Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
You can film other galaxies yourself with a good enough telescope…anyone can get a pretty good shot of the Andromeda galaxy and many others, with a decent enough telescope and camera setup, it’s pretty basic Astro photography knowledge, we do it all the time. So your points are pretty ignorant. You can find many tutorial videos here on YouTube, teaching you how to do it and demonstrating it, so feel free.
We’re not smarter than people were 130 years ago, but we do have more information, more knowledge. That’s the difference. And we have better technology now, we have advance computing technology that can run calculations at a much faster rate than any single human ever could, this greatly speeds up productivity, makes developing new technologies even faster. Where the Wright Brothers had to build and test each plane, going through a long line of trial and error, taking years, we can now simulate our engineering projects on computers, and test them in real time, before any need to actually build one, shaving off years of production time. We’re not smarter, but we do know more and we do have better tools to help us today…that’s the difference.
Apple didn’t invent the computer, the first digital computer was built by scientists and mathematicians, in a lab, working for the military during WW2. They were used as code breakers, capable of making advanced calculations much faster than any human mind could, so they used them to crack cypher codes that the Nazi’s used in their radio transmissions. You’re pretty ignorant to reality if you think every invention was made by some guy in a garage. Science first had to solve how physical reality operates, before a guy in a garage even had a chance. You think the Wright Brothers were the ones to solve the thrust to weight ratios required for lift? No, those equations were worked out by mathematicians and scientists…then it became possible for the Wright Brothers to develop their planes. Without the work from scientists and mathematicians first developing and acquiring the knowledge needed, these technologies would not have been possible.
You seem to have a very low opinion of science…but it’s pretty clear why, you really have no idea what they do. There’s a pecking order to all invention, first scientists and mathematicians figure out how things work…then engineers and inventors can do what they do, using that knowledge…that’s the order of operations. So every single luxury you enjoy today, is thanks to scientists, that’s a fact, not an opinion. You should be more grateful. At the very least, less ignorant and biased.
I’ll give you another example, the Wifi that currently sends and receives your internet data, connecting your phones, tablets, computers to the internet. That technology first required the discovery of the electromagnetic spectrum, which was a two part discovery, first by Issac Newton discovering that light was a spectrum when he split light with prisms, then William Hershel discovering infrared, when he was testing the various temperatures of each spectrum of light. Small little insignificant discoveries to you…but huge in the grand scheme of things. These scientists discovered the electromagnetic spectrum, which we now understand is a long spectrum of different wavelengths of light, that we can manipulate to send data on…radio and microwave wavelengths, we now manipulate to send audio and visuals information on, at the speed of light, sending them around the world. Scientists made this discovery, then scientists and mathematicians worked together on learning everything they could about it, then they came up with the theoretical possibilities for this knowledge, in published research papers that engineers and other scientists could access. Then and only then, could engineers and inventors take that knowledge and figure out how to use it practically. That’s the order of things…that’s what scientists do, they acquire knowledge. We don’t just skip right to engineering…that’s not how it works.
So whether you like it or not, you need science. Maybe if you spent more time learning about it, rather than making these ignorant speculations, then maybe you wouldn’t be so ignorant and afraid of it. Learn some science please, you live in the information age, you really have no excuses to be as ignorant as you are.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@frodobaggins169 Well I felt a portion of your point was to tell this guy not to take the bait from conmen pushing misinformation, because it only helps perpetuate their nonsense, or at the very least keeps the joke going by becoming the suckered, is that an accurate assessment? I’m merely pointing out that it really doesn’t matter in capitalist society, if it’s a hot topic, then it’s going to be talked about, so you might as well capitalize. He capitalized, and it’s probably been nothing but a positive experience for him, so your opinion on whether he should or shouldn’t have would probably fall on deaf ears, as he purchases a house and feeds his family tonight on that decision. So why should he care that some conman or narcissist out there got some gratification? 🤷♂️ Can they eat gratification? Does that gratification take food out of his kids mouth’s? No? Well then I’m certainly not losing any sleep over it, I’m sure he won’t either.
4
-
4
-
Did you mean to say not personally verifiable? Cause I mean, nothing really graduates past hypothesis in science, until it has been tested and retested and verified and peer reviewed, going through an intense process of constant attempts at falsification, to a point where only the most objective conclusion is left standing. So really, most of the leg work is already done, it’s a bit of an argument from ignorance to say something in science isn’t objectively verifiable...cause how would you know, unless you’ve done it yourself? Are you a scientist? Did you really try?
