Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
Alright, here's a few good ones I found in a quick google search. Is your search bar broken?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGGYYqDDfRI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMfQHzjNvRU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlURVCK5ujo&feature=youtu.be
These are all showing footage of rockets being launched, uncut, from ground to space. However, these are still only low Earth orbit launches, to get a full picture of the Earth, you need to reach a geostationary orbit (about 25,000 km). That takes hours to days to achieve, so any footage like that would be super long. I think the shortest time they can put a Satellites into GEO is about 5 and a half hours, so if you're willing to watch 5 and a half hours of raw footage, be my guest, I'm sure it exists online somewhere, but these are good enough for me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinensunsa That's not the only actual picture of Earth, the Blue Marble photo was one of THOUSANDS of photos taken during the Apollo missions...why people think they took just one photo, is just odd to me...why would you think they'd only take one photo? These photos are archived all over the internet, here's one such archive. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/with/72157656739898544 And that's just the Apollo missions, then you got the Galileo spacecraft footage, the ISS, the Sky Lab footage and all the geostationary satellites (Himawari 8, GOES 15-17, DSCOVRY) that are in orbit right now that take round the clock footage of Earth from space. We have more than enough footage of Earth...it still doesn't do anything for these people. They are delusional...we're not dealing with rational people here, we're dealing with paranoia and ignorance. Nothing short of launching them into space will convince them...but even then, they'd find a way to rationalize it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The math doesn't work because it's the wrong math, It's really that simple. 8 inches per mile squared is a simple parabolic arc equation and it only measures a drop from a tangent line at your feet....it doesn't represent horizon or tell you where it is, it doesn't represent line of sight and doesn't derive a figure for what is hidden from your line sight, it doesn't include variables for height of the observer, height of the object being viewed, tilt angles, arc length, refraction index, etc. So it is simply the wrong math to use for what Flat Earth uses it for, it is missing a LOT of variables required to make the observation conclusive. Simple rule of thumb in mathematics, use the wrong math for the wrong job and you will reach a false conclusion. It's important to double check your equations to make sure you're using the correct ones. If you're curious what the correct math is, here's a blog that can help you. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/
If you click this link, pay attention to the diagram you see in the first post. Notice the dotted line labelled "Surface Level", that is the tangent line 8 inches per mile is measuring from, now notice the solid black line going down from there to surface labelled "Drop" , that's the drop that 8 inches per mile squared is calculating for, the numbers it gives you are from that tangent line down to surface (though it even does that poorly, it's only accurate for about 100 miles, cause it's not a spherical equation it's a parabola equation). Now pay attention to the observer labelled "Eye" and the solid green line coming out from there down to the horizon labelled at X. THAT is your actual line of sight, notice how that green line is able to see WELL UNDER the "Surface Level" line? Flat Earth claims you can't see anything below that surface level line, that's what they're bad math is basically telling you, anything under that surface level line, is not visible...but in reality, we see WAY BELOW that tangent line...the horizon is way below it and so is your line of sight, and so are objects within your line of sight.
I hope that helps illustrate things better. It is the wrong math, it's really that simple. Most people are not mathematicians though and don't know where to even begin looking for the correct math. Flat Earth knows this, and they use peoples general lack of math knowledge against them. It's basically the equivalent of a slight of hand trick. They tell you "this is the math for curvature" you believe them, keeping your eye on the math they're waving in front of you, rather then questioning it to make sure they're not just lying to you. But they are lying, so it should be the first red flag for anyone, that these people are huxters. They don't really care about what's true, they care about what they WANT to be true. These use bad math to convince people of a great many things....what's sad is people generally don't have the time or knowledge to refute them, so they fall for it.
Not the general public's fault really, math is hard and kind of boring, it's these flat Earther people who are to blame...many of them know full well their math is wrong, they still push it anyway.
1
-
1
-
Clouds are moving if you haven't noticed and there absolutely is parallax occurring in the stars...that's exactly how they measure their distances from us, using what's called the parallax method. If you were a trained astronomer who actually spent their nights observing and recording the sky, this would be common knowledge to you...but you're not, because if you were then you wouldn't be so damn ignorant. You're just another layman making assumptions, based around a lack of knowledge and experience, doing what layman do best. Chase bias, jump to false conclusions and over estimate themselves.
Learn some physics, start with the Laws of Motion and Relative motion, it explains the movements of the planet and how they're possible. Look up the parallax method for measuring the distance of stars, it's just a quick YouTube or google search away and it's one of many methods they use. Then if you're still not satisfied, try recreating the method...actually LEARN about these things first hand, instead of assuming you know everything already. Then maybe you won't be so damn ignorant.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 You gotta do a lot more then just watch a time lapse in a single night. They measure the parallax in arc seconds...which is a measurement FAR to small for your crappy human eyes to see alone, you gotta look a lot closer to see the parallax but it is there and any amateur astronomer would confirm this. You know, actual experts who know what they're talking about. It is also typically recorded months apart from each other, while the Earth has moved significantly over several months, making these arc seconds of measurement much easier to see. Again, if you were an astronomer, you wouldn't be making these sorts of ignorant arguments...but you don't have to be, maybe just take the time and talk to one.
"And if the earth is a spinning ball, rotating at 1024 mph at the equator, it would create strong winds in one direction." Ever heard of the jet stream? That's how they believe the jet stream occurs, or at least part of the reason. But no, you're also reaching a conclusion based around an assumption you have, an assumption born from a lack of knowledge and understanding of both motion and the atmosphere. You don't really know, you just think you know, filling the gaps in your knowledge with assumptions. This is an error in reasoning.
"Also you can't have a pressurised atmosphere and a vacuum alongside each other" Says who? I think you've spent too much time listening blindly to Flat Earth con men, telling you some bullshit about how atmospheric pressure works. First of all, space doesn't suck, it's not a vacuum cleaner, the word vacuum has two definitions, one being this "a place void of matter", which is all space is. It generates no suction force, it can't physically do that, so it can't pull on our atmosphere. There is entropy, but what Flat Earthers don't tell you is that entropy is a constant but it can be slowed and contained. A simple thermos you use to keep your coffee hot is perfect example of that, slowing entropy. Earth does that as well, but much more efficiently. Entropy will always win, but it's going to take billions of years in the case of our Earth, because new gas is being generated constantly and not much ever really escapes, thanks to gravity.
There is also a difference between gas pressure and atmospheric pressure. One is created by a container forcing gas into a smaller volume causing more collisions between molecules to create a consistent pressure throughout the container, while the other is created by the weight of the gas above pressing down on the gas below to create a gradient of pressure, going from most pressure at surface to least pressure at the top (more molecular collisions at surface, less and less the higher you go). This is confirmed, the atmosphere is measured to grow thinner as you climb higher in altitude, anyone hiking up a hill with a barometer in hand can confirm this. This is because as you go higher, there is less and less molecules of air, matter stacking on top of matter...so what happens when you run out of matter to stack? You essentially have space and we've measured it, there is empty space up there...yet no container to be found. Gravity is the container, gravity causes atmospheric pressure, it starts the motion of these molecules DOWN towards the surface, beginning the stacking of matter which generates pressure. This is a measured pressure gradient, which is not seen in containers undergoing gas pressure, only our atmosphere has this gradient...and it correlates with what we understand about gravity. GRAVITY is the container. And since space has no means to trump gravity, that gas has nowhere else to go except towards the only force in the area attracting it.
You're reaching a false conclusion based around a lack of knowledge again, basic lack of understanding between the difference of gas pressure and atmospheric pressure. We have measured the vast emptiness of space, so there is evidence for it. On the flip side we have never found a dome, there is no evidence in support of it. Yet you have chosen to accept this dome, even though there is ZERO tangible evidence for its existence, only a lot people misunderstanding physics. Meanwhile we have measured the atmospheric pressure of our Earth and it reaches zero eventually. So what do you want us to conclude exactly? It's not from lack of trying, but we have no evidence in support of a dome. We have not interacted with it in anyway. It is a physical object correct? It would have to be in order to be this container you seem to think is there, so why haven't we been able to bounce lasers or radar off of it yet? We do both with the Moon and we even bounce Radar off of Venus to clock its distance....why haven't we hit a dome yet? We're talking hundreds of thousands of miles, still we have not hit a dome with either lasers or radar. So we have no evidence for this dome, so why are you so quick to assume it's up there?
Have you ever considered the possibility, that MAYBE you're just misunderstanding how physical reality works? That MAYBE the very people you listen to blindly, ALSO don't really know shit about how reality works and are LYING to you? Does that thought ever cross your mind?
