Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
4. Gas rushes in and fills a container of vacuum at surface, because of the kinetic energy built up in the adjacent container, that is under a great deal of pressure, so a lot of molecular collisions, creating a lot of kinetic energy. So of course those molecules are going to rush in, they’re full of intense kinetic energy. What happens in upper atmosphere though, where collisions occur far less frequently, and at less kinetic intensity? There’s less kinetic energy to go around, less collisions to maintain and increase that energy, so eventually gravity wins…and completely saps those molecules of their kinetic energy, bringing them down, just like everything else. Gas is still a tangible substance, with mass…so it is not free from force of gravity. You don’t require a physical barrier to create pressure in atmosphere, just a force that attracts it to surface. Why do you think the gradient is in the direction it is? Because of the weight of the gas above squeezing down on the mass below. You even agree with that, I’m almost just paraphrasing really, it’s basically just like stacking any form of matter…but what happens when you have no more matter to stack? Why would you need a barrier for that? Does a pile of rocks sitting on the Moon require a barrier to keep them their? No, because of gravity. But then if gas is equally as attracted by gravity as any other matter is…then why would you need a barrier? 🤷♂️
It’s odd to me that you almost work this out yourself, that gravity eventually reduces kinetic energy of gas molecules…but you stop short on that line of thinking, before you get to the logical conclusion that gravity would eventually bring that kinetic energy to zero, converting to potential energy, and then accelerating it back down…just like anything else with mass. You came pretty close to that conclusion, but it seems to me you turned around once it started to conflict with the conclusion you wanted. Just my opinion, but maybe you’ll agree after reviewing, idk.
Nature doesn’t really abhor a vacuum, that’s just something Flat Earthers tell themselves again and again, so they can trick themselves (and some others) into believing it’s true, essentially brainwashing through repetition. In reality, even they have measured the vacuum of space without realizing it; ever happen to see footage from any of those high altitude balloons they’ve sent up? Ever happen to watch until the end, where the balloons eventually pop…just as they’re designed to do once reaching vacuum conditions? Planes as well have a ceiling limit…because the air becomes too thin to generate thrust and lift, which is why we use rockets for space travel, because they don’t use air for propulsion, they use Newton’s third law of action and reaction. For me personally, that’s all pretty good evidence for the existence of space vacuum, we don’t need to recreate it on a smaller scale at surface…we can just go to the vacuum that’s already above us.
5. Because of parallax effect, distance has a profound effect on perceived motion. It’s why a passenger jet in the sky moving at 500 mph, appears like it’s barely crawling across the sky from your observation on the ground. And that’s just at 3-5 miles…what effect do you think trillions upon trillions of miles would have? But, any amateur astronomer could tell you the stars are actually shifting, it’s a big part of astronomy’s job, to track and chart the stars every year. Been doing it for centuries, the old star charts confirm it, they are moving. Parallax effect explains why it takes so long.
That’s also how we know they’re far away. The first clue we had was that the stars don’t drift in parallax as we travel along Earths surface. If they were closer, then they absolutely would. Just travelling a few hundred miles would shift their positions. This doesn’t happen, so they must be very far away. But we do record a stellar parallax every 6 months or so…a big clue that led us to the conclusion that we orbit around the Sun. Took a few hundred years to accurately measure the precise distance, the best and most accurate method eventually arriving in the last hundred years, with the invention of radio and radar methods. So now we know for certain the Sun is millions of miles away…so it’s not a stretch at all to conclude that stars are even farther still.
It all comes full circle to help explain why stars don’t appear to shift…because of parallax effect. Because they’re REALLY far away.
6. Only magnets that HOLD a magnetic charge work this way, an electromagnet however, requires a lot of energy (like thermal energy), spiralling around a coil of metal alloy, like nickel or iron…the two most abundant metals found on Earth and inside our core. So you’ve only scratched the surface of how magnetic fields work. Our core is not a fridge magnet…it’s basically a giant electromagnet. They’re not the same thing. One merely holds a charge, the other produces it.
In any case what’s this falsifying really? Do we detect a massive electromagnetic field around Earth? Yes of course we do…a compass wouldn’t work if it didn’t exist. What else exactly could generate that field? Do we have evidence of some metal alloys under our surface? Yup, every volcanic eruption spews out tons of it…and it clearly is hot down there, as we’d expect it should be, because of all that gravitational pressure down there. Iron is the densest material, and gravity pulls the densest matter to centre of gravity first…so pretty logical to conclude that a sphere of iron would form directly at centre. And we know how electromagnetic fields are made, we recreate them pretty regularly ourselves….so if the shoe fits.
You might be interested in the science of seismology too, if this topic really interests you. More specifically the study of S and P waves generated by pretty much any seismic activity. It’s the same science that mining companies use to detect specific minerals under the surface. The very same science can actually be used to determine Earth’s deep inner composition, because Earthquakes of 8.0 or greater actually penetrate through the Earth, pinging seismic stations on the opposite end of the Earth…before the surface waves arrive at those same stations. Meaning they went through the Earth, taking a short cut.
It’s interesting science, you can learn all about it with a quick YouTube search, just search Seismology S and P waves. Point is, you’re barely scratching the surface with your point here…don’t stop at your bias.
Fun fact, Nikola Tesla was not a flat Earther, in fact his famous Wardencliffe generator that he had proposed, in his writings of it had many drawings where he depicted a spherical Earth in relation to his device. So just some food for thought. He didn’t like theoretical physicists very much…doesn’t mean he disagreed with them absolutely.
