Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Is it really that hard to observe a sunset, then realize how impossible that daily phenomenon is, if the Sun is never physically blocked from your line of sight? 🤷♂️ That’s just basic geometry, no “fancy science terms” required there. Shouldn’t be difficult to understand that pilots and sailors can’t plot accurate navigation routes, if they don’t know the true shape and scale of the surface they’re navigating, that’s pretty simple to understand I should hope. Guess which model they’ve been using for centuries?
You should be more grateful some people did decide they had time to learn some science, the device you’re using right now to read this message wouldn’t exist without their efforts. Same goes for pretty much every modern luxury you take for granted today, from your car, to your fridge, to the electricity running through everything, took a lot of hard work, from a great many people, who realized ignorance and laziness gets us nowhere. Knowledge takes effort to acquire, but it is worth the effort, at the very least it can help keep you from falling for online scams like Flat Earth.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Then by all means, go out and repeat the science, nothings really stopping you but yourselves really. Anything they do can be repeated by anyone. Some higher experiments do require you have the funds and equipment to do it, but it isn't impossible, very unlikely for most people sure...doesn't mean it's not repeatable. Just because you haven't personally done them or because you refuse to go out and try, doesn't mean others haven't either. If it interests you so much, go to school, receive a certification for any profession of your choice and then work towards participating in science for real. Then you'll likely get tons of opportunities to repeat the higher experiments that require a lot more equipment and funding to reproduce. Makes more sense to me, rather then spout off like some armchair pseudo intellectual, that you know more about science then ACTUAL scientists, who do it for a living...while you continue to discover and innovate nothing.
I'm interested in what thousands of scientists think actually, because they bring results and I'm grateful for the work they do, that benefits me directly. I sit in a cozy bed each night, with electricity and heat that comes direct to my house, so that I can get on a computer, that can access the internet, that sends communications through a wifi connection, that was ALL made possible by scientists. What have you built for my benefit? Any discoveries with your greater understanding of science? No? Huh....I wonder why that is...
What you're really saying, is you seen a few people do some experiments and they didn't get the same results. So since they didn't receive the same results, it wasn't actually repeatable, therefore the mainstream conclusions were wrong and have been wrong this whole time.
Ya...OR, they did a sloppy, poorly ran experiment, designed to ONLY confirm a bias, that likely used bad math and only took single data sets and didn't include controls...and that COMPLETELY skipped the peer review process. Then you reached a false conclusion from all that bad science, that you now seem to think we should take seriously...and when we try and point out your errors, you laugh and shrug it off like there's no possible way you could have made an error.
That's more likely to me...cause that's all I've seen from Flat Earth in the 3 years I've been looking at this mess. Please consider the possibility that the reason you couldn't reproduce the experiments, is because you didn't do them correctly. That is also always a possibility as well, so don't jump to conclusions and assume Flat Earth doesn't make errors...in my experience that's all they do is make errors.
3
-
3
-
@FAMMCUZ Do you think scientists were actually making these observations of ships over horizon with the naked eye? You must have a really low opinion of science if you think they’re that lazy and stupid. We’re well aware of the vanishing point of your eyes optical limits, but vanishing point converges from every angle...it doesn’t pick and choose what part of an object it starts to make disappear first...horizon does. If Earth is curved, then the bottoms of objects will disappear first. Here’s a bunch of large turbines at 20 or so miles from shore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQI18jr8Oc now do you notice how much of the bottom of these turbines are obstructed? He zooms the camera in, but the bottoms do not return....this is not perspective and vanishing point that is occurring, the bottom is being blocked by something, the horizon. That would not occur on a flat Earth.
Simple fact is, horizon and vanishing point are not the same thing. If you can bring a boat or object back fully into view with a telescopic lens, then it has not gone over horizon yet, it’s just reached a vanishing point of your eye. It’s the observation of the bottom of objects disappearing first that we’re observing...not the vanishing of the entire object due to perspective, that is completely different.