It’s fair to say that some of the higher science experiments and observations are really difficult to recreate and therefore a majority of people haven’t personally verified them and likely never will, but this is just a discussion of the basic geometry...you don’t need a particle accelerator, or even a space shuttle, to verify the Earths basic shape. You live here, you have access to the surface every single day, you can test the Earth’s geometry at pretty much any time you’d like. Start with a sunset for example, shouldn’t take much knowledge of basic geometry, to understand that a sunset is a bit of an odd occurrence...if line of sight to the Sun is never physically blocked on a flat Earth with a Sun spiralling above. Little things like that...of course you can take even that observation further, but I think it’s a bit of an argument from ignorance to say science can’t reach objective conclusions, especially with something so basic. There is a nuance here though, you are right to say we shouldn’t reach absolute conclusions, because we will likely never know everything, so how can we really know anything for certain, but what would you prefer we do instead, not attempt to learn how things work at all? Science doesn’t think in absolutes, it operates in percentages of certainty...why do you think they file many of their conclusions under theory? Some things are far more certain than others though, Earth’s shape is one of them.
“And if two scientists disagree on the flat earth...”
Gonna have to stop you there, you’d be pretty hard pressed to find an accredited scientist today, who doesn’t agree the Earth is spherical...that’s for a good reason. On the flip side, it’s no surprise to me at all, that most everyone in the flat Earth community is not an actual expert, in any field relevant to the discussion.
“You can not personally prove a globe Earth.”
Actually, yes you can, become a geodetic surveyor (measuring Earth’s curvature is literally in their job title), or a civil engineer, or just learn how to navigate. I mean I’m sure you’d agree that pilots and sailors kind of require an accurate scale and dimensions, of the surface they’re attempting to navigate. Guess which model they’ve been using for centuries. None of these are out of reach for the average individual, just takes some effort.
I don’t know man, you’re really going to a lot of effort to make it sound like flat Earth is the more logical position to hold, and I mean bravo 👏 for the excellent manner in which you masterfully articulated your points, but they’re really only convincing on the surface...and sound more like excuses someone could make, to help them burrow deeper into ignorance. It’s not rocket science we’re talking about here...it’s basic spacial geometry. Anyone can verify the Earths surface geometry, just get outside sometime and make a few simple observations...there are plenty to choose from, there’s really no excuse for ignorance these days.
I swear flat Earth has a lot of poisoned minds to atone for. Flat Earth has no working model and is not currently used for any applied science today...that’s for a good reason and anyone can learn why that is for themselves, at any time they choose.
4
-
Well, people tend to trust the science...that actually works. It’s kind of the nice thing about junk science, it reveals itself as false...by the simple fact that it doesn’t work. So why do people believe science and academia? Because they’ve likely recreated the science themselves, and they’ve seen fir themselves that it is accurate. I can only assume you’ve never taken a secondary education in the sciences before...if you had, you’d notice pretty quickly, that they don’t just talk about the science and tell you how it works, they also DEMONSTRATE it. Heck, they demonstrate it for you in high school, you don’t even need secondary education to know that. In higher education, they’re not holding your hand most the time either, in labs YOU are encouraged to recreate the experiments yourself, even improve upon them. Thinking fir yourself is highly encouraged in science...that’s how scientists make their careers.
The only people I see making this notion, claiming scientists and experts are somehow sheep’s, forced to conform to consensus, are from layman who have zero experience in science, and really have no clue what they’re talking about. Do you think Einstein is famous today because he conformed to consensus? Heck no, he’s famous because he challenged consensus. He challenged the work of Newton for christs sake...and let me tell ya, he was not very popular in his time for doing so, the difference he has with your standard flat Earther though, is that he was able to prove his hypothesis correct...he was also able to accept when he was wrong.
Anyway, point is, you can be sure the science is accurate, when it’s actually useful and it works. Junk science does not have that same advantage.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Why would you assume that because someone is refuting the Flat Earth claims, it must by default mean that they then also trust the government without question, absolutely? Believe it or not, but we can disagree with and question strangers online pushing what we feel is misinformation, and still agree that governments are corrupt and not to be trusted. Yes governments lie, yes you should always be skeptical of what they say, that’s not a secret, it’s pretty standard knowledge. But they still can’t lie about everything…nothing is that black and white or absolute.
Government had very little to do with solving Earth’s surface geometry and you do not require them to make that conclusion for you. Anyone can deduce this for themselves with just a few simple observations and a basic knowledge of physics and geometry. Best way to prove the Earth is spherical for yourself, learn to navigate. Seriously, if you think the millions of sailors and pilots around the world can successfully navigate the Earth every day around the clock with precision, without knowing the true surface dimensions of the Earth they travel…then you might need a good knock on the head.
