Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
@peteoverton6069 Well ya…that’s how the process of falsification works, that’s how science works. We find as many errors as we can, until we can’t any longer, the explanation that fits all observations and stands up to all falsification, is the model of reality we conclude, until further information can be obtained. That’s peer review in a nutshell, a very important step in the scientific method. Falsification never ends really, that’s the reality of information gathering, old information always has the potential to change, as new information is acquired….why do you think science chose the word ‘theory’ for their top conclusions? It’s how we remain objective…science is a process of falsification, not proving. Pretty much everyone in science today agrees with that methodology.
So if you can’t provide explanation or evidence, it’s likely because you don’t actually have any, you just chose to believe what you currently do on faith alone. Not much else I can conclude until an actual rebuttal is provided.
Let me answer your question with another question; what would happen to your model if gravity was a reality? 🧐 Simple…it wouldn’t work, just like the globe wouldn’t make much sense without gravity. But that’s not a valid falsification…it does absolutely nothing to test, or verify, or falsify gravity, it’s just a logical fallacy, a red herring, among others.
1
-
1
-
@peteoverton6069 Well, you first have to understand what’s implied by a force in physics. A force is anything that causes a change in state of motion for a mass. So when you drop something, it falls, that is a change in motion…so this implies a force is present to cause that motion. That’s how force’s are defined in physics. That’s the simplest way to put it. The trouble with your model, is that density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, it’s just how much mass occupies a certain volume. It is a scaler variable in mathematics…has no means to cause motion in matter on its own. A mathematical formula for any physical phenomenon requires at least one force variable and one scaler variable. The simplest equation to help anyone understand this, is probably the formula for weight; W=mg, which translates too ‘weight is equal to mass times the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2)’. Mass is already there, so that’s the scaler variable…mass is basically the same thing as density (in this case), so why would we put it into the formula twice? 🤷♂️ There’s no motion, no vector…so how do we calculate weight from W=md? We can’t, the formula is now redundant. It needs a force…something that can put the mass in motion at a rate of travel, in a specific vector. Gravity does that.
Your model is really just taking established gravity physics, and chopping out the word gravity…that’s all you’re really doing. Density is already included as part of gravity physics, what you’re basically describing is buoyancy force…density displacement. What you’re not aware of currently is that gravity actually causes buoyancy, that’s why it’s included as a variable in the equation for buoyancy force; Fb=Vpg. It works like this; gravity effects all mass equally, that’s why everything falls at the same exact rate (9.8m/s^2) but the more mass a molecule/molecules has/have, the more gravity is acting on all that inertia. So more mass in a smaller volume, means more density, more dense matter will occupy lowest position closest to gravity first, because molecules of various types do not mix well, they repel each other, and the greater mass occupies lowest potential energy state first, closest to gravity. An object with more mass, has more inertia, so it requires more repelling force from molecules to push them out of the way, while less dense molecules are easily pushed out of the way of more dense molecules.
So let’s remove gravity for a moment now, now what happens if there’s no force present to start any motions? Well, everything will just float in place, it will be chaos, no ordering of anything by its density, it would be a mixed system of various molecules, scattered all about. But now add a force that can interact with every molecule, and put it into motion in a specific direction, suddenly you have something that can order everything by density. Most dense matter will occupy lowest position first, which pushes less dense matter up…causing buoyancy. This gives order to the system, now everything can order itself, from most dense, to least dense.
So you see gravity actually causes density displacement and density ordering, which causes buoyancy…in fact it’s what gives everything in existence more order.
This stuff is already included in gravity physics…you’re not stating anything new, you’re just trying really hard to recreate the physics, without using gravity anywhere in the model. But it all falls apart without it…it’s the missing piece of your puzzle. You described it as “the density gives it weight” but that still doesn’t answer for the motion. In a small way, you are a little correct though, Einstein gave us general relativity, which stated that an objects mass curves the space and time around it, which causes gravity. So in a way, yes, it is density, density causes gravity….so you’re basically, again, just describing gravity, without saying gravity.
None of this is new…it’s new to YOU, because I don’t think you’ve ever really studied modern physics before. That’s the problem I have with flat Earth…you’ve rejected modern science, out of distrust…but now you’re just reaching the same conclusions, but with chunks missing…because you refuse to accept that modern science could be right. It’s like a cried Wolf situation…they’re right, but you don’t trust them, so psychologically can’t accept that they’re probably right.
I commend the effort…science is about falsification after all, and no better way to find the holes in a theory, than to start from scratch and see if anything was missed or overlooked, but confirmation bias is a trap anyone can fall into. So when does it cross a line from falsification, to ramming a square peg into a round hole? 🧐 It’s not always very clear…that’s why we have peer review in the scientific method in the first place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peteoverton6069 It’s pretty simple, a map can’t be created or used, until you have accurate knowledge of the distances, correct? Same is true for the model we currently use for navigation, with lines of latitude and longitude that are equal for two hemispheres, designed for the globe. Can’t navigate the surface, if the measurements of that surface are not accurate…you will get lost, you require an accurate model, before successful navigation is possible. Everybody in navigation uses the same globe system of navigation…and it works. If you think millions of pilots of sailors can navigate with pin point accuracy, without an accurate map….then you’ve got a bit to learn about geometry.
It’s also important to understand, that you can’t interpret 3 dimensions (a sphere) with just 2 dimensions (a flat map). Because you lose a dimension of travel, which means you lose distance. The same is true vice versa, can’t interpret 2 dimensions on a 3 dimensional surface, because you add distance, so distortions are created. So it’s one or the other, can’t be both…the model that works every time it’s used, is the correct model. It’s really that simple.
I’ll give you a great example. The most common map used by flat Earth is the Gleason projection map. It depicts Australia as twice as long East to West, as it is North to South. But in reality, Australia is measured to be equally as long North to South, as East to West…they’re roughly the same distance. The globe model maintains every distance measured, there is no accurate flat map…that’s for a good reason, because the surface is not flat.
So no better way to prove Earth’s shape, just learn how to navigate, then test it yourself.
