Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
Hinduism is the oldest surviving ancient religion (around 4000 years old) and they used to always say that Earth was egg shaped, until of course it was proven spherical, they’ve since adjusted (though they were half right, it’s not perfectly spherical). There’s also evidence that suggests the ancient Sumerians knew the Earth was spherical, they carved depictions of a spherical Earth in a lot of their structures. And the Greeks are well known for deducing the Earth was spherical roughly 2000 years ago, we still use the geographic coordinate system designed by Eratosthenes for navigation, and around the same time the Greek geographer Ptolemy created some of the first accurate maps, using a spherical geometry in his framework. Also, the Catholic church was at the centre of higher education in Europe for at least the last thousand years…and they’ve been teaching the spherical Earth for most of that time. Copernicus was a monk…he started the heliocentric model some 500 years ago, before that the church believed the Earth was spherical but at the centre of everything, the geocentric model. So it’s well documented that they believed the Earth was spherical and that’s what they taught their scholars for centuries.
So no…every religion in history didn’t believe the Earth was flat…you just don’t know your history very well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@taciupryk I'm just saying, your argument is pretty much this "I personally have not verified gravity for myself, because I don't really know any of the science, therefore gravity isn't real to me personally. The Globe can't exist without gravity, therefore since gravity isn't real to me, the Globe isn't real by extension." There are so many logical fallacies here, I don't even know where to begin. We do not know everything about gravity, but we do not need to, in order to conclude the Earth is a sphere. We have observed the world to be a Globe, we have taken pictures of it, we have measured it, and ALL world navigation and communication and infrastructure, uses our knowledge of the planets true shape and scale, to work and function at all. Even if we knew nothing about what attracts us to the Earth, it does not mean it does not exist and it also does not mean the Earth is not a Globe. We have a lot to learn...the shape of the Earth is not one of those things. Stop listening to con me on the internet, teaching you how to be more ignorant to the world around you.
2
-
So what would you prefer they did instead? We do not know everything, and we likely never will, for that reason it makes certainty of the facts pretty much impossible. It means that old information always has the potential to change as new information is gathered. That is the stark reality I'm afraid, old information will always have the potential to change, simply because we do not know everything. So they really have no other choice but to operate the way they do, on consensus...otherwise nothing would get done, it would just be chaos. Would you prefer con artists be allowed to peddle there junk science, never to be checked or challenged, free to pass off their bullshit as if its fact, even though it's hurting a lot of people and causing a lot of problems for research and development? Doesn't sound very awesome to me. I much prefer the peer reviewed system of consensus, it works.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MultiChaoticus Germ theory has been proven true, beyond any doubt. We see bacteria in microscopes, we isolate them, we test their harmful effects. This is not a question anymore, it’s proven medical science, you can get a microscope at anytime and see for yourself…like millions of other people have done already. Pathogens cause most diseases, that’s a fact, not an opinion. You don’t believe me, then try infecting yourself with E. Coli, or Colera, or any other harmful pathogen we’ve identified…then we’ll see just how unproven you think it is then.
Either way, you’re certainly not changing anything with empty claims that it’s not verified science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. At the very least, you could provide your reasoning for why you believe it’s not proven science. Certainly can’t do much with empty claims…nothing scientific about that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Evolution doesn't imply there was no creator, and we did not evolve from apes, that's a common misunderstanding from people who would rather assume how things work then put any effort into understanding. We share a common ancestor with apes of today, that's all, and the fossil records verify that as does our genetic code which shares a LOT of the same coding. So maybe you're happy being ignorant of evidence, planting your face in a book that was most likely written by man and completely made up, but the rest of us would rather LOOK at the world around us, figure out how it works and not ignore what it's telling us.
If the Bible says the Earth is flat, then that's just another thing to add to the VERY LONG LIST of things it gets wrong about reality. Does the bible have a section for Dinosaurs, cellular life, atoms or the electromagnetic spectrum that currently brings you your wifi? No? Well fuck...I wonder why...MAYBE because the people who wrote that book didn't have a fucking clue how the world worked in their time, so they made it all up! Filling the gaps in their knowledge with superstitious bullshit. And somehow you people still follow it blindly...ya, real good logic you have. Superb logic. Let us know when you invent, innovate or discover anything.
Science doesn't have any problem with God, they'd just prefer having evidence before jumping to any conclusions. Many scientists today and throughout history are actually theists, not atheists. Science isn't working to get rid of God, that's not its goal, it's goal is just to learn how creation works at the mechanical level. Your bible might have reason to worry, but God is fine.
2
-
TJ Callaway A better question is, where is this barrier Flat Earth claims is up there? Even Flat Earth has sent up their own weather balloons to the fringes of space, and they eventually pop due to being within vacuum conditions, so even flat Earth has measured and verified the vacuum of space without realizing it. But you know what they’ve never found? A dome barrier. It is a physical object isn’t it? It would have to be according to flat Earth, so where is the tangible evidence that verifies its existence? Do you ever stop to think that maybe you’re just misunderstanding the physics here? Are you a physicist? Do you have actual experience in the science, or did you learn these things from a YouTube video? It’s not hard to lie on the internet, so what makes you so certain your source of information actually knows what they’re talking about? Just food for thought.
