Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@colorsfather1606 Bob makes a valid point about camera exposure. When they take photos of the Earth, the intention is to capture the Earth as clear as they can. This requires they lower the exposure rate of the camera, to allow less light in, to make a clearer image of Earth, otherwise the image will be too washed out by light and you won't see the Earths features. So they lower the exposure rate, when you do this, anything that's too dim to cut through the exposure rate you set, will not make it onto the final image. The stars are too dim to make it through the exposure rate you have to set to get a clear picture of the Earth in a photograph...so that's why you don't see stars in any photos of the Earth. It's basic photography, so learn a little more about exposure rate of cameras, if you want to understand more why stars are not seen in images of the Earth.
On top of that, if NASA was trying to really fool people...why would they create fake photos without stars in them? Don't you think they were really trying to trick people, that they'd think to include stars? Learn a little about photography, look up camera exposure rate, you can find tons of videos online about this topic that can help you out.
2
-
2
-
@richardrupert7046 No, those research papers were never classified, it’s pretty common to find that (or similar) math simplification in pretty much any flight aeronautics manual or research paper, you were lied too. Secondly, they are not making any literal statements or conclusions in the section you’re referring too...that is a summary section, that’s not what a summary section is for. All they’re doing is removing variables, so that the math is simplified, because there are often variables that won’t effect what they’re solving for in the current section of the report, and sometimes they even run complete hypothetical situations, to have comparison data. When they do this in any research paper or manual, they have state VERY clearly which variables are not being included, so that the reader is aware of what’s being solved for in the equations to follow, that’s all.
It’s pretty common practice in these research papers and engineering manuals, YOUR problem here is not having any real clue on how to read them, so you just cherry-pick phrases and then jump to conclusions, built from your own assumptions. All you’re doing is confirming your scientific illiteracy...which is exactly what people like Thrive and Survive don’t understand either...you are blind leading the blind essentially. In other cases, it’s con men exploiting your lack of knowledge and using it against you, but Thrive and Survive is genuine I feel, he’s just an idiot.
2
-
2
-
@alex-bohorquez-jimenez No problem, as long as it was informative and helpful. Let’s see if I can help with your other questions.
What I was trying to point out, was that a spirit level uses gravity to work, that’s the force the bubble is levelling too, center of gravity. Whether Earth is flat or a globe, that is how they work. On the globe, gravity pulls to center, and vectors move with you. On a flat Earth, there’s only one vector, straight down. Either way, a spirit level can’t determine which is which, it can’t falsify either model, so that experiment is inconclusive.
So that point wasn’t to conclude that planes definitely are arcing with surface, only that a spirit level can not tell the difference. How do I personally know a plane is arcing with surface? Because I’ve verified for myself that Earth is spherical, through many other means, so that conclusion concludes the planes arcing.
So a better question is how I’ve verified that for myself, but that’s not a short answer, so I’ll save it for now. If you’re curious you can ask.
No, I didn’t say Parallax effect is caused by refraction…sorry, you must have misunderstood me. Parallax was the pen name Samual Rowbotham used for his published books, he’s the guy who first conducted the Bedford Level experiment that was mentioned in the video above. Sorry for the confusion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alex-bohorquez-jimenez If you can confirm the Earth is spherical, beyond any doubt, then it verifies other points. It’s actually very difficult to measure an arcing for a plane over distance, using tools we have available today. My point was that a spirit level sure can’t do it, yet many in Flat Earth believe it can. They are wrong to believe that, gravity affects the measuring process. I’d assume a ring laser gyroscope could probably make that measurement, but I’ve not seen anyone make that measurement yet using that particular device, so I’m really not sure. What you can easily measure from a plane however, is the dropping of horizon from eye level. Using a simple theodolite tool, you can easily measure the drop of horizon, which would not occur on a flat Earth.
