Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
6
-
You’re talking about the Saros cycle of eclipses, which is just a pattern of ecliptic events resetting roughly every 18 years, but little known fact, it doesn’t happen in the same locations every 18 years, it shifts to a new location, takes more like 75 years to circle back to a similar location from prior events. But ya, surprise surprise, with all the geometry and motions involved remaining constant, of course you’d expect patterns to repeat…what you’ve said does not invalidate the Globe model in anyway, it’s just a red herring.
Fact still remains that you can use the globe model to calculate and predict these events, down to the second and square mile…can’t say the same for the Flat Earth models. Gee, I wonder why. 🙄 The Saros cycle isn’t a mathematical prediction, it doesn’t use any geometry or formulas…it’s just paying attention to patterns and then recording them, until you have every event catalogued. Would only take a couple hundred years for any culture to track and record these patterns….humans are pretty good at spotting patterns. One century to record them all, another to confirm them…no math involved.
You’re also being pretty ignorant and selective aren’t you…paying attention to the Selenelion eclipse, but then completely ignoring things like the Southern rotation of stars. Seems rather biased, don’t you think? Fact is the Globe model can account for a Selenelion eclipse, while the Flat Earth still has no valid answers for the entire Souther Hemisphere and many observations made there. So why would you prefer to cling to a bottom of the barrel phenomenon, that the Globe model does account for, over a model that can’t even explain why there’s a second rotation of stars in the South? You really think the FE model is perfect? If so, then you’re not being very honest with yourself.
Isn’t it odd to you that Selenelion lunar eclipses only occur at terminator lines of night and day? Or that they only occur in locations where humidity is high and so standard refraction index is higher? Pretty odd that they do seem to correlate with refraction index, don’t you think? You also can’t predict Selenelion eclipses with much accuracy, best you can do is give locations where it’s plausible it could occur and be seen.
So I think you’re being quite intentionally ignorant and biased. Eclipses make perfect sense on a globe and that geometry can mathematically predict them, far better than the Saros cycle can. You’re really just fooling yourself.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@michaelcarlson2512 Yes, a bird can glide, but it’s still extending its wings to do so, which requires energy. Shoot a bird out of the air, kill it so it’s not able to generate energy anymore, so it can extend its wings, and what happens then? It falls.
No, density and buoyancy is not sufficient, because it does nothing to explain the very obvious downward motion we observe from matter that is dropped. That falling motion occurs in vacuum chambers as well, where nothing else is in the chamber to cause a displacement in any direction, yet it falls anyway. That falling is a motion, first law of motion states that no motion occurs without a force, that’s basically the definition of a force…a physical mechanism of nature that causes motion in all matter.
Density is not a force, it is a property of matter, it is just how much mass occupies a volume of space. So it’s not a force, so it cannot cause motion on its own. Buoyancy is a force, but it’s not a force on its own…it is a byproduct of density displacement, due to the downward accelerating motion we observe from matter every day.
So no, density and buoyancy are not sufficient at all, you’re just intentionally ignoring a very big and blatantly obvious part of the whole puzzle. Can’t do much of anything with information that is false, inaccurate, or incomplete. And we simply won’t achieve much by denying reality. That’s kind of the nice thing about junk science, it’s easy to spot, because it’s absolutely useless. As I pointed out before, gravity is currently used in the equation for buoyancy force; Fb=Vpg. Remove it as a variable, and the equation no longer works….so your science renders a once working equation, absolutely useless. Which means your science is incorrect, it’s pseudoscience. Pretty simple.
Feel free to derive a new working equation for buoyancy force, using your understanding of things…but you’d be wasting your time, cause it already works as is.
Flat Earthers have to really wake up from this trance they’re in, denying a very obvious physical phenomenon of nature, is not just bad science, it’s also kind of…dumb. And it’s no secret why they really do it, because gravity is inconvenient for what they want to believe. Well…we don’t just ignore obvious variables, because some people want to confirm a bias, that’s not how science works. It must remain objective.
4
-
4
-
@valherustinger7848 Well, why should Neil debate if he doesn’t want too? He’s stated pretty clearly that he doesn’t do debates…so why should he be forced too? Dubay gets asked very regularly to debate by other creators on YouTube, creators who have actual debating platforms. You know how many of those calls to debate he’s accepted and done? Zero….so why is nobody in FE calling him a coward or getting just as outraged? 🧐 But it’s the same thing, why should he, if he doesn’t want too? Debating isn’t for everybody, we in society seem to have this strange expectation, that science is settled by debate, so scientists/experts should never turn down a call to debate…but that’s not really how it works, our expectations are pretty misplaced. Some people like debates, others aren’t very interested, I don’t think the latter should be forced to do something they don’t want to do.
Debating is a skill, you can actually win a debate, even if you’re 100% wrong, just by being a better talker. So science isn’t really settled by debate for this reason, it’s settled by consensus. That may sound similar, but it’s not. Debate is typically one person against another, with a judge or panel determining a winner on the spot. Consensus is a majority ruling, from other experts, through recreation of experimentation and peer review. It’s very different, the former is over in a couple hours, the latter can often take years.
In any case, Neil is wise not to bother, science is constantly being baited by conmen into public debates, because it’s free advertising for them…especially against big fish like Neil. Neil has nothing to gain, it’s really a waste of his time…while Dubay gains access to an audience he could never achieve on his own. So science actually has a rule of thumb, it’s frowned upon for scientists to debate layman. Anyone non accredited, hasn’t earned the right to join the conversation, so they shouldn’t be humoured. They avoid a lot of conmen this way, who are just looking for the free marketing, to help spread their bullshit to potential customers.
So he’s wise not to bother…..and as I understand it, Joe didn’t ask him before hand, he just pencilled him in without asking firsr. Would you do a debate somebody else scheduled you for without asking? Not likely.
4
-
Natural physics of water, like all liquids, is to maintain the shape of whatever forces are acting upon it. Liquids all have a surface tension chemical bonding, so a sphere in most cases is the most rigid shape. When no other forces are acting upon it, it will form a sphere…that’s why it forms spheres when in free fall. On the surface of Earth, water also conforms to gravity, so it maintains an equipotential surface to that field of force, which pulls to centre of mass, so that field of force again will form a sphere around that centre…that’s why all objects in space are spheres, it’s pretty simple deduction. Spheres are quite common in nature, it’s the simplest and most rigid shape in nature.
Level does not just mean flat. A bubble for example, has a level surface, in the context that it’s surface is all equal distance from its centre…an equipotential surface. Earth’s ocean is also level, at equipotential distance from centre. Get it yet? Just look up the definition of level sometime, here’s a link https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level. Check out some of the entries under adjectives, entry 3.
Learn some English and learn the true physics of liquids sometime.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@saltysergeant4284 The trouble is that science is not settled by public debate, it’s settled through empirical evidence. But the general public doesn’t know that, they tend to think in absolutes, that a single debate seals things, that single observations mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. That’s not how it works at all...but good luck getting the rest of the world to understand that. Peer review is part of that process of course, which does come with some debate, but debates are actually a pretty small part of things...the trouble is that the general public thinks they’re everything. And sadly, you don’t have to be right to win a debate, you just need to be a better talker, a better bullshitter...politicians have been doing it for centuries. And you don’t even have to sway everyone, even a few is enough...even if it’s objectively wrong, a few people will likely always side with one side or the other, regardless of evidence presented, if they liked the other speaker more, then they’ll side with them...even if they’re wrong. Debates are more of a popularity contest...there’s not much scientific about it. Science has to look beyond the individuals involved and focus objectively on the evidence...a debate is not designed for that, they have their place, but they’re more for discussion rather than settling anything.
You said yourself, Neil gains essentially nothing, while Dubay gains access to an audience he could never reach on his own. So it’s basically giving free advertising, to a potential conman and it gives the general public the impression that there’s merit and legitimacy to his side of the argument. If he is a conman...then established science has just opened the door to pseudoscience...snd they should never do that, it just muddies the already muddied waters, which slows us down.
You need to understand, when you’re working directly with people putting astronauts, satellites and spacecraft into orbit...this discussion is basically over. Why give a fringe opposition even a chance to spread their conspiracy further? NASA has enough problems as it is securing funding fir their missions...do you think they really need a grassroots movement of layman making it harder fir them? It’s unfortunate that people are losing faith in science, but addressing it at this point just makes it worse, because it gives the impression that FE is in any way legit...and it’s not.
I’ve seen these experiments you’re talking about, and each one upon peer review is found to be either completely wrong or at the very least inconclusive. Most people conducting these experiments, don’t have a clue what they’re doing...and they fall victim to confirmation bias far to often. The very worst of them straight up lie...that’s what we’re dealing with, a movement that doesn’t really care what’s true, they just care about being right. I could go through each experiment and falsify them all, with little effort...but who has that kind of time? But they wouldn’t listen anyway, because these people seem to think they’re above peer review.
Here’s the facts...Flat Earth has no working model, and is not currently used in any applied science today. It’s no surprise to me that the people pushing it are not experts in any field relevant to the discussion...that shouldn’t be ignored by you either, it should be a red flag. It seems more likely to me, that we’re really dealing with the growing resentment of people who have never achieved anything in their lives and now found a way to stick it to the people they blame for that. At the very least, people should consider the possibility that FE is a hoax, and I hope they do...but I doubt many do.
Fact is, they have not yet earned a legit debate between accredited experts. Science is under no obligation to bend to a few loud people online. If they want real debate, then they start small and prove their legitimacy. Right now, Dubay is very suspect...he comes off like more of a cult leader and science should never respect or bend to that kind of approach. Not sure if you’re aware of this, but he’s also a Hitler fan boy, a holocaust denier and an anti semite. Is that really the kind of guy you want to see succeed?
4
-
@saltysergeant4284 It’s also important to note, that the word “level” does not just mean “flat”. Words in the English language are often not that simple, they often have multiple definitions, depending largely on the context. One such context, is for an equipotential surface. All spheres are at equipotential, which means a surface with all points at equal distance from a centre. Well, Equipotential is a bit more nuanced than that I should say, it does apply more to spheres created by a field of force (like gravity), but in simplest terms, it can be applied to pretty much any spherical surface.
So let’s apply it to a bubble’s surface to help make my point. Bubbles, which often form perfect spheres, are the perfect example of a sphere at equipotential. You can define a spherical bubble as level, because all points of the surface are equal distance from centre, so they are level at equipotential. That is how level is applied in the context of “sea level”, what’s being implied is that the ocean surface is an equipotential surface, it is level in that it is all equal distance from centre of Earth, from centre of gravity.
So the one big issue with Flat Earth that I’ve noticed, is their refusal to accept that level does not mean flat in every context. If you don’t believe me though, here’s the official Websters entry for the word “Level” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level. Just read some of definitions under adjectives, number 1 and 5 in particular.
So they really need to understand this I feel, level does not necessarily mean flat. Level has many different definitions depending on the context.
4
-
@saltysergeant4284 Well, a simple carpenters level uses buoyancy to work. It’s just a simple two part density column in a tube. Buoyancy is directly caused by gravity, so it’s a force directly opposite to gravity, in the same vector, just in the opposite direction. If gravity vectors always point to centre of Earth, then a buoyancy vector is directly away from centre. So the trouble you have is, most levelling devices are using gravity to function...so they’re really levelling to centre of gravity, they don’t just conform to the rigidity of surface from a starting location and then maintain that same rigidity, they level to centre of gravity and thus shift accordingly too it. I’m sure as a construction worker, you’re aware of the term “level to centre of gravity”. Makes your question a bit ignorant, as a level will shift with gravity, so you could never use it to determine Earth’s geometry, because it’s always levelling perpendicular to gravity...which on a sphere with gravity always pointing to centre, means the bubble in the level will shift with the surface, because gravity is why the surface is curved to begin with.
Even if Earth is flat, gravity is still towards surface and a level is still following those gravity vectors...so a level really does not prove or disprove anything, it’s inconclusive. Your question completely ignores gravity physics, so it assumes the level should not shift on a spherical surface. But bubble levels conform to gravity, that’s how they work, plum bobs as well. So it’s an ignorant question that ignores basic physics.
You’d have a better point with a laser level, but when have you ever heard anyone using a laser level to measure and survey miles? They’re typically still only used for construction within a few thousands square meters. They typically use a theodolite for surveying long distances and that kind of long distance surveying has to use the backsight and foresight method, to account for Earth curvature. Taking a measurement in between the backsight and foresight measures, and then using it to essentially cancel out any error due to Earth curvature. If this isn’t done, then there will be errors.
4
-
4
-
@saltysergeant4284 Seeing anything is just your brain interpreting whatever visible light can reach your eye. It depends on an objects size, how much light it reflects or produces, and what’s in the way of your field of vision. So it’s not as simple as putting a set distance on it, it really depends on the variables. Here’s a simple example, at sea level, horizon is generally about 3 miles...but go higher, all of sudden you begin to see much further. So height of the observer matters, that’s a variable.
Another example, water is more dense than air, so you can really only see for a few meters underwater, but out of water you see much further. Even out of water, seeing through atmosphere really depends on the weather...clear days you’ll see much further than a rainy day. So the density of the material you’re looking through matters, that’s a variable.
I know I’m just stating the obvious too you...but then you asked the question and my answer is, there is no real set distance to how far you can see, it depends on all the conditions leading up to the light that entered your eye, to make vision possible at all.
Here’s one more example...even on the Flat Earth model, the stars are REALLY far away, thousands of miles...yet you can see them. So if I were to say fir example; “You only see 70 miles with the naked eye”, well that’s clearly not true...cause you’re seeing stars that are much further than that. The Moon too, still at least a few hundred miles up, yet you see it pretty clearly, even your basic phone camera can zoom it in. The Sun as well...half of the Earth sees the Sun during the day...so that’s thousands of confirmed miles...so how far do we see with the naked eye? Well...it depends....there is no set number.
So you’re asking questions as if there’s a set number I should be giving you...but when it comes to vision, there really isn’t a set distance. So what do you want me to say?
You’d have a hard time spotting a balloon at 70 miles, because of how small it is compared to that distance, it doesn’t reflect much light, unless you put reflectors on it, and because of the air density that increases with distance. A mountain range however, or even a skyscraper, much easier to see at distances, because they’re much larger, or in the case of buildings more reflective.
These variables matter...but flat Earth really doesn’t seem to care much. Don’t even get me started on refraction...most flat Earthers don’t even think it exists, so good luck getting them to agree it matters in long distance observations. Though if you are one such flat Earther, I can easily show you some simple experiments that verify refraction, so feel free to ask.
Point is, there are variables to your questions, variables that matter. Variables I feel that are ignored by FE. You can’t ignore variables in science...you have to factor every known variable. So I’m sorry if I’m rambling, but I prefer to be thorough and these things matter to your questions.
So when you ask me “How many miles can you see with the naked eye”, the answer is infinitely far, no known limitation exists. As long as light from an object can reach your eye in enough quantity for your eye to detect it, then you will see it, can be right in front of you, or trillions of miles...doesn’t matter. Unless you have some evidence that can falsify that conclusion, then that’s what the conclusion will remain as within science.
Ask me how far we see objects directly on Earths surface while looking towards horizon, that’s much easier, the biggest variable being height of the observer. So how high are we talkin?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@saltysergeant4284 Actually, little known tidbit for ya, even the ISS only sees about 3% of the Earth’s surface. You need to understand how big the Earth is...it’s huge. But besides that, could the ISS spot a small hot air balloon? No, not the ISS, not likely. It simply does not have the optical capability. Their cameras are pretty basic, only capable of minor magnifications, as far as I know currently anyway. To tell you the truth, I’m actually not aware of which satellite is even designed for that capability, I’d have to research it. To my current knowledge, I actually believe planes are used for most of the high resolution imagery scans of cities and such, for Google Earth’s mapping at least, I’m pretty sure that’s how they do it. I’m sure satellites do exist that are capable of observing details on the ground at higher magnification, I’ve just never really researched which ones, but could they tilt them at an angle capable of capturing a small balloon, so as to capture its tilt? Maybe, I’m really no expert on that.
There is an annual balloon event in Turkey (I believe it’s Turkey anyway), where they launch hundreds, if not thousands of colourful hot air balloons spanning miles all along the desert. I bring it up, because you might actually be able to find some satellite or high altitude images of this event. Trouble is, I doubt any would be anything but filmed from straight down...so might be a lost cause, but who knows.
So I’m not sure if I can answer your question to any real satisfaction. Do any photos of a balloon (or anything really) exist, demonstrating their angles upon the curvature? I don’t know for certain, I doubt it though, but maybe. A good question is though, why would they care...when filming the curved horizon is far easier and far more conclusive? I mean, cause filming a balloon from above it, you’d have to factor that angle as well....it’s better to be at eye level to the balloon, then you wouldn’t have too...but you’d have the same problem, because good luck spotting a tiny balloon through the increasingly hazy atmosphere.
So I’m sorry, fraid I can’t give you a very satisfying answer. Suppose it’s worth researching a bit more...but I think you’re underestimating how difficult that photo would be too take.
4
-
@SKATEtime41 Well now you’re making claims, claims I can’t verify without more effort or more evidence from you. You claim to have seen, or know of someone who has seen, an object only 20 meters tall, from 40 miles away? I’ve made lots of long distance observations, I’ve never seen anything 20 meters high from 40 miles. What was your observer height? Are you sure the object in question was 40 miles, and it was 20 metres in elevation? Was the land elevation factored or just the object?
I once had a fellow who claimed he was seeing all of a 150 foot tower, at 6 foot viewing height on a beach, from 20 miles away. Doing the math, even with standard refraction, it would have been 160 feet hidden by curvature. Back when YouTube allowed outside links in comments, he eventually even shared several pictures with me, confirming that what he was seeing was genuine. But after pressing him for more details, I eventually learned of his exact location and the tower he was observing wasn’t 20 miles away, it was really only 8 miles away. Doing the math again, left only 16.7 feet hidden geometric, and roughly 12 feet hidden adding standard refraction. So though he was using the right math, his details were in error, giving him the wrong figures.
So you see why I’m not inclined to believe you or anyone at face value? Hard to trust people did their observations thoroughly, accounting for every detail, when I’ve seen time and again that they were not. It’s not just wrong math that can be a problem, it’s wrong information as well…and a lot of claims people still expect me to believe without proof. I’m a bit beyond that, so is there a specific observation you’d like me to review, to help verify your claim?
4
-
@Murphy_Gaspard “…people should be taught how to learn, not what to learn.”
Flat Earthers typically seek only the evidence that confirms their bias, instead of following all available evidence to the most objective conclusion. This shows that they’re certainly not employing the best methodology for acquiring information, they’re just chasing confirmation bias. So if any group could benefit from a lesson in how to learn…it’s them.
“…people should not just take someone’s word for something, but that they should do their own research.”
Yet every Flat Earther gets their information from strangers on YouTube or Facebook…and they believe them at face value, no questions asked. So maybe they should really head that advice. They seem to think that just because they’re resistant to mainstream information, it by default means they’re infallible…as if questioning one side to the extreme, compensates for them ever having to question counter information. That makes them contrarians…not objective researchers.
“He also says we should be open minded, yet he is frustrated with the open mindedness of flat earthers.”
I’d say it’s more frustrating that these people claim to be more open minded than everyone else…while having probably the most closed minds of anyone. They’re convinced that mainstream science is corrupt and can be ignored…and despite anyones best efforts, they will not change their minds on that position. Does that sound like an open mind to you? If they were truly open minded, they would listen to their opposition, and consider the very real possibility that they’ve fallen for a con…but oh boy do they shut those minds pretty quickly the moment you try and share some info they’ve overlooked. That is frustrating.
4
-
@Murphy_Gaspard I’ve seen those videos as well, and I can’t help but notice how blurry and over exposed they always are. If you’re going to observe something as bright as the Sun, then wouldn’t you agree it should be pretty important to filter out as much of that intense light as possible, so you can actually see its true shape and size? The videos I’ve seen of zooming in on the Sun always demonstrate a lot of glare, and that glare reduces as the auto exposure on the camera adjusts with each zoom. So they’re basically conning people with a sleight of hand trick. Here’s someone who thought to lower the exposure on his camera and then lock that exposure, so it couldn’t adjust with each zoom https://youtu.be/gzjFOZ00Ka8?t=381, you’ll notice it sinks into and under horizon, no amount of zooming in causing it to rise up. This observation is easily repeatable, he explains and demonstrates everything you require.
I’m actually an artist for a living, so perspective fundamentals are something I would consider myself a bit of an expert on. Yes, an object above your eye level will converge towards vanishing point at your eye level…but vanishing point is called that for a reason, it’s because things also appear to SHRINK in apparent angular size as they converge at eye level, until they are no longer visible. The trouble is that the Sun is not observed to shrink throughput the day, here’s another observation of the Sun viewed with a solar filter lens for a full day https://youtu.be/WtQiwbFD_Cc, demonstrating that it clearly does not shrink.
So Flat Earth is ignoring some pretty fundamental rules of perspective, in order to force that as their conclusion here. Bring up any video demonstrating the Sun shrinks or rises back up after zooming, and I’ll guarantee it’s always extremely blurry and/or overexposed, with no solar filter lens or lowered exposure.
So this is what I’m talking about….they will say a sunset is caused by perspective, while ignoring some very simple fundamentals of perspective. If that’s not a clear example of confirmation bias, I don’t know what is. This observation actually makes my point; they seek only the information that supports their bias, while ignoring any pesky little details that directly refute it. They follow the information they like towards the conclusion they want, rather than forming a conclusion from all available information. They tend to start with a conclusion, rather than form one.
And it’s no secret as too why, you’ve already admitted why, because you don’t trust mainstream science. That has created a powerful bias; you are less likely to accept information from any mainstream source…no matter how conclusive it is, because you’ve reached a conclusion, and now your mind is closed to any possibility that you could be wrong. Confirmation bias is very real, nobody is really beyond or above it. Scientists realized this pretty early on, they recognized it was a real problem that we humans tend to fall victim too…that’s why they included peer review into the scientific method in the first place. I’m not saying scientists are infallible, far from it, but they do have a system in place that helps them overcome the pitfalls of confirmation bias…an individual researcher sifting through information online, does not.
In a way I can really appreciate Flat Earth for that aspect though; they are challenging long held conclusions, despite the ridicule they know they’ll likely face. I can respect that, that’s great, nothing should ever be off the table for discussion, because nobody is infallible…trouble is, while their intentions might be genuine, their methodology (I feel) is lacking. You’re falling victim to confirmation bias, often without realizing it…then what’s worse is any attempt to help you, is seen as an attack, rather than a fair objection. Flat Earth seems to think itself above peer review and burden of proof…so while I can respect that they’re asking questions, what I don’t respect is their tendency to be contrarians, rejecting information, simply because it’s mainstream. I don’t feel that’s very logical.
There’s a very real possibility that you’re being conned, by a group that’s had plenty of time to build and refine a mountain of misinformation. If you claim to be open minded, then you would consider that very real possibility. I have considered that myself for the globe conclusion, but I’ve seen and experienced enough in my life to know that the conclusion of the globe is valid. Perhaps people should spend less time online, and more time travelling and experiencing the real world.
4
-
4
-
8 inches per mile squared is a basic equation for a parabola…not a sphere. It also does not represent line of sight, it has no variables for height of the observer, horizon distance, perspective, refraction, and many other variable importance for the observation. So no wonder the math doesn’t work….you’re using the wrong equation. Pretty simple rule of thumb in mathematics, use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion. Here’s where you can find the correct math you should be using https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/.
The Bedford Level experiment upon all peer review, has been shown to match the globe. The original conductor of the experiment (Samual Robotham) was just deeply biased, and so he only ran a sloppy version experiment, designed only to confirm his bias. It stands as the perfect example for why we have peer review in science, to weed out errors due to bias, cognitive dissonance and lying.
Here’s a modern recreation the Bedford Level experiment, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. The conclusion here is quite conclusive, the Earth is curving and at the rate it should be.
4
-
4
-
@JessiQT17 The Moon takes on the colour of the sky, because we have to look through the atmosphere of Earth before we see the Moon. So it’s exactly like looking through a coloured transparency paper/lens, everything you view through that filter is going to take on the colour of that transparency. The atmosphere works the same way. So if I was to observe a person around a campfire, their back is black and blends in with the blackness of night, does that mean their back is see through? If I view them through a coloured transparency/lens, and the blackness now takes on that coloured hue…is this evidence that I’m seeing through them? 🧐 Seriously…where’s the logic in your argument?
How does that make the Moon a plasma? Plasma doesn’t maintain a rigidity that’s constant…there’s not craters on the surface of any plasma, that remain in the exact same orientation. The Sun is a hot plasma, and it’s surface is constantly shifting because of it…the Moon looks the same every night, with craters that are in the exact same positions every night…so clearly not a plasma.
No, Moon light is not colder…I know of the experiment you’re referring too, and the reality here is that Flat Earthers didn’t think to include a control for their experiment. So they didn’t properly isolate the variable they’re testing…so the experiment is deeply flawed.
Control experiments are a crucial part in good experimentation practices, because they help you isolate the variable you’re testing in the hypothesis. Their purpose is to remove hidden variables, that could also be the cause of your results. So in this example, a good control experiment to include, would be to conduct the same exact experiment on a night when the Moon isn’t out, like during a New Moon phase, where it’s not casting any light. So, same exact set up, a thermometer in open air, and one under something. If you get the same exact results, colder in the open than when under something, then it wasn’t the Moonlight causing this…it’s likely something else. Plenty of people have recreated this experiment, and have included a control such as this, Greater Sapien is good example you should check out. He got the exact same drop in temperature, on a night when there was no moonlight. Meaning it’s not the Moon causing this effect…it’s something else. The most likely candidate, radiative cooling.
So no…this isn’t a fact, you people just don’t know how to conduct a proper experiment. It’s also pretty dumb just on the physics alone…because all light is essentially energy. There’s no such thing as cold energy…energy is the source of all thermal heat, in the entire universe….it’s physically impossible for light of any kind to be cold. That would break thermodynamics laws…it’s just not logical. The Moonlight isn’t cold, you’re just bad at doing experiments.
No, they say the horizon begins at 3 miles if you’re standing at 6 feet viewing height…go higher in elevation though, and that extends. I’m sure you’re aware of how seeing over a hill works…climb higher and you can see over it, Earth curvature works the same way, go higher and you can see over the curvature. Any pictures you’ve seen of seeing hundreds of miles away, be sure to check what the observers elevation was…I bet you every time those observations are made from a few hundred feet in elevation.
So no…it really just proves how dumb you people are.
Zooming in on an object and bringing it back is just demonstrating the vanishing point effect. Your eye has a limit to how small it can resolve a distant object, that limit is called the vanishing point. A telescopic lens can magnify and resolve light from MUCH further away, meaning it can see beyond your natural vanishing point. But eventually, objects in the distance reach a point where no amount of zooming in will render it visible…this is when you know an object has reached the actual horizon. If you can zoom something back into full focus, then it hasn’t reached horizon yet…it’s that simple.
So again, you were just conned by a parlour trick. There’s plenty of observations you can find, where tens to hundreds of feet are missing from the base of ships and buildings, and thousands of feet are obscured at the base of mountains…no amount of zooming in will bring them back.
Watch those weather balloon videos again sometime, find one that doesn’t use a fish eye lens, then pause the video when the horizon is in the centre of the frame. Then hold a ruler up to that horizon…I guarantee you’ll see curvature.
Richard Byrd was not a flat Earther, he made no reference to a flat Earth or a dome.
Operation Fishbowl makes no reference to a dome either…have you even read the report? I’ll be willing to bet you just read the title then got a brief description. It was a nuclear test in upper atmosphere, to see how nuclear warheads react in upper atmosphere. When developing any new weapon, it’s pretty important to test it in as many environments as you can, to find out how they operate in these environments. They detonated 6 warheads in this experiment, and learned a lot about the effects. They learned that the radio blackout/EMP effect travels much further, as does the radioactive fallout. Pretty useful information to have, they now have knowledge of more creative uses for nuclear weapons. Like if you want to severely cripple an enemy, without destroying their cities and infrastructure, a nuke detonated over a city at higher atmosphere, is a good way to do that.
That’s why they conducted those experiments…there’s not a single mention of them trying to hit a dome, go ahead and actually read the report sometime, instead of blindly believing the paranoid speculations of an extremely biased group of numpty’s, who can’t read very far past a title.
You’re being fed misinformation my friend. Speculations, empty claims, bad science, bad math, misunderstandings, cherry picking, and in the worst cases straight up lies. Sure, they have a lot of it, but that doesn’t make it true. A mountain of bullshit is still bullshit at the end of the day. Get a better bullshit filter.
4
-
@squidly2112 Not sure why you’re getting so upset here, can we have a conversation without the insults? If I’m wrong, I don’t mind, but it seems you sure seem to mind. And you’re still throwing a lot of jargon at me without citations. There’s a lot of context you’re skipping over within those numbers you’ve cited; without any reference to where you got that information, I certainly can’t know for certain if your conclusion is accurate, or extremely biased, or fabricated. So it’s a bit pointless to mention them without sources or citations, so please stop with the numbers if you’re not going to provide citations, or I’m just going to ignore them. Because without a source, I have no way of knowing if it’s real…and you can’t expect me to blindly agree to something I can’t verify, pretty common sense I feel.
What I do know (or at least my current understanding) is that atmosphere traps (keeps energy in the system for longer) solar energy for a time, not indefinitely, it just acts as an insulator for the planet, recycling that energy back into the system (not creating new energy, just transferring SOME of it back in)…that’s pretty standard knowledge I feel. You’re making an argument that it doesn’t work that way,, which is the first I’ve heard of it. You can say it doesn’t…but even you agree convection is a thing, and it requires pressure. So it’s just odd how you can both agree convection requires pressure (which requires matter, including gases), but also think atmosphere doesn’t effect temperature. Those are pretty contradictory I feel…convection is proof that gases can and do insulate, it proves that gases do effect temperature.
Your argument with the black box at surface and then on top of a mountain is a pretty odd choice for your point as well…I’m sure you’d agree mountain peaks are quite cold year round…wouldn’t you agree? They also have far less air pressure. Ever consider there’s a correlation? 🧐 Almost like air density has an effect on temperature. Are you trying to argue that mountain peaks are actually as hot as desserts…because a black box (another thing you could provide a source or citation for) reads the same temperature? Ever consider it’s just measuring the direct solar energy, and not the actual surrounding temperature? Here’s where a citation cones in handy…cause maybe you overlooked something, so it’d be nice if I could review this experiment myself. But in any case, so why are mountain peaks cold? To my knowledge, it’s because the air pressure is lower…which lowers convection. That’s how I currently understand it…I don’t mind being wrong, but please explain how it actually works then, I don’t mind.
This is why I mention convection, because it’s a common misconception —among groups like Flat Earthers especially— that the Moons surface is “hot”, because the temperature is high. The argument being, that astronauts should burn up, and the lunar module should melt, because the temperature is so high…but this argument ignores something that’s required for both, convection, which requires pressure. So there’s a confusion here between the difference of heat and temperature, you’re right. The Moon has basically no atmosphere…so the surrounding temperature is actually very cold, because without atmosphere, convection can’t occur. Hence why nothing burns up or melts. That temperature is a measure of individual molecules and the direct solar energy…but without an abundance of molecules, convection can’t occur.
Also, from what I understand, the magnetosphere protects atmosphere from being blown away (as you mentioned) by solar winds, doesn’t have much to do with the actual temperature of the planet…the atmosphere however, does. You’re point doesn’t refute atmosphere effecting temperature, it’s more like a clever misdirection…ya, I know the magnetosphere helps protect atmosphere, how exactly does that refute that atmosphere insulates a planet? 🤷♂️ You’re not doing anything to falsify that atmosphere is directly responsible for a planets surface temperature…you’re actually doing more to verify that it is. And if you’re trying to argue that water vapour is more responsible for greenhouse effect (you’re right, it is) then how is Venus still incredibly hot…even though it has no water? 🧐
I worked on a rod truck and a service rig, and as an apprentice in industrial pipe insulation, so I’ve worked for the energy sector too…doesn’t make me an expert on the physics of energy. So what exactly do you do for these energy companies? Why do you think I should be rattled by simply mentioning you’ve worked for energy companies? For all I know you were a fucking janitor.
If you are more knowledgeable on the subject, then great! It means I could possibly learn something, and I’m all for that…not sure why you gotta be a dick about it though. :/ Currently I’m seeing contradictions in your points, and you’re not doing a very great job of clearing up those contradictions, or my confusion, whichever it may be…it just feel like you’re trying to win, by burying me in jargon, in hopes I’ll eventually go away. So less jargon please, unless you’re gonna provide citations. Would be nice. I don’t care if I’m wrong, just trying to have a discussion.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@squidly2112 Alright, it felt as though you were getting huffy with me actually, so my apologies if I misread your actual expression. I am interested, that’s why I’m still here talking to you. But what you’re saying goes against something I’ve always understood as a standard about our planet’s temperature, that atmospheric density plays a big part in the overall temperature…gases, working like a greenhouse glass, trapping solar energy. You’re the first I’ve heard to argue it doesn’t, so I’m just trying to understand your argument, as well as question it.
