some time actually looking at the science of evolutionary biology, instead of ignoring it, misunderstanding it and concluding there is no proof, before even giving it an honest look. Tons of videos here on YouTube to get you started, or if you really want to step things up, go out and actually talk to an evolutionary biologist sometime. I'm sure they'd be happy to show you what they do for a living, if you're patient and open enough to actually listen.
1
-
@rodneybaker2629 That’s all well and good, I don’t doubt that you have reached a conclusion from your own research and deliberations. That’s great…but stop for a moment and ask yourself, does flat Earth have any scientific knowledge or working models, that can actually be applied? Cause that’s how you spot bullshit science…just ask yourself “does it work?” and “can it be applied?”. The end goal of science is to acquire accurate knowledge, so that we can then use that knowledge for our benefit. We currently use the globe model for navigation…that is a fact, not an opinion. So that’s an application of that knowledge…so it’s an applied science. And it works when applied…if you don’t think it does, then I’d ask if you’ve ever tried crossing an ocean before…without using the current system of navigation to help you do it. Give it a try sometime…if you’re so confident the Earth is flat, then surely there’s a working map or model of FE that can be applied. I’ve not seen any, and every pilot and sailor I know uses the globe for navigation…so is it really so difficult to see why people would question FE?
I’m not saying you’re dumb for questioning consensus, on the contrary, it’s quite admirable, logical, and reasonable. I’m not arguing with you to be a dick here, I’m just asking if you’ve ever really thought to turn that skeptical lens around on Flat Earth? Do the same standards of review and skepticism not apply to Flat Earth and their arguments? Because personally, I don’t feel that anything is above the burden of proof…and come on, you don’t see ANY flaws at all in the FE position? I can look at one sunset, and understand the geometry doesn’t quite add up, or travel South and observe the other hemispheres night sky is vastly different, with its own rotation, around its own polar axis…exactly like we’d expect on a globe, but to this day, after years of asking Flat Earthers, I’ve not heard any valid explanation for how FE accounts for that geometry. And as I keep pointing out…FE has no working map or model, that can actually be used in applied sciences, such as navigation…that should be a HUGE red flag for you or anyone.
I don’t claim to know everything either…but I do know how to spot bullshit science, just ask yourself if it has ANY working applications at all. If not…then it’s very likely not true. That’s actually the one nice thing about pseudoscience, it reveals itself simply by how useless it is…making it pretty easy to spot most of the time.
1
-
What gives you the feeling of down? Gravity...gravity creates inertia on your body as it pulls every cell in your body towards the ground beneath your feet, giving you a feeling that we call weight. Your brain and body has evolved to recognize that inertia as down, we balance ourselves upright in accordance to that inertia. The pull of gravity is in the same direction everywhere on Earth, towards the center of Earth, creating the same inertia upon your body towards the ground, no matter where you are, orientating you upright, so long as your feet are on the ground so you can feel and interpret that inertia as down. Gravity always pulls to center of mass, your body is constantly balancing to center, we call that center of gravity.
So if gravity pulls to center everywhere and creates your feeling of upright everywhere, where on Earth is the top? Nowhere...there is no top or bottom to Earth. Upright is an orientation given to you by gravity, down is towards the ground, up is away from the ground...that's how it works. America is not the top of the Earth...Australia is not the bottom. You're conditioned by world maps to think this (namely the Mercator map), but in reality, that's a man made interpretation and it's not true.
We chose North to be the top on world maps, because that's where the most landmass is, that's where the higher population is, and that's where England is...the country that pretty much created the standard maps the rest of the world uses today. But again, there is no real top or bottom to Earth, you are always upright, so long as you are aligned to gravity, your feet on the ground.
1
-
1
-
Maybe you missed the part where it clearly states that there are satellites in orbit right now. If satellites are in orbit, then the Earth can not be flat, because it would be impossible to put them into orbit without gravity. The Earth would not be flat if gravity is as we know it to be, a globe is the only shape something as massive as Earth could be, with a force that pulls all mass to center. Thus creating a sphere Earth, thus making orbits possible.
Yes, only 5% of global communication uses satellites, because that's not what most of them are up there for. Most satellites are for private industry and military, research and data collection, satellite tv/radio services and weather. VERY FEW of them, are for dedicated communication networking, because to put a global communication network up into space, would require a LOT of funding and a LOT of satellites networked together...thousands of networked satellites, all doing the same dedicated job of sending and receiving communications. No company in the world has ever attempted this (yet), because of the costs and other challenges of doing so, it's much cheaper to lay cables in the ocean, so currently today there is no global network of communication satellites. Satellites are still a relatively new technology, so the infrastructure is still not there yet. But you're in luck, look up StarLink sometime. Elon Musk is currently working on this global network of satellites, but it's still going to cost a LOT and he has many challenges facing him yet, so it's still going to take time and at any moment something could wrong where it doesn't happen at all.
Why does this surprise people so much? Do you think it's easy to create a global communication network of satellites? Do you know ANYTHING about putting satellites into orbit? Why do you immediately just assume that it should exist already? Why does your bias assumptions lead you to the conclusion, that because it doesn't exist yet, that means the Earth must be flat? You didn't once think there could be other reasons why it doesn't exist yet? Again, read that article you shared a little closer...5% of communication IS DONE BY SATELLITES! What does that mean? That means there ARE satellites up there. :/ You overlooked that, cause you only see the information that confirms your bias, then completely ignore any detail that directly refutes it. And my guess, is you listened BLINDLY to some fucking stranger online, who fed you a lie saying this meant the Earth is flat. And you believed them why exactly? Did you think to even question their claims? Wake up bud...you're being conned by numpty's and huxters on the internet, who are just as ignorant and incredulous as you are. :/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Hubble is a deep space telescope...it was not designed to take pictures of objects like our Earth that are really close to it. That would be like turning your telescope into your bedroom and then trying to focus in on something in your room...it's not gonna work, because that's not what telescopes do...they don't take pictures of things that are very close, they are used to focus light that is very far...it's incredible I have to explain that to an adult. Also, Your claim that no pictures exist of Earth, is an ignorant one...there exists thousands, probably even millions of photos of Earth at this point in time. They're not hard to find either, is your search bar broken or something?
Here is an archive with hundreds of photos of Earth from space, all taken during the various manned missions to deep space. I remember many of these photos from long ago, long before CGI was ever a thing. So take a look at some of these high resolution photos of Earth you can find here, and let me know...how did they fake these in the 70's?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/with/72157656739898544
Here is a website that will take you to the Himawari 8 live feed, which is a geostationary satellite in orbit right now that takes a picture of Earth every few minutes.
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
Here's a directory of the images taken by the DSCOVR satellite, which is another geostationary satellite in orbit right now.
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Now here's an interesting one, if you think these are just CGI images they create. Here is a group of hobbyists who build their own radio telescopes and then they use those telescopes to track and pull data from satellites in orbit. The geostationary satellites they focus on here, are known as the GOES 15-17 satellites, which are also weather satellites that take pictures of Earth every few minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t Now they're pulling data from something in the sky...what are they getting these images from, if not actual satellites in orbit?
Here's a neat trick you can do with a lot of these weather satellites as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOYssZQ3D2Q What this guy does is pulls data from the Himawari 8 live feed and then compares the cloud cover to his area, to see if his sky matches the photos taken by the satellite. If you live in America, you would need to use the GOES 15-17 satellites for this, but you can do the same thing to confirm the images, and you can do it on any day.
So I'm sorry, but your argument here is pretty weak. It tells me you didn't really bother looking into anything very deep...you likely just nodded and agreed with some hack online who fed you some bullshit, and you ate up every word without question. Stop being so damn ignorant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here are some great pictures of Earth, in high resolution, taken during Apollo 16 mission. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544 If you click the "back to albums list" in the top left corner, you'll be taken to directory where you can find hundreds more pictures like these. Just one of many online directories that have archived these photos and others like them.
Now, if you feel these are fake, go ahead and explain how you verified that to be the case...otherwise it's just an empty claim with no evidence supporting it, and we have no reason to believe your conclusion, which makes it empty speculation, not an argument anyone should take seriously. Click on any one of these images and blow them up to max, and then tell me how they faked these. If that's what you believe, then it should be easy to demonstrate how you confirmed that, if not, then it's speculation and nothing more.
Just because you don't now how it's possible to get into space, does not mean everybody else does as well. Your own ignorance and incredulity is not an argument against modern science, it's just plain ol' ignorance and denial. Learn the difference between speculation and actual evidence.
1
-
@xrinnegan "tell me Does the Earth curve when the cameras do a full 360 🙂or does it make a STRAIGHT line across your phone screen ?
"
Ok, so at Earths measured and confirmed scale, how high should we have to travel before curvature becomes apparent? Did you bother to check before concluding Earth was flat? Earth is huge, nobody would argue that and it should also be pretty common knowledge that the closer you are to the surface of a sphere, the flatter it will appear, that's basic spherical and spacial geometry and perspective.
So here's a great simulation that has mocked up a visual. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MRtuXlDZog First pause it at about 8-9 km, that's about how high a passenger airliner flies. Pretty hard to make out the curve isn't it? Now try doing that without the eye level indicator helping you, and while looking through the haze of our atmosphere. Now pause it again at 30 km, which is about as high as any helium balloon can travel. Still pretty flat, curve is more apparent but still could be confused as Flat if you're not looking close enough, and again...try seeing that curvature through the haze of our atmosphere. Here's a picture from a high altitude balloon. https://c.pxhere.com/photos/c0/48/blue_sky_the_clouds_high_altitude-667070.jpg!d You think you'd see much of anything through all that haze? Good luck.
Truth is, 100,000 feet is still not high enough to really make a clear distinction, that's the reality of things. We are tiny in comparison and 100,000 feet is nothing to the true scale of the Earth. There are examples of clearer skies that have spotted curvature...but they're ignored for some reason by Flat Earth. I wonder why...bias perhaps?
Maybe don't focus so much on things you can't confirm for yourself. Ever seen a sunset before? Of course you have, now how does that work over a Flat Earth exactly? If the Sun is circling above at a very high altitude, higher then we have ever traveled and if it occupy's the same directional sky EVERYWHERE on Earth, wouldn't we expect to see it in the sky 24/7 from anywhere on Earth?
When we model this, yes, that's exactly what we see to be the case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t=7s
The sun would never set on a Flat Earth, common sense should have confirmed that for anyone right out of the gate, but I suppose it really depends on what you choose to focus on and my guess is people dabbling in Flat Earth are more interested in the fantasy of the conspiracy, than they are with the objective truth. So maybe spend a little more time questioning the flat Earth model you are looking to support. It's fine to question the status quo, but be careful you're not just being taken on a ride by huxters looking to dazzle you with bullshit. Turn that lens around sometime and question Flat Earth as well...you might learn who the real liars are.
1
-
I agree that most people have not thought about these things before in great depth...but science most certainly has. Flat Earth is not asking anything that has not already been asked from science...they're just reaching the opposite conclusion to be contrarian...and they're doing it, because they don't trust systems of authority anymore. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not how you remain objective, reaching the opposite conclusion, just because it goes against the wisdom of something they don't trust any longer. They have not learned how to remove bias and think objectively and that's their flaw. Science learned a long time ago that people have a bad tendency to chase bias over objective truths, and that's why they introduced the peer review system. Flat Earth doesn't engage in peer review...they don't think it's necessary...and that's where they go wrong. It's fine to question what your told, completely logical in fact, but misinformation is rampant online and so you have to remember to turn that skeptical lens around on EVERYTHING you read. Question Flat Earth, just as much as you question the mainstream...I'm sure you'd agree, you were able to finally see the errors, and I assume that's how you did it. You were successful at remaining objective.
It's great that people are FINALLY taking interest in science...but they have to learn that denial, ignorance, chasing confirmation bias and being contrarian just to spite something they don't trust, these are not how you go about finding real answers. It's how you fall for scams...it's how you get dragged down rabbits holes of bullshit.
I don't really think they are all that smart...they just know a lot about some things most average people do not, because most people don't really ponder these things and haven't learned them yet. Knowledge is not intelligence...you can know a lot of things and still be a fucking idiot. Understanding is intelligence, not just knowing something, but understanding how and why it's right...it's understanding that determines intelligence I feel, and very few Flat Earthers have demonstrated they understand much of anything they repeat verbatim. Most Flat Earthers I have talked with (hundreds at this point), don't really seem to understand much about what they argue about, just little fragments here and there that can fool a person who doesn't know much about physics, astronomy, cosmology...but not actual experts who understand where they're going wrong, in much greater detail.
I'm an artist for a living, I first got into this mess when they tried to argue that perspective causes a sunset...by saying the vanishing point explains a sunset. While they may have learned what the vanishing point is pretty recently...but I've been learning this stuff all my life. I don't just understand how perspective works, I apply that knowledge in the work that I do...I would consider myself a trained expert in optics and perspective at this point, just from years of practice and study on these concepts. I was able to tell right away, that they were misunderstanding vanishing point and bullshitting about it...perspective does not explain a sunset and they are just ramming a square peg into a round hole, by saying that it does. And from there I discovered they do this with EVERYTHING, across the board...they bullshit. They know that generally people are not experts at much of anything, so dazzle them with half truths and fill the gaps in their knowledge with cleverly crafted bullshit and you can convince someone of just about anything. Overload their minds with gish gallop...and bam, not much more required...simple hypnotic methods of suggestion, overload their mind with bullshit, by dumping a bunch of things that APPEAR odd on the surface...and then people start to doubt and that's all they need.
It is a scam...they are conning people. Some of them are really quite intelligent...but most of them only dig as deep as they can to confirm a bias and then they stop...that's how most people operate. Which isn't very intelligent in my opinion. They may know about a lot more things then the average person does...but they do not understand much of any of it, past their bias. That's what I have learned. So they're not really all that intelligent, because they haven't learned how to spot bullshit and gish gallop and bias. They haven't learned yet how to overcome these flaws...so they are just layman, doing what layman do best, chase bias, misunderstand, jump to conclusions, and grossly over estimate themselves.
I admire that people are asking questions though...they are free to do so and it's quite logical, but misinformation is a real problem with the online world right now, so people REALLY have to slow down and take the time to sift through the bullshit...rather then listen to all blindly and without question.
1
-
That math is a parabolic arc equation...not a curvature calculation. It is missing several variables required to give you an accurate figure for the observation you’re trying to make. It has no variable for height of the observer, arc length, horizon, refraction...It doesn’t represent line of sight, doesn’t tell you where horizon is and doesn’t tell you how much that horizon will block your line of sight. So it’s not the correct math to use here.
Simple rule of thumb in mathematics, use the wrong math for the wrong job, and you will reach a false conclusion...it’s pretty simple. Flat Earth cons people here with a half truth, it’s good enough math for surveyors to use to calculate horizon drop from eye level...but even then, it’s only an approximation, it’s not accurate past about 100 miles. But it absolutely will not calculate a number that represents what is blocked from line of sight by horizon.
Here you’ll find the correct math. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ and here’s a handy calculator that makes use of the formulas found here. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
Don’t just listen blindly to what Flat Earth tells you, this math they’ve told you to use is not accurate. Give that math above a try, learn how FE cons people by exploiting the general publics lack of mathematical literacy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kristine7893 Well, I'll agree this video could have done a bit more to let the viewer know what to expect in the content, but then YouTubers care more about clicks and views than anything, so making the videos more vague and generalized is key to that success I think...and either way, no video is perfect, somebody is always gonna gripe. But he wasn't wrong, those experiments are examples that Flat Earth use, that are inconclusive and should not be stated as evidence for either position...yet Flat Earth uses them still anyway...and it works. Which raises a red flag for me personally, that Flat Earth is not always very honest...in fact in my experience, they're quite bias in their approach and they use a lot of slight of hand and misdirection like this to get people interested. It's deceptive, which doesn't sit well with me.
Anyway, If you'd like to learn more about why those two experiments (level on a plane, Bedford level) are inconclusive, I can explain in better detail. Please don't tell me to "do the research" I've done the research FE has asked, been doing it for a little over 3 years now, I know this argument inside and out. I have concluded the Earth is a sphere, the evidence is overwhelming for that conclusion. If you'd like to pick my brain for some information on the opposite perspective, feel free to ask, I don't mind sharing.
Physics and geometry are where I put my focus on this topic. Modern scientific evidence I can verify myself, is more relevant to me then what did or didn't happen in ancient times, but to each their own. I do try to remain respectful of other peoples opinions as best I can.
Anyway, I do tend to ramble, so I'll leave it at that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patdriver1001 No, science is often not easy. It takes care and patience and diligence and if you rush it and skip steps and ignore variables...then you absolutely will reach a false conclusion. That is a fact, not an opinion and it's well understood in the science community. Flat Earth makes many errors and then when we attempt to point those errors out, we're met with arrogance and hostility, rather then an open ear that is curious to any possible errors and willing to listen objectively. Peer review is very important in science, it weeds out errors, it's probably the most important step in science, but Flat Earth doesn't care, you people would rather stew in ignorance, than listen and learn where you've possibly gone wrong. You take it as an attack, and that's not the intention, science is just looking for objective truths. It doesn't care about your beliefs, all it cares about is finding answers, so we can use that knowledge for applied sciences and engineering...we can't do anything with bias, lies and dishonesty, so we have to be objective, we're not trying to attack you personally...but if you hold a belief that science has proved false, then I'm sorry, but we don't care...we can't do anything with fantasy.
So lets go through your gravity explanation, cause you seem to think you have it all figured out. Your claim is that it's just density, a common claim of Flat Earth, let's take a closer look at that then. When you drop something it falls, which means it's moving, it's being put into motion, but nothing is put into motion without a force being applied to it, this is a basic law of motion, it's the first law of motion. So what force is putting that dropped apple into motion? And why is that direction always down towards Earth? Density isn't a force, it's just a property of matter, it is how much matter occupy's a certain space. So it's not a force, so how does density alone put the apple into motion towards the ground? Any bright ideas?
You're not really thinking about this very well...WHAT is causing that downward motion to occur? Motion is pretty simple, it always requires a force be applied, or else nothing is put into motion. So what force is causing that downward motion? Density is not a force, so why would you think this is all you require? You do realize that density and buoyancy are already included in the theory of gravity right? All you've done in your explanation is removed the force that starts the motion...and then called it done. Do you really think that's how science operates? Your explanation does not answer the question for WHY and HOW things fall DOWN. You have not answered the DOWN question, why down? It's a simple question, density does not answer it on its own, it ignores it completely.
So what causes that downward motion? Why did the apple fall down towards Earth? Why down? That's what you need to answer. The best answer I usually get from Flat Earth is "it just does"...well, that's great, but we can't do anything with "it just does". If science concluded everything with "it just does", then we'd be in the bush still trying to figure out how fire works. The job of science is to go deeper then that, you may not like the answers, but science doesn't care...it just cares about objective truths, while you are just looking for ways to bolster a bias belief that you have...even if it means denying what science has concluded. That's not how science works...that's how you do science wrong. Confirmation bias will always lead you to a false conclusion.
No, you people are not solving any big problems, you're just arrogantly ignoring science so you can keep a fantasy alive. It's very obvious to the rest of us that's what is really occurring, it's nothing but confirmation bias and ignorance...and it will get us nowhere.
The proof is in the pudding, you are using a computer right now to access this message....hate to tell you this, but science made that, not your bible. You can kick and scream and whine all you like, but at the end of the day, your bible didn't solve these problems that helped make your computer possible...science did, the very same science you now claim you know more about, while at the same time likely having no clue how your computer even works.
1
-
1
-
Trouble is, what tool would you use to measure that distance between the two lasers? Also, lasers are prone to refraction and diffraction at distances, which will distort their plum line significantly, making it even harder to accurately measure...in fact I think it would do enough to render the experiment inconclusive. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, on paper it's quite clever, but even if you used something other than lasers, I think you'd still have a really hard time measuring that distance, I'm really not sure how you'd accomplish it. It sounds simple on paper, but I don't think it'd be an easy one to actually perform. Also, I think there's just too much room for error in an experiment like that, errors that Flat Earthers sure wouldn't bother to account for.
1
-
@nicholasvecchiola4964 Hmm, so you're gonna try and hit a small beam of light...with another small beam of light, from miles away? Good luck with that...but on top of that, I'm not even sure a laser hitting another laser is going to be able to return a measurement...I don't think they work that way. But maybe, I honestly don't know, but from my understanding laser positioning has to hit something solid to give a reading. But what I do know, is that lasers refract (bend) and they diffuse (spread out), the farther they travel through atmosphere...it's unavoidable in atmosphere, because that light is bouncing off of the molecules of air and being scattered. So this will render your readings inconclusive, because if the laser bends and spreads out, I think it would be difficult to calculate exactly how much, which would make the math a nightmare for anyone trying to control all the variables. That's of course assuming you even can take a distance measurement by shooting a laser at another laser.
Idk man, there are a lot easier experiments you can do. Here's a good one. It's basically the Eratosthenes experiment, done way better and with more data sets. If you're pressed for time, just watch the last 2 mins where he shares the results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=462s
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, people believe the Earth is Flat, because they do BAD research, listening to CON MEN, lie to them and feed them bias information that feeds their paranoia and confirmation bias. You are layman doing what layman do best, chase bias, jump to conclusions, over react and grossly over estimate yourselves. I have been researching Flat Earth for a little over 3 years, I am more of a Globe Earth believer today, then I ever was before, because now I understand the science and history of how we reached that conclusion, far better then I ever did before. I was able to falsify every claim made by Flat Earth and I still do...so what do you want me to conclude? What you're basically asking is that I shut my mind off to objective research and just blindly accept Flat Earth, you made that clear with this statement here "If you still believe the globe in 2020 you did not do any research what so ever. If you claim you did, you did not do your research with an open mind." Well...that's a great way to convince yourself not to listen to any counter arguments alright...doesn't sound very open minded to me if you're just going to conclude we're just wrong right out of the gate...no discussion or sharing of ideas required. :/
Believe it or not, but just because somebody reached a different conclusion to your own, does not mean they didn't do the research and keep an open mind. YOU have to consider the very real possibility that YOU are the one in error, not the model. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you should consider that possibility, as we all should and as you ask of us. Just because YOU couldn't falsify the Flat Earth claims, doesn't mean the rest of us couldn't. That is why we have peer review, to weed out any errors or bias from the researcher. Flat Earth ignores peer review...for a very good reason, because it fails peer review, every single time. You are likely chasing a bias, seeking only the information that helps to bolster that bias. That's all I've ever seen from Flat Earth...and then any attempts to point those errors out, is met with hostility, rather then open discussion. Which means your minds aren't really open anymore...cause you're not listening to any rebuttals or counter information, your minds now are more shut then they have ever been.
"you dont see any curvature"
Earth is massive, we wouldn't expect to unless we're testing or measuring it directly. Here's some examples of people testing and measuring it.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9w4KtHxZ68
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIOs-PzNIZU&t=3190s
"you dont feel any spin"
Learn the science of motion, the Laws of Motion, Conservation of Momentum and Relative Motion and you will understand WHY we don't feel any spin. As a bonus, actually LEARN how centrifugal forces work, and you will further understand WHY we don't notice that inertia. The short answer I will give you, because we do not actually feel motion itself, we feel inertia that is created during sudden or rapid CHANGE in motions. Earth is a steady system of motion in ALL of its motions, with only slight changes that occur gradually over several months, so nothing we will ever notice. This is well understood in physics and very easy to demonstrate and verify for yourself. Learn the physics of how motion actually works, then you will understand the motions of the planet...or don't, and continue to be conned by Flat Earth.
But we have measured the rotation of the Earth, despite the claims made by Flat Earth that we haven't. Here is a short sample of the many ways we have detected and measured Earths rotation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGgxAK9Z5A&t=21s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXYV6wNdZm8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPynV68Bg&t=11s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U&t=140s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t=534s
Just a short sample things, but I hope these help to illustrate to you pretty clearly, that we absolutely have measured rotation. The Earth is rotating, it is verified science...so what would you prefer they conclude? Would you prefer they just ignored this stuff? Like how Flat Earth does...
You're not wrong to question what you're told, it's very logical in fact...the trouble is you're not REALLY keeping your minds open, when people try to point out errors to you. You close your minds off the moment anyone tries to point out errors...just concluding that they are wrong, without giving any reason for WHY they are wrong. Which is a very common thing to do...when YOU are actually wrong. If you're not willing to discuss things openly, then your mind isn't really open anymore, it's shut and you now live in an echo chamber of information, only seeking information that bolsters a bias. I will listen to any rebuttals YOU have for ANYTHING I have shared with you right now. THAT is how you keep a truly open mind, by LISTENING to your opposition at all times and engaging with them and respecting their input. I admire that Flat Earth is out there questioning the science the rest of us has moved on from, I truly do admire that, because THAT is the true krux to science, falsification, leaving nothing off the table for debate, no matter how solid it appears to be. That I admire...but you're being VERY irrational, when you won't listen to peer review, and consider the possibility that YOU could be the one in error...not the model. If Flat Earth wants to be taken seriously, then it has to open back up to discussing with its opposition, rather then closing it out and declaring victory before any consideration is given. That's how you keep an open mind and that's how proper science is done.
1
-
@fredrikhamar4374 "it is a shame others are going to read this and be like "yeah we measured the earth spin" when in fact it is a blatant lie from your side."
I know this might be prying at this point, but here's a chance to have an open discussion if you're willing. Explain to me exactly how they lie about these measurements. I'm more then willing to take a look at anything you have to share, so this is a chance to show me and anyone else who might be reading these but I'm sorry, I can't do much with an empty claim. Currently, I am aware of experiments that we can do and of the science that we do have, that has measured the rotation of the Earth. You have made a claim that these are just lies. Ok, so explain to me WHY you feel they are just lies. That's how a discussion works. I can't be convinced of anything if you're side is not willing to open up and share and discuss things with me. So feel free, otherwise all I can conclude is what I already have, that we have measured the rotation of the Earth.
Yes, I will challenge anything you have to point out, but that's because I don't just listen to what I'm told blindly. I question it first, until I can't anymore. I have been questioning flat Earth, you should too...that's how you remain objective, by questioning BOTH sides of an argument, not just one. You do that by talking openly with the opposition, they can help you see what you might be missing. That's why I enjoy talking with people of different opinions, so that I can LEARN their perspective and possibly LEARN what I might be missing. I can't do that, if they won't talk to me and explain HOW and WHY they have reached their conclusions. I hope that is reasonable to you. So feel free. I won't pester you anymore though if you're unwilling, so again, have a good day.
1
-
@fredrikhamar4374 Thanks for the reply back, I know you don't exactly trust me as of yet, so that was asking a lot, but now I can offer a counter position and we might actually have a discussion now, so thank you for the response. I have listened to your position, now all I ask in return is that my position be listened too and considered as well. You don't have to agree with anything I'm about to share, and I know you likely won't, all that I ask is that you stay open to it.
No, the Michelson Morely experiment was a test done to find the Aether, not to verify or falsify rotation. It failed to do so, the experiment was concluded inconclusive, that is its official standing in science, and upon all peer review over the years, it has remained that way. So one of the many possible reasons postulated for why it failed, was because the Earth wasn't moving. The trouble is, they had mountains of other research already that proved that it was moving. So they couldn't make that conclusion for that reason. So it was either the Aether doesn't exist, or the Earth isn't moving...but you see there was no evidence for the Aether at all, just a hypothesis that failed, while the motion of the Earth was well documented and well tested...so one possible conclusion HAD evidence, while the other did not. In that day, they had astronomy observations, used to predict solar and lunar eclipses down to the second and square mile, that USE the motions of the planet and its shape and scale in the equations for accuracy. Mathematicians and astronomers were already using the equations of planetary motion to make several predictions with, all of which use the motion of the planet in their framework. As for physical experiments, they had Foucault Pendulums (which I will address in a moment, because you mentioned them as well) and they had the gyro compass, which uses the rotation of the Earth to function. Here's further information on the gyro compass and how they work, using the Earths rotation and the natural precession of mechanical gyros, to always point to true North.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPynV68Bg&t=13s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvO4froSGSc&t=915s
And that's just the ones I'm aware of...I'm sure there were many more. I'm not a trained scientist and have never taken a secondary education in the sciences, I've just always loved physics, its a casual hobby of mine when I'm not doing my real job, which is book illustration and game design...so I'm no slouch in physics, I was reading and studying these experiments LONG before I ever stumbled on Flat Earth.
So you see how that works? One possible conclusion had no evidence...while the other did. So what did you want scientists to conclude exactly? Either way, this experiment did not prove either conclusion, it was inconclusive, so that means...it can not be used to support either conclusion. To do so, would be bias. You apply a bias whenever you use the Michelson Morely to help support your arguments. Until this experiment can be improved to actually render a verified conclusion, then it will remain inconclusive...and therefore can't be used to support any position.
Flat Earth fails here, because they apply their bias to this experiment. They make a false claim about this experiment, claiming that it was an experiment to test the motion of the planet...and it wasn't, that was never it's goal and it was inconclusive, so that means it can not be used to support any conclusions...that's what inconclusive means, it is a failed experiment. So Flat Earth can't use the experiment and neither can the Globe. Every other attempt to find the Aether, has also reached the same conclusion, inconclusive...meaning it has no conclusive evidence supporting it.
It's actually not hard to reproduce the Michelson Morely experiment, it's a simple laser interferometer set up...you can buy kits for this online, very cheap stuff and easy to get today. What's difficult are the calculations and reading the data...most people don't know how to do that sort of stuff, cause you're testing a light wave interference...and it's a lot of data you have to analyze...and if you have no idea what you're doing or what you're looking at, it might be tricky, but again, there are kits and tutorials online that can walk just about anyone through the steps.
I have more to mention, so I'll continue in a second comment. Thanks for listening if you've made it this far so far. Feel free to offer any counter arguments or point out any information you feel I have overlooked. If you feel I have lied about anything here, also feel free to point them out and show my exactly why you feel that way.
1
-
@fredrikhamar4374 Now you mentioned Foucault pendulums, stating that it can't verify rotation, because other objects would be effected by this motion as well. What you're missing though is that they are...it's called the Coriolis effect (I won't patronize you, you've heard of it) and it effects everything that's moving over the Earth, free from the surface for long distances or periods of time. That's the exact effect that is occurring in the pendulum, that's why it rotates, it's really just an experiment for Coriolis effect, and it also does happen to many other things as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38&t=71s The reason it doesn't appear to effect planes, is because planes are not like a pendulum, bullet, or hurricane, that has no means to resist this force. Planes have engines, wings, rutters...PILOTS, mechanical moving parts and people, that keep them on their heading, adjusting their vector path constantly, resisting such tiny directional shifts, that would otherwise be caused by Coriolis. Objects that do not have any means to resist Coriolis, things that don't have engines, wings, pilots, will succumb to that force and be led by it. Planes are not the same as a pendulum, so that's where the error in thinking is here.
This experiment DOES verify rotation and it is conclusive evidence and it is VERY easily reproduced and all peer review of this test concludes the same thing. You can even use this experiment, to accurately calculate your latitude, because the pendulum doesn't just rotate in a specific direction according to your hemisphere, it also rotates at a certain RATE of rotation, given your latitude. Here's a break down of how you can recreate this experiment AND use it to calculate your latitude. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U&t=143s
Foucault Pendulums though are NOT the only way we have measured rotation. Ring Laser Gyros have done it, Gyro compasses do it, heck you can take a simple weight and scale to the equator and measure the centrifugal force there that negates 0.3% of gravity at the Equator, making things slightly lighter, there are TONS of different ways now that we have verified the Earths rotation. Here is a person who has done that scale experiment I just mentioned, give it a watch sometime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t=536s
"for example an aeroplane should reach its destiantion much faster when flying against the rotation of the globe, it doesnt."
Now this is different from Coriolis and actually doesn't have much to do with pendulums....not entirely anyway. It is conservation of momentum that causes Coriolis, but your question here is a bit of a different Flat Earth observation having to do with conservation of momentum as well, just in a different way. A plane doesn't speed up or slow down when traveling with or against rotation for one simple reason, because of conservation of momentum. I'm sure you've heard this term before, if you've been researching this topic long enough, it's one of the Laws of Motion, the first Law in fact, all things in motion stay in motion until acted upon by an apposing force or mass. Demonstrated quite clearly in this quick animation. https://imgur.com/gallery/70m3Fku Notice how this guy keeps landing dead center of the trampoline, even though the tractor is pulling the trampoline out from under him as he's in the air. How does he keep up with the forward motion of the trampoline, while he's in air? Simple, because of conservation of momentum. He started jumping while in motion with trampoline, so he now conserves the forward momentum of that inertial reference frame of motion, he's now moving relative too it, moving with it.
A plane does the same thing, always conserving the momentum of the Earths rotation, in both directions, with rotation and against it. That's how relative motion works...and it's VERY well established science at this point.
Here's a simple experiment you can do anytime, that answers your plane problem above. Toss an object around the next time you're in a long moving vehicle, a bus, a train, a plane, doesn't matter really. Best done with a friend and plane is great, because a plane goes 500 mph at cruising altitude...which is an incredible speed. So throw the object to your friend in the direction of the vehicles motion, and notice that it doesn't slow down while in air. Now throw it against the vehicles forward motion and watch as it doesn't speed up. No matter what direction you throw the object, it will not speed up or slow down or fall behind...it will behave as though you were throwing it while stationary. That's how relative motion works...it creates what appears to be a stationary system. That's why it's so hard to verify motion...because motion is relative, but these are just a few of the simple ways to verify this science to yourself. So don't take my word for it, try this experiment sometime.
Now, a common counter argument is "well, the Earth is not like the inside of a plane", but it actually is, because the air in a plane (or any moving vehicle) is moving with the plane. The same is true with the air of the Earth, it is moving with rotation. So it's exactly the same as the inside of a moving vehicle, that is actually the proper analogy to use...and so when Flat Earth makes that counter argument, they're just ignoring the lesson we're trying to teach them, for conservation of momentum, using a false analogy to deflect from the main point.
So the science you need to do some research on are the Laws of Motion, Conservation of Momentum and Relative Motion. They help to answer any questions you have for the motions of the planet. Understanding this science is very crucial to understand how Flat Earth cons people...they use motion in a lot of their arguments, but the trouble is, they don't really seem to know much about how motion really works...otherwise they wouldn't be making a lot of the arguments they do.
But yes, don't take my word for it, conduct some of these experiments for yourself. If you have anymore questions or rebuttals, feel free to point them out. This is the science that I know and understand currently and that I have verified myself so far. Until I see any evidence that can falsify this science, this will be what I hold as the evidence against Flat Earth. I'm not trying to be difficult and I'm not trying to mock or discourage anyone in Flat Earth...but there ARE actual arguments against Flat Earth, that MUST be considered. I feel Flat Earth ignores them...and I don't know why, except for that it's not easy to listen to an opposing viewpoint sometimes.
Anyway, thanks again for the reply back, it was good chatting with you. Again, feel free to continue if you'd like, I don't mind taking a look at anything you would like to share that further supports your position. I enjoy learning from different perspectives, I just can't do that if people aren't willing to talk with me and share their perspective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hightech346 "...You've slowed the earth's rotation down to a reasonable believable speed but we are still dealing with a sun and solar system going over 500,000 MPH..."
Well, you are aware it takes 365 days to complete a single orbit around the Sun right? And roughly 200 million years to complete a single orbit around galactic center....so let's see, if the RPM's of an Earth that completes a rotation in 24 hours is 0.0007, what do you think the RPM's will be for rotations that are much much longer to complete? Probably a LOT smaller maybe? Yes, it absolutely would be. Why is that relevant? Because centrifugal force is increased by the RPM's of a rotating motion, not the linear speed. It's rapid change in angular velocity that creates the inertia force of Centrifugal forces, and the angular velocity change per second lowers dramatically the wider the circumference of rotation and the longer it takes to complete. Our solar system might as well be traveling in a straight line with how wide that circumference is.
" I fear the earth may someday run into something causing some MAJOR problems"
Like what? Space is a vast expanse of nothing, gaps of mostly empty space for trillions of miles in every direction, at least anything at Earths size. But we do hit stuff every single day, we call them meteorites. How does a Flat Earth explain meteorites exactly?
Listen, do you ever consider the possibility that maybe there's a lot about physics you don't really know or understand? Does that ever cross your mind, or do you honestly believe you know more than scientists? Do you REALLY think you're the first one to think about the motions of the planet, or the science of motion in general? Do you REALLY think science has never asked these questions before?
Do some reading about the Laws of Motion, most notably Conservation of Momentum and Relative Motion. That's the science that helps you understand how those motions are possible and it's not hard to understand and demonstrate for yourself, it's physics 101 and there are lots of different experiments you can do to verify it for yourself. We realize those speeds sound ridiculous to you, but if you learned a bit of physics, then you'd maybe understand how it works. You're reaching what we feel are some very false conclusions, and you're making those errors because it's clear you don't really know much about the physics of motion. The truth about motion, is that we're not really good at noticing it, what we notice is inertia, that's what our bodies pick up on. Inertia that is created by a sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion...not motion itself. So long as it is at a smooth constant rate, then we actually have a very hard time telling the difference between stationary and moving...doesn't really matter how fast we're going either, that holds true. That's what we understand about motion today, learning more about the Laws of motion will really help you realize that too, so before you jump to your conclusions, maybe learn this science and see if it's accurate.
We didn't start with the physics of motion, we observed and measured the Earth to be a Globe first, then we discovered it was moving, and now we understand how it's possible...it was a long process that took hundreds of years to get where we are now, so don't be so surprised if you haven't reached the same conclusions on your own...took science a long time, with a lot of different minds working on it all, to solve some of these questions.
1
-
hightech346 hightech346 You’re a funny one, but that’s fine, in a way your heavy snark and sarcasm is a lot like the Socratic method of questioning, albeit your method keeps you from really thinking on and considering what others are saying, but that’s fine, can’t force a person to ponder anything they’d rather brush off with ignorance, incredulity and over confidence. Makes for a good place to bounce ideas off of and challenge what I think I know though, so feel free to continue. I also suspect you could just be a poe trolling, but either way, I don’t really mind playing into a joke, so long as misinformation isn’t left unchecked, so for now I’m going to treat you as just another sarcastic, over confident, pseudo intellectual.
I’ve given you some info about the Laws of Motion and Relative Motion, up to you if you’d like to learn that physics a little and maybe learn where some of your errors are when it comes to motion. You know where the door is now at least, if you have any further points or questions to make about the science of motion feel free, I’ll help you out where I can.
Neil Degrasse Tyson made a bad comparison, he even realized it in the very interview that quote is pulled from, and then corrected himself. If you keep watching past the part Flat Earth cuts out of context for you, you’ll see he soon redacts the comment and corrects himself by saying Earth is classified as oblate, not perfectly a sphere, slightly wider at the Equator. So a pear is a bad comparison and he even realized that...but bias dishonest people prefer hanging on cherry picked quotes they can spin a narrative with, rather then looking at the full context of things. Earth is not a perfect sphere, that was his main point he was trying to make and deep down you people know that I think, so stop making bad arguments.
It is oblate with a wider equator, but we’re talking a tiny difference, if you were to look at a full image of Earth, it would appear perfectly spherical to you upon a glance. But here’s a neat trick you can do to help you see the difference and understand just how small that difference is. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tjx0KcDH7pQ. You can do this with pretty much any full (high resolution) image of Earth, so give it a try sometime. Your eyes are not a very good measuring tool, that should be pretty common sense. If you think you can just eyeball these kinds of measurements, like the Earths oblateness or horizon rising to eye level (it actually does drop in reality), then that’s your error here.
Of course rivers don’t flow uphill, but North is not really up and South is not really down. You’re misunderstanding things here (just like all flatties do). Water seeks lowest elevation, and so rivers flow from high elevation to low elevation. The source of the Mississippi begins at a much higher elevation than where it ends (just like all rivers do). So how does that work on a sphere? Gravity pulls mass to center, so lowest elevation is closest to center, while higher elevations are further from center. Down is toward center, that is where all mass is pulled on Earth, down is not South. Maps have conditioned us to see the world that way, with North always pointing up, but in reality there is no actual top or bottom to the Earth. So when you make the “rivers flowing uphill” argument Flat Earth likes to make, it tells us right away that you don’t quite understand how gravity works, or how elevation works on a sphere, or even how maps and 3D geometry work.
Elevation on Earth is measured from center of Earth. The further from center, the higher the elevation. We use sea level as a base line, because the oceans occupy the lowest elevation and evens out at the top of the ocean, perpendicular to center of Earth all the way around. Which gives us a nice level (in this case level does not mean flat, it means perpendicular to center) base line to measure land elevation from, as ocean elevation is all generally the same elevation from center of Earth, within a few feet of difference due to tides and such. But technically, all elevation is really measured from center of Earth and water, like all matter on Earth, is really seeking that center, trying to get as close to it as it can, into the lowest possible elevation, towards center.
Yes, technically, space has everything in it, I was just pointing out that the space between the Earth and most other large celestial bodies (stars, planets, moons, asteroids) is mostly empty space, nothing there but a few small rocks we do hit constantly, which we see as meteors. You can play dumb, but you understood what I meant.
Of course none of this proves what I’m saying as true, it’s merely an explanation of how a particular model of reality works. They are all scientifically verified, but I understand it’s hard to build upon knowledge, if you don’t agree on the foundation. So maybe go back a few steps and start with verifying the geometry first, just like science did. Ask yourself some simple questions that don’t make a lot of sense for a flat Earth. How does the sun set? How are there two equal hemispheres, each with their own stars and celestial rotation? How does Polaris drop to 0 degrees at the Equator on a Flat Earth? Simple questions like that, that anyone can verify, that just don’t work at all on a Flat Earth.
The Globe Earth may be complicated to understand the higher you get in the science, and there is still lots we don’t know, but the Flat Earth falls apart right from the starting gun, which is why it was discarded. So ignore us if you’d like, or maybe slow your roll a bit and go back to the start and question the basic geometry first. Question Flat Earth and geocentrism just as much, you’ll find a lot of actual errors there. You’re not wrong to question things, but you are misunderstanding a lot, so just doing what I can to help.
1
-
@hightech346 Aircraft are constantly fighting gravity, they don't need to adjust for curvature, gravity keeps them tethered to the Earth at all times, like a bungy chord wrapped to your body and also the center of a pole that keeps you from escaping a certain circumference...it's not much different. They also require air to generate lift and the air gets thinner the higher you go, so there are lots of things that keep them dropping to the Earth, all a plane has to do then is make sure it's aligned to the ground and it does that using an artificial horizon indicator. They are making tiny adjustments, all the time, but they're so tiny and gradual, you'd never notice...not much different from a car on straight highway that you keep your hands on the wheel for, constantly making tiny adjustments in the wheel to keep yourself straight. Now add a z axis, they're doing the the same thing, constantly making tiny adjustments.
It's not like you're not asking good questions hightech346, but you're assuming they don't have answers...and then you're ignoring us and not considering anything we have to say. And you're mostly arguing and focusing on higher physics...which YOU absolutely could just be misunderstanding. You refuse to listen to us, that much is clear, but do you ever consider the possibility that you're just misunderstanding physics? That the error is with you, not the model? So why not bringing yourself back down and think about the actual geometry? That is the main argument after all, the shape of the planet, so why focus on the physics you clearly don't understand, when you should be going back to the start and looking at the basic geometry. That's where science started, we built our foundation from the geometry first, after we were certain the shape of our planet could not be anything but a sphere, because a sphere was the only thing that could account for what we observe.
For example, how does a sunset work on a Flat Earth exactly? Start there...if you honestly think Flat Earth holds up better then the Globe, then how does a sunset work over a flat Earth? Or why is there two hemispheres? Both with their own celestial rotation, their own stars, their own night sky's in general? If the Earth is flat, with a dome overhead, wouldn't there just be one hemisphere? One night sky? One celestial rotation? The trouble is, there isn't in reality, there are two hemispheres. You ponder a lot of higher physics and things you generally have no working experience with, but why not focus on something you do have experience with...like a sunset?
Maybe stop being so defensive with us, take your shields down and then maybe we can have a civil discussion where ideas are shared and considered, not laughed at and mocked. Wouldn't you prefer that? Or do you just like being a dick? Is that your only purpose for being here? I wouldn't mind helping you out or even learning something, but hard to do that if you're not willing to listen and consider what others have to say.
1
-
1
-
@hightech346 "You people actually believe that we are spinning at 1000 MPH while orbiting a sun at 67,000 MPH chasing a sun that is going 500,000 MPH with the whole "solar system" magically following along for the ride...😁 But I'm the dummy right??
Well, ya, you kind of are, because this is called an argument from incredulity. All you've done is explained to me that YOU think it's nonsense, because a few big numbers impressed you...but you've given me no reason to see your position, no science, no explanation, just big numbers. Do you know the physics of motion very well? Are you aware of relative motion and conservation of momentum? Do you understand this science very well? I know you think it's nonsense because you can't see how it's possible...but that's not an argument, it's personal incredulity, nothing more. Explain to me why the physics doesn't work...THEN you might have an argument. But I'll never know, if you don't go through the physics with me. So why dodge it? Are you afraid if you go through the science with me, you might learn how you're wrong?
The light rays are parallel, what you're seeing is perspective tricking your eyes into thinking they're coming at you at angles...it's no different from a railway track you look down. The tracks are parallel, but they appear to converge...it's called perspective. Tell me if you think the Sun is directly behind these trees. https://www.awatrees.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/larsvandegoor-2B3.jpg It's no different, it's just perspective...that's how it works. But don't just think I came to that conclusion without evidence to verify it. Here's an experiment done not to long ago that measured the shadow angles of the Sun, from various latitudes around the world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=469s If you're pressed for time, just watch the final 2 minutes where he shares the results. You'll notice that when he lays the data out onto a Flat Earth, none of the angles point to a local Sun...but when he plots the data on a Globe to scale, you see pretty clearly that the angles are all parallel. Exactly as they would be, if the Earth were a Globe. Here's another year where they repeated the experiment, and this time plotted the data on several more Flat Earth maps and models that have been proposed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=310s Again, the suns light is measured to be parallel, the only model that fits with the data, is a Globe.
"Isn't just amazing how a large commercial airliner can be going sideways at 1000 MPH in an east/west direction and land on a runway while traveling at several hundred MPH in a North/South direction and actually land on a runway that is going East/West at 1000 MPH?"
Not really all that amazing, if you ever threw a ball around while in a moving vehicle, you'd get a pretty clear lesson on how relative motion works...that's why I'm trying my best to help you go through the science with me, so that you can understand how it works. Then you'll realize your errors here when it comes to motion. Just try it sometime, next time you're on a flight, a train, a bus...heck even the next time you're riding passenger in a car with a buddy next to you. Toss a ball back and forth for awhile, you'll notice it will behave exactly as if you were in a park tossing it back and forth. But hold on, think about it for a second now...if a car is going down a highway at 100 mph, and you're tossing a ball back and forth with ease...are you throwing the ball at 100 mph? Why doesn't it go slamming to the back of the car? If you were on a plane going 500 mph, and if you threw a ball to your friend who was standing at the nose of the plane...first of all, are you throwing a ball at 500 mph? And why doesn't the ball speed up or slow down depending on what direction you throw it? If you throw it towards the nose it's traveling with the direction of the plane...shouldn't it go slower? If you throw it to the rear, shouldn't it go faster? Now toss it from side to side, so it's now technically going sideways at 500 mph...yet it still appears to you like you're just throwing it side to side, back and forth, how is that possible? Isn't that a lot like how a plane would be on the surface trying to land? Give it a try sometime, in any moving vehicle that maintains a steady constant forward velocity. Relative motion works like this, anything moving in the same inertial reference frame of motion, will behave as though stationary. A plane takes off from the surface of the Earth going, so it's in the inertial reference frame of every motion of the Earth, from its rotation to its orbits, it's moving WITH the Earth, conserving its momentum at all times. So this will create an environment that behaves as though stationary, making it possible to take off and land just fine, while moving relative to the Earth. It's pretty simple science...it's physics 101.
It's really not our problem if you don't understand how it works...but we do and it's pretty easy to verify, if you'd just stop fighting us and start listening to us.
1
-
@hightech346 "I can't tell by your typical sunset question that you have not even bothered to look into the flat earth reality and know nothing about it"
No, I know what Flat Earth claims is happening, I was asking YOU what YOU think causes a sunset. I'm asking YOU, because I have heard their explanations, and they haven't convinced me of anything yet. I'm wondering if MAYBE you have some new insights I can learn from, so I'm asking questions to learn more, to see if YOU have anything I haven't heard yet. Is that a bad thing? I don't just engage in these conversations to teach people things, I do it so that I can learn things as well, So I'm asking you questions for that reason, I'm talking to you, cause I'm interested in what YOU have to teach me. Most Flat Earthers explain a sunset by saying it's due to perspective. I've heard all their mental gymnastics to explain a simple sunset...but do you REALLY think it's accurate? I'm fine with hearing explanations, but then demonstrate to me how it works, cause I'm not just going to take words at face value without some data and evidence to back up what you're claiming. I can bring up several experiments and observations that refute the argument of perspective causing a sunset. I've also heard theories of the Sun lying outside of the Dome and causing a double sun effect, refraction and lensing effects basically, making the Sun appear in one place, but it's actually in another. That's great and all...but that remains a hunch or a hypothesis until you can show me an experiment that demonstrates this occurrence. So feel free, in the meantime I'll break down why I don't believe a word they're saying about their perspective arguments, or the Dome theory, just sounds like bullshit to me.
I've looked at Flat Earth quite extensively, for 3 years now in fact. I've watched the same videos you have I'm sure...except when I did it, I didn't just listen to them blindly, I questioned them. I reviewed their work and I put them to task...I have found many errors in their work and I have identified the many things they ignore.
Lotta problems with the perspective claim for a sunset. I'm an artist for a living, so perspective is not just something I know a lot about and understand, I also apply that knowledge every day in the work that I do. I know that perspective would never drop the Sun to horizon from the height that it is at. Even on Flat Earth models and projections, it is still very high in altitude...it would never reach horizon from that height, you would always see it. As these videos also help to demonstrate and explain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg&t=11s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njO5NPfur7I&t=6s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYVYa3BdI84&t=43s
Don't need a deep understanding of perspective to realize that though, it's pretty common sense. But even IF I agreed that it could reach horizon, that still raises several more questions. Why doesn't it shrink in angular size before it reaches horizon? Both the Sun and the Moon maintain the same size throughout their visual cycle, they do not shrink in size before reaching the horizon, except during some rare instances where Flat Earth has dug up videos of a sunset during very humid, hazy, cloud covered days, that make them appear to shrink. But on most days, when it's clear and you have a clear line of sight of the Sun, it maintains the same size and then dips into the horizon. As seen here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIviCNY3Txw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZHzb7nmJas
Some Flat Earthers will explain that it's vanishing point that makes the Sun do that...but that's not how vanishing point works. Vanishing point is when something has shrunk so much in angular size, due to distance and perspective, that it becomes to small for your eye to physically render it visible, so it appears to vanish from sight. This can happen from any angle, doesn't always occur at horizon, if something were to travel away from you directly up, it would eventually reach a vanishing point as well, where you could no longer see it. Vanishing point does not explain a sunset, all Flat Earth does when they impart vanishing point upon a sunset, is demonstrate to me that they don't really know what vanishing point is.
There are other questions as well that perspective can't answer. Why doesn't the Sun speed up and slow down as it arcs through the sky? Why does it maintain a steady 15 degrees per hour through the sky? Why does its path through the sky rise from the south, arc north and then set to the south during the Australian summer? As documented here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJGczcwJ6TA&t=102s
The sun behind the dome theory is intriguing, but then why hasn't it been modeled and demonstrated? We can model the globe Sun, with the tilt of the Earths axis relative to the ecliptic plane, and it matches with every observation, from the Suns path through the sky, to its shadow angles, to why clouds are lit from the bottom during a sunset and sunrise. The Globe explains all these observations pretty simply...and I have not seen any model of Flat Earth demonstrate this sun behind the dome theory.
More questions are brought up here as well, like how does this dome effect create the 24 hour sun in the Antarctica? Or even the 17 hour sun at the tip of Argentina? I've seen some experiments demonstrate how the dome could possible make the light from the Sun visible 24 hours a day in the South, but it's not just the light you see in the Antarctic, You also see the Sun itself, tracing a perfect circle in the sky, for 24 hours at a time. As seen here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcppf47VhrU The whole video is pretty cool, but the second half is more important I feel, because you'll notice the Sun runs parallel with the horizon for a full 360 degrees. This is important, because this is only possible directly at the poles during the midnight sun.
If there are any other explanations for a sunset on a Flat Earth, feel free to let me know, but the data and information I've given you is pretty damning for a Flat Earth I feel. I've have seen no reason to believe the Flat Earth has any valid explanation for a sunset.
And it still doesn't answer for the second celestial rotation of stars. The South does have it's own rotation, I have seen it for myself. It has its own stars and constellations as well, meanwhile you can not see Polaris past the Equator. Why is that? How does that work on a Flat Earth? Do you honestly believe perspective could drop Polaris to 0 degrees at the equator? https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/polaris-angle-768x768.jpg
1
-
1
-
@hightech346 On the contrary, I am listening very closely to what you guys have to say, I'm just not taking any of it at face value, I'm questioning it and putting it to task.
I mentioned this in a previous comment to you, but Neil realized in that very same interview, that he had made a bad comparison with the pear comment. So if you watch the whole thing, rather then just the bit that Flat Earth cuts out of context for you, you'd know that he redacts that comment and then corrects himself, by saying the Earth is classified as an oblate spheroid, meaning not perfectly a sphere, it is measured to be slightly wider at the equator. That is what he meant with his pear comparison, but it is a bad comparison and even he realized that. Flat Earth is being very disingenuous when they cherry pick things like this out of context and spin their bias upon it. It's fine really, because cherry picking like that is a red flag for the rest of us, that Flat Earth is more then likely rampant with confirmation bias.
"...and all other babbling nonsense will not help you explain the temperature variations that can ONLY be explained by the movement of the sun over a stationary flat plane."
It's pretty well known in physics, that temperature can be made to vary in lots of different ways. The way our Sun does it, is by direct sunlight vs. indirect sunlight. If you focus a light source onto a single point, does it not get hotter? But if you spread that light out over a wider area, then there isn't as much direct light being focused, so not as hot. This is what's happening at the poles, the Light from the Sun is spreading out over a wider surface area, rather then being focused upon a single point...like the Equator experiences.
It's pretty simple stuff actually and the tilt in the Earths angle helps make perfect sense of the seasons as well, as the Suns focused light moves from Cancer to Capricorn as the angle of the Earth points Earths poles toward and away from the Sun in a flip flopping rotation. The light is focused on the tropic of Cancer during Northern Summer and the tropic of Capricorn during Southern Summer...so it's pretty simple to see how their seasons work. If you need a visual, here's a great one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgHmqv_-UbQ There's also a lot more, with those angles of light being reflected by atmosphere a little easier at the poles due to those angles, so less solar radiation is being absorbed there as well. It's just the difference between direct solar radiation and angled solar radiation spreading it out over a wider area and making that light less focused on those areas that are angled. If you'd like to see some experiments done with lights shined direct and then at angles to measure temperature differences, I can certainly help you find those physics experiments that help to verify what I'm telling you. Your error here is assuming that distance is the only thing that will effect temperature...and that's far from accurate.
So the Globe does explain seasons quite well in fact, the Flat Earth however, has some more holes in it here. If the Sun is getting further from the North pole during it's winter, then that means it now has to travel a wider circumference. This creates a problem for your model, because if the Sun is traveling a wider circumference, but still completes that circumference in a perfect 24 hour time frame...that means it has to be traveling faster. But the Sun doesn't speed up and it doesn't slow down as it goes back to the North...the Sun is recorded to be moving at a steady 15 degrees per hour, all day, every day...it never changes. One of many problems your model has with your seasons explanation, but again, the Globe explains this...and it also matches with measurements taken for rotation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGgxAK9Z5A&t=19s Every time we measure Earths rotation, we detect a steady rotation of 15 degrees per hour...which fits with the Suns rate of travel through our visible sky.
So let's review a bit:
- You still haven't explained a sunset on a Flat Earth
- You still haven't explained why there are 2 celestial poles, with their own stars, constellations, 24 hour sun and perfect circle rotation around their own pole star
- You've kept cherry picking a quote from Neil Degrasse Tyson, instead of looking at the full context and realizing that he too understood it was a bad comparison and later corrected it
- Your Flat Earth explanation of the seasons falls short still, because the Sun would have to speed up and slow down to account for the change in distances, and it does not in reality do this
- You assumed that temperature can only be changed by distance, when angle can also effect how light focuses and creates more or less heat depending on how much surface area is effected directly
- You ignored my experiments I've shared that show you the sunlight angles, that do arrive parallel when you actually measure them
- You still don't quite understand motion
- You still don't quite understand gravity and gravity vectors
- You still don't quite understand how elevation on a sphere works
- And for the most part you've ignored most of these time and again rather then really address them and get to the heart of them with me (minus the seasons, you're actually trying there, which is appreciated)
In fairness, feel free to let me know what you feel I have missed. But the above is my review of things so far, that I can recall off hand anyway.
1
-
@hightech346 "Dr. Tyson went into an elaborate detail about the pear shaped earth"
He went into elaborate detail about the oblateness of the Earth, but he later redacted the pear comment and he certainly doesn't say it at all today. Just saying, Flat Earth cherry picks and quote mines a LOT, spinning their own bias interpretations upon out of context lines they then sell to their people and it's a red flag for the rest of us, because that is a form of confirmation bias. Here's a great video demonstrating to you just how "chubby" or oblate the equator is, in comparison to the poles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjx0KcDH7pQ you can do this with pretty much any full, high resolution image of Earth. The equator is slightly wider, but you won't see it with your naked eye.
Your eyes are not a great measuring tool and they are easily fooled. That's why you have to look closer and review what you're looking at...model it and pay attention to EVERY detail.
I have made my own observations in my own back yard (I've done a lot more then that too), I have observed the Sun, I have tracked it, I have paid attention to it and I know quite a lot about perspective (as I said, I'm an artist, pretty important to know the deeper fundamentals of perspective in what I do) and I've done many of my own experiments for perspective. I have concluded currently, that it does not explain a sunset. As much as Flat Earth tries to ram that square peg into a round hole, I think even they realize that. They're fooling themselves here with that answer and you've given me no reason to believe it's accurate. So try again.
Time zones are not the same as a sun completing a circuit in 24 hours. The Sun would have to speed up and slow down to achieve your seasons trick, it does not do that in reality when we observe it and measure its rate of travel, it is a steady 15 degrees per hour, it never changes. And you keep ignoring the southern hemisphere, when the Sun is making its wider circuit, HOW does the sun become visible in parts of the South, for 24 hours? We have two 24 hour midnight Sun occurrences on Earth, one for the North, and one for the South. HOW does that happen on your Flat Earth, with a Sun that has to travel a wider circumference in the South? Here's why it happens on a Globe. https://media3.giphy.com/media/5bZu9TqVPnZvO/source.gif You'll notice as the Earth rotates here, whichever pole is pointing towards the Sun during their solstice, never leaves the daylight. This explains the 24 hour Sun for both poles during their respective summer months. How does the Flat account for the Southern 24 hour Sun? Or even the 17 hour Sun at the tip of Argentina?
It does pay to review your model, rather then just believe that it works. I have looked very closely at both, the Globe works, the Flat Earth does not. So I align myself with the model that fits with observed reality.
You're not really giving me any answers hightech346, you are just telling me things and not giving me any evidence to support your claims. Do you notice that I have been sharing evidence with you? Not just telling you how it is, but showing you how it works as well? I've shown you experiments, observations, data and visual representations of both models in action. But you've given me nothing so far, so you are just asking me to take your words at face value.
1
-
@hightech346 "Objects have been spotted at over 200 miles away yet at 200 miles the object should be under 5 miles of curve..Those are YOUR numbers for the imaginary ball earth..."
Here's your opportunity to share some photos and math with me. What observation are you talking about in particular? What math did you use? I'd love to go through some evidence with you so that I can maybe believe a word you're saying...trouble is you're not giving me any.
I have reviewed Flat Earths work when it comes to long distance observations, and they make several errors here. The biggest error they make, is they use the wrong math. 8 inches per mile squared being the worst offender, but there are many others, I will focus on the 8 inches per mile squared math here. That is measuring from a tangent at surface...the figures it gives you do not represent horizon or your line of sight. So of course those figures will be way over the peaks of mountains and distant objects...it's not the correct math to use here. Basic rule of thumb in mathematics, make damn sure you are using the right formulas for the proper jobs, or you WILL absolutely reach a false conclusion. It's pretty simple. What blows my mind is that Flat Earthers rarely ever go back to check and see if maybe they just had the math wrong...they just do enough work to get the figures they are looking for and then they stop looking. More confirmation bias, due to sloppy math.
The other error I see a lot, bad information or fudged figures. Another important rule of thumb in mathematics, make sure your variables are accurate, or you risk calculating the wrong figures. Flat Earth will often lie about how high they were from surface, how far away an object really is, what peak or object they are actually observing, etc. They'll fudge a lot of the little details, to make their case APPEAR accurate, but when we do get the correct details out of people and when we use the correct math, the numbers actually do fit for a Globe as well and Flat Earth is again, just performing more confirmation bias. The correct details matter, so it pays to pay attention and be patient and collect all the correct information, before you even do the math.
