Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
@yestervue4697 Well, you’re sure making a lot of guesses and empty claims and then expecting us to agree without question...so that’s a bit hypocritical I’d say. Science was very wise to file its conclusions under theory, because they know the true nature of information gathering is not simple in the slightest. We do not know everything, we likely never will, and new data/information always has the potential to change old data/information. That’s the reality of our situation, for this reason it becomes very difficult to reach definite conclusions on anything, so science chose not to think and operate in absolutes, it chose to operate in percentages of certainty. The theory with the most evidence, that has not been falsified, and that does not contradict any other part of the theory, goes on to become the accepted conclusion. We’re all free to challenge these conclusions...but science does not just roll over and accept blind claims made, you will have to go to great effort to falsify their conclusions. That’s just the way it is.
I can tell ya now...comments on a YouTube thread...aren’t going to make any dents in established science. But, it is a good and fun exorcise, so not entirely a waste of time.
Let me see if I got this clear, you’re claiming the force that attracts us to the surface is electromagnetism? Ok...do you have any experiments, data or information you can share that verifies this claim? Feel free to share the information that helped lead you to that conclusion, I don’t mind taking a look...but we’re not just going to agree blindly to every flattie that comes shouting at us. You want a conversation, you have to cool your jets and treat us as people and don’t insult our intelligence, you might find we’ll return that sentiment in kind, then you might actually get yourself a good civil conversation, where you can get your perspective across.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
And you seem to have a very low opinion of the scientific community. You really think they’re not questioning things constantly? That’s quite literally their job…to ask questions and too solve them. You really think scientists just agree with everything they’re told? Their careers are made from challenging consensus. For example; Einstein is famous today for that very reason, he did not conform to the modern consensus of his time, he questioned it…he challenged the work of Newton for Christ sake…without a doubt the top dog as far as physics is concerned. Sure there are plenty of people in fields of science who don’t go outside the lines very much or at all, but they won’t achieve anything groundbreaking if they don’t ask questions and challenge consensus. Einstein did that, over and over again…the difference he has with Flat Earthers, is that he was able to prove his positions were correct, beyond any doubt. Atomic energy (both fission and fusion) would never have been possible, without his contributions. So you can argue all day long it’s inaccurate, it’s still an applied science…and nothing confirms scientific knowledge as accurate, better than working applications of the science.
I don’t know how your education was, but my science teacher didn’t just talk at us…he demonstrated the science, then encouraged us to ask questions. Did nobody ever demonstrate the science to you, that led to the conclusions they were teaching? You had a very bad teacher if all they did was talk at you without demonstrating how it was accurate.
You seem to think yourself superior and you’re not giving others enough credit. Many of us agree with the conclusions of modern science, because the evidence is quite substantial…it’s difficult to disagree with things that are basically undeniable at this point. You can claim we’re agreeing blindly too what we’re told, but that’s just a blind speculation…something you hope is true, so you can pretend it’s everyone else with a problem, instead of considering the very real possibility that you’re just ignorant and really don’t know as much as you seem to think you do.
In any case, all that really matters is evidence. You can claim to have a superior understanding all you wish, but if you have no evidence to support a position, and no working scientific models that can actually be applied…then you really don’t have much.
5
-
5
-
@yestervue4697 Ok, but that goes both ways, do you ever look at the evidence others provide for you? You didn’t come off as very interested in a discussion, you came here guns blazing looking to force people to believe you...while providing no room for discussion, claiming victory before any review or rebuttal, using words like “inarguable”, and all while providing zero sources or evidence for your claims. This comes off as irrational behaviour...so how do you think people are going to react?
Some people are gonna be nasty no matter what, but some of us are more open and patient, and don’t mind discussing, it’s just frustrating when people demand so much...but don’t think they should be held to the same standards, for some reason. But I digress on that point for now.
You said you were going to share evidence, I was expecting something scientific. We can’t do much with scripture or ancient drawings, all we can do is speculate and make interpretations...but I don’t regard it as evidence of much, in a discussion of Earth science. Sure, it’s widely believed that the Egyptians believed the Earth to be flat, but Mesopotamians and Greeks are also ancient cultures, Hindus as well, and they all believed it was spherical. So it’s a tad bias to just look at one past culture, and not consider any others...but I can see why you have, you’re Christian, which has ties to Egyptian history. Point is though, if you’re going to bring up ancient cultures, then remain objective and don’t ignore the others.
