Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
2
-
@michaelcarlson2512 Great, but that does nothing to explain how or why the motion occurred, all you’ve done is stated what occurred in the most basic and obvious surface level observation. Science can’t do much with just knowing WHAT occurred, you will always have more power and control over a system when you understand HOW it works…that’s pretty much the whole point of science in the first place, to dig deeper, and deduce how things work.
To do that, science first has to define some simple terms, like force and density. Forces cause motion, nothing moves without a force. Falling is a motion, that motion occurs free from your powers to control it; fall from a building, there’s nothing you can do to stop that motion, it’s gonna happen. That makes it a physical phenomenon of nature, something that physical reality itself just does. So there’s an undeniable downward acceleration of matter, that motion needs a name so we can all be on the same page when discussing it, they called it gravity. If they can name the upward motion (buoyancy), why can’t they name the downward motion? They absolutely can and they did, it’s called gravity. Since motion and forces are basically the same thing, no motion occurs without a force, it’s then the force of gravity, pretty simple.
Can’t call it density, that’s already a well defined term in science, it can’t be used twice, or equations get confusing. And it’s different all together, it’s not a force, it’s a scaler, a ratio for volume to mass.
Flat Earth science is just trying really hard to deny that falling motion…for no other reason than to cling to what they prefer. They won’t get very far, staying on the surface of things, the job of science is to probe deeper…otherwise we might as well not even bother.
2
-
@michaelcarlson2512 Ah, good, seems you asked me directly what use equations have while I was giving another response. It’s not really all that complicated, math actually makes our jobs easier…and you’re using technology every day that’s thanks to that math. The very device we’re using to have this conversation, is using a binary code system to run the software…which requires some pretty hefty mathematical formulas, to arrange and operate all that code. So…I mean, you should be a lot more grateful really, you’re really taking things for granted. Modern computers simply are not possible, without math equations. That’s a fact, not an opinion.
So it’s just odd that anyone could actually believe today, that equations are not useful or relevant…when you’re holding a device that couldn’t exist without it. It’s pretty arrogant actually.
2
-
@michaelcarlson2512 I think you were maybe familiar with the conclusions of science, yes, but I don’t get the feeling you’ve ever really thought about how those conclusions were reached. Knowledge and understanding are not the same thing, you can know something, without really understanding it…but understanding something is far more important and far more useful, than just knowing. I think for those 30 years you knew what you were told to know, but you’ve still yet to understand how that knowledge was obtained and how it works. Which is why you currently disagree with it, because you still don’t really know much about these things…if you did, then I wouldn’t have to go through these points and explain what you’re misunderstanding. And you are misunderstanding a lot of things…these things you’ve presented so far as “holes” in the science, are not really holes, they are really just your own personal misunderstandings. You’re drawing false conclusions, because you don’t quite understand the science, because you have holes in your current knowledge. I hope I’m helping at least to fill those holes a little, but I can really only do so much. The rest is up to whoever’s receiving the information.
Anyway, so do you feel the current system of navigation is just wrong? Do you honestly think pilots and sailors can navigate the surface, if they don’t actually know for certain the shape and scale of that surface? If this topic truly interests you, then I would challenge you to attempt at navigating somewhere long distance by either sea or air. We can bicker all day about curvature math and physics, but nothing proves dimensions of Earth better than navigating that surface. Knowing the true shape of the Earth is pretty vital knowledge to have, if you want to successfully navigate its surface. So why aren’t more Flat Earthers learning how to navigate? Seems like a pretty obvious and simple way to test something they feel so strongly about. So why not try?
2
-
@michaelcarlson2512 No actually, the horizon does not rise to eye level, that’s a claim flat Earth makes a lot, but I’ve never seen them actually verify it with evidence. I have however seen people test this claim, by actually measuring the horizon with simple tools that can help determine if the claim is true. I currently know of two separate methods for testing this claim. Here’s an example for each.
https://youtu.be/RUr9ymz_nVI?t=139 - leveling rig method, built with household supplies.
https://youtu.be/WVTgP-KpyRc - surveyors theodolite method, easy to purchase, phones today even have theodolite apps.
Our eyes are not very good measuring tools, this claim only really holds up if you never test it. When you actually put it to the test, by measuring horizon to eye level, you’ll actually see that it’s not true, horizon actually does drop from eye level, and at the rate it should given Earth’s scale. So basically a lot of people believed this claim, before actually testing it…which says a lot about the Flat Earth movement actually. Lot of empty claims they expect you to believe without question, it should send up some red flags. So I hope that evidence is helpful.
2
-
@michaelcarlson2512 Actually, it was Ptolemy who started mapping the current globe surface structure, and designed the first working system of navigation, a Greek mathematician and geographer, lived almost 2000 years ago. Before his maps and models, sailors could really only travel known routes, or stick close to the coasts…travel across big oceans like the Atlantic or the Pacific, was almost non existent, because it would get them lost, which did happen a lot when they ever made the attempt. A lot of sailors got lost at sea back then. Nobody is getting lost today…and it’s because we have accurate information about Earth’s surface.