Verify the geometry, beyond any doubt, and you can conclude other points from that foundation. I’m sure you’d agree, you sure seem to have concluded all photos of Earth are fake, simply because you’ve concluded NASA can’t be trusted.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ok, here’s a modern recreation of the Bedford level experiment http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. There’s a whole section on refraction, just scroll down to images 31 and 32, to see a pretty clear demonstration for why refraction is a variable you can’t just ignore in these observations.
That’s the problem with FE, you think ignoring evidence you don’t like, somehow makes it go away...it doesn’t. Refraction is very common, it happens, it’s very well documented and understood in physics, so you can’t ignore it I’m afraid, it’s very real. If you do ignore this phenomenon, then you’re doing so out of ignorance to confirm bias...and that will not lead you to the truth of anything, it’ll just get you falling for scams on the internet.
Samuel Rowbotham was no genius, he was a con man. He achieved his goals by preying on the uneducated, designing experiments that confirm bias and dazzle anyone who has no clue how to spot errors in an experiment. He presents half truths, cause the Bedford Level experiment is a good experiment, but it’s an example of an experiment done only to confirm a bias, nothing more. He only made one observation, took only one data set, used only one marker, then used the wrong math and ignored variables like refraction. So quite frankly, he did not do enough to reach a conclusive conclusion, so upon peer review it was deemed inconclusive. Upon all recreation of the experiment, going further to account for more variables and running proper controls, doing the experiment properly, reveals the Earth is measured and observed to actually be curving and at the rate it should be.
Rowbotham’s version of the experiment is inconclusive, that’s the truth of things. He did a sloppy experiment to con layman, it’s basically like a slight of hand trick. This is why we have peer review in science, to weed out errors, bias and lying. But don’t take my word for it, take a look at the link above and see for yourself. It is quite extensive, but fairly easy to understand if you actually take the time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kumarslvr1 Well, unfortunately, people within Flat Earth are full on conspiracy nuts. Flat Earth is just the tip of the iceberg for them...these people believe a wide range of different conspiracies, basically none of them are just flat Earthers. If it’s a conspiracy against NASA or government, they believe it pretty much by default, no evidence required. I’ve yet to meet a single one that doesn’t also believe the Moon landing was fake, so it’s becoming a pretty safe assumption that if someone believes one, there’s a good chance they believe the other as well.
But yes, I’m finding that Moon hoaxers are usually a lot more rational, can still generally be persuaded if evidence is substantial enough. Can’t say the same for Flatties...there is no reasoning with these people, doesn’t matter what you show them, they are long gone. So ya, I can see why you wouldn’t want to be lumped in with that crowd.
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Bedford Level experiment isn’t really rejected, it was a good experiment, just performed poorly. Rowbotham’ version of the experiment is inconclusive, because he used the wrong math, took only one data set, with just one observation, using just one marker, ignored variables like refraction, height of the observer, eye level, etc. We can’t reach conclusions from inconclusive observations, so his experiment is rejected, because it’s an example of sloppy science designed only to confirm a bias conclusion. Do the observation properly and it will render a more conclusive result, here’s a modern example http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. Just like the ships over horizon, you do this experiment properly, you get the same result.
This is why we have peer review in science, to weed out scammers like Rowbotham.
2
-
@yestervue4697 Seems there’s more to say then I guess. I apologize in advance, but I don’t pull my punches, so I’m going to be a bit more frank.
Well, how would you prefer science be conducted instead? Would you prefer no process of peer review occur? Cause I sure don’t, that would be a real mess...nobody would ever be on the same page about anything, quacks, liars, and scammers would run rampant, and we’d get nothing accomplished. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s required, peer review is essential for weeding out bias, errors and lies. Seriously...what’s the alternative? Imagine the world without a process of review...where everyone with a strong opinion is just right, no questions asked. Not a world I’d want to live in. If you have a better alternative, I’m all ears...if not, then it’s a moot argument.
I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy really, because I’m reminded of a time when religion ruled the scientific process. At least you’re allowed to voice your positions, without fear of persecution or death...perhaps you’d like a history lesson on Galileo and his many colleagues, who weren’t so fortunate. So I’m sorry, I get that you’re frustrated, but forgive me if it falls a bit flat, because it just sounds like whining.
