Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
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