Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
@philindeblanc No, it doesn’t, because the article in no way says the Van Allen Belt no longer exists, it of course still does. And it’s not technically atmosphere (it’s officially known as a geocorona), they just found hydrogen molecules out that far, but it’s still basically a vacuum, it’s like 10-100 molecules of hydrogen for every cubic meter…it’s mostly empty space still.
Actually READING the article, instead of just reading the title and then endlessly speculating on it, would really do you some good. :/
Also, the Van Allen Belt is only harmful if you were to spend days inside it, but the Apollo crews Averaged about 45 minutes to an hour inside it…receiving a radiation dose equal to a few X-rays. It’s really not as harmful as you think, it’s actually more harmful to microchips…like the ones found in all modern computer systems, which is why it’s been a challenge to build a new space module that includes our new tech. The old modules were analog systems.
1
-
1
-
@OSUBucknado Earth has always been classified as an oblate spheroid…it is slightly larger at the Equator, slightly below it, this is measured. But the difference is so tiny, that from the naked eye observed from space, it looks perfectly spherical…this is because our eyes are not very good measuring tools, in fact they’re pretty terrible. You wanna see how slight the difference is? Here’s a great video that can help https://youtu.be/tjx0KcDH7pQ. It’s only about 2 mins long, so doesn’t take long to learn just how slight the difference is and why you can’t notice it with the naked eye.
It may look perfectly spherical, but it’s not. Science cares about accuracy…Earth is slightly wider at the Equator, so it’s technically not a perfect sphere.
Only one scientist has ever used “pear shaped” to describe the Earth…and if you bothered to watch the rest of that interview of NDT, you’d know that even he realized it was a poor comparison, because he later redacted the comment, clarifying that the official classification for Earth is an oblate spheroid. But Flat Earth doesn’t care about context, they just cherry pick what they need to help push their narrative…that’s how I know they’re not to be taken seriously, because honest researchers don’t require disingenuous tactics like cherry picking. He was just trying to help others understand…he wasn’t literally trying to say the Earth is a pear. You gotta pay attention to the nuance in the wording educators use, they’re not often speaking literally. It was a poor comparison, but his point was just that Earth isn’t a perfect sphere, it’s measured to be wider at the Equator, a pear was the best comparison he could think of on the fly.
1
-
1
-
@OSUBucknado It’s fine really, I wouldn’t have responded if I didn’t also still enjoy the discussion. Apologies for my attitude, I’ve just been chatting with Flat Earthers for a lot of years now, and I have lost a lot of patience is all. I admire their skepticism, I do, but I do feel they’re spreading misinformation, so just doing what I can to counter it…but it gets difficult to just share information, they’re not exactly the friendliest of groups…but who can blame them really, they truly believe that we’ve been deceived in a huge way, so I get it, I’d probably be pretty pissed too if I was in their shoes. But still…frustrating group is all.
Just keep in mind, it wasn’t NASA who solved Earth’s geometry, mankind reached that conclusion centuries before NASA ever came around and that knowledge is still as true and accessible today, as it was back then.
If it truly interests you, here’s a good tip. The best way I feel to verify Earth’s shape for yourself, just learn to navigate. It’s really not difficult to learn and acquire this skill, plenty of information and simple tutorials online, you’d probably be surprised how easy it actually is. It’s useful knowledge to have here, because it’s an entire system, designed around the knowledge that Earth is spherical. Millions of pilots and sailors are using that system right this second, to help them find destinations around the planet, with extreme precision. If Earth was not spherical, then this system simply would not work. So I feel that’s a great place to start, if NASA is no longer an organization you feel you can trust.
It is a discussion of Earth’s geometry after all, so might as well start there, with the surface geometry. Anyway, take care, and thank you for being so civil.
1
-
1
-
1
-
We did not verify gravity first, that came much later. All evidence pointed to the shape of the Earth being a globe, that's where we started, with Earths geometry, it's important not to forget that. They didn't have a concept of gravity back then and they didn't require it, because all observation and experimentation was already pointing to the conclusion of a Globe. Observe any sunset and then try and make sense of that on a Flat Earth, with a Sun that rotates above. Your common sense will tell you, that you would never expect to see the Sun set or rise, if the Earth were flat like this, with a Sun that spirals above. Just one of many simple observations, that don't add up for a flat Earth hypothesis. Here's a couple simple experiments anyone can repeat to help you realize this as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njO5NPfur7I&t=4s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYVYa3BdI84&t=41s
1
-
@taciupryk EVERYTHING in science that describes HOW something works at the mechanical level, is a theory. Electromagnatism is also a theory, and you currently use it to send signals over wifi connections. You basically forfeit yourself from conversation the moment you say something is "just a theory". By saying that, you are declaring your lack of understanding of science and how it operates. Learn the language of science, a scientific theory is completely different from the regular use of the word theory. Scientific theories are the highest pinnacle a concept in science can achieve, that describes HOW something works. NOTHING graduates past hypothesis and into theory, until it has been verified and peer reviewed. There is nothing higher then a theory in science...they CHOSE that word, for a very good reason, because we do not know everything and will likely never will. So because we don't know everything, as we acquire new information, old information always has the potential to change. That is the real truth of any information gathering of any kind.
Science does not think in absolutes, because it can't...because we will never know everything. But we don't need too...but we do know enough, to be pretty damn certain about many things...we call those things we're certain about theories. That will never change and it works. That's how we get shit done...your computer is proof of that. So stop being so damn ignorant.