It just makes sense to me, solar radiation interacts with gases, reflecting some of it away from Earth, as well as absorbing some of it into atmosphere, and causing a latency, as you put it. It makes sense to me that if you were to increase the density of certain molecules, it would trap more heat (not saying it’s trapped indefinitely, that’s not how I’m applying the word), causing an increase in overall temperature. Not consistent rise that rises exponentially or even a substantial rise, but just a slight increase from normal levels, which for us can cause problems.
I don’t see a contradiction of thermodynamics here, the energy isn’t being created or destroyed, energy transfer is not completely stopping; more solar energy is being contained from an increase in certain gases in atmosphere, essentially being recycled, that is all. It’s my understanding that every gas interacts with solar energy, that all matter does, so it makes sense that an increase in certain molecules would act as a sort of shield, deflecting solar energy back to surface (back radiation). Increase the density of that shield, trap more energy…seems rather simple to me, and makes sense.
So you have to understand, my understanding is the standard that most people I feel also have come to understand about the issue. I’ve never heard anyone try and argue that atmosphere doesn’t have an effect on a planets temperature…and you’re still not doing much to convince me it doesn’t. I am not a scientist, I’m just your average joe, with a base understanding of general physics and a lifetime of working in various trades…so if you are a scientist then great, help someone from the general public understand your argument here. I’m not saying I’ll outright agree, but it is interesting.
Though it is odd to me that a scientist wouldn’t share a source. This black box experiment obviously has a name for the experiment, something I could search…I don’t feel it’s too much trouble to share at least a name.
4
-
@squidly2112 You’re calling it a “global warming cult”…for what other reason than as an insult? Sooo…am I missing something? And I feel you’ve been pretty condescending, which is also insulting. But it’s fine, engaging in online debate or conversation requires a thick skin, I accept that and I can take it, just wish it wasn’t so prevalent. But I get it, I’m certainly not free from my ego either, so it’s unavoidable really.
In regards to the “global warming cult” comments though, that’s not being entirely fair. It is scientists who have warned us that we may be causing a warming effect that could be catastrophic…so are we in a cult, or just doing our best to navigate information that SCIENTISTS are giving us? I’ll tell ya, insulting people is not a great road to convincing them. From the general publics perspective, we’re just doing our best to trust that scientists are doing their jobs, that the information we’re receiving is accurate…so if you really are a scientist (though I don’t really believe you are) then blame yourself I guess? 🤷♂️ And the way I see it, if the hypothesis of global warming is wrong, then we lose what…exactly? But if the hypothesis is correct, but we don’t do anything about it…then we’re fucked. So it seems perfectly rational to me that the public would choose the safer option…even if it’s found to be in error later, better safe than sorry.
In my own experience, I can’t help but notice that forest fires have been increasing, in my area lately…and it’s been like this for over a decade now. We’ve now come to expect it, every year in the Summer we have a smoky season now…where air quality and visibility are low for (sometimes) months at a time, because of more extreme and more frequent fires. In the nearly 40 years I’ve lived here (Central Canada) I don’t remember our summers being like this, until recently. And it’s not just here, California, Greece, Australia, the Amazon (and that’s just from the top of my head) have all being experiencing far more extreme fires over the last few years, I’m sure you’ve watched the news on these events. So…I’m inclined to agree the Earth is warming, the increase of fires was part of the warning signs we would expect. Whether it’s man made or not, it’s happening, I don’t think it’s irrational or stupid in the slightest to investigate further, I’m sure you’d agree. The difference is, if I’m wrong, we don’t lose much of anything…if you’re wrong, then we are fucked. Either way, still not stupid in the slightest to investigate further…so you calling it a cult is just childish. We are right to investigate further, regardless of which side is right.
4
-
@squidly2112 Okay, so short wave radiation from Sun, long wave radiation from surface. So first of all, are you saying long wave has a net loss in energy? I’d agree, you’d lose energy not gain from surface, surface certainly isn’t providing more energy than the Sun. But, it doesn’t really matter, cause you’re not really getting it. I’m going to simplify a hypothetical as best I can; lets say we have 5 rays of long wave radiation (just humour me, I know that’s grossly over simplifying it), will a system be warmer over all if 2 of those rays are sent back into the system (back radiation) or 3? Obviously the latter, right? More energy, means more thermal energy overall, right? The argument of greenhouse gases is that less energy is allowed to escape, whether it’s short wave from the Sun or the long wave from surface, I feel that’s irrelevant…if less energy is allowed to leave, but more energy remains, that’s going to cause a rise in overall temperature, right? I’m not seeing how your overall point refutes this. The point is that at one point in time, our atmosphere allowed more energy to leave, rather than linger…now it doesn’t, because certain molecules that can cause a return have increased.
Also, it’s not like 100% of short wave radiation is absorbed by surface, a lot of it is reflected directly back up…especially by our ocean. So a portion of the energy reflected back by atmosphere is originated by the Sun. It’s a very complicated and nuanced system…hence why much discussion and sharing of information is required.
I also didn’t say atmosphere was the primary factor, I do not think in absolutes. I think we both could benefit from not assuming each others points too much. It’s a complex system, with many different factors. Obviously direct solar energy is the origin and a huge factor…but I don’t think it can be denied that atmosphere plays a big role in surface temperature. You said very clearly in a previous comment “gases can not insulate”…yet all an insulator does is traps energy for longer…and that’s exactly what atmosphere does. Soooooo…by extension, gas in abundance is very much an insulator…atmosphere is proof of that.
How is thermodynamics being violated? Energy is still transferring just fine…nothing is being created or destroyed, only kept around in greater abundance for longer, allowing for more convection and conduction.
4
-
Electromagnetism is also just “a theory” in science, but you’re currently using it to send and receive your internet data over wifi. So you’re not quite understanding the basic language of science. They chose that wording for a simple reason, because we don’t know everything and we likely never will. So this means that old information always has the potential to change as new information is obtained…that’s just the reality of our situation. There’s no getting around that, we are not infallible or omniscient…and if you think you are, or if you think you could do things better, you’re delusional.
So as much as the scientific community would love to have the power to conclude everything with 100% certainty, they simply can’t, so science doesn’t operate in absolutes, it prefers to think in percentages of certainty, conclusions backed by evidence that for the moment couldn’t be falsified. Calling the main conclusions theories, leaves them open to be updated as new information is obtained. Hence the use of the word…but it’s far from the layman use of the word, hypothesis is what takes the place of theory in the regular usage, and nothing graduates past hypothesis without rigorously tested and verified evidence. Theories are proven, and they work.
Gravity is also a law in science though, were you aware of that? Look up Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation sometime.
Anyway, point is, you’re just doing more to telegraph your scientific illiteracy to everyone, when you say something is just a theory. You should be forfeit from any conversation of science, if you don’t even know the basic language used and why it’s used.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Because of buoyancy, gases are technically classified as a fluid, so they operate similar to gases in water, rising upward, because of buoyancy…and they’re not exempt from gravity, buoyancy is directly caused by gravity. Displacement occurs when more dense matter pushes less dense matter out of its way, but it doesn’t happen without a force to start that motion. Gravity is what starts the motion, buoyancy is end result of a chain reaction caused by that starting motion. Gravity pulls matter down, attracting it to surface, the more dense matter will occupy lowest point first, this pushes less dense matter out of its way, upward, in the same vector as gravity, but in the opposite direction.
So nothing is free from gravity, gravity directly causes density displacement, which causes buoyancy. This well understood in modern physics, verified in a number of different experiments, from simple drop tests, to density columns put in zero g, demonstrating zero displacement. That’s why gravity is included as a variable in the equation for buoyancy; Fb=Vpg. That little ‘g’ is the downward acceleration of gravity; 9.8m/s^2. Remove that variable, and engineers designing ballast tanks for ships and submarines are gonna have a heck of a time.
Anyway, hope that information helps. I’d suggest researching more on the physics of buoyancy, you’ll find that gravity is directly linked.
3
-
@michaelcarlson2512 Everything can’t occupy the same space all at the same time, correct? If you’re sitting in a chair, another person can’t also sit in that same chair, your matter is already occupying that space, so anything that tries is repelled by the matter of your body. In buoyancy displacement, less dense matter is pushed out of the way of denser matter. Since that denser matter is pulled down to lowest point, it occupies that space first, which means the less dense matter has nowhere to go, but up, where it’s less dense. It travels in that direction, opposite too gravity, because everything around it is all rushing down as well, so until it’s at a level where nothing denser can push it out of the way, it’s just gonna keep rising.
But understand that if nothing is moving, if dense matter is not attracted downward, if it’s not moving down…then why would it occupy lowest point? If there’s no force causing any motion, it’s just gonna stay where it is, stationary from wherever it’s placed, in upper atmosphere or at surface, wouldn’t matter, if there’s no force pulling it down, then it’s not gonna go there, it’s just gonna remain stationary. Gravity puts it into motion downward, that motion causes it to move into the path of other matter, if it’s more dense than that matter, then it’s gonna be pushed out of its way, displacing it. Gravity starts the motions, that directly causes buoyancy.
Gravity really isn’t that strong of a force here on Earth, but it is constant, it doesn’t shut off. Dead inert matter like molecules of gas, liquids, solids, have no means of resisting gravity, so they are almost completely bound by it. Living things on the other hand, can burn calories to produce energy, that energy they can then use to help them resist gravity for short periods of time. A bird flaps its wings, using energy to resist gravity for awhile, but what happens when it stops flapping those wings? It falls to Earth just like everything does. It’s not free from gravity when it fly’s, gravity doesn’t shut off when it’s flying, it’s just able to resist it by creating energy, to flap its wings. The updraft of air isn’t free from gravity either, it’s just a pressure system fluctuating due to temperature differences, causing a flux as hotter air moves more rapidly than cooler air, it’s just chemistry and fluid dynamics.
Hope that helps.
3
-
@elpacho....9254 A merry go round rotates at roughly 10-15 RPM’s, the Earth rotates at roughly 0.000694 RPM’s…that’s a big difference. It’s centrifugal force that you feel in a rotational velocity, and that is directly caused by the rate of rotation…not linear velocity. Earth completes one revolution every 24 hours, so it’s angular velocity is very slow, so centrifugal force output is very very low, far to small for you to feel. Linear velocity (mph) is very different from angular velocity (RPM’s), that’s where you’re going wrong here, you’re treating them as the same thing.
The linear velocity at equator is fast, but it’s also constant with no sudden or rapid acceleration or deceleration. While Earth’s rotational velocity is very slow, hence why we don’t feel it, it’s far to gradual a change over time. But we do experience some of the effects from a rotational velocity, such as Coriolis drift.
3
-
@elpacho....9254 “how is an airplane able to land on such a fast moving ball?”
Because of conservation of momentum, the laws of motion. All things in motion stay in motion, until acted upon by an unbalanced force. So the plane was on the surface of Earth, moving with it, it maintains that momentum even while in the air, moving with the rotation.
You can prove that physics pretty simply, with this simple experiment. Next time you’re in a fast moving vehicle, going straight at a constant forward velocity, make yourself a quick paper airplane, then toss it gently from back of the vehicle to front, or vice versa, front to back. You’ll notice it will glide gently through the air, then land on the floor or seat no trouble (I mean provided your throw is good, it’s a bit crude because of course your plane doesn’t have a pilot, engine, or wing rutters to keep it steady). But now pay attention to a few things, let’s say you’re moving at 60 mph, can you toss anything at 60 mph? Most people can’t, and obviously you didn’t throw it that fast in this example, you threw it gently, yet how exactly did the paper plane glide from the back of the vehicle to the front, without any trouble? How did it keep up with the vehicle (60 mph), yet also outpace it to reach the front? The answer is because it’s already moving at 60 mph, so that momentum is conserved, your throw just adds velocity. Throw it the other direction, against the forward motion, your throw now reduces that velocity just a bit.
Give it a try sometime, it’s a pretty clear demonstration of conservation of momentum and relative motion. It’s the same exact physics that occurs with a plane in flight. And since the plane is moving with the surface, landing on it is really no problem. You could do the same test with a drone inside a moving vehicle, and you’d have no trouble landing it gently. Thanks to conservation of momentum.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@stephaniehampton3525 You asked how the stars stay in place, which is an attempt to poke holes in the model…but it’s not a hole, if you actually stop and consider every variable of that model. So it was an argument from ignorance mostly, whether you agree space is as vast as the heliocentric model claims it to be or not, parallax effect would occur at those vast distances and it does account for why the stars do not appear to shift in our lifetime. So if you’re going to argue against the model, at least factor every variable and understand it first, or you risk making a strawman argument, which is a fallacious argument. But to be fair, it is a great astronomy question, so don’t feel discouraged for asking it, but it was presented as more of an argument rather than a question.
Here’s a fun astronomy fact for you though, the stars do actually change, we have star charts going back hundreds of years that verify that…but you can even confirm that for yourself in a just a few years of actual observation. Even every six months we get a slight shift from the previous 6 months, this is known as stellar parallax, this is what we’d expect to see occur as we’re on opposite sides of the Sun during orbit, so it’s consistent with the model. And all the stars shift a little bit every few years, a star that’s really popular for amateur astronomers to track is known as Barnards star, it shifts greatly every year, I would urge you to look it up sometime.
Just saying, people are so quick to assume the stars don’t change…but then they’re not out there every night tracking them, so how would they know? Are you an astronomer? How much do you really know about the stars? Any actual astronomer would tell you, they’re moving a lot actually and we do track those motions. You shouldn’t assume so much about topics you don’t really know much about, that’s all I’m saying.
And if you’re going to poke holes using the stars, then don’t forget to also challenge the model you’re looking to support. Flat Earth model for example has a really hard time accounting for the second rotation of stars observed in the South hemisphere. In fact I’ve never heard any explanation for the Southern rotation, on any flat Earth model proposed so far, that’s logical or scientific…but the globe model accounts for it with absolute ease, it’s exactly what we’d expect to see occur with a spherical geometry.
I get your hesitation to trust systems of authority these days, but you shouldn’t let that distrust form into a bias that clouds you from looking at things objectively. NASA and government weren’t the one’s to solve Earth’s geometry, I would say it started with sailors and explorers hundreds of years ago, regular working class people, who happened to notice that stars drop to horizon at consistent rates by latitude, Polaris even drops to 0 degrees at the Equator, which is simply impossible on a flat Earth, but makes perfect sense on a globe.
Anyway, it’s fine to question things though, so by all means don’t let people like me discourage you, but hopefully you find this information at the very least interesting. I think it’s still important to keep our head on our shoulders and look at all the information as objectively as we can.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well that’s a great question, here’s some things to consider. First of all; they’re all moving with us, in the same direction, at roughly the same rate…so think of it like cars on a highway at night, all travelling together at the same speed. But also, understand the scales we’re dealing with here. 500k mph is really fast, to us…the microscopic life living on a spec of dust, who thinks a mile is a measure of significant distance, but understand that to the Sun, moving at that velocity, it only moves half of its diameter in distance, every hour. To put that into perspective, take half a step forward over the course of 1 hour. Speed is relative. Now think about the vast distances, the closest star to us (Alpha Centauri) is 4 light years away…that’s roughly 25 trillion miles…you know how long it would take to catch up to Alpha Centauri, moving at just 500k mph? A long long long time, and that’s only if it wasn’t moving too. The speeds we’re travelling at, are nothing compared to the distances.
Hope that information is helpful to your question, or at the very least interesting. Take care.
3
-
3
-
@saltysergeant4284 Here’s a very simple reason why public opinion should not sway the conclusions of experts. Would you expect a panel of non-experts, to decide what open heart surgeons do in surgery? Do we ask panels of layman to decide how an electrician should wire a building? Do nuclear physicists ask a panel of people off the street, to approve the designs for a nuclear reactor?
No, of course not...so why do people all of a sudden think they should have a say, in the conclusions of physics and Earth science? If you don’t know the basic biology of the human body, then you’re going kill someone during surgery. If you don’t know how basic electrical safety and circuitry works...then you’re very likely to create a major fire hazard. If you don’t know anything about how nuclear reactions work, down to the last detail and calculation...then you’re more likely to build another Chernobyl than a safely functioning nuclear power system.
The same applies to physics...it doesn’t care what people WANT to believe, it just is what it is. General layman THINK they know everything, thanks to the Dunning Krueger effect....the less you know, the more confident you are to think you know everything. It’s a real thing and it’s a problem.
We got a bunch of people right now in Flat Earth circles, who think gravity is fake, claiming it’s just density. But they have NO IDEA how to apply that conclusion. Currently, we use the force of gravity in equations, everything from calculating weight (W=mg), to calculating the buoyancy of sea vessels (Fb=Vpg), to calculating the projectile arcs of long range artillery (sin(2θ)v2/g). You might notice a small ‘g’ in each one of those equations, that’s the downward acceleration of gravity here on Earth; 9.8m/s^2. Right now, that’s how engineers design a great many things...with that measurement and that knowledge. While a few layman online have just claimed it’s density...and called their work done, no further discussion or peer review required, no formulas at all that we can replace the currently used formulas with...they have essentially created ZERO applied science from their conclusion.
Is that the kind of people you really want influencing science? People with no experience or real knowledge in the topic they’re arguing against? Might as well just hand your local gas attendant a scalpel, and get him rolling on some back alley surgery...I’m sure he’ll figure it out eventually. :/
3
-
@saltysergeant4284 Ok, I don’t mind a civil discussion. I do tend to ramble yes, so apologies for the lengthy posts, I’ll try and keep things more focused and short if possible. Understand that I’m not new to this discussion in particular, and I’m quite well versed in general physics, geometry, astronomy and Earth science. So no, I have several experiments that verify Earth’s rotation and it’s shape, I’ve even performed many of them. So please, if we continue, do not assume to know what I know or have seen and I’ll treat you with the same respect.
I am busy currently, but if there’s any points in particular you’d like to start with, by all means, I’ll do my best to address them.
3
-
@saltysergeant4284 Considering the enormous size of the Earth, at its measured dimensions, it takes roughly 70 miles to arc even 1 degree of difference (divide 25,000 miles by 360 degrees= 1 degree for every 69.44 miles). How much angle do you expect to see in just a few centimetres of a cup or bottle? Even a massive ocean, at 6’ viewing height you’ll only see on average for 3-5 miles, depending on refraction. How much angle is there in about 3 miles? Very very little...so of course it’s going to appear flat, you’re really not observing very much of it. We can all at least agree the Earth is massive, doesn’t take much to confirm that much for ones self at least.
So It’s a little too intuitive to say “it looks flat, therefore it is”, basic geometry would tell you, that if the sphere is large enough compared to the observer...it would appear completely flat to them, if directly at the surface. So of course your cup of water appears flat...if gravity forms a perfect equipotential field of force from centre of mass, then it’s going to follow Earth’s dimensions.
Again, it’s a bit too intuitive to conclude things on appearances, we have to probe deeper and pay closer attention.
3
-
@saltysergeant4284 I’m a digital illustrator, and I’m self employed for the most part. I illustrate for books, comics, video games. But before I decided to make that my profession, I was both a pipe fitter and an insulator in the trades. Never made it to journeyman for either, but I do have several thousand hours in both, working industrial construction in both uranium mines, potash and the oil fields. My other choice vocation has always been as a teacher, more specifically in science, biology, chemistry and physics. I’ve no secondary education, but I have studied general science most my life, just as a hobby. Astronomy as well...which is what got me into this discussion for the most part, because before I ever even heard of this movement, I had travelled and on a couple of these travels I happened to make several astronomical observation in the South hemisphere. Such as measuring the angle drop of stars to the horizon by latitude (which is how sextant navigation works) and I happened to join an astronomy group on a night they were photographing the South celestial rotation.
That was 10 years ago, and I’ve been researching FE for 4 years now.
The other thing that got me into this discussion, was the claims of perspective. FE often calls on perspectives to describe how a sunset occurs or how a boat sinks into horizon...but as an artist, who’s studied perspective for over 20 years, at this point I consider myself an expert on that subject...and they are grossly butchering the fundamentals of perspective to force their conclusions. To me, their explanations of perspective causing a sunset, is more akin to a child ramming a square peg into a round hole. And even after 4 years of chatting with hundreds of Flat Earthers, that is still how I see their conclusion. Perspective simply does not work the way they claim it does, I’ve seen or heard no explanation so far that has convinced me otherwise.
So now you know my background, may I ask what you do for a living?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@SKATEtime41 Well here’s the thing, it’s kind of a half truth. The equation is accurate (up to a point, about 100 miles, then it drops off into a parabola), but it doesn’t represent line of sight, it’s just for surface curvature. The trouble here is, that you’re making line of sight observations…but this equation does not represent line of sight, it traces an imaginary tangent line from sea level. So unless your eye rests at sea level (which is never the case)…then it’s not going to give you an accurate line of sight calculation. Surveyors can use it as a quick reference guide for topography, but you’re not gonna be able to use it for determining how much of something should be hidden by curvature…because it’s pretty common sense that you’re able to see further the higher you go, so height of observer needs to be a variable, but there is no variable for that in that equation. Look at it this way, 8 inches per mile squared gives you one figure, that figure is the same whether you’re at sea level, or 100 feet off the surface…yet you go higher and you see further. Do you see the problem? You go higher, you can then see further, but the math doesn’t adjust for this, it still gives you the exact same figure, telling you that you shouldn’t see what you’re seeing. The reason…because it’s not a line of sight calculation.
Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion. It’s a rule of thumb in science and mathematics, to always double check your math, because there’s always the chance your calculations are off, simply because you’re using the wrong equations. Height of the observer is just one of many variables 8 inches per mile squared doesn’t factor though, it also ignores horizon distance, tilt angles, refraction, land elevation, etc…it’s just not a great equation to use for long distance observations.
Here’s a better equation using basic trig functions.
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
r= Earth radius
d= Distance to object
h= height of observer
That’s a far more accurate equation for line of sight and curvature, though that’s purely geometric, even that ignores things like atmospheric refraction, which does matter as well, here’s a quick demonstration for why https://youtu.be/IRywj88MsjA. There’s some great curve calculators online like the one at Metabunk, but the best one I’ve seen is the Walter Bislin curvature simulator. It’s a simulator that includes pretty much every relevant variable, even includes camera optics like barrel distortion and focal length, it’s crazy precise. And it’s free to use online, so even better. Bit of a learning curve to that one, because you have to manually set up your observations, but pretty great once you get it. It even switches between flat Earth and Globe Earth so you can compare…because I think people tend to forget about considering what you should see if Earth were flat.
Anyway, point is, the math that Flat Earth has been using is incorrect for what they use it for, so it’s really not difficult to see why so many have reached the flat conclusion…they’re using the wrong math, and should have checked it. It’s a good quick approximation calculation that surveyors can use for determining a land drop from a tangent, but it’s not very useful for line of sight observations, and so you will reach a false conclusion if you use it for that.
I hope that information is at the very least interesting, if you have any other questions or rebuttals feel free.
3
-
3
-
@Murphy_Gaspard Can you look at a sunset every day? Then you can prove for yourself the Earth is spherical. Only takes a basic understanding of geometry to realize that a sunset is not a very likely occurrence, if line of sight to the Sun is never physically blocked…certainly not how we see it each day, with a Sun that clearly maintains the same angular size and dips under horizon and under your eye level. Any art student could tell you that a pretty fundamental rule of perspective, is that anything above your eye level can not drop below it, from perspective alone…and yet the Sun is clearly observed every single day, to dip into and under horizon, under your eye level. A flat Earth with a Sun that’s always above you could not do that. A curvature however, could absolutely cause that. So flat Earth is debunked with one simple observation…while the globe accounts for this observation with absolute ease.
This is the real problem as I see it; people who become flat Earthers seem to think the knowledge of the globe is off limits to them and impossible to obtain themselves. And I find that odd…since most of this knowledge was obtained by ancient civilizations like the Greeks, using nothing more than a few basic tools, and some simple observations…observations that anyone can repeat. At least when it comes to Earth’s geometry, the higher physics did take a bit more effort, but the geometry, only takes a few simple observations to prove the Earth’s surface shape can only be spherical.
There’s also this air of paranoia I don’t quite understand…you really think millions of various experts are lying to you? Do you honestly think every scientist is some sort of evil bond villain out to get you? Have you ever met a scientist? They’re just regular people, and I do feel the the vast majority of people are good, it’s the only way our society can thrive really, by working together, the majority wishing no ill will upon anyone else.
It’s just a very paranoid position to have. To hide a false conclusion of this magnitude, from literally millions of various experts, would be an impossible task. The knowledge of Earths basic geometry, is pretty important knowledge to have, for everything from navigation, to communication, engineering and infrastructure. It’s not likely we’d explore and conquer the entire world, without first acquiring accurate knowledge of its basic shape. It’s odd to me that people could actually think that’s possible…I’m sure you know how important it is for navigating anywhere, to first have accurate knowledge of the surface you’re navigating, that should be pretty common sense I feel. And you can actually test that yourself…anyone can learn to navigate, we live in the information age, you can learn how navigation works at any time you choose…this is not information that is off limits to you, it’s just a few keystrokes away and then maybe an hour of your time. You learn pretty quickly how important knowledge of surface geometry is too navigating anywhere on Earth.
So idk, are Flat Earthers just really bad at basic geometry? Are they really paranoid? Do they lack real world experience? Do they just hold a deep resentment for the scientific community and are looking to spite them in any way they can? I get the feeling it’s all of the above.
You can verify the Earth is spherical at anytime. This is not knowledge that’s off limits to you, and no government can stop you from reacquainting yourself with that information. So I don’t agree with you in the slightest, that you can’t prove the globe model for yourself…you absolutely can. You want an example of probably the best way to prove it for yourself? Learn to navigate, watch a tutorial video in celestial navigation…the entire practice of navigation requires accurate knowledge of surface, this is fact, not an opinion. People need to stop thinking things are impossible or off limits to them, and start actually trying.
3
-
3
-
Actually, mathematics is exactly how we do prove it. We use gravity in everything from calculating your weight (W=mg), to determining buoyancy force (Fb=Vpg), to ballistics (y = h + Vᵧ * t - g * t² / 2), to determining an airplanes thrust to weight ratio, atmosphere pressure, orbital mechanics, predicting celestial events, recreating nucleat fusion on smaller scales…the list goes on and on. Gravity is a variable in an almost countless number of working equations today.
You know how you can tell when your science is accurate? When you can apply it, and it works. Inversely, you know the best way to spot pseudoscience? It simply doesn’t work.
No, they are not all composites, that is a straight up lie…that you repeat for some reason. For example, they took hundreds of photos of Earth during the Apollo missions…how exactly did they create a composite before the satellites were in orbit to do it, and before computers and software were available to make a composite with? On top of that, a composite requires satellites in orbit to scan the surface, so the data can then be used to compile a composite image…so if Earth isn’t a globe, with gravity, then how exactly is an orbit achieved? Satellites use both gravity and Earth’s spherical shape to achieve an orbit…what’s up there scanning the Earth to make these composites with?
No, in reality, only a few pictures of Earth are composite, while the majority are pictures taken from weather satellites in geostationary orbits, taking full pictures of Earth around the clock. You need to pay closer attention to the details and deeper context, and stop blindly believing every superficial claim you hear online.
Entropy will always win in the end, but for many systems it’s going to take trillions of years…until the attractive forces of nature that contain and slow entropy break down, we’re fine.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pauldooris539 Yes, these experiments only detect rotational motion, not a movement through space around the Sun. Very good, glad to know you are paying attention, my apologies if I worded it poorly, you are correct. See I’m fine with a discussion where we can respect each other’s knowledge and current position on the topic, it’s a good middle ground to be in for sure, I agree. I’m not trying to be dismissive of you and your points, I’m just challenging them. Best way to learn I find; talking openly and honestly with an opposing viewpoint. Regardless of who’s right or wrong in the end, we can both learn something new in a conversation.
I would like to say a large enough interferometer could be used in a Sagnac configuration (a loop rather than a cross), to detect Earth’s motion around the Sun…but that would require some extremely precise equipment and some far heftier mathematics, and I’m really not certain if it has been done yet. I’m aware of the larger versions currently being used to detect Seismic activity (as well as measure Earth rotation), but I’m not sure if they’ve been used to detect Earth’s motion around the Sun…or if they even could. Worth looking into though, I’d say look up the ROMY ring laser interferometer sometime, perhaps they have tried this.
Satellites are probably the best evidence we have of the heliocentric solar system model; we have several in orbits around the Sun between Earth and the Sun, the DSCOVR satellite being the most prominent and well known. Trouble is…most Flat Earthers do not accept satellite technology as evidence, they typically dismiss them as fake tech. So really tough to submit as evidence if they’re not likely to accept it…as much as that frustrates me, I’ve never worked on or with a satellite, so I suppose I can in some part see why they’re dismissive. Though I will submit this for you that’s probably my best evidence that satellites do exist. https://youtu.be/jGWFg7EDnyY This is s group of hobbyists who built their own radio telescope out of junk parts, and then used them to pull image data from geostationary weather satellites in orbit.
But if satellites don’t do much for ya, next up in terms of evidence (as far as I’m currently aware) is the astronomy data for our local system. Many have tried to fit the data within the geocentric model (both flat and spherical), but it becomes a mess pretty quickly, while the heliocentric model fits the data almost perfectly. To test that, you could try the mathematical method currently used to predict eclipses with, it uses Earth’s motion through space as a variable, namely Keplers laws of planetary motion. So it’s also something worth checking if this interests you https://youtu.be/w9CM_MxG1vQ. Though perhaps it’s a poor example, I assume most simpler math probably ignores Earth’s motion now that I think about it. But astronomy has many useful celestial events to draw from, perhaps predictions of Mars retrograde, Venus transit across the Sun, or Sun Analemma are better for Earth motion. In any case, Astronomy is largely how the conclusion of the heliocentric model was settled…it’s the only model that accurately predicts what we observe around us.
Anyway, I’m off to bed. Take care for now.
3
-
@pauldooris539 Well, I do appreciate the shorter videos, so thank you. Sorry if I assume too much about you personally, I’ve just had a lot of time to form an opinion on this and other conspiracies, and I can’t help but notice those who investigate them share similarities. I will say you’re far more sane and rational than most Flat Earthers I’ve conversed with (and it’s been hundreds at this point), Moon landing skeptics typically are I find…I just don’t care for speculative evidence. I prefer science, if it’s not scientific in nature, and if it’s not conclusive, I’ll just roll my eyes at it.
Now your next argument is a lot more scientific, so I’m far more interested. And as an amateur astronomer (hobbyist, not professional), I know a thing or two about astro-photography. I think at about 14 minutes into your video, the Apollo 17 Astronaut Gene Cernan explained it best; roughly stating that you can see stars, but it requires you be in the shade shielded by the intense light of the Sun and you have to let your eyes adjust, then it becomes possible. That would be correct as far as I’m concerned, because our eyes work a lot like a camera lens actually, our eyes auto adjust for light exposure. That’s why as you stay in the dark for awhile, your eyes adjust, and you can then see better in the dark. What’s happening is the iris of your eye is opening slowly allowing more light into your eye, allowing you to see more in the dark. But when you’re in intense light (like they would be on the day side of the Moon), then your eye does the opposite, it closes, allowing less light through. This makes it difficult to see things that are dimly lit. Ever stood in the headlights of a car at night, and notice how difficult it is to see anything around you and outside of the beams? Even when a person is standing right there outside the beam, they’re difficult to see. A similar thing would occur on the Moon, while on the day side…or in space, because most of the time you’d be right in the headlights of the Sun, so your eyes would be adjusted for that, most of the time.
This works exactly like the exposure on a camera, a camera exposure setting basically opens the shutter wider or closes it more, to allow less or more light through the lens and onto the film, depending on the surrounding light. When you increase exposure, you are able to see objects that are less bright, more dimly lit. This is crucial in astro-photography, to get those really bright shots of the night sky, you have to crank open the shutter, increasing exposure time greatly. But, to get a clear shot of anything while inside a path of intense light, you have to do the opposite, or else your film will be overexposed, and essentially nothing but a big white blur. Over and under exposure is basic photography 101, it’s one of the first things you learn in photography.
He briefly touches on this, but he doesn’t really explain much on how a camera works…actually, he almost makes it out to be too complicated for the average person to learn. I find that a little odd…since they’re supposed to be “detectives”. Shouldn’t they learn how a camera works, if it’s very relevant information towards what they’re investigating? It’s really not that difficult to learn how a cameras exposure works…it’s like he kind of understood, but then treated it like gobbledygook at the same tine. Personally, I find that odd…this is pretty easy stuff honestly.