If you don’t have any actual scientific evidence, that can’t be falsified, then it’s very likely your position is wrong. You’re doing more flexing than actually sharing evidence, and I get you have a lot of pent up frustration to voice, but most of us are really not to interested in all that, would be more productive to just share evidence.
Let’s take our exchange for example, you started with an observation of the Moon. I then shared some counter evidence, and that’s where that conversation ended pretty much. So far, you’ve not addressed any of the points or evidence I shared...you’ve just gone on and on about how unfair everything is instead. So I’m sorry, but do you really think that’s how you rebuttal evidence presented that counters your claims? I get that you feel very strongly that you’re right and we’re wrong...but really, if you can’t continue down the path of scientific examination, then it’s very likely that you’re in the wrong here...not the other way around. The trouble is...you’re doing more talking, then actually arguing your initial claim...and that’s all I really care about.
I shared some pretty simple geometric evidence, one that half answered your original question, demonstrating how a spherical geometry allows for two observers to see the Moon from opposite sides of the planet. To go further I’d have to model your observation to scale, both on the Globe and on the FE, but you didn’t provide proof of your initial claim, so we didn’t even get past step one really. So I’d have to first verify your claim is even accurate first, which is really YOUR job to do, if you were going to argue in any true arena of science, you made the claim, it’s your job to prove it. Then I shared a simple observation of my own, showing Moon and Sun angle data, plotted upon both models. The data fit the globe in both, while making no sense at all on the FE map (the AE projection).
So do you see the problem? What reason do I have to be convinced of your initial claim? It seems you gave up on it, after I started sharing counter evidence. You haven’t even attempted to rebuttal the evidence I shared, you instead moved on to an entirely different point all together. That’s not how this works...you’re whining about how the system is unfair...but then you won’t even finish a thought process!
If you were right in your conclusions, then you’d be able to demonstrate it, you’d have no trouble arguing the evidence. There would be no need for deflection. We’re not discussing the system, we weren’t talking about quantum physics, theoretical physics, cosmology, etc, we were just talking about the Moon...and then we weren’t, and nothing was resolved.
You’re not going to change any minds that way. All I’ve heard is excuses, not science...that’s been my perspective during this entire exchange so far, I’m just being honest. I’m not interested in excuses, I’m interested in geometry, astronomy, data, math, observations, SCIENCE. You’re nit getting anywhere with anyone, because you’re all over the place...instead of focusing the argument, you ramble on and on about things that ate irrelevant to the discussion.
Most likely because YOU are wrong (about the Moon observation) and you don’t want to face that possibility.
Sometimes you have to admit when you’re wrong...that’s just life. If I am wrong, then I’m more than ready for you to demonstrate that, but I’m not going to just agree simply because you demand I should, I’m going to keep going with rebuttal, until I can not...that is how science operates. It doesn’t have to be a difficult discussion, it’s mostly just basic geometry.
2
-
@yestervue4697 Sure, this would be considered an echo chamber for my position, I’m fine with admitting that, I’m fine with also admitting I have my own biases as well...we all do. Mine would be that I trust science a bit more than I probably should. So I’m more likely to agree with them at first glance, that is a bias though, I’m well aware of that. But you’re naive if you think you are in any way free from bias...you have two that I can see pretty clearly. A chip on your shoulder for systems of authority, leading you to immediately distrust and desire to defeat them, and then there’s your religious beliefs, which is what you filter your information through, paying closer attention to any information that you feel confirms that belief structure, while largely ignoring whatever refutes it. I’m similar, I desire to defeat what I feel is misinformation, and I put more trust into science, so our biases are quite similar...but at least I’ll admit I have them.
Nice thing about physical reality though...it doesn’t care about our bias. Stick to the evidence, process it all objectively, you will reach the most likely conclusion. One of us is still ready to tackle the evidence, no matter where it leads...while the other would rather not and is doing all they can not too. It’s not really hard to discern why...in most cases, that’s typical from an individual, who is not really interested in learning how they could be in error.
