Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Johnny Harris" channel.

  1. They don't definitively prove anything in their experiments though, what they're doing is more akin to smoke and mirrors. Showing you what they WANT you to see, then hiding the details that refute their conclusion. It's sloppy science, and it works on people looking to confirm a bias. What's your bias? Well you obviously have a deep hate and distrust of authority, so you're looking for any other reason to hate them further...so you're not really looking for objective truths anymore, you're looking for only the science that supports a bias you have. There is no peer review on YouTube...so I know you watched a few videos and now you think you're an "expert"...but it's not that simple. Flat Earth is currently demonstrating WHY it was so important that science implemented the peer review system into the process of science, to weed out this kind of bullshit, to stem the flow of misinformation. But the internet has cracked that shit wide open and misinformation is now free to flow. Once you go deeper into the science, once you go past your bias, you realize that they're reaching false conclusions...cause they're intentionally hiding details, doing only what they need to, to confirm a bias. Science isn't easy, and Flat Earth is fucking it up a lot of the time, because they're not trained at conducting proper experiments designed to seek objective results. That's what is really happening, if you'd like I can go through a few experiments with you and point out their errors...and illustrate for you WHY peer review is so important in the process of science.
    3
  2. Flat in the context of elevation, which is measured from centre of Earth, making a surface with all points that are at equal distance from centre, in a large square area. This is known as an equipotential surface. A spherical bubble for example has an equipotential surface, a bowling ball, a water droplet as well, any spherical object really, with all points on the surface at equal distance from centre. A salt flat is just a land elevation that’s basically an equipotential surface. It’s not technically flat though, they just call it flat because we perceive it as flat, because of how large the Earth is compared to us. Sea level is defined the same way, it’s not level as in flat, it’s level in terms of being equal distance from centre, at equipotential. Anyway, let me know if this information helps. If you have any more questions feel free to ask.
    3
  3. Alright, here's a simple little experiment that can help you out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs This demonstrates pretty clearly that as the air density is increased, light refracts and makes it possible to see objects beyond a curve. Refraction is a well known effect in physics, you see it all the time in fact, whenever you look in a pool of water and see an image shifted or distorted. https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftwistedsifter.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F11%2Flight-refraction-physics-is-fun.jpg%3Fw%3D800%26h%3D602&f=1&nofb=1 Basically, light slows down and deflects as it passes through a denser medium, like from air to water, or from less dense air with low humidity into more dense air with high humidity. The air closer to the surface is always going to be the densest where gravity creates the most density, especially over large bodies of water, where the air is humid. Since horizon is closest to surface, this means light is bending down and over that curve, which causes objects beyond that curve to appear higher then they actually are. Here's a great a video that explains it further, in the context of flat Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLufSkz-et0 So refraction is something that occurs, and so it is a variable that can not be ignored in long distance observations. Luckily, there exists mathematical formulas that take an index of refraction and tell you by how much something will rise at what distance, given that level of humidity in the air. Here's a great experiment for curvature that was done pretty recently, that did several visual tests on several different days with differing refraction index. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment Here's a photo from that section that helps to illustrate why refraction must not be ignored in these observations. https://ibb.co/Fh6Qm3x Anyway, hope that helps. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.
    3
  4. You’re assuming that laser targeting is a direct tangent line from weapon to target, but that’s not how it works. Something has to go out to the location and “paint” the target with a laser at a much closer range. This is usually a drone or a person out in the field. Their location is then relaid to satellites that pinpoint the location of the laser, giving a location to the artillery team. So it’s a network of various communication systems that makes it possible.
    3
  5.  @HaydenEvanoff  I don’t believe, I know, because I’ve studied it and tested it directly. You know too actually...you’ve just never processed properly what you were seeing. I’m sure you’ve seen what a pencil does in a glass of water https://www.michigan.gov/documents/explorelabscience/Introduction_to_Light_606396_7.pdf. That’s refraction, it’s a very well understood principle of light physics and everyone is probably familiar with it in some way or another. Most have just never seen what it can do, and even less understand how it works. For a more practical demonstration relative to this discussion in particular, I like to show people this simple demonstration https://youtu.be/5lmmzvzz_Xs. Or you know, if you’d like to see light bending directly due to refraction, here’s another one, this time using a laser https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0?t=278. I can share more if you’d like, but I’ll leave it at that for now. I’m sure these help demonstrate clear enough, why refraction can’t be ignored. It’s fair if you’re not aware of the science though, most people aren’t well versed in physics such as this, so it’s fine. I would just caution that you should be careful not to jump to conclusions. The problem I’m seeing with Flat Earth, is that they ask a lot of great questions...but they don’t attempt to answer them, they instead assume they can’t be answered, simply because they themselves couldn’t. Then they form conclusions from a lack of knowledge and understanding. Science is kind of similar, the difference is that they take steps to properly review every situation, making sure to account for every known variable and control for hidden variables as best they can. They don’t jump to conclusions until it’s conclusive, that’s the difference. Science doesn’t really make mistakes, or at least that’s not the word I would use, it’s a bit more nuanced than that. It mostly just reaches conclusions based around the information it has at the time. Sometimes, they don’t have all the information they need, because the information is unknown to them at the time. You’re no different, you thought for sure refraction was bogus, until I provided information you were unaware of prior to your conclusion. Now that you have new information, you can review it and decide if it’s valid. If it falsifies your current conclusion, then to remain objective, you should change your conclusion. Science operates the same way...because that’s the reality of our situation. We do not know everything, so for this reason, old information always has the potential to change as new information is obtained. So that’s why science changes through time, because we’re constantly learning more as we go, and sometimes we learn something new that forces us to change what we thought we knew. Science has to remain