I have researched deep on this topic, been doing so for 3 years now, and I didn't just stop once my bias was confirmed, I kept going. So don't mistake me for a person who is new to this topic, on the soul basis that I did not reach the same conclusion as you did.
The Flat Earth is convincing on the surface, but that's all. Once you REALLY go through it, you find where it goes wrong every single time.
The artificial horizon has what are called pendulous veins, these are designed to correct it while in flight to remain level with the surface. The way they work is by dropping hinges that open up channels of air, that let a sensor indicator know that it is not level with surface anymore. This then kicks on a motor, which applies a torque, which corrects the gimble. It uses gravity vectors to achieve this, as you travel along Earth, you shift in gravity vectors, which are always pointing down towards center of mass. Gravity causes the hinges to drop, so they use gravity to correct the gyros in an artificial horizon. If the Earth wasn't curved, they would not require these pendulous veins. Do some more research on artificial horizons, you're reaching more bias conclusions based around a lack of knowledge on their mechanics.
That's the trouble here. You're not an expert on any of these subjects...but you HAVE to be, in order to REALLY see how Flat Earth is conning you. They've gone down deep, deeper then most people are willing to go and there is so much science you have to learn to figure out how they've lied to you.
I commend people for asking questions, that's exactly what science is all about, asking questions. So don't let me discourage you, it's completely logical to question what you're told. But I believe you're assuming a lot and chasing a lot of bias, so all I ask is that people learn to counter their bias and maybe for a change question the people feeding you all this Flat Earth info. Don't just listen to them blindly either, question everything.
I'm more then happy to keep going if you'd like to have a civil discussion from the opposite perspective. I do not do this to mock your efforts, but I don't pull my punches either, I'm just here to offer some information you may have not come across as of yet and I'm here to help you challenge what you think you know, in the process I hope to do the same for myself. So feel free.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 Just one more point I missed I'd like to give some explanation for. "And there is a reason why a helicopter can't give hover over the equator and wait for its destination to arrive." Sure, a Flat Earth can explain why a helicopter doesn't hover away, but so can a Globe, because of the Laws of Motion, most notably Conservation of Momentum and Relative Motion, which is real physics that does occur in our reality. Are you aware of this physics? Do you understand it? If not, then it's pretty simple to see how you've reached the conclusion you have above. Without an understanding of this physics, of course you're going to assume the Globe doesn't make sense.
A helicopter took off from the surface of the Earth and so it was conserving the momentum of the Earth, it is moving relative too the Earths rotation. The same physics can be seen while in any moving vehicle. Next time you're in a moving vehicle of any kind, toss a ball up in the air and catch it...did the ball go smashing into your face, or did it go straight up and then drop straight down back into your hand?
Here's a pretty good demonstration of conservation of momentum and relative motion, to help confirm this science a little more for you. https://imgur.com/gallery/70m3Fku Notice how this guy keeps landing dead center of the trampoline, even though it's being pulled out from under him by the tractor while he's in the air? By your understanding of motion, he should fall behind and the trampoline should pull ahead, but that's not how motion works in reality. He will forever conserve the momentum of the surface he left from and that he is moving relative too. This is true of all things in motion, it is the first Law of Motion. All things in motion stay in motion, the only thing that will slow him down is an apposing equal or greater force or mass. In his case wind resistance (drag force), because the air is moving relative to the Earth, while he is moving relative to the Trampoline, so he's moving through an apposing mass. But it's pretty negligible at his speed, so there isn't much drag force occurring here, so it's a great test for conservation of momentum.
A helicopter is no different, when it takes off it is conserving the momentum of the Earth, moving WITH its rotation at all times, so at no point will the ground shift beneath it, because it's always going to be moving with it. Which is the case with our atmosphere as well. Here's another great experiment demonstrating conservation of momentum with a drone in a moving vehicle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIycHlAsDZk&t=152s Here's another with a helium balloon on a moving train. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18Dyl2msozc
Does this prove motion? No, of course not, it's just a short explanation on the physics of motion. But it does explain how the motions of our planet are possible, that is just a small sample of what the Laws of Motion and Relative Motion can help you understand about motion in our physical reality. You probably heard all of this before in high school, it's physics 101, but did you understand it at the time? Do you even really remember learning it? We do learn this stuff in school...but very few of us absorb it and understand it I feel.
So the Globe does account for its motions, so this is not a hole of the model like so many seem to believe. Again, people are just reaching false conclusions, due to a lack of knowledge of physics.
But it is fair to ask for proof of a rotating, orbiting Earth. Like I said, nothing I said above verifies the motions of the Earth, it only explains how it's possible. So if you'd like I can share a few of the ways we've verified our Earths rotation.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 No, I'm not just reciting from books, I've learned a lot of this stuff first hand, but you sure are reciting a lot of the same things from Flat Earthers. Which is ironic, I think Flat Earth should really look up the definition of indoctrination, if they would like to keep using that word, they better make sure they're not falling victim to it themselves. With a good enough telescope and just a few months of your time, ANYONE can measure the parallax and drift of certain stars. The further away they get, the harder it gets to use this method, requiring stronger telescopes, but there are a few choice stars pretty much any amateur astronomer can track and measure parallax with. Look up Barnard's star, this is a great star a lot of astronomers begin tracking when they're just starting out. You can notice it's drift from opposing stars in just a few years of tracking and parallax within a couple months. Here is a great research paper done on this very star, should help give you some further info. https://vanderbei.princeton.edu/tex/BarnardStar/BS.pdf
1
-
@rayrayner4426 "They disappear into the "vanishing point" and any good zoom lens or telescope will show that." Is that right, tell me if you think zooming in any closer will make the bottom of this boat return. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ObTd7DLMw&t=20s Or these boats https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKF7D7XsyTA. These turbines https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQI18jr8Oc&t=21s. Just a small sample of the hundreds of examples that exist today, that I'm sure no Flat Earth channel will ever show you. Leave the camera on while you have it zoomed in, these boats will still disappear bottom first, doesn't matter how much zoom you apply. So the simple explanation here, is that if you can bring a boat back with a zoom, it has not reached horizon yet, it has just reached vanishing point. They are not the same thing.
This is an avenue where I do feel patronized a bit, because I am an artist for a living, illustration is my profession, so I don't just understand perspective, I practice it, I study the fundamentals of it (including vanishing point), and then I apply that knowledge in the work that I do for a living. Of course you couldn't have known that until now, but just know that I'm far from a slouch on that topic. It's what got me into this whole argument in the first place, because I knew right away they were bullshitting about perspective and the vanishing point, filling the gaps in peoples knowledge with the bullshit of their choosing...like they've done with most things. These are concepts I work with directly and have worked with for decades now. You might have learned about the vanishing point a few months ago, maybe a couple years ago....heck maybe even yesterday, but I've been practicing these concepts for a very long time. So in this avenue, I would consider myself an expert on the topic. Not saying I can't still learn something, I don't claim to know everything, just try not to patronize me here, when it comes to perspective or optics in general.
The vanishing point is not the horizon, they are two separate things. Vanishing point can happen from any angle, it does not always converge at horizon. Vanishing point is just the point where something has shrunk so much in angular size due to perspective and distance, that it is has gone past your eyes visual limits to render that light visible to you. People assume it always converges at horizon, because most of the time we observe it happening with objects relative to the surface with us...but with objects that are high in the sky, if they were to keep going perpendicular to our eyes in a direction that is not towards horizon, they will reach a vanishing point here as well, without ever coming close to the horizon. If the Earth were Flat, then we would expect certain things to NEVER reach the horizon, they would reach vanishing point long before then. This rule would hold true the higher they are. A perfect example is the Sun and the Moon.
Your vanishing point argument is great and all, but it ignores the Sun and the Moon. With how high these objects are (even on a Flat Earth model), clocked at several hundred to thousands of miles off the surface (for them to make any logical sense), at these heights they would never reach horizon due to perspective. Even if I agreed they could, they would shrink immensely before ever getting there, and they would do that because of perspective. So I find it convenient that some fundamentals of perspective are called upon to explain one occurrence and then ignored when talking about another.
When we model this in 3D to scale, this is exactly what we see occur. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg&t=85s This is a model demonstrating a Flat Earth with a Sun traveling above in a circle. Notice how the Sun never comes close to the horizon? There's even a point where they place the Moon directly on the surface, looking at it from a 6ft elevation and it never sets, even while placed directly on the surface at thousands of miles from observer.