He asks why the astronauts didn’t adjust the exposure to photograph the stars, and that’s a great question. The answer is because if they did, the film would then be overexposed and you then wouldn’t be able to see anything, it would just be mostly a white blur. Could you find a happy medium? In the shade, perhaps, I mean you can do astro photography during the day to see stars, but it takes some doing (namely a lot of shade, anything to lower direct sunlight without lowering exposure to much) and a pretty good knowledge of cameras. The crew were not photographers (as far as I’m aware), they probably wouldn’t have had the slightest clue how to do this proper. And I’d imagine the cameras were auto set, and so they probably couldn’t adjust exposure manually even if they wanted too. That’s my speculation, but it’s plausible, I’d have to research the camera more to know for certain on that…but personally, if I was sending them up there, snd they didn’t know much about cameras, I’d give them the rundown of course…but I’d also make it super easy for them, and just auto set the exposure and shutter speeds.
But, that’s why stars aren’t in photographs from space, and why astronauts could only see them sometimes. Because the camera exposures were set too low, and our eyes naturally adjust to intense light…and in space, there’s not a whole lot of things blocking the Sun’s light, so most of the time their eyes are adjusted for more intense light.
I don’t know if you’ve ever noticed, but most of the stars really aren’t that bright. Even out in the countryside, where light pollution is far less, you still have to strain to see them clearly. Can our eyes see the night sky as brightly as a camera set to extremely high exposure can? No, of course it can’t…our eyes are pretty limited compared to most of our technology, the photos of the night sky he was sharing, are not how we see them naturally with our eyes, they are photographs with a lot of exposure. So, it doesn’t take much to under expose them so they can’t be seen, stars really aren’t that bright.
He also pulls from a few quotes from astronauts in LEO orbit claiming to have seen the stars brighter than they had ever seen them before…but fails to mention at what point they made those observations. If they were on the night side of the planet during those observations, then ya, you probably would….so what side of the Earth were they on when they saw the stars so bright? He doesn’t mention……how convenient, almost like he’s trying to lead you to his biased conclusion. :/
See, that’s the kind of stuff I can really sink my teeth into, because that argument has more science too it. There is a reason stars don’t appear in photographs from space, and I’m happy to explain it to people. And there’s a logical reason why the astronauts would receive that question with some hesitance…because there’s nuance to the answer. The simplest answer would be No, BUT you can see the stars under certain conditions. That’s the truth, there’s nuance, it would really depend on who gave a damn enough to really try, and if any time was really spent on the night side of Earth or the Moon.
Anyway, I hope that information is helpful. My apologies if these get long…unfortunately, scientific/technical explanations are rarely short, there’s a lot of little details and nuances to cover. I understand that you might take this as just convenient for the “believers” arguments…but I’m really just stating some facts about how our eyes and cameras work. It’s all stuff that’s relevant to this argument…and a lot of it is pretty common sense, I feel. So I don’t feel it’s convenient, I feel it shouldn’t be ignored.
3
-
3
-
@kateransom8500 Dubay wasn’t in contact with Joe, from my understanding, neither Neil nor Dubay was asked beforehand, Joe was probably just so high he assumed they’d do it. The truth is though, Dubay has been called to countless debates now…he’s accepted none of them so far. So while your bias has you focused on Neil, you’re failing to turn that lens around on Dubay, and failing to realize that he didn’t agree to any debate either, nor has he ever debated.
So why don’t you ask Dubay why he doesn’t debate? People have been trying for years to get him into a debate…if he’s so ready to debate, then why does he turn them all down? Neil, on the other hand, is very clear that he does not do debates, they are of no interest to him. Why should he be forced to do something he has no interest in?
3
-
@SuperMic00 Nope, best you’ve done is argued that ONE point to a stalemate, but that’s not even your argument is it? You copy and pasted it from somewhere else. Even then, you’ve twisted some information to fit your bias…or at least the person who originally wrote that did. So no, no “goodby ball”, you haven’t done nearly enough to reach that conclusion.
That’s the trouble with Flat Earth…you think if you could just find one hole, the house crumbles, but that’s not how science works my friend. If it did…then none of you would be Flat Earthers, because as I’ve pointed out to you many times now, you don’t even have a working model. Can’t explain lunar eclipses, sunsets, star trails in the South…heck the entire Southern Hemisphere is a problem for you guys. So I mean, maybe look at the dumpster fire that is your own model? You wanna talk about holes in a model…like damn dude, Flat Earth is sinking fast it’s got so many holes.
So nope, fraid you still got nothin.
3
-
3
-
Science isn’t settled by public debates, where a winner is determined by an audience of layman. Most scientists take years to become experts in their chosen field…who in their right mind would ever think that knowledge could be distilled into a single 1 or 2 hour debate? 🤷♂️ Science is settled by evidence that is repeatable, and peer reviewed by other experts, who actually understand what they’re reviewing. Anyone with a silver tongue can go up on stage and dazzle an audience of non experts…it doesn’t mean they’re right, just because they can charm an audience. But sadly…that’s typically how you win a debate, by just being the better speaker. Win the audience, and you win the debate…this can be achieved even if you’re 100% wrong.
Huxters love debates, because they’re deadly aware of this. So they will actively bait scientists and experts into public debates…just so they can roast them, and appear to an audience like the superior intellect, just cause they can bullshit better than someone bogged down with all the boring facts and data. It’s theatre…a show to dazzle idiots, and it’s very effective at conning average people. It’s perfect advertising for them, so it’s win win no matter how the debate goes…either way, they’re getting attention and an audience they wouldn’t be able to garner otherwise, it’s basically free publicity, to help them sell their grift.
For this reason, it’s an unspoken rule of thumb in scientific circles, to never debate layman. If they did not earn a degree, then they did not earn the right to speak amongst experts. It’s a way of filtering out huxters, because most conmen don’t bother to put in the work required to earn academic credentials. Dubay is a perfect example…he’s a yoga teacher, with no scientific background or experience, has probably never stepped foot in a laboratory before, or conducted a true field experiment. So why should anyone take him seriously? 🤷♂️
Neil is wise not to take the bait, it just helps a conman spread bullshit. A celebrity scientist has to be doubly careful, because they can draw an audience in the millions. You better believe a con artist would LOVE to get that kind of attention! Whine all you like, but It’s much smarter to just allow huxters like Dubay to fade away into obscurity, rather than give them what they want…attention.
3
-
@Micscience He has a doctorate of astrophysics, which required he conduct deep research on a subject, and write a thesis paper on that subject…have you written a thesis paper? This requires tremendous effort, earning him the title of scientist. But he chose science communication over research, that’s perfectly fine, we do need more science communicators…doesn’t mean he’s not a scientist. It’s just a waste of time though, to use that platform, to help conmen, by providing them with an audience they couldn’t garner otherwise. It does more damage than good, it just gives them free advertising to spread their bullshit, to far more people. Neil knows this, he understands his status as celebrity paints a target on him to be exploited by people for their gain. So he’s not going to take that bait…and let’s be honest, that’s what comments like yours really are. You’re like the kid on the playground, calling people chicken, to get them to do what you want.
Most flat Earthers have chosen their side already, so what’s a debate going to do? I’ve been debunking Flat Earth for roughly 6 years now, I’ve talked with hundreds of them at great length…it doesn’t matter what I show them, how well I articulate explanations to dispel their misunderstandings, they just refuse to admit they could be wrong. I’ve maybe convinced 2 people at this point, 2 people out of hundreds…that I’m aware of, and it took a lot of effort, but these specific individuals were actually open minded and pleasant…the majority are not. I’ve never met a group of people more close minded, than Flat Earthers. Except religious fundamentalists…which most Flat Earthers also are I might add. You wanna know another common trait they all generally share? None of them are experienced experts in any field relevant to the discussion…I don’t think that’s a coincidence.
“There doesn’t need to be any audience”
Typically debates have audience, what’s the point otherwise? You want him to just sit down and chat with Dubay privately? I’m not sure I understand your point here.
Scientists make their careers by challenging consensus…you think Einstein is famous today because he went with the flow? Heck no, he challenged the work of Newton, and he succeeded…he was not a very popular person when he was just starting out though, but he cared about the truth above all else and the evidence stood for itself. Of course you’re not entirely wrong, there’s a lot of yes men in science, but you’re acting like every single one of them is a yes man, that not a single one of them would notice by now, that the Earth isn’t a globe, if it wasn’t. You’ll always have upstarts in the scientific community, whistleblowers, people not afraid to take criticism. There’s always a Galileo in the mix somewhere…but nobody in academia so far has said a word on this point?
We’re talking millions of scientists and experts, over hundreds of years…you honestly think none of them would notice? Do you honestly think all of them wouldn’t say anything if they did? Why is it only layman saying the Earth is flat? It doesn’t take much to deduce it’s because layman, with zero experience in science, are easily fooled.
We’re putting satellites into orbit today, taking pictures around the clock. Pilots and sailors are successfully navigating the Earth every single day using the globe model as their foundation. But who needs all that…one sunset falsifies Flat Earth, so anyone with a basic understanding of geometry can falsify FE. There is no debate on this topic anymore…I don’t think it’s beneficial to give it any more attention, it would just send the wrong impression to the public, that there is any legitimacy to Flat Earth.
If the problem gets worse, sure, there’s a time to address it…but I’ve been following it closely for years now (it’s a sad hobby, I know), and it’s becoming more and more difficult to find Flat Earthers to engage with. I used to average 30 or more a week…now it’s more like 2-3, maybe. They are dwindling, because the fad is over. No point giving them attention, they’ll fade into obscurity on their own, they’re pretty much there already. Neil is wise not to bend to children on the playground, calling him chicken.
3
-
@koba2322 Yeah, no, that’s not what happened…Neil never agreed to ANY debate, Joe just assumed he would do it, so he penciled him in without asking first. Would you agree to do a debate you were not asked about and agreed too before hand? Probably not…so why should Neil? 🧐 On top of that, Neil has stated many times publicly that he does not do debates, so why should he be forced to do something he has no interest in? 🧐
Science actually has to be VERY careful who it gives an audience too…because unfortunately conmen do exist, and unfortunately debates can be won even if a person is 100% wrong, all they have to be is a better bullshitter/talker…which is typically something a conman is very good at. So science has to be careful, the only person who gains anything here would be Dubay, because he expands his audience to millions of people he couldn’t reach otherwise…it’s free advertising, which is exactly what he wants. Conmen should NEVER be given that kind of audience, it’s smarter to just let them fade and fizzle away on their own, never giving them any further boosts of attention.
As for those “declassified CIA documents claiming the Earth is flat”, that’s not accurate…those were math simplification models for flight dynamics, and they were never classified. A math simplification model is just what it sounds like, mathematicians taking complex equations and finding ways of simplifying them. Best way to do that, remove variables that do not effect what the equations will be used for. In flight dynamics, say a vehicle’s wind resistance, the shape and motion of the Earth do not matter for calculating something like that, so those variables can be removed. This now makes it easier on an engineer, who will use those equations, to help him design the vehicle’s frame. When you do this in these mathematical models, you must let the reader know exactly what variables are being removed…so you’ll get wordings like this in the summary sections “for this model we will be assuming a flat and stationary Earth”. That is an ASSUMED premise, to simplify the math…not a literal statement or a conclusion. But flat Earth doesn’t care, all they see are the words in the order they want them in, that confirms their bias, they could care less about the context. So it becomes classic cherry picking…confirmation bias at its worst.
This is why it’s dangerous to debate with layman…because most layman don’t care about the details, they just care about the simplified conclusion being presented to them. The conclusion Flat Earth sold you was “declassified CIA documents saying the Earth is flat”, and you were happy to believe that…when in reality they were really just math simplification models, that were never classified, and were never meant to be taken literally. Good luck explaining that to an audience of layman though, who have no idea how these kinds of mathematical models work and are written. You’ll get a lot of glazed over faces, that will completely ignore what you’re saying…in favour of the more exciting and interesting, and easy to understand information, being presented by the conman spouting pure bullshit. What’s more interesting, that the CIA hid the Earth’s true shape, or that some egghead mathematicians just wanted some simpler equations to work with for flight dynamics simulations?
That’s why science should be cautious who it debates…if they’re not accredited experts, with actual experience, and real accomplishments under their belt (Eric Dubay has none of these things), then science probably should not be so quick to give them an audience. Do you understand a bit better now? Conmen are constantly trying to bait science into these debates…because it’s free advertising for them. So the scientific community has learned to be cautious.
3
-
Some Molecules of gas are more efficient at trapping heat for longer, labeled as greenhouse gases, those gases are increasing in atmosphere, trapping more heat for longer, causing a warming effect. How exactly does that break thermodynamics laws? 🤷♂️ I mean I assume that’s where you’re going with this, so feel free to explain your point.
Energy is still being shed, so thermodynamics and entropy are still occurring, so no laws broken. But more greenhouse gases in atmosphere means the process takes longer, while the same amount of energy is entering…hence an increase in temperature over time. Some seem to forget that entropy can be slowed…your thermos that keeps your coffee or soup hot is proof of that, just requires an insulating layer, which slows energy transfer. You don’t think our atmosphere can do the same if gases are increased? 🧐
Also, I don’t think anyone ever said Venus’s water left, as water in liquid state, but it can be broken down into its lighter gases, hydrogen and oxygen (due to heat and pressure and natural chemical processes, that would be pretty normal in a runaway greenhouse environment), and certain light gases certainly can be shed over time. Hydrogen escapes our atmosphere pretty often, it’s the lightest gas, so buoyancy force pushes it out to the furthest regions of atmosphere, where it requires much less velocity for an escape velocity.
3
-
@squidly2112 “NO gas can act as an insulator”
So by extension atmosphere according to you is also not an insulator? So you disagree with pretty much all of science that a planets surface temperature is determined by how dense the atmosphere is and what molecules it’s mostly comprised of? So why exactly is Venus scorching hot, while Mars is freezing cold? You don’t think it’s because of the difference in atmospheric density…atmosphere acting as an insulator? 🧐 First I’ve ever heard that atmosphere isn’t an insulator…you’d definitely be a minority in that conclusion.
Ever hear of convection? (Rhetorical question, of course you have) It requires air pressure…atmosphere in large quantity, trapping and transferring thermal energy. I don’t mean trapping it indefinitely, that breaks thermodynamics; what atmosphere does is transfers some thermal energy back to surface, where it would have just been deflected immediately back into space without an atmosphere to absorb it, trap it for a little while longer, and act as an insulator…allowing for convection to occur. Increase gases in atmosphere, and you get a warming effect…it’s pretty simple. It’s why our planet is warm…instead of a frozen wasteland, like Mars…because atmosphere is an insulator.
I think you’re quite confused on the laws of thermodynamics, or at least in how they pertain to atmospheric processes. Gases (like all matter) interact with thermal energy, correct? Meaning even gases can act as an insulator if theres enough of them…that’s what atmosphere does, it insulates our planet. It’s not insulating it indefinitely, heat is still shed constantly…but we do receive a constant source of new energy back into the system every day…from the Sun.
Sorry dude, but I think you’re really overthinking this, muddling thermodynamics a bit, to ram a square peg into a round hole. And you’re burying me in jargon without citations. It’s pretty simple, atmospheric gases do insulate the Earth (that’s pretty much a fact at this point, not an opinion)…an increase of certain molecules to the atmosphere will trap thermal energy for longer, increasing temperature. No laws of thermodynamics are being broken, the energy is still being transferred, it’s just transferring back into the system, causing it to linger for a longer period…that’s how insulation works, it slows the process of entropy, by basically recycling the energy for a bit. If it stopped entropy, then it would break thermodynamics laws…but that’s not what happens. You’re thinking in absolutes for some reason, and confusing what’s actually being said.
3
-
@squidly2112 I’m reading an article on the World Meteorological Organization public website, titled “The Suns Impact on the Earth”, that states; roughly 70 percent of solar radiation from the Sun is absorbed by atmosphere, and 30% is reflected back into space. So according to this article, the atmosphere is not completely transparent to short wave radiation. So if it’s capable of reflecting 30%…why wouldn’t it also be able to reflect it back to surface, causing it to remain for longer, and effect overall temperature?
So who do I believe, a stranger online making empty claims, or the meteorological organization that contradicts what you’re saying, and provides sources for their information?
Sorry man, but your argument is falling short.
3
-
@squidly2112 Okay, so why can’t latency increase temperature? I understand that by itself it can’t, of course, but if a source of energy is present, wouldn’t an increase in an insulating layer have an effect? It only makes sense to me that the longer energy remains in a system, the more it’s being absorbed by atmosphere rather than escaping, increasing temperature. I get your coffee example from earlier, but that is a false equivalence, because the coffee doesn’t have a constant source of new energy, like what the Sun is providing. Place a thermos over a heat source, doesn’t the temperature increase? Now pull it further away, eventually it’s going to reach an equilibrium, where old energy is shed just as quickly as new energy is coming in (like our goldilocks zone). But what happens if I add just a little more to the insulating layer, slowing down the rate at which old energy can be shed, while new energy is still coming in at the same rate…wouldn’t the temperature of the coffee then increase slightly, until a new equilibrium is reached?
3
-
2
-
2
-
@SuperMic00 So we’ve been waiting for days now, for YOU to stay on the original topic, and answer for a lunar eclipse…and somehow I’m the one that’s running in your beady little brain? 🤦♂️ Yes, you can see stars, but it really depends on the amount of sunlight your eye is receiving. Stars aren’t very bright compared to our Sun, so your eyes will adjust to filter light, so they will be very faint, unless you’re blocking the Sunlight somehow. A camera too, a camera adjusts for exposure, making it very difficult to photograph stars in space unless the suns light is being blocked. This is why stars not appear in most images of Earth, a cameras exposure must be lowered greatly to get a clear image of Earth. When exposure is lowered, the much fainter stars are filtered out in the final image…it’s basic photography knowledge.
Now, answer for the Lunar Eclipse…no running now, we’re all waiting.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@michaelcarlson2512 Great, but that does nothing to explain how or why the motion occurred, all you’ve done is stated what occurred in the most basic and obvious surface level observation. Science can’t do much with just knowing WHAT occurred, you will always have more power and control over a system when you understand HOW it works…that’s pretty much the whole point of science in the first place, to dig deeper, and deduce how things work.
To do that, science first has to define some simple terms, like force and density. Forces cause motion, nothing moves without a force. Falling is a motion, that motion occurs free from your powers to control it; fall from a building, there’s nothing you can do to stop that motion, it’s gonna happen. That makes it a physical phenomenon of nature, something that physical reality itself just does. So there’s an undeniable downward acceleration of matter, that motion needs a name so we can all be on the same page when discussing it, they called it gravity. If they can name the upward motion (buoyancy), why can’t they name the downward motion? They absolutely can and they did, it’s called gravity. Since motion and forces are basically the same thing, no motion occurs without a force, it’s then the force of gravity, pretty simple.
Can’t call it density, that’s already a well defined term in science, it can’t be used twice, or equations get confusing. And it’s different all together, it’s not a force, it’s a scaler, a ratio for volume to mass.
Flat Earth science is just trying really hard to deny that falling motion…for no other reason than to cling to what they prefer. They won’t get very far, staying on the surface of things, the job of science is to probe deeper…otherwise we might as well not even bother.
2
-
@michaelcarlson2512 Ah, good, seems you asked me directly what use equations have while I was giving another response. It’s not really all that complicated, math actually makes our jobs easier…and you’re using technology every day that’s thanks to that math. The very device we’re using to have this conversation, is using a binary code system to run the software…which requires some pretty hefty mathematical formulas, to arrange and operate all that code. So…I mean, you should be a lot more grateful really, you’re really taking things for granted. Modern computers simply are not possible, without math equations. That’s a fact, not an opinion.
So it’s just odd that anyone could actually believe today, that equations are not useful or relevant…when you’re holding a device that couldn’t exist without it. It’s pretty arrogant actually.
2
-
@michaelcarlson2512 I think you were maybe familiar with the conclusions of science, yes, but I don’t get the feeling you’ve ever really thought about how those conclusions were reached. Knowledge and understanding are not the same thing, you can know something, without really understanding it…but understanding something is far more important and far more useful, than just knowing. I think for those 30 years you knew what you were told to know, but you’ve still yet to understand how that knowledge was obtained and how it works. Which is why you currently disagree with it, because you still don’t really know much about these things…if you did, then I wouldn’t have to go through these points and explain what you’re misunderstanding. And you are misunderstanding a lot of things…these things you’ve presented so far as “holes” in the science, are not really holes, they are really just your own personal misunderstandings. You’re drawing false conclusions, because you don’t quite understand the science, because you have holes in your current knowledge. I hope I’m helping at least to fill those holes a little, but I can really only do so much. The rest is up to whoever’s receiving the information.
Anyway, so do you feel the current system of navigation is just wrong? Do you honestly think pilots and sailors can navigate the surface, if they don’t actually know for certain the shape and scale of that surface? If this topic truly interests you, then I would challenge you to attempt at navigating somewhere long distance by either sea or air. We can bicker all day about curvature math and physics, but nothing proves dimensions of Earth better than navigating that surface. Knowing the true shape of the Earth is pretty vital knowledge to have, if you want to successfully navigate its surface. So why aren’t more Flat Earthers learning how to navigate? Seems like a pretty obvious and simple way to test something they feel so strongly about. So why not try?
2
-
@michaelcarlson2512 No actually, the horizon does not rise to eye level, that’s a claim flat Earth makes a lot, but I’ve never seen them actually verify it with evidence. I have however seen people test this claim, by actually measuring the horizon with simple tools that can help determine if the claim is true. I currently know of two separate methods for testing this claim. Here’s an example for each.
https://youtu.be/RUr9ymz_nVI?t=139 - leveling rig method, built with household supplies.
https://youtu.be/WVTgP-KpyRc - surveyors theodolite method, easy to purchase, phones today even have theodolite apps.
Our eyes are not very good measuring tools, this claim only really holds up if you never test it. When you actually put it to the test, by measuring horizon to eye level, you’ll actually see that it’s not true, horizon actually does drop from eye level, and at the rate it should given Earth’s scale. So basically a lot of people believed this claim, before actually testing it…which says a lot about the Flat Earth movement actually. Lot of empty claims they expect you to believe without question, it should send up some red flags. So I hope that evidence is helpful.
2
-
@michaelcarlson2512 Actually, it was Ptolemy who started mapping the current globe surface structure, and designed the first working system of navigation, a Greek mathematician and geographer, lived almost 2000 years ago. Before his maps and models, sailors could really only travel known routes, or stick close to the coasts…travel across big oceans like the Atlantic or the Pacific, was almost non existent, because it would get them lost, which did happen a lot when they ever made the attempt. A lot of sailors got lost at sea back then. Nobody is getting lost today…and it’s because we have accurate information about Earth’s surface.
You can learn to navigate at any time, it’s actually pretty simple to learn. Fact is, if Earth was flat, then a system designed for a globe would not work. The fact that it does work, every single day, millions of successful voyages a year, is evidence you really shouldn’t ignore.
Evidence is always paramount, we should never reach a conclusion without evidence, or we risk reaching false conclusions, happens all the time. Flat Earth makes a claim, they should then provide evidence to support it, it’s the burden of proof, and they are no exception to the rule. Horizon does not actually rise to eye level, it actually does drop. By measuring it with tools more precise than your eye, is how you test that.
I’m sorry but, saying evidence isn’t important…is a pretty poor argument. Why is the globe required to provide so much evidence for you, while Flat Earth is not required? Why don’t the same standards of evidence and review apply to flat Earth? That’s not very logical…that does however imply a bias, that you’re more lenient on the position you currently believe, and are doing everything you can currently to confirm it, by ignoring its flaws and placing almost no standards on evidence or burden of proof.
2
-
@Tomsolomon111 I think you should probably look up the definition for a scientific theory sometime, because it’s not the same thing as a regular theory in the layman usage of the word. In science, hypothesis takes the place of theory in the regular use of the word, that being a guess or assumption based from available information. While a scientific theory is the conclusion, reached only after it has been verified through repeated observation and testing. Nothing graduates to the level of a theory in science, until it has been proven with substantial amounts of empirical evidence, even then it also must pass peer review first.
They chose that wording for a very good reason, because we do not know everything and we likely never will, that’s the reality of our situation, we are not omniscient or infallible…though conspiracy theorists would certainly like to think they are. So this means old information always has the potential to change as new information is acquired, so we can’t use rigid wordings that implies our work is ever really finished, a theory is something that can change and expand over time as new information is acquired…hence the reason why they use that word.
Learning is a process, it takes time, we don’t just know everything right out of the gate. Scientists accept that fact and they’re fine with admitting the limitations of their current knowledge.
Real pseudoscience is anything fabricated that can’t actually be applied, because it’s made up nonsense. Electromagnetism is also a theory in science, but you’re currently using it to send and receive your internet data over Wifi…so is the electromagnetic spectrum just pseudoscience because it’s a scientific theory? 🧐 No, clearly it’s not, it’s applied science, we use the theory of electromagnetism in everything from the radio, to the x-ray, your microwave, wifi, your tv remote, etc, etc. Don’t let the word theory fool you into thinking it’s not proven science, that’s just the word they’ve chosen for their conclusions, that allows them room to expand upon the theory as more information is acquired.
I think you need to go back and relearn the basics of science…anyone who thinks scientific theory is the same as a regular theory, clearly didn’t pay much attention in school the first time around. You’re just doing more to tell us all how and why you fall for dumb conspiracies you find online, because you’re currently scientifically illiterate.
2
-
@alienrenders My first instinct will be to consider the possibility, not dismiss it outright and call someone stupid for thinking it could be possible, that we are having a negative effect on the planet. Why shut down the conversation? And why should anyone agree with you, especially when you have no evidence and no scientific credentials, just ad hoc explanations you slot in and THINK are the problem? Is it really any wonder why somebody would question you? 🧐 Seriously I don’t get why you’d be surprised.
Is it really that stupid to question your position? 🧐 From my perspective it seems like you’re not even bothering to consider it, but I’m not about to call you stupid for that, cause it’s possible you’re right and I’m not about to shut down alternative perspectives. But you’re certainly not going to convince me of your position when the evidence is adding up against it…certainly not with “they don’t allow brush burning, that’s why more fires are happening”. Really? EVERY country, state and province just passes the same laws at the same time? 🧐 It’s not just California that’s burning every year…Australia had the worst fire in its history just a couple years ago, Greece as well, the Amazon forest has broken fire records as well, western and central Canada is on fire every year….so what reason do I have to agree with your superficial conclusion?
Here’s the thing, if I’m wrong…then we have what, better environmental policies? Cleaner energy sources that are more renewable? 🧐 Ever been to a larger population centre, like London, Hong Hong, or Bangkok…where the smog is so bad you can’t even see, and air quality so poor it causes people to get sick? Does it really sound so bad to work towards a cleaner energy source so we can at least breath?
If you’re wrong though…then we’re fucked. So not a hard choice for me, I’d rather not ignore it. I hope I’m wrong, but it’s not looking good…when every summer is fires and constant smoke, I’m not going to pretend everything is fine…especially when scientific consensus is unanimous, Earth is warming and we’re the cause. Why should I ignore them exactly…when everything they’ve warned us of is currently happening? 🧐
2
-
@alienrenders Then feel free to share your evidence. In the meantime, here’s a physics professor going over the evidence that directly refutes what you’re saying. https://youtu.be/OWXoRSIxyIU Feel free to check over the sources he shares, it’s all in the description.
Just saying, there’s good reasons to believe this is a very real problem we face, and I’m inclined to agree with them, after roughly 15 years of constant more extreme fires and hazy smoky skies every summer. Whether you like it or not, it’s a discussion we need to have and so it’s gonna happen. Calling people stupid for being concerned about the future, and disagreeing with you, is just arrogant. I’ve researched the issue as well, and I’ve reached the opposite conclusion. Please feel free to share your research, I don’t mind taking a closer look.
2
-
@alienrenders Then it should be pretty simple to share your sources, but if you can’t, then I can really only conclude you don’t actually have any. From the data I’ve seen, average temperature has risen, so who do I believe? The data I have seen, or your claim with no sources to support it? Also, saying you refuted that video does nothing for me, what actual counter evidence do you have that refutes his sources? Evidence, do you have any? In what world do you live in where empty claims equal facts? 🧐
I’ll do a search for this claim of yours, but I shouldn’t have too…it’s your claim, so burden of proof is yours. Shouldn’t be difficult to share a source.
2
-
@alienrenders Yes, you’re right, I will try to debunk it…because that’s how science works, through falsification. If I can’t refute it, then THAT is most likely the truest conclusion. If you only set out to prove a position, then you’re far more likely to fall into confirmation bias. The best way to remain objective, is to take evidence and then do everything you can to falsify it…..that’s how peer review has worked since it was added to the scientific method. The information that can’t be falsified, is the best and most likely conclusion.
But my main point is pretty simple…you’re making claims and expecting me to agree that they’re established facts, without sharing anything that I can review, that helps support your claim. This whole “do your own research” argument is just a smoke screen…the moment I hear that, is the moment I know someone really doesn’t have an argument, just empty claims and a delusion that they’re an expert.
A real expert has no problem sharing sources……in fact it’s required of them, or they have no argument. When did that change? 🤷♂️
2
-
2
-
Your facts are a bit off. James Van Allen and his team discovered the Earth’s radiation belt in 1958, a whole decade before the first successful Lunar mission. It’s always existed, and we’ve known about it for a long time, but you’re mistaken in just how harmful it really is, it’s not as harmful as you think. We can pass through the belt just fine, it only becomes dangerous over long exposure, over several weeks of remaining inside it…hence why the ISS remains in LEO, because those scientists remain in space for long periods of time. The Lunar missions passed through it in just a few hours, not nearly enough time to cause any serious negative effects.
It’s our technology that has to worry more, especially today’s tech, which is ran by small microchips and magnetic hardware. Back then, everything was analog, which doesn’t get nearly as damaged in radiation/magnetic fields. But analog systems are limited in what they’re capable of, so we spent a lot of time figuring out how to get our more advanced but more sensitive technologies to work, in deeper space. What do you think the ISS does primarily? It’s basically a laboratory, that tests things in the environment of space.
So now today we have upgraded that technology so it can handle the belt better. And so they are going back to the Moon now, new missions are planned for as early as 2024, just look up the Artemis program sometime.
If you had a base understanding of physics, you’d understand the globe model a bit more. It’s not as complicated as you think. Occam’s Razor is really more of a guiding philosophy, not so much an absolute principle for truth. But the heliocentric model is actually simpler than any other model, it accounts for every observation with relative ease. Take a sunset for example, the globe accounts for this simple daily occurrence with no trouble at all. Earth’s rotation causes the Sun to be blocked by the surface periodically, explanation over. But on a flat Earth, how exactly does the Sun set, if line of sight is never blocked? Geometrically it makes no sense, so a lot of further explanation is required to even get a basic explanation for the simple phenomena of a sunset. If we apply Occams Razor here, the Globe is far simpler.
But just because something is simpler, doesn’t make it necessarily true. Occams Razor is just something to keep in mind, it shouldn’t be taken as an absolute truth.
2
-
@whataworld369 1) It’s not been solved yet, doesn’t mean it can’t. Science and mathematics don’t typically like to think in absolutes like that. There actually has been progress lately in solving it, so I guess just be patient. But again, it only really applies to three bodies of equal mass, that orbit each other. There’s really no examples of that in our solar system, so the 3 body problem can be ignored in our solar system, for the most part.
2) Well I’ve never seen Venus (and certainly not Mercury) in the middle of the night…wouldn’t we see Venus all night if Earth was Flat? All I’m saying is, have you bothered to try modelling this? You might be surprised to find the data and observation does fit the model. Fact is, there is a period of time in the night where you can’t see Venus or Mercury…the other planets don’t have that problem…you don’t think that’s actually more of an evidence for the heliocentric model? I get being skeptical…but you don’t seem to be as skeptical to the Flat Earth. Why can’t you see Mercury or Venus all night like we do the other planets? I’d say it’s more a problem for Flat Earth…not the other way around.
3) Gladly, there’s actually plenty of great experiments of this online. Do a quick search on Utube for “shrinking umbra”, should be the top video, with a coin on a stick. Pretty clear demonstration of the umbra shrinking, easy to repeat. There are two parts to a shadow, umbra and penumbra, the umbra can be shrunk, by distance and size of the light source. The 70 mile shadow is the umbra of the Moons shadow, but there is a penumbra and it is thousands of miles wide.
2
-
Well that one is just mathematics. At a microscopic level, even a cueball has varying elevations. Hills, valleys, trenches, etc. They can measure these varying elevations to find some averages, then you just mathematically scale things up, to the size of Earth. If the hills and trenches are higher and lower on the cue ball, than the highest mountains and deepest trenches here on Earth, then you can conclude the topography of Earth is smoother.