objective, so it changes when it has too. That’s the reality of information gathering, it’s a process. That’s also why science is constantly reviewing itself. The trouble is...the general public has been led to believe that science reaches certainties. But it’s a common misconception, that’s not how science works. Science just studies physical reality to gather information, then we form conclusions from that information, as best we can. So it doesn’t operate in absolute certainties, it instead thinks in percentages of certainty. That’s how it works. But some things are more certain than others...there’s probably nothing in all of science, we’re more certain of, than the shape of the Earth. You’re free to try and falsify that conclusion, but good luck with that, the evidence is overwhelming. Also no, 6 feet makes a difference, it changes the perspective, so it has to be factored. If you do not, then you’re conducting sloppy science. You can’t just ignore variables because you think it doesn’t matter...that’s bad science. It’s pretty common sense that you see further the higher you are....so if this is an observation to determine how far you see an object, then you bet height of the observer matters, so don’t be ignorant. Yes, the math he used was incorrect. He used a basic parabola equation, that did not represent line of sight, that didn’t have variables for height of observer, horizon distance, refraction, etc. Use the wrong math, and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple. Point is, you’re talking about confirmation bias...while at the same time trying to convince me that we should just ignore variables in experiments. You don’t see the hypocrisy in that? Anyway, I hope the information I’ve shared is helpful, or at the very least interesting.
    3
  6. The only thing that blows my mind, is how ignorant people truly are and how powerful confirmation bias is. I know exactly what you're referring too, the flight manuals and aeronautics research papers right, where in several summary sections of those papers, they assume a flat motionless Earth, before doing some math. Are you aware how those papers are structured? Are you trained in how to write them and how to accurately interpret them? My guess is no...you have NO IDEA how to read them, you just skimmed them briefly looking for a few wordings you could pull out of context (or someone else did and you now repeat what you learned from them verbatim, acting like they're your own insights), then respun those wordings with your own bias explanations and assumptions attached. So allow me to give you some proper perspective into how the summary sections work in those papers. They are not making a statement nor are they giving a conclusion, what they are for is simply to tell the reader what variables will be discussed and what will be omitted for the sake of simplicity. In most cases in flight manuals or aeronautic schematics or mechanics manuals, they do not require the variables of the shape of the Earth or its motion, in any of the math, especially when it comes to the body and design of the vehicle. But, in some cases they might, so before they start any of the math, they have to state VERY CLEARLY what variables will not be included, so that the reader knows how and where the math will be simplified. That's it...they're not making any statements or disclosing any hidden truths to you people or anyone else for that matter...the summary section is just that, a summary of information for the reader, so they are aware of the variables that will be included or discarded. That's why the wording is usually like this "we will be assuming a Flat Stationary environment for this section", now the reader doing the math here knows what variables are not needed, which makes the math much easier. An example would be wind resistance over the body of the plane...at what point is the shape of the Earth and its motion relevant to how the body handles wind resistance? But we do live on a Globe that rotates, so it might be a variable in some cases, so it still has to be mentioned so the reader understands when it applies and when it doesn't. Otherwise, they could be wasting time on some variables that don't factor or that are considered negligible, in the math they're currently trying to solve for. Make sense yet? Hope that helps you understand a little better how these papers are structured. I don't share this to mock you, it's more just to share some information that Flat Earth sure isn't going to share with you...cause they'd rather stay bias in a fantasy world where they're the smart ones and scientists don't really know anything. Ya, tell that to the computer you're using to help spread misinformation and ignorance. You are a layman, doing what layman do best...misunderstand how things work and jumping to false conclusions, cause they're not trained in how things really work. That's not really your fault, very few people know how to read and write these sorts of manuals and research papers. Everyone is considered a layman, until they're trained at a specific task, and even then, everybody is always technically a layman at something. So this was a pretty easy one for Flat Earth to con people with.
    3
  7. Alright…first of all, these documents you’re referring to aren’t “declassified”, they never were classified (mostly, unless they’re military specs for weapons and aircraft that are new). Secondly, they’re not stating the Earth is Flat, they’re just making math simplifications….because these are mathematical simulation models, not to be taken literally. Simulation models are used by engineers when designing, they only focus on specific aspects, so they don’t require a full simulation of reality, just the parts that are central too whatever design feature they’re focusing on. These particular models are for testing linear flight dynamics, so it’s focused on things like wind resistance for the shape of the vehicles exterior…you don’t require Earth’s shape or its motions, to test a vehicle’s drag, so you can omit those variables from the math in a simulation, and it’ll still give you accurate calculations for that specific purpose. When they make a simplification like this, they have to state very clearly what variables are being omitted and which ones are being assumed or altered slightly. This is so the engineer/mathematician/scientist/tradesman knows what variables are being used in the math to follow. Those same documents often also assume a perfectly rigid vehicle of constant mass. Both are impossible variables in reality, because every vehicle is hollow with many moving parts (so they’re not perfectly rigid), and vehicles deplete fuel over time (so they don’t maintain a constant mass). Why don’t Flat Earthers zero in on those words? It’s simple…doesn’t help confirm their bias, so they are ignored. What’s happened is that most layman don’t know what a math simplification is, and they don’t know what simulation models look like…so they assume it’s a paper describing Earth’s true form, because they have no idea what you’re actually looking at. This is honestly why most layman should stay out of discussions of science and mathematics. There’s a structure and a format for every field of expertise, and if you’re not educated on how these structures work, then you do risk reaching false conclusions from that lack of knowledge. This in no way means they’re stupid, it just means they lack a base understanding of how things are structured in these fields of expertise…what is stupid however is reaching conclusions from assumptions alone, without any deeper effort to learn, or consideration to other plausible answers. Anyway, I hope this information has been helpful. Don’t be so quick to fall into the confirmation bias trap that some huxters online have setup for you.