Quite frankly, YOU came here to poke us...not the other way around. You knew full well you’d get a response here, you could have just asked a question nicely, but you taunted us instead. Which is fine, you’re only human, we all have ego. I’m here for several reasons, to challenge what I feel is misinformation being spread, to provide what counter information I have, so people on the fence reading these have that information as well, and to challenge what I think I know...so I can learn a different perspective. It’s not very productive though usually, these chats generally devolve into...well, this.
I’d prefer it stick to the science, but that’s difficult when there’s so much emotional attachment to a position...I just end up getting an ear full. Perhaps I’m partially to blame though, you’re right, I give as much empty rhetoric as I get...wastes a lot of time.
So if you want to get back on topic, that would be great. Refute my evidence I shared above, or provide more context and proof for yours. If not, that’s fine too. I’ll only address evidence from here on out.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hightech346 An altimeter is designed to measure elevation and most of them do that by measuring air pressure...they're in reality, more like a barometer. Because it's very well known that air pressure decreases the higher you go...which is exactly what we'd expect to see occur with a Globe and gravity holding our atmosphere in place, a gradient in air pressure, becoming less and less and less the higher you go, until there is no more air to measure. So air pressure then can be used to accurately measure elevation (altitude) and that's what an altimeter does. Earth doesn't need to be flat for this to work.
I've already explained to you how a river flows on a sphere, it works the exact same way for a locomotive. Rivers flow from high elevation to low elevation, low elevation is closer to center of Earth, high elevation is further from center of Earth. If the elevation is the same from center of Earth, then it is level from center of Earth...train tracks just require that they're perpendicular and level to the center of Earth, cause then they're level to center of gravity as well and then it's not hard at all for them to travel along the surface. If you're wondering how tracks curve with the surface, just remember that tracks are not one solid piece of metal, they are many pieces of metal linked together like a chain. A straight solid piece of metal may not wrap around a curve, but a chain sure can.
I feel like I might need to draw this one for you, cause you're just not getting how gravity works...that's your error here. Learn what a gravity vector is, that will help you understand how this works.
But again, this is all just higher physics that you are misunderstanding. Go back to the geometry, to the start of the foundations of the Globe model. You can't build upon knowledge, until you have a sturdier foundation. So answer my questions for a sunset, for the two hemispheres, honestly look at the geometry and be honest with yourself...does a sunset make any sense on a Flat Earth to you? For how smart you think you are, can you honestly tell us a sunset makes sense over a flat Earth? That should be simple stuff.
2
-
@randylinn9382 But alright, enough rhetoric and mockery, I'm more then willing to discuss things more civilly with you if you'd like. So let's focus on some science. This will require you open your mind and listen to me though, so that's all I ask that you do. I shall do the same in return, so feel free to point out anything you feel I have missed once I have concluded something.
""if the globe works as science says it does, then you have to believe airplanes can fly sideways at least twice as fast as they can forward."
Alright, so this a question of the physics of motion, so let's look at the physics of motion for a moment, and see how ridiculous this really is. Apologies if you've heard much of this before, I don't include it to patronize you, it's just important that every step be followed, so as to understand the full context of the explanation.
So the first Law of motion is pretty simple, and you've heard it many times before I'm sure, everything in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an opposing force or mass. What it's talking about is the physics of conservation of momentum, which is a very well understood concept in physics, here is a very clear demonstration of conservation of momentum in action.
https://imgur.com/gallery/70m3Fku
Pay close attention to this quick video above and notice how this guy lands dead center of the trampoline every single time, even though it is being pulled out from under him by the tractor, while he's in the air. So what's happening here? Why doesn't he fall behind and land on the ground? How does he manage to keep pace with the tractor, continuously landing in the center, even though he has no way of propelling himself forward at that rate while in the air? It's simple, he's able to keep pace because of conservation of momentum. His body is moving relative to the tractor and the trampoline, because he likely started bouncing once the tractor was moving, so his body now conserves the forward momentum of that motion at all times. This is also the same physics, that explains why you're able to get up and move around the cabin of an airplane...while it's moving at 500 mph cruising speed. At no point are you sucked to the seat or flung to the back of the cabin...conservation of momentum is why that's possible, objects conserve the momentum of the inertial reference frame they are moving relative too.
