Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "VICE"
channel.
-
5
-
First law of motion; all things in motion stay in motion until acted upon by an unbalanced force. So since there’s no air in space to cause friction in the form of drag force (the unbalanced force), satellites will orbit indefinitely, thanks to the law of inertia (first law of motion) and conservation of momentum. This is physics 101…the laws of motion are often the very first thing you learn in early physics classes. Satellites don’t require fuel, they are put into motion by the rockets that get them into space, they then maintain that momentum indefinitely because there’s nothing in space to slow them down.
The science for putting satellites into orbital trajectories is called orbital mechanics, and it’s just a set of equations that factor the laws of motion and gravity, the goal being to create a perfect balance between the two. It is quite difficult to plot a precise orbital trajectory, because it requires a lot of information of known variables, but it’s far from impossible, they’re quite proficient at it today actually.
Orbital trajectories decay over time though, because there is a little drag in low Earth orbits where there’s still a tiny amount of atmosphere, so a propellant is included to help place them back into stable orbits, that’s the only fuel required, and they use them very sparingly. Once the propellant runs out, the satellites are decommissioned and then they just allow the orbit to decay and fall back to Earth.
You should do some reading (or watch a video) on relative motion. Multiple systems of motion can exist at once, satellites aren’t just caught in Earth’s gravitational well, they’re also in the Suns gravitational well, so they technically orbit both, at the same time. This all basic physics today…taught in every general physics 101 class. So if you graduated high school, you would have probably learned all this at some point.
But I hope that information is helpful. Satellites don’t have fuel, they do not require it, because motion is conserved in a vacuum indefinitely. The only reason we require fuel for constant motion here on Earth, is because we deal with a lot of friction (unbalanced forces), which slow and eventually stop our momentum. That’s not a problem in a vacuum.
4
-
4
-
3
-
@rickusmaximus2435 Well, bias is born from your emotional stake in beliefs, people, institutions, etc. We all have some emotional connection to something or someone, so we all have bias…to be completely unbiased would require someone forfeit their humanity, you’d have to be a robot to be unbiased, and nobody is, so we’re all biased in someway or another. So when you say to approach a topic without bias…I’m just letting you know, that’s pretty much impossible. Even if you’re not aware, you have some prior belief or emotional stake in something, that will have some sway on your conclusions, no matter what the topic is. It’s why peer review is so important in science, because our peers typically don’t share the same biases, so they’re able to catch things you may have overlooked due to bias.
There’s some great researchers on the opposite side of Flat Earth, providing lots of great evidence against Flat Earth. Wolfie6020, Jos Leys, Soundly, Walter Bislin, just to name a few that haven’t yet been black listed by YouTube’s algorithm. You could start there.
Big channels like Nat Geo, PBS, Discovery…they cover general topics for entertainment purposes, they only scratch the surface of such topics, rarely do they really do a good job of getting to the core of any topic. So ya, they’re easy to refute…cause they’re garbage television, they’re really only interested in keeping people watching, and the little details are often too boring to air, so they tend to do a really poor job of relaying information.
But there are smaller channels that are more focused and dedicated to challenging the claims of FE and other conspiracies, they just get lost in the noise…sadly.
3
-
@rickusmaximus2435 8 inches per mile squared has no variable for height of the observer and does not represent line of sight…so it’s the wrong math. Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple.
Here’s the correct geometric math you should be using, that accounts for line of sight and Earth curvature.
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
r= radius of Earth
d= distance to the object
h= height of observer
8 inches per mile squared is just a basic parabola equation…it’s only accurate if your eye were directly at sea level. Which of course is never the case, so it’s the wrong math. That’s part of how Flat Earth has conned a great many people…by exploiting their lack of mathematical literacy, and providing you with an equation that’s pretty much useless for what you’re using it for. It’s basically the equivalent of a sleight of hand trick. The equation above is far more accurate.
I’ve seen many long distance observations over water…I’ve never seen anyone bring a ship back with a telescopic lens, at 80 miles away. 3 miles though, ya, that’s more accurate, but that’s not horizon they’ve being brought back from, it’s just vanishing point…which does occur before horizon. Vanishing point is the limit of your eye to render objects visible due to angular resolution. A ship will reach your eyes vanishing point long before horizon…a zoom lens can resolve images much smaller, making it possible to see beyond your eyes vanishing point. But eventually, everything reaches a point on the horizon where no amount of zoom will bring them back…and they begin to sink into horizon. That’s when you know they’ve reached the actual horizon. So Flat Earth is lying to you here…another sleight of hand trick as far as I’m concerned.