The trouble with Flat Earthers is not that they’re skeptical, that’s actually what I find to be very admirable about them…it’s that their skepticism is very thinly veiled over confirmation bias. They only seem skeptical…up until it’s there preferred Model that comes under the microscope, then they’re just as stubborn as any mainstream scientist. That’s my main gripe with them…the desire to verify something they WANT to be true, is painfully obvious most of the time. Makes it very difficult to take them seriously.
Anyway, let me know if this information has been helpful or at the very least interesting. Your points were very well made and engaging, and the intellectual honesty and level of detail was refreshing, so thank you for that. I hope I could be just as engaging. Take care for now.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@OSUBucknado I have, and no they do not. Flatties misquoted ONE GUY who worked on the 2002 Blue Marble COMPOSITE, and now they think his words stand as some kind of statement from all of NASA. It's just classic cherry picking, a form of confirmation bias, nothing more. Taking quotes out of context and blowing their meaning out of proportion.
The real truth, is that NASA has many different types of photos of Earth, some are composite, some are single frame digital images, some are regular old photos on celluloid film. Flat Earthers hear what they want...and don't dig any deeper than their bias allows, and you'll become a flat Earther if you just sit on the surface of what they say and never question their claims. There are thousands of photos of Earth taken during the various Apollo missions, taken long before the days of CGI or photoshop, taken in single shots, on regular film. You can find many websites that archive these photos, if you actually gave a damn to try. You can even go out to the various museums that display the actual photos if you'd prefer.
Then there are the Geostationary weather satellites, which all take full photos of Earth, around the clock, 24 hours a day. Satellites like the Himawari, GOES, EPIC and DSCOVR. All have their own online archives you can access. Here's a guy who used the Himarwari 8 satellite, to compare cloud cover for his area https://youtu.be/YCk-zVIvxvc. And here's a group of hobbyists who built their own radio telescopes, that they then used to link up to the GOES satellites 15-17, that they then pulled image data from https://youtu.be/jGWFg7EDnyY.
I have looked at this claim from Flat Earth...many times, it's bullshit. NASA has never claimed that ALL of their photos are CGI, that's just a bullshit claim that Flat Earth repeats...because it's part of their narrative, repeating lies over and over again, until they can convince some people into believing they're true.
Get yourself a better bullshit filter, dig a little a deeper.
4
-
@yestervue4697 If I may add some further insight to your points, you’re aware gravity is both a theory and a law in science, right? Look up the Law of Gravitation sometime, then look up what weight is defined as in physics and how it’s calculated. I think you could also benefit from brushing up on scientific terms like theory and law. https://youtu.be/h0H-amOti_o A scientific theory is actually a bit better than laws of science, because laws make no attempt to describe how things work, they merely describe WHAT is happening. Objects fall down, this requires a force for that motion to occur, it doesn’t just happen on its own, so that’s what’s happening, law of Gravitation in a nutshell.
Also, whoever said a plane doesn’t pitch down? What you’ve likely been told is that pilots won’t notice, because pilots are constantly making small adjustments to keep on track with the horizon indicator and the altimeter, among other instruments. The change would be so gradual, they’re not going to notice. On a planet at our size, it would take roughly 70 miles to make 1 degree of difference, so no pilot or passenger is ever likely to notice a shift that gradual.
There’s a content creator here that goes by the name Wolfie6020, he’s a licensed commercial pilot from Australia, who does many videos on this FE topic, providing insight and evidence from a pilots expertise. He’s quite informative on all things pilot and navigation related, so feel free to look him up sometime, might help answer some questions.
Just some information you might find interesting, I know it’s probably far from enough to persuade you of anything, but hope it’s at least interesting anyway.
4
-
@yestervue4697 Exactly, things in the distance SHRINK in apparent size before they reach vanishing point...so why doesn’t the Sun do this before it meets horizon? Here’s a timelapse of the setting Sun https://youtu.be/WtQiwbFD_Cc. You’ll notice, it maintains its apparent size throughout the day...so if we agree to your argument of perspective causing a sunset, then why doesn’t the Sun shrink?
You seem to think everybody else doesn’t know what perspective is, or how it works. No dude...we get it, we hear your argument, it just doesn’t fit with reality. Perspective has rules, and those rules can be quantified and modelled...do you want to see what the Sun would look like, if it were actually small and local moving above us? Here’s a simulation of that geometry and scale https://youtu.be/-e9d4bjImHM.
Science doesn’t say you shouldn’t use your senses, only that your senses are easily fooled, they’re not very precise and they can be wrong...so you shouldn’t jump to conclusions so quickly, that’s all science suggests. Is that really so unreasonable? It’s true, in the grand scheme of things, our senses are quite shit. If they weren’t, then we’d be able to see bacteria, or air molecules, or we’d have ability to see further and sharper and in every spectrum of light, not just the visible colour spectrum. But we can’t, because our senses are limited, they suck and are easily fooled.
That’s the reality...so science is just being honest and up front...while you’re asking everyone to just ignore these simple truths and agree with you without question. :/
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
A spirit level uses buoyancy force to find centre of gravity, gravity pulls to centre of mass (centre of Earth), and so its vector angles shift with surface, meaning the bubble actually levels to the field of force of gravity…so you can’t use a level to determine Earth’s shape, anymore than you can use a compass to determine the shape of a magnet, the bubble moves with the force in much the same way a compass needle would move with the force from a magnet.
So, it’s an extremely flawed experiment right from the start, and anyone with a basic understanding of physics can understand why. He only repeated the experiment as a joke…and to help make his point. By demonstrating the kind of bad science being used to sell this nonsense, which helps explain how people fall for it…which was the whole point of his video. It’s a focus on the people of flat Earth…not so much the science. This isn’t a science channel, Johnny is a journalist, so he focuses on people and places and events, not science.
