Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
NASA gets pennies compared to the military...maybe look up their annual budget sometime, you’ll shit yourself. NASA has thousands of research facilities all around the world, you think it’s cheap to staff and power these facilities? Not to mention every rocket they launch is upwards of half a billion to pull off, have you been to a rocket launch...they’re very real alright. So not a very good money making scheme I’d say, with what they earn from the annual budget, they’d likely be struggling every year. Meanwhile...real scientists and engineers are working at NASA, real people, who you can talk to at almost anytime and learn about the things they’ve created for the benefit of society...but I see you’d rather jump on the online speculation train instead, so I doubt you’ll ever take the time to actually contact any of these people.
NASA is a research and development organization...any country that hopes to thrive, HAS to fund the sciences, in some form or another...or they’ll be left in the dust by the country’s that do put resources into science and R&D. It’s necessary, for any nation that wants to be at the top.
How do you know they don’t allow companies to map Antarctica? Have you tried? Is this something you have actual experience with? Lots of scientists and research bases there right now...you can even work at these bases as a labourer, so maybe actually go there before speculating endlessly again?
Stars do change, any amateur astronomer will tell you that, it’s common knowledge among those who actually spend there nights tracking the stars. The reason they take so long to shift, is because of parallax, which has to do with scale. Understand that these massive speeds everything is flying around at in space, are only great speeds to you and me, the microscopic life living on a spec of dust in the vast cosmos, that thinks a mile is a great distance. For example, the Sun is travelling at roughly 500k mph, but please realize that its diameter is twice that, so in 1 hours time, it has only moved half of its own diameter. To put that into perspective, over the span of 1 hour, move your body half a foot forward...wow, really moving fast aren’t you. It takes 230 million years for our solar system to make one complete orbit around galactic center...I hope you can agree, that’s a long time. In the grand scheme of things, the stars and planets are barely moving. Learn a little about the scale you’re dealing with here, it matters.
Maybe take your own advice and use that grey matter, and stop falling for every con and hoax on the internet...at the very least, learn the difference between speculation and evidence. You have some good questions, but questions are not proof...don’t assume that just because you don’t know the answers right away, that it must mean they can’t be answered.
1
-
They’re good questions sure, because they are the same sort of questions pretty much all scientists and experts ask when first learning their craft. But most people don’t ask these questions...cause most people aren’t scientists, most people aren’t engineers, mathematicians, astronomers, etc, so most people generally live life with no experience or interest in these things...until some conspiracy nut comes around looking to exploit the gaps in people’s knowledge and fill them with half truths and misinterpretations.
It’s fine to question things, but it really doesn’t seem like you’ve been attempting to find the answers to these questions. A lot of them are just basic physics knowledge, physics that’s pretty easy to learn and demonstrate, answers to these and more are just a quick google search away. So have you really bothered to try, or have you just been watching flat Earth conspiracy videos from people who also are not experts in any relevant field, and who also couldn’t answer these questions? If you really think scientists and experts can build everything around you...but they couldn’t figure out something as trivial as the true shape of the planet, then you might be a little delusional.
Someone has already answered your questions here, but if you’d like a little more info, feel free to ask. You should always consider the possibility that you could be getting roped in by a clever online hoax, so don’t forget to turn that lens around and take the time to question the flat Earth model as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eddiezweifel3652 Alright, enough dick waving then, personally I'd rather not talk down to people, I'm just human and I have an ego I need to feed, so ya, it did feel good...but I know it's just perpetuating the problem by alienating you further...so honestly I'd really rather not. It's not worth it in the end, so I apologize. There's nothing wrong with questioning what you're told, in fact it's quite logical...I just personally feel you're reaching some false conclusions currently and I would like to point out where I feel those errors are. I'm not new to this discussion and I have a lot of information I can share that might be interesting to you, at the very least.
So let's just focus on the science and leave our dicks at the door if you want. I'm more than willing to shift gears into a more civil tone if you'd prefer and just discuss the information. I'll drop my shield if you do. Currently I feel you have reached a false conclusion, but feel free to prove me wrong, I don't mind putting what I think I know to question, so long as you don't mind doing the same.
So you seem to think the spinning of the planet is a problem, so why do you feel this is a problem? Let's start there, if you want.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ITpanda Uncloak the Bigfoot species...wow...now I’ve heard it all. Really gonna throw out the batshit arguments right outta the gate huh. Now I know you’re joking.