You can learn to navigate at any time, it’s actually pretty simple to learn. Fact is, if Earth was flat, then a system designed for a globe would not work. The fact that it does work, every single day, millions of successful voyages a year, is evidence you really shouldn’t ignore.
Evidence is always paramount, we should never reach a conclusion without evidence, or we risk reaching false conclusions, happens all the time. Flat Earth makes a claim, they should then provide evidence to support it, it’s the burden of proof, and they are no exception to the rule. Horizon does not actually rise to eye level, it actually does drop. By measuring it with tools more precise than your eye, is how you test that.
I’m sorry but, saying evidence isn’t important…is a pretty poor argument. Why is the globe required to provide so much evidence for you, while Flat Earth is not required? Why don’t the same standards of evidence and review apply to flat Earth? That’s not very logical…that does however imply a bias, that you’re more lenient on the position you currently believe, and are doing everything you can currently to confirm it, by ignoring its flaws and placing almost no standards on evidence or burden of proof.
2
-
@Tomsolomon111 I think you should probably look up the definition for a scientific theory sometime, because it’s not the same thing as a regular theory in the layman usage of the word. In science, hypothesis takes the place of theory in the regular use of the word, that being a guess or assumption based from available information. While a scientific theory is the conclusion, reached only after it has been verified through repeated observation and testing. Nothing graduates to the level of a theory in science, until it has been proven with substantial amounts of empirical evidence, even then it also must pass peer review first.
They chose that wording for a very good reason, because we do not know everything and we likely never will, that’s the reality of our situation, we are not omniscient or infallible…though conspiracy theorists would certainly like to think they are. So this means old information always has the potential to change as new information is acquired, so we can’t use rigid wordings that implies our work is ever really finished, a theory is something that can change and expand over time as new information is acquired…hence the reason why they use that word.
Learning is a process, it takes time, we don’t just know everything right out of the gate. Scientists accept that fact and they’re fine with admitting the limitations of their current knowledge.
Real pseudoscience is anything fabricated that can’t actually be applied, because it’s made up nonsense. Electromagnetism is also a theory in science, but you’re currently using it to send and receive your internet data over Wifi…so is the electromagnetic spectrum just pseudoscience because it’s a scientific theory? 🧐 No, clearly it’s not, it’s applied science, we use the theory of electromagnetism in everything from the radio, to the x-ray, your microwave, wifi, your tv remote, etc, etc. Don’t let the word theory fool you into thinking it’s not proven science, that’s just the word they’ve chosen for their conclusions, that allows them room to expand upon the theory as more information is acquired.
I think you need to go back and relearn the basics of science…anyone who thinks scientific theory is the same as a regular theory, clearly didn’t pay much attention in school the first time around. You’re just doing more to tell us all how and why you fall for dumb conspiracies you find online, because you’re currently scientifically illiterate.
2
-
@alienrenders My first instinct will be to consider the possibility, not dismiss it outright and call someone stupid for thinking it could be possible, that we are having a negative effect on the planet. Why shut down the conversation? And why should anyone agree with you, especially when you have no evidence and no scientific credentials, just ad hoc explanations you slot in and THINK are the problem? Is it really any wonder why somebody would question you? 🧐 Seriously I don’t get why you’d be surprised.
Is it really that stupid to question your position? 🧐 From my perspective it seems like you’re not even bothering to consider it, but I’m not about to call you stupid for that, cause it’s possible you’re right and I’m not about to shut down alternative perspectives. But you’re certainly not going to convince me of your position when the evidence is adding up against it…certainly not with “they don’t allow brush burning, that’s why more fires are happening”. Really? EVERY country, state and province just passes the same laws at the same time? 🧐 It’s not just California that’s burning every year…Australia had the worst fire in its history just a couple years ago, Greece as well, the Amazon forest has broken fire records as well, western and central Canada is on fire every year….so what reason do I have to agree with your superficial conclusion?
Here’s the thing, if I’m wrong…then we have what, better environmental policies? Cleaner energy sources that are more renewable? 🧐 Ever been to a larger population centre, like London, Hong Hong, or Bangkok…where the smog is so bad you can’t even see, and air quality so poor it causes people to get sick? Does it really sound so bad to work towards a cleaner energy source so we can at least breath?
If you’re wrong though…then we’re fucked. So not a hard choice for me, I’d rather not ignore it. I hope I’m wrong, but it’s not looking good…when every summer is fires and constant smoke, I’m not going to pretend everything is fine…especially when scientific consensus is unanimous, Earth is warming and we’re the cause. Why should I ignore them exactly…when everything they’ve warned us of is currently happening? 🧐
2
-
@alienrenders Then feel free to share your evidence. In the meantime, here’s a physics professor going over the evidence that directly refutes what you’re saying. https://youtu.be/OWXoRSIxyIU Feel free to check over the sources he shares, it’s all in the description.