1
-
@peteoverton6069 We observe Earth to be spherical, so the experiment is Earth itself. We measure it as spherical, we are clearly attracted to its surface everywhere upon that surface, so it’s just logical deduction after that point, Earth generates a force that attracts us to its spherical surface. Whether you understand how gravity works, it can’t be denied that everything is attracted to surface…so does it not exist, simply because you don’t understand it? Reality is under no obligation to make sense to you. Your gripes over gravity don’t falsify the geometry either. You not understanding, agreeing, or accepting gravity…doesn’t change the fact that every pilot and sailor navigates with that model.
As for your experiment. You can’t scale down gravity, it doesn’t work that way, it relies on an objects mass…it requires a LOT of mass, before we get characteristics that are easily observable and comparable to the gravity of Earth. So your experiment is flawed by design, because it’s misunderstanding how gravity works. You also have the problem of controlling for Earth’s gravity during your experiment. When you pour water onto a ball, where does the water go? Towards Earth…right? So how exactly are you supposed to test the gravity of a much smaller mass, when it’s always going to be competing with the much stronger gravity of Earth? You’d have to conduct the experiment in deep space to get away from all other sources of gravity, and good luck with that.
A better experiment is the Cavendish experiment, which tests Newton’s law of universal gravitation, mass attracting mass. Cavendish experiment controls for Earth’s gravity, by cancelling out its downward vector. If you suspend a pendulum in air, it’s still being pulled down of course, but it’s free to be drawn towards other masses in other vectors. That’s a far better way to test mass attraction. This experiment works, and does verify mass attraction…it’s how science first verified gravity. Plenty of recreations of the experiment you can find online, it’s very repeatable science.
1
-
@peteoverton6069 You said there are three major components of the globe model that you claim are false…but then you didn’t share what those were exactly. I’m sorry, I can’t read your mind, so would you mind listing them? I’m sure at this point, I could easily guess, but I’d rather not assume anything, so feel free.
Yes, more mass equals more weight, that’s exactly what gravity physics teaches as well. That’s why the equation for weight is W=mg, weight is equal to mass times downward acceleration of gravity. So where exactly is the problem? Density is just a ratio of mass to volume…so it’s basically just mass. Still not a force though, can’t put matter into motion…and that’s what you’re missing.
Like I said earlier though, in many ways you’re basically describing gravity physics…without using the word gravity. It’s quite odd…would you prefer we name it something else?
More mass equals more molecules being effected by pull of gravity…this means more weight. All matter has inertia, every molecule in fact. Inertia is basically just how much energy is required to cause it to move or be moved. Try and move a grain of rice, it’s very simple, requires no effort and very little energy. But try and move a large bag of rice…far more difficult. Because there’s more mass, so more inertia. The same thing occurs with weight. More mass, means more molecules being attracted downward, means more energy required to pick it up, or move it, means more weight. Gravity creates its weight, mass increases its inertia, see the difference?
So again, density is already a part of gravity physics. You’re basically describing gravity in much of your conclusions.
1
-
@peteoverton6069 Those aren’t flaws, they’re just you stating that they’re flaws, out of incredulity. You have questions sure, but questions are not evidence, nor are they conclusions. They’re great physics questions though, so I don’t mind providing some answers.
As far as we currently know, the Earth was set in motion by gravity, many many eons ago. Mass attracting mass, causing collisions, eventually forming larger clumps of mass, the largest masses creating more gravitational attraction, causing everything to follow them on a similar plane, forcing everything to spiral into a disk, that eventually collapsed inward as gravity attracted everything to the largest mass, which then formed into the stars and planets. The rotation, and the orbits, are the left over momentum, from that forming accretion disk, set in motion by gravity. Since space is largely a vacuum, there’s no air to cause drag, so no opposing force to slow Earrh down or stop it, so Earth is free to rotate indefinitely, because of conservation of angular momentum. The laws of motion, some of the first laws of physics ever realized and the easiest to learn and verify for yourself, with hundreds of easy to reproduce experiments. The first law being the law of inertia, all things in motion stay in motion, until acted upon by an opposing force.
This forming of stars and planets has been simulated, by creating a simulation with simple physical rules similar to our reality, adding physical matter into the system, then providing a single attractive force upon every simulated molecule, the system is then observed to order itself, eventually forming into a spiralling disk, then larger spherical masses. Simulations like this help to verify the plausibility of modern cosmology, but they also verify that gravity is all that’s required to put everything in motion. You see…gravity didn’t just answer for why things fall, when gravity was realized, the mysteries of the cosmos began to fall like dominoes. It explains orbits, rotational motions of celestial bodies, why they form into spheres…it even explains how the Sun burns, by fusion reactions. Which is basically just molecules of hydrogen being forced together by a stars intense gravity, which forms it into helium. That fusion causes a shed of electrons, which releases massive amounts of energy. We recreate this science in fusion reactors today…we can’t use gravity mind you (requires a mass as large as the sun), that’s why it’s so difficult to recreate, we have to force fusion in other ways, but our understanding of gravity led us to that discovery. Anyway…I digress.
Gravity is not centrifugal force…where did you get that from? They may be similar in that they’re both an accelerating force…but that’s about it. And centrifugal force is increased by rate of rotation, water won’t cling to a ball spinning at 100 rpm’s, but what about a ball spinning at 1 rpm? It may drip slowly down to Earth, but it won’t be flung off, that’s for sure, so if you’re gonna claim water can’t cling to a ball because of centrifugal force, the next logical question to follow is; what rate of rotation are we talking about here? What about an Earth rotating at 1 revolution every 24 hours? Does that sound fast to you? It’s exactly two times slower than the hour hand of a clock. You really think Earths rotation would generate much centrifugal force, at such a slow rate of rotation? If you do…then you could research a lot more on rotational motion, cause you’re current assumption is in error.
You have many misconceptions and misunderstandings of physics, that is very clear. Not surprising though, you’re trying to start from scratch without prior knowledge of what came before…so of course you’d misunderstand the globe model and physics, you don’t have a foundational understanding of any of it currently, from what I can tell. I hope this information is helping to fill some gaps though, if at least so you can stop strawmanning and misunderstanding the model you’re attempting to argue against.