But, again, in case you’re not, If you understand the psychology of object permanence...then I assume you’ll have no trouble understanding my calling bullshit, on that one. Never seen a Bigfoot...so there certainly isn’t any permanence in my mind for that object. 😅 So shouldn’t be very surprising to you, that I have effectively NO reason at all to believe you, so I’m not going too. But I do know how microwave transmissions work...and I’ve seen no studies or science, that show cell towers can control our minds. Meanwhile, I’ve seen plenty of evidence suggesting that the claims for brain manipulation through these towers, is just made up paranoid bullshit. Because it seems people are losing their fucking minds these days.
If you really do believe that nonsense, then wow. But feel free to try and convince me, but you’ll have have to do better than just dumping empty claims on me, cause it ain’t gonna do much I’m afraid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@April85... I'm just saying, your argument is a logical fallacy...you're ignoring the pictures of Earth that do exist https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544 that shows a perfectly spherical Earth...which is what the argument is all about, the Earths shape, and then paying attention to only what YOU assume is how things should work. It's a fallacy of logic, because it doesn't take any consideration into account that YOUR assumptions here, could be COMPLETELY false assumptions. It's Dunning Krueger effect in action really, overconfident in your abilities and intelligence, to the point where you are blinded by how stupid you really are.
Either way, doesn't matter what video or picture I show you, even if I did get you exactly what you wanted to see, you'd just say it's fake anyway and then move on...so it's a bit pointless to ask for photos and videos, if you're just gonna say they're fake right out of the gate. So stop asking....it's pointless if you're not really looking for any, you're just looking to be an arrogant dick.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Couple problems here though concerning the physics of gyros and the mechanics of the ones used in airplane equipment. There isn’t a single mechanical gyro in existence, that is free from friction precession. So over time, gyros will tilt out of alignment no matter what. So thanks to the friction in the gimbles, caused by gravity and material contact, that creates a torque that causes precession, it’s really hard to discern if the gyro is tilting due to curvature or precession....which is why you rarely hear of flat Earthers use gyros in experimentation, because it never gives them the results they’re looking for, the gyro will always eventually tilt out of alignment. So they usually avoid these experiments I’ve noticed. Which is typical of bias researchers, they only share the experiments that confirm their bias and gyro precession messes that up for them.
But, airplanes and jets still use mechanical gyros in their artificial indicators. So how do they overcome curvature and precession? They do it with what are know as pendulous veins. These are basically hinges on the gimbles of the gyro, that drop open anytime the gyro dips out of alignment with centre of gravity. Once the hinges are open, they allow air into a chamber that triggers a sensor, which kicks on a motor, which torques the gyro back into alignment until the hinges are centred with gravity again, which closes off the air chambers. You’ll find these pendulous veins are included in all artificial horizon indicators, as well as many other equipment used for navigation. They can and do overcome the issues of both precession and Earth curvature.
So gyros on planes make use of gravity to keep them from tilting out of alignment, it also helps them maintain level perpendicular to the surface of curvature.
So it’s not as simple as you’re saying it is I’m afraid. There is physics and mechanics here that can’t be ignored.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Both sides find their position to be absolutely true. So when the arguments drag on and no ground is gained for either position (in terms of convincing either side), both sides then start trying to rationalize in their own ways why and how that could be occurring.
As best I can tell, Flat Earth rationalizes things by assuming we're all just brainwashed, that we can't understand their positions because our pre-programmed indoctrination won't allow us too. This fits into their narrative of a big bad conspiracy that is occurring, led by an evil entity, that is trying to enslave humanity. So this rationalization fits for them and makes sense, so no need to listen to the Globe counter arguments, they're just brainwashed and can not see it. They feel they're special, by resisting the mainstream science and the heliocentric model, they feel they are free from that systems control, which frees them from that enslavement. Meanwhile however...they're not innovating, inventing, engineering, discovering, or navigating anything...which should be a red flag for anyone, but it doesn't seem to do much good pointing this out to them, everyone arguing against Flat Earth is just brainwashed, so no need to listen to them.