    3
  8. Iron Horse throttle master What? There are many craters on the moon that have visible ejection trails all around the main crater...have you really looked at any? There’s a great video I watched not to long ago of high velocity projectiles being shot into sediment, if I find it again I’ll share it here. It’s pretty interesting because the similarities it produces to the moons craters is pretty striking. Plus...again, we’ve had many asteroids and meteors hit earth, we have impact craters here on Earth to draw comparisons from. We’re constantly bombarded by space debris every single day, and if we didn’t have an atmosphere burning these rocks up, we’d no doubt look exactly like the Moon...it doesn’t take much to deduce how craters form on the Moon, the evidence is pretty substantial.
    3
  9. They don’t, they completely ignore it exists in most cases.
    3
  10. Argument from personal incredulity eh...fraid that doesn’t mean much, it’s just a logical fallacy. Maybe try learning some motion physics, makes better sense when you actually learn how things work.
    3
  11. We don’t settle matters of science in courts of law, we settle them by peer review and consensus within the scientific community. A court of law really only cares about if a law or stipulation in a contract has been broken...that’s it. So any con man pushing flat Earth can put fine print stipulations into a contract, that are impossible to produce in an experiment, and the judge will rule in favour because all they really care about is whether a law or contractual agreement was breached...that’s it. In these cases where Flat Earth won their case, it was during their many bullshit bets or money challenges that they put forth, which typically come with written agreements and so the judge wasn’t ruling on which model he finds to be more conclusive...he was ruling on whether that particular contract, for that particular challenge, was breached or not...nothing else. It doesn’t mean they were agreeing the Earth is flat you numpty, just that the contracts stipulations weren’t met, because the clever wording these con artists use to make sure they can’t really be met. Typically, by creating a false premise experiment, that’s the most common way to con people on bets like these. A common one I see is “show me water sticking to a small ball with its own gravity”, if you knew anything about physics you’d know this is impossible to do, while inside Earths gravity well. It makes testing the gravity of that tinier object impossible, because the water will just fall to the much stronger gravity below it, the Earth. Some in Flat Earth know this, some of them know it’s a stupid experiment to ask for because it ignores much of the physics of gravity, but, it’s very possible to make water stick to a ball due to the waters surface tension, so some people thinking they’re clever will answer the flat Earth challenge anyway, by sharing an example of water clinging to a ball due to surface tension...and that’s when they spring their trap. If any challenger attempts to collect on this bet, using that as their entry, then the FE will immediately argue in court that the water clings due to surface tension not gravity, and that is true, so the judge will have to rule in favour of the flat Earther. Doesn’t mean the judge is saying the Earth is flat, just that the challenge wasn’t completed as stated. Some people even will post pictures of Earth from space and say “there’s your ball with water”, but the fine print will state “a ball you can hold in your hand” or “only pictures you take yourself are valid”. So, they’ll win, because the challenge wasn’t met as stated...doesn’t mean the Earth is flat, or that the judge was ruling that, just means some suckers took a bet that was designed in a way that it couldn’t be won. So they get media attention and then simpletons like you, who know nothing about neither science nor court proceedings, will just assume this means they proved in court the Earth is flat...when in reality, that’s not what went down at all. But, you people don’t really care about the accurate details do you, only the headlines and memes you can spin after the fact, to help confirm your bias a little more.