I agree that governments are lying huxters…but that doesn’t mean by default we should just lose our heads, give up on objective reasoning and analysis, and just assume it’s all a lie absolutely. Thinking in absolutes is a fallacy of logic, it’s not that simple. We have every reason to question and challenge the claims of non-experts online, it doesn’t mean we’re siding with government, it just means we’re calling out bullshit when we see it, no matter who it’s coming from. Like it or not, but con men exist, narcissists exist, pseudo intellectuals with agendas exist…and the modern online world is their playground. That’s one of many ways how these people successfully sell you false claims, by exploiting your distrust of authority, because they know it’s strong bias many have, so they plant their bullshit in that bias. It’s very effective.
4
-
4
-
4
-
First, a plane uses air to generate lift. Space has no air, so no lift can be achieved in space for these vehicles. This is why there’s a limit planes fly at, they can never break out into space for this reason. Air gets thinner and thinner as you go higher, so this limits their ability to rise any higher. This is what the altimeter is measuring, barometric pressure, which calculates a rough altitude.
Second, you wouldn’t use the 8 inches per mile squared math here (actually you wouldn’t use that math for the globe at all, that’s a very basic parabolic arc equation, not an accurate spherical equation at all, so FE has taught you the wrong math). Pitch is measured by degrees, and it takes roughly 70 miles to arc just ONE degree of pitch on Earth, so it would be a VERY gradual degree change, hence why you would never notice. Even at 500 mph, it’s going to take roughly 8 and a half minutes to reach 70 miles, so to put that into perspective, arc your finger gradually from 0 to 1 degree, over the span of 8 and a half minutes...not arcing down very fast is it?
Third, the plane is always resisting gravity, constantly, it’s never not resisting gravity, so a plane doesn’t have to pitch down to drop in altitude. Unlike going up, where it has to, in the case with going down, gravity will bring it down, and the plane can maintain level the entire time. I’m sure you’ve tossed a paper airplane around before, ever try just gently gliding it, gravity bringing it down slowly but consistently, remaining level the whole way down? I’m sure you have.
Your main argument is trying to say that a plane needs to pitch its nose at some point, and you’re right...but you’re assuming it doesn’t. One degree of pitch every 70 miles...that’s pretty darn gradual. Nobody is going to notice that. I’m sure when you drive down a slightly curved highway, you barely notice any adjustments you’re making to stay on the road, it’s just one tiny adjustment after another, you do it on auto pilot without even thinking about it. Now just add a third dimension of travel (z axis), and make the curved highway (Earth’s surface) 25,000 miles in circumference.
Gravity vectors also move with you, always pointing to centre of Earth, so level in this context has always been to centre of gravity. I’m sure you’ve heard that term before, centre of gravity, that’s what it’s implying. A spirit level and your body even, balance perpendicular to centre of gravity, which changes as you travel, but always pointing to centre.
You’re just missing variables is all, the biggest one I find people of FE have trouble with, is gravity. You’re not stupid, quite capable actually of formulating logical arguments, but you do almost seem blind to some concepts. The other problem is that you’ve largely been lied too, the curvature math you’re using being a good example. FE has a lot of poisoned minds to atone for
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Depends on what satellite pictures you're referring too. If you're talking about the low Earth orbit photos, that are later stitched together to form a composite image, they have no choice but to manipulate these photos in a photo rendering software, in order to create those composites. But if you're talking about the pictures taken by the many geostationary satellites in deep space orbit (Himawari 8, DSCOVRY, GOES), then not sure what you're talking about...cause these photos are not manipulated. Some photos from these satellites are taken in different spectrums of the electromagnetic spectrum (infrared, UV, microwave, etc.), and then they're digitally colored, cause we can't see these spectrum's of light, but that doesn't really make them manipulated.
Or what about the photos taken from the Apollo missions, of which there are thousands. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544. None of these are manipulated either, these are full images taken by a regular camera. The photo that was used on the cover of TIME magazine back in 72, was touched up and color corrected to make it a sharper more presentable image, but other then that, these photos are undoctored.
So which photos are you speaking of in particular exactly?
4
-
4
-
@aarondavis7826 Because that particular model deals with the flight dynamics of the vehicle itself, not the environment it’s flying in, and it’s for simulation purposes only. So the author is just letting the reader know, the variables in the math ignore Earth’s shape and its motion, and they assume the vehicle is perfectly rigid, with no change in mass over time. It’s basically just putting the variables into words. Mathematical models are abstract, not to be taken literally, many variables are assumed in pretty much every mathematical model. It’s just focusing on the vehicle and its dynamics, moving linear through a system that’s constant.