On the flip side, heliocentrists feel that Flat Earthers just do not understand modern science and they have reached a great many false conclusions because of that. Try as they might to teach them, Flat Earthers either don't understand it or they don't want to understand it, for the reasons mentioned above. So when met with people who don't seem to understand the physics and who ignore all attempts to teach them, the Globe position also rationalizes how that's possible, and their best conclusion is that these people are just stupid and/or willfully ignorant. Symptoms of paranoid delusion, falling into the pitfalls of confirmation bias, which science has worked to overcome in humanity as best it can, through peer review systems and objective falsification.
So both sides are just trying to rationalize why each side can't see the others perspective, which is normal to do in any debate. The thing is, this is not an argument on opinion, it's an argument of physical reality and it's a little hard to argue against the reality we all inhabit, something that can be observed and tested directly, at any time. Physical reality doesn't lie, it's quite rigid in what it is and how it operates, and so if we are wrong about what we understand about physical reality, then anything we try to build just will not work. It's pretty simple, junk science does not work, this is great for us, because it keeps things objective whether we like it or not. No matter how many pseudo intellectuals try to muddy the waters of information, if their science doesn't work, it becomes pretty obvious pretty quickly.
Our technology works, the proof is in the pudding and the reality is that scientists make this possible...whether Flat Earth is willing to listen or not, this fact remains true. The people they claim to be indoctrinated, are currently building EVERYTHING...and they're achieving that, using the very science that Flat Earth argues is not real.
Anyway, it is interesting to step back and look at the whole debate from a neutral outsider perspective from time to time. It's a really good study on human psychology and pretty interesting to examine both sides. Inside the debate, I myself am on the side of the heliocentric position, I feel they hold the far more rational position with far more objective truths and evidence supporting that conclusion. I feel Flat Earth is currently falling into the pitfalls of confirmation bias and paranoid delusion, which robs people of objective thought. That's where I stand currently, after 3 years of looking at this mess...though it really only took a few minutes to reach that conclusion, and it's never changed.
Looking at things from a neutral position gives me the chance to entertain the idea that perhaps I overlooked something, but every time I do, I still can't deny that my computer exists and it is working for a reason....because modern science knows what it's doing. The plus side is that I have also learned for myself how it all works, it's not hidden knowledge by any stretch. Anyone can learn this science at any time, and build these things for themselves after enough study and practice (limited only by their own cognitive ability of course). It's simple for me, if modern science were lying, then nothing would work as it does. Those who choose to remain ignorant, will continue to live in fear and paranoia and will continue to achieve nothing. It's really that simple for me, but to each their own.
It's not wrong to question reality, so in that regard, I appreciate the reminder that we should remain skeptical at all times and never be afraid to question anything. Einstein didn't become successful for agreeing with modern consensus of his time, he is a household name today because he challenged the work of Newton...the difference between him and Flat Earth however, is that he was successful in proving his hypothesis correct and his work is still doing that even today. So science is built on asking questions...the difference is staying out of the pitfalls of confirmation bias and paranoia.
Anyway, I'm really rambling now...I hope I was able to give you some further insight to your main question. Sorry if I strayed from the main point and got a little derogatory with my opinions.
1
-
@tyshonjackson783 I just didn't want to jump to conclusions and assume your position, without proper context is all. So I didn't want to bombard you with information on gravity right away, until I knew for sure the point you were trying to make, so I could better isolate exactly what it is you're misunderstanding here. So now that I know more, I'll see what I can do to help you out.
Well, alright so lets isolate what it is that your body actually feels. What you feel as the airplane is rising is inertia upon your body, that's what your body is designed to feel. Inertia is felt in several different ways, you feel it every day in the form of weight upon your body, that is directly caused by gravity, the constant downward accelerating force that is always pulling on your body every single day, that you feel and we measure as weight. Another way you can feel inertia is by sudden changes in forward or angular velocity. This is the inertia you feel while moving, we call it G force in forward velocities and Centrifugal or Centripetal force in angular velocities. What's important to note here though, is that you don't really feel motion itself, what you feel is sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion, that creates inertia, inertia is what you feel...not motion itself.