Mountains I’ve seen from pretty far away, but these observations are never made at sea level, the observation height is typically several hundred feet elevation, and you don’t see the entire mountain. It’s pretty common sense I’d imagine, but the higher you are, the further you see…but why would you need to go higher, if Earth was flat? It makes sense on a globe, because you’re looking over a curvature, so going higher extends your field of vision, over that curvature.
So you’re making a lot of claims that I know are false. Bring me any example of a ship you saw from 80 miles away…go right ahead, and I can almost guarantee you just got the distances wrong. I’ve been debunking Flat Earth for a lot of years now…there’s a lot they’re not telling you.
3
-
I wouldn’t feel special if I knew God created a tiny terrarium for me...I’d feel like a prisoner, a slave created for his amusement, in a tiny cell with limitations. I feel a lot more special, knowing that I’m a rare occurrence, amongst an endless expanse of space, of which I will never fully experience or comprehend. It doesn’t make me feel small, it presents a challenge that makes life exciting and interesting, the possibilities are now nearly endless. I’m humbled by my tiny place in that universe, nobody in charge of my life but me, almost no limitations on what’s possible.
I’ve never understood why anyone would want to be some “special” pet, of a psychopathic, narcissistic god, that actually thinks an eternity of torture is a just punishment...simply for not believing in him. Seriously...who would ever agree that’s a fair punishment for any crime? It’s just insanity...and you’d have to be a psychopath to allow such cruelty.
Luckily, it’s very very likely not true and science debunks that story more and more with each new discovery. Just another fantasy fiction story somebody wrote awhile ago, that has just as much barring on my life as Harry Potter or any of the thousands of other religions we’ve made up over the centuries. Such a boring, depressing story...not my cup of tea, never needed it and never understood why anyone would want it to be true.
3
-
3
-
@knightmarefuel4499 Just stating facts, my life does not require another man made superstitious belief system, I’m not tethered to anyone else’s bullshit, just living my life, one day at a time, free of your cult. That’s my choice, that’s the freedom I have and that’ll never change. Personally, if I was God, I’d have far more respect for the guy with the self respect to stand on their own, despite the potential consequences...over an army of little boot lickers. But that’s just me I guess.
Religious bullshit doesn’t hold any power over many of us anymore, we’re looking at reality as it is, no fantasy required. And I’m fine with it, my existence gives me purpose, I make the most out of every day I’m alive and I could really care less what happens after, it doesn’t matter. I don’t spend my days wishing for the end, I appreciate every day. I don’t measure my self worth, on the expectations of an imaginary sky daddy...that’s very likely not real, at least not in the way you people seem to think he or it exists. Not my style.
Sorry bud, really don’t care if that bugs you or your God.
Government is a different story, I’m limited in what I get to change about reality, but I’m still free to do something about anything I don’t like. But honestly, it’s not really as bad as many make it out to be...just a whole lot if whining is all I hear. I have a roof over my head, water that comes direct to my house, power that keeps me warm, food in my fridge and I’m healthy. My ancestors couldn’t say the same. Unlike you, I don’t take these things for granted. I don’t take life for granted.
3
-
Welcome to reality, if you possess a knowledge or skill nobody else has and if it’s extremely beneficial to government and their interests, then you have more value. Way of the world. Is it moral, ethical, or just? Not really, no, but governments don’t think and operate the same way you or I do, they do what they have to do, to get any edge they can.
That said, Germany was at war, if your country was at war, you wouldn’t exactly see other nations as friends, they would just be the enemy. Are you American? How much do you really care about the many countries of the middle East that you’ve been bombing and murdering for decades now? Do you see them as friends or just enemies? They sure see your country as an enemy. So is Von Braun a bad guy, or just a scientist trying to protect his country against an enemy during a war? The US currently has lots of those, building bombs and weapons thar murder thousands every year. Should they have arrested Richard Feynman for his work in the Manhattan project, that made the atom bomb, that went on to kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians?
How’s that any different? The only difference is that the US and Britain won. I think it’s you who’s naive of how the world really works.
Fact is, Germany had some of the best minds of that time. Instead of wasting that talent, they put them to work…if they hadn’t, you can bet their enemies would have. It certainly paid off too, cause the US led the way in space exploration and rocket technology, which gave them a huge edge on other nations.
2
-
2
-
@s3phster82 Yes, it's pretty standard to cover thermodynamics within any physics 101 class, so most with a standard education would at least know of it. But I know where you're going with this, it's the classic assumption Flat Earth likes to impose, that an open system would somehow break thermodynamics.