The third error I see done here, ignoring variables completely. Most Flat Earthers don't factor refraction into their work here...they'd rather ignore it as a variable and pretend it doesn't exist (even though they often call upon refraction to explain other occurrences, like sunsets, southern star trails, Polaris dropping to 0 degrees at the equator, etc.). It's fine really, if you haven't been convinced of refraction occurring in our atmosphere, then a little hard to include it as a variable. But it does occur in our atmosphere, especially over water and especially closer to the horizon and it does cause light to bend down, making objects appear slightly higher...it's well known in physics the effects of refraction. But I won't just leave you hanging, I'll show you a quick demonstration that helps to verify this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs Refraction is very real, so it must be factored as a variable. We're not just saying that, to make a model work...we have verified refraction, we have looked at that science, it is absolutely something that must be considered and included in the math for long distance observations.
So Flat Earth does a lot more errors here, bad math, fudged details, ignoring variables. When you do the math correct, when get the details right and when you include every variable, the Globe fits with what we observe.
Here is a really great Earth curve calculator https://www.metabunk.org/curve/. Here is a forum discussion breaking down this math and explaining it in greater detail https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/.
Flat Earth cons you again, when they use the 8 inches per mile squared math...this math is a formula for a parabola, only accurate up to a few hundred miles (which makes your airplane calculations for thousands of miles an inaccurate calculation). This math is generally used by Surveyors, to measure horizon drop from eye level...that's all it's used for, that's all it is good for. It does not represent line of sight, and it does not generate a figure telling you what is hidden from curvature. I can explain things much more in depth for you if you'd like.
In short, Flat Earth is just terrible at math and they keep using the wrong formulas that ignore variables and don't generate accurate figures. That is why they reach a false conclusion here.
Here are some great examples of people crunching the numbers using the correct math and details, and one video explaining the failure of Flat Earth in better detail.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNgj9YOmYzAPIMGy-1BQDEw/videos - just gonna share this guys entire channel, this is what he does primarily
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADCvX1pQVoI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DepJKPYxy7M&t=4s
What you should pay attention to is that things DO drop into the horizon losing thousands of feet at their base, the further they are. They also drop from eye level (which is what you actually can use the 8 inches per mile math for, ironically, when you see mountain peaks below that figure...it means they have dropped well below that tangent line of eye level). So the question is, why are thousands of feet of mountains missing in long distance observations? Here's a great video that illustrates it pretty clearly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU if you watch any of the videos I've shared, THIS is the one you should see. What he's done is he's modeled topography data for a region where Jtolan Media has provided a picture of a long distance observation of a mountain peak named Mt. Jacinto. Then he's interpreted that data onto a Globe and then a Flat Earth, showing you exactly what we'd expect to see occur on both models. If you're pressed for time, start this video at the 6 minute mark to see the comparison.
So feel free to let me know exactly what 200 mile image or observation you are referring too. I'd love to go through the math with you and see if it's actually accurate.
1
-
@hightech346 "What are you going to to do with that? Tell me it's "wrong"....You people are a freakin JOKE.."
That about sums up your rants. You sure do ramble on and repeat the same things, without providing much evidence to support anything...just a whole lot of "you're wrong! I'm right! Na na na boo boo!". It's fine really if you'd prefer to shove your fingers in your ears, but again, you're the one arguing a position that is contrary to ALL of science, arguing positions you are not an expert in, while telling actual experts you know more than them...that's what's incredible to me. What's more incredible is that you do it all, while using a modern technology, that scientists created for you...that you could never recreate or understand. It's fascinating.
Yes, artificial horizon indicators, they are a part of every airplane and they are designed to adjust with curvature, using gyros and what are called pendulous veins to keep them perpendicular with surface, at all times adjusting in real time as it fly's. A plane is making small adjustments as it fly's, but gravity and the lower air pressure making lift harder to achieve at higher altitudes, are doing a lot of the work here as well, all they really have to do is pay attention to this horizon indicator and make sure they follow it, and then pay attention to the altimeter to make sure they maintain the altitude they have set for flight. They are correcting, a lot...it's no different then any vehicle you have to keep making small corrections with constantly to keep on the road, except now add a z axis...you really think pilots aren't adjusting up and down constantly? Here's a video that goes into greater detail explaining the artificial horizon indicator and the pendulous veins used inside of the mechanics to help keep the gyro perpendicular to surface. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1QGRPVBZvw
Your argument there is one from a non experts position (layman)...making assumptions and filling the gaps of your experience with bias. It's not much of an argument, it's just an argument from ignorance. You don't really know...you just assume they don't and your bias won't let you dig any deeper to confirm anything that might destroy that bias.
That's really all your arguments have been so far, either arguments from ignorance, or arguments from personal incredulity. It's been a lot of this "planes DON'T correct for curvature!" and then I look and...yes they do...you are not a pilot and your bias is flat Earth, so you just conclude they don't, without really looking. Wow...great research, please shine more of a light on how little you know please, as if it wasn't bright enough already. Or the other argument style is "It CAN'T be 93 million miles away, what nonsense!" and then you don't share any evidence to support that claim...you just assert it and that's that. Have you measured it? Do you have data to support your claim refuting the current AU (Astronomical Unit, distance to the Sun)? No? Then this is an argument from personal incredulity and nothing more. I on the other hand have shared several experiments with you that have been conducted (that are also very repeatable), that verify the Sun can't be local, the rays are coming parallel and by extension they verify the geometry of the planet. Here they are again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=470s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=312s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nzEhDX-xzg
So like all these conversations with Flat Earthers go, I still really have no reason to believe anything you've said, because you've given me nothing...just a lot of ignorance and incredulity and redundant rambles that flip flop between the two. It may be enough to convince idiots who can't recognize the difference between empty claims and solid evidence, but not on the rest of us, who require evidence, data, math, experiments, observations, facts, etc. It's a shame really, was hoping to maybe learn something new...but no, I doubt you'll provide anything beyond ignorance and incredulity...as usual.
I am tempted though to illustrate how a river flows for you, and explain better how a gravity vector works, so perhaps I will. I already did explain it briefly in a previous comment, but It is easier to understand it with a visual presentation and there really isn't a good one online that tackles the rivers argument in greater depth. Mostly cause the rest of us don't really require that visual, we understand how gravity works on a sphere...but it seems to be your krux here, cause you sure repeat it a lot, so maybe I'll take the time.
And still, no answer for a sunset and no answer for the second hemisphere. You've given me no reason to agree with you that it's perspective that causes this occurrence, just the empty claim that it's perspective and then I've pointed out why perspective can't explain a sunset, to which I've received no rebuttal, just deflection onto a new topic. You've given me absolutely nothing at all to explain the second hemisphere we observe in reality and that I have personally witnessed several times in my life...just more dodging and deflecting.
So, not much to go on is all. So when are you going to take this seriously and give me some evidence for your claims?
1
-
@hightech346 I didn't say the math itself was wrong, only that Flat Earth is using the wrong formula for the wrong job. 8 inches per mile squared is a great equation on its own, for figuring out a parabolic arc...it's also great for figuring out how much horizon roughly drops from a tangent line at surface...but that's it, that's pretty much all it can be used for. Here's a great video breaking down that math and showing you why it's the incorrect math https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klI3tmmXseA. So it's just the wrong math to use for long distance observations. All I'm saying is, stop using the wrong math for the wrong job. Always review your work and consider the possibility that you reached the wrong figures, because you were using the wrong formulas. That's really all my point was there. Flat Earth has roped in a lot of suckers with the 8 inches per mile squared math...and I can't face palm hard enough when I see them continue to use it.
If I get some time today, perhaps I'll whip up a visual to help illustrate how a river flows on a sphere with gravity. Gravity vectors are not that hard to understand, but a visual makes it a lot clearer, so I'll see what I can do for ya.
But it hardly matters, cause we have measured the curvature and observed it. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth Just click through the yellow tabs sometime and watch the demos found here, the entire blog has documented a lot of curvature for you to take a look at, so go through the other links here sometime as well. One of many data and information resources I can share with you. So, whether you understand how a river flows on a sphere or not, it really doesn't matter. Science creates the modern world for you, it's fine to question it, but if you honestly think you know more about Earth then the people who study it directly and have been for hundreds of years...then you are quite delusional. Sit and ponder on your computer sometime...and just ask yourself, could you recreate that technology? Down to the microchips, the binary code and the wifi that brings you your internet? If not, then maybe accept that other people have a lot they could teach you, because they actually know more about a lot of things that you do not. Do you honestly believe these same people can create every technology you enjoy today (and that you take for granted) but they can't figure out something as trivial as the shape of the planet?
I'm not trying to flex some false sense of superiority, I'm not a member of Mensa (takes a lot of insecurity to join clubs like that I feel), I don't really care to know my IQ, I imagine it's painfully average and I'm fine with that and I don't think my lifes worth is measured by how much smarter I am or think I am than others, I'm just trying my best to help snap you out of whatever paranoid cloud Flat Earth has put you in, because I worry about people and I have knowledge I'd like to share that might help. You're not all that stupid...but you sure have a hard time trusting people and I think that's why you'd rather resist and be contrarian at all costs. All I can do is share information, if you'd rather ignore it and shrug it off, that's fine, can't force you to do anything. Just understand that I don't see your position, because you really have given me nothing to work with, no data, no experiments, no observations, no evidence. So I can't really do much with ignorant and incredulous claims, with no backing to support them.
1
-
@hightech346 "I tell YOU that you are WRONG an present easily testable observations"
Nope, so far you haven't given me any observations, but you do tell me I'm wrong a lot sure...and then provide nothing that explains or demonstrates HOW I'm wrong. Which is a pretty important step when trying to convince someone of anything...you kind of have to share evidence to back up your positions, or I have no reason to believe you. Hmmm...I wonder why you don't share evidence? :P
You can tell me "a sunset happens because of perspective"...but that's not evidence, that's a claim...and it remains an empty claim, until you can demonstrate it and help verify it with evidence supporting it. You can tell me "the sun is close and local because the rays of sunlight coming out of clouds are angled" but again, just an empty claim...you've provided no further insight into HOW and WHY the angled rays verify a local Sun. Meanwhile, I was able to falsify both claims by providing counter arguments WITH evidence supporting them, sharing ACTUAL observations and experiments and data with you that poked holes in WHY those empty claims are wrong and WHY you need to review them much closer. I've done that with every claim you've made...while you've just scratched the surface, sticking with only the empty claims that support your bias. You may be fine with reaching conclusions from assumptions, incredulity and ignorance, but the rest of us know better.
I think we're done here, just more incredulity, ignorance and empty claims from Flat Earth. I tried my best to get something tangible, but you don't seem to know the difference between evidence and an empty claim...so it's becoming a bit pointless now. Go back and read your rants sometime and let me know where you shared some actual data, experiments or observations with me. If you did, it was sure buried under a lot of delusions of grandeur...cause I sure didn't see any, just empty claim after incredulous claim after ignorant claim. It's not good enough I'm afraid...that may work on Flat Earthers, but the rest of us need hard evidence. So until then.
1
-
@hightech346 "The only way you people can explain why the sun moves over the horizon in a north/south and south/north fashion every year is to say the earth tilt at 23 degrees"
Yes, and that's exactly what happens. Here's a great simulation I'd like you to check out. https://drajmarsh.bitbucket.io/earthsun.html It's a great model of Earths rotation and orbit that you can interact with, makes seeing what's going on quite clear. Let's check out your "sun going up and down from north to south", click the little graduation hat at the top right, now click on the Animations tab, then "Highlight Tropic Lines". Then just watch for a bit, as it demonstrates the rising and falling of the Sun from both tropics. You can interact with the slider on the right to make it go faster. Now, click the little Sun icon in the top left to bring up the ecliptic plane of Earths orbit. It's not scale by size and distance here, but it'll do for showing you how the Sun rises and falls. Now just click the settings tab in the top left, crank up the speed and press play. Now just watch HOW the Sun goes from each Tropic. The angle remains fixed, but it rotates around Sun in its orbit, so that angle changes relative to the Sun, because the angle is fixed, always pointing towards Polaris.
Soooooo Globe explains the Solstice, the Equinox and the changing of the Sun quite well. This model can also help you verify a lot more, so play around with it...something tells me you desperately need it.
Again, YOUR model doesn't work, because it doesn't match with reality. The Sun would have to speed up and slow down on your model, as it moves from Cancer to Capricorn, because it's constantly going to be changing from a wider circumference, to a shorter circumference, requiring it to speed up at Capricorn just that it can complete its circuit in the same 24 hour time frame it always does. The Sun does not do this, it tracks a steady 15 degrees every hour. One of many things wrong with your model here, so you really shouldn't ignore it. Meanwhile, the Globe model works again...soooooooo...I mean it's fine if you want to be ignorant. But the rest of us sure can't get anything done that way.
"North Pole checks in at a very nippy. 25 degrees"
Hmmmm, well this weather network says it's a very cold 1 degree, feels like -18 degrees. https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/weather/nunavut/the-north-pole So where did you pull that temperature from? I found an article from 2016 that was for June of that year I believe...it's one of the first links when you search for North Pole temperature right now...so I hope you didn't pull from that. Also...you do realize it's winter in the North now right? So isn't your Sun still pretty far from the Tropic of Cancer? It just passed the Equinox like a few days ago...
Moon light isn't cold, you guys just keep running poor experiments that don't include controls, which leads you to a false conclusion...the conclusion you want, which is just confirmation bias. Then, as usual, all attempts to point out your errors are met with ignorance. Not much we can do when you won't listen. Here's what happens when you actually do these experiments correctly and include proper controls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLsZwp4RWWg&t=345s
Alright man, like I said, I'm done here. You're just getting crazier and crazier as we continue, repeating the same things, yelling at me like a child, providing no evidence, just rambles of incredulity. Have fun with that.
1
-
So what’s the alternative? Would you prefer all information have zero system of checks and balances, zero oversight, zero review…making everything valid? 🤷♂️ Seriously, do you really think that would be better? No system we ever create will ever be perfect…but it’s far better than the alternative of doing absolutely nothing…a world where every conman, huxter, and pseudo intellectual can say what they want without any resistance, or burden of proof standards. :/
Here’s the thing, junk science simply does not work…so it’s in nobody’s best interest to push forward bullshit that does not work and can not be applied. Science often does get things wrong, and it often does take a lot of time and effort to dispel many of those wrong ideas…but it always eventually does, because we can’t do anything useful and beneficial for society, with inaccurate information.
Arguments like yours are just a deflection so movements like Flat Earth can continue pretending they’re somehow better than the actual experts, who actually get shit done.
1
-
@kesselrunheroj8497 I already agreed it’s not perfect, but everything you mentioned is already a part of the scientific system of review. What makes you believe there isn’t transparency in scientific research? There’s always a paper trail…how do you think they eventually catch these wrong doings? 🧐 What leads you to believe they don’t already admit these things though? Scientists are often the first to admit they’ve not perfect…I think some people just have a pretty pessimistic view of science.
Here’s the reality, nothing we ever implement will ever be perfect…that’s the reality, because people are not perfect, and greedy narcissistic scumbags will always exist. But we do pretty good given our situation. I know it sucks that it can take time, that people suffer sometimes, but it’s pretty unavoidable. There’s pros and cons to everything we do, and sometimes those cons are not readily apparent until things go wrong over time. Doesn’t matter how diligent we are, we will always make mistakes. Best we can do is correct them over time.
For example, the guy who solved the problem for best fuel additive (lead) for the most efficient engine fuel, is also responsible for increasing the lead found in our systems thanks to that discovery, that essentially poisoned us for decades, making us dumber (no joke, lead is a neurotoxin, IQ’s decreased around the world from the 50,s to the 80,s, and the increase in lead in our air due to fuel exhaust is often regarded as the likely reason for why). But, he’s also the guy that followed up on the research, and eventually fixed the problem, by relentlessly lobbying for lead to be removed from all fuel sources, warning governments of the dangers, that weren’t realized fully until after the damage had been done.
The problem is that we don’t know everything, we’re not infallible, we will always make mistakes…that’s just the reality. So that’s something we also must accept, we shouldn’t be so quick to assume every problem created was intentional.
That said, of course we should do everything we can to become even more diligent, our scientific standards fir transparency and review should always be improving, absolutely. I’m just saying, that we must also accept that we’re not perfect, so science will never be perfect. So I largely agree with you, I’m just providing a little extra perspective.
1
-
The title of the video makes it pretty clear, that this was not a video presenting any arguments or evidence for the Globe or against Flat Earth. It's not for those people still looking for the evidence, it's for those of us who have already done the research and have already concluded the Earth is a sphere and would now like to discuss WHY and HOW people fall for what we now see as a scam of misinformation, being spread on the internet. This video is a psychological discussion, analyzing the mind of a Flat Earther, trying to get to the root of things to see if maybe there's a broader societal issue we need to be concerned about...and it was pretty clear from the title that this is what it would be discussing.
So I hope that puts this video into clearer perspective for you. You're barking up the wrong tree by demanding he provide something other then what the video was intending in the first place. If you want a video discussing the science and the arguments, then go find one that is focused on that...this video is not for that.
Believe it or not, but many of us have researched the Flat Earth in great depth as well, doing the same research you likely have, watching the same videos you did, but unlike you we were able to successfully falsify the Flat Earth, so we reached a different conclusion. You should consider the very real possibility, that you could be wrong in your conclusions. You can call us indoctrinated all day long...but it won't matter one bit, if you're still wrong in the end. So save your excuses and rhetoric for the other flat Earth suckers that sort of deceptive reasoning has worked on, the rest of aren't so easily fazed by that kind of bullshit. All the "indoctrination" argument does is keeps you from paying attention to what your opposition is trying to tell you...which isn't very open minded of you.
1
-
@randylinn9382 Flat Earthers do their fair share of mocking, so don't be so naive. It's human nature to react with hostility towards anything that challenges a belief structure, especially majority belief structures that are long standing. So I don't know why anyone is so shocked or surprised, it should be expected...it's very normal human behavior. Grow a thicker skin, or don't bother joining the conversation, it's pretty simple.
I prefer just sharing information, I don't like mocking either, but I'm only human, so I will take my jabs here and there. There is a difference between correcting someone and mocking them, I don't correct people to mock them, I do it so that potential misinformation does not go unchecked and unchallenged. I don't care if you didn't want to be corrected, if you post ignorant comments on a public forum, then expect a little peer review.
I had a good point there though, that you should not just ignore so quickly. By telling others they are "indoctrinated" you are just assuming a position of superiority over them and you've assumed that you now don't have to listen to them, no matter how reasonable they may sound...because they're just "indoctrinated". This kind of thinking is just an excuse as far as I'm concerned, a way to shut yourself off from any possible discussion from the opposing viewpoint. Which is going to keep you from remaining objective and open minded...which in turn is going to keep you in an echo chamber of information. So stop doing that, because the majority of us recognize it as just another form of mockery, that does more to shut your mind off and keep you ignorant to opposing viewpoints. If you want to get to the truth of things, you have to remain open and objective at all times. By convincing yourself we're just indoctrinated, you stop listening...which makes it very hard to have a discussion where ideas are shared and considered. For a group that preaches to be more open minded...you sure shut your ears pretty quickly when people attempt to discuss the possible errors of your current beliefs. You should ponder that a little while I think.
What's criminal is that you people go on computers that SCIENCE has made possible for you, accessing the internet that SCIENTISTS have made for you, made with technology and physics you really know NOTHING about, and then you use the very technology that modern SCIENCE has provided for you, to tell those very scientists...that they're wrong and you know more than they do? It's incredible really...and the worst part is, you don't seem to see the arrogance in this. You should be more grateful, but instead you actually believe you've accomplished more than these people, so you spit in their faces instead. In my opinion, that's the real crime here.
1
-
@randylinn9382 We do have a protective shell that works the same way as the inside of a vehicle, it's called the atmosphere and just like in the vehicle that has air inside that is moving with you in the same inertial reference frame of motion, the atmosphere is the same way, moving WITH YOU in the same inertial reference frame as the rotating Earth. It's quite common for Flat Earth to counter with that argument, and I allowed you to do the same so I could help you see that error as well.
When you stand up in the back of a pick up truck however, what you're experiencing is wind resistance...not inertia due to motion itself, you know this...it's pretty common sense. So you're not actually feeling motion, what you're feeling is your body crashing into the air that is not moving in the same inertial reference frame of your moving vehicle...which creates a drag force on your body that you feel as WIND RESISTANCE, which is basically friction...it is NOT the same thing as feeling motion itself, it's just another form of inertia, felt in the form of friction. So no, this is actually NOT the same. Your open environment pick up truck example is not comparable to Earth...because technically, Earth IS AN ENCLOSED SYSTEM, which actually does match the closed system of a moving vehicle with windows shut and air contained that moves WITH THE VEHICLE. Earth moves through a vacuum, so there is no drag force occurring around Earth as it moves through space...so there is no drag force (like in your truck example) to remove our atmosphere and the air IS MOVING with the rotation of the Earth. So it is an enclosed system, an enclosed inertial reference frame of motion that is EXACTLY like any closed vehicle in motion. So my example is actually more accurate and comparable to Earth, I hope that's a little clearer now. Feel free to disagree, but then explain to me why...if you can.
So no, really all you're doing is ignoring the main lesson when you make that bright counter argument that assumed we didn't think of it as well. What you did was what all Flat Earthers do...you ignore the lesson of conservation of momentum when you compare Earth to an open system and you don't fully learn it because of that. So focus now, WHY don't you get sucked to your seat in a moving plane, at 500 mph? If you feel motion the way you seem to think we do...then why isn't every person flung to the back of a moving plane, the moment they stand up in a plane going 500 mph? Why can you toss a ball up in a moving vehicle and it will go straight up and then straight back down into your hand? Exactly like how it does, while chilling in your room...going straight up and straight back down.
I'll repeat the answer for you, because of conservation of momentum...which is basic science agreed upon by the entire community of modern science. You ignore this lesson, the moment you misrepresent the Globe model as an open system comparable to being OUTSIDE of the vehicle rather than inside. We know why you make that comparison, because it's hard to wrap your head around what we all deem as "outside"...is really inside, when you REALLY think about the bigger picture. Earth in our model is essentially a moving vehicle that transports us through space, if you really want to get down to it, that's basically all it is, a mobile home...and atmosphere is the glass window that separates us and protects from space. Atmosphere moves with the Earth in EVERY SINGLE ONE of its motions, from it's rotation to its orbits...just like the air contained in a moving vehicle does. Am I making this clear enough yet? I do hope so. Gravity keeps it contained and holding to our surface, and conservation of momentum keeps it rotating with our Earth.
So hopefully that helps you understand that part a little better, now focus on conservation of momentum please and STOP IGNORING IT! If you guys could just learn this science, you would FINALLY understand where you're going wrong when it comes to understanding the motions of the Globe model. All I can do is provide the information, so I've done that, the rest is up to you, do with that information as you please. Conservation of momentum and relative motion is the science you need to understand better, if you want to understand where you're going wrong here with the Globe model. It's fine to continue to disagree with the model if that's why you choose, but these old arguments are not getting us anywhere, because you're not really learning the model...you're ignoring a lot about it and holding your questions up as proofs, rather then actual evidence.
"...now if you think the atmosphere can do this. i will need you to prove it.
Show me the mechanism that makes the atmosphere turn FASTER than the earth and yet perfectly?"
Ok, you basically just described the Coriolis effect...that's exactly why that occurs. And it is observed in our world, that's why hurricanes rotate in the directions that they do, given the hemisphere that they are in. So congrats, you just figure out why the Coriolis effect occurs, with your thought process there, the different latitude speeds causing air currents to be faster and slower in different latitudes of motion. That means you are thinking a little bit...but again, you seem to think your questions are your proofs. They are good questions, GREAT questions in fact, but rather then hold the questions up as your proof...why not seek the answers? Science is MANY MANY pages ahead of you at this point...but you people are asking the exact same questions scientists once asked, so you're on the right track really...you just give up and assume the questions can't be answered though, that's where you're going wrong I feel.
Now I realize there is more to your quandary there then just Coriolis, but you're also explaining the jet stream and wind motion and ocean currents and to a lesser extent tides as well. What mechanism causes this? Well, atmosphere is technically a fluid, so it adheres to fluid dynamics, so it's not perfectly tethered to the Earths rotation, there is a slight deviation, a lag, that just like any fluid put in a rotational motion, will cause a variation in motions. Fluid dynamics isn't hard to understand or demonstrate, put water in a bowl, now mix in various other fluids like oils, vinegar's, soap, food coloring...now rotate the sucker and observe as the fluid rotates in the same direction with the bowls rotation. Do it long enough, you'll start to observe a lot of really cool effects, opposite jet stream rotations, Coriolis rotations, faster and slower streams that will alternate and shift constantly, etc. The atmosphere is very similar, a fluid put into a rotational motion. It is conserving momentum with Earth, gravity does keep it tethered, but there is a LOT of fluid dynamics occurring as well. It's a very complex system of fluid and motion, but not hard to understand the basic principles of....but sorry, nothing you've said so far debunks any of the model I'm afraid. Do some further research on fluid dynamics and Coriolis, that helps answer your questions here.
So ya know, you're really is focusing a of attention on the higher physics of the model...which is great and all, physics is the science I take the most interest in and it's what I enjoy discussing the most...but it is all really easy to misunderstand and if you're not careful, very easy to get lost in all the details of. So why not take it back to the start and focus on the geometry itself? Explain a sunset over a Flat Earth, how does that work exactly? Why are there two celestial rotations, one for the North and one for the South? Why does each hemisphere have its own stars? How does Polaris drop to 0 degrees when at the Equator on a Flat Earth? https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/polaris-angle.jpg Why are lines of latitude equal distances for both hemispheres? Ya know, simple things like that.
It's important to understand, that we didn't start at the physics, we didn't start with conservation of momentum, relative motion, Coriolis, fluid dynamics, or gravity...we started with the geometry of the Earth first..making simple observations, that really don't make much sense on a Flat Earth when you really think about them. The geometry is pretty easy to verify upon closer observation, many things just do not add up and make sense on a Flat Earth but make perfect sense on a Globe. So that's where we started, and you should too I feel. If you have then great, but I feel Flat Earth tends to spend more time focusing on the "holes" they feel they've found in our model, and then ignore the holes of their own model in the process. The Globe may be tricky to understand at the higher levels of physics, but Flat Earth doesn't even pass basic geometric observations. It falls apart out the foundational level.
Like I said, Flat Earth asks a lot of really great questions, but they do have answers and those answers have evidence supporting them, most with pretty simple demonstrations and experiments to help people verify them for themselves. Anyway, thanks for the chat so far, feel free to continue if you'd like, I do have some more points to make and to ask you about gravity, so perhaps I'll do that later.
1
-
@randylinn9382 Fair enough, it's more then reasonable to ask for evidence to support a concept. As I said earlier, nothing I said prior proves the globe model, I was just explaining the physics that Flat Earth misunderstands. Now I will go into the evidence, because science didn't just conclude the Globe Earth model from nothing...as much as Flat Earth will try and tell you they did, it's not true...Flat Earthers just really have a hard time looking at any research that goes beyond their bias. So here are several experiments that help to verify the rotation of the Earth. We'll start there. All of these are repeatable, some require a bit more time and effort and equipment, but they are all repeatable for the average person, who's willing to put in the time and effort. Some are even done in high school. So I'll start with hardest to easiest.
1. Ring Laser Gyros - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXYV6wNdZm8&t=9s These gyros are used in planes today to detect pitch, yaw and roll of the plane. They are deadly accurate for detecting rotational motion and they use the sagnac effect to achieve this. Here's a more in depth experiment done with a home built large sagnac interferometer (which is scientific name for these gyros), detecting Earths rotation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_9J_c9Kss&t=348s Here's the best visual representation of the Sagnac Effect I've seen demonstrated so far, if you're like me, I tend to find visuals like these more helpful for learning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk0RvzaHq_Q To summarize, light is shot through a splitting mirror that then splits light, which then travels along two alternate paths around the apparatus, and then arriving back at a detector. When not in a rotational motion, both beams of light arrive back at the detector at the same time, no deviation. When put into a rotation, there is a detectable difference in arrival times between the two, generating a measurable deviation between the two depending on the direction of rotation and by how much, that's the simplest way to explain it. This shift can be measured to give the rate of rotation and direction of rotation for pretty much any rotating object you apply it too, which is how it's used in planes today. Since it can be used to detect rotational motions, we can then use these gyros to test for Earth rotation. We have been using this very technology to detect Earths rotation for decades now and even Flat Earth has done the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGgxAK9Z5A&t=10s
2. Gyro Compasses - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPynV68Bg&t=8s The gyro compass is a device used by most modern large passenger/cargo ships who travel internationally. They're far more accurate then your standard magnetic compass because these compasses always point to true north, rather than the magnetic north of standard compasses. What's interesting here, is that they actually use the rotation of the Earth to achieve this. Here's how they do it. ALL mechanical gyros precess. It is a flaw of the mechanical gyro that can't be overcome, because the moving parts have to be touching each other in mechanical gyros, which creates friction, which creates torque, which will move the gyro out of rigidity over time in a steady precession. What some clever engineers noticed however, is that while you can't completely eliminate friction in these mechanical gyros, you can control the friction to set a steady rate of controlled precession. So what they've done with these gyros, is they have calibrated them to align with the polar axis of our Earth and then have set the precession rate to align with the Earths rate of rotation. Because gyros do keep their rigidity aside from precession, these gyros now will always point to true North and they will now precess WITH the rotation of the Earth, at the same rate, so they that they now always point to true north. The fact that these gyros work as intended, verifies the Earths rotation, as the ground would have to be rotating beneath the free spinning rigid gyro, to keep up with that precession. So it's worth looking into and learning more about. You can even purchase your own gyros and create your own Northern aligned precessions, also very repeatable and well documented science.
3. Foucault Pendulum experiments - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U&t=132s This is one I have seen demonstrated myself, and it's fairly simple to recreate. I'm sure you've heard of these by now, if you've been looking at Flat Earth long enough, this was the very first experiment done that helped verify Earths rotation. So what's happening here, a free swinging pendulum passes through a short change in latitude/longitude while it swings back and forth, which causes it to undergo some Coriolis effect. The Coriolis effect dictates a few rules of thumb, if Earth is rotating, then we'd expect to see a pendulum swing rotate in a specific direction depending on what hemisphere you run the experiment, because Coriolis causes a specific rotation for each hemisphere, also very well documented. What the experiment above also points out, is that you can also do more then that, you can also calculate your latitude, by paying attention to the rate at which it rotates. The closer to the Equator you are, the slower it will rotate, the farther you are, the faster. If you were to run this experiment at the Equator, then it wouldn't rotate at all. Here is a quick visual to help understand how it works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s6LrZKgRqY And here's a great video breaking down how you can recreate this experiment for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQoGY3-zGAY&t=391s
1
-
@randylinn9382 Continued from my last comment. Had to break these up, since there is a lot of evidence for rotation to share.
4.Measuring Centrifugal Force at the Equator - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t=241s Many people are not aware of this, but you (and everything) actually weigh different around the world. The equator being the place where you weigh the least. This is due to the centrifugal force generated by Earths rotation, negating a small amount of gravity, about 0.3% at the equator, which causes everything to weigh slightly less. Which is about 0.5 grams difference from a place closer to the tropics of Cancer or Capricorn, not much, but the great thing here, is that it is measurable with cheap standard equipment. Which makes it very repeatable science for anyone to try. So what this guy above has done is a great little experiment anyone could repeat with a bit of travel. What he did was take the same 500 gram weight, using the same scale and then just simply weighed it over and over again, as he traveled closer and closer to the Equator. He took several data sets in a day, throughout the morning evening and night in each location and also over several days in each location, just to make sure he controlled for any flaws of the scale and to test for any time of day effects due to pressure variations in temperature, humidity, weather, etc. Before he left on his trip, he even calculated some predictions for how much Centrifugal force our Earths rotation generates at each latitude and then plotted his predictions onto a simple x and y grid. At the end of his experiment, the math predictions matched with the tested results. The weight weighed less and less the closer he got to the equator, as it should if the Earth were a globe at the size we believe it be, that is rotating at the rate that we understand it to be rotating.
People assume that our Earths rotation should generate a lot more Centrifugal force....but they reach this conclusion, because they really don't know how Centrifugal force works or how to accurately calculate it. All they hear is the 1000 mph rim speed of Earth, and then jump to conclusions based around that. You can tell me I'm wrong, but that's exactly what Flat Earth does, I've never once seen them attempt to understand the physics of Centrifugal force, they'd just rather make assumptions about it and jump to false conclusions. Centrifugal force is caused by a sudden or rapid change in angular velocity and the biggest factor to its increase is not so much speed, as it is RPM's (rotations per minute). These are not the same, as you increase the circumference of a rotation, it requires more linear speed to complete the same rotations, but the rotations are still the same and the angular velocity decreases. The more rotations per minute, the more Centrifugal force, that's a good rule of thumb really. Distance and speed do play their rolls, but it's more the rotational rate that increases this forces output. The Earth rotates at a rate of 1 full rotation every 24 hours, which is twice as slow as the hour hand of a clock. So the Centrifugal force generated by our Earth, is not as great as many would assume...Flat Earth throws around the 1000 mph rim speed of the Earth, but pays zero attention to understanding the physics of Centrifugal force. When you actually figure out the science, you can then figure out how much our planet generates at it's peak (the equator), it only negates 0.3% of Earths gravity. Which is nowhere near enough to overcome gravity and toss you into space, but it is enough for us to be able to measure it. So this makes for a great experiment to verify rotation. If the Earth is rotating at the rate we know it to be, then those weights should decrease in weight the closer to the equator they get. When this is tested, that's exactly what we find. Here are a couple more of the same experiment, done by others, all receiving the same results. Feel free to repeat it, it only requires weights, a scale and some travel, pretty simple stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkhxPm15PFo&t=282s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agQnj1q2Y08
5. Coriolis Effect experiment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38&t=16s You know what Coriolis effect is I'm sure, so I won't go into this one to much. This experiment is pretty simple to repeat, just requires some set up and if you want to get really crazy with it a buddy in the apposing hemisphere repeating the test to observe the opposite rotation. The video also breaks down Coriolis a little more in depth, cause I get the feeling a lot of people aren't even quite aware how it works. They know what it is, but very few seem to know how it works, so this video explains it pretty well. It's just a difference of distance vs speed caused by conservation of momentum while passing through increasingly shorter lines of latitude from Equator to pole. Objects conserve the momentum of the place they left from, but a rotating globe surface is going to be rotating increasingly slower the closer to the poles you get, meaning the object conserving a faster momentum is going to pull ahead of the slower inertial reference frame (the slower moving latitude), causing it to arc (or appear to arc, it's just pulling ahead really) and in the case of draining water, rotate in a specific direction. This experiment verifies the difference between the hemispheres, but you can verify at least one rotation on your own without a buddy, it's just better to have a buddy to really confirm.
So that's a short list of some great experiments and proofs that help to verify Earths rotation. These are the easily repeatable experiments, of course the larger science community has taken things even further, by placing satellites into orbit that basically confirms things at the visual level. There are also purely observational and mathematical proofs, that have to do with tracking the various planetary motions of our solar system and then calculating predictions...but these are not easy to reproduce, unless your math and knowledge of astronomy are way above average. Also included is the mathematics that predicts solar and lunar eclipses...they require our knowledge of the Earths shape, scale, rotation be accurate in order to accurately calculate, but again, not simple math at all to reproduce, not impossible for the average joe, but far from easy.
If you have any questions or would like to point out any flaws you feel exist in these experiments, feel free to let me know, I don't mind taking a look. Just know that the claims of Flat Earth for science not having any evidence in support of a Globe, are just lies and ignorance. We absolutely DO HAVE EVIDENCE to support every piece of the Globe model. Flat Earth would just rather ignore them or deny they exist, which is why most of you don't seek this information out...but the rest of the world thankfully knows better. So you really can't deny that there is evidence, not anymore, but you can argue against the evidence if you feel it is flawed...so feel free and good luck with that.
1
-
@randylinn9382 "Dont forget you have to answer these two simple questions. i am not sure why you are avoiding them? cant you prove your fairy tale world?"
I'm only one guy bud and believe it or not, this is not my life, so you'll have to be patient as it takes time to respond to each inquiry. And I've already answered both your questions technically, in both of my comments explaining conservation of momentum to you, but I'll address them again now if you'd like.
"1. what is the mechanism that makes the atmosphere turn FASTER than the earth?"
Conservation of momentum is the mechanism...what I've been trying to explain to you. That's how the Coriolis effect occurs, because different latitudes ARE rotating at different rates, because that's how sphere works. The entire ball completes one rotation in 24, but different latitudes have more or less distance to circumnavigate in that same amount of time, so the Equator moves the fastest and it gets progressively slower from there as you reach the poles. That part we agree upon.
So now let's add conservation of momentum to the equation. What happens if an object that's traveling at 1000 mph at the equator, now enters into a latitude traveling at 800 mph? Simple, that matter moving in the faster system will conserve the momentum of the faster rotation, which means it will be moving faster then the slower latitude, because of the momentum it conserved from the faster latitude. This causes it to pull ahead and move faster then the surface at that slower latitude. This is what creates the Coriolis effect and if that matter happens to be a fluid, like clouds or atmosphere, then it's going to be put into a rotation...that will spin a certain direction depending on the latitude. Clockwise for the North, Counter Clockwise for the South, those rotations never crossing the equator.
So that's why it's important to understand the science of relative motion and conservation of momentum, it helps you understand how the atmosphere moves faster than the surface, as that air moves through varying rotational rates. Fluid dynamics also plays its part and it gets really complicated once you really get deep into the physics. Some even suggest there is a charging of particles that occurs from the varying rotational systems, which is energy that builds up within the atmosphere, which plays a role in storms, but what they also believe helps to generate our jet stream.
Still lots to learn as well, we do know a lot, but still don't know everything...but we certainly don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...because we have a few questions yet to answer. And certainly not because some bias Flat Earthers, can't accept the mountains of science that destroys there world view from the word go.
"2, airplanes have to fly sideways in your fairy tale world. I say bs, prove an airplane can fly sideways."
Again, I gave you a VERY simple experiment you can try that demonstrates this. I will explain it once more for you.
Get on any moving vehicle with a buddy sometime, so that you are sitting perpendicular to the length of the vehicle (so beside each other along the width of the vehicle). Use a paper airplane for your test, and now just toss it back and forth to each other. You will see pretty clearly that the plane moves back and forth just fine between the two of you.
But now pay attention, because if the vehicle is moving forward...then that means the paper plane is not just traveling in a straight line between you and your friend, it's also going SIDEWAYS along that forward vector that it is conserving the momentum from as well, the entire time you continue tossing it back and forth between you.
So give that experiment a try sometime...and realize, that conservation of momentum is a real thing and it is how a plane is able to do the SAME EXACT THING on our moving planet. If it works in a vehicle while you toss a ball or plane back and forth...then why wouldn't it work on Earth as well? If the air of our atmosphere is moving with the rotation of the Earth, just like the air in a moving vehicle does, and if the plane in the air is conserving the momentum of Earth, just like the paper plane in the experiment does...then why wouldn't this be possible? Explain to me why, but don't use the outside example on the pick up truck again...because I've already explained to you that this does not accurately represent the Earth, the inside of a vehicle does.
1
-
1
-
@randylinn9382 " but i can prove the fe on demand."
Then do it, I've been waiting. All you've done is asked some questions...and for some reason you think questions YOU couldn't answer means ALL of science couldn't either? How delusion are you? Rhetorical question...you're a Flat Earther, I already know the answer. But come on, do you REALLY believe we should just throw the baby out with the bath water, because you and a bunch of other village idiots, are too stupid to understand simple concepts, that the rest of us understand with ease? You haven't done anything but ask questions...this is not evidence...it's barely enough for a hypothesis. I'm more then happy to look at any experiments YOU have to share with me...but I can't do much with empty claims of delusions of grandeur. I've answered your questions and I shared 5 easily repeatable experiments with you that verify rotation. Look up, you'll find them in my previous comments.
At the end of the day, Flat Earth has no working model, the Globe does...in 3 years of looking at this mess, that has never changed. The reality you need to wake up and realize, is that Flat Earth is not used in any framework of modern science, communication, navigation, engineering, or infrastructure...and that's for a good reason, because it's not reality. You can ignore us all you like, but you're only kidding yourself.
It's not my problem really if you can't understand the physics...the rest of us do, we have verified these concepts for ourselves through experimentation and we all agree on the conclusions, because they're quite undeniable...as is the Globe at this point.
So if you can "prove the fe on demand" GREAT, then get on with it...I'm waiting. Would be nice if you actually participated in the conversation for a change.
1
-
@randylinn9382 I have given you my answers already, so I'm not going to repeat them if you're just going to keep ignoring them. I can't have a rational discussion with anyone that won't even look at what I have shared and offer me a rebuttal to each experiment shared. Falsify the experiments I have shared first (if you can), I shared 5 with you that verify rotation, falsify those and then we can talk more about rotation. They are in my previous comments, not hard to find. So I will not continue with you until you take a look at those, each one, watch every video and absorb all the information. Until then, we can't continue on that discussion.
Now share some evidence with me. Go ahead and prove your father to me in less than a minute. I will take a look at any experiments or explanations you share...but again, I can't do anything with what you've given me so far. All you've given me is questions, that you hold up as your evidence...this is not evidence, so I can't do anything with it.
The question is DO YOU know what a test is? Why haven't you shared any with me yet? I'm waiting.
1
-
@randylinn9382 So let me get this straight, in order for you to share any experiments with me, I need to agree with you first? What kind of logic is that? The point of sharing experiments...is so I can review them and see if they have any actual merit to them. The point of sharing experiments, is so you can MAYBE convince me of something, by using those experiments to support your positions. What point is there to share evidence with me...once I'm already convinced? You sure have some backwards logic. I'm not convinced yet, and it's for a good reason...because you haven't really given me anything yet. Is that really all that hard to understand? I really didn't think I was being unreasonable...and normally the only people who don't share anything in return, are the people who really don't have anything to share, just empty claims...and deep down they know it. So Jesus man, just share the information and the experiments already and stop wasting my time. What are you so afraid of?
I can talk about this for days as well, I love the discussion and I know a lot about this topic...but you're just being very unreasonable, and I can't have a discussion with anyone who won't give me anything in return. I'm sorry bud, I'd love to see your perspective, but you've given me nothing. Share an experiment, anything, I will take a look. Until then.
1
-
@randylinn9382 So let's review things a little now, I find that can help to illustrate exactly how things have been going so far in the conversation. Might help you see my perspective of the conversation so far at least. So here's how I feel the conversation has gone so far.
1. You asked some reasonable questions about the Globe model
2. I provided some explanations to those questions, the same explanations that modern science would also provide
3. You gave a rebuttal to my first explanation, and at this point it was going good, we were actually working through the explanation together and discussing
4. I gave a rebuttal for your rebuttal, you said the Earth is more like the open system of the back of a moving truck, I explained that it's not, the air moves with Earths motions, so it's more like the INSIDE of a vehicle, more like a closed system, not an open system
5. This is where things kind of derailed, because you stopped offering logical rebuttals, you just stated that I was wrong and that was that, no further explanation given for why
6. I then concluded there, that since you couldn't offer a counter rebuttal as to WHY you felt I was wrong, then it meant you don't really have a reason to believe that, you just believe it blindly.
7. You then moved on and asked for experiments for rotation
8. I provided 5 repeatable, peer reviewed and well documented experiments/technologies, that help to verify the Earths rotation, providing links to further sources of information for each, as well as detailed explanations for each
9. You then claimed I didn't share any experiments...when I clearly did
10. I declared that I did share scientific experiments for rotation, and stated I would not repeat them to you again, you can review them at anytime by going through my comments
11. I then asked for some experiments from you, because so far all you've done is asked questions and made empty claims with no backing to them, I felt it only fair I get something in return
12. Then we went back and forth several times, you repeated your questions again, claiming I didn't answer anything or provide experiments...so round and round we went
13. You then demanded I answer your questions, before offering any experiments of your own
14. And here we are now...I have answered your questions, I have shared experiments with you, while you have still shared nothing, just empty claims and not much more
So I hope that puts it into clearer perspective. It's fine if you didn't agree with my answers, but then offer me some reasons WHY you don't agree. You did at first, you were actually giving me logical rebuttals...but then you just stopped and then declared victory, while I continued to rebuttal you and tell you WHY I thought your conclusions were wrong.
See how that works? That's how a rational discussion is done. I give an explanation, then you offer counter explanations for anything you disagree with, I do the same for your rebuttal if I can, and we continue like this until we reach a conclusion we both agree upon. We never got that far, because you stopped. Maybe you're not aware how convincing somebody of something works, but you have to keep going because if you can't...then that generally means, you are likely wrong and you can't continue, because you have no further rebuttals. It doesn't mean you are wrong without a doubt mind you, just that you couldn't continue because you had no further answers to refute me. The likely reason being because you are wrong. But you could also just not have all the answers either, which is perfectly fine as well, nothing wrong with stating you don't know either. But either way, you can't convince me of anything without further answers, so you either yield and agree with me at that point, or admit you don't know, or provide a logical rebuttal. Those were your options at that point...that's how a discussion of opposing viewpoints works.
You've been very irrational ever since that point, ignoring me, deflecting and changing the subject rather then focusing on single points, offering me ZERO experiments so far of your own that help to back up your positions. It's been rather frustrating, where at first it actually felt like you were engaging int he conversation.
I'd love to continue, but I can't do anything with empty claims of delusions of grandeur and circular reasoning...so if you have actual experiments, then share them. If you have actual rebuttals, then share them. Otherwise, you're not going to convince me of anything.
1
-
@randylinn9382 Fine, since you won't go back and re-read I will cut and paste it again. Here's my original comment, sharing 3 of the 5 experiments/technologies I shared already, that verify rotation.
1. Ring Laser Gyros - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXYV6wNdZm8&t=9s These gyros are used in planes today to detect pitch, yaw and roll of the plane. They are deadly accurate for detecting rotational motion and they use the sagnac effect to achieve this. Here's a more in depth experiment done with a home built large sagnac interferometer (which is scientific name for these gyros), detecting Earths rotation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_9J_c9Kss&t=348s Here's the best visual representation of the Sagnac Effect I've seen demonstrated so far, if you're like me, I tend to find visuals like these more helpful for learning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk0RvzaHq_Q To summarize, light is shot through a splitting mirror that then splits light, which then travels along two alternate paths around the apparatus, and then arriving back at a detector. When not in a rotational motion, both beams of light arrive back at the detector at the same time, no deviation. When put into a rotation, there is a detectable difference in arrival times between the two, generating a measurable deviation between the two depending on the direction of rotation and by how much, that's the simplest way to explain it. This shift can be measured to give the rate of rotation and direction of rotation for pretty much any rotating object you apply it too, which is how it's used in planes today. Since it can be used to detect rotational motions, we can then use these gyros to test for Earth rotation. We have been using this very technology to detect Earths rotation for decades now and even Flat Earth has done the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGgxAK9Z5A&t=10s
2. Gyro Compasses - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPynV68Bg&t=8s The gyro compass is a device used by most modern large passenger/cargo ships who travel internationally. They're far more accurate then your standard magnetic compass because these compasses always point to true north, rather than the magnetic north of standard compasses. What's interesting here, is that they actually use the rotation of the Earth to achieve this. Here's how they do it. ALL mechanical gyros precess. It is a flaw of the mechanical gyro that can't be overcome, because the moving parts have to be touching each other in mechanical gyros, which creates friction, which creates torque, which will move the gyro out of rigidity over time in a steady precession. What some clever engineers noticed however, is that while you can't completely eliminate friction in these mechanical gyros, you can control the friction to set a steady rate of controlled precession. So what they've done with these gyros, is they have calibrated them to align with the polar axis of our Earth and then have set the precession rate to align with the Earths rate of rotation. Because gyros do keep their rigidity aside from precession, these gyros now will always point to true North and they will now precess WITH the rotation of the Earth, at the same rate, so they that they now always point to true north. The fact that these gyros work as intended, verifies the Earths rotation, as the ground would have to be rotating beneath the free spinning rigid gyro, to keep up with that precession. So it's worth looking into and learning more about. You can even purchase your own gyros and create your own Northern aligned precessions, also very repeatable and well documented science.
3. Foucault Pendulum experiments - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U&t=132s This is one I have seen demonstrated myself, and it's fairly simple to recreate. I'm sure you've heard of these by now, if you've been looking at Flat Earth long enough, this was the very first experiment done that helped verify Earths rotation. So what's happening here, a free swinging pendulum passes through a short change in latitude/longitude while it swings back and forth, which causes it to undergo some Coriolis effect. The Coriolis effect dictates a few rules of thumb, if Earth is rotating, then we'd expect to see a pendulum swing rotate in a specific direction depending on what hemisphere you run the experiment, because Coriolis causes a specific rotation for each hemisphere, also very well documented. What the experiment above also points out, is that you can also do more then that, you can also calculate your latitude, by paying attention to the rate at which it rotates. The closer to the Equator you are, the slower it will rotate, the farther you are, the faster. If you were to run this experiment at the Equator, then it wouldn't rotate at all. Here is a quick visual to help understand how it works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s6LrZKgRqY And here's a great video breaking down how you can recreate this experiment for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQoGY3-zGAY&t=391s
Now offer a rebuttal for these. Falsify them, or I do not have any more to say to you. You don't have to falsify them completely, just give me any rebuttal that can begin a discussion that can help me see WHY you feel these are not good tests or technologies that verify rotation. Why are they not valid to you? Are you aware of these experiments or is this the first time you have heard of them? You claim that there are no experiments that we use to verify rotation...but there are, and these are them. So that claim right away is not true. Now tell me WHY you feel these can't be counted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Science is just another tool in the belt, a method of deduction and analysis anyone can learn and use that is the best method we have so far to deduce the mysteries of reality. Just like any other tool, it can't hurt you until someone uses it with ill intent. So it's the individual that you need to worry about...not science. Every technology you enjoy today, from your phone, to your car, to the electricity that comes direct to your house, is thanks to science, so if you like your internet and modern technology, if you like running water, if you enjoy the house you live in...you can direct your thanks towards science, none of it exists without it. The day we used our minds to unlock the secrets of fire, was the day we invented science...it's a part of who we are as a species, we are a very curious species, all we've done is refined the method down to the sharpest possible point and then dubbed it science, but it's very much a part of who we all are. What I'm saying is, don't fear science...it's not going away, master it instead.
It's people who are corrupt, so it's people you need to worry about, not science. We don't just throw the baby out with the bathwater because of a few pseudo intellectuals peddling junk science. We have a system that does its best to weed out corruption, bias, scam artists and errors, it's called peer review and it does work. It's not perfect of course, but nothing ever will be, there will always exist people who have an agenda and/or a desire for hurting people, so there will always be assholes poisoning the wells of information. It doesn't mean we abandon or fear science, it just means we have to stay sharp and tackle each claim one at a time and remain objective while we do it.
Don't fear science, it's just another tool in the belt...and it's a very useful tool. Instead of fearing it, learn some science for yourself, learn the method for yourself, then you will have a much better chance at sniffing out bullshit when you hear it. Knowledge is power, anyone can learn the method of science for themselves and use it against anyone who would try to use it for ill intent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@heaart2145 If any amount sees the opposite, then the Flat Earth is a bit busted...because this wouldn't happen at all on a Flat Earth. The Sun does this every year in the South, during their Summer, I know it does, cause I've seen it for myself several times now. This does not fit the Flat model, but it fits the Globe perfectly...it's exactly what we'd expect to see occur every Southern summer, on a Globe that is tilted relative to the Sun. Here's another one breaking down the models and showing you why this doesn't work even further. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1al9aGartM
So I'm not really trying to be a jerk, but what else do you want me to conclude? This fits the Globe model...the Sun rises and sets to the South at certain times of the year...this would not happen on a Flat Earth. I'm just trying to remain objective about it, I can't just ignore observations like this. If the Sun is circling above, around our North pole, then it would never be seen to rise South, trace North and then set to the South again...anywhere, at anytime, it would never happen on this model. But it's not just that, the Sun wouldn't set at all over a Flat Earth...which is really it's bigger problem, explaining a sunset and why that occurs...this alone does not make much sense over a Flat Earth. Here's what we'd expect to see the Sun do over a Flat Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t=3s
So the Sun in reality actually greatly debunks a Flat Earth, it does not match with the Flat Earth model in pretty much any observation...while the Globe does. Here is more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9w4KtHxZ68
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0&t=3s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4av1CD8smII
Every observation of the Sun fits a Globe model, but does not make much sense over a Flat Earth. So I agree, the Sun is the perfect object to observe if you want to verify the true shape of Earth for yourself...but it's not a Flat Earth that it supports. That is what I have concluded so far, from a great many observations made.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The interest has been slowing over the last year or so, but there are still many channels that do delve into the science a lot more extensively. It really depends on what argument in particular you'd like to focus on, most channels on YouTube are pretty specialized, so here are a few of what I consider to be the best.
For anything having to do with flight paths, flight navigation, or just piloting in general when it comes to the topic of Flat Earth Wolfie6020 is an international pilot from Australia that covers that topic pretty well, with very detailed videos tackling the arguments by Flat Earth on that subject. He even does a lot of astronomy videos as well, being an amateur astronomer who's done his own observations with his own equipment.
Then another great channel is Sly Sparkane. He makes some the best simulation renderings having to do with pretty close to every argument Flat Earth has raised, looking at curvature data, to sun equinox shadow angles, to simulating eclipse data....his channel goes deep into the science. He's done LOTS of his own experiments, he's pretty thorough.
For some of the best 3D renderings that make some of the shortest and easiest observations to tackle, Jos Leys does some great mathematical simulations. I'm pretty sure that's his profession as well, mathematician, so his demos are pretty interesting and helpful.
Another good channel is Soundly, who has provided some of the best visual observations of curvature. There are two users that use that name, you'll know it's him with his many videos of Lake Pontchartrain causeway bridge. You can also find a lot of his data interpreted here at the Walter Bislin blog, which is a blog dedicated to analyzing Earth curvature. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth This blog has some great observations and experiments, so definitely worth a look.
If you want probably the most extensive website for challenging the claims of Flat Earth, this site has documented pretty close to all of them. https://flatearth.ws/ From A-Z they cover close to all of the arguments made, pointing out the errors of each one, so it's a great resource for quick information as well.
Metabunk is a great place to look as well, especially any of the threads by Mick West, who goes deep into the mathematics of Earth science. Here's a good thread discussion on the proper curvature math. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ Cause Flat Earth uses the wrong math often in their observations, 8 inches per mile squared being the worst offender. This blog explains, breaks down and demonstrates the proper math to use.
Other great channels you can find here on YouTube are:
Voysofreason
CoolHardLogic
GreaterSapien
CriticalThink
Blue Marble Science
Bob The Science Guy
Scimandan
Reds Rhetoric
Professor Dave
Flat Earth Math
These channels and sites all focus pretty close on the science, so all really good resources to learn more about the actual counter arguments against Flat Earth. Hope that helps ya out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Says the guy shouting at people, demanding they believe what you believe blindly and without question. People are thinking for themselves, just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they're brainwashed...you could be wrong, so you should consider that very real possibility. Calling people "brainwashed", "sheep" or "asleep", these are just buzz words used to rattle and confuse people, which in turn robs people from thinking for themselves. You brainwash people the moment you start saying they're being brainwashed by others...that's brainwashing 101, instilling doubt to make them more suggestive, makes it easier to seed your ideas.
Instead of yelling at people and calling them brainwashed, maybe discuss ideas with an open mind where people are treated equal instead of talked down too. If your theories and ideas have any truth to them, then they will stand up to review and open discussion...if not, then consider that you might be wrong.
1
-
@HaydenEvanoff What’s there to debate here? You tried to convince me to ignore refraction, said it doesn’t need to be factored...I simply stated a fact, that ignoring variables in science will lead to a false conclusion, that to do so is generally how confirmation bias works. Can’t reach any objective truth, through ignorance and bias, that’s a fact, not an opinion...it’s just common sense.
Just cause I decide not to agree blindly to bullshit...that makes me arrogant? Am I not allowed to question or criticize or raise concerns? Sorry I’m not so easily conned I guess, but I don’t care about your feelings, when someone is blatantly wrong, I will point it out. Grow a thicker skin I guess, or don’t comment obvious bullshit. You choose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Eddie LR Fela Yes, it’s basic human psychology really, it does not feel good to be corrected, so it’s easier for the mind to double down, rather than consider errors. I actually read an interesting article on that once, explaining how studies have been done showing that being corrected on something, even if you weren’t wrong, just the chance that you could be, creates a sort of trauma in the mind, that the brain automatically protects against...through ignorance. It was really kinda eye opening, cause it makes sense. I’ve definitely been wrong before, and I’ve definitely tried covering that up, by ignoring it or resisting through bullshit...I think we all have. It’s a defence mechanism, the brain can only handle so much trauma, so it does what it can to reduce it. Unfortunately, in this case, it’s through ignorance...which explains why it’s so hard to get through to people on things they’re obviously wrong about.
Hayden here isn’t wrong though, the best way to convey information to someone, is to frame it better. Instead of calling people stupid, it’s better to be kind and patient, treat them like an equal rather than talking down to them, makes it much easier to change a person’s mind, cause they feel less attacked that way. But...doesn’t always work, some people are more sensitive, it varies. And it’s very hard to know in text, without body language and tone to help display intent. My intention wasn’t to attack, just to provide some info, so it could counter misinformation and dispel misunderstandings. Even when being nice, you’re still correcting something, and that is usually viewed negatively. But, it has to be done...or else we could never correct anything.
I just generally reach a point where I stop caring, I don’t have much patience for nonsense unfortunately. I try to be more understanding at first, but anything I see as whining kinda pisses me off a bit...and I have a harder time being nice after that. Even being aware of the psychology, can’t help it. 😅 Glad it didn’t spiral though, it is a bit of a waste of energy, all I care about in the end is sharing information.
Anyway, glad it was helpful. Take care.
1
-
Well, time zones are a man made invention, and they're carved out to follow countries and industries more then they are to follow Earths rotational rate. If the time zones were designed more accurate, then they'd be straight meridian lines going through the North and South poles, that keep an even 15 degrees apart from each other, as that's the rotational rate of Earths surface, 15 degrees per hour, for 24 hours. But they didn't design it that way...because of different countries wanting different things, different industries wanting more time per area...it's fucky, but it's not the planets fault, it's ours.
To further extend this though, how exactly do the time zones work on the Flat Earth model? Have you ever bothered to spin that lens around, and apply this observation to the Flat Earth and see how it makes sense of it? The answer would be the same really, time zones are man made...and they don't really follow the rotation of the Earth or the Sun very closely, just close enough. But what we can do, is collect data of the Sunlight the Earth receives in a year and then plot that data on each model to see which one makes more sense. Ever seen what that sunlight yearly data looks like on the Flat Earth model? Here you go. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEYsgP4CuSA Pretty weird looking sunlight patterns...the most bizzar is during the Equinox, how exactly does the light from the sun just cut in half and form a perfect terminator line through the pole?
I mean, if you really wanna talk about a model that doesn't make much sense, look no further then the Flat Earth. I'd say, spend a bit more time paying attention to that model...and recognizing how broken it is.
"And why the moon and sun only light up the clouds closes to them if the clouds are local.
"
Because from your perspective, when you're looking directly at a light source, the light that reflects off the objects directly parallel to you and that light source, will be focusing more of that light to your eye, causing it to appear brighter. Look at a cloud that's not in the direct path of the Suns light from your perspective, and light is still shining on the side of the cloud, but that light is bouncing back to your eye over a wider area, causing it to focus less of that light, which makes it appear dimmer. Making sense? It's all perspective.
I know the Sun "appears" like it's close and local...but I'm afraid optical illusions do exist and so we can't just conclude things on "it looks local, therefore it is", that is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. We have to be more diligent then that, and take these observations deeper. One way we can do that, is by measuring the sunlight's shadow angles. Collect enough of this data, from places all around the world, and we can use it to pinpoint the suns actual location.
Here's a couple examples of people who have done just that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=421s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0&t
When you really take this observation to its furthest points, you find that the Sun we observe in reality just simply does not fit with the Flat Earth model...it does however fit perfectly with the Globe.
Anyway, hope you find this information at the very least interesting. If you got anymore questions or points to make, feel free to let me know.
1
-
@ynotatsac7643 That's a great question, let's see if I can help you out here. So there are several different things that effect temperature. One of those ways is distance, obviously, that's what most people recognize and understand. But often we forget that more direct and focused light can also cause temperature to increase as well. You ever burn ants with a magnifying glass as a kid? That's all that's happening, taking the same amount of light from the sun that all of your local area is receiving, but using the lens to focus it into a single point, which increases the amount of solar energy in that focused light.
The same happens when you shine light differently upon a surface. Shine a heat light directly down onto a flat surface, perpendicular to that surface, and that ground directly beneath that heat light will be very hot. But now shoot that light at more of an angle however, say 45 degrees at the surface, now the light disperses over a wider area and so that surface won't be as hot...not nearly as hot in fact. Same amount of light energy being distributed, but when it's less focused, when that energy is more spread out at an angle, it will cause a difference in temperature.
So because the poles of the Earth aren't facing the Sun directly, the light from the Sun arrives on this surface at a far greater angle, which disperses that energy over a wider area, instead of focusing it, like it does closer to the equator. The closer you get to the poles, the more and more the suns light is arriving on that surface at steeper and steeper angles, causing that light and solar energy to be scattered more and focused less, causing a difference in temperature.
Hope that helps understand this better. It's not just distance that effects temperature, the angle at which light is received can also effect temperature greatly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, the ol' indoctrination argument. That's great and all, except they didn't just tell you how things were back in school, they also demonstrated how they're correct, with experiments and observations that anyone can repeat. Had you paid attention in school, you would have noticed that. Indoctrination is when they just tell how things are without any further demonstration. Understanding is what separates indoctrination from true knowledge, you reach that understanding by demonstrating how that knowledge was acquired in the first place and really the only point in school where they tell you how things are is in elementary, from there on they don't just tell you, they demonstrate how we reached the conclusions we have. In university they take it further, and you're not just demonstrating how these conclusions were reached, they also have you make your own discoveries...you don't recieve a doctorate or Phd, until you write a thesis...which requires you ADD something new, through your own research, your own data and by asking your own questions.