So yes, gravity is something your body feels, it is a force that puts your body into motion, that motion is always down. The part about gravity that Flat Earth ignores, is why down? Why that direction? Why not any other direction? From what we understand about motion, nothing is put into motion unless a force is applied to it to put it into motion. So density can't cause that downward vector, density is not a force, it is just a property of matter, how much mass occupies a certain area of space, it has no means at all to put things into motion. So the density argument makes no sense, because HOW does density put objects into motion in the first place? It can't, only a force can do that. So the other explanation Flat Earth gives is Buoyancy. Buoyancy is a force, but what Flat Earth doesn't understand is that it's not a fundamental force and technically it's not even a real force at all. What it actually is, is an observed left over effect CAUSED by a downward force, forcing the displacement of less matter upwards as more dense matter must occupy the lower position first...we called that downward force that starts that displacement gravity. Without a downward forcing telling matter which direction to begin displacing it by density, there is no buoyancy. This is proven in simple density columns put in zero G environments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpP-7dhm9DI The moment you remove gravity from the equation, buoyancy disappears and nothing orders by density anymore. So without gravity, there is no buoyancy force, buoyancy is directly caused by gravity...that's the part Flat Earth ignores about buoyancy.
Some other explanations are that it's just electromagnetism or even static attraction...but if you know anything about the physics of either, you realize pretty quickly there are probably hundreds of reasons why neither of these can accurately explain why things fall on Earth when you drop them. The most obvious reason being that all matter is attracted by electromagnetic and static attractions differently...and well, everything still falls at the same rate when dropped in a vacuum chamber. So that's just one of many things that quickly debunks those explanations. Another is that everything is dipolar, magnets and static attractions have a negative and positive attraction that attracts but also repels, depending on the alignment of the positive and negative poles...so basically, we would too...and so if electromagnetism or static attraction caused the downward force, then we would have polar attraction and polar repel...meaning we could essentially stand on our head and the Earth would shoot us up, essentially now repelling us rather then attracting us. This does not happen and it does not happen with anything else on Earth either, everything just falls, nothing falls and aligns the same way every time...except for cats of course...but they're not of this world. All jokes aside though, there are many reasons why we can't conclude electromagnetism or static attraction, as the answer for why things fall, that's a small sample of some reasons why.
So I have yet to receive an answer from Flat Earth, that adequately answers the question, WHY and HOW does matter fall down when dropped? Why that direction? The best answer I have received so far from Flat Earth is "it just does"...well, I'm sorry, but if science concluded everything with "it just does", then we'd still be in the bush trying to figure out how fire works. We can't do anything with "it just does" that is not an answer, it's a cop out when you don't have any answers. Things fall when you drop them, which means they are put into motion when you drop them. Nothing is put into motion without a force, so there is a force present acting upon that matter causing it to fall down. It's very simple stuff...and Flat Earth is just in stark denial when they argue against gravity pretending it doesn't exist. It is probably the easiest force to verify...drop something, now why did it fall? Logically, Flat Earth has no answer...just desperate ramblings that are more akin to ramming a square peg into a round hole.
Anyway, that gets into Flat Earths flawed argument for gravity itself. Feel free to let me know if you feel I've missed anything here, next comment I'll get back to your airplane observation and questions and answer that question a little further.
1
-
1
-
@tyshonjackson783 Alright, back to your main question with the plane.
So yes, as you rise up you are resisting gravity. Your body is always accelerating down, so that force is increased as you rise up and away from it, which creates inertia on your body as you rise up, which you feel. It doesn't go straight up though, you rise at an angle in planes, and not a very steep one for most the flight either. The steepest angle is during take off and landing, but I digress.
So you're trying to make an argument, that because a plane has to arc with the Earth, it's technically dropping down relative from a starting position...and you seem to feel that it's as considerable of a drop as when the plane is rising to elevation, so why don't we feel that? It's a good question, but again, it tells me that you're misunderstanding how gravity works.
What you're saying would only be true, if you actually were falling, while the plane arced downward with curvature of the Earth...and you're not. Gravity always pulls you to center, so what this means is that elevation is measured from that center. The closer you are to center, the lower your elevation, the further from center, the higher you are. So long as your distance from center of Earth remains the same, then your elevation from center of mass remains the same as well. So you're not really falling at all as you arc with the curvature, and that's what you're misunderstanding.