To me, this sounds like an error in understanding of thermodynamics. Entropy has more to do with energy, not so much matter. For instance, when a cup of hot coffee eventually goes cold, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the energy? Shouldn’t have to tell you, it’s just the thermal energy. It’s true that matter tags along sometimes, but matter is moved by kinetic energy, energy that is eventually lessened and converted to potential energy, due to attracting forces found in nature, such as gravity. Atmosphere doesn’t escape into space, because gravity is always there, pulling it back down. Molecules that make up our atmosphere moves around by constantly colliding with each other, which creates kinetic energy in the gas, keeping it in motion. Near the fringes of atmosphere though, the air gets thinner and thinner, reducing the amount of collisions, reducing the transfer of kinetic energy. But gravity is always there, it never stops pulling on these molecules, which eventually drains them of kinetic energy. Once that energy is spent, the molecules lose momentum and fall back to Earth, starting the cycle all over again.
So how does atmosphere exist next to the vacuum of space? Simple, gravity is what makes it possible, and no laws of thermodynamics are broken here, because the entropy still does occur, it’s just greatly slowed by gravity. And thermodynamics again has more to do with energies desire to move into equilibrium, matter not so much, matter tags along but it is always subject to forces that will attract them back down once kinetic energy is dispersed and spent.
Now Flat Earth likes to deny the existence of gravity, but they can’t really deny that matter falls. That doesn’t just happen on its own, nothing is just put into motion on its own, a force is required to put anything into motion, it’s the first law of motion. They also can’t deny that atmosphere is measured to get thinner and thinner the higher you go, you can test that yourself by hiking a hill with a barometer. So flat Earth is also confusing the difference between gas pressure and atmospheric pressure. Gas pressure is gas put under pressure by a container squeezing molecules into forced proximity, causing more collisions between molecules, pressure is consistent throughout these containers. Atmospheric pressure is caused by the weight of molecules above, squeezing down on molecules below, this creates a gradient in pressure and the downward force of gravity is what causes it to occur.
So in my opinion, there is just a whole lot of physics that Flat Earth is ignoring or isn’t aware of. You have great questions...but you’re not really seeking answers, you’re holding those questions up as your proofs, assuming they can’t be answered. I don’t say that to patronize, it’s just what I’ve noticed. Flat Earth asks a lot of questions, but if they had even a basic knowledge of physics, they’d know these questions have answers.
A good experiment commonly done in physics classes, is a simple test of observing smoke in a vacuum. It’s a good test that might help you with your quandary of gaseous matter and how it behaves in vacuum conditions. Here’s a good recreation of this experiment https://youtu.be/Yb2YuC7UbwI?t=138. Now we all know that under normal conditions in atmosphere, smoke rises, but what’s interesting is that in a vacuum, smoke actually falls and pools at the bottom. Rather than expanding out and filling the container, it will actually fall instead and form a layer, as the experiment above demonstrates. No matter on Earth is free from the effect of gravity, but buoyancy creates the illusion that some things are, such as gases. Buoyancy is what causes smoke to rise, the displacement of matter by density. Gas is the lightest (least dense) form that matter can take, so gases are pushed up by heavier gases, in much the same way air bubbles are forced up in water. Take away all other matter within a system though, and you take away the buoyancy displacement, leaving only the observation of gravity pulling the gas down.
So science doesn’t just conclude these things without testing them, you have to understand that their is probably a great deal of science and experiments the general public is not aware of. It’s my fear that Flat Earth exploits this general lack of knowledge and experience most people have in the sciences and they use these gaps to create doubt in people.
There’s nothing wrong with questioning things though, I just think people should be very careful where they’re getting their information from, and never forget to also question even the sources you’ve grown to trust. So I hope you’ve found this information at the very least interesting. If you have any questions or if there’s anything you feel I’ve overlooked, feel free to let me know.
I’m just addressing your questions one at a time for now, don’t want to bury you in pages of information if I can help it (though I realize this got long already). These are great questions though, they’re the same sort of questions all scientists ask when first learning about these things. But, let me know if you found it helpful, or feel free to rebuttal. I apologize if it’s knowledge you’re already aware of, I don’t mean to patronize, but at this point I really don’t know your level of education just yet.
2
-
TJ Callaway NASA has never said they’ve never been to space...Flat Earth and space deniers make that claim, not NASA, just bias anti NASA groups putting words in NASA’s mouth, hearing what they want to and spreading misinformation. The misunderstanding comes from a couple comments from NASA scientists, who merely reminded the interviewer that NASA hasn’t sent any manned missions past low Earth orbit since the Moon missions...which is true, so they’re just telling the truth. But, space deniers then take the words out of context and reframe them to their bias. Fact is, NASA has never once said they’ve never been to space, only space deniers say that...for obvious reasons, they need to confirm their bias. But, prove me wrong, go ahead and find me the interview where NASA states they’ve never been to space.