    3
  12. Wasn’t the point of the video to prove or disprove either position, it was merely to discuss WHY some people believe it’s flat…that’s literally in the title. It’s just an analysis of the ideology and psychology of a group mindset…not a discussion of the science. This isn’t a science channel, it’s independent journalism, focusing mostly on travel and geography. Both experiments are examples of inconclusive experiments. His point was that people who fall for Flat Earth, typically have a big thing in common, they’re scientifically illiterate. The first experiment is just a bad experiment all around, it doesn’t prove or disprove either model, a spirit level is not capable of doing that, even a basic understanding of physics can tell you that. So it’s extremely inconclusive…yet Flat Earthers reach conclusions with it anyway…that’s the point he’s making. These people are doing experiments and reaching conclusions…without realizing their experiments are in error. It points to the real problem…people tend to over estimate their abilities, and they’re bolstering an argument with junk science, without realizing it’s in error or without even considering that’s possible. The second experiment is better, it’s at least a good experiment that could reach a conclusive result…the problem here is that they gravitate to the original experiment done by Samual Robotham, and ignore the hundreds of recreations that completely falsify his conclusion. His version of the experiment was done very poorly, making only ONE observation, using only ONE marker, using the wrong math, ignoring important variables like height of the observer and refraction, and running no controls. So his version is inconclusive due to sloppy experimentation…but Flat Earthers don’t care about that, they only care about the result it gives, which is in favour of the conclusion they WANT to be true. It’s an example of confirmation bias…which further adds to his point. The scientifically illiterate typically don’t care about what’s inconclusive and what’s not, they skip right over that little problem and ignore it. This is why we have peer review in science, and why experiments must be repeatable in order to be conclusive. Upon all proper peer review of the Bedford Level experiment, it’s actually found to be in favour of the globe, not the other way around. Here’s an example of a more recent recreation I’m aware of https://youtu.be/a79KGx2Gtto. There’s a link in the description there that leads to the full report and its conclusion. Anyway, I agree he could have been a bit clearer on his point, but again, this isn’t a science channel, so I wouldn’t expect much science. He made his point still I feel, part of why people fall for this mess, is because they’re not as well versed in science as they think they are. That over confidence blinds them from their errors.
    3
  13. Unlike most conspiracy’s where people can really only speculate endlessly, or where it requires actual expert knowledge and experience on the topic, Flat Earth is in a sweet spot, because we all have experience with the surface of Earth and we can all put it to the test whenever we choose too. So we can all weigh in on this one, each of us having at least some expertise on this subject, seeing as we all live here, and we don’t have to endlessly speculate, we can reach more definitive conclusions. So I believe these are at least some good reasons, for why this particular conspiracy gets so much more attention. It’s also interesting, because it’s just so much more nonsensical than all the rest...at least the others have some logic to them, this one is just...completely ridiculous. So we’re mostly just stunned that anyone actually falls for it.
    3
  14. Uhm...photographs from space. But I get that this seems to not be good enough for some people anymore, so here’s 3 easy pieces of evidence off the top of my head. Sunsets, just think about it for a moment and then realize that the Sun would never appear to set if it was occupying the same directional sky, everywhere on Earth, at the same time. A Globe geometry answers for this phenomenon perfectly, and the geometry matches mathematically with what we observe in reality. Everything about the Sun fits and makes sense in the heliocentric model...while flat Earth really has to ignore and twist a lot of details, to ram that square peg into a round hole. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeEw0Fw1qio Navigation, do you really think pilots and sailors can successfully navigate around with perfect timing and precision...but they don’t know the true shape and scale of the surface they’re navigating? Everything about navigation is built from the knowledge that Earth is spherical. Polaris drops to the horizon by latitude, sailors have been using this trick to triangulate their position at sea for centuries. At the Equator, Polaris drops to 0 degrees...how exactly would that be possible if Earth was flat? https://flatearth.ws/polaris-angle There’s a lot of basic spacial geometry here that just doesn’t add up for a Flat Earth. The Southern Hemisphere. It’s a fact of reality, we have two hemispheres on this Earth, that are equal in distance by latitudes. The South also has its own stars, it’s own celestial rotation around its own pole star (Sigma Octantis), it’s own 24 hour sun...heck the entire Southern Hemisphere is a bit of a problem for the Flat Earth hypothesis. But again, the Globe makes perfect sense of these observations and measured distances, they’re exactly what we’d expect if the Earth is a Globe. Lots of evidence for the Globe actually, a lot of it doesn’t even require much effort...but you sure won’t learn about any of these proofs from watching Flat Earth channels and videos. They’re typically very bias channels, in my experience they have very little interest in remaining objective, their main goal is to push an agenda and they achieve that by twisting information to spread doubts...and it works, because most people are not scientists and so they’ve never really asked these questions before. It’s fine to question things, but it’s easier then ever before to spread misinformation, so you really gotta be careful where you’re getting your info from. So just don’t forget to question flat Earth as well, don’t just blindly nod and agree to everything they say...con men are very good at sounding convincing, but only on the surface.
    3
  15.  @markusa4112  Yup, it’s pretty easy to observe stars and galaxies that lie outside of our galaxy…can do it with even a small refractor telescope, thousands of people do it every night, from all around the world. You’re not “seeing beyond light years”, it’s not like your eye is physically travelling light years, what’s really happening is it’s focusing light that has travelled light years to get here, which is all any telescopic lens is doing, focusing light that’s coming into the lens, increasing the focal length, increasing the lights resolution. So it’s pretty simple to do…I’m telling you from experience, because as an amateur astronomer, over the years I have photographed a few galaxies. The easiest one to see is the Andromeda galaxy, you can spot it with even a cheap Walmart telescope…with slightly better equipment, you can easily spot others like the Leo triplet, the Cigar and Bodes galaxies, the Markarians chain…just a short list, there are thousands you can observe with relatively affordable equipment. Most science is easily repeatable, so I’m not sure why you’re stamping your feet so arrogantly. I’m just saying, engineers can’t do what they do, without first acquiring the knowledge…that’s where science comes in. You know before we solved air travel, there were people just like you saying it was an impossible dream, and now today you have electricity running through your home, and can switch on your tv with a remote…technology that would be seen as magic just a few hundred years ago. Wonder what people like yourself thought of that then? Probably thought it was stupid and impossible…but thankfully, some people were wise enough to disagree and try anyway. So maybe you should be a little more grateful to science and the scientists who fight through the ignorance of others, to bring us these technologies we all use and take for granted today. Also, I’m not Christian or religious either, grew up atheist, so relax.