Here’s another great observation of this effect. https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2017/10/curvature-on-parade-turning-torso-video.html notice how more and more of the bottom of this tower lowers into horizon, the further back an observation is made? No amount of zooming will bring the bottom of this tower back, because it’s not vanishing point causing this, it’s a curved horizon.
You rushed your conclusion a bit here and assumed people don’t know how vanishing point works, you also assume flat Earthers are the first people to think to use telescopic lenses for this observation. Science is well aware of optics and the vanishing point and they’re not stupid, of course they’d think to use telescopic lenses as well, they’re not just using their naked eye.
3
-
@FAMMCUZ “You don’t have to be a “scientist” to CREATE.”
That’s a very broad statement that doesn’t apply to everything and you shouldn’t be so naive. For some things, you definitely will not know what you’re doing without a scientific background and training of some sorts. Engineers require a pretty extensive understanding of general physics and at least basic Chemistry. For example, it’s a little hard to create and engineer a wifi router from scratch, without an understanding of what wifi is and how you send and receive those signals...that isn’t knowledge that just came from nothing and with no effort, that’s scientific knowledge that took hundreds of years to acquire and refine...so don’t be stupid, you shouldn’t take this technology for granted, it doesn’t just happen over night. Everything from the car you drive, to the electricity that powers and heats your home, to the computer you’re using to chat with us...it’s all here thanks to science. You should be more grateful.
But yes, Science doesn’t claim to know everything, they’re very humble and up front about that...but you’re really being a bit arrogant and ignorant if you think they’re just lying to you on this one. Do you honestly think they can build everything around you...but they can’t figure out something as trivial as the true geometry of Earth? Do you really think pilots and sailors are navigating around everyday...but they aren’t using accurate maps and models to help them do it?
It’s perfectly fine to question things, but do you ever stop to consider the possibility that you’re maybe falling for a hoax on the internet, that exploits your general lack of scientific knowledge and your growing resentment for the system? It’s easier than ever before to spread bullshit online, it’s a con mans paradise...doesn’t take much to twist a few facts and stir up doubt to get you angry...then if you don’t have the knowledge and experience to counter that bullshit, becomes pretty simple to fall for it. A lot of what you’re arguing is ignorance of basic physics and astronomy...if you just bothered to learn a little more about how science reached these conclusions, you’d understand a little better why it’s all pretty conclusive. Just because YOU don’t personally understand how something works, doesn’t mean it isn’t true and it doesn’t mean you can’t learn if you wanted too.
I’m sorry, but you’re just making arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity mostly...but some questions you’re asking are good opportunities to learn some basic physics, so you really should.
3
-
Rick H I browsed it briefly, but he has a lot of different stuff, anything in particular you’d like for me to see and give my opinion on? From what I was able to catch, him and his group are pretty dead set on the Mercator projection of Earth being the true map and structure of Earth and they’re working on marrying modern religious scriptures with ancient hieroglyphs and stories (Egyptian, Mayan, Inca, etc). From what I watched, I noticed a lot of talking and not a whole lot of scientific evidence...just speculations, interpretations and pattern seeking. I’m more for scientific insights, observations and experiments, physics especially since that’s my interest and knowledge base.
The problem here is, if you’re going to go with a map and model like that, then it has to match with what we observe in reality. There are many questions it creates, many holes I see from a scientific standpoint, that need to be addressed.
All I was seeing was a group of people making empty claims...and not doing a whole lot of science. But I only skimmed 3 random videos, so perhaps there’s something more specific you’d like me to see?
For now, I’ll address one of the more obvious problems I have with the Mercator flat Earth model. So for the Sun to rise and set the way it does in the real world, running East to West, it would cut across the map, rather than circle, so what exactly does it do when it gets to the other end? Where does it go and how does it reappear in the East? The Sun is always visible somewhere, so they’re basically saying the Sun and it’s light does a “pac-man”, warping from one end of the Earth to the other. Planes, same thing, you do realize people fly and sail across the Pacific Ocean every single day right? I’ve taken that flight myself several times, going from LA, to New Zealand, there and back twice, and Japan to Vancouver as well. So are they saying things are magically warped from one side to the other? If so...how, and do they have experimental evidence or data that helps verify this? I think this is a big problem they’d really have to address, so let me know if they have or not.