But thermodynamics has more to do with energy transfer, not so much matter transfer and we shed energy all the time...in fact it's our open system that makes that much easier to do. Objects with mass, are subject to attractive forces, which can sap them of kinetic energy that keeps them in motion. One such force our atmosphere deals with, being gravity, which effects all matter with a mass. So gas can only travel so high, it will eventually succumb to gravity. Doesn't mean thermodynamics is being violated, the energy is still free to transfer, and we do actually shed a lot of atmosphere as well, that's why our geo corona of atmosphere actually extends as far as the Moon, and there's no clear line for when atmosphere ends and space begins.
Flat Earth would maybe have a point, if our system wasn't constantly receiving new energy, that plants and other life could then use to make new gas at the surface...but I'm sure you've heard of the Sun before, right? Of course you have, apologies for being cheeky, but you get my point I hope. The Sun is of course constantly providing us with new energy, so any gas we do lose to entropy, is replaced and it will continue to be replaced, so long as the Sun is there providing our system with new energy. Entropy always wins in the end, so it won't last forever, but it's going to take a very long time.
I would argue that it's actually Flat Earth that breaks thermodynamics laws. If we are to follow their assumption of a contained system of gas under pressure through the means of a container. The Sun is still providing new energy in this model, so if the new gas that's created can't escape...then why doesn't the pressure rise drastically within the entire system? Shouldn't we be experiencing a much higher pressure by now? With how much new gas is created, it should be rising astronomically on a daily basis.
Either way, the argument FE makes with thermodynamics, is a tad ignorant. They ignore that gas is subject to gravity...heck most even deny gravity even exists just to make the argument appear even more convincing, but it's just ignorance stacked on top of ignorance, and it doesn't survive much scrutiny. It's all talk, without tangible evidence supporting it. The argument hinges on the assumptions that gravity doesn't exist and that their is a dome above us, containing atmosphere. It's enough to maybe form a hypothesis, but certainly not a conclusion. You'd have to completely falsify gravity, with experimental evidence, and you'd have to verify the existence of this container, with evidence. Key word being evidence. You can not form a conclusion until both of those variables are accounted for...even then, it would have to go through years of peer review and recreation of experiments.
Anyway, it's fine to disagree, but until you have the evidence, the argument really has no actual legs to stand on and would never survive in an actual arena of scientific inquiry and review.
2
-
1
-
@shots-shots-shotseverybody2707 According to you…someone who thinks empty claims and questions somehow equal evidence and proof. Just cause you blindly agreed to some bullshit you read or watched online, doesn’t make you an expert I’m afraid. So take a seat and listen, learn some real science.
Rockets propel in vacuum thanks to the third law of motion; every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It’s the same physics that causes a gun to recoil, the bullet pushes off the inertia of the gun, the gun is flung back in the opposite direction from that action…action, reaction. A rocket does it in a similar fashion, the ignited gas pushes off the rocket and shoots one direction (action), the rocket then is pushed away in the opposite direction (reaction). Again…basic physics, that you can confirm yourself, at any time you choose to stop being an intentionally ignorant pleb.
Here’s a simple experiment that helps confirm this, and one that’s often used in your general science classes back in high school. Sit on a skateboard, feet up on the board, with a 20 lb medicine ball in your hand…now toss the medicine ball as hard as you can away from you. You will go one way, the medicine ball will go the other…essentially pushing off of each other. 3rd law of motion confirmed in a simple experiment anyone can recreate. That’s how rockets propel themselves…and it works exceptionally well in vacuum, because there’s no friction to slow or stop any reactive motions.
There’s no psi in space…so what are you talking about? 🤷♂️ You only require about 5 psi to keep a crew conscious and alive for long periods of time, that’s a fact, you can look it up. A car tire holds far more pressure every single day…while holding up thousands of pounds of metal. You’re an idiot if you think we couldn’t design a vessel strong enough to contain 5 pounds of pressure…we create vessels designed for far more extreme conditions here on Earth, submarines withstand thousands of pounds of crushing pressure…you really think we couldn’t design something for just 5 pounds, or even 14? Where’d you get that assumption? 😅 Jesus….
I swear…Flat Earth has a lot of poisoned minds to atone for. You fell for some bullshit my dude…sorry to have to tell ya.
Plenty of videos you can find online of rockets propelling in vacuum containers, as well as several experiments of the third law of motion demonstrated in vacuum as well. It’s proven science…taught in basic physics classes. It’s really not our problem if you had a poor education, or if you didn’t think it important to pay attention in physics class.