Either way, it’s kind of irrelevant. I don’t much care about old cultures beliefs...many of them were simply just wrong, it’s as simple as that. They’re beliefs don’t matter much, when we’re putting satellites and astronauts into space on a regular basis. I care much more about tangible things I can observe and test right here, right now, in this present time. Not that studying old cultures is a waste of time mind you, it’s still interesting, and we can learn a lot still from the effort...but when pilots and sailors are navigating the planet, using the mapped scale and dimensions of a globe to help them do it...a few paintings on old walls don’t mean much.
I much prefer scientific evidence, not to interested in ancient relics. Sorry.
5
-
5
-
5
-
Alright, so it’s kinda like a sleight of hand trick. Rowbotham (Parallax) tells you that you shouldn’t see the boat after 6 miles…but that’s it. It’s basically “keep your eye on what I’m telling you”. If you never question his initial claim, then sure, you’re now primed to believe the conclusion. See how it works? Now let’s stop and actually think about it a bit…where’d he get that number from? What’s his math? What’s his observation height? How tall is the boat? Are there any other variables to consider, like refraction? Rowbotham doesn’t really provide many details, and doesn’t ask you to think about it beyond what he’s told you, just provides a claim and then a conclusion…if you never question it, then you’re just along for the illusion, keeping your eye on what he wants you too see. It’s a pretty simple trick…that sadly works on a lot of people. It works because most people don’t have the time to invest, they just want quick answers. Not their fault, we all have that tendency to some degree I believe.
Science requires a lot more thorough investigation, then there’s peer review, which is a crucial step to weeding out conmen, like Rowbotham. Upon peer review, his experiment is simply found to be extremely inconclusive, due to poor experimentation. He only made ONE observation, using only ONE marker, taking ONE data set, used the wrong math for his set up (8 inches per mile squared, which is a parabola equation, does not represent line of sight or horizon), and ignored important variables like height of the observer and refraction. Refraction was really the least of his troubles in his experiment…but yes, it mattered as well. Here’s a simple recreation of the experiment, demonstrating why https://youtu.be/IRywj88MsjA. This is a time lapse filmed over several hours, from a stabilized camera. I want you to pay attention to the ground here and watch that as refraction index increases, everything in the distance appears to rise up. This is the effect atmosphere can have, on what we see at distances, that’s a pretty clear demonstration of atmospheric refraction. Light Refraction is pretty standard knowledge in physics, you’ve experienced it as well, ever noticed a pencil in a glass of water distort the shape of it? I’m sure you’ve gone swimming, ever noticed things under the water are distorted and don’t appear to be where they actually are? That’s refraction and it does occur in atmosphere as well, that’s how things like mirages occur.
It’s a variable he ignored, didn’t even care to research it or consider it. But it matters, it’s a variable that effects how far we see, so it must be included in the math. Science has studied refraction for a very long time, even in those days they had a few equations worked out that could account for that variable. So you just do the geometric math first (but he did the wrong math right from the start, so his experiment is inconclusive right out of the gate, just from using the wrong math), then you do the math for refractive index, which you can measure, it’s just air humidity and pressure, which increases or decreases air density, which is what causes refraction. It’s also important to make several observations, because refractive index fluctuates, so making more observations, collecting more data, is how you find the average. You can find a great formula fir refraction and more information, at the Metabunk forum, just find the refraction calculator, should have links to the forum where they explore the math and science of it in greater detail.
This experiment has been repeated many times over the last couple hundred years, because to be fair, it was a great experiment…it was just conducted poorly. Rowbotham only did so much as to gather the observation he WANTED, looking only as long as to confirm his bias, then he called it a day. That’s bad science…his experiment actually stands as a perfect example for why we conduct peer review today, and why it’s such an important part of the scientific method. Peer review catches errors, an experiment must be repeatable…or it does not count.
One of the more recent recreations of the Bedford Level experiment, that I’m aware of, is the Rainy Lake experiment, conducted over 10 km of a frozen lake. You can find it in a quick search. That refraction time lapse I shared was actually from that experiment. Upon every proper recreation of this experiment, it actually is found to be conclusive for the globe, not the other way around.
Anyway, hope that helps shed a little more light on things. They actually teach this experiment to science students, to help illustrate the pitfalls of both confirmation bias and conducting sloppy experiments. It’s not enough to simply conduct an experiment…you have to make sure it’s not in error and you have to be quite thorough about every detail, from the math to the variables. Even then, it must then be peer reviewed, because some errors simply can’t be caught by the individual because of their biases and limitations, but your peers don’t share the same biases and limitations, so they likely will have no trouble finding those errors.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Conservation of momentum…basic physics. You learned this in grade school. That’s the problem…Flat Earthers think they have caught some glitch here, when in reality they’re just demonstrating that they didn’t pay attention in physics 101 class.