Perspective could MAYBE do what you're claiming to boats that are on the surface with us. Refraction is a bitch and makes it very hard to determine a lot of things in our atmosphere, especially close to horizon, but not the Sun, not the Moon. These objects would never set on a Flat Earth, perspective and vanishing point, not even mirages or refraction, these do not explain sunsets and sunrises for a Flat Earth. I'm open to people attempting to look further into these concepts, but I do think they're ramming a square peg into a round hole here.
You're leaning on a bias with your boats over the horizon argument and my guess is you're also using some bad math, cause even that argument is not very sound if I were to get into it. Flat Earth has been using bad math with curvature since the beginning, the 8 inches per mile squared math being the worst offender, but there are plenty of other examples. There is a rule of thumb in mathematics that I think is pretty common sense. That being you ALWAYS make damn sure you're using the correct math for the correct purpose. Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it's that simple. 8 inches per mile squared is absolutely the wrong math for what Flat Earth uses it for, so it generates the wrong figures for them...and then they wonder why they can still see objects further then they think they should. A good researcher would re-examine his math first, and see if maybe it's his math that's wrong...but I don't see any of that occurring with Flat Earthers. They still use the 8 inches math, doesn't seem to matter how many times people tell them it's incorrect for what they're using it for. I can explain it further if you'd like and point you towards the correct math, even go through some examples if you'd like, so feel free to ask.
Anyway, I hope this information is at the very least interesting to you, feel free to let me know if you feel I have overlooked anything and if you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Again, I don't think it's stupid or illogical at all to question what you've been told, it's quite logical in fact, I just hope people remember to be just as skeptical for all information they hear second hand, that includes what they learn from Flat Earth. Even question yourself from time to time, there is always the possibility that YOU are just misunderstanding or lack the details of a concept, to fully understand it. So that's why it's good to review and open up to peer review as well, over confidence can lead down some dark rabbit holes.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 That's fair to point out, but my argument with Barnard's star wasn't to say that I have tracked it, it was just to point out that neither have you, yet you're making absolute claims about the stars anyway. My guess is your only real experience with the stars is the few nights of your life you spent gazing at them for a little bit, and now you think you know everything about them? I may not have tracked Barnard's star (yet), but I have done a lot more then just look at the stars from the ground with my naked eye. I'm what you'd call an amateur astronomer and I have done a few of my own observations. You are likely not an astronomer, you have not actually gone out and tracked the stars or tested and recorded their parallax, so you can't say with any certainty that they do not parallax, and yet that's exactly what you're doing here. You're asserting then that you know more than actual astronomers, while meanwhile arguing with non astronomers or amateurs just getting started (like in my case). Talk to a real astronomer, somebody who has done this research first hand, and see how far that argument will get you. Until then, you're only half right, because I can't make any certainties either without testing it directly myself, so it's a moot argument to make with me, because we're in the same boat at the end of the day.
However, I have done some light astronomy myself, I have observed Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus on many occasions, I have seen their phases and their moons and correlated them with the position of the Sun. I have also traveled to the Southern Hemisphere (New Zealand on two occasions) and observed their different constellations and I have seen the Southern celestial rotation for myself. All of these are problems for the larger Flat Earth model as well, but you'd be correct in saying that I have not tracked Barnard's Star for myself or conducted any 6 month parallax tests of my own, just a lot of second hand research from others who have. But I do plan too actually and more then that, I'll be tracking a few other stars as well, that are also good stars for any amateur astronomer to track to test parallax for themselves. That's the nice thing about this, anyone can do it, they just have to put in a little effort. I'm not lying to you when I say it's a common practice, join up with a local astronomy forum and you'll likely find a section on people tracking parallax. So ya, I'm going to believe these people, over random people on YouTube, who clearly are not astronomers.
The point wasn't to say I have, the point was to make it clear that Flat Earthers make a lot of speculative claims, from the position of a non expert, while meanwhile having zero real training or experience on the subject they argue against and they do that with pretty much every argument. It's not me who is making the claim that the Stars don't Parallax, it is Flat Earthers and they say it as if they know for certain. The difference is, they have not made the observation for parallax, while astronomers have. Burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, so what's boggling to me is that they haven't gone out and become amateur astronomers and TESTED anything for themselves, before they make their claims. There are astronomy clubs you can join in pretty much every community, you don't even need to own the equipment yourself, just tag along and join them sometime, it's very easy to get started. Maybe go out and meet some people who actually HAVE tracked that star and many others. If you know of any Flat Earth astronomers currently doing this, feel free to share, I don't mind taking a look, but to my knowledge currently, there are none...and it's not hard to see why, because then they can't be as ignorant about this. But prove me wrong.
All I'm saying is, If it means that much to Flat Earthers and yourself, then why aren't you doing more? There are many different observations like this that you and anyone can make, that can help confirm or falsify a great many things about our reality. So give it a try, I am just getting started with my astronomy journey and have confirmed a few things already for myself, give me a couple years and that will be one more thing that I have tested for myself.
So I just find it odd is all, that for a group of people who claim to have "done the research", you're really not doing a whole lot, except making speculations. It's not my job to prove the Earth is a Globe to you, only you can do that, I'm just here to share information and have a discussion where ideas are challenged, nothing more. You can take the information or leave it, it really doesn't matter to me, but I do believe you're spreading ignorance, so I'm sharing the information I feel shines a light on that ignorance.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 It's not the only star with visible parallax and there a lot more factors that have deduced these objects to be stars. Planets don't give off their own light, only reflect it, this creates phases that can be visualized. There is also luminosity experiments that tell us how far these objects are by their brightness alone. There is also spectroscopy that can identify that light given off and tell us what the object is made of at a molecular level (stars, like our Sun, are mostly Hydrogen and Helium, it's the same for every star).
Spectroscopy is a very repeatable science in labs, identifying molecules of gas, simply by what patterns of light they absorb. This method works for thousands of light years of distance, as those patterns of light do not change, only shift more and more in the red spectrum the further the stars are...which makes it another useful method for helping us determine the distance and it also confirms a lot of General Relativity, as red shift in stars at distances is predicted under GR.
Spectroscopy is taught in entry level science classes at college and universities (it's also touched on briefly in high school physics) and there are tons of videos on it here on YouTube, so it's not hard to learn about and very simple to reproduce, purchase a spectra emissions spectroscopy kit online or talk to a physics teacher, they'd be happy to show you. Here's a great video explaining what it is and how it works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uPyq63aRvg&t=248s and another one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMCzA9rqJy8. It's settled science and very well understood today, light can be (and is) used to identify gases out in space.
We can't touch a star or planet directly, but we can interact directly with its light, which can actually tell us a LOT more about these objects then most people are aware. Spectroscopy is used to identify gases in laboratories and it helps us identify stars at great distances. Stars are all made of the same components, planets are different, we know when something is a planet, an asteroid, or a star, by identifying what they're made of.
Spectroscopy was used to tell us what our Sun is made of (Hydgrogen and Helium), with that knowledge combined with our understanding of gravity under General Relativity, we were able to deduce how the Sun produces energy, through fusion reactions. Now we use that knowledge to reproduce fusion in labs. When you fuse two molecules of Hydrogen together, you create Helium...what a coincidence, almost like scientists know what they're doing.
So again, there's a lot of science you need to catch up on and stop being so ignorant about. Barnard's star is not the only star that shifts, they all do. Barnard's Star is one of the closest stars to us, which makes its parallax far greater than most, which makes it a great star for amateurs to track, because you don't require much to get started and it doesn't take long to see some motion from this star.
Yes, Orions belt is interesting, the belt itself won't shift out of alignment for millions of years, but the rest of the stars surrounding it that make up the greater Orion constellation, are shifting a lot actually. Astronomers are mapping these motions, and they've plotted future predictions for where they'll be should those shifts continue the way they have since we've been tracking them. But yes, they're well aware Orion's belt shifts slower.
This can be for a lot of reasons, its distance, its path around galactic center relative to us, most likely it could be moving along the exact same ecliptic plane as our Sun, which would make it not much different from cars on a highway traveling at the same speed on a perfectly straight patch of road, in the same direction, at night. You wouldn't see much shift from a cars headlights off in the greater distance, if they were traveling under these conditions, so why do people think the same wouldn't be true for Stars at great distances? From what I understand the rest of the stars however are moving a lot more rapidly, they'll still take thousands of years to make any drastic shifts, but compared to the belt they're shifting a lot more.