1
-
@taciupryk That's exactly what we'd expect to see occur under gravity...a force that effects everything the same, with the same rate of acceleration. I'm sorry, but what exactly are you trying to argue here? Do you think gravity effects everything differently? Because if you do, then that's where your misunderstanding is and so that's where your error is. So the problem then is not with the theory of gravity, the problem lies with your ability to understand it. You have misunderstood how gravity works...and that misunderstanding is what is now leading you to make false assumptions and claims.
Gravity effects all things equally, at the same rate of acceleration, that's exactly what two objects of varying mass dropped in a vacuum verifies...it's actually a proof of gravity, because that's what gravity predicts under its main tenants. This is how gravity works, that is exactly what it predicts would occur, if the theory is true, so that's what gravity has to say about that observation. Things fall at the same rate regardless of their weight...this means there is a constant force there that effects all things equally. This is a proof of gravity, not a proof against it.
A better question to ask is, how do things fall in the first place, if no force is being applied that puts them into motion? In physics, we know that nothing is put into motion without a force being applied too it, that is a law of motion, the first law in fact. So how do things drop, if there is no force present to put objects into that downward vector path towards Earth? That's a far better question to ask. Density can't do it by itself, because density is just a property of matter...it is not a force. Buoyancy can't do it by itself, because buoyancy is directly caused by the downward force that begins the displacement of matter by its density, it only exists BECAUSE of gravity. So what force is telling matter to fall towards Earth? If not gravity, then WHAT is causing matter to always fall to Earth? WHY do things fall and WHY is it always towards Earth? The best answer I've heard so far from Flat Earth is "it just does"...great...but here's a little wake up call for you if that's the answer you're happy to go with...if science was to conclude everything with "it just does", then we'd still be in the bush trying to figure out how fire works. :/ Do you see how fucking stupid that answer is now? Science knows better...science is looking for ANSWERS, not "it just does". We can't do anything with an answer like that...that's not how invention, innovation and further discovery is achieved.
Do you ever consider the possibility, that MAYBE the error is not with the globe model, but with YOUR own personal ability to understand it? Does that possibility ever cross your mind? Stop listening to huxters on the internet, blindly and without question. All they're doing is teaching you how to more ignorant and incredulous.
1
-
@taciupryk You likely already can deduce that I'm not an astronaut, so of course I do not have my own personal photos of Earth, but you do not require personal photos of Earth to verify it is a Globe for yourself. Anyone can verify the shape of the Earth, with a few simple observations and experiments. Start with a sunset, how does a sunset work on the Flat Earth exactly? I've seen Flat Earth do a lot of jumping through hoops to try and stretch logic here as best they can to make this work, in the end it just amounts to ramming a square peg into a round hole, but at the end of the day, try as they will...it still does not work. Neither does the Southern hemisphere...there are TONS of observations that can be made in the South, that do not make any sense on any flat model of Earth proposed so far. It does not work. The Globe however, answers these all perfectly.
On top of that, modern technology already confirms a globe as well. I've already mentioned this, but every single international network of navigation and communication and infrastructure, uses our current knowledge of spherical shape and scale to make it all possible. We don't put satellites into orbit with Flat Earth geometry and science, we don't navigate the world with flat Earth scale and distance in mind, we don't send communications over a system designed for a Flat Earth. NOBODY is using flat Earth geometry to make the world tick...that should be your first clue.
The only people who think there is a debate about the shape of the Earth...are under educated layman, who have ZERO experience with the broader world and who really don't know much about much. That shouldn't be a coincidence to you.
But here, if you'd like some photos of Earth, here is a great archive of the Apollo missions, one of many you can find online. There are hundreds of photos of the Earth here, taken long before the days of CGI. I especially like the photos from Apollo 13 and 16, they're pretty clear and in high resolution. Feel free to let me know the methods they use to fake these and feel free to point me towards any source that has verified that. I don't mind taking a look.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
If you don't believe satellites are put into orbit, well, here's a group of hobbyists who have build there own radio telescope, using scraps they had lying around. They then use they radio receivers to lock onto geostationary satellites in orbit right now, focusing on the GOES satellites 15-17, which are weather satellites that take high resolution pictures of the Earth in varying filters of the electromagnetic spectrum, to track weather patterns. Just watch some of data they pull from these satellites...then tell me there are no satellites in orbit currently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t=280s
Here's a man that tracks several low orbit satellites with his telescope from the ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC8g3gj4CAE
I can keep going if you'd like, I don't mind sharing the information that I have uncovered pertaining to this particular argument. I think it's fine to question what you're told, quite logical in fact, but in the 3 years I've been looking at Flat Earth, I have concluded that it is a con job, that spreads among the under educated, who are paranoid about the world around them, because they don't really have much experience with the world around them.
1
-
@taciupryk Ya, mass attracting mass, that's how we understand gravity to work currently. If you're making an argument that because a bowling ball has more mass, it should drop faster, you're forgetting...that the Earth is the larger source of attraction...and it trumps both the bowling ball and feather by a LOT. So if there is any slight variance between the ball and the feather, the Earths gravity will render that difference virtually undetectable.