Try this sometime, next time you’re in a moving vehicle on a straight path with constant speed, toss a paper air plane gently back and forth between you and someone else. You’ll notice it will be effortless, doesn’t matter if you toss it with the vehicles direction or against it, it will behave the same no matter the direction, never speeding up or slowing down and it doesn’t go flying to the back the moment it leaves your hand.
But wait a second, say you’re in a passenger jet going 500 mph…can you toss anything at 500 mph to keep up with the forward velocity of the jet? Obviously not…so how exactly is it keeping up with the motion of the vehicle while in the air? 🤷♂️ Because momentum is conserved at all times, indefinitely…all things in motion stay in motion, it’s the first law of motion…and it’s what you learn on day 1 of basic physics.
Planes do a similar thing while in flight, they conserve the momentum of the Earth they’re moving relative too…their momentum doesn’t just stop the moment they leave the surface.
Physics…learn some please, then you’ll have a better chance of not being conned by these scientifically illiterate misinformation movements, like flat Earth.
5
-
@dick_richards The water doesn't fly off, because the Earths rotation is not fast enough to generate enough Centripetal force to overcome the pull of gravity. If you knew anything about centripetal/centrifugal force and how they increase, you'd know this. Centripetal forces increase by the rate of angular velocity change per second, which is caused by an objects RATE of rotation, it's revolutions per minute (RPM's). Earth rotates at the slow ass rate of ONE revolution every 24 hours...this means it's rotational velocity is VERY small, meaning very little centripetal force generated. But, the rotation of Earth does generate a tiny amount that does negate a little bit of gravity, which is greatest at the equator, about 0.3% of gravity is negated at the equator compared to everywhere else on Earth, which is why things weigh slightly less at the equator. Here's a simple experiment anyone can recreate that helps to verify this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t=562s Learn some physics, then you'll maybe learn your error here. Your error is that your focusing on the linear surface speed...and ignoring the more important variables to this problem, the rotational velocity, which is not the same thing.
"And i guess you can land an airplane on a ball spinning at 26,000 mphs because...... let me guess? Gravity???? Is... is... that it???
"
Gravity plays its roll sure, but no, it's mostly conservation of momentum and relative motion that makes this possible. The laws of motion...more basic physics you should probably learn more about.
Your butchering of physics isn't much of an argument though. You can misunderstand and twist science all day long, but you'll never be able to escape the fact that Flat Earth has no working model...and that's for a good reason, because it's not reality.
Flat Earth can't explain a simple sunset, let alone the southern hemisphere, which has it's own stars AND it's own celestial rotation around its own pole star, Sigma Octantis. Flat Earth has a pretty damn rocky time explaining solar eclipses and has nothing for a lunar eclipse, but again, the Globe answers for these with absolute ease, it also predicts them down to the second and square mile, DECADES into the future. Flat Earth can't explain flight paths and times, it can't explain Coriolis effect, it can't explain the 24 hour sun observed in the South, can't explain how the Sun and Moon orbit above, heck it can't even explain why things fall to Earth....the Flat Earth model is a fucking mess bud. It falls apart right from the moment you try to apply it to what we observe in actual reality. NOTHING in modern science is built on the foundation of a Flat Earth, from navigation, to communication, to engineering and infrastructure...it all uses the Globe model...and it all works flawlessly, which further helps to verify the model.
I think you should spend more time looking at the model you're supporting, and leave physics to those who can actually understand it. You're just allowing Flat Earth to con you and fill your head with bullshit.
5
-
@dick_richards A railgun shoots a projectile, just like any other projectile weapon. So just like any other projectile, like a bullet, an arrow, a missile, a rock you throw, it still conforms to the same physics. That projectile is not free from drag force or gravity...and so it will drop, it will not shoot straight indefinitely, which makes shooting over a curve, not only possible but pretty simple, all they have to know is the velocity of the projectile, it's mass and then run a simple parabolic trajectory calculation, to give them a firing angle...and then gravity and air resistance do all the rest.
Here's a page from a Naval railgun tech assessment. https://imgur.com/a/BvLi4#rpTODVY Just scroll through the whole report to learn more about railguns and how they actually work.
5
-
@dick_richards "A Leftist is a person that believes all the demonic lies of this world..."