This is important to note, because it's the same physics that explains how a sideways vector is possible, while also traveling in a slower forward vector. If the Earth is rotating, then we're all rotating with it, which means we are always maintaining the momentum of that rotational velocity. Conservation of momentum, first law of motion in action. So what that means is, since a plane is taking off from the surface of that rotating motion, then it is also always conserving that momentum, moving with the Earths rotation at all times. This holds true even as it travels in a vector or direction that is adjacent or opposite to that forward velocity.
Here's a simple experiment you can do that helps to verify this. The next time you're in a moving vehicle of any kind, a car, a bus, a train, a plane, doesn't really matter, as long as it's moving in a forward direction, at a steady pace, with no sudden dips or turns, and you are inside it with the windows shut and the air flow contained. Throw around a ball with a friend, or better yet, a paper airplane. Sit in seats that run perpendicular to the length of the vehicle, so beside each other along the width of it, and start tossing that ball or plane back and forth, from side to side. You will begin to notice that though the vehicle is moving forward, throwing that object around is behaving no differently then if you were to toss it around while not moving. Throw it from any angle, in any direction...it will travel through the air just fine. But now think about that for a moment...say you're in a plane going at 500 mph...first of all, are you throwing the ball at 500 mph? Of course not, nobody can throw a ball that fast. Ok, so the ball or paper plane is conserving the forward momentum of the vehicle. Now realize that as you throw it from side to side, it's technically then moving both sideways and forward...at the same time. If you were to look at just those motions from an outsider perspective observing from outside of the vehicle, they would see a ball or paper plane traveling forward at an angle. From your perceptive however, tossing a ball across the width of the vehicle from side to side, is just going to look like you're tossing it straight back and forth...but it's not really is it, technically, it's moving forward as well, so technically it's moving at a forward angle. A plane in flight over the Earth is no different. It's not breaking any laws of motion at all, it's adhering to the very first law perfectly, the law of conservation of momentum. This knowledge is expanded further in the physics of Relative Motion.
What Relative Motion teaches us, is that motion is relative to inertial reference frames. An inertial reference frame is just the environment that is moving, the insider of a car for example is an inertial reference frame, as is the rotating surface of the Earth. Everything moving inside of a vehicle for example, is moving relative to that inertial reference frame. A general rule of thumb that this physics of motion teaches us, anything moving within an inertial reference frame, will behave as though stationary. Meaning anything moving relative to that same inertial reference frame, will behave as though it is stationary. That's why you can throw a ball straight up while in a moving vehicle and it will go up and come straight back down into your hand, and that's why you can also toss a ball around with ease from side to side, while inside a vehicle or inertial reference frame of motion. Anything moving relative to each other, operates under the physics of motion of that inertial reference frame.
From an observer within that inertial reference frame, it will appear as though stationary and it will operate under the physics of a stationary system, rule of thumb in relative motion.
Anyway, I do hope my explanations and those thought experiments can help you understand your error here a little better. Flat Earth is ignoring a LOT of physics of motion here. It's fine to disagree with that physics...but in all my years of talking with Flat Earthers, I have yet to meet one that even understands the basics of this physics. Disagree all you want...but I would hope you're disagreeing because you understand it and understand how it's flawed...rather then disagreeing because you're ignorant. You can call me indoctrinated all you want...but this is very easy science to verify for yourself, you demonstrate conservation of momentum and relative motion, every single time you get into a moving vehicle of any kind.