It’s important to mention these assumed variables, because then, for example, an engineer, pilot, mathematician, etc, will know that this math wouldn’t be very helpful for calculating things like Coriolis drift, or Eotvos effect, etc, but probably helpful for its thrust to weight ratio, or drag resistance, etc. Because it doesn’t focus on environment, just the vehicle itself.
4
-
Ok, Rowbotham used the wrong math, so his claim that you shouldn’t see the marker at the distance provided, is wrong right from the word go. Use the wrong math, and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple. Here’s why it is wrong, 8 inches per mile squared is a parabola equation, not a spherical. So it’s not representative of a steady curvature. Worse then that, it doesn’t include any variables for height of the observer, horizon distance, curvature hump, arc length, refraction, etc, etc. It simply does not calculate a figure that represents your line of sight, or what’s obscured by a curvature…it is missing many variables required for that. So it is wrong.
The experiment has been peer reviewed and recreated many times. His version is found to be inconclusive, due to sloppy experimentation practices. It’s clear he only did as much as he felt he needed too, to confirm his bias, then he called it a day. He used only ONE marker, made only ONE observation, included ZERO controls, used the wrong math, and ignored variables like atmospheric refraction. So it’s extremely inconclusive, yet he reached a conclusion anyway. It’s bad science, cut and dry.
Here’s a modern recreation of the experiment, this time done across 10 kilometres of a frozen lake https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a79KGx2Gtto. There is a link in the description where you can find the official report, I’d share the link, but YouTube no longer allows outside links in comments. That’s how a real experiment is done, it’s very thorough, covering every variable it can, collecting as much data as it can, making observations over several days to test hidden variables like refraction. The conclusion here is conclusive, Earth is curving and at the rate it should be, given its scale.
Rowbotham’s version of the experiment now stands as a perfect example for why peer review is so important to science. People make mistakes, and they often don’t think they did, because we all have biases that tend to blind us from remaining objective. His experiment was inconclusive, that’s what peer review revealed.
Anyway, hope you find that information at the very least interesting.
4
-
@patrickhickman8723 Why would I be? 🤷♂️ I understand how motion really works. I understand basic physics. There’s a reason nobody bats an eye at these points you’re making…we’re just stunned someone actually thinks they’re arguments. Maybe 400 years ago, before the laws of motion were figured out…but you’re a bit behind on things now.
You should be embarrassed though, displaying for everyone that YOU don’t understand basic physics of motion, that even kids in grade school can understand. It’s physics 101.
Here, I’ll help you out Patrick. We do not notice motion itself, that’s the truth about motion, doesn’t matter how fast we’re going, whether it’s 60 mph or 500,000 mph, if the speed is constant or gradual, then we will never notice it. What we feel is sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion, so quick acceleration and deceleration. Every single one of Earth’s motions are constant, with only gradual changes over long periods of time, perihelion and aphelion in its orbit for example, which is a gradual change, about 20 mph per day….so roughly 1 mph every hour. Not a very fast change is it? Ever tried accelerating a car from 0-60, at the rate of 1 mph increase every hour? Let me know if you think you’d feel anything.
The only motion great enough that we could really detect, is our rotation, because it’s the quickest change in angular velocity we experience. But at the rate of 0.000694 RPM’s, it’s still extremely slow. For comparison, a Gravitron ride at your local fair, rotates at roughly 24 RPM, hence why you feel that rotation…it’s a much faster change in angular velocity.
You can confirm all of this science at anytime. Do you feel the motion of a passenger jet moving at 500 mph? No…how come? That’s still pretty darn fast isn’t it? Yet you can get up and walk around the cabin unhindered? Place a cup of scolding hot coffee on the tray in front of you, and it’ll remain at perfect rest…odd, shouldn’t it be sloshing out by your logic? 🤷♂️ Motion is relative, everything conserves the momentum of the inertial system it is moving relative too…this is physics 101 Patrick.
So why should I be shocked by Earth’s motions? 🤷♂️ Why do you think your own personal misunderstandings of basic physics, should faze me or anyone?
4
-
4
-
@Allstarsga Don’t have too, because the debate is long settled and it’s under no obligation to make sense to those who are simply incapable of understanding. The heliocentric model is now an applied science, it proves its accuracy every single day, with every pilot that successfully uses it to navigate and every engineer who uses the established models to innovate and build our modern world, with working success. So you’re only fooling yourself.
Gravity is the easiest force to observe, drop something.
It’s also measured https://youtu.be/fcT_zUb3wis which gives us a value 9.8m/s^2 used in practical formulas for engineering, everything from fluid buoyancy equations, to lift aerodynamics, to parabolic trajectory arcs, to orbital mechanics, etc, this measurement is useful whether you agree it exists or not.