1
-
@peteoverton6069 You don’t find the Bible to be a majestic and hopeful tale of fiction? Really? A literal magical being, uses literal magic, to create the Earth and everything on it…I’ve read some fantasy fiction in my day, the lore in many of them sounds a lot like that. Not to mock your beliefs mind you, I have my own spiritual beliefs, but be honest…do you really not see anything about the Bible, that others might consider on the level of fiction?
Everything I’ve mentioned is verifiable, it’s applied science…much of that science we’re both currently using to have this conversation. I find it interesting that people will on one hand claim science is bullshit…while in the other, they’re happy to make use of every marvellous technology science has made possible for them, all while possessing zero understanding of how it works. Actually it’s a bit arrogant to me, if I’m being honest…but mostly sad.
You’ll tell me the globe is a farce…while every pilot and sailor is currently using that knowledge to travel the Earth with precision, bringing you all kinds of imported goods, you couldn’t get otherwise. Am I supposed to ignore a working model of navigation…because your interpretation of a book claims otherwise and asks for me to believe it on faith alone? 🧐 Why exactly would I do that? 🤷♂️ Should we throw away the current system of navigation, even though it’s more than proven to work? Then you’ll tell me gravity is a farce….while we currently use our knowledge of gravity to do everything from predicting a parabolic trajectory (ballistics must keep in mind a projectiles drop rate, acceleration of gravity), calculating a vessel’s weight capacity out at sea before it capsizes (engineers develop ballast tanks with the buoyancy force equation, which has gravity as a variable) to get a plane to fly (weight to thrust ratio), to putting satellites into orbit (orbital mechanics built from gravity physics), to recreating nuclear fusion (understanding the gravitational power of our Sun, taught us how it burns), etc, etc, etc.
You’re arguing against applied science…that’s the problem. The whole point of science is to acquire accurate knowledge of physical reality, so we can then apply it for our benefit. So when do you know when your science is accurate? When it works…it’s really that simple. Your computer wasn’t made by a God, it was made by a man. I understand that for many God created everything, but I don’t think we should ever diminish our accomplishments. Do you realize just how incredible we really are? 1000 years ago we were digging in the dirt, just hoping to get enough food to survive another winter….now we’re lying in cozy beds, in heated homes, with water and electricity at our command, sending messages at the speed of light, over electromagnetic frequencies, to people in other countries around the world! It’s incredible to me how anyone could take that for granted, or fail to realize that WE did all that…with science and our thirst for knowledge. How can anyone think science is wrong, despite how many home runs its hit and continues to blast out of the park!? How could anyone really argue against the results? Are you blind? It’s fine to challenge consensus, fine to ask questions…but come now, be honest, are you asking questions to learn, or just to spite an institution you’ve come to despise, for whatever reason? Do you really have a superior understanding of things, or are you just pretending? Can we navigate with your understanding? Can I rebuild every facet of my computer with your understanding of things, from the silicon and plastics that make up the microchips, to the wifi that uses the electromagnetic spectrum to send and receive internet data, to the binary code that runs the software? If not…can you really claim it’s science that’s got it wrong? 🧐
God still very much has a place in science, most great scientists throughout history in fact (and even still today), are/were theists, not secular. You know Einstein fir example, he was very spiritual, he believed a universe this incredible had to be created by a God, and he felt it was his job to figure out how that creation works. Most scientists have no problem marrying their religious beliefs with science, for many it only helps them admire Gods creation more. It’s never been the role of science to destroy God, nor could it even if that was the goal. It’s just a method of thinking, just another tool in the belt, it has no more agenda than a hammer does. Some may use the hammer for nefarious ends, but it can never really be used against the metaphysical…by definition, it’s only purpose is to determine how things work in the physical world. So if your goal is just to put a bit of dirt in the eye of science, because you fear it’s trying to destroy your spiritual beliefs…I’d say, stop and maybe recognize that as a bias you might have. You’re not gonna achieve much truth through confirmation bias…but where does this fear of science come from? My guess is it’s a fear built from lack of understanding. Perhaps if you understood science more, you wouldn’t be so staunchly opposed to it.
Food for thought. I mean no disrespect towards your beliefs, I just prefer to speak my mind, and be honest.
1
-
@peteoverton6069 Of course it’s not as simple as “it’s all science”, I never said it was. But science is a very large cog in the wheel, and that should never be overlooked or taken for granted. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. Fund scientific research into how to farm fish more productively, you feed an entire nation for centuries. Though you’re correct to say it’s not just science alone that fuels societal growth and progress, it obviously requires every individual doing their part, for any of it to be possible at all, but science is the catalyst, it’s where it all starts. Knowledge is power, and the scientific method is without a doubt the best method for acquiring knowledge of the physical world. All I ask is that people don’t take it for granted…out of spite alone. And I do feel that’s the real reason many denounce science, purely out of spite…I just feel it’s petty, as well as naive.
It’s part of our very nature, we’re very curious creatures…we’ve been doing science ever since we first harnessed fire for ourselves, crafted tools for hunting, built shelters, made clothes, etc. All of this required that we pay attention to physical reality, and deduce how things work…it’s our super power, science is something we’ve always done, even long before we gave it a name. The scientific method wasn’t ironed out until roughly 500 years ago, but we’ve always been using our powers of observation and our intellect to improve our lives, and take us from just simply surviving, to thriving. It’s a huge part of who we are, so it’s foolish to diminish it’s influence on our successes.
Apologies though, I do tend to carry on. I hope it’s been interesting at least, and I hope it’s been a helpful insight into a different perspective. Take care.
1
-
“So if they lied about one thing they lied about everything….”
Surely you know what a black and white fallacy is? Thinking in absolutes like that is not very logical I feel, because nothing is ever that black and white. Think of the boy who cried wolf; most people would agree the moral of that story is too never lie (or don’t lie too often), or nobody will trust you…but what I take away from it, is mankind’s inability to objectively assess every situation without bias. The boy told the truth in the end…but because of his status as a liar, and peoples tendency for thinking in absolutes, the warning wasn’t received, and then people got hurt…all because of thinking like that “lie once, lie about everything”. Nothing and nobody can lie all the time about everything…thinking in absolutes is a logical fallacy.