Yes, but there is a difference between a vacuum and atmosphere, air. In a vacuum you remove the air that would otherwise cause a drag force, air resistance. In atmosphere, there is still molecules of air in the way, so there is air resistance. The object with more mass is going to have an easier time displacing the air and getting it out of the way as it falls, the object with less mass will have a harder time, which slows it down...hence why a bowling ball falls faster than a feather, while not in vacuum. There's also more surface area to a feather, which also makes it harder to displace the air, a better comparison would probably be a plastic ball compared to bowling ball, something with generally the same surface area. But either way, removing the air in a chamber, removes the air resistance, so you can test the acceleration of gravity directly...with nothing else getting in the way. Things fall at the same rate when tested, this confirms a tenant of gravity.
Feel free to point out what I'm misunderstanding exactly. I don't mind challenging what I think I know.
Well good, you believe in satellites, that's a start. Do you know HOW they maintain an orbit? Do you know what keeps them in orbit? Gravity...gravity keeps them in orbit. Without gravity, an orbit is not even achievable...it's very important we know how gravity works and how strong it is here on Earth, or else we could NEVER accurately achieve an orbit with satellites.
"You mentioned sunset. Wouldn't it be earth set on a moving spinning round ball?"
No, it's the Sun that you see rise and set, that would be the case whether you're on a spinning ball or a stationary ball with a moving Sun. That's how relative motion works...you can't tell the difference between stationary and moving...but either way, this occurrence requires the Earth be round, in order for the observation to fit and make sense with reality...and it's the shape of the planet we're arguing here, not its motion. A sunset does not verify the motion of the planet, just it's geometry. The fact is simple, a flat Earth can not account for what we observe the Sun doing in reality. A Globe can, and very easily in fact. Only half the Earth would be able to see the Sun at any given time, the Earth rotates moving the observe from day to night...causing a sunset and sunrise, done, explanation over, no mental gymnastics required. What's sick is that you people know this...you know a Flat Earth can't account for a sunset, while the Globe does it with ease...yet you'll argue tooth and nail anyway.
It's fine though...the true krux to science is falsification, not verification, so at the end of the day, at least SOMEBODY is still trying to falsify things the rest of us have moved on from. But the shape of the Earth is probably the most verified science we have today...so you're just gonna be wasting your time in the end.
1
-
@taciupryk Alright, lets look into that a bit further. If gravity were to work on a Flat Earth, then where exactly is the source? Wouldn't there be gravity vectors all over the place then, going in all sorts of conflicting directions? It's not just that gravity pulls us to the surface, it's also that gravity is consistent and we feel it's pull in a steady vector we call the center of gravity...it's a point at which we can balance anything from. Gravity Vectors and the center of gravity make sense...on a ball with a source of gravity at center of mass, but how does that work on a Flat Earth with no direct singular source of gravity's pull? How would we be able to balance anything, without a center of gravity? Which brings up another great question, one that Einstein was also very curious about, how does mass attract mass exactly? How does that attraction occur and what causes it? These are some questions that are left unanswered by a Flat Earth....maybe gravity could exist on a Flat Earth, but you'd have to account for these questions...but even still, the Earth is observed to be a sphere, it's not just gravity at the end of the day, we have measured and observed it...and that's where we started, we didn't start with gravity, gravity just helps make sense of what we observe.
From what we understand today, mass bends the fabric of space time, which creates a central point of gravity's attraction, which is the source of where all mass is drawn towards. Which makes sense of why the Earth would then be a sphere...if mass collects around that center, then the only shape that could form from a center expanding in all directions outward from that center, is a sphere. Bubbles are doing something similar, as do water droplets, spheres are actually quite common in nature and it makes sense why and how.
The Sun, the Moon, the other planets, all observably spheres as well...and thanks to what we know about gravity today, it helps makes sense of that shape for all of these objects. The Sun is especially interesting, because we now know how the Sun burns, through nuclear fusion reactions of Hydrogen molecules, which is caused by it's own intense gravity, forcing molecules of Hydrogen together until they fuse, which creates Helium and then sheds a massive amount of energy in the process as well. We know we're on the right path there, because we've now created fusion reactions of our own in labs. We learned how to do that, from studying gravity and the Sun...yet another accomplishment we can thank Einstein and his theory of General Relativity for.
So Idk, maybe gravity could work on a Flat model, but it's got a lot of questions to answer for...questions that the Globe model has already answered and that make sense of what we observe in reality even further. So much so that we now use that knowledge in a great many applied sciences, from orbital mechanics that put satellites into orbit, to nuclear fusion reactions, to calculating the escape velocity of rockets, to calculating parabolic arc paths for hitting targets at distances, to knowing exactly where to point the telescopes to capture gravitational events like super nova and black holes, the list goes on and on. Our knowledge of gravity right now goes a lot deeper then most care to look into. Flat Earth has a lot of catching up to do.
1
-
@taciupryk Do I know why the stars remain the same night after night, for seemingly our entire life times? Sure, the heliocentric cosmology explains this pretty simply. There are trillions of miles between each star, while in comparison to those distances, they are just not moving fast enough to close that distance in any noticeable way within our lifetimes.
Allow me to put it into better perspective. The Sun is calculated to be moving around the galactic center at the rate of roughly 500,000 mph. That may seem like a lot to you and me...the microscopic life that sees a mile as a distance of significance, but to the Sun...understand that in one hours time, it has only moved HALF of its diameter in distance. To put that into perspective even more, if you were to pretend like you were the Sun, move your body about half a foot forward in front of you, over the course of 1 hour. That's how slow the Sun moves through the vastness of space...it might as well be crawling. Speed is relative, to something as massive as the Sun, 500k mph, is nothing, it's slower then a snails pace.