I think you're wrestling with your own expectations and making a lot of assumptions because of those expectations. You seem to think the stars should move a lot more then they do, but you are aware how parallax works right? The farther something is, the less it will appear to move, that's parallax in a nutshell. Put Trillions of miles between you and a light source, meaning trillions of miles also separate every other star in the sky, why would you think you'd see more movement? We can only measure the stars in arc seconds, that's all we're able to notice...do you know how far an arc second is in terms of distance, when we're talking about these stars and their distances? I don't exactly know either, but the best information I could find still clocks the average at trillions of miles.
The Earth sweeps a diameter of only 8000 miles, and has only moved about 10 million miles (along with the Sun and solar system) around galactic center in a 24 hour time frame. Sounds impressive to you and me sure, the microscopic life that lives on a spec of dust in the cosmos, who seem to think a mile is a measurement of significance. But to the Stars, this distance is comparable to moving a nano meter in the grand scheme of things, probably even a lot less then that actually.
You're not thinking about this from the galaxies perspective at its true scales, you're thinking about it from your tiny perspective and so these big numbers sound impressive to you...when in reality, they're not at all. Millions of miles is nothing compared to Trillions of miles.
If you REALLY were to think deep on these scales, the stars not moving in our lifetime is actually exactly what you'd expect to see, if the stars actually are at those distances.
So really, what you need to prove to yourself or falsify is those distances, so why not do that? Start the same way we did, start with Moon, figure out all the ways we've figured out that distance, start with the stellar parallax method, then seek out a university doing radar bouncing methods sometime, or even contact someone on an astronomy forum, I guarantee you'll find someone with the equipment who can help you out with laser or radar methods, tech savvy people live everywhere these days. Then do some further research on how we figured out the Astronomical Unit (distance to the Sun, shortened to AU in formulas). There are simple experiments you can try that can help you verify these distances first, then you can move on to the bigger picture, the galaxy and the stars.
There's not much I can do to convince you of anything really, you have to do these experiments for yourself. Some of them we did back in high school, though I understand some people didn't have access to that sort of education...but then there's also a lot who did who just weren't paying attention, so which camp are you? The former can't be helped but the latter...sadly, is far to common.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 My apologies for these responses getting a bit long, I'll try and keep each point as brief as I can, but I like to be thorough.
You keep asking for proofs of rotation, so I'll provide some good ones that I am aware of. Thanks for sticking it out and reading these btw, I do enjoy the discussion, so glad you've found it engaging enough to keep goin. I got some other points on science as a whole, but I'll focus on this for now, just know I'm actually all for Flat Earths current questioning of things, that's exactly what science is all about and these people are not stupid from what I can gather, maybe a little under educated, but who knows, could be a good thing in the end.
So in a previous comment I explained and demonstrated the Laws of Motion and Relative Motion. This science explains how the motions of our planet are possible, but they don't provide proof of that motion, they merely just explain and verify how it's possible. So now here are some great proofs of Earths rotation, all of these are repeatable, some require a bit more time and effort and equipment, but they are all repeatable for the average person, who's willing to put in the time. Some are even done in high school. So I'll start with hardest to easiest.
Ring Laser Gyros - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXYV6wNdZm8&t=9s These gyros are used in planes today to detect pitch, yaw and roll of the plane. They are deadly accurate for detecting rotational motion and they use the sagnac effect to achieve this. Here's a more in depth experiment done with a home built sagnac interferometer (basically a stripped down laser gyro), detecting Earths rotation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_9J_c9Kss&t=348s Here's the best visual representation of the Sagnac Effect I've seen demonstrated so far, if you're like me, I tend to find visuals like these more helpful for learning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk0RvzaHq_Q To summarize, light is shot through a splitting mirror that then travels along two alternate paths, arriving back at a detector. When not in motion, both beams of light arrive at the detector at the same time, when put into a rotation, there is a detectable difference in arrival times between the two, that's the simplest way to explain it. This shift can be measured to give the rate of rotation, which is how it's used in planes. We have been using this very technology to detect Earths rotation for decades now and even Flat Earth has done the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGgxAK9Z5A&t=10s
Gyro Compasses - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPynV68Bg&t=8s The gyro compass is a device used by most modern large passenger/cargo ships who travel internationally. They're far more accurate then your standard magnetic compass because these compasses always point to true north, rather than the magnetic north of standard compasses. What's interesting here, is that they actually use the rotation of the Earth to achieve this. Here's how they do it, ALL mechanical gyros precess. It is a flaw of the mechanical gyro that can't be overcome, because the moving parts have to be touching each other in mechanical gyros, which creates friction, which creates torque, which will move the gyro out of rigidity over time in a steady precession. What some clever engineers noticed however, is that while you can't completely eliminate friction in these mechanical gyros, you can control the friction to set a rate of precession. So what they've done with these gyros, is they have calibrated them to align with the polar axis of our Earth and then have set the precession rate to align with the Earths rate of rotation. Because gyros do keep their rigidity aside from precession, these gyros now will always point to true North and they precess with the rotation of the Earth at the same rate, to achieve that. The fact that these gyros work as intended, verifies the Earths rotation, as the ground would have to be rotating beneath the free spinning rigid gyro, to keep up with that precession. So it's worth looking into and learning more about. You can even purchase your own gyros and create your own Northern aligned precessions.
Foucault Pendulum experiments - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U&t=132s This is one I have seen demonstrated myself, and it's fairly simple to recreate. I'm sure you've heard of these by now, if you've been looking at Flat Earth long enough, this was the very first experiment done that helped verify Earths rotation. So what's happening here, a free swinging pendulum passes through a short change in latitude/longitude while it swings back and forth, which causes it to undergo some Coriolis effect. The Coriolis effect dictates a few rules of thumb, if Earth is rotating, then we'd expect to see a pendulum swing rotate in a specific direction depending on what hemisphere you run the experiment. What the experiment above also points out, is that you can also do more then that, you can also calculate your latitude, by paying attention to the rate at which it rotates. The closer to the Equator you are, the slower it will rotate, the farther you are, the faster. If you were to run this experiment at the Equator, then it wouldn't rotate at all. Here is a quick visual to help understand how it works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s6LrZKgRqY And here's a great video breaking down how you can recreate this experiment for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQoGY3-zGAY&t=391s
I have 2 more experiments, so I'll post those in a separate comment, getting a bit long.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 Here are two more I feel are pretty good proofs of rotation.
Measuring Centrifugal Force at the Equator - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t=241s Many people are not aware of this, but you (and everything) actually weigh different around the world. The equator being the place where you weigh the least. This is due to the centrifugal force generated by Earths rotation, negating a small amount of gravity, about 0.3% at the equator, which causes everything to weigh slightly less. Which is about 0.5 grams difference from a place closer to the tropics of Cancer or Capricorn, not much, but the great thing here, is that it is measurable with cheap standard equipment. So what this guy above has done is a great little experiment anyone could repeat with a bit of travel. What he did was take the same 500 gram weight, using the same scale and then just simply weighed it over and over again, as he traveled closer and closer to the Equator. He took several data sets in a day, throughout the morning evening and night in each location and also over several days in each location, just to make sure he controlled for any flaws of the scale and to test for any time of day effects due to pressure variations in temperature, humidity, weather, etc. Before he left on his trip, he even calculated some predictions for how much Centrifugal force our Earths rotation generates at each latitude and then plotted his predictions onto a simple x and y grid. At the end of his experiment, the math predictions matched with the tested results. The weight weighed less and less the closer he got to the equator, as it should if the Earth were rotating at the rate that it is.