That’s a core problem with flat Earthers, they’re reaching conclusions not so much from evidence, but more from a deep distrust they have in an authority. It’s created a powerful bias, that keeps them from assessing information objectively and with due diligence. They’re right to be skeptical…but their distrust puts blinders over their ability to research objectively. Everyone would agree the government is shady, and should never be trusted completely. That’s pretty common knowledge, it’s no secret, and so it’s perfectly reasonable to remain skeptical at all times…but paranoia should never be allowed to triumph over reason.
The details matter, it’s where the truth can be found…it takes time and diligence to properly ascertain all the details. For example; Flat Earthers make the claim that every image of Earth is a composite image. This is not true, the real truth is that SOME of the photos are composite, while many others are not. The Apollo missions (as well as the many missions that took place before those missions) took thousands of photos of Earth, on regular old celluloid film. These photos are well archived, you can find them online very easily with just a few quick searches.
These are not composite, nor are they CGI, just one example of many. But most Flat Earthers will never mention these photos, they instead firmly claim that every photo of Earth is composite, they even claim that NASA admitted too it. This is also false, what really occurred was some good ol’ cherry picking. ONE GUY who worked on the 2002 Blue Marble composite, was being interviewed on how THAT ONE IMAGE was created. He explained that image was created by compiling image data from low Earth orbit satellites, which was then put in a photo editing software like photoshop, to complete the image. He was talking about one photo, he was not in any way shape or form saying that every photo by NASA is a composite…but flat Earthers only listened to the part where he said “…it is photoshopped, but it has to be.”
Cherry picking, taking words out of their original context, with important details omitted, then misinterpreting those words and misrepresenting them, to help spin a narrative and confirm a bias. It’s not NASA who’s been lying…it’s flat Earthers, who refuse to believe an institution they distrust wouldn’t lie to them. It’s not entirely their fault, it’s just classic confirmation bias and thinking in absolutes…it’s made them into liars, mostly towards themselves. But I mean, if we apply your mantra to Flat Earthers, now that you know those details…so Flat Earthers are liars absolutely? 🧐 It’s not that simple…nothing ever is.
Eddie isn’t wrong to question things, nobody is attacking him for that, because many would agree you shouldn’t trust authority completely, it’s wise to be skeptical. But he’s clearly not forming conclusions from solid evidence, it’s mostly speculation and “what ifs”…and the evidence that is presented, when anyone really digs into it, turns out to be just cherry-picking or half truths with missing context, misconceptions and misunderstandings. Eddie is clearly running with confirmation bias and though Joe and company can’t quite pinpoint exactly how, they can sense it. That’s why Eddie is being attacked here…because it’s annoying when people think you’re supposed too be impressed by speculations or anecdotal evidence. In what world or court of law does speculation and anecdotal evidence ever hold up? 🤷♂️
Anyway, that’s just my perspective on this issue. I feel people should absolutely be skeptical, but don’t lose their ability for better reasoning, too their emotions. And I don’t agree that thinking in absolutes is a great mantra towards finding truth…it’s a great way to follow bias though.
1
-
1
-
Well it seems you didn’t pay very good attention in your history class, cause it wasn’t believing in the globe they were being ostracized for, it was heliocentrism. Galileo and his peers were persecuted and put on trial for sedition against the church, for suggesting the Sun was at the centre of the solar system, not the Earth. They were challenging the geocentric model…but every scholar around that time already agreed that Earth was spherical, and they had for at least a good 1500 years up to that point, since the Greeks. Sailors have been using the globe model for navigation since probably Ptolemy, a Greek mathematician and geographer who designed the first accurate globe maps, roughly 2000 years ago, that led to the current longitude and latitude navigation system we all use today, designed from the knowledge that Earth is spherical, with TWO equal hemispheres.
Is navigation “just theory”? You think pilots and sailors can accurately plot long distance navigation routes…without knowing for certain what shape and size the surface they’re navigating really is? 🧐 If so….give your face a slap for me.
Flat Earth is a hoax…get a better bullshit filter.
1
-
@michaelcarlson2512 So if you don’t mind, there’s at least one other point I’d like to touch on from a separate commenter. Frankie was asking you for a formula for buoyancy (as was I actually) using your understanding of things, and you replied with “why does there need to be a formula to prove that ice is buoyant in water”. The whole point of doing science, is to understand how things work, so we can use that knowledge and apply it. How we apply it is often by equations, we learn everything we can about something like buoyancy, isolating every variable required to cause it, then we break down those variables into their parts, those then create equations, which are basically a recipe, we can then use to give us predictive power. That’s what equations do, allow us to make accurate predictions.
Sure you can look at ice in water, see that it floats, and determine that it’s buoyant…but how can you USE that knowledge? Is it possible to deduce how it works, to the point where you can apply that knowledge the most effectively? Of course it is…math equations give us more control over that knowledge. You could build a ballast tank for a ship by trial and error…but it would be costly and very time consuming and not very efficient. And in the end, after one successful floating ship, you could only really build the same type of ship…cause that’s the only one you’ve made that works after all that trial and error. You could do that, or, you could understand HOW buoyancy works, to the point where you can calculate and make predictions for the effect. Now an engineer can build a ballast tank, simply by knowing a few things. How big is the ship going to be and what it’s made of, can give him a density, knowing what it’s floating in can tell him how buoyant that density is or isn’t, and how strong the downward force is can complete everything he needs to then predict how much weight a certain sized ballast tank can hold before it capsizes.
He doesn’t have to build anything, and he can predict all of that, knowing exactly how large to build everything and what materials to use, long before any building ever occurs. By understanding HOW buoyancy works, down to its last detail, the engineer now has a much more efficient method of building anything that’s required to float.
That’s the power math gives us, it makes engineering and invention far more efficient and easy. That’s why we do science, so we can acquire knowledge, we can then use in equations. Math is how we apply scientific knowledge in the most efficient way, it’s the end goal of science, applied mathematics.