Now realize that all the stars are traveling at a similar pace, in the same direction, like cars on a wide lane highway, all going at the same steady speed in the same direction, with trillions of miles separating each one. If even one of those stars were to stop moving to allow us to catch up to it, lets say our closest star Alpha Centauri, which is 4 light years away, which is about 25 trillion miles. Going at just 500k mph, it would take about 5700 years to catch up and close the distance and reach that star at that pace...IF it stood still.
So when you really think on it and start thinking about those vast distances, the heliocentric model again makes perfect sense of why the stars don't appear to move in our lifetime...and I didn't even once mention parallax in that explanation, that effects what we see as well.
If you'd like to know more about the science that verifies the distances to the stars, I can point ya towards that information too if you'd like.
However, the truth is the stars are moving, and any astronomer would tell you that. We have been tracking the stars for hundreds, if not thousands of years now. It is confirmed, the stars are moving...it just takes a VERY long time to notice any shift occur and it varies per star. Generally, the closer the stars are, the more they shift relative to us, this causes a parallax in stars over time, that we can measure...which is one of the methods they use to measure the stars distances to us, the parallax method. So the stars do shift, it is measured and recorded...but unless you're out there each and every night watching the stars and recording them...you will never notice. So it's just more ignorance to say "the stars never move"...are you an astronomer? No? Then how do you know for sure?
But anyway, none of that proves the heliocentric cosmology, it just explains it. But while you're focusing on why the stars don't appear to shift...you're ignoring that there are TWO celestial rotations in each hemisphere, and TWO equal hemispheres, each with their own constellations and stars. Which is another thing the Flat Earth model can't account for...the ENTIRE southern hemisphere.
We observe two different night sky's, one for each hemisphere...this doesn't make a whole lot of sense on a Flat Earth, but it's exactly what we'd expect to see again, on a Globe, with TWO equal hemispheres. Here'a a great video that illustrates this point further. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMtx5jVLUaU&t=1s
Anyway, hope you find all this information at the very least interesting. I don't take issue with people questioning what they're told, it's quite logical to do that in fact, that's what science is, asking questions...I take issue with them being so ignorant and arrogant and ungrateful towards science...especially while they USE the fruits of science (computers, laptops, wifi, internet, phones), to tell the rest of us...how science is somehow false. :/ At some point, you have to consider the possibility, that maybe you're being a tad bias and maybe even paranoid in your conclusions.
1
-
1
-
@digbiffer7672 Consensus through what system? White suburban soccer moms pushing crystal therapy? Con men create the illusion that their science is peer reviewed on consensus...but it's pretty easy to sniff out when they're lying...and the white soccer mom society is not making any BIG decisions on science for a very good reason. That's why we have official peer reviewed systems, to weed out this sort of bullshit. It's not perfect either, but it has a safe guard...in the fact that junk science simply doesn't work. If something doesn't work, there is no objective system of consensus that it would ever survive in. If something doesn't work, it becomes pretty apparent after awhile...and it's in nobody's best interest to cling to concepts that are not working, because we can't engineer, invent, innovate anything with science that just does not work. So at the higher levels, there really is no point for bullshitting, cause it gets us nowhere.
Our current science works, the proof is in the technology we currently have, it got there on peer review and consensus. But don't get me wrong, I do agree a little, sometimes it takes bold steps to look outside of established norms, to think outside the box of consensus, it's the only way to find the cracks really. But you seem to think that doesn't occur in the current system, but I assure you that does happen with the current system. Almost every time we hit a wall in science, people then take a look at what we might have missed. It happens a lot in science, so they do think outside the box quite often actually.
For example, only just 100 years ago the Aether was the agreed upon consensus of the scientific community, they all believed that it existed and to argue otherwise was shot down pretty quickly. That was until Michelson and Morley, conducted an experiment that pretty much falsified the concept of Aether in one go...what should have been a pretty clear cut experiment to verify the Aether drag of light propagation, came back with a null result...it was inconclusive. This was a problem, now there was a very apparent hole in the current established model of science and it was glaringly apparent. It meant we were missing something, and it couldn't be ignored, so this now gave those outside the box thinkers a chance to examine those cracks and find the issues. It rattled the current consensus of the time, but science did what it had too and it looked at the problem objectively until it could be solved.
So yes, I do agree that consensus can make our thinking a bit rigid, which slows its progress down at times, but I do feel it's the best way to solve problems, because otherwise it would just be chaos and we wouldn't be sure about much of anything. Peer review is the most crucial step in science, people lie, cheat, follow bias, mess up and get things wrong all the time, if we didn't have a filter for all that...nothing would be established because everything would be. But when things don't work, it means we're wrong about something, that's the counter to the rigid system of peer review...eventually, we will hit a wall in innovation if we are wrong about something. That gives the inner community of science an opportunity to be bolder and to look at alternatives, so it may be stubborn and rigid but it's not a perfectly rigid system, it does require that it bend on occasion and it does.
