Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
@whataworld369 I’ve tried checking Joes website for this scheduled debate you claim is there, it’s not there…so I can really only conclude for now that you just made it up. Go ahead and tell me where this schedule is, cause I sure can’t find any. All I find is a link to his Spotify page, scrolling down to ep# 1159, where this clip was taken from, and all it says is a brief description of who Neil is…that’s it. No mention of Dubay or debate at all.
He didn’t agree to any debate with Dubay…so he’s not running from anything, he was never asked. This isn’t the only time Neil has publicly stated that he doesn’t do debates…I know of another time on the Big Think channel, where he also stated very clearly, that he doesn’t debate settled and objective science. So if he’s publicly stated multiple times that he doesn’t debate……what makes you think he agreed to a debate here? 🧐 Again, I’m looking, but I sure can’t find any written or vocal agreement from Neil…so it’s pretty simple, I simply have no reason to believe he did.
You just don’t personally like Neil, so that’s your bias here. That bias of yours has caused you to assume Neil agreed to do this debate beforehand…when he actually did not. If you think he did, then show me the written or vocal agreement from him, publicly stating he’d debate Dubay. Go ahead…you won’t find it. I’m trying to find this schedule you say exists, but so far nothing.
I’m not trying to be a dick here, I’m just pointing out to you, that I’m not aware of any agreement to debate. I am however aware that Neil has stated many times that he doesn’t do debates of what he feels is objective science.
1
-
@whataworld369 1) I’m not a mathematician, but I’ll share my thoughts anyway. Doing a quick search, the 3 body problem has actually been solved at least 3 separate ways now, since it was first postulated 300 years ago. Though these are not a general solution, they are special cases only, so technically still unsolvable, but not in some cases. It’s deemed unsolvable, simply because the patterns never repeat, they’re chaotic…unless of course in special cases where they’re in perfect balance. It also has more to do with masses that are all equal, and all orbiting each other, that’s generally how the problem is set up, with 3 equal masses. The Sun is far larger than Earth, or the moon, or any of the other planets, so its mass dominates. Which is why it’s probably easier to predict our solar systems orbits, because the Sun is so massive its gravitational output renders the other masses as negligible in comparison, so the 3 body problem can be ignored, basically. It’s also not orbiting the other planets, and they don’t influence it. Earth doesn’t orbit any planets either, so there’s only ever 2 bodies to solve in most cases in our solar system (ex. Sun and Earth, Earth and Moon, etc), and solving a two body orbital system is solvable, because it does repeat. But I learned something interesting, the Moon does shift chaotically a little bit, because of the 3 body problem. It’s a very minor chaos, so it can largely be ignored, but it is there I guess. So that’s pretty interesting. We can only currently predict the Moons exact position (within a margin of error), up to a point, the margin of error increases over time until it’s basically unusable. Pretty interesting.
So basically, every planet and Moon in our solar system, is in a two body structure, so far more balanced and predictable orbits. The 3 body problem applies more to 3 masses that are equal in mass, and only if they’re orbiting each other…and of course the other planets aren’t orbiting each other. Not to say their gravity doesn’t have influence on us, they do, but it’s very minor, so we don’t have to really worry about the 3 body problem.
That’s my understanding of it currently, after a quick bit of research. But again, I’m no mathematician, so take that with a grain of salt.
2) We only see Venus and Mercury just after Sunset and before sunrise, you’ll never see them at midnight. This is what we’d expect, it’s not like Venus or Mercury are always directly in front of the Sun…they orbit around it as well, and those orbits do go out pretty far from the Suns position…so while the Suns position is blocked, doesn’t mean you can’t still see the space beside the Suns position…where Mercury and Venus will sometimes be in their orbit. Night begins at 90 degrees to the Sun…not 180 degrees. So the geometry does work here, you could even draw it to help you visualize it.
3) The 70 mile shadow is the path of totality, and it is the umbra of the Moons shadow…but the penumbra of the shadow is actually around 2000 miles wide. Do some research on the umbra and penumbra of a shadow, the umbra can and does shrink…and that’s the path of totality in a solar eclipse, is the umbra. You can still view an eclipse in the penumbra though, for thousands of miles, it’s just not a total eclipse for you then, because your not in the umbra shadow.