Another misunderstanding is the whole “atmosphere extending past the Moon” debacle. The Karmen line of our atmosphere ends at 100 miles, the gas that extends past the Moon is known as the Geo-Corona, and it’s just a few hundred molecules of Hydrogen every square mile. They always knew this existed, they just never knew how far it extended until recently. If you actually read that article past the title, you’d know that the distance to the Moon didn’t change, they just discovered hydrogen molecules that extend past the Moon...that’s how science works, it’s a never ending process of discovery, all they did was add knowledge to the current model, nothing was changed.
This is one of the big problems as I see it...Flat Earth just hears what it wants to hear, twisting information to fit bias. So it really makes it difficult to have an honest discussion...with people who just invent their own truth, rather than pay attention to the actual details.
Everything you’re stating in your new comment is off the rails a great deal with its facts. Eratosthenes is one you’re thinking of, he was the first scholar to measure Earths circumference, and he wasn’t assuming anything...the Greeks had already determined the Earth was spherical, so he was just building on prior knowledge. They built the sundial...studying the path of the Sun and understanding Earths geometry was key to that invention. Many don’t know this, but calibrating a sundial will change by latitude...because of Earths curvature, so they already figured out Earths geometry long before Eratosthenes measured its circumference. Either way, even if he did assume the shape, that is only required if you only take 2 measurements. If you take several more data sets from multiple locations around the world, then plot the shadow angle data using location data, you can actually pinpoint the Sun in 3D. Here’s a great experiment that did just that https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=422.
I’d rather not continue addressing gish gallop...so I’ll leave it at that for now. You really seem to have a very skewed understanding of modern science, which is just confirming my fears of what’s really occurring with movements like flat Earth. It’s just a lot of twisted facts and misinformation fed to the general public, that’s never had any interest in science and who lacks the knowledge to counter the lies. It’s misinformation and it’s robbing people like yourself of your better reasoning.
You’ve got it backwards...it’s not the Globe that starts with a premise then works backwards to prove it, if you’ll recall, flat Earth is where mankind started, from there we gathered more knowledge and made observations that falsified that model. We’ve since proved without much doubt that Earth is in fact spherical and from there the model has expanded as we’ve acquired more knowledge. What Flat Earth is attempting to do now is start over...and it’s doing that because of a great loss of trust between the general public and the community of science.
It’s fine that people are questioning things...but you have to be careful where you get your info from, cause it’s easier then ever before to spread bullshit. Con men are feeding you bad information, and it’s just messing with your heads. Your comment just got more jumbled as it went...and it should be your first warning sign, that maybe the information you’ve been getting hasn’t been accurate in the slightest.
Anyway, if you’d like to continue, please stick to single points, I’m not going to chase you up a mountain of gish gallop.
2
-
Oh good, you like science. Well here’s an in-depth study and observation of curvature http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. It’s pretty clear here that the surface is curving.
With lasers, you’re always going to have troubles, because they are subject to refraction (reflecting/bending) and diffraction (expanding) in atmosphere, which increases with distance. Both of which make it a lot more difficult to get an accurate reading, because at distances the laser will no longer be tangent with starting point...like many seem to assume it would be. But they only assume this because they don’t really know much about laser physics.
This is basic physics of light, if you don’t believe me that laser light (or any light for that matter) can bend, it’s just cause you’ve never seen it before, so here’s a quick demonstration https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0?t=278. Pretty simple experiment to recreate, demonstrating quite clearly why lasers aren’t as reliable and tangent as you think they are. So I’m afraid it’s not that simple...also, I can only assume you’re referring to the 8 inches per mile squared equation, which I’m afraid to tell you is not actually the accurate math for these observations. That is a basic parabola equation, not a spherical equation...it’s not very accurate in most applications I’m afraid, because it’s ignoring many important variables. Some key variables it’s missing for laser experiments would be height of the laser and refraction, just to name a few.
You can find a far more accurate equation here https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/.
As for the level on a plane experiment, it’s inconclusive, because it ignores gravity physics. Even a basic understanding of gravity would tell you that the bubble would shift with gravity vectors over a curved surface, so the experiment neither verifies or falsifies either model, meaning it’s inconclusive. So it’s a bad experiment really, not useful for determining anything conclusive.
If we actually were to look at each point scientifically, these are the problems they need to address. It’s not quite as simple as you want it to be I’m afraid. Flat Earth likes to claim it’s being scientific...while at the same time being completely ignorant to some pretty basic science.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@corporaterobotslave400 Their argument there is generally that we can’t assume the Earth is a planet like all the other celestial objects...cause space doesn’t exist either according to them. Which sadly...does have some logic to it, but only if you completely ignore all the evidence of space and all the evidence of Earths true geometry. They don’t seem to realize that the Globe model didn’t start with figuring out how space works, it started with the basic geometric shape and dimensions of the ground beneath their feet, and worked up from there. Once that was verified undeniably spherical, then we could move on to solving the rest...and it all makes sense together, cohesively, without contradiction, all other parts of model helping to explain the rest...while they have zero answers for anything....they’d prefer to just make up bullshit.
Which is the most absurd part about it really...they’ll go around yelling that we can’t assume the Earth is a planet...but then they have no problem turning around and assuming it’s an “endless plane” and there’s a “dome firmament” above our heads....while meanwhile having zero tangible evidence for either claim. So they don’t even stick to their own logic...which points out their hypocrisy.