My main point is this, what would you prefer they did instead? No system we currently have is perfect, but that doesn't mean we discard it completely for that reason. But we can tweak it and fix the cracks, so by all means, what would you prefer we did instead?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Doesn’t take millions of dollars of equipment to verify refraction...with just a pencil and a glass of water, you can verify refraction. https://www.ck12.org/physics/refraction/lesson/Refraction-of-Light-PHYS/ It’s a fact of reality...you see it happen all the time, you’re just not paying attention. Here’s another super easy refraction experiment, this time more relevant to this particular discussion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t
Refraction is very real, it happens in atmosphere where humidity is greater, namely really close to the surface, and especially over large bodies of water. People need to stop assuming they know everything...if you’re not a physicist or expert in any field relevant to this discussion, then there’s probably a lot you don’t actually know. Stop assuming and start learning.
Here’s another great observation http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment, scroll down to the section on refraction, images 31 and 32 are what you should see, if you honestly believe refraction is a variable we can just ignore. Proof enough for you?
1
-
What has it brought us? 🤨An advanced society where food is plentiful and doesn’t rot because of fridges, water and electricity is brought right to our heated homes, we can travel thousands of miles in just a few hours, where the majority of society can read, write, do at least basic math, doctors are at the ready, and population numbers are higher than ever before in recorded history….Ya, seems to me we’re thriving, rather than just surviving.
But go ahead…explain to me how freezing in a cave, running from predators, and chasing down smaller animals on an empty stomach is somehow better. Think I’ll play some guitar and forget about your dumbass opinion. 😄
1
-
Summary sections of those papers and manuals are not for making statements or for stating conclusions, what they're doing is simplifying the math and letting the reader know exactly what variables will not be included in the math to follow. That's why they'll often read like this "for this next section we will ASSUME we're flying over a flat non-rotating surface". This lets the reader know exactly what variables will not be factored. You will find this a LOT in aeronautics manuals, because they will always include a section for the plane/rockets wind resistance capabilities. They do not need to factor the Earths shape and motion when discussing direct drag force across the body/frame of these vehicles, they're not working on solving problems for Coriolis effect in those sections, so they let the reader know in the summary, what variables won't be included in the math to follow. That's how they're structured...most people don't know this though, because you're not scientists, mathematicians or engineers.
What Flat Earth is doing here is cherry picking information they have no idea how to interpret, because they are not trained in how to read, write or interpret research papers or engineering manuals...but they sure know how to take things out of context and spin a bias narrative on it. Don't just listen to these people blindly and without question...they do this across the board, with every single argument. It's confirmation bias and it's how they con people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jayne Nord Well, your first problem is the math, that’s not the correct formula for making long distance observations. The reason why it’s incorrect is because it’s missing variables. As it is in that form, it’s just a basic parabolic arc equation, it doesn’t calculate a figure that represents an observers line of sight, doesn’t tell you where horizon is and it doesn’t tell you what is hidden from your line of sight due to horizon. It just calculates a drop from a tangent line at your feet...which is going to shoot way over horizon and line of sight, giving you inaccurate figures.
Here’s a blog that can help you with the correct math for these observations. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ And here’s a handy calculator that puts the formula found here to use. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
Plenty of observations of curvature actually...the trouble is, Flat Earth has convinced some people to use the wrong math, so now you have some people making
observations, then wondering why the numbers don’t fit. Pretty simple, the math is wrong...and it’s tricky now, cause the moment you try to point out the math is just incorrect, people tend to take it as a direct attack on their intelligence, rather than take the time to see if it’s true. Well, truth is most people are not very math literate...so not hard to feed them half truths and make false claims of accuracy.
Here’s a few great observations of curvature. I can provide many more if you’d like.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth
https://youtu.be/EIOs-PzNIZU?t=3178
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU&t
1
-
Jayne Nord I’m not changing the equation, I’m just telling you that it’s the wrong math to use for the observation you’re making...that’s all. It is missing variables and so it does not give you accurate figures, that is a fact, not an opinion. And you’re not very consistent with your argument, you seem to only accept numbers and mathematics when they suit your purpose and support your bias...and then make excuses for when they don’t. That’s pretty text book confirmation bias...ignoring any facts or information that refutes what you want to believe, rather than remaining objective. Do you see the problem in that? Bias is not how you find truth...it’s how you remain in a lie.
Whether you like it or not we live in a reality that has geometric and physical rules that never change, and that can be measured and quantified. You may not like math, but the modern world wouldn’t exist without it. Just like your computer which is made possible through mathematics, our Earth can be measured and calculated as well...so near as I can tell, you’re just rejecting what I’m saying rather than listening, because you don’t want to accept that I might be right, that Earth is not really flat and you’ve just be conned by an Internet hoax.
I don’t really care about what you want to believe, I’m just sharing the information I feel you’re overlooking. If you’re honest with yourself you won’t just hand wave it aside and ignore it so easily, you’ll learn it and consider it. You’re always free to disagree, can’t force you to do anything...but the only people who make arguments like in your last comment to me, are people who are mathematically illiterate and don’t really know much about it, so they tend to make a lot of ignorant assumptions and excuses.
You are correct about one thing though, numbers can be manipulated to sell an agenda...what do you think Flat Earth is doing when they lie to people and sell them on a parabola equation like 8 inches per mile squared? That wouldn’t happen if you learned some mathematics...the manipulation only works on those that don’t really have much of a clue about what’s being said to them. If you learned even some basic mathematics, you’d recognize pretty quickly that a parabolic equation isn’t going to represent a spherical surface, and it certainly does not calculate a line of sight. So, up to you if you’re willing to learn some basic math, and then see who the real manipulators are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@airisming9 If I'm angry at all, it's because people use the technology created by scientists, made possible with their efforts and hard work...to tell the rest of us that science is bullshit...meanwhile you reap all the benefits of their efforts anyway. It's like spitting in the face of a chef, who personally brings you the food and then you eat it anyway and love every bit of the meal he's given you. You're ungrateful and that's what pisses me off. Didn't anyone teach you to have some respect for your fellow man? Maybe your religion perhaps?
