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