1
-
1
-
@JudaismIslamUnited Not directly no, though it does create the conditions that make it possible, so indirectly, yes. Point is that a force squeezing everything towards a centre, creates a sphere, every time, it’s the most rigid shape found in nature…and pretty common too, hence why almost every celestial body observed in space is spherical. The other point is that level doesn’t just mean flat, it can be used in many different contexts. Like with Sea level, a surface at equipotential distance from centre of gravity, at the same LEVEL from centre of gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@googleplaynow9608 See, that’s what I figured. You’re using the wrong math…Flat Earth conmen like Jtolan have conned a lot of people with that math, that none of you thought to question or check for accuracy. Pretty simple rule of thumb in science and mathematics; always double check your math…especially if there’s discrepancies. Because if you use the wrong math, you will reach a false conclusion…it’s pretty simple.
8 inches per mile squared does not include a variable for height of the observer (among many other variables). So it simply does not represent line of sight, and it can not tell you how much is obscured by horizon. So if that’s the math you’ve been using, then that’s been your problem this whole time.
I mean…think about it for a moment; you see more as you go higher, but that formula only gives you ONE figure, whether you’re at 6’ or 100’. Soooo…should be pretty simple to understand, how it’s wrong. Height of observer matters, line of sight matters, horizon position matters…not just the curvature.
That formula is wrong, because it ignores important variables. A surveyor can use it as a quick guide to determine elevation drop from a tangent…but that’s about it, and even that requires further elevation information on the object being viewed. They don’t use it to determine what’s blocked from line of sight…that’s not how the formula works.
Here’s a far better formula you should be using for the geometric line of sight over horizon, using trigonometric functions.
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
r= Radius of Earth
d= Distance to object
h= Height of observer
Even this is purely geometric, ignoring atmospheric effects, but it’s the first step in any observation and this math actually represents line of sight…so it’s far more accurate. Refraction is also important to factor, and you include that after the geometric is calculated. The Walter Bislin blog has a great calculator and curve simulator you can use that includes every important variable. Meta bunk has a great calculator as well. 8 inches per mile squared does not represent line of sight, that’s the important thing to remember. So it’s not the right math, I hope I’ve made that clear.
You should check out the plethora of videos debunking Jtolan…he’s actually one of the best providers of Globe proof. 😄 A great example, look up a user name Okreylos, specifically his video on Jtolans Mt San Jacinto observation. He demonstrates pretty clearly how much of that mountain you should actually see, if Earth were actually flat.
So you’ve been conned, which is all Flat Earth ever was. I hope this information is helpful, or at the very least interesting. I would suggest you look at the Jtolan observations again, and use the correct math when you do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@knightmarefuel4499 Not pointless at all, you just have such a pessimistic way of looking at life. Got any friends? Ever go out and enjoy life? There’s lots of great things about life, and our accomplishments just enrich the experience. The fact that it could end tomorrow just makes it more precious. You seem like a sad, pessimistic, little person. There’s just as many good things in modern society, as bad. If you only focus on the bad, then sure, life will suck for you. Focus on the good things, like art, music, community, friends, family, lovers, good food and good experiences...and then life can be pretty sweet. That’s heaven on Earth right there, it’s all how you look at things.
1
-
@knightmarefuel4499 And you will likely never understand the beauty of a fleeting existence, it makes life so much more worth living, knowing how precious our time really is. I’m not afraid of my fleeting mortality, I don’t require anything more than the life I already have, it’s my short time here that makes it so exciting and interesting...and best of all, no sky daddy required. You sound like someone in an abusive relationship, unable to exist without someone else validating your existence. You get your purpose from someone else, I get it from life, just knowing I exist in a beautiful universe, is enough for me. If it’s created by a God or not, I could care less, just happy to be here. I respect existence, I don’t however have any respect for a God...that created me just so I can kiss his ass for eternity. That doesn’t deserve respect. But that’s YOUR fantasy God and is likely not true. See it’s not God we have a problem with...it’s you people and your bullshit.
Also, Evolution does not state we came from apes, it states we have a common ancestor...then you say I’m uneducated. 🤦♂️
1
-
Ok, but we shouldn’t reach conclusions from empty speculations, no matter how logical they may sound or appear. We see the logic, and we can infer and run with the possibilities just as easily as anyone, but at the end of the day evidence is what matters, and the evidence for a globe is far beyond conclusive at this point, it’s applied science now. Seriously, if you think millions of pilots and sailors around the world, can navigate the surface without knowing the true size and dimensions if that surface, then you might need a wake up call.
It’s really not hard to lie and speculate online, it’s no surprise to me that flat Earthers aren’t experts of any field relevant to the discussion. You know how you spot pseudoscience though? It’s easy…it doesn’t work and it’s not useful. So remind me again which model is used in every field of science today?