    3
  16. Oh boy 🤦‍♂️…you need to learn some science history. The ancient Greeks proved Earth was spherical roughly 2000 years ago, and sailors used their maps (started by Ptolemy) and geographic coordinate system (created by Eratosthenes) for centuries, building on that knowledge until Earth was completely mapped and charted…and that’s the model that pretty much every academic agreed upon, and has for hundreds of years (look up Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo). NASA had basically nothing to do with that discovery…all they did was take some pictures and made orbital mechanics an applied science, which further proved gravity, and the rest of the heliocentric model. The most intelligent people of the world ALL agree that Earth is spherical…and they have for a very long time.
    3
  17. What tests are you referring too exactly? And even if they could verify no motion, it wouldn't immediately mean the Earth is Flat, it would do more to support the geocentric model, you'd still have a long ways to go to falsify a Globe. I know Flat Earth likes to hold up some inconclusive experiments like the Michelson Morley or failed experiments like Airy's Failure (gee, I wonder why it's called that), to help support the notion that the Earth isn't moving, even though they are botched experiments that can't be used to support any conclusion really, because they're either inconclusive or a failure. Meanwhile they'll ignore/deny successful experiments and technologies that demonstrate and verify the motion of the Earth, like Foucault's Pendulum, Ring Laser Gyros, Gyro Compasses, Satellites in geostationary orbit, etc. So feel free to let me know what tests you're referring too, cause I'll be willing to bet you're misunderstanding them and at the same time are simply ignoring or are unaware of the science that verifies the motion of Earth.
    3
  18. Lol, yup, couldn’t have described your own problem any better. 😂
    3
  19. Little hard to solve the larger issues, if we don’t even know the basics. Luckily, we do, flat Earth is just a small cult of pseudo intellectuals, who are only fooling themselves.
    3
  20. Ya...because that's not the point of this video. This was a psychological discussion into WHY certain people believe in the conspiracy of Flat Earth, he's not providing evidence for either position, because that's not the point of the video. It's a discussion on the psychology of some people, not the science of Earth. It should have been pretty apparent from the title.
    3
  21. Questions are not evidence, it's odd that people don't seem to know the difference. Ask an expert, or look it up, or take a class on rocket science, and answer your questions first hand...but ignorance is not an argument, so save it.
    3
  22. That experiment ignores the fact that a spirit level is levelling to centre of gravity…that’s how they work. So it doesn’t prove a flat Earth at all, because if Earth is a globe, then gravity pulls to centre and gravity vectors shift with surface. If Earth is flat, then gravity has only parallel vectors, still down towards surface. Either way, no matter which shape the Earth is, the bubble wouldn’t shift…so it’s not a good experiment, it’s inconclusive, does not verify or falsify its hypothesis. It ignores basic gravity physics, that’s a fact. You might think it’s just gibberish, but that gibberish matters. It’s a variable that can’t be ignored…simply because it’s difficult for some to grasp. Ignore variables in science and you will reach false conclusions, it’s that simple. So we can’t be lazy or ignorant. Flat Earthers are free to ask questions and do experiments all they like, nobody’s stopping them. But just as they’re free to explore their alternatives, we’re free to question their conclusions and peer review their experiments. They seem to think the same standards of review don’t apply to them…and they’re dead wrong on that.
    3
  23. Go ahead and go through his videos sometime, pay attention to the viewer count of each video. It’s still his 3rd or 4th highest viewed video and before this video, he was skating around 100k each vid…then boom, 6 million…quite the jump. So as stupid as it may seem, still obviously an interesting topic all around. It’s not just the con artists who benefit from outlandish topics, this video alone probably put him in the money, definitely made a good return, AND he got to debunk some bullshit….so pretty good decision from his perspective. Fuck the crazy people…they wish they could get views like this guy. xD
    3
  24.  @frodobaggins169  I prefer realist…which makes you someone in denial of how the real world works. Hope you grow up someday Frodo.
    3
  25. Been researching Flat Earth for over 3 years, and all I've learned is how bias they are, which has led them to a great many false conclusions. Elites don't have to do anything to dumb you down...you're doing it yourselves now.
    3
  26. Spin that wet ball at the rate of 1 complete rotation every 24 hours, does any water fly off then? Centrifugal force is increased by rate of rotation, we measure it in complete rotations, which is why we use units like revolutions per minute (RPM’s), when dealing with rotational motions. A merry go round on average rotates at about 7.5 RPM’s (depending on its radius), by comparison the Earth rotates at 0.000694 RPM’s. Huge difference and far slower by comparison. This matters and you can even test it with this simple thought experiment. Imagine yourself in a race car, moving at a steady 200 mph, around a perfect circle track, that’s only 1000 meters in circumference. Would there be a lot of Centrifugal force in this example? Yes, absolutely, in fact you’d have a heck of a time staying on the track, and you’d probably be clinging to the door. Now imagine yourself in the same car, moving at the same 200 mph, but now you’re on a perfect circle track that’s 1000 miles circumference. Would you expect to feel the same centrifugal force? Nope, in fact you probably wouldn’t feel any centrifugal force at all, the track would feel almost perfectly straight at all times, and you would never feel yourself being repelled to the door. So what changed? The speed was the same, yet the centrifugal force was vastly different, but why? Because miles per hour is a linear velocity and it has very little to do with centrifugal force output. It’s rate of rotation that matters, which effects the rate of angular velocity change per second. In the first car example, the car would be completing several rotations every minute. In the second, it completes 1 rotation every 5 hours…hence the drastic drop in centrifugal force. You don’t feel Earth’s rotation, because it’s actually very slow. 1 rotation every 24 hours…it’s not very fast at all, hence why you won’t feel it. Flat Earth gets people focused on the wrong numbers, the wrong variables…and sadly, it works. People should be learning some basic physics, then these things wouldn’t even be a question.