Gravity is the same everywhere, always pointing towards center, so this creates what is called an equipotential surface, that is the same all around the Earth. Here is a great description I've found from the Walter Bislin blog on exuipotential gravity, explaining it a bit further; "Each equipotential surface on earth is a sphere (or more accurate an ellipsoid) around the center of the planet, because on such a sphere the distance to the center of the earth is the same everywhere and thus the gravitational potential (attraction) on this sphere is the same everywhere. The equipotential spheres build layers of spheres with decreasing potential (attraction) with increasing distance from the center of the earth. So every equipotential surface is a sphere around the earth." You can find that quote here at the Walter Bislin "finding the curvature" blog http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth#H_How_Gravity_bends_Water_around_the_Earth. Which is also a great resource that has documented many examples of observations and experiments done to find curvature on our Earth, so definitely worth checking out if this discussion truly interests you that much.
So you're not really falling as a plane dips or rises to meet curvature, because distance from the Earth is what defines falling and also how gravity works. If gravity is always pulling down to center, then the gravity vector direction shifts with you as you travel across the surface of Earth.
So when Flat Earth makes an argument like that...all you're doing is misunderstanding how gravity works. Your argument fails to realize the direction gravity is really pulling you on a sphere. I realize for some to wrap there heads around a gravity vector paths on a sphere...but if you want to argue against the model, then I'm afraid you have to understand it better.
Aside from that, it takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree of angular change on our Earth. So a plane is only really arcing 1 degree of inclination...every 70 miles. That is SUPER gradual, which means even if I were to agree they were falling, it's certainly not fast enough for your body feel any G force inertia.
1
-
@tyshonjackson783 "You didn't want to jump to conclusions but you did anyway.
"
Sigh...typical Flat Earther, thinking in absolutes. I knew you were misunderstanding gravity, so I could conclude that much, that you were misunderstanding something about gravity. That much was clear from your original comment, what wasn't clear right away and why I didn't want to go any further at first, was exactly WHAT you were misunderstanding. Your original comment was a bit garbled and honestly a bit hard to follow, because of the way you worded things. So I didn't want to jump to any further conclusions about WHAT exactly you were misunderstanding about Gravity. One of the biggest problems with this whole argument, is miscommunication, I prefer knowing all the details and getting to the core of your arguments, before I assume to much and misrepresent your arguments, that's how strawmans are made unintentionally...and I try my best to avoid that if possible.
1
-
@tyshonjackson783 There aren't a million satellites in orbit right now...there's only about 2200 currently in orbit at the present time. Far from a million I'd hope you'd agree. There hasn't even been a million satellites launched yet in total...that number is still only about 9000, maybe 10,000 at the most. 2200 are all that's currently operational and that hasn't fallen back to Earth yet. So...maybe get your facts straight.
"we don't ever see one viewing the planet outter space no matter how many times THEY CLAIM TO CIRCLE IT"
Not true, we have several in orbit right now that are currently taking live video and pictures every few minutes around the clock. Himawari 8, DSCOVRY, GOES 15-17, just to name a few. You can search any of those satellites at any time, to see some of the many photos they have taken already, Himawari 8 even has a live feed website, so just give them a search sometime. Here's a neat trick you can do with these weather satellites. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOYssZQ3D2Q
Most satellites are not built for that purpose and most are only in low Earth orbit. It requires they be in geostationary orbit to take full images of Earth, which is about 25,000 miles from surface and currently only a few hundred of those satellites occupy these regions. I can share many videos and pictures from these satellites if you'd like, but here's one video I will share for now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t=348s This is a group of hobbyists that build their own radio telescopes out of cheap materials, which they then use to track these geostationary weather satellites in orbit and pull data from. They have pulled several of their own images from these satellites, so it's worth taking a look if you are not convinced as of yet that satellites exist. I can provide further resources that help to verify them even further if you'd like, so feel free to ask anytime. I find these guys quite interesting though and most convincing, just because of how much they understand about this technology...it's quite impressive what they're capable of and it really shows you what REAL experts can tell you about these things, shining a real light on something that Flat Earth approaches with nothing but pure ignorance.
The day YOU can build your own radio telescopes from scratch AND use them to track and pull data from satellites...is the day we will MAYBE take the words of a conspiracy nut seriously. You are a layman, that has generated shallow conclusions, from a lack of knowledge. Jumping to conclusions based on assumptions and misunderstandings...but not from actual knowledge and experience. You're just doing what Layman do best, chase bias, over react and GROSSLY over estimate yourselves...with no real reason too.