I’m skeptical though, there’s a bit more nuance there he’s not touching on, it’s not just how high the peaks and valleys are, it’s how spaced out they are, and how grouped they are. Our surface goes from a steady 3 miles average deep oceans, to a sudden spike in elevation at every continents coast, especially at coasts with a mountain range. So I think you’d feel that sudden shift from one layer of fairly constant elevation, to another, they’d feel like layers. Though I haven’t done the math on that, so I really wouldn’t know for sure, but I’m skeptical. Neil does say some dumb shit sometimes.
2
-
@valherustinger7848 So Dubay says perspective, shows you someone zooming into a ship, then you stop questioning? 🧐 Why so easy to get you to stop questioning? What he demonstrated was an effect called the vanishing point, this is caused by perspective, it’s just your eyes optical resolution limit….but the part Dubay left out is that this can and does occur before horizon. Once something has actually gone over horizon, no zoom lens in the world will bring them back https://youtu.be/NKQI18jr8Oc. He also fails to mention that perspective converges inward from all angles equally to cause the vanishing point, it doesn’t pick and choose what to make disappear first. So why do things disappear bottom first? Perspective doesn’t really account for this…nor does it account for the dropping from eye level https://youtu.be/MoK2BKj7QYk.
So had you questioned Dubay a bit further, maybe you’d have realized he wasn’t being entirely honest about his perspective argument. It’s more like a sleight of hand trick than anything. It’s a pretty simple trick, he brought a boat back from vanishing point, then told you it was being brought back from horizon…when in truth it hadn’t really reached horizon yet. See how the trick works? He made a claim that it was horizon…but that doesn’t mean it was, it’s just a claim he expected you to believe without question.
Then you claim to have “topped your physics class”, yet you don’t seem to understand that gravity’s output depends on the amount of mass you have…and you wonder why it can’t be scaled down? 🧐 Not sure how you topped physics, if you couldn’t figure that out. Do you think…models in math and science have to be 100% scalable, in order to be true? Where did you get that notion? 🤷♂️ Can you scale an atom up, and recreate it to a level where you can see it and interact with it better? No…of course not…does that change the fact that the periodic table works when applied in chemistry? 🧐
We can’t recreate gravity sticking to a ball at our scale…cause we’d have to break physics to do that. Gravity doesn’t work that way. Plus, even if we could, we’re standing on a source of great gravitational attraction, so any water you pour on that ball is just going to be drawn to the greater force of gravity….if you were to create a source of gravity greater than Earth, while on Earth…they would effectively tear each other apart.
You’re not kidding when you said you don’t understand gravity…..it’s a wonder how you topped your physics class. 😅 Lets go with an easy one, if you feel you’re so good at physics. Explain conservation of momentum and relative motion in as simple of terms as you can. It’s an easy one, the laws of motion are one of the first things you learn in physics, and this knowledge is pretty relevant to this discussion and many of the arguments Flat Earth makes.
Also, what math have you been using to test curvature? Cause my math works out just fine.
They destroyed some of the older tech, because it was too unsafe to use again and too costly to continue storing, so why not just scrap it? Saves a lot of money. But they did preserve a lot of it in many different museums, why would you think they didn’t? 🤷♂️ That one NASA astronaut that said he’d “go back in a heart beat had they not destroyed the technology”, probably could have chose his words better, but his point was more that they didn’t currently have any NEW and WORKING lunar modules available (at the time), to make a new trip with.
But now they do…are you aware that they are going back to the Moon? Look up the Artemis project sometime, new missions are scheduled for as early as 2024.
Idk, from where I’m standing…it’s pretty simple to see how Dubay convinced you the Earth is flat, it doesn’t seem like you even made an attempt to question him and his claims.
2
-
2
-
@saltysergeant4284 Well, I’ve actually tracked and spotted satellites by telescope, and they’re moving far to fast and far to consistently to be balloons in atmosphere. Weather balloons do not have the aerodynamics, or the capability to traverse the sky as fast as they do. So no, you are reaching a biased conclusion on that one I’d say. Just because NASA does launch weather balloons still today, in no way falsifies satellites I’m afraid.
There’s other problems with that conclusion as well, but really, the documented speeds from tracking these objects...is just not plausible. The ISS makes roughly 16 complete orbits of Earth in a single 24 hour period...you really think these balloons are traversing at speeds greater than any known aircraft in existence? A satellite can easily do that, there’s no atmosphere where they are, so no drag force, means no burning up. Rocket propulsion in a place with zero drag force, can easily climb the velocity to an orbital velocity over time.
No, you’re really reaching on that one I’m afraid and not thinking it through very well. They would need a network of balloons to pull off the scam you’re claiming...thousands of balloons, that would constantly need to be replaced and maintained around the clock...and even if they could, it would not account for what we observe in reality. Balloons simply do not have the capability of flying as fast as they’re observed to be moving. Amateur astronomers track these objects all the time....you really think they wouldn’t spot anything fishy?
You do realize I’ve been researching this for 4 years right? You really think I’ve never heard this claim before, or debunked it? I thought we weren’t going to patronize each other.
2
-
2
-
@saltysergeant4284 We do see different stars, they’re called the seasonal stars...and you even know many of the constellation names, they are the zodiac constellations. That is basic astronomy knowledge. The stars we see all year round are the circumpolar stars. Earth is a sphere, that’s 3 dimensional, so you have to think in 3 dimensions here. The poles are not facing the Sun, so it’s logical then understand they would never be blocked by the Sun...hence why we see them all year round. The stars along the ecliptic though...different story, they’re periodically blocked by the Sun. Which is true...you can confirm that on any clear night, just get a list of the seasonal stars, then try and find the ones currently out of season.
If you want to talk stars though, don’t forget the Southern Hemisphere stars...you are aware they exist right? Why can’t the North see these stars and vice versa? Makes sense on a globe...doesn’t make a whole lot of sense on a flat Earth, with only ONE sky.
2
-
@Murphy_Gaspard Yes, of course they lie to us about a great many things, nobody would argue they don’t…but they can’t lie about everything, it actually takes more truth to tell a lie than people realize, and this is just far too big for them to keep hidden from 8 billion other people. I don’t think you quite understand how many industries rely on accurate information of Earth’s shape, in order to function at all…it’s very important information to have.
You’re giving governments far too much credit; they can barely hide their mistresses, you really think they could successfully hide something as crucial to science, as Earth’s basic shape? Think of all the country’s in the world currently at war with each other or that consider themselves enemies…yet they all keep this one secret without spilling the beans? It’s very far from plausible.
Though it’s a bit irrelevant, like I said, you don’t require government to verify for yourself the Earth’s true shape. Speculations certainly shouldn’t lead your conclusions, evidence should.
2
-
@Murphy_Gaspard The problem I have with the whole “NASA is faking everything” camp, is it’s mostly speculations and misunderstandings…not a whole lot of actual evidence. Was it a bubble in a pool, or just ice debris from the ship? Are rockets being launched into the ocean, or are they shot at a trajectory that can put them into an orbit? Was calling Nixon from the Moon impossible, or do people just not know much about patching a radio feed through a phone line?
At the end of the day, both sides can really only speculate…and that’s all I ever see in those “fake space” documentaries on YouTube, endless speculations, not a whole lot of solid evidence. And when they’re not speculating, they’re misunderstanding physics, or making false assumptions on the engineering of the technology.
I once watched one trying to make the claim that the old Gemini space suits couldn’t swivel the heads. They cut footage from a bunch of various clips, all showing zero swivel. So on the surface it seems like a legit claim…until you dig a little deeper, and find the original footage. Watching the original footage, you notice they conveniently cut the clips, before you see the heads swivel. Why would they edit that out, than for any other reason but to deceive you?
So I’ve actually noticed the opposite from these “fake space” docs; they sure are trying hard to lead you towards the conclusions they’ve decided are accurate, while discouraging any other plausible explanations, and cutting out anything that could cause you to question what they’re claiming.
So who’s really lying? From what I’ve seen, it’s the people cutting together those documentaries. That’s why I try to tell people, don’t just nod and agree to everything these videos show you blindly and without question, challenge them just as thoroughly as you challenge the mainstream information…you might be surprised to learn who’s really being deceitful.
But it’s pretty irrelevant to the topic of Flat Earth I feel. Why focus on something you can only speculate on, rather than test and make observations on the surface of the Earth we all live on? None of us will likely get to space in our lifetimes, so there’s very little we can verify first hand on that front, we can really only speculate. But you don’t have to speculate when it comes to the Earth…you can test it yourself. No government can stop you from making observations on the Earth we all inhabit. So why not focus on the evidence we can actually verify first hand?
2
-
From what I understand on the issue is that Joe pencilled them both in for a debate, before asking either of them. So Neil didn’t back out of anything, he had no idea there was even a debate to begin with. Would you agree to a debate you weren’t asked about in advance? Probably not…so why should he? Neil has made it pretty publicly clear that he does not do debates, so why would should he be forced too do something he’s not interested in? The bullying is actually from Flat Earth…like kids on a playground calling him chicken from a distance, just trying to bait him into doing something he has no interest in doing. It’s a vane attempt to force your will upon him…not much more.
To add to that though, you know Dubay has been called to thousand of debates, by many experts and layman alike…he has so far accepted ZERO calls to debate. Unless you’re aware of any he has partaken in, I am currently not aware of any…and it’s not from lack of trying. So what’s he so afraid of? 🧐
It shouldn’t matter, if he’s not interested in debates, he shouldn’t be forced too do them either.
Debates are a public spectacle…but science doesn’t actually settle anything in single public debates, because debates can be won even if you’re 100% wrong…all you gotta do is be the better bullshitter. So that’s not very productive, in fact it’s quite counter productive, because it gives huxters and pseudo intellectuals an advantage…in an arena they typically wouldn’t have any say in, because huxters typically don’t bother with acquiring credentials. In science it’s left to the evidence, as it should be. Peer review is a form of long form debate, but it’s not public, only accredited experts are allowed to review, and it’s not done in a single televised event like a boxing match. Peer review can take years and typically requires multiple expert opinions…not just two individuals squaring off.
Unfortunately huxters do exist, and a tactic they’ve been employing for centuries now is to bait experts into public debates, by essentially calling them chickens. So scientists are actually pretty careful who they interact with, because they’re very aware of this. The huxters have everything to gain by baiting a celebrity scientist like Neil…they essentially gain an audience they wouldn’t otherwise be able to garner themselves. Which gives them free advertising to sell their grift.
If you think grifters don’t exist…then you are extremely naive. What damage can it do? Plenty…it can poison the well of information. It’s far smarter to just ignore them, and let them fizzle out from lack of attention. Giving them a free platform where they can spread potential misinformation…not very smart. If they want a debate, they’ll have to earn it…that starts by earning the credentials. Dubay is a Yoga teacher who’s probably never conducted field research or stepped foot in a science lab before…he certainly has not earned any right to speak amongst experts.
2
-
@pauldooris539 No, the Michelson Morley experiment was not an experiment to test Earth’s motion, it was an experiment to test and hopefully detect and measure the Aether. It did not succeed. Its conclusion was deemed as inconclusive, both in the hypothesis and the null hypothesis. If you form a conclusion from an inconclusive result, then you are doing so out of bias.
The Aether was widely hypothesized during that time, but has never been detected, measured, or proven in any capacity. So how exactly does something that does not likely exist…prove the Earth is not in motion? 🤷♂️
Foucault pendulum does successfully detect and measure Earth rotation, as does the lesser known Foucault Gyroscope experiment, which is actually used today in a device known as the gyrocompass…a device used aboard most modern sea vessels today, that actually uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function. You can look up the engineering specs for the gyrocompass at any time, they usually explain pretty clearly how they work.
Einstein was talking about optical experiments as in experiments using light…which is what the Michelson Morley experiment was using, light in an interferometer. But you should find the rest of that quote, because it goes on to address that Earth is in motion. And he was proven wrong on that first statement (about the optical experiment unable to detect Earth motion) years later, with the Sagnac experiments, which have since been used to detect Earth’s rotational motion.
So your information is a bit twisted…tends to happen when you get all your information from huxters. This is exactly why scientists have to be wary of who they debate with…cause some within the general public are easily misled by cleverly crafted misinformation. Conmen know this, and so do scientists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@amcclenny6 I’m also curious, I’ve yet to come across any flat Earther, with scientific credentials. There’s always a lot of claims made that many are scientists, mathematicians, engineers, etc, but I’ve yet to have that claim confirmed. In 6 years of chatting with Flat Earthers on a pretty regular basis in my spare time, you’d think I’d meet or hear about at least one by now…but so far, nothing. So if you are aware of any, I’d be happy to learn of them.
More towards your first comment though, you do touch on the one thing I do admire about Flat Earthers. They’re not afraid to ask questions, and that’s great! That’s how discoveries are made, questions are how we learn, and how we move forward in science. When questions stop being asked, we tend to stagnate. But the problem I see is that questions are often used as more of a weapon, rather than asking the questions to seek an answer for them, they are instead held up as the evidence. Questions alone are not evidence though…flat Earth asks a lot of questions, but they sure don’t try very hard at answering them. That’s the trouble…the questions are assumed unanswerable and then they are held up as the foundation for arguments. Then whatever answers are provided, are simply ignored, in many cases.
It’s sad in some instances, because many of the questions are great physics questions! They’re often the very same types of questions that great scientists of old would have once asked. So it’s a bit conflicting for me, because I’m all for asking such great questions of science! But…when the true intention for asking those questions is not to learn, or too really disprove, but to smoke screen, blind side, or gaslight an opposition…then it’s just a waste of a good question.
Flat Earth I feel suffers from both an inferiority complex and confirmation bias. It’s a bad combination…because it keeps an individual sifting through information with blinders on, while at the same time making them to stubborn and sure of themselves, to listen to any counter positions or questioning of their conclusions. Science learned a long time ago that confirmation bias was a real problem, and it realized that we all tend to fall victim too it. The only real way to combat it…first admit that you’re not infallible, that everyone has bias…it’s why they eventually included peer review to the scientific method. Flat Earthers adhere to no system of peer review…they just assume themselves infallible. It’s pretty typical of minds thinking themselves superior, with a deep desire to prove that they are…an inferiority complex.
Anyway, it’s a point of contention for me, because on one hand I would certainly never want to rob people of their drive to ask questions. But…confirmation bias is very real, and I am seeing a lot of it in the conclusions of Flat Earthers. So that’s why these conversations are important I feel, it’s not always easy to know for sure which side is really falling into the pitfalls of confirmation bias, but open civil discussion is a great way to examine things a little closer, in way it’s a form of public peer review, that I think Flat Earth desperately needs.
1
-
1
-
@bane3991 The trouble is that conmen do exist, and they understand that you don’t have to win a debate to push pseudoscience and bullshit, you just have to get yourself an audience. Debating a celebrity scientist like Tyson, is damn good publicity, and it’s basically free advertising. So scientists, especially celebrity scientists, actually have to be careful not to be baited by potential conmen.
They have a sort of unspoken policy for that reason, where debates should only occur between other accredited professionals, people who have earned the right to debate science, by earning a degree in science, and having years of actual field/lab experience, in their chosen field. Debating science with layman is greatly frowned upon actually…and Dubay is no scientist, he’s just a Yoga teacher on a beach somewhere, who learned the tricks of hypnotic suggestion, and raps about his love of Hitler.
Tyson could probably easily win a debate with him, if he prepped enough to know his opponents arguments (and yes, he would have too prep first, because flat Earthers do fabricate their own science, so it’s not always clear what they’re talking about) but Dubay’s goal wouldn’t be to win the discussion, he wins just by obtaining the free exposure…he’s already won just by getting the millions of listeners he couldn’t achieve otherwise. Don’t have to convince everyone, just a few…that’s all a conman needs. For that reason, scientists must be very careful who they engage with.
1
-
Gravity…there, that wasn’t so hard. Gravity contains our atmosphere, just as it contains you and me to the surface. Gas has mass, so it’s not free from gravity, nothing with mass is. We know this, because we measure a pressure gradient, going from most pressure at surface to least pressure at higher altitudes, which is exactly what we’d expect to measure, with gravity. It’s the same reason the ocean pressure increases as you go deeper, because the weight from all the water above, is pressing down on the water below…because of gravity, which creates a pressure gradient. With no other forces of attraction present in space around Earth, everything is drawn to the only force that is present, the gravity of Earth.
“Most intelligent scientist”…what are you talking about though? 🤷♂️ Intelligence is a spectrum…there’s really no such thing as a singular individual who knows everything and is good at understanding everything. You ask a biologist or a zoologist questions about the atmosphere…and odds are pretty good they’re not going to know much about it, it’s not their field of expertise. Ask an astrophysicist, or a meteorologist, and they would know, that’s part of their field of study. So what kind of scientist was it, and where exactly are you getting this from? 🤷♂️ If there’s one thing that’s prevalent amongst Flat Earthers, you all sure love to lie a lot…so pretty hard to take you at your word. Got a video link or something that backs up what you’re claiming?
Some people have this strange notion, that anyone with the title of scientist, knows everything or claims too…which is a pretty damn stupid assumption.
1
-
@hellothere3250 No, idiots deny gravity, while providing zero falsification against any of the evidence that verifies it, all so they can confirm a bias belief they developed, from being conned by huxters online, who exploited your lack of basic scientific knowledge. Denial is not an argument, it’s just plain ol’ ignorance. :/
Where’d you get this conclusion you require 6 feet of concrete to pass through the belts? 🤷♂️ In reality, the Van Allen Belt really isn’t as harmful as you assume it is, so long as you don’t spend too much time inside it, as in several days. Astronauts on each Apollo mission were only exposed to the belts for a few hours, receiving the same dose of radiation you’d receive from a few x-rays. It’s not ideal, but it’s not going to kill you either. You can also navigate around it…it’s a belt, so an orbital trajectory can be plotted around it. Today, it’s actually more harmful towards our small microchips and micro processors, which is why they hadn’t built any modern lunar modules (until recently, look up the Artemis mission sometime), because this presented an engineering hurtle, getting our modern technology to function without failure, in deeper space. The old modules were analog systems, which don’t have to worry about electromagnetic fields…but they’re very limited in what they can do. People have this odd misconception, that newer means better…in reality, there’s often pros and cons to new technology. For example, a land line is far more stable of a phone connection, but it can’t connect to you on the go, but cellular signals are less stable. So there’s pros and cons for each, newer does not imply better in every application.
The tiny microwave receiver on your phone can’t pick up on faint electromagnetic frequencies that become more and more spread out and dispersed by distance because of the inverse square law, but a massive network of receiver dishes sure can…like the radio telescope receiver dishes NASA has had for decades. Electromagnetic frequencies travel indefinitely, they don’t stop, they just get weaker but never do they reach absolute 0 frequency. So if you have a strong enough receiver dish, you can pick up on electromagnetic signals from pretty much any distance…unless the signal is obstructed by something physical, which is the other problem your cell phone faces, Earth curvature, hills, buildings, physical obstructions.
You have questions…but questions are not evidence, no matter how many you have. You live in the information age, you could find answers for these questions at any time, but you won’t, because you’d rather argue from ignorance. It’s much easier to assume your conclusions, when you don’t have the pesky facts getting in the way of whatever you choose to believe. It’s fine to ask questions…but have you tried actually answering them, instead of holding them up as your evidence? Learn the difference between questions and evidence, please…they are not the same thing, and that should be pretty common sense. You people want to believe you’re the first people to ever ask these kinds of questions…sorry to burst that bubble, but they’re pretty standard questions most scientists and other experts ask, when learning this stuff for the first time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RandomVideos-kn3pf Funny you should say that, I’m actually an artist for a living…been studying perspective art fundamentals for a very long time now. Flat Earthers butcher perspective to make it work for them, ignoring many of the fundamentals of perspective. Wanna learn something about perspective? When something is physically above your eye level, it can not go below it due to perspective alone. It can appear to converge at eye level (eventually reaching a vanishing point), but never will it go below it. The sun dips well below horizon when it sets, we’ve all seen it do this, so perspective does not account for what we observe in reality with a sunset.
Another problem you have is that perspective causes an object to appear like it’s shrinking in angular size the further away it gets. The Sun does not do this, observe it throughout a full day with a solar filter lens, you’ll notice it maintains the exact same size throughout a full day.
So perspective does not account for a sunset…a curvature does. Please don’t just slot in ad hoc solutions without really thinking them through first. Perspective has pretty simple rules, so if a sunset isn’t checking all those boxes, then it’s simply not the answer. Don’t allow a desire to win an argument, keep you from remaining objective.
1
-
Water is inert, and will conform to whatever force is acting upon it. Gravity is understood to attract everything towards centre of Earth, creating a field of force emanating out from that centre, that forms Earth into a sphere, and puts any all fluid at equipotential distance from that centre. From our tiny perspective, it’s almost impossible to tell, because we see curvature in terms of degrees, and it takes 69 miles for Earth to arc 1 degree…how many degrees you think are in 3 miles? Which is the average distance to horizon at 6 foot viewing height.
Your argument is ignorant of both gravity physics, and basic geometry and perspective. So how can anyone think ignorance is an argument? It’s also ignorant of the fact that we have long since measured and surveyed the entire Earth…to the point where we now have an entire system of navigation, built around that knowledge. You honestly think every pilot and sailor in the world can do their jobs, with perfect pin point accuracy, if they don’t know the shape and scale of the surface they’re navigating? 🧐 You’d have to be pretty dumb and incredibly ignorant of navigation and geometry, to believe they could.
So here’s what we know; Earth is measured spherical, that’s a fact not an opinion, and we do observe an attraction to surface from all matter…drop something, it will fall. That attraction is observed everywhere on Earth, doesn’t matter where you are, it works the same. So it’s pretty simple deduction after that…there is a force present on Earth, that attracts everything to surface…we just gave it a name, cause it sure makes it easier to discuss something when we all know what’s being discussed.
Water flows from high elevation to low elevation. You wanna know how elevation works on a sphere? The closer to centre you are, the lower your elevation, the further from centre you are, the higher your elevation…..pretty basic geodesic geometry. Our oceans are at equipotential distance from centre of gravity, meaning all points at equal distance from centre, at the same LEVEL from centre…hence the term sea level. The oceans are at lowest possible elevation, as close to centre as the crust will allow. Rivers start at mountain peaks, at much higher elevations…they are further from centre. Everything is drawn to centre, so water flows from high elevations (further from centre) to lowest possible elevation (sea level, closer to centre).
I know you likely won’t understand any of this…Flat Earthers have a real problem with basic physics and geometry….then they call everyone else stupid. Oh the irony.😅 But I hope it helps anyway. You’re reaching a false conclusion from a very limited understanding of things. It’s not a falsification of gravity or the Earth’s measured shape, it basically just boils down too “it looks flat, therefore it is”…boy, if only science could be so basic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peteoverton6069 I gave you two points that are both observable in reality, that can both be verified by anyone. Navigation, and gravity. So first, learn how to navigate. You learn pretty quickly what shape the Earth is, and why it’s vitally important in navigation to know for certain the shape and scale of the surface you’re navigating…or else it simply will not work. No better way to verify the spherical Earth for yourself, the entire system of navigation we currently have today, is built from that geometry…that’s not just a coincidence.
Then drop something, does it fall? Yes, it does. Is that falling a motion? Yes, it is. Does any change in state of motion occur without a force to cause it? No, nothing is put into motion without a force…that’s pretty basic physics. If you think that statement is wrong, provide me with any examples where something went from stationary to moving, without applying a force too it. So a force is present that attracts everything to surface…including water.
Here’s another quick proof of gravity; I’m sure you understand how a scale works, you press down upon a scale, applying a force, which creates pressure, that the scale then interprets as a weight value. Okay, so if a solid mass is just resting on a scale, but it’s reading a weight value…how exactly is it pressing down to create that pressure, if there’s no force present? 🧐 Ponder that as long as you like.
So it’s not difficult at that point. You verify both of those principles of reality for yourself, becomes pretty damn hard to conclude the Earth is flat after that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peteoverton6069 Well ya…that’s how the process of falsification works, that’s how science works. We find as many errors as we can, until we can’t any longer, the explanation that fits all observations and stands up to all falsification, is the model of reality we conclude, until further information can be obtained. That’s peer review in a nutshell, a very important step in the scientific method. Falsification never ends really, that’s the reality of information gathering, old information always has the potential to change, as new information is acquired….why do you think science chose the word ‘theory’ for their top conclusions? It’s how we remain objective…science is a process of falsification, not proving. Pretty much everyone in science today agrees with that methodology.
So if you can’t provide explanation or evidence, it’s likely because you don’t actually have any, you just chose to believe what you currently do on faith alone. Not much else I can conclude until an actual rebuttal is provided.
Let me answer your question with another question; what would happen to your model if gravity was a reality? 🧐 Simple…it wouldn’t work, just like the globe wouldn’t make much sense without gravity. But that’s not a valid falsification…it does absolutely nothing to test, or verify, or falsify gravity, it’s just a logical fallacy, a red herring, among others.
1
-
1
-
@peteoverton6069 Well, you first have to understand what’s implied by a force in physics. A force is anything that causes a change in state of motion for a mass. So when you drop something, it falls, that is a change in motion…so this implies a force is present to cause that motion. That’s how force’s are defined in physics. That’s the simplest way to put it. The trouble with your model, is that density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, it’s just how much mass occupies a certain volume. It is a scaler variable in mathematics…has no means to cause motion in matter on its own. A mathematical formula for any physical phenomenon requires at least one force variable and one scaler variable. The simplest equation to help anyone understand this, is probably the formula for weight; W=mg, which translates too ‘weight is equal to mass times the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2)’. Mass is already there, so that’s the scaler variable…mass is basically the same thing as density (in this case), so why would we put it into the formula twice? 🤷♂️ There’s no motion, no vector…so how do we calculate weight from W=md? We can’t, the formula is now redundant. It needs a force…something that can put the mass in motion at a rate of travel, in a specific vector. Gravity does that.
Your model is really just taking established gravity physics, and chopping out the word gravity…that’s all you’re really doing. Density is already included as part of gravity physics, what you’re basically describing is buoyancy force…density displacement. What you’re not aware of currently is that gravity actually causes buoyancy, that’s why it’s included as a variable in the equation for buoyancy force; Fb=Vpg. It works like this; gravity effects all mass equally, that’s why everything falls at the same exact rate (9.8m/s^2) but the more mass a molecule/molecules has/have, the more gravity is acting on all that inertia. So more mass in a smaller volume, means more density, more dense matter will occupy lowest position closest to gravity first, because molecules of various types do not mix well, they repel each other, and the greater mass occupies lowest potential energy state first, closest to gravity. An object with more mass, has more inertia, so it requires more repelling force from molecules to push them out of the way, while less dense molecules are easily pushed out of the way of more dense molecules.
So let’s remove gravity for a moment now, now what happens if there’s no force present to start any motions? Well, everything will just float in place, it will be chaos, no ordering of anything by its density, it would be a mixed system of various molecules, scattered all about. But now add a force that can interact with every molecule, and put it into motion in a specific direction, suddenly you have something that can order everything by density. Most dense matter will occupy lowest position first, which pushes less dense matter up…causing buoyancy. This gives order to the system, now everything can order itself, from most dense, to least dense.
So you see gravity actually causes density displacement and density ordering, which causes buoyancy…in fact it’s what gives everything in existence more order.
This stuff is already included in gravity physics…you’re not stating anything new, you’re just trying really hard to recreate the physics, without using gravity anywhere in the model. But it all falls apart without it…it’s the missing piece of your puzzle. You described it as “the density gives it weight” but that still doesn’t answer for the motion. In a small way, you are a little correct though, Einstein gave us general relativity, which stated that an objects mass curves the space and time around it, which causes gravity. So in a way, yes, it is density, density causes gravity….so you’re basically, again, just describing gravity, without saying gravity.
None of this is new…it’s new to YOU, because I don’t think you’ve ever really studied modern physics before. That’s the problem I have with flat Earth…you’ve rejected modern science, out of distrust…but now you’re just reaching the same conclusions, but with chunks missing…because you refuse to accept that modern science could be right. It’s like a cried Wolf situation…they’re right, but you don’t trust them, so psychologically can’t accept that they’re probably right.
I commend the effort…science is about falsification after all, and no better way to find the holes in a theory, than to start from scratch and see if anything was missed or overlooked, but confirmation bias is a trap anyone can fall into. So when does it cross a line from falsification, to ramming a square peg into a round hole? 🧐 It’s not always very clear…that’s why we have peer review in the scientific method in the first place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peteoverton6069 It’s pretty simple, a map can’t be created or used, until you have accurate knowledge of the distances, correct? Same is true for the model we currently use for navigation, with lines of latitude and longitude that are equal for two hemispheres, designed for the globe. Can’t navigate the surface, if the measurements of that surface are not accurate…you will get lost, you require an accurate model, before successful navigation is possible. Everybody in navigation uses the same globe system of navigation…and it works. If you think millions of pilots of sailors can navigate with pin point accuracy, without an accurate map….then you’ve got a bit to learn about geometry.
It’s also important to understand, that you can’t interpret 3 dimensions (a sphere) with just 2 dimensions (a flat map). Because you lose a dimension of travel, which means you lose distance. The same is true vice versa, can’t interpret 2 dimensions on a 3 dimensional surface, because you add distance, so distortions are created. So it’s one or the other, can’t be both…the model that works every time it’s used, is the correct model. It’s really that simple.
I’ll give you a great example. The most common map used by flat Earth is the Gleason projection map. It depicts Australia as twice as long East to West, as it is North to South. But in reality, Australia is measured to be equally as long North to South, as East to West…they’re roughly the same distance. The globe model maintains every distance measured, there is no accurate flat map…that’s for a good reason, because the surface is not flat.
So no better way to prove Earth’s shape, just learn how to navigate, then test it yourself.
1
-
@peteoverton6069 We observe Earth to be spherical, so the experiment is Earth itself. We measure it as spherical, we are clearly attracted to its surface everywhere upon that surface, so it’s just logical deduction after that point, Earth generates a force that attracts us to its spherical surface. Whether you understand how gravity works, it can’t be denied that everything is attracted to surface…so does it not exist, simply because you don’t understand it? Reality is under no obligation to make sense to you. Your gripes over gravity don’t falsify the geometry either. You not understanding, agreeing, or accepting gravity…doesn’t change the fact that every pilot and sailor navigates with that model.
As for your experiment. You can’t scale down gravity, it doesn’t work that way, it relies on an objects mass…it requires a LOT of mass, before we get characteristics that are easily observable and comparable to the gravity of Earth. So your experiment is flawed by design, because it’s misunderstanding how gravity works. You also have the problem of controlling for Earth’s gravity during your experiment. When you pour water onto a ball, where does the water go? Towards Earth…right? So how exactly are you supposed to test the gravity of a much smaller mass, when it’s always going to be competing with the much stronger gravity of Earth? You’d have to conduct the experiment in deep space to get away from all other sources of gravity, and good luck with that.
A better experiment is the Cavendish experiment, which tests Newton’s law of universal gravitation, mass attracting mass. Cavendish experiment controls for Earth’s gravity, by cancelling out its downward vector. If you suspend a pendulum in air, it’s still being pulled down of course, but it’s free to be drawn towards other masses in other vectors. That’s a far better way to test mass attraction. This experiment works, and does verify mass attraction…it’s how science first verified gravity. Plenty of recreations of the experiment you can find online, it’s very repeatable science.
1
-
@peteoverton6069 You said there are three major components of the globe model that you claim are false…but then you didn’t share what those were exactly. I’m sorry, I can’t read your mind, so would you mind listing them? I’m sure at this point, I could easily guess, but I’d rather not assume anything, so feel free.
Yes, more mass equals more weight, that’s exactly what gravity physics teaches as well. That’s why the equation for weight is W=mg, weight is equal to mass times downward acceleration of gravity. So where exactly is the problem? Density is just a ratio of mass to volume…so it’s basically just mass. Still not a force though, can’t put matter into motion…and that’s what you’re missing.
Like I said earlier though, in many ways you’re basically describing gravity physics…without using the word gravity. It’s quite odd…would you prefer we name it something else?
More mass equals more molecules being effected by pull of gravity…this means more weight. All matter has inertia, every molecule in fact. Inertia is basically just how much energy is required to cause it to move or be moved. Try and move a grain of rice, it’s very simple, requires no effort and very little energy. But try and move a large bag of rice…far more difficult. Because there’s more mass, so more inertia. The same thing occurs with weight. More mass, means more molecules being attracted downward, means more energy required to pick it up, or move it, means more weight. Gravity creates its weight, mass increases its inertia, see the difference?
So again, density is already a part of gravity physics. You’re basically describing gravity in much of your conclusions.
1
-
@peteoverton6069 Those aren’t flaws, they’re just you stating that they’re flaws, out of incredulity. You have questions sure, but questions are not evidence, nor are they conclusions. They’re great physics questions though, so I don’t mind providing some answers.