Yes, if we were to ignore all other evidence of Earths geometry, and all evidence of the existence of space, then sure, we then can’t assume the Earth is similar to anything we observe in the sky. But we don’t live in 500 BC anymore...we do have evidence today, more then that we have a working model that’s used in every applied science today, so we’re not assuming anything. They’re just absolutely delusional people...though I’m sure I didn’t need to tell you that.
2
-
@joaopintovb Laugh all you want, but Newton penned a lot of the first laws of physics that real scientists and engineers actually use to build a lot of technologies you use today…what have you accomplished in your life so far? 🧐 One of the laws he penned was gravity, it’s where the concept started.
It’s a pretty simple observation he made; drop something, does it fall? Yup, sure does. Is falling a motion? Yup, it sure is. What is the fundamental cause for all change in state of motion? A force, nothing is put into motion without a force to cause it…that’s physics 101. So it’s pretty simple deduction after that; we observe a very clear falling motion when you drop something, that always falls in the same direction towards surface, that motion occurs free of any control you have over it, meaning it’s a phenomenon of reality, meaning there’s an attractive force present putting matter into motion downward towards surface…it’s really that simple. All he did then was give it a name, because it’s pretty important to label every force we identify in physics, so we’re all on the same page when discussing it.
Laws of science merely describe WHAT is occurring, but make no attempt at explaining WHY or HOW they occur, that’s what scientific theories are for…that’s the difference between them. Both of them are comprised of proven facts, nothing graduates past hypothesis and into a law or theory, without tangible evidence that is verifiable and repeatable. So don’t let the wording fool you, scientific theories are basically proven facts, they’re very different from regular theories. In science, hypothesis takes the role of a regular theory, that being educated guess. The word is used very differently in science.
You really need to learn some physics, these are good questions you’re asking, but they are not new questions, they’ve long been answered.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Refraction is one of the simplest concepts in physics to test and verify, ever observed a pencil in a glass of water? https://www.ck12.org/physics/refraction/lesson/Refraction-of-Light-PHYS/ Then you’ve verified refraction. It’s also not difficult to demonstrate how the effect can cause you to see over a curve. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t So it happens and so it can not be ignored.
If you’d like to learn more about how it works on our Earth over long distances, here’s a great resource that goes into pretty good detail and has also quantified it, which he’s then mocked up into a great simulator. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/simulating-atmospheric-refraction.7881/ The simulator you can find here. https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/
Here’s another great resource, this is a recreation of that Bedford Level experiment, only this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment Scroll down to the second half of this report, where it goes into great detail on atmospheric refraction. Images 31 and 32 are what you should really pay close attention too, if you honestly believe refraction is a variable we can just ignore.
The truth is simple, Rowbotham conducted a sloppy experiment that ignored refraction (among many other variables, he also did the wrong math), which renders his experiment inconclusive. Your ego may not like to allow you to admit it, but yes, smarter people than yourself are figuring these things out. While Flat Earth is conning people and teaching them it’s ok to ignore variables so you can confirm a bias...not exactly a winning strategy in peer reviewed science.
Science doesn’t ask that you listen blindly to them and never challenge them, it’s the media that tells you that nonsense. In reality, science is all about falsification, scientists make their careers by challenging the status quo, not by going along with consensus. Just look at Einstein for example, he challenged the work of Newton...the difference he has with Flat Earth is that he was successful and he did while remaining objective. So in reality, science strongly encourages people question everything...it’s Flat Earth that asks you to never question them. If I were you, I’d start questioning them a lot more...you might learn who the real liars are if you do.
2
-
@CalsTube They don’t ignore that, they just understand that centrifugal force generated by an object rotating at the rate of 0.000694 RPM’s (1 rotation every 24 hours) isn’t going to produce near enough centrifugal force to overcome gravity, not even close. But it does generate some, did you know everything weighs slightly less at the Equator where centrifugal force is greatest? About 0.3% less from the poles, where’s there’s no centrifugal force. You can actually test this with some travel, a set of weights, and a simple scale.
I can help most people understand centrifugal force a bit better, with one simple thought experiment. Imagine yourself in a race car, travelling at a constant 200 mph, going around a perfect circle track that’s only 1000 meters circumference. Would you expect a lot of centrifugal force in this example? Yes, in fact it would likely be very difficult to stay on the track, and you’d be flung to the door. Now let’s do it again, same car, same velocity, except now we’re driving on a track that’s 1000 miles in circumference. Would we expect the same amount of centrifugal force in this example? Nope, in fact you probably wouldn’t feel any, the course would be turning so gradually, it would be very easy to stay on track, no noticeable centrifugal force at all.
But why? You’re travelling at the same linear speed…so why is there less centrifugal force? Because rate of rotation has decreased due to the increase in circumference, which has decreased the rate of angular velocity change per second…which is the root of centrifugal force.
So why doesn’t Earth toss everything off of it due to its rotation? Because it’s not rotating fast enough, to overcome gravity. 0.000694 RPM’s is VERY slow, for comparison, a Gravitron ride at your local fair rotates at 24 RPM’s…huge difference. The tennis ball example Flat Earthers keep using, is an example of a ball rotating at hundreds to thousands of RPM’s…so lots of centrifugal force, far more than 0.000694 RPM’s will ever produce. So it’s a false comparison, comparing something with a very high rotational velocity, to a much much slower rotation.