Anyway, hope that information is helpful or at the very least interesting. Let me know if you have any more questions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It’s a common persuasion tactic, to start an argument with plausible deniability, a cop out just in case your argument backfires, or falls short. It’s a trick to open you up to their argument, confuse your better reasoning into thinking your first impression wasn’t accurate. Most people can detect the true intent, and it’s just annoying. Eddie is clearly making shit up as he goes, under the safety blanket of plausible deniability, while at the same time pretending he’s an expert. It’s a flex, he’s doing it to assert dominance…and Joe realizes that, it’s obvious. It’s just annoying, Eddie is just seeding doubt, he’s pretending like questions are equal to evidence…and Joe knows the difference, as do most people, so he’s not having it. It’s annoying to listen to people pretend they’re smarter than you, just cause they’re more knowledgeable in made up bullshit. Good for you…it’s still bullshit no matter how you slice it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@domagojbiskupic3807 Many people have read the Bible…and some believe it, while others after having read it, find even more reason to fortify their position for not believing it. The Bible makes many claims that science today has proven to be absolutely false…so it doesn’t take much logic to conclude that the Bible was written by man, in a time when these things were not known, so they just made it up. That’s not difficult to accept for many, it makes perfect sense…while others would prefer the story be real, so they instead ignore the science, and conclude that God said this and that, so the science is wrong, not the Bible. But where’s the logic in denying evidence…in favour of belief? 🤷♂️ That’s the perspective many of us have…we just see a bunch of ignorant people, unwilling to accept reality. Is it really so difficult to see how we could have reached that conclusion?
Here’s the leap in logic I take issue with. Many religious people will argue that God must exist, because reality is too complex and humans are too precise for it all to be conceived by chance alone. There is logic in that, sure, it can be contended, I mean there are many counter arguments to the watch makers argument, but that’s not really my gripe for now. My gripe is in the leap from “God exists, therefore my version of God is the true version”. Even if we could 100% verify a creator God does exist…it still does not mean YOUR version of that God is confirmed as well. Make sense? That’s the bigger error made in logic here I feel. The existence of a God in no way means you have any idea what that God has planned, or if it even does have a plan.
My trouble is when I’m yelled at by a Christian to “repent my sins and come into Jesus”, and then the next day a Muslim with just as strong of a devotion in their faith yells at me claiming “accept Allah, or burn”. Two very different conclusions…..both are right? These people will argue with absolute impunity that it’s THEIR VERSION of God that’s correct….when all I’m seeing, is two people who probably would have easily subscribed to the others faith, had they been born in each other’s geographical location.
Just saying…everybody thinks it’s them who has the superior logic, while forgetting (or never realizing) that logic is often just inferred, it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re right. Just cause you think you’ve reached a logical conclusion, does not mean you couldn’t be in error somewhere in your logic, because of information you either lack or intentionally ignore.
Food for thought, you can of course believe whatever you like, just as I am free to reach my own conclusion. I think what’s not appreciated, from any side, is when people try to force their conclusion upon you, believing it to be perfect in logic. There’s many different perspectives, so best not to assume yours is without flaw. That goes for everybody I feel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 I’m afraid they do change, I’m not lying to you, it’s basic astronomy. Seriously…the seasonal stars are well known in astronomy, you can look them up any time you’d like and go out and find them on any clear night. If you can’t find the zodiac constellations out of season right now currently, then you’ll realize I’m correct.
The Big Dipper is a circumpolar constellation, does not lie close to the ecliptic, so the Sun never comes directly between us and it…hence why it’s visible all year round. I think you could really use a geometry lesson and a lesson of the heliocentric model. The poles are always tilted in the same orientation, they’re never pointing away from Polaris in the North and Sigma Octantis for the South, that’s where the angle is locked. So it’s always pointed towards Polaris…hence why the circumpolar stars do not change in a 6 month period.
The Earth rotates, so just get yourself a globe sometime and make a simple observation for me. Shine a light on half of it, one side is in day seeing no stars thanks to the atmosphere being illuminated too much for stars to shine through, the other half is in night, seeing stars just fine. Put an observer on the North Hemisphere during night, you’ll notice it’s 180 degrees of sky (if placed perpendicular to surface) encompasses the polar axis making it easily visible. So if that sky is locked towards Polaris and all the stars surrounding it…pretty common sense that you’d be able to see those stars just fine all year round. The stars along the ecliptic however, that is the stars along the same plain as the Sun, you’re right, they would change periodically….and they do, they are the seasonal stars.
I’m not yanking your chain, I’m simply stating a fact. You can confirm it on any clear night, so go ahead.
So in all of that, you avoided answering for the Southern Hemispheres stars. You wanna talk about a GLARING PROBLEM for the FE model…why are the stars different in the South? Why can’t the North Hemisphere see the Southern Cross? Why can’t the South Hemisphere see the Big Dipper? Why do they have their own rotation of stars, around their own pole star, Sigma Octantis?
I’ll remind you…I’ve been to the South Hemisphere and I’ve seen the second sky…so don’t try and tell me it doesn’t exist, because that’s extremely ignorant.
I’m off to bed now, but you asked some other questions about the motions of the planet, I’ll address those figures later today when I’m up again. In the meantime, don’t ignore the Southern Hemisphere stars please, I would like an answer…a LOGICAL answer, for how there is a second hemisphere sky, exactly like what we’d expect to see on a globe.