People assume that our Earths rotation should generate a lot more Centrifugal force....but they reach this conclusion, because they really don't know how Centrifugal force works or how to accurately calculate it. All they hear is the 1000 mph rim speed of Earth, and then jump to conclusions based around that. You can tell me I'm wrong, but that's exactly what Flat Earth does, I've never once seen them attempt to understand the physics of Centrifugal force, they just make assumptions about it. Centrifugal force is caused by a sudden or rapid change in angular velocity and the biggest factor to its increase is not so much speed, as it is RPM's (rotations per minute). These are not the same, as you increase the circumference of a rotation, it requires more linear speed to complete the same rotations, but the rotations are still the same and the angular velocity decreases. The more rotations per minute, the more Centrifugal force, that's a good rule of thumb really. Distance and speed do play their rolls, but it's more the rotational rate that increases this forces output. The Earth rotates at a rate of 1 full rotation every 24 hours, which is twice as slow as the hour hand of a clock. So the Centrifugal force generated by our Earth, is not as great as many would assume...Flat Earth throws around the 1000 mph rim speed of the Earth, but pays zero attention to understanding the physics of Centrifugal force. When you actually figure out the science, you can then figure out how much our planet generates at it's peak (the equator), it only negates 0.3% of Earths gravity. Which is nowhere near enough to overcome gravity and toss you into space, but it is enough for us to be able to measure it. So this makes for a great experiment to verify rotation. If the Earth is rotating at the rate we know it to be, then those weights should decrease in weight the closer to the equator they get. When this is tested, that's exactly what we find. Here are a couple more of the same experiment, done by others, all receiving the same results. Feel free to repeat it, it only requires weights, a scale and some travel, pretty simple stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkhxPm15PFo&t=282s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agQnj1q2Y08
Coriolis Effect experiment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38&t=16s You know what Coriolis effect is I'm sure, so I won't go into this one to much. This experiment is pretty simple to repeat, just requires some set up and if you want to get really crazy with it a buddy in the apposing hemisphere repeating the test to observe the opposite rotation. The video also breaks down Coriolis a little more in depth, cause I get the feeling a lot of people aren't even quite aware how it works. They know what it is, but very few seem to know how it works, so this video explains it pretty well. It's just a difference of distance vs speed caused by conservation of momentum while passing through increasingly shorter lines of latitude from Equator to pole. Objects conserve the momentum of the place they left from, but a rotating globe surface is going to be rotating increasingly slower the closer to the poles you get, meaning the object conserving a faster momentum is going to pull ahead of the slower inertial reference frame (the slower moving latitude), causing it to arc (or appear to arc, it's just pulling ahead really) and in the case of draining water, rotate in a specific direction. This experiment verifies the difference between the hemispheres, but you can verify at least one rotation on your own without a buddy, it's just better to have a buddy to really confirm.
So that's a short list of some great experiments and proofs that help to verify Earths rotation. These are the easily repeatable experiments, of course the larger science community has taken things even further, by placing satellites into orbit that basically confirms things at the visual level. There are also purely observational and mathematical proofs, that have to do with tracking the various planetary motions of our solar system and then calculating predictions...but these are not easy to reproduce, unless your math and knowledge of astronomy are way above average. Also included is the mathematics that predicts solar and lunar eclipses...they require our knowledge of the Earths shape, scale, rotation be accurate in order to accurately calculate, but again, not simple math at all to reproduce, not impossible for the average joe, but far from easy.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 Yes, it's all good, I suppose we're all a bit patronizing to each other until we really get down to what people know and have experience with. Gotta have a thick skin to have these discussions I find, so I don't take anything personally, I understand it's a heated topic and everybody has their shields up, I just enjoy sharing and discussing what I've learned and hopefully I learn something new in the process. Teaching was my other choice position before I decided to become an artist, so I've always enjoyed sharing knowledge and explaining it as best I can, physics and science especially.
Anyway, yes, I have looked into the other explanations, though I wasn't aware of the claim that the Aether moves at a steady 15 degrees per hour, I'd be interested to see what experiment verifies this claim though, as that is new to me. The Michelson Morley I feel is a very misunderstood experiment, that gets tossed around from one bias to the next. What's important to note with this experiment is that it's inconclusive, for any of the conclusions it was setting out to verify. It's main goal was to find the Aether, it failed. It also failed in its other possible conclusion, is the Earth stationary, Flat Earth seems to think it succeeded here, but that's not true, it's inconclusive as well. So the entire experiment is inconclusive, even Michelson and Morley agreed with that final verdict, so because it is inconclusive, it can't be used to verify or support any position...to do so would be applying bias. So here's what happened, back in that time (and still today) the Aether had zero evidence, only hypothesis, while the motion of the Earth had evidence and now today has even more. So it was a bit of a no brainer for the scientific community, they are going to support the position that has evidence over the one that doesn't. But others kept trying to find the Aether and they failed too, one experiment is even named for that failure (Airy's failure).
But science is all about peer review, so it's great that people are going back into the science and reviewing it.
I'm also aware that Flat Earth uses Electromagnetism to explain a lot of things...everything from gravity, to Coriolis, to pendulum rotation, to explaining what keeps the Sun and Moon in the sky. The trouble here is that magnetism is also well understood in physics and I've seen no solid attempts at proving that it is magnetism that explains all these occurrences, it's mostly just a hunch they seem to have, so it's a lot of speculative claims and not much actual evidence. I've even looked into the Thuderbolt project and all their claims...and boy do they got some wild theories about magnetism, yet still nothing tangible that has verified any of what they claim, just a lot of hypothesis that has not been verified yet. Have you heard of their claim that craters on the Moon are not actually from asteroids, but from lightning that is shot out from Earth? Even though no such occurrence has ever been documented...yet asteroids hitting the Moon has. Even though Mercury, Mars, Titan, Pluto, etc. all have craters as well. No, I think it's a lot of wishful thinking, to explain away these occurrences with magnetism. Especially since a Flat Earth can't even explain HOW our electromagnetic field is even generated.
Have you ever looked into the field of Seismology? It's pretty interesting stuff, because it's the science that we've used to figure out the Earths inner composition. Using the shockwaves of great Earthquakes, to help tell us a lot about our Earths inner core. Not only that, it also adds even more evidence confirming the Globe. We have thousands of seismic reading stations all around the planet, what's interesting is that when an Earthquake greater than 8.0 strikes on Earth, the shock waves from that Earthquake circumnavigate the Globe, and then return back to the epicenter of the quake. The only way these shockwaves could do that, is if the Earth were a Globe. On top of that, these shockwaves also travel through the Earth and ping stations on the other side of the planet, long before the surface waves arrive, because they took a short cut through the Earth. Again, they can only do that if the Earth is a Globe. While traveling through the Earth, these waves even behave differently, feeding us further information. There are 2 types of waves (body waves) that pass through the Earth, P waves (Primary) and S waves (Secondary). P waves are faster and can pass through anything, except they will deflect depending on the material they pass through. S waves are much slower and do not pass through liquids. This is useful because this creates what are called shadow zones, areas on the Earth were S waves don't arrive on the opposite end of the planet. The conclusion is because they have hit something that is liquid...the outer core. The P waves deflect and create interesting patterns that tell us what the core could be made of and its size and how many layers it has. This is how we've figured out what's at our core and they've been studying these shockwaves for over a century now. Here's a great video explaining it further https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwY1ICqWGEA and here's a video focusing on these waves and how they paint a pretty clear picture of our planets shape and composition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr1jjl32iCU
This also correlates with what we know about Electromagnetism, because it doesn't just create itself. We know how to create our own electromagnets and they require some key ingredients. Energy looped around a coil made of a conductive metal (iron or nickle most commonly). If our Core is of a solid metal alloy, most likely iron because it's the densest and most abundant metal found on Earth, and if there is a massive hot liquid iron ocean rotating around that core...that would explain how our Electromagnetic field is created in the first place. It fits with what we understand about creating electromagnetic fields.
So it just seems to me like one side has a lot of wishful thinking when it comes to electromagnetism, slotting that answer in whenever it has hit a wall and has no further answers, while the other side has actual data and evidence for how things work. So I'm going to go with the side that has data. I suggest you check out the field of Seismology, it's further proof of a Globe. There is a great website that they use to archive all seismic data, going back decades, called the IRIS archive. https://www.iris.edu/hq/ They archive everything here, data for pretty much every Earthquake. Here's a great simulation the university of Princeton has done interpreting this data onto a Globe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRtQf70JDoU The shockwave circumnavigates the entire Globe and then returns back to the epicenter. This happens every time there is a quake around 8.0 or greater, so it's also worth looking into, because this data also confirms a Globe.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 So that's some of the problems I have with those explanations, not only that though, magnetism is pretty simple to manipulate (even negate entirely)...we already do it with the electromagnetic spectrum of light, that's how your wifi connection works, radio signals, cell phones...it's all magnetic manipulation and transference, stretching and compressing the frequencies to send data. Which by the way is exactly the work Tesla was doing, you can actually thank him for wifi and cell phones today, his science directly influenced those technologies. So he is absolutely recognized by the broader scientific community, I really don't get why people believe that he wasn't. He sure did get screwed by a few of his greedy peers (most notably Edison), I won't deny that, but his work is not understated in history, he is recognized as a genius and his work is recognized and taught as well. But a genius though he may have been, it doesn't mean he was right about everything. Same goes for Einstein, the man was a genius, but he didn't know everything and he was wrong about a lot as well. I think people kind of assume that genius implies these people can never be wrong about something and that's far from the truth...no single person knows everything, nor will that ever be the case. So everybody has gaps in their knowledge, and well, people don't really like that, the feeling of uncertainty, so we tend to fill those gaps with assumptions...and bullshit. Everybody does this, we all have our gaps we fill with assumptions, that goes for our great thinkers of history too.