So it's cute to bring up the tired argument of "you're all indoctrinated sheep", but it's just buzz words that are designed to turn you into an even more ignorant, incredulous sheep then you already were, which is ironic and pretty funny but also pretty sad. It's brainwashing 101, make everybody else into the enemy and convince you that you're special, that's exactly how you indoctrinate and brainwash somebody.
Your arguments here are nothing new, it's the same tired cry of the layman, who has zero experience with science and wants to blame others for why they're not as successful, always looking for excuses, using ignorance as your weapon of choice, rather then actually trying. If you actually took some secondary science education and stuck with it, you'd learn pretty quickly how everything you've just said above is ignorant paranoia and not much more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@357bkg "Everything dealing with space including gravity is a known fact to be a theory only"
No, EVERYTHING that describes HOW something works in science, is a theory. That's the language of science, a scientific theory is much different from the usual use of the word theory, it takes on a much higher importance and status in science. Hypothesis takes the role of the usual use of the word theory and theory when spoken in the context of science, becomes the highest pinnacle any concept that describes how a concept works at the mechanical level, can ever achieve. You pretty much forfeit yourself from conversation, the moment you say something is "just a theory". It tells the rest of us that you likely don't know anything about science, not really. Little hard to listen to anything you have to say after that. It tells us you likely have reached your errors, because your ignorant to most science and likely have not learned how to control what bias you have, which leads you to your errors in thinking.
Electromagnetism is also a theory
, and that science is currently used to send you your wifi connection. Gravity is a theory yes, but we use that science to calculate escape velocities of rockets, figure out orbital mechanic paths that successfully put satellites into orbits, unlock the secrets of the Sun's nuclear fusion reactions and recreate them in labs, calculate parabolic arcs for long range targeting, the list goes on. Pretty useful knowledge, that is filed under the word theory, for a very good reason.
They CHOSE that wording, for a very good reason, because we do not know everything and we likely never will...there's just too much to learn. So as new information is learned, it always has the potential to change old information...that's the true nature of information gathering of any kind. Scientists realized that, so they called their end conclusions theory's, so that they now have room to expand upon proven concepts, change them or even discard them completely (if any new information can). So they were very wise to use the word theory...but it confuses dumb ass people, who don't get it, because they think in black and white absolutes and cause they've never really bothered to learn anything about science. That's not their problem though, its yours.
Learn the language of science please, then you'll have an easier time understanding how it operates. Otherwise you just tell the rest of us that you don't really know much...which is why you filled the blanks with such assumptions.
1
-
So he points to ancient artifacts and fictional stories from those times...and classifies this as evidence? No wonder people become Flat Earthers, this is not evidence of much. Romanticizing the ancients and assuming they were somehow smarter then we are today, is a logical fallacy. It's making a LOT of assumptions...so nothing conclusive here really, just a lot of empty conjectures. In a few thousands years from now, when they dig up a gold statue of Mickey Mouse...I'm sure they're gonna spin all kinds of bullshit around this as well...see why this shouldn't be counted as evidence of much?
We can assume a lot here...but we sure can't reach any definite conclusions from it. Doesn't mean we ignore these findings, but compared to actual observations we can make right here right now, today...these old statues and stories don't mean much. They just keep you focused on the wrong things. Why not observe the natural world that's right in front of you right now? Why focus on the past you can't really verify? You can verify much of the modern world...you're living in it currently.
What this video helps me understand, is that some people are fine reaching definite conclusions about geometry and physics....through statues and stories, speculations and inconclusive evidence. Not a very smart way to go about deducing a geometry problem.
Also, I love how he shows an oval sphere to describe Earth as an oblate spheroid...the difference from Equator to the poles is like 14 miles...sounds like a lot to you and me, the microscopic life that live on the surface of Earth, but if you take a look at this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjx0KcDH7pQ you'll understand how much difference 14 miles really is, compared the thousands of miles circumference of the Earth. Earth is an oblate spheroid...but Newton was not proposing it was an egg or oval...that's not what he was saying at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markmead6742 I don't mind talking science, if the person I'm talking to is mature enough to have a civil discussion and actually pay attention, rather than resort to childish insults. So a good starting evidence of Earths spherical geometry is found when observing a simple sunset. How exactly does the sun set on a Flat Earth exactly? The Globe answers for this with absolute ease, the Earth rotates away from the Sun...there, explanation over. But to make this work for a Flat Earth, you really got to get to ramming that square peg into a round hole...and even then, the hypothesis you come up with, doesn't fit with the data and observations.
But I'll give you a chance, what is your explanation for a sunset? How does it work, please give me a detailed explanation, enough that a hypothesis can be formed from it. Then, once you have your hypothesis, do you have any observations, experiments, data, pre-calculations using your model and evidence that supports your hypothesis?
Cause the Globe sure does. Here are a few simple experiments that have been done in the real world, that supports the hypothesis of a setting sun caused by Earths spherical shape and its rotation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=421s - Measuring and plotting sun shadow angles, data collected all around the world during the Equinox.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t - Same experiment, done in a different year, data plotted on several different proposed models of Flat Earth, to see if it fits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t - Plotting the observed path of the Sun on both models using perspective math and their measured degrees of inclination.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1al9aGartM&t - Observing the Suns rise and set path in the South hemisphere, paths of the Sun making no sense on a Flat Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6Ojo9fJhw - Making a simple mathematical observation of the Suns path through the sky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0&t - More sun shadow angle data plotted in 3D.
I can share more, but that'll do for now. These are real observations made in the REAL world, and then placing the data collected on each model to see which model fits with reality. In every case, the Globe fits the data...while Flat Earth just fails hard on every single experiment.
So take a look if you wish, and in the meantime, get back to me with your evidence that supports your position for the sunset over a Flat Earth, I'm more then happy to take a look at what you have.
If you'd like to see the experiments that have been done to verify Earths rotational movement, I don't mind sharing that either. It seems to me you could really use it, seeing as you seem to think it doesn't exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markmead6742 There is a very good reason why Rowbothams experiment is refuted, because he didn't do enough to render a more conclusive result. It's pretty simple. Science isn't about confirming bias, it's about doing everything you can to reach the most conclusive result, this requires you pay attention to EVERY detail and account for these variables, you have to remain objective. Rowbotham only took ONE observation, paying attention to ONE variable, collecting ONE data set...then he did the wrong math, and called his work done.
This is how you do science wrong. So his experiment stands today as the perfect example of reaching a false conclusion due to sloppy science. Upon all proper recreation, this experiment is found conclusive in favor of the Globe. Here's a very recent recreation of the experiment in case you're curious. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
This is a very thorough recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. You'll notice here they do A LOT more to render a more conclusive result, by collecting several more data sets, over several days of observations, paying attention to EVERY detail. The two big mistakes Rowbotham made, was he did incorrect math, and he ignored atmospheric effects like refraction. If you pay attention to the second half of that report, you'll notice it goes into great detail with refraction and illustrating in pretty clear visuals WHY it's so important not to ignore. This picture in particular should be an eye opener for anybody who thinks refraction isn't a thing you need to factor in long distance observations. https://ibb.co/rM91N1m
So there are valid reasons to refute Rowbotham, anyone who doesn't think there is, doesn't really know much about his experiment. It wasn't a bad experiment, he just didn't do it properly. He did it only so far as to confirm his bias, which is how you do science wrong and reach false conclusions. THIS is exactly why peer review is such an important part of the scientific method. People lie, make errors, chase bias and overestimate themselves all the time...so peer review must be conducted to weed these flaws out.
1
-
@markmead6742 "Say, where's that picture from outer space that shows antipodes, and upside down buildings and airPLANES?"
You do realize that buildings and planes are basically microscopic compared to the Earth right? If you're taking a full picture of the Earth from space, you're doing so from THOUSANDS of miles away. So how big are you expecting airplanes and buildings to look from thousands of miles away? You're not really thinking this through very well.
"If the earth is a tilting wobbly spinning 25k mile circumference ball, why do the shorelines taper to sea level at the North Pole but the shorelines at the ANTARCTIC CIRCLE have 200'+ tall ice cliffs?"
So you've been to the Arctic and Antarctic and know with absolute certainty that one has only high ice shelves and the other doesn't? Your claim is incorrect, here's an ice shelf in the Arctic https://www.rushhourdaily.com/canadas-last-arctic-ice-shelf-breaks-apart-due-to-warming/ and here's a tapered land entry in the Antarctic. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Palmer_Station_Antarctica_seaside.jpg/800px-Palmer_Station_Antarctica_seaside.jpg
You are correct that one has more ice shelfs than the other, but that's for a good reason. They are not the same at all. One forms directly over the ocean, while the other forms over a land mass with elevations that exist above sea level. Here's some good information on how iceshelfs form. https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/iceshelves.html They require land to form from. So you're comparing apples and oranges and pretending they're the same...they are not.
Besides this...how can you think this is evidence that refutes the Globe? It makes sense on both models, so this is a pointless argument to make, it doesn't falsify a globe in the slightest.
"Why is the sun 24-7 at the North Pole, and not at the ANTARCTIC CIRCLE?"
Guess you haven't done your research very well. BOTH locations have the 24 hour Sun...which doesn't make much sense on your Flat Earth model, but makes perfect sense on the Globe. Here's a couple videos to help you out, since you didn't bother to look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4av1CD8smII
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgZa9oZDN5g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQlr366eels
So a far better question to ask is simply this, HOW does the 24 hour Sun occur at all in the Antarctica?
"Why is the official name of the North Pole, and the official name of The ANTARCTIC CIRCLE, ANTARCTIC CIRCLE?"
Lol. Nope...their both known as both. They don't just have single names...they're both known as North and South Pole and Arctic and Antarctic circles. This is the most bias claim I've ever heard. No wonder you're a Flat Earther. Is this REALLY a point you think as valid evidence? Jesus....
The rest of your ramble is just empty claims with no real questions or points to address. They're claims you're making, which requires you elaborate further with evidence to support them.
But damn...if THIS is your evidence, then I've never seen more bias research in a single post. You just made a bunch of assumptions and ignored the parts of information in your points that directly refute them. These are perfect examples of confirmation bias....which explains a lot about why you've reached the conclusions you have. Welp, it's fine if you want to post this as your points, super easy to point out how bias your conclusions are. So by all means, keep going, you're doing more to defeat your arguments then I am.
1
-
@markmead6742 "The sun does appear to get smaller as it moves overhead on its circuit. Do some research and tests"
Well if you actually paid attention to any of my experiments I shared for the Sun, I didn't really share any that had to do with the angular size of the Sun. But yes, it should shrink in angular size on a flat Earth, due to perspective. You really like to assume a lot don't you. I have done these experiments, I know for a fact the Sun does not change in angular size when you observe it throughout a day. Unlike you however, I will provide evidence of this, not just make an empty claim. Here's a video time lapse of the Sun observed throughout a day, using a solar filter lens to observe it's true shape and size, never once does it shrink in angular size throughout that day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtQiwbFD_Cc
It distorts due to atmopsheric refraction just before setting, but it doesn't change size.
The claim by Flat Earth is that perspective is what causes a sunset, saying that it's due to vanishing point. But you really don't care to know what that must require. It's not JUST that the sun should shrink, it should shrink so much in angular size, that it becomes impossible for you eye to render, thus reaching the vanishing point of your eye. So even IF it were to be observed to shrink a tiny bit (which it's not), then it's still not good enough, because vanishing point requires it shrink completely out of visible sight....and it doesn't even come close to that. It maintains the same size and then dips into the horizon.
Whether you like it or not, this is a HUGE problem for the model you're looking to support.
"Tell me one scientific test that proves the Earth is a tilting wobbly spinning ball"
There is no single experiment that verifies an entire model...a model is built from many different observations and experiments and mountains of data, that all point to the same conclusion. So you'll have to pay attention, cause I'm sharing the information you're asking for as we speak.
1
-
1
-
mark mead Boy, you really don’t seem to know what evidence is. You can’t just says it’s perspective that causes a sunset and then leave it at that...you then have to verify it with data, observations, experimentation, calculations. Place the data on your model and simulate it. If your work holds up and fits the model, THEN you can submit it as evidence....so far you’ve talked about ONE experiment, but didn’t offer me any video confirmation of that experiment being conducted. Meanwhile, I DID share a video of someone conducting a similar experiment, observing the Sun throughout a whole day, using a solar filtering lens to observe the true size and shape. In the video I shared, which you can find in a previous comment above, the Sun is not observed to change in angular size at all. It maintains the same exact size and thin sinks into the horizon. Under the laws of perspective, this would not occur, so your claim is falsified.
So I’m afraid you’ve offered me really nothing...just talked a lot about your delusions of grandeur. Meanwhile, I gave evidence that refuted your position. Not doin too well over there bud.
1
-
mark mead So your new video is making an argument from incredulity and committing a logical fallacy known as a false equivalence fallacy. So first the video and yourself laughs at the speed of our solar systems motion, basically saying “it can’t be possible because I don’t understand how it’s possible” that’s an incredulity fallacy. You and ALL of flat Earth seems to know nothing about the physics of motion, so because you lack this knowledge, you don’t understand how the motions are possible, so you just assume they can’t be possible...and never consider the possibility that you’re just lacking information and understanding here. So you make arguments from incredulity like “ha, you actually believe you’re spinning through space at thousands of mph?!” Which offers nothing, just ignorance and incredulity. So it’s a fallacy in logic, nothing more.
You’d have to successfully falsify the Laws of Motion, conservation of momentum and relative motion, to even begin making a claim that the motions of Earth are not possible. So until then, you can laugh all you want, but it just tells us you’re scientifically illiterate, and really don’t know much of anything here. Basically, just because you don’t understand how it’s possible, does not by default mean it isn’t possible...the other very real possibility, is that you’re just too stupid to understand it.
Second, the false equivalence fallacy is pretty simple, comparing two things that appear similar but really aren’t, but then claiming they have to be anyway. He claims that nature is all about vortex, then shows some pictures claiming these as his evidence, then pats himself on the back as if he’s really falsified anything here. No...that’s not how things work. You don’t just claim EVERYTHING has to be a vortex, because a few things are, then call it a day. That’s...wow...like it’s reasoning like that, that is the reason why you fell for an internet scam like Flat Earth. xD
Again, his assertion ignores the laws of motion and offers no experimental evidence to support his claim. So it’s just a straight up logical fallacy from front to back.
You’re really treading water bud...but is quite clear now how you’re a Flat Earther...you’re stupid. I don’t like throwing that word around lightly, but the shoe sure seems to fit, judging by your terrible arguments so far and complete lack of evidence.
1
-
mark mead You’re not really doing much Mark, just ignoring everything I’m saying and then running on redundant temper tantrums. Questions are not proofs, you have questions and you hold them up as your evidence...but just because YOU don’t personally know the answers to your own questions, does not mean they don’t have answers. It’s just one argument from ignorance after the next with you. Just one big logical fallacy after the next.
This has been pretty easy so far, you’ve offered nothing but ad hominem and logical fallacies...so not very strong arguments at all. And nothing scientific so far that supports your claims, just empty claims and simulations that don’t prove anything.
I’ve already shared an experiment with you that is a very thorough recreation of the Bedford level experiment, that conclusively observes the declination you keep yammering about. Here’s that experiment again http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
In my experience reviewing the claims of flat Earthers, your observations for declination always have errors in them. A huge error I come across all the the time with curvature observations, is you often use the wrong math...and then never think to check your own work to make sure. So...shocker, you didn’t see what you thought you should, because you suck at math. Should be pretty obvious but use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, pretty simple stuff. 8 inches per mile squared being the worst offender of bad math that I come across, but there are many other examples...you people just really suck at math...that’s not our problem, it’s yours. The other error I often spot, is you guys very often fudge the details, getting the distances wrong, the heights wrong, the observer heights wrong, etc.
So I no longer trust you people when you say you made “observations” and didn’t see any curvature. You are strongly bias, so I have no doubts you just messed up somewhere and then didn’t bother to check your own observation for accuracy. I would normally ask that you share some of your observations...but you haven’t been a very level headed guy so far, so I don’t expect you’ll share any observations you’ve made even if I did ask...you’re likely just gonna pile on more insults and ignore everything I’m saying again, wasting both our time. If only there was such thing as a rational flat Earther...sigh...would be so nice to have a rational conversation for a change.
A sunset is one of the top proofs of the Globe Earth, all observations, experiments and data collected in the real world fits with the Globe model, as I shared earlier...and you ignored. You didn’t refute or even look at any of that evidence I shared, you just keep rambling on about how I didn’t share anything....which is the same song and dance of the irrational flat Earther. So I’m really not surprised. Ignorance is your bread and butter...like talking to a toddler.
I just didn’t wanna move on from the Sun evidence, until you gave me a rebuttal, so I was trying to keep you focused ...and so far you just gave me ONE experiment, which I refuted with my own experiment. So you haven’t successfully falsified any of my evidence for the Sun yet....so that’s why we haven’t moved on yet. See science is a long process of back and forth falsification...you have to have patience bud. You haven’t falsified my point yet, so we’re still talking about it...it’s not difficult.
But alright, if you want to move on so badly, I’ll just conclude you have no further rebuttal, so I win the point because you haven’t successfully falsified my evidence, you just ignored it. So let’s move on to another point now if you’d like. The Southern Hemisphere...I’ve been to the Southern Hemisphere, I’ve seen the second celestial rotation of stars around their own pole star, Sigma Octantis....so if the stars are rotating above, around Polaris like in your model you shared, how exactly is there a second circular rotation of stars in the South? If you’re going to go with the AE model, then you have to address it’s long list of flaws. The entire Southern Hemisphere doesn’t make sense or match with reality, on that model. But guess which model it does fit with.
I’ll share some evidence of this soon, it’s well documented. But feel free to give me your ignorant answer for how exactly this magically somehow works on your model. I’ll wait.
1
-
1
-
Alright, but don't just listen to what Eric Dubay says blindly and without question...he's very good at fooling you into thinking he's an expert on these subjects, but it's just because lying is like breathing for that guy. Just spend some time watching this break down of one of his videos on why he thinks dinosaurs are fake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knWCsonQVG4&t=7s This is an ACTUAL paleontologist going through his video and pointing out every time Eric lies...it's pretty eye opening, I wouldn't trust a word Eric says if I were you, but give that video a watch sometime and decide for yourself.
Many of us have gone through his Flat Earth videos now and have outlined the many times he lies in these videos as well. They're not hard to find, so I feel it's worth your time to seek these videos out as well. What he does is called gish gallop in debating...it's a method of convincing a person by dumping a shit ton of info on them all at once, that overloads your ability to process things one at a time. Hypnotists do the same thing in their acts to put you in a more suggestive state of mind...it's a clever tactic, but it's all bullshit. Take the time to question what he's saying, don't just listen to him blindly. Slow down his videos and tackle each point individually, one at a time...it takes time, but it's worth the effort.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jgk381 I have a lot more then that actually, we didn't just conclude the Earth is a sphere over night...it took hundreds of years over a great many observations, all pointing to the same conclusion, I know of a great many of those observations now, I've been looking at this mess a long time. I'm just saying that these observations are easy for anyone to reproduce and if you do, you'll reach the same conclusion. But fair enough, I have not been up into space yet, so you're right on that, I have not seen it for myself. But though I haven't been to space yet, mankind has and those people who have, have taken a lot of really great pictures. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
I argue with Flat Earthers, because all they're doing is spreading misinformation, that is designed to make people doubt. Once they got you doubting, then they got you hating mainstream science, fearing it even a little bit, which makes you paranoid...and we don't need more paranoia, we need less of it. That is dangerous, if enough people fall for that scam, then it brews into a mob mentality, and next thing you know, we got Flat Earthers in the streets rioting, demanding the heads of NASA or government. That's worse case scenario, but even if that doesn't materialize (and it likely won't thankfully), it's still effecting our youth. Kids that won't go into the sciences, who won't get secondary educations in these fields, because they now believe it's all bullshit...that's going to cripple their future, and it's going to slow us down, that's all this is going to do.
We do not need to see the Earth, to be able to deduce the truth of it. But we have...so I agree, this is a dumb fucking argument. But we have to have it apparently, cause if we don't then this shit just fly's by the radar unchecked and unchallenged, and then we have a real mess on our hands. I argue with these people, to provide a little peer review of their conclusions, cause I don't think potential misinformation should go unchallenged. It's not to change their minds, if they're Flat Earthers then they're already gone, I share information from the opposite perspective, for those on the fence still, who are seeking it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
That wasn’t really the point of the video I would say. The title of the video was WHY people believe the Earth is flat. So that’s the question he explored and I believe he did a good job answering it. It wasn’t so much to present an argument proving or disproving either model, it was more an exploration into the ideology and psychology of those who believe it, to figure out why they believe it.
He shared two experiments in particular, to help answer his question. They’re both examples of inconclusive experiments, the first one (level on a plane) simply can not measure or detect Earth’s surface geometry, that’s not really how a level works. The second (the Bedford Level experiment) is a good experiment, but conducted poorly just to confirm a bias. It’s been recreated and peer reviewed many times over the last couple hundred years, and it’s actually been shown to verify Earth’s curvature, not the opposite.
So his point there was that Flat Earthers are generally made up of laymen, who don’t really know much about conducting a proper experiment. Due to that lack of knowledge and experience, they can’t seem to tell the difference between an inconclusive and conclusive experiment…and worst yet, they don’t seem to care either. It doesn’t mean they’re necessarily stupid, just not well versed or well practiced in scientific research and experimentation. So a conclusion can be drawn, that they’re generally a tad under educated. Which unfortunately can cause them to be easily misled by misinformation.
Though I would agree, he probably could have provided a bit more information on those points, and elaborated further. Because it did seem lazy and gave the impression he was just appealing to authority, rather than researching a bit deeper for himself.
Anyway, hope that gives a little more perspective, but you’re right, had he made himself clearer, there wouldn’t have been any need for it really. So he could have done a bit more, I do agree.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Iron Horse throttle master Ok, but like I said, we have SEEN asteroids and meteors contact the Moon, it makes sense that these create the craters on the moon, meteors impact Earth all the time. And we know that mars has tectonic activity, which can and does create deep fissures in crust...there’s even evidence to suggest the water on Mars was once liquid and flowing, which also creates deep fissures. So just because someone has shot electricity into some rock and made a visual correlation, does not mean it is proven science. Comparing things visually and thinking this is good enough to reach a conclusion with, is known as a false equivalence fallacy. If you look at the canyons made here on Earth from space...they look like electrical bolts too...but we’re not concluding these are caused by events like you’re claiming.
I get why people are drawn to electromagnetism, because we can scale it down and recreate it, I get it...but there is just way too many contradictions and limitations with electromagnetism, when trying to apply the theory as a substitute for gravity. The physics just isn’t there, it doesn’t fit with the calculated, measured and observed motions, that are explained so well by the theory of gravity. You really have to ignore a lot of science, to ram it in as a replacement.
1
-
Iron Horse throttle master Who has ever claimed they’re just “dirty snowballs”? I’m pretty sure modern science agrees with you on what creates the coma tail of a comet. Though I’d add that this break up also releases a lot of trapped gases in the process, which also adds to things, these gases being ignited by charged particles of the solar radiation from the Sun.
I don’t think anyone would really disagree with you on comet tail formation, though I’m not an Astro physicist so I really can’t argue that for certain. But it’s this extreme electrical discharge between planets that they would argue against. It’s an event we’ve never seen before, and even if it’s rare in our own solar system, surely we should have picked something up and witnessed such an event in our galaxy by now.
Black holes have been photographed now. Stars near galactic centre have been observed to orbit a massive object, that fits with what we understand about gravity under general relativity. So where GR has a lot of evidence now confirming it, this massive electromagnetic discharge event...doesn’t really.
But at least it has more going for it than flat Earth, I’ll give it that much. It requires a lot more advanced understanding of physics, to really argue against it...where as flat Earth is refuted from the moment you attempt to model it. So I’ll give you that much credit, it’s harder to dispute. So if they are able to verify their findings someday, that would be interesting.
1
-
1
-
Iron Horse throttle master So now you think you’ve falsified the first law of motion? A satellites orbit degrades and falls to Earth, because it’s still contacting a little bit of atmosphere which causes drag, which slows it down. The Earth doesn’t have the same problem, because it’s not contending with any drag force, so conservation of momentum is absolute. First law of motion is pretty simple, all things in motion stay in motion until acted upon by an opposing force or mass. The Suns gravity isn’t slowing Earths forward momentum, it’s an orbital motion, only friction could slow the Earth down, friction caused by an opposing mass, like air...and there isn’t any in space, In large enough quantities between planets. So it’s conservation of momentum that keeps satellites in orbit...not centrifugal force.
So this is what I’m talking about...ignoring a LOT of other physics, and focusing only on electromagnetism. You should really retake a physics class, you’re missing a lot of variables.
1
-
1
-
Iron Horse throttle master Yes, ok, but you’re putting words in my mouth. Nobody would argue that electromagnetism isn’t a huge part of what constitutes reality. Modern science isn’t saying it’s not and neither am I. Electromagnetism is one of the 4 fundamental forces, so it is recognized and respected. But you are ignoring a lot of physics, and not just gravity, the laws of motion and conservation of momentum especially. They’re welcome to try, but where black holes have been calculated and observed, your “electromagnetic plasmoid” sounds very made up, with nothing supporting it. But I’d be very interested to read an in depth research paper on this anomaly, so feel free to share.
You guys are free to attempt at changing the standard model, people thought Einstein was crazy back in his time too...the difference was that he was able to prove his hypothesis correct with detailed experiments, data, observations and calculations. I just feel you are leaning HEAVILY on ONE aspect of physics, and forcefully applying it to other fundamentals of physics, like conservation of momentum and gravity. And I feel you’re doing it, cause you’re drawn to it, my guess is because you work in the trades (or have worked in the trades) and you have a lifetime of experience with things like welding and electrical trades, so it makes the most sense to you for that reason. But this is a bias, your experience and knowledge is built around those fundamentals, so you’re not aware or as well read in other avenues of physics, so I feel you’re slotting in electromagnetism to answer for other avenues of physics, that you don’t know much about. Much of what you’ve discussed, is solved for in other principals of physics.
Either way, I’m merely speculating there about your credentials, just a best guess. Though can I just say it’s been refreshing to have a rational discussion for a change. I’ve been talking to flat Earthers for so long, it’s just nice to talk to someone with a more level head, who doesn’t get triggered or offended when I start challenging their positions, who can shake it off and not take it personally. Though I still disagree, because I have yet to see any tangible evidence to support many of the Thunderbolts claims, but it’s at least based within reality, just with a strong leaning towards the Electrical. And perhaps I’ve never seen any evidence, because I haven’t really been looking. If Einstein could change modern consensus, then it’s possible to do it again, I would just stress the importance of proving it first, with conclusive evidence, before jumping to conclusions.
1
-
Iron Horse throttle master I have an open mind, but you need to understand that nothing in the thunderbolt project is verified science yet, so I’ll entertain it I’m not going to believe it outright. I don’t care if it makes more sense to you, you have a clear bias, you work with electrical components in your line of work, so you have a clearer grasp on that physics in particular, so of course it would make more sense to you. But until they can prove their claims, then it’s still only hypothetical. They believe craters are created on the moon from electrical discharge from Earth...even though we HAVE witnessed meteors striking the moon many times, even though craters blotch BOTH sides of the Moon and the same side always faces Earth due to gravitational tidal locking. What they’re claiming needs to be observed, and then it needs to account for a whole whack of other physics, from star formation, to orbits, to black holes, to expanding space, red shift and time dilation, the list goes on. We’re not putting satellites into orbit with the help of electromagnetism, we’re doing it with our understanding of gravity and conservation of momentum.
You mentioned an “electromagnetic plasmoid” as your answer to replace black holes...so where is the peer reviewed research paper that helps verify this could even be a thing? I don’t get my knowledge from potentially hoax documentaries on YouTube, I acquire it from reading the actual research and seeing if it’s properly peer reviewed and has repeatable experiments to back it up. So feel free to share those research papers, I don’t mind taking a look. People lie all the time and a former physicist who has more to gain by conning layman, wouldn’t have much trouble dusting off and plagiarizing old falsified physics, and reselling it to layman who don’t know any better. I just know enough about physics to know that it’s a very flimsy hypothesis currently and they don’t seem very willing to operate within peer review, which raises red flags. But yes, like I said, everyone thought Einstein was crazy back in his time as well, the difference is he was able to prove he was correct and today we have mountains of research and evidence to back up his conclusions.
So until thunderbolt project has something to verify it’s claims, and enough peer reviewed evidence that it can successfully falsify current general relativity and gravity, until then it remains a hypothetical, bordering on a hoax. If you have any papers to share though, I wouldn’t mind having a look, anything on these electromagnetic plasmoids you mentioned? Currently it sounds very made up, what exactly are they? What causes them, how do they bend light and why aren’t they discharging tremendous amounts of energy? Where is the evidence that verifies them...I hope you didn’t just watch ONE documentary, and then believed it outright. I’d also like to see something that can explain star formation, as we are currently recreating nuclear fusion in reactors today and we’re using our understanding of gravity to do it. I could share further info on that if you’d like.
1
-
1
-
Yes, but is it the actual speed that causes the increase in a Centrifugal force, or is it the amount of rotations? Technically it's both, but unlike rotations, speed is relative, so it doesn't scale...meaning 1000 mph to an object the size of Earth...doesn't mean shit, it's the rotations per minute that matters, the RPM's. Earth completes ONE rotation every 24 hours, which means it's not really generating much Centrifugal force at all.
Here's a simple thought experiment that can help you to verify that and understand what I'm talking about.
Picture yourself in a NASCAR, going it's top speed of 200 mph, around a 1000 meter long course. With a track at this length, the driver will have a hard time keeping to the road, and he will feel the Centrifugal force, as his body is sucked to the door. The car in this example will complete several rotations around the course in a single minutes time, so the rate of angular velocity change per second is great in this example, which means a LOT of Centrifugal force occurring.
Now just increase the length of the course to 1000 miles. The car traveling at the exact same speed of 200 mph, but this time going around a much larger course...how much centrifugal force do you think the driver will feel in this case? None, the course would feel like it's not even turning, he'd feel like he's on a straight road...it would now take 5 hours to complete ONE rotation.
The speed was the same in both examples, but one had more centrifugal force occurring than the other. Why is that? What can we conclude here? That speed really doesn't have much to do with Centrifugal force...I mean it does in that speed will effect the rate of rotation, but distance will effect it as well. But it's not really speed or distance that is the main reason Centrifugal force increases, it is the amount of rotations per minute, the RPM's. The more rotations per minute, the faster the rate of change in angular velocity per second, the more Centrifugal force occurs. That's what causes Centrifugal force to increase.
So knowing that now, the Earth completes ONE rotation every 24 hours...so how much Centrifugal force is that really going to create? Not nearly enough to overcome gravity and fling us off. But it does a little, about 0.3% at the Equator where the Centrifugal force is the greatest. Most people don't know this, but you actually weight slightly less at the Equator for this reason, because the Earth is rotating and that Centrifugal force it generates there, negates 0.3% of gravity. Here's an experiment that helps to verify this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o
So actually, no, our rotation does not trump gravity. It is not actually rotating fast enough, speed is relative, yes the surface is rotating 1000 mph, but it has a circumference of 24,000 miles to go around, which means the rate of angular velocity change per second...very slight. It takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree, it takes 1 hour to arc 15 degrees of our 360 degree rotation...it is a SNAILS PACE, in the grand scheme of things.
The difference between models is, most of the arguments against the Globe are just misunderstandings of basic physics...while the Flat Earth can't even explain a fucking sunset. It falls apart with the most basic of observations...and that's just one of thousands. There is REAL physics of motion that most people seem to have forgotten about, that isn't hard to relearn, that does help you understand how the Globe model works. And actually yes, the Globe can explain gravity...it's the only thing that makes sense of gravity, they help each other make sense. That's why Flat Earth needs to deny gravity so desperately...but we all know, gravity is pretty damn hard to argue against, drop something...it will drop every single time. It's the easiest force to verify...the hardest to understand, but super easy to confirm the existence of. And if gravity exists, then the Globe is really the only model that makes sense of it...heck the entire universe makes sense once you add gravity to everything we observe.
1
-
@LowerClassClique Really? Wow...schools today are really dropping the ball aren't they. Earth spinning does not create gravity, so not sure who told you that, but they were wrong...or you misunderstood the lesson that day and thought he meant rotation creates gravity. It doesn't. As we understand it today, gravity attraction is created by the mass of an object, bending space inward, to attract other mass. It's explained pretty clearly in this demo here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg Here he demonstrates the orbits of planets around a bend on a fabric sheet, which replicates the bending of space. The more mass an object has, the more space it bends.
We understand today that it is a bending of space occurring, because of experiments done so far that verify the leading theory of gravity today that proposed and calculated this concept, known as General Relativity. The Eddington experiment, time dilation experiment, red shift experiment, detection of gravitational waves, the visualization of cosmic background radiation, black holes, solving the orbit of mercury, fusion reactions, all of these experiments and many others have verified to us that space is bending and it bends inward to a central point, around all mass. Gravity then is caused by mass attracting mass, the more mass an object has, the more space it bends, demonstrated pretty clearly in the video I shared above. The experiment that first verified that mass was attracting mass, was the Cavendish experiment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH6aFgQhM_A&t=153s Didn't just observe it here in this experiment, it also measured it, giving us the universal constant of gravity, we call big G in math equations today. This constant of gravity is used in the math for orbital mechanics, rocket science, construction, parabolic targeting, GPS, the list goes on.
So I hope that clears some things up. It is not rotation that creates gravity, so it's just a misunderstanding of gravity that you have currently. I hope you didn't learn that in school...cause that would be wrong, but I get the feeling you might have just misunderstood the lesson. Perhaps your teacher showed you that bending fabric visualization before, with the marbles attracted towards a center mass on the bent sheet? Actually, if I had to guess, he probably showed you a centrifugal force experiment, with a bucket of water spinning to keep the water inside and COMPARED that to gravity. That wasn't a demonstration of gravity, that was a Centripetal force demonstration...not gravity. That is a different force, caused by motion. Anyway, hope that helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anthonyhernandez9921 No, that's your assumption. You think because we don't agree with you, it must mean we didn't do our research, rather then consider that YOU could be wrong, you just assume right out of the gate that we're wrong and there's no other possible reason why we disagree with you. You assume that we just listen to everything blindly and without question...yet you made an empty claim that the Illuminati worship the devil and rules the world....where did you learn that exactly? Have you ever really bothered to verify any of this to be true? Did you read that on a meme on social media...and then believed it 100% the moment you read it? And then you say that WE just believe everything we're told....it's incredible.
Even if this shadow group exists, that you claim is ruling the world...they can't keep you from observing and studying physical reality, it's right there, you can test it any time you like. I have done that, the science doesn't lie, the Earth is undeniably a sphere. Unlike you, I can back that claim up with evidence....can you do the same for Flat Earth and the Illuminati? From all I've seen, all you have is empty speculations when it comes to this shadow government....and I'm really getting tired of people following speculations so blindly. People really need to learn the difference between speculation and evidence....it's sad that so many don't.
Consider the very real possibility, that we disagree with you, because we know the science here and we know exactly how you're wrong. If you don't, then you're arguing from ignorance, and we can't have a ration discussion with you after that. It's clear you are a religious fanatic though, and so you filter everything through that bias, so you're not likely going to listen to anything we or science has to say...so there's no having any rational conversation with people like yourself, if that's how you're going to reason, with pure ignorance. That's the real truth of things, you are bias, not objective...this is where you go wrong.
So I'll say again, your bible has no place in a discussion of science. Present evidence for the Flat Earth, or we can only conclude that you reached that conclusion on bias and assumption alone. It's really that simple.
1
-
1
-
@anthonyhernandez9921 Dude, did you forget how to punctuate proper sentences or something? Christ...
Definition of religion is as follows "The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe." You believe in a god that created the universe, so you are a theist, which means you're religious. It's not hard. I don't really care which religion you conform too, you admit to believing in a God and the Devil, these are superstitious beings, that you believe exists on mostly just faith. So you are religious, it's pretty cut and dry, whether you agree or not. Best to just own it, cause that sort of denial bullshit to claim some false sense of superiority, doesn't fly with me...it just further proves how irrational you are.
None of what your babbling about is proof bud, it's just empty rhetoric. Tangible, physical evidence, that's all that matters here. Do you have any that supports your claim of a Flat Earth? If not, then you have reached that conclusion on faith and assumption alone, which means it's more then likely just bullshit. Stop wasting time with babbling, share evidence or don't speak at all, those are your options. Nobody should ever reach full conclusions on empty claims, that's how you end up living in delusion.
1
-
1
-
@coryskizm Couldn't agree more with you on that one, we really shouldn't let something this stupid divide us...there's enough of that in the world as it is. From a Flat Earthers perspective though, they feel this is the most important thing there is, because it 100% verifies a malicious and evil entity that has been pulling strings behind the scene to enslave us all. Sooooo, it's far from stupid to them, they feel very strongly that this is the research that will free us all. Try having a rational discussion with somebody who has a bias that powerful....you won't get it, because in their mind, they're fighting evil and that's all that matters. Take away that boogeyman and they lose purpose. What they don't seem to consider though, is that if there is a boogeyman pulling strings, it is LOVING how misdirected these people are. They are wasting their time, looking in the wrong direction and getting mad at the wrong people. Divide and conquer and clever misdirection, that's how evil wins against the people, every time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The only time in school that they tell you how things are, is kindergarten...from there, they don't just say how things are, they also explain it and demonstrate it to you and then high school they have YOU demonstrate it for yourself. They take it even further in secondary education, where you do not graduate, until you write what's called a thesis paper. This a completed study, by YOU that ADDS to the collected knowledge, through your own data collection, experimentation, observation and reaching your OWN conclusions. You wouldn't know that though...because you very likely have not taken any secondary education. Not your fault really...some people can't help their status in life, but making ignorant assumptions about things you know nothing about, that is something you are responsible for. You don't have to be ignorant, it's a choice really.
1
-
The stars are moving...any astronomer who actually spends their nights tracking the stars for a living will tell you that...it's common knowledge and it is well documented, look up a star known as Barnard's star if you'd like an example of a good one that moves a lot within just a few years. They just take a VERY long time to appear to shift in our lifetime and some stars will take longer then others. Because distance will effect apparent movement relative to us. If the stars are as far away as we've measured them to be, then it makes perfect sense why they never appear to move. It's why a plane at 6 miles distance, going 500 mph, appears to barely crawl across the sky...distance will effect apparent motion and movement, relative to the observer.
Understand that between each star is TRILLIONS of miles distance...and they're only moving half a billion miles per hour. That may seem like a lot to you and me, the tiny microbes living on the surface of a massive planetary body that thinks a mile is a unit of significance, but to the cosmos, stars might as well not even be moving. Our Sun is moving fast RELATIVE TO US, but to the Sun, it moves about half of its diameter every hour...to put that into perspective, move your body half a foot in front of you, in an hours time. Not moving very fast are you? Speed is relative...the Sun is huge, a mile means nothing to this object and by extension, miles per hour means nothing as well, in the exact same way a nano meter means nothing to you, but it sure means a lot to the bacteria on your skin...those bacteria travel millions of nano-meters per hour every single day...but they're doing just fine, cause speed is relative. If our closest star (Alpha Centauri) were to stop dead and allow us to catch up to it, it would take us roughly 6000 years to catch up to it, moving at the current speed we are...that's pretty damn far away. Feel free to crunch the numbers on that, Alpha Centauri is roughly 25 trillion miles away, and at 500k mph, we cover about 4.38 billion miles in 1 years time. Divide 25 trillion by that, gets you 5707 years. Pretty simple math. Now, if every star is going the same direction, at the same rate...then it's not much different then cars on a highway traveling in the same straight path...making it take even longer for many of them to appear to shift...which is why Polaris doesn't appear to move at all and Orions belt as well...it's well known that these stars take much longer to shift, but there are valid understandings as to why.
I know you probably wouldn't agree, because you think 500k mph is impossible, but that's what we measure and observe, so what would you like us to conclude? When all measurements taken, using many different methods, all bring us the same figures...what should we do, just ignore that? Why exactly? Because some people are too lazy or incredulous to bother learning about these things, or thinking deeper on how that's possible? It's fine to ask questions, it's fine to disagree once you've gone through the thought processes...but most people who ask these questions aren't even trying to figure it out. You hold the questions up as some sort of proof...rather then listen to any explanation given to you and understand HOW we reached our conclusions. I do hope you're different on that, that's why I share information, for those who have the intellectually honesty enough to actually listen and consider what I have to share.
If you really go through the thought process of those distances and think about all the variables, from the physics, to the recorded distances, to astrological records...it makes perfect sense that the stars never appear to move in our lifetime.
I can go through that thought process with you if you'd like, only takes a moment. But first I'd suggest you confirm for yourself how we figured out those distances, or you'll have a hard time following along...little hard to build on knowledge, if you don't agree on the foundation. So look into that science and recreate some of it for yourself if you'd like. There are many experiments you can do yourself with just a telescope and some free time. YouTube is full of videos that can help you out.
Anyway, I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. Feel free to let me know if there's anything else you feel I've missed or would like to know more about. I don't mind discussing.
1
-
The original Bedford Level experiment, conducted by Samuel Robotham (Parallax), is deemed inconclusive, due to poor experimentation practices. He simply did not do enough to render his conclusion conclusive…but he reached a conclusion anyway. That’s not how science should operate, science must be thorough, and it must be objective. He was clearly just trying to confirm his bias…which is why we have peer review in science, to weed out that kind of human error.
Here’s a short list of some things he messed up on.
- Used the wrong math. Height of the observer is a very important variable in long distance observations at horizon (because we see further the higher we are), his math didn’t include that variable, so it was the wrong math.
-He only made one observation, using one marker, so not enough data was collected to make comparisons with. Experiments typically create a data set, by making multiple observations, over long periods of time, and then the average is taken from all the data. This helps eliminate any hidden variables that might also effect the result, like in this case for example, the refractive index would shift wildly over multiple different viewing times, so he’d learn that atmospheric refraction is a big variable he has to control for…if only he’d taken more data, by making more than one observation.
- He ignored atmospheric refraction. Every pilot, sailor, gunner, surveyor, and civil engineer in the world knows how important it is to factor atmospheric refraction into their math…it does absolutely effect what we see at distances. In this case, it does make it possible to see further than what would normally be possible. Here’s a quick demonstration of its effect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRywj88MsjA. Pay attention to how the snow line and all the distant markers appear to rise up as the refractive index increases. This is a very real effect, and it can’t be ignored…he ignored it, which speaks to his intellectual honesty.
So that’s why his experiment is not legitimate, he conducted a sloppy version of the experiment to confirm his bias, nothing more. The experiment is a good experiment mind you, he just didn’t conduct it very well. But it’s been recreated many times over the years, the most recent I’m aware of being the Rainy Lake experiment. Look it up sometime if it interests you, you’ll notice right away just how extremely thorough it is.
Anyway, hope that information has been helpful or at least interesting. Take care.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because of two things, gravity, which the plane is constantly fighting against and is always pulling the plane down to surface, and air pressure, which becomes less and less dense the higher you go, making it impossible for a plane to generate any further lift. It requires a LOT of forward momentum to reach what's called escape velocity, a plane comes nowhere near that velocity, so it physically can not escape into space. But the biggest factor is that planes fly thanks to air pressure, which helps them generate lift. Without air to fly through, they can't generate lift, so they eventually max out, reaching a point where the air is just too thin to generate enough lift to bring them any higher, so they drop. Since that air pressure keeps equipotential distance from center of gravity, it forms a sort of sphere around that center...almost like a bubble of max air pressure around the surface of the Earth, make sense yet?
If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.
1
-
Try viewing anything 400 km away, from sea level…I guarantee you won’t be able too. The picture you’re referring too, is most likely the one of Pic Gaspard, which is the only one in existence and a world record holder, but that photo was not taken at the beach…it was taken from the top of another peak, some 2300 feet in elevation. I’m sure you’re aware, that you’re able to see further when you go higher in elevation. And you still only see the very tip of Pic Gaspard, only about 100 meters…which actually works perfectly with the correct curvature math for that elevation. So maybe YOU should dig a little deeper before you spread bullshit…nobody is taking pictures from the shore, of objects 400 km away…the only photograph in existence seeing that far, was made from thousands of feet in elevation. If Earth were flat…then you wouldn’t need to climb higher to see further. Should be pretty common sense.
On top of that…you are aware the p900 isn’t the first camera with a zoom lens, right? It’s not magic, we’ve had telescopes way more powerful than the p900, for hundreds of years now. I’m starting to think Nikon started the Flat Earth movement so they could sell more cameras. 😄
The Bible is all made up fictions, so has no place in a discussion of science and holds no sway over conclusions. Best to rip that band aide off sooner rather than later.
There’s no real tangible evidence proving man didn’t land on the Moon, just a lot of empty claims, misunderstood physics, and endless speculations. So not a whole lot of reasons to conclude it didn’t happen. As a journalist, he just reports on the best available facts and evidence, if that information doesn’t jive with your personal opinions, then that’s a you problem…can’t do much about the numpty’s of the world who fell for bullshit they found online.
1
-
1
-
Well, gyros naturally precess due to friction in the gimbles, which is unavoidable in all mechanical gyros, so it's likely flip flop many times before you ever reached the opposite end of the Earth either way, but it would be due to precession. That's why they include what are called pendulous veins in most navigation equipment that use gyros, these use gravity to recalibrate the gyro back to a level position...and since on a ball gravity vectors always level perpendicular to center of Earth no matter where you are, it means these pendulous veins are more then enough to account for both gyro precession and the curve of the Earth.
Learn a bit more about the mechanics of the things you wish to argue about, before you go making assumptions. Gyros are quite complex, there is a lot of physics going on there just by themselves and artificial horizon indicators that make use of them take it even further, creating a far more advanced mechanism with a lot of different working parts. It's dangerous to assume things, that's how you get swept up in speculation, lies and confirmation bias.
1
-
1
-
The Southern Cross is not directly at the southern celestial pole, it lies around it. It is the stars closest to the celestial pole (Sigma Octantis) that should be impossible to see from that latitude (and they are), but the Southern Cross is not directly at the pole, so it's going to spend some time arcing outward, making it possible to see over the horizon from Northern latitudes far above the Equator. You're also ignoring refraction which also would raise those stars up slightly, especially as they reside closer to the horizon and especially in more humid climates (like near an ocean...an island perhaps). Yes, refraction is real and must be factored. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs I get a lot of eye rolls when I mention refraction it seems, but it does occur in our atmosphere and can not be ignored.
So not impossible at all on the Globe model, as we know it today. Geometrically it is possible and refraction would bring it even higher, though I would urge people model it as well actually.
Here's a simple way anyone can do it right now if they want. When I went to this free to use solar system simulator http://www.solarsystemscope.com/sss2/ and used their feature where you can put an observer on the ground and place them anywhere on Earth (click the telescope icon to the left), I placed my observer in Gran Canaria or at least roughly the same latitude (scroll down to get the map and time features), then I tracked down the Southern Cross and sure enough, at that latitude it did pop up over the horizon at about 10-15 degrees. This is purely geometric, no refraction included and only puts an observer at about 6 ft elevation, but even without those variables, it was still there. As far as I know the software is pretty damn near close to accurate, I've noticed if you go to far into the future it starts to lose accuracy, so it is off by a small fraction in some areas, but it's pretty darn close to scale and still useful for quick modeling I'd say. There are better software's though, so doesn't hurt to try several just to compare.
So not impossible, certainly not enough to throw the baby out with the bath water, like Flat Earth seems so prone in doing. But I suppose I'd need more data to know exactly when and where you were, what time it was, what the refraction index was for that day, your elevation, etc. Maybe a photo to verify, cause a person can say it's at 20 degrees...but was it really? Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, I'm not the one who saw it. So certainly can't discredit your claim entirely unless I know all the details, but for now I'll just say it's far from impossible. Interesting, but not impossible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nicolas Corte
1) http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_9J_c9Kss&t
3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DurLVHPc1Iw
Now, do some research on the physics of motion, namely the laws of motion, conservation of momentum, and relative motion. Then we can talk about how the motions of the planet are completely possible under these very simple to understand laws of nature. Indoctrination assumes that knowledge can’t be demonstrated to conform with reality...I assure you, most everything in modern science can be demonstrated to you without much effort, the laws of motion is physics 101 type stuff, and once you understand this physics, you will understand how Earth’s motions are possible. Calling people indoctrinated is just an excuse people use, so they can remain ignorant, which keeps them in their bias. So save that rhetoric for the ignorant saps it actually works on. Up to you if you’re ready to learn some real physics, I’ve pointed you in some direction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pepperdeez No, what you said was, and I quote “The big bang theory has ZERO evidence and no science or logic to it. Simply a theory.” Don’t know about you...but seems pretty cut and dry to me, you clearly said Big Bang has no evidence...so now you’re just back peddling. I could only really assume you reached that conclusion from ignorance, what else was I to go on?
Thinks I agree with every detail of current cosmology, simply because I corrected you...now who’s assuming things.
I wasn’t stating I agree with everything about current Big Bang cosmology, I was merely pointing out that it’s the leading theory today, because it has the most evidence supporting it. It’s really that simple. And it’s true. Of course there is still plenty of debate here in this particular topic, I’m perfectly fine with that, because that is also true. It has the most evidence yes, but it’s in no way finalized science, still much we do not know. So debating here is perfectly fine, lots of room still for that.
No, Big Bang in no way falsifies God....that’s a common misunderstanding. God could still very much play a role in the Big Bang, so it’s actually a fallacious argument to claim it destroys the concept of a creator. What it does do though, is falsifies mankind’s religious interpretations of that God, most of them anyway, especially the Abrahamic religions. Which is what I do agree with, in my opinion every religion is just man made bullshit, each one no more true than the last, just fictions we wrote to help us cope with uncertainty and our fleeting mortality. It’s not just Big Bang that’s proving that though, science in general closes the gaps on religion more and more with every new discovery. What it won’t ever likely do though, is falsify God, so I wouldn’t worry about that if it concerns you.
In any case, I was just correcting something I felt you were getting wrong. Big Bang has evidence, you can disagree with that evidence, you can debate it, but it is the leading theory for a reason...because it does have the most evidence. That is a fact, not an opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
inquizative44 It’s logo design man, they hired a bunch of people to create a flag and that was the best one, so they use it. As an artist myself who has done a lot of logo design, the AE projection is a good choice, it has every nation of the world on it, and it has a nice triad composition (3 balanced corners). So you’re speculating and chasing patterns that aren’t there...which is typical of people to do, we are natural pattern seekers, even when patterns aren’t there, we tend to create them. Trust me, I used to think a lot like you do now...then I learned how to identify bias and keep it in check. I learned the scientific method.
Stick to the science I say...it’s not hard to deduce the Earth’s geometry, when you follow actual tangible evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, everything we know is not just “told” to us. Maybe you didn’t pay attention in physics class (or you didn’t have access to a proper education, in which case I’m sorry), but they don’t just tell us what’s what...they also demonstrate it, with clear experimentation that anyone can repeat. You can go out and test the science and geometry of Earth at any time, it’s not difficult. You can learn all this knowledge first hand, on your own, you don’t require others to just tell you.
Start with a simple sunset, don’t you think if the Sun were flying above us, over a flat plain...we would always be able to see it? If Earth were flat, then It occupies the same sky everywhere on Earth, at the same time...so how exactly would it set? Common sense tells you it wouldn’t and so does the math. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t
Just one of many simple observations you can make and put to the test. To say we acquired all our information from just listening blindly to others tell us things, is absolutely ignorant.
1
-
Well, the Moon is also 1/3 the size of Earth...so it's not small in the slightest. So if you do the perspective math for its size and its distance too us, it's actually exactly as big as it would appear. So basically, your argument is just one of personal incredulity...which means it's not an argument, it's just a logical fallacy.
You don't need scientists to tell you the Earth is a sphere, you can verify it for yourself with just a few simple observations. Like a sunset for example, observing the Sun and paying attention to its angles and path can actually tell you a LOT about our planets true shape. So let's assume the Earth is flat and consider some common sense variables. If the Sun is spinning above, then where does it go between sunset and sunrise? It's not going beneath the Earth, or away from it, because somebody somewhere always sees the Sun...it is day time somewhere on Earth at any given time. So it must occupy the same sky, so ok, If it occupy's the same sky everywhere on Earth at the same time, then how does a sunset occur? Some people will just say it's due to perspective and call their work done...but what does the math say about this? Let's have a look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t Nope, perspective doesn't make sense of this at all...the Sun doesn't behave the way it should if it were perspective causing a sunset. Let's look at some more common sense observations.
Here are some simple experiments anyone can conduct, that can help anyone learn a bit about the fundamentals of perspective and how it applies to the Sun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYVYa3BdI84
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njO5NPfur7I
So if people are going to say perspective causes a sunset...then they really have to do more work then just stating that's what is happening. Upon all experimentation and observation of the Sun, that answer does not add up I'm afraid. Above are some simple common sense observations anyone can make, that put a huge hole in the concept of perspective, causing a sunset.
So what can explain a sunset? Well, a Globe Earth accounts for this perfectly. The Earth rotates away from the Sun each day, shrouding one side in darkness as the Earth itself blocks the light from the Sun. Explanation over...so if we were to employ Occams Razor here, simplest answer is most often the correct answer, the Globe accounts for a sunset with absolute ease. That can't be denied really, you have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to make something as simple as a sunset work on a Flat Earth...meanwhile the Globe makes sense of it with ease.
But, an explanation is not evidence, so can we verify this to be true with actual evidence? Absolutely, here are a few simple experiments that help to verify the Globe accounting for a sunset.
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=421
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJGczcwJ6TA&t=102s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1al9aGartM
Everything from shadow angles, to rise and set times, to the celestial path of the Sun, to its apparent size and rate of travel...it all matches with a Globe.
So I'm sorry, but you're not really doing much thinking in your conclusion. You even state your bias clearly, that being that you WANT Earth to be the center of the universe. You want to feel special, so that's your bias...you're not thinking with any objective rational, you're deeply bias in all of your incredulous and ignorant conclusions.
The evidence does not point to a Flat Earth...that is just ONE of many simple ways that YOU and ANYONE can verify the shape of the planet for themselves...just takes a little effort and critical thinking. You do not require scientists to tell you what is what...YOU can do it yourself, but you have to put your bias aside first and use your head.
1
-
1
-
In just the last few thousand years we’ve taken the wolf, and evolved it into the chihuahua…something that is more like a tiny rat, than having any resemblance to their noble cousins. No evidence for evolution you say? We’re practically playing it out in real time with plenty of examples like that…you think any of that would be possible without the ability to evolve?
What’s troubling to me is that every person claiming evolution has no evidence, is never a biologist of any field relevant to the topic, but they always think they’re the experts anyway. I mean I’m sure you’ve done some reading on the topic…but are a biology major working in the field of evolution? Are you currently actively studying the fossil record we’ve uncovered so far? Are you making advancements in medical science from the study of cellular evolutions? Are you looking at DNA strands all day and finding common links between species? If no…then why should anyone listen to anything you have to say on the topic? 🧐
It’s not hard to see your bias on the matter. Religion has always been a powerful bias in many people, that I feel has slowed human progress for far too long.
But listen, nobody is saying God isn’t a possibility, but evolution is very much a part of that creation, the evidence is actually pretty staggering, whether you acknowledge it or not. We have a fossil record linking us back millions of years, as well as many other species. The verdict is still out on how life started, but that doesn’t mean evolution and God can’t both be a possibility. And you know most scientists now and throughout history are and were theists. They have/had no trouble marrying the theory of evolution with their spiritual beliefs, why is it such a problem for you?
Just saying…how much do you ACTUALLY know on the topic? Pretty hard to take religious people seriously on this subject, when their bias is clear as day. In any case, this field of study will continue, and it absolutely should. Even if it’s found to be a dead end someday (however unlikely), we do ourselves a disservice to go against our natural curiosity and our drive to unravel the mysteries of reality. If God has a problem with it, then why’d he give us that drive? Personally, if I was a creator of a life form such as us, I’d be proud of my creation for exploring every possibility and reaching for their full potential…as any parent should.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maladvojka8376 I believe there’s some historical truths in the Bible, some names and events I’m sure are accurate (at least to some degree). I believe some of the moral teachings are useful, I believe religion gives people community which is very important for any individual, to have that pillar of strength beneath them. But everything having to do with heaven, hell, god, all the magical stuff…completely fabricated, just like every other religion before and after. Superstitious BS humans have been making up time and again, to help us cope with our fleeting mortality. So you’d be right, it’s mostly just nonsense to me. We do not know where we came from or what comes after…we’re only fooling ourselves into thinking we do.
Difference between the Bible, and most of what I’ve mentioned here; what I’ve mentioned is repeatable science, that works when applied, and that anyone can verify themselves, whenever they’d like. Much of it is applied science today, navigation is simply not possible until you have accurate information on the surface you’re navigating…and that knowledge had to start somewhere.
I can only speculate on the timeframe and the people involved, little harder to verify the legitimacy of names and dates…but I’m inclined to agree it’s accurate, because we don’t just start with the knowledge, it has too be acquired first, by someone, somewhere, at some time. We build upon knowledge, it’s a long process. I have no reason to believe these names and timeframes aren’t accurate…because historical evidence does exist for each. Either way though, the knowledge itself is sound, so it hardly matters.
Here are the facts; NASA had basically nothing to do with discovering or developing the heliocentric model…and the very large majority of scholars and academics agree that the Earth is spherical. Unless you’ve been living under a rock (or a Bible), this is pretty common knowledge.
1
-
You have the right idea, the simpler way to put it is that a level balances to centre of gravity, shifting with its vectors.
The slightly more complicated way to break it down, is that gravity creates a field of force around a centre which is at equipotential all around it, so it’s direction of influence shifts, depending on where you are relative to that centre, we call these gravity vectors. You’re always in a gravity vector, and it always shifts with your movement, always pointing towards centre. A level is affected by gravity in the form of buoyancy, which is the opposing force created by gravity, so always in the same vectors as gravity for that reason, just in the opposite direction of travel. So the level balances to centre of gravity, shifting with its vectors.
1
-
Also, no, they never said ALL images are composites. ONE GUY who works in the composite department at NASA, was telling an interviewer what HE DOES at HIS JOB. He took thousands of images of Earth from low Earth orbit and stitched them together, to form composites. The only way you can do this, is with a photo editing program of some kind...hence why he said "it is photoshopped, but it has to be". This is probably the worst offender of cherry picking and taking words out of context to support a bias.
Do you really think that is honest research? Like really? Stuff like this was my first red flag that Flat Earth was conning people and lying to them, to support their bias.
No, they don't just take photos of Earth from low Earth orbit. Here are several photos taken during the various Apollo moon missions, done back in 60's and 70's. There are tons of archives like this, documenting thousands of photos. They're not hard to find.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157657289512883
Then there are the hundreds of satellites that have been put in GEO orbit, that have and are currently taking photos. The Himawari satellites, the GOES 15-17 satellites, DISCOVR as I already mentioned. Then back in the 90's there was even a live feed of Earth on satellite tv. It's down now, but it had its own channel back in the 90's and I'm sure you could find that footage if you looked for it. Here's a neat trick you can actually do with these weather satellites, that can help you confirm for yourself that they're up there, that doesn't require you build your own radio telescope, just requires you look outside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOYssZQ3D2Q
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Been researching it for 3 years, and I'm more of a Globe Earther now then I ever was before, because now I know the science and the history of how we reached that conclusion, far better then I ever did before. I now also know exactly where Flat Earth goes wrong...you are under educated people, falling into the pitfalls of confirmation bias, by scammers who are exploiting your lack of knowledge, experience and understanding, using your growing lack of trust in authority against you, to sell you bullshit. Most of us come to this conclusion upon researching it, so no, we're not likely to be "flat smacked" ever...because it is not reality, it is a scam, nothing more.
Though with a name like "woke flat earth man", my guess is you are not really a Flat Earther either, you're one of the poes...because no serious Flat Earther would ever use a user name like that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You sure don't seem to have any problem with making empty claims with no backing, so why should anyone bother with answering your questions, if you're not going to follow your own standards of science in your own conclusions? You claim in a comment above that clouds disappear at horizon due to perspective alone. Ok, so prove it. What measurements and observations have you taken/done to verify this hypothesis of yours? They would do the same on a sphere, so what evidence do you have that verifies your conclusion and at the same time falsify's the Globe conclusion? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, of course science should be able to demonstrate how it reached its conclusions...but you seem to think they haven't. They have, Flat Earth just isn't listening...that's been my experience so far anyway.
It's pretty easy to make empty claims isn't it, it's easy to say the clouds are doing this and doing that and then saying "it's all due to perspective"...but then shouldn't you also prove that as well? Why do you think you're somehow free from the same standards you place on science? You made a bold claim above...so shouldn't you then have to prove that claim as well?
It's easy to make claims like this about the clouds, they're much closer, and they're all different shapes and sizes, easy peasy to just conclude it's due to perspective that they sink into horizon (even though the Globe at our size would do the exact same thing)...but it's a little harder once you start observing something a bit more rigid, like the Sun for example. I mean, the Sun sets and rises each day as well, so obviously if you're going to go with Flat Earth as your model, then you'd have to conclude it's perspective causing this as well, correct? But it is much higher (even by Flat Earth standards) and when we observe it closer, it does not shrink or grow in size throughout a day...but wait, shouldn't the Sun be conforming to a few of the rules of perspective as well? Such as shrinking in angular size the further away it gets? It's a pretty basic rule of thumb in perspective, things shrink in angular size the further they get from you...it's what causes the vanishing point in the first place. The Sun sets...yet it is never observed to shrink in angular size (when viewed on a clear day with filters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtQiwbFD_Cc), nor does is speed up or slow down the closer or further it gets, another thing it should be doing...if you're going to use perspective as your argument for why it rises and sets. Just a small sample of the many things we'd expect to happen, on a Flat Earth with a Sun that sets due to perspective...things that do not happen in the real world, when we go out and actually measure and observe them.