Just saying, there’s good reasons to believe this is a very real problem we face, and I’m inclined to agree with them, after roughly 15 years of constant more extreme fires and hazy smoky skies every summer. Whether you like it or not, it’s a discussion we need to have and so it’s gonna happen. Calling people stupid for being concerned about the future, and disagreeing with you, is just arrogant. I’ve researched the issue as well, and I’ve reached the opposite conclusion. Please feel free to share your research, I don’t mind taking a closer look.
2
-
@alienrenders Then it should be pretty simple to share your sources, but if you can’t, then I can really only conclude you don’t actually have any. From the data I’ve seen, average temperature has risen, so who do I believe? The data I have seen, or your claim with no sources to support it? Also, saying you refuted that video does nothing for me, what actual counter evidence do you have that refutes his sources? Evidence, do you have any? In what world do you live in where empty claims equal facts? 🧐
I’ll do a search for this claim of yours, but I shouldn’t have too…it’s your claim, so burden of proof is yours. Shouldn’t be difficult to share a source.
2
-
@alienrenders Yes, you’re right, I will try to debunk it…because that’s how science works, through falsification. If I can’t refute it, then THAT is most likely the truest conclusion. If you only set out to prove a position, then you’re far more likely to fall into confirmation bias. The best way to remain objective, is to take evidence and then do everything you can to falsify it…..that’s how peer review has worked since it was added to the scientific method. The information that can’t be falsified, is the best and most likely conclusion.
But my main point is pretty simple…you’re making claims and expecting me to agree that they’re established facts, without sharing anything that I can review, that helps support your claim. This whole “do your own research” argument is just a smoke screen…the moment I hear that, is the moment I know someone really doesn’t have an argument, just empty claims and a delusion that they’re an expert.
A real expert has no problem sharing sources……in fact it’s required of them, or they have no argument. When did that change? 🤷♂️
2
-
2
-
Your facts are a bit off. James Van Allen and his team discovered the Earth’s radiation belt in 1958, a whole decade before the first successful Lunar mission. It’s always existed, and we’ve known about it for a long time, but you’re mistaken in just how harmful it really is, it’s not as harmful as you think. We can pass through the belt just fine, it only becomes dangerous over long exposure, over several weeks of remaining inside it…hence why the ISS remains in LEO, because those scientists remain in space for long periods of time. The Lunar missions passed through it in just a few hours, not nearly enough time to cause any serious negative effects.
It’s our technology that has to worry more, especially today’s tech, which is ran by small microchips and magnetic hardware. Back then, everything was analog, which doesn’t get nearly as damaged in radiation/magnetic fields. But analog systems are limited in what they’re capable of, so we spent a lot of time figuring out how to get our more advanced but more sensitive technologies to work, in deeper space. What do you think the ISS does primarily? It’s basically a laboratory, that tests things in the environment of space.
So now today we have upgraded that technology so it can handle the belt better. And so they are going back to the Moon now, new missions are planned for as early as 2024, just look up the Artemis program sometime.
If you had a base understanding of physics, you’d understand the globe model a bit more. It’s not as complicated as you think. Occam’s Razor is really more of a guiding philosophy, not so much an absolute principle for truth. But the heliocentric model is actually simpler than any other model, it accounts for every observation with relative ease. Take a sunset for example, the globe accounts for this simple daily occurrence with no trouble at all. Earth’s rotation causes the Sun to be blocked by the surface periodically, explanation over. But on a flat Earth, how exactly does the Sun set, if line of sight is never blocked? Geometrically it makes no sense, so a lot of further explanation is required to even get a basic explanation for the simple phenomena of a sunset. If we apply Occams Razor here, the Globe is far simpler.
But just because something is simpler, doesn’t make it necessarily true. Occams Razor is just something to keep in mind, it shouldn’t be taken as an absolute truth.
2
-
@whataworld369 1) It’s not been solved yet, doesn’t mean it can’t. Science and mathematics don’t typically like to think in absolutes like that. There actually has been progress lately in solving it, so I guess just be patient. But again, it only really applies to three bodies of equal mass, that orbit each other. There’s really no examples of that in our solar system, so the 3 body problem can be ignored in our solar system, for the most part.
2) Well I’ve never seen Venus (and certainly not Mercury) in the middle of the night…wouldn’t we see Venus all night if Earth was Flat? All I’m saying is, have you bothered to try modelling this? You might be surprised to find the data and observation does fit the model. Fact is, there is a period of time in the night where you can’t see Venus or Mercury…the other planets don’t have that problem…you don’t think that’s actually more of an evidence for the heliocentric model? I get being skeptical…but you don’t seem to be as skeptical to the Flat Earth. Why can’t you see Mercury or Venus all night like we do the other planets? I’d say it’s more a problem for Flat Earth…not the other way around.
3) Gladly, there’s actually plenty of great experiments of this online. Do a quick search on Utube for “shrinking umbra”, should be the top video, with a coin on a stick. Pretty clear demonstration of the umbra shrinking, easy to repeat. There are two parts to a shadow, umbra and penumbra, the umbra can be shrunk, by distance and size of the light source. The 70 mile shadow is the umbra of the Moons shadow, but there is a penumbra and it is thousands of miles wide.