Jesus man....how did people get so scrambled on things. The left is just a group of regular people, like the rightwing, that just tend to focus more on environment and the well being of people, over economy, military, corporations, etc. That doesn't mean they ignore these other things, they're just the softer hand that prefers we don't destroy our environment or butcher our citizens, just to make a profit or remain secure.
It doesn't mean they're right all the time, that's why we have the rightwing.
The right are just regular people who tend to put job security and economy over all else. The right is the firmer hand, that understands that a society can't survive without a strong economy, a hard working middle class and tough attitude towards anyone who would threaten them, local or abroad.
They are ying and yang bud...and they can't exist without the other. Life is about balance and so is society, you need the left more then you realize. The smart people don't lean far right or far left...they realize that BOTH are fucking insane. Both extremes lead to totalitarianism, if they don't balance the other out....that's the reality of things. Neither side is perfect, they need each other.
That used to be pretty obvious...but nowadays, all you hear about are the extremes, so now all you got are people thinking that's all that exists... are the extremes. Then you stay inside your bubbles and then we become divided...and then you start making stupid statements, like the left are just devil worshipers. No...they're just people, who value something other then money and security. We keep destroying the environment non stop...we will pay the price eventually. We keep blowing up our enemies instead of peacefully working with them...we will pay the price for being assholes.
Likewise, if we ignore the economy, then society will crumble. If we don't defend ourselves from those that would do us harm, then they will not hesitate to take from us.
BOTH SIDES have value...a smart person doesn't align himself firmly in one camp, a smart person doesn't think in absolutes like that. If the left has a good idea, then it should be recognized. If the right has a good idea, same thing.....we USED to work together like that, but society is dividing lately and it's not going to end well, if people keep spreading that agenda, with the ignornat bullshit that you posted above. :/
The left is not your enemy....the FAR LEFT are insane, but the same is true of the FAR RIGHT. They're both crazy as all hell, but you don't have to be like them. Nothing is as black and white as you'd like it to be. I think it's smarter to be in the middle, with a slight leaning to whichever you agree with more....like how it used to be, where we used to work together, to make the best possible society.
5
-
5
-
You’re referring to the Ring Laser Gyro experiment conducted by Bob “not a pilot” Knodel and his lackeys at Globebusters. Ring laser gyros are what modern airliners use to detect pitch, yaw and roll in the plane, basically they’re very useful for detecting rotational motion. Scientists have used these for decades to detect and measure Earth’s rotation as well, which is always found to be a steady 15 degrees per hour, consistent with a spherical object rotating at 0.00068 RPM’s, 1 revolution every 24 hours. So, not surprisingly, when Flat Earthers thought to try this experiment themselves, they got the same result.
It was pretty funny actually 😄, but as you’d expect, they just ignored it...as it didn’t confirm their bias, so it never happened in their delusional world.
5
-
Gravity was realized after the geometry of Earth was undeniable. See if you want to understand how science reached the conclusion of gravity, then you have to go in the same order they solved things in. It started with the geometry, which eventually came to a point where it could no longer be denied, that it was spherical. Some basic evidence being the consistent drop of stars to horizon by latitude, different constellations seen in both hemispheres, Sun shadow angles and transit paths only matching a spherical geometry, heck the fact a sunset occurs at all is a pretty good starter proof, eclipses, the list goes on.
Once it became impossible to deny the basic geometry, then they moved on to the physics, such as gravity. It was clear that no matter where you were on the sphere, you were always pulled down to its surface, this could only be possible if a force was present that kept you balanced perpendicular to centre of mass, always pulling you towards centre. We observe this force, it puts dropped objects into motion, always towards surface, so it’s just simple deduction after that. All things are held to surface, thanks to an accelerating force that pulls to centre of mass...and let me tell ya, after gravity was realized, a whole lot of other things started making sense, like orbits, and why everything in space is observed to be spherical...that’s the shape things tend to make, with a force present squeezing all matter around a centre. That’s why bubbles form spheres as well as water drops, it’s the most rigid shape in nature.
So why doesn’t it all get spun off? Good question and it has a simple answer, it’s not spinning fast enough to trump the pull of gravity. Centrifugal force is increased by the rate of revolutions per minute (RPM’s), the more rotations per minute, the more centrifugal force, pretty basic rule of thumb here. Earth completes 1 rotation every 24 hours...so to put that into perspective, rotate a ball in your hand so that it completes one rotation in a 24 hour tine frame...not going very fast is it?