So please, do tell us why and how you've reached this conclusion of yours. Seems only fair that if you're going to demand so much from the mainstream science, that we turn that lens around and ask the same from you people. I mean...you have all the answers right? So go ahead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willjhon7986 Lol, you really think money would change anything? When I was just out of high school, I lived with 2 older friends, they’d fuck with anything they could get mild amusement out of. We mailed orange peels to the city along with our bill cheques, we’d hassle the neighbours by just staring at them out the window and laughing as they tried to do yard work, we’d prank call our own employers night after night, just for some mild amusement. You handed me and those guys a statistic form at that time, along with some money...I can guarantee you, we’d have gone to town on that sucker, lying about every stupid question asked. The money wouldn’t change anything...heck it would have made it funnier to us.
So yes...fondly remembering what it was like to be young, finding small amusements wherever I could, especially fucking with anything that older people took seriously, I would say a good portion of those stats are lies, just from knowing the demographic. Today, I’m more mature, I don’t find as much amusement in the little things like I used too, I take things a bit more seriously. Maturity comes with age...I’m sure that’s pretty common knowledge.
Young adults don’t care about stats...but you’d be surprised how many people in general find amusement in stuff like that. So don’t be naive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@silverbackgrizzly2402 Oh believe me, we are, and you're right, it should stop them dead in their tracks...but it doesn't, doesn't even make a dent. It's incredible how much evidence they will ignore to save face. This isn't the only piece of irrefutable evidence they ignore, they are masters of dodging what they don't wanna hear. It's not about what is true with them, it's about being right, just so they can finally claim they're superior to everybody else. It has more to do with psychology and their own insecurities, then it does about facts, their subconscious has decided that it's just easier to invent reality then it is to study it objectively. Easier to lie to yourself and save yourself the trauma of being wrong...we all kind of do that to some degree, Flat Earthers just do it with a lot less restraint.
So there really is no argument for a person who isn't listening. It's actually kind of scary really, how so many people can actually filter information like that without even realizing it...really shines a light on the true dangers of confirmation bias, and why scientists were wise to add peer review to the scientific method.
It's not all bad though, they are very much a minority still and thankfully not everybody is that prone to chase bias down rabbit holes of misinformation. You're proof of that, you figured it out pretty quickly and without much effort I imagine, I'm sure if you kept going you'd continue to spot their errors. I think most people are quick like that, it just seems like they aren't, because crazy unfortunately gets blasted through the megaphone online...the sane people get lost in the noise, even though they're the majority.
Anyway, if there's anything else you'd like help with here, I've been looking at this mess a very long time now and probably know this argument better then any Flat Earther at this point. So feel free to ask, I might be able to share more info, that Flat Earth likes to avoid, that you might find helpful or at the very least interesting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
False, there is lots of observed and measured curvature. Here is a short sample.
First a simple recreation of the Eratosthenes experiment, except this is expanded to include many more data sets, from several different locations all around the world, during the Equinox. It is well understood that the original experiment performed by Eratosthenes does not proove curvature, merely measures it, but if you take more then 2 data sets, THEN it actually can be used to prove and measure curvature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=317s
Now here's a version of this same experiment done by a different user, this time using time and date dot com data, and plotting the data over a 3D version of the AE Flat Earth projection, to help you see with a little more clarity, that the shadow angles do not intersect and point to any local Sun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nzEhDX-xzg
These are all repeatable experiments, taking real world PHYSICAL measurements of Sun shadow angles. Each time this experiment is repeated, it verifies curvature AND a distant Sun, with parallel sunlight. I have yet to see Flat Earth recreate this experiment, which seems odd to me, it is a very simple experiment.
Here's another great experiment that helps to measure and observe curvature. A recreation of the simple Bedford Level experiment, recreated over a frozen lake surface. This time done MUCH more in depth, taking physical measurements, photos and video, as well as calculating many more predictions before hand.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
The Bedford Level experiment has been repeated many times and upon every recreation of the experiment, the conclusion is the same, the Earth is curving. The original experiment conducted by Rowbotham is now confirmed to have been an example of a sloppy experiment to confirm a bias. The Flat Earth conclusion he reached fails upon all peer review of his experiment, falsifying his conclusion and confirming that he reached his conclusion due to an experiment that was poorly done and designed to confirm his bias.
Now for an easy one that even YOU could recreate. A common claim of Flat Earth is that horizon always rises to eye level. They say this because if the Earth were Flat, then it would rise to eye level. If the Earth were a Globe, then it would actually drop from eye level as you go higher in elevation. But in all the years I've been researching this topic (3 years at this point) I have NEVER seen them actually bother to TEST or MEASURE their conclusion. Which makes their claim here...an empty claim with no backing.
So can you measure horizon drop? Of course you can, here are two ways you can do it. Two VERY simple experiments that confirm horizon drop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI - a simple leveling rig you can build with basic supplies anyone can find around they're home. The video isn't long and it's pretty simple to understand, so give it a look. As you'll see in this video, as he climbs higher, the horizon begins to drop below the rigging level...which means, as he goes higher, horizon is actually dropping from eye level, which does further support Earth curvature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVTgP-KpyRc - The other method used to measure horizon drop is with a surveyors tool known as a theodolite. It's pretty simple equipment to use, calibrate the theodolite at sea level by lining the cross hairs up with the visible horizon line. Then it can be used to help measure horizon drop as you climb higher, because it is now calibrated for eye level at sea level. As you see in this video above, he has used his theodolite while flying at several thousand feet elevation. The theodolite reading indicates that horizon has dropped, therefore further verifying Earth curvature and horizon drop.
There are more ways to confirm horizon drop...what you should learn from this though, is that Flat Earth makes empty claims like this all the time. Never once have they provided evidence for the claim that horizon always rises to eye level...yet people believe that statement blindly and without question. WHY exactly? For a group who claims to be more skeptical, claiming to never take information at face value...you sure eat up a lot of bullshit empty claims made from Flat Earth gurus online who feed you this garbage information.
So by how much should we expect to see horizon drop on an Earth at the scales we know it to be? Here's a great simulator that can help you out. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth Just click the first yellow tab labelled "Curve" and watch the demo from there. What this simulator does is calculates the drop from eye level for you, using a to scale representation of the Globe. It's pretty handy and you can actually use this simulator to help further confirm the two videos I shared pertaining to horizon drop due to curvature.
Alright, so that's a big dump of information, I have more I can share of course...but I think you'll be ok with just these...I think you get the point...if you even bother to take a look that is. That last link also provides several more observations of curvature, so just go through the yellow tabs and watch the demos sometime, they provide EVEN MORE physical experiments and observations done to verify curvature, so feel free to check em out sometime. My favorite observation in that simulator is the Soundly observations of the Lake Pontchartrain causway bridge in New Orleans. It's a great visual demonstration of curvature, if you want to see it with VISUAL evidence, so I highly recommend you click and watch the Soundly tab in that last link above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because every observation made, when done correctly, fits with that geometry and makes sense of every observation. We have modeled everything with incredible accuracy today, and it fits and works cohesively...I have yet to see ANY flat Earth model that can do the same...and it's not from lack of trying, I've been looking a LONG time now. On top of that, NOBODY in any field or job title that navigates the world for a living, is using a Flat Earth geometry to help them find their destination. It should be pretty common sense, that you can't hope to find a destination, if you don't have an accurate map. The fact that ALL of these people are using a Global system of navigation, lines of latitude that are equal in TWO hemispheres, should be enough to tell people that Earth is not Flat. These people would be getting lost every single day...if we didn't know the actual shape of our planet.
On top of that, scientists would be pretty damn bad at their jobs, if they couldn't figure out something as trivial as the true shape of our planet.
Observe any fucking sunset ever, and then try and make sense of that on ANY flat Earth model....it doesn't work. You are kidding yourself, if you think we don't know what shape the planet is. Wake up.
1
-
1
-
This video wasn't really intended to prove anything, it's not for flat Earthers looking for evidence and he's not really presenting any argument here. This video is for the people who dipped into the mess, realized it was a con job right away, so they got out and now like to dissect the psychological reasons for why and how people fall for the scam that is Flat Earth. That's the audience for this video and it's pretty clear right from the start. He doesn't share any deep science here, because that's not the goal or purpose of this video, it is for those of us who already know the science and already know where Flat Earth goes wrong in their arguments. We're past that now, now we're interested in figuring out why others fell so hard for what is quite possibility the best example to date, of the power and dangers of confirmation bias. This is a psychological analysis of the movement as a whole, trying to understand how people fall for it, in hopes of maybe seeing if there's something currently wrong with society as a whole. So if you're a Flat Earther, then this video wasn't made for you. It's about you, but it's not for you, so of course you're not gonna get it.
1
-
@jfern777 Ya, again, because that wasn't his goal here, he wasn't out to prove or disprove anything here, the audience he was targeting has already concluded that Flat Earth is a scam, so it was a discussion for those people...did you read my last comment? I really don't like repeating myself.
What argument in particular would you like me address? I actually don't mind sharing information, I do enjoy the discussion, so long as it's civil. But I'd prefer it stick to one topic at a time...cause I like to be thorough, and I'd rather not address a million points at once, cause then I'll just be writing novels here. Science can take awhile to explain and demonstrate sometimes, so keep it brief and I might be able to help ya out.
I am aware of pretty much every Flat Earth argument and experiment at this point, been researching this topic for a little over 3 years now. But I don't claim to know everything and I love learning new things, so just let me know where you'd like to start, if you want.
1
-
@jfern777 Alright, you asked about the canal experiment at Bedford in your first reply, so that's a good place to start I suppose.
The #1 biggest trouble I come across with Flat Earth, is confirmation bias. Ignoring or straight up denying variables, simply because they don't support what you want to conclude. Whether flat Earth likes it or not, refraction is very real. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs This does occur in atmosphere, especially over large bodies of water, where the atmosphere is the most dense thanks to the rising water vapor. Yes, this does effect what we will see at distances...and science understands refraction very well, enough that we can calculate it now today and factor it as a variable in equations for long distance observations.
But the trouble is, fat chance trying to convince anyone of this...who will just deny that refraction exists and then won't even bother to take the time to see if that's true or not. I showed you an experiment above, I can share many more that help to verify refraction and explain further how it effects what your eye is capable of seeing at distances. But at the end of the day, it's up to you to realize it's for real and then do the research in this area to see what science knows about this bending of light. It's not hard, tons of resources online on refraction.
It's not just that Rowbotham ignored or denied refraction though, there's a lot more then that as well, LOTS of little errors and things he could have done better, that would have given him a more conclusive result. He also failed to factor (or notice) that the bridge behind the flag dropped below the flag, while at the same time his eye level rose above the bridge. Neither would happen on a Flat Earth, if the Earth were Flat, then the bridge would have lined up with the flag and his eye level would never have gone above horizon. Upon repeating this experiment, it was noted that both occurred. Rowbotham didn't notice, because he didn't care to notice, he was just focusing on whatever would confirm his bias...but also, he wasn't a trained surveyor and was not aware of what a Globe Earth geometry would predict. So that's two more things he ignored. That's 3 strikes to his experiment so far, but there are more.
When they repeated the experiment for the bet with Alfred Russel Wallace, they did more then just use ONE boat like in Rowbotham's experiment, instead they improved upon it and used several flag markers, and planted them into the ground, making sure the flags were all placed the same height from the water table. This helped them make another observation. If the Earth were flat, the poles would all form a straight line leading to the horizon, if the Earth were a Globe, they would rise up and then drop. When observed in the experiment, it was confirmed, the poles created a curve, rising up and then curving down. This is another thing we'd expect to see occur, if the Earth were a Globe. Here's a quick illustration quickly showing why this occurs. https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Spectacle.tj1421-768x472.png
Rowbotham only took one data set, with one flag, so you wouldn't see this curve in his experiment. But they improved upon the experiment with the second test during the bet, to include more data sets...a common practice in experimentation, taking more data sets to give you more information, to help you reach a more conclusive result.
Another reported error was his math, the 8 inches per mile squared math is the worst offender of bad math in the flat Earth community. From what I understand, Rowbotham used this math as well to get his position for a geometric point where the flag should disappear. That's not what this calculation is for, it's not for calculating your line of sight, it's a surveyors equation that was used to help them pin point how much horizon drops from eye level...nothing more. So it was bad math as well....and Flat Earth STILL to this day seems to think that equation is the correct one to use for making long distance observations. It is not, it does not account for height of the observer or line of sight, that's not what the equation is calculating for.
So that's about 5 strikes to Rowbotham's original experiment and that's why it was concluded that he ran a sloppy experiment, that was very bias in its conclusion and was full of errors. Upon review, and upon repeating the experiment with improvements, it was found that the experiment actually matches the Globe model predictions, not a Flat Earth model. Flat Earths main error here, is that they don't know much about refraction and how it operates...many even refuse to believe it exists. My question is, why not look into refraction first...to make damn sure it doesn't, before you go assuming it doesn't need to be included as a variable? If Flat Earthers are such great researchers...then why do they ignore so much? It's just odd to me...if you're looking for truth and answers, why so much ignorance?
Here's a great website that has mocked up a quick simulation of the Bedford experiment. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth Just click the yellow tab labelled "Bedford" and then press play to watch the demonstration. What they've done here with this program, is they have generated both a Flat Earth and a Globe Earth simulation that are to scale and then they have placed them beside each other, to help give you a visual of what each model predicts, showing you what we would expect to see occur on each model. Upon repeating the experiment (which has been done now many many times), the results all come back matching the Globe prediction. The bridge drops, eye level rises over horizon, and the sticks curve, just as they would on a Globe.
Here is a pretty similar experiment done across a lake using makers at various distances. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment This report is quite thorough, so apologies if it's a bit hard to follow and a bit long and boring, but the observation made here is pretty interesting and should especially not be ignored if you are trying to figure out what shape the Earth truly is. This is what an experiment looks like, when you do it properly.
In conclusion, Flat Earth focuses on just ONE observation here...and that's their error here. The conclusion of Flat Earth, is that the stick should disappear behind a curve at a givin point. The trouble is, they don't know how to calculate that point (their math is wrong) and they're ignoring a lot of key variables and running very sloppy experiments, that do not take enough data collections, to make their conclusions more conclusive. It's bad science...and people fall for it, cause they don't have the patience to conduct better research...it's much easier to chase bread crumbs, listen to con men blindly online and confirm bias.
That's my assessment of the Bedford experiment so far. If you have any more info, feel free to share, I don't mind taking a look, but it is pretty clear to me currently, that Flat Earth is just committing more confirmation bias here on this one, like they tend to do with most of their arguments.
1
-
@jfern777 " Conveniently this seems to apply in every case" I'm sorry...do you think refraction just goes away? It fluctuates a lot, but it's generally always there, and horizon is where it happens, because that's where you're seeing through the most atmosphere, the atmosphere directly in front of you, is a LOT longer and further, then the atmosphere from you to space. I get that you find it too convenient, but that's not an argument, that's called personal incredulity. If refraction occurs and if we have confirmed that refraction is present in our atmosphere, and occurs the most closest to the horizon...then this means you can't just ignore it. It means it HAS to be included as a variable, whether you like it or not.
So if you really want to be objective, you have to do some research on refraction and understand how it works. Even ol' Dubay will use refraction when it suits him and ignore it when it doesn't. Have you seen him try and explain how a sunset works on a Flat Earth? Have you seen him try and explain how the Southern hemisphere has circular rotation around their own celestial pole star, just like the North does? Have you seen him try and explain how Polaris drops to zero degree at the equator? https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/polaris-angle-768x768.jpg He uses refraction and the bending of light to explain all of these...yet he'll ignore it completely when talking about the Chicago skyline...which is FAR MORE believable, then his refraction explanation for any of the above things I just mentioned. What's more believable to you, refraction causing our visible horizon to rise up slightly making it possible to see a little bit more then we should geometrically, or; Refraction causing the entire Southern sky to fold in on itself and form the second celestial rotation around Sigma Octantis, just like how the North rotates around Polaris? Which one seems like a bigger leap in logic to you? I have demonstrated how refraction bends light over a curve and makes things behind that curve appear to rise up slightly and become visible, here's that video again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs. Has Dubay got ANY visual demonstrations, that back up his word salads?
You know what kind of people make arguments like Dubay? Using a concept to explain one or several occurrences and then deny it completely in other occurrences? Scam artists...con men do that, liars do that, bullshitters do that. Eric Dubay is a narcissistic, nazi sympathizing, crazy ass con man, who fits the MO of your standard cult leader. Not a dude I'd wanna follow.
1
-
The point of this video was not to prove or disprove anything, it's very clearly on the Globe conclusion. The point was to delve deeper into the psychology of the people who believe the Earth is flat and figure out WHY and HOW they reached that conclusion, and why some people have begun to turn to these fringe movements like Flat Earth for answers. I'll agree he probably could have done more to elaborate on that, but frankly...YouTubers make money from views, so it's really not in his best interest to turn people away at the start, it's to rope them in and get them watching in full.
The target audience for this though, is not Flat Earthers, or people on the fence either really, it's for those of us who have already concluded it's false, either right out of the gate or through our own extensive research. Now we're just looking for discussions on breaking down how people fall for this stuff online. It's interesting to us, but I understand your frustration.
1
-
1
-
@samtraji1 No, Samual Rowbotham conducted a sloppy experiment, designed to confirm a bias and nothing more. It's a good experiment yes, but when you only pay attention to the details that support your bias and ignore all other variables that refute it, then you've conducted a bias experiment. Rowbotham only collected ONE visual data set and which only paid attention to ONE detail...the detail that supported his bias. He gave no effort to falsify his conclusion, he just concluded that his observation was perfectly sound...when it was in fact very sloppy and poorly formed. The key to science is falsification, and any GOOD experiment, accounts for as many variables as it can and collects MANY data sets...not just a single observation.
Here is an example of that same experiment repeated today http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. This is a far more thorough version of this experiment, that takes into account several more variables in the math, like height of the observer, height of the object and the biggest variable that Rowbotham overlooked, refraction. Upon all proper recreation of this experiment, it is found that the Earth is in fact curving, and at the rate that is predicted in the geometry. Go ahead and give it a look over sometime...that is how a proper experiment is conducted, with patience and attention to every detail, not just the ones that support a bias.
Rowbothams experiment is taught to science university undergraduates, as the perfect example of a bias experiment. They teach this to students of science, to help them understand the importance of conducting an experiment PROPERLY! They teach it to students, to illustrate the dangers of one of mankind's biggest flaws, our tendency to chase what we WANT to be true, over what IS true...our tendency to fall into confirmation bias.
That's why he included this experiment in this presentation, because it's a perfect example of an experiment that Flat Earth continues to use to con people...and that is the subject of this video after all, getting to the root of WHY and HOW people fall for the scam of flat Earth.
1
-
It's not hard to imagine...but that's all you're doing, imagining. You don't have any real proof of this conclusion you've reached, of "hidden masters" hiding the truth, yet you're almost 100% convinced it's the truth anyway...which means it's a belief you have, which means this comment of yours is pretty hypocritical. You're not the first person to conclude that there might be some hidden puppet master pulling strings somewhere, that logic isn't lost on us, we get it. But science is a little hard to lie about...because it is based around fact, things that anyone can test for themselves, so hiding the shape of the planet from us...not very likely. Do you really think scientists can create all the modern technology of our time, but they can't figure out something as trivial as the true shape of the planet? Is that really all that hard for you to comprehend?
Go ahead and re-question things, that's perfectly fine, but eventually you'll just come to the same conclusions science already has...because a lot of science actually is pretty undeniable once you really look at it objectively. I think confirmation bias is a flaw that mankind has, a flaw we tend to follow blindly more often than we realize. So before you go seeking answers you have to recognize if you have bias, identify what it is, and then do everything you can to remove it...or else you just risk chasing shadows down empty rabbit holes, that will only serve to make you more paranoid, which is just gonna rob you of your better reasoning and make you crazy. Science learned of this flaw a long time ago, that's why it included peer review in the process of science, to weed out bias, among other things. Flat Earth has no such system...which for me personally, explains a lot.
What's your current bias? From what I can tell, a deep lack of trust in authority, so you conclude before really looking or listening, that any institution of authority must be lying...so you're aligning with any knowledge that is contrarian to what they say, even if that new knowledge is clearly complete bullshit. Not a very good way to go about seeking real answers in my opinion, putting value on the source of information, over the actual information itself. I know it takes longer to focus on the info itself and red herrings are everywhere...but following bias and paranoia is just gonna lead you to false conclusions.
I'm not saying you shouldn't look for your own answers...just be careful how you go about seeking it, cause paranoia is real and it will lead you chasing your tail if you're not careful.
1
-
So your argument is "they can fake it, so they did fake it", do you not see the error in logic there? Do you conclude everything on bias and paranoia alone, or do you have actual tangible evidence to support your conclusions? Just because they can fake things today...does not mean they did or that they do. I'm afraid you have to be a lot more diligent then that. Like it or not, without evidence supporting your empty ass claims, the other conclusion is still that they do go to space and you're just too incredulous, ignorant and paranoid to accept that. We understand that CGI today has made it very difficult to determine 2nd hand visual evidence as real or faked, you people are not stumbling upon some hidden revelation that we don't also realize...but if you honestly think that's the only evidence the Globe has, then you are delusional.
Just LOOK at the world around you, pull your head away from your bible and your YouTube university classes sometime and LOOK at the modern world sometime. Do you REALLY think scientists could bring you EVERY modern comfort and technology you enjoy today...but they couldn't figure out something as trivial as the shape of the planet? Do you honestly think these people are that evil, that they'd actually spend their days devising ways to fool you? Is that what people go to school for...a masters class in how to fuck with people? Do you really think pilots, ship captains, military and rescue crews could ever hope to find their destinations around the world...if they don't have accurate maps?
Use your head bud...you're falling for a scam on the internet. Flat Earth is exploiting your growing distrust in authority and using that paranoia to fill the gaps in your knowledge and experience with some bullshit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well you’re at it, don’t forget to keep the camera rolling and notice that eventually objects reach a point where their base is sinking into horizon and no amount of zoom will ever bring it back into view https://youtu.be/NKQI18jr8Oc?t=59. Then do some research on the vanishing point of the human eyes optical resolution, then realize that Flat Earthers were never bringing objects back from horizon, they were just bringing them back from vanishing point.
The best way to reach the most objective conclusion is not to set out with a goal of proving your hypothesis, the best way is by setting out to falsify your hypothesis. That’s how science works, through falsification, it’s the best way to remain objective. If after all attempts you could not falsify your hypothesis, then it’s very likely because it’s the correct conclusion. But even after that, you must still submit your findings for peer review, because there’s always the chance you missed something. So I’ve pointed out something you missed, falsifying your zooming in conclusion. If you feel I’ve overlooked something, now is your chance to falsify my conclusion, see how this works? When we can no longer continue down the process of falsification, you are then left with the most objective conclusion.
You just described the problem with Flat Earthers, they only look at the information that confirms their bias, because all they’re doing is trying to prove their conclusion right. They stop looking at a problem the moment their bias is confirmed. You’re always gonna have that problem if you set out with the goal to prove a hypothesis. The goal is to falsify, not prove, that’s how you remain objective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trukeesey8715 Calls me a paid troll...provides zero evidence for that accusation except flawed logic and empty paranoid conjecture, then asks me for evidence? You seem to be just fine reaching full conclusions without evidence...so do I even need to point out the hypocrisy here? The troll I'll accept, I do take joy in correcting misinformation where I find it, but paid...I wish I got paid to chat with paranoid idiots all day...that'd be great...where do I sign up for that? It is criminal that I do this shit for free....but I see it as a public service and it's a hobby I guess. Flat Earth makes baseless claims, as you did, and so I just share the information that refutes those claims.
But alright, onto some science, lets start with any easy one. How does a sunset work on the Flat Earth exactly? Ram that square peg as hard you want into that round hole...you'll still have to admit, the Globe makes sense of this observation with far greater ease. Flat Earth likes to say it's perspective that causes it, then they pat themselves on the back and move on. But, that's not evidence...that's a hypothesis, the next step is to PROVE it, with experimental evidence. First of all, it's just common sense, if the Sun is up as high as they say it is, circling above a flat Earth...then you'd expect to see it all day long, from everywhere, it would never set. But it's not just common sense that tells you this, spacial geometry does as well, the perspective math does not fit a Flat Earth model....but it sure does fit a Globe. Here are some simple experiments and observations that help to provide evidence for this observation. Feel free to mull it over all you like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM - tracking the Suns motion throughout a day, can tell us a lot about the geometric shape of our planet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6Ojo9fJhw - tracking the path of the Suns shadow angles during the Solstice, then doing a little trigonometry to see how those angles fit on each model can also help to verify which model is accurate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=421s - taking shadow angle measurnments of the Sun light during the Equinox, then plotting that data on each model to see which one it fits...spoilers, it's the Globe again.
Just a short sample of some observations and experiments anyone can do with the Sun. Your first clue should have been that a sunset is impossible on a Flat Earth...but bias is a powerful thing isn't it.
I can share more if you'd like. Like I said, you haven't been looking very hard in my opinion, if you haven't found any evidence for the Globe yet. Maybe stop listening blindly to the flat Earth con men on YouTube feeding you bullshit and lies, and start questioning flat Earth with the same skepticism you now treat the mainstream. You might find out who the real liars are when you do.
Chat with me for a few days, I'll share actual evidence for you, that is overwhelming. There is a reason we concluded the Earth is a sphere...because it is and we have that evidence, mountains of it. Just have to shut off that paranoid bias long enough to pay attention.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, the old guard isn't just going to roll over every time some new idea comes along. No matter how popular it is, it still requires evidence in support of it, before it can even be considered. This is how we keep liars and con men at bay...if they just accepted every new theory without inquiry, or without going through the process of peer review and falsification, then junk science would be everywhere, and then we'd really be fucked. Can't do anything with junk science, it simply does not work...the more of it we have, the messier things get. So love it or hate it, I think we have the best system we can have. Of course it's not perfect, but the flaws of mankind kind of makes it impossible to ever have a truly perfect system.
People should be more persistent. Einstein was laughed at and despised in his day, because he was shaking up the consensus of his time, that being Newtonian gravity. But, he knew he had something, so he fought for it, he marched on and PROVED he was right, he never gave up and look at him today. The process of science is rigorous, but it has to be...because people are flawed. There exist liars and con men who have made it necessary to operate with an iron gavel, but you can't really argue against objective facts and evidence. Einstein did it, and so can anyone else, just requires they find that evidence.
1
-
@Cybergrip1 Well, like I said, it's not perfect, but nothing really is, to many variables to account for any system to ever be truly perfect. Your point on Edison though, that wasn't so much the systems fault, as one stubborn mans fault for not realizing when he was wrong. Man is flawed like that, those flaws don't just go away so easily, we have egos and bias, that'll probably never change.
I think we've developed the best possible system we can, to counter mans flaws and keep us progressing...of course there's always room for improvement, society is always changing, but I would hope we only makes changes for the better. I don't think stream lining the process would help though, I feel it would just allow pseudoscience to run rampant...I think with the internet, currently making it possible to spread misinformation like never before, that's kind of already happening.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FelicianoMediaCo Jesus pal...why are crazy conspiracy people so bad at punctuation and proper paragraph structure? Break that shit up man...you're just giving people a headache looking at that mess of words. All that nonsense...and you couldn't share with me ONE piece of evidence that helps to verify any of it? You just made empty claim after empty claim...and completely verified what I was talking about. None of that is evidence...all of what you just said up there, is just empty speculations. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE, between evidence and speculation. Can't do fuck all with empty conjectures and bias.
I don't think less of the ancients, I just don't like bullshit. I'm sure there is lots of things from the past we don't know...and you're right, many ancient civilizations likely did have knowledge we have lost today, but I'm not about to go chasing down empty claims and bias and I'm not about to romanticize them either just cause they're mysterious. When they find a statue of Mickey Mouse a few thousands years from now...I'm sure they'll make up some fantasy stories about it as well, see why we can't just slot in whatever we WANT to be true? We have to be objective and keep bias at the door. Provide evidence, or there's nothing to discuss. I used to be exactly like you...dazzled by this bullshit, listening blindly to non-experts, feed me nothing but lies and conjectures they made up, cause they WANT it to be true so badly. Evidence is all that matters here...I don't care about empty claims that speak of a fantasy past, unless you can verify these things with evidence.
As for the shape of the Earth, I have been researching that topic for over 3 years, and I now know for absolute certain the Earth is not flat. It doesn't take much either to verify that...just a little bit of time, effort and travel. Heck you don't even need to travel, just observe any sunset or sunrise and then just TRY and make sense of that over a flat Earth. You will have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to make that work...meanwhile the Globe answers for this effortlessly, the Earth rotates away from the Sun each day...there, explanation over. Do you think a 5 year old could understand that easily enough?
It's basic common sense stuff and all observation, experimentation and mathematics agrees with the Globe on this. Only a globe can explain why our Sun rises and sets the way it does. Here is some evidence that helps to verify this, that I don't think should be so easily ignored. Give it a look sometime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=421
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJGczcwJ6TA&t
I won't discuss anything more with you if you can't provide evidence, and I certainly won't chat any further until you can learn some proper paragraph structure. I don't mind switching gears into a more civil tone however. You have misjudged me as well...I am no slouch on these topics, I have been looking at all of this a very long time now and I know exactly where people go wrong with Flat Earth. I don't mind sharing that evidence if you'd like to see it...but please learn how to communicate better...these walls of text are really annoying.
1
-
1
-
@onlytruth6337 Our senses also can’t sense the microwave frequencies that send and receive our wifi data…but you’re certainly not gonna argue they’re not real. But had scientists listened to you idiots…they’d have never made that discovery. Truth is our senses are pretty crappy, very limited in scope, and always playing tricks on us. So it’s simply illogical to conclude something doesn’t exist, just because we can’t sense it…and you know all about that, you’re more than happy to accept a God nobody has ever seen (besides hallucinations they claim are real), so don’t pretend like you have some higher ground here. 😄
Here’s a small sample of the many proofs of Earth’s rotation. You can look these up in your own time, I’m not doing your research for you.
- Foucault Pendulum experiment.
- Foucault Gyroscope experiment.
- Ring laser interferometer measuring and detecting rotation.
- Coriolis effect.
- Eotvos Effect.
- Objects weighing slightly less at equator due to the increased centripetal force.
- The Gyrocompass.
Any one of these verifies Earth is in motion…all together they make it an undeniable fact of reality. The most interesting one being the gyrocompass, because it’s a device that actually uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function. Basically, if Earth was not rotating, then the gyrocompass would not work as designed. You can learn all about its engineering specs, with demonstrations, whenever you bother to search it. These are used on pretty much every large commercial ship today. This is applied science…the end goal of science, which makes it pretty much undeniable. Earth is in fact rotating, whether you like it or not.
You are just another religious zealot lost in your own delusion…and people like you have been doing nothing but slow human progress for millennia. Luckily though, we’ve long since moved beyond the delusions that bind you, science is now free to explore and discover reality without much of any resistance from you people…it’s a beautiful thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ya, and all that tech needs to be tested for deep space missions, before it can be included in any new spacecraft they develop for manned missions...which takes time, it's part of the engineering process. Can't send people out into space, if your tech is not cleared for safety. The trouble is, unlike the old analog systems which were tougher and weren't damaged by magnetic fields and solar radiation, the tiny microchips we use today...are easily damaged in these environments. So it took a long time to develop systems that could resist the harsh environment of deep space, far from the shielding of our Earths magnetic field. For example, most data has been stored on magnetic strip disks in hard drives for the last several decades, technology that is easily damaged in strong magnetic fields...but today we have solid state memory, which is not damaged by magnetic interference or radiation, so guess what...now we finally have technology that CAN be used in a modern spacecraft, that CAN last the entire trip without failure. So they've solved one of their bigger hurdles, and so they are finally developing spacecraft again and new missions are being planned.
It's not as simple as you think it is...for some reason, people just assume this shit is easy. It's not, traveling into space is one of the hardest things mankind has ever attempted and that will likely never change. Just cause we have a lot of really amazing new tech today, does not mean it's cleared or tested for space travel...that requires extra time. We can't send astronauts out into space, with tech that could possibly fail after long term exposure in deep space. That's been the biggest problem facing engineers working on these new systems...getting that new technology to function without failure in the harshness of space.
It just baffles me how people who know nothing about space travel, think they're somehow experts on the topic. There are valid reasons why we have not gone back into deep space with manned missions...it's not as simple as you seem to think it is.
I don't think you're stupid, I just think people generally lack a lot of knowledge on the subjects they argue against and this causes them to make a lot of ignorant assumptions. If you knew more about the engineering hurdles of space travel...you wouldn't be so quick to make such ignorant comments. Just because we have a lot of new and impressive tech today, does not mean it's going to work the same in space. It's not that simple.
1
-
1
-
@CalsTube Electricity is a free flow of charged electrons through molecules that allow for that transfer, called electrical conduction. It’s not invisible…you see electrical currents just fine, weak electrical fields however, are harder to see, yes, but can still be detected. You’re acting like we just harness this great power…without any knowledge of it, pretending like we can just wield it without knowing anything about it. It’s not magic that creates these things, we don’t pull inventions out of thin air…we don’t accomplish anything without first acquiring accurate knowledge of physical reality, accurate knowledge that we then teach, so others can apply it as well. We know more than you seem to think we do…but this is the attitude of the deeply religious that I find so troubling, many of you seem to think that because you’re ignorant, the rest of us should be as well…as if dumbing ourselves down and forgetting knowledge that’s proven to work, would ever help us achieve anything. We don’t need more ignorance, we need less….I mean clearly, we now have people believing the Earth is flat for Christ’s sake. :/
You’re not stupid, so I know some or even most of what I’m saying is making sense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Shocker, the Bible is not a science text book, it has no data, no experiments, and has been proven to not align with reality very well at all, or it would have made mention of dinosaurs, bacteria, atoms, the electromagnetic spectrum that now sends you your wifi connection...and the true shape of the planet. So what can we conclude then? That the Bible was very likely written by men, not God, but men who really knew nothing about how the world actually is and so they filled the gaps with assumptions and superstition, based around what they thought they knew during their time. They once thought the Earth was Flat, they really had no science telling them otherwise, so that's what they believed back then. You can be religious all you'd like, but the Bible has no place in a discussion of science, for good reason...it has no real answers in that department.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
“Why should we trust scientists…”
Because they’ve brought results…you’re currently using technology created from those results, to read this message. That doesn’t mean you trust them with absolute blind servitude, scientists are only human, and are thus in no way infallible, but you should perhaps be a bit more grateful. You owe them quite a lot, and you take a lot of their efforts for granted. From the power that heats and powers your home, to the combustion engine car you drive, to the fridge that chills your food, to the plumbing that brings water direct to your house, to the electromagnetic frequencies you access with your devices to send and receive your internet over a wifi connection…all discovered and developed by a scientist.
God may have created it all, it’s certainly possible, but he didn’t leave an instruction manual for all this stuff. Like it or not, Science has more than proven itself as the best tool we currently have, for bringing the best results in unraveling the mysteries of (at least) physical reality. That can’t be denied I feel. Does this mean scientists are always right? Of course not…but that certainly doesn’t mean we toss the baby out with the bathwater.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidkahil5158 "the bedford level experiments prove the exact opposite...that there is no curvature."
Only when performed incorrectly, by ignoring important variables that are necessary to factor, like refraction. Here is an in depth recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, this time done over 10 km of a frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment This experiment is quite thorough, and accounts for every variable required to reach a more conclusive conclusion. What Rowbotham did in his original experiment, was only take ONE data set, then he did some bad math and called his work done...it is the perfect example of a sloppy experiment, doing only what's required to confirm his bias, and then he stopped looking. It's the perfect example of the dangers of confirmation bias...which is exactly why science included peer review to the scientific method, to weed out errors and bias and lies.
"I know of the shadow experiments by Erastosthenes, they do not proove the earth is a sphere they only prove that sunlight emanates from a source much closer than 90 million miles away."
If you take only two shadow angle measurements, then yes, you can't actually use this to determine flat or sphere. But if you take several more data sets, then you absolutely can. If you take many more shadow measurements, from all around the world at the same time of day, then those angles can be used to pin point an accurate location and distance of the Sun. Here's a group of people who thought to try this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=421s They then plot their data on each model to see if they can pin point the Sun's location, it does not work for the Flat Earth...but guess which model those angles do fit on. Here is that experiment done again in a separate year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t This time the data is plotted on many different models of flat Earth that have been proposed...again, the Globe is only model that accurately fits the data collected.
"I just have an open mind..."
Really, cause you sure seem to shut that mind off pretty quick, the moment anyone starts sharing information that directly refutes what you're claiming.
1
-
@davidkahil5158 All of what I shared helps to verify the Earth is a sphere, so your claim that none of it does, is completely bogus. You'd have to actually click on those links though and actually absorb that information, in order to know for certain...but your bias leans flat, so my guess is you tend to ignore any spherical Earth evidence, and you don't even realize you're doing it. That's not being very open minded or objective of you. Honest research requires you look at both sides and try your damndest to falsify both positions. The position you can't falsify, is likely the truer position...but even then, peer review must then be conducted, cause there is always a very real possibility you might have missed something that others may have an easier time spotting. Which is kind of what we're doing right now, peer review.
So please feel free share this laser test you're speaking of, I don't mind taking a look. I've seen many of these tests as well, and they're all pretty inconclusive. What I've seen are experiments designed to confirm a bias, without doing all that is required to account for every variable. A big variable they miss again in laser tests, is refraction...Flat Earth loves ignoring light refraction. Are you aware that lasers bend and refract as they pass through dense atmosphere at distances? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLufSkz-et0&t=549s This is a variable that must be accounted for, and Flat Earth never does, they only focus on what they're looking for that confirms their bias and then they stop looking. It's the equivalent of a slight of hand trick...this is how you do science wrong and reach false conclusions without realizing it.
1
-
Why not share that laser experiment then? Is it really that hard to provide a link along side a claim that is made? Do you really think we should just take your word for it at face value? Would you?
Either way, we should never reach conclusions in science from single observations and no experiment should be free from the process of peer review. Has this laser test been properly peer reviewed? You do realize that people make errors, follow bias and lie, right? That's why peer review is important, it weeds out potential errors, bias and lies. If an experiment can't be repeated, then it's likely been done in error. So please provide a link to the experiment you're talking about, would be nice to do a little review.
When Space shuttles get up to the speeds they do in orbit, they're not in the atmosphere anymore. So what is the force that military planes are fighting against when they reach those incredible speeds in our atmosphere? Drag force...what causes drag force? Air resistance....so what happens when there's NO AIR that you're smashing into at thousands of miles per hour? No drag force....you getting how this works yet? Space is empty...there is no air here, so by extension, there isn't any drag force occurring either. This also makes it easier to reach higher speeds, since drag force tends to also slow a vehicle down, keeping it from maintaining momentum. So shuttles actually have a much easier time accelerating in space and maintaining those speeds.
We're not saying you don't know how to do math, but there is a rule of thumb in mathematics that is very important and I'm sure you'd agree with it, use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion...it's pretty simple. In my experience looking at and reviewing flat Earth experiments, they often use the wrong math for the wrong job and then never think to check their own work to make sure the error wasn't theirs. In pretty much every case I've reviewed (and it's been hundreds at this point), Flat Earthers just did only so much as to confirm their bias...and then they stopped looking. So it's not really so much that you can't do math...it's more your bias that keeps you from doing the CORRECT math.
I see it happen all the time with long distance observations, the 8 inches per mile squared equation being the worst offender. Flat Earth has successfully conned a lot of people into believing this math is the correct math for curvature...and it's incredible to me that they all just believe that blindly without questioning it. Here is the correct math for making long distance observations, in case you were wondering. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ In this thread you'll find the formulas, as well as handy calculators that make use of them, as well as a break down of the math being used and all the variables that are being accounted for.
So again, the trouble isn't that you don't know how to do math...the trouble is that flat Earth is using the wrong math and then never thinks to check it.
From what I've seen, Flat Earth is deeply bias in their approach. I admire that they're questioning things, it's perfectly fine to question what you're told, that's what true science is all about....but you gotta be careful and diligent, because bias can and will mislead you along the way. I hope you find this information at the very least interesting, feel free to point out anything you feel I may have missed.
1
-
Refraction is a tricky one to be sure, but not impossible to pin down. The observations are not the same though, because the light measured in shadow angles is not going to bend the light much to change those angles very drastically. There is about 1 degree of error due to refraction with light rays from the Sun coming down through our atmosphere, that's about it, doesn't change the angles very much at all. The difference with light that we observe on the horizon, is that it's passing through a lot more humidity at the surface...and that humidity makes air far more dense at the direct surface, where the horizon is, so a lot more refraction occurs here, causing light to bend far more drastically, then anywhere else in our atmosphere. Which causes this to happen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs Refraction is not as severe in upper atmosphere that creates our shadow angles.
Flat Earth sure likes to blindly claim that refraction causes things like the sunset though...and then never provide any evidence for that claim. Meanwhile, we have experiments that verify by how much the light is bending in upper atmosphere, through understanding density gradients and how it effects light, and we have experiments like these.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=421s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6Ojo9fJhw
If flat Earth wants to be taken seriously, then they have to start providing experimental evidence for their claims. I've seen them explain sunsets with refraction....and then offer ZERO evidence in support of that claim, just simulations with no data collected in the real world to help corroborate their demonstrations. If you'd like to learn more about refraction on this topic, here's a good thread discussing it. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/simulating-atmospheric-refraction.7881/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mihawk Hawkeye Oh boy...you say to use physics, then you completely ignore physics. Gravity gives objects weight, they always have mass, but weight is created by gravity. Weight is just a measurement of the inertia created by an objects mass and the force of gravity squeezing it down against the surface. But tell me this, where exactly do you think matter would go, without gravity? What means or mechanism does lifeless matter have, that it can use to resist forces such as gravity? Do you think gravity is in a tug-o-war with some other force? What force? What direction is it pulling? What’s creating it? So where would our ocean fall or move towards, if gravity were to just shut off for a moment? I feel you haven’t thought this through very well.
Water is lifeless, it’s not producing any energy it uses to resist gravity. Us and other living creatures resist it a little bit everyday, just simply standing up is resisting gravity, but that requires energy, energy that our body produces through burning calories. Water doesn’t have that, it’s just a lifeless molecule, it’s not actively trying to resist gravity, it has no means to do so on its own, so it conforms around the strongest force that’s present and can influence it, gravity.
You’re really wracking your brain over this, but you’re completely misunderstanding how gravity works...and it’s causing you to reach a false equivalency. Earth isn’t like a ball you hold in your hand, there isn’t any Earth below it creating a stronger gravity that will pull our oceans off. So the error here is in your understanding of gravity...it’s not accurate.
1
-
1
-
Mihawk Hawkeye Because gravity pulls to center...not down to the South and off. Gravity’s influence is towards center of Earth, so down is always towards the ground...no matter where you are. South is not the bottom, North is not the top, in reality there is no top or bottom on Earth. Gravity pulls all things to the surface, towards center of Earth, that’s how it works.
You say you’re educated and that you get this stuff...but then it’s clear that you don’t get it. I don’t want to patronize you or lecture you, but you’re not understanding how gravity works, it’s just that simple. So I’m just trying to help you see where you’re going wrong, I’m not doing it to insult your intelligence, but there’s only so much I can do to help...the rest is up to you really. If you’re not capable of understanding, then you’re not capable...not much I can do about that.
1
-
Mihawk Hawkeye You do realize water can form a shape all its own, right? It doesn’t always require a container. Fluids just have a different chemical bonding, they’re in a state of matter in between solid and gas, where the bonds are not rigid and firm, but they’re still bonded, unlike gas where the molecules are no longer bonded. This creates a surface tension, which is different depending on the viscosity of the fluid. But water forms a sphere when not under any other influence but surface tension, that’s the shape it looks to form when in free fall, because the surface tension squeezes it into that shape. Spheres are the most rigid shapes in nature, mass building around a centre point and expanding out from there, the surface always at equal distance from the centre, we call that an equipotential surface. Gravity forms Earth into a sphere...that’s why it’s a sphere, mass forming around a central point. Water keeps perfect equipotential distance from centre of gravity’s influence.
So your logic on liquids is also flawed. This the main problem with Flat Earth, it’s built around misunderstandings.
1
-
Mihawk Hawkeye How does it pull to centre? That’s the part science is currently working to figure out, the current leading theory being that mass bends space around it, this curved space keeps matter always in motion, so it’s essentially following this curved space down to a centre.
That’s the current understanding, how mass bends space, that’s what modern science is trying to figure out, so welcome to the fringes of modern gravity theory.
There is still a lot to learn, but just because they don’t know everything, doesn’t mean the conclusions science has drawn are incorrect. The current knowledge of gravity is now an applied science, we use this understanding of gravity to put satellites into orbit, predict the movements of stars and planets, and we’re even using it to unlock the mystery of how stars burn, through nuclear fusion, which we have now recreated in fusion reactors, using the equations from General Relativity, the current leading theory of gravity.
Either way, even if they’re wrong about gravity and the bending of space (which is very unlikely at this point), it’s still pretty common knowledge that things fall, they fall towards Earth...so all matter is drawn to it. Earth is also measured and observed to be spherical, which makes sense...because as I said earlier, a sphere is the most rigid shape anything can form. A force pulling to a center, makes sense of why the Earth is spherical and why everything we observe in space is also spherical.
People can argue against what causes this attracting force, still some room for argument there, but the shape of the Earth...there’s probably nothing in all of science that we’re more certain of. Misunderstandings of how gravity works, does not make 2000 years worth of science just go away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
No such thing as a dumb question really, can't learn anything new if ya don't first ask a question. Nobody knows everything, so nothing wrong with asking a question. :)
Well, yes, in all actuality it's very tough to discern a 2D shape from a 3D shape, just from single observation alone, but luckily we don't reach conclusions in science on single observations, the key to science is compiling many small pieces of evidence that all fit together to complete a larger model of reality. If no two points of information contradict the other and if no other information successfully falsifies any of that information, then the model can stand as conclusive.
So some extra information they gather in space, is during an orbit. These orbits that astronauts travel, put the astronauts on a path that circles around the planet, which enables them to see all of it, not just one side. If the Earth were indeed flat, then the shape of that flat round coin, would be apparent at some point in that orbit, as the planet would become more and more oval and then eventually a thin line, until coming around the other side where it would grow oval again and then eventually round again. Much like how a flat coin looks when you rotate it. Upon closer observation during an orbit, the Earth is observed to fit that of a sphere. You can't really notice from a single photo, but video can help. https://youtu.be/FG0fTKAqZ5g?t=11
Anyway, I hope that helps with things. It's a great question so don't feel discouraged for asking it, that's how we learn. So stay curious. :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Though I agree he could have elaborated further to avoid confusing some people, it wasn’t really the point of this video to delve into the science, just to talk about why they believe what they believe, examining their ideology. But, yes...I’ve read a lot of comments here, from people expressing a similar frustration, which could have been avoided if he’d have just done even a slightly better job explaining on those two experiments. Is what it is at this point, but if we look at its main objective, it still succeeds there, and does add some interesting opinions on the topic. So still good, in my opinion.
1
-
Well, he did kind of mention why actually, though yes, it was quite a brief explanation and you'd miss it pretty easily if not paying attention. This video isn't really for that however, it's mostly a psychological discussion on why and how people fall for the scam of Flat Earth...he's not trying to convince anyone here, that's not the main focus of this video. It's mostly for those of us who have already concluded Flat Earth is a scam, now we're just looking for some mild discussions/entertainment on the topic. So you won't find any lengthy explanations or evidence here.
But if you're looking for the information as to why Rowbotham (Parallax) and the Bedford level experiment are flawed, I can provide a more in depth explanation for you. Basically, he conducted a sloppy experiment that was only designed to confirm his bias. Upon peer review of his experiment, it was concluded that he had performed a sloppy experiment. Peer review improved upon the experiment, adding several more markers along the channel and this helped them make a few more observations and collect even more data, that could help them reach a more conclusive result.
Here's what they learned upon repeating the experiment and including more data sets and controls and conducting the experiment with more diligence.
1. The markers rose up and then dipped back down, as they would if going over a curvature. Illustrated simply enough in this diagram here. https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Spectacle.tj1421-768x472.png
2. The markers actually dropped from eye level the further they got...also indicating a curvature.
3. The bridge that was behind the markers was actually observed to be visually below several of those markers, indicating a curvature.
4. After doing the calculations correctly, including a variable for refraction (that Rowbotham didn't include in his math), the calculations matched with observation perfectly. The markers dropped at exactly the rate they should have, over a curved Earth at our scale.
Most in flat Earth believe you don't need to include a variable in your math for refraction. Here's why you have to include a variable for refraction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs Because it is real and it does occur in our atmosphere and it does change what we see at distances. So it can't be ignored. Rowbotham ignored it...as do all Flat Earthers. This means they're not being objective when they choose to ignore refraction, they're being bias. That's not how you conduct proper research...that's how you confirm a bias.
Upon all recreation and peer review of the Bedford Level experiment, it is concluded that Rowbotham did only the bare minimum, conducting a sloppy experiment, that was performed in a way designed to confirm his bias and was not performed objectively. Which makes it a perfect example of bad science...which is very common to happen when most layman try to do their own experiments...and it's basically what's happening with Flat Earth currently. Tons of bad experimentation and bias research being done...and what sucks the most is they just won't listen to us when we attempt to show them where they went wrong. They reject all peer review...which is probably the most important step in the process of science.
Anyway, here's a really in depth recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, this time done across a frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment This is how a real experiment is conducted and this is also how they are generally presented in actual journals of science. Very in depth and thorough, controlling for variables, taking multiple data sets, remaining as objective as possible, by not ignoring any variables they are aware of. There is a LOT that goes into a real experiment...all Rowbotham did was make ONE observation of a flag disappearing behind curvature, that he believed was to far for him to be seeing that flag. Which caused him to reach a false conclusion.
That's why Rowbotham was wrong. Upon peer review, his conclusion of no curvature was falsified. But thanks to him, he has given us a good experiment we now use to help further verify Earth curvature, so in some small way, we should probably thank him.
Anyway, I hope you find this information at the very least interesting and informative. The video above wasn't created to go into any specific details...if he had, it would have gotten to far off topic to the main focus of his video, which was a discussion on the psychology of Flat Earthers and why they believe this stuff.
1
-
@aarondavis7826 Nope, it’s just you cherry picking and misinterpreting models you don’t really understand, all to confirm a bias you have. Here’s a thought…all these documents have an author, have any of you flatties ever thought to maybe CONTACT any of them, and ask them directly? 🧐 Or at the very least, have any of you thought to bring it to an engineer or mathematician, who has actual experience with reading and writing mathematical models such as those? I’ve not seen any of you do either.
I know these to be math simplifications, for simulation purposes, it’s just a mathematical model…models are not perfect replications of reality. That’s why these details are in the summary sections…it’s to let the readers know exactly what variables are being simplified, or omitted, for the math that follows. They’re not making literal statements.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "Okay, why is it that every star makes a perfect circle around the North star and the spin of the earth does not interrupt the pattern?"
Great question, and a tough one for the Globe model for sure, but it does have logical and testable answers, so let me help you out. First of all though, every star doesn't spin around the North star, you're forgetting about the second hemisphere which spins around a different center, which does exist, anyone can verify it for themselves with very little effort, from pretty close to anywhere on Earth...but I digress, that doesn't answer this question specifically.
So the first thing to understand here is that the Earths axis is always tilted at Polaris (or well, close to it, Polaris actually isn't at direct center of axis, it's off a little from center by a few degrees actually). So if the axis is always parallel to Polaris, then it's going to remain in center of our rotation as the axis revolves around that parallel. Why doesn't it appear to shift in a 6 months span though? That's a good question, but not hard to answer if you understand how parallax works.
Truth is it does, astronomers actually do measure a stellar parallax in Polaris over a 6 month span, but because of the Stars distance, that change is measured in arc seconds...which are very hard for the human eye to see. Distance effects parallax, because the farther an object is from you, the less it appears to move or shift relative to you. There are trillions of miles between us and Polaris (according to the heliocentric model), if this is true then it explains why the stars remained fixed relative to us.
Here's a good experiment you can do that can demonstrate the role that parallax plays in vast distances. Find a way to hang a light so you can raise it up in intervals from a central point. At that central point, 90 degrees to the light and parallel to it, stick a pole in the ground directly under it, this will help you trace an orbital circumference. Now let's measure out a radius, let's say 2 feet. Place a camera at two adjacent points, let's say East and West, resting each camera on a table so they're facing up, their view perfectly parallel to the light source above, and placed exactly 2 feet from the pole directly under it. This is a test of parallax and why distance will effect the angle of what you see.
So now the test is simple, just raise the light up from that central point in intervals...starting close to the cameras and then going up from there. Take a picture from each camera while it's close, then move up slightly, take two more pictures with each camera, move the light up again, take two more...you get the idea. Continue this as far as you want to go, but a few pictures should easily make it clear what's happening. Review the images, and notice that the amount of parallax between the two photos is greatest while the light is closest but then it starts to shrink more and more and more the further it gets from the cameras, even though they're observing the light from two different angles, it's almost like it's converging at a point due to perspective...much like a railroad track in the distance converges at a point.
Stars are no different, the further they are, the further Earth will have to travel to make a noticeable dent in that parallax. Astronomers use this method to actually help them measure the distance of stars, it's called stellar parallax and it's much like my camera experiment, taking a photograph of the sky at 2 different points in our orbit, then overlaying them to compare the stars to see how much they have shifted.
You can tell a lot by how much something shifts due to parallax, you can actually use this to accurately measure the length of your arm, without measuring the arm directly...among many other things you can measure the distance of with this parallax method. It's a very clever method...and it uses math to do it. Here's a video explaining it more in depth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWztvBIP6qc
This of course does not prove the stars are far away, it merely helps to explain why they don't appear to move, given all of our motions. Parallax and distance are the reasons why, the further something is away from us, the less it will appear to shift and move. That's why things on the side of the road as you drive appear to be whizzing by you at great speeds, but the distant trees, houses, hills and mountains barely appear to move and shift at all, the further away they are. The Moon even appears to follow you as you drive, never appearing to shift position at all...it's distance to you is the reason why, if it were closer, it would appear to be shifting a lot more while you took a night time drive.
Lots of great experiments you can do that help to explain further why the stars never appear to move. Here's one more example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRKMN_dJbmY - The whole video is interesting, but about 5 mins he's starts an interesting experiment with a Globe, a gopro camera and a tarp with holes in it, draped all around the Globe to simulate stars. At 6 minutes he points the camera north and then spins the globe, even though the camera is at the Equator, it spins and makes a perfect circular rotation of stars around a central point.
This was a big one, so lots to cover on that explanation. Again, this doesn't prove those distances are correct, but if they are...then it explains perfectly why the stars do not appear to move. There is more I can coveron distances as well, as distance will also effect the rate of seperation from each star to the next. There are trillions of miles between each star...and if they're only traveling at about half a million miles per hour...to close that gap at that speed, would take thousands of years, and that's assuming all the other stars stood still. Our closest star is Alpha Centauri, at 4 light years, roughly 25 trillion miles. At our current rate of travel, if that star stood still and allowed us to catch up to it...it would take about 6000 years to catch up to it. I know half a million miles per hour SOUNDS impressive to you, the microscopic life that lives on the skin of a cosmic spec, who thinks a mile is a measurement of significance, but to the galaxy...our solar system might as well not even be moving.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "Why is it that The sun does not cook the earth if it is 93 million miles away and is hot enough to give us summer and a tiny tilt of the earth gives us winter and yet both poles are frozen?"
Another good question and I see why people get confused by this one, they're focused to much on distance and ignoring the other ways that heat is increased. Because distance to a heat source is not the only way you increase or decrease temperature. You can also focus light to increase temperature, so what happens when light hits directly upon a surface in opposed to arriving at an angle and then spreading out over a wider area? I'll tell you, the area that is receiving more direct rays of solar radiation (sun light) will have a more focused light over a given area, which means more potential energy being focused over that area. Light arriving at angles however, like as they do closer to the poles, spreads that same energy out over a wider area.
You can test this very simply with a heat lamp (or even a flashlight) and a thermometer. Test an area that is under direct light, then shine the light at an angle so it spreads out over a wider surface, then test that area. The thermometer will read hotter under direct light, then it will in the area that is at an angle. Same amount of light being projected, just less focused and spread out over a wider area. It's basic physics of focused light vs less focused light....I'm sure you've seen people use a magnifying glass to burn ants with, same amount of light, focused to a central point to generate more heat.
So this one is interesting, because I do see where people go wrong here and it's understandable...but it's just a misunderstanding of the science, focusing on one aspect that you're familiar with when it comes to the increase of temperature and ignoring or not aware of the other factors that will also effect temperature.
Think of it this way as well, if NASA or any other science agency really wanted to fool you...don't you think they'd make a model that's more believable to those who don't focus on the science of things? It would have been easier to fool the majority of people, had they just made summer occur when the Earth is closer to the Sun....but they're not doing that, they're looking at things objectively.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 Really? You're an engineer....but you're making an argument that math isn't useful? Sorry...but I'm going to have to call bullshit there...no engineer would ever argue against math, at least not in the way that you have. You're either not a engineer and you lied, or you are and you're just a poe, pretending to be a Flat Earther for a challenge. I've seen it before, so which one are you? Cause no true engineer would ever claim math isn't useful...you'd have a working knowledge of advanced mathematics, you'd know better then most why it's useful, because you'd be using it in your everyday line of work. Which means you'd have caught why the curvature math Flat Earth uses is wrong right away as well...among many other math formulas and physics they get wrong. Sorry to be blunt, but it don't add up. I was going to go through each comment and answer them...but if you're a poe then it's a bit pointless and if you're a liar, then it's not likely you'll listen to anything I share.
I've been in the mess of Flat Earth for several years now as well, I've talked to hundreds of Flat Earthers at this point...very few have ever claimed to be in a position like engineering without lying about it. A job that required they take a BOAT load of secondary education...that includes advanced physics and mathematics. I'm not saying it's not possible entirely, I've just never met any Flat Earthers in that field of work...and I find it very suspect that you'd make an argument against math if you actually were. Though there are different titles of engineering, so I shouldn't assume anything just yet, just a bit suspicious is all.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 Ah screw it, I'm not up to much now, I'll answer the rest of your questions anyway. It's a good exorcise either way to brush up on what I know.
"Why is it we can't just go freely down to the south pole and fly over it and why do all these Nations have treaties there and yet are enemies? Russia during the cold war?"
We can go there freely, the treaties that exist say NOTHING about stopping individuals from going there, if you actually read the entire treaty, it only states that COMPANIES and COUNTRIES can not own it and they can't be down there without permissions granted by the other nations first. Antarctica is a MILE STONE achievement in mankind, because it's the first time we've decided that instead of fighting over a land mass and claiming, we're SHARING IT! That's why that treaty exists...to lay down some ground rules for every country, so that we continue to share it, while maintaining the peace among nations. That's why all treaties exist.
Here's why they were very willing to sit down and negotiate a treaty...they were just fresh off of a World War...one where Nuclear arsenals were introduced. It was a tense time, the Cold War was rising, and so they needed treaties more then ever to keep the peace. It's not hard to see why they'd be drawing up treaties during that time...nobody really wanted a World War 3, everybody was working harder to ensure that never happened...cause there would be no World War 4 after the third one hits....that still holds true today.
You're spinning paranoia on it...it's as simple as that. You are free to go there anytime. People have even planned trips trekking across it, it happens all the time and you are free to do the same whenever you'd like...but you're naive if you think it'll be cheap or easy. It is a straight up lie that Flat Earth tells, saying that people aren't allowed to go there freely...when the truth is, it's just not easy. It's one of the most dangerous and uninhabitable land masses on the planet...there's nothing there, but miles of ice, rock and bitter cold. YOU will very likely die, if you don't have the money to fund a proper expedition, so they prefer you have the means to trek it freely, or you're just going to be risking your life.
What you can do easily enough though is get a job there. Tons of base camps that require a wide range of different positions, from more important positions like engineers, to simple positions like line cooks and house keepers. At any time, YOU can plan to go there and you can achieve that. Or you can just go there and visit the base camps. Yes they are guided tours, but you can confirm a few things on these tours, such as the 24 hour sun that does occur down there every single year...that doesn't make a whole lot of sense on Flat Earth.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "Why is it the shadow of the moon is always in the wrong place?"
I can only assume you mean the angle of its phases relative to the Sun. Here's an interesting and very simple experiment you can perform at anytime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVZ3tgEEXcU The light from the Sun hits us parallel, as it does the Moon as well, this means if hold any sphere up to the Moon and observe it from the same angle you're viewing the Moon, the shadow will fall on your ball from the same angle. Perspective creates an illusion that makes you think the angles do not match...but there are tests you can do to confirm those angles, like the one above.
It's also important to MODEL things to test them, we live on a 3D geometry and it's VERY hard for our 2D brains to interpret what's going on, we get lost in all the tiny details of that perspective, so it helps to model things to give us a better visual. So here's a great solar system simulation, that allows you to put an observer on the ground and then you can zoom out and observe it the angles as they are from space. http://www.solarsystemscope.com/sss2/
The angles line up, you're just not doing enough to help you see them. Perspective fucks with us a bit, creates little optical illusions that we will reach false conclusions with, if we don't ponder things deeper.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "Why is it the moon light is colder that the shade of the moon?"