2
-
Well that one is just mathematics. At a microscopic level, even a cueball has varying elevations. Hills, valleys, trenches, etc. They can measure these varying elevations to find some averages, then you just mathematically scale things up, to the size of Earth. If the hills and trenches are higher and lower on the cue ball, than the highest mountains and deepest trenches here on Earth, then you can conclude the topography of Earth is smoother.
I’m skeptical though, there’s a bit more nuance there he’s not touching on, it’s not just how high the peaks and valleys are, it’s how spaced out they are, and how grouped they are. Our surface goes from a steady 3 miles average deep oceans, to a sudden spike in elevation at every continents coast, especially at coasts with a mountain range. So I think you’d feel that sudden shift from one layer of fairly constant elevation, to another, they’d feel like layers. Though I haven’t done the math on that, so I really wouldn’t know for sure, but I’m skeptical. Neil does say some dumb shit sometimes.
2
-
@valherustinger7848 So Dubay says perspective, shows you someone zooming into a ship, then you stop questioning? 🧐 Why so easy to get you to stop questioning? What he demonstrated was an effect called the vanishing point, this is caused by perspective, it’s just your eyes optical resolution limit….but the part Dubay left out is that this can and does occur before horizon. Once something has actually gone over horizon, no zoom lens in the world will bring them back https://youtu.be/NKQI18jr8Oc. He also fails to mention that perspective converges inward from all angles equally to cause the vanishing point, it doesn’t pick and choose what to make disappear first. So why do things disappear bottom first? Perspective doesn’t really account for this…nor does it account for the dropping from eye level https://youtu.be/MoK2BKj7QYk.
So had you questioned Dubay a bit further, maybe you’d have realized he wasn’t being entirely honest about his perspective argument. It’s more like a sleight of hand trick than anything. It’s a pretty simple trick, he brought a boat back from vanishing point, then told you it was being brought back from horizon…when in truth it hadn’t really reached horizon yet. See how the trick works? He made a claim that it was horizon…but that doesn’t mean it was, it’s just a claim he expected you to believe without question.
Then you claim to have “topped your physics class”, yet you don’t seem to understand that gravity’s output depends on the amount of mass you have…and you wonder why it can’t be scaled down? 🧐 Not sure how you topped physics, if you couldn’t figure that out. Do you think…models in math and science have to be 100% scalable, in order to be true? Where did you get that notion? 🤷♂️ Can you scale an atom up, and recreate it to a level where you can see it and interact with it better? No…of course not…does that change the fact that the periodic table works when applied in chemistry? 🧐
We can’t recreate gravity sticking to a ball at our scale…cause we’d have to break physics to do that. Gravity doesn’t work that way. Plus, even if we could, we’re standing on a source of great gravitational attraction, so any water you pour on that ball is just going to be drawn to the greater force of gravity….if you were to create a source of gravity greater than Earth, while on Earth…they would effectively tear each other apart.
You’re not kidding when you said you don’t understand gravity…..it’s a wonder how you topped your physics class. 😅 Lets go with an easy one, if you feel you’re so good at physics. Explain conservation of momentum and relative motion in as simple of terms as you can. It’s an easy one, the laws of motion are one of the first things you learn in physics, and this knowledge is pretty relevant to this discussion and many of the arguments Flat Earth makes.
Also, what math have you been using to test curvature? Cause my math works out just fine.
They destroyed some of the older tech, because it was too unsafe to use again and too costly to continue storing, so why not just scrap it? Saves a lot of money. But they did preserve a lot of it in many different museums, why would you think they didn’t? 🤷♂️ That one NASA astronaut that said he’d “go back in a heart beat had they not destroyed the technology”, probably could have chose his words better, but his point was more that they didn’t currently have any NEW and WORKING lunar modules available (at the time), to make a new trip with.
But now they do…are you aware that they are going back to the Moon? Look up the Artemis project sometime, new missions are scheduled for as early as 2024.
Idk, from where I’m standing…it’s pretty simple to see how Dubay convinced you the Earth is flat, it doesn’t seem like you even made an attempt to question him and his claims.
2
-
2
-
@saltysergeant4284 Well, I’ve actually tracked and spotted satellites by telescope, and they’re moving far to fast and far to consistently to be balloons in atmosphere. Weather balloons do not have the aerodynamics, or the capability to traverse the sky as fast as they do. So no, you are reaching a biased conclusion on that one I’d say. Just because NASA does launch weather balloons still today, in no way falsifies satellites I’m afraid.
There’s other problems with that conclusion as well, but really, the documented speeds from tracking these objects...is just not plausible. The ISS makes roughly 16 complete orbits of Earth in a single 24 hour period...you really think these balloons are traversing at speeds greater than any known aircraft in existence? A satellite can easily do that, there’s no atmosphere where they are, so no drag force, means no burning up. Rocket propulsion in a place with zero drag force, can easily climb the velocity to an orbital velocity over time.