But I hope this information is helpful, or at the very least interesting.
4
-
4
-
This isn’t a science channel, his point wasn’t to prove or disprove either position, it was just to discuss WHY people believe Earth is flat…that’s literally in the title. It’s dissection of the ideology and the group mindset of Flat Earthers…that’s all.
He shared those two experiments, because they’re both examples of inconclusive experiments, that Flat Earthers didn’t realize are inconclusive. It helps make his point, that some people become Flat Earthers, because they lack the scientific literacy to catch the errors in many of the experiments Flat Earth conducts. That was the whole point of sharing those.
I’ll cut you some slack though, it is true he could have made that clearer, by at least sharing some sources that help support that…but again, this isn’t a science channel, he’s not a scientist, so you really shouldn’t expect much.
He’s not wrong though, they are inconclusive experiments. The level on a plane ignores basic physics, and does not prove or disprove either position, and the original Bedford Level experiment conducted by Rowbotham was an absolute mess of an experiment. He used the wrong math, so his distance wasn’t even accurate. He ignored important variables like height of the observer, horizon distance, hump height, and yes refraction. He collected only ONE data set, made only ONE observation, using only ONE marker, and didn’t run any controls. Upon peer review and recreation of the experiment, it was found extremely inconclusive…yet he reached a conclusion anyway. He basically only did as much as he needed, to confirm his bias, tweaking the experiment to get him the result he wanted…that’s bad science.
The original Bedford Level experiment is the perfect example, for why peer review is so important in science. To catch inconclusive and erroneous experiments, like the one conducted by Rowbotham.
Here’s a modern recreation of this experiment https://youtu.be/a79KGx2Gtto. When conducted properly, with the correct math, including every variable, with many more data sets, it actually verifies the opposite conclusion. Earth is curving and at the rate it should be.
Flat Earth doesn’t seem to care about accuracy in science…they just care about bolstering what they want to be true. That’s the point he was trying to make, they don’t seem to care about peer review or inconclusive experimentation. If they’d just keep researching a bit deeper, take a closer look at their “evidence”, rather than stop once they think they’ve found something…they’d realize how poor their evidence really is.
4
-
Flat Earthers come here to mock, they should expect nothing less than to be mocked back in kind. I agree it’s petty, but it’s to be expected. Takes a tough skin to join these kinds of conversations, especially if you’re going to make claims that go against all of modern knowledge, then you really shouldn’t be surprised that people would push back. You’re arguing a position that has no working model and that is not used in any applied science today, so do you ever stop to consider, that maybe it’s you who have reached a erroneous conclusion, not everyone else? There is a reason a lot of us do not bat an eye at Flat Earth claims, because we know where they’re going wrong. If simply disagreeing with you makes us trolls, then there’s not much chance of having any meaningful discussion, you’re not here to discuss with an open mind then, you’re just here to force your perspective.
There’s a very good chance you’ve fallen for an Internet hoax that has exploited your lack of knowledge and experience, so you should at the very least be mindful to that possibility. If you’re willing to keep your mind open, I’ll do the same, then perhaps a civil discussion can occur, I don’t mind hearing you out. But don’t expect to change my mind so easily, and don’t softball me, I’m not new to this discussion, been researching it for years now and I know the arguments of Flat Earth probably better than most Flat Earthers at this point, so don’t patronize me, and I’ll try not to do the same. So feel free, I don’t mind having a discussion if you’re willing to participate on equal grounds.
4
-
4
-
Ok, Rowbotham didn’t do enough in his version of the experiment to reach a more conclusive result, so upon all peer review it has been deemed inconclusive. We don’t reach conclusions in science from inconclusive experiments. To reach a more conclusive result, he needed to first make sure his math was correct, it wasn’t, he was using the wrong formula; then he had to account for as many variables as he could through proper controls, he did not, he completely ignored refraction; then he would need to take many more data sets, yet he only made one observation, using one marker. So basically, it’s an example of a sloppy experiment, conducted only to confirm a bias. He experimented only until his bias was confirmed and then he stopped looking. So it was confirmation bias that led to an inconclusive result.
Here’s a modern recreation of this experiment, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. Notice how thorough this experiment is, that is how a real experiment is conducted. The conclusion is very conclusive here, the Earth is curving and at the rate it should be.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@joaopintovb “Explain to me…why can we jump, takeoff with planes, throw leaf planes, etc etc how’s that possible with such strong gravity holding oceans upside down?”
Well unlike water which is dead inert matter, you are alive and so your body produces energy it can then use to resist force of gravity for short periods of time. But when you jump up, you eventually come back down, correct? You don’t just jump up into the stratosphere, eventually the kinetic energy you produced in the act of jumping becomes spent, and so it can no longer counter force of gravity, so you come back down. You can jump because you are alive, and can produce energy to counter some forces…water is not, so it has no way of countering gravity, it’s pretty simple. Planes aren’t much different, they have engines which burn fuel to produce energy, it then uses to spin turbines to generate thrust, which puts it into motion. We learned from studying birds that flying just requires thrust, and wings, so we can then use the air for lift, we call that aerodynamics…and it also requires gravity, because the downward force puts a pressure force on the molecules of air, and the air resistance pushes back, generating lift under the wings. Water again, is inert, it has no energy to spend and no limbs or wings it can use to counter gravity, so it just rests at lowest potential energy state indefinitely, completely trapped by force of gravity.