It's not...Flat Earth performed a sloppy experiment that didn't think to include controls to the experiment, so they reached a false conclusion because they didn't control for hidden variables that would give them the same result. It's nonsensical to conclude that light can be cold...that breaks the laws of physics. Light is essentially a bundle of energy...energy is how ALL HEAT is produced in our reality. Energy is not anything but hot...the absence of energy is what creates cold. So it's very nonsensical to even suggest light from the Moon can be cold.
As I said, Flat Earth did not include proper controls in their experiments...which is key to any proper experiment. So all they did here was prove to us that they don't really know how to run proper experiments...only bias experiments. This is a perfect example of a sloppy experiment done to confirm a bias. The Bedford Level is another example...and their are many others. This happens all the time in the world when untrained layman attempt at doing science for themselves...they fuck up and then don't bother to peer review their work.
We have peer reviewed this experiment, and this is what we found. They didn't include a control experiment. Here's an example of someone who DID thinkn to include a control. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLsZwp4RWWg&t=348s A good control you can do for this experiment, is to run the exact same test on a night when the Moon isn't out, like during a new Moon phase. If you get the same results on a night when the Moon is not out, then you can not conclude it is the Moon that is causing this effect. That's exactly what this guy does in the experiment above, includes a control experiment like this, and he did get the same result during his control. Which means it confirms what we already knew, the Moon is not causing this. The more likely answer, is radiative cooling, which is a very well known and understood and tested concept in the physics of thermodynamics. Watch that video to see his conclusion. There are many more like this on YouTube as well.
It pays to conduct an experiment properly, this is just another of many examples, of Flat Earth leaning on bias and doing poor experiments to help confirm a bias.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "Why do they tell us the distance of stars in light years and give us exact distances when that would be impossible?"
They don't give us exact distances and those numbers change all the time. They give ESTIMATES, based on what we currently know. Those numbers do change a lot, because you're right, it is VERY HARD to measure those distances without actually going out and measuring them directly...which we can not currently do. So they give best estimates, which helps them in their calculations for predicting celestial occurrences.
What is known for sure though, the stars are far away...doesn't take much to deduce that much, all observation and calculation and experimentation points to that conclusion and that is something ALL of science agrees on. They argue about the numbers, and they change often, but nobody is arguing that the stars are not far away...and that's for a good reason.
Stars however may be tricky to measure the distance accurately...but our Sun is not. We can measure this almost directly today and we have. We bounce radar off of Venus, which gives us an accurate distance to it, we do the same for the Moon, Mars, Mercury, then we use this information to help us pinpoint the Sun by triangulating those distances...it's very accurate, and not off by much at all. It has to be accurate, because we now use that knowledge to help us navigate our Solar System. We measure the AU (Astronomical Unit, distance to the Sun) in several different ways, all giving us the same average figure of 93 million miles.
To help further our conclusion of a MASSIVE sun that is far away, giving us sunlight that arrives parallel, we can measure the angels of the sun light. Here's a few great experiment that have been done around the world that helps to verify those sunlight angles further. The Globe fits with all observations made in the real world...the Flat Earth does not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=5s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=334s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0&t=11s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6Ojo9fJhw
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "Why is it the guys who created the ball theory and the solar system made so many different distances and could not agree on any of the numbers?"
Because science is an on going process and we have a little something called peer review. No single person can know everything, so each person is looking at a problem differently, giving their own interpretations of it, based around their knowledge and understandings. Flat Earth is an example of that as well, in some small way Flat Earth is the peer review of what science has concluded, conducted by the average person joining the conversation, the trouble is most average people are layman, not experts at anything, so they often over estimate themselves...and make a lot of errors because of it.
But yes, there is a lot of different numbers you will get in science...until we narrow it down more and more and more to get things more precise. If you were to calculate an orbital trajectory to get you to Mars and back lets say....you have to be VERY precise, there is not much room for error here, so they do have to focus more effort on these sorts of calculations and agree on the numbers...and they do, our solar system is very well understood now today and our measurements are a lot more precise in this realm.
But yes, the distance of stars will fluctuate as we learn more, that's how science works, it is an on going process. But it's fine, we're not exploring these regions of space yet, so we don't really need to be all that precise with it yet.
Questions like this I feel just ignore how science operates....it is a community of different minds, working on different problems, reaching varying conclusions...it is a process of refinement and it takes time. That will never change. The trouble I feel, is that general public doesn't like living in the grey areas of uncertainty...we like black and white certainties, that's where we're comfortable. Science can't and doesn't operate this way though...and it never will. Nothing in science is concluded with absolute certainty, that's part of why they file their end conclusions under theory and not fact. Theories have room for change....facts do not, so they were very wise to use that wording, because they understand that old information always has the potential to change, as we acquire NEW information. That will never change.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "How can you prove that gravity is holding the moon in place? and why if the Moon is suspended on gravity it never spins but actually tilts and returns to it's position? And why do the pits on the moon all look round instead of angled and yet there are bare spots in places?"
Science works by falsification, we eliminate everything we know that ISN'T occurring and then all we're left with is what is most likely. It's a process of deduction, and currently gravity is the leading theory on what causes our celestial orbits...and it makes sense that it would. Until a better theory can come around that explains it better, then gravity will remain the dominant theory. That's how science operates...Flat Earth is being very irrational when it focuses on proving absolute certainties. That's now how science operates...so they will fail in their attempts.
We have measured a force that is constant, that attracts all matter to other matter, and we have observed how it does this by bending the space around it. Experiments that have verified this are the Eddington experiment of 1919 (the experiment that launched Einstein to fame), the detection of gravitational waves, Red shift experiments, solving the orbit of Mercury which Newtonian gravity couldn't solve, experiments for time dilation in upper atmosphere...the list goes on. It's not that we're trying to prove gravity, it's that we're trying to falsify it...and so far it has held up upon every attempt...so that is why we believe it is there, because we have not been able to falsify it yet...in fact every attempt just verify's it further.
Also, the Moon is spinning, it has to be in order for its one face to constantly face us. A good way that helps you to realize this, just understand that in order for an object to go around something and always face towards something, it has to actually be rotating as well. It just rotates at the same rate as its orbit...and it does that for a good reason, because it's tidal locked to Earths gravity well. This happens to orbits of objects when they're close to the gravity well of the mass they are orbiting...our Moon is not the only example of this. Mercury is tidal locked to the Sun and pretty close to every Moon in our solar system that orbits other planets is also experiencing this same tidal locking effect. It is not exclusive to our Moon...it is exactly what we'd expect to occur, if gravity functions the way we believe that it does currently, with the strength of gravity becoming greater the closer to the gravity well you get.
"And why do the pits on the moon all look round instead of angled and yet there are bare spots in places?"
They actually don't, If you observe the craters closer to the edge, they are oval to our perspective, indicating the Moon is a sphere. But yes, most of the craters are in actuality mostly round (with a few exceptions). A common argument is that asteroids impacting at angles will cause more elongated craters and it's a logical argument to make...until you factor in the impact and what that does at those speeds. Asteroids aren't just coasting into the moon, they're hitting them at thousands of miles per hour. This will change that impact greatly, causing more of an explosive impact, that will burst out in all directions equally, creating a circular crater site.
Here's a lab that does tests for impact craters, firing high projectile objects at beds of sediment to see what sort of craters they produce. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCGWGJOUjHY It was found that an asteroid would need to impact at an angle of less then 15 degrees to create a more elliptical crater...and even then, it is more consistent at as low as 7 degrees. The amount of asteroid impacts that hit the Moon at these angles, is less than 7%. So there are very few elliptical impacts.
So why isn't the surface completely riddled with asteroid impacts? It is...but most of them are just not large enough to be visible. Understand that the Moon is 1/3 the Size of Earth...so each one of those craters that you CAN see with your naked eye...is HUNDREDS OF MILES in diameter. VERY FEW asteroids that hit the Moon can create craters like that. In fact I don't think we have ever recorded such an impact in the short few years we've been watching the Moon...they just do not occur very often. The ones that do occur daily, do not create craters large enough for you to see from Earth. It's pretty simple.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "Also tell me why we stopped going to the moon and just gave up completely on it when we could have been way ahead of any Country on earth? Money was not the problem because we had the fed. They write bad checks all the time."
Because we've been to the Moon...and there's nothing there, it is a rock. The only reason we were going there back in the 60's - 80's, was to verify that we could and to establish ourselves as a super power on the world stage, which gave us a footing during the Cold War. But it was a shared dream of mankind since we've been forming civilizations...so it was a goal back then. But now we've been there, several times...it's a rock, the goal has been obtained, so there's no need to go back...unless we find a good enough reason.
But you're wrong, they do require funding. It's not NASA that is printing money, it's government...and even they don't have full control over the fed, the fed is a private bank. Yes, it's fucking greasy as all hell, but NASA doesn't have a direct line to the Fed...and so it has to get funding the old fashioned way, by sub contracting to government interests. The government is not interested in going to the Moon anymore...so it's not going to fund it.
It used to cost half a billion dollars PER ROCKET LAUNCH. Elon Musk has very recently just dropped that price tag down to about 60 million per launch....that is HUGE! That is a HUGE chunk off the price of going back...so guess what they're doing, they're going back. They have new missions planned to build a base on the Moon and now that it's cheaper to achieve this, with the new falcon rockets from Space X, this is a much easier thing to pitch to a funding board.
On top of that though, it's still dangerous as fuck. If they had no reason to go back...then they weren't going to risk the lives of people, just to maintain a science project with no return on investment, both financially and intellectually. So they didn't bother...until recently.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 There, that's every one of your questions answered now. Most of these aren't proofs of anything though...most of your questions, lead down empty roads of speculation. I prefer to focus on the science, the things that I CAN verify for myself. I don't like speculating on things I can not verify, such as the moon landings or the goings on at NASA. I'm not an astronaut, I've never been in space, I do not work at these institutions...so there's very little I can actually confirm here, the same is true with you and all of Flat Earth. So why focus so much on the things you can't really verify? You'll just go down a rabbit hole of endless speculation, that'll get you nowhere.
Focus on the science you can verify, there is an Earth right below your feet and you can test it directly. You have done some of that, some of your questions had things I could actually share experiments with, that help to point out the various flaws in the arguments of Flat Earth. That's what I personally prefer to focus on, the science and observations that I can verify for myself. I have done that now, as I hope these answers help to verify for you. I have been looking at this mess a long time...I have successfully falsified every claim made from Flat Earthers...so currently I have concluded it is a scam. It's fine if you've reached the opposite conclusion, but that's where I am currently.
I feel that all they're doing is feeding the growing paranoia of people today...robbing you of your better reasoning. Dazzling you with half truths and bullshit, only showing you what they want you to see, taking things out of context, cherry picking information, teaching you misunderstandings of physics, so they can get you to doubt modern science. Once they got you doubting, even a little bit...then it's all down hill from there, cause then you resort back to your instincts of rejecting things you don't trust...but it's just teaching you how to follow bias over objective truth. Science doesn't care about what you trust or don't trust, it has no emotional leaning like that, no bias, it is just looking for objective truth...but Flat Earth isn't doing that, at it's core it's rejecting something it doesn't trust...which means it's being bias, contrarian for the sake of spiting and rejecting what they now deem the enemy.
It's placing value on the SOURCE of information, rather than the information itself. If you dig deeper into every argument though, you find the information Flat Earth keeps from you...which just verify's how much Flat Earth is really bullshitting...they're the real liars, not science.
That's why I tell people to question these bastards just as firmly as they now question the mainstream. I don't share information to discourage you, I just feel you're missing some details that Flat Earth overlooks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "How can any of it be proven? The Bible says the sun is in the firmament. So are the Moon and stars. Have you ever looked through binoculars back words?"
So because Flat Earth makes a claim and then shows you a few examples of light being bent in odd ways with chunks of curved glass...you now think this is reason enough to conclude our conclusions are wrong? Do you honestly think scientists haven't considered these possibility's? The trouble with these glass dome explanations...glass distorts light in many different ways, ways that are understood and tested. We do not see these distortions out in the real world, so it is not likely that their is a dome. Besides that, we have not interacted with this dome in any way, shape, or form. If it existed, we would have discovered it by now.
This is just another tactic from Flat Earth, that is designed to create doubt...but when do you ever see them ACTUALLY building a model that works? Should be easy now that they got this deeper understanding of how glass can be used to bend and distort light, so where is it? All I've seen is a few short experiments, they just shine a few lights through curved glass, which gives them the result they're looking for and then ignore all the other distortions it creates as well, asking you JUST focus on what they want you too, ignore everything else. Then when we look in the real world to confirm any of this, we do not see these distortions that would occur and be quite apparent, everything is quite clear, except for a slight refraction that is exactly like we would experience, with our atmosphere. We understand how glass bends light...but what we observe in reality does not match with any of this...so we can't conclude there is a dome, because there is no evidence of it. To do so, would be bias at this point. There is no evidence for this dome, just words written in a book that is very likely not true.
But Flat Earth is free to disagree...meanwhile EVERY SUN ANGLE still works on a Globe. So even IF they could create a working model, WE ALSO have a working model, that matches with all observation. Flat Earth doesn't have a model though...and from what I've seen so far, it's for a very good reason, because it's not reality. All they're really doing is the bare minimum required to put doubt in people...which fuels paranoia.
But I am open to seeing more, I don't claim to know everything, always up for taking a look at any models or explanations you might know of. I have yet to see a working model of this dome...just parlor tricks that work on those not paying attention. Smoke and mirrors and misdirection to create doubt, it's not how science works, they HAVE to do more I'm afraid.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "You said the word....Theory" I sure did, a theory in science is actually the highest level anything can achieve, there is nothing higher then a theory in science, when it comes to explanations for HOW and WHY things operate the way they do. Not to be confused with a Law in science, which only describes WHAT is happening, but does not go into further details and explain WHY or HOW it's occurring. That is what a theory is for, theories in science explain how and why something works the way it does.
There is a language here that most people are not aware of...and you pretty much forfeit yourself from conversations of science, the moment you say things like "it's just a theory". No...it's not just a theory, a theory in science is not the same things as regular theory, hypothesis takes the regular meaning of the word theory, while a theory in science, becomes the highest level anything can achieve in science...nothing goes beyond theory. That's for a good reason, because we do not know everything and we likely never will, so old information always has the potential to change as we acquire new information.
So to review:
LAW OF SCIENCE: Records observed facts that do not change, they describe WHAT is happening, but do not go into detail to explain why or how they occur.
HYPOTHESIS: An educated guess based around prior knowledge, that requires further testing and observation and data collection in order to verify it further.
SCIENTIFIC THEORY: Is a deeper explanation of observed facts, that further explains WHY and HOW something occurs the way it does at the mechanical level, that only reaches this position once it has been verified conclusive through experimentation and then peer reviewed. Nothing graduates to this level until it has been verified to be true and nothing graduates beyond it in science either.
SCIENTIFIC FACTS: The small details that are undeniable that by themselves don't explain anything, but together build up the foundations of Laws and Theories. Facts do not explain things, they don't go into details, they just are. Theories explain facts, Laws record several of the bigger ones, facts make up the foundations of both.
This is stuff you were taught...especially if you're an engineer like you say you are. It just baffles me that anyone can receive a secondary education and not understand this stuff...still making arguments like "it's just a theory". Like how did you achieve your degree exactly without understanding these principles? This is basic stuff.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 Yes, I do, because I understand the physics that makes it possible, everything from a how a gravity well can be used to increase velocity, to the conservation of motion that allows them to conserve fuel and never lose velocity, to thermodynamics, to the difference between convection heat transfer (which is not what happens in space, cause there is no air pressure to create a convection heat transfer) and direct solar radiation. But...understanding that it is possible is not the same as proving it did, for that end, all we can do is endlessly speculate...and I prefer not doing that. I like to focus on the ground I live on, the place I can verify for myself. I have done that.
But apologies if I've come off as a bit pushy so far in our dialogue exchange. Admittedly, my patience has worn a bit thin over the years that I forget to treat my opposition with a little more respect, which keeps me from recognizing these few moments where a civil discussion is actually occurring. Very few of these types of opportunities occur in these debates and it's where I learn the most from the opposing view, so I should be more grateful really. So thank you for listening and continuing, while remaining civil and level headed...it's a rare thing.
I am looking at the science, I have reviewed both sides of this argument in great detail, but I've seen nothing yet that convinces me that we're being lied too, just a lot of misunderstood physics and endless speculations and conjecture, that I recognize as bias and paranoia, which I can't ignore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 Electromagnetism is also just a theory, it's currently sending and receiving your WiFi data. Nobody is saying theory is fact, we're saying science has no choice but to operate in percentages of certainty...not absolute certainty. It has no choice, for the simple fact that we DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING and we never will. There is to much to know, so we can only operate in percentages. You're very happy to do that already, you believe the Earth is Flat...but you don't really know that for certain, it's just a hunch you have. You believe in the Dome firmament as well, yet it's never been discovered and there is no evidence supporting it...so you already believe a lot of things you have not yet confirmed, so you may not be aware of it, but you're doing the same thing already.
We do not need to know everything about a concept, to make it useful for us. For example, we don't know what gives matter it's mass or how it bends space, all we know is that it does. But we don't need to know everything about gravity, to make our current knowledge work for us. We put satellites into orbit using orbital mechanics that is based upon the measurements of gravity, and we time our GPS using the physics we have confirmed in General Relativity. We're also hot on the trail of Nuclear Fusion, we've recreated it in labs, none of that would have been possible if the current science wasn't verified to a level of certainty we can use. Applied sciences are the end goal of all research, and it all works on theory.
You may not agree this is the best way to conduct research, but what is the alternative? Conclude things with certainty and then never review them again? Okay, well science makes that mistake sometimes when it communicates knowledge to the general public...look how that's working out. The moment you conclude something as 100% certain, it stops you from looking at it further...but that's not how science works, there is too much to learn, and old information can change. Flat Earth is currently trying to change Globe science and you're arguing with me about the language of science...thinking we should just conclude things as absolutely certain. It's not that simple I'm afraid, nothing is that simple in science...so science knows now that it is a fools errand to operate in absolute certainty, instead it concludes things in percentages of certainty. Big Bang for example, probably about an 80% certainty, still TONS of room for debate here, and science does still debate it often. The Globe however is probably the most certain science is about ANYTHING else, it holds a certainty percentage of probably 99.999999% (and probably even higher, I just didn't want to flood the page with 9's).
There isn't much room here for debate, of course there still is, cause we still don't know everything...but Flat Earth isn't talking about anything new, Flat Earth is actually several pages behind modern science. Which is fine really, I am actually glad SOMEBODY is out there questioning the science the rest of us has moved on from, but so far...I haven't seen anything new from them, just misunderstandings of old science that has already been answered.
1
-
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 Ok...so now you're just getting paranoid about COVID....see there's no talking rationally with you people, because you just seek out paranoid bullshit. How many times do we have to go through a potential "world ending event", Christians freak out and say the rapture is coming...and then nothing happens? How many times has that happened now in your life time? Pretty much every year there's a new rapture scare from you people. :/ Do you remember 2012? What happened? Nothing....nothing fucking happened. But you people sure thought it was going too. I'd wake up almost every day to a new "the end is nigh" headline in 2012....and then nothing happened.
There's a reason we don't believe this shit anymore, cause you don't really know shit...but you think you do. Jumping to conclusions, reading bullshit articles that are written up by other sensationalists who really don't know shit.....and you just eat that shit up without ever questioning it and then jump on the warning horns, before you even know for sure anything is really happening. It's called crying wolf....and we're sick of it. Christians have been doing it now for hundreds of years. That's why we have a very hard time believing you people....so you've really done this to yourselves.
5G towers are not dangerous...and you know nothing about microwave frequencies. Those same frequencies are in the air right this second, sending and receiving data and 5G is not new....we've been using it a very long time, in other technologies.
Do you EVER QUESTION where you get your information from? Cause from where we're sitting, you just believe all this bullshit...cause it terrify's you and it confirms a bias you have about scriptures. YOU are scared of things you don't understand....and so you let that fear lead you. Is that how you like living your life? Thinking about the end all the time? Religious people spend so much time thinking and worrying about the end that you forget to live in the HERE and the NOW. Do you ever notice how many times Christians have blown that rapture horn? You people have been doing this for HUNDREDS of years now....it's really getting tiring.
There's no speaking rationally with a person who's afraid of every little thing...and doesn't bother to control that fear for 2 seconds so he can do some better research.
I'm sorry Dominic but it's pretty clear your bias won't allow you to listen to what I'm sharing with you. So I'm gonna have to end things here. I know you are afraid right now, but that's no reason to lose your head. Pandemics happen, this is not new in human history, it's just new in ours because there hasn't been anything like this in a very long time. I know I won't convince you of much, so all I'm asking is you stay sharp and don't lose your head, question the articles you read and information you're reading...if even just a little. In 3 or 4 months time when we're out of this pandemic, look back on this conversation.
1
-
1
-
1. Not a proof against a globe, just an incredulous claim made from a lack of insider perspective and a whole lot of paranoia and bias. They also took lots of footage on all those voyages, and it's well archived. Thousands of pictures of Earth. Here's one such archive. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
2. Empty speculation, you're making a serious accusation against these people, without actual proof that they had any involvement in Epstein's crimes. That's confirmation bias, asserting what you WANT to be true, but not actually having any tangible evidence, just empty accusations. Here's why this is wrong. So if you were invited to a BBQ in your local neighborhood and then shortly after that BBQ, the host of the event gets arrested for being a pedo and running a sex ring from his home...the same home YOU were invited too. By your logic, does that mean YOU are now also guilty as an accomplice to the crimes, simply because you spent a night in his backyard breaking bread with him? No...it doesn't...and I'd be willing to bet, you would REALLY LIKE IT if people didn't accuse you of something you are not guilty of, wouldn't you? :/
3. Yes, they haven't rebuilt any of the old lunar modules...but why would they? It was old tech, if they're going to go back to the Moon, they'd prefer to build something NEW, something that includes all our modern technology. That is going to take a LOT of R&D, a lot of testing and engineering...and until there is interest to go back to the Moon, they will not have the funding to create that new spacecraft for deep space manned missions. But you're in luck, cause they are going back, new missions are planned for the next few years up until about 2028 - 32. So be patient.
4. No, some scientists were taken in under project paper clip, but just because somebody was once under a fascist regime, does mean they necessarily believed in the doings of that fascist regime. Nothing is that black and white. A lot of people in Germany had no choice but to become Nazi's...and MANY of them did not want to have anything to do with them, but they had no choice. It would be no different here, if Trump one day decided to go full dictator and turn America into a fascist regime, where you either join his side or become an enemy of the state. See how that works? How nothing in realty is as black and white as you want it to be? Just because a few scientists were citizens of Germany during a fascist take over, does not mean they were Nazi's.
They had some of the brightest engineers and scientists of their day, and had America not taken them in and put them to work in their science departments, their enemies would have. Russia did the same thing, they took many scientists from Germany in as well and put them to work on the same space race. So shut the fuck up and maybe stop thinking in such blind absolutes....that's how mob mentality works. Idiots think in absolutes...do you like being a gullible idiot, who lets paranoia and black and whites rule his thinking? :/
5. False, the horizon when measured actually does drop the higher you go. Did you even bother to check that claim before you believed it blindly? This is a perfect example of Flat Earth feeding you bullshit, and then people just eating it up without ever checking to make sure it is true. Here are two ways you can test it yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI&t=3s - simple leveling rig you can build with scraps you can find at home.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVTgP-KpyRc&t=8s - using a simple surveyors tool called a theodolite, which is a tool used for measuring horizon drop, you can download easy to use apps for your phone or you can purchase real ones online. They're quite easy to use.
6. Level does not necessarily mean flat. It is one of those words in the English language that takes on new meaning, depending on the context. In the case with 3D geometry and gravity, level means "perpendicular to center of object/mass". I know you won't understand what that means, but it does mean the "water seeks its own level" argument, just demonstrates how little you understand about mathematics and gravity.
7. HemiSPHERE not hemiFLAT, AtmoSPHERE not atmoPLANE. Oh look, I can do that too....stop looking at patterns that aren't there dumbass.
8. No they do not. ONE GUY who worked in the composite department at NASA, was once interviewed and asked to explain what HE DOES at HIS JOB! Then Flat Earth cut his words out of context, respun it to fit their bias narrative and now you people drone on and on claiming that NASA officially said something they did not. This is a perfect example of confirmation bias...and it was one of the first red flags for me, that you people are not rational and therefore are likely chasing bias and paranoia. Upon digging deeper over the years, I have confirmed that to be absolutely the case.
9. The Earth rotates once every 24 hours...to put that into perspective, Imagine if the hour hand on your clock was 2x's slower then it already is...do you think you'd be able to notice it spinning in real time? No, you wouldn't, the Earth is no different. But what they can do is film the Earth over a long period of time and then speed up the footage...and they have, many times. Here's sped up Earth rotation footage from the Galileo spacecraft that was taken back in 1990. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVuqcEuIRgs One of many examples I can pull from.
10. Our senses often lie, they are not very good at all and they can be fooled quite easily. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMY9Vd8Ym5Q So they are not the most reliable tools to use in every situation, we have to be more diligent then that...or we will risk reaching some false conclusions.
11. Planes don't have too, they are constantly fighting gravity, gravity keeps them curving with the Earth, like a rope tethered to their feet swinging around a center, never allowing them to leave the atmosphere...all they need to do, is remain perpendicular to center of mass, which isn't hard with artificial horizon indicators. Aside from that, what makes you think you'd notice any small change in degree? It takes 70 miles to arc ONE degree on Earth...that's how big the Earth is. Do me a favor and pick something up, now arc it 1 degree (if you can, it's a very small measurement), do you notice a difference?
12. No they are not. Upon reviewing the experiments done by Flat Earth that make this claim, it is clear they reached a false conclusion, due to sloppy experimentation. They did not think to run a control experiment along with the main experiment, and so they did not properly control for any hidden variables that might give them the same results. It wasn't the Moonlight causing this effect, it was radiative cooling...a very well known and understood concept in physics. Here is an experiment done that DID think to include a control. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLsZwp4RWWg&t=343s It's a very simple control, run the very same experiment on a night when the moon is not out (during a new moon phase), testing the same position, with all the other variables intact, minus the moon being out. If you receive the same results as in your previous experiment when the Moon was out, then you can not conclude that it is the moonlight causing this effect.
This is a perfect example of sloppy, poorly done experiments. Flat Earth only did enough experimentation to confirm their bias and then they stopped experimenting. That is BAD SCIENCE! That is exactly how you reach a false conclusion and it would be ripped apart if it were ever submitted for peer review in an actual science journal.
Flat Earth is currently displaying the pit falls of confirmation bias and why science was wise to include the peer review system into its framework. You are under educated people, reaching false conclusions, because you have NO IDEA how to conduct proper, unbiased, research. Then you go online and spread your bullshit as if its truth and fact....while using COMPUTERS and INTERNET and WIFI, to tell the rest of us that science has been wrong this whole time? It's just incredible how ignorant you people are.
It's fine to question things, it's perfectly logical in fact...but make sure your sources of information aren't just bullshitting you and make DAMN SURE you aren't just following bias.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok, but you can't just conclude things are fake, without looking into it and analyzing whether that speculation is true or not...that's the problem. People are jumping to rushed conclusions, on misinformation, misunderstandings and paranoia, before they've even verified anything. Yes things can be photoshopped today, but that doesn't mean they were. Real photos are also taken, is it really that hard to believe that people have been to space now and have taken real photos of Earth? Besides that you don't require a photograph to verify the Earth is a Globe for yourself, just spend some time thinking about how a sunset works...how would that even be possible on a Flat Earth, with a Sun that circles above? Wouldn't you expect to be able to see it all the time? Yes, you would. That's far from the only observation you can make, there are many more that don't require much effort.
There is a very good reason why there is no working Flat Earth model still today, there's a very good reason why we abandoned that concept, and there is a very good reason why EVERY industry around the world today uses a Globe Earth model for navigation, communication and infrastructure...because it's true. Don't let con men on the internet make you paranoid and rob you of your better reasoning. I get that it's harder to trust authority lately, but you do not require their words or photos, to deduce the true shape of Earth...they did it 2000 years ago, with just a few simple observations and some critical, objective thinking. You can too.
1
-
1
-
@Allstarsga “Yet gravity doesn’t affect a butterfly” Wow....just wow. It’s stuff like this, that just makes it all worth it. 😂 It’s incredible you actually don’t get how this works, it’s fascinating actually. I’m sure any explanation would likely just go straight through your ears, but here goes anyway.
Gravity effects everything...it’s never not effecting you and everything else on Earth, it is a constant, it’s not selective and it does not turn off. But it can be resisted, with enough counter force, it’s not a particularly strong force it’s just always there pulling on you, while the energy required for you to counter it, is not. A butterfly burns energy, to create motion, which it uses to resist gravity...and it has an easier time doing this, because it has less mass. The more mass something has, the more energy is required to move it...pretty simple. Gravity doesn’t change, but the mass does in objects...more mass, means more energy needed to move it. A Butterfly doesn’t need much energy, because it has very little mass...are you getting this correlation yet?
Just to add, our oceans aren’t spun off, because there isn’t enough centrifugal force created, by a rotation that takes 24 hours to complete, to resist the force of gravity. It’s basic physics of rotational velocity vs gravity...gravity easily wins here, because centrifugal force is dependent on rotational velocity...not linear velocity (the 1000 mph surface speed that flatties think is the biggest factor to centrifugal force increase). If Earth completed more rotations in a single minute or even hour, then ya, centrifugal force would then be great enough to trump gravity....but it’s not doing that is it, a full day is 24 hours, so that’s ONE complete rotation every 24 hours...so almost no Centrifugal force generated. So easily gravity wins the tug o war here.
We have no trouble questioning what we’re told by systems of authority...but when we’re face palming so hard from your attempts, which reveal your clear misunderstandings of the science, it becomes pretty clear who we really need to be questioning. This is easy stuff for the rest of us...it’s just incredible that some can’t seem to get it, despite our best efforts.
I think YOU should really start questioning the con men on YouTube who have taught you your current brand of pseudoscience...they’re robbing you of your critical thinking.
1
-
That’s perfectly fine, nobody is saying they can’t...but like it or not, people are prone to confirmation bias, so peer review is important to weed out human error and bias. Flat Earth fails peer review upon every reproduction (which is why they avoid it, by skipping it completely), then it’s confirmed, every time we take a closer look, what’s really going on...it’s just paranoid layman, doing what paranoid layman do best. Conducting bias research, jumping to conclusions, overreacting and grossly over estimating themselves. This isn’t new, general public does this a lot...in worse cases it’s known as mob mentality.
Whether you like it or not, peer review is important...that’s all we’re doing here in the comments and in these videos, is providing the peer review Flat Earth ignores. We’re finding errors in flat Earths conclusions, so we’re going to point those errors out. Maybe instead of just reacting and assuming you’re right all the time, listen and consider the possibility that the error is not the model, but your understanding of that model. You’re arguing a position that goes against all of modern science and common knowledge, it’s reasonable to me that you should at the very least, not be so quick with your conclusion, especially if your information was fed to you by strangers online, who clearly have no experience with the topics they argue against. It’s not hard for con men to lie and exploit the gaps in your knowledge, so don’t just listen to these people blindly.
1
-
Ok, so first you have to understand that level does not necessarily mean flat. Level is one of those words in the English language that can take on new meaning given the context and in mathematics and geometry, it can be used on geometric shapes to be defined as "level perpendicular to center of object", meaning perfectly 90 degrees to center. On a sphere, that level changes a lot as you curve along the surface.
So elevation isn't measured from sea level really, sea level is a bench mark, but in reality elevation is always measured from center of Earth. We use sea level, because the elevation of the sea is always roughly the same distance from center of Earth, all around the entire sphere, because of how water works, always seeking lowest potential elevation, which makes it a great benchmark.
Now here's how elevation really works on the Globe Earth. The closer to center you are, the lower in elevation, the further you are from center, the higher you are in elevation. A good way to understand this, take a bunch 2 inch match sticks and poke them into a styrofoam ball, poke them down 1 inch exactly into the surface. Now the surface of that ball, represents sea level, the entire surface is exactly the same distance from center all around the ball...that's why it's a sphere. Which is exactly how water also works, seeking the same distance from center of Earth, the lowest potential elevation. Everything above sea level is at a higher elevation. So if those match sticks are 1 inch deep and they're regularly 2 inches long, then they are now all 1 inch elevation from surface, they are at 1 inch elevation from sea level. But if you stuck a bunch of them all around the ball, you'll notice that they're heights don't match, cause they're curving away from each other...but doesn't matter, they are all still 1 inch from that surface, so they are all 1 inch elevation from the surface, we use sea level as our surface benchmark, because it's the lowest potential elevation of water, and so the top of the ocean will always be the same distance from center of Earth (with some wiggle room, there are still tides occurring all over the Earth, but it only makes a difference of a few meters, so we take the average of the tides to represent sea level)
Now gravity works like this, each one of those sticks in your styrofoam ball pointing towards center represents a gravity vector. Gravity ALWAYS points to center, pulling you to direct center of mass. So when we level something here on Earth, we're actually leveling to the center of gravity, NOT TO SURFACE. I'm sure you've heard that term before, center of gravity, it's how we balance everything. A bubble level works through buoyancy, which is caused by gravity, so a spirit level is not really leveling flat to surface, it is leveling perpendicular to center of gravity...the same way water does.
Water works the same way, it has what is known as an equipotential force being applied to it from all directions, all towards center, causing it's elevation from center of Earth to always be the same. You notice the same thing occur in a water droplet, or a soap bubble...the skin of that bubble having the exact same equal distance (equipotential) from center of the bubble or water droplet, hence why it forms a sphere....it's the only shape it can form with an equipotential force being applied to it in all directions towards a center.
Here's a great diagram that helps explain a little more why water curves on the surface of a sphere, explaining equiopotential distance a bit more. https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/equipotential-768x768.jpg Like your match sticks in that ball, which are at the same elevation from center, water does the same thing thanks to gravity.
I hope that helps, I know it's a lot to read, but there is a reason we don't bat an eye at Flat Earthers when they use the argument "water finds it's level"...ya, it does...level perpendicular to center of gravity. They fail here because they assume level always means flat...and it doesn't. They're committing a logical fallacy here known as appeal to definition...and that's where they go wrong here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
For the same reason you don't fall on your ass or get sucked to your seat while in an airplane during cruising altitudes, which is moving roughly 500 mph. Because of the physics of motion, most notably conservation of momentum and relative motion. What this science teaches us, is that so long as you are moving at the same rate, within an inertial reference frame that's moving at a constant, steady forward velocity with no sudden or drastic changes in speed or direction, then you are moving relative to that inertial reference frame, conserving its moment at all times, moving with it. This creates an environment that will operate as though stationary, everything moving in that same inertial reference frame, operating under that same rule of thumb.
It's physics of motion 101 and very easy to demonstrate, you demonstrate it every time you get into a moving vehicle of any kind in fact. Next time you're in a car, toss something up in the air and let it fall back into your hand. From your perspective, it went up, it went down...but if you're moving forward, to an observer watching you from the outside, then it actually formed a parabolic path...arcing like an arch. But hold on, if you're traveling at 100 mph lets say...why didn't it smash you in the face when it left your hand? Because of conservation of momentum...it conserves the momentum of the environment it is moving relative too. We are no different, we move relative to the Earth at all times.
Truth is, we are not actually well tuned to detect motion itself. What we pick up on is CHANGE in motion, felt in our body as inertia. Or we see it and hear it and the brain interprets that as motion. But if you could block out all your senses while on a flight, where you couldn't feel the hum of the engines or hear them, if you weren't looking outside to see the clouds go by...how would you ever notice you were moving? You wouldn't...it would likely feel as though you weren't moving at all, as though you were stationary. That's how motion really works, it's relative...and there are hundreds of different ways we have tested and verified that now.
Also, 1019 mph is a linear speed, and Centrifugal forces are not measured in linear speeds, they are measured in angular velocity change. Why is this important? Because the only force generating an inertia on us, would be that angular velocity change per second...the linear speed, pretty much irrelevant, it can play a small role in the math, but it's RPM's that are more important here. So how fast is that change per second on our Earth and how can you best picture it? Picture yourself in a NASCAR at it's top speed (about 200 mph), going around a perfectly circular track, that's only about 1000 meters in circumference. With a track that small, the rate of angular velocity change per second, is super high...that driver would feel the inertia of the Centrifugal forces here, his body sucked to the door, it would be very hard to keep on that track...and likely impossible. But now increase the circumference of that track, to about 4800 miles...how much Centrifugal force do you think that driver would feel now, on a circular track that long? As he steadily goes around the track, completing one complete circuit every 24 hours. None...he wouldn't feel any at this rate of angular velocity change, there is a tiny amount, but his body can't measure a force that small. The course might as well be a straight line to him now, the car turning so incredibly gradual. The Earth is no different...it takes 24 hours to complete a single rotation, it's RPM's (rotations per minute) that really effect Centrifugal forces...not linear speed. Flat Earth focuses on the big numbers...but not the physics very much, that's for a good reason, can spin a narrative with the physics...but you can sure dazzle people with big numbers, like clever misdirection.
So if you don't feel motion itself, and if the Centrifugal force on Earth during its rotation is pretty much non existent, generating pretty much zero inertia on your body, then what's left? What motion are you going to feel?
So if you have to ask, I go with science, every time. Science has answers, you just have to know where to look. If you have any more questions feel free to ask, I don't mind sharing more information. If you have anything to add that you feel I missed, feel free to point it out to me as well, I don't mind taking a look and challenging what I think I know. I don't claim to know everything, but the physics of motion does account for the planets motion and it's simple science to learn and understand and verify for ones self.
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't think we're insignificant, where'd you get that idea from? We look at the world a little differently sure, we don't put ourselves at the center of it all, but we don't think we're insignificant...far from it. We're just a bit more humble in our approach, not as self centered and narcissistic about it, we've learned to accept the possibility that our superstitions may in fact be just bullshit. But even if they are, of course you're significant you dumbass...you're conscious, you're alive, we don't just ignore that. Life is very important no matter how big or small it is. And science isn't working to destroy the concept of a God...it just doesn't give a fuck whether that's true or not, it just cares about what is actually true. If God doesn't exist, then some of us are ready and prepared to accept that...while you would rather hold onto a bias belief that you have and ignore any evidence that refutes it...simply because you have a hard time coping with the possibility that there is no life after death. Science doesn't really care about what you want to believe, it just cares about what is.
But again, science doesn't know everything and it likely never will, so God will always have a place in the framework...in fact most scientists today and throughout history were actually theists, not atheists. I'm actually more humbled by the possibility that I'm not the center of the universe, that the cosmos are vast and I'm just a small part of it all...but I'm still a part of it all, I still do matter. But come on, would you rather live in a small terrarium where you're just...what exactly? A slave, a pet...what the heck are we to God in that world? You really think that makes you more special? Or would you rather be in a universe that is vast, where anything is possible, where you are free to explore it and conquer it...if you can. This gives us purpose really, I look at the universe as something with endless possibilities...while religious people look at life as pain and suffering and they can't wait for it to end...for some reason. Always focused on the end...never focused on the now. Heaven is right here, right now...not later, not tomorrow, here and now and happening right in front of you. Why would anyone want this to end so quickly? Life excites me, the endless possibilities of this universe excites me, always something new to discover and learn about and master. And to me, that's a sign of a truly powerful creator, having created a vast universe that we can NEVER hope to fully understand, see, or explore. While yours created...a small terrarium? You really think that's better? That to me is much more bleak...a small world, with nothing new to explore...that's quite boring to me.
I don't think I'm small or insignificant, I'm alive, and the universe needs life, or it technically doesn't exist at all. Your 5 senses create the universe, just as much as the universe created you, that makes you VERY important. That in itself is all I need...and I much prefer being my own master, rather then being a slave to something else.
So we don't think we're insignificant, some people might reach that conclusion sure, they are called nihilists, but I'd agree that's a poor way to look at life. You matter, you're alive, there is nothing in the cosmos more incredible than life.
Idk, I'm more humbled by these things, they don't scare me...I think anyone who is put off by this notion, should really consider that perhaps they're a bit self centered, maybe struggling with their own mortality. Personally I think it's beautiful and I'm enjoying every second of it and I'm not as worried about what happens after. I'm not going to speculate about things that I can't verify, I'm just going to enjoy the heaven I have right here and now.
Either way, I think it's a bit bias to conclude the Earth is flat...in spite of all the evidence that says otherwise, simply because you prefer that outcome. That's not thinking objectively...it's denying reality in favor of something you'd prefer. Though I do prefer a vast cosmos that is possibly endless in scale, I'm more then happy to accept the alternative...but none of the evidence points to that conclusion, so I'm not going to ignore that evidence just to bolster a bias.
It's sad how you look at atheists I think, I myself am not atheist (not religious either, but I do believe in a God), but I understand them a lot better...most of them do not look at reality with such a depressing lens as you seem to think. Nihilists are a bit more what you're thinking of, but they do not represent every atheist, most atheists are quite humbled by an immense universe where they are not the center of it all, but just a small part of it.
Anyway, sorry for the ramble, I just feel you're not quite understanding how we actually look at things. We don't look at things quite as bleak as you think, we're excited by the endless possibilities of a vast universe. Personally I find the alternative to be much more bleak and boring, I don't seek to be special, I know I already am just by the simple fact that I'm alive, conscious and gifted with the intelligence to understand the cosmos more in depth. What more could you want? I think it's a bit greedy to want even more then what you already have....be a bit more grateful I say, what you have already is incredibly gracious of a creator to give you.
1
-
@VRVVNDR-Y I disagree, I think I appreciate Gods creation even more, by looking at how incredible the vastness of the universe is and how lucky I am to be here experiencing it. I'm happy to be here and I appreciate everything around me knowing that I have such a short time with it all. Where's the cop out exactly? Because I look at the science and then agree with it? Am I not allowed to agree with something that I feel is pretty conclusive and undeniably true? Why exactly? You're really not making a whole lot of sense...I think YOU are the one looking for a cop out, just looking for any reason you can to help you ignore modern science rather then take the time to look at it objectively.
Of course scientists are all saying the same thing...they're stating facts and facts don't change, they just are what they are...so ya, when you state facts, you're going to get a lot of people stating the same facts...that's quite normal to happen. What do you want them to say instead? Do you really just want them to state the opposite of the facts, just to be contrarian and hip? That's not how science works...they're all saying the same things, because they agree that this science is settled...so they're going to repeat that knowledge to pass it down to us...cause that's what their job is, to find objective truths and then pass that knowledge down to us. Like fuck me...I can't believe I have to explain that to an adult today. So If I was an expert fisherman and we all used boats, because it's a known fact that boats are what you need to get out to the fish, would you then complain that fishermen are all indoctrinated because they all agree that boats are useful? No...of course you wouldn't...the fuck kind of logic is that? You're doing the same thing with scientists...complaining about them saying the same things, as if this proves they're lying? It's a dumb argument...of course they agree on things, of course they're all saying the same things, I'm glad they're more certain about a lot of things...it would be fucking chaos if they didn't agree as often as they do...it would be the internet then and this place is fucked, misinformation and pseudo intellectuals running rampant.
But do you REALLY think scientists are just toeing the line about everything? Scientists are in direct competition all the time. Yes they agree on a lot of things, but the key to science is falsification, not verification, so scientists are CONSTANTLY trying to think outside the box to become the next Einstein. Do you really think Einstein got famous for agreeing with people? Fuck no...he's famous today because he challenged established science and he succeeded. He was questioning the works of Newton...which took some balls, cause yes, the community of science is still only human at the end of the day and we humans have a very hard time with change, but he succeeded and so science had no choice but to change, because the science could not be ignored. And the process continues today, they've been trying for years to falsify Einsteins theories...but all they've done so far is verified it further, which is not a bad thing. If ANYONE could falsify Einstein today, they would be famous over night...so that's what scientists have been trying to do, and that's what they're constantly trying to do with each others work. It is a never ending process.
But scientists repeat the same things, because they agree with each other on certain facts...just because people agree with each other after looking at the facts, does not mean they're indoctrinated. To conclude that right out of the gate, is the real cop out here. You're not even bothering to look at the science objectively, you're just using some bullshit logic to justify not listening to them, so you can continue to be as ignorant as you are. That's the real cop out that I'm seeing here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richardhislop9928 Just think about a bit here…if the less dense matter (the air bubble), is being pushed by the more dense matter (the water), as the downward acceleration pulls it down, don’t ya think the more dense matter is gonna occupy lowest position first? It has more inertia, so the less dense matter can’t remain at the bottom, if more dense matter is being forced towards that same spot. So what’s gonna happen to the less dense matter, as more dense matter with more inertia, is forced down to lower position? It’s gonna be pushed up…even you already agree to this. But don’t you get it, if matter is not being pulled down, then that displacement wouldn’t occur. With nothing to put matter into the downward motion, then what reason does the less dense matter have to get out of the way? Nothing is then putting any matter into motion in any direction, so nothing is actively pushing against it…so it won’t rise. Without the downward motion, displacement will not occur. So it’s pretty simple…gravity causes displacement, it’s the reason that bubble rises. No downward motion, no buoyancy.
This is basic physics of buoyancy, understood by every engineer and scientist around the world. Think about it awhile, maybe it’ll click eventually. And while you’re at it, just look up the many experiments for buoyancy physics that confirms this further. It’s a very well tested phenomenon.
1
-
Learn the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory, they are not the same thing. Here’s a great video that could help you out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0H-amOti_o
Theories of science are built from facts, so science is trying to demonstrate those facts to people...the trouble is, theories are quite expansive and there’s no way to teach a theory to someone completely, without them dedicating a large amount of time towards that task. Most people don’t have that kind of time...and they don’t want hard, they want quick and easy to digest answers. 50 years ago they took several pictures of Earth though...and at the time, this was good enough, this was easy to digest information. But, now with CGI the way that it is, and a growing lack of trust in systems of authority, doesn’t matter what science shows them, if they’re just going to find excuses to ignore it all. At this point, for some people, they’ve lost so much trust, that until they see the Earth for themselves, it no longer really matters what science provides for them, they’re not listening to sources they no longer trust. So if they’re not listening, if they’re just going to ignore it...then there’s not much science can do, doesn’t really matter what facts are provided, it’s not about facts really...it’s about psychology, it’s about who they trust and who they don’t.
There are simple ways to verify Earths shape though, like observing a simple sunset. How exactly does the sun rise and set, if it occupies the same visual sky for everywhere, at the same time? Just one of many simple ways you can verify the Earths true geometry.
1
-
@bisonchief304 Classic response from a person with no real argument, “do your own research”. Maybe you’ve heard of the burden of proof? You make a claim, it’s then YOUR job to back it up with evidence…that’s how this works. If you actually knew what you were talking about, if YOU actually had some real evidence, it would be easy to share…but you don’t, you just assumed everything, you made it all up, and now expect the rest of us to believe your assumptions without question or proof. This whole “do your own research” bullshit needs to end, it gets tossed around like everybody thinks they’re an expert because they read an article once, or saw a YouTube video, when the truth is, you’re just using it as an excuse….because you have no idea what you’re talking about, and deep down even you know it.
1
-
1
-
Sure, many of the questions they ask are reasonable, some are even great physics and general science questions...the problem is, they’re approaching the questions with a strong bias of their own, so certain that they’re being screwed over by a shadowy “they”, that they feel compelled to defeat at all costs. Makes it very hard for most to remain objective here. So in my experience, having chatted with hundreds of Flat Earthers over several years now, I’ve noticed they’re generally going through research hastily, with blinders on, seeking only the details that confirm their particular bias...doing anything they can, to expose “them”, whoever “they” might be.
It’s great people are asking questions, in fact it’s perfectly logical...but if they think they’re not approaching things with biases of their own, they should be more honest with themselves. We all have bias, it’s actually very difficult to operate without it, taking a lot of patience and practice. So best to be cautious and not jump to conclusions to hastily.
A general distrust of authority, coupled with a desire to defeat them, is a strong bias. Can lead down some dark rabbit holes of nonsense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, this video wasn't trying to share evidence for either position really, his focus here was more on the discussion of WHY people believe the Earth is flat. It was a psychological discussion on that issue, not a science lecture sharing evidence for either conclusion. He shared those two examples (level on a plane and the Bedford level experiment), to basically mock Flat Earth, because both of those are a perfect example of poor research done by Flat Earthers, that helps explain how people fall for this scam.
Allow me to explain better. The level on a plane is an inconclusive experiment and it actually doesn't prove anything, for either position. Because if gravity is real and works the way we believe it does on the sphere...then the level is not leveling to the surface, it is leveling perpendicular to center of gravity (because a bubble level works due to buoyancy, which is a force caused directly by gravity), which means it will keep tilting with the curvature of the Earth as you travel into different gravity vectors. And if gravity works how Flat Earth believes it does, just pointing down towards a flat surface...then same thing, it'll just stay level either way. Which means it's an inconclusive experiment, it does not verify or falsify either conclusion....but if you don't realize that, then it will successfully con you into believing the Earth is flat. You have to have an understanding of gravity, an understanding of how that level works in the first place, in order to understand how this experiment can fool you.
Basically, it's sloppy research to reach a conclusion from an inconclusive experiment. In science, we have to be a LOT more diligent and remain objective, we can't lean on bias...especially on inconclusive experiments like the level on a plane experiment, which ignores gravity in the flat Earth conclusion.
He shared the Bedford level experiment as well, because it's the perfect example of a sloppy experiment, done only to confirm a bias. This experiment is taught to undergraduates of science, because it's a perfect example of an experiment that was rushed along, that ignored many variables, just so it could confirm a bias. This is important for scientists to learn, because it helps to illustrate the dangers of conducting poor experiments.
What Robotham did was he only paid attention to ONE variable, he assumed that his math was accurate first of all (it wasn't) and then only focused on whether or not he could still see the flag marker after a certain distance. Then he reached a conclusion from just that alone....ONE variable, one data set, one observation....this is wrong. That's not how you conduct a proper experiment, that is how you confirm bias. So he reached a false conclusion, from conducting a poor experiment, that ignored many variables and didn't collect enough data to make his conclusion more conclusive.
His experiment is a good one however (unlike the level on a plane which will always render an inconclusive result), he just needed to do more and he needed to consider more variables, like refraction for example. If you don't think refraction can make things rise up from horizon, I urge you to watch this quick demonstration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs Refraction is very real, and it is absolutely a variable that can not be ignored in an experiment such as this, it has to be accounted for. Rowbotham didn't account for this variable, and he didn't collect enough data sets to make his observation more conclusive. Upon peer review and recreation of his experiment, it was found that he ignored variables and conducted a quick sloppy experiment, that was only designed to confirm a bias. Upon peer review, his work was falsified...which is why we repeat experiments and conduct peer review, to weed out errors, bias, and potential lying.
Now, here is a recreation of the Bedford level experiment, this time done over 10 km of a frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment This is how you conduct a proper experiment, by accounting for EVERY known variable and doing all that you can to account for any hidden variables. Upon all recreation of the Bedford level experiment, it is found that the Earth is indeed curving and it is curving at the rate that it should given our Earths projected size and shape.
So he shared those two experiments for a reason, because they help to illustrate WHY and HOW people are suckered into believing in Flat Earth. One of the many ways, is through sloppy experiments like these, designed only to confirm a bias and nothing more. They're quick, easy to digest and many people only have time for quick and easy...they don't have time for what it actually takes to reach a conclusive result. REAL science takes time and patience...time that most people don't have. So these two experiments are the perfect example of the kind of quick and easy to digest content, that works to fool people that the Earth is flat.
That's why he shared those....it wasn't to ignore their conclusions, it was to demonstrate how Flat Earthers use quick demonstrations like these, to fall deeper into the rabbit hole of this conspiracy, which is what the topic of this video was all about. I compare these types of experiments, to slight of hand tricks, fooling the mind into thinking they're legit...but it's just clever misdirection that keeps you from REALLY thinking about things further. See enough of these quick parlor trick experiments, and then it becomes quite convincing the Earth is flat...but that's why peer review is so damn crucial to the process of science. Humans have a hard time going back and re-evaluating their own work...our peers on the other hand, can't wait to tear our work apart and review it. Our peers have no problem pointing out our errors, which is why peer review works.
Anyway, so I hope that helps you understand a bit better why he shared those two experiments in particular. They fit quite well into the theme of this video, which was to figure out how and why people are roped in by Flat Earth. I hope you take the time to consider what I've shared here, and take the time to re-evaluate these two experiments. There is a reason why many of us don't bat an eye at Flat Earth claims and experiments....it's not because we don't have an open mind, we are listening, we just see the errors and we can't so easily ignore those errors.
1
-
@samwakefield15 No, it's not just an equation, equipotential distance is just a term meaning a surface that maintains an equal distance from center of mass. A bubble has a surface that maintains equipotential distance from center, forming a sphere. A rain drop has a surface that maintains an equipotential distance from center, forming a sphere....getting it yet? A sphere is the most rigid shape found in nature, equipotential surfaces are quite common. With gravity pulling all things to a center point, forming a mass around that center, the surface of Earth would do the exact same thing...which is how topography works, it's measured from center of mass in all directions. A bubble for example has a topographic surface that has equipotential distance from center, in the context of topography then, you could say that bubbles surface is level perpendicular to center of mass all the way around...which is what they also say in regards to the topography of Earths surface. It's topographically level in some areas of Earth, meaning that surface maintains equipotential distance from center, spanning for miles...getting it yet?
So in one sentence you shun math when it disagrees with you, then in the next sentence you praise math for when it agrees with you? Seeing a pattern yet? You ignore anything that refutes your arguments....which means you are bias. Math is bullshit when it disagrees with you, but then you accept it with open arms when it agrees with you...it's incredible you can't see how bias that makes you.
Let me guess, you use the 8 inches per mile squared equation in your math for long distance observations, am I right? If you do, then there's your problem...cause that's not the correct math to use for long distance observations. It is a basic parabolic equation, that only derives a drop from a tangent line, which does not represent line of sight, it does not tell you where horizon is, or what is hidden by that horizon...it is simply the wrong math. Use the wrong math for the wrong job, and you will reach a false conclusion, it's pretty simple. So let me know what math you're using for long distance observations, because it does matter. Flat Earth reaches a lot of false conclusions, from using the wrong math...what's funny to me is that you never think to check your math to make sure the error wasn't your own. As soon as your bias is confirmed, you just chalk up another win and move on.
This is how Flat Earth cons people...they know most people have no idea how to control bias, so they encourage it. They get you to start with a conclusion and then cherry pick the evidence that supports it, instead of building your conclusion from ALL of the evidence, doing everything you can to falsify anything you find. Science is all about falsification, you never just stop looking once your bias is confirmed, you do everything you can to falsify your evidence. It's when you can't falsify it anymore, that you're left with the truest conclusion. I'm just pointing out some information you have overlooked....you're not helping your position by ignoring that information, you're just shining more of a light on how bias you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Several things to factor. First, 1000 mph is a linear speed, not a rotational velocity. Earths rotation is a rotational velocity, not a linear one, we measure rotations in revolutions per minute (RPM's). The Earth completes one rotation every 24 hours, which is 2x's slower than the hour hand of a clock...so in all actuality, we're not rotating very fast at all. You can simulate how fast we rotate, by spinning in place so that your body completes one complete rotation in 24 hours, that is more accurate to displaying a rotational velocity of the Earth.
Another thing to keep in mind, is parallax. The further an object is from you, the less it appears to move. A plane in the sky for instance travels at 500 mph while at cruising altitude...but do they appear to be moving that fast to you the observer watching them from the ground? No, but if you were closer, it sure would. That's also why when driving down the highway at 60 mph, everything on the side of the road whizzes by really fast, but everything in the distance like trees, houses, hills, clouds, all appear to be barely moving at all. The further something is away, the less it appears to move, the Sun is very far away, so even if we did move at a 1000 mph linear rate, it would still appear to barely be moving thanks to parallax.
But either way, we measure rotational velocities in RPM's, not linear rates. And so you should think of this in terms of circular degrees. With an Earth that rotates at the rate of 1 revolution every 24 hours, that means objects in the sky should arc across the sky at 15 degrees change every hour (divide 365 degrees by 24, you get 15 degrees per hour). When we observe and track the movement of the Sun using what's called an equatorial telescope mount, it is in fact observed to arc at 15 degrees every hour, never deviating from that rate of travel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD0ygI4ggnc&t This correlates with the Globe model, that's exactly how fast it should trace across the sky, if our Earth is rotating at 1 revolution every 24 hours.
So observation actually matches with the Globe model, not a Flat Earth. It's a great question though, so I hope I was able to help shed some light on things. 1000 mph is a linear speed, but rotations are not measured in linear rates, so that's what's key here.
When you really start looking at the Sun, there are a lot more anomalies that the Flat Earth has trouble answering, than there is for the Globe. A simple sunset for example, how exactly does that work on a Flat Earth? Where does the Sun go during a sunset? If it occupy's the same visual sky everywhere on Earth...shouldn't it be visible from everywhere on Earth, at all hours of the day? Common sense says yes, and so does the math. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM Just one example of things the Flat Earth model has trouble answering, so don't forget to turn that skeptical lens around on the Flat Earth model sometime...there is a lot this model can not account for, so it should not be ignored.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Alright, here's a great site that has archived many of the old photos taken during the various Apollo missions. Apollo 13 and 16 have some of the best images I've found, so I've linked those.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157657289512883
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544
These are all non composite, full images of Earth. Only some of the photos NASA produces are composites, don't let Flat Earth lie to you and say they're all composites, because that's very far from true. There are also currently multiple satellites in orbit right now, that take images of Earth on a regular basis. Look up Himawari 8, DSCOVRY, GOES 15-17, just a little sample of some satellites in geostationary orbit right now that photograph the Earth. Here's a group of hobbyists who have built their own radio telescope, that they use to pull data from these satellites in orbit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t=86s
The continents look different because of distance and perspective. Here's a quick visual demonstrating what's happening. https://www.metabunk.org/sk/globe_comparison_with_distance.jpg You can test this for yourself with a Globe and a camera. Distance allows you to see more of the surface of a ball, this distorts the apparent size of things on that surface, it's a trick of perspective. Flat Earth doesn't share this detail to you, because they're trying to mislead you...it should be a red flag for you now, that they're lying to you when they make that claim. Don't listen to these people blindly, they will take you for a ride of their design.
1
-
1
-
@oliviamiller7434 You are welcome, just doing what I can to help. Nothing wrong with asking questions. Yes, the land masses will vary, did you notice this link I also shared that demonstrates why the land masses vary in apparent size from picture to picture? I'll share it again here https://www.metabunk.org/sk/globe_comparison_with_distance.jpg. Distance plays a huge part in what you are able to see, it's a trick of perspective. The further back you are from a 3D object like a sphere, the more of it you will be able to see.
The reason you don't see stars in a photo of Earth is because of a cameras exposure setting. They have to lower the exposure of the camera when photographing Earth from space, or they'll just get a big white blur in frame. When they do this, what they're doing is lowering the amount of light that comes into the shutter and hits the film, this means that anything that's not bright enough to shine through the exposure setting, won't be visible in the film. Stars really are not all that bright, it takes a lot of exposure to capture them on film, but when they lower the exposure of the camera so they can get a clear image of Earth, the stars will be lost in the photo, drowned out by the much more intense light of Earth. So it's basic photography, most people just don't know much about how cameras work, so they assume things.
Here's a great video explaining exposure on a camera a little more, explaining over exposure and what it does. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73ELpzIR3aY You'll notice his first picture you can't see any clouds, then when he pulls the exposure back, the clouds then become visible. A similar thing occurs in space, except when you over expose the Earth, it becomes a big white blur, where you can MAYBE then see some stars, but people want to see the Earth, not a big white blur, so they have to lower exposure to capture the Earth. When they pull the exposure back down to get a clear image of the Earth, the stars are lost in the photo, because they're simply not bright enough to cut through that level of exposure required to see the Earth in a clear photo.
That's why you don't see stars in a photo of Earth, because of the limitations of photography and film. But if the Sun is blocked and they're on the night side of Earth, THEN they can crank up the exposure and capture the stars in frame. Here's a great video of the ISS taking photos during their pass of the night side of Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9oPUNaqXE Lots of stars here and since the exposure is also cranked up, they can also capture cities and the auroras.
Anyway, I hope that information is helpful for you. I know Flat Earth can sound convincing on the surface, but they thrive on peoples general lack of expanded knowledge. It's impossible for any one person to know EVERYTHING, and you kind of have to be a small expert at every little thing to catch how they're conning you. From photography, to physics, to math, to perspective and opitcs, to astronomy, etc....they just bombard you with a gish gallop of things most people are not experts in and don't know much about, then they fill the gaps in your knowledge with lies and doubt...and then most people just don't have enough time in their day to research where they've conned you. It's sick really...and a lot of them know they're doing it, and they do it anyway.
If there's anything else you'd like to know more about, I don't mind taking the time to give some further insight. I've been looking at this mess for a little over 3 years at this point, I have taken the time to learn the information they don't give you. So I'm more then happy to share what I have learned, so feel free any time. I don't claim to know everything, but at this point I have concluded they are conning people, so just doing what I can to off set that if I can.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KangenAlec How does a person know it’s not just pseudoscience? Because the nice thing about science, is that it’s repeatable, so at any time, anyone can verify much of the science for themselves, you don’t have to just take peoples word for it, you can learn this stuff directly. If you are reaching speculative conclusions before you’ve bothered to test things for yourself however, then you are arguing from ignorance and thus are not making a logical argument.