There is more to this science, a lot more...so I'm sure you'll have many more things to point out to me, but I can guarantee they have answers. These are not new questions you're asking, your question above is a great question, but the trouble is...you're not really looking for an answer to that question, you hold the question up as your proof. It is a great question, it's the exact same sort of question all scientists once ask themselves, when they're first learning about the physics of motion. Where Flat Earth goes wrong here, is assuming they're the first people to ask these types of questions...nope, I'm afraid not, this is basic physics 101. Good question yes...LONG been answered. I hope you at the very least consider my explanations and look a little closer at this physics, the Laws of Motion, Conservation of Momentum and Relative Motion. This is the science that answers ALL of Flat Earths questions pertaining to motion of any kind...and best yet, it's really easy stuff to verify today.
2
-
@randylinn9382 Sigh...you misunderstand me again, the atmosphere is not LITERALLY a shell like a glass, there is no solid line or membrane that separates space from atmosphere. It's a gradient air pressure going from high pressure to low pressure, which is measured. It is a fluid gas, that is kept to Earth by gravity, contained by it, that moves with the motions of Earth, via conservation of momentum. It's all well established science and quite well documented...you do yourself a disservice in life denying it all.
But anyway, actually yes, I can prove every one of the concepts I've discussed with you so far. All I have been providing so far are the explanations, these are not proofs of the wider model themselves, just a break down of how the physics operates. Though I have shared a few experiments of motion with you already that helped to verify conservation of momentum, but I digress.
What would you like me to verify for you specifically? I can share evidence and proofs for pretty much everything, from gravity, to rotation, to the atmosphere, to the measured and observed geometry, feel free to ask and I'm sure I could point you towards the experiments and observations that help to verify EVERYTHING about the Globe model, that you feel has no proof. Of course the best piece of evidence we have are the pictures from space, little hard to argue with those I would say...though you people are masters at denial aren't you.
Another great proof is that we have a working model, that explains everything we observe with tremendous accuracy. Flat Earth does not...and that's for a good reason, because Flat Earth is not reality.
I'm perfectly capable of providing evidence for everything I have discussed so far, so feel free to ask and I will share with you. In the meantime, you talk a big game about proof, but where's YOUR proof of a Flat Earth? You sure have many misunderstandings about physics, but these are not proofs, just misunderstood concepts that have stumped you. Feel free to share anything you feel verifies WHY you believed a concept that does no align with reality. Surely you have some evidence right? Only fair you provide some as well. Let's start with an easy one, what evidence do you have that helps to explain a sunset over Flat Earth? How exactly does the sun set on a Flat Earth and do you have a working model, with experiments, data, calculations and observations that can help to verify a small local Sun? Start there if you'd like...what evidence do you have that supports a small local sun? Annnnnnd go....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, scam artists online are bringing you half truths, cherry picked information, misinterpreted or misunderstood science, bad math and in some cases straight up lies, that they can spin a narrative with. What Flat is currently demonstrating is the power and dangers of confirmation bias and they're doing it all without proper peer review. It's great to ask questions and never take anything at face value, but then why do you people say that...and then blindly listen to strangers online? You are arguing against all of science when you make a claim that the Earth is Flat...the same science that makes ALL of our modern technology possible. You don't ever consider the possibility that MAYBE the error isn't with the model, but with your understanding of that model? That maybe YOU are missing something? Something Flat Earthers won't tell you, because they're deeply bias? In my experience in the 3 years I've been looking at Flat Earth, that has absolutely been the case, time and time again.
I'm not saying you're stupid, a lot of you are actually pretty intelligent...but you are being taken on a ride by con men, who have filled the gaps in your knowledge with bullshit. Confirmation bias runs rampant in this movement, you owe it to yourself not to jump to conclusions so quickly and absorb BOTH sides of the argument, instead of sitting in your echo chambers of information. This video above was not meant to share evidence, it was more directed at those of us who have looked at the science already and have concluded Flat Earth is a scam. It's a psychological discussion trying to figure out WHY or HOW people fall into this rabbit hole. So you won't find any facts, data or evidence here in this video and it's pretty clear from the title.