I will also say this, Tesla was not a Flat Earther...so I don't get why Flat Earth holds him up as if he speaks for them. I've read some of his papers, and he often used Globe geometry in the framework for his experiments done with manipulating electromagnetic frequencies, so he'd likely be the first to tell them they're wrong about the geometry of the planet. He had a lot of gripes with GR, but not gravity...everybody accepted Newtonian gravity by this point, even Tesla. But you have to understand that in Einstein and Tesla's time, a lot of GR was not directly verified yet, I believe the only proponents that were really verified while they were both alive, was the bending of space (the Eddington experiment of 1919, which is what shot Einstein to world fame) and the red shift of stars, discovered by Hubble. Oh, and it helped solve the orbit of Mercury, which Newtonian gravity couldn't account for, there were a few anomalies it just couldn't answer well enough that GR solved.
Anyway, yes, I am aware of the counter positions of Flat Earth when it comes to the motion of the planet, but I feel those arguments fall apart when you start to ask HOW electromagnetism answers for those experiments. How exactly does electromagnatism cause the sagnac drift in laser gyros? If so, how are planes able to use them? They detect physical rotation, no magnetic interference is detected, so how does electromagnetism factor exactly? I think people are just slotting that answer in and accepting it with blind faith, I have seen no reason to believe electromagnetism can be the cause to explain anything they're claiming. Coriolis is also physically demonstrated pretty easy, with a ball on a carousel, so even IF they could (and they haven't yet) proven that it could be an electromagnetic occurrence, the Globe still would also explain it as well, same goes for pendulums, same goes for laser gyros and gyro compasses...so I'm sorry, but I'm personally going to go with the science that is verified and not just wishful arguments that have no backing.
On top of that, here's a group I found on YouTube that does something interesting. Hobbyists, tracking satellites, with their own home made radio telescope equipment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeah3fFYlnA Here's some of the crazy stuff they've pulled from some weather satellites in geostationary orbit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY
So Flat Earth is just a very wishful position to hold I feel, you have to deny a LOT of science to believe the Earth is flat. I get that people don't trust authority and that distrust is growing more and more, but is that any reason to toss the baby out with the bath water? No, I don't think it is.
But I do agree a little, I'm fine with people going out and reviewing and challenging what we think we know. There is a LOT that we still don't know, and there is a very good chance we've missed or overlooked a lot along the way. It's a lot harder for experts to go back and review that work, because it's really hard to unlearn what you've learned. So in a way, society is kind of demonstrating a strange sort of biodiversity of thought, covering all our bases and who knows, it might actually lead to something tangible someday. So for that reason, I'm all for it, and so long as things never get too heated where it leads into violence, then all the power to them. I don't think it will, I have come across some nasty people, but those people exist either way and they're just rotten people, they didn't need fringe movements to be that way, they always were that way. And they're a very small minority, for the most part people are just asking questions, and that's awesome, that's science at the end of the day, challenging what we think we know.
Anyway, this got long again, so I'll wrap it up.Thanks again for the chats, feel free to continue if you'd like to address more. Sorry if I've dumped a lot to address, I do tend to ramble...but I am still interested in chatting if you've got some more points to make, so feel free. From here I'll promise to keep things short.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 Yes, science is always under scrutiny, that's the true beauty of it. That's why they chose to call their end conclusion theories and not facts, because facts don't change, but theories can. So they were very wise to call them theories, because as new information comes to light, it always has the potential to change old information, that's the true nature of information gathering of any kind, because we do not know everything and likely never will. Science is happy to admit that, so it should be enlightening to watch actual scientists speak, because they're quite humble about knowledge, they all understand that there is still LOTS we don't know and so science tries its best to never think in absolutes, instead it thinks in margins of errors and percentages. The rest of society doesn't do that though, mankind tends to naturally think in black and whites, in absolutes. Nature operates that way too, but nature is complex, not simple in anyway. So complex, that we can't pin down anything with certainty, it's a fools errand to try. So because we don't know everything, it is smarter to think in shades of gray, rather then absolutes. That's what science tries to do, but the average individual does not, so that's a big reason why they clash, it's a difference in methods of thinking. I think society just up and assumes that scientists think like they do, when they hear Big Bang theory, they assume that science is 100% sure about it. When they hear Dark Matter and Dark Energy, they assume it's only being reported on because they're absolutely certain...but that's not the case at all, those two in particular are still just hypothesis, like the Aether was 100 years prior, it's no different.
So science is never 100% certain about anything and they're proud to admit that, that's the way they should operate, it's the most efficient way for us to learn further. However, they do operate in percentages and some theories are a lot more certain than others, the shape of the Earth for example. There is no debate in the community of science when it comes to the shape of the Earth, this debate only exists on YouTube and public forums between people that are not scientists or experts. They are probably about 99.9999% certain of the geometry of the Earth, because that's where all the evidence points, and that's what all our applied sciences use today, so if they leave a margin of error at all here, it's because we still don't even know what the universe is and how it got here, could be a simulation at the end of the day and there are new theories sprouting up that the universe is actually a flat projection, so they reserve a little uncertainty no matter what...but there is no debate here, because it is a LOT more certain then other theories. Big Bang for example, is maybe only a 75% certainty, so there is still a lot of room here for debate, so it will continue until we're a lot more certain or until a new theory can come along that can replace it. Big Bang is just the leading theory, because it has the most evidence supporting it, that's all. Until something can come along that has even more, it will remain the dominant theory, that's how science operates when it comes to the fringes of known science.
The debate over the shape rages on here, because people at their core are confirmation bias machines, until they learn how to overcome that, which requires they recognize this flaw and then practice methods that best counter it. Trained scientists practice these methods, the average individual does not, so society as a whole is a few pages behind scientists, and this is one of the many reasons why. It's not that under educated people are dumber, far from it, but if you don't practice something...you're not going to be very good at it and it doesn't matter how smart you are, if you lack the pieces to a puzzle, you will never solve it, that's pretty common sense I feel. On top of that, the average individual doesn't work directly with these sciences and so they don't see first hand how things work, it's all second hand for them and that's not nearly as convincing, which is understandable. But I find also, these are questions most people have never thought to ponder, until recently and so now people online are just filling the blanks for them with paranoid bullshit, because people have lost trust in authority, but they will always trust people like them, people with no connection to the authorities they are growing to distrust by the day, so they're going to believe these people over authority, because they trust them more almost by default.
It's sad really, but most people don't know or understand a lot of physics, even though they were taught it in high school, most weren't really paying attention and at that time they didn't know why this knowledge was important to know (teens have a lot of other things on their minds), and so they didn't bother to retain that information or even listen to it at all the first time. So now when somebody tells them "the Globe Earth model tells us the Earth is spinning at 1000 mph, whizzing around the Sun at 66,000 mph and blasting through space at 500,000 mph" the average person looks at those big numbers and goes "that's impossible!", simply because they have no idea how it's possible, because they have no concept or experience with speeds so vast, all they know is, extreme speeds cause G forces...but they don't know HOW or even WHAT a G force is. So they form an opinion before they even consider the physics. They tend to jump to conclusions. Had they paid attention in highschool when they were being taught about the Laws of Motion and Relative Motion, they wouldn't have been so quick to jump on board the Flat Earth train.
But now since they also don't trust authority or anything connected to authority, it's all just indoctrination...even you hit me with that above a few times. The trouble is, indoctrination implies that we can't demonstrate anything, it's all just words we believed blindly, that's what indoctrination is. What these people don't get is that the only time in school where they really just tell you how things are, is in kindergarten. After that, they don't just tell you, they SHOW you how it works...they demonstrate it. People would realize that if they paid attention in school. Then in highschool they ask kids to do their own research, to demonstrate these concepts to themselves and that continues even more in college and university. NOBODY holds your hand in secondary education, they lecture sure...but while they lecture, they SHOW YOU how it works, they don't just talk about it. Then they do labs in secondary science education courses, labs are basically where they recreate the big experiments...like bouncing radar off the Moon, or measuring the universal constant for G. Here's a great example of a lab Physics Core Practical, having students run their own gravity drop tests, to measure the 9.8 m/s2 acceleration rate of gravity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcT_zUb3wis This is basically a run down of what they do in advanced physics classes...you'll notice here, they don't tell them anything, they just ask the students to measure gravity acceleration using the drop test (which is one of several ways they measure this)...and then it's up to the students to figure it out. This encourages them to try their own ways of doing it, or even to question it if they think they can. This exorcise teaches them the entire scientific method, by making them perform it themselves step by step on their own and failure is just as useful here as succeeding. That's the point of this practical in particular, these students know the scientific method...this practical teaches them to UNDERSTAND why it's the most efficient method for deducing reality and it does that on their own terms.