That’s just one issue for now, I have many more, but I’d rather not pile on to much before you have more time to respond. I’m also off to bed, so I’ll have to comment again later. Catch ya later.
3
-
Rick H Ok, watched a few more videos, and it was much the same...a lot of talking and speculating, but no science. The trouble I have with stuff like this, is that it’s super easy for anyone to talk and make definite statements about things, super easy to make claims...it’s completely another to prove them. I could make a channel, and talk for hours about how the Sun is really a portal into another higher dimension, and it’s our trial in life to reach this portal so that we can ascend into a higher realm. See, everything I just said there is pure bullshit...but I bet if I made countless videos on the topic, talking for hours at a time, throwing around scientific jargon here and there...people would believe me too.
They’re just talking, and making a lot of false equivalence fallacies. That’s basically a fallacy where you compare things that look similar visually, and then say they’re the same with absolute certainty...without doing any further work to verify that claim. Like the sun dawgs that make these odd halos of light that they then associate and match to scriptures and ancient images...reaching full conclusions, from association, not actual testing or experimentation. So are you understanding my gripes yet? They’re pattern seekers...they’re not verifying their claims with science, they’re just SAYING these things are what they’re saying they are and that’s that.
I feel this is a bad habit of mankind, we’re pattern seekers...and it often gets us slotting in puzzle pieces, before we really have any proof that they’re actually pieces we should be adding. That’s why the scientific method was developed, to slow our roll and keep us objective. I’m hearing a lot of scientific jargon...but not seeing any scientific evidence.
So not much to go on really, except for that they use the Mercator projection map, which is easily falsified the moment you try to fit it to reality. I mentioned the Pac-Man warping of the Sun and travelling across the pacific...doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. It’s stuff like that, that people should really be focusing on more...instead of blindly listening to these guys make claims about things they can’t even verify. Another problem is the fact that the Mercator map is a projection of the Globe, that’s how that map was created. This creates a problem, because a 3D surface can not be projected in 2D, without creating distortions...the distortions created on the Mercator map, is the extreme North and South. Greenland is shown on that map, to be larger than Africa or roughly the same size, and that’s not accurate to its true scale at all. In reality, Greenland has a landmass that is MUCH smaller, maybe only 20% the size of the African continent in reality. This is measured, we know the land mass of both, but the Mercator map is a projection of the Globe, which means it is distorted. So they’re using a distorted map, but aligning it with there geometric overlay (that they use in pretty much every video) and then making claims that it fits perfectly...and no, it wouldn’t, the Mercator is a projection of the Globe, so it’s not an accurate map.
So no, I wouldn’t trust anything these guys have to say, but that’s just me personally. I get that people are fed up with systems of authority lying to them for so long, you’re now looking for answers outside of those systems, but people should really keep their heads on their shoulders while they do it. Just because these people are not associated with any system of authority, just because they’re more like you...doesn’t mean they can’t lie and make shit up. People do it all the time, the internet has made it even easier...it’s a con mans paradise. I say recognize the difference between speculation and evidence, that’s how you weed them out. People can pile on mountains of speculation and then it creates enough reasonable doubt that their positions SEEM logical...but speculation is not evidence, if you were to pause and pay attention to each claim and write down how many they make that are verified and solid...you might be shocked to learn that pretty much nothing they’re saying is solid evidence, it’s just one empty conjecture after the next. I don’t know about you, but I would rather form conclusions around solid evidence...not speculation, conjectures and interpretations.
Now, you had some points on some things about the Globe model you’re having trouble with. I do have some verifiable science I can share with you on those points, so I’ll respond again later and see if I can help you out.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@not_anybody_in_particular You’re welcome. Full disclosure, these channels are in support of the globe, so there is bias, and some are a little less patient, understanding, or respectful than others. Wolfie6020, Bob the Science Guy, Jos Leys, Soundly and Walter Bislin are the more neutral and respectful among the list there, but I’d argue they all do strive to remain objective, despite the attitude some do display.