I get why you attack science though, you feel it has treated your God poorly, something that brings you purpose and joy. So I get it. But science itself, is not trying to destroy your god...science is just a tool, it has no more agenda than a hammer. It's people who have agendas...people who attack your religion, science just cares about objective truth, how reality operates at the mechanical level...that's it. It will likely never replace God...it can't. I wasn't attacking your faith (originally)...I was pointing out errors I felt you were making, because I feel misinformation shouldn't fly by the radar unchecked...I could care less about what faith you adhere too, it has no place in a discussion of science. It is your bias...and that bias keeps you from learning, just like any bias does.
Here's a fact, most people throughout history, who helped build our current understandings of science, were and are still theists...not the other way around. Deeply religious people, who put that bias aside for a moment, so they could focus on figuring out how reality works. For many of them, it just made them MORE devoted to their God, knowing how powerful and amazing he truly is. What's more impressive, a God that created a small little flat terrarium, or a God that created an endless universe the depths of which we will never fully explore or understand?
Either way, all I did was share information that I feel you overlooked in your conclusions. I don't care what you WANT to believe, evidence is all that matters in a discussion of science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TJ Callaway No, you’re all over the place, I’m not here to discuss the Moon landings and you’re dumping several points all at once, burying me in gish gallop. It’s a disingenuous form of argument, and you’d be dispelled from any actual debate for employing it. Sticking to a single point at a time, would be for instance discussing the atmosphere next to a vacuum question and focusing on just that point. Space is a topic, a big one with many thousands of points within, but you’ll notice when I addressed the point of atmosphere and vacuum, I didn’t stray from that point, I went into great detail on that point and only that point...while you’re asking a bunch of different questions all at once, from various topics and jumping all over the place.
Now, let’s get back on track. Another point you keep bringing up is the equations involving the Suns rays, so let’s focus on that for a moment. You’re claiming that they also work on a flat plain. Ok, show me your math that supports your claim here. Surely you have evidence that supports this claim, right? You’re not just making an empty claim I hope...so show me the evidence that led you to your conclusion here. In the meantime, I mentioned in a prior comment that this only works if you take only two Sun shadow angle measurements...you wanna see what happens when you plot more than 2 angles mathematically upon a flat Earth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeEw0Fw1qio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0&t
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=422
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t
So you’re lying...or you’ve never actually done the math or examined it yourself. Everything from the Suns path, to its shadow angles, to the eclipses both solar and lunar, to even the simple rising and setting of the sun, the math does not support a flat Earth conclusion, not even in the slightest...but easy for people to lie about the math, when they’re mathematically illiterate and don’t bother to actually do the math. Here’s a couple more simple mathematical observations of the Sun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6Ojo9fJhw&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t
The Sun is not local, none of the math and observations point to that conclusion.
1
-
1
-
TJ Callaway You wanna talk about working backwards? Let’s focus on the gas next to a vacuum argument again. You started at the end, with the physics of gases and then worked backwards...so it’s not science that is working backwards, it’s flat Earth. Do you think science started with the physics of thermodynamics? No, that’s a very recent discovery in the grand scheme of things. All your arguments so far have started at the end, attempting to work backwards from the physics. Well, here’s a brief history lesson for you, on how science reached its current conclusions. Then we’ll see who’s really working backwards.
First, they started with a Flat Earth, which was largely assumed from one observation, it looks flat. But simple spherical geometry and perspective, makes it very clear that this is a rushed conclusion. The closer you are to a sphere, the flatter it will appear, so the geometry was eventually questioned. The Greeks and other ancient cultures, then verified Earths spherical geometry beyond reasonable doubt, observations of the Sun, stars, planetary motions, as well as mapping the Earths surface and discovering it was curved with two hemispheres (navigation relies heavily on our knowledge of the globe being accurate, and that was true even in the time of the Greeks), these and many more observations led to mankind realizing Earths geometry being undeniably a sphere.
Then, once that was settled, came time to figure out more of the astronomy and physics, we started with a geostationary model, but it was still undeniably spherical. Studying the stars, planets, Sun and Moon a little closer, it was found to be impossible for everything to be revolving around Earth and repeating these observations and doing the math is very basic stuff astronomers learn today. The math of geocentric Earth does not add up, so it was discovered that Earth revolves around the Sun, at this point it is also undeniably true. Just learn some basic navigation sometime, using stars, sextants and geodetic conversions...then you’ll learn that.
So the geometry was settled first, but this did create a lot of further questions pertaining to physics, like for instance the motions, how are we moving? How does everything stay to the surface? Stuff like this, was still relatively unknown 400 years ago, but the shape of our planet and it’s path around the Sun, was settled science, all from pure observation and recorded data.