No, you’re really reaching on that one I’m afraid and not thinking it through very well. They would need a network of balloons to pull off the scam you’re claiming...thousands of balloons, that would constantly need to be replaced and maintained around the clock...and even if they could, it would not account for what we observe in reality. Balloons simply do not have the capability of flying as fast as they’re observed to be moving. Amateur astronomers track these objects all the time....you really think they wouldn’t spot anything fishy?
You do realize I’ve been researching this for 4 years right? You really think I’ve never heard this claim before, or debunked it? I thought we weren’t going to patronize each other.
2
-
2
-
@saltysergeant4284 We do see different stars, they’re called the seasonal stars...and you even know many of the constellation names, they are the zodiac constellations. That is basic astronomy knowledge. The stars we see all year round are the circumpolar stars. Earth is a sphere, that’s 3 dimensional, so you have to think in 3 dimensions here. The poles are not facing the Sun, so it’s logical then understand they would never be blocked by the Sun...hence why we see them all year round. The stars along the ecliptic though...different story, they’re periodically blocked by the Sun. Which is true...you can confirm that on any clear night, just get a list of the seasonal stars, then try and find the ones currently out of season.
If you want to talk stars though, don’t forget the Southern Hemisphere stars...you are aware they exist right? Why can’t the North see these stars and vice versa? Makes sense on a globe...doesn’t make a whole lot of sense on a flat Earth, with only ONE sky.
2
-
@Murphy_Gaspard Yes, of course they lie to us about a great many things, nobody would argue they don’t…but they can’t lie about everything, it actually takes more truth to tell a lie than people realize, and this is just far too big for them to keep hidden from 8 billion other people. I don’t think you quite understand how many industries rely on accurate information of Earth’s shape, in order to function at all…it’s very important information to have.
You’re giving governments far too much credit; they can barely hide their mistresses, you really think they could successfully hide something as crucial to science, as Earth’s basic shape? Think of all the country’s in the world currently at war with each other or that consider themselves enemies…yet they all keep this one secret without spilling the beans? It’s very far from plausible.
Though it’s a bit irrelevant, like I said, you don’t require government to verify for yourself the Earth’s true shape. Speculations certainly shouldn’t lead your conclusions, evidence should.
2
-
@Murphy_Gaspard The problem I have with the whole “NASA is faking everything” camp, is it’s mostly speculations and misunderstandings…not a whole lot of actual evidence. Was it a bubble in a pool, or just ice debris from the ship? Are rockets being launched into the ocean, or are they shot at a trajectory that can put them into an orbit? Was calling Nixon from the Moon impossible, or do people just not know much about patching a radio feed through a phone line?
At the end of the day, both sides can really only speculate…and that’s all I ever see in those “fake space” documentaries on YouTube, endless speculations, not a whole lot of solid evidence. And when they’re not speculating, they’re misunderstanding physics, or making false assumptions on the engineering of the technology.
I once watched one trying to make the claim that the old Gemini space suits couldn’t swivel the heads. They cut footage from a bunch of various clips, all showing zero swivel. So on the surface it seems like a legit claim…until you dig a little deeper, and find the original footage. Watching the original footage, you notice they conveniently cut the clips, before you see the heads swivel. Why would they edit that out, than for any other reason but to deceive you?
So I’ve actually noticed the opposite from these “fake space” docs; they sure are trying hard to lead you towards the conclusions they’ve decided are accurate, while discouraging any other plausible explanations, and cutting out anything that could cause you to question what they’re claiming.
So who’s really lying? From what I’ve seen, it’s the people cutting together those documentaries. That’s why I try to tell people, don’t just nod and agree to everything these videos show you blindly and without question, challenge them just as thoroughly as you challenge the mainstream information…you might be surprised to learn who’s really being deceitful.
But it’s pretty irrelevant to the topic of Flat Earth I feel. Why focus on something you can only speculate on, rather than test and make observations on the surface of the Earth we all live on? None of us will likely get to space in our lifetimes, so there’s very little we can verify first hand on that front, we can really only speculate. But you don’t have to speculate when it comes to the Earth…you can test it yourself. No government can stop you from making observations on the Earth we all inhabit. So why not focus on the evidence we can actually verify first hand?
2
-
From what I understand on the issue is that Joe pencilled them both in for a debate, before asking either of them. So Neil didn’t back out of anything, he had no idea there was even a debate to begin with. Would you agree to a debate you weren’t asked about in advance? Probably not…so why should he? Neil has made it pretty publicly clear that he does not do debates, so why would should he be forced too do something he’s not interested in? The bullying is actually from Flat Earth…like kids on a playground calling him chicken from a distance, just trying to bait him into doing something he has no interest in doing. It’s a vane attempt to force your will upon him…not much more.
To add to that though, you know Dubay has been called to thousand of debates, by many experts and layman alike…he has so far accepted ZERO calls to debate. Unless you’re aware of any he has partaken in, I am currently not aware of any…and it’s not from lack of trying. So what’s he so afraid of? 🧐
It shouldn’t matter, if he’s not interested in debates, he shouldn’t be forced too do them either.