Gotta factor every variable and consider the entirety of the physics.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Globeisahoax You’re not getting it, there is geometry you can test through travelling the surface. Celestial observations and phenomena that are not possible on a flat Earth geometry…you can confirm these observations, like the 24 hour sun in both hemispheres, the different stars, the consistent drop of stars to horizon, the two separate celestial star rotations, etc, you can confirm them all with a little bit of travel. With just a basic understanding of geometry, you can deduce that these observations, and many others, are simply not possible on a flat Earth. They are however EXACTLY what you’d expect to see, from the perspective upon a spherical surface.
I’ve tested Earth’s geometry with observations I made myself. You likely just watched a few cleverly crafted YouTube videos, spin a lie for you, that you fell for easily, because of your lack of personal experiences in life. You need to travel more…stop falling for bullshit you find online.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mrwallstreet1 That's really all I can ask anyone do, is look at the evidence, remain objective and honest while they do, and then come to their own conclusions after both sides of a topic has been properly analyzed. You are correct, that there is a lot more ad hominum and empty rhetoric in this particular discussion and I think it does more to drive people deeper down that rabbit hole, then it does to guide them out. People tend to double down on a belief, when somebody treats them like they're stupid for ever considering it...it's just basic human psychology, we do not enjoy being talked down too...it just pisses us off and makes us spiteful. There is nothing wrong with questioning what you are told, in fact it's quite logical, so in that respect, I actually admire Flat Earths stubborn tenacity, but that's about all I admire...at its core, I do find it's a movement born of paranoia and led by confirmation bias, neither of which are going to lead them to any actual truth.
Anyway, I can offer a few more points on Eric Dubay if you'd like. I do try my best to warn people about this man...because I feel he is a deeply disturbed individual, bordering on psychopath. I feel he's able to deliver his lies with such confidence, because he lacks empathy...that's what makes him so convincing, he never wavers in his delivery of information, and it creates the illusion of him being an expert. I didn't reach that conclusion lightly though, there are many sources online now that paint his true character, from his Nazi sympathizing beliefs, to his cruelty towards former love interests, to his public outbursts towards the other big names of Flat Earth, he displays a lot of the characteristics of extreme narcissism and a lack of empathy.
But, that's purely speculative, I'm no psychologist, so I really should avoid slander. That's just my personal opinion of Dubay, from what I've learned, he's not to be trusted.
But I can defeat his arguments with facts, that is easy to do actually. I'll give you one for now. I'm sure you've come across his "200 proofs of Flat Earth" video before. Pay attention to his second claim which states "horizon always rises to eye level". This is actually quite false and like all of his 200 "proofs" it is just an empty claim with no supporting evidence. His hope here is that nobody stops to question the claim...what's scary is that so many actually don't.
So lets look at the claim a little closer. Can you actually measure the horizon to see if it drops from eye level or not? Yes, you can. I know of two methods, one by using a simple leveling rig that anyone can build themselves using simple household supplies, the other is by using a surveyors tool known as a theodolite, which anyone can purchase or even download phone apps for. Here are a couple examples of people who have used both tools to help them discern if horizon drops or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUr9ymz_nVI - leveling rig.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVTgP-KpyRc&t - theodolite.
Both experiments confirm, horizon does not actually rise to eye level as you go higher in elevation, it actually drops. So he lied...more then that though, he made an empty claim and provided no evidence for the claim. This is why people should be careful and not just listen to Dubay blindly...question him, or you will risk falling for those lies.
The first red flag should be that he doesn't provide actual evidence for anything he says, he only spouts out speculations. I think people need to really learn the difference between evidence and speculation...it matters. Anyone can make an empty claim like "horizon always rises to eye level", but it means nothing unless they have evidence that supports the claim. Dubay does not provide any evidence in his 200 proofs video...in reality it is just 200 empty claims, they are not proofs, they are speculations. In debating it's called a gish gallop argument, dumping many weak arguments on an individual in rapid fire, to make their main argument appear stronger then it actually is. It also makes it harder to go back and challenge each claim one by one, in debating, this style of arguing is not only frowned upon, it's generally not allowed.
Anyway, apologies for the rambling, I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. Feel free to share your own insights if you still disagree, I don't mind listening to an opposing viewpoint.
2
-
2
-
1. No evidence of this dome, why is that exactly? If you believe it exists, then what evidence do you have in support of it? I hear a lot of butchered physics, confusing gas pressure with atmospheric pressure (which is not the same thing), but It is a physical object yes? It would have to be, to contain the atmosphere (as Flat Earthers claim), so why haven't we interacted with it yet? Why haven't we bounced or refracted lasers off of it? Why haven't we bounced radar off of it? We do both with the Moon and we also bounce radar off of Venus, it's one of the many ways we measure their distance to us...so why haven't we done the same with this dome? Basically, why believe in a dome that has never been discovered with tangible evidence supporting it?