As far as we currently know, the Earth was set in motion by gravity, many many eons ago. Mass attracting mass, causing collisions, eventually forming larger clumps of mass, the largest masses creating more gravitational attraction, causing everything to follow them on a similar plane, forcing everything to spiral into a disk, that eventually collapsed inward as gravity attracted everything to the largest mass, which then formed into the stars and planets. The rotation, and the orbits, are the left over momentum, from that forming accretion disk, set in motion by gravity. Since space is largely a vacuum, there’s no air to cause drag, so no opposing force to slow Earrh down or stop it, so Earth is free to rotate indefinitely, because of conservation of angular momentum. The laws of motion, some of the first laws of physics ever realized and the easiest to learn and verify for yourself, with hundreds of easy to reproduce experiments. The first law being the law of inertia, all things in motion stay in motion, until acted upon by an opposing force.
This forming of stars and planets has been simulated, by creating a simulation with simple physical rules similar to our reality, adding physical matter into the system, then providing a single attractive force upon every simulated molecule, the system is then observed to order itself, eventually forming into a spiralling disk, then larger spherical masses. Simulations like this help to verify the plausibility of modern cosmology, but they also verify that gravity is all that’s required to put everything in motion. You see…gravity didn’t just answer for why things fall, when gravity was realized, the mysteries of the cosmos began to fall like dominoes. It explains orbits, rotational motions of celestial bodies, why they form into spheres…it even explains how the Sun burns, by fusion reactions. Which is basically just molecules of hydrogen being forced together by a stars intense gravity, which forms it into helium. That fusion causes a shed of electrons, which releases massive amounts of energy. We recreate this science in fusion reactors today…we can’t use gravity mind you (requires a mass as large as the sun), that’s why it’s so difficult to recreate, we have to force fusion in other ways, but our understanding of gravity led us to that discovery. Anyway…I digress.
Gravity is not centrifugal force…where did you get that from? They may be similar in that they’re both an accelerating force…but that’s about it. And centrifugal force is increased by rate of rotation, water won’t cling to a ball spinning at 100 rpm’s, but what about a ball spinning at 1 rpm? It may drip slowly down to Earth, but it won’t be flung off, that’s for sure, so if you’re gonna claim water can’t cling to a ball because of centrifugal force, the next logical question to follow is; what rate of rotation are we talking about here? What about an Earth rotating at 1 revolution every 24 hours? Does that sound fast to you? It’s exactly two times slower than the hour hand of a clock. You really think Earths rotation would generate much centrifugal force, at such a slow rate of rotation? If you do…then you could research a lot more on rotational motion, cause you’re current assumption is in error.
You have many misconceptions and misunderstandings of physics, that is very clear. Not surprising though, you’re trying to start from scratch without prior knowledge of what came before…so of course you’d misunderstand the globe model and physics, you don’t have a foundational understanding of any of it currently, from what I can tell. I hope this information is helping to fill some gaps though, if at least so you can stop strawmanning and misunderstanding the model you’re attempting to argue against.
1
-
@peteoverton6069 You don’t find the Bible to be a majestic and hopeful tale of fiction? Really? A literal magical being, uses literal magic, to create the Earth and everything on it…I’ve read some fantasy fiction in my day, the lore in many of them sounds a lot like that. Not to mock your beliefs mind you, I have my own spiritual beliefs, but be honest…do you really not see anything about the Bible, that others might consider on the level of fiction?
Everything I’ve mentioned is verifiable, it’s applied science…much of that science we’re both currently using to have this conversation. I find it interesting that people will on one hand claim science is bullshit…while in the other, they’re happy to make use of every marvellous technology science has made possible for them, all while possessing zero understanding of how it works. Actually it’s a bit arrogant to me, if I’m being honest…but mostly sad.
You’ll tell me the globe is a farce…while every pilot and sailor is currently using that knowledge to travel the Earth with precision, bringing you all kinds of imported goods, you couldn’t get otherwise. Am I supposed to ignore a working model of navigation…because your interpretation of a book claims otherwise and asks for me to believe it on faith alone? 🧐 Why exactly would I do that? 🤷♂️ Should we throw away the current system of navigation, even though it’s more than proven to work? Then you’ll tell me gravity is a farce….while we currently use our knowledge of gravity to do everything from predicting a parabolic trajectory (ballistics must keep in mind a projectiles drop rate, acceleration of gravity), calculating a vessel’s weight capacity out at sea before it capsizes (engineers develop ballast tanks with the buoyancy force equation, which has gravity as a variable) to get a plane to fly (weight to thrust ratio), to putting satellites into orbit (orbital mechanics built from gravity physics), to recreating nuclear fusion (understanding the gravitational power of our Sun, taught us how it burns), etc, etc, etc.
You’re arguing against applied science…that’s the problem. The whole point of science is to acquire accurate knowledge of physical reality, so we can then apply it for our benefit. So when do you know when your science is accurate? When it works…it’s really that simple. Your computer wasn’t made by a God, it was made by a man. I understand that for many God created everything, but I don’t think we should ever diminish our accomplishments. Do you realize just how incredible we really are? 1000 years ago we were digging in the dirt, just hoping to get enough food to survive another winter….now we’re lying in cozy beds, in heated homes, with water and electricity at our command, sending messages at the speed of light, over electromagnetic frequencies, to people in other countries around the world! It’s incredible to me how anyone could take that for granted, or fail to realize that WE did all that…with science and our thirst for knowledge. How can anyone think science is wrong, despite how many home runs its hit and continues to blast out of the park!? How could anyone really argue against the results? Are you blind? It’s fine to challenge consensus, fine to ask questions…but come now, be honest, are you asking questions to learn, or just to spite an institution you’ve come to despise, for whatever reason? Do you really have a superior understanding of things, or are you just pretending? Can we navigate with your understanding? Can I rebuild every facet of my computer with your understanding of things, from the silicon and plastics that make up the microchips, to the wifi that uses the electromagnetic spectrum to send and receive internet data, to the binary code that runs the software? If not…can you really claim it’s science that’s got it wrong? 🧐
God still very much has a place in science, most great scientists throughout history in fact (and even still today), are/were theists, not secular. You know Einstein fir example, he was very spiritual, he believed a universe this incredible had to be created by a God, and he felt it was his job to figure out how that creation works. Most scientists have no problem marrying their religious beliefs with science, for many it only helps them admire Gods creation more. It’s never been the role of science to destroy God, nor could it even if that was the goal. It’s just a method of thinking, just another tool in the belt, it has no more agenda than a hammer does. Some may use the hammer for nefarious ends, but it can never really be used against the metaphysical…by definition, it’s only purpose is to determine how things work in the physical world. So if your goal is just to put a bit of dirt in the eye of science, because you fear it’s trying to destroy your spiritual beliefs…I’d say, stop and maybe recognize that as a bias you might have. You’re not gonna achieve much truth through confirmation bias…but where does this fear of science come from? My guess is it’s a fear built from lack of understanding. Perhaps if you understood science more, you wouldn’t be so staunchly opposed to it.
Food for thought. I mean no disrespect towards your beliefs, I just prefer to speak my mind, and be honest.
1
-
@peteoverton6069 Of course it’s not as simple as “it’s all science”, I never said it was. But science is a very large cog in the wheel, and that should never be overlooked or taken for granted. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. Fund scientific research into how to farm fish more productively, you feed an entire nation for centuries. Though you’re correct to say it’s not just science alone that fuels societal growth and progress, it obviously requires every individual doing their part, for any of it to be possible at all, but science is the catalyst, it’s where it all starts. Knowledge is power, and the scientific method is without a doubt the best method for acquiring knowledge of the physical world. All I ask is that people don’t take it for granted…out of spite alone. And I do feel that’s the real reason many denounce science, purely out of spite…I just feel it’s petty, as well as naive.
It’s part of our very nature, we’re very curious creatures…we’ve been doing science ever since we first harnessed fire for ourselves, crafted tools for hunting, built shelters, made clothes, etc. All of this required that we pay attention to physical reality, and deduce how things work…it’s our super power, science is something we’ve always done, even long before we gave it a name. The scientific method wasn’t ironed out until roughly 500 years ago, but we’ve always been using our powers of observation and our intellect to improve our lives, and take us from just simply surviving, to thriving. It’s a huge part of who we are, so it’s foolish to diminish it’s influence on our successes.
Apologies though, I do tend to carry on. I hope it’s been interesting at least, and I hope it’s been a helpful insight into a different perspective. Take care.
1
-
“So if they lied about one thing they lied about everything….”
Surely you know what a black and white fallacy is? Thinking in absolutes like that is not very logical I feel, because nothing is ever that black and white. Think of the boy who cried wolf; most people would agree the moral of that story is too never lie (or don’t lie too often), or nobody will trust you…but what I take away from it, is mankind’s inability to objectively assess every situation without bias. The boy told the truth in the end…but because of his status as a liar, and peoples tendency for thinking in absolutes, the warning wasn’t received, and then people got hurt…all because of thinking like that “lie once, lie about everything”. Nothing and nobody can lie all the time about everything…thinking in absolutes is a logical fallacy.
That’s a core problem with flat Earthers, they’re reaching conclusions not so much from evidence, but more from a deep distrust they have in an authority. It’s created a powerful bias, that keeps them from assessing information objectively and with due diligence. They’re right to be skeptical…but their distrust puts blinders over their ability to research objectively. Everyone would agree the government is shady, and should never be trusted completely. That’s pretty common knowledge, it’s no secret, and so it’s perfectly reasonable to remain skeptical at all times…but paranoia should never be allowed to triumph over reason.
The details matter, it’s where the truth can be found…it takes time and diligence to properly ascertain all the details. For example; Flat Earthers make the claim that every image of Earth is a composite image. This is not true, the real truth is that SOME of the photos are composite, while many others are not. The Apollo missions (as well as the many missions that took place before those missions) took thousands of photos of Earth, on regular old celluloid film. These photos are well archived, you can find them online very easily with just a few quick searches.
These are not composite, nor are they CGI, just one example of many. But most Flat Earthers will never mention these photos, they instead firmly claim that every photo of Earth is composite, they even claim that NASA admitted too it. This is also false, what really occurred was some good ol’ cherry picking. ONE GUY who worked on the 2002 Blue Marble composite, was being interviewed on how THAT ONE IMAGE was created. He explained that image was created by compiling image data from low Earth orbit satellites, which was then put in a photo editing software like photoshop, to complete the image. He was talking about one photo, he was not in any way shape or form saying that every photo by NASA is a composite…but flat Earthers only listened to the part where he said “…it is photoshopped, but it has to be.”
Cherry picking, taking words out of their original context, with important details omitted, then misinterpreting those words and misrepresenting them, to help spin a narrative and confirm a bias. It’s not NASA who’s been lying…it’s flat Earthers, who refuse to believe an institution they distrust wouldn’t lie to them. It’s not entirely their fault, it’s just classic confirmation bias and thinking in absolutes…it’s made them into liars, mostly towards themselves. But I mean, if we apply your mantra to Flat Earthers, now that you know those details…so Flat Earthers are liars absolutely? 🧐 It’s not that simple…nothing ever is.
Eddie isn’t wrong to question things, nobody is attacking him for that, because many would agree you shouldn’t trust authority completely, it’s wise to be skeptical. But he’s clearly not forming conclusions from solid evidence, it’s mostly speculation and “what ifs”…and the evidence that is presented, when anyone really digs into it, turns out to be just cherry-picking or half truths with missing context, misconceptions and misunderstandings. Eddie is clearly running with confirmation bias and though Joe and company can’t quite pinpoint exactly how, they can sense it. That’s why Eddie is being attacked here…because it’s annoying when people think you’re supposed too be impressed by speculations or anecdotal evidence. In what world or court of law does speculation and anecdotal evidence ever hold up? 🤷♂️
Anyway, that’s just my perspective on this issue. I feel people should absolutely be skeptical, but don’t lose their ability for better reasoning, too their emotions. And I don’t agree that thinking in absolutes is a great mantra towards finding truth…it’s a great way to follow bias though.
1
-
1
-
Well it seems you didn’t pay very good attention in your history class, cause it wasn’t believing in the globe they were being ostracized for, it was heliocentrism. Galileo and his peers were persecuted and put on trial for sedition against the church, for suggesting the Sun was at the centre of the solar system, not the Earth. They were challenging the geocentric model…but every scholar around that time already agreed that Earth was spherical, and they had for at least a good 1500 years up to that point, since the Greeks. Sailors have been using the globe model for navigation since probably Ptolemy, a Greek mathematician and geographer who designed the first accurate globe maps, roughly 2000 years ago, that led to the current longitude and latitude navigation system we all use today, designed from the knowledge that Earth is spherical, with TWO equal hemispheres.
Is navigation “just theory”? You think pilots and sailors can accurately plot long distance navigation routes…without knowing for certain what shape and size the surface they’re navigating really is? 🧐 If so….give your face a slap for me.
Flat Earth is a hoax…get a better bullshit filter.
1
-
@michaelcarlson2512 So if you don’t mind, there’s at least one other point I’d like to touch on from a separate commenter. Frankie was asking you for a formula for buoyancy (as was I actually) using your understanding of things, and you replied with “why does there need to be a formula to prove that ice is buoyant in water”. The whole point of doing science, is to understand how things work, so we can use that knowledge and apply it. How we apply it is often by equations, we learn everything we can about something like buoyancy, isolating every variable required to cause it, then we break down those variables into their parts, those then create equations, which are basically a recipe, we can then use to give us predictive power. That’s what equations do, allow us to make accurate predictions.
Sure you can look at ice in water, see that it floats, and determine that it’s buoyant…but how can you USE that knowledge? Is it possible to deduce how it works, to the point where you can apply that knowledge the most effectively? Of course it is…math equations give us more control over that knowledge. You could build a ballast tank for a ship by trial and error…but it would be costly and very time consuming and not very efficient. And in the end, after one successful floating ship, you could only really build the same type of ship…cause that’s the only one you’ve made that works after all that trial and error. You could do that, or, you could understand HOW buoyancy works, to the point where you can calculate and make predictions for the effect. Now an engineer can build a ballast tank, simply by knowing a few things. How big is the ship going to be and what it’s made of, can give him a density, knowing what it’s floating in can tell him how buoyant that density is or isn’t, and how strong the downward force is can complete everything he needs to then predict how much weight a certain sized ballast tank can hold before it capsizes.
He doesn’t have to build anything, and he can predict all of that, knowing exactly how large to build everything and what materials to use, long before any building ever occurs. By understanding HOW buoyancy works, down to its last detail, the engineer now has a much more efficient method of building anything that’s required to float.
That’s the power math gives us, it makes engineering and invention far more efficient and easy. That’s why we do science, so we can acquire knowledge, we can then use in equations. Math is how we apply scientific knowledge in the most efficient way, it’s the end goal of science, applied mathematics.
Another thing about equations, if they work when applied, then you can be certain your knowledge is accurate. Because every variable in the equation has to be true, for it to accurately make a prediction that ends up true. If any variable is wrong, you’ll know, because the equation won’t work.
So he’s asking you for an equation, because if you can’t derive a working equation from your conclusions, then it means your conclusions are very likely incorrect. Basically, he’s reminding you how important math equations are…though most people don’t really seem to understand much about higher mathematics, and I think it’s because they’re not taught these things well enough. So I hope my break down of things above is helpful.
1
-
@michaelcarlson2512 You’re welcome, I’m glad the information is helpful, or at the very least interesting. The trouble is you’re not really falsifying gravity, you’re really just denying its existence. I just feel it’s a misunderstanding of the basic tenants of physics that might be leading you to your current conclusions. You wouldn’t deny that things fall when dropped, but why would you disagree that this falling motion requires a name if we’re too discuss it? Why can buoyancy be named, but gravity can not? You see it from my perspective a little better? Kind of defeats the purpose of science, if we’re not going to be objective and treat every facet of physical reality equally, with the same standards of definition and labeling…or even just acknowledge when something exists.
Gravity is just a name we gave to a motion we observe in nature, a physical phenomenon that occurs free from our control, and it’s undeniable that it occurs. That’s where the physics starts, just by providing names to some physical functions of nature that we observe. I just feel you’re being a tad biased is all, denying gravity more so because it’s inconvenient for the model you’d prefer to believe.
You can actually use the buoyancy equation I mentioned (Fb=Vpg), to predict that balancing point of buoyancy to gravity, that you’re describing with the balloon, it works just as well in gases as it does with liquids. And that is what’s happening there, you’ve put enough of each gas inside that it balances in the medium, a balance between gravity and buoyancy. So you’re doing more to prove gravity, not disprove it. Density and buoyancy are already a part of the larger theory of gravity, so these things you’re describing are already explained and accounted for in that body of knowledge. So it’s really just taking gravity physics, but snipping out any mention of gravity.
But again, why so bent on removing gravity? Why can we name and define buoyancy force, but the downward motion we can neither give name or acknowledge? You really don’t see that as intentionally ignorant?
1
-
@michaelcarlson2512 I understand your skepticism, I get it, when you look at things from the perspective you currently are, looking at only the conclusions of science, and skipping over the evidence that led to them, I can see why you’d reach your conclusions. These are actually great physics questions, so I don’t mind providing some further information.
You gotta go back to the start, science didn’t start with gravity, it started with Earth’s geometry. Evidence just piled up that made it impossible to deny that Earth is in fact spherical…we have a whole system of navigation today, designed from that knowledge and the measurements, that Earth is spherical. Millions of pilots and sailors verify Earth’s spherical geometry, every single day, with every successful voyage. If you don’t think knowing the exact surface shape and dimensions is important for navigation…then you don’t really know how to navigate. I would urge anyone truly interested in this topic, to learn celestial navigation, from the history right down to how to do it yourself…I couldn’t almost guarantee, you won’t be a flat Earther after that lesson. Especially after you actually apply the knowledge.
So ancient sailors and geographers pretty much made it impossible to ignore or deny, that Earth is in fact spherical…but ya, that of course raises a question, how do things remain on the surface of a sphere? Whether people were in England or Australia, they weren’t falling off this sphere…so what was keeping everything contained to the surface? 🤷♂️ It’s a great question…but questions don’t make facts go away. Just cause they didn’t know how it works, doesn’t change the fact that Earth was verified and measured to be spherical.
That’s where science came in, and it took a long time to figure out. So they didn’t start at gravity, it started by first verifying, then mapping and measuring the Earths shape. So, same with your predicament, your questions of gravity don’t make Earth’s shape just go away. They’re great questions, but questions are not evidence.
Scientists then paid close attention to some other undeniable facts of reality. First thing they noticed of course was that things fall when dropped. It’s been pretty obvious, but nobody really put it together until Newton, noticing that this falling motion was a physical mechanism of nature, a physical phenomenon. Newton had already determined that no motion occurs without a force to cause it (the Laws of Motion), so it’s pretty simple deduction after that, a motion is present, no motion occurs without force, so a force is present that attracts everything to surface. Simple.
That force was given a name and then science was off to unravel the mysteries of how it works. So those were the two undeniable variables at this point, Earth was spherical and all things are attracted and fall to surface. Many hypothesis were put forward for what caused that attraction, from magnetism, to static attraction, to air pressure, but the only one that survived experimentation, peer review and falsification, was mass attracting mass, put forth first by Newton (Law of universal gravitation), then later verified in the Cavendish experiment. Here’s a really good quick demonstration and explanation of the experiment https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68. He even explains and demonstrates a few simple falsifications for electromagnetism and static attractions, explaining why they’re not sufficient to account for this attraction. This experiment is repeated constantly around the world, high school kids can do this experiment, it’s pretty simple.
Though its conclusions, still creates many questions. Like how does mass attract mass? What’s causing that mass attraction? The trouble with unraveling HOW things work, is that it’s an almost never ending pit of further questions, test and verify one part of the problem…it opens the door for several more questions that need to be answered. Eventually taking things further and further into tinier realms (quantum), where we have zero perspective, since we don’t directly experience those scales…makes it very very hard to continue answering and solving for further questions, so we’ll eventually hit a wall, as we have. This would occur no matter what conclusions were drawn, if Electromagnetism was verified as the cause, it would then create its own set of new questions, and down and down science goes, just in a different direction.
Anyway, point is, you’re kind of skipping ahead, then wondering why things don’t make sense to you. Of course you’re not going to understand the conclusions, if you don’t follow and learn the steps that led to those conclusions…that’s true of any conclusion. Without all the details, of course you’re likely too reach a false conclusion.
You’re currently forming conclusions, based from your narrow experiences. You see a ball you hold in your hand, and understand that it can’t hold anything too it (though it actually can, through static, friction and surface tension attractions on more microscopic levels, but I digress), so you find it only logical that an Earth also can’t if it’s shaped spherical. You’re thus making a false equivalence, comparing Earth to any ball you have experience with, then assuming they would work the same…even though that’s just an assumption you’re making, not an actual verified conclusions. See the problem?
And then that’s where you stop thinking about it, you’re stuck in the box of things you experience at your scale. Science goes a bit further, it paid attention to a motion that attracts us to surface. Even if Earth were flat, science would have to account for and explain that falling motion, that’s the job of science. Saying “it just does” to the question “how things fall” is not a sufficient answer in science…might as well not even try if that’s as far as you’re willing to go. Won’t achieve anything with surface level conclusions like that.
So these two things are known, Earth is spherical, and all things are observed to attract towards it. That attraction causes motion, so a force is present causing that attraction, simple deduction. You’re starting at the end, you need to go back to the start. How it works down every detail is a much larger conversation, one I certainly can’t have here in a comment thread, but I hope that helps provide at least some further insight. People have this assumption that gravity is not verified…but it’s actually one of the most rigorously tested concepts in all of science. If it wasn’t verified, then it wouldn’t have made it this far.
Anytime, I’ll address centrifugal force in a separate comment, cause you had some issues with that as well.
1
-
@michaelcarlson2512 So centrifugal force is what we experience in rotations. Your argument is that because Earth spins at 1000 mph (Earth’s circumference, divided by hours in a day), then you assume the centrifugal force must be great…but this fundamentally misunderstands the physics of centrifugal force. You’re focusing on the big number you understand (1000 mph) and then you’re falsely assuming a linear velocity (mph) has much to do with a rotational velocity.
First of all, when dealing with rotational velocity, we don’t use linear velocity measures like miles per hour, we instead use rotational measures, like revolutions per minute (RPM’s). Centrifugal force is directly effected by rate of rotation…not linear velocity. Earth takes 24 hours to complete 1 rotation. So have you ever been on a merry go round that rotates at 1 revolution every 24 hours? Would you expect a lot of centrifugal force on merry go round rotating at that velocity? No, not very likely. That’s roughly 0.000694 RPM’s, for a comparison a Gravitron ride at your local fair that creates a lot of centrifugal force to cling you too its walls rotates at about 24 RPM’s, big difference.
Best way to help you understand this relation, is with a simple thought experiment. Picture yourself in a race car, moving at a constant 200 mph, around a perfect circle track, that’s 1000 meters around. Would you expect a lot of centrifugal force in this example? Yes, in fact you’d probably have a heck of a time staying on the track, the centrifugal force would be so great. But now let’s do it again, same car, same 200 mph forward velocity, but this time you’re driving on a perfect circle track that’s 1000 miles around. Would you expect the same amount of centrifugal force in this example? No, in fact the track would be turning so gradually, it almost feel perfectly straight, you wouldn’t feel probably any centrifugal force in this example.
But hold on, it was the same exact linear velocity of 200 mph, in both examples, but the former had a lot of centrifugal force, the latter had essentially zero as far you’d be concerned. Why is that? Because centrifugal force is a product of how quickly your angular trajectory changes per second, how many revolutions you complete per minute. In the first example, you’d be racing around the track completing several revolutions every minute, in the second example you’d complete 1 revolution every 5 hours, greatly decreasing the rate of angular trajectory change per second. So the wider the circumference, the more linear speed you’d need, to generate a comparable amount of centrifugal force at smaller scales. Which is why we don’t use linear velocities (mph) when talking about rotational motions, we instead use rotational measures like RPM’s.
The Centrifugal force generated by the Earth, is greatest at the Equator, and it only negates about 0.03% of gravity…it’s so small, you’d never notice. Gravity easily trumps that outward force, it’s not even close. So I hope that helps you better understand centrifugal force a bit, you’re focusing on the wrong numbers.
As for your bug walking around…it’s on the surface, right? So gravity is holding it. I’m not sure why you’d think it would be crushed by gravity, gravity isn’t strong enough here to do that. And where’s that ocean of water going to go? What other force would be present to cause it to be put into motion away from the Earth? Just think about that for a second, the only force present is gravity…that’s how the water gets its weight in the first place. That water gets its weight from gravity…gravity is basically another name for weight, you don’t have weight without gravity. What you always have is mass, but weight is mass times gravity.
Think of it this way, I’m sure you know how a scale works, you press DOWN upon the top surface of a scale, applying a force, that it then converts into a weight value. So it converts the downward force you apply, into weight…that’s how a scale works; downward force=weight. So if an object is resting on a scale, and it’s reading a weight value…then what’s pushing that object down? That’s how it works, it requires a downward force to be applied, for the scale to work. So the resting object is pressing down, or it wouldn’t read a weight value. Pretty simple way to verify gravity, but it also helps demonstrate that weight doesn’t exist without gravity. Objects always have mass, water always has mass…but it’s not trillions of tons until all that mass is pressing against surface, due to gravity, to create that weight pressure. Understand a bit better?
In any case, you’re assuming Earth fights with all that water, as if it’s in some tug of war where it has to increase its power to keep that water from falling off…but why would it fall? What other force is present outside of Earth to cause that falling off? What happens when you poor water on a ball in your hand? It falls off and goes to surface…so Earth is attracting the water off that ball. What force is there beneath the Earth in space, to cause an equivalent attraction, to make the water fall off?
Anyway, this is all physics 101 lessons, same physics understood by pretty much every scientist and engineer. Everything I’m telling you is the knowledge they all use, with helping them design a great many technology’s you use every day, so it’s not just nonsense. I’d urge you to learn a bit more, cross reference everything I’m saying with other physics lessons you can find online. I hope it’s been helpful. Take care for now and thanks for listening.
1
-
@DS-lq3dr Sure, but debates aren’t really won on truth and facts alone, they’re typically won by whoever is the better talker/bullshitter, and how well they dazzled the audience. It’s just a fact, you can win a debate, even if you’re 100% wrong, just by being a smooth talker, it’s a sad reality. Truth is messy and full of little details, it’s harder to sift through and explain, while bullshit is generally pretty short and direct, easy to shoot out in rapid fire, and easy to grasp…the average person has a pretty poor attention span, so guess which one they’re more prone to gravitate towards.
Just saying, science is very careful who it engages with, because conmen do exist and they’re constantly trying to bait them for the attention it garners. So they have to be careful….a huxter doesn’t have to convince everybody, he just needs to snare a few, then he’s got some customers, and there’s a sucker born every second. These types are typically layman with no real credentials to speak of, so scientists generally won’t accept any debates with layman, as a way of filtering conmen out, it’s pretty common practice. So if Eric really wants to have a debate, he’s going to have to earn it first…but probably not gonna happen, he already thinks he knows everything. 🙄
You know Dubay has been called for debate plenty of times by other YouTubers though, some of them even big channels with lots of followers. He’s so far accepted none of them…so why is it only Neil you focus on? Dubay doesn’t debate either, so if we use your logic that “truth has nothing to fear”, then what’s Dubay so afraid of?🧐
1
-
So how’d they use CGI on the Apollo moon landing photos, before CGI or photoshop existed? 🧐 Doesn’t add up. No, NASA never said all of they’re photos are CGI, one guy who worked on the 2002 Blue Marble composite image of Earth, was explaining how that ONE photo was created. He was in no way saying or implying that ALL photos of Earth are CGI or photoshopped. So you just misinterpreted what was actually being said, jumping to an erroneous conclusion from ignoring the context.
That photo is a composite, which means many smaller pictures stitched together to create one bigger picture. You require a photo editing software like photoshop to compile a composite image, there’s no way around that…that’s how composites are made. But that’s not the only photos NASA takes, the original Apollo photos were on regular film, from a regular camera, from deeper space. And geostationary satellites are currently in orbit taking single shot photos as well, with digital cameras not much different than what your phone uses. These photos are not composite, and not created with photo editing software, and they’re taken around the clock…there’s probably millions of photos by now.
You don’t see stars in photos because of the exposure setting. When filming anything properly, you must make sure the exposure and shutter rate is set to a level where you can see the image clearly in the final image. To snap a clear picture of the Earth, you have to lower the exposure, this lowered exposure setting means the much dimmer stars do not make it onto the film, because exposure setting basically sets how much light makes it onto the film. I’d suggest learning a bit more about photography, particularly exposure setting and shutter rate.
Satellites are about the size of a small car…do you see cars from 10 miles away? How about 25,000 miles away, which is roughly the distance most photos of Earth are taken from. What makes you assume you’d see something so small, from so far away? 🧐
I think you need to ponder this a bit longer. I hope this information is helpful or at the very least interesting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alienrenders Here’s a fact, it’s really easy to lie online, and confirmation bias is a real thing. Those are facts I feel are pretty common knowledge. So if your sources are not accredited, and have zero oversight or peer review system, then they’re not likely a trust worthy source. Anyone can type up an article and shoot out a bullshit statistic like “60% of HadCRUT data is fabricated”, but does that mean it’s true, cause it’s in an article you found online?
I’m just saying…it used to be pretty common sense not to believe everything at face value, or by someones word alone. Yet you’re expecting me to blindly agree that you have “established facts” that support your claims….but then you can’t even take a second to share even ONE source that helps confirm that? 🧐
Just frustrating is all, I’m trying to see your perspective, or help you see mine, but climate change deniers are all typically the same…they don’t want to talk about it. Why exactly? Are you afraid you could be wrong? I could care less if I’m wrong…but I’m not going to agree to empty claims, without evidence to support it. I’m trying to search for what you’re saying, but I’m not finding anything….would be SO MUCH easier if you just shared a source.
1
-
1
-
You’d be right…if we set our clocks by a sidereal day, and not a solar day. A sidereal day is one complete 360 degree rotation…a solar day is a full rotation, plus a little extra rotation, to account for the Suns position, so noon lines up each day. We timed our clocks by the solar day, heck we determined the length of a second by the solar day. A sidereal day is about 23 hours 56 minutes long, the solar day is 24 hours. Wasn’t hard to do either, because we used to literally use the Sun as our time keeper, with the sundial.
Best not to jump to conclusions until you have all the facts. This isn’t common knowledge, but any astronomer or astrophysicist could have told you this. Research the solar day, learn the difference between sidereal day and solar day. I hope you find this information helpful. Take care.
1
-
@KevHarkins1 Can’t see why I’d give you the valid reason why we’re not facing away from the Sun at Noon every winter? 🧐 You reached a false conclusion, I simply shared the information you were missing…not sure how that’s difficult to understand. You’re just mad, cause you know I’m right. Solar day is a full rotation, then a little extra rotation to line up with solar noon again the next day…it keeps us facing the Sun throughout a year. It wasn’t difficult to clock, we started keeping time with the Sun…modern clocks were set by sundials. So now you know.
I’m looking at a diagram right now, that states very clearly; “Sidereal day equals 360 degree rotation, taking 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds. Solar day equals 360 degrees plus 1 degree, taking 24 hours.” Every diagram and explanation I search says the exact same thing. So I’m sorry bud, but you’re just wrong…sooooo, I don’t know what else to tell ya. Nice try at gaslighting I guess. 🤷♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KevHarkins1 It doesn’t change the rate of time, it’s still 24 hours…they timed the second to the solar day, meaning the amount of time chosen for the length of a second, coincides to the solar day, the 360 degrees plus extra rotation. That’s why a solar day is a perfect 24 hours, even though it’s a little extra rotation, every second is timed to line up with that geometry. I think that’s another part of what you’re not getting.
You are aware of the leap year though right? Ever wondered why that occurs? Because the days don’t line up perfectly with our orbit, we chop off a full day every 4 years in the calendar, because of the reason you’re describing somewhat. We actually complete an orbit around the Sun every 365 days…and roughly 6 hours. Which means we’re off by a full day, every 4 years. So to make sure the seasons don’t fall out of alignment with our calendar, we chop a day off every 4 years, to essentially reset it. That’s why we have leap years. But even that’s not perfect…we still have to slice yet another day off every 30 or 40 years or something crazy like that…that’s why the Gregorian calendar was so frickin hard to make, which is the modern calendar that replaced the Julian calendar…which didn’t have the extra leap year every few decades. Seriously…you should really go into the history of how difficult it was to create the modern calendar system we all use, it’s nuts.