Gravity pulls everything to centre of Earth, that’s how it works. So there technically is no bottom of Earth, so at no point on Earth’s surface is anything upside down. You’re right side up so long as your feet are on the surface, that’s the direction all matter is pulled towards. Seriously…if all motion requires a force to cause it, then what force would be present at the “bottom” of Earth, to cause things to fall into the sky? There isn’t any, there’s only the gravity of Earth, which pulls everything towards surface…so our oceans don’t have any trouble staying at surface, because there’s only one force present that’s attracting them…gravity. So Earth’s gravity doesn’t need to be very strong (and it isn’t), it’s the only force present, it’s not fighting against any other counter forces. Your question asserts that a second force would be present under the Earth, attracting our oceans towards it…but that force simply does not exist, so our oceans aren’t going anywhere, you’re just grossly misunderstanding how it works.
Anyway, hope that information is helpful or at the very least interesting. Take care.
4
-
@joaopintovb Before him nobody identified that falling motion as a fundamental force of reality. Before him we didn’t have a completely tested and written down knowledge of how this force works…that knowledge is VERY important in engineering today, and has been since the day it was penned, whether you realize that or not, that’s a fact, not an opinion. Whether he’s a mason or not is irrelevant. If the science works and can be demonstrated to work every time it’s applied, then a mans affiliations do not matter…but that sure tells me a lot about how your mind works, through appeals to emotion and paranoia, rather than clear objective reasoning.
Yes, a scientific theory is a collection of verified and tested facts, very different from a regular theory in the layman vernacular, you can look it up anytime.
This is basic middle school science, that I wish I didn’t have to teach people…you should already know the basics.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@joaopintovb Weight is gravity, you feel your weight, then you’re feeling the force of gravity…you feel it every day, you’re just not paying attention.
Ever heard of relative motion? Law of inertia? Conservation of momentum? Ever wondered why a pot of hot coffee can be poured out into a cup, then sit perfectly still in front of you on tray without spilling, while flying at 500 mph aboard a passenger jet? The reality is we do not feel motion itself, what we feel is sudden or rapid change in motion, what we feel is accelerations.
More basic physics for you, very easy to verify for yourself, little to no effort required. The laws of motion are the first laws of physics you learn about in general science classes…because they are so extremely easy to understand and verify for yourself. If you knew anything about them, then you would know and understand how balanced rocks are possible within a system of motion…and then you wouldn’t be so easily conned by dumb conspiracies online.
4
-
4
-
@joaopintovb It’s really not difficult at all, thanks to the laws of motion. By your dumbass understanding though, shouldn’t that coffee go firing across the plane getting sucked to the back of the plane? Yet it pours smoothly into the cup, and rests perfectly within the cup. Why is that? Or how is it possible at all to walk around the cabin of a jet without any trouble? Because everything in motion stays in motion…first law of motion, the law of inertia. And when everything moves together at a consistent rate, with no opposing forces (like drag force), then you’re now within an inertial system of motion (called relative motion), that operates as though stationary. Making it possible to do all of that, and more, while in motion.
Physics 101…proven very easily, with very little effort.
4
-
@joaopintovb The most promising hypothesis in quantum physics currently is a particle called the graviton, more and more evidence is mounting for this particle to be the most likely source of gravitational fields, most recently from the work done at the LIGO observatory, where they’ve successfully detected gravitational waves, collecting a lot of useful data that may correlate to the hypothesized graviton and hopefully solve that mystery. Welcome to the fringes of modern physics, still a lot we have yet to learn and discover! Science doesn’t claim to know everything, but it sure knows a heck of a lot more than the paranoid numpty’s in obscure comment threads on YouTube.
Identifying forces is always a lot easier than figuring out how they work and what their source is, but it’s definitely worth our time and effort to figure it out. A hundred and fifty years ago we didn’t really know much about the electromagnetic spectrum, today we use it for everything from radio, to sending texts and connecting to wifi, to clicking on your tv via remote, to microwaving our food, and examining our bones with x-rays…the list goes on. Gravity physics we currently use in orbital mechanics, flight aerodynamics, buoyancy calculation, parabolic arc trajectories, and more recently nuclear fusion. The more we learn about it, the more applications we find.
We don’t have to know everything about physical phenomena, to make it work for us. Gravity is the easiest force to verify…drop something. That falling motion does not just happen on its own, all change in motion requires a force to cause it.
4
-
@joaopintovb Far easier to help you understand how undeniable gravity really is. I’m sure you know how a scale works, you press DOWN upon the top surface, to apply force, which creates pressure, which the scale measures as weight. So the key variable to causing that weight pressure, is a downward force…it’s really that simple. So now if there’s no downward force, as flatties claim, then how exactly does an object that’s resting on a scale generate a weight value? 🧐 Pretty obvious that a force is present, regardless of what a few paranoid idiots claim…all they did was give this force a name, just like they do with every force they identify. Figuring out how it works and where it comes from is the next step, and that’s where we’re currently at.
So it’s pretty simple deduction that helps us with the rest though, lots of little clues. We’ve mapped and measured the entire Earth, it is most definitely spherical, every successful navigation proves that geometry accurate…so you know, millions of verified proofs every year. And we can’t help but notice that things always fall towards surface, no matter where you are on Earth…so pretty simple to deduce that this attraction force emanates from centre. Which makes sense of why Earth would form a sphere in the first place…because that’s the shape things tend to always make, when a force applies pressure in all directions inward towards a centre. It’s also no coincidence that almost everything we observe in space is spherical…gravity makes perfect sense for why. It also explains the orbits of planets, the formation of stars planets, solar systems, galaxies, the nuclear fusion that powers stars…the list goes on.