Debates are a public spectacle…but science doesn’t actually settle anything in single public debates, because debates can be won even if you’re 100% wrong…all you gotta do is be the better bullshitter. So that’s not very productive, in fact it’s quite counter productive, because it gives huxters and pseudo intellectuals an advantage…in an arena they typically wouldn’t have any say in, because huxters typically don’t bother with acquiring credentials. In science it’s left to the evidence, as it should be. Peer review is a form of long form debate, but it’s not public, only accredited experts are allowed to review, and it’s not done in a single televised event like a boxing match. Peer review can take years and typically requires multiple expert opinions…not just two individuals squaring off.
Unfortunately huxters do exist, and a tactic they’ve been employing for centuries now is to bait experts into public debates, by essentially calling them chickens. So scientists are actually pretty careful who they interact with, because they’re very aware of this. The huxters have everything to gain by baiting a celebrity scientist like Neil…they essentially gain an audience they wouldn’t otherwise be able to garner themselves. Which gives them free advertising to sell their grift.
If you think grifters don’t exist…then you are extremely naive. What damage can it do? Plenty…it can poison the well of information. It’s far smarter to just ignore them, and let them fizzle out from lack of attention. Giving them a free platform where they can spread potential misinformation…not very smart. If they want a debate, they’ll have to earn it…that starts by earning the credentials. Dubay is a Yoga teacher who’s probably never conducted field research or stepped foot in a science lab before…he certainly has not earned any right to speak amongst experts.
2
-
@pauldooris539 No, the Michelson Morley experiment was not an experiment to test Earth’s motion, it was an experiment to test and hopefully detect and measure the Aether. It did not succeed. Its conclusion was deemed as inconclusive, both in the hypothesis and the null hypothesis. If you form a conclusion from an inconclusive result, then you are doing so out of bias.
The Aether was widely hypothesized during that time, but has never been detected, measured, or proven in any capacity. So how exactly does something that does not likely exist…prove the Earth is not in motion? 🤷♂️
Foucault pendulum does successfully detect and measure Earth rotation, as does the lesser known Foucault Gyroscope experiment, which is actually used today in a device known as the gyrocompass…a device used aboard most modern sea vessels today, that actually uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function. You can look up the engineering specs for the gyrocompass at any time, they usually explain pretty clearly how they work.
Einstein was talking about optical experiments as in experiments using light…which is what the Michelson Morley experiment was using, light in an interferometer. But you should find the rest of that quote, because it goes on to address that Earth is in motion. And he was proven wrong on that first statement (about the optical experiment unable to detect Earth motion) years later, with the Sagnac experiments, which have since been used to detect Earth’s rotational motion.
So your information is a bit twisted…tends to happen when you get all your information from huxters. This is exactly why scientists have to be wary of who they debate with…cause some within the general public are easily misled by cleverly crafted misinformation. Conmen know this, and so do scientists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@amcclenny6 I’m also curious, I’ve yet to come across any flat Earther, with scientific credentials. There’s always a lot of claims made that many are scientists, mathematicians, engineers, etc, but I’ve yet to have that claim confirmed. In 6 years of chatting with Flat Earthers on a pretty regular basis in my spare time, you’d think I’d meet or hear about at least one by now…but so far, nothing. So if you are aware of any, I’d be happy to learn of them.
More towards your first comment though, you do touch on the one thing I do admire about Flat Earthers. They’re not afraid to ask questions, and that’s great! That’s how discoveries are made, questions are how we learn, and how we move forward in science. When questions stop being asked, we tend to stagnate. But the problem I see is that questions are often used as more of a weapon, rather than asking the questions to seek an answer for them, they are instead held up as the evidence. Questions alone are not evidence though…flat Earth asks a lot of questions, but they sure don’t try very hard at answering them. That’s the trouble…the questions are assumed unanswerable and then they are held up as the foundation for arguments. Then whatever answers are provided, are simply ignored, in many cases.
It’s sad in some instances, because many of the questions are great physics questions! They’re often the very same types of questions that great scientists of old would have once asked. So it’s a bit conflicting for me, because I’m all for asking such great questions of science! But…when the true intention for asking those questions is not to learn, or too really disprove, but to smoke screen, blind side, or gaslight an opposition…then it’s just a waste of a good question.
Flat Earth I feel suffers from both an inferiority complex and confirmation bias. It’s a bad combination…because it keeps an individual sifting through information with blinders on, while at the same time making them to stubborn and sure of themselves, to listen to any counter positions or questioning of their conclusions. Science learned a long time ago that confirmation bias was a real problem, and it realized that we all tend to fall victim too it. The only real way to combat it…first admit that you’re not infallible, that everyone has bias…it’s why they eventually included peer review to the scientific method. Flat Earthers adhere to no system of peer review…they just assume themselves infallible. It’s pretty typical of minds thinking themselves superior, with a deep desire to prove that they are…an inferiority complex.