Also, the nice thing about junk science...is that it doesn’t work, so it’s quickly discarded for that reason. Can’t do anything with science that doesn’t work or fit with reality. :) Sooooo...you can be certain the science is good, when it’s actually USEFUL for applied purposes, and it WORKS! it’s not a complicated thing. The Globe works...that’s for a very good reason.
1
-
1
-
The thing is, it's not irrefutable...at all...Flat Earths error is often how quick they jump to conclusions and assume there is nothing more to review or research, they tend to just do enough to confirm their bias and then stop looking, Rowbotham was no different, the Zhetetic method handbook, is practically a how to manual on confirmation bias.
Here's what you'll find when you actually look at the Bedford level experiment. Rowbotham did a sloppy experiment, that only took a single data collection, that didn't account for refraction and many other variables. Even this guy pointed that out, briefly admittedly, but it's not hard to deduce upon reviewing the entire experiment, that Rowbotham's Bedford level experiment was a perfect example of a sloppy, poorly done experiment, that only did as much research required to confirm his bias. It now stands as a perfect example of bad science and the pitfalls of confirmation bias.
The purpose of this video above is not to prove anything, it was to talk about WHY and HOW people fall for the con of Flat Earth. So it's not trying to present any arguments for either position really. This video is more for those of us who have already looked at Flat Earth, have figured out how it's flawed and now want to discuss it further to analysis the broader effect it's having on society as a whole. So that's why it's quite short with it's explanations, most of us already know where these experiments go wrong...we don't require more info. So this video is not for Flat Earthers, that's not its target audience.
1
-
"Why dont they ask the astronaughts on live t.v. if its flat?"
Why would they, everybody else knows it's a Globe, especially astronauts, it's a stupid question to ask at this point.
"Why does water find its level?"
Water seeks the lowest point it can physical obtain before other more dense matter stops it. Lowest point is towards center of mass, that's where gravity pulls all mass, towards center. So water, just all like all matter on Earth, is pulled down toward that center...the only shape matter can obtain if it's stacking upon itself around a central point, is a sphere. Level does not mean flat in geometry, it means perpendicular to center of object. Learn some physics and some math.
"Why are there only composites of earth from space?"
There isn't, here's an archive where you can find several full photos of Earth taken during the various Apollo missions.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums - These are all non composite photos, they are full images. Stop listening blindly to con men feeding you bad information and taking words from others out of context to help sell you lies and confirmation bias.
"He mentioned all this truth that the earth is a globe, show us..at least we show you why its flat."
Read the title of the video, sharing evidence is not the point of this video. This video is targeted towards those of us who have already looked at the science and have concluded that Flat Earth is a scam, now we'd like to discuss WHY and HOW people fall for this scam online. This is a discussion video about the psychological heart of the issue that some people have, that leads them to follow con men online. So no shit he didn't share any data or evidence here, that wasn't the point of the video and it's clear right from the title.
"What's up with all the plane flights in the lower hemisphere?"
I can only assume you mean the Southern Hemisphere, South is not down, so saying it's lower is a common error Flat Earthers make. It's not actually lower, there is no top or bottom to Earth in reality. But I agree, what is up with the Southern flights? Did you know there are several direct flights from places like Australia to South Africa or South America...that are a LOT shorter then they would be if the Earth were actually flat, did you know that? Flat Earth cons a lot people with flight paths by showing you only half the information and then lying about the other half or hiding it entirely. Here's a great channel from an ACTUAL commercial air pilot, who has made it his hobby explaining and debunking Flat Earth claims made about flight paths. https://www.youtube.com/user/Wolfie6020 Give it a look sometime, he can help answer most of your questions about flights and navigation in the South...he's from Australia as well.
"Why do they leave radar tracking until just before they land?"
Radar can only reach so far...because of the curvature of the Earth. So instead they use GPS to track most flights en route, GPS provided by satellites in orbit. Radar is typically just for the control towers to help them manage and direct flight...but its range is limited. And do you know WHY its range is limited? Because the Earths curvature eventually blocks that signal. Pretty simple. If Earth were flat, then radar would be able to reach MUCH further.
"...this host is doing nothing but regurgitating what he was told,"
You people REALLY need to stop and consider the very real possibility that maybe YOU'RE the ones being told some bullshit, that you now repeat verbatim like they're own insights. This is an ignorant argument to make. Are you a scientist? Are you an expert in ANY field of research or development? No? Then WHAT makes you think you know anything about what these people do for a living? You wouldn't tell a heart surgeon these sorts of things, or an electrician, or a pilot. You don't tell them these things, because it's common sense that they know a lot more about something YOU do not...guess what, scientists are no different. Your computer, the internet and the wifi that connects you, didn't get there by itself. Do you know how it all works? Enough to be able to recreate that science down to the last microchip and line of binary code and wifi reciever? No? Then shut the fuck up and accept that some people know more then you do about a LOT of things. :/
You know why you're falling for the scam of Flat Earth...because you don't really know much about much. You're ignorant to the world around you and how it actually works. Nobody else made you that way, that was YOUR choice and if you continue to be this ignorant, scams on the internet are going to continue to take you on a ride. It's fine to question what you're told, even logical in fact, but if you think we could have achieved all of what you see around you...without knowing something as trivial as the shape of the planet, then you're not thinking rationally.
1
-
@karhammer Kids are always gonna learn things the hard way. It’s nothing new really, the youth of every new generation is generally trying to shake things up, usually through believing they’re infallible, often realizing they’re not after the damage is already done, but the majority eventually do grow up, eventually realizing how dumb they once were. Just takes a bit of life experience, they’ll get there someday.
The only thing that really troubles me today is social media platforms, that seem to give the loudest and dumbest voices the most attention and consideration...it’s unlike anything else we’ve ever had before and an argument could certainly be made that kids probably should not have that kind of power at their fingertips. But it’s a slippery slope, fine line between censorship and regulation. There’s pros and cons to social networking at this scale, I’m confident we’ll figure it out eventually...but it’s gonna be a tumultuous time before we do.
Point is, every generation stumbles at first, it’s really nothing new, so I wouldn’t worry too much.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MultiBrad777 That's fine and all, and you should keep doing that, but I'll say it again, do you ever consider the possibility, that maybe you reached a different conclusion, because YOU made some errors? Why do you immediately assume the error is with science, rather then considering the possibility that it might be your observation/experiment/math/data that was in error? That's why we have peer review, it happens all the time in science, people make errors all the time. People reach a lot of false conclusions unknowingly, because they missed something, overlooked something, were bias about something, or at worst LIED about something. Which is what I see a lot in Flat Earth, which is why I review them and point out their errors as best I can.
All I'm saying is, I feel you do yourself a disservice if you just ignore us and shrug us off with over confidence. Nobody is above making errors, so nobody is above peer review, it's a very important step in the process of science for a good reason, but Flat Earth tends to skip that step, as does the general public not trained in the full method of science. I understand most people here are just dicks who would rather troll you, but some of us would rather help. I have my fun with things, and take my jabs too, but in all honestly I'd rather just help where I can and offer a little peer review and share some information. I don't claim to know everything, but I have spotted a LOT of errors in Flat Earth. So feel free to discuss what you've learned or what you've observed, and then maybe I can help give an alternate perspective. Up to you really, I do enjoy the discussion, and I'm all for keeping things civil.
1
-
Just because somebody lies, does not mean they lie all the time. You don't just throw the baby out with the bath water, that's a logical fallacy in thinking, it's called a black and white fallacy, thinking in absolutes rather then realizing that NOTHING is as black and white as you think.
It's not difficult to verify the Earth is a sphere for yourself, it wasn't the government that figured out the shape of the planet and you don't require them to tell you everything. Little hard to lie about the shape of the Earth...to many very intelligent people you'd have to fool, the government can barely keep scandals in their ranks under wraps, you really think they're savvy enough to hide the shape of the Earth? If you honestly believe every technological wonder you enjoy today is possible...yet we don't know something as trivial as the shape of our planet, then YOU are not thinking rationally. It's fine to question what you're told...but do not let paranoia rob you of your better reasoning.
If you'd like some help with some resources that can help you verify the shape of the planet for yourself, just ask, I can point you towards many experiments you can do yourself, to help answer pretty much any question you may have. I can also point you to some resources online of people who have collected the data and done many more advanced experiments. So feel free, I don't mind sharing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh, science is a load of crap eh....well gee, I guess you should stop using your computer then, your phone, your car, stop using the electricity that comes direct to your home, heck just move out to the bush and pretend everything is magic then. Hate to tell you this bud, but your bible didn't create these things...man did, using science as his best tool for discerning how to do it. Let us know when your bible helps anyone invent, innovate, engineer, discover, or navigate anything...until then, you're clinging to one hell of a dead horse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Agreed, that's the way it should be and I think in actual circles of science, that is how it operates. The trouble is non experts/layman (as most people are), are not trained to operate this way, they have never taken that sort of training and so they don't practice that sort of civil discussion on the daily, so most people they just fall back on what they generally do naturally, which is attack and ridicule anything that doesn't agree with them, cause that's just how the mind is wired to react at first, it's very normal human behavior and most don't work at controlling it. This is why science limits its input on scientific matters, with its own communities, that's why they publish their research in journals that you can only really gain access too, if you're an accredited member of that field. Because layman often over estimate what they think they know...and it leads them to false conclusions.
But yes, I don't think anyone should be mocked or ridiculed for having an opinion, it just causes them to double down on that opinion if you make them feel awful for trying, it then becomes their drive to prove you wrong...no matter how wrong they are. So we really should be doing less mocking and more listening...the trouble is, that has to go both ways...a civil discussion requires that BOTH sides are respecting each others positions and actively listening to what they have to say...and in conspiracy circles like Flat Earth, it's very rare to find that I feel.
I've talked with probably hundreds of Flat Earthers at this point...and only a small handful of those discussions have ever been civil and open. I'll take my jabs as well, I'm only human and no matter how well practiced you are at keeping your ego in check, it's going to desire coming out sometimes, but I do try my best to remain as civil as I can...it's just that, they make it really hard to do that most of the time. Some of them don't deserve anything less then mockery, they're just trolling, so not really worth the effort...sadly it's a very large majority, at least from those who actually comment, the more vocal ones. I'm sure there are lots of civil Flat Earthers out there...but they're not commenting as much, that's typically the way it goes, the dicks are the loudest and so they appear to be the most abundant for that reason.
I would be nice to have some civil discussions...I keep searching for them, cause I love learning new things from opposing viewpoints...but hard to do that, when I'm just labelled a shill right out of the gate.
Anyway, I'd be curious to know why your first reaction is to not trust science so easily. I'm not saying I disagree with you, of course you should always be skeptical at first, never conclude anything until it's been verified to you, though surely you still hold their opinions a bit higher then that of non experts? Personally I do, I'm going to listen to an expert over a non expert, because when you spend your days doing something for a living...it's logical that I can then assume, you're going to know something about that field that most don't and to a higher degree of wisdom and insight. That's how I treat it and how I think most people do, I'm not about to tell a brain surgeon how to do his job, or a mechanic, or an electrician...so why would I do that for a scientist? But I'm curious what you think on that, so let me know if there's perhaps a reason why you're maybe a bit more quick to question scientists. Is there a growing lack of trust occurring there? Or perhaps a slight hate for the way science is conducted today? Just curious is all, so feel free to let me know what you think.
If you made it this far, thanks for taking the time to read my rambles. Have a good one! :)
1
-
1
-
Alright, it's not gravity that keeps a helicopter moving with the rotation of Earth, it's conservation of momentum that keeps a helicopter moving. Here's a pretty clear demonstration of conservation of momentum in action. https://imgur.com/gallery/70m3Fku Notice how this guy keeps landing dead center of the trampoline, even though it is being pulled out from under him while in the air? This is the first Law of motion in action, everything in motion STAYS IN MOTION, until acted upon by an opposing force or mass. Conservation of momentum is very easily confirmed physics, and science knows a lot about it. A helicopter is pulled down to Earth by gravity, but it's conservation of momentum and relative motion that keeps it moving with the surface of Earth as it rotates.
You're kidding yourself if you think scientists could build all of the worlds modern technology, THAT YOU USE YOURSELF (and take for granted), but they can't figure out something as trivial as the shape of the planet. Have you EVER considered the very real possibility...that YOU are the one who doesn't understand how things work? Does that thought ever cross your mind? You are reaching conclusions from ignorance, a lack of knowledge and incredulity. That is why you think these things are impossible...not because they actually are, but because you really don't know shit, but you think you do. If you just pulled your head out of your Bible for 2 seconds to learn some basic physics, you'd maybe understand things a lot better then you currently do. It's not hard to verify the science to yourself, that answers your questions...learn some physics.
Also, you pretty much forfeit yourself from conversation the moment you say something is "just a theory". It tells the rest of us that you don't really know much about science and how it operates. Learn the language of science, and understand why calling something "just a theory", is a very stupid comment to make.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I wouldn't be so quick to conclude things just yet. There is a reason most of us don't bat an eye at this experiment, and it's because we understand a few more details that don't make things that simple I'm afraid.
Here's what we understand to be happening here. A spirit level works thanks to gravity, which creates the buoyancy displacement within the tube to occur at all. If this is the case (and we know it is if what know about gravity is true), then the bubble is leveling to center of gravity, perpendicular to center at all times, that's how they work. I'm sure you've heard of this term before, center of gravity, but maybe you weren't aware it has a vector...that vector is always down, towards center of Earth. That's what all things balance too...center of gravity, by being perpendicular to that center of gravity. A spirit level is basically a balanced buoyancy effect, the center of the level being level to center of gravity.
Since gravity always points to center of Earth everywhere on the Globe, then the gravity vector shifts with the curvature of the Earth so that it's always pointing to center, which mean a spirit level, that is leveling to the center of these gravity vectors, actually shifts to level to center of gravity at all times...which means it's going to follow curvature, leveling perpendicular to center of gravity at all times...not surface.
What this means is, it will read level the entire time it travels around the Globe, which renders the experiment inconclusive...which means it actually doesn't prove anything.
Even if you disagree with the Globe model, this still does mean this experiment is inconclusive. It presupposes a flat Earth and ignores what we know and understand today about gravity. If gravity works the way that we understand it to work today, pulling all mass to center, then this does mean this experiment does not disprove a Globe with gravity, it is actually inconclusive.
So it's not that simple I'm afraid. He didn't go into detail here...cause this video isn't really for that. The goal of this video wasn't to analyze the arguments, it was more to analyze the mind of a Flat Earther and figure out WHY and HOW they fall for these sorts of arguments. This video is more for those of us who have already concluded that Flat Earth is false and now we'd like to discuss the psychology of the movement. It's also focused more on mild entertainment, than actual education, so I wouldn't take it all to seriously...but that's why he doesn't go into further details...he assumed this was common knowledge.
Anyway, I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. Flat Earth does ask some great questions at times, but they need to be more diligent and take more time to understand the model they argue against, or you will risk compiling a lot of evidence out of inconclusive tests such as this.
1
-
@FAMMCUZ Well I’d rather be where we are today, creating and living life to the fullest of my potential...than spending my days just struggling to survive like any other animal in the wild. Yes the world gives us everything we need, to survive...but do you want to simply just survive, or do you want reach for the stars and push our potential to its furthest possible reaches? Personally, I much prefer the latter.
I’m an artist for a living, an illustrator/concept designer, I spend my days creating and imagining vivid worlds and characters that I breath life into. I’m grateful for every day I get to do this...but it’s not something our ancestors had the privilege of experiencing. My life is something they could only dream of and it’s only possible because of the modern world they help build, that science and discovery has made possible.
I’m grateful for these individuals who studied and gathered the collective knowledge of mankind, to bring our society out of the wild and into all that we have today, you should be a bit more grateful as well. We’re going to survive a LOT longer having more of a knowledge of the world and universe around us, so it’s a HUGE advantage we have. What you’re basically asking for is that we cripple ourselves and become animals again...not likely to happen bud, discovery and curiosity are a deep part of human nature, we’ve been conducting science since the very first time we harnessed fire for warmth, or sharpened sticks for hunting advantages. You seem to think that just because we’re building skyscrapers, we’re somehow not apart of nature anymore. Every physical thing in reality is a part of nature and is natural...nothing we ever do will make us unnatural. So save the hippy bullshit rhetoric, it’s just an excuse to keep people ignorant to reality in my opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rick H Alright so you said in your last comment, you don’t believe there is any science that confirms the motions of the planet and the distance to the Sun. So those are 2 different topics, both with a lot of history and scientific backing. I don’t wanna write entire thesis papers here (though this will get long, science is a long process, it’s unavoidable really), so I’ll focus on one for now, I’ll focus on the motions since it’s more general physics related and much easier for anyone to verify for themselves with simple experiments. The other (measuring the AU or distance to the Sun) is more Astronomy and Astro Physics, which does require better equipment and more difficult experimentation, not as simple for the average joe to replicate. Not impossible, but in contrast I can teach anyone the physics of motion with just simple thought experiments, so it’s far easier science to replicate and understand.
Let’s start with an explanation for HOW those velocities are possible. This is covered in the physics of motion, notably the Laws of Motion. So first, the trouble I find people have is that a lot of people have a false assumption about motion. Many people seem to think that our bodies feel motion itself, and this is false. We do not feel motion, we feel inertia, inertia that is created by a sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion. The understanding most people have, is that the faster we go, the greater the G force inertia. So when they hear “the Earth rotates at 1000 mph and fly’s around the Sun at 67,000 mph” naturally, those big numbers seem to contradict their understanding of speed. Surely, we should feel those motions they think. Nope, because that’s not really how G force inertia works, or motion in general. G force inertia is only felt during acceleration, deceleration and turning, all of these CHANGE your forward momentum. It’s that change in motion, that creates the inertia your body feels.
What this means is, if speed remains constant in one direction, then in reality it doesn’t matter how fast you’re moving, you will not feel that motion, because every atom and molecule in your body is moving at the same rate and in the same direction, so they’re not squashed against each other creating stress and friction, which is basically what inertia is, so there won’t be any inertia. No inertia, means your body feels nothing, meaning you won’t be able to notice how fast you’re really going...and so we can actually travel at pretty much any speed, there is no speed limit our body can’t handle, because we are not actually affected by motion itself, it is change in motion that we are affected by.
You verify this, pretty much anytime you get into a moving vehicle of any kind. When driving down the highway at 60 mph (100 kmph), when do you notice the speed inertia? It’s simple, anytime the car accelerates or comes to a quick stop. If you were to go from 0 -60 mph in 10 seconds, you’d probably be sucked to your seat the entire time, there’s a lot of acceleration inertia happening here. But now if you were to instead drive from 0-60 mph over the course of 1 hour, gradually increasing speed until you reached your top speed, never once would you be sucked to the seat. But why? It’s the same speed...shouldn’t you feel something once you got up to a certain speed? No, you don’t, in the second example there’s no inertia. Same exact speed, but no inertia...so this teaches us about G force inertia, it has nothing to do with the speed, everything to do with the rate of acceleration.
That’s why you can get up and walk around the cabin of an airplane, travelling at 500 mph, and never feel the G force. It’s the same physics, we called it conservation of momentum. It’s the first law of motion, all things in motion stay in motion, until acted upon by an opposing force or mass.
Now a common rebuttal I hear from flat Earthers here is “well put yourself outside the vehicle, and now you’ll feel the motion” Ok, but now you have introduced drag force inertia, the air around you is not moving at the same relative rate of motion you are, so now your motion is being pushed through stationary air, creating air resistance, friction, drag force. Why this isn’t a valid rebuttal, is because it’s a false comparison. There main argument is they claim you’re feeling motion itself...and we don’t, we feel inertia. Drag force creates inertia, so all this rebuttal does is deflects from the lesson of how motion works and what we feel and just confirms what I’m saying further, we don’t feel motion, we feel inertia.
Let’s say we put a person on the outside of a vehicle travelling at 500 mph, like flat Earthers ask, only now let’s pretend the air around us is also moving with us in the same direction at 500 mph, would there be any drag force now? No...so no drag force and no acceleration or deceleration, so is there any inertia now? No, so we feel nothing. See this is what’s happening with Earth. Yes it’s moving really fast, but all the air is moving WITH it, at the exact same rate, in the same directions. So we will not feel anything, and no air in space, so Earth isn’t experiencing any drag force, no stationary air smashing into it, so it’s a far more accurate comparison, to compare Earths motions to the INSIDE of a vehicle, not the outside. So think of Earth pretty much like a vehicle you travel in...that’s a far more accurate comparison. So that flat Earth rebuttal is just a straw man, a deflection argument to keep people from learning how conservation of momentum works.
So what this tells us, is that those speeds are possible, they won’t rip us to shreds like people seem to assume, that’s not how motion works. But the other problem they have is “well, why aren’t we left behind then? If we ever leave the surface, shouldn’t the Earth keep going and we be left behind?”, which was basically your helicopter analogy. No, you don’t just stop moving dead in your tracks the moment you leave the surface of something in motion, your body conserves that forward momentum at all times, until an apposing force or mass can stop or slow you. Air is a mass, it can slow you, but as we learned above, if that air is moving at the same rate as you are, drag force will not occur. When a helicopter lifts off the surface, it doesn’t just stop moving forward with the Earth and it’s rotation, it conserves that momentum of Earth’s rotation. The air around it is doing the same, so no drag force, so it can very easily move with Earths rotation, thanks to conservation of momentum.
Got a bit long, will finish this in a second comment.
1
-
Rick H Now that’s the explanation, but now we should prove this law of motion. So here’s a good experiment I like to share. https://imgur.com/gallery/70m3Fku Now pay attention to this guy jumping on the trampoline here. The trampoline is in motion, and yet he manages to keep landing dead centre of the trampoline, keeping up with that motion. But how? If we applied your past understanding of motion, shouldn’t the trampoline be pulled out from under him after the first jump, leaving him landing on the road? And yet, here he is, moving with the trampoline upon each bounce, never deviating from centre. We call this relative motion, he’s moving relative to the motion of the trampoline, he is within that inertial reference frame of motion, conserving the forward momentum of the trampoline at all times, so he stays moving with it, even when he’s not physically attached to it. A helicopter or plane in flight, is doing the same.
There are many other experiments for conservation of momentum that one can try as well, it’s probably one of the easiest things in physics to test and verify at any given time. Here’s another good one, having more to do with your helicopter quandary. https://youtu.be/HIycHlAsDZk?t=151 So here, he’s testing to see if a drone will maintain forward flight while inside a moving vehicle. Once the van is up to a steady rate of motion, he begins hovering the drone, then giving it no further command, it hovers in place just fine with the vehicle, on conservation of momentum alone. Even more interesting is when the driver hits the brakes, the drone keeps going forward, hitting the wind shield.
This further confirms conservation of momentum. See there’s a whole lot of established physics people are either unaware of or that they are ignoring, when they assume the motions of the Earth are impossible, or that they don’t fit with what we experience in reality. It’s easy science to learn, understand and verify though, and it does help explain the motions of the heliocentric model. I just don’t think people should be reaching conclusions from incredulity, I know it seems impossible, but I hope here I was able to briefly explain and demonstrate how these motions are possible. I’d suggest learning more about the laws of motion, conservation of momentum and relative motion. If you’ve taken high school physics, which I assume you have being an educated man, then you have had this taught to you before. I know the word indoctrination gets tossed around a lot in this conspiracy...but that implies knowledge they just told you and didn’t verify with demonstrations and experiments. You can demonstrate this physics, that’s how I know it’s legit...that’s what I use reach conclusions with, science I can actually demonstrate.
Anyway, I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. Now none of that of course verifies that Earth is in motion, that is just the physics that explains how it is possible. My point here is that the motions of the planet are very much within the realm of real physics, so that’s important to learn first I feel, that it’s not impossible at all, the physics is there. Next I will share the experiments and technologies that exist that have been used to prove Earth is in motion. Because they do exist, we didn’t just reach that conclusion from nothing. I’m happy to share those experiments, if you’re not aware of them quite yet.
1
-
Rick H Ok but you have to do more then just say “it looks like it is, therefore it is” that’s another false equivalence fallacy and an argument from ignorance. That’s why experiments must be repeated, that’s why peer review is so crucial to the process of science. If you repeat this experiment exactly how it was here and it fails to achieve the same result, THEN you can say something fishy is going on here. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a valid observation to say “it looks cgi”, it just becomes a fallacy when you choose to reach a definite conclusion from just your proposal. That’s something note for later and attempt to prove or falsify, but the moment you conclude that is what’s happening, before actually isolating it as true, then you’ve committed a fallacy.
This experiment is very repeatable, it’s been done thousands of different ways, for hundreds of years now, so if you believe it’s CGI, then the next step is to repeat it to make sure you can at least get the same results or not. That is not the only version of this experiment, plenty of different and easier ways you can run it to test conservation of momentum yourself. Here’s another one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1URC2G2qnc and another https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KacTRPL1MtE and another https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fftar0rLi7Q. I can share many many more if you’d like. Conservation of momentum is one of the simplest experiments to repeat and verify, so give it a try sometime.
1
-
iq O No it does not, Flat Earth just does not understand basic physics very well. I’ve already explained your error of thermodynamics in great detail, so go back up and read it again if you wish. See indoctrination implies I did nothing to verify what I was taught, and my teachers gave no attempt to demonstrate the science they were speaking on. Maybe YOU didn’t pay attention very well in physics class, but very rarely were we just told what to believe...we then had these concepts demonstrated. It’s taken a step further in university labs where nobody is holding your hand, YOU have to recreate the experiments yourself and you’re encouraged to improve upon them.
So let’s just call your “indoctrination” argument out for what it is, an excuse, so you can go on believing bullshit and ignore what everyone else is trying to help you with. You wanna talk about indoctrination, look no further than Flat Earth...it’s basically a cult.
If you paid attention to my explanation of conservation of momentum and relative motion, you would know what the lesson is there with the balloon. So go back up and read that as well, ignorance is not an argument. It’s a pretty clear demonstration anyone can reproduce, that verifies conservation of momentum. Where as your spinning tennis ball of water, is a straw man argument, that misunderstands Centripetal forces and how they’re created and shows a false comparison experiment. I can break that physics down too if you’d like, I don’t mind pointing out your errors.
1
-
Rick H So not sure if you’re still interested, but I wasn’t quite finished sharing. Last time I talked about the science of conservation of momentum, which explains how the motions of the planet are possible. Now I wanted to share some experiments and technologies that verifies our Earth is in motion. Cause it bugs me when people say “there is no evidence for Earth’s motion” cause that’s not true at all...it bugs me that people actually seem to think that the scientific community reaches conclusions from nothing.
So I won’t go into great detail on each, feel like I’ve kinda lost you already and the videos I’ll share should explain things well enough. Point is, if you’re not aware of the science here...it’s because you’ve never really looked. Science doesn’t just reach conclusions without evidence, I understand it’s not always easy to find this knowledge, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. So here are some examples I am currently aware of, that have helped to verify Earths rotational motion.
Ring Laser Gyros
https://youtu.be/SrGgxAK9Z5A?t=50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_9J_c9Kss&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXYV6wNdZm8&t
Gyro Compass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPynV68Bg&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvO4froSGSc
Foucault Pendulum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQoGY3-zGAY&t
Measuring Centripetal force of Earths rotation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkhxPm15PFo&t
https://youtu.be/agQnj1q2Y08?t=383
Coriolis effect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX7dcl_ERNs&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eugYAfHW0I8&t
This is just a short list of experiments and evidence that confirms Earth’s rotational motion. Much of this is easily repeatable science, so I shared the best examples of each that explain and demonstrate how you can repeat these for yourself to put each one to the test. Again, just because you’re not aware of the science, does not mean it doesn’t exist. Please don’t join the group that thinks arguments from ignorance are valid arguments...they’re not, it’s just plane ol’ ignorance. You won’t find any truth through ignorance, so keep that mind open and stay honest.
1
-
iq O Questions are not proofs...just because YOU don’t know the answers to something, doesn’t mean they don’t have answers.
“BTW, what makes helium balloon go up? Why your imaginary gravity doesn’t pull it down immediately?”
Well you’re the expert on density, I’m surprised you don’t know what BUOYANCY is. Helium rises up because it is less dense than the surrounding air, so it is displaced by the air and pushed upward. It’s exactly like a balloon filled with regular air, that you try to submerge in water. The water is more dense than the air, so it pushes it up...it’s buoyancy...helium rises because of buoyancy, I’m surprised you didn’t know that with your superior understanding of density. Now here’s what you’re missing, buoyancy doesn’t occur without gravity. Without the downward force of gravity telling dense matter which direction to begin falling and ordering by density, then density displacement can not occur, so buoyancy does not occur. This is proven time and again with simple density columns put in zero G environments, remove gravity from the equation, and buoyancy does not occur. Gravity is what directly causes the effect of buoyancy. Dead matter doesn’t just know where the direction of down is dumb ass...and it’s not just moving in that direction on it’s own. A FORCE is required to put matter into motion...density is not a force. But at the very least, I hope you finally learn how helium rises, it’s because of buoyancy, clouds do the same thing, so does hydrogen and other lighter gases, it’s not difficult to understand. Helium is not free from gravity, eventually it stops being displaced and then it stops rising...gravity keeping it in our atmosphere. So there you go, where once you had a question you felt had no answer, now it is answered. Do some research on buoyancy...learn some actual physics please.
“What shape is the Earth?”
It is classified as an oblate spheroid, which means slightly wider at the Equator. Neil even says that, in the very same interview you pull that “pear shaped” comment from. Even he understood pretty quickly that was a poor comparison to make, so he later redacted that pear comment and then explains it’s oblate...but Flat Earthers are cherry pickers of information, you don’t really care about any other details, except for what confirms your bias. So how oblate is it? About 14 miles wider at the equator, so to you and me, it would look perfectly spherical...cause 14 miles to the Earth, might as well not even be a millimetre of difference. Here’s a handy video that can help you see just how oblate our Earth really is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjx0KcDH7pQ It’s such a tiny difference, it will appear perfectly spherical to you...this is one of those times where your eyes, can be fooled...because they’re not precise measuring tools, in fact they’re quite bad at eyeballing most things.
“Can you see stars from space?”
Yes, but it really depends how much surrounding light is coming into your eye, cause your eye works a lot like a camera lens does, it’s much easier to see stars while in the shadow of something, like Earth, the intense light from the Sun is being blocked, so your eye will have an easier time seeing the much dimmer light from stars. You’re trouble is that you think in absolutes. When asked that question, the astronauts will think on a spectrum that each will answer differently, depending on what they believe was meant by the question...this is basic human psychology. We all interpret questions differently. I’d imagine, one astronaut would think “the question being asked is can we see stars at all?” he will answer yes to that, because yes, you can see a few stars. Another astronaut will think what’s being asked is really “while in space, can we see as many stars as we do at night time, while here on Earth?”, he will answer no, because generally line of sight to the Sun is greater, so there’s typically less stars seen than you’d expect. Are you understanding yet how different people will interpret a question, and then give different answers? You’re just cherry-picking information again bud and misunderstanding how different people interpret answer questions. Your mistake is thinking in absolutes and assuming that everyone thinks like you do...this is not true in the slightest, different people will interpret questions differently, because we all think differently.
“Why Bill Nye said we’re in a closed system and there’s nowhere we can go?”
Where exactly are you pulling that quote from? Would be great to know the full context, cause I’m sure he probably explains and you just didn’t listen. Probably the wrong choice of words is all, but he’s not wrong at all. Gravity keeps everything contained to our surface, which creates an atmospheric shell around us, which creates a closed off ecosystem that is safe from the harsh environment of space. It’s pretty simple. When he said we can’t go anywhere, he wasn’t speaking in absolutes...again, maybe not the best choice of words, but articulating clearly is not always easy. What he likely meant was, you and me and him can’t go anywhere at the moment, we don’t have the technology to do it just yet. So again, what you’re doing is conferring your own meaning upon his words, spinning your own bias upon them. I’m doing the same, but that’s why I don’t collect quotes as evidence for anything...because they’re not. It’s pointless to waste your time on quote mining, it’s a form of confirmation bias, which means it’s not real evidence.
“Why we don’t see even 1 satellite or piece of space junk out of millions that are supposedly orbiting Earth on NASA’s so called live-streams??”
Why would you think we should? The orbital area around Earth is millions of miles cubed, and most of the junk floating around is no bigger than a screw and at worst a baseball...it’s all pretty tiny. So you spread all that debris out over millions of miles...you really think you’ll see anything? I think you really have trouble understanding just how big the Earth is. Satellites as well, there’s only about 2000 in orbit right now, and they’re only about the size of a small car. When you see a plane in the sky that is 6 miles high, how big does it look? Pretty tiny right? Ok, now imagine satellites, that are HUNDREDS to THOUSANDS of miles apart from each other...you really think you’ll be able to spot them? When you’re flying in a plane at 6 miles high...do you see any cars below you? Any people? Any small screws? Like shit man...did you really even think this through at all? But, here’s the thing, they do see them, it’s just very rare. Here’s a video of a satellite that passed close to the ISS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPoisirIt1U So it does happen, just not very often.
There, all your questions answered. If you have more, I don’t mind continuing. Questions are not proofs...quotes taken out of context are not proofs...you’re focusing on the wrong evidence my friend.
1
-
1
-
Well, you can never really prove anything in science with absolute 100% certainty, simply because we don't know everything and probably never will, so new information always has the potential to change old information. That's the stark reality of information gathering I'm afraid, so it's a fools errand to try and prove absolutes in science. But we can get pretty close yes, close enough anyway to get things to a point that a layman would consider it certain enough.
We do have plenty of experiments and observations though, that do help to further verify each concept of the Globe model. So I'll stop wasting your time and provide a few quick pieces of evidence for each of your questions here.
"can you prove it’s round ?"
We can and have measured and observed curvature, so yes. Here's a far more in depth and conclusive version of the Beford Level experiment, done this time over a frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment The test confirms, the Earth is curving and it's curving at the rate we know it to be curving here on Earth
Another experiment done for measuring and confirming curvature, recreating and improving upon the Eratosthenes experiment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=2s If you're pressed for time, skip to the 6 minute mark where he shares the results. Shadow angles from sunlight confirm, light is arriving parallel over a spherical surface that is curved at the rate we have measured it to be. Which also further verifies the conclusion of the first experiment shared, as the measured curvature matches in both experiments.
Now for the best evidence we have for this, photographic evidence. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544 Just a small sample of the hundreds of photos taken during the various Apollo missions. These are very high resolution photos, so take some time to analyze them sometime if you'd like. If you feel these were faked, explain to me the method you feel they used to fake them and outline the method you used to verify they were faked. As an artist for a living, to my eye, I have personally not been able to catch a single error in detail that would suggest these are faked.
Aside from that, here's a great video of a group of hobbyists who build their own radio telescopes they use to track and pull data from the various weather satellites in orbit currently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t=351s
"can you prove gravity ?"
This will get a bit long, so I'll post in a separate comment.
"can you prove we a spinning at thousands of miles per hour ?"
Yes, here's a short list of some of the many technologies and experiments we currently use and have done that verify Earths rotation.
Ring Laser Gyros/Large Area Sagnac Interformeters - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXYV6wNdZm8&t=51s
Gyro Compass - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPynV68Bg&t=8s
Foucault Pendulum experiment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U&t=137s
Measuring Earths Centrifugal force - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t=530s
Verifying Coriolis effect = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38&t=18s
Every experiment/tool done/used here helps to verify that Earth does rotate and they also measure all measure the same steady rate of rotation, 15 degrees per hour. On top of this there are also the photos and videos taken from orbit that verify rotation. As well as the deeper math equations used to track and make predictions of future celestial events, down the second and square mile. Lots of ways to verify rotation actually, so the claim that Flat Earth often makes that we can't or we haven't, is actually just a lie and it is false.
Anyway, apologies if this got long, I just like to be thorough. Question Flat Earth just as much as you now question the mainstream, only way to remain objective.
1
-
Continued from my last comment.
"Can you prove gravity"
Can you come up with any alternate explanation or theory, that can explain with greater accuracy HOW and WHY things fall when you drop them? Things fall when you drop them, the question is why down? Why that direction? From what we understand about motion, the first Law of motion states "nothing is put into motion without a force first acting upon it". When you drop something, it is put into motion...it falls. This is common knowledge of course, so if it's falling, and falling is motion and if motion requires a force, then what force has put that matter into motion? Flat Earth will say it's just Density and Buoyancy, but let's look closer at that argument for a moment.
Density is not a force, it is just a property of matter. It has no means or ability to put matter into any directional motion. So density can't cause this alone. Buoyancy is a force, but the trouble here is that it's not technically a REAL force, it's really just the left over effect of matter ordering by density due to a DOWNWARD accelerating force. So buoyancy can't exist at all, without there first being that downward force that begins the displacement of matter by density in the first place. Which is verified in simple density columns put in zero G environments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpP-7dhm9DI&t=167s When you remove that downward accelerating force from the equation...buoyancy disappears and matter does not displace, it blends together instead. So buoyancy can't explain this accurately, because buoyancy can't exist at all without that downward force first putting matter into its starting motions.
So as near as we can tell, there must be a downward force of some kind...which is what we all observe happening as well when we drop something. All we did was give that force a name, because there must be a downward accelerating force, to start that dropped motion and to start buoyancy.
Now there were other alternative explanations proposed at the start, such as Electromagnetism and static attraction, but these are falsified pretty quickly once you really get into the physics of both. As a quick example, both of these attractions effect all matter differently, attracting them at different rates. The trouble is, all matter has been observed to fall at the same rate in a vacuum, suggesting this downward force is a constant for all matter and does not attract matter differently. One of many examples that falsify's either theory as the reason for why things fall, I can share many more with you if you'd like more, but I'll leave it there for now.
Today we do have many experiments that measure this force of gravity and that help to verify it a little further. I'm sure you've heard of the Cavendish experiment that first measured it, but have you seen it in action? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH6aFgQhM_A And are you aware that Cavendish didn't just observe gravity here, he also measured its constant? A measurement we now use today in equations in engineering, often represented as a big G in formulas. Rocket science and orbital mechanics use this measurement a lot, it's quite accurate.
There is now today also the experiments that verified General Relativity, that expands upon gravity. Those being the Eddington experiment, time dilation experiments in upper atmosphere, observing red shift in distant stars, detecting gravitational waves, just to name a few. So what would you prefer science concluded? Something is attracting all matter to the surface of Earth, all observation and experimentation confirms it is there...and this concept does go on to explain pretty much everything else we observe and measure. It explains how stars are able to burn, through nuclear fusion reactions, it explains why all objects in space are spheres, it explains how they are able to achieve orbits...heck it explains how the universe was able to form in the first place. I don't say this lightly, that gravity was probably the most important discovery of mankind's history. When we made this crucial discovery, thousands of other unexplained phenomenon began to fall like domino's...they finally all made sense.
So can we prove gravity? Yes, many times over at this point in fact, but even if we couldn't, what other conclusion is there? We do observe a downward acceleration of matter...always falling at the same rate, in the same direction. We didn't invent this force...but we do observe something happening, all we did was gave it a name, we called it gravity. So what's the alternative and what would you prefer science conclude instead? Would you rather it do nothing and ignore these observations? If so, why?
I feel the only reason Flat Earth believes gravity doesn't exist, is because they understand how inconvenient it is for their arguments. So I feel they choose to deny it, rather then actually prove it doesn't exist. I don't know about you, but denying something doesn't mean it isn't there. It's just pure denial then...and a lot of misunderstanding as well it seems, from what I've seen anyway. A common argument they'll make, is why can't we recreate it on a smaller scale and test it directly? It's a good question sure, but what they want is a demonstration of water clinging to a sphere...but this ignores what we understand about gravity. We can't scale down gravity like that...especially not while currently standing in a gravity well that is MANY times greater and will constantly be pulling any water from the surface of any scaled down test like that, that we perform. That argument is just being irrational and stubborn, and it ignores we understand about gravity.
We have the Cavendish experiment and all its variations...it is our scaled down experiment of gravity and we're lucky we could even do that much, while standing in a source of intense gravity that will interfere with our tests for gravity.
So in my opinion, it's a bit nonsensical to conclude gravity doesn't exist...when it's pretty clear that something is there and we have measured it. Yes, we do not know everything about, we're still learning...but does that mean we should just throw the baby out with the bathwater? I don't think so...and certainly not because some people think denial is an argument we should take seriously.
1
-
@iamnen1 Electromagnetism is also "just another theory" but you currently use it to send and receive your WiFi data. Question what you're told all you like, that's perfectly fine and logical, but you're reaching false conclusions because you really don't know much about how science operates. You make that very clear to people, the moment you say that something is "just a theory" which basically forfeits you from the conversation after that. Learn the difference between a scientific theory and a regular theory...they are not the same thing. They chose that wording for a very good reason, because we do not know everything and we likely never will. So science isn't ridiculing you...people with fragile egos are mocking you, people who are not trained in how to control their emotions and their ego. But science doesn't care about ego, it cares about what it can verify, so it will listen to any hypothesis presented to it. But if all you have is ignorance and denial...then you're not going to last long, because science requires evidence...it doesn't just roll over and accept things blindly, you have to provide more then that, MUCH more.
If you want to change science, then you need to do better then make empty claims and you need to stop lying to yourself like this, "gravity cannot be measured in any form" that is an example of a lie you're telling yourself, it has been measured and those measurements are currently used in applied sciences today.
You're not asking me to keep an open mind, what you're really asking me to do is accept your world view blindly and without question. You're asking me to ignore things that we have verified and just deny all the evidence we have exists. I'm afraid we can't do that, that is not rational and we can't advance further with that sort of denial and ignorance. Flat Earth has to accept, that they will not change science with ignorance and denial...they HAVE to present a working model, and they HAVE to present actual evidence, that passes peer review. Until then the Globe model will remain the dominant model, until it can be successfully falsified. Good luck with that.
You just don't seem to realize, that you're mind is not really open...it has never been more shut. If it were open, then you would listen to us more as well. Some of us are listening to you, we have just reached a different conclusion, because we were able to successfully falsify Flat Earth. That's the camp I'm currently in, I am listening to Flat Earth, but all I'm seeing is ignorance, misunderstandings, denial and the most shut minds I've ever encountered. You won't change my mind with that sort of rhetoric, I require evidence. I have reviewed what Flat Earth classify's as their evidence so far and I have successfully falsified all of it so far. So I remain with the model that I haven't been able to falsify yet, which is the Globe. Science is just doing the same. Like science though, I don't claim to know everything, will listen to any hypothesis presented, but if I can easily falsify it then I will conclude it is wrong. It's that simple really.
1
-
1
-
@MrNo-ai_bs Except that’s not a fact, it’s just what Flat Earthers say...gee, I wonder why a group with Flat Earth in their title, would keep claiming there’s no curvature? No bias agenda there I bet. heavy sarcasm :/
Meanwhile, the actual scientific community (you know, the same people who ACTUALLY invent and innovate everything!) 100% agrees on the spherical geometry of Earth, as does every industry in the world that currently applies that knowledge, from navigation, communication, engineering and infrastructure. Ever think maybe that’s for a good reason? Ever consider that FE is just another online hoax...and you are being conned? Cause ya should at the very east consider that possibility.
It’s fine what people want to believe, but when you’re wrong, you’re wrong, it’s really that simple. And if you’re not an expert with experience in the topic, then maybe you should tread lightly and not assume too much...maybe don’t listen blindly to every nut job on social media making superficial claims. Physical reality doesn’t exactly care what people want to believe, and neither does science, cause it can’t do anything with belief. Junk science simply does not work...so we shouldn’t just allow it to fly by the radar unchecked or unchallenged. We didn’t get where we are today from belief, we got here with careful persistence and centuries of studying the natural world, until we had actual certainties...like the basic geometry of Earth.
We can think it’s all fine and dandy...until those beliefs start affecting policy and rewriting text books...even when they’re factually wrong. Then we have a real problem. Go ahead though, can’t force anyone to not believe these things...just don’t be surprised if science doesn’t just roll over and accept it. Flat Earth has no working model and is not used in any applied science today...that’s for a good reason.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@qwertyuiopas4285 So what would you prefer, that everyone regardless of background, experience, knowledge, or training get a say? Should we hire our local gas attendant to build nuclear reactors? Does that sound better to you?
Your comment is seething with resentment for the scientific community, it implies a bias. I’ll agree it’s not a perfect system, but you have to understand it never will be. Despite our best efforts, there will always be corruption, regardless of the system we implement, the best we can do is take steps to reduce it. What we do have currently brings results and it far out weighs the alternative, of a chaotic system where everyone gets a say.
I prefer to focus on the science. In my experience so far with Flat Earth, they don’t really have evidence, they have false conclusions they didn’t bother to review closer before submitting as their conclusion. What we have is an example of what it would be like if everyone had their say…a spherical Earth becomes flat, even though it’s not. I think your desire to overthrow a system you dislike and resent, is leading your mind off a cliff. More focused on defeating a system, than you are the actual science.
So you wanna focus on some science? I don’t mind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't just believe it blindly, it's observed to be the case. All measurement and observation points to that conclusion, we are orbiting our Sun, and that orbit is massive, requiring we be moving at some pretty intense speeds to cover that distance in a single yearly cycle. Observing the parallax that's occurring in stars over several years observation, is why we also have concluded we're orbiting a galactic center, among many other observations that point to this conclusion. We also have figured out how this motion is possible, through our current understanding of the physics of relative motion and the laws of motion, which you can look up and research at any time. This Physics is pretty easy to learn and demonstrate for yourself, at any time you choose to take a look and learn it, so now that you're aware of it, the choice is yours. You're making a lot of arguments from both ignorance and personal incredulity, both are not good methods for finding answers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hmm, seems you deleted a reply back to me, but I got some of it so I'll reply to it. Here's what I received.
Tyrone Simpson replied: "MrSirhcsellor MrSirhcsellor you’re assuming I don’t which is telling of your ignorance. Light refraction does not explain why the boat is supposedly still seen as straight over a length of space. T..."
9 hours ago
Yes it does explain this occurrence, because refraction effects what we see...that's how it works. It bends light and causes our eyes to interpret that light completely different then how a distant object actually is, causing for example a boat to APPEAR higher, then it actually is. Here's a quick demonstration that shows you pretty clearly why refraction is important to factor in long distance observations of ships over horizon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs Notice how when he increases the air density a tiny bit, you suddenly see objects hidden by the curve of that cylinder? The same thing happens in our atmosphere closer to the horizon, so it's relevant and Flat Earth can't just ignore this. Refraction happens in our atmosphere, especially over large bodies of water where the air density is going to be higher closer to the water surface.
I assumed you didn't know anything about refraction, because your first comment didn't mention it at all. If you knew how refraction works...then you'd know it's relevant, so why ask such a dumb question you already knew the answer too? Both of your comments now tells me that you ignore refraction on purpose...which makes you the ignorant one here...which is pretty typical of Flat Earth.
1
-
1
-
@mass1985 "If the space and globe were real, we would have space tourism already, we do not have it."
Why do you think we should be at that level already? Do you think space travel is easy? Do you put rockets into space for a living? If not, what makes you think you know anything about space travel? Do you realize that just 5 years ago, it cost about half a billion dollars to launch ONE rocket into space? How do you sustain an industry with that kind of price tag attached? It wasn't until very recently that Elon Musk and his company SpaceX, dropped that price tag down to about 50 million per launch, thanks to their Falcon 9 rocket technology, that has made rockets reusable. Still pretty damn high though...you know how much it costs to fly one plane international? Nowhere near that amount. So why do you think this industry should exist already? Are you going to pay for it? Do you have the technology that can bring costs down enough to make it economically viable for everyone?
Little hard to build a space tourism industry, when the only company that was working on figuring out how to accomplish that, is grossly under funded...because the general public is paranoid and doesn't seem to understand that you have to FUND the sciences, if you want to have RESULTS from the sciences. It's only changed over the last decade because of the private industries that exist now, like SpaceX, who have tossed their hats in the ring to make it their goal to bring space tourism to reality.
Seriously though, what kind of logic is that? "Space tourism doesn't exist yet, so that means space must be fake." Is this how you conclude everything? So the Americas didn't exist back in the day...because we didn't travel there yet? You know how long it probably took to make it viable for every person to travel to America back in the day? It took about 100 years to make that viable for everyone that wasn't a sailor or a person of extreme wealth and status, America was discovered in 1492, but the first colonies weren't established until 1607. So Jesus man...give it time! Traveling space isn't exactly like driving across country. The only thing that would be harder would be traveling through the core of the Earth...it's HARD to get things into space and even harder to transport people through space safely. Until that is made safer and cheaper, it's not going to be an industry for the general public...that's just the way it goes.
But you're in luck, there are a companies right now working on this and they hope to have their first programs going by next year. You likely still won't be able to afford it, but soon space travel won't be limited to just astronauts....but be patient, it will be some day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The level on a plane experiment is an inconclusive experiment, that doesn't verify or falsify either model, so it can't be used as evidence...that was his main point there. Flat Earthers however do use it as evidence, not realizing how it is inconclusive, so this makes it the perfect example of how people fall for Flat Earth...by illustrating how scientifically illiterate you'd have to be, to count that experiment as evidence. That's the topic of this video after all, talking about HOW people become flat Earthers.
So the point is pretty clear here, if Flat Earthers use inconclusive experiments as their evidence, then they are bias researchers...which means they're very likely reaching a great many false conclusions, as they'd probably make the same mistake with most of their observations. The Bedford level experiment performed by Rowbotham is another perfect example of an inconclusive experiment, done only to confirm a bias. Are you seeing a pattern here yet?
Flat Earthers are led by bias, not objective science. These two experiments he shared here are evidence of that, so that's how a lot of people become flat Earthers, they don't know how to spot inconclusive results, and they don't know how to keep their bias in check. It's pretty simple. If you'd like to learn more about how both experiments are inconclusive, I don't mind going deeper into the science.
1
-
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 Yes, the laws of motion don't prove that Earth is in motion, they just confirm that it is possible. Relative motion verifies that the motions of the planet is within the realm of real plausible physics. But you're right, that doesn't prove that Earth is in motion, that science just explains and proves that it is possible. So now if you want I can help you with some experiments that do help to verify Earths motions, particularly it's rotation which is the easiest of the motions for anyone to verify on their own. Here are 5 examples of scientific experiments/technologies that anyone can reproduce for themselves, that verify Earths rotational motion.
1.Ring Laser Gyros - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXYV6wNdZm8&t These gyros are used in planes today to detect pitch, yaw and roll of the plane. They are deadly accurate for detecting rotational motion and they use the Sagnac effect to achieve this. Here's a more in depth experiment done with a home built Sagnac interferometer (basically a stripped down laser gyro), detecting Earths rotation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_9J_c9Kss&t Here's the best visual representation of the Sagnac effect I've seen demonstrated so far, if you're like me, I tend to find visuals like these more helpful for learning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk0RvzaHq_Q To summarize, light is shot through a splitting mirror that then travels along two alternate paths, arriving back at a detector. When not in a rotational motion, both beams of light arrive at the detector at the same time, when put into a rotation, there is a detectable difference in arrival times between the two, that's the simplest way to explain it. This shift can be measured to give the rate of rotation, which is how it's used in planes. If it didn't detect rotational motion....then it wouldn't be used in gyros on passenger jets, so it does detect rotations and it has been used to measure Earths rotation. We have been using this very technology to detect Earths rotation for decades now and even Flat Earth has done the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGgxAK9Z5A&t
2. Gyro Compasses - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPynV68Bg&t The gyro compass is a device used by most modern large passenger/cargo ships who travel internationally. They're far more accurate than your standard magnetic compass because these compasses always point to true north, rather than the magnetic north of standard compasses. What's interesting here, is that they actually use the rotation of the Earth to achieve this. Here's how they do it, ALL mechanical gyros precess. It is a flaw of the mechanical gyro that can't be overcome, because the moving parts have to be touching each other in mechanical gyros, which creates friction, which creates torque, which will move the gyro out of rigidity over time in a steady precession. What some clever engineers noticed however, is that while you can't completely eliminate friction in these mechanical gyros, you can control the friction to set a rate of precession. So what they've done with these gyros, is they have calibrated them to align with the polar axis of our Earth and then have set the precession rate to align with the Earths rate of rotation. Because gyros do keep their rigidity aside from precession, these gyros now will always point to true North and they precess with the rotation of the Earth at the same rate, to achieve that. The fact that these gyros work as intended, verifies the Earths rotation, as the ground would have to be rotating beneath the free spinning rigid gyro, to keep up with that rate of precession. So it was clever engineering that verifies Earth rotation, taking the unavoidable flaws of a piece of equipment and coupling that with Earths motions, to create a compass that always points to true North. If Earth isn't rotating...then these compasses would not work the way they are supposed too. it's worth looking into and learning more about. You can even purchase your own mechanical gyros and create your own Northern aligned precessions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cvD9V4C_TU
3. Foucault Pendulum experiments - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U&t This is one I have seen demonstrated myself, and it's fairly simple to recreate. I'm sure you've heard of these by now, if you've been looking at Flat Earth long enough, this was the very first experiment done that helped verify Earths rotation. So what's happening here, a free swinging pendulum passes through a short change in latitude/longitude while it swings back and forth, which causes it to undergo some Coriolis effect, as it conserves the momentum of that swinging motion, freeing it from Earths rotational motion, effectively countering it. The Coriolis effect dictates a few rules of thumb, if Earth is rotating, then we'd expect to see a pendulum swing rotate in a specific direction depending on what hemisphere you run the experiment. What the experiment above also points out, is that you can also do more then that, you can also calculate your latitude, by paying attention to the rate at which it rotates. The closer to the Equator you are, the slower it will rotate, the farther you are, the faster. If you were to run this experiment at the Equator, then it wouldn't rotate at all. Here is a quick visual to help understand how it works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s6LrZKgRqY And here's a great video breaking down how you can recreate this experiment for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQoGY3-zGAY&t It has been repeated many times over the last couple centuries, all over the world, when done correctly accounting for and controlling all variables so that the pendulum is free from Earth rotation, air resistance, tension in the string, etc, then all that is observed is the Coriolis effect in a very simple demonstration. Upon all recreation of the experiment, it has been found conclusive to verify Earth rotation.
I'll break this up a bit, got a little too long for one post.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 4. Measuring Centrifugal Force at the Equator - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t I've shared this already, but here it is again in greater detail. Many people are not aware of this, but you (and everything) actually weighs slightly different in different latitude locations around the world. The equator being the place where you weigh the least. This is due to the centrifugal force generated by Earths rotation, negating a small amount of gravity, about 0.3% at the equator, which causes everything to weigh slightly less. Which is about 0.5 grams difference from a place closer to the tropics of Cancer or Capricorn. Not much, but the great thing here, is that it is measurable with cheap standard equipment that anyone can purchase. So what this guy above has done is a great little experiment anyone could repeat with a bit of travel. What he did was take the same 500 gram weight, using the same scale and then just simply weighed it over and over again, as he traveled closer and closer to the Equator. He took several data sets in a day, throughout the morning evening and night in each location and also over several days in each location, just to make sure he controlled for any flaws of the scale and to test for any time of day effects due to pressure variations in temperature, humidity, weather, etc. Before he left on his trip, he even calculated some predictions for how much Centrifugal force our Earths rotation generates at each latitude and then plotted his predictions onto a simple x and y grid. At the end of his experiment, the math predictions matched with the tested results. The weight weighed less and less the closer he got to the equator, as it should if the Earth were rotating at the rate that it is.
People assume that our Earths rotation should generate a lot more Centrifugal force....but they reach this conclusion, because they really don't know how Centrifugal force works or how to accurately calculate it. All they hear is the 1000 mph rim speed of Earth, and then jump to conclusions based around that. You can tell me I'm wrong, but that's exactly what Flat Earth does, I've never once seen them attempt to understand the physics of Centrifugal/Centripetal force, they just make assumptions about it and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done. It's not that simple I'm afraid. If you're going to successfully falsify something...then you have to get down to the physics of these things and understand it MUCH better then just your assumptions of these things.
The physics is pretty simple really, Centrifugal force is caused by a sudden or rapid change in angular velocity and the biggest factor to its increase is not so much speed, as it is RPM's (rotations per minute). These are not the same, as you increase the circumference of a rotation, it requires more linear speed to complete the same rotations, but the rotations are still the same and the angular velocity decreases. The more rotations per minute, the more Centrifugal force, that's a good rule of thumb really. Distance and speed do play their roles, but it's more the rotational rate that increases this forces output. The Earth rotates at a rate of 1 full rotation every 24 hours, which is twice as slow as the hour hand of a clock. So the Centrifugal force generated by our Earth, is not as great as many would assume...Flat Earth throws around the 1000 mph rim speed of the Earth, but pays zero attention to understanding the physics of Centrifugal force. When you actually figure out the science, you can then figure out how much Centrifugal force our planet generates at it's peak (the equator), it only negates roughly 0.3% of Earths gravity. Which is nowhere near enough to overcome gravity and toss you into space, but it is enough for us to be able to measure it. So this makes for a great experiment to verify rotation. If the Earth is rotating at the rate we know it to be, then those weights should decrease in weight the closer to the equator they get. When this is tested, that's exactly what we find. Here are a couple more of the same experiment, done by others, all receiving the same results. Feel free to repeat it, it only requires weights, a scale and some travel, pretty simple stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkhxPm15PFo&t
https://youtu.be/agQnj1q2Y08?t=383
5. Coriolis Effect experiment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38&t You know what Coriolis effect is I'm sure, so I won't go into this one too much. This experiment is pretty simple to repeat, just requires some set up and if you want to get really crazy with it a buddy in the opposite hemisphere repeating the test to observe the opposite rotation. The video also breaks down Coriolis a little more in depth, cause I get the feeling a lot of people aren't even quite aware how it works. They know what it is, but very few seem to know how it works, so this video explains it pretty well. It's just a difference of distance vs speed caused by conservation of momentum while passing through increasingly shorter lines of latitude from Equator to pole. Objects conserve the momentum of the place they left from, but a rotating globe surface is going to be rotating increasingly slower the closer to the poles you get, meaning the object conserving a faster momentum is going to pull ahead of the slower inertial reference frame (the slower moving latitude closer to the poles), causing it to arc (or appear to arc, it's really just pulling ahead due to conservation of momentum) and in the case of draining water, rotate in a specific direction. This experiment verifies the difference between the hemispheres, but you can verify at least one rotation on your own without a buddy, it's just better to have a buddy to really confirm.
So all of these are examples of experiments that help to verify the rotation of Earth. Feel free to look them over and review them if you like. If you have any questions or rebuttals, feel free to share, I don't mind taking a look.
I'm not trying to be difficult and I know I'm not being unreasonable, Flat Earth has to wake up and accept that they don't know as much as they claim they do. You can argue with layman online all day long, but there are real experts out there who know exactly where you're twisting things, that aren't so easily swayed by the same bullshit. At the very least, Flat Earth needs to stop being so damn arrogant, and at least consider that there is a very good possibility that they could be missing some things and it's confirmation bias that is keeping them from seeing it.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 If you'd have watched the video I shared on Foucault...you'd know that it is a video from someone who recreated the experiment himself in a stairwell, not using any mechanical assistance to keep the pendulum going at all. So that right there verifies to me that you didn't bother to watch any evidence I shared...so why am I even bothering? If you're not going to remain objective and look at the evidence, why bother even discussing?
I have done the research myself Giorgio, does it look like I haven't? Would I be this knowledgeable on the subject if I hadn't been at this awhile now? So please, save your "research it" comments for the suckers that empty rhetoric actually works on. Please share actual evidence that falsifies my evidence...that's how science works. I'm not here to have a pissing contest with you, you asked for evidence I shared evidence. The next step for you is to falsify that evidence, with your own evidence...and so far all you've said in rebuttal are empty speculations and then "research it". It's incredible to me that you think this is all you need to do, that you think this is how you falsify evidence. Evidence is how you falsify evidence, pointing out the flaws of the experiments presented is how you falsify evidence.
The motor rebuttal is an ok attempt, but I've done the research here and I've seen this experiment myself....done without motors, the results are still the same. The reason they use motors in big museums, is because air resistance and center of gravity will always eventually stop that pendulum, so they require a motor to restart the pendulum back and forth motion, that's why they use them in museums.
I'm not here to mock you or claim delusions of grandeur, I actually admire that Flat Earth is questioning modern consensus...I just hate how bias, ignorant and arrogant you are in your process. But if you shared some experiments with me that help to falsify my evidence or verify your own, I would gladly take a look. I'm here for a discussion...you can put your shields up and treat me as a lesser, and then learn nothing new, or you can open up and have a discussion where information is shared free from ridicule and then maybe learn something. I can shift gears into a more civil tone if you'd like, and just focus on evidence, it's no trouble....but that means you have to stay objective and actually LOOK at what I share. I will do the same for your evidence, so the offer is there.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 "so did you try to do that on the airplane without the cabin on? Or please show me where the cabin is on earth, because you are not supposed to believe In the dome so...
"
Ok, so here's a common rebuttal I hear from Flat Earthers and it's an ok counter question. Now I'll explain why this is a false comparison you are making and is only a deflection from the main lesson of conservation of momentum.
So how is my example with the closed cabin plane similar to our Earth? Simple, all the air of Earths atmosphere is moving WITH the Earth, all of the air inside the cabin of a closed airplane is moving with the plane. So the closed system airplane is a far more accurate comparison, because in both of these examples, the air is moving WITH their respective inertial reference frame of motion.
So when you open up the cabin of that airplane, what is now different? The air outside is not moving at the same rate as the Plane, it is in a different inertial reference frame of motion. This creates a drag force, which will now slow down the conservation of momentum of things moving within the relative motion of the plane. So this drag force stops conservation of momentum in the second inertial reference frame of motion (the plane). First law of motion again, all things in motion stay in motion until acted upon by an opposing FORCE or MASS. Air is the mass, the contact of that air causes drag force, which stops conservation of momentum of the second system of motion. Getting it yet?