Another thing about equations, if they work when applied, then you can be certain your knowledge is accurate. Because every variable in the equation has to be true, for it to accurately make a prediction that ends up true. If any variable is wrong, you’ll know, because the equation won’t work.
So he’s asking you for an equation, because if you can’t derive a working equation from your conclusions, then it means your conclusions are very likely incorrect. Basically, he’s reminding you how important math equations are…though most people don’t really seem to understand much about higher mathematics, and I think it’s because they’re not taught these things well enough. So I hope my break down of things above is helpful.
1
-
@michaelcarlson2512 You’re welcome, I’m glad the information is helpful, or at the very least interesting. The trouble is you’re not really falsifying gravity, you’re really just denying its existence. I just feel it’s a misunderstanding of the basic tenants of physics that might be leading you to your current conclusions. You wouldn’t deny that things fall when dropped, but why would you disagree that this falling motion requires a name if we’re too discuss it? Why can buoyancy be named, but gravity can not? You see it from my perspective a little better? Kind of defeats the purpose of science, if we’re not going to be objective and treat every facet of physical reality equally, with the same standards of definition and labeling…or even just acknowledge when something exists.
Gravity is just a name we gave to a motion we observe in nature, a physical phenomenon that occurs free from our control, and it’s undeniable that it occurs. That’s where the physics starts, just by providing names to some physical functions of nature that we observe. I just feel you’re being a tad biased is all, denying gravity more so because it’s inconvenient for the model you’d prefer to believe.
You can actually use the buoyancy equation I mentioned (Fb=Vpg), to predict that balancing point of buoyancy to gravity, that you’re describing with the balloon, it works just as well in gases as it does with liquids. And that is what’s happening there, you’ve put enough of each gas inside that it balances in the medium, a balance between gravity and buoyancy. So you’re doing more to prove gravity, not disprove it. Density and buoyancy are already a part of the larger theory of gravity, so these things you’re describing are already explained and accounted for in that body of knowledge. So it’s really just taking gravity physics, but snipping out any mention of gravity.
But again, why so bent on removing gravity? Why can we name and define buoyancy force, but the downward motion we can neither give name or acknowledge? You really don’t see that as intentionally ignorant?
1
-
@michaelcarlson2512 I understand your skepticism, I get it, when you look at things from the perspective you currently are, looking at only the conclusions of science, and skipping over the evidence that led to them, I can see why you’d reach your conclusions. These are actually great physics questions, so I don’t mind providing some further information.
You gotta go back to the start, science didn’t start with gravity, it started with Earth’s geometry. Evidence just piled up that made it impossible to deny that Earth is in fact spherical…we have a whole system of navigation today, designed from that knowledge and the measurements, that Earth is spherical. Millions of pilots and sailors verify Earth’s spherical geometry, every single day, with every successful voyage. If you don’t think knowing the exact surface shape and dimensions is important for navigation…then you don’t really know how to navigate. I would urge anyone truly interested in this topic, to learn celestial navigation, from the history right down to how to do it yourself…I couldn’t almost guarantee, you won’t be a flat Earther after that lesson. Especially after you actually apply the knowledge.
So ancient sailors and geographers pretty much made it impossible to ignore or deny, that Earth is in fact spherical…but ya, that of course raises a question, how do things remain on the surface of a sphere? Whether people were in England or Australia, they weren’t falling off this sphere…so what was keeping everything contained to the surface? 🤷♂️ It’s a great question…but questions don’t make facts go away. Just cause they didn’t know how it works, doesn’t change the fact that Earth was verified and measured to be spherical.
That’s where science came in, and it took a long time to figure out. So they didn’t start at gravity, it started by first verifying, then mapping and measuring the Earths shape. So, same with your predicament, your questions of gravity don’t make Earth’s shape just go away. They’re great questions, but questions are not evidence.
Scientists then paid close attention to some other undeniable facts of reality. First thing they noticed of course was that things fall when dropped. It’s been pretty obvious, but nobody really put it together until Newton, noticing that this falling motion was a physical mechanism of nature, a physical phenomenon. Newton had already determined that no motion occurs without a force to cause it (the Laws of Motion), so it’s pretty simple deduction after that, a motion is present, no motion occurs without force, so a force is present that attracts everything to surface. Simple.
That force was given a name and then science was off to unravel the mysteries of how it works. So those were the two undeniable variables at this point, Earth was spherical and all things are attracted and fall to surface. Many hypothesis were put forward for what caused that attraction, from magnetism, to static attraction, to air pressure, but the only one that survived experimentation, peer review and falsification, was mass attracting mass, put forth first by Newton (Law of universal gravitation), then later verified in the Cavendish experiment. Here’s a really good quick demonstration and explanation of the experiment https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68. He even explains and demonstrates a few simple falsifications for electromagnetism and static attractions, explaining why they’re not sufficient to account for this attraction. This experiment is repeated constantly around the world, high school kids can do this experiment, it’s pretty simple.
Though its conclusions, still creates many questions. Like how does mass attract mass? What’s causing that mass attraction? The trouble with unraveling HOW things work, is that it’s an almost never ending pit of further questions, test and verify one part of the problem…it opens the door for several more questions that need to be answered. Eventually taking things further and further into tinier realms (quantum), where we have zero perspective, since we don’t directly experience those scales…makes it very very hard to continue answering and solving for further questions, so we’ll eventually hit a wall, as we have. This would occur no matter what conclusions were drawn, if Electromagnetism was verified as the cause, it would then create its own set of new questions, and down and down science goes, just in a different direction.
Anyway, point is, you’re kind of skipping ahead, then wondering why things don’t make sense to you. Of course you’re not going to understand the conclusions, if you don’t follow and learn the steps that led to those conclusions…that’s true of any conclusion. Without all the details, of course you’re likely too reach a false conclusion.
You’re currently forming conclusions, based from your narrow experiences. You see a ball you hold in your hand, and understand that it can’t hold anything too it (though it actually can, through static, friction and surface tension attractions on more microscopic levels, but I digress), so you find it only logical that an Earth also can’t if it’s shaped spherical. You’re thus making a false equivalence, comparing Earth to any ball you have experience with, then assuming they would work the same…even though that’s just an assumption you’re making, not an actual verified conclusions. See the problem?