It’s also verified through many repeatable experiments, most famous being the Cavendish, which isolated what is occurring and also measured the Constant of gravity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYf-Glwtr68
https://youtu.be/ZiqTkpSh52g
Maybe you’re not clear on how science works, but arguments from ignorance are not how you falsify established scientific theory, clear evidence that successfully refutes the conclusions is how falsification is done. Not going to achieve much through whining I’m afraid.
4
-
4
-
Rowbotham conducted a sloppy, inconclusive experiment, that ignored important variables, did not take enough data sets, and reached a bias conclusion. Upon peer review, it was found he used the wrong math, ignored atmospheric refraction, had no variable for horizon distance or height of the observer and simply did not do enough to render a more conclusive result. So it’s a perfect example of bad science, conducted only to confirm a bias.
Think of it like a slight of hand trick. He TOLD his audience the flag should disappear at the given distance, but that’s about it, then he expected them all just to agree, no further information or questioning required. A general audience of layman would just agree without really thinking about it, and that’s when he’s got you. It’s a slight of hand trick, because he’s basically waving some math in front of your face saying to “keep your eye on the math I’m showing you”, while never bringing up its inaccuracies for the observation. Any scientist or mathematician would immediately recognize how inconclusive the experiment was, but the majority of people aren’t scientists or mathematicians, so they’re easily dazzled by stuff like this.
It wasn’t a bad experiment mind you, it was actually pretty clever, it’s just conducted poorly. He twisted the facts, to get his bias conclusion, he was not doing things objectively. Here’s what a thorough recreation of that experiment looks like http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. Rowbotham did nothing to this level of detail, he only took ONE data set, using ONE marker, during probably just ONE observation, ignoring variables, using the wrong math, going only so far as to confirm his bias, and then he called it a day.
This experiment is taught to science students today, as the perfect example for why conducting experiments poorly is a very bad thing, and it also makes it clear why peer review is so important in science. Peer review weeds out bias, errors and lies.
So there’s a little science history for you. Hope that helps make things a bit more clear. Flat Earthers are currently doing the same thing today, fooling a lot of people, with superficial arguments and experiments like Rowbothams. The sad thing is, it’s working...
4
-
4
-
4
-
The hell you talking about? The Greeks were some of the first people to discover the Earth was spherical...that’s why the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes assumed a Globe during his famous Sun shadow angles measurements to calculate the circumference of the a Earth. It was already well established by them that Earth was a sphere...and it wasn’t hard to deduce, just observe one sunset...then try your damndest to make sense of that on a Flat Earth...doesn’t fit with reality very well.
Also, not sure about your education, but in high school science labs we weren’t just told how things work...it was also demonstrated to us. Maybe you didn’t pay attention in physics, biology, or chemistry...but that’s your problem, not the rest of ours.
Fact is, real people are out there inventing, innovating, engineering and navigating the world around you...they can’t do any of that successfully with junk science. That’s just a fact, not an opinion. It’s fine to question things, but please don’t make such ignorant arguments that assumes the rest of us are just as ignorant as you are.
4
-
It seems harmless on the surface, and it is pretty harmless for an individual…but get enough of them together, people who can vote on policies, then you have a problem that starts to effect society. Fact is, when it comes to the physical sciences of how nature objectively is and how it operates, we can’t do anything with false knowledge here. The shipping industry that imports and exports everything…can’t do that job, if they don’t really know what shape the Earth is and how big it is. You start getting a majority to believe the Earth is flat…suddenly they’re forcing schools to teach that model in school, becomes pretty confusing when they then leave school and try and do something that requires accurate knowledge on Earth’s shape. Would probably stop them from pursuing those careers entirely, so now you have a confused adult who can’t really contribute much to society in any impactful way, it sets society back as a whole.
We’re already seeing that happen with Creationists. How many kids from deeply religious families, who were taught creationism in school, could have gone on to revolutionize medicine…had they been taught the proper science?
It seems harmless at first…until it becomes a majority position, or even just a large minority within a society, whole communities, then these fringe ideas can effect society through policy changes…which can potentially set society back.
Gotta look at the big picture, you don’t just allow an infection to fester, you treat it before it gets worse. I know that’s a crude analogy, but Flat Earth is symptom of a deeper problem brewing in (at least) western society today, so we’d be best not to ignore it. I’d agree ridicule probably isn’t the best approach, but it can be effective to push these kinds of movements into echo chambers where they won’t spread further. It’s not really a long term solution though.
Improving and adapting our education system to the modern misinformation machine of the online world today, is probably a better long term solution. Or updating the internet to filter misinformation better…but that’s a slippery slope, for a society that tries to avoid censorship.