All your argument does is deflects from the lesson here, of conservation of momentum and relative motion. You are making a false comparison and using it to ignore the lesson. So it's deflection, not much more.
You're also assuming that the air of our Earth needs a container, to keep it rotating with the Earth. This is false, it ignores gravity and further ignores conservation of momentu, both of which keep the air moving with the Earth, at the same relative rate of motion. Gravity is the container of Earths atmosphere, it also helps keep it rotating with the Earth at generally the same relative rate. However, the atmosphere is a fluid so it's subject to the same fluid dynamics as any other fluid in motion, which is why the clouds swirl and move in different rates all around the Earth....but it's also why hurricanes rotate in the directions they do, and why they never cross the equator....Coriolis effect, which is observed and very well understood.
Which brings up a good question for you though...if the Earth is stationary, then what exactly is putting the clouds into motion? What causes the observed Coriolis effect of hurricanes and typhoons? The heliocentric model explains both, but can the Flat Earth do the same?
Here's what you really need to learn here though. You're making a false comparison with your "open cabin" counter. Earth is more like a vehicle, the atmosphere moves with the Earth in all its motions, just like the air inside a closed plane is moving with the plane in all its motions....so that is a far great comparison. To make your comparison accurate, Earths atmosphere would be ripped off by drag force...and there is no air in space, so nothing to cause this drag force. So it's a false comparison you've made, and it deflects from the lesson of relative motion.
In closing, here is a pretty simple example of conservation of momentum, done outside. https://imgur.com/gallery/70m3Fku Now pay close attention to this simple demonstration. Do you notice how this man keeps landing dead center of the trampoline, even though it's being pulled out from under him while in the air? Notice how he's experiencing some drag force, yet he still bounces with the motion of the tractor, as if it's not even in motion? Relative motion in action...real science, easy to demonstrate, conclusive. You do your argument no favors by ignoring the science.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 "Show me one shipment of any product that takes this into account"
Great question, but you're making an assumption. You're assuming they don't account for this in industries, so the burden of proof here is more yours than mine, because you're claiming they don't account for this, which is an assumption. On the flip side, I have shared an experiment that verifies a centrifugal force change, you have not. So where I have evidence, you're counter argument is an assumption and not evidence. So nice try, but not good enough I'm afraid. This burden of proof is more yours than mine, so keep going.
I don't assume to know everything and I'm certainly not an importer/exporter or a scale manufacturer. But I do understand the physics and if I was to account for this issue, I would account for it in my scale and create a consistency chart that accounts for centrifugal force for all scales used, that chart going by latitude. Basically I would design scales to be used by latitude location, to account for each change by latitude to measure a consistent weight in every location. I know they do this for simpler weighted scales you see in say a doctors office, these scales come with weights that account for the weight change by latitude. I would assume they do the same with industrial scales used in shipping yards or at markets, but I don't know for certain so I won't assume to know.
So it would be interesting to learn more on the subject, so I'll do that. In the meantime, this is more a burden of proof on your end, because you're assuming they don't...but you don't really know.
So I won't speak on things I don't know for certain. What I do know for certain though, is that the experiment I shared demonstrates a weight change in the 500 gram weights, as it gets closer to the equator. That doesn't just happen on its own. This change in weight is consistent with the pre-calculations done for centripetal force at Earths projected speed and scale. So where I have shared evidence of a measured centripetal force by latitude, you've made an assumption.
I'll do some digging to see if they account for centripetal force in sending things to marker, it's not an industry I have experience with, but I'll do some research, I don't mind learning more about it. If I come across anything, I'll let ya know. But it's getting late, so off to bed I go.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 "So, the air around a rock next to the vaccum of space moving at millions of miles per hour, and doesn't lose any air, at the same time an airplane flying inside that air needs a container for the air to move with it."
You're still not getting the comparison. Earth is experiencing no drag force through space, the plane in your example with an open cabin is experiencing a great deal of drag force....seeing the difference? One has drag force that will remove the air, the other has none...so no air lost. So false comparison.
There is another false assumption flat Earth makes, that vacuum is actively sucking our atmosphere off, or that entropy will cause our atmosphere to disperse into space (which it does a little bit, but not very much at all). This is false, space is not a suction...it's not actively sucking anything, that is not what is meant by vacuum here. The very first definition of vacuum is "a space void of all matter", that's space in a nutshell...a space void of matter. Of course, everything is technically in space...but there are HUGE pockets of nothing between everything, we call these pockets of vast empty space, the vacuum of space. It's not implying a suction...if you think it is, then that's your error here.
Entropy does occcur, but a rule of entropy that Flat Earth ignores is that it can be slowed. You do it all the time with a simple thermos you use to keep your coffee hot. Gravity does something similar, by slowing the entropy occurring in upper atmosphere. Except it does it with FAR greater efficiency. Entropy will win, it always does, but it's not happening very fast all with Earths atmosphere.
Either way, still making that false comparison instead of realizing where you're going wrong...good job.
" wonder at which point do you stop and realice that you just can't fit everything that doesn't fit the previous hypothesis, into a completely opposite hypothesis and then claim it works"
I wonder if you've ever bothered to look at the model you're supporting and ask yourself the very same question. The Globe doesn't have all the answers yet, but nothing in the model contradicts anything else. The only people who think it does, are people who don't understand it...and then think that means it's wrong, rather than considering the very real possibility, that they're just not smart enough to understand the higher physics. Maybe tomorrow, we'll spin the lens around and go through some problems of your model....and then I hope you'll maybe finally realize just how flawed it truly is....cause let me tell ya, it's a doozy how broken the flat Earth model is.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 Well not quite tired yet, so a few more of your points I'll address now I guess.
"basically EVERY construction crane should obviously follow the same Dynamics, yet guess what they prove... Not movement at all.
"
Is a crane swinging back and forth over and over again over a steady few hours of observation? No...a crane moves from one position, stops, moves to another, stops, it's not swinging back and forth continuously over and over again to cause Coriolis to occur. It's the conservation of momentum in the pendulum that causes the Coriolis effect to be observed and measured, a crane is not doing the same. I don't think you realize how minuscule the shift from Coriolis is...it takes several minutes to hours for a pendulum to bob back and forth before you can observe the change...a crane moving from point A to point B is not long enough to cause any noticeable change. So yet another false comparison you've made...and a weak counter argument in general. Your conclusion here assumes Coriolis is this incredibly immense force that causes problems in cranes. But Coriolis effect is tiny on Earth, it will not effect a crane. You know what it does effect though? Planes in flight, here's an actual pilot discussing how they counter Coriolis in flight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eugYAfHW0I8&t Yet more evidence of Coriolis.
"gyroscopes prove flat earth on planes every day. You can sophisticate it as much as you want, but gyroscopes work on a free floating basis, the same principle has been used since WWI until today."
You're not considering the inner working mechanics of the gyros that are used in navigation's equipment on board planes. As I pointed out earlier, no mechanical gyro in existence is free from friction precession...so they all tilt out of alignment eventually thanks to friction in the gimbles, that is unavoidable. So to counter this, airplane make use of what are known as pendulous vanes. These are little hinges on the gimbles, that drop once they're out of alignment with center of gravity. When they drop, they open a hatch that allows air into a compartment, which triggers a sensor, which kicks on a motor and applies a torque to the gyro, to tilt it back into level alignment with center of gravity. This counters the natural precession of the gyro, but it also helps them tilt with the curvature of the Earth, because gravity vectors on Earth always point to CENTER of Earth, meaning always to surface no matter where the plane is. So gravity is used in the artificial horizon indicators on board planes, this is a fact, not an opinion. The gyros used here are not as simple as you seem to think, there is mechanics involved here that you have to be aware of, that does matter. Here's an actual pilot explaining these pendulous vanes in greater detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1QGRPVBZvw
So, just a couple more of your weak arguments falsified. You're not doing very well so far I'm afraid.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 "A crane standing perfectly still, should just never happen me still have a Foucault Pendulum to work"
You love making false comparisons don't you. A crane standing motionless is only moving relative to Earth (this is relative motion again), it's not creating any of its own motion, so it will not undergo any Coriolis effect, Coriolis requires a motion occurring WITHIN the relative motion of Earth. A Foucault pendulum is creating it's motion, that motion it is creating counters Earths rotation, freeing it, making it undergo Coriolis effect. One is creating it's own motion, the other is not....so not the same thing. So you're reaching another false conclusion, due to a false comparison you're making. So ya, I do get to have my cake and eat it too...your misunderstanding of Coriolis effect doesn't falsify Foucault pendulums. Sorry man.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 "So why is the pendulum in Foucault Pendulum not following those same laws you claim the crane must follow.... can you keep a concept in mind for 30 seconds and try to not contradict yourself with your next claim?"
Again, it's really not my problem if you can't keep up, all I can do is point out your errors and hopefully it clicks eventually. The pendulum is in a back and forth motion, the crane is not. One is creating it's own conservation of momentum, the other is not, it's only conserving the moment of Earths motion. So one is in a system of motion that can register Coriolis drift, and the other is not....an object has to be in continuous motion, for a long period of time, within the inertial reference frame of Earths motion, in order to observe or be effected by Coriolis effect. The crane moves and then it stops...this is not long enough to register Coriolis drift. When the crane stops, the only motion it's registering now, is the relative motion of Earths rotation...that's it. To register Coriolis drift, it would need to swing back and forth for several minutes to hours...depending on where it is, just like a pendulum does. It's the continuous back and forth motion of the pendulum, that sets it apart from a crane and makes it succumb to Coriolis effect.
I really don't know how many ways I can point out to you, that you're making a false comparison...but lets try anyway. What is different about the crane and pendulum? One is swinging back and forth continuously...the other is not, right? Coriolis is an effect we observe, from an object in motion, WITHIN the inertial reference frame of Earths rotational motion. The pendulum is in motion within the system of Earths motion for long periods of time....the crane is not in motion within Earths system of motion, the only motion it has, is the Earths motion. Getting it yet? Christ on a cracker. xD
Either way, whether you understand the physics or not, Coriolis is observed, it is measured, it is verified to exist. I've shared several examples now that verify it and I can share more if you'd like. It's undeniable now, Coriolis effect exists. So how exactly does Coriolis occur, on a stationary flat Earth? What causes it on Flat Earth? Why do pendulums rotate in specific rotations and at varying rates depending on latitude and hemisphere? What's causing it? Why do bullets shot at long range that account for Coriolis drift, hit their targets? Why do pilots have to account for Coriolis while flying? Why do hurricanes and typhoons rotate in opposite directions, as they should under what we understand about Coriolis? Why do they never cross the equator? Questions flat Earth has no answers too....meanwhile the Globe does.
I wonder when you'll realize, that flat Earth is a con job, that takes advantage of your lack of understanding of basic physics and your ego driven desire to be "special".
1
-
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 "This my friend is intelectual dishonesty" No, this is not jumping to any conclusions too quickly, this is being diligent and careful and asking the question "well lets see if there's anything else going on here we might need to consider". Science is all about falsification, you don't just stop looking after a bias is confirmed...you keep going to punch as many holes in your experiment as possible, to see if there's anything you did wrong that might have given you a false conclusion. Basically, you do all that you can to falsify your own work...when you can't falsify it any further, THEN and only then can you reach a conclusion with whatever evidence is left standing.
Intellectual dishonesty is stopping at your bias and never looking any deeper into a subject or experiment. And then you make it even worse, by not accepting any peer review or process of falsification to occur after the fact. Intellectual dishonesty is never considering that you could be wrong, which is Flat Earth in a nutshell. I'm fine with being wrong, I don't mind at all, but you have to prove it to me first, I won't just roll over and accept empty claims blindly and without question. Over the years I have spotted many errors in the Flat Earth conclusions, so I'm not just going to ignore them simply because you have trouble seeing those errors...I'm sure you'd agree, that's the best way to do things. I feel Flat Earth reaches a great many bias conclusions, they rush the process and aren't really thinking things through very well...and they for some reason believe themselves above all peer review, and they simply are not, no claim made is above peer review.
So ok, let's look at why that level on a plane experiment is inconclusive and why it doesn't count as evidence for either conclusion.
I'll spare you a long physics lesson of how buoyancy works, I'm sure you've heard it all before. The main point is that the Flat Earth ignores the physics of a spirit level in their conclusion. They look at just the base of what a spirit level does in normal use, it levels surfaces. So they just conclude that because the bubble never shifts, it must mean the surface is level, then they pat themselves on the back for a job well done, no need to look any closer. No peer review required, the experiment is perfect in their mind.
This is how you do science wrong, you're ignoring a LOT of physics and acting like it doesn't matter....this is sloppy bias research and it's not that simple. Nothing in science is.
Earth is huge, nobody is going to dispute that fact. But it matters here, because it takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree of difference on the globe Earth model. For this reason, a spirit level can be used on our surface to create a level surface over a few hundred/thousand square feet. Of course it's curving...but when that degree of curvature is in the arc seconds, it won't matter one bit and so you can use this surface to build a foundation upon, because of how massive the globe is and how tiny we are in comparison. So it's our size compared to the Earth, that makes it possible to use a level to level surfaces for building. If Earth was much much much smaller, then we couldn't do that...but it's not.
The second variable is that the globe model has gravity, gravity is understood to pull all matter to center of mass, all experimentation and evidence collected has verified this to be true. A spirit level uses buoyancy to work, buoyancy is understood to be caused directly by gravity, it is a left over effect of gravity causing a density displacement in the tube. Gravity vectors shift as you travel along the surface of the globe, always pulling to center of mass no matter where you are, so that means so too will the bubble, that is constantly leveling to center of gravity's influence, it will shift to continue being level perpendicular to center of gravity....that's what a bubble level is leveling too, center of gravity for the gravity vector it's currently in.
So if this is true, then the level will read level on both models. If gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat, the level will read level. If gravity exists and the Earth is curved, the bubble will read level. So in conclusion, that means....THIS EXPERIMENT IS NOT ENOUGH TO FALSIFY OR VERIFY EITHER MODEL! Which means it is inconclusive....which means, if you use it as evidence to support your model, then you have done so out of bias. Which means you risk reaching a false conclusion due to confirmation bias.
We have enough evidence today to verify that gravity exists...so you can't just ignore that. But, that's what Flat Earth is best at, ignoring physics it doesn't like. But this is just good ol' fashioned denial and INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY. You would first have to successfully falsify gravity, to render this experiment in your favor. Flat Earth has failed in all attempts to falsify gravity...they just think denial and ignorance of this force is all you need to do....and it's not.
That's the real problem with Flat Earth....you seem to think ignoring things is just fine in science. You pick and choose what you want to believe, rather then looking at ALL of the evidence and then forming your conclusion from the evidence. Instead, you start with a conclusion and then only pay attention to the variables that support your conclusion. THIS IS CONFIRMATION BIAS. There's no other way to put it.
Bias will not lead you to any actual truths, it will keep you living a lie and then we'll never get anything done. Thankfully, science is well aware of this, and thankfully they're not as lazy and ignorant as Flat Earthers. Science has done everything they can to counter mans instinct to follow bias and it's worked so far...the proof is all around you.
So basically, until Flat Earth successfully falsifies gravity, this experiment is inconclusive. The definition of inconclusive is as follows. "Not conclusive in evidence or argument; not leading to a determination or conclusion" It's pretty simple stuff....and it's not the only example of Flat Earth reaching inconclusive results and then thinking they've solved things anyway.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 To put that last comment shorter, gravity exists, we have no reason to believe it doesn't. It is a variable that matters and that can't be ignored in the level on a plane experiment. So until Flat Earth can successfully falsify gravity, then it will remain an inconclusive experiment that doesn't support either model. So far, Flat Earth has failed to falsify gravity. They have no experiments that falsify it, just incredulity, ignorance and denial....I shouldn't have to tell you, these are not arguments, they are fallacy's of logic. Flat Earth has no answers or better replacements for why matter is put into motion towards Earth at an accelerating rate when you drop it. The facts are simple, nothing is put into motion without a force first acting upon it, it's the first law of motion. Falling is a motion, so a force is present that is causing this motion, it's quite simple. This can not be ignored and so science doesn't. Flat Earth does...that's your bread and butter, ignorance.
I choose the side that decided ignorance is not how to find answers. Live in denial if you want, but I will not ignore evidence and I will not place my bias upon an inconclusive experiment.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 False, the Cavendish is repeated constantly around the world, and upon all peer review is found to be conclusive evidence of matter attracting matter. If you bothered to actually look at the experiment and recreate it yourself, you'd know this....but Flat Earth has successfully convinced you to ignore it, so you never bother to recreate it yourself, so you really have no idea. Denial of an experiment and it's conclusion is not an argument against it, it's just straight up denial....can't get anything done if people are just going to pretend when it suites them.
Here's the simplest demonstration and explanation of this experiment, explaining all the variables that are accounted for in the experiment, such air currents, static and electromagnetic fields, string tension, etc. in 7 minutes you can learn all about it and see it demonstrated for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYf-Glwtr68 I remember recreating this experiment in my high school physics class...it's quite common practice in teaching physics to demonstrate the experiment that verifies matter attracting matter. It did more then that though, it also measured the force of gravity and gave us the universal constant of gravity used in many equations today, from orbital mehanics, to parabolic trajectories, to fluid dynamics, the value of big G is used in many working equations for a great many tasks. Here's a highschool girl, recreating the experiment herself to measure this force for herself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkjqrlYOW_0&t If she can do this...then anyone can. So your claim that's "Cavendish has never worked" is completely false.
So no, all you really have here is denial...and again, that's not an argument, it's just intellectual dishonesty.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 Nope, nothing to assume anymore, the Globe is verified science and you are grasping at straws.
I don't think you've been paying very good attention.....I have done the research flat Earth has asked of me. I have observed boats going over horizon with cameras at full zoom, they still went over curvature, you guys just never thought to keep watching, you just bring the boat back into view, conclude it's vanishing point and then you stop watching. But, you just let me know if you think the bottom of these turbines can be brought back in focus, by zooming in further. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQI18jr8Oc&t=82s The simple fact is, if you can bring a boat or distant object back into focus with a telescopic lens....then it has not gone over the curvature yet, it has just reached the vanishing point of your eye. Vanishing point and horizon are NOT the same thing. Horizon is caused by curvature, vanishing point is caused by the limits of your eye to render an object visible due to perspective. A telescopic lens can fix that, but if you people just KEPT WATCHING past confirming your bias, you'd see boats then begin to dip into horizon, bottom first then disappear. Just like those very large wind turbines are missing their entire base....that's not vanishing point causing that, that's an obstruction, that obstruction being curvature.
I've made these observations myself, I've also reviewed many of the observations made by flat Earthers. I've found they make these 3 mistakes of long distance observations, pretty much every single time. Either they use the wrong math (8 inches per mile squared being the worst offender), or they get their numbers wrong (wrong distances, observer heights, viewing angles, etc.), the third error flat Earth makes, they ignore refraction or other key variables. This is pretty consistent in every long distance observation I've reviewed. All 3 of these errors...will lead to a false conclusion. It's not hard, use the wrong math, you will reach a false conclusion. Get your figures wrong, you will reach a false conclusion. Ignore important variables like refraction, and you will reach a false conclusion.
If long distance observations are something you hold as pretty good evidence, here's an example I like to share. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment This is basically a recreation of the famous Bedford Level experiment that Rowbotham conducted, only this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake, and this time done properly. See the error of Rowbotham is that he only did ONE observation, collected ONE data set. Then he did the wrong math, ignored refraction entirely and then called his work done. So, like all bias researchers of Flat Earth, he just went so far as to confirm his bias, then he stopped looking. So his experiment is inconclusive, because he didn't do enough to fully account for every variable. It stands today as the perfect example of the dangers of conducting a sloppy experiment to confirm a bias. It's not that it was a bad experiment, it's just that he didn't do enough to render a more conclusive result....he only went as far as to confirm his bias, then he stopped looking.
That version of the experiment I shared above is quite thorough, accounting for every variable, taking multiple data sets, over multiple days, with multiple markers. They've used the correct math, and even used the math in too scale simulations, to give a visual comparison of that math, along side the real world observations. I prefer this experiment over any half assed Flat Earth observation of long distance observations, because this is a more controlled version of that kind of observation. Every variable can be controlled, measured and accounted for with extreme accuracy. The distances are measured and plotted, the heights of the markers are known and placed, the refraction index for that day is known and factored....every variable is accurate and accounted for, isolating the observation of curvature down to the smallest detail. This experiment, is also easily repeated.
The conclusion of this experiment is conclusive, Earth is curving and it is curving at the rate it should given Earths true scale and shape. You asked for evidence of curvature, and there you have it, an extremely thorough scientific experiment that verifies curvature. I encourage you to give it a look sometime. Pay close attention to the section on refraction, you can't miss it, it's the entire second half of the report. It demonstrates quite clearly why this variable can not be ignored in long distance observations. Light bends in atmosphere....this is basic physics, refraction is real, it can not be ignored. This experiment not only verifies that, it factors it into the observation...rather then ignoring it, like Flat Earth does.
So....I don't know how many more ways I can demonstrate Flat Earths COMPLETE ignorance and denial, but I'm sure if we keep going, it should become pretty clear eventually.
YOU are backing a model that doesn't exist........that is a fact, not an opinion. Flat Earth survives on lying to yourself about how physical reality works and ignoring anything that refutes your position. You wanna talk about intellectual dishonesty, Flat Earth is the poster boy for that disorder.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 "Feel the heat of the sun everyday and think on how irrational it is for Earth's tilt to create such massive difference in temperature"
This assumes distance is the only thing that can increase/decrease temperature, and it's not. Angle can and will effect how much light energy is focused upon a surface, which will effect the temperature of that surface.
So here's a simple experiment you can do to verify this. Get yourself a heat lamp, and a thermometer. Now place that heat lamp so it's 90 degrees over a surface, shining directly down upon it, take a temperature reading. Now angle the heat lamp at a 45 degree angle, so it's heat energy now disperses in a wider area across the surface, take a temperature reading. You'll notice pretty quickly, that the more focused and direct light energy, will create a hotter surface, the light that hits the surface at an angle, is dispersing more, creating a slightly cooler surface.
So what does this teach us about temperature? Well, it's not just distance that effects it....the angle at which a heat source arrives upon a surface, will also effect the temperature of that surface.
Earth isn't any different. The more direct the sunlight is arriving at the surface, the more focused that solar energy is....it's pretty simple. Light that arrives on the surface at steeper angles, will be more spread out and less focused....creating a decrease in temperature.
Just more basic physics for ya...so not illogical at all really, at least when you don't ignore things due to bias. You must have failed most of your science classes pretty hard I imagine. Cause damn....
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 "A trait of an educated mind in to entertain an idea without accepting it"
Ya, what do you think I've been doing this whole time? You on the other hand, fell right into Flat Earth and accepted it hook, line and sinker...even though it has no working model, no working map for navigation, not a single pilot or sailor uses it. It has no way of explaining sunsets, the southern hemisphere, lunar eclipses, solar eclipses, tides, Earthquakes, Coriolis, Earths magnetic field, satellites in orbit, or really how anything works for that matter. Nothing in the real world operates on Flat Earth science...that's a fact, not an opinion, and that is for a good reason, yet you believe it anyway. Why? Because you did some bad math at a beach once, then convinced yourself there was no curvature....yup, you figured it out alright, let's get on tossing out all the science we've accumulated over the centuries, cause Giorgio and his mighty p900 couldn't find curvature. xD
"Then go and try to answer any of the questions regarding Earth's shape without saying gravity, see how far you get
"
Exactly! Mankind realizing gravity was one of the most pivotal moments in scientific history. It's really no surprise to me at all, that the scientific and industrial revolutions, were kicking off around the time of this discovery. It quite literally solved most of what we observe in the physical world....so yes, it is quite important, that's why it's recognized as one of the 4 fundamental forces of reality. When gravity was realized, the mysteries of reality started falling like dominoes....it explains everything, from why we remain on the surface, to why things fall at the same rate regardless of mass, to why things order by density, to why the planets, stars, moons are all spherical, to why and how they orbit each other, to how stars burn, to how EVERYTHING formed in the first place...gravity explains everything. The ONLY REASON why you deny the existence of gravity, is because it single handedly takes your Flat Earth fantasy away...so you deny it, because it's not very convenient for your belief. You don't have a valid reason for why you deny it, no experiments or data or observations that replace it, or falsify it....you just deny it because of how inconvenient it is for your specific brand of bullshit. You know it, and I know it, Flat Earth has no real solid argument against gravity......you just straight up deny it exists, that's it, that's all you have. Denial.
Flat Earth has ZERO answers for anything...FLAT EARTH HAS NO WORKING MODEL OF REALITY, this should be a concern too you! Worse is that you seem to think this is ok. As if mankind doesn't need too know how anything works....as if we're creating all this technology you see around you, with magic alone. Nope, we're using the heliocentric model and all the physics that comes with it, to build the world around you. Another fact of reality for you.
" I do my own experiments"
Oh I have no doubt that you do, but just because you do your own experiments...does not by default mean you've done them correctly. This is why peer review is important...it weeds out errors and bias, lying and overconfidence. I've done enough in my years of looking at this Flat Earth mess, to know for absolute certain, that you people are terrible at conducting experiments. I don't really care if you don't agree...but I know it to be true. Bias leads you every step of the way and I know this, because I've successfully falsified every experiment presented to me from Flat Earth so far, and it's always the same errors...sloppy experiments, that ignored variables, ignored the proper steps to reach the most conclusive results, ignored that they were using the wrong math...all because if they didn't, if they were more diligent and did things properly, then they wouldn't be able to confirm their bias. It's incredible the power of confirmation bias....it blinds you so completely.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 Alright, so let's focus on gravity then if you'd like.
First, give me your replacement for gravity, I will do a hypothetical with you and pretend we haven't discovered gravity yet. So what causes things to fall to Earth at the constant rate of 9.8 meters per second squared? Falling is a motion, there's no denying that. This is of interest because as we know, nothing is put into motion without a force first acting upon it to put it into motion...it's the first Law of Motion, remember the dynamics you mentioned earlier that you agreed is real science? Ok, so when you drop something, it is put into motion...so it's a simple question then, WHAT IS CAUSING THAT MOTION? Only a force can put matter into motion, so give me YOUR answer for what you think is putting matter in motion when you drop it.
It shouldn't be hard to give me something. Flat Earth likes to claim it's smarter than all the rest of us, so by all means, explain this phenomenon.
Then once you have an explanation for me, you'll have enough to form a hypothesis, then all I require is experimental proof that verifies your hypothesis. So after you've explained it, provide me evidence that supports your explanation, pretty simple stuff.
So go ahead, I don't mind going through this process with you.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 "Now, what make denser things go "down", I don't know"
Ok, that wasn't so hard now was it? So that means you don't have an argument against gravity, so best you can conclude then for why things fall is "it just does". Gravity however, DOES provide an answer for why matter with mass is attracted down towards the surface. So since YOU don't have a counter answer to explain this phenomenon, we will go with the leading theory that DOES have an answer...gravity. See how science works yet? But, of course it's more then that, of course evidence does matter. When Scientists don't know something for certain, it is perfectly fine to say you don't know, but what you're ignorant of...is the fact that modern science HAS evidence for their conclusion of gravity, and they do have enough to conclude that they do know what's going on. So that's why it's the leading theory here. If you have no evidence to falsify their evidence, then it will remain as the dominant theory, see how this works yet? Denial is not evidence...don't know how many times I have to say that.
Now, onto that evidence. Objects don't just drop at 9.8 meters per second in air...they do it in vacuums as well. In fact, it's best to do this in a vacuum, because then you're testing gravity directly, without air resistance getting in your way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyeF-_QPSbk&t Of course this won't happen in water....because it's a dense fluid, so there's friction, which will slow anything being dropped....this doesn't refute gravity though like you seem to think it does, it should be pretty obvious that physical matter in the way of something in motion, is going to slow it down. First Law of motion again, all things in motion stay in motion UNLESS ACTED UPON BY AN OPPOSING FORCE OR MASS! The opposing mass here is water, this causes friction...much like air resistance does. Which is why, the best test for 9.8 meters per second squared, is in a vacuum....then you can test the downward force directly.
Buoyancy is already included in the theory of gravity, and buoyancy also occurs in air...why do you think helium rises up? Buoyancy is why. Why do you think clouds rise up? Buoyancy is why. Now here's how buoyancy is part of the theory of gravity...it doesn't occur without it. Remove gravity from the equation of buoyancy, and it will not occur. This is proven time and again within simple density columns put in zero G environments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpP-7dhm9DI&t=190s Without the inertia caused by the downward force of gravity and contact with the surface, there is no ordering of matter by density...there is just chaos.
So again, things fall, this is a motion...the question still remains, what causes that motion? Density can't account for this, density is not a force, it is just a state of matter...how much matter occupies a given space, that's all density is. So not a force, so it has no means to put matter into motion. Buoyancy is a force, but it does not occur on its own. Take gravity away and you don't have buoyancy occurring, it's the downward acceleration that causes the displacement order of buoyancy. More dense material will occupy center of gravity before less dense material, pushing less dense material upward...causing displacement, causing buoyancy to occur....simple stuff. The downward force is required...it's even included in the equations for buoyancy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy you'll find many of those formulas here, you'll see that gravity acceleration is a variable in many of those equations.
So Buoyancy can't occur without a downward accelerating force first occurring. Without a downward force telling all matter in which direction to begin organizing...buoyancy can not occur, it is just chaos.
So why down? Well, you've admitted you don't have an answer, so that's where your knowledge on the subject ends. But, science doesn't just stop when it has a bias to feed...it keeps going. The best answer you have is "it just does" well, can't do much with "it just does". If science concluded everything with "it just does", then we'd still be in the bush thinking that fire is something we can never harness or understand.
So a few things were proposed. First it was electromagnetism/static attraction....but there's just to many irregularities and contradictions for this to be the case. To name one example, these are attractions between positive and negative electrons...and these have a tendency to repell as well as attract, for all things, not just by density. So if this were true, then we would be able to reverse our positive/negative polar alignments, and then repell from the surface. We can not do this...so the downward force that's keeping us to the surface is not electromagnetic/static in nature. Just one of many ways to falsify this proposed hypothesis.
So what is it? The next thing that was considered was mass attracting mass. Ok, so can we test that? Absolutely. Here's that video on the Cavendish again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYf-Glwtr68 This both explains and demonstrates this attraction. So there are some discrepancies with this presentation, which is fine, science is all about falsification, so here's another video that points out and falsify's some of those counters to this presentation in particular. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdJTaw68hPo Science is a long back and forth process of falsification, this is normal and what should happen in science, so nothing wrong with pointing out any flaws or discrepancies, it is absolutely encouraged. How NOT to falsify something...is how you're doing it....by just simply denying these experiments don't exist. Denial is not falsification...it's just denial.
The only good point you make, is that experiments must be repeatable. So can this experiment be repeated? Absolutely, here's someone who has repeated it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QdifwJ31ig&t and again, a highschool girl recreating the experiment to measure the constant of gravity herself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkjqrlYOW_0&t So very easily repeatable....ANYONE can recreate this experiment. As I mentioned, I have seen it recreated during my highschool physics class. Small scale Cavendish apparatuses used to be pretty common in physics classes...it was useful for demonstrating how we deduced mass attracting mass.
Denying this experiment exists...is not how you falsify science. It's just that simple.
So we have verified evidence of mass attracting other mass....which is consistent with the 9.8 meters per second that we measure...all the math checks out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV2MwaMApZw
So here's what we have in conclusion here. YOU have no answer for why things fall towards the Earth, science on the other hand does. It is verified through an experiment, that is repeatable and upon all recreation has yet to be falsified. The values that are measured in the experiment, are consistent with the values measured in 9.8 meters per second square...they don't contradict each other, they're compatible.
So science has evidence, that supports it's hypothesis. That evidence has not been falsified by any counter evidence, so it is accepted now as the leading theory for why things fall towards the surface for this reason. This knowledge has gone on to help us understand the orbits of planets and their formation. It has also gone on to help us put our own satellites into orbit, which are orbiting the Earth right now as we speak. It has also gone on to help explain how stars burn, through Nuclear Fusion, which we have now recreated in our own fusion reactors...science could not have achieved fusion, if they were wrong about gravity.
So again...all you really have is denial, while modern science has evidence that has led to their conclusion. Do they know everything about gravity? No, there is still much they don't understand. General Relativity took it one step further, but even this theory is incomplete. Science is well aware of this, but until actual evidence comes to light that can successfully falsify gravity, it will remain the dominant model for why things are put into an accelerating motion towards Earth. You don't do your arguments any favors, by ignoring what science understands and knows about gravity.
1
-
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 Ok, but in your dog analogy, you're participating. You falsified the claim "dogs can fly" by pointing out that wings are required for animals to fly. I agree with your falsification of that statement "dogs can fly", because I agree that wings are required. So we reach an understanding, because we both participated in the conversation, get it? You can do the same with me on gravity....but you have to offer the same participation in return, for that to happen. What I'm looking for is the same participation with you on gravity. You're not even looking at the Cavendish experiments I have already shared with you....you keep asking for them, I keep sharing and then you keep replying back "share a working Cavendish experiment". Do you see the problem here? It's not the same as your analogy where you participated and offered me REASONS for why dogs don't fly. You're asking for something and then ignoring it....this is not a rational discussion at that point, it's the equivalent of a child shoving his fingers in his ears the moment people start trying to say something to him.
You don't have to agree with the Cavendish, all I'm asking for is you actually LOOK at the ones I've shared and then explain to me WHY you feel they are not legit scientific experiments. Why bother asking for an experiment, if you're not going to look when I share it? Here it is again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYf-Glwtr68&t=4s and here's another. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QdifwJ31ig&t=161s and another https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkjqrlYOW_0&t=3s.
All I'm sayin is, YOU'RE making a claim that gravity doesn't exist, I'm providing you evidence and explanations, math and science that verifies that it does exist...so if you want to continue to believe gravity doesn't exist, then you have to PROVE THAT, through falsification. Otherwise, you believe that due to ignorance alone. The burden of proof was on the Globe when it made the claim of gravity, it has since proven it....so now if you're going to make a claim that it doesn't exist, then to do that, you have to falsify the evidence, the burden of proof is now in your court. That's how science works. It's fine if you don't want to look...then I will just conclude you've reached your conclusions on ignorance, so you've chosen ignorance, then we can go on with our lives. Or you can prove to me that gravity doesn't exist, by falsifying my evidence. If you succeed, then maybe I'd agree with you....but you have to make an effort for that to become even remotely possible.
What's irrational about Flat Earth is asking "PROVE IT!" then we provide evidence that proves it, then instead of looking a the evidence you asked for you just reply back with "PROVE IT!" indicating to us that you didn't even look at the evidence....you've decided to deny it exists. Like...it's like I'm talking to a wall at that point. Ignorance is a logical fallacy...you don't strengthen an argument through ignorance, you just make it abundantly clear why and how you've fallen for an obvious scam on the internet...because you're ignorant.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 So allow me to pretend I'm you for a second, to help make this point clearer. If I was in your position, arguing that gravity was not real, the moment I asked for evidence and somebody provided it too me, then I would look at that evidence. To not look at the evidence after asking for it so vehemently, would make me intellectually dishonest. Why ask for evidence, if you're not really going to look when it's presented? So I would look, then I would take my time to point out what I feel are the errors of that evidence. I would do everything I could to falsify that experiment with legit problems I was seeing. On the flip side, if I can't spot any errors, or if after a long back and forth those errors I pointed out were successfully falsified by my opponent, and if I couldn't falsify his counter points or the experiment any further...I would then admit that it's a valid experiment that verifies the claim being made....or I would forfeit from conversation, saying I don't know, I will wait for further information to get back in the discussion.
That's how a reasonable discussion between two people looking to get to the truth should play out. Where we both remain objective and open minded and actually participate in the discussion and LOOK at the evidence being shared when we ask for....THAT'S being intellectually honest. Then absorb each others evidence and then make an honest attempt to falsify it with ACTUAL counter evidence...not just ignorance and denial and deflection tactics. If we can't falsify the evidence any further...then we either yield and agree that it's valid, or admit we don't know, which forfeits us from future conversation on the topic until we do have more to add. That's how rational discussion plays out......or at least that's how it SHOULD play out.
Instead, this is how our interaction has played out so far. You ask "show me proof!", which is a reasonable request, so I show you the proof you're asking for that supports my claim. Then you respond back "show me proof!"....I sigh in slight frustration, your response is now an unreasonable request because I know I shared already and without a proper rebuttal from you, it is now just ignorant, but I show the same proof again anyway, cause I know you didn't look the first time, but a part of me just hopes you look this time. Then you respond back "just waiting for that proof bud!".......to which I'm pretty fed up after that, cause It's like I'm talking to an echo, now it's way beyond unreasonable to keep asking, and far more clear that you're just being willfully ignorant.
If your aim is to frustrate your opponent with school yard tactics, it's working. At least as far as making the experience frustrating, but that's about it. You're not winning any arguments by pretending like I'm not here sharing the evidence you're asking for, you're just proving further how ignorant you are...which proves my main point of Flat Earth from the start. You reach conclusions from ignorance and incredulity and bias....not so much evidence. Which means you're bad researchers and you're more then likely wrong because of it. You ignore the evidence that doesn't support your conclusions, rather then directly refute that evidence and see if it has any validity. Ignoring it means you really have no idea if that evidence has any weight in your argument, so you're basically rolling the dice. If you're only following the evidence that supports your positions, then you're following confirmation bias, which is an illogical form of information processing. Definition of confirmation bias right here, fits you like a glove. https://www.britannica.com/science/confirmation-bias
Everyone in Flat Earth does this....and then they wonder why they're not changing anything, they wonder why they're being ridiculed, blocked, and removed from search algorithms...because you're not rational people. It's that simple. Nobody takes ignorant people seriously, that's why ignorance doesn't change anything. It's fine to question things, but what's not fine is thinking that ignoring evidence makes you anything other than ignorant. You disagree with the Cavendish, great, then tell me why? I would LOVE to hear why you feel it's inaccurate....so watch those damn videos I keep sharing and then respond to them directly, please and thanks.
That's how I've seen things from my perspective so far......and it's the same every time I talk to flat Earthers and we get this deep into it, your ignorance shines brighter and brighter as we go.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 Wow...just straight up proved my point to the letter, that's awesome. Good job. xD
Cavendish experiments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYf-Glwtr68&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QdifwJ31ig&t=164s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkjqrlYOW_0&t=287s
Observations and experiments demonstrating Curvature:
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
https://youtu.be/EIOs-PzNIZU?t=3176
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544
Experiments that verify the Earth is rotating:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_9J_c9Kss&t
https://youtu.be/SrGgxAK9Z5A?t=51
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPynV68Bg&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38&t
"But if you want to know why things go down, and say it's gravity, then you need to prove that matter attracts matter, it's very simple"
I've been trying...with the 3 videos I've been sharing of Cavendish over and over and over again. I'd love to prove this effect to you....but then you have to actually LOOK at what I share with you. It's that simple.
I'm calling you ignorant, because that's what you are...it's pretty cut and dry. You ask for evidence, so I share it, then you ignore what I share and then act like I never shared anything. That's a clear case of ignorance...so I'm calling you that, because the shoe fits, in fact you might as well be the Cinderalla of ignorance! It matters and you should be concerned....because it's likely the reason WHY you're a flat Earther. It's a big reason why you fell for this scam...and probably many others as well. You don't have to remain ignorant though, just watch those Cavendish demonstrations.
1
-
Nothing is being hidden from you, you just suck at researching and using a search bar I guess. Spend less time on Flat Earth channels that hide a lot from you and feed you bullshit to sell their bias, and start being more objective and less paranoid. Here's an archive with hundreds of photos of Earth, taken during the various Apollo missions, one of many resources online that archives these photos. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
When searching for the curve, make sure you're doing things correctly by first making sure your math is correct and then make damn sure you have all the correct details. Flat Earth cons you here in two ways, they know most people are not very savvy with mathematics, so they give you the wrong math formulas to use...and the other way they con you is by lying or fudging the details of what they're showing you. This has led a lot of people to believe there is no curvature...because the math doesn't add up when they try it for themselves. But if the math is wrong and if the details are wrong...then ya, no shit you're going to reach a false conclusion.
Here's a great channel that has documented many observations of the curvature you're looking for. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDXr2cbK7WlfeYEtJxC9i3w The data he has collected out in the real world is quite extensive. Here's a blog that has also gone out and done some pretty extensive surveying to put the Earths curve to the test. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth They have also provided a great globe Earth simulation tool, that is too scale, that is pretty handy for generating to scale representations of curvature from varying altitudes. Just click through the yellow labelled tabs to watch some of the demos they have mocked up already. The first one marked "Curve" is quite good for challenging the claim of "horizon always rising to eye level" (it doesn't by the way, as that demo helps to verify), and my favorite is also the observations of the Lake Pontchartrain causeway bridge. Just a small sample of some observations for curvature that I can share with you. If you'd like help with the math feel free to ask, I can point you towards the correct formulas and break them down for you.
"Why aren’t we allowed to fly straight to our destinations?"
Because at the end of the day, air travel is a business and it only makes money by consumer demand. Meaning, they can only afford to fly flights, where they are going to have the most paying passengers. Most people live in the Northern hemisphere, because that is where the majority of land is, that's where most of the worlds major cities are, that's the highest density of population is, so that's where the most flights are...because that's where the most paying customers are. It costs millions of dollars to fly internationally, from paying the flight crew, to the fuel, to the maintenance required, to bunker storage....it's not cheap. Direct flights are harder to maintain, in places that do not receive as much traffic. It's basic economics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neiljohnson7914 If you understood general relativity, and are fascinated by black holes…then you would understand and agree with gravity, they’re directly linked. So if you really understood that science, then you’d understand gravity vectors, then you’d also understand how people in Australia are not walking upside down. Gravity is what orientates them and us, so they are right side up to their gravity vector, so long as they are orientated with that gravity vector, feet on the surface. You don’t get to pick and choose…if Earth is flat, then Relativity physics doesn’t work, because it’s built on the foundation that mass bends space to a centre of mass, forming everything into a sphere around it. It basically explains why everything we observe in the cosmos is spherical…including our planet. So if you understand and agree with General Relativity, then by proxy you agree the Earth is spherical too…oops, your lies are showing.
You don’t have a physics degree, so why lie? It certainly doesn’t help your position to lie about your credentials. Also, you’re lying about your unbiased position, I’ve chatted with you before, you are a flat Earther through and through, so you can save the little pretend games. You don’t want a discussion, you want science to agree with you that it’s flat, any other discussion can be ignored. Your as biased as they come, closed to only one conclusion, no matter how wrong it’s proven to be.
Go troll somewhere else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@terry3002 No, I wouldn’t scold him for that, because I know he only recreated the experiment as a joke. With even a basic understanding of gravity physics, you can immediately understand how that experiment is inconclusive, does not verify or falsify either position. The whole point of this video wasn’t to prove or disprove flat Earth, only to analyze WHY they believe what they believe. He did that experiment as a joke...but it also points out the kind of people we’re dealing with here, people who really can’t understand why that is a bad experiment...which is the part that’s not very funny, but that was the point.
It’s fine to have questions, in fact it’s perfectly logical, but you are revealing more and more with each new question, that don’t really understand gravity physics very well. That personal misunderstanding, is leading you to some very poorly formed conclusions. But nit your fault really, gravity is tricky science and of you’ve never seen the experiments that helped form the larger theory, then it’s understandable how people could misunderstand a lot about it. It’s a bit frustrating though, for some of us...because we know it’s fine to question things, and you don’t have to agree...in fact, it’s good that some people don’t, because science is all about questioning things, no matter how settled it is. So it’s frustrating, because on one hand we’re all for individuals questioning things the rest of us have largely moved on from...but on the other, we’re a bit annoyed that it’s not just as obvious.
So my apologies if I came off as crass or pushy in any way before, I don’t want you to misunderstand me, I’m actually all for individuals asking questions. It’s the one thing I do actually admire about Flat Earth, stubborn tenacity in the face of overwhelming odds. I just prefer not to pull my punches in a review of anything, I assume most wouldn’t want me too anyway.
Anyway, just rambling a bit, I’ll get back to the points.
So let’s look at your flowing water argument. First of all, let’s break down how water flows. Flowing water is a motion from high elevation to low elevation. On a sphere, elevation of the surface is measured from centre of the sphere. So points further away from centre, are at higher elevation. That’s how gravity works as well, it pulls to centre of mass. The downward force of gravity (or for arguments sake, whatever downward force you’d prefer to use), is what causes the motion of flowing water, essentially falling from high elevation to low elevation. So if elevation is measured from centre on a sphere...and the downward force pulls to centre as well, then down always toward surface, high elevation is away from centre, low elevation is closest too it, so water can flow just fine on a sphere with these perimeters.
See the problem? Your argument doesn’t really falsify anything, it just misunderstands gravity physics and is not aware of how elevation works on a sphere. Best thought experiment I can provide for this, take a few two inch pins and stick them all one inch deep into the surface of a ball, what’s the elevation (or length of the pins) from surface of that ball? 1 inch...they’re all 1 inch elevation from surface, make better sense now? Check any river system in the world, you will find they all flow from high elevation, to low elevation. Water doesn’t really seek level, it seeks lowest potential energy...closest possible position to centre. This forms into a sphere, if lowest potential energy state is toward a central point. It’s why bubbles form spheres as well, rain drops...all because of forces to squeeze to a centre. Gravity pulls to centre...which explains why everything we observe in space is spherical.
See, gravity doesn’t just explain why things fall to surface...it explains almost everything. You need to understand, when gravity was realized, mysteries of the universe started to fall like dominoes. It was a pretty big discovery, and currently used in almost everything, from simple weight calculations (W=mg), to calculating Buoyancy for ships and submarines (Fb=Vpg), to projectile arc equations, calculating the lift of an aircraft, orbital mechanics, unlocking the mystery of nuclear fusion, etc. It’s applied science...probably THE most applied knowledge in human history. So it’s just...frustrating for some of us is all.
But...like I said, it should be fine for people to question, nothing should be off the table for debate, not even the most established science. We’re at a current stand still with gravity physics, we still don’t know what directly causes it...and all attempts to find it, are coming up empty. So who knows, perhaps we just need people willing to start over, and maybe stumble upon something the rest of us over looked. Which is why I’m personally fine with this whole FE thing, because mankind is hive mind in a way. The truth of things is often found somewhere in between.
Did you know, there’s a famous psychological study (though how famous can it really be, cause I forget the name of it), where they take a group of people and a jar of beans and ask each person how many beans are in the jar. What’s interesting is that no single individual ever gets it right....but the average of every person taken together, pretty much nails it, with deadly accuracy.
I don’t know about you, but what this tells me, is that we’re effective at solving great mysteries of reality, because we’re such a mixed bag of varying ideas and intelligence levels. So that’s where I find comfort in all this, I find it frustrates me less when I remember that even wrong answers are useful, and we should all never be to quick to assume that WE are the ones in the right...just take comfort in knowing that together, is really how we get shit done, that includes every facet of human intellect. Flat Earth is at least thinking outside the box, so who knows what they might discover.
Jeez...I’m rambling again. Didn’t even address your other point yet, with the butterfly and oceans. To touch on it briefly, gravity gives things weight, everything has mass, but weight is a product of mass+force of gravity. So what this means is, things with less mass, are essentially affected less by gravity. Less molecules of mass being attracted, equates to an easier time moving around. That...and water is not alive, it is an inert molecule. It has no physical means of creating energy, to put into muscles, it can then use to resist gravity. A butterfly does, it flaps wings that it moves by spending energy. But what happens when it’s not flapping those wings? It falls towards surface...just like everything does.
Anyway, I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. Apologies if it got a bit long. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask, I’m not here to scold or troll you, I’d prefer to just share information and then let people decide fir themselves. It’s all good really, so take care.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@terry3002 The trouble I’m seeing in your reasoning though, is a lack of first hand knowledge in much of science, in physics most of all. It’s not that you don’t have a lot of knowledge in science, you clearly do, I’ve just noticed so far that you’ve reached a great many conclusions, that I feel shouldn’t be concluded just yet, they’re not quite there yet. You’re not wrong to be skeptical and untrusting of systems of authority, we all have that uneasy feeling that we’re being screwed by something, but some of your conclusions are poorly formed, from a lack of real scientific understanding in some of the topics. See I prefer not chasing things I can only speculate on, that’s why I enjoy science...because there’s very little speculation in much of science, and I don’t have to just take somebody else’s word for it, I can reach more definite conclusions, all on my own. People may lie to you, but physical reality does not. The nice thing about junk science...it simply does not work, it is not useful. So it reveals itself as false, the moment it becomes apparent how inaccurate it is.
I mean, cause I could go through each of your scientific points and falsify them, with evidence supporting my conclusions, no problems. But when it comes to say Free Masons, Illuminati, the dark history of some shadowy overlords...all I can do is speculate. I can imagine all sorts of possibilities, and I have really, I have contemplated much of the same things you have, but I can’t make any definite conclusions, so I feel it’s a bit of a waste of time. For me personally anyway.
I see the logic in saying “they hide FE to hide God from us”, sure, there’s logic there...but it’s only inferred logic, it does not mean it’s a definite conclusion. I choose not to conclude anything from inferred logic, and I do not bolster an argument with speculations alone. If you go through your posts, I can break them down into two parts. Endless speculations and bad science. Which leads me with little reason to conclude your position has any merit to it. It’s interesting to discuss, but I feel you are chasing confirmation bias, so determined to defeat “them” or “they”, or at the very least, not fall into their traps. I’ve been there myself at points in my life, but I found it just robbed me of energy and time, so I now just focus on things I don’t have to speculate on. I focus on science.
It’s fine really though, it’s good I suppose that some are still chasing those speculations and pondering the possibilities a lot more thoroughly. Like I said earlier, the actual truth of things is often somewhere in the middle. You may be WAY off, but then people like myself who don’t trouble ourselves with conspiracy rabbit holes, are probably extremely naive or overly optimistic, putting far too much faith in humanity, and so the actual truth is likely, somewhere in between both of our positions. Possibly anyway, but now that’s only speculation, and so I’ve now exhausted my tolerance for the topic.
Science is where I prefer to ground myself, because again, physical reality does not lie, so it’s a far more reliable source. So in another comment I’ll focus on a bit of science. I will just offer some quick tidbits of information, for each of your more scientific points mentioned so far, then up to you really if you choose to explore the science a bit closer. I feel you’re not wrong to question things, but I do strongly feel you are wrong about the shape of the Earth. Just another part of the disinformation you spoke of, being put out there to chew up your time and mislead you.
1
-
@terry3002 So I’ll address some science and see if you find any of it interesting or of use to you. I’ll try and just be as quick as I can with each, just point you in a direction really...though some of these may get long, but I’ll try and be as brief as I can.
“Conventional science says that the earth is spinning at over 1,000 mph at the equator. The problem, for me, is that my senses see no evidence of that, not in volcanic smoke plumes, not in planes having to contend with that as they fly east or west, and so on.”
So the trouble here, is your expectations, not fitting with the explanation. You hear 1000 mph, you immediately think about what it’s like being on the outside of a moving vehicle, being hit by all that air resistance, you then wonder why our motions doesn’t produce a similar drag effect. And that’s where you seem to have stopped thinking about it, concluding that it’s a hole in the current model. But let’s go back in and analyze it closer. So you’re trouble is with drag force, primarily, you assume that all great motion, comes with a drag force effect of some kind, but what is drag force? Drag force, is just friction caused by a body in motion, moving through a medium (like atmosphere) that is not moving at the same relative velocity as the object. So the friction is created by the moving molecules, smashing into non moving molecules. But what would happen, if everything was moving at the same relative velocity? What if the air was also moving at 1000 mph, in the same direction? Would you expect there to be friction then? No, because every molecule is moving together, they’re not colliding causing friction. We call this relative motion, usually described as an inertial frame of motion, everything within an inertial reference frame of motion, moving together creating an environment that operates almost as if it is stationary.
Can we test this? Well sure, get inside a moving vehicle, create some smoke, watch as the plum moves with it, in the same relative frame of motion. Do more tests even, you wondered about flights East to West, so get on a moving train or bus, make yourself a quick paper airplane, toss it back and forth along the length of the vehicle, going with its forward velocity and against it, you’ll notice the plane glides effortlessly in either direction, doesn’t matter where you toss it really, the paper plane will operate as if you were throwing it around in a stationary classroom. What does this tell us about motion? That as long as everything is moving together, at the same relative velocity, in the same direction, at the same time, then no drag force friction will occur. The environment it then creates, will operate as if it’s stationary, because motion is always conserved.
We can go further into the physics of motion and science has, developing the laws of motion, law of inertia, conservation of momentum, etc. All very simple physics to test and confirm...it’s physics 101.
Now I hear a lot of rebuttal with that one such as “ya, but Earth is an open system, so do those experiments on the outside of a vehicle not inside”, ok, but then you’re creating drag force, which is a false equivalence here, as the point is to illustrate that when all objects and molecules are in motion together, no friction can occur. Earth’s atmosphere rotates WITH the surface, so it’s more comparable to the inside of a moving vehicle, not outside. Think of Earth like a car, moving through space, the atmosphere is the wind shield. Of course, that’s a very crude comparison as well, but it’s far more accurate, because everything on Earth is moving together, in the same relative frame of motion, just like the inside of a moving vehicle.
So see the trouble with your point there, is that it’s ignoring basic physics of motion...in fact it doesn’t seem to even make any note of it, lacking any scientific mention of motion physics. So it’s a poorly formed conclusion, that really can’t be included as evidence for your main position, as it’s easily falsified, if you just examined the science of motion a little closer.
Lots of little experiments you can conduct to verify the laws of motion and relative motion, so definitely worth learning more about, if you want to know how the motions of Earth are possible. In fact it’s pretty crucial.
Now, I should note, that none of this is meant to prove that we are in motion, it’s only an explanation for why we don’t notice it. It’s real physics, easily verifiable, confirming that motion is actually a lot more tricky to discern, then you currently assume it is. If you want some evidence that helps verify Earth’s many motions, then that’s a different topic, but I can also point you to that evidence, if you’d like to see it, so feel free to ask.
So I’ll answer a few more points in a different comment now. This one got a bit long.
1
-
@terry3002 “Snipers do not take into account the Coriolis Effect.”
Yes they do https://youtu.be/jX7dcl_ERNs. As do pilots actually https://youtu.be/eugYAfHW0I8. Whoever told you Coriolis wasn’t a thing we have to factor, was lying to you or they just don’t have any experience with it, so they just assumed it wasn’t real. Here’s great experiment conducted not to long ago, that helps verify this phenomenon https://youtu.be/mXaad0rsV38. Coriolis is quite real, and is actually a great bit of evidence for Earth’s rotation. You can verify this for yourself, with just a few simple experiments like these and others.
“Geodetic surveyors do not account for the alleged curvature...”
Yes they do...it’s quite literally in their job title. Here’s a geodetic surveying going over some data he recorded from a long causeway bridge in New Orleans https://youtu.be/EIOs-PzNIZU?t=3176. Again, whoever told you they don’t, was lying to you...and for some reason you believed them. I’ve met and discussed with surveyors, I’m in no way an expert into what they do, but I do know for certain that measuring curvature is very much what these experts are tasked to do. I’ve even chatted with a civil engineer, who told me how much more difficult his job is, simply because he has to consider Earth’s curvature into his calculations...or his spacings will be off and those errors will complicate things over time.
“...countless laser experiments on YT attest to the fact that the earth is not curved over deserts, lake beds etc.”
I have seen none that are conclusive, in fact analyzing them closer often reveals a disingenuous or even malicious intent, from those conducting the experiments. In my own experience, I know that lasers are not a great tool over long distances, because the further they travel, the more they refract (bend or reflect in atmosphere) and diffract (expand out from source, with inverse square law). So even without conducting the experiments myself, I understand how lasers would produce errors here. It would be impossible to produce a perfectly tangent beam of light, required for such an experiment.
But if you don’t believe me, just take a look at some of the more in depth reviews of these laser experiments. A great source is from a content creator known as Sly Sparkane. I can not share his links however, as he’s black listed from YT. But worth checking out if the topic truly interests you and you would like to remain objective.
This is actually more evidence to suggest that FE is part of a disinformation campaign, as these laser experiments are extremely flawed and those conducting them are clearly not all that interested in being honest about them, preferring to lie to people about their results. Upon reviews of these experiments, they are found to be in great error, of their preposed conclusions.
But that being said, I’ve certainly never reviewed all of them, so if you have any that you feel are conclusive, feel free to share. That being said, I am not currently aware of any way, that a laser can be controlled at distances to keep the beam at a perfect tangent, it’s just not a reliable tool here, because of what effect atmosphere will have on the beam. Typically when scientists use lasers over large distances, they go to great lengths to build long tunnels where near perfect vacuum can be produced. Just look up the LIGO lasers sometime. Fun fact about these lasers as well, they are I think about 4 miles long in each tunnel, and so to keep the lasers tangent, it required that they raise up (or dig into the surface, can’t remember which) a few feet at both ends from starting point. That would not have been necessary, had the Earth’s surface not been curving. I believe there are public records of the building specs for LIGO, so you can look it up I’m sure. Worth a look anyway.
“The idea that ships disappear from the bottom up as they cross the horizon is easily explained by perspective, angle of refraction, and the physical limitations of our eyes as opposed to the alleged curvature of the earth.”
Not really though. See as an artist for a living (that’s my current profession, physics teacher was my other desired vocation), this is the topic that got me into this conversation in the first place. Perspective and visual geometry, are two avenues I would consider myself an expert in, I’ve studied them both for most of my life. Refraction is something I’ve since learned about later, but I now have a very good grasp on it as well. The trouble with this argument, is; 1) for it to work it has to ignore many rules of perspective; and 2) it does not falsify curvature, so you can’t rule it out completely, as much as you’d like too.
Some things it ignores about perspective. First of all, vanishing point, which is just the physical limitation of your eye to render an object visible, as the object has shrunk in apparent size to a point no longer perceivable to a viewer. Vanishing point can occur in any direction, and it can occur before horizon. This is important to know, because when you see boats being brought back into focus with a zoom lens of some kind, you have to consider the possibility that they’re not being brought back from horizon, they’re just being brought back from vanishing point. This is can be confirmed further to discern which is really occurring, if we can find any examples of objects being brought back into focus, while still having tens to hundreds of feet of their base being cut off by horizon. Of which there are now hundreds of examples online, here’s a great one https://youtu.be/NKQI18jr8Oc. These wind turbines are hundreds of feet in length...yet you can only see the very tops of them. Perspective would not do that...because perspective convergence occurs equally from all angles towards centre of object, it does not pick and choose what to make disappear first, it does not work that way.
Now refraction is also noted as a rebuttal to this, but refraction is also well understood in physics. It’s affected by air density, which is largely affected by temperature and humidity. For refraction to do what FE is claiming, light would have to bend up. This only occurs when the air at surface is much hotter than the air above, causing the air directly at surface to be slightly less dense than air above. This is what causes a mirage on hot roads. Trouble is, over water, where most of these observations take place, the air directly at surface is cooler and more humid, meaning more dense. This causes light to refract down...which actually causes things to rise up, not down...which is what would be required for their main refraction argument.
So they have to ignore many variables here. Another one they ignore (and lie about) is eye level. Horizon does not actually rise to eye level as they claim...they’ve just never measured it. I know of two ways you cam effectively measure horizon drop from eye level. Using a simple levelling rig, or a surveyors theodolite. Here is an example for both.
https://youtu.be/RUr9ymz_nVI?t=159 - levelling rig.
https://youtu.be/WVTgP-KpyRc - theodolite.
So no, it’s not as simple as FE likes to pretend it is. It’s mostly an argument from ignorance, relying on the scientific illiteracy of the individual. It’s very effective against anyone who’s not well versed in perspective and optics...which is most people, but to any artist or geometry student...it’s incredibly ignorant information they’re giving people.
This one I’ve spent a lot of time on, so I can go very deep into it. Perspective and optics are something I pride myself in knowing quite a bit about in particular. When you really analyze this claim closer, you actually find it’s very flimsy...and it still doesn’t falsify curvature. Another problem I’ve noticed is the math being used (8 inches per mike squared being the worst offender, but there are others). I’ve not seen anyone of FE use or derive the correct equations for their observations...which is a big problem. Because it should be pretty common sense, that when you use the wrong math, you will reach a false conclusion. If you’d like to learn more about the math here, I don’t mind getting into it, but I’ll leave it there for now.
Anyway, this is all the science we can analyze closer, the rest of your points we can really only speculate on, so I won’t address them much. As much as I’d love to share an archive of old Apollo Earth photos with you, I know it won’t matter much to you, because you can not confirm them for yourself. So we can both only speculate on their legitimacy. As much they are convincing to me, I know they’ll still do nothing for you.
But the rest of what I shared above is all science anyone can test for themselves, at any time. This is what I prefer to focus on, because I agree that people can and will lie to you...but reality does not. It can be tricky to understand, our senses can be fooled by sensory illusions, people can present faked data and observations, but we can still test physical reality for ourselves, at any time we choose too and discern truth from it, using the scientific method. I believe it’s the best tool we have against bullshit...so that’s where I put my attention. The internet is full of misinformation and conspiracies, so it’s really not a great source for all your information. Best to drag yourself away from these screens sometime, and actually get out into the world and put it to the test. It’s really the only way you can know things for certain.
Anyway, let me know if you find any of this information at the very least interesting. If you have any questions or rebuttals, feel free to ask.
1
-
@terry3002 Some further rebuttal from some of your new replies.