1
-
1
-
@tyshonjackson783 I really don't care about a persons associations, only that they have evidence I can verify for myself. Maybe YOU prefer speculating endlessly about a persons associations, putting more value on the source of information rather then the information itself, but I'd rather examine the science and information itself and see if it holds up upon my own review. You can babble on all day about some evil "they" that you can speculate about endlessly and blame all your problems on, but I really don't give a shit. If the science is good and it's accurate, and if it's now graduated to applied sciences we can use for innovation, invention and engineering...then I really don't care where that knowledge came from, we have it now and it works. The proof is in the pudding, you're currently making use of that science with pretty much every modern technology you take for granted today....so whine about where it came from all you'd like and speculate about some evil entity you believe exists, all I care about is whether the science makes sense to me or not. And it does, I understand a lot of it perfectly well and I reached those understandings on my own, through my own research and reproduction of certain experiments.
1
-
1
-
@tyshonjackson783 Why just one? I'll share several.
Here is a simple recreation of the Eratosthenes experiment, except this is expanded to include many more data sets, from several different locations all around the world, during the Equinox. The original Eratosthenes experiment was only designed to measure the Circumference of the Earth, but it is true that with only 2 data sets taken, it does not actually prove a Globe. But taking several more shadow angle measurements can help to not just measure curvature, but also verify it as well. The hypothesis is simple, do shadow angles support a local Sun with angled sunlight over a Flat surface, or a large far away Sun with angles of sunlight that arrive parallel over a Globe Earth? If the shadow angles when plotted on a Flat Earth by latitude pin point a local Sun, then the data will support the Flat Earth hypothesis. If they do not pin point a local Sun but do line up parallel when the data is plotted by latitude on the Globe, then the data supports a Globe Earth hypothesis. Pretty simple stuff. So here is two times, during two different years that this experiment was conducted by this user.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno - mostly just data recording and a further break down of the test being done, so if you're pressed for time, just start watching at the 6 minute mark where they share the results of the experiment. The shadow angles did not pin point a local sun, but they did line up parallel when plotted on the Globe. Conclusion, the experiment supports the Globe Earth hypothesis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=317s - this time they plotted the data over several different proposed versions of the Flat Earth. Again, none of the angles line up and pointed to a local Sun, but they did again line up parallel over a Globe Earth. Conclusion, the experiment supports the Globe Earth hypothesis.
Now here's a version of this same experiment done by a different user, this time using time and date dot com data, and plotting the data over a 3D version of the AE Flat Earth projection, to help you see with a little more clarity, that the shadow angles do not intersect and point to any local Sun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nzEhDX-xzg
These are all repeatable experiments, taking real world PHYSICAL measurements of Sun shadow angles. Each time this experiment is repeated, it verifies curvature AND a distant Sun, with parallel sunlight. I have yet to see Flat Earth recreate this experiment...for good reason, much easier to just stay ignorant.
Here's another great experiment that helps to measure and observe curvature. A recreation of the simple Bedford Level experiment, recreated over a frozen lake surface. This time done MUCH more in depth, taking physical measurements, photos and video, as well calculating predictions before hand. This is how a REAL scientific experiment is conducted and this is generally what actual published scientific papers look like...so it's quite thorough, so pay attention.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
The Beford Level experiment has been repeated many times and upon every recreation of the experiment, the conclusion is the same, the Earth is curving. The original experiment conducted by Rowbotham is now confirmed to have been an example of a sloppy experiment to confirm a bias. The Flat Earth conclusion he reached fails upon all peer review of his experiment, falsifying his conclusion and confirming that he reached his conclusion due to an experiment that was poorly done and designed to confirm his bias.
Now for an easy one that even YOU could recreate. A common claim of Flat Earth is that horizon always rises to eye level. They say this because if the Earth were Flat, then it would rise to eye level. If the Earth were a Globe, then it would actually drop from eye level as you go higher in elevation. But in all the years I've been researching this topic (3 years at this point) I have NEVER seen them actually bother to TEST or MEASURE their conclusion. Which makes their claim here...an empty claim with no backing.