And then that’s where you stop thinking about it, you’re stuck in the box of things you experience at your scale. Science goes a bit further, it paid attention to a motion that attracts us to surface. Even if Earth were flat, science would have to account for and explain that falling motion, that’s the job of science. Saying “it just does” to the question “how things fall” is not a sufficient answer in science…might as well not even try if that’s as far as you’re willing to go. Won’t achieve anything with surface level conclusions like that.
So these two things are known, Earth is spherical, and all things are observed to attract towards it. That attraction causes motion, so a force is present causing that attraction, simple deduction. You’re starting at the end, you need to go back to the start. How it works down every detail is a much larger conversation, one I certainly can’t have here in a comment thread, but I hope that helps provide at least some further insight. People have this assumption that gravity is not verified…but it’s actually one of the most rigorously tested concepts in all of science. If it wasn’t verified, then it wouldn’t have made it this far.
Anytime, I’ll address centrifugal force in a separate comment, cause you had some issues with that as well.
1
-
@michaelcarlson2512 So centrifugal force is what we experience in rotations. Your argument is that because Earth spins at 1000 mph (Earth’s circumference, divided by hours in a day), then you assume the centrifugal force must be great…but this fundamentally misunderstands the physics of centrifugal force. You’re focusing on the big number you understand (1000 mph) and then you’re falsely assuming a linear velocity (mph) has much to do with a rotational velocity.
First of all, when dealing with rotational velocity, we don’t use linear velocity measures like miles per hour, we instead use rotational measures, like revolutions per minute (RPM’s). Centrifugal force is directly effected by rate of rotation…not linear velocity. Earth takes 24 hours to complete 1 rotation. So have you ever been on a merry go round that rotates at 1 revolution every 24 hours? Would you expect a lot of centrifugal force on merry go round rotating at that velocity? No, not very likely. That’s roughly 0.000694 RPM’s, for a comparison a Gravitron ride at your local fair that creates a lot of centrifugal force to cling you too its walls rotates at about 24 RPM’s, big difference.
Best way to help you understand this relation, is with a simple thought experiment. Picture yourself in a race car, moving at a constant 200 mph, around a perfect circle track, that’s 1000 meters around. Would you expect a lot of centrifugal force in this example? Yes, in fact you’d probably have a heck of a time staying on the track, the centrifugal force would be so great. But now let’s do it again, same car, same 200 mph forward velocity, but this time you’re driving on a perfect circle track that’s 1000 miles around. Would you expect the same amount of centrifugal force in this example? No, in fact the track would be turning so gradually, it almost feel perfectly straight, you wouldn’t feel probably any centrifugal force in this example.
But hold on, it was the same exact linear velocity of 200 mph, in both examples, but the former had a lot of centrifugal force, the latter had essentially zero as far you’d be concerned. Why is that? Because centrifugal force is a product of how quickly your angular trajectory changes per second, how many revolutions you complete per minute. In the first example, you’d be racing around the track completing several revolutions every minute, in the second example you’d complete 1 revolution every 5 hours, greatly decreasing the rate of angular trajectory change per second. So the wider the circumference, the more linear speed you’d need, to generate a comparable amount of centrifugal force at smaller scales. Which is why we don’t use linear velocities (mph) when talking about rotational motions, we instead use rotational measures like RPM’s.
The Centrifugal force generated by the Earth, is greatest at the Equator, and it only negates about 0.03% of gravity…it’s so small, you’d never notice. Gravity easily trumps that outward force, it’s not even close. So I hope that helps you better understand centrifugal force a bit, you’re focusing on the wrong numbers.
As for your bug walking around…it’s on the surface, right? So gravity is holding it. I’m not sure why you’d think it would be crushed by gravity, gravity isn’t strong enough here to do that. And where’s that ocean of water going to go? What other force would be present to cause it to be put into motion away from the Earth? Just think about that for a second, the only force present is gravity…that’s how the water gets its weight in the first place. That water gets its weight from gravity…gravity is basically another name for weight, you don’t have weight without gravity. What you always have is mass, but weight is mass times gravity.
Think of it this way, I’m sure you know how a scale works, you press DOWN upon the top surface of a scale, applying a force, that it then converts into a weight value. So it converts the downward force you apply, into weight…that’s how a scale works; downward force=weight. So if an object is resting on a scale, and it’s reading a weight value…then what’s pushing that object down? That’s how it works, it requires a downward force to be applied, for the scale to work. So the resting object is pressing down, or it wouldn’t read a weight value. Pretty simple way to verify gravity, but it also helps demonstrate that weight doesn’t exist without gravity. Objects always have mass, water always has mass…but it’s not trillions of tons until all that mass is pressing against surface, due to gravity, to create that weight pressure. Understand a bit better?
In any case, you’re assuming Earth fights with all that water, as if it’s in some tug of war where it has to increase its power to keep that water from falling off…but why would it fall? What other force is present outside of Earth to cause that falling off? What happens when you poor water on a ball in your hand? It falls off and goes to surface…so Earth is attracting the water off that ball. What force is there beneath the Earth in space, to cause an equivalent attraction, to make the water fall off?
Anyway, this is all physics 101 lessons, same physics understood by pretty much every scientist and engineer. Everything I’m telling you is the knowledge they all use, with helping them design a great many technology’s you use every day, so it’s not just nonsense. I’d urge you to learn a bit more, cross reference everything I’m saying with other physics lessons you can find online. I hope it’s been helpful. Take care for now and thanks for listening.
1
-
@DS-lq3dr Sure, but debates aren’t really won on truth and facts alone, they’re typically won by whoever is the better talker/bullshitter, and how well they dazzled the audience. It’s just a fact, you can win a debate, even if you’re 100% wrong, just by being a smooth talker, it’s a sad reality. Truth is messy and full of little details, it’s harder to sift through and explain, while bullshit is generally pretty short and direct, easy to shoot out in rapid fire, and easy to grasp…the average person has a pretty poor attention span, so guess which one they’re more prone to gravitate towards.