Gravity does a lot more than just explain why things fall, it quite literally explains pretty much every mystery of the cosmos. When gravity was realized, those mysteries fell like dominoes…it’s really no coincidence that scientific advancement took off running, around the time Newton first figured this out. Anyone is free to question it, but you’re not gonna get far…cause it’s held up to scrutiny for well over 400 years, from some of the greatest minds in history. It’s not from lack of trying, it’s just undeniable science…reality doesn’t lie, and it could care less about a person’s affiliations.
So you’re certainly not the one to falsify gravity I’m afraid…especially if you really don’t know anything about it. But I hope this information has been helpful.
4
-
@joaopintovb “…but I’m sure you know how the measurement was done and when right?”
It can be measured in many ways, the first time it was done was roughly 2000 years ago by a Greek mathematician named Eratosthenes. His method is easily repeatable, here’s a very recent recreation, done a lot more thoroughly with a lot more data points https://youtu.be/J9w4KtHxZ68?t=891.
Every navigation clocks their speed and time, and with millions of ships and planes completing voyages around the world every year, we have enough data about Earth’s surface to accurately conclude its shape and scale. You gotta face that fact I’m afraid, Earth’s geometric shape is vital information to have in navigation. If they did not actually know Earths true dimensions, then the systems of navigation they use simply would not work…it’s really that simple.
Have you ever travelled? I certainly have, many times, all around the world. I’ve been to almost every continent, I’ve tested this system of navigation, it’s something I’ve been quite interested in for at least the last decade now. It works…and that’s when you know you have accurate information, when you can apply that knowledge, and it will work every time. Can’t say the same for Flat Earth….they don’t even have a model they all agree upon, let alone a working one.
You fell for a scam my dude, it took advantage of your lack of knowledge and experience, and appealed to your desire to put a little dirt in the eye of experts whom you resent. That’s the reality.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@multymind4744 Well you're technically not wrong, gravity is a product due to density...it's an objects density that bends space and time, which puts mass into motion towards all other mass. So it's half true to say "it's just density", but that's still ignorant to the rest of the science. It's called gravity, because we needed a name for that motion. Density is already defined in science, it's just how much mass occupies a volume of space. So it's already defined in science, it has its place. Falling is motion, as is rising due to buoyancy. We give a name to buoyancy, which is the opposite motion upwards...so why can't we do the same for the falling motion downward? That's all they've done, gravity is just a name they gave to that motion, so that we could all be on the same page when we discuss the topic, so we know what's being discussed. You call it density, then it just gets confusing...cause are we talking about the state of matter, or the motion? It can't be both, so it's much easier to label that motion as gravity, makes it so much easier in terms of language, so that we can discuss it without confusion.
It does get muddled, that's because we do not know everything about it...science doesn't know a lot about a lot of things, doesn't mean we don't know a lot, doesn't mean some things aren't solved, doesn't mean we can't still measure and define some terms, that we can use in equations.
It's not hard to see what's really happening either. Flat Earth denies gravity, because it's not very convenient for their core arguments. That's the reality as I and many others see it. Much easier for them to just deny it exists, then that problem goes away...then they can argue from ignorance. It's just...not very productive, and it's very biased, and very obviously so.
It's fine if they could falsify gravity, I'm sure physics would actually love that! Cause it would open the door to a new discovery and that's what scientists are all about! But they haven't....they've just taken established gravity physics, and chopped out the word gravity....that's it. And then they deny experiments like the Cavendish, or the Eddington, or time dilation tests in upper atmosphere, or the more recent gravitational wave experiments, etc, etc. Then they conveniently forget that general relativity's field equations were pivotal to solving the peculiar orbit or Mercury, and currently is used to detect super nova and black hole events, before ever evening turning on the telescopes. As for more practical applications, satellites are in orbit, gravity physics certainly helps that, and it's helped scientists and engineers successfully recreate fusion reactions...and if they solve that, our energy problems will be essentially solved, at least in the technology sector.
So I'm sorry, but it's just frustrating is all...I'm fine if people have found an actual falsification for a theory or hypothesis, it's perfectly fine to entertain alternatives...but it's very clear what's really occurring. A VERY biased group of people, are just forcing the conclusion they want to be true, by ignoring and denying whatever science is inconvenient for them. It's just classic confirmation bias. They're biased, right from their title...do you see scientists calling themselves Globe Earthers? No, because they could care less what shape the Earth is, what they care about is objective accuracy. Can't do that...if you start with your conclusion, rather than build your conclusion from all available evidence.
Anyway, I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. Thanx for the civil dialogue in any case, it's a rarity in these chats, so thank you. It's fine to question things, so don't get me wrong, that's the one thing I actually do admire about FE. Though I do strongly disagree with the conclusions of FE, for good reasons, you're still free to explore them.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Several reasons:
1) He used the wrong math. 8 inches per mile squared is not a line of sight equation, it's for a parabola. So his figures don't represent what he was trying to disprove. Do the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, so you always must make sure you use the correct math in any experiment, otherwise it will throw off all your results and waste your time.
2) He ignored several variables that are important to factor, the biggest one being atmospheric refraction. Here's a simple demonstration of this effect https://youtu.be/IRywj88MsjA. You'll notice as refraction increases, everything in the distance rises up higher, making it possible to see things beyond geometric horizon. This footage is actually from a modern recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, this is taken from the Rainy Lake Experiment. Same experiment, done a lot more thoroughly, this time over 10 km of a frozen lake.