    3
  27. Wow...such evidence, much argument...scientists are gonna be mulling over all you've shared here for awhile.
    3
  28. Level is just a word, we created it, it has no baring on physical reality, that’s important to keep in mind first of all. But, words in English also have many different definitions, depending on the context, also important to remember. They use the word in “sea level” to imply a surface at equipotential, meaning, a surface with all points at equal distance from a centre...all spheres are defined this way, having a level surface at equipotential distance from centre. That is what’s implied by the word “level” in the context of land elevation. The oceans surface is an equipotential surface, so it is level at equipotential.
    3
  29. How do you know for certain the photos of Earth are not genuine? What method did you use to reach that conclusion? You’re making a claim without any real evidence, so you see a claim made without evidence can be discarded without evidence just as easily, and it’s just as valid. Perhaps you’ve never seen any photos that are convincing, so here’s an archive where you can find hundreds of photos of Earth, taken during the various Apollo missions https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums. The Apollo 16 photos being quite high resolution and clear https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544. Go through these images, and then let me know how you feel they faked these images, back in the 70s when there was no CGI.
    3
  30. They’re not threatened, they’re just not in the habit of rolling over and accepting claims made by non experts, without any substantial evidence to support those claims. Most of the “evidence” FE puts forth, is not really evidence, it’s mostly empty conjectures, cherry picked dialogue taken out of context, and misunderstood science. Then when they do finally provide anything that’s actually scientific, they get upset when any attempt to peer review the work is made...as if they think the same standards of review somehiw don’t apply to them. Science isn’t threatened by you people, it’s fascinated that you somehow think your approach is rational. It’s not threatened, it’s just annoyed that you people seem to think forcing your conclusions and not allowing any rebuttal, is a reasonable way to conduct science. Peer review is important...you are not infallible. So you have to accept that people are going to question you, when you make a claim...that’s just how it is.
    3
  31.  @philaypeephilippotter6532  I share this information more for those people on the fence, not so much for the flat Earthers benefit. I know he’s probably just going to ignore it all, no matter how well presented. It’s mostly just so questions and claims don’t go unchecked or unanswered, sharing the information that Flat Earth overlooks and will not provide for those people, currently seeking answers. They’re not bad questions really, many of them are the same questions scientists once asked, so I think it’s perfectly fine to ask them...I just get annoyed when they assume that just because they couldn’t answer them, it must mean they can’t be answered. Holding the questions up as their evidence, rather than actually providing real evidence...it’s almost like some people forget what constitutes as evidence, that’s what is really sad about it.
    3
  32. Because motion is conserved…it’s basic physics of motion. Try this sometime, get on a bus, train, or plane sometime and with a buddy start tossing something back and forth once it’s in a steady motion forward. You’ll noticed pretty quickly that it won’t matter which direction you toss the object, with the forward motion or against it, the travel time between you and your buddy will not change. It’s the same physics, the law of inertia and conservation of momentum, also known as relative motion. Learn some physics, then you won’t fall for scams online, like Flat Earth.
    3
  33.  @pavelinho1  We don’t actually feel motion itself, it’s a common misconception that we do. When you’re on a plane going 500 mph, do you ever really feel that motion? No, you’re not struggling to stand, you’re not constantly sucked to your seat. So why is that? 500 mph is pretty fast, wouldn’t you agree? So this can teach us something about motion, that we don’t really notice motion if it is constant, what we feel isn’t motion itself, it’s sudden or rapid CHANGES in motion. Vibrations, accelerations, friction causing drag, etc, anything that disturbs a constant motion suddenly, that is what we feel and notice. Every single one of Earth’s motions are constant, with only small gradual changes over long periods of time. And since space is a vacuum, there’s no air to cause drag force, so we don’t experience any vibration due to friction. So we really wouldn’t expect to feel any motion.
    3
  34. The irony here is that most of the Flat Earthers I’ve talked with, are deeply religious and more than likely conservative.
    3
  35.  @yestervue4697  Yes they do.
    3
  36. The point here wasn't to analyse the evidence, it was to talk about the movement itself and get to the root of what's causing people to turn to these sort of fringe movements on the internet. It's more a discussion on the psychology than the science...and it was pretty apparent from the title of the video what was going to be discussed.
    3
  37.  @reeyonarya1522  I just love the hypocrisy on display here. Criticizes NASA, claiming they don't have any evidence -- as if NASA holds the monopoly on all Earth science -- yet expects others to believe everything you just spouted, without question and without any evidence to support any of it. Real good logic. 👌 When you have a working model that can actually be used in applied science, let us know. Until then, you really have no argument.