See...they weren’t working backwards, they were working forwards, slowly improving upon prior knowledge. Flat Earth is where they started, it was quickly falsified after it was demonstrated that it did not fit with observations...as they still don’t today, which is why I’m trying to bring you back down to Earth, to start with the geometry. Don’t know why you people jump immediately to the physics, when this is a discussion of geometry, but whatever. So Flat Earth was discarded for the model that could explain observations, a Globe shape. From there it was geocentric, but even this was soon falsified after the motions of the other planets were found to orbit the Sun, which also helped explain our orbit.
Now to the physics. It’s clear that there were many things that were certain within physical reality, that motion is relative and things fall when you drop them, so the laws of motion and the law of gravity were penned. Now, understand that nothing becomes a law in science until it has been adequately tested beyond reasonable doubt. These two laws in particular helped explain the motions of our planet, and helped explain how everything stays to our planet. Though gravity did more than that, it explains planetary orbits, it explains planetary and star formation, galaxy formation, how stars burn...gravity was one of the most pivotal discoveries in all of science, because when gravity was realized, hundreds of mysteries of physics and astronomy began to fall like dominos. So it’s not just some theory...it explains almost everything, it gives us answers, where flat Earth science just created questions (and still does). It’s also an observed fact, things fall when you drop them, always towards Earth.
Thermodynamics was also penned around the same time, but it’s never contended with our atmosphere, because physicists understood that it had to do with energy transfer, not matter transfer (which is what Flat Earthers misunderstand about entropy). Then the gradient pressure of our atmosphere was measured and it pretty much sealed the science, it all fits. Gravity holds atmosphere to surface, it creates this pressure gradient, no barrier is required, no laws of thermodynamics are broken. Science has gone on to verify that further with all our space exploration...though I get that you ignore and deny all of that, though again, weather balloons have been sent up many times...and they always pop once they’ve reached vacuum conditions. So empty space confirmed, while still no dome barrier found.
So, that’s a history lesson...now tell me, where exactly did science work backwards? This is a forward progression...not a backwards recession. Science started with a flat Earth, it was soon falsified...that’s where they started, with the geometry.
It’s YOU who are now trying to work backwards. You’re starting in space, with things like the Moon landing and atmosphere next to a vacuum...and that’s not where science started. You’re working backwards...and it’s incredible to me you actually believe it’s the other way around. By your logic, if the Moon landing is fake, then space is also fake...and no, that’s a huge leap in logic. Even if the Moon landing was faked, it doesn’t mean space is fake and it certainly doesn’t mean Earth is flat either. You’d still have to prove both of those conclusions, you’re work isn’t just magically done, because you’re convinced of these and other conspiracies, built mostly from paranoia and endless speculation.
Simpletons think in absolutes like that...working backwards, thinking that if even one flaw can be found it means we start over...so don’t confuse your method of thinking for how science reached its conclusions. No, that’s not how science works I’m afraid, we don’t just throw the baby out with the bath water. And you haven’t found any flaws either, just a great many misunderstandings of basic physics. These “flaws” you think you’ve found, aren’t really flaws at all...they’re just YOUR own personal misunderstandings.
So I think you really need to reanalyze your argument, cause YOU are the one starting at the end, and working backwards. It’s not our problem if you skipped science history and are not aware of how science reached its current conclusions, but they didn’t start with the physics, they started with the geometry and worked from there.
1
-
TJ Callaway Ok, you can’t just make empty statements like “the Moon and all other planets are their own luminaries” and then be expected not to prove that claim. This is why nobody takes you people seriously, you just blast off a bunch of empty claims in rapid fire, speaking as if they’re facts, and then provide zero evidence to support those assertions. When you make a claim, doesn’t matter what it is, you then have a burden of proof...but you clearly don’t give a shit, just saying whatever fits your bias, no work needed to prove any of it, skip the hypothesis and testing and go straight to conclusions. And then you honestly expect anyone to believe you?
Now, I’m sure you’ve “tested” these things or at least done third party research on these topics...but don’t you think it’d be nice if during a debate with someone, when you make a claim, you also share some links to some information that led you to that conclusion? Do you think people should just listen to you blindly or something? Would you?
Luckily for you, I’ve researched the same stuff you have, so you don’t have to share...I’m just pointing out how pointless it is to debate with a person, who doesn’t feel they have any burden of proof for their claims. Have you noticed, whenever I made a claim, I then also shared some information that led me to that conclusion? Sure would be nice if Flat Earthers could do the same sometime. :/
Now, on to those claims. No, the Moon does not have a cold light, this is a perfect example of layman conducting sloppy experiments and then reaching bias conclusions. I’ve seen these “cold Moon light” experiments you’re speaking of...and I’ve never seen any Flat Earther conduct a control experiment along side their main experiment. If you’re not familiar with a control experiment and why it’s relevant, it’s basically an extra experiment you run to help control for any hidden variables that might also render you the same results as your main experiment. In any experiment, you’re trying to isolate the independent variable, control experiments are often crucial for helping you do that.
So, what’s a good control experiment we can do for the Cold Moon Light experiment? Well, a good one would be to run the experiment again, on a night when the Moon isn’t out, like during a New Moon phase. Because the claim is that the Moon light is cold...but what happens if you get the same results, on a night when the Moon isn’t out? Well, it’s pretty simple, if you get the same results regardless of whether there is moonlight or not, then you really can’t conclude that it’s moonlight causing this effect, it’s likely from something else.
So here’s an example of this experiment done with proper controls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLsZwp4RWWg&t The result is pretty clear, the same cooling effect occurs on a night when the Moon isn’t out...so I’m afraid you really can’t conclude that it’s the Moon causing this effect.