1
-
@motheyes818 Well, seeing as the entire surface of Earth is mapped today, the circumference is now physically measured. The fact that pilots and sailors accurately plot courses around the Earth every single day is proof of that. But a clever Greek mathematician known as Eratosthenes, came up with a clever way to measure Earth’s circumference over 2000 years ago, using just a stick to measure the Suns shadow angle, and a well 500 miles away, that he knew was at sub solar point during summer solstice every year at noon. From there it’s just some basic trig and geometry. Here’s more detail into how he did it https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/big-history-project/solar-system-and-earth/knowing-solar-system-earth/a/eratosthenes-of-cyrene.
One of many ways we can calculate Earth’s circumference, using basic geometry and trigonometry. From there we can get a radius, and from that we can figure out even more, such as the distance to celestial objects.
Odd that this guy Joseph seems to think he’s the only person with an education, or access to an internet connection.
I hope he’s aware that real people recreate this experiment pretty regularly, even refining it, making it more accurate and conclusive.
https://youtu.be/J9w4KtHxZ68?t=905
1
-
1
-
@motheyes818 He measured shadow angles, soooo...he very much took a measurement. But yes, for his calculation he had to use a spherical geometry, though like I said, he didn’t just assume this, he knew it was a sphere from other evidence gathered. By his time, most Greek scholars agreed the Earth was spherical, because the evidence was already overwhelming for that conclusion.
Now here’s the part FE doesn’t tell you though, take anymore than two measurements, and then plot them on any flat Earth map or model proposed so far...and you will not get all three angles to converge. Take more than 3 and it becomes pretty clear the Flat Earth does not fit reality https://youtu.be/7nzEhDX-xzg. Plot the same data on the Globe with our known size and dimensions, suddenly the angles do work...they work perfectly. Gee...I wonder why?
Even if I were to agree Eratosthenes had no prior evidence for a globe and was just assuming a globe, doesn’t really matter today, because we don’t assume anything anymore, Earth’s surface is mapped and measured...navigation has long since verified the Earth’s geometry.
If you’d just bothered to watch the first experiment I shared, you’d learn this. You can be as stubborn and ignorant as you want to be about it...but you’re just fooling yourself really. Take a look at the experiment, see how the data very clearly does not fit a flat Earth geometry, learn how FE has conned you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@motheyes818 Well our atmosphere is contained by the downward force that draws everything with mass to surface, we call it gravity. A physical container is required in gas pressure laws, but these laws and equations that use volume as a variable are limited to small containers, and are pretty much useless when discussing atmospheric pressure, where a volume can not be determined. So gravity replaces volume in these equations.
So no, a container is not required for atmospheric pressure. Gas pressure yes, atmospheric pressure no, there is a difference. The confusion comes from the word 'Gas'. Of course the atmosphere is comprised of various gases, so I see the confusion. But please research it a little further, atmospheric pressure deals with gravity as the variable that creates the pressure, it's very different from gas pressure equations, which are used for smaller volumes of gas under pressure due to the constraints of a physical container. The gas pressure laws, like Boyles Law, are very careful to make it pretty clear, that these laws are limited to small containers with known volumes, and are not very useful when discussing gases with no discernable volume, like our atmosphere.
I've heard this all before, the physics from Flat Earthers...an extremely biased group that loves to butcher physics to create confusion and sow seeds of doubt, as a replacement for an actual argument, which requires evidence. In any case, butchered physics doesn't mean much. Do they have tangible evidence of this container they believe is containing our atmosphere? Has it been observed or interacted with in any way shape or form? Not from what I've seen so far, and that's what matters...because currently, they have barely enough for a hypothesis, let alone a conclusion, yet they've made their conclusion anyway.
Meanwhile, we measure a decrease in pressure the higher you go, which is exactly what we'd expect to measure, with a downward force pushing the gas above down upon the gas below, creating more pressure at the bottom...just like stacking anything would. Even the vacuum of space is measured...we do have satellites in orbit, the vacuum is more than confirmed, while this dome still has no evidence.
Even Flat Earth has accidently verified the vacuum of space without realizing it. They've sent up their own weather balloons time and again...you might notice in every one of these videos they eventually pop, as they're designed to do, once reaching near vacuum conditions. You know what they've never found though? A container...no surprise, because neither has the scientific community.
It's fine if people disagree, and asking questions and challenging established science is also perfectly fine. I just get slightly annoyed by the lack of tangible evidence, yet a conclusion is reached regardless. What FE has is a misunderstanding of both gas pressure and entropy, and a denial of gravity physics, that's all I'm seeing from them currently, which hardly makes for a sound argument.
1