I understand your point completely, of course this doesn’t prove the model…but you were attempting to falsify the model, by pointing out a geometry you felt didn’t work for that model. I’m just explaining to you that it does actually work…you’re just misunderstanding it. So I’m falsifying your falsification of that model, I’m not making any attempt to prove that model, I’m just pointing out the holes in your argument against it. Is that clearer now?
1
-
1
-
@KevHarkins1 “Why does the Earth do this, but no other rotational device” because we needed to devise a way of keeping time, so that noon was always lined up with the Sun at zenith…for the reason YOU even gave in your initial comment. If we didn’t set our clocks to that extra rotation, then noon would become midnight in winter…allowing for that little extra rotation each day, ensures that TIME doesn’t fall out of sync. It’s like you kind of understand, but you’re not quite there yet. Of course a rotation is a rotation…but time is independent of rotation, so we can set time however we like in relation to a rotation. If you count the seconds so they add up perfectly to 24 hours, after a full rotation and a little extra, you now have a clock that can account for the Suns zenith, while Earth orbits the Sun at the same time as it rotates….and that’s exactly what we did.
It’s just geometry man, if the Earth is rotating, and also orbiting, then to line up with zenith again each day, a little extra rotation is required. Again…I’m looking at a diagram right now, that explains and shows this very clearly…..this is standard knowledge. So please search it when you get a chance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A roller coaster is constantly changing its forward velocity, going up, down, sideways, etc, which creates a centripetal force, that you experience as G force. A passenger jet flys at 500 mph, yet you can get up and walk around the cabin and experience no G force. What does this tell us? That we don’t actually feel motion itself, what we feel is sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion. The Concorde flew even faster, look it up, it flew at roughly 2000 mph, and you can find on board video of stewardesses serving drinks at that velocity. The difference is that passenger jets maintain a constant forward trajectory…a roller coaster is not, it’s making several rapid movements in multiple directions, it’s almost never maintaining a steady forward velocity, and nothing about it is gradual. It’s very different from Earth. Earth takes 24 hours to complete 1 rotation, that’s 1 degree every 69 miles, which it achieves roughly every 8 minutes…so it’s really not changing nearly as rapidly as the roller coaster is, it’s a very slow change in angular velocity over a much larger time frame. Centripetal force is a product of angular velocity change per second…a roller coaster changes angular velocity almost instantly, Earth does it gradually over time…hence why you don’t feel that motion.
Do your own research…but when you do, be sure not to skip physics 101. The laws of motion are some of the easiest laws of physics to understand and test in today’s world. They can help you here with these kinds of questions, so now you know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@testaccount3891 I didn’t say knowledge itself has a limit, of course there’s no limit to what we can learn, I said every person has a CURRENT limit of what they CURRENTLY know. And often times we’re not aware of those limits and we think we know everything…it’s the basis of Dunning Krueger effect, the less you know, the more you tend to think you’re an expert. You put “limits to knowledge” in quotations as if to directly quote me, but what I actually said was “…eventually hit the limits of your CURRENT knowledge”. So please read a bit closer and don’t twist my words. My point was that you couldn’t solve Flat Earth because your current knowledge is either lacking or in error, so the limits of your CURRENT knowledge has led you to false conclusions. I see it all the time with Flat Earthers…you’re doing great job of demonstrating that point with your ignorant understanding of navigation.
So how do you think they used the stars for navigation? Do you actually know anything about celestial navigation? 🧐 Here’s a short lesson, you pick a charted circumpolar star (best for North hemisphere is Polaris since it’s locked to the North axis of Earth and so it doesn’t move), then you measure its angle to the horizon. That angle can be used to tell you your latitude, which can be used to triangulate your position if you know how many nautical miles you’ve travelled and from where. So celestial navigation works, because we know Earth is spherical and we know its circumference, you require that information to finish the job…the stars are only a part of it, knowledge of the surface is the rest, that’s how it works. A fact of the Earth is that every 69 miles traveled directly South, Polaris will drop to horizon by 1 degree. That’s a line of latitude…that’s where we get the latitude lines from. That consistent drop, is geometry we’d expect on a sphere…if Earth was flat though, that angle would not be consistent every equal distance traveled away from it, it would drop to horizon less and less….that’s basic geometry.
So it’s actually old sailors and geographers who basically first proved the Earth was spherical, you can’t accurately navigate with the stars without first knowing the surface shape and its scale….sailors before this information was acquired, got lost…a lot, which is why they stuck close to shores they knew and never travelled very far where the stars became very different. Until geographers like Ptolemy roughly 2000 years ago finally gave them an accurate system to follow, a system designed on the knowledge that Earth is spherical.
So you’re just rambling and making bullshit excuses. Millions of pilots and sailors today find their destinations with extreme accuracy…and they all use the same system of navigation designed for a globe to help them do it. So they prove the Earth is spherical every single day, it’s not a question anymore.
If you think it’s wrong, I dare you to try navigating yourself, without that system. Go right ahead. You can learn to navigate at any time, lots of great tutorials online. You’ll learn pretty quickly how important knowledge of the surface is, to navigation.
1
-
@Entropian2012 Nobody uses the AE projection map for navigation…you are just another sucker who fell for a con, perpetuated online by total numpty’s, who really need to peel there faces away from their screens and go outside. Learn to actually navigate please…you’ll learn pretty quickly what model is actually used for navigation. Also, I’ve seen Frankie around in these comments a lot, what I’ve learned is that he’s an actual mariner with years of experience actually navigating at sea, and as a world traveller myself I’ve acquired the knowledge to navigate as well…so spare us both your ignorant bullshit please, cause you have no idea what you’re talking about. You know it, and so do we.
If you think I’m lying, then you just go right ahead and try navigating across any large ocean, and find a destination with pin point accuracy, without any aide from GPS or the globe model to help you do it. Good luck with that. 👍
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@whataworld369 I’ve tried checking Joes website for this scheduled debate you claim is there, it’s not there…so I can really only conclude for now that you just made it up. Go ahead and tell me where this schedule is, cause I sure can’t find any. All I find is a link to his Spotify page, scrolling down to ep# 1159, where this clip was taken from, and all it says is a brief description of who Neil is…that’s it. No mention of Dubay or debate at all.
He didn’t agree to any debate with Dubay…so he’s not running from anything, he was never asked. This isn’t the only time Neil has publicly stated that he doesn’t do debates…I know of another time on the Big Think channel, where he also stated very clearly, that he doesn’t debate settled and objective science. So if he’s publicly stated multiple times that he doesn’t debate……what makes you think he agreed to a debate here? 🧐 Again, I’m looking, but I sure can’t find any written or vocal agreement from Neil…so it’s pretty simple, I simply have no reason to believe he did.
You just don’t personally like Neil, so that’s your bias here. That bias of yours has caused you to assume Neil agreed to do this debate beforehand…when he actually did not. If you think he did, then show me the written or vocal agreement from him, publicly stating he’d debate Dubay. Go ahead…you won’t find it. I’m trying to find this schedule you say exists, but so far nothing.
I’m not trying to be a dick here, I’m just pointing out to you, that I’m not aware of any agreement to debate. I am however aware that Neil has stated many times that he doesn’t do debates of what he feels is objective science.
1
-
@whataworld369 1) I’m not a mathematician, but I’ll share my thoughts anyway. Doing a quick search, the 3 body problem has actually been solved at least 3 separate ways now, since it was first postulated 300 years ago. Though these are not a general solution, they are special cases only, so technically still unsolvable, but not in some cases. It’s deemed unsolvable, simply because the patterns never repeat, they’re chaotic…unless of course in special cases where they’re in perfect balance. It also has more to do with masses that are all equal, and all orbiting each other, that’s generally how the problem is set up, with 3 equal masses. The Sun is far larger than Earth, or the moon, or any of the other planets, so its mass dominates. Which is why it’s probably easier to predict our solar systems orbits, because the Sun is so massive its gravitational output renders the other masses as negligible in comparison, so the 3 body problem can be ignored, basically. It’s also not orbiting the other planets, and they don’t influence it. Earth doesn’t orbit any planets either, so there’s only ever 2 bodies to solve in most cases in our solar system (ex. Sun and Earth, Earth and Moon, etc), and solving a two body orbital system is solvable, because it does repeat. But I learned something interesting, the Moon does shift chaotically a little bit, because of the 3 body problem. It’s a very minor chaos, so it can largely be ignored, but it is there I guess. So that’s pretty interesting. We can only currently predict the Moons exact position (within a margin of error), up to a point, the margin of error increases over time until it’s basically unusable. Pretty interesting.
So basically, every planet and Moon in our solar system, is in a two body structure, so far more balanced and predictable orbits. The 3 body problem applies more to 3 masses that are equal in mass, and only if they’re orbiting each other…and of course the other planets aren’t orbiting each other. Not to say their gravity doesn’t have influence on us, they do, but it’s very minor, so we don’t have to really worry about the 3 body problem.
That’s my understanding of it currently, after a quick bit of research. But again, I’m no mathematician, so take that with a grain of salt.
2) We only see Venus and Mercury just after Sunset and before sunrise, you’ll never see them at midnight. This is what we’d expect, it’s not like Venus or Mercury are always directly in front of the Sun…they orbit around it as well, and those orbits do go out pretty far from the Suns position…so while the Suns position is blocked, doesn’t mean you can’t still see the space beside the Suns position…where Mercury and Venus will sometimes be in their orbit. Night begins at 90 degrees to the Sun…not 180 degrees. So the geometry does work here, you could even draw it to help you visualize it.
3) The 70 mile shadow is the path of totality, and it is the umbra of the Moons shadow…but the penumbra of the shadow is actually around 2000 miles wide. Do some research on the umbra and penumbra of a shadow, the umbra can and does shrink…and that’s the path of totality in a solar eclipse, is the umbra. You can still view an eclipse in the penumbra though, for thousands of miles, it’s just not a total eclipse for you then, because your not in the umbra shadow.
Anyway, hope that information is helpful or at the very least interesting. Let me know if you have any more questions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It’s a common persuasion tactic, to start an argument with plausible deniability, a cop out just in case your argument backfires, or falls short. It’s a trick to open you up to their argument, confuse your better reasoning into thinking your first impression wasn’t accurate. Most people can detect the true intent, and it’s just annoying. Eddie is clearly making shit up as he goes, under the safety blanket of plausible deniability, while at the same time pretending he’s an expert. It’s a flex, he’s doing it to assert dominance…and Joe realizes that, it’s obvious. It’s just annoying, Eddie is just seeding doubt, he’s pretending like questions are equal to evidence…and Joe knows the difference, as do most people, so he’s not having it. It’s annoying to listen to people pretend they’re smarter than you, just cause they’re more knowledgeable in made up bullshit. Good for you…it’s still bullshit no matter how you slice it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@domagojbiskupic3807 Many people have read the Bible…and some believe it, while others after having read it, find even more reason to fortify their position for not believing it. The Bible makes many claims that science today has proven to be absolutely false…so it doesn’t take much logic to conclude that the Bible was written by man, in a time when these things were not known, so they just made it up. That’s not difficult to accept for many, it makes perfect sense…while others would prefer the story be real, so they instead ignore the science, and conclude that God said this and that, so the science is wrong, not the Bible. But where’s the logic in denying evidence…in favour of belief? 🤷♂️ That’s the perspective many of us have…we just see a bunch of ignorant people, unwilling to accept reality. Is it really so difficult to see how we could have reached that conclusion?
Here’s the leap in logic I take issue with. Many religious people will argue that God must exist, because reality is too complex and humans are too precise for it all to be conceived by chance alone. There is logic in that, sure, it can be contended, I mean there are many counter arguments to the watch makers argument, but that’s not really my gripe for now. My gripe is in the leap from “God exists, therefore my version of God is the true version”. Even if we could 100% verify a creator God does exist…it still does not mean YOUR version of that God is confirmed as well. Make sense? That’s the bigger error made in logic here I feel. The existence of a God in no way means you have any idea what that God has planned, or if it even does have a plan.
My trouble is when I’m yelled at by a Christian to “repent my sins and come into Jesus”, and then the next day a Muslim with just as strong of a devotion in their faith yells at me claiming “accept Allah, or burn”. Two very different conclusions…..both are right? These people will argue with absolute impunity that it’s THEIR VERSION of God that’s correct….when all I’m seeing, is two people who probably would have easily subscribed to the others faith, had they been born in each other’s geographical location.
Just saying…everybody thinks it’s them who has the superior logic, while forgetting (or never realizing) that logic is often just inferred, it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re right. Just cause you think you’ve reached a logical conclusion, does not mean you couldn’t be in error somewhere in your logic, because of information you either lack or intentionally ignore.
Food for thought, you can of course believe whatever you like, just as I am free to reach my own conclusion. I think what’s not appreciated, from any side, is when people try to force their conclusion upon you, believing it to be perfect in logic. There’s many different perspectives, so best not to assume yours is without flaw. That goes for everybody I feel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 I’m afraid they do change, I’m not lying to you, it’s basic astronomy. Seriously…the seasonal stars are well known in astronomy, you can look them up any time you’d like and go out and find them on any clear night. If you can’t find the zodiac constellations out of season right now currently, then you’ll realize I’m correct.
The Big Dipper is a circumpolar constellation, does not lie close to the ecliptic, so the Sun never comes directly between us and it…hence why it’s visible all year round. I think you could really use a geometry lesson and a lesson of the heliocentric model. The poles are always tilted in the same orientation, they’re never pointing away from Polaris in the North and Sigma Octantis for the South, that’s where the angle is locked. So it’s always pointed towards Polaris…hence why the circumpolar stars do not change in a 6 month period.
The Earth rotates, so just get yourself a globe sometime and make a simple observation for me. Shine a light on half of it, one side is in day seeing no stars thanks to the atmosphere being illuminated too much for stars to shine through, the other half is in night, seeing stars just fine. Put an observer on the North Hemisphere during night, you’ll notice it’s 180 degrees of sky (if placed perpendicular to surface) encompasses the polar axis making it easily visible. So if that sky is locked towards Polaris and all the stars surrounding it…pretty common sense that you’d be able to see those stars just fine all year round. The stars along the ecliptic however, that is the stars along the same plain as the Sun, you’re right, they would change periodically….and they do, they are the seasonal stars.
I’m not yanking your chain, I’m simply stating a fact. You can confirm it on any clear night, so go ahead.
So in all of that, you avoided answering for the Southern Hemispheres stars. You wanna talk about a GLARING PROBLEM for the FE model…why are the stars different in the South? Why can’t the North Hemisphere see the Southern Cross? Why can’t the South Hemisphere see the Big Dipper? Why do they have their own rotation of stars, around their own pole star, Sigma Octantis?
I’ll remind you…I’ve been to the South Hemisphere and I’ve seen the second sky…so don’t try and tell me it doesn’t exist, because that’s extremely ignorant.
I’m off to bed now, but you asked some other questions about the motions of the planet, I’ll address those figures later today when I’m up again. In the meantime, don’t ignore the Southern Hemisphere stars please, I would like an answer…a LOGICAL answer, for how there is a second hemisphere sky, exactly like what we’d expect to see on a globe.
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 You’re not really giving a logical answer, you’re asserting that Polaris (and all the stars really) both stay in place and begin to drop at a perfectly consistent rate, at the same time. Perspective will not do that, perspective would make Polaris drop, but not at a consistent rate by latitude, it would drop less and less by degrees to horizon, the further you go….and it would never reach horizon, not at the altitude the stars are at. In reality, the stars drop at a consistent rate to horizon…that’s how sailors are able to know their latitude, because it’s a consistent drop. That’s what we’d expect to happen on a globe, because the surface angles at a consistent rate…it’s basic geometry. Also explains how Polaris eventually reaches 0 degrees at the Equator and it explains the sudden appearance of the second sky…and it explains it with absolute ease.
You’d also have two other problems. If we assume the stars are fixed to a dome in a single layer, then the perfect circle would become more oval the further away you got. If we assume the stars are more scattered, within various layers, then we’d expect a LOT of parallax between stars. Neither of these things occur in reality, so we certainly can’t conclude the geometry fits a flat Earth with a dome of stars. And if the stars begin to drop as you travel…then that implies a moving sky relative to the observer. Which is an un-falsifiable belief, that would imply the sky is personal to every single observer on Earth, which…I mean talk about the mother of all ad hoc explanations. Occams Razor is sure out the window there.
The last problem is that this dome has never been interacted with, so it has no physical evidence supporting its existence…also another big problem.
But really, the biggest problem here, is that nothing you’ve just said for your second hemisphere explanation, falsifies the Globe models explanation, which is far more geometrically sound. While you’re making extreme leaps in logic here, with unfalsifiable ad hoc explanations…the Globe geometry fits observable reality here with absolute ease.
I know we’re discussing a model you do not agree with…but if you’re going to argue against it, then you should know the model inside and out….that’s just common sense. I know your models, so I can easily falsify them without much effort. They do not fit reality…as hard as you try to ram that square peg into the round hole, that’s just a fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Still up, so I might as well answer this too. The speeds of Earth really aren’t that ridiculous, if you consider the scales you’re dealing with. You think a few million miles means much of anything…to a galaxy spanning Quadrillions of miles? Let’s put the scales into perspective for you. Imagine you’re the Earth, orbiting the Sun at a blistering 67,000 mph. If your diameter is 8000 miles, then at that speed you’d have moved roughly 8 and a half Earth diameters, every hour. To put that into even better perspective, imagine yourself moving, oh about a meter and a half forward….over the span of an hour. WOAH! Soooo fast!
Understand this…a mile means a lot to you and me, the microscopic life living on the skin of a giant rock in space. But these units mean nothing to the scope and scale of Earth and the galaxy it inhabits….miles per hour, might as well be a snails measure for forward velocity. You know what parallax is I do hope…you’re well aware what effect distance can have on an objects perceived rate of motion. The further away an object is, the slower it will appear to move….so what do you think this effect would have on objects that are trillions of miles away in all directions? Pretty simple to understand why the constellations don’t appear to move in a human life, when you really think about. But, again you could really benefit from learning some basic astronomy…the stars ARE changing, it’s well documented, we have accurate star charts going back hundreds of years….the stars do change, any actual astronomer will tell you that.
So you’re focusing on big numbers and not really thinking about them in context.
Now, of course none of that proves the vastness of space, merely explains how it’s possible. But satellites, deep space probes, space travel, bouncing lasers and radar signals off of the Moon and even Venus….these all do verify much of that space. As does astronomy mathematics, used for predicting celestial events (like eclipses, retrogrades, planet transits across the Sun, etc.) down to the second, decades in advance. As well as stellar parallax, which confirms it all further.
So you’re arguing against CENTURIES of collective knowledge, evidence, hard data and understanding….and you’re doing it largely because a Nazi sympathizing Yoga teacher sitting on a beach in Thailand, decided he knew more about reality than actual experts, with real world experience in their chosen field.
These aren’t your own insights or ideas…these are all Dubay’s talking points, repeated verbatim. I’ve heard them repeated many times now….I’ve falsified them all again and again.
As much as you’d hate to admit it, we have every reason to question Flat Earth, just as they now question modern science. Your models do not fit reality and do not work…maybe you can ignore that, but the rest of us sure aren’t going too.
You need to stop patronizing us, because all you’re really achieving, is a form of Cunningham’s Law; “best way to get the right answer from someone online isn’t to ask a question, it’s to post the wrong answers.” You’re educating us…which I’m actually pretty grateful for. I was already pretty well versed in general science and physics, astronomy as well…but thanks to FE, I now know the Globe model…pretty close to inside and out. So FE is increasing our knowledge, you’re actually making us all better at arguing with you…which is probably the opposite effect to what many in FE were hoping.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Well if you’d have read my prior comment way up above, that you didn’t read because you said it was too long, you’d understand why we know you can see infinitely far…because I already explained it. Because we understand how vision really works. Everything you see is due to light that arrives at your eye…your not really seeing out, you’re brain is interpreting light that’s coming in, coming to YOU…that’s how you see. Since there’s no known limit to how far light can travel, and this is well tested, we conclude you can see infinitely far. So long as light can reach your eye…you can see. Simple deduction from known variables. Understanding how your eye works, helped us understand this. I tried explaining it to you before…but you tuned out….like I’m sure you’ve likely done all your life. You’re not listening.
Stars aren’t just far away, they’re also THE largest and THE brightest objects in the entire universe, that we are aware of. This matters…because size matters to how far away you can see something. This is common knowledge. Little mosquito, can’t see it for more than a few feet in front of you….big mountain, you can see it fir hundreds of miles. How far you think you’d be able to see objects MILLIONS OF MILES in diameter, with a luminosity rating so intense, stars have their own category? I’ll tell you how far….Trillions, to Quadrillions of miles. The math even supports this.
A zoom lens isn’t actually physically zooming forward…it’s magnifying and focusing light that’s coming into the lens…that’s how all telescopic lenses work. They’re just focusing in on light that’s already arrived to the lens…magnify it’s intensity, making it visible. It’s basic light refraction through convex and concave glass, sharpening the light that’s already arrived at the lens, but unseen before that light was focused.
What I’m explaining to you now is basic lens engineering….we know how to build lenses for cameras, because we understand how your human eye works. A camera lens is basically an eye….works the exact same way, but with modifications to make them even better than your eye. So you know how science knows it’s RIGHT about how your eye works? If they didn’t….then cameras wouldn’t work. We reverse engineered the human eye, to learn how to construct cameras and lenses. So you’re arguing against APPLIED science. Do you know what that means? Engineering…you’re arguing against the foundations that went into the technology you use every day.
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 We are thinking for ourselves…what do you think I’ve been doing this whole time? You might have noticed…I haven’t just been bending over and taking what you’re selling. I’ve been questioning you…which is an act of thinking for myself, rather than agreeing blindly. You have been questioning me as well, so I’m more than willing to accept you are also thinking for yourself…I wouldn’t disrespect you there, you’re clearly choosing your own path and I do acknowledge and respect that….so at least have rhe decency to give me the same level of respect.
You think that just because I disagree with you…it means I don’t question the mainstream knowledge? Why would I research flat Earth for 4 years, if I wasn’t making an attempt to question the Globe and its science? I had to ask questions of the globe, to learn what I know…so save your empty “wisdom” rhetoric on the suckers it works on.
I’ve questioned both models along the way…you know what I’ve learned? That Flat Earth is comprised of mostly layman, who lack basic understandings of science…like how vision and light works, for example. Your side does not have a working model, it can not actually be used in any applied science. That’s a fact, not an opinion. Your proponents do not have any major contributions to engineering or discoveries that are actually useful for applied science….I’ve looked, I’ve found none so far. Meanwhile, the Globe proponents are scientists, engineers, pilots, sailors, surveyors, teachers, astronomers, astronauts, EXPERTS who have actually created new technologies, and made discoveries that are actually useful for human advancement. I can introduce you to many, they can all produce their credentials that verify their experience.
You have a Nazi sympathizing Yoga teacher…who thinks Dinosaur bones are all fake…and writes rap songs admiring Hitler….really good choice of idols. 👌
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Alright, experiments used to verify Earth rotation.
Foucault Pendulum - https://youtu.be/M8rrWUUlZ_U - In this version of the experiment, it’s conducted in a stairwell, without any motors, just a weight and a string. He even pays attention to the rate of rotation, which he can then use to calculate his latitude, making the experiment even more conclusive. Easily repeated, been conducted over and over for nearly 200 years.
Ring Laser Gyro measuring Earth rotation - https://youtu.be/qy_9J_c9Kss - not a simple experiment in the slightest, but not difficult to understand if you give it the time. These device’s basically detect rotational motion. They’re so good at doing this task, they’re used in planes today to detect pitch, yaw and roll. So they are deadly accurate for that task. So scientists have also used them to detect Earth’s rotation…with success. Even flat Earth has done this https://youtu.be/SrGgxAK9Z5A?t=51.
The Gyrocompass - https://youtu.be/CUbPynV68Bg - this device was developed in the early 1900’s and it works on two premises. Gyroscopic precession and Earth’s rotation. Basically, it’s a gyroscope, that’s designed to precess at the exact rate as Earth’s rotation, so that it always points to true North. Used in pretty much every large modern sea vessel today, far more accurate than any magnetic compass. If Earth wasn’t rotating…then they would not work as designed, it’s that simple.
Testing Coriolis Effect - https://youtu.be/mXaad0rsV38 - pretty simple experiment to recreate, also goes into good detail on the physics of Coriolis. One of many experiments you can do to test Coriolis effect. But if you really think it doesn’t exist, take it up with this sniper explaining what effect Coriolis has on bullet drop rates https://youtu.be/jX7dcl_ERNs.
Measuring Earths Centrifugal Force - https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o - did you know you weigh slightly less at the Equator? Ever wonder why? Earth’s rotation generates a small amount of centrifugal force, that at Equator is the strongest, negating about 0.3% Earth’s gravity. This is a simple experiment anyone can do that tests this.
There, 5 simple experiments verifying Earth rotation, go nuts.
Whoops…4 simple, one extremely complex.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Alright, I watched what I believe is the part you’re referring too. They discuss the Sun from about the 5 minute mark to at least 10 minutes, and then they move onto the Moon. Never once do they mention a solar filter being used, and from what I can see none actually do. They’re all conveniently during cloudy days, showing a sun illuminating the surroundings clouds and then slowly being obscured by them.
Checking the description, there’s also NO external links to where to find each individual video, no sources at all really, just links to more gish gallop docs like it. But most of them I have seen before, they’re nothing new…same rehashed videos from other gish gallop docs on YouTube.
So they’re quite easy to falsify, they’re not using solar filters at all….if they were, they wouldn’t be grainy, blury, distorted, they would be crystal clear, like this video here. https://youtu.be/WtQiwbFD_Cc. Do these look blury or grainy or over exposed? No, the Sun is so clear, you can see its features…these are taken with a solar filter. He shows you the camera, the filter, the lenses, the mount, the location…everything, with complete transparency. The Sun never shrinks….one of many videos verifying the exact same thing.
Globe always shows crystal clear images and photos….while FE only ever uses out of focus, over exposed, blury, grainy pieces of shit video. Wonder why that is? Hmmm…🧐
Seriously, I know you don’t like me…but I think you need to see the videos I’m showing you here. The comparison is night and day. Globe proponents always film in crystal clear clarity, while Flat Earth always cherry picks from examples from clearly unclear days, where the video is over exposed and poorly shot. It’s also a clever trick using a digital cameras auto exposure setting. You wanna see what a cameras auto exposure setting can do? Here’s a clear demonstration of how Flat Earth tricks people https://youtu.be/gzjFOZ00Ka8.
I urge you to watch these and see the evidence for yourself. The people in your doc, are lying to you…and for some reason, you’re eating it up without question.
You have to at least agree, all the examples of a setting Sun shared by FE proponents are poorly done. You should be asking yourself why that is. The examples I’ve provided are crystal clear…and if you’d bother to actually watch them, you’d see you’ve been duped by theses conmen.
Mock, belittle, ridicule me all you want, you’re really just mad that I’m actually proving your claims wrong. You’re just mad, because you know I’m right.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 I don’t mind you challenging the modern consensus of science. That’s actually the one thing I do admire about FE, challenging science the rest of us have moved on from. Even despite the ridicule it brings, it’s quite commendable actually. What I DON’T admire, is the ignorance, the arrogance and the lying. I don’t admire people who clearly don’t care about what’s true, only care about what they WANT to be true. Your movement is so rampant with confirmation bias, it’s incredible you guys don’t see it as clearly as I do. You’re free to question things all you wish, but that goes BOTH ways. You’re not free from the same standards of review. And neither am I, nobody is. But you sure haven’t spent much time on rebuttals of evidence, you mostly have just…mocked and bragged. Not very productive.
All I’ve tried to do here is peer review your claims…and you’ve mocked, ridiculed, and spoken down to me every step of the way. It’s fine though, I have a very thick skin, your behaviour is expected when being corrected or criticized.
How many videos of mine did YOU watch? I’ve listened and followed your claims, addressed them accordingly to the best of my current knowledge, and I’ve watched the links you’ve shared. Have you done the same? I very much doubt it…so you yelling at me for not watching something, is pretty hypocritical.
I don’t claim to know everything, and as I said the other day, I don’t like assuming your positions. Providing me with time stamps, citations, sources, direct evidence, keeps me from assuming to much about your arguments…it focuses the argument, and helps me see YOUR conclusions clearer. I have seen the videos you were referring too, but until I watched them, I didn’t know that I had seen them…I was hoping you could maybe provide something new.
Point is, YOU made the claim….so it’s then YOUR burden of proof to provide the evidence. It’s common sense.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 No, not fake, they are real videos, just filmed poorly. I did look objectively, the videos are inconclusive, due to how sloppy they’re done…that’s being objective. Anyone actually being objective, would point out the same thing. If I brought blury video to you, YOU would immediately point it out as well. Take a look at my videos I’ve shared, you’ll see the difference. You also claimed they used solar filters, they did not, you can easily tell when a solar filter is used, you will only see the Sun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Just saying, if you had any arguments, you wouldn’t be yelling at me, you’d just be providing the evidence. If you were being objective, you would look at the evidence I have provided. That’s what I do…I don’t bitch, or moan, or whine. You make a claim, I refute it with evidence. You provide evidence for a claim, I take a look. If I spot any errors upon my peer review, I provide more evidence to counter your evidence…and that’s how the process of objective falsification goes. If I can’t falsify your evidence with evidence of my own, then the process stops and I would then either admit I was wrong, or conclude for the time being to gather more evidence….THAT’S SCIENCE.
You’re being a child.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 So you have some time to calm down? Finally ready to examine the evidence a bit more? Just two quick vids I think you should watch. Here they are again.
https://youtu.be/gzjFOZ00Ka8 - sunset demonstration showing why it’s important to get clear images, with the exposure settings on the camera locked.
https://youtu.be/WtQiwbFD_Cc?t=660 - following the sun throughout the whole day, with an actual solar filter. Sun does not change size.
Now I’m more than willing to look at any counter evidence or explanations you have for these, but I need your head screwed back on, or we’re not going to get anywhere. These are crystal clear images of the Sun, during a clear day, removing any variables like over exposure, glare and cloud density, that would make the Sun appear to shrink in the video, when it’s actually not. It just makes sense, that if you’re going to gather evidence like this, you’d want to see the Sun perfectly clear, no glare and no clouds in the way. That’s what my videos above did, they just removed glare with solar filters, kept exposure locked and observed during a clear day. Doing this reveals the true physical size and shape of the Sun, removing all brightness and glare that would distort its size.
The Sun does not shrink in these videos, which makes it a problem for Flat Earth’s argument that a sunset is caused by perspective. All I’m asking for is someone from FE to be honest and objective enough, to take a look at the evidence. I’m not trying to be difficult, I’m just being objective. If you have counter evidence, if you have any explanations that could falsify this evidence, feel free to share with me, I will take a look at anything you share.
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 I get that, but why? You claimed to be objective…yet I share evidence and you won’t even look at it. That’s not objective at all, that’s intentional ignorance. Typically, people do that when they’d rather not learn how they could be wrong.
Otherwise, why such a melt down over me just providing a little counter information and evidence? Am I not allowed to question you or debunk your claims if I can? Where’s the sense or logic in that? If I have evidence or an explanation that I feel refutes your position…I’m going to share it, that’s how a debate works.
I’ll go away when we’ve concluded the point, when one or both of us reaches a point where we can no longer provide evidence in support of our arguments, then one of us can either concede or conclude we don’t have enough evidence to continue. I feel my counter evidence successfully falsifies your evidence and the argument of perspective presented by FE to explain sunsets, and you so far haven’t given me any reason to conclude otherwise.
So that’s where we are at…I would just like to come to a resolution. I don’t mind being wrong, but you so far haven’t proven me to be wrong, so nothing is resolved yet. Why bother having these chats with people at all, if you’re not really interested in doing what it takes to reach a conclusion? Would just be nice to conclude this point in a rational manner.
But up to you…if you’re not interested anymore, then that’s fine, I will leave you be. But if we don’t continue, then I will just conclude that you couldn’t continue because you didn’t want to be proven wrong. I will then just conclude you’re not really interested in finding the objective truth, just another Flat Earther looking to confirm a fantasy.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Just trying to reach a conclusion, I’m not trying to be a dick, just pointing out errors where I see them, sharing information. If you’re truly objective, then you’d be interested to know how you could be wrong. If I’m wrong, then I’m more than willing to explore how I am, but so far, I have no reason to conclude that. My apologies if I’ve treated you poorly…but I mean if that bar is set at “anyone who challenges your positions and doesn’t agree with you blindly”, then I’m not sorry at all. I’m free to do so, we have every reason to question Flat Earth, and FE proponents need to wake up and stop pretending like we don’t.