So why do we think water will adhere to a spinning ball? Because we observe that to be the case. Earth is proven spherical and the physics checks out, so it’s not difficult to deduce why. The only people not able to grasp it, are those who haven’t bothered to really understand the physics, of things like gravity and centrifugal force, and who haven’t really tested the geometry of Earth very well.
From what I can gather, you’re just looking at the conclusions of science but not really going very deep into the science to learn how they reached those conclusions...so no wonder you think it’s impossible, you don’t know how any of it works.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@yestervue4697 “...you cannot fly in a perfectly level angle at zero degrees pitch indefinitely on any sphere of any size...”
Agreed, I’ve never been arguing with you on that, why do you continue to think I am? My point is that you will never notice the degree pitch, because of how gradual it would really be, on a globe at our scale. You also won’t notice, because gravity puts you in a field of force that’s equal distance from centre, at all times. So the inertial centre of gravity is constantly shifting with the surface, meaning as long as the plane maintains perpendicular to surface (which isn’t difficult to do at all with how many gyros they got helping them), then nobody will ever notice an inertial shift in gravity.
It’s easy to stay at altitude as well, because the altimeter tells the pilot when he’s off...so just like a car driving down a highway needs to gradually adjust the wheel to stay on the road, a pilot will gradually adjust the plane, to stay at altitude. This can mean, gradually adjusting pitch, but like I mentioned before, gravity can also do this, because gravity is always pulling the plane down, so it doesn’t have to pitch down as wildly as it did to get higher in altitude, it can just let gravity take it down when it needs too as well.
“...cannot fly along any sphere no matter the size in any aircraft...and maintain a set altitude...That’s simple physics...”
No, that’s geometry...why do you keep calling it physics? Do you know what physics is? Your points are largely discussing just the basic geometry, no physics is really being discussed yet (though I’ve brought up lift and gravity often, which is physics), just shapes and scales, which is all mathematical, all geometry.
Look man, you’re arguing a position that is going against millions of scientists and experts the world over...and acting as if they’re the ones in error here, claiming that you know better what science is...when you don’t even seem to know the difference between physics and geometry. Ever consider that maybe YOU are the one that’s missing something, not everybody else?
Yes, I do know a pilot you can chat with about this, look up Wolfie6020 sometime, he’s a licensed international pilot from Australia, who has several videos on this very topic. He’s pretty understanding and patient with people, and he’s quite knowledgeable. Look him up and bring your questions to his attention, he’ll help you out further.
5
-
You think projectiles like that are shot in a straight line eh…well there’s your problem, a false assumption. Any projectile, regardless of what’s firing it, is subject to gravity the moment it leaves the barrel. So these guns are not shooting in a straight line, they instead point the barrels up at an angle, and then the projectile fires in a parabolic arc, helped along by gravity, dropping it down. It’s pretty standard artillery knowledge, you can look up parabolic arc trajectory formulas that gunners use, they’re not firing these guns straight, that’s a false assumption you have. Can’t fire that far in a straight line on a curved surface, you’re correct…but you sure can fire over a curvature pretty easily. If you know the drop rate of your projectile from the gun you’re using, then it’s pretty simple to angle your gun up at the proper angle.
Typically those who feel the need to mention their IQ or boast about it, are often not as smart as they claim. If you fell for flat Earth, then that really puts that number into question.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Allstarsga We see curvature everywhere, if you can’t find it, then maybe step out of your echo chamber and try again.
https://flatearthbusted.blogspot.com/2017/10/curvature-on-parade-turning-torso-video.html?m=0
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
We don’t feel constant motion, we feel inertia that’s created by sudden or rapid change in motion. That’s physics of motion 101. Earth is constant in every single one of its motions, with only small gradual changes in Velocity. Science has however detected and measured Earth’s motions in several different ways now. Here’s a short sample of experiments that confirm rotation.
https://youtu.be/qy_9J_c9Kss
https://youtu.be/M8rrWUUlZ_U
https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o
Physics does not say atmosphere can’t exist next to a vacuum...flat Earthers say that, because they’re masters at misunderstanding basic physics and twisting it to fit their bias. Physics knows that gravity is the container of our atmosphere, which also creates the pressure gradient we measure, and no laws of thermodynamics are broken because the entropy is slowed by the attractive force of gravity.
You’re not really seeking truth, you’re layman thinking you’re smarter than actual scientists, who are chasing bias without realizing it. If you bothered to actually listen to people when they try to help you with the errors you’ve made, you might actually realize how you’re being conned.