2. Do you think it should be easy? Have YOU ever put a rocket into space? Do you know how hard it was to put even ONE rocket into space? Do you know how expensive it is? We just started space exploration not more then 60 years ago...we've had power for over the last 200 years, and it's really only been accessible to everyone around the world for the last 80-100 years or so....things take time. Infrastructure takes time to build, research takes time to establish, funding takes time to acquire. If you think space travel is easy...you're kidding yourself. In the grand scheme of things, space exploration is still in its infancy stage. Give it time.
3. All we can really do here is make empty speculations, and I'd rather focus on things that can be verified...but I will offer a counter argument anyway, just cause I know your bias leans you to believe there probably is no counter position to this one...there is. Operation Fishbowl was part of a much larger mission, to test Nuclear arms in various environments, to see what they did. This is quite typical during the testing process of any new weapon...you want to know its limits, its strengths, its weaknesses...you want to test it adequately. So they launched 6 war heads into the upper atmosphere, about 75 - 100,000 feet altitude (much to low to hit any perceived dome). What they learned was that when you detonate a Nuke in upper atmosphere, the EMP and radio black out travels MUCH further...as does the fall out. So they learned a lot from testing in upper atmosphere. They named it Operation "Fishbowl", because when you blast a nuke in upper atmosphere, it punches a large hole in the clouds.
Here's why I hate this argument from Flat Earth...you don't know shit about this operation...you just hear the words "Fishbowl" and learn that they were firing nukes in upper atmosphere...and then you go "hmmm...fishbowls are made of glass, the dome is made of glass, they were trying to punch a hole in the dome!" that's about as far as your research goes here...empty speculations, conjectures, paranoid claims that have NO evidence. It is a waste of time...and neither side can verify anything, but at LEAST the globe side digs deeper then the title and the basic information.
4. You pretty much forfeit yourself from conversation the moment you say things are "just a theory". It tells the rest of us...that you don't quite know or understand the language of science. If you don't even speak the language...what reason do we have to believe you're able to interpret much of what science says? A theory in science is very different from the usual use of the word theory. A scientific theory is the highest level, any concept that explains HOW something works, can ever achieve in science. Hypothesis in science takes on the usual definition of the word theory. Hypothesis is just an educated guess basically, that is untested and unverified, but that has scientific backing to be possible. A theory, is a tested, verified and peer reviewed concept, that does not reach that status, until it has been proven beyond much doubt, to be damn near a fact. NOTHING that explains how something works, graduates beyond a theory in science, it is the highest it can go.
They chose that word for a very good reason, because we do not know everything and because there is simply too much for us to learn, we likely NEVER will learn everything. So because we don't know everything and never will, this means that old information pretty much always has the potential to change, as new information is acquired. A fact is something that does not change, facts just are what they are...also facts don't describe how something works, that's not the position of a fact. Theory is the word they chose in science, not to be confused with a Law either, which is just describing WHAT is happening, not explaining or demonstrating HOW it works at the mechanical level. You were taught all of this in your science classes during school...it was likely the very first thing they taught you in science.
It's very frustrating to have a conversations with people...when they don't even have the basics down. It's not your fault entirely, nobody knows everything and not everyone has interest in science enough to learn its tenants to the letter...but I am getting tired of people saying "it's just a theory". No...it's not just a theory....it's verified, peer reviewed science, with mountains of research, data, observation, experimentation and evidence supporting it. NOTHING graduates to that level, until it has been verified past hypothesis.
So a theory in science holds a lot more importance then you think. If I give you any slack here, it's that you're a tiny bit right, a theory in science always has potential to change. But unlike the general public who tend to think more in black and white certainty's and absolutes, science prefers to operate in percentages and margins of error. Some theories are fare more established then others. They never conclude anything with 100% certainty, but when it comes to the shape of the Earth, this is probably the most certain science is about anything else, concluding to be probably a 99.99999% certainty. Not much margin of error there...they're pretty damn certain about this science. Evolution, a lot less certain, maybe about 99%, Big Bang maybe about 90%, Dark matter and Dark Energy, about 45%...you see how science operates yet? When something can come along that CAN successfully replace any existing theory, then it will take its place. But they're not just going to roll over and listen blindly to old theories and paranoid empty speculations. They're going to review it and challenge it...and we have, Flat Earth is not reality.
5. I'm not religious and never have been, so I don't believe in anything the bible says. It has no place in a discussion of science, so this is an irrelevant point to me, it holds zero bearing on science. Don't get me confused though, I don't believe in man made religions, God I actually do find to be a logical conclusion to reach, I just very much doubt any of us have that interpretation correct. I don't like arguing religion though, because I don't like being a dick about my beliefs in that regard. I know it means a lot to you most likely, it's not my place to tell you what to believe. I will argue against the firmament, because that is something that so far does not align with reality, it has no tangible evidence supporting it, but beyond that...nothing really here in this point to discuss for me.
I hope you find these counter positions at the very least interesting. I don't intend to mock or insult, I just prefer to be objective and I enjoy the discussion, you seemed like a civil enough person to maybe listen and discuss further. I don't mind learning new things, so feel free to continue if you'd like.