    3
  38.  @aarondavis7826  Don’t forget the part in that report where it says “a RIGID aircraft of CONSTANT MASS”. Both are impossible in our physical reality, where no moving vehicle with engines and moving parts is perfectly rigid, and no vehicle maintains constant mass over time, as fuel depletes. These are assumed variables…they are not speaking literally. And do you know why? Because those are math simplification models, for simulations. :/ They are not stating the Earth is flat…you just have no idea how to properly read and interpret a mathematical model.
    3
  39.  @aarondavis7826  You’re trying really hard to deny what we’re telling you…those are mathematical models, that are simplifying variables, this isn’t difficult to understand. The paper deals with a vehicle while in flight, so yes, the mass of the entire vehicle, fuel and all, does change over time. This model ignores that, because it’s not required for what that particular math is being used for. Shape of the Earth and its motions do not matter in the math either, so the author is just making it VERY CLEAR what variables are not included in the math….that’s how these papers work. They’re not making a literal statement about Earth…it is a math simplification, for a mathematical model. You’re not stupid, so I know some of this is clicking with you. Flat Earthers are cherry picking information…do you know what that is? I’m sure you do, it’s when you take words or phrases out of their context, and then spin it into your own biased interpretation…it’s confirmation bias at its worst. We’re just trying to help you….flat Earth is a con, don’t be another sucker.
    3
  40. Everything you’ve said here, tells me you really don’t know much about the physics of motion. You sure have a lot of assumptions though. Watch some videos on how Centripetal forces actually work, you’ll learn that Centrifugal inertia is dependent on rate of rotation, on the revolutions per minute (RPM’s), then you’ll find that an object of Earths size rotating at ONE revolution every 24 hours, doesn’t create much centrifugal force inertia at all. Do some research on conservation of momentum and relative motion, both are very basic physics that’s not hard to learn and also verify for yourself. Learning this physics will help you learn how flat Earth cons people on this particular point.
    3
  41. A land survivor? Interesting job title, not sure what surviving the land has to do with the shape of the Earth.
    3
  42. Because they have no working model, no working scientific knowledge that can actually be used in any field of applied science, and their empty claims do not fit with what we actually measure and observe in reality. A few con men on YouTube might post a few well crafted videos that can successfully con the under educated and inexperienced, but these people are not engineering new technologies, or contributing to actual fields of scientific research, so we have every reason to call out the bullshit they’re pushing. Is this really something I have to explain to another adult? 🤷‍♂️ Bring us a working model of FE that can actually be applied, otherwise it’s just another online con…and you’re falling for it.
    3
  43. Except in your case knowledge means anything that confirms what you already wanted to be true, and everything else can be ignored.
    3
  44.  @patrickhickman8723  I know I live on a spherical planet, rotating on its axis at the rate of 1 revolution every 24 hours, which is roughly 0.000694 RPM’s. There’s really no evidence put forth so far that refutes that, while meanwhile there’s heaps of data and evidence that verifies all of that and more. So why would I blindly agree with a bunch of numpty Flat Earthers online, who really don’t have anything, except empty claims and misunderstandings? And why would I use a linear velocity like miles per hour for a rotation? 🤷‍♂️ Only Flatties do that.
    3
  45.  @patrickhickman8723  Centrifugal force is dependent on rate of rotation…not linear velocities, like miles per hour. Here, I’ll even provide you with a simple thought experiment to help you realize this. Picture yourself in a race car, going at a constant 200 mph, around a perfect circle track that’s only 1000 metres circumference. Would you expect a lot of centrifugal force in this example? Yes, absolutely, in fact it would likely be very difficult to stay on the track there would be so much centrifugal force occurring here. Ok, now lets do it again, same car at the same linear velocity of 200 mph, except now the track is 1000 miles circumference. Would you expect the same amount of centrifugal force in this example? No, not even close, in fact now the track would be curving so gradually it’d almost feel like a straight road, the centrifugal force in this example would almost non existent. But wait…the velocity was the same, so why wasn’t the centrifugal force the same? Almost like linear velocity isn’t what really effects centrifugal force output. Hmmmm…🧐 The real difference is the rate of angular velocity change per second, which is increased by rate of rotation, or revolutions per minute (RPM’s). That’s what really effects centrifugal force strength…rate of rotation, not linear velocity. In the first example, the car would be completing several laps every minute. In the second, the car would only complete ONE lap, every 5 hours. So his rate of angular velocity change per second is greatly reduced. Earth completes ONE rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes, that’s a sidereal rotation. This is roughly 0.000694 RPM’s at the equator, which negates only about 0.3% of Earth’s gravity…at the equator. Fun fact, that’s actually why things weigh slightly less at the equator. So again…you’re just proving to all of us your general lack of knowledge and understanding in basic physics. Great argument Patrick…just more personal misunderstandings of basic science. 👌
    3
  46.  @patrickhickman8723  Lol, ya Patrick…it’s us, and the millions of scientists and engineers who don’t get it. 😄 You don’t even bother to read these responses, do you. 😄 I explained the physics of both motion and centrifugal force so simply, a child could understand…the same physics understood by everyone else, except you. Had you read, you might have noticed I even pointed out that Earth does actually produce a small amount of Centrifugal force…that’s why things weigh slightly less at the Equator. There’s a fact for you. Here’s a simple experiment that verifies this, which also verifies Earth is rotating https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o.