3
-
3
-
Actually, the Greeks, Mesopotamian and Hebrews knew/believed the Earth was a globe, it’s well documented. In fact a lot of our current understanding of Earth’s geometry comes from the Greeks, who had made many experiments and observations that are easily repeatable today, that verify the Earth is spherical.
What you’re doing is making an argument from antiquity fallacy, assuming that because it’s old, it must mean it’s true. It’s a very common logical fallacy, but old does not equal true. These ancient civilizations believed that, because they didn’t know any better. Earth at first glance appears flat, so that’s what they believed, without much further thought. It’s easy to see how many different cultures would reach that conclusion…but it doesn’t make it true.
Also, NASA played a very small part in our conclusion of Earth’s spherical geometry. Scholars figured that out hundreds if not thousands of years before NASA ever came around. All NASA did was put the final nail in the flat Earth coffin, when they took a picture of Earth…but somehow, 50+ years later, it’s rising from the dead…because people are gullible and under educated, and the modern internet is a haven of misinformation. 🤦♂️
3
-
3
-
3
-
@yestervue4697 Yup, stated in the summary section, which is to let the reader know what variables will be excluded from the math to follow, to SIMPLIFY the math. They’re not making a literal statement, they are simplifying math, that’s all. Variables like surface geometry and motion of that surface are not required for what they’re solving here, and so they just overcomplicate the math. So when they simplify by removing variables, they have to state VERY CLEARLY which variables are being excluded. For example, they talk a lot in that report about wind aerodynamics...shape of the surface matters very little to those equations, it’s focusing on the frame of the vehicle, not the Earth, so it removes variables that are irrelevant.
Here’s what’s happened, you cherry picked a phrase, and didn’t think any further on the context for that phrase. What you’ve done is just demonstrated why layman should probably stay out of science...because you don’t even know how to read or interpret research papers such as these.
It’s classic confirmation bias. Now I’ve shared an entire paper on Geodesy, an official government document, you’ll find tons of information in there about Earth’s surface curvature...so why not read any of that? Or the thousands of other official documents that state Earths spherical geometry? I’ll tell you why, because you don’t really care what’s true...you just want desperately to be right.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@giorgiopoli7408 Well, dynamics has little to do with the geometry of Earth, it's the study of forces and their effect on motion in particular. So no...it doesn't "clearly state" anywhere in its framework, that the place we live on is flat...in fact it's quite the opposite, the laws of motion is the science that actually explains how a cup of water in motion will not be disturbed by that motion...so it does more to support the heliocentric model, than refute it. It's the physics that basically destroy's a whole swath of arguments from flat Earth concerning motion. Spinning your own flat Earth narrative on science that anyone can look up, study and recreate themselves...is not a very good way to start an argument, especially not with someone who's well read in physics and knows you're bullshitting.
But alright, ever seen a glass of water while in a moving plane, train, automobile? Pretty still, almost like the motion of that vehicle, if it maintains a steady velocity, the water will be completely unaffected. It's the first Law of motion, all things in motion stay in motion until acted upon by an opposing force or mass...it's conservation of momentum, and it's basic Newtonian physics of motion. There's nothing to dispute here, Newton was one of the first people who first penned the laws of motion and CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM. Relative motion is part of his body of work too, and it explains pretty thoroughly how objects moving within a inertial reference frame of motion, will conserve the momentum of that inertial frame of motion, and will not notice they are moving at all thanks to conservation of momentum, so long as that motion remains constant and steady...that includes a surface of water that is moving within that inertial reference frame of motion.
Opposing Inertia is what would cause that glass of water to ripple, bend, tilt, etc. Inertia that is caused by a sudden or rapid CHANGE in forward motion. The Earth travels at a steady rate of motion, in every single one of its motions, so there will be no inertia created by those motions...it's pretty simple physics. The only velocity we can measure easily without super sensitive equipment, is the rotation of the Earth, which creates a centrifugal force strong enough to effect gravity on a noticeable scale. This is greatest at the Equator, which is why things weigh slightly less at the equator. Here's an easy little experiment that helps to verify this, which also helps to verify Earths rotation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t give it a look sometime, it's quite thorough and also very easy to reproduce.