Up to you, I wouldn’t mind a resolution on the point.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 I’ve reached my conclusion, largely because nobody from Flat Earth is able to continue. I just find it odd is all…if you’re so certain of your conclusions, then why can’t you continue arguing them? At least to stalemate…I would eventually get to a point where I have no further evidence, Flat Earthers just give up long before I’ve ever gotten to that point. I can only learn so much on my own, to learn an opposing viewpoint, I have to discuss directly with the opposing viewpoint. Only one of us can be right, but we’re both certain it’s us…yet only one can be. I find that fascinating and I’m curious to find out which one it is for certain. For that, I require someone from the opposite perspective to go the distance with. But…nobody in FE does…so I can really only conclude it’s because they know they can’t. They won’t admit it to me, but that’s the only conclusion I can reach.
You say you’re objective…but then you won’t look at what an opposing viewpoint has to show you? That’s not very objective at all…an objective researcher would at least look at evidence provided.
I’ve come to my conclusions for good reasons, I have the evidence, I’ve done the research…and so now I’m just looking to challenge that evidence and see how well it holds up. But nobody from FE seems up to the challenge, almost like they don’t want to find out if they’re wrong. Could care less if I’m wrong, I would just like to know for certain. Best way to do that, chat with my opposition, and see what I can learn and how well my evidence holds up.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Yes I did have my conclusion already, I’ve said many times, I’ve looked at it for 4 years now…I’ve long reached a conclusion, but so did you. We’re both bias, nobody is free from bias…that’s the reality. Some people really like to think they are….but nobody is, science realized this a very long time ago. The best way to combat your bias, is to chat with your opposition, openly, and actually listen and look at what they share. It doesn’t mean that once I look, I’ll immediately agree…if I can falsify what you share with me, then I will. It’s just to see what we might have overlooked due to our bias, that’s why we discuss with our peers of different opinions. That’s why science included peer review into the method of science, to combat bias. Because it’s very hard for an individual to spot their own biases, but your peers…have no such filter. Our peers can’t wait to show us the holes in our reasoning. So that’s why I have these long chats…it’s not easy, it’s gruelling and annoying and hard, but I do often learn a lot…despite the headaches.
I just prefer being honest, and if I’m not convinced, then I’ll let anyone know why I’m not. I’m not afraid to be wrong, but to prove me wrong is not an easy task…I don’t just roll over, I challenge, until I can’t. And with 4 years of knowledge on this subject, plus a lifetime of experience, I can go a long time before I’m out of evidence.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 You could convince me actually…if you had evidence I couldn’t refute. I would admit whenever I saw that evidence. But so far, Flat Earth has not provided that evidence, while the globe has. So that’s why the Globe position has convinced me. It holds up…and chats like this just prove it further. Only one of us can be right, if you can’t continue…then perhaps it’s time to consider the very real possibility, that the Flat Earth is wrong.
I am very concerned with that possibility…because if it is true that Flat Earth is wrong, then a lot of people are following a movement that isn’t true and it’s effecting their lives. They’re giving up on education, they’re not joining society and they’re not really contributing much, they’re instead finding reasons to hate society and tear it down instead. I chat with lots of Flat Earthers, and they’re generally very angry…and for good reason, they think they’ve been lied too their whole lives. I understand that, it would piss me off too to learn something like that. But if they’re wrong here, then they’re angry for no reason…then they should be angry at the bastards who made them think it was flat. I’m just worried for the mental health of society of late…I think Flat Earth is a symptom of a greater issue we need to address.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
19 billion dollars really doesn’t go very far, when you have a population of 340 million. If you were to disperse that evenly, it’s like 55 bucks a person…what are you gonna do with that? Buy a few groceries that’ll last maybe a few days? You’re not thinking very far ahead, very short sighted. We are natural explorers, that’s what mankind has always been. We’ve explored everything here, but we have a vast expanse of space to explore, so why wouldn’t we? We have to start somewhere and it’s not cheap, but if you think NASA gets a lot of money, just look up the US military spending sometime, you’ll shit yourself. If anything needs to be defunded, it’s the military, leave our science sector alone. Funding science advances us further, if we were smarter, we’d invest more, not less.
1
-
@pauldooris539 1) Technically yes, you’re correct, but there’s always nuance. Science doesn’t think in absolutes, it prefers reasoning in percentages of certainty, but we can reach a level of certainty to a point where it’s a little nonsensical to continue questioning it further. Globe Earth I feel is one of those examples. The trouble is today I feel a lot of people have spent too much time online and not enough time experiencing the actual world, and learning things about it first hand. This has muddied the waters with more argument from ignorance, than actual valid rebuttals and points.
For example; a person who’s never navigated for themselves across an ocean, is more likely to argue that navigation doesn’t require accurate information of Earth’s shape in order to do it successfully. In their mind that’s a valid argument, cause they haven’t confirmed it independently…but on the surface it’s really just an argument from ignorance and lack of real world experience. That’s the problem…people use that technicality of “we can’t prove things scientifically” to wedge misinformation and ignorance, into a discussion they could learn more about if they were willing to listen too experts, rather than pretend they know more than they do. In psychology it’s called the Dunning Krueger effect; non experts tend to think they know more than they actually do, often to a point of thinking they know more than experts. But can you navigate a ship across the pacific? Probably not…so where’s that common sense gone? Real sailors sure can, and they’re happy to share that knowledge. I’m going to trust their knowledge and experience, over an argument from ignorance, any day. So are we really witnessing a mass paranoia? Is the general mental health of society eroding? Where has the trust gone? The information age was supposed to educate…but I fear it’s actually done the opposite, misinformation spreads faster.
For me it’s simple; the difference between science and pseudoscience, is whether or not the information can actually be applied. Are we inventing any technology applied sciences with a flat stationary Earth model? Nope, but the globe sure is, everything from the gyrocompass that helps sailors find true North, to the geographic coordinate system designed for a globe to help them find latitude and longitude. The model works when applied…millions of times per day in fact. At that point, is there any room for argument against the model? There is of course, could be in a simulation for all we know, who knows…but the point is, ignorance is not an argument. Just cause someone doesn’t currently know something, doesn’t mean they can’t learn. Nobody is adding to the conversation by sitting at home, in front of a computer, listening blindly to every conspiracy video they come across. Huxters exist…so you still have to be very careful where you’re getting information from. For me, I determine the difference between science and pseudoscience, by which knowledge can actually be applied…and what can’t. For me, that’s proof enough.
2) Even a broken clock is still right twice a day, what should matter is the information itself. However, yes, we all do this; if something has lost credibility, then we lose trust. But still, I do feel the information is what matters…why do you think I chat with Flat Earthers, even though I strongly disagree with them?
3) There’s a lot of speculation that they were faked, but that’s all really. That’s why I don’t really focus on the Moon landing conspiracy, because I can really only speculate…and that pretty much goes for everyone. I can argue the engineering and the physics, that part I enjoy, and I can falsify certain claims made regarding those topics…but does that mean I’ve proved they happened? Nope…I can only speculate on that, and I don’t care to chase speculations and make arguments from ignorance. So I prefer sticking to conspiracies I can verify…that’s the nice thing about the Earth, I live here! I don’t have to speculate, I can test the Earth myself, by experiencing it. As an amateur astronomer most my life, with a lot of travelling under my belt, I’ve done that…I really wish more people would do the same.
4) Yes, and not all of it is verified science yet, still a lot to learn. But that’s the exciting part! There’s still so much to learn about our reality. I hope you’re not trying to make an argument from personal incredulity by mentioning those speeds though. If you understand basic Newtonian physics (and I assume you do), then you likely know the laws of motion, and relative motion…so you understand that we don’t actually feel motion itself, what we feel is sudden or rapid change in motion.
See Einstein didn’t abolish every tenant of Newtonian physics, just time and gravity really, the rest is still very unchanged. But even his understandings of gravity and time are still useful understandings, Einstein just found some nuance and expanded upon them. Anyway, I digress; Science thinks in percentages of certainty, not absolutes. Some things are less certain, where the Globe model would have probably a 99.999999% certainty, Big Bang would have more like a 70%. It’s the leading theory of cosmology because it currently has the most evidence. Until a better theory comes along, that has more evidence, it will remain the top theory. That’s how it goes.
What irks me is when people think in absolutes. Some seem to think if they can find just one problem with the model, or if they can destroy the credibility of a major source of info, it means we then have to toss the baby out with the bathwater and start over. But no…that’s not how it works, nor should it. If NASA were proven tomorrow to have faked the Moon landings…does it then change the laws of physics? Nope. Does it change the geographic coordinate system used by every pilot and sailor in the world? Nope. It just means they faked the space race…and that’s pretty much it.
It would mean certain things would have to be reevaluated, it would mean public trust would be lost to an extreme…but it doesn’t change the fact that I can toss a ball up within a moving vehicle, and it will conserve the momentum of the vehicle at all times, and land right back into my hand, demonstrating the first law of motion and conservation of momentum.
I feel people focus on the wrong things, and tend to think in absolutes far too often.
Now, do I personally think the Moon landings were faked? Nope, I do not, but I don’t pretend too know for absolute certain, nor do I really care, honestly. I hope it’s not true, because science has lost enough trust lately…but I very much doubt it is. The physics and engineering checks out.
1
-
@pauldooris539 Sadly, I feel most of the bigger names in Flat Earth (Globebusters, Mark Seargent, Dubay, etc) are grifters…not genuine. So no, I’m not very interested in hearing a conman talk…nor do I think they should be allowed access to such an audience. The well of information is tainted enough; the modern online world is a conman’s paradise…they don’t need more opportunities to spread misinformation. I don’t feel they should be outright censored either though (unless they’re spreading hate or in-sighting violence, two things freedom of speech laws actually do not protect, people tend to forget that), but that doesn’t mean we have to hand them an audience for free. If they want a debate amongst experts, then it should be earned through the proper channels.
That’s my stance on that. They’re free to make videos and chat in comment sections, but I don’t think many of them are genuine and those guys don’t really deserve to be on a platform as large as Rogans podcast…but that’s just me.
1
-
@pauldooris539 Yes, I’ve heard it all before…but understand that he did not present evidence, what he actually did was speculate endlessly and make a lot of empty claims. Evidence is tangible, does he present anything tangible? Not really…just goes off on a tangent dropping various points. Most are speculations, like his Clinton comment…did Clinton say the Moon landing was faked? No, he just said jokingly that he wouldn’t be surprised. Is that evidence? No…it’s just something you can bounce endless conjectures upon.
Then other comments are scientifically illiterate. For example; he goes off on the Van Allen Belts, basically claiming that it was impossible to go through the belts, that they’re deadly. Is that actually true? Yes and no, the belts are deadly only after prolonged exposure, as in several days…but you know how much time the astronauts spent in the belts in total? The first Moon mission spent roughly 45 minutes inside the belt in total, there and back. The radiation dose each astronaut received; no more deadly than a few Xrays. And, he fails to mention that they actually waited until Earth’s tilted axis would put them on a trajectory that largely went around the belt, not directly through it.
Joe Rogan is not a scientist…he’s actually pretty ignorant when it comes to science. He has gotten better though, he’s talked to hundreds of scientists and experts at this point, and he’s since changed his stance on the Moon landings after all those conversations.
That tends to happen when you actually learn the science and the little details of something…rather than chase endless speculations.
I feel people really need to relearn what constitutes as evidence…because empty claims and speculations are definitely not it.
1
-
@pauldooris539 What evidence would I require? Well actual evidence would be a good start…speculations, ignorance, empty claims, misunderstandings, these do not count as evidence…though many seem to think they do, for some reason.
But alright, I suppose a very clear example of the physics or engineering being verified as impossible, beyond any doubt. Trouble is, the more you learn in physics and engineering, the more you realize that the Moon landing isn’t only plausible, but it was very likely. It actually would have been harder to fake it…especially back then.
But feel free to share any evidence you’d like, especially if it’s science or engineering based, that’s what interests me when it comes to the Moon landings. I might be able to help you fill some gaps as well, so let me know.
1
-
@pauldooris539 Well, I just prefer solid evidence over empty speculations and (potential) misinformation. I don’t like following a mob mentality down rabbit holes of hysteria, I prefer to stop and think for myself before I jump on any bandwagons. The arguments of Flat Earth and the Moon landing conspiracy are just so paper thin, when you really get down too it…so why would I blindly agree to their claims, if I’m able to identify where they’re going wrong? 🤷♂️
It’s almost like you don’t really care if they’re wrong…it’s a vehicle you can drive at a system you don’t trust and desire to attack. I get it, governments have done some shady shit, and there’s certainly some justice to be deal’d out, but when you focus your attention on things they probably didn’t actually do, following a mob of fabricated hysteria…you just end up dulling your blade, cause you lose credibility yourself. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take a look at every possibility…just means maybe don’t buy into them so quickly, without thinking about them a little first.
Flat Earth is just…wrong, and it’s really not hard to verify that, so it shouldn’t receive any extra attention I feel, it should just circle the drain. The Moon landing conspiracy is a bit better, but the arguments are just so bad…laced with so much scientific illiteracy, and endless speculations paraded as evidence. So while it has more plausibility…the people toting it, are not doing a very good job, they’re doing more to demonstrate their willingness to accept any flimsy ol’ evidence, as long as it confirms their bias. Not realizing that just makes them appear like irrational quacks…hard to get behind them when they shoot themselves in the foot again and again.
I’m more than willing to challenge established science…but Flat Earth and Moon landing sure aren’t making any dents.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pauldooris539 If you think it’s evidence, then that means you’ve reached a conclusion on its conclusive nature. But nothing you’ve shared is conclusive. For example; that guy in your video claimed the flag was wet…did he physically hold the flag in his hand to check its moisture content? No…he just eyeballed it, said it appears wet, then called it a day. That’s not conclusive…yet he’s reached a conclusion anyway. So by definition, it’s a speculation. That entire video is like that…he just makes a bunch empty claims and speculations, none of it conclusive, but pretends it’s evidence anyway.
This is a real problem with the conspiracy minded.
Now as for your Aldrin quote; the problem with it is that you’ve drawn your own conclusion from a literal interpretation of the words, removed from their context. Many different interpretations can be made, so your conclusion is not conclusive, it’s speculation. You also called it a testimony…but he was not on trial, there was no lawyer or representative of the law questioning him, it was just a casual Q&A. So it wasn’t a testimony.
Again, this is a real problem with the conspiracy minded…you see only what you WANT to see, unable to draw other very plausible conclusions. In any case, your conclusions are not conclusive, yet you’ve aligned with a conclusion anyway…that’s the problem.
1
-
@pauldooris539 Things can reach a level of certainty where they are considered conclusive. Twist things as much as you like, even you understand that. Science deals in percentages of certainty, the goal being to reach a percentage of certainty so high, it’s pretty much as close to proven as it can be.
If you have enough evidence, that stands up to scrutiny, then it can be deemed conclusive. Example, the flag argument again; his claim is that it’s wet, the only evidence he presents is that it appears wet because the colour is darker. I can counter that evidence by pointing out that the material used for the flag tends to do that…the shiny, velvety material reflects light in odd ways, causing those darker spots when viewed at certain angles. So I can easily refute his only “evidence”, so his conclusion is not conclusive. Meaning his conclusion is speculative.
We can both only speculate on the true interpretation of Aldrin’s words. My interpretation is that he is saying it wasn’t scary, but it could have been. So your conclusion isn’t conclusive, because my speculation is no more or less valid than yours, they’re both speculation.
That’s my point…we both can only speculate. So it’s a pointless argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daveware3936 Alright, well here’s someone who did take the time to place every world flight on that map you think is accurate https://youtu.be/MiUklHodcho. He does the same for the globe, you’ll notice the flights are curved and the ones in the South are extremely long when placed on the AE/Gleason map, they only really work when placed on a globe.
The UN represents every nation of the world, so what’s a good logo for something like that? A map of the Earth, that shows every nation. Can’t represent an entire 3D globe on a flat 2D flag, some nations would be left out, so a flattened projection map of the globe is used. From a designers standpoint, the AE projection map has a pretty pleasing composition, it’s very balanced. So they probably chose it for a similar reason the Flat Earthers chose it, it looks nice. We’re simple creatures, we’re naturally drawn to symmetry and pleasing composition.
In any case, the current system of navigation uses the WGS87 globe model. Every pilot and sailor today uses this system, with lines of latitude and longitude equal for two hemispheres. So they verify the globe every single day, with every successful voyage that uses that model…so millions of verifications a year.
If you think it’s wrong, by all means learn to navigate, then go ahead and try to navigate anywhere by ship or plane, across an ocean, without using the global system of navigation to help you do it. Go ahead, why speculate when you can test it directly? Learn to navigate…you’ll learn pretty quickly what shape the Earth is.
1
-
NASA didn’t prove the Earth was spherical…that was well established knowledge for over 2000 years before they came around, and anyone can verify it for themselves with just a basic understanding of geometry and a few simple observations. And why would they apologize for a conspiracy a bunch of numpty’s fabricated from their ignorance of physics, and their paranoia? 🤷♂️ From what I’ve seen, those making claims against NASA don’t have actual evidence, they just make a lot of speculations, and reach a lot of erroneous conclusions from very poor understandings of basic physics.
To be fair though, there’s very little most of us can really do to confirm much about space travel for ourselves, so nobody can really do much else but speculate. So why would anyone waste their time? When it comes to the Earth however, you don’t have to speculate about anything, we all live here, we all have experience here, we can all make observations here. You wanna know the best way to verify Earth’s shape for yourself? Learn to navigate…then test it. You learn pretty quickly which shape the Earth is in navigation…spoilers, the entire system of navigation is built from the knowledge that Earth is spherical. If you think it’s bullshit…then you just go right ahead and try navigating across a large ocean sometime, without using the globe model to help you do it…see how well you do. :/
Seriously, it’s fine to ask questions…but when it comes to Earth’s shape, people really gotta snap out of this delusion of Flat Earth as even being remotely possible. If you don’t know how that conclusion was reached, that’s fine…but please learn, we have enough problems with misinformation today.
1
-
Stand under a light in your room, now while looking up at it, spin yourself a full 360 degrees around…did it ever once leave your field of vision? No…it didn’t. Now look at the walls, and spin again, they do pop out of your vision for a time during your rotation. You gotta think in 3 dimensions my dude, the stars work in much the same way. The Big Dipper is an example of a circumpolar constellation, meaning it’s close to the axis of rotation…much like the ceiling above you as you rotated. Then there are the seasonal stars, that lie along the ecliptic plane, think of them like your walls as you rotated…you know many of them as the zodiac constellations. These stars you only see during certain seasons.
Also, not everyone sees the Big Dipper. Anyone South of the Equator, won’t really be able to see it…they have a different set of stars and constellations though, and their own pole star, known as Sigma Octantis. People in New Zealand, Argentina, and South Africa, don’t see the Big Dipper, they instead see the Southern Cross constellation, which is their most prominent and easy to spot constellation. You’ve never seen this constellation, for the same reason they’ve never seen the Big Dipper…because the Earth surface curvature is physically blocking the view of each other’s hemisphere.
It’s one of the easiest proofs of the globe to verify. If you’ve never been to the South Hemisphere before, I’d suggest travelling there sometime…the sky is very different there.
Anyway, there’s some basic astronomy knowledge for you, hope it’s helpful or at the very least interesting.
1
-
@hopebear06 You didn’t really ask a question that warranted evidence, you just implied that you were asking for the explanation why planets remain in their orbits…so I gave you the explanation. What answer were you expecting? A full thesis paper on planetary orbits, including every bit of evidence? 🤷♂️ If you want some evidence for the conclusions, ask better questions how bout. Or just look it up yourself, lots of information and evidence on gravity and planetary motion, start with Newton’s law of universal gravitation, then Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, the Cavendish experiment, the history of how we discovered Neptune, etc. It’s not my problem you didn’t pay attention in physics class, and personal incredulity isn’t an argument, but it’s not hard to catch up in the information age…knowledge today is just a few keystrokes away. I don’t mind sharing evidence, but then ask for that if that’s what you’re confused about.
You’re also making a lot of assumptions, and expecting me to agree to them. Are you an astronomer who’s actually collected data on the positions of celestial objects every night? How do you know the planets have been in the exact positions for millennia? Who’d you get that information from, and why’d you believe them without question? 🧐 Just sayin, your argument isn’t as free from assumption, and theories you pass off as fact, as much as you seem to think it is. Why are you free to make empty claims, but everyone else has strict standards they must adhere too?
From my understanding, the planets do drift, slow down, speed up, wobble, etc, it’s a very complex system. It is in balance, and they do remain in their orbits for the most part, but your thinly veiled argument here hinges on the assumption that they have never changed…and I feel that is very ignorant of the nuances of their orbits and the actual recorded positions over the centuries. Did you watch some ancient aliens on history channel…and all of a sudden you’re an astronomer or something? 🧐
So the way I see it, you started with a claim, that planets have remained exactly the same for millennia…burden of proof is yours to verify that. So what led you to that conclusion?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 Simulation has a very different implication in mathematics. It doesn’t always mean a 3D rendering in a program on a computer, most simulations are ran in numbers on a white board my dude. Fact is, mathematical models never require every variable of physical reality…because it takes too long to include everything, which slows down production, so simplifications are required…which is an entire field of work in mathematics, to simplify math, by identifying redundant variables, and removing them, to speed up production. When you do this in a mathematical model, you have to state very clearly what variables are not being included in the math to follow…It doesn’t mean the Earth is flat, they’re not making literal statements about reality, they’re just simplifying equations….they are models, not complete representations of reality. :/
Just be real man….are you a mathematician? Have you ever written a mathematical model before? Do you really know anything about this stuff? It’s really frustrating explaining this kind of thing, to people who clearly don’t really know much about mathematics…..I try not to be dick, but it’s a little irritating, when non experts misinterpret the actual context of something like this, and then don’t even consider the possibility they could be misinterpreting things.
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 Alright, I’ll give you an example. A large part of flight simulation is understanding the vehicles wind resistance capabilities…do I need to factor the Earth’s shape and motion, into equations to determine a vehicle’s air flow? No, you don’t…so those variables can be omitted in a simulation for that specific purpose…because they will have essentially zero effect on what I’m trying to determine. Of course the end goal of a simulation is to acquire information we can then apply in the real world…but a simulation itself does not require every variable of reality, to determine singular effects or parts of it. And often times, mathematicians will just run complete hypotheticals, just to see what could be possible under various conditions not necessarily possible in reality. A great example of that is the model for the warp drive engine, which was largely running hypothetical simulations…I’m sure if a layperson came across that model, they’d assume the government is building warp drive technology, but the paper in actuality is just a hypothetical simulation with assumed variables.
In this case, with that flight dynamics model, thanks to conservation of momentum physics and Earth’s massive scale, Earth’s motion and its shape won’t have much or any effect on most flight dynamics, so those variables can be ignored in these simulations. If it was a paper on Coriolis effect, or the Magnus effect, or the lesser known Eotvos effect…it would be different, but that’s not what that model is for.
If you read it closely, it also assumes a perfectly rigid vehicle of constant mass…it says those exact words right before it says “a flat non rotating Earth”. Both of those variables are impossible for a vehicle with moving parts (so not perfectly rigid) and fuel that depletes over time (so doesn’t maintain constant mass). They are assumed variables…simplifications, just like the rest of the variables are. They’re not making a literal statement about the Earth, it is a math simplification, for a simulation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 You have a real problem with understanding the little details or nuance of things it seems.
Einstein was referring to an optical experiment, using interferometers. At the time, he believed nobody could detect Earth rotation with that method of observation…he was of course proven wrong, just a few years later, with the Michelson Gale experiment, that used a Sagnac interferometer to not only detect Earth rotation, but measure it as well. The same physics is used today in ring laser gyros on most modern aircraft, to help them detect pitch, yaw and roll…they’re very accurate at detecting rotational motions. Einstein was not infallible, a genius can still be wrong. But he was not wrong about Earth’s rotation, it was already detected through other experiments, like the Foucault Pendulum and Gyroscope experiments…the latter is knowledge used in the gyrocompass today, which is a navigation device used on modern sea vessels, that actually uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function.
So if you think Earth rotation has never been detected…you’ve been watching a bit too much bullshit on YouTube my man.
Both Earth’s curvature and its rotation are scientifically proven facts today, they’ve both actually passed the scientific method, you’ve just been misled. Lotta false information circling around online, you’re currently falling victim to that bad information. If you’d like some examples of experiments done verifying curvature or rotation, I don’t mind sharing…but currently you’ve been misinformed.
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 Oh boy…you’re all scrambled up aren’t you. Modern social media has a lot of poisoned minds to atone for. 😔
Gyros work just fine on our Earth…they also do detect Earth rotation, look up the Foucault Gyroscope experiment sometime, it’s a classic physics experiment repeated many times over the past 200 years.
8 inches per mile squared is a basic parabola equation…not very accurate for a sphere, and it does not represent line of sight. So it’s the wrong math…use the wrong math, and there’s really no wonder why your figures won’t match observations. It’s pretty key in mathematics and science, to double check your math, to make sure it’s accurate…but none of you in FE bothered to check, so you were easy victims for what basically amounts to a sleight of hand trick. The trick was simple, they provided you the wrong math…knowing full well the mathematical literacy of the average person is quite low, so they knew you wouldn’t check it…heck you wouldn’t even know where to start. So it was an easy con to run.
Here’s the correct math, using trigonometric functions.
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
r= radius of Earth
d= distance to object
h= height of the observer
Math is a language, built on the knowledge of axioms and dimensions and perimeters, that define physical reality…it’s basically the language of the universe. So there’s really no better way to prove something, than through mathematics…2+2 will always equal 4, there is no arguing with that. But if you use the wrong math, you will reach a false conclusion…it’s really that simple. That’s why it’s always the first thing scientists double check, when observations don’t match their pre calculated figures.
A scientific theory is very different from a regular theory in the layman usage of the word. In science, hypothesis takes the role of a theory in the regular usage, while theory is a collection of facts and verified science, that describes HOW a phenomena of nature works at its fundamental level. Nothing graduates to a theory until it’s been verified in experimentation, and nothing really goes beyond a theory in science, it is the pinnacle of all research that works to describe HOW something works. So gravity will always be a theory, magnetism will always be a theory, that’s just the word they use for their conclusions. Not to be confused with a scientific law, that only describes WHAT is occurring, but makes no attempt to explain HOW it works. In that way, scientific theories could actually be argued as higher than laws, because you will always have more power and control over a system when you understand HOW it works rather than just WHAT it does. Facts are just tiny bits of information that make up the foundations of both theories and laws of science, so they don’t go higher than either of them.
See…the problem here is you don’t even understand the basics of science…yet you’re gonna argue with me that your scientific understanding is somehow superior? 🤷♂️ Like damn dude…..it’s really no wonder you fell for the dumbest hoax on the internet today. 🤦♂️
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 You’re thinking of the Michelson Morley experiment, which was attempting to find the hypothesized Aether, that physicists of the time thought was the medium light propagated through, and no…that experiment didn’t prove anything, it was inconclusive, that’s always been its conclusion. Inconclusive means the experiment essentially failed to verify or falsify its hypothesis, it means more testing is required. You can’t form a conclusion from an inconclusive experiment…..if you do, then you are doing so out of ignorance of the experiment, and more than likely because of bias.
The Michelson Gale experiment came much later, and successfully detected the Earth’s rotation…they are two separate experiments. The first one failed to verify its hypothesis, the second was successful. Earth is rotating, that’s the conclusion it verified.
If you think either of these experiments were to verify the stars rotated around Earth…then you are just making that shit up, because that is not what either of them were even testing. At that point…if you’re just gonna make shit up and conclude whatever you want, then you are not a rational person, and so there’s no point continuing this conversation, because you are either very dumb, insane, or both.
1
-
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 Both Dark Matter and Dark Energy may be falsified someday, just like the Aether has been currently, both are at the current frontier of physics, just like the Aether once was roughly 100 years ago…acquiring knowledge is a process, it takes time. But while we may not fully understand how our galaxy remains in gravitational equilibrium (which is what dark matter is hypothesized to be the cause for), it doesn’t change the fact that pilots and sailors around the world are successfully navigating the Earth every single day…using the knowledge that Earth is spherical to help them do it. :/ That’s applied science today…meaning it’s more than proven, it’s now working knowledge. The limitations of current physics do not change that….nor does it change the fact that you fell for an online hoax, that twisted information, to feed you bullshit.
The Earth is not flat, I’m sorry, but you seriously need to start questioning the sources that made you believe it was.
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 Jesus fuck, take another bong rip bud. 🙄 The hypothesis for the Michelson Morley experiment, was that light propagates through a medium, much like sound waves propagate through air. This medium physics called the Aether, and that experiment was trying to verify the existence of that medium. The set up for the experiment used Earth rotation as part of its function, but no delay in light propagation was detected, no matter how the interferometer was arranged…so nothing was verified or falsified by that experiment, so it was inconclusive…meaning it didn’t conclude anything, it was basically a failure. Since Earth rotation was already verified by multiple experiments at this point (and many more after), it meant that the Aether was more than likely not a reality. But we don’t stop at single experiments in physics, so more experimentation was done….but none of it successfully found the Aether. Experiment after experiment, came up with absolutely nothing…and that’s still the case today. The Aether has never been successfully detected….that’s the reality.
I’m sorry bud, but you’ve spent too much time listening blindly to pseudo intellectuals feed you bullshit. Gravity is fact, it’s applied science today, in pretty much every field of science. You’re currently using technology that makes use of that knowledge, from the tiny gravitational gyroscopes that flip your phone screen for you, to the GPS that use on your phone….you have no idea how fucking lost you are in your understandings of basic physics.
1
-
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 It’s like talking to a wall. 🤦♂️No, it did not. Michelson Morley is inconclusive, full stop! Meaning it doesn’t verify or falsify any conclusion…that’s what inconclusive means. Michelson Gale verified Earth rotation…anyone can look this up, that’s the official conclusion. You can even repeat the experiment…and it’s currently science that’s used in ring laser gyros to detect physical rotations, from a body in a rotational motion. It can not detect rotation from something else revolving around it…that’s not how it works. 🤦♂️ Sagnac effect detects rotational motion from the object that is in a rotational motion…everything outside of that object, it can not detect…this isn’t difficult to understand. You’re trying very hard to ram a square peg into a round hole here…and you’re just looking like an idiot while doing it.
Gravity is one of the easiest forces to verify…drop something, did it fall at an accelerated rate towards surface? Yes, it did. Falling is a motion, all change in state of motion requires a force to cause it…it doesn’t just occur on its own. That’s physics 101. So a force is present putting that matter into motion.
The experiment that verified our current understanding further was the Cavendish experiment, and it’s very easy to repeat. So you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I’m sorry dude, but you learned a bunch of bullshit from huxters…who also have no idea what they’re talking about. You need to peel your face away from your phone, and go back to school…so you can actually learn something.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If a rocket hit a dome at that velocity…wouldn’t you expect it to be completely destroyed by the impact? 🧐 Ya…you would…that’s pretty common sense I would think.
I think you should look up the yo-yo despin mechanism sometime, it makes use of conservation of angular momentum to counter the rockets spin. They put the rocket into a controlled spin, because its the easiest way to stabilize a rockets trajectory, it turns it into a sort of gyro, which keeps it flying straight. Perfect for any unmanned rocket. But eventually, you’re gonna want to stop that rotation…especially if you have cameras on the outside of the rocket. So a despin mechanism is included, to stop the rotation…and there’s plenty of information out there on how these devices work, with demonstrations. Even in that video, you can see the despin cable firing out, at about the 1 minute 38 second mark.
So maybe don’t jump to conclusions without doing a bit more research first. If you’re not a rocket scientist, or not very well versed in physics, then maybe don’t assume so much. I’m starting to think Flat Earth was a litmus test for spotting the scientifically illiterate.
Your second point is pure speculation, and doesn’t really mean much. Should never reach conclusions from speculations alone, it’s just confirmation bias.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMic00 Oh boy, more gish gallop eh. You set em up, we’ll keep knocking em down.
Both Airy’s failure and Michelson Morley experiments, were an attempt to find the Aether…and that’s what they both failed at, which helped confirm that Aether does not exist. They were not testing Earth’s motion, they were both using Earth’s motion as a variable.
Airy’s base premise for its experiment relied on the knowledge that Earth is orbiting the Sun, it used the same stellar aberration principle as observed in annual observation of stars in 6 months periods. Stars shift every 6 months, as they would if we were orbiting the Sun, which confirms that we’re moving around the Sun. He was trying to detect the same aberration in different materials, on a shorter time scale, water and then air within a telescope, which would confirm a premise of the Aether. There was none, so he failed to detect the Aether that was believed to be the medium that light propagates through…that’s why it’s called Airy’s failure.
