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