So can you measure horizon drop? Of course you can, here are two ways you can do it. Two VERY simple experiments that confirm horizon drop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI - a simple leveling rig you can build with basic supplies anyone can find around they're home. The video isn't long and it's pretty simple to understand, so give it a look. As you'll see in this video, as he climbs higher, the horizon begins to drop below the rigging level...which means, as he goes higher, horizon is actually dropping from eye level, which does further support Earth curvature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVTgP-KpyRc - The other method used to measure horizon drop is with a surveyors tool known as a theodolite. It's pretty simple equipment to use, calibrate the theodolite at sea level by lining the cross hairs up with the visible horizon line. Then it can be used to help measure horizon drop as you climb higher, because it is now calibrated for eye level at sea level. As you see in this video above, he has used his theodolite while flying at several thousand feet elevation. The theodolite reading indicates that horizon has dropped, therefore further verifying Earth curvature and horizon drop.
There are more ways to confirm horizon drop...what you should learn from this though, is that Flat Earth makes empty claims like this all the time. Never once have they provided evidence for the claim that horizon always rises to eye level...yet people believe that statement blindly and without question. WHY exactly? For a group who claims to be more skeptical, claiming to never take information at face value...you sure eat up a lot of bullshit empty claims made from Flat Earth gurus online who feed you this garbage information.
So by how much should we expect to see horizon drop on an Earth at the scales we know it to be? Here's a great simulator that can help you out. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth Just click the first yellow tab labelled "Curve" and watch the demo from there. What this simulator does is calculates the drop from eye level for you, using a to scale representation of the Globe. It's pretty handy and you can actually use this simulator to help further confirm the two videos I shared pertaining to horizon drop due to curvature.
Alright, so that's a big dump of information, I have more I can share of course...but I think you'll be ok with just these...I think you get the point...if you even bother to take a look that is. That last link also provides several more observations of curvature, so just go through the yellow tabs and watch the demos sometime, they provide EVEN MORE physical experiments and observations done to verify curvature, so feel free to check em out sometime. My favorite observation in that simulator is the Soundly observations of the Lake Pontchartrain causway bridge in New Orleans. It's a great visual demonstration of curvature, if you want to see it with VISUAL evidence, so I highly recommend you click and watch the Soundly tab in that last link above.
1
-
Alright, so what would you prefer they did instead? Do you have a better method you'd like to propose? You come off as if you're better than all of science...like you have a better more efficient method of science we should be using, so tell me, what have you discovered, engineered or invented? Anything of note that you feel should give you this sort of arrogant confidence in yourself? You just sound smug and envious to me...and most of all ungrateful. It's fine to question science, in fact it's quite logical, but damn dude...you really have a chip on your shoulder for science don't you. Why exactly? You do realize this conversation here is only possible because of science, right? Seems pretty obvious to me that their method is working...you're currently holding a device in your hands that only exists thanks to their current methods. I hope you at the very least can realize that much...I find it a tad amazing that anyone can be this arrogant and ungrateful in today's age...seems we've been a privileged society for far to long if this is the sort of rhetoric we're now getting.
We do not know everything and we likely never will, there is just too much to know, that is the stark reality. Scientists are well aware of that, this is not news to them, they humbly admit it and they welcome any discoveries that CAN prove them wrong...that's what science is really all about, falsification. You really think Einstein got famous for going with the flow? Fuck no...he challenged the work of Newton and he succeeded. That's why he's a household name today...but he was not very popular amongst his peers while he was doing it. The same will happen the day anyone can successfully falsify his work today...but even if they can (and they have been trying) that doesn't mean he'd be completely wrong. He didn't completely obliterate the science of Newton, he merely improved upon it. When Einstein is falsified, the same thing will likely happen, we'll have a more complete picture....that's how science works, one little piece at a time...it's a long process, but it works.
It's impressive we're even able to get this far, given that we basically started with nothing. Little hard to solve a puzzle, when you don't have many of the puzzle pieces...doesn't matter how smart you are (or think you are), you will never solve that puzzle if you don't go looking for the pieces. At least they're trying...what are you doing exactly? Trolling on public forums about your delusions of grandeur...ya, really getting a lot done, way to contribute. :/
So you really think NASA is getting a lot of money do ya? Do you know how many facilities they own around the world and how many employees they pay? 70 million may seem like a lot to you...but to a company that big, it's impressive they can even keep the lights on...especially when ONE rocket launch carries a price tag of half a billion dollars. They really don't get that much of the pie, do me a favor and look up the annual military funding for the US sometime...NASA barely makes pennies compared to the military. If anyone could "solve world hunger", it's the fucking military. Even just 1% of what they get per year would be enough...so why aren't you mad at them? Go ahead and look up their budget sometime...you'll shit yourself.