This is why we have peer review in science...because people can and will make mistakes in experimentation. Flat Earth merely demonstrated how bad they are at conducting experiments...doing only so much as to confirm a bias they have and then doing nothing further to question and review their own work. Upon peer review of this experiment though, it’s not the moonlight causing this effect, it’s more than likely radiative cooling. More experimentation can be done of course, to truly isolate that conclusion, but one thing is clear, the Moon does not produce a cold light.
Even if it did though...how exactly would that prove it is its own luminary? Still a bit of a leap in logic to me...like you’re just slotting in the answer that you like. You barely have enough after that conclusion to form a hypothesis around for further testing...but you’re just skipping right to the conclusion that the Moon is it’s own luminary, from one poorly conducted experiment. Skipping peer review, skipping the proper protocols of recording your findings...it’s just incredible how lazy the Cold Moon Light experiment truly is. Not to mention the laws of physics this would break. Seriously, what light do you know of that makes things colder? Light is basically a bundle of energy, and energy is what creates all the heat in the universe. Cold is just the absence of thermal energy...cold isn’t something you create, cold occurs when you take energy away. So how would that even be logical, that light (which is basically energy) could remove energy and make things colder? Kinda breaks physics a wee bit, so it’s really not logical at all.
You guys are really stretching logic on that one I’m afraid. In truth, it’s just another sloppy experiment from flat Earth, designed to confirm bias, nothing more.
As for the planets...what you said is probably the most ignorant thing I’ve ever heard. The planets are not like the other stars...not even in the slightest. If you focus the planets properly through a telescope, they will have recognizable features, that none of the stars have. Planets have there own shadow phases, their own distinct surface features, some have rings, some have Moons...like, you’re completely out to lunch, if you honestly think a few out of focus images of planets is going to falsify what we know about these celestial bodies. Learn to focus the planets, then you’ll notice they’re not anything like the other stars. Here’s a couple videos that can help you out.
https://youtu.be/fj-P031VlbU?t=349
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQYbtzsnQ3E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dICIKYn5w4w&t
I’m sorry man, but you have to be an absolute idiot to fall for those out of focus planet videos, that claim they’re the real photos. Focus the planets correctly and you will capture their many features. Learn some basic Astrophotography...you’re just gonna make yourself look like a fool if you argue that planets are just blurry lights like all the others.
I think we’re done here...you’ve got nothing new to show me, and your arguments are empty and just sad. Just another sucker who fell for a hoax on the internet, so I don’t see any reason to continue further.
1
-
@tjcallaway7524 Learn to navigate, just using the stars, lines of latitude and longitude and geodetic conversions...and you can prove the Earth is a sphere for yourself. Travel to the South and observe the different night sky, and the second celestial rotation of stars, and you will verify Earths spherical geometry. Run a controlled test of curvature like the Bedford Level experiment, using proper geometric calculations, and then you will verify the Earths true shape. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
Actually pay attention to the world around you and you’ll find proof of the Globe everywhere, no third party research or information required. Just takes a little time, effort and travel and a few simple observations. The experiment I shared above is easily repeatable, and there are many others that are even easier.
I can share tons of evidence for the Globe with you, but you didn’t shut up long enough for me to do so...just kept dumping claim after claim, so that’s where I focused. You made claims, so I pointed out the errors in those claims. Flat Earth makes lots of empty claims, it has filled the gaps in people’s knowledge with bullshit, so I was focusing on dispelling that bullshit, but if you want me to shift gears and offer evidence for the Globe, I’m more than happy too do so. Science didn’t just reach that conclusion from nothing...as you’ve been led to believe.
I won’t drown you in gish gallop though, start with that link above, it’s more than enough for now. What I’ve shared above is an actual research paper experiment, notice how thorough it is? Controlling every known variable, isolating the independent variable (in this case surface curvature). The conclusion is quite conclusive...Earth is curving and at the rate that it should be given our scale. I’ll share much much more if you’re interested...you won’t see this kind of evidence from any flat Earth channels on YouTube, so if you’re interested, I don’t mind sharing. That one has been repeated many times over the years, and it is fairly simple, though does require more effort. I’ll share a few simpler observations and experiments next time...if you’re interested.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CalsTube Why would you think space should be lit up? Space is an empty vacuum…and light requires physical matter to be reflected off of for it to illuminate an area. This isn’t difficult…I’m sorry, but every argument you make is just terrible, always lacking some detail…most of the time details that are pretty common sense.
What’s worse is that there’s no tangible evidence for this firmament you believe is up there. Meanwhile there’s actual evidence of space…we’ve been there, physically, several times. Even if you don’t agree we have, I’m sure you’re aware of the pressure gradient in our atmosphere…which is exactly what we’d expect to measure with an atmosphere created and contained by a field of force such as gravity. And I’m sure you’ve by now seen some of the videos of weather balloons, some launched even by Flat Earthers. Did you ever happen to pay attention to the end of these videos…where the balloons eventually pop, as they’re designed to do once reaching vacuum conditions. So even flat Earthers have detected the vacuum of space, but you know what they’ve never found? A container.
It’s no secret why you fell into believing the Earth is flat, because it helps confirm your religious bias. Makes it very difficult to take any of you seriously, when it’s painfully obvious why you lean towards such nonsensical conclusions, that defy common sense, and ignore reality.
1
-
1
-
1