Michelson and Morley were attempting the same thing, from a different means. Their experiment was found to be inconclusive. Meaning, it did not verify or falsify anything….so it can not be used to reach a conclusion for either the hypothesis or the null hypothesis, which was Earth motion. If you use an inconclusive experiment to reach a definite conclusion, then you are doing so out of bias. You can’t reach a definite conclusion from the experiment, but what you can do is use it to consider the possibility if the premise was wrong. It was supposed to be a simple experiment to find the Aether…it didn’t succeed, so physics had to consider the possibility that Aether did not actually exist. The reason they didn’t consider the same for Earth’s motion, is because there was already tons of evidence supporting Earth’s motion. Foucault Pendulums, Coriolis effect, stellar parallax, North aligning gyros that use Earth’s rotation and gyroscopic precession, just to name a few. Aether on the other hand had no tangible evidence supporting it…so you see why Aether had to go back to the drawing board?
And Sagnac effect was successful, but it wasn’t testing Aether drag, it was just testing if light put into a rotation could cause a delay. It does…and a measurable one at that. This confirms the speed of light and relativity. It’s currently used in ring laser gyros on planes, to detect rotational motions of pitch, yaw and roll…they’re also used in detecting Earths rotation.
So no, you’re just dumping more butchered science, repackaged to con idiots online.
1
-
@SuperMic00 No, I agree with that conclusion, because it’s a proven, verifiable fact of our reality, that I’ve verified for myself, through my own observations and experience. Let’s be honest, you listened blindly to con men on some Flat Earth channels feed you bullshit, and you just agreed to all of it without question…so you’re one to talk about blindly believing what you were told. You don’t have a working model, yet you believe it without question anyway…can you say hypocrite? How about gullible? How about sucker?
It’s no coincidence that NOBODY in Flat Earth has ever contributed to any applied science…it’s because they can’t, because they don’t know anything, they’re just making it all up as they go. You’re too far gone to help, but we can still point out your errors anyway, it’s a good exorcise and it keeps misinformation in check.
1
-
1
-
@SuperMic00 Neil has made a lot of erroneous comments, but he’s not lying. There’s a difference between flat out lying and just not knowing, or speaking in nuance. Truth is, you can begin to see curvature from a plane at just 30,000 feet, but it’s so very slight, it’s very difficult to spot with the naked eye. Bringing a tool to help you measure it however, and it becomes much easier. Like a theodolite, that can measure the horizon drop https://youtu.be/WVTgP-KpyRc. You can even start to see the curve from this view, it’s slight, but it’s there. I’ve made these observations from planes as well.
What Neil is trying to say, is that it’s not easy to see curvature at 30,000 or even 100,000 feet, because the Earth is huge…you’ve still barely left the surface. He’s not wrong, it is difficult, hence why so many claim to never see it, even at great heights. But you can see it, it is there, you just have to look closer. So he is wrong to say you can’t see curvature, but I don’t think that’s what he was implying. His argument is basically that with the naked eye, it’s difficult. He’s commenting on the common pop cultural misconception, that you can see curvature easily from a plane or weather balloon. You can see it…it’s just not as pronounced as most people believe.
Then there’s the weather balloon footage. Here’s someone analyzing the Flat Earthers favourite, the dog cam footage, this time just drawing a line shows it’s clearly curving https://youtu.be/edsUrLXrlLg?t=72. No fish eye lens here, this is footage that even flatties accept.
Then there’s making observations on the z axis. Here’s several.
https://youtu.be/ybkgOD_4CTg
https://youtu.be/MoK2BKj7QYk
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
Then there’s physically measuring the curvature. Here’s a couple methods.
https://youtu.be/EIOs-PzNIZU?t=3177
https://youtu.be/J9w4KtHxZ68?t=905
All of these observations are easy to recreate for one’s self. Curvature is observed and measured everywhere, you just need to start paying attention.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMic00 The natural physics of water is to conform to whatever force is acting upon it. Here’s an example of water put under a consistent centrifugal force https://youtu.be/cTCwhicKKwU. Damn…would you look how curved that surface is. Water is inert, it doesn’t “seek” anything, it conforms to forces…like gravity.
Level does not mean flat in every context, learn the English language please, single words have many different definitions depending on the context. You think level only means flat, but nope, it can also mean a surface with all points at equal distance from a centre, also known as an equipotential surface. Don’t believe me, then just check the definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level. Read under adjectives.
I feel like I’ve already explained this too you, so now we’re just going in circles. You fell for a con bud, time to accept that.
1
-
@SuperMic00 You do know there is a major difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory, right? In science, hypothesis takes the form of a theory in the regular layman use of the word. While a scientific theory is the pinnacle of all research, proven concepts that have graduated far past hypothesis, tested and reviewed rigorously, nothing graduates to the level of theory until it has mountains of evidence supporting it, and nothing goes beyond a theory in science.
Gravity is also a law of science as well, just look up Newton’s law of universal gravitation sometime. But it’s a common misconception that laws of science are higher status than theories. Laws are just simpler, a lot more rigid and basic in form, so they’re far less likely to be changed or refined once they’re worked out, but they only describe WHAT is happening, they make no attempt to explain or describe HOW or WHY something works the way it does. For that we have theory, scientific theories attempt to explain HOW a phenomenon of nature operates at the mechanical level.
Since knowing HOW something operates gives you far more power and control over that system, than simply just knowing WHAT it does, for that reason, theory is actually higher than laws within science.
So no, Gravity is not “just a theory”, all you’re doing is further displaying your own scientific illiteracy and misunderstandings…in any real scientific arena, you would be forfeited from the conversation the moment you said something was “just a theory”. It’s really no wonder why you think the Earth is flat…you don’t really know much about much. That’s how these conmen were able to fool you…by exploiting your lack of knowledge and understanding.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMic00 So you know how a scale works I hope. You press DOWN upon a scale to apply a FORCE, which creates pressure that is then calculated as a weight value. So ask yourself this, if there’s no downward force we call gravity, then how exactly is a mass resting on the scale, still pressing down upon the scale to create pressure? Even in vacuum this will happen. Falling is a motion…and nothing is put into motion without a force, that’s one of the most fundamental basics of physics.
Helium and hydrogen rise due to buoyancy, the same counter force that keeps the Seawise Giant a float. It actually uses gravity to work…buoyancy does not exist without gravity. The downward force of gravity, is what causes the displacement of matter by density, creating buoyancy effect. Without gravity, buoyancy does not exist. Proven time and again within simple drop tests like this https://youtu.be/YDXQ-VBjW7Q?t=188, and in density columns put in zero G environments like we see here https://youtu.be/rpP-7dhm9DI?t=167.
Here is the formula for buoyancy; Fb=Vpg. Translates as; buoyancy force is equal to fluid volume, times fluid density, times acceleration of gravity. Remove any one of those variables, and you will not be able to calculate an objects buoyancy…gravity is a variable, it helps create buoyancy. So buoyancy does not exist without it…basic physics of buoyancy, agreed upon by every engineer and scientist in the world.
That equation I shared above, is the equation that engineers do use, when designing the ballast tanks, for ships like the Seawise Giant. Applied science in action…they were only able to design ships like that, thanks to our understanding of gravity physics and its relationship to buoyancy. If science was wrong about gravity and its relationship with buoyancy, then we would not be able to design large ships or submarines.
Your version of things, is absolutely useless…go ahead and calculate for me an objects buoyancy rate, without gravity as a variable. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
While you’re at it, learn what weight is…it’s just another name for gravity. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-physics/forces-and-newtons-laws-of-motion/newtons-first-law-mass-and-inertia/a/what-is-weight Without gravity, then weight doesn’t exist either. Mass is what you always have, weight is a product of gravity times mass; W=mg.
1
-
@SuperMic00 No…Flat Earthers NEED gravity to go away, because it’s not very convenient for their arguments. So they’ve decided denial is how they make it go away. No science or counter explanations, no peer reviewed studies or replacements in mathematics, just denial and ignorance. Then you pat yourselves on the back and call it a day, pretending you’re superior, while at the same time achieving nothing.
Fraid that doesn’t cut it. The whole point of science is to produce mathematical models, that accurately describe physical reality, so that they are useful when applied. Applied science is the end goal of all scientific research…if we’re not honest and objective about our discoveries, then we are left with junk science that is absolutely useless.
Go ahead and derive me new equations, using your superior understanding of physics, that engineers can actually use. Go ahead…..but if you can’t, then it’s because your understandings are flawed somewhere.
That’s the nice thing about junk science…it reveals itself by how useless it is. You’re arguing against science that is beyond discussion anymore, it’s graduated to applied science…and when it’s applied, it works. That’s because it’s accurate. If it wasn’t, then none of it would work when applied.
It’s really that simple. You’re only fooling yourselves.
1
-
@SuperMic00 Denser matter will always occupy lowest potential energy first, so the basketball isn’t going to be able to go down, because the water is denser, it’s already occupying that space closer to centre of gravity…so gravity effectively causes water to push the ball up, by displacing it. Basic physics of buoyancy.
So the trouble is that Flatties are half right, you’ve essentially chopped up gravity physics and you’re half there…but you’re intentionally ignoring the downward force that starts it all. The basketball is pushed out of the way, because water is denser than the air inside, that denser matter will occupy a position closer to gravity, before less dense matter. A penny is more dense, so it pushes water up, displacing it, that displacement is equal to its volume density. Archimedes principle in a nutshell.
You’re just describing gravity physics, without gravity. Gravity causes buoyancy, that’s physics 101. Fb=Vpg, that’s how we calculate buoyancy, without gravity, it does not occur.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMic00 All things with mass create gravity, even you do…everything with mass does. Proven in the Cavendish experiment and many other similar experiments, repeatable science. Here’s the simplest demonstration and explanation https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68.
The amount of gravitational attraction, depends on the mass of the object…so Earth is massive, hence why its gravity is as well. The Sun is even more massive, hence why everything in our solar system is able to orbit around it. We’re not orbiting Earth, because we are not moving faster than Earth, we are moving with it. A cannon ball shot at surface could potentially break into an orbit…if it wasn’t immediately being slowed by AIR RESISTANCE. Drag force is something projectiles on Earth have to deal with, our Earth does not, because space is a vacuum…so there is nothing there to cause drag.
First law of motion states that all things in motion STAY in motion, unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. Drag creates that unbalanced force, so projectiles slow and then drop to Earth due to drag force first slowing it enough for gravity to do the rest. Which is why projectiles don’t break into orbits, they are moving at escape velocities, they just don’t maintain it, because they are affected by drag from the moment they leave the barrel.
A rocket on the other hand, has a way of maintaining velocity through atmospheric drag, by way of rocket propulsion, the engines and fuel that keep it maintaining velocity. Flatties wrongfully assume rockets can’t work in a vacuum, but it’s just more misunderstandings in basic physics. See you guys believe rockets push off of air, like a plane does, but nope, rockets propel themselves by way of the third law of motion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The gas essentially pushes off the container, and the container (the rocket) pushes off the gas. So they push off of each other, using each other’s inertia, action, reaction…like tossing a heavy medicine ball with a pair of skates on ice, would fling you backwards, very similar physics. Rockets actually work better in the vacuum of space actually, because there’s no drag.
Basic laws of motion make it all possible. Earth maintains velocity because of conservation of momentum, it’s moving faster forward than it is being pulled to the Sun, so it maintains orbit around it, essentially falling around it, like a coin in a funnel, except unlike the coin that is slowed by friction and drag, Earth doesn’t have that problem, so it orbits indefinitely, thanks to conservation of momentum. We use the exact same physics to put satellites and rockets into orbit around Earth. The same physics is why the Moon orbits us as well…basic orbital mechanics, a perfect balance between forward momentum and force of gravity, creates a stable orbit.
So gravity was a pivotal discovery, because it explains almost everything. When gravity was fully realized…the mysteries of the cosmos started falling like dominoes. It has made space travel and satellite technology possible. It makes sense of more than just why objects fall to Earth, it explains why everything we observe in space is spherical, it explains orbits, it explains how planets and stars are created, it even explains how the Sun burns, through nuclear fusion reactions sustained by its intense gravity fusing hydrogen molecules together. Which we’ve successfully recreated in fusion reactors by the way…with the help of our current knowledge of gravity.
Remind me again what Flat Earth science has achieved?
1
-
1
-
@SuperMic00 The globe can answer for the tides, down to a mathematical certainty….your model can’t even explain a lunar eclipse, or how the moon even stays in the sky, let alone tides. 😂 So don’t get too ahead of yourself. Flat Earth can’t answer anything. From gravity, to sunsets, to the orbits of planets, to the entire Southern Hemisphere, sun, moon, planets, tides…the Flat Earth model can’t explain any of it. While the globe answers for everything with relative ease and it can back it all up with evidence.
You can bury me in gish gallop all day, won’t change reality. Earth is a globe, always has been.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Eventually this planet is going to have a civilization ending event occur, it’s just inevitable. So it’s in our best interest to spread ourselves out across space, inhabiting multiple planets. It’s just smart for our long term survival. But space isn’t easy to travel in…so we have a lot more to learn about it, before we can ever hope to master it. Gotta start somewhere.
If you think it’s not beneficial for mankind to study and explore space, then you’re pretty short sighted. We’re natural explorers, it’s a big part of what’s got us this far…why would we ever stop something that’s such a big part of our success and is baked into our very nature? 🤷♂️
It’s also in the best interest for any nation to fund the sciences, if it wants any hope of staying at the top of industry. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. Fund scientific research into fish farming, and you feed an entire nation for a lifetime. So it should be a no brainer why funding science is beneficial.
NASA makes pennies compared to the military…seriously, you should compare their annual budgets sometime. If the US took even 1% of the military budget, they could easily build and fund better homeless shelters. Take 10% and they could solve so many more problems. So you should be pissed at the military budget, not NASA.
1
-
Well, what is that old saying about rocket science? It's not easy, but they have since solved these dilemmas. Today, they bring their own oxidizer along in the form of liquid oxygen (yes, oxygen can be liquefied)...this is the oxidizer and it is burned inside the fuel compartment, not outside and is added to the fuel as it burns to keep it burning. Once in space, they don't require as much fuel, because there is no wind resistance, and they're not fighting against gravity so much anymore, they're using it in the form of an orbit, so there is far less resistance, meaning less fuel required to move around. So they can switch engines to something that doesn't require oxygen or a constant burn, just something that requires a chemical reaction of some sort, so two chemicals that when combined cause a volatile chemical reaction that creates a burst of propellant...and they have lots of different options at this point. They only require liquid oxygen really for getting into space, once there, they can switch to something different or keep using it, there are options and many different types of rocket engines at this point.
Just to list some of the other options they're currently working on as well, they also have nuclear rockets...which generate far greater thrust then regular engines that require the burning of fuel, but they still have issues with radioactivity so they haven't been put into use yet, but they also have fusion engines which could potentially trump both options...and is completely safe for the crew. But the problem here is the same as all problems with fusion, that being maintaining fusion reaction for long periods of time...that's why we don't have fusion anything just yet...it's very hard to maintain fusion. There is also ion rockets, which are pretty interesting but do not generate much thrust (so can't get us off the ground), just a constant thrust that is almost limitless...which is perfect for once we're in space. Lots of cool advancements in rocket tech these days...but anyway, yes, to answer your original question, they bring their own oxidizer in the form of liquid oxygen to maintain any fuel burn required.
1
-
1
-
@JessiQT17 Well you clearly didn’t bother to read my full comment, where I explain how poorly set up the “Cold Moonlight experiment” truly is. You numpty’s didn’t think to include a control for your experiment, to isolate the main variable of your hypothesis. I don’t much care to repeat it all either, so you can just scroll up and reread it. Your claim also breaks thermodynamics physics. Light is basically energy, energy is never cold, it’s what produces all the thermal energy in the entire universe. You ever been near a hot plasma? It’s not producing a cold light. The Sun is a plasma…plasma only burns hot, it’s HEATED gas, that’s what a plasma is. You are an idiot, who was easily conned by huxters online, with smoke and mirrors, it’s all keep your eye on their empty claims, and ignore common sense. That’s the reality. It’s a con…and YOU fell for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JessiQT17 Do you even know what plasma is? It’s basically heated gas…you ever seen fire maintain a rigid structure? The Sun is basically a plasma, if you view it through a solar filter lens you’ll see its surface, and it’s constantly shifting and changing…cause that’s how plasma works.
Look through a telescope sometime, the surface of the Moon is clearly rigid, does not shift or change, and with shadows in its many craters…a plasma would not do that, it wouldn’t have craters at all actually.
Your conclusion is ignorant of basic physics and astronomy. You think you’re revealing some truth to us, but what you’re really doing is not listening or considering what we’re saying, instead continuing to ram a square peg into a round hole. I’m listening to your conclusion, but it’s in contradiction to how plasma actually works, so I’m sorry, but I do not agree with your conclusion for that reason.
I feel strongly that you were fed some bullshit, that’s the real truth. Use your head please…THINK about what I’m saying instead of ignoring it, you might realize then who the real huxters are.
1
-
@JessiQT17 If by “lunar waves” you mean the shimmering effect you see, that’s atmospheric refraction. You see the same thing on the horizon when you look through a telescopic lens…that’s because you’re looking through atmosphere, and atmosphere is gas, so it’s a fluid, and thus is constantly flowing and shifting, causing light to shimmer and wave, distorting what you see. If the Moon were a plasma, it would not have rigid forms that remain the same over time, like craters. Only solid matter can maintain a rigid structure, all other states of matter (liquid, gas, plasma) shift and change constantly over time. That’s a fact, not an opinion.
Anyway, no disrespect, it’s good to question things, even well established science, so I hope I haven’t patronized you. It’s actually quite admirable. I hope that information is helpful or at the very least interesting, and I hope it’s at least considered. Take care.
1
-
1
-
@sterlingracing7135 Earth’s rotation and gravity, have both been measured and observed, in several different ways. Just because you’re currently not aware of how, doesn’t mean they haven’t.
For rotation it was first proven by the Foucault pendulum experiment, and then later by the same physicist Léon Foucault, who devised a simpler (and lesser known) experiment, the Foucault gyroscope experiment. Both are repeatable, you can even use the Foucault Pendulum experiment to calculate your latitude, as the pendulums rate of precession is different depending on your latitude.
There’s also simple experiments of Coriolis you can check out, plenty on YouTube. Then there’s ring laser interferometers that directly measure Earth’s 15 degrees per hour drift. And are you aware that Earth’s rotation generates a small amount of centrifugal force at the Equator? This actually causes everything at the Equator to weigh slightly less, about 0.3% less. This can be tested with a simple scale and a set of weights.
So plenty of evidence today that verifies Earth’s rotation…and that didn’t even include all of the Astronomy data, and the gyrocompass, which is a device that actually uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function.
For gravity there’s plenty of various drop tests, and there’s the Cavendish experiment (all easily repeatable). Plenty of people reproducing the Cavendish experiment, you can find scores of people conducting the experiment on YouTube. Then there’s the Eddington experiment that verifies relativity physics, it’s recreated pretty much every time there’s an eclipse. And it’s applied science, we use our understanding of gravity in everything from calculating your weight (W=mg), to determining buoyancy force (Fb=Vpg), to determining an aircraft’s thrust to weight ratio (ratio=F/W=ma/mg=a/g), then there’s the whole field of orbital mechanics and astrophysics, which accurately predict the positions of celestial bodies with gravity as a variable, and put satellites into orbit with that knowledge.
So again, just because you’re not currently aware of the science, doesn’t mean there isn’t any.
If you’re curious to know how they determined the Earth’s inner composition, look into the science of Seismology, more specifically do some research on S and P waves. In a brief summary, every Earthquake releases shockwaves that travel along Earth’s surface and through the Earth. Any large Earthquake (8.0 or greater), will actually produce shockwaves that travel all the way through the Earth, to ping stations on the other side of Earth. These waves almost quite literally paint us a picture of what the inner composition of Earth is. There’s two types of inner waves, S waves and P waves. P waves (primary waves/pressure waves) travel much faster and they travel through anything, solid, liquid, air, doesn’t matter. But they travel at different rates depending on the material. S waves (secondary waves/shear wave) are slower, and can only travel through solid matter, so they stop once they hit liquid or air. This creates shadow zones in the data, telling us that the core is liquid in nature. This data combined with the p wave data, tells us a lot about Earth’s core.
And the conclusion fits with other models of science, for example, it helps make sense of our electromagnetic field. We’re pretty good at creating our own electromagnetic fields, and they require a few ingredients…such as a metal alloy, spun into a coil, with a lot of energy traveling through it. The outer core swirls around the inner core, and the heat and pressure generates a lot of energy. Iron and nickel are common metal alloys used in electromagnetic conductors, and they just so happen to be the most common metal alloys found on Earth, every volcanic eruption spews out tons of it.
So there’s more science here than you think. We don’t have to physically go directly into something, to learn more about it. We’re limited in what we can do physically, but mankind is pretty clever, we have plenty of other methods we can use, to probe deeper into places we can’t physically go.
Anyway, I hope this information is helpful, or at the very least interesting.
1
-
@squidly2112 But it is greater, with a consistent source of new energy…the reason temperature is in equilibrium in a goldilocks zone is because energy is being shed just as quickly as it’s coming in, it’s in balance. But if you increase the insulating layer, then the balance is disrupted for a moment, until equilibrium is reached again…that means a temperature increase from where it was before. You keep ignoring the source of energy for some reason…we’re not talking about a cup of coffee removed from a source of heat, that’s a false equivalence, we’re talking about a thermos held to a flame, and you increase the insulating layer.
We all know what happens to a container held too close to a flame…it can’t shed energy quicker than it’s coming in, the heat and pressure inside increases, it explodes. Obviously we wouldn’t explode, but it would be similar in some ways, if we slightly increased the insulating layer of our atmosphere, temperature would increase slightly as well. And perhaps C02 has more transparency to short wave radiation, than long wave…that I’m uncertain of currently (worth researching though), but all I’m saying is, I feel there are variables you are ignoring…namely the constant source of new energy.
So by your argument, if Mars were to get a denser atmosphere by terraforming it (assuming we could jump start its magnetosphere or substitute it somehow), the surface wouldn’t warm up and melt its ice?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@squidly2112 You don’t understand how holding a sealed container to a flame eventually causes an exponential rise in temperature inside the container, until it explodes? 🧐 Odd…don’t need to be a scientist to understand that…figured it was pretty common knowledge. Are you sure you’re a scientist?
The point is that it’s the insulating layer that helps to cause the rise in temperature, if a system can’t shed new energy faster than it’s coming in, then overall temperature rises…pretty simple, in fact it’s common sense. My point is, the energy coming into Earth from the Sun is GREATER, it’s not equal to, or less than. You’re trying to argue that it’s equal…yet you even agree the surface of the Moon is hot in the day (by hundreds of degrees). Is our system hundreds of degrees? No…so obviously the energy coming in from the Sun is greater. 😳 Not equal too, or less than….greater. If you can contain more of that energy for longer, faster than Earth can normally shed it, then temperature will rise. This isn’t difficult to understand I feel.
But you claim gases can’t insulate…yet at the same time you said that our atmosphere keeps the surface from getting as hot as the day side of the Moon, and as cold as the night side. Sooo, it insulates it…what’s the atmosphere doing if not insulating Earth? You’ve just described an insulator…and admitted that our atmosphere insulates the Earth.
Sorry, but you are overthinking this to the point of twisting it in your favour, your claims are very contradictory. On one hand you say gases don’t insulate…on the other you agree that our atmosphere regulates our temperature. Meaning it insulates it. 😳
What predictions have come true? I already told you, my area has been experiencing more extreme fires over the last decade, we now expect a smoky season every year, at least a month of smoke and fires in the area. We’ve always had fires, but in the nearly 40 years I’ve lived here, the last decade has seen a substantial increase, to the point where we now have a smoky season, of low visibility and low air quality…every summer now, not just some of them. And it’s not just here; California, Greece, Australia, the Amazon, all have experienced more extreme wild fires one after the other in the past decade, than they have in a centuries time.
That’s an example of the warning signs we were expected to have, more extreme fires…and ya, that’s been happening, have you been paying attention to the news?here’s another; reports I’ve read show that the Arctic regions are melting exponentially (which adds to greenhouse gases, as water vapour is far worse than C02), that’s another warning sign that has been occurring. More extreme weather has been occurring in the last 10-15 years…right now roughly a quarter of America is experiencing blizzard conditions the likes of which most of them have never seen before. I’ve never heard of a blizzard of that magnitude before…covering nearly a quarter of a continent? And parts around Asia and middle east last summer (India especially) got so hot that roads were melting and it was dangerous to be outside in the heat, because heat exhaustion was pretty much guaranteed away from any air conditioning…they were shattering heat records, not just by a little bit, they were way beyond any previous records.
So I don’t know what you’re talking about…but the predictions are coming true as far as I’m concerned. I’ve noticed it personally in the form of extreme forest fires…we never used to be this bad here, it’s increased in the last decade and shows no signs of slowing down.
Here’s the crux of this whole thing…if everyone else is wrong about global warming, nothing really changes, we go about our lives. If YOU are wrong, and we do nothing…then we are fucked. So I don’t really care if I am wrong, it’s the safer option. It’s logical to address potential threats to our planet and way of life.
But I think you are wrong here…I find some of your arguments very contradictory, and you’re quite literally the first person I’ve ever chatted with, who doesn’t think the gases of an atmosphere are what helps to warm the surface if a planet…but yet you agree it does, but it doesn’t at the sane time? I think you’re too hung up on the aspect that C02 is typically used as a coolant…and ya, so is water, but water can also insulate and heat…I’m sure you’ve noticed a wet muggy summer is far hotter than a dry one? Place an ice cube in a glass of water, it’s gonna melt a lot faster than if you just left it on the table. Point is, just because something makes for a great coolant in one application, doesn’t mean it can’t also have the opposite effect in a different situation. I’m sure you’d agree snow is very cold, but eskimos have been using them for igloos for centuries…because it’s also a great insulator, perfect for trapping heat in a system for longer.
1
-
@squidly2112 Here’s another point I’d like to make; I could care less if you are an engineer or scientist…if you are, then you’re not a very good one. I argue with Flat Earthers a lot (it’s a sad hobby of mine); in the flat Earth community there is a mechanical engineer named Brian Mullen. He’s a confirmed engineer, fully accredited, has worked in various industries as an engineer…he’s legit. And yet he believes the Earth is flat….you know how many people have tried to help him understand the law of conservation of momentum? Cause one of his big arguments is that Earth can’t be in motion, because planes wouldn’t be able to keep up with the surface if the Earth were in motion. This is an engineer saying this……someone who should be well versed in the laws of motion, law of inertia, conservation of momentum, and relative motion physics in general.
Now I’m sure you can agree Flat Earth is dumb as shit…yet an accredited engineer doesn’t understand the physics of the globe model, and thus is a Flat Earther because of it.
This is why I could give a shit if you are an engineer or a scientist…that does not make you infallible. If anything, it can tend to make a person over confident…happens a lot.
I feel you are wrong here, some of the things you’re saying are very contradictory. But at this point we’re now going in circles I feel, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
1
-
1
-
@squidly2112 No, seriously dude…you came here claiming our current understanding of greenhouse effect breaks the laws of thermodynamics…while demonstrating you don’t understand thermodynamics very much at all. I can explain to a child how when you put a container to a flame, temperature will increase within the container, and they will understand that it’s the containment/insulation that drives the increase, because a greater source of energy is providing greater energy in the system, and the system is unable to shed the energy quicker than it’s coming in, BECAUSE OF THE INSULATOR, which causes temperature to rise…this is basic stuff, but yet a person claiming to be a scientist can’t understand this? 🧐
It’s very simple…the Sun provides a greater source of energy, and atmosphere acts as an insulator. If the insulator increases, then the system can’t shed this energy quicker than it’s coming in, meaning overall temperature increases…it’s incredibly simple to understand.
If you are an engineer or scientist as you claim…then holy fuck.
I hate being a dick about it…but this outlines the problem with this whole debate. Flat Earth nonsense doesn’t do much…nobody ultimately loses in that discussion, so it’s fun to argue. But this discussion on global warming is not one we can afford to be wrong about. :/ So if you’re wrong…you need to realize it, and you need to change your stance…because if it is happening and we don’t act because of the resistance it receives…then we’re fucked. Should I change my stance if I’m wrong? Sure, absolutely…but it doesn’t have as much urgency, because me being wrong doesn’t mean the world is at stake.
That’s what irks me the most I suppose…..if you’re wrong, and you successfully convince people this isn’t something to worry about…then we are fucked.
1
-
@squidly2112 If people are “stompy feet” with you, it’s because they’re stunned by your position and then frustrated with your inability to understand some pretty simple concepts…especially when you say you’re a scientist…it’s a bit scary. I was interested at first, because you were providing a new argument I had not heard yet, and I did learn more about the the science of greenhouse effect (I don’t argue global warming very often, so I’m admittedly very new too it, so anything new I can learn is interesting). But gases do insulate…and the atmosphere does do that for our planet, as it does for every planet.
The Sun provides a greater source of energy, it’s not equal too or less than our system, it’s greater. So it’s understandable that if more of that greater energy is contained for longer, it will cause an increase.
I don’t care about a person’s credentials, but there’s nuance, I will respect their opinion a little more…as I did for you for a time, until realizing your argument is…dumb. At that point the veneer of a persons credentials loses its sheen, but my ability to question someone is never rattled by credentials.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonyornelas9374 It’s not just curvature you need to factor, it’s observer height, distance to horizon, arc length, height of object being observed, its tilt relative to you, etc. And that’s just the geometric calculation to determine line of sight, but then there’s also atmospheric refraction, which requires you first understand what that is and how it works. It is a real phenomenon that effects what we see, so it helps to verify and understand that first, before rushing into scientific observations. I feel a lot of flat Earthers jump right into things, equipped with shotty math with missing variables (8 inches per mile squared being the worst offender), with zero prior knowledge or understanding in the physics of light, optics and light refraction…then they wonder why their math doesn’t match with observation.
Here’s the correct geometric calculation, using trig functions.
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
r= Radius of Earth
d= distance to observation
h= observer height
Observer height is the most important variable here, because as we all know, the higher you go, the further you see. The biggest problem with the math people have been convinced to use (8 inches per mile squared), is that it doesn’t have any variable for observer height. It gives you the exact same figure whether you’re at 6 feet elevation or 10,000 feet, it doesn’t adjust at all. So that’s the biggest issue there, among many other important variables it ignores. So it’s pretty simple to figure out why the math doesn’t match observation…it’s the wrong math. Use the wrong math, and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple.
And that’s just the geometric calculation, you then have to factor refraction.
So what’s the problem as I see it? People being easily conned by huxters, who exploit their lack of scientific and mathematical literacy. I don’t feel they are stupid, they’re just not trained in proper scientific practices, so confirmation bias reigns.
Anyway, I hope that information is helpful, or at the very least interesting.
1
-
@tonyornelas9374 A benchmark only factors elevation from mean sea level…and sea level (like all elevations) is measured from centre of Earth. So they technically both account for curvature, because the benchmarks do…because they’re measured from sea level, which is an equipotential surface from centre of Earth. It works like this, stick a bunch of two inch pins exactly 1 inch deep into the surface of a ball, scattered all around its surface. What is the height of each pin, from surface of the ball, to top of each pin? 1 inch…that’s how elevation works as well, that’s where benchmarks measure from, from sea (similar to the surface of that ball), to the benchmark elevation. The sea is all at the same distance from centre of Earth, every point of its surface is at the same LEVEL from centre, held there by the field of force we call gravity, that’s an equipotential surface…a spherical bubble is another example of a equipotential surface, a surface that’s all at the same LEVEL from centre of the bubble, forming a sphere, the most perfectly rigid geometric shape found in nature. So the sea is basically like the surface of that ball example with the pins, it’s all at roughly the same distance from centre, making it a sphere at equipotential, making it the perfect reference point for benchmarks and surveying. Benchmarks just make it much easier to continue measuring from, because it’s difficult to determine sea level…with no sea around.
Benchmarks use sea level as their reference point, which works just fine on a sphere. But most surveyors have to factor curvature…that’s why they use the quick reference math of 8 inches per mile squared, which helps them determine drop so they can factor it in topography calculations, and cancel out curvature. If Earth wasn’t curving, then they wouldn’t require that math. Surveyors in long road or bridge construction, also counter errors due to curvature, by taking backsight and foresight measurements, which cancel out errors due to both curvature and refraction. Are you aware of this method used in surveying? You should be, if you’re going to make claims about surveying, it’s a pretty crucial part of surveying for any construction done over several miles. A simple building construction surveyor though, doesn’t need to worry about curvature, cause there’s not enough degrees of change in a few hundred or thousand square feet, to affect anything. Earth takes 69 miles to arc 1 degree of difference, how much do you think is in a few hundred square feet? Not enough to matter, so building construction surveyors, probably aren’t really taught anything about factoring curvature…but geodetic surveyors certainly are, it’s right in the job title.
Also…why would we need geodetic surveyors at all, if the Earth was flat? 🧐 Pretty pointless to create a whole different practice of surveying work, that focuses on Earth curvature…if Earth wasn’t really curving, wouldn’t you say?
1