2
-
@multymind4744 So let's look closer at your "walking upside down video" quandary. So for starters, zooming in on people is stupid, they're just far too small, so that's out. Buildings are a better shot, but even buildings are tiny compared to the Earth, that much I do hope we both agree upon and understand, no need to delve further into that. So this means they'd require a camera with a very powerful telescopic lens of some kind. Do any satellites currently have such a lens equipped? I'm really not sure, but I do know it's not wise to assume. People seem to have watched a lot of spy movies...it's made it harder for some to separate some facts from fantasy. What I do know, is that Google Earth does not actually use satellites in its close up street mappings, they actually use planes to scan the surface. It says so right on their page...they do not use satellites in their close ups, probably because no satellites are currently in orbit, capable of zooming into surface...like we've all been led to believe, from spy movies. But that's just speculation, I currently do not know for certain.
There is the Hubble telescope, and other telescopes like it. But these are very large mirror telescopes, not designed for zooming into surfaces, that are only a few thousand kilometers away...they're built for viewing things TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of kilometers away and the objects they're viewing are the largest objects in existence, stars, nebulas, galaxies...they're not buildings. So it'd be like turning an extremely powerful telescope around inside your bedroom, and trying to focus in on something that's really small within your room....it's not gonna work very well, it's simply not designed for it. So the Hubble is out, it's not made for that kind of imagery.
But lets assume they could zoom in close enough to capture an image of buildings at the side, now how much atmosphere would they have to look through? To catch buildings on their side, they'd have to be on the edges relative to the camera, at a total 90 degrees perpendicular to the camera. So that means, from that angled shot, you'd be looking through a ton of atmosphere, hundreds of kilometers most likely...with clouds...clouds would be the hardest part, because they don't exactly care what picture we're trying to take...they do not just go away.
Through all that cloud cover and atmosphere, it would be likely impossible....and that's only assuming the technology does actually exist.
And even if they did go through all that trouble....you guys still wouldn't believe it anyway, you'd just call it computer generated, so what would be the point? They already take full pictures of the Earth, they have been for the last 60+ years, long before computer generated imagery was even possible. That's good enough for the rest of us.
2
-
@multymind4744 Yes, but the Moon is 1/4 the size of Earth....it's not exactly a tiny building, now is it? Each crater, is miles in diameter, some are hundreds of miles...they're not tiny in the slightest. Size kind of matters here, the bigger something is, the easier it is too see at distances...right? That's pretty common sense. Can you zoom in on the Moon lander with your P900 or cell phone? No...in fact I'm not even aware of any telescopes that are capable.
I'm not saying it's impossible to get the images you're asking for, because I truly don't know for certain if it is or isn't, my point is that people shouldn't be so quick to assume things. And also, why would they want too? If their goal is to see the curvature...then filming the Earth in its entirety would meet that goal...and so that's what they generally do. The only people who seem interested in the image you're asking for, are Flat Earthers...but those same people just say everything NASA does is CGI, how would that change even if they got you exactly what you asked for? It likely wouldn't, even if they gave you that video, it would be hand waved aside as fake. So it's a bit pointless.
2
-
2
-
Ya, all science starts with assumptions, that’s basically what a hypothesis is…a guess formed from prior knowledge. So what’s your point? 🤷♂️ You’re not mentioning anything we don’t already know. But those assumptions are tested, and tested, and tested again. If they hold up to all attempts at falsification, then they’re more than likely true…and they’re basically proven undeniable facts, once the models we form from the tested knowledge can be used in applied science. Like navigation…which has used the globe model for over 2000 years, since the geographic coordinate system was created, and is proven accurate every single day, by thousands of successful navigations. If you think it’s wrong, feel free to try plotting a course across the pacific without it, go right ahead. 😄
It’s pretty simple to spot junk science….it doesn’t work. It reveals itself by how absolutely useless it is. That’s kinda the nice thing about pseudoscience, it’s actually pretty easy to spot.
We navigate the Earth with the globe model, that’s a fact, not an opinion. We predict celestial events like eclipses, down to the second and square mile, decades in advance, using the heliocentric model…can’t say the same for any other model.
So what reason would we have to even entertain the notion that it’s wrong? 🤷♂️ It works and fits perfectly with everything we observe. I certainly don’t believe that’s just coincidence. I’ll stick with the model that’s proven to actually work, thanks. You can debate it all you want…or you could just learn some astronomy, and answer your questions here for yourself.
2
-
Mankind is expanding at a rate that is not sustainable by our planet alone (and even if it is now, it won’t be later), so we have 2 options, either we learn our surroundings and learn how to travel and navigate them, so we can expand out, or we kill a bunch of people...those are our options. You know why they probably don’t cure cancers and feed the hungry? Cause they’re among some of the best population controllers...that’s why. That might sound cold, but it’s nature, when a species over populates an area and can no longer expand, it begins having problems...there’s no way around that, it happens with every single species in nature when they begin to overpopulate.
Getting off this rock can change that...so it matters. Best way to save people in the long run, figure out how to expand further...that requires we first know the true shape and scale of things, can’t exactly travel anywhere new, if you don’t know how your surroundings work. It’s knowledge that helps greatly in that endeavour. That’s fine if it doesn’t matter to you, but it’s going to matter for the whole of mankind in the next few decades. Some people get that, so they’re doing what they can to figure things out...some just lack a lot of trust, and so now they’re looking in the wrong places.
