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