Misunderstand and cherry pick the science all you want though, the basic fact remains that flat Earth has no working model and is not used in any applied science or technology today. So you’re right, in that there is no point debating this topic anymore, Earth is a globe, that has been a certainty for hundreds of years now. Stop getting your science from con men and non experts spreading misinformation, and rejoin reality. Learn some real science.
5
-
It's pretty common sense that you require an accurate map of an area, in order to find a destination, correct? Well, we have developed an entire system of navigation, built from the understanding that Earth is a sphere, with a circumference of roughly 25,000 miles, with two equal hemispheres. Lines of latitude are equal in both the North and South hemispheres, that does not happen if Earth is flat. So best proof of a globe, just learn how to navigate...like really take the time and learn, then apply that knowledge sometime, like many have done before. You really think millions of pilots and sailors around the world, can plot and navigate successful routes around the Earth, with precise accuracy, without actually knowing the true shape and scale of the surface they're navigating? If so, you might need to rethink that position...cause it's not very sound in logic.
Just one of many easy to verify proofs of Earths spherical geometry. Would you like more? Seems like you could really use some.
5
-
@filipebernardino2152 Why would you expect every photo to be the same? Different cameras, with different lenses, different colour and exposure settings, shot at varying angles and perspectives, and every photographer edits their photos slightly different from the next, I’m sure it’s not much different with whoever’s operating the satellites. Then there’s the difference between film photography (the Apollo photos), digital photography (satellites), what spectrum of light they’re filming in (radio, x-ray, infrared, etc), and then there’s composites which are heavily edited. Seriously…why would you ever expect every photo to be the same? 🤷♂️
Let me guess, you saw that meme where some Flat Earther put a few examples side by side, pulling from the most extreme examples, most of them being composites and some that were computer generated, and that’s the depth of your research? You need a better bullshit filter my man.
5
-
Well, no, he didn’t even do the measurement correctly. He used a parabola equation, with no variable for height of observer (among many other missing variables), so he wasn’t even using the correct math, so his calculations were way off. He did also ignore atmosphere refraction though, yes, that was a big variable he also ignored, but his whole experiment was just a mess all around. So upon peer review it was found extremely inconclusive, due to sloppy experimentation. He basically just did enough to confirm his bias, and then he called it a day. It’s the perfect example for why peer review is so important to science. Upon recreation of the experiment, it’s actually found to be conclusive evidence for the globe, not the other way around.
Look up the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, it’s a very in depth modern recreation of the experiment. It’s been repeated many times over the last couple hundred years.
5
-
@goggamer3012 Well, gravity physics was a long process to deduce...you’re not going to figure it out with a single observation or experience. But, you have experience with the Earth itself. Drop something...it will fall, that direction is always towards Earth, always at the same rate. Place an object on a scale, the force of gravity will press it down, creating pressure, the scale then registers as a weight value....wouldn’t do that without a force pushing it down, that’s how a scale works, you apply a force downward upon the top of the scale. Falling is a motion, and since nothing is put into motion without a force or an apparent force, it means a force does exist. So it exists...there’s no denying that, but that’s only half the battle.
Verifying HOW it works, that takes some work, it requires further experimentation, which starts with a hypothesis. The main hypothesis for gravity attraction was that mass attracts mass, so science had to test and verify if that was true or not. It was verified with the Cavendish experiment, here’s a great explanation and demonstration https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68. This confirms part of things, it verifies that mass does in fact attract other mass, the experiment also measures the force more directly, providing a value which was useful for Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation, which helps astronomers and astrophysicists calculate orbital motions more accurately, among other things.
But that doesn’t even explain how it works fully, just a part of how. The next big confirmed hypothesis was the bending of space time, first verified in the Eddington experiment of 1919.
It’s a process...to learn how gravity works, takes time. It took centuries to get where we are with gravity today, and we still don’t know everything about it yet. How mass bends space and time...nobody really knows for certain yet. So you see, asking HOW something works, is a bigger question than you might think, especially when it comes to gravity physics. It’s very difficult science to understand fully, but I hope this information I’ve shared is helpful.
5
-
FFS...peel your head away from that book for awhile and open your frickin eyes, you gotta hit your head pretty hard to believe anything in scripture is actually true. Don’t need a Phd to deduce this stuff, just your eyes and some basic logic. Maybe travel outside your home town for once in your life, visit a different country sometime and notice that the Sun is visible from somewhere at every hour...it’s not disappearing for 7 hours and then returning, it’s high noon for someone somewhere, that’s easily verified with just a little travel bud.