I suggest you relearn some physics and this time actually pay attention, rather then just cherry pick the parts you think you can twist into your bias narrative. It won't do you much good talking to me about physics you have clearly butchered for your own ends.
3
-
Michelson and Morley's experiment was inconclusive. Upon all recreation and peer review, that holds true and even those two scientists agreed this was true. Meaning if you apply any conclusion to it in support of any hypothesis, then you're doing so out of bias, not objective science. So no, it didn't prove "without doubt" that the Earth is stationary, the only people who say that it does...are bias flat Earthers, who don't know what an inconclusive experiment means.
All you're doing by making lies like that, is verifying that you don't know how science really operates.
"project high jump and operation fish bowl are not theory's it's documented facts"
True, but Flat Earth does a LOT of speculating on these documented experiments and not a whole lot of objective research. You make empty claims about these experiments, and twist them to fit your bias. Just further examples of confirmation bias really, you're not really paying attention to what those experiments were really doing, all you pay attention too is what Flat Earth tells you these experiments were attempting. Then you nod and agree without ever really looking for yourself. For example, Flat Earth will say project fishbowl was an attempt to blast a hole in the "dome firmament", while the documents states pretty clearly, that what it was really doing was testing nuclear arsenal in upper atmosphere, to study what it would do. That's what you do when you develop new arsenal, you test it in different environments to see what it can do. They learned a lot from those 6 detonations they did, they learned that the EMP blast travels WAY further, blocking out communications for a larger span. They also learned that the radioactive fall out travels further and sticks around longer as well, AND that it was possible to detonate nuclear arsenal in upper atmosphere. The tests were VERY helpful, they learned a lot...as you do in these types of experiments. The reason they were classified for so long, is because they didn't want their enemies learning this same information...it's pretty simple. When they detonated, it blasted a hole in the clouds, that made the sky look like a fishbowl...hence the name.
Getting it yet? All Flat Earth does is speculates...and doesn't really look at things objectively. You are bias researchers who don't really care what's actually true, only what you WANT to be true.
Jtolan is actually one of the best Globe Earth curvature finders. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU He's helped the Globe more then he realizes.
"even the Bible knows it's not a ball"
So does Lord of the Rings...but we're not using that book of fiction to help us solve mysteries of science now are we? The Bible holds no place in a discussion of science. The world has rules, physical laws that have never been witnessed to be broken. Magic does not exist, so we do not turn to books speaking of magic, to help us solve the mysteries of reality. You should probably grow up and stop reading so much fiction.
"United Nations logo is a flat earth map"
So what? Not sure if you're aware of this, but you can't represent all of a spherical 3D surface, on a single flat flag, without flattening it. The UN represents ALL NATIONS of the world, so how else are they going to create a flag that shows ALL NATIONS of the world on it? Just more paranoid bias and speculations. This is not evidence...learn the difference between speculation and evidence!
I think YOU really need to wake up bud. Flat Earth has successfully conned you and it's pretty obvious for anyone who actually gives a damn about what's objectively true.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@terry3002 Yes, perfectly fine to disagree, just nice to have an actual conversation for a change, where disagreements can be accepted and nobody gets upset, like mature adults. I’ve never thought Flat Earth was stupid, seeing the depths of some of the arguments, proves they’re actually quite well formed ideas. So at its core, it’s just good people, looking out for the rest of us, keeping an eye on potential threats. Though I do feel they’re lacking some scientific information, I do see the logic in their current conclusions.
I suppose my main point has been just to illustrate the difference between scientific knowledge and the scientific method. It’s fair to question the collected knowledge of science, even logical to ponder the possibility that much of it could be fabricated to sell us a grand illusion. But like I keep saying, the method itself is quite a different story. You don’t have to just take peoples word for it, most of the core sciences are easily repeatable. Most of Earth science, is just basic geometry and simple physics, all of which is simple to verify for yourself.