Anyway, it seems harmless yes, but I think we’d be wise not to ignore it.
4
-
Jesus...how can people spend so much time looking at the science of the Earth and still miss and ignore so many variables? He makes a lot of empty claims in that video and dazzles you with a lot of half truths and math...but do you ever stop to realize, that he didn't do a single experiment that helps to verify any of his claims? Like his main claim at about 5 minutes 40 seconds, where he states "...the spin of the Earth is powerful enough to smoosh the ball, yet we can't measure even the slightest force of pull toward the equator". He's of course talking about the centripetal force that Earths rotation should generate if it is spinning, that has made Earth bulge slightly wider at the equator. He makes a claim here with absolute certainty, that we have never measured any centripetal force on our planet....and then offers NO EVIDENCE for that claim. Do you ever stop to realize that?
Here's an experiment that anyone can recreate, that measures the centripetal force of the Earths rotation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t It's a simple experiment, if Earth is rotating, then it should generate some centripetal force that will negate a bit of gravity, which will cause objects to weigh slightly less, the closer to the equator you go, as the centripetal force becomes greater the closer you get to the Equator. He first calculates by how much, breaking down the math for centripetal force calculation, then he makes a prediction graph for his experiment. Upon testing each location, he finds that objects do weight slightly less the closer he gets to the equator and not only that, they match with his prediction graph.
So his claim that it has "never been measured" is bullshit, as this experiment above verifies. Here are two more examples of this experiment being conducted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkhxPm15PFo&t
https://youtu.be/agQnj1q2Y08?t=383
This is a common conspiracy nut slight of hand trick. Dazzle you with half truths and a seemingly well put together demonstrations, show some math but never explain or break it down, and then provide ZERO experimental evidence that helps to support ANY of the claims being presented. It's just empty claim after empty claim...and you suckers eat it up every time.
EVIDENCE is all that matters...get a better filter, this video is exactly how these fuckers con you.
4
-
iq O And always when flatties can’t logically replace or argue against gravity, they just say it’s density, and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done. It’s not that simple I’m afraid...just making empty claims, is not how you falsify science. How exactly does density know which direction to fall? What is putting that dense matter into motion? Why down? You go all the way down the thought process of Density as your replacement, the answer you’re eventually left with is “it just does”. Well great...if science concluded everything with “it just does”, then we’d still be in the bush figuring out how fire works.
You require a force to put matter into motion, density is not a force and buoyancy does not occur without the downward acceleration of matter. Remove that downward force, and buoyancy displacement does not occur, proven again and again with density columns in zero G environments. So you’re not really thinking this through very well. Density is not a force...it has no means to put matter into motion, it’s just a property of matter...how much matter occupies a given space, that’s all it is. When you drop something, it is put into motion...it’s common sense that a force is required to do that, because nothing just moves on it’s own. So the question is, what force? Density by itself has no answer. It’s that simple.
Flat Earth loves to cherry pick science, but you sure don’t understand it all very well. Thermodynamics has to do with energy...not matter. It’s energy that is being dispersed, and matter tags along for the ride, but when the energy in upper atmosphere is dispersed and weakened (in this case kinetic energy), it can no longer carry the density of that matter, and so gravity wins and pulls it back to surface, and the cycle continues. Entropy will win eventually, it always does, some molecules of hydrogen and helium are lost to space every day, but it’s a slow gradual process that’s gonna take a long time. What you’re forgetting is that entropy can be slowed, you do it all the time with a simple thermos to keep your coffee hot. But when entropy eventually wins and the coffee is cool...did the coffee exit the thermos, or was it just the energy? I shouldn’t have to tell you that answer, I’m sure you can figure it out. I hope you understand thermodynamics a bit better now. Gravity does just fine holding our air to surface....denying gravity exists, is not an argument against it, it’s just plain ol’ denial. You are grossly misunderstanding entropy and thermodynamics, in your conclusion of atmospheric pressure.
So here’s the problem, you ignore established physics when it suites you (gravity), and then cling to and butcher it when you think it supports you (entropy). So you are scientifically illiterate layman being taken for a ride by con men exploiting that insecurity you have for this reason, and you are bias researchers, starting with a conclusion and gathering only the evidence that supports it, instead of looking at ALL the evidence and forming a conclusion from that evidence. Not a good combo. You think you’re smarter than everyone else...but you learned everything you’re talking about from a YouTuber...who likely had ZERO credentials, who is just as scientifically illiterate as you are...and you just repeat what they say verbatim and then call the rest of us sheep? It’s incredible. xD
Here’s a question, if you believe atmosphere is held in by a container...where is it? Why haven’t we discovered it yet? It is a physical barrier is it not, so where is it? What evidence do you have for it, other than a butchered understanding of entropy? Why haven’t we reflected or refracted lasers off of this dome yet? Why haven’t we done the same with radar, like we do with the Moon to gauge how far it is? Why do weather balloons sent to upper atmosphere eventually pop, like they would in vacuum conditions? So is there a vacuum between our atmosphere and this dome? How does that work under your idea of entropy exactly? Just sayin, you people demand so much from the scientific community...but don’t think YOU should be held to the same standards of review? What makes you think these strangers on YouTube, who you listened too blindly and without question, have actually falsified 500 years of established science? What makes you think they’re telling the truth?