So here are the basic facts, the Sun does appear to rise and set, but it’s also visible at every hour somewhere on Earth, both are easy to verify. So basic geometry will tell you, these two facts of reality kind of contradict each other, if Earth were flat. Meanwhile, a globe Earth fits this geometry perfectly...so pretty simple to deduce which is actually true.
The Bible is pure BS from front to back, best to rip that bandaid off as soon as ya can.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@hershelpogue1745 Uh huh, just gonna ignore my point on Ptolemy and deflect to a new topic eh. Classic. 🙄
You’ve been across a bridge, while I have travelled the world. I’ve seen the second hemisphere sky, the different stars, the second celestial rotation. That geometry is simply not possible on a flat Earth, it does however make perfect sense on a globe. As for your causeway bridge, I assume you mean the Pontchartrain bridge (which clearly shows curvature by the way, it’s been photographed many times), it’s about 60 feet above the water table (and that’s just its baseline, each boat entry point rises to about 100 feet), so did you factor that observer height into your curvature math? And refraction is always occurring (especially over large bodies of water where humidity increases air density). You’re always looking through atmosphere, so there’s always going to be refraction…it doesn’t just shut off. So you don’t get to just ignore it.
No, I think you watched a few Flat Earth docs on YouTube, believed everything they said without question, and now you think you’re an expert on Earth science. Go ahead and repeat what you heard from these docs all you like, I’ve heard it all parroted many times before. You’re nothing special, just another sucker falling for an online hoax.
5
-
5
-
@OfficialElljay “there are a plethora of flight plans that prove the earth is not a globe.”
No, there’s a few flight plans that some conmen lie about and suckers like you fall for. Meanwhile, every actual pilot and sailor is navigating the Earth right this very second, using a global system of navigation to do it. Learn to navigate if this topic truly interests you…don’t just blindly agree to every piece of bullshit you watch or read online.
“There is also video evidence of rockets strapped with cameras hittin the ceiling of the firmament.”
No, there’s videos of small cargo rockets being put into controlled spins, to stabilize their trajectory, and then they’re despun using what’s known as a yo-yo despin mechanism. Think about it for a second longer than you have. Why would you put cameras on a rocket, if it’s just gonna be spinning uncontrollably the whole time? Look up the yo-yo despin mechanism sometime, it’s a pretty simple mechanism, used in rockets and satellites to stop them from spinning. You’ve jumped to an erroneous conclusion, from a lack of knowledge on the subject.
“And alot of declassified Cia files on fallen angles and their technology.”
No, there’s some bullshit somebody made, that you agreed was official, without any further research or confirmation.
“The globe model was created the same time Allistair Crowley drew the demon lam which he also summoned.”
Jesus…you’re off the deep end now. 🤦♂️ No, there are old globes in museums today, going as far back as the 15th century. You need to peel your face away from your computer screen and get out more.
5
-
5
-
Most satellites are the size of a small car, and to get a full picture of Earth in a single frame, you have to be at least 2x’s its diameter in distance, that’s optimal distance to photograph anything in full. So roughly 16,000 miles in the Earth’s case. As I’m sure you know, the further you are from something, the more perspective shrinks its apparent size until it’s no longer visible to you. You can barely see a passenger jet from 6 miles away flying above you…what makes you think you’d see anything at 16,000 miles away? I don’t think you’re quite factoring the vast scales and distances you’re dealing with in these photos, or how small satellites are compared to Earth.
If you were seeing photos of Earth with visible satellites surrounding it, then they were not real photos of Earth. Or they were, but the satellites were added.
5
-
@chris73brown Ok, but just stop and think about that observation for a few seconds longer than you have. If line of sight to the Sun is never physically blocked...then how does the Sun set? Should be a pretty simple and logical geometric question to ask...how does that work exactly, if the Earth is flat? You can take that observation even further, recording everything from the shadow angles, to the rate of travel, to the apparent size, to the path of travel, to the day time hours fir every location throughout a year, and then you can plot that data upon the geometry...to see which model it fits. People have actually done this...they’ve discovered that none of that data fits a flat Earth, but it fits a spherical Earth perfectly. Here are some examples from a mathematician who checked the data.
https://youtu.be/fEYsgP4CuSA
https://youtu.be/yrsaP7nBWt0
https://youtu.be/-e9d4bjImHM
https://youtu.be/EF6Ojo9fJhw
Just because YOU have never personally bothered to look, does not mean others have not as well. You’re just making an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. Real people do know for certain what’s true, and it really doesn’t take much effort these days, just some basic understanding of geometry. At any time, YOU can also make these observations and collect your own data. That’s why this conspiracy is kind of ridiculous, because anyone can test it at anytime they want, nobody can stop you from testing the very Earth you live on.