So question the body of knowledge, but don’t forget to also check it for yourself. The community of science does have some dogma too it, they have a system, that system can be corrupted. The method of science however, I do feel is the best method mankind has ever produced, for probing into the real truths of physical reality. It’s just a tool, like any other, it has no more agenda than a hammer does...it’s the individual who uses it, that’s where the agenda is. So conducting science yourself, can help you avoid potential corruption from others, the only thing you have to worry about after that, is your bias. But even that can be overcome, if you’re diligent. First by accepting you have bias, then identifying it, then it’s easier to keep it in check. My bias is a general trust in science, I tend to listen to experts more, rather than challenging them. I feel I combat that bias though, by having these kinds of chats, because where I might have overlooked something due to that bias, somebody without that bias is going to spot them and help me notice them. That’s part of why I engage in chats like this, to challenge what I think I know, it helps me remain a little more objective.
Anyway, off to bed, I’ll drop by again tomorrow perhaps, see what other questions I can provide information for.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@chrisross4898 I’ll elaborate further. Gravity causes the buoyancy effect within the density column of a spirit level. So the bubble is levelling to centre of gravity, the tube perpendicular to gravity, renders it level. So gravity on the flat model points in one vector, down towards surface, gravity on the globe points in many vectors towards centre of Earth. If Earth is flat and gravity works as they believe it does, the bubble won’t appear to move. If the Earth is a globe and gravity works the way they believe it does, the bubble still won’t appear to move. The bubble is conforming to gravity, then it’s going to move with it. So you see the problem? The experiment doesn’t prove either model, it is inconclusive. To conclude it proves FE, completely ignores and misunderstands the globe model physics.
This is immediately obvious to anyone who does understand the globe physics, while the only people who see this experiment as proof of FE, clearly never seem to understand how it would also work with globe physics...which means they don’t understand the globe physics. So the error is their own, not the model they’re trying to refute.
Either way, it’s an inconclusive experiment, proves neither conclusion, that’s the basic fact of things.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@chrisross4898 Gaia is most definitely a con job...did you pay a subscription for their service? Are they selling books, dvd’s, oils, any merchandise? That’s a rhetorical question, I know they are, I’ve been there myself. Odds are pretty good they have a financial motive to continue, no matter how full of shit their content is...so ya, it’s a con, they are modern day snake oil sellers, pushing their products on the scientifically illiterate. Spend some time on youtube or other websites like reddit, that break down in great detail how Gaia pushes pseudoscience on people for profit. It’s all BS.
3
-
@drackxman He did the level test as a gag, a quick jab at FE for entertainment value...because it’s actually a test many of them truly believe is conclusive evidence, but it’s easily debunked with just an entry level understanding of how gravity works. I’ll attempt to break it down a little better.
A bubble level is basically just a simple 2 part density column, a liquid and air, so the bubble of air is separated and moves around due to buoyancy, that part you probably already know, pretty simple so far right. Ok, but what some don’t quite understand, is that buoyancy force is directly caused due to gravity, it does not occur without it. Without a downward accelerating force giving all matter a direction to begin falling, no displacement can then occur, so no ordering by density will occur. Buoyancy is just less dense matter being forced up (displaced up), by matter that is more dense, because more dense matter must occupy lowest potential energy first, or lowest position point closest to centre of gravity if you prefer. That’s all buoyancy is, that’s why clouds float and helium balloons rise...the key ingredient, being gravity, gravity is what starts the displacement. The misunderstanding, is in their thinking that gravity only causes a downward motion, and it’s not that simple really, gravity is responsible for more things than they realize.