3) He only made ONE observation, using only ONE marker, he basically did the least amount of work to confirm his bias, then called it a day. In science, we never make just one observation, you have to take multiple data sets, several observations, then you take the average of each to help with your conclusion. There's always a margin of error in every experiment, especially when something like refraction can fluctuate throughout a day and give you many different measures and observations. So you have to take the average...can't do that if you only make one observation.
So in summary, it was a sloppy experiment, performed only to confirm a bias. It's the perfect example for why peer review and recreation of experiments is so important in science. Because people can and do make errors, and peer review is how we weed those errors out. Upon peer review, Robothams experiment was found to be inconclusive, due to many errors in experimentation. So it's basically useless, it's been falsified.
Recreate the experiment properly, and it actually fits with the globe measurements. Look up the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, by Walter Bislin. It's the most modern recreation I'm currently aware of.
4
-
4
-
All the original Bedford level experiment proves is how NOT to do an experiment. It's the perfect example of an experiment designed to confirm a bias, which is why it's taught to university students so they can learn from that failure. Rowbotham only went so far as to confirm his bias, and then he stopped looking, which is exactly how you do science wrong. True science is about remaining objective through falsification, continuing your experiments, covering every variable you can, falsifying as much as you can until you can't anymore, which leaves you with the purest conclusion.
He conducted a poor experiment that was designed to give him the result he was looking for, rather then what was true. Upon peer review, it's found that he skipped over many details and did not collect enough data to reach a conclusive result. The experiment has since been repeated many times and improved upon over the years, you wanna see what that experiment looks like when conducted properly? Here you go. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
Give it a look sometime, that's an example of how thorough you need to be in a REAL experiment...all Rowbotham did was watch a flag disappear, used some bad math and then reached the conclusion that supported his bias...so one observation, one data set, bad math, conclusion. Is that honestly how thorough you want our scientists to be? That sort of stuff works on the weak minded, easily conned suckers, who just want quick easy answers...but science has to do better, MUCH better, or we will stop advancing as a society.
The conclusion in this experiment, when conducted properly, always brings the same result, that Earth is indeed curving and it's curving at the rate it should given our planets true size, shape and scale.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The point of this video wasn’t to prove or disprove the theory, it was just to talk about WHY people think the Earth is flat. It’s literally right in the title. So it’s a discussion of the psychology of these individuals and the ideology of the group and the paths they took to get where they are currently, it was not so much a deep discussion of the science.
He shared those two experiments specifically, because they are both examples of inconclusive experiments, the first one being very obviously inconclusive. With just a tiny bit of understanding of gravity physics and the buoyancy effect that centers that bubble to center of gravity, anyone can see why it’s inconclusive. But some people don’t…like yourself…hence why some people become Flat Earthers. Because some people don’t seem to have the knowledge or understanding required, to understand how stupid that experiment really is. You understand now why he shared that experiment, for the topic he was discussing?
You pretty much demonstrated his whole point with your comment.
I’ll give a few more details on the science though, I won’t leave you hangin. The first experiment with the level doesn’t verify its conclusion, it only asserts it. We don’t reach conclusions in science upon forced assertions, that’s how you reach false conclusions. The experiment focuses only on what a level is used for — determining a flat horizontal plain — and then it assumes it is capable of doing this indefinitely, no matter how many miles you stretch it. But that last assumption is false, it ignores the physics of how a simple spirit level works and its limitations. Spirit levels can only level a small area, because Earth is so big, it takes roughly 70 miles to arc 1 degree of difference, so a few meters to even hundreds of square meters will appear perfectly flat, even though it technically isn't.
The Bubble is really levelling to center of gravity, it is buoyancy force that places the bubble at highest point in the tube, and buoyancy is directly caused by gravity. Buoyancy is the same exact vector as gravity force, just in the opposite direction. Gravity’s vector always points to center of Earth, so buoyancy’s vector is directly away from center. Point is, the bubble of a spirit level is really levelling to center of gravity, and gravity vectors on our globe, shift as you travel, always pointing to center. So as long as that level is kept perfectly perpendicular to center of gravity, it will not move. Since a plane is gradually arcing with Earth’s curvature as it travels, keeping in line with its horizon indicator and altimeter, it’s arcing in perfect sync with shifting gravity vectors. So level the spirit level with the plane, and it will never appear to move, because its going to be level to the current gravity vector it’s in.
So basically, the experiment doesn’t verify or falsify its hypothesis, it’s inconclusive. If Earth is flat, with only 1 gravity vector, the bubble won’t move. If Earth is a globe, with shifting gravity vectors, the bubble won’t move. So it doesn’t verify or falsify either conclusion. If you think it does, that’s because you don’t quite understand gravity and buoyancy and how it affects that bubbles movement.
See the problem yet? They’re reaching a conclusion, from an inconclusive experiment. That’s bad science. It’s relevant to the topic of this video, because it’s an example of an experiment that does successfully convince some people the Earth is flat, or at least gets them wondering if it could be. For others, we recognize right away that it’s inconclusive, proves nothing….but flat Earth doesn’t have to snag everyone, doesn’t even need a majority, just needs to convince a small few, and this experiment is an example of how.
The second experiment is also inconclusive, but it’s at least a good experiment. The level on a plane can never verify or falsify any conclusion, it ignores gravity physics, a level can not determine Earth’s shape, because it’s bound to gravity, it’s just a terrible experiment. But the Bedford Level experiment can actually be used to reach a more conclusive conclusion, the problem here is that Parallax conducted it poorly. It’s an example of sloppy science, conducted only to confirm a bias. Rowbotham (Parallax) only made ONE observation, using only ONE marker, taking only ONE data set, used the wrong math (8 inches per mile squared), ignored hidden variables like refraction, then he called it a day. That’s not how you conduct a thorough experiment, not in the slightest. So upon peer review, it was found to be inconclusive due to poor experimentation practices. It’s actually a perfect example for why it’s so important to have peer review in science, because people make mistakes, often without realizing it.