5
-
5
-
They actually do change, it’s well documented at this point and any astronomer (you know, the people who actually observe, track and record the sky night after night) would tell you the same.
Combustion is achieved in rockets in space with the use of a liquid oxidizer, most commonly liquid oxygen, but there are others https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/oxidizing/oxiziding_hazards.html. It’s just chemistry at that point, mixing a fuel with an oxidizer, to cause an intense chemical reaction.
Propulsion is achieved by the third law of motion, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So basically, gas explodes out one way, that kinetic energy is transferred to the rocket, sending it the other way, transferring that velocity and maintaining it. It’s basic physics of motion, in fact a rocket actually works better in space, because there’s no drag force.
Anything else you’d like help with?
5
-
Very well said, here’s a little more food for thought if you don’t mind. I’ll address these with respect to your effort here, apologies in advance if I ever become condescending or pushy, I’ll do my best to be respectful.
1. I feel you’re just making an argument from personal incredulity here. We follow the evidence, Big Bang is the current leading model of cosmology because it has the most evidence supporting it, that’s all. This evidence is commonly referred too as the 4 pillars of the Big Bang. It wasn’t really an explosion, more like an expansion, so you’re reading too much into that title…scientific titles are often pretty loose and arbitrary, it’s just a label so we’re all on the same page when discussing it, not much more.
Occams Razor is not an absolute rule, merely a suggestion. The flat Earth certainly has a heck of a time twisting perspective fundamentals, to make something as simple as a sunset make sense for their model. Meanwhile the globe model accounts for a sunset with far less effort; the Earth rotates away from the Sun, eventually surface blocks it from your view…there, explanation over. Why don’t you apply a little Occams Razor there?
All you’re doing is choosing between a cozier version of things, against a universe that’s indifferent to us. That’s not a superior logic…it’s a very clear example of a conclusion reached from a bias. None of us wants to believe we’re not something special…but it’s equally as possible that reality really doesn’t care about what we want. So better to remain objective, and just follow the evidence. That’s all science is trying to do, if better evidence comes to light that explains things better, then science adjusts accordingly. Learning is a process, that’s the reality of our situation, we’re just doing the best we can with what information we’re able to obtain for the moment.
2. Good, I don’t have to explain what tidal locking is, that’s refreshing. How it works though is a bit more complicated. The short answer to your question is that the Sun actually is slowing our rotation and it will eventually lock us to it. It’s already done this for Mercury (almost), it all has to do with the orbiting bodies proximity to the host. Our Moon is far closer to us, than we are to the Sun by comparison. Granted the gravity well of the Sun is far greater, so that has an effect, but nothing in our current understanding of things says this is impossible, in fact it tells us the opposite, it’s expected. It’s not rare in our solar system, most Moons orbiting other planets are tidally locked to their host planet, it’s actually very common.
The globe model can actually explain how and why planets and Moons orbit, because that’s what we’d expect from gravity (gravity explains far more as well, from the orbits, to why everything is spherical, to how nuclear fusion in stars occurs, etc, etc)…can the Flat Earth model explain how exactly the Sun and Moon circle around the North pole without falling? I’ve not seen any explanation and certainly no evidence, it’s mostly just a lot of ad hoc nonsense, or “it’s just designed that way, don’t think about it”. I personally don’t find that to be very scientific, do you? More than that though, the globe model can make accurate predictions for every celestial movement…can’t really say the same for FE. You ever seen the geocentric model mapping the movements of the celestial bodies? It’s chaotic. Meanwhile, I could take all the geometry for our solar system model, and use it to mathematically predict eclipse’s, decade’s in advance, down to the second and square mile. The Saros cycle can’t do that, it can tell you the day of occurrence, but it can’t map the shadows path of totality upon the surface. So what reason do we really have to agree that our current model isn’t accurate? 🧐 Because of yet another argument from personal incredulity that you’ve made? Hardly a great reason…think I’ll stick to the model that actually works when applied, and has answers.
3. Why even bring this up if you’re aware of the pendulous vanes? 🧐 It does kinda render the whole argument of Gyroscopes on planes as…moot. Well, points for intellectual honesty I guess.
I’ll stop here for now, reply the rest in a separate comment.
4