You mentioned that we are in motion in several vectors. This is largely false, I mean, it’s technically true, but there’s nuance. We are rotating, orbiting the Sun, orbiting galactic centre, and also moving through the universe around what’s known only as the great attractor. The thing is though, most of these motions are such large circumference, that we may as well be moving in a straight line. Centrifugal force or G forces are the only two factors that we would be able to detect in any of these motions. As I recall discussing earlier, centrifugal force is a product of angular velocity change per second, depending largely on RPM’s. The only motion that is rotating at a rate fast enough for us to detect, is our Earth rotation, once every 24 hours. But as already discussed, the RPM’s for this rotation is still a meer 0.000694 rpm’s. What do you think they would be for for an orbit taking 365 days to complete, or an orbit around a galactic centre taking 230 million years to complete?
They are irrelevant motions, we are basically moving in straight lines (as far as centrifugal force is concerned) in all our motions. The other force is G force, but this only becomes detectable in sudden or rapid changes in velocity. All our motions are nearly constant, so there is no sudden or rapid shifts in velocity we would detect in G force.
So again, it’s just more poorly formed conclusions, ignorant to the basic physics. You say you’re aware of things like relative motion and general motion physics...but then why would you ask the questions you have concerning them? If you really knew the arguments, I feel you probably wouldn’t ask such simple questions you knew could easily be refuted. I can only conclude because you’ve never really thought about them much, you know of them, but you do not currently understand them, at least not completely. Or if I was to get completely speculative, you know full well they’re poor arguments, but you repeat them because you know they will hook certain people reading these exchanges.
It’s fair though to ask HOW we know of these motions, that’s fair to ask. Because it’s one thing to understand how they’re possible, it’s completely another to prove them scientifically. I already discussed Coriolis, sharing many examples of proof for its existence. Another great proof of both motion and our Earths geometry, the Southern Hemisphere, more precisely, observing the second rotation of stars that exists there. I’ve been fortunate enough to have visited the Southern Hemisphere on several occasions, New Zealand and Australia, on multiple visits. On one of these trips, I was again fortunate to meet up with an astronomy group in a park, who were filming the Southern celestial rotation around their pole star, Sigma Octantis. I’d already made my own observations of the southern stars, I’m some what of an amateur astronomer myself, seeing the Southern Cross for the first time was a big deal for me, noticing that I could not see the Big Dipper or Polaris, also pretty big for me. But seeing that South rotation for myself...that’s an even bigger deal. This was long before I became aware of FE, way back in 2012...almost 10 years ago.
These observations ate consistent with what we’d expect to see on a globe. To this day I’ve seen nothing from FE that can successfully falsify this observation. It’s a great proof of the geometry and Earth rotation, among many others, all of which are easily testable and repeatable. Though from this observation I’ll admit, not a good proof of Earth’s motion, but Coriolis sure is, as are ring laser interferometers that measure Earth rotation, gyro compasses that make use of it in practical engineering, and Foucault Pendulum experiments, which I’ve also action seen demonstrated now. And I’m not talking about at a museum, no, I’m talking about a high school experiment that recreated it in a stair well, without motors.
So I mean...you can try and tell me Earth is flat and not rotating, but I’ve seen the evidence that verifies both.
Some good astronomy questions though, but also easy to refute, because they ignore the distances of stars and what effect those distances would have on parallax effect. It’s also not aware of the fact, that the stars are shifting...any astronomer who actually spends their nights watching and recording stars every night, will tell you, the stars are all shifting constantly. It’s well documented today, so you’re making a false claim when you say they haven’t moved in eons. You can actually start making observations of the stars, recording their positions. Start with a few closer stars like Barnards Star, or Alpha Centauri, observe them shifting greatly within just a few years! There’s also the 6 month stellar parallax you can observe, very easy to check for yourself, that stars actually do shift quite a bit...as we’d expect they would.
So I’m sorry, but you should really research more science and get a better grasp on it.
It’s true that getting information from other sources can be bias, and can be manipulated, so when I said science doesn’t lie...I wasn’t talking about the body of collected knowledge, I was talking about the method itself. Use the method correctly and you can discern real truths...but bias is a problem and we all have it, which is why peer review is so important.
Point is, you could really benefit from learning more first hand knowledge in the science. I feel your research has largely focused on just the shadowy groups that you feel are responsible...and very little focus has been put to the science. You’re right, that’s where we differ. I spend a lot of time doing my own science and experiments and observations. I chat with experts, I watch science lectures from renowned scientists, I watch science channels like Veritasium, Smarter Everyday, Minute Physics, and so on. I think this keeps me a lot more optimistic, cause I engage more with the positive side of humanity. I’m not shy or afraid to delve deep into the occult (actually I did a science fare project on the occult once, many years ago), I listen to metal (even played in a few bands), horror movies are my favourite genre of film, so the occult and our darker nature is an interest of mine as well. Like I told you, I’ve pondered these same dark possibilities you have and I’m certain evil organizations do in fact exist, and they do more than likely effect our lives.
But...this is not something they can easily lie to us about. They can muddy the waters of information, and perhaps they are doing that, but at any time we can pit physical reality to the test. I don’t have to speculate about the shape of the Earth, I can verify it, with just a few simple observations and experiments. I prefer to be optimistic about humanity, I don’t think the majority of mankind is interested in misleading us. Millions of experts would have to be lying, for this conspiracy to be true. Are they all Satanists? No...very very likely not.
So, from my perspective, I do feel it’s you who are being misled. Maybe focus more tine on the science. That would be my suggestion for you.
1
-
@terry3002 Yes, I was just more interested in the discussion, I like discussing science and it was just nice to get a civil conversation for a change. This is a nasty topic of conversation unfortunately, very hard to find mature adults who can entertain an idea, while not necessarily agreeing outright, or not getting upset or angry just from some rebuttal. I won’t take up anymore of your time though, it’s quite true we both have lives to get back too. Thank you for the civil discussion, all really interesting points, despite my disagreements. If more conversations were like this, maybe we’d reach better understandings. So thanks again, have a good one! 🙂
1
-
1
-
@terry3002 Ok, that’s fine, I don’t mind helping with whatever information I can. You’ve asked a few great physics questions now, so I’ll take a look.
So about the motions, I do see how people can think nearly 70k mph would be something we should be able to perceive, given most people’s experience and understanding of G force. But then you have to really think about what G force is, to see if that would really be true. So what is G force? Well it’s just a pressure you feel, when the cells and molecules of your body are squeezing together, being forced together suddenly, due to an acceleration. But you see if everything is moving at the same relative rate of motion, in the same direction, then there is no pressure, because nothing would be squeezing together. Everything is moving at the same velocity together, then they adhere to the rules of relative motion. So G force is a product of acceleration and deceleration, rapid or sudden change in motion. Once everything is moving together, they conserve that motion, nothing is being forced together, so no G force pressure is being produced.
Can you test this? Yes, absolutely. Get in a car sometime and blast on the gas going from 0-60 mph as fast as you possibly can, you’ll likely feel the G force pressure from that acceleration. Ok, now do it again only this time gradually increase your speed, going from 0-60 mph over the course of about an hour. You wouldn’t feel any G force in this example, but why? The eventual speed you reached was the same, so why no G force? Because G force is not created by the velocity itself, it’s a product of acceleration or deceleration.
So it’s a common misunderstanding people have, but truth is, we don’t really notice motion very well. We notice sudden or rapid changes in motion, but steady constant motions...not so much. Not sure if you’ve ever flown in a plane before, but it’s incredible how smooth they are and how slow they feel like they’re going, even though they’re the fastest commercial vehicles we’ve ever created. 500 mph is the general cruising speed for most passenger jets, that’s an incredible speed by most standards, yet it’s almost completely imperceptible to the passengers. We do not really feel or notice motion, we feel sudden or rapid change to motion, that’s what our senses detect.
This also pertains a bit to your other question, about the elliptical orbit of Earth. You’re correct, Earth speeds up at Aphelion and slows down at Perihelion, within its elliptical orbit. So 66,670 mph, that’s just an average velocity between the two. The thing to note here, is that the change in velocity is very gradual. Taking months to change by only a few thousand miles per hour. I don’t remember the exact figures, I roughly calculated it once before, but it was something like 100 mph every 24 hours, or something like that. Not all the time mind you, that increase is only at Aphelion, and that’s even just an average over about 4 months or so. At Perihelion it’s slowing down by like 15 mph every 24 hours, or something like that. Lots of variables here to factor, but in the end, it’s no different from the car example, accelerating from 0-60 mph over the span of an hour, except Earth is even slower than that. The increases and decreases of our elliptical orbit are so gradual, we will never notice.
Let me know if you have any more questions on that topic. I’ll move on to some other questions you had. 🙂
1
-
@terry3002 Another misunderstanding is the difference between gas pressure and atmospheric pressure. There’s nuance here, technically they’re the same, but in physics we classify them as different and they’re even treated differently mathematically. Gas pressure always has a volume included as a variable in the math, just look up Boyles Law and all the other gas pressure laws. But these formulas are basically useless, in atmospheric pressure, because it’s not the same thing and without a physical barrier containing the gas, you can’t include a variable for volume. So they don’t, atmospheric pressure is treated as a completely different science.
That’s where the confusion comes from. I’ve noticed FE has a very hard time thinking of these two things as separate. So they wrongly assume gas always requires a physical barrier to create pressure, but we know this isn’t actually the case. In gas pressure within a container, yes, this is accurate...but when we talk about our atmosphere, we’re now talking about atmospheric pressure, which is completely different.
The pressure is created in atmospheric pressure, by the downward force if gravity. So instead of volume as a variable in math equations, gravity often replaces it instead. So basically what this means, is that gravity is the container of our atmosphere. Just like it contains everything else to surface, it also brings our atmosphere to surface.
Is there evidence of this? Well ya, it’s well understood that pressure decreases as you go higher. Which tells us, that pressure is being created from a sort of stacking effect, a downward force squeezing mass together, causing pressure. I’m sure you’ve experienced being piled up on before, being at the bottom of the pile up of bodies kind of hurts doesn’t it? Cause you were being squeezed by all the weight above you, but that pressure decreases the higher up you are on the pile, the last kid on top feels no pressure. It’s a crude analogy, but it’s basically the same thing with atmosphere, the pressure is greatest at surface, because it’s being squeezed by all the weight of the air above it. But what happens when there’s no more kids (or air, or anything really) to stack? There’s no more pressure...there’s vacuum, zero pressure, zero mass, which is all space is...a space void of matter.
The key here is gravity, cause the pressure is always consistent in the same direction, down towards surface. So when flat Earth claims you need a physical container for gas pressure, that’s only half true...because they’re intentionally ignoring the difference of atmospheric pressure and in this case, no you do not require a container, just a force that attracts matter to surface. We have that, it’s called gravity. Though I mean, I still understand if you disagree on gravity, but there is a downward force still and that’s all that’s really required here. It’s that downward force that creates atmospheric pressure, which is measured, air does get thinner as you go higher, which is consistent with the model.
Now there’s some other nuance in there argument about the 2nd law of thermodynamics being breached here. But it’s another misunderstanding about entropy. They seem to think it has to do with matter needing to always find equilibrium and that’s sort of true...but matter itself is going to take billions of years to find that equilibrium. Thermodynamics isn’t about solid matter, it’s about energy...and Earth is losing energy all the time, constantly. But it’s also receiving it, constantly, from the Sun. If we had no Sun feeding us energy, then ya, our atmosphere would eventually erode away. Because nothing would be alive on surface to produce NEW gas. Earth loses gas, most of it is contained by gravity, but we do lose it slowly over time to space. That’s why Earth actually has such a massive cloud of hydrogen gas around it, extending past the Moon even, also known as the Geocorona.
Thermodynamics is about energy transfer, not matter. For example, when a cup of coffee goes cold, did the coffee also leave the cup, or just the thermal energy? It’s about energy, sometimes matter catches a ride on that energy, but no laws of thermodynamics are being broken in our atmosphere, they’re just misunderstanding the physics. I feel some are doing it intentionally, but it’s very difficult to know for sure, so better not to speculate on that.
Point is, no, thermodynamics laws are not being broken in the heliocentric model. We are constantly losing energy, but we’re constantly getting it back as well, from the Sun.
Another thing to note here, they’re so confident a barrier exists...then where is it? Why haven’t we found it yet? It would have to be physical in nature, to contain gas as they claim, so why haven’t we interacted with it yet? It seems to me all they really have is a broken understanding of both gas pressure physics and thermodynamics...but no tangible evidence. I mean, that’s fine really, cause science often starts with just a hunch, that’s what theoretical science largely is, it’s like the sketching phase of science, drawing the blueprints. But we don’t settle science on a chalk board, we settle it with tangible evidence. Dark matter is hypothesized to exist, but it means nothing if they can’t find it...it’s like the Aether that came before it. This dome will be treated no differently.
Here’s an interesting observation you can make today. I’ve seen people send up plenty of their own weather balloons, Flat Earth has even done this in the search for curvature.
In those videos you’ll notice two things, the blackness of space above our blue atmosphere, and you’ll notice that the balloons always eventually pop, as they are designed to do, once reaching vacuum conditions. So even Flat Earth, without realizing it, has confirmed the vacuum of space. But you know what they’ve never found? A container.
Anyway, let me know if you find any of this helpful or informative. It’s a big topic, full of variables and nuance, which is why it’s actually one of their better arguments I think. It requires a lot of knowledge in physics to really break this one down. Which is how they’re able to get people here I feel, cause most people don’t have that kind of time required to really learn this stuff. It’s difficult science, much more advanced than simple motion physics. But I hope I was able to make better sense of it, though I’m sure you still have many questions, so feel free.
1
-
@terry3002 Well I’ve talked your ear off about physics, maybe now I’ll take the time to chat about the logic behind FE a bit. Cause it’s not like their logic is bad, much of it I used to actually agree with when I was younger. And some I still do. I mean it’s a frustrating system we currently live in, isn’t it. Lot of things to worry about lately, and democratic processes have seemingly been corrupted to a point where we’re just, constantly trying to vote the lesser of two evils...not a whole lot of choice anymore. Though I suppose there never really was...but it just feels more frustrating today, because the stakes feel higher.
And yes, it does feel more and more like government and corporations have tightened their grip on certain sectors of research and development. But I think it’s just exasperated by a life experienced mostly online today. Social medias don’t really represent the world as it actually is, it sensationalizes it. We spend more and more time online, we’re fed this version of the world every day...we get stressed, worried, pessimistic, angry. I think it starts to have a negative psychological effect on us. Go out and actually talk to a scientist out in their field of research, you’ll find they’re not as clenched down as you’d think. They get by just fine and they’re focused on their research. Fighting for grant money, sure, that does happen, and I’m sure it does cause some to resort to disingenuous tactics to get that grant, but I very much doubt it’s a majority of cases.
But see the nice thing about science is that we can’t really do much with faulty data, false information, fake information. These people are eventually weeded out, during the process of peer review...which is part of why we conduct peer review. It doesn’t always work mind you, and some products get rushed...but when people start seeing the disadvantages, we start fixing them. Nothing flies under the radar forever, despite their best efforts...because junk science does not work. It’s really that simple.
There are more good honest people than bad. Everything you’re saying does happen, but I would argue it’s not as bad as you think it is. It just feels like it is, because media likes to bombard us with bad news, it sells better. Social media is no different, it focuses on drama, fuelling our negative reactions. But, we can’t do much with junk science, so it’s not in societies best interest, or in governments, to lie about basic core understandings, like physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
Geometry is very simple stuff...you can try and hide the shape of the Earth from 7 billion people, but when nearly half of that population requires that information be accurate, in order to do their jobs with any accuracy, then you have yourself a bit of a problem. When any one of us can get up, and look at a sunset...then wonder how a sun could set over a flat Earth, if line of sight to that Sun is never blocked geometrically? That’s a big problem for that lie...the bigger a lie is, the harder it is to keep. And it’s made all the more difficult, just by the fact that geometry is pretty simple stuff. I travel to the South and see different stars...I’m going to wonder why that is. I plot a navigation route using the lines of latitude and longitude designed for a planet with two equal hemispheres, I’m going to agree the Earth is spherical, the moment I pull into port successfully.
It’s just too big...it’s more logical to me, that Flat Earth is part of the disinformation campaign, not the other way around. But that’s my feelings on that currently.
I see the logic a bit, indoctrination is a hell of a tool, and over 500+ years, you can get people to believe almost anything. Once it’s old enough, it becomes almost non debatable. But...I still do feel, you can combat that sort of lying, with life experience, there are simple geometric and physical truths to reality, that anyone can confirm first hand, free from any system of alleged indoctrination. I don’t have to agree immediately with gravity physics, but I can put a weight on a scale and wonder to myself...if there was no downward force, then how is pressure being applied to the scale, just as it would if I was pushing down on it?
See, nature doesn’t lie, so that’s what I listen too. With that, I feel you can combat pretty much any man made lie.
But anyway, it is still interesting to ponder. I do see much of the logic, I have the same worries and dread as you these days. It’s a stressful time fir sure, but no reason to lose our heads over. But keep looking, it could lead to some solutions eventually, who knows.
1
-
1
-
@terry3002 Hi again, found some time to respond to more of your questions, figured I’d share a bit more info.
So you asked a question about people being “upside down” in Australia and Southern countries, just wanted to help with that for a bit if I can. First of all, upside down relative to what? If gravity is what orientates us, is what pulls us to surface, then you’re going to feel right side up no matter where you are. You’re upside down relative to someone in America, sure, but then they can say the same thing. To them, we’re upside down. You have to get this idea out of your mind that North is the top South is bottom...in reality, there is no top or bottom to the Earth. Gravity pulls to centre...to surface, that’s what you and everyone is orientated too, we call these gravity vectors. Just like any object you drop falls to surface, your blood is drawn to surface as well...everything is. I mean, just stop and ask yourself this question fir a second, what force would draw your blood to your head? If gravity pulls everything to surface, including your blood...then what counter force exists pulling your blood up instead? This might be difficult to wrap your mind around, but there is no top or bottom of Earth. Down is always toward surface, up is always away from it, no matter where you are on Earth. We chose to orientate our maps with North up, South down, so I see where that confusion comes from, but that’s not how it is in reality.
You should look up the sped up ISS footage of its orbit around Earth, it looks like Earth is spinning underneath it, but ISS is what’s moving. At no point do they feel or look upside down, because there really is no direct orientation in space. You will feel right side up no matter what direction you’re pointing in space. It’s gravity that orientates us while on the surface, your body is designed to handle gravity pulling blood down, you feel upside down only when you orientate yourself upside down relative to gravity, then gravity pulls blood to your brain, creating a feeling of being upside down. If that orientation is always towards surface, if blood always gets pulled towards surface, then you will not feel upside down anywhere on Earth, so long as you’re orientated with your feet on surface.
1
-
@terry3002 Now you had some questions about flight routes.
“Why are flight routes so restricted over Antarctica?”
Several reasons, so I’ll just list what comes to the top of my head; 1) There’s barely any airports in Antarctica (or in the South in general), so emergency landings are scarce; 2) there’s barely any people or major cities in the South Hemisphere, most of the land and population is in the North, so there’s really no point to fly to places where nobody really lives, not economically viable; 3) it’s dangerous, it’s one of the harshest places on the planet, flying here raises the risks and airports need to lower risks to ensure their passengers arrive safely; 4) Pilots fly what are known as great circle routes, this is the shortest distance between two points on a sphere. Because there’s not much land down there with major cities on them, great circle routes rarely cross over this location, it’s just basic geometry.
So lots of reasons why nobody really flys over Antarctica. But yes, real flights do exist that do go over it, or at least very close to it, so it’s not like it doesn’t happen. You can say they’re just fake...but that’s just a speculation, until you actually try. I’ve been to New Zealand and Australia, which are both pretty far South, I’ve met people who have flown on these flights you say aren’t real. Met a South African once who flew direct from Johannesburg to Perth, then Perth to Melbourne, Melbourne to Aukland, which is North island NZ, where I met him in a town called Napier. Was he lying to me? I very much doubt it, this was in 2012, long before I ever heard of FE. It’s great I had that experience though, cause now I know for sure...but to be fair, I understand your hesitation. I just feel it’s kind of a weak argument, mostly just speculation and bias. Nothing you can really reach a definite conclusion from.
“Yes, I am aware of the argument for the airlines trying to take advantage of the wind currents, but I’m skeptical.”
So am I actually, never heard that one before. I’m not a pilot though, could be possible, but I’m not about to speculate on that. It’s more logical to me that they don’t fly many flights South for economic reasons, the passengers just aren’t there and the airports are smaller, so they can’t handle as many direct flights...so they don’t, they instead link up with bigger airports that can handle the flow and process more passengers. Makes far more sense to me.
“With regards to flight paths, many of them make no sense on a globe map. They are not the shortest distance between spots.”
How do you know? Have you really checked them on a globe? Getting the feeling you haven’t. I find a lot of these channels claiming they don’t work on a globe...never actually use a globe to check them, they instead use a Mercator map...which is just another flat Earth map. How do they think using a different flat Earth map, debunks a globe? Of course they’re not gonna make sense if you do things that way.
Try actually plotting them on a globe for a change, you’ll find they all actually work just fine.
https://youtu.be/MiUklHodcho
I feel this is one of those slight of hand tricks FE uses, plotting everything on flat maps, never actually doing them on a Globe...then wondering why the routes didn’t work. I’ve always found that odd.
So let’s look at one. You can actually go to Google Earth at anytime and make use of their ruler tool, which between two points will generate a great circle route for you. So let’s try actually plotting one of these emergency routes on the globe, see what we get. There’s one old one that FE used to use a lot a few years back, a flight from Taiwan to LA, that had an emergency landing they rerouted to Alaska. Plotting this on a Mercator map, the straightest path goes over Hawaii, plotting it on the AE map (most commonly used FE map), that flight flies over Alaska. So I see the confusion here, but let’s try actually plotting that course using the globe. Here’s a screencap from what I got when I plotted the direct route https://ibb.co/4R3ZPFC. Do you see how far South Hawaii is? What does this route fly closer too, Alaska or Hawaii? Should be pretty obvious now I think.
To me, this is actually a perfect example of how FE tricks people. It’s one of the many first examples I stumbled on, that made me realize...they’re not being very honest with themselves. It’s why I’m so skeptical of FE. If they actually bothered to plot this route (and many others) on a globe, they’d see it makes perfect sense on a globe. I feel it’s confirmation bias that’s keeping people from actually checking though...it’s incredible how powerful bias is for leading our conclusions. This is why I can’t over state it enough, how important it is to remain objective...as best you can.
Anyway, hope you find this information interesting. I’d urge you to try plotting dome routes on the globe for yourself sometime, better to not just blindly listen to what others claim.
1
-
@terry3002 No, there’s nothing anywhere that states flying over Antarctica is illegal under any international law. Did you look? Doing some searching, I’ve found nothing on that. It’s not illegal, they just don’t have the infrastructure down there to handle a large influx of air travel...just like I said in my prior comment.
Yes, I’m aware of the Antarctica treaty, I’ve also read it many times now. It’s not a long article, so it doesn’t take long...have you ever actually read it? Nowhere in the article does it ever say planes will be shot down, or that lethal force will be used on anyone. What it does say is that Antarctica is to be used for peaceful purposes only, no military force is to occupy the continent for the purpose of occupying or controlling it through force. Military can be there, but it must be for scientific purposes, excluding weapons testing...no weapon testing allowed.
So there’s a reason I feel FE is bias...right there, you’re making some pretty biased claims now, claims that are easily falsified if you actually bothered to read the article you’re making claims of. Go ahead, I urge you to read the treaty yourself, find me the section where it states flight over Antarctica is illegal, or where lethal force will be used on anyone venturing there.
The treaty is a peace treaty between nations, stating that no one nation can own or lay claim to Antarctica, it is to be shared and used for peaceful scientific research only. Little contradictory I’d say, to apply lethal force...for a document declaring strictly peaceful interactions, wouldn’t you say? It’s not strange at all, that’s the main purpose of the UN, to maintain peace between nations...that’s their function. Antarctica treaty is not the only peace treaty in existence, nations come together and sign all kinds of peace treaties such as this, so you’re wrong to say countries don’t cooperate, they do MOST of the time actually. If they didn’t, we’d constantly be at war. It’s a big treaty, yes, but it’s not out of the ordinary and it makes perfect sense. There’s nothing there but ice, you can’t really put a city there anyway, so it’s better that it just remains neutral.
You may disagree, but you are applying bias now. Almost nothing you claimed is actually in that article, so you should be aware of that. I urge you to read it sometime.
On your other point with the flights, many in FE claim some flights don’t exist, that Johannesburg to Perth flight is one of the flights they claim is not real. Simply because of its time taken. It’s only a 10 hour flight direct, but on flat Earth it would be about double that...because the distances in the South are longer on the FE model most commonly used, the AE projection map. So that’s why I mentioned that flight, because I actually met someone who flew it, even though FE claims it’s not real. I was just simply stating that much of what FE claims, isn’t actually true. That’s one example that I can personally confirm. I realize it’s trickier for you though, because you don’t share that experience, so it’s fine if you choose to disagree, but it’s something I personally know for certain.
As for the emergency flight I shared between Taiwan and LA, point was...if you’re going to refute the globe, then you have to use the globe for your argument. You can’t just ignore it and then think that’s an argument. Google Earth uses the most up to date and current topographic and geographic data, so it’s using the globe model you’re trying to argue against. If you’re going to claim the flights don’t work on the globe...then don’t you think you should actually plot those flights on the globe, so you can then actually check that claim for accuracy? Yes, absolutely you should. The Mercator map is not an accurate map of the globe, it’s a greatly distorted projection of the globe...yet that’s the map FE uses to make comparisons with. How can you not see the error in that? Of course plotting flights on the Mercator is not going to work...it’s not the globe. This is just simple geometry now...flat maps of Earth are missing that third dimension, so they will be inaccurate.
You’re claiming you’re not bias...but then you won’t even look at the model you’re currently refuting? Most of the data that makes up the WGS84 (the most up to date globe model, used in Google Earth), doesn’t come from NASA, it’s from geodetic land surveying data, which is a global collaboration between varying surveying organizations. But point is, you claimed the flights don’t work on a globe....but then never thought to actually check them on an actual globe model? You do understand you can’t really make that claim then, right?
You didn’t test the flights on a globe...so you don’t really know if they work or not on a globe, so you can’t really make that claim then. I mean, at this point I’m just stating common sense. If I ever said flights don’t work on FE...you’d expect me to have actually tested that claim on a map of FE, right? I mean, that should just be common sense. So I’m sorry, but your argument there is just...ignorant. You’re not really challenging the model, you’re just ignoring it. That implies a bias...you’re not even looking at the globe, you’re just ignoring it.
Sorry man, but your new arguments are heavily steeped in bias. You’re making a lot of really ignorant arguments now.
1
-
@terry3002 I never said you did say they had infrastructure, that was what I’m saying. I was just saying that’s a large part for WHY flights don’t go over Antarctica, because they don’t have the infrastructure, so airports avoid it because without infrastructure, it becomes a risk. That’s been my argument, so don’t get it confused. I’m not putting words in your mouth, I merely answered your question. That was my reply.
Fact is, I see no official law or treaty that clearly states flight over Antarctica is illegal, so look at it from my point of view. You’re claiming it’s illegal, you said it was international law, you even said the treaty states that it’s illegal...but then It doesn’t, there is no law that I can find and nowhere in the treaty does it even mention flights. So who do you think you’re fooling? Your claim is very empty of facts, and I’m kind of shocked you’ve chosen to believe it...on basically just pure speculation and assumption, which is not very logical.
We can agree to disagree, but I think you should really be more honest with yourself here. Yes, I urge you to look into it further and also consider the possibility, that you might have reached a erroneous conclusions, due to confirmation bias.
1
-
@terry3002 Indeed, I do feel we all have bias, and it’s very tricky to catch it most of the time, even harder to admit when we do. But that’s why these kinds of chats with an opposing viewpoint are good I feel, I find that I learn so much more when I actually listen and consider viewpoints that are not my own. I can be far too trusting of scientific authority, so it’s good to keep that in check.
Thanks for taking the time to look a little closer, I did not know there was a fine for going without a permit, and I wasn’t completely sure what the rules were for air travel over Antarctica either, so we did both learn something new. It is what I figured though, far too dangerous for most flights, because of a lack of infrastructure. Good to know for sure though with cited sources, so thanks for the effort. 🙂 But still many questions left, still can’t know much for certain without physically going there.
I appreciate the honesty as well, goes a long way, it shows a true rational mindset and good strength of character. Good to have a rational conversation on the subject for a change, so thanks again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Some great questions, but please remember that questions are not evidence, there is a difference. Just because you don’t know the answers currently, does not mean they can’t be answered. It’s fine to ask questions though, in fact it’s perfectly logical, I just find it troubling how so many people today, seem to think speculations are enough to reach conclusions with, so long as you have a lot of them. Anyway, I’ll offer some answers here if you don’t mind, they are good physics and astronomy questions. Then you can let me know if you have any further questions or rebuttals.
1) I’ve analyzed many satellite photos, I’m not aware of any that features every continent, so could you please share the photos you’re referring too, cause everything I’ve searched only shows one side at a time. In the meantime, have you ever considered recreating the image you’re seeing with a real globe or perhaps Google Earth? The continent’s are quite big, stretching pretty far in ways you’re probably not aware of, so have you ever considered recreating the photos to better visualize the geometry?
2) Well I’d assume because you’re only ever seeing images from a single satellite. There are several in orbit though, have you tried taking a sampling from several different ones, to see if they’re different? I know the GOES 15-17 are locked to the Americas and Himawari 8 is locked to Asia, try comparing those. I just did and I can tell you, Australia is not visible in the GOES and it’s more to the left of centre in the Himawari 8 photos...so really not sure what you’re talking about.
3) Well, Earth rotates from West to East, so the Sun will go the other way East to West and the shadow of night will follow.
4) For the same reason tossing a ball back and forth in a moving vehicle will be the same no matter which way you toss it, with the vehicles velocity or against it, because of conservation of momentum and relative motion, basic physics of motion. Give it a try sometime, then do some further research on the laws of motion and relative motion.
5) The stars do change, any astronomer will tell you that. Every year they’re shifting slightly and it’s well documented. The reason they take so long, is because of their distances, it’s a parallax effect. I’m sure don’t have to explain how distance will effect the rate of an objects perceived velocity, it’s why a plane at just 3 miles up appears to barely crawl across the sky, despite travelling at roughly 500 mph. Now imagine what trillions of miles distance would do. There’s also the fact that every star is orbiting galactic centre at roughly the same rate of travel, so like cars down a highway at night, going the same speed, maintaining the same distances, they’re not going to shift very quickly.
A better question to ask is, if the Earth is flat, how is there two different night skies, with two celestial rotations for each hemisphere? Doesn’t make a whole lot of geometric sense on a flat Earth, meanwhile it’s exactly what we’d expect to see on a rotating globe.
6) The Moon rotates on its axis at the same rate as its orbit, this causes it to remain locked one face towards us. It’s known as tidal locking, and it’s actually quite common in our solar system. The majority of moons in our solar system are also tidal locked to their host planet, even Mercury is tidal locked to the Sun. It’s what’s expected to happen due to gravity, even our planet will eventually be locked one face to the Sun, but it’ll take a very long while.
So that’s some of your questions answered, let me know if you find the information helpful or at the very least interesting. Perhaps I’ll provide some answers for the others when I have the time. You don’t have to agree with any of it, I’m merely sharing information, much of it I’m sure you’ve even heard before, but it bares repeating, cause the answers don’t really change.
1
-
@lastfirst3291 Eric Dubay is the worst of them, the guy borders on a cult leader...you should just watch is melt down when he found out people were following other flat Earthers online and not him. He got really offended, called them all hacks, declaring that HE and he alone is the true prince of Flat Earth, demanded that they pay him the respect he feels he deserves and then got really angry and attacked them all publicly...it was like a toddler throwing a tantrum, over something so trivial, he should have been more humble about. He's just a petty, self absorbed, narcissist and I'm pretty sure he's also a psychopath. So not a guy I'd want to follow personally, but you do you I guess.
Worst of all is that he lies...a LOT. Take his very first 200 proof video for example and start at the beginning with his "horizon always rises to eye level" claim. No...it does not, but he sure made a lot of people believe that, before they even bothered to go out and measure it for themselves. You can measure it by the way, it's pretty simple to measure horizon drop, just take either a leveling rig (which are easy to build with household supplies) or a theodolite (which you can download apps for on your phone) with you on a hike up a hill with a few hundred or thousands of feet elevation from sea level, and the horizon drop becomes pretty clear, pretty fast. Your eye can't measure it, because your eye isn't an accurate measuring tool...but Eric doesn't care, it's the blind faith in his claim he cares about and he's VERY good at selling it. Because he has zero empathy in his tone and 100% confidence, it makes him able to lie without flinching...that's why he sounds so convincing, he lies like breathing, it's second nature to him. Which is a known trait of a psychopath...and it's not the only trait he shares with that sort of personality type.
Just rewatch his video of him explaining a sunset sometime, or the second hemisphere, the Southern star trails, or his explanation for how Polaris drops to 0 degrees at the equator. Have you seen how ridiculous his explanation is for these things? Complete mental gymnastics...that even Flat Earthers must agree at least a little bit, sounds like absolute bullshit! But you guys don't do you...you ACTUALLY listen to him talk about the personal perspective bubbles or the mirrored sky's claims....and actually nod your heads in agreement? He's ramming square pegs into round holes...and Flat Earth just nods and agrees...it's incredible really. Meanwhile the Globe explains all of the observed occurrences I just mentioned above with absolute ease...they're exactly what you'd expect to see occur on a Globe, with TWO hemispheres, that rotates, with one sun that lights one side of the Earth at a time. No mental gymnastics required there....yet Flat Earthers listen to Dubay without ever questioning him? Do you ever wonder why exactly? Have you ever questioned any of his claims, or do you tend to just agree right off the bat? His explanations are clearly bullshit....so it's just a tad maddening for the rest of us, that you'd side with a clear huxter with such ease.
I'm sorry, but at the end of the day, all I'm seeing is a bunch of people...following a mad man, just so they can spite everyone else. It just seems like you're being contrarian on purpose...for the sole purpose of, pissing people off. Arguing a position you know is bullshit, just to stick it to authority? Feel free to disagree, but that's really all I'm seeing from Flat Earth....especially if you're following a crazy person like Eric Dubay...enough that you're actually proud of it. I know he likes it when people call him crazy, but I don't say that lightly...it's not just that he believes in a Flat Earth, it's fine to question what you're told and I'm all for that actually...but he is just generally not a very stable person, he's very self absorbed and seems to crave the attention, to the point where I think he believes himself to be like the second coming of Jesus at this point! I see more similarities to Charles Manson then a gentle guru in which to lend an ear too...he might have Flat Earth fooled, but I would be cautious with him if I were you.
1
-
@lastfirst3291 Yes, I just see a lot of people praising Eric...and I'm just confused, because why? I see something completely different, so I try to point out to anyone who dabbles in his work and gives it any praise, I feel he's someone you should be cautious of. Question what he says, don't just listen to it blindly...he is very convincing, because of how calm and confident he is...doesn't mean you should ever take his words at face value. I see a liar, who's VERY good at lying. Just watch the Joe Rogan podcast episode where he talks with a paleontologist about Eric and his claims made about Dinosaurs (he also believes they're fake btw) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knWCsonQVG4. This is an ACTUAL expert, who works out in the field, who knows WAY more about his profession, then Eric does. It's pretty eye opening how quickly this guy points out every lie made and just how many Eric makes in rapid succession is just incredible.
Eric acts as though he's an expert on all these things he talks about and he's very good at making you think he actually is...and it's very clear here how he does it, he lies...like breathing. I've seen the same thing occur in all his videos pertaining to Flat Earth. I've sat down and found a great deal of his lies, before I just couldn't take it anymore and had to conclude, he's a scam artist...and very good at it.
So just doing what I can to warn people about this guy. I don't take that much effort with other Flat Earthers, I still think they're all liars and con artists, but Eric is on a whole other level, because he spreads a lot of hate and intolerance (he's a Nazi sympathizer, and talks a lot about his distrust of the Jews) as well and he's 100% dedicated to his lies...he does not waiver. Only a psychopath could lie like that, without flinching...it's why he's so convincing, because he doesn't flinch. He has to know he's lying...you can't make that many lies without realizing it, and most people have a tell, something in their voice that indicates they know they're lying, which is why most people prefer not lying, what they'll do instead is hide details...because normal people with normal empathy actually can't handle lying to much, it gets to them and then it starts to show. Eric does not, he just lies and lies and lies, like breathing, and that's why so many listen to him...cause it's so unnatural, that we see it as a guy telling the truth.
Anyway, yes, you just said he did good work, so I can't assume you praise him from just that alone. I don't go out of my way to talk at length about most of the Flat Earth proponents, but Eric is someone I try to warn people about...cause he's a scary dude compared to the others. So I hope that information is at the very least interesting. Thank you for reading, I mean no disrespect for having your own opinions and if you still disagree, that's perfectly fine.
1
-
1
-
Yes it does, planes fly what is called a great circle route, which is the shortest distance between two points on a sphere. If you go to Google Earth, which uses a to scale globe Earth model, then use the ruler tool provided there and use it to trace a path from Connecticut to China, it'll create this great circle route for you...because that's what this ruler tool does too, creates the shortest distance between two points on the sphere. Every time you do this, you'll notice that the path goes over Canada, past Greenland, through Russia...exactly like that flight plan and exactly like it should on a Globe at our scale. And I'm not surprised it would take 20 hours, it's a little over 8000 miles. At an average flight speed of 400 mph, that would be about 20 hours. So it all checks out perfectly actually.
Stop listening blindly to con men on YouTube feed you bullshit. Question them just as much as you now question the mainstream, you might find out who the real liars are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RageDaug Yes, exactly, it explains how we see further than is physically possible…hence it successfully falsifies Flat Earthers claim that Earth is flat because we see too far. That’s how falsification works; a claim is made, in this case “Earth is flat because we see too far”, then if no explanation or evidence can refute the claim, then it stands as a possibility, but the moment an explanation with evidence is presented that successfully refutes the claim, the claim is then falsified, until more evidence can come forward that may falsify the current position. It’s pretty simple. So far Flatties have no further rebuttal, that’s why they do everything they can to just ignore refraction…until it suits them.
Refraction is not a proof of the globe, it falsifies a flat Earth claim…that is all. That is why we continue to mention it…because they don’t listen, so it bares repeating.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@callonejaxon5191 Ever heard the phrase "common sense isn't always common"?
Truth is great, but the truth is often the hardest thing to prove. For that, we've created the scientific method, which is so far the best method we have for logically deducing truth....trouble is, a lot of people don't know how to use the method properly, and if you use it wrong, it can lead to just as many false conclusions as it does truth. Layman not trained in how to properly use the method, are more likely to get it wrong. This is just a fact, not because they're stupid or incapable, but because they've never practiced the method step by step, so they don't really know how it works. It's the same as learning anything and doing it properly...can't expect to be good at it, if you've never done it before. From what I've seen so far, Flat Earth is currently demonstrating that fact. Using the method incorrectly, to reach a great many false conclusions about the Earth.
It's not just getting science wrong though, it's jumping to false conclusions from misunderstood or misinterpreted information. For example, here's some errors you've made in some of your conclusions.
"Your so-called scientist says that there's curvature after 6 miles"
No, Flat Earth says that...that's what Rowbotham (Parallax) said in his experiment in the video above, but he was a flat Earther, not a scientist, so you misheard. What math and geometry calculates here in truth, is that with an Earth at our projected size, at a 6 foot viewing height, HORIZON is at about 3 miles from that persons perspective. This doesn't imply "curvature" begins here, the Earth is constantly curving at a gradual rate in every direction. Horizon is just the point where you can't see any further, due to curvature, it's curved under to a point where it's now blocked by it's own curvature. That doesn't mean horizon is ALWAYS at 3 miles, as you go higher you see further, now being able to see OVER that curvature. Take the observer to 100 feet viewing height for example, the horizon is now 12.3 miles away from that viewing perspective. It's basics spherical geometry and perspective...and it's common sense. The higher you go, the farther you see, the further your horizon extends. You also have to take into account the height of the object being viewed though. Yes, horizon is at 3 miles away from a 6 foot viewing height, but you'll still be able to see the top of an object for several more miles before it drops below the horizon, and out of line of sight.
So this is what science actually says about the geometry, but even this is too simple, because it ignores refraction. Here's why refraction is important to factor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t So because of this, it's not as simple as doing JUST a geometric calculation, because refraction can and will effect what you see at distances, so it can't be ignored, it MUST be factored into your math and your observation as well. If you do not factor refraction, then you do so out of bias....which is how you do science wrong and reach false conclusions.
This is an example of WHY you have to be more diligent and careful in science. Do it wrong, skip over important variables, and you absolutely can and will reach false conclusions. That's what Rowbotham did in his famous Bedford Level experiment, that was shared in the video above...he overlooked important details, like refraction. This is what is known in science as confirmation bias...and it's an example of how to conduct an experiment WRONG. He also did not do enough to render a more conclusive result. He only took ONE data set, from ONE observation...and that's not enough in ANY experiment, to render a conclusive result. You have to run the experiment several more times, over several more points in the day, to see if his results are consistent. He could also greatly improve upon the experiment, by adding several more markers and several more viewing heights and several more marked distances. This gives him more data to collect, allowing him to cover more variables. That's how you do science right.
But really, his biggest error was just that he got the math wrong...8 inches per mile squared is not the correct math to use for this observation. That math is just a basic parabolic arc equation, it is missing variables for this observation. It does not tell you where horizon is, It does not represent your line of sight, it does not give you an accurate figure for what is hidden from your line of sight due to horizon, it does not factor height of the observer, height of the object being viewed, the viewing angle, the arc length, the degree tilt of the object being viewed, and it completely ignores refraction index. It is simply NOT the correct math to use.
Simple rule of thumb in mathematics, use the wrong math, and you will reach a false conclusion. It's that simple. Here is the correct math to use for these observations. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/
So Rowbotham reached a false conclusion in his experiment, because he rushed the science and did it poorly, only going so far as to confirm his bias, and then he stopped looking. That's confirmation bias in a nutshell...which means his experiment is inconclusive. Which is what they rendered it upon review. It's not that it was a bad experiment, it was actually quite clever....but when you do science WRONG, even a good experiment, can render a false conclusion.
This is why I can't stress enough to people, that just because Flat Earth is making observations and doing experiments....does not mean they are doing things right. You can do an experiment wrong, receive a false conclusion, and then present that false conclusion to a group of people...and if they don't have the time or patience to review that experiment and make sure it's conclusive, then they will think it's a good experiment...without ever realizing it's not.
Collect enough of these experiments that were done in error, and it makes it VERY hard to go back and review them in the future...because now you have an opinion, that you think is supported by evidence. See how this works?
If you'd like to see the Bedford Level experiment done correctly, here's a very recent undertaking of the experiment. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment The conclusion here is quite conclusive, Earth is curving and it is curving at the rate it should be given our planets scale.
Anyway...sorry if this got long, I just like to be thorough. I'll keep the rest of my points brief.
1
-
@callonejaxon5191 "Secondly can any of u give me evidence other than a cgi image or video out your so-called "outer space", your rotating while revolving earth?"
Well, here's the problem, none of us can go to space, so the only visual evidence we have is photos and video...which doesn't matter what we show you, you'll just call it fake. So even if that photo or video is not CGI, doesn't matter to you, you would just call it CGI anyway...without proving that.
Here's some photos of the Earth taken during the various Apollo missions. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544 These are in high resolution, taken long before the days of CGI. I remember many of these photos from when I was young. So is it good enough for you? Probably not.
How about this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoJSrctxpk8 This is footage from a weather balloon. You'll notice the blackness of space, above our blue atmosphere. Is this good enough? Likely not, cause you want to see it rotating. Why it's not rotating, is because of conservation of momentum. Basically, the balloon is moving with the surface of the Earth, at the same rate. This is basic physics of motion, which I can demonstrate for you if you want to learn more about it.
Truth is though, it's a little pointless to show you photos or videos, because you'll just call all of them fake....so it's pointless really. We get your point here, don't worry, it's not lost on us. The main point here is "well you've never been to space yourself, so how do you know?". It's a great point, and you're not wrong, little hard to verify this footage for certain if we've never been. But you don't need NASA to verify the science....NASA had almost nothing to do with building our collected knowledge of the heliocentric model, most of that science was already worked out before NASA came along. All NASA did was help further confirm all that science as accurate, by putting people into space.
But you can learn the science that deduced the shape of the Earth before NASA came around, you do not require their work to help you verify these things for yourself.
1
-
1
-
@callonejaxon5191 Here's a thought, instead of keeping it to yourself then, why not share it? What's the big deal of keeping it to yourself? Shouldn't you want to share the "truth" with others?
You know what I think? I think you just enjoy the feeling of knowing things others do not, I think that's why Flat Earth ultimately interests you. You get to be like a hipster of knowledge, where you know things and others do not. Doesn't matter if that knowledge is accurate, just that you're in the club of special knowledge. So it's more psychological, just feels good finally feeling like you're more knowledgeable then others...even if that knowledge is complete bullshit.
Because if you were really in this for truth, then you would have not problem sharing what you're talking about. Sharing information would be easy, because people who really are seeking truth, desire sharing that knowledge, so that everyone knows the truth they've found.
So, why keep it to yourself? If I was wrong about your definition...then what was it? Go ahead.
1
-
@callonejaxon5191 No, I prefer to never reach conclusions, until I know ALL the details. I don't start with a conclusion and then gather only the evidence that supports that conclusion, I collect ALL the details and then form my conclusion from the evidence. That's how you remain objective.
What you do, is jump to conclusions and then make speculations, before you know anything for certain. When it comes to the Moon landing, there's a lot you don't seem to know about those missions....yet you reach full conclusions anyway. This is exactly how a person reaches false conclusions. You reach conclusions because of bias, that bias being, that you don't trust NASA...so you don't really pay attention to the evidence or the science (except for what confirms your bias), they're the boogeyman, they're the evil villain you need to crush, so they can't win...even if they have never been lying to you.
The signal was a radio communication from Neil to base Houston, who then relayed that message direct to Nixon...it's not difficult, we do it all the time. Takes about 3 seconds for a radio signal to reach from the Moon to Earth, it doesn't require a very powerful transceiver, it does however require a powerful receiver dish...which Houston had, radio telescope technology has been around for decades. Then, relaying the message to Nixon is as easy as connected a phone line to that radio receiver...not hard at all, completely within the realm of doable. Spend some time with a communications expert if you really want to know for certain, otherwise, don't speculate on things you don't know anything about.
"lunar model traveling almost half a million Miles across the "galaxy" loll ( but cannot explain how the preserve fuel)"
It's very easy to preserve fuel in space actually, there's no air, this means no air resistance to slow you down. So this means conservation of momentum is absolute. First law of motion is as such, "all things in motion stay in motion, until acted upon by an opposing force or mass". So since there's no air in space, there is no drag force, so nothing to slow them down...so all they have to do is get themselves into the desired velocity and then turn the engines off, and conservation of momentum will do all the rest. There's also the Moons gravity well and the Earths, which if calculated properly, both can be used to increase velocity without the use of boosters.
So there is basic physics here that you just don't know anything about. You can verify the first law of motion, of conservation of momentum though, at anytime, through simple experiments anyone can reproduce here on Earth. If you'd like to learn more, I can show you, I don't mind sharing. Your failure here, is that you assume space operates the same as the environment YOU are used too...that being Earth. So you have no concept of conservation of momentum, because gravity and drag force friction slows every vehicle down here on Earth. Without these things slowing your velocity, then you will maintain whatever velocity you put yourself into, no boosters required once you've reached your velocity.
"but did u notice the video was shot from outside the ship?? So who was there B4 them??"
The first footage was taken from a camera mounted outside of the lunar module pointed at the door of the module. The second footage of Buzz was taken by Neil. The descent footage was taken by the command module, which stayed in orbit around the Moon, and the footage of the launch from off the Moon was filmed by the rover which was left behind and remote piloted by Houston.
I'd say, it's important to know exactly how the mission went down, before you comment.
But I'll give you this much, I don't personally like delving into the Moon landing conspiracy, because there's very little of which I can verify for absolute certain. I can know the physics, I can calculate the amount of fuel and go over the schematics for the modules and find the cameras and see if the technology was there. But even then, at the end of the day, all I or anyone can do is speculate. I can point out how it would be impossible to fake it back then, without CGI, but even then...it's just a whole lot of nonsense I rather prefer not speculating on.
You know what I prefer? The Flat Earth conspiracy, because THIS is a theory I can absolutely falsify with 100% certainty. Because I live here, I can test this physical reality whenever I want. Little hard to lie to me about the planet I live on, when I can put that geometry to the test for myself. So that's why I prefer discussing the Flat Earth conspiracy. Because I can falsify this with certainty...and it doesn't take much effort.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bob Cat “Once you go flat there is no going back.”
Exactly, that right there is a mantra for proud confirmation bias. It tells me you’re just here to troll, that no amount of evidence will ever pull you away from your bias, so it’s a bit pointless to try...at least to any degree of real effort. Why waste my time? You’ve basically just told me that nothing I do will convince you otherwise, so your mind is shut to evidence. So, I’ll just point you in a direction, then the rest is up to you champ.
Tons of free online heliocentric model simulations, you can look them up anytime and figure out how this works. Solar System Scope is a good one, I suggest version 2, it’s a bit more polished and precise, you can even put an observer on the surface, for whatever time of year you want and any location. As I’ve already told you, Mercury orbits the Sun, so it’s going to spend a lot of that orbit expanding out, not in front or behind the Sun, but beside it. So in those points of its orbit, when Sun sets, Mercury will still be visible because your line of sight to the Sun is blocked...but that doesn’t mean the rest of that space beside the Sun is now magically blocked from line of sight as well. Seeing Mercury a couple hours after sunset is exactly what we’d expect to see occur on the heliocentric model...it’s seeing Mercury 3-7 hours after sunset that’s not very likely, but a couple hours, yup, the geometry is there to make this easily possible.
If you can’t figure that out with just a little thought, then you probably have a problem with your spacial awareness...which I’ve noticed most Flat Earthers seem to. Which isn’t really my problem. Plenty of heliocentric models online for you to examine, I’m not going to hold your hand and do it for you...not for something this easy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree we should be more compassionate and understanding to avoid dividing ourselves further, but we should still be free to question and criticize, that’s part of a free thinking society. It doesn’t feel good to be criticized and it can lead to divisions, but the alternative I would say is much worse…that being a society where we are not free to voice an opinion or concerns, where we’re not allowed to question or make criticisms. I feel that would be much worse, so even though the constant bickering is overbearing at times, it is necessary for a free society. It’s patience and understanding that should be cultivated more, and that’s something we’re not really utilizing very well today.
On the topic of FE. Knowing the true shape of the Earth actually matters a great deal to industries such as air travel, sea transport, communications, infrastructure and space exploration, so people working in these industries and many others require accurate information, in order to do their jobs with any proficiency. This information may not matter to a majority, at least not on a personal level, it may seem inconsequential to most, but we all do benefit from that knowledge in ways we do not even realize. I think we should be at least aware of that, and we should be more grateful, that some people did care enough to advance our collective knowledge forward, so that we all could benefit.
That’s my biggest concern with the movement of Flat Earth…they are typically non-experts, who are arguing against things they really know nothing about. They should be free to question whatever they wish, that’s perfectly fine…but how much of that questioning is led by level headed reasoning and actual experience and knowledge, and how much is driven by empty speculations, assumptions, fear, distrust and paranoia? It’s difficult to tell…but sadly, many do fall into the latter and they’re often the loudest.
If everyone just travelled, if everyone had first hand experience with the world, if that basic knowledge and experience with Earth science and geometry, then less people would be reaching such paranoid conclusions like FE, or even more pressing issues like antivaxxing or climate change. This FE movement is a sign of a deeper problem…people aren’t just dividing, they’re walling themselves in and hiding from the rest of the world, they’re not experiencing enough of it, so they’re becoming more afraid of it. That fear is turning them irrational.
Personally, I began to notice it getting worse, in large part thanks to these devices we’re constantly shoving in our faces. If I had to pin point a root cause for this recession from life experiences, it’s social media and our phones. Ironic how the best tool for connecting us, has actually disconnected us more than ever before. People need to get out more, learn how the world works, experience it again…or at least be conscious of it again. Then maybe they’d be less afraid and then we’d have less divisions.
But that’s just my humble opinion. I agree that less division is what we need, but I don’t think ignoring conspiracy movements like Flat Earth and allowing them to fester unchecked and unchallenged, is the best way to do that. Criticism can be a catalyst for deeper division, but it’s not the root cause of the division…the root cause to me is fear and ignorance, fear that developed as we cut ourselves off more and more from the world outside and became more ignorant too it as a result. Further ignorance isn’t going to fix that, communication will. Being questioned can cause one to recede deeper into their rabbit holes, but only if approached with negative intent. I think if dialogue was approached with more patience and understanding, maybe then it would actually help.
Anyway, I hope I was able to provide at least an interesting perspective on things. Have a good one.
1
-
1
-
@3MTurbo Everything you said is just pure speculation though. You've never been to Antarctica, yet you're making an absolute claim that when you go it can only be while guided. Where'd you learn that? My guess is from a Flat Earther who has also no idea what he was talking about, cause he was also just making empty claims he knows nothing about. And you believed him why exactly? Cause he's not government or NASA, so you trust him more? Is that a reason to believe a stranger online blindly? I don't think it is....people bullshit, it's pretty easy to do, especially online. You're also saying nobody can fly over Antarctica, yet you're likely not a pilot and don't actually know that for sure. These are not evidence of anything, they are things people told you, that you believed. Paranoid bread crumbs, that are likely not true but maybe could be, who knows, but that you have not verified, that could also just be bullshit to muddy your brain and cause you to doubt. What sucks is people form whole opinions, around bread crumbs like these...empty claims, that people just believe without question. I get it though, we're pattern seekers, we're almost wired to seek out a pattern even if it's not really there, it's not easy to stop yourself from doing that sometimes and we all do it to some degree, so I do get it, Flat Earth can be convincing.
With enough prep and planning and money, you can cross Antarctica, unguided and people have done it many times. They just prefer you don't do it without a plan, cause it's dangerous and they'd rather you didn't die, so they do make sure you're able and you have to let them know first. You have to explain what you're doing and give them your equipment details, but it's perfectly fine to do it, just takes more effort, planning and costs. You can also work there, it's not just scientists and military allowed down there, they have jobs for the average civilians too, that you can sign up for at any time. And who cares even if the tours are guided? If you can confirm the 24 hour Sun down there, then it's a done deal...the 24 hour Sun would not occur in the South on a Flat Earth. There are time lapse videos of the Antarctic 24 hour sun all over YouTube, they're not hard to find, people have recorded it many times. Here's a great one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcppf47VhrU&t=199s. What's important to note is the counter clock wise rotation and the buildings. That's the direction the Sun should rotate in this region and there is no permanent structure bases in the North, because it's not a land mass, it's just a sheet of ice, so they can't build one there.
People have also circumnavigated from pole to pole several times as well, the last one occurred last year, look up One More Orbit. Then look up the Pole Cat flights, which were the very first flights to achieve this. These are just a small sample of these flights for pole to pole circumnavigation that have been done, but there also do exist passenger flights that travel over the Antarctica, just a quick google search away to find these flights. They don't occur often, but that's for a good reason, the biggest population of people on Earth is in the North, so that's where the demand for flights is. That's where most of the land mass is, that's where pretty much all the major cities are, that's where all the paying customers are, so that's where the flights are. They're not going to have any international flights over ocean, if they don't have a steady flow of passengers to make it worth it. So there is not as many flights in the South for this reason, so that's why they don't fly over Antarctica often, cause they don't have too. But they do exist, so give them a search sometime. If you want to learn more about flights and navigation around the Globe, from an actual commercial pilot who's hobby has become debunking Flat Earth claims about flight paths, check out Wolfie6020 sometime, he'll point you towards a lot of flight information, that Flat Earthers lie about or simply won't tell you about. His channel is chalk full of flight information pertaining to Flat Earth and the claims they love to make, so it's worth a look. https://www.youtube.com/user/Wolfie6020/videos
I realize Flat Earth is convincing on the surface...but most of what they claim, is just speculation and empty conjecture. It's enough to raise reasonable doubt in those that are not scientists, pilots or experts of any kind, that never leave their cities and don't know a whole lot of science and who don't have any experience working directly with the geometry of the world, but it's important to remain just as skeptical and question what Flat Earthers say as well, don't just listen to them blindly and realize the difference between a speculative claim and actual evidence.
I realize everything I just said above is just speculation as well, I have never gone to Antarctica either and I am not a pilot either, but I did do more then just make a claim, I also shared some info and some video you can watch and learn about. It's still speculation though until one of us confirms it, which is why Flat Earth focuses on this sort of stuff...because they know not a single person is going to take the time, so they stew in speculations like this, they thrive in it.
I feel it's pointless to focus on them, focus on the science you can verify in your own back yard. Unless you're willing to go to Antarctica to confirm a few things, it's just a endless rabbit hole of maybe, that your mind can get lost in and that's how Flat Earth gets its hooks in people. So focus on the things you can confirm, here's a great one, how does the Sun set on a Flat Earth?
Seriously, how is that possible at all? They sure like to ram that square peg into a round hole by saying it's all perspective, but perspective doesn't work the way they're claiming it does...and deep down they know it. The sun would never set on a Flat Earth, it makes no sense. Here's what we'd expect the sun to do over a Flat Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg&t=88s We'd always be able to see it...it would never set.
So there's a good one to focus on, cause that is something you can confirm for yourself...everybody has seen a sunset and a sunrise, little hard to speculate about that.
That's just one example, there are hundreds of other things you can confirm about the Earth, right in your back yard, with very little effort. This is the sort of thing people should focus on I feel, it's fine to research these other things, but personally I hate how much people focus on maybes. Realize when something is just speculation and when it is tangible evidence, recognize the difference. Flat Earth thrives on bullshit, ignorance and incredulity. But we all know how a sunset works and no matter how much they bullshit, it will never work on a Flat Earth.
Anyway, I hope you find this info at the very least interesting. If you'd like help with anything more, feel free to ask. My goal is never to discourage or mock people for questioning things, it's perfectly logical to question things, just make sure you're not being taken for a ride while you do it...the internet is a perfect grounds for bullshit and misinformation and huxters to take advantage of people. People lie, it's not hard to do, so never take what people say blindly, that includes me.
1
-
@3MTurbo Yes, they do make one think, and that's great! If there is one thing I'm all for in the Flat Earth movement, people are getting interested in science again. They're asking questions, they're actually taking interest in the world around them and trying to figure out how it all works. That's awesome really, and I do my best to never discourage anyone from doing that, which is why I try to refrain from name calling and mocking, just share information and let them decide. It's not stupid at all to question things, it's perfectly logical to question what you are told, that's science at the end of the day, asking questions. I just worry people are falling into the same traps scientists of old did, before they ironed out all the kinks in the scientific method.
Science recognized pretty early on, that mankind has several flaws we're prone to repeating. The biggest flaw we have, is confirmation bias...we are confirmation bias machines! It's easy to see why, we're natural pattern seekers, we can find a pattern in pretty much anything, even if they're not really there...especially when there is nothing there. We'll often invent patterns, just to help us feel like our time isn't wasted. Our emotions tend to lead us and we tend to put more value on information depending on the source...rather than the information itself
So we all have bias, the trouble is, most people aren't aware of that....and even less have any clue of how to reel that bias in and keep it in check. It absolutely will get in the way of finding objective truths, so it's very important to learn how to think objectively and remove bias...or at the very least, learn how to identify your bias and get better at realizing when it's effecting you. The general public is not trained in methods to control their bias, so they're now falling into its trap. So that's my biggest point in all of this, asking questions is great, but bias is something you have to be aware of...or it's going to lead you down some dark rabbit holes, of bullshit. And make sure you question even those you trust, Flat Earth taught me to question mainstream science a little more then I had been prior. See that was my bias I trusted science almost completely, which kept me from looking at it objectively, and I wasn't aware of it until Flat Earth came around, so I can actually thank FE for reminding me to keep questioning things. Now I am aware of that bias, so now I question even the people I trust, all I ask is that Flat Earthers do the same with the people they listen to on YouTube. Don't just listen to them blindly because you trust them more, question them too.
Anyways, I'm rambling a bit, glad you found the information helpful and thanks for the civil dialogue. Always good to meet people with a level head in these more heated topics, can't learn nothing from people if we never take our shields down. :)
1
-
"News flash there buddy, Haven't you ever heard the phrase, "Don't believe everything you hear"? "
Have you? I've been talking with Flat Earthers for a good 3 years now...and all you people do is repeat the same shit you hear verbatim, blindly and without question. It's ironic really.
Nobody is telling you to ignore anything...in fact we're asking you pay more attention, cause you're barely scratching the surface, usually just stopping all research once your bias is confirmed. We're just pointing out that your senses actually kind of suck, they're not accurate measuring tools and optical illusions are not something to ignore...they do occur, your senses are easily fooled. So it pays to THINK not just look.
It's perfectly fine to question things, that's the whole point of science after all, to ask questions and probe deeper into how the world around you operates. But Flat Earth isn't just doing that...they're speculating, bullshitting, chasing bias, cherry picking, misunderstanding and lying. Then when we try to review their work (cause peer review is an important step in science) and point out their errors, all we're met with is hostility, smug arrogance and ignorance. Question things all you want, that's fine...nobody is saying you can't, but if you're wrong, then we're going to check you, cause potential misinformation should never be allowed to fly by the radar unchecked or unchallenged. The sooner you accept that, the sooner we can have civil discussions where information is considered and listened too, rather than mocked and laughed at.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1