Upon further peer review and recreation of the experiment, it’s actually found to be conclusive for the globe conclusion. It’s a good experiment, it was just done poorly. It’s been repeated many times over the last couple hundred years, the recreations are generally a lot more thorough, including a lot more markers, more days of observation, collecting more data sets, factoring and controlling for variables such as refraction, using the correct math, etc. There’s a great modern example of this known as the Rainy Lake experiment, you should look it up sometime, it’s very thorough. It even has a full section on refraction, because yes, refraction is a big variable here, but Rowbotham missed so much more than just refraction…his experiment was just terrible through and through.
So what that experiment shows, is that some people don’t care for the details of an experiment, they just care about the conclusion. The general public doesn’t have the time to sift through data and go through every detail of an experiment…and people like Rowbotham know that. So what he did was almost like a sleight of hand trick…show you a conclusion, feed you false details, claim it’s impossible on a globe, then expect you to believe it without question. Sadly…it does work. Like an illusionist asking you to keep your eye on what he’s showing you, so you don’t catch the illusion, it’s not much different.
So, it’s another example of why people become flat Earthers, hence why it’s in this video, cause that’s the topic. Quite simply in this case, people are being tricked…because they don’t have the time to really get into the actual science of it all, so they’re happy to just go along with what Rowbotham or others are saying.
It illustrates the need for proper experimentation and it points out how ill prepared some in society still are. Things may seem convincing on the surface, but that doesn’t always make them true.
Anyway, hope you find this information at the very least interesting. I don’t mind helping with more if you got further questions or things you’d like to point out that I might have missed. Feel free. Have a good one.
4
-
So theres a few errors here. First is focusing on the definition of level and thinking it means only one thing, flat. This is thinking in absolutes, and it’s simply wrong, as I’m sure you know, words in the English language take on different meanings depending on the context. In the context of topography, level is defined as “being a surface perpendicular to all lines of force in a field of force : EQUIPOTENTIAL” equipotential is basically a geometric term, meaning a surface that maintains equal distance from a centre. A good example is a bubble, which typically has a surface that is equal distance from the centre of the bubble, forming it into a sphere. So that surface is level, in the context of topography, maintaining an equipotential surface. You’ll find that definition here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level the third entry under adjectives, definition #5.
Why does this matter? Because water seeks level by this definition. Water is really looking for lowest potential elevation, that lowest point is always towards centre on the globe, that’s where gravity pulls everything. This will cause the surface of water to become equipotential. A spirit level is not levelling to surface, it’s levelling to centre of gravity, so it’s level so long as it’s perpendicular to centre of gravity...which is going to shift as you travel along the Earth with gravity.
So flat Earth ignores gravity and the physics that is going on inside the spirit level and just focuses on what they think level means in this context. They’re making all kinds of arguments from ignorance here. Fact is, that bubble level will shift with the gravity vectors of Earth, so as long as it’s perpendicular to centre of gravity, it will be level with gravity.
The reason why we can use a spirit level to create flat surfaces, is because of how massive the Earth is, compared to us. It takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree of difference on Earth, how much do you think it arcs in a few square meters? Might as well be perfectly flat, so we can use bubble levels for keeping things horizontal to a surface no problem.
So the thing about this experiment, is that it’s inconclusive. If the Earth is flat and there is no gravity, then the bubble will read level. If the Earth is a globe with gravity, then the bubble will read level. See the problem here? It neither verifies or falsifies either model, so that means it is inconclusive. So if anyone were to use this experiment to reach a definite conclusion, then they are doing so out of bias. Flat Earth ignores gravity and then thinks this experiment supports their model, because of their poor understanding of both gravity physics and the English language...and how topography works. They just think “level means flat, bubble levels are for leveling flat surfaces, so if the bubble doesn’t move earth is flat, simple”. Simple minds thinking in absolutes, never bothering to learn how they’re in error.
Anyway, hope you find this information at the very least interesting. It’s an inconclusive experiment, they can’t just ignore the model they’re arguing against, and hope that defeats it...they have to stay objective and honest, but they are applying bias in there conclusion here. This won’t lead to any actual truth.
4
-
@OlamideAdelaNCC Welp, we conclude things on evidence, can’t make conclusions without it. If you do, then you are arguing from ignorance or appealing to belief , and neither is a logical argument to take seriously. Earth is spherical by every measurement done so far, and the model works when applied, from navigation, to communication, engineering and infrastructure. So Earth is spherical, until evidence can actually verify that it’s not. It’s fine to hypothesize, but we shouldn’t reach any definite conclusions from hypothesis alone. Simulation theory is fun to entertain, but in no way proven…heck we don’t even have a clear way to test it yet, so it’s not even a hypothesis yet, as testable is a prerequisite for that title. So it’s an idea at best.
I’m just saying, there is lots of evidence that you can acquire first hand, without much effort, that verifies Earth is spherical. You don’t have to just take people at their word, you can acquire the knowledge yourself.