Make sense? It’s solving our problems rather than putting band aides on them...or having a lot of people die, which can happen if we don’t expand.
2
-
E Higgins I’ve been looking at this Flat Earth mess for a few years now, and it had a spike back in 2016 but it’s since been dying down again. You’re correct that they do feed off of attention and the less we give them the better, but it was just interesting at one point to hear that people actually believe this stuff, so it was an interesting topic for awhile there, just to see how stupid and crazy some people can get. There isn’t as many people making Flat Earth videos anymore, so the fad is dying I feel, so I wouldn’t worry about it to much.
I’m glad though, that no big names in the scientific community have taken any of their challenges or debated them publicly in large events, cause you’re right, it would just give them legitimacy...and they really don’t have any, so I’d agree, best to just ignore them on larger forums. Trouble is, they were making a lot of noise for a few years and they were conning a lot people in the process. I personally don’t like when misinformation fly’s by the radar unchecked, so I think it was good that some people were challenging and correcting their claims, just so there was some information out there that people could turn too if they needed help. I feel their counter information has done a lot to turn people away from that insanity, so I’m glad some people were making the attempt.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Anyone can verify the Earth is spherical, whether it’s fully understood how, is irrelevant. Reality is under no obligation to make sense too you. Does your not understanding or agreeing to gravity physics, change the fact that millions of pilots and sailors around the world, can’t do their jobs, without accurate information of the Earth’s surface? No…it doesn’t.
Flat Earth is a discussion of Earth’s geometry…but it sure doesn’t seem to focus on the geometry very much. They seem to prefer focusing on the higher physics, and making arguments from personal incredulity and ignorance…physics that was all realized and worked out long after the shape of Earth was determined, through simple observation and measurement. Of course you’re not gonna understand gravity physics very well…if you skip the foundational science that led to that discovery.
You truly believe nobody knows? You think a rocket scientist designing and putting rockets and satellites into orbital trajectories around Earth, wouldn’t know for certain? Or an astronaut? 🧐 I get that YOU don’t currently know for certain…but don’t assume your lack of knowledge and experience is a shared experience.
Where would the water flow too, exactly? What force is present attracting it and pulling it off of Earth? Water is inert…it doesn’t move without some force attracting it, putting it in motion. So why would the water flow off of Earth? You’re reaching that conclusion, because water flows off any ball you can hold in your hand at your perspective…but where does the water flow? Towards Earth…doesn’t it? Yes, it does…everything falls to Earth in fact, as if attracted to it. So you’re making a false comparison…why would you think a ball in your hand is comparable to the Earth? The only thing they really share is geometry…but on vastly different scales.
So here’s how we reached the conclusion of gravity; it started by first realizing the Earth’s geometry was spherical. Thousands of different observations prove this as fact…and we have an entire system of global navigation, designed around that knowledge. That system simply would not work when applied, if that information was wrong…that’s how you know your science is good and accurate, when you can apply it and it works. So we then had two known variables, Earth is spherical and everything falls to Earth no matter where you are upon its surface. So it didn’t take much deduction after that, to determine a force was present, that emanates from centre of Earth, that attracts everything towards it…hence why water doesn’t flow off of it. It also explains why Earth would be spherical…because a force attracting mass around a centre, is eventually going to form that mass into a sphere…every single time. So gravity explains more than just why things fall…it quite literally explains everything about our reality. When it was realized, the mysteries of the universe started falling like dominoes…I don’t think you quite realize how impactful that discovery was for mankind, and even to your every day life.
Of course you’re not gonna agree with the conclusions of gravity physics though, if you don’t first verify the Earth’s shape for yourself, which is the foundation of gravity physics. So why does every flat Earther think skipping over the whole point of their argument (the geometric shape of Earth), is gonna help them determine it’s shape? 🤷♂️ I find that very odd.
Your argument basically boils down too “it looks flat, therefore it is”…you really think that holds up against all the evidence that says otherwise? It’s fine if you’re not personally aware of that evidence, but then you have no argument here if you’ve not yet made any attempt to research any.
My best advice for anyone seriously interested in this topic, who’s not just here to troll, but actually wants to know; you wanna know for certain what Earth’s shape is, then just learn to navigate. It’s not difficult, you can find tutorials on YouTube at anytime, would only take a few hours of your time…you learn pretty quickly in navigation how important it is to have accurate knowledge of the surface, in order to make it possible in the first place. You also learn pretty quickly which model is used…and how you can confirm it. So give that try sometime.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ok, here's a recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, this time done across a frozen lake, that verifies curvature. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment Go ahead and take a look, the experiment is quite thorough.
Stop letting con men on the internet fuck with your head and exploit your distrust in authority. The Earth is a Globe and it always has been, NOBODY out in the real world is using a Flat Earth model for ANYTHING, from navigation, to communication, to infrastructure, it's all built on the foundations of our knowledge of the Globe we live on. All the internet has done, has given con men a place to spread their misinformation and perfect their craft of taking people on a ride...and it's working.
2