So what would you like help with exactly? I'm not here to mock you or insult you for asking questions, I'll just share information and leave it up to you. So feel free to ask. I enjoy the discussion, so long as its civil and ideas are shared and considered. I also like to learn, so feel free to share anything you'd like and I'll take a look.
2
-
2
-
@medmanbrand Well I’m just sayin…I know even a broken clock is still right twice a day, but the clock is still broken and the guy is still a scumbag. You certainly felt we should be concerned about project paperclip, for the same reason. So by your own logic now, we shouldn’t care that they were ex Nazi’s. So I guess that point is now moot, eh? Good job, you’ve done my work for me and defeated your own argument. 👌
That said, it was actually a pretty smart idea, can’t be denied. Germany had some of the brightest minds in science and engineering at the time, so had the US not done it, you can bet their enemies would have…in fact they probably did. It paid off, because Von Braun was a genius rocket scientist, and without him, we’d have never gotten into space as quick as we did.
Doesn’t mean I approve from a moral standpoint…he also built the first rockets used to murder people, so not a good dude either. But that’s the true nature of the world isn’t it…it’s just as ugly as it is beautiful, nothing is as black and white as we would like it to be. Archimedes built the pulley…but he also innovated the catapult. Einstein unlocked the mystery of mass to energy transfer (E=mc2), but it helped create the Nuclear bomb.
Now, what proof do you have Earth is flat? You are aware there are millions of pilots and sailors around the world, currently navigating the surface, with extreme accuracy and precision, using a system of navigation built on the knowledge that Earth is spherical, right? You really think they could do their jobs at all, if they didn’t know the true shape of the surface they’re navigating? 🤷♂️
If so…then I’d urge you to learn how to navigate, then apply that knowledge…see how far you get without using the current model. We can argue all day, but really…go and plot a navigation route without using the globe model…I dare you to try. Why bother arguing, if the topic truly interests you, why not do more to actually verify it? It’s cute entertaining these fringe online conspiracies…but join the real world again bud. Dubay is a Yoga teacher…with zero experience in any field of science, applied or experimental. Sure, like I said, even a broken clock is still right twice a day…but it’s still broken, and I’m not about to use that for keeping my time. Used to be pretty common sense.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@PrivateBackroom Because it’s a simulation model, so the mathematicians running the calculations for the model need to know every variable included in the math for that particular model. Mathematical models such as these are not to be taken as literal. Like pretty much all mathematical models, they don’t simulate all of reality, only the variables necessary for the task they’re used for. In this case, it’s important for the reader to know the environment the aircraft is in for that particular model. So they state the perimeters very clearly, so the reader knows what’s in the math for the simulation.
Not sure how I can make it much clearer than that…I’m really just repeating myself now. Look…you know what a model is, right? If I make you a model of the Empire State Building, you understand that it’s not the same as the actual real building, right? It’s merely a simulated version, not a literal recreation of the real thing. Mathematical models aren’t much different. They simulate portions of reality, while omitting and simplifying others. Mathematical models are useful though, in this case an engineer can find the best shapes to use for an aircraft’s flight dynamics, that have the best air flow, least amount of drag, best lift capacity (important if your aircraft is gonna be really heavy), etc. Don’t require Earth’s shape or its motions for that particular model, so they can be omitted…but a mathematician still needs to know the environmental perimeters for the simulation, so it has to be stated clearly.
Then along comes people who are not mathematicians…heck they probably failed math in grade school, always asking the teacher “what would I ever need this for”? Apparently so you don’t fall for dumb conspiracies online…that’s what YOU needed it for, but engineers and scientists needed it so they could build every technology you enjoy (and take for granted) today. :/
Apologies for the jabs though, I do hope the information is helpful. I get that not everyone is a mathematician or engineer (I’m not either, I just paid attention in math and kept up with it as an adult), so it’s easy to see how many could misinterpret documents like this. Just sucks that instead of maybe ASKING real experts…most would rather run with conspiracy instead. I think we’ve all watched way too much TV.
2