Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
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