So the problem flat Earth has here with this experiment, is that it’s inconclusive, it does not prove their conclusion and here’s why. Because on the Globe model, gravity pulls to centre, doesn’t matter where you are, all mass is pulled toward centre of gravity, the centre of Earth. So the bubble is levelling to centre of gravity at all times, keeping itself perpendicular to that centre, which means on the globe, the bubble will shift with gravity vectors as you travel. Think of it like a stick you have tied in the middle with a rope, the other end of that rope is tied to a pole, now pull the rope taut, the rope now represents a gravity vector for this thought experiment. Now hold the stick perpendicular to that pole and rope at all times and now go around the pole, tracing a perfect circle. The gravity vector (the rope) fallows you and it keeps the stick shifting to maintain perpendicular to centre, the same thing is occurring in a bubble level, due to gravity. If the bubble stays perfectly in the centre of the current gravity vector, then it won’t shift, so that’s really what a bubble level is levelling to, centre of gravity.
So the experiment is flawed, in that it ignores the details of the model it’s attempting to debunk...which is the very opposite of objective science. Not entirely their fault really, not everyone is very well read in physics, and gravity vectors can be a little tricky to understand, so it’s easy to see how someone might think this is evidence. Either way, it is an inconclusive experiment, it does not prove a flat Earth, anyone claiming that it does is being bias and not looking at the science objectively...or they don’t quite understand the science, which is really the larger problem with FE, over confidence in their abilities, cognitive dissonance.
This is why they like to deny the existence of gravity...because they have to, because it’s very inconvenient for their main argument. But, gravity is very well established science, it’s not something they can just ignore. The fact that they do ignore things so easily, shows their true nature, a movement of confirmation bias...not objective reasoning.
Anyway, hope that helps a bit. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.
3
-
3
-
Refraction isn’t brought up as a proof of the globe, it falsifies the common claim by Flat Earthers that we see too far in some cases. It’s a falsification…not a proof. That is the proper way to conduct science and remain the most objective, through falsification…the theory/model that stands up to all attempts to be falsified, is the most likely conclusion. Flat Earthers claim we see too far, refraction is a valid explanation for how and why, in the cases where we do see further than what’s geometrically possible. This is verified further by the fact that refraction fluctuates, this is observable on pretty much any day if you observe long enough, and seeing further is only possible when refractive index increases…so it correlates.
As much as Flat Earth doesn’t enjoy the process of falsification, or being questioned, tough titty…science doesn’t just stop once a bias is confirmed, that’s how pseudoscience operates. Nobody is above the process of peer review. Refraction is a fact, easily verified, so it can not be ignored simply because some want so badly to be right.
What’s worse is that they’re more than happy to accept atmospheric refraction when it suits them…you should see the plethora of nut jobs who actually try using atmospheric refraction as an explanation for the South celestial rotation of stars. It’s akin to watching someone ram a square peg into a round hole. 😄
3
-
3
-
@dr.reubenbuthello2866 To add to what Scott said, the air above any body of water is always slightly denser, because of the humidity and the cooling that occurs just above the water. So refraction happens most commonly over bodies of water, and typically in the downward direction, refracting objects upwards. But it happens everywhere on the surface actually, just very common over water. If you don’t believe so, there’s a great observation I’d urge you to check out, called the Rainy Lake experiment. There’s a full blog post you can find outlining the experiment, and there’s a full section on refraction, containing a short sped up time lapse over several hours, clearly demonstrating refraction causing the horizon to rise up significantly over time, as refraction index increases throughout the day.
Refraction is very much a variable that matters here, it cannot be ignored. Rowbotham ignored it, so his observation is inconclusive, it’s a sloppy experiment. He’s actually famous today as one of the main reasons why peer review is so crucial to the process of science. The Bedford Level experiment is used an example today, to help teach young aspiring scientists the importance of peer review, by illustrating how false conclusions are often drawn in experimentation, peer review is how we catch human error.
3
-
Takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree on Earth…you think you’d be able to notice a dip occurring that gradually? Pilots follow the horizon indicator and the altimeter, constantly making small adjustments every second to stay in line with those instruments, the shift would be so gradual, you would never notice, like driving around a perfect circle track that’s thousands of miles in circumference, it’s not much different. Also, it’s impossible for a plane to “fly out into space”, because space is a vacuum and planes require the air to help generate lift…that’s how they fly. The air gets thinner the higher you go, so planes can only fly so high, before they reach a point where the air is too thin to generate enough lift to counter their weight/gravity. So that’s why we don’t use planes to get into space, we use rockets, which do not require the air to generate lift, they instead use the thrust created by action reaction, the 3rd law of motion.