See we have evidence and experiments that verify gravity, experiments anyone can recreate (Cavendish, Eddington experiment, drop tests, etc.). We have measured it, calculated it, derived it and we use it in applied sciences, like putting satellites into orbit....while you have NOTHING, but a broken understanding of entropy. Yet you believe this dome exists anyway...and you people say the rest of us are indoctrinated? You listened blindly to con men on YouTube, feed you bullshit science and believed them without question....now you repeat it like the good little flat Earth soldier you are. Good job.
Let us know when flat Earth science is used to invent, innovate, engineer, navigate, discover anything. In the meantime, get a better bullshit filter and stop listening to con men feed you bullshit science online.
4
-
4
-
“Johnny, in the first half you proved earth is flat…”
No, he shared an example of an inconclusive experiment, that any person with even a basic understanding of physics can see is inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Which fits the topic of the video perfectly, Flatties actually can’t see why that experiment is flawed…so it displays what we’re dealing with here, stupid people. That’s why some people become flat Earthers…they’re stupid.
“There are engineers and scientists working their ass off to write technical documents using math and physics to prove earth is flat”
Name one accredited scientist that’s working towards that.
“No physical devices like rockets or satellites defines the shape of the place we live in”
Ok, but they sure do take nice pictures and videos of it don’t they, confirming what all our observations and measurements have been telling us for thousands of years already. You might be fine with ignoring anything that doesn’t fit your biases, but the rest of us sure aren’t going to do that. Satellites exist, they’re in space as we speak, taking pictures and adding evidence to the mountain of evidence that was already there.
Science doesn’t care what shape the Earth is, they just need to know it’s shape, so that they can make use of that knowledge in applied sciences like navigation, communication, infrastructure, etc. Even in engineering, like rockets and satellites, which make use of orbital mechanics, which is a whole branch of mathematics and science that is built on the foundational knowledge, that Earth is spherical and produces gravity at a centre of mass. Your intentional ignorance does not change the facts of reality, like that Earth is spherical.
Get a better bullshit filter, flat Earth is an online hoax, built by conmen and perpetuated by their victims. At the very least, you should consider that very real possibility.
4
-
4
-
Well he briefly explained why, but I suppose a few more details is warranted there. The original Bedford Level experiment conducted by Samual Robotham (Parallax) is deemed extremely inconclusive. He used the wrong math, made only one observation, used only one marker (proper experimentation requires many data sets), he did not consider important variables such as height of the observer, and he ignored effects such as atmospheric refraction, etc, etc. So he conducted a very sloppy experiment and made a lot of false claims, that his experiment did not actually verify. It’s basically the scientific equivalent to a sleight of hand trick; keep your eye on what he’s claiming, and ignore the actual details.
Upon peer review and proper recreation of the experiment, this experiment actually verifies Earth curvature, not the opposite. For a very recent recreation, check out the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, it’s quite thorough and its conclusion is far more conclusive.
I hope that helps. Take care.
4
-
The topic of this video seemed to be more interested in why people come to believe Earth is flat, a discussion of the ideology, not so much the science. This isn’t really a science channel either, so not sure why anyone would expect anything more. Sometimes it’s just interesting to discuss the psychology or thought processes of a group mind set, seemed pretty clear from the title, that was more the point of this video.
Unfortunately, it is a bit more difficult these days to find videos discussing the science of this topic, so here’s a few channels I’m aware of that you could check out.
CoolHardLogic - has made a video series going through much of the core arguments, providing sources to good counter evidence.
Voysofreason - pretty similar to CHL.
Professor Dave Explains - same thing, with more of a focus on pointing out the many flaws of the FE model.
Bob the Science Guy - goes deep into the science and mathematics of Earth science, with demonstrations and thorough explanations.
Wolfie6020 - a commercial pilot from Australia, and an amateur astronomer, he goes deep into the topic of navigation and provides many astronomical observations.
Sly Sparkane - not sure of his background, but probably the best channel for recreating experiments and creating 3D models that put the geometry of each model to the test.