That's the difference between indoctrination and truth, one is just known the other is understood. Knowing and understanding are two different things, anyone can repeat knowledge verbatim...understanding why that knowledge is correct, that's much harder and that's what separates indoctrination from truth.
The only level kids are "indoctrinated" is kindergarten, from there teachers begin SHOWING them how that information is true, not just saying it to them, but demonstrating it as well. So conspiracy channels throw around that term "indoctrination" in hopes that you'll bite and stop looking deeper at the explanations that the scientific community has. It's a buzz word to stop you from looking at what we have to say, essentially closing your minds off to that information...what's ironic, that's how they indoctrinate you to Flat Earth, by making you feel like the rest of us are brainwashed and that you almost were too. That's brainwashing...that's how it works, by telling you that everyone else is indoctrinated, lying, shills but that THIS knowledge will help you break free of that. That's brainwashing 101, throw in a little hypnotic suggestion and methods used by hypnotists like a bombardment of information in quick rapid fire videos, with loud overly dramatic music playing that puts you in a more suggestive state of mind and overloads your brains ability to process, then you can feed a person just about any information and if it's not something they have any experience with prior, you're going to rope them pretty easily.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 Anyway, that's a bit of why I feel this debate continues online between the layman. I do agree it's a bit wrong that YouTube would censor them, but not entirely. I look at it from a perspective where if I were to create YouTube, I would have preferred it be a place for entertainment mostly, a place where less fighting occurred and more creative expression blossomed. But I'm an artist and I prefer to focus on creating things, so I suppose that's why I'd be a bit let down if my website intended for entertainment, suddenly just became a big conspiracy network. But here's the logic on their part I feel, this website has to look at its bottom line as well, if the site were to be completely overrun with conspiracy videos or hate videos, then most people would eventually stop coming here. The bottom line is this, the site has to appeal to a wider audience or it will die, the online market is very competitive, so it adheres to the majority...and well, the majority is a bunch of drones who just want to be entertained, so to do that, it has to regulate what gets put here so that it appeals to a wider audience. Flat Earth is a small minority, but they were loud, for awhile there, all I was seeing was conspiracy videos spreading potential misinformation day after day, and it did get a bit tiring...when all I wanted to do was unwind and get some light entertainment for a bit.
It is also a knowledge platform though, which is something else I love about YouTube, and if I have gripes with their current censorship of Flat Earth, it's that I do prefer that freedom of speech and expression of ideas never be censored...but a company still has to worry about how it's going to keep the majorities interest, or it will eventually die, that's true of any company, so unfortunately I do see why they did what they did.
Could it have been a cover up like you're suggesting though? I don't think so, but I do see the reasoning there, it's not lost on me.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 Yes, Jtolan has taken some pretty incredible infrared photos, in fact his pictures are some of the best Globe proofs available because of how clear they are. One of the most successful cons of Flat Earth, is the 8 inches per mile squared math, it's not the correct math to use for what Flat Earth uses it for, but very few in Flat Earth have realized that. A basic rule of thumb in mathematics, make damn sure you're using the right equations for the right jobs, or you will reach a false conclusion. Use the wrong math, get the wrong figures, it's pretty simple. 8 inches per mile squared is the worst offender of bad math in Flat Earth and it's successfully convinced a lot of people that there is no curvature to be found. What's odd to me is that instead of checking to see if maybe the math is wrong, people just conclude the Earth is flat. Well, not that odd actually, that's how confirmation bias works, do just enough work to seek out the information that supports a bias, then stop and never review. The same is done with Jtolan photos, when he cuts through the haze of our atmosphere and brings mountain ranges back...in this case, people don't even bother to do the math sometimes, they're convinced by this simply by him bringing mountains back from the haze, coming back with a new idea that things just fade into the distance and that's why they appear to disappear...but no, doing the math again is important, things don't just fade, they also drop. Those mountains are still missing thousands of feet at their base, doing the correct math here reveals that.
Here's a great video I found not to long ago that uses one of Jtolan's photos of a place called Mt. Jacinto and makes some observations of his own, using topography data of that same area and then demonstrating just how much that mountain range is dropped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU What he's done here is he's taken the topography data for that area and then placed it over satellite imagery of that area and then basically simulated/rendered it in a high resolution 3D mapping program, that basically recreates the landscape using topography data. Then he's placed a camera at the same location and elevation where Jtolan took that photo and then what's great about this program here, is you can then look at the landscape from the ground using either a flat surface or a globe to scale surface. The Globe to scale rendering matched the photo, while the Flat rendering revealed just how much of that mountain should have been visible if the Earth were flat. It's a pretty interesting experiment, worth a watch if you're curious to see just how much higher mountains would be if the Earth were flat. What people don't seem to get, is that there is thousands of feet of mountain missing at the base of all long distance photos of mountain ranges...that doesn't just happen on its own, and on a Flat Earth that wouldn't happen at all. So it's more smoke and mirrors and confirmation bias from Flat Earth. Just because Jtolan made mountains visible that weren't previously, does not mean you can conclude they just fade into the distance, more work has to be done here, you can't just stop once your bias is confirmed.
What you're describing with the fading or blending of color of distant objects is called distance fog in art. In the real world it happens cause you're looking through more atmosphere the further away things are too you, the atmosphere gets denser and denser and so the air is essentially washing out distant objects. The trouble is this wouldn't create a solid horizon on a Flat Earth, at least as far as I'm concerned, things would just appear to fade away as they got further away, not descend into the horizon like they do. It's not just that things appear to vanish at horizon, they also descend into it, they drop...a lot. The Sun especially, even on Flat Earth models, the Sun is hundreds to thousands of miles off the surface, so it makes zero sense that it would ever set on a Flat Earth. And it clearly doesn't fade away either, if things just fade away like you're now suggesting...why doesn't the Sun or Moon do this too? Why do they set? How do they maintain the same angular size all throughout the day and then how do they set under the horizon on a Flat Earth? These are good questions Flat Earth should consider more.
It's not that this isn't important though, this is an important thing to note about atmosphere at distances and it has to be factored as well. Over the ocean for example, the horizon isn't actually where it appears to be, for this very reason, it's actually a bit higher then it appears, because the dense atmosphere has miraged on the surface of the water making the actual horizon line pretty much vanish. But this would occur whether the Earth is flat or round, it's the thousands of feet of missing mountain at their base that would never happen on a flat Earth and as I keep mentioning, a sunset or sunrise would also not occur the way that it does, on a Flat Earth.
Anyway, if you want to know more about why the 8 inches math is incorrect, I can help you with that a bit more and help point you towards the correct math. The 8 inches math is the worst offender of bad math in Flat Earth and it is troubling to me that confirmation bias is that powerful, that it keeps people from reviewing their math to check it for accuracy. In the case with Jtolan though, people don't even bother with math, they stop looking as soon as they see mountains coming back into focus, concluding exactly what you have. Jtolan has taken some great photos, but despite being told his math is wrong countless times, he still persists in telling people otherwise, but, as I said, he actually provides some of the best proofs of curvature, because lots of people have taken the time to analyze and review his photos, using the proper math and the figures match the Globe perfectly. Here's a couple good channels that have done this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoQFXSIOHA4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z62WGtePCc
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Doesn't work like that and if you continue to think it does, then you're never going to understand it. It's not an instant change, a horse does not just become a dog for example. Think of it this way, in just a few hundred years we've taken the wolf and created the chiahuahua...something that appears closer to a small rat, than it does a wolf. If we keep going, it'll eventually become something new, something we can't call a dog anymore, but that has a new distinction, something completely new that has never existed before. That's more like how evolution works. We speed that process up through selective breeding, but nature does that as well through a much longer process of natural selection, usually brought about by a change in environment, and we see it happen everywhere.