You could benefit from learning a bit more physics. These aren’t bad inquiries, but you are forming some pretty false conclusions from a lack of information. So I hope you find this information at the very least interesting.
2
-
Because of light refraction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t=6s Light bends and refracts as it passes through denser atmosphere, which happens a lot at distances and especially over water where the air density is higher thanks to the moisture in the air. This causes a distortion in what we see, making it possible to see objects beyond a curvature. It's a variable that Rowbotham (parallax), did not account for in his experiment...either because he wasn't aware of it, or because he ignored it intentionally, either way, it was a variable that he did not control for.
So he conducted a sloppy experiment, that was designed to only seek out the conclusion he wanted to be true, that ignored variables and didn't provide any proper controls or collect enough data sets, then once he got his observation that supported his bias, he stopped experimenting and reached his conclusion. That's not how science is done...we don't just stop looking once our bias is confirmed, that is how you conduct a poor experiment. When this experiment is repeated and improved upon, by accounting for variables and adding further data sets, it actually comes back conclusive in support of a Globe. Here's a really thorough recreation of this experiment, this time done across a frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment Thankfully, peer review catches things like this...that's why an experiment must be repeatable to be officially conclusive. When it's repeated, it's found to be a sloppy experiment, conducting the experiment properly brings a more conclusive result.
That is how a proper experiment is done, it is very thorough, accounting for every possible variable that it can, making calculated predictions for all of them before hand. All "Parallax" did was make one observation of a flag disappearing...and then concluded Earth was Flat, no further work required. That's a perfect example of confirmation bias...it's the perfect example of how NOT to do an experiment. That's basically the problem with every Flat Earther, they're just chasing confirmation bias, seeking only the information that supports their bias and ignoring everything else. It's quite common actually, most people tend to do this...it's actually a natural tendency of people, we're kind of lazy like that, we like quick easy to digest answers...but things are rarely that simple and science is trying to find objective truths, so it has to go beyond bias. Science figured out a long time ago that this was a problem, so scientists now train themselves to remove bias as best they can, one of the ways they do that, is by controlling for variables in an experiment...like light refraction.
Anyway, hope you find this information at the very least interesting. It's a great question really, this experiment is actually often taught in universities to teach students about proper experimentation and why it's so important to make sure you're removing bias from the process. If you don't, you can run the risk of falling for scams like this.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ingeborgpostelnik4748 Sure, but it still means cars are producers of C02...which was the basic fact. Yes, plants use C02, but they can only do so much, the basic fact is that this extra C02 is ADDING to the amount of C02 already present, increasing temperatures slightly by trapping more heat. C02 is a greenhouse gas, cars increase those levels, those are the basic facts. Yes, we can plant more trees, and they do, but it still doesn’t change the fact that we’re pumping more C02 into the air than ever before...that’s the problem.
You speak of ignorance, then make an ignorant statement...thinking the trees will just take care of everything, so we have no reason to worry. That’s ignorant...meanwhile CO2 is still rising, carbon based fuels are a part of that problem. These are the basic facts...it’s not difficult to deduce or understand. Your over simplifying the problem and rationalizing it...meanwhile people in many urban centres walk and breath through a thick haze, and C02 levels rise in atmosphere, and you’re just like “it’s fine, the trees will get it”. :/
Nobody is saying to eliminate carbon based fuels entirely, we depend on it to much, that would likely never happen. The point is to make efforts to reduce it...because no matter how much some are willing to ignore it, our current emissions are not a good thing. I’d agree we should be planting more trees, heck that’s a great idea, especially in our major cities. Greenery should become a larger part of urban areas, for sure. Point is we shouldn’t ignore it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2