    3
  47. Well let’s think about it in terms of degrees, cause that’s the shift it’s going to be making, a degree shift. Takes about 70 miles to arc 1 degree on Earth, at 25,000 miles circumference. A passenger jet can cover that distance in about 15 minutes. So 15 minutes to arc 1 degree of pitch….you really think you’d be able to notice that extremely slow shift? Jeez that’s way slower of a shift than any curve you make on a highway…bet you don’t really notice, you just instinctively do it. Think it would be much different in a plane? Pilots are constantly making tiny adjustments, to stay in line with both the altimeter and the horizon indicator. Tiny adjustments, over time, that all add up to a shift without any notice. Tiny adjustments, that are all instinctive, no thought required, that they’d never notice…not much different from the tiny adjustments you’re constantly making while driving, that you do on instinct and never notice. Also, gravity is constantly adjusting their altitude as well. You think gravity just shuts off when a plane is flying? You think pitching down would be the only way to lower its altitude? No…just slow the thrust, and let gravity do the rest…no pitching down required.
    3
  48. You can’t use a simple spirit level for such an experiment, because gravity is what causes the buoyancy effect within the tube of liquid and air, so it levels to center of gravity, so it will shift with gravity vectors. So the results would be the same for both models, making it an inconclusive experiment. They’re ignoring gravity physics...you can’t ignore variables in an experiment, you have to factor every known variable and run control experiments to account for potential hidden variables, or you risk reaching a false conclusion...which is what they’ve done. So basically, it’s a very poor experiment, it does not render any conclusive results. What it does do though, is demonstrate how bad these people are at conducting science experiments. No wonder they’re reaching so many false conclusions...they have no clue what they’re doing. For the second experiment, he was talking about light refraction, which is a bending of light that occurs when light passes through a denser medium. I’m sure you’ve seen how objects distort while under water, that’s an example of light refraction. It’s very well understood in physics how it works, and it is well known that atmospheric conditions can cause light refraction, essentially distorting what we see at distances. There is always a standard refraction index in atmosphere, over water where the air above the water is cooler, it becomes more dense, which causes light to refract down, essentially causing distant objects to appear higher then they really are. This makes it possible to see objects further away, than what should be possible geometrically. Here’s the clearest demonstration of this effect https://youtu.be/5lmmzvzz_Xs. So again, it was a sloppy experiment. Rowbotham ignored variables and didn’t do enough to render a more conclusive result. At least in his case, it’s actually a pretty good experiment, unlike the level on the plane which can never give a conclusive result in its current form. In Rowbothams case though, all he had to do, was just a better job. Here’s a thorough recreation of that experiment today http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. The conclusion here is conclusive, Earth is curving and at the rate it should be given its known dimensions. So here’s the problem...we’re dealing with people who don’t know what they’re doing, don’t know how to properly conduct experiments, but they’re doing it anyway...and then to make it worse, they’re publishing these erroneous findings on public platforms...skipping over all peer review. It’s becoming a real problem, because it’s spreading misinformation.
    3
  49. Well, Antarctica to Alaska is pretty damn far for one thing...not many planes that can make that trip without refuelling, so that’s just a dumb route, but you’re also wrong. Circumnavigation from pole to pole has been done many times now, the most recent one occurring last year called “One More Orbit”. So, why would you just assume it’s never been done before? I’m just curious why people don’t bother to research anything before making false assumptions. Do a search sometime for pole to pole circumnavigation flights, you’ll find that it has been done many times now.
    3
  50. Two reasons, Rowbotham (Parallax) didn’t use the correct math, so his figures were off and because of atmospheric refraction, which can and will cause an object to be more visible over a curvature. Here’s a great video demonstrating this form of refraction https://youtu.be/5lmmzvzz_Xs. This occurs because moisture in the air makes it more dense, causing light to bend before it meets your eye. It happens most often, over large bodies of water, where air humidity is going to be higher. There are a few other flaws in his experiment, like not collecting enough data sets or running any controls, etc, but basically it’s just an example of a poorly conducted experiment, done to confirm a bias. This is why an experiment has to be done properly, because if every variable isn’t accounted for and controlled, then you risk reaching a false conclusion. It’s also the reason why science has included peer review to the scientific method, it weeds out errors, bias and liars. His experiment was a good experiment, he just didn’t do enough to render a more conclusive result, he stopped once his bias was confirmed...which is how you do science wrong. Upon all peer review and recreation of his experiment, the Earth is found to curve and at the rate it should given its scale. Here’s a very recent recreation of the experiment http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment this time done over 10 km of a frozen lake. This is what an actual scientific research paper looks like...it’s very in depth, accounting for every variable. Rowbotham didn’t go anywhere near this level of experimentation, he took ONE data set, with just ONE marker, then did some bad math and called his work done. So his experiment is rendered inconclusive due to sloppy experimentation. Anyway, hope this sheds a little more light on things. This experiment is actually taught in most science/physics classes, as an example of how bias and poor experimentation can lead to false conclusions. It also perfectly illustrates the need for proper peer review.
    3