Anyway, it’s a point of contention for me, because on one hand I would certainly never want to rob people of their drive to ask questions. But…confirmation bias is very real, and I am seeing a lot of it in the conclusions of Flat Earthers. So that’s why these conversations are important I feel, it’s not always easy to know for sure which side is really falling into the pitfalls of confirmation bias, but open civil discussion is a great way to examine things a little closer, in way it’s a form of public peer review, that I think Flat Earth desperately needs.
1
-
1
-
@bane3991 The trouble is that conmen do exist, and they understand that you don’t have to win a debate to push pseudoscience and bullshit, you just have to get yourself an audience. Debating a celebrity scientist like Tyson, is damn good publicity, and it’s basically free advertising. So scientists, especially celebrity scientists, actually have to be careful not to be baited by potential conmen.
They have a sort of unspoken policy for that reason, where debates should only occur between other accredited professionals, people who have earned the right to debate science, by earning a degree in science, and having years of actual field/lab experience, in their chosen field. Debating science with layman is greatly frowned upon actually…and Dubay is no scientist, he’s just a Yoga teacher on a beach somewhere, who learned the tricks of hypnotic suggestion, and raps about his love of Hitler.
Tyson could probably easily win a debate with him, if he prepped enough to know his opponents arguments (and yes, he would have too prep first, because flat Earthers do fabricate their own science, so it’s not always clear what they’re talking about) but Dubay’s goal wouldn’t be to win the discussion, he wins just by obtaining the free exposure…he’s already won just by getting the millions of listeners he couldn’t achieve otherwise. Don’t have to convince everyone, just a few…that’s all a conman needs. For that reason, scientists must be very careful who they engage with.
1
-
Gravity…there, that wasn’t so hard. Gravity contains our atmosphere, just as it contains you and me to the surface. Gas has mass, so it’s not free from gravity, nothing with mass is. We know this, because we measure a pressure gradient, going from most pressure at surface to least pressure at higher altitudes, which is exactly what we’d expect to measure, with gravity. It’s the same reason the ocean pressure increases as you go deeper, because the weight from all the water above, is pressing down on the water below…because of gravity, which creates a pressure gradient. With no other forces of attraction present in space around Earth, everything is drawn to the only force that is present, the gravity of Earth.
“Most intelligent scientist”…what are you talking about though? 🤷♂️ Intelligence is a spectrum…there’s really no such thing as a singular individual who knows everything and is good at understanding everything. You ask a biologist or a zoologist questions about the atmosphere…and odds are pretty good they’re not going to know much about it, it’s not their field of expertise. Ask an astrophysicist, or a meteorologist, and they would know, that’s part of their field of study. So what kind of scientist was it, and where exactly are you getting this from? 🤷♂️ If there’s one thing that’s prevalent amongst Flat Earthers, you all sure love to lie a lot…so pretty hard to take you at your word. Got a video link or something that backs up what you’re claiming?
Some people have this strange notion, that anyone with the title of scientist, knows everything or claims too…which is a pretty damn stupid assumption.
1
-
@hellothere3250 No, idiots deny gravity, while providing zero falsification against any of the evidence that verifies it, all so they can confirm a bias belief they developed, from being conned by huxters online, who exploited your lack of basic scientific knowledge. Denial is not an argument, it’s just plain ol’ ignorance. :/
Where’d you get this conclusion you require 6 feet of concrete to pass through the belts? 🤷♂️ In reality, the Van Allen Belt really isn’t as harmful as you assume it is, so long as you don’t spend too much time inside it, as in several days. Astronauts on each Apollo mission were only exposed to the belts for a few hours, receiving the same dose of radiation you’d receive from a few x-rays. It’s not ideal, but it’s not going to kill you either. You can also navigate around it…it’s a belt, so an orbital trajectory can be plotted around it. Today, it’s actually more harmful towards our small microchips and micro processors, which is why they hadn’t built any modern lunar modules (until recently, look up the Artemis mission sometime), because this presented an engineering hurtle, getting our modern technology to function without failure, in deeper space. The old modules were analog systems, which don’t have to worry about electromagnetic fields…but they’re very limited in what they can do. People have this odd misconception, that newer means better…in reality, there’s often pros and cons to new technology. For example, a land line is far more stable of a phone connection, but it can’t connect to you on the go, but cellular signals are less stable. So there’s pros and cons for each, newer does not imply better in every application.
The tiny microwave receiver on your phone can’t pick up on faint electromagnetic frequencies that become more and more spread out and dispersed by distance because of the inverse square law, but a massive network of receiver dishes sure can…like the radio telescope receiver dishes NASA has had for decades. Electromagnetic frequencies travel indefinitely, they don’t stop, they just get weaker but never do they reach absolute 0 frequency. So if you have a strong enough receiver dish, you can pick up on electromagnetic signals from pretty much any distance…unless the signal is obstructed by something physical, which is the other problem your cell phone faces, Earth curvature, hills, buildings, physical obstructions.