Jos Leys - a mathematician, who makes some very simple 3D simulations of the geometry for both models.
Soundly - a photographer who has worked with accredited professionals of engineering and science, to conduct curvature experiments and make observations of curvature.
Walter Bislin- not sure of his background, but he’s done many experiments testing Earth curvature and has created some of the best free curve simulation programs online.
You want answers, these are some of the better channels on YouTube tackling the actual science. I wouldn’t expect much from channels geared more towards presenting a few quick factoids and opinions, for mild entertainment purposes.
4
-
4
-
Lol, what are you talking about? I’m a digital artist, so I happened to have a good grasp on spacial geometry and the laws of perspective, and I’m an amateur astronomer who’s travelled the world, so I’ve made observations all around the globe, like the southern stars for example. Many of the people I’ve seen chat with you, are also hobbyists/experts in other fields, like Frankie the mouse, pretty sure he’s a sailor, with knowledge and experience in actual navigation. He can elaborate more if he’s reading this. Many others I’ve noticed over the years are engineers, pilots, physics teachers, mathematicians, etc. You’ve been chatting with experienced experts Yester...so don’t kid yourself.
But even if we were all just “skateboarders and gamers”, we’re still RIGHT at the end of the day...sooooo, if that’s what you choose to believe, then it’s worse for you, cause it means your arguments are so flimsy, you’re being proven wrong by average joes. xD
4
-
4
-
That wasn't the point of this video...it's pretty apparent from the title, that this was just intended as a discussion on HOW and WHY people fall for this particular scam. It is a psychological analysis of the people who believe in Flat Earth, not a video that delves into the science. He shared those two experiments in particular, because they best illustrate how people fall for this con job...by being lazy and scientifically illiterate. Both the level on the plane and the Rowbotham Bedford level experiment are examples of inconclusive experiments, but for some reason people still think these experiments prove a Flat Earth....so he shared those examples, to illustrate how scientifically illiterate people fall for scams online....by being fooled with inconclusive experiments like those two.
Some of us have reached the conclusion that Flat Earth is a scam, now we're looking for discussions that break down HOW and WHY people fall for that particular scam. So if you are still looking for evidence on the subject, then this video wasn't made for you. I suggest looking up these content creators, if the science is what you're looking for. Sly Sparkane, Wolfie6020, Soundly, Walter Bislin, just to name a few.
3
-
3
-
3
-
“The Mayans were advanced mathematicians and astronomers who never doubted that the earth was flat.”
How do you know that for certain? Cause a documentary on YouTube told you that? Are you an archeologist or historian? Even if they did believe the Earth was flat, so what, they were clearly wrong. You don’t think ancient civilizations could be wrong? What is it with people romanticizing ancient civilizations and thinking after a few ancient aliens documentaries, that now somehow makes you an expert on these cultures.
“Remember that water seeks its level and the surface of water is always flat.”
Flat to YOU because of how tiny you are in comparison to Earth, it’s basic geometry and perspective. And water doesn’t “seek level”, it seeks lowest possible elevation. On a sphere, lowest possible elevation is towards centre of object, gravity works the same way, pulling to centre of mass, which forces water to seek that centre and form around it, it’s surface then maintaining equipotential distance from that centre. A bubble does the same thing, so does a water droplet thanks to different forces squeezing them in towards a centre (pressure and surface tension). Spheres are the most rigid shape in nature, because the surface is at equal distance from a centre...gravity is a force that pulls to a centre, and so that force can and will keep water at equipotential distance from centre. If you want to even begin arguing here, you’d have to first successfully falsify gravity...and good luck with that.
“Don’t forget that it would be impossible for a layer of air (“atmosphere”) and vacuum (“outer space”) to exist side by side.”
And yet, it does, so not impossible at all really...we’ve seen it, we’ve measured it, a misunderstanding of basic physics doesn’t make clear observations and measured science just go away. Even Flat Earthers have sent weather balloons up into near space, and the balloon pops due to being in vacuum conditions. Soooo...YOU people have already measured the vacuum of space as well, and it’s right next to our atmosphere. But wait...first you claim you don’t agree in the idea of a “dome”, but then you make the “atmosphere can’t exist next to a vacuum” argument? So what’s holding in atmosphere then by your logic? Are you even listening to yourself?
I think you’ve been listening blindly to way too many conspiracy and flat Earth docs on YouTube bud. They’re feeding you a lot of really bad science and you’re just nodding and agreeing for some reason. None of what you’ve shared is evidence of your claims, they’re just speculations and misunderstood physics.
Here’s some real evidence for you, give this an honest look over. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
What you have above are misunderstandings and assumptions. Can’t do much with either.
3
-
3