4
-
4
-
@russellrattys6581 Centripetal forces are increased by the rate of angular velocity change per second, 1000 mph is a linear velocity, so it doesn’t mean much here. We typically measure rotations in revolutions per minute (RPM’s). It’s the rate at which something rotates, that has the larger affect on centrifugal force. A gravitron ride that sucks you to a wall, rotates at roughly 24 rpm’s. Earths rate of rotation is ONE complete rotation every 24 hours, this makes the Earth’s rpm’s about 0.000694, and that even gets smaller the further from Equator you travel. This is a tiny amount of rotational velocity...hence VERY little centrifugal force.
This is very well understood in physics, you can even confirm it with a simple thought experiment. Imagine yourself driving a race car around a perfect circle track, 1000 metres in circumference, at a steady speed rate of 200 mph. Would you expect to feel centrifugal force in this example? Yes, you’d have a heck of a time even staying on the track, you’d be experiencing so much centrifugal force! Ok, now let’s just increase the length of the track to 1000 miles. Traveling on this much larger circular track, at the same steady 200 mph, would you expect to feel much centrifugal force in this example? No, in fact the track would feel almost perfectly straight to you, you’d have a very easy time staying on that track, FAR less centrifugal force, well under anything you could detect.
So let’s now analyze that closer, what changed? The linear velocity was the same, yet the centrifugal force was greatly reduced. So what does this tell you? That linear rates of motion have very little to do with centrifugal force output. The main difference in both examples, was the rate at which they would complete one full rotation. The first example, the car would complete several revolutions within every minute...the second example, only one complete revolution every 5 hours.
So the trouble here is in not quite understanding the physics of centripetal force, which causes people to reach a false conclusion. This happens across the board with flat Earth arguments...hence why they’re met with so much push back. It’s becoming a real problem...people thinking they know everything already, thinking they’re perfectly qualified to spot errors in science, when the real errors are really within their own misunderstandings. It’s made worse on that many of these same people don’t like being corrected, or shown how they could be wrong.
But what you have is actually a really great physics question! It’s not a bad question at all, you can actually learn a lot about the physics here, by exploring these kinds of questions more, and being open to some answers. Flat Earth asks some great physics questions...they just don’t bother to seek the answers, instead choosing to hold the questions up as their evidence. But questions are not evidence.
Here’s another cool little tidbit on this topic of centrifugal force. There still is a tiny amount of centrifugal force generated by Earth’s rotation, which does negate a small fraction of gravity upon you. Did you know you actually weigh about 0.03% lighter at the Equator, then you would at the poles of Earth? I’m pretty sure that’s an accurate percentage anyway, might be off by a decimal place, been awhile since I calculated it myself, but it’s true and it’s also testable. Here’s a simple experiment anyone can try to test this phenomenon themselves, just requires some travel a set of simple weights and a scale https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o. It’s a great experiment, that confirms Earth rotation.
But no, one rotation every 24 hours, not even close to enough to replicate the force of gravity. But, fun fact this is actually how they plan to design space stations in the future, to replicate gravity for the passengers.
Anyway, hope you find this information at the very least interesting. They are good physics questions, so don’t feel discouraged. Let me know if you have any further questions or rebuttals. Have a good one!
4
-
4
-
You’re oversimplifying things, refraction is a variable, it matters, so it can not be ignored. It does effect what we see, it does bend light, so it can’t be ignored. The trouble is that they’re getting mad because science isn’t as easy as they want it to be...tough titty, we have to remain objective and factor every known variable, that’s just how it is. If we do not, if we’re lazy and ignore variables that can affect our conclusions, or if we ignore them intentionally for the sake of confirmation bias, then we risk reaching false conclusions.
Fact is, Rowbotham conducted a sloppy, lazy, bias version of this experiment, rendering it inconclusive. He took one data set, over one observation, using one marker, ignored refraction and height of observer and used the wrong math. You really think the scientific community should just roll over, and accept bad science without question? Kinda defeats the purpose of peer review, don’t you think?
Here’s a modern recreation of this experiment, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. Far more in-depth than Rowbotham ever thought to go. The conclusion here is conclusive, Earth is curving and at the rate it should be.
4
-
4
-
Gravity pulls to surface no matter where you are, towards centre of Earth, and you are drawn to surface by that force. So as long as you are oriented to your gravity vector, you will be right side up, feet on the surface. We know this because of two things we observe and measure. Earth is observed and measured to be spherical, we have a whole system of navigation today built on that knowledge, that simply would not work if it was inaccurate. And no matter where you are, America, Australia, the UK or South Africa, everything falls towards surface, this falling motion is undeniable and observed daily by everyone. That falling is a motion, nothing is put into motion without a force to cause that motion…so there’s a very obvious force attracting you and everything to the surface, no matter where you are. So if these two perimeters are true, spherical Earth and a force attracting us towards its surface, then it’s logical to conclude that it’s this force that orientates you to the surface. You are right side up, relative to gravity, so long as your feet are on the surface.
Your error is in making a false comparison, you think a ball in your hand is equal to the Earth, that they would be the same thing, but that ball doesn’t create nearly as much gravity as the Earth does. So you’re creating a false equivalence, you’re assuming they would be the same, and that’s your error. Poor water onto that ball in yours hand, where does it fall? Towards Earth, correct? So Earth is attracting that water, causing it to move towards it, that means a force is present, because no motion occurs without a force.
So now compare that ball in your hand to the Earth in space, is there anything below the Earth creating an attractive force, that could pull anything away from and off of it? No…the only force present in this example is the gravity of Earth, so everything is drawn towards it.
Also…there is no ice wall around Earth, you’re confusing the flat Earth model for the globe model. We have two polar regions, one a solid land mass the other just miles and miles of frozen ocean water. If anything, they’re surrounded by water, not the other way around.
Anyway, I hope you find this information helpful.
4