If you want some proof, just spend some time actually looking at the science of evolutionary biology, instead of ignoring it, misunderstanding it and concluding there is no proof, before even giving it an honest look. Tons of videos here on YouTube to get you started, or if you really want to step things up, go out and actually talk to an evolutionary biologist sometime. I'm sure they'd be happy to show you what they do for a living, if you're patient and open enough to actually listen.
1
-
@rodneybaker2629 That’s all well and good, I don’t doubt that you have reached a conclusion from your own research and deliberations. That’s great…but stop for a moment and ask yourself, does flat Earth have any scientific knowledge or working models, that can actually be applied? Cause that’s how you spot bullshit science…just ask yourself “does it work?” and “can it be applied?”. The end goal of science is to acquire accurate knowledge, so that we can then use that knowledge for our benefit. We currently use the globe model for navigation…that is a fact, not an opinion. So that’s an application of that knowledge…so it’s an applied science. And it works when applied…if you don’t think it does, then I’d ask if you’ve ever tried crossing an ocean before…without using the current system of navigation to help you do it. Give it a try sometime…if you’re so confident the Earth is flat, then surely there’s a working map or model of FE that can be applied. I’ve not seen any, and every pilot and sailor I know uses the globe for navigation…so is it really so difficult to see why people would question FE?
I’m not saying you’re dumb for questioning consensus, on the contrary, it’s quite admirable, logical, and reasonable. I’m not arguing with you to be a dick here, I’m just asking if you’ve ever really thought to turn that skeptical lens around on Flat Earth? Do the same standards of review and skepticism not apply to Flat Earth and their arguments? Because personally, I don’t feel that anything is above the burden of proof…and come on, you don’t see ANY flaws at all in the FE position? I can look at one sunset, and understand the geometry doesn’t quite add up, or travel South and observe the other hemispheres night sky is vastly different, with its own rotation, around its own polar axis…exactly like we’d expect on a globe, but to this day, after years of asking Flat Earthers, I’ve not heard any valid explanation for how FE accounts for that geometry. And as I keep pointing out…FE has no working map or model, that can actually be used in applied sciences, such as navigation…that should be a HUGE red flag for you or anyone.
I don’t claim to know everything either…but I do know how to spot bullshit science, just ask yourself if it has ANY working applications at all. If not…then it’s very likely not true. That’s actually the one nice thing about pseudoscience, it reveals itself simply by how useless it is…making it pretty easy to spot most of the time.
1
-
What gives you the feeling of down? Gravity...gravity creates inertia on your body as it pulls every cell in your body towards the ground beneath your feet, giving you a feeling that we call weight. Your brain and body has evolved to recognize that inertia as down, we balance ourselves upright in accordance to that inertia. The pull of gravity is in the same direction everywhere on Earth, towards the center of Earth, creating the same inertia upon your body towards the ground, no matter where you are, orientating you upright, so long as your feet are on the ground so you can feel and interpret that inertia as down. Gravity always pulls to center of mass, your body is constantly balancing to center, we call that center of gravity.
So if gravity pulls to center everywhere and creates your feeling of upright everywhere, where on Earth is the top? Nowhere...there is no top or bottom to Earth. Upright is an orientation given to you by gravity, down is towards the ground, up is away from the ground...that's how it works. America is not the top of the Earth...Australia is not the bottom. You're conditioned by world maps to think this (namely the Mercator map), but in reality, that's a man made interpretation and it's not true.
We chose North to be the top on world maps, because that's where the most landmass is, that's where the higher population is, and that's where England is...the country that pretty much created the standard maps the rest of the world uses today. But again, there is no real top or bottom to Earth, you are always upright, so long as you are aligned to gravity, your feet on the ground.
1
-
1
-
Maybe you missed the part where it clearly states that there are satellites in orbit right now. If satellites are in orbit, then the Earth can not be flat, because it would be impossible to put them into orbit without gravity. The Earth would not be flat if gravity is as we know it to be, a globe is the only shape something as massive as Earth could be, with a force that pulls all mass to center. Thus creating a sphere Earth, thus making orbits possible.
Yes, only 5% of global communication uses satellites, because that's not what most of them are up there for. Most satellites are for private industry and military, research and data collection, satellite tv/radio services and weather. VERY FEW of them, are for dedicated communication networking, because to put a global communication network up into space, would require a LOT of funding and a LOT of satellites networked together...thousands of networked satellites, all doing the same dedicated job of sending and receiving communications. No company in the world has ever attempted this (yet), because of the costs and other challenges of doing so, it's much cheaper to lay cables in the ocean, so currently today there is no global network of communication satellites. Satellites are still a relatively new technology, so the infrastructure is still not there yet. But you're in luck, look up StarLink sometime. Elon Musk is currently working on this global network of satellites, but it's still going to cost a LOT and he has many challenges facing him yet, so it's still going to take time and at any moment something could wrong where it doesn't happen at all.
Why does this surprise people so much? Do you think it's easy to create a global communication network of satellites? Do you know ANYTHING about putting satellites into orbit? Why do you immediately just assume that it should exist already? Why does your bias assumptions lead you to the conclusion, that because it doesn't exist yet, that means the Earth must be flat? You didn't once think there could be other reasons why it doesn't exist yet? Again, read that article you shared a little closer...5% of communication IS DONE BY SATELLITES! What does that mean? That means there ARE satellites up there. :/ You overlooked that, cause you only see the information that confirms your bias, then completely ignore any detail that directly refutes it. And my guess, is you listened BLINDLY to some fucking stranger online, who fed you a lie saying this meant the Earth is flat. And you believed them why exactly? Did you think to even question their claims? Wake up bud...you're being conned by numpty's and huxters on the internet, who are just as ignorant and incredulous as you are. :/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Hubble is a deep space telescope...it was not designed to take pictures of objects like our Earth that are really close to it. That would be like turning your telescope into your bedroom and then trying to focus in on something in your room...it's not gonna work, because that's not what telescopes do...they don't take pictures of things that are very close, they are used to focus light that is very far...it's incredible I have to explain that to an adult. Also, Your claim that no pictures exist of Earth, is an ignorant one...there exists thousands, probably even millions of photos of Earth at this point in time. They're not hard to find either, is your search bar broken or something?
Here is an archive with hundreds of photos of Earth from space, all taken during the various manned missions to deep space. I remember many of these photos from long ago, long before CGI was ever a thing. So take a look at some of these high resolution photos of Earth you can find here, and let me know...how did they fake these in the 70's?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/with/72157656739898544
Here is a website that will take you to the Himawari 8 live feed, which is a geostationary satellite in orbit right now that takes a picture of Earth every few minutes.
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
Here's a directory of the images taken by the DSCOVR satellite, which is another geostationary satellite in orbit right now.
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Now here's an interesting one, if you think these are just CGI images they create. Here is a group of hobbyists who build their own radio telescopes and then they use those telescopes to track and pull data from satellites in orbit. The geostationary satellites they focus on here, are known as the GOES 15-17 satellites, which are also weather satellites that take pictures of Earth every few minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t Now they're pulling data from something in the sky...what are they getting these images from, if not actual satellites in orbit?
Here's a neat trick you can do with a lot of these weather satellites as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOYssZQ3D2Q What this guy does is pulls data from the Himawari 8 live feed and then compares the cloud cover to his area, to see if his sky matches the photos taken by the satellite. If you live in America, you would need to use the GOES 15-17 satellites for this, but you can do the same thing to confirm the images, and you can do it on any day.
So I'm sorry, but your argument here is pretty weak. It tells me you didn't really bother looking into anything very deep...you likely just nodded and agreed with some hack online who fed you some bullshit, and you ate up every word without question. Stop being so damn ignorant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here are some great pictures of Earth, in high resolution, taken during Apollo 16 mission. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544 If you click the "back to albums list" in the top left corner, you'll be taken to directory where you can find hundreds more pictures like these. Just one of many online directories that have archived these photos and others like them.
Now, if you feel these are fake, go ahead and explain how you verified that to be the case...otherwise it's just an empty claim with no evidence supporting it, and we have no reason to believe your conclusion, which makes it empty speculation, not an argument anyone should take seriously. Click on any one of these images and blow them up to max, and then tell me how they faked these. If that's what you believe, then it should be easy to demonstrate how you confirmed that, if not, then it's speculation and nothing more.
Just because you don't now how it's possible to get into space, does not mean everybody else does as well. Your own ignorance and incredulity is not an argument against modern science, it's just plain ol' ignorance and denial. Learn the difference between speculation and actual evidence.
1