Just saying, science is very careful who it engages with, because conmen do exist and they’re constantly trying to bait them for the attention it garners. So they have to be careful….a huxter doesn’t have to convince everybody, he just needs to snare a few, then he’s got some customers, and there’s a sucker born every second. These types are typically layman with no real credentials to speak of, so scientists generally won’t accept any debates with layman, as a way of filtering conmen out, it’s pretty common practice. So if Eric really wants to have a debate, he’s going to have to earn it first…but probably not gonna happen, he already thinks he knows everything. 🙄
You know Dubay has been called for debate plenty of times by other YouTubers though, some of them even big channels with lots of followers. He’s so far accepted none of them…so why is it only Neil you focus on? Dubay doesn’t debate either, so if we use your logic that “truth has nothing to fear”, then what’s Dubay so afraid of?🧐
1
-
So how’d they use CGI on the Apollo moon landing photos, before CGI or photoshop existed? 🧐 Doesn’t add up. No, NASA never said all of they’re photos are CGI, one guy who worked on the 2002 Blue Marble composite image of Earth, was explaining how that ONE photo was created. He was in no way saying or implying that ALL photos of Earth are CGI or photoshopped. So you just misinterpreted what was actually being said, jumping to an erroneous conclusion from ignoring the context.
That photo is a composite, which means many smaller pictures stitched together to create one bigger picture. You require a photo editing software like photoshop to compile a composite image, there’s no way around that…that’s how composites are made. But that’s not the only photos NASA takes, the original Apollo photos were on regular film, from a regular camera, from deeper space. And geostationary satellites are currently in orbit taking single shot photos as well, with digital cameras not much different than what your phone uses. These photos are not composite, and not created with photo editing software, and they’re taken around the clock…there’s probably millions of photos by now.
You don’t see stars in photos because of the exposure setting. When filming anything properly, you must make sure the exposure and shutter rate is set to a level where you can see the image clearly in the final image. To snap a clear picture of the Earth, you have to lower the exposure, this lowered exposure setting means the much dimmer stars do not make it onto the film, because exposure setting basically sets how much light makes it onto the film. I’d suggest learning a bit more about photography, particularly exposure setting and shutter rate.
Satellites are about the size of a small car…do you see cars from 10 miles away? How about 25,000 miles away, which is roughly the distance most photos of Earth are taken from. What makes you assume you’d see something so small, from so far away? 🧐
I think you need to ponder this a bit longer. I hope this information is helpful or at the very least interesting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alienrenders Here’s a fact, it’s really easy to lie online, and confirmation bias is a real thing. Those are facts I feel are pretty common knowledge. So if your sources are not accredited, and have zero oversight or peer review system, then they’re not likely a trust worthy source. Anyone can type up an article and shoot out a bullshit statistic like “60% of HadCRUT data is fabricated”, but does that mean it’s true, cause it’s in an article you found online?
I’m just saying…it used to be pretty common sense not to believe everything at face value, or by someones word alone. Yet you’re expecting me to blindly agree that you have “established facts” that support your claims….but then you can’t even take a second to share even ONE source that helps confirm that? 🧐
Just frustrating is all, I’m trying to see your perspective, or help you see mine, but climate change deniers are all typically the same…they don’t want to talk about it. Why exactly? Are you afraid you could be wrong? I could care less if I’m wrong…but I’m not going to agree to empty claims, without evidence to support it. I’m trying to search for what you’re saying, but I’m not finding anything….would be SO MUCH easier if you just shared a source.
1
-
1
-
You’d be right…if we set our clocks by a sidereal day, and not a solar day. A sidereal day is one complete 360 degree rotation…a solar day is a full rotation, plus a little extra rotation, to account for the Suns position, so noon lines up each day. We timed our clocks by the solar day, heck we determined the length of a second by the solar day. A sidereal day is about 23 hours 56 minutes long, the solar day is 24 hours. Wasn’t hard to do either, because we used to literally use the Sun as our time keeper, with the sundial.
Best not to jump to conclusions until you have all the facts. This isn’t common knowledge, but any astronomer or astrophysicist could have told you this. Research the solar day, learn the difference between sidereal day and solar day. I hope you find this information helpful. Take care.
1
-
@KevHarkins1 Can’t see why I’d give you the valid reason why we’re not facing away from the Sun at Noon every winter? 🧐 You reached a false conclusion, I simply shared the information you were missing…not sure how that’s difficult to understand. You’re just mad, cause you know I’m right. Solar day is a full rotation, then a little extra rotation to line up with solar noon again the next day…it keeps us facing the Sun throughout a year. It wasn’t difficult to clock, we started keeping time with the Sun…modern clocks were set by sundials. So now you know.
I’m looking at a diagram right now, that states very clearly; “Sidereal day equals 360 degree rotation, taking 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds. Solar day equals 360 degrees plus 1 degree, taking 24 hours.” Every diagram and explanation I search says the exact same thing. So I’m sorry bud, but you’re just wrong…sooooo, I don’t know what else to tell ya. Nice try at gaslighting I guess. 🤷♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KevHarkins1 It doesn’t change the rate of time, it’s still 24 hours…they timed the second to the solar day, meaning the amount of time chosen for the length of a second, coincides to the solar day, the 360 degrees plus extra rotation. That’s why a solar day is a perfect 24 hours, even though it’s a little extra rotation, every second is timed to line up with that geometry. I think that’s another part of what you’re not getting.
You are aware of the leap year though right? Ever wondered why that occurs? Because the days don’t line up perfectly with our orbit, we chop off a full day every 4 years in the calendar, because of the reason you’re describing somewhat. We actually complete an orbit around the Sun every 365 days…and roughly 6 hours. Which means we’re off by a full day, every 4 years. So to make sure the seasons don’t fall out of alignment with our calendar, we chop a day off every 4 years, to essentially reset it. That’s why we have leap years. But even that’s not perfect…we still have to slice yet another day off every 30 or 40 years or something crazy like that…that’s why the Gregorian calendar was so frickin hard to make, which is the modern calendar that replaced the Julian calendar…which didn’t have the extra leap year every few decades. Seriously…you should really go into the history of how difficult it was to create the modern calendar system we all use, it’s nuts.