You have questions…but questions are not evidence, no matter how many you have. You live in the information age, you could find answers for these questions at any time, but you won’t, because you’d rather argue from ignorance. It’s much easier to assume your conclusions, when you don’t have the pesky facts getting in the way of whatever you choose to believe. It’s fine to ask questions…but have you tried actually answering them, instead of holding them up as your evidence? Learn the difference between questions and evidence, please…they are not the same thing, and that should be pretty common sense. You people want to believe you’re the first people to ever ask these kinds of questions…sorry to burst that bubble, but they’re pretty standard questions most scientists and other experts ask, when learning this stuff for the first time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RandomVideos-kn3pf Funny you should say that, I’m actually an artist for a living…been studying perspective art fundamentals for a very long time now. Flat Earthers butcher perspective to make it work for them, ignoring many of the fundamentals of perspective. Wanna learn something about perspective? When something is physically above your eye level, it can not go below it due to perspective alone. It can appear to converge at eye level (eventually reaching a vanishing point), but never will it go below it. The sun dips well below horizon when it sets, we’ve all seen it do this, so perspective does not account for what we observe in reality with a sunset.
Another problem you have is that perspective causes an object to appear like it’s shrinking in angular size the further away it gets. The Sun does not do this, observe it throughout a full day with a solar filter lens, you’ll notice it maintains the exact same size throughout a full day.
So perspective does not account for a sunset…a curvature does. Please don’t just slot in ad hoc solutions without really thinking them through first. Perspective has pretty simple rules, so if a sunset isn’t checking all those boxes, then it’s simply not the answer. Don’t allow a desire to win an argument, keep you from remaining objective.
1
-
Water is inert, and will conform to whatever force is acting upon it. Gravity is understood to attract everything towards centre of Earth, creating a field of force emanating out from that centre, that forms Earth into a sphere, and puts any all fluid at equipotential distance from that centre. From our tiny perspective, it’s almost impossible to tell, because we see curvature in terms of degrees, and it takes 69 miles for Earth to arc 1 degree…how many degrees you think are in 3 miles? Which is the average distance to horizon at 6 foot viewing height.
Your argument is ignorant of both gravity physics, and basic geometry and perspective. So how can anyone think ignorance is an argument? It’s also ignorant of the fact that we have long since measured and surveyed the entire Earth…to the point where we now have an entire system of navigation, built around that knowledge. You honestly think every pilot and sailor in the world can do their jobs, with perfect pin point accuracy, if they don’t know the shape and scale of the surface they’re navigating? 🧐 You’d have to be pretty dumb and incredibly ignorant of navigation and geometry, to believe they could.
So here’s what we know; Earth is measured spherical, that’s a fact not an opinion, and we do observe an attraction to surface from all matter…drop something, it will fall. That attraction is observed everywhere on Earth, doesn’t matter where you are, it works the same. So it’s pretty simple deduction after that…there is a force present on Earth, that attracts everything to surface…we just gave it a name, cause it sure makes it easier to discuss something when we all know what’s being discussed.
Water flows from high elevation to low elevation. You wanna know how elevation works on a sphere? The closer to centre you are, the lower your elevation, the further from centre you are, the higher your elevation…..pretty basic geodesic geometry. Our oceans are at equipotential distance from centre of gravity, meaning all points at equal distance from centre, at the same LEVEL from centre…hence the term sea level. The oceans are at lowest possible elevation, as close to centre as the crust will allow. Rivers start at mountain peaks, at much higher elevations…they are further from centre. Everything is drawn to centre, so water flows from high elevations (further from centre) to lowest possible elevation (sea level, closer to centre).
I know you likely won’t understand any of this…Flat Earthers have a real problem with basic physics and geometry….then they call everyone else stupid. Oh the irony.😅 But I hope it helps anyway. You’re reaching a false conclusion from a very limited understanding of things. It’s not a falsification of gravity or the Earth’s measured shape, it basically just boils down too “it looks flat, therefore it is”…boy, if only science could be so basic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peteoverton6069 I gave you two points that are both observable in reality, that can both be verified by anyone. Navigation, and gravity. So first, learn how to navigate. You learn pretty quickly what shape the Earth is, and why it’s vitally important in navigation to know for certain the shape and scale of the surface you’re navigating…or else it simply will not work. No better way to verify the spherical Earth for yourself, the entire system of navigation we currently have today, is built from that geometry…that’s not just a coincidence.
Then drop something, does it fall? Yes, it does. Is that falling a motion? Yes, it is. Does any change in state of motion occur without a force to cause it? No, nothing is put into motion without a force…that’s pretty basic physics. If you think that statement is wrong, provide me with any examples where something went from stationary to moving, without applying a force too it. So a force is present that attracts everything to surface…including water.
Here’s another quick proof of gravity; I’m sure you understand how a scale works, you press down upon a scale, applying a force, which creates pressure, that the scale then interprets as a weight value. Okay, so if a solid mass is just resting on a scale, but it’s reading a weight value…how exactly is it pressing down to create that pressure, if there’s no force present? 🧐 Ponder that as long as you like.
So it’s not difficult at that point. You verify both of those principles of reality for yourself, becomes pretty damn hard to conclude the Earth is flat after that.
1