NASA is a research and development organization...it's important to fund the sciences, that's how a society advances. Any nation that does not fund science and research, is left in the dust...they do not thrive, they struggle. So it is quite necessary, whether you like it or not...or would you prefer we were also one of the poor and hungry? You should be a little more grateful...a lot of technology you use (and likely take for granted), is thanks to the funding of these science institutions, that you seem to think are not important.
All I'm saying is, why such arrogance and disdain for science? Is it envy or do you really feel they're that overrated? Did you have a bad experience or something, or do you just generally hate on any institution of authority? They literally make EVERY technology you enjoy today possible...so why so ungrateful? Do you want more or something? Why? I'm just curious why people are turning their anger on science these days...I fear this is what over privilege looks like.
Again, it's fine to question science, but science is just a tool, it's not your enemy...with respect, I feel your anger is a little misplaced.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@swanm3ta850 Ok, Rowbotham conducted a sloppy experiment, that was only designed to confirm his bias and then he stopped looking. He only took ONE data set, from ONE observation and then somehow thought this was good enough. Then he made it worse by doing some bad math, and then never checked to make sure he was using the proper math for his observation. Which means, his experiment is inconclusive, due to the experimenter not doing enough to reach an actual conclusive result. It is the perfect example of a bias experiment and it's taught to undergraduates of science today, to illustrate the dangers of conducting sloppy experiments. It is a clear cut case of confirmation bias, it's also one of the many examples for why peer review is so important to the process of science. Peer review catches errors and bias such as this...which is exactly how science dismissed his conclusion. Upon all peer review, his version of this experiment is labelled inconclusive. Not because it's a bad experiment mind you, it's actually pretty clever (I'll give him that much), just because he wasn't objective in his efforts, he was deeply bias and because of that, he only went so far to confirm that bias...which is pretty typical from flat Earth actually.
Here is a proper recreation of this experiment. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment THIS is how you do things properly. Account for every variable, take multiple data sets over several days, create the experiment so you can control for every known variable and conduct control experiments to account for any hidden variables. Most of all...use the correct math, that adds variables for height of the observer, height of the objects and refraction. If you'll pay attention to the second half of that report, it has a whole section on refraction...it is a very important variable to factor. Rowbotham took no such effort to account for any of these variables...all he cared about, was confirming his bias.
So that's why his experiment was dismissed and deemed inconclusive. It's the perfect example of science done wrong.
1
-
Been looking at the Flat Earth mess for over 3 years now....still a Globe Earther. In fact I'm more of a Globe Earther today then I ever was before, because now I know and understand how mankind reached that conclusion, from the science to the history. And I agree with that conclusion, the evidence is more than substantial. I'd agree though that not all Flat Earthers are stupid...and that's what makes it even more frustrating and a little scary. It's proof that even intelligent people can lose their minds to paranoia, if they don't learn how to control their bias.
Science learned a long time ago that confirmation bias was a flaw of man, so they developed the peer review system to combat this flaw. We are intelligent and curious creatures, but our ego is a problem...it gets in the way of ability to remaining objective...which is VERY important in science. Some people realize this...others, never figure that out, even though they're quite intelligent by all other measure. That is why the peer review system is so crucial to the process of science...it is there to weed out errors, lies and bias. It works, because though a individual is limited in its own ability to spot its flaws...our peers on the other hand, have no such limitation. Our peers can't wait to tear us apart.
Eric Dubay though...I'm sorry, but he is nothing but a lying narcissist. His claims sound convincing on the surface, because of his mastery of hypnotic suggestion and gish gallop argumentation, but when you really look at his claims one by one, and break them down objectively...you learn pretty quickly that he has NO IDEA what he's talking about. Just watch this video here of an actual experienced paleontologist, breaking down one of Eric Dubay's rants on how dinosaurs are fake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knWCsonQVG4&t=668s Give it a watch, and pay attention to how many lies this guy catches in just a short time. They don't even get through 5 minutes of Eric's video...and he probably points about 30 or so lies.
Eric Dubay lies like breathing....this is not a man anyone should just listen to blindly and without question. He is the poster boy for what a con man is.
1
-
1