I understand your point completely, of course this doesn’t prove the model…but you were attempting to falsify the model, by pointing out a geometry you felt didn’t work for that model. I’m just explaining to you that it does actually work…you’re just misunderstanding it. So I’m falsifying your falsification of that model, I’m not making any attempt to prove that model, I’m just pointing out the holes in your argument against it. Is that clearer now?
1
-
1
-
@KevHarkins1 “Why does the Earth do this, but no other rotational device” because we needed to devise a way of keeping time, so that noon was always lined up with the Sun at zenith…for the reason YOU even gave in your initial comment. If we didn’t set our clocks to that extra rotation, then noon would become midnight in winter…allowing for that little extra rotation each day, ensures that TIME doesn’t fall out of sync. It’s like you kind of understand, but you’re not quite there yet. Of course a rotation is a rotation…but time is independent of rotation, so we can set time however we like in relation to a rotation. If you count the seconds so they add up perfectly to 24 hours, after a full rotation and a little extra, you now have a clock that can account for the Suns zenith, while Earth orbits the Sun at the same time as it rotates….and that’s exactly what we did.
It’s just geometry man, if the Earth is rotating, and also orbiting, then to line up with zenith again each day, a little extra rotation is required. Again…I’m looking at a diagram right now, that explains and shows this very clearly…..this is standard knowledge. So please search it when you get a chance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A roller coaster is constantly changing its forward velocity, going up, down, sideways, etc, which creates a centripetal force, that you experience as G force. A passenger jet flys at 500 mph, yet you can get up and walk around the cabin and experience no G force. What does this tell us? That we don’t actually feel motion itself, what we feel is sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion. The Concorde flew even faster, look it up, it flew at roughly 2000 mph, and you can find on board video of stewardesses serving drinks at that velocity. The difference is that passenger jets maintain a constant forward trajectory…a roller coaster is not, it’s making several rapid movements in multiple directions, it’s almost never maintaining a steady forward velocity, and nothing about it is gradual. It’s very different from Earth. Earth takes 24 hours to complete 1 rotation, that’s 1 degree every 69 miles, which it achieves roughly every 8 minutes…so it’s really not changing nearly as rapidly as the roller coaster is, it’s a very slow change in angular velocity over a much larger time frame. Centripetal force is a product of angular velocity change per second…a roller coaster changes angular velocity almost instantly, Earth does it gradually over time…hence why you don’t feel that motion.
Do your own research…but when you do, be sure not to skip physics 101. The laws of motion are some of the easiest laws of physics to understand and test in today’s world. They can help you here with these kinds of questions, so now you know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@testaccount3891 I didn’t say knowledge itself has a limit, of course there’s no limit to what we can learn, I said every person has a CURRENT limit of what they CURRENTLY know. And often times we’re not aware of those limits and we think we know everything…it’s the basis of Dunning Krueger effect, the less you know, the more you tend to think you’re an expert. You put “limits to knowledge” in quotations as if to directly quote me, but what I actually said was “…eventually hit the limits of your CURRENT knowledge”. So please read a bit closer and don’t twist my words. My point was that you couldn’t solve Flat Earth because your current knowledge is either lacking or in error, so the limits of your CURRENT knowledge has led you to false conclusions. I see it all the time with Flat Earthers…you’re doing great job of demonstrating that point with your ignorant understanding of navigation.
So how do you think they used the stars for navigation? Do you actually know anything about celestial navigation? 🧐 Here’s a short lesson, you pick a charted circumpolar star (best for North hemisphere is Polaris since it’s locked to the North axis of Earth and so it doesn’t move), then you measure its angle to the horizon. That angle can be used to tell you your latitude, which can be used to triangulate your position if you know how many nautical miles you’ve travelled and from where. So celestial navigation works, because we know Earth is spherical and we know its circumference, you require that information to finish the job…the stars are only a part of it, knowledge of the surface is the rest, that’s how it works. A fact of the Earth is that every 69 miles traveled directly South, Polaris will drop to horizon by 1 degree. That’s a line of latitude…that’s where we get the latitude lines from. That consistent drop, is geometry we’d expect on a sphere…if Earth was flat though, that angle would not be consistent every equal distance traveled away from it, it would drop to horizon less and less….that’s basic geometry.
So it’s actually old sailors and geographers who basically first proved the Earth was spherical, you can’t accurately navigate with the stars without first knowing the surface shape and its scale….sailors before this information was acquired, got lost…a lot, which is why they stuck close to shores they knew and never travelled very far where the stars became very different. Until geographers like Ptolemy roughly 2000 years ago finally gave them an accurate system to follow, a system designed on the knowledge that Earth is spherical.
So you’re just rambling and making bullshit excuses. Millions of pilots and sailors today find their destinations with extreme accuracy…and they all use the same system of navigation designed for a globe to help them do it. So they prove the Earth is spherical every single day, it’s not a question anymore.
If you think it’s wrong, I dare you to try navigating yourself, without that system. Go right ahead. You can learn to navigate at any time, lots of great tutorials online. You’ll learn pretty quickly how important knowledge of the surface is, to navigation.
1
-
@Entropian2012 Nobody uses the AE projection map for navigation…you are just another sucker who fell for a con, perpetuated online by total numpty’s, who really need to peel there faces away from their screens and go outside. Learn to actually navigate please…you’ll learn pretty quickly what model is actually used for navigation. Also, I’ve seen Frankie around in these comments a lot, what I’ve learned is that he’s an actual mariner with years of experience actually navigating at sea, and as a world traveller myself I’ve acquired the knowledge to navigate as well…so spare us both your ignorant bullshit please, cause you have no idea what you’re talking about. You know it, and so do we.
If you think I’m lying, then you just go right ahead and try navigating across any large ocean, and find a destination with pin point accuracy, without any aide from GPS or the globe model to help you do it. Good luck with that. 👍
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1