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 You’re not really giving a logical answer, you’re asserting that Polaris (and all the stars really) both stay in place and begin to drop at a perfectly consistent rate, at the same time. Perspective will not do that, perspective would make Polaris drop, but not at a consistent rate by latitude, it would drop less and less by degrees to horizon, the further you go….and it would never reach horizon, not at the altitude the stars are at. In reality, the stars drop at a consistent rate to horizon…that’s how sailors are able to know their latitude, because it’s a consistent drop. That’s what we’d expect to happen on a globe, because the surface angles at a consistent rate…it’s basic geometry. Also explains how Polaris eventually reaches 0 degrees at the Equator and it explains the sudden appearance of the second sky…and it explains it with absolute ease.
You’d also have two other problems. If we assume the stars are fixed to a dome in a single layer, then the perfect circle would become more oval the further away you got. If we assume the stars are more scattered, within various layers, then we’d expect a LOT of parallax between stars. Neither of these things occur in reality, so we certainly can’t conclude the geometry fits a flat Earth with a dome of stars. And if the stars begin to drop as you travel…then that implies a moving sky relative to the observer. Which is an un-falsifiable belief, that would imply the sky is personal to every single observer on Earth, which…I mean talk about the mother of all ad hoc explanations. Occams Razor is sure out the window there.
The last problem is that this dome has never been interacted with, so it has no physical evidence supporting its existence…also another big problem.
But really, the biggest problem here, is that nothing you’ve just said for your second hemisphere explanation, falsifies the Globe models explanation, which is far more geometrically sound. While you’re making extreme leaps in logic here, with unfalsifiable ad hoc explanations…the Globe geometry fits observable reality here with absolute ease.
I know we’re discussing a model you do not agree with…but if you’re going to argue against it, then you should know the model inside and out….that’s just common sense. I know your models, so I can easily falsify them without much effort. They do not fit reality…as hard as you try to ram that square peg into the round hole, that’s just a fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Still up, so I might as well answer this too. The speeds of Earth really aren’t that ridiculous, if you consider the scales you’re dealing with. You think a few million miles means much of anything…to a galaxy spanning Quadrillions of miles? Let’s put the scales into perspective for you. Imagine you’re the Earth, orbiting the Sun at a blistering 67,000 mph. If your diameter is 8000 miles, then at that speed you’d have moved roughly 8 and a half Earth diameters, every hour. To put that into even better perspective, imagine yourself moving, oh about a meter and a half forward….over the span of an hour. WOAH! Soooo fast!
Understand this…a mile means a lot to you and me, the microscopic life living on the skin of a giant rock in space. But these units mean nothing to the scope and scale of Earth and the galaxy it inhabits….miles per hour, might as well be a snails measure for forward velocity. You know what parallax is I do hope…you’re well aware what effect distance can have on an objects perceived rate of motion. The further away an object is, the slower it will appear to move….so what do you think this effect would have on objects that are trillions of miles away in all directions? Pretty simple to understand why the constellations don’t appear to move in a human life, when you really think about. But, again you could really benefit from learning some basic astronomy…the stars ARE changing, it’s well documented, we have accurate star charts going back hundreds of years….the stars do change, any actual astronomer will tell you that.
So you’re focusing on big numbers and not really thinking about them in context.
Now, of course none of that proves the vastness of space, merely explains how it’s possible. But satellites, deep space probes, space travel, bouncing lasers and radar signals off of the Moon and even Venus….these all do verify much of that space. As does astronomy mathematics, used for predicting celestial events (like eclipses, retrogrades, planet transits across the Sun, etc.) down to the second, decades in advance. As well as stellar parallax, which confirms it all further.
So you’re arguing against CENTURIES of collective knowledge, evidence, hard data and understanding….and you’re doing it largely because a Nazi sympathizing Yoga teacher sitting on a beach in Thailand, decided he knew more about reality than actual experts, with real world experience in their chosen field.
These aren’t your own insights or ideas…these are all Dubay’s talking points, repeated verbatim. I’ve heard them repeated many times now….I’ve falsified them all again and again.
As much as you’d hate to admit it, we have every reason to question Flat Earth, just as they now question modern science. Your models do not fit reality and do not work…maybe you can ignore that, but the rest of us sure aren’t going too.
You need to stop patronizing us, because all you’re really achieving, is a form of Cunningham’s Law; “best way to get the right answer from someone online isn’t to ask a question, it’s to post the wrong answers.” You’re educating us…which I’m actually pretty grateful for. I was already pretty well versed in general science and physics, astronomy as well…but thanks to FE, I now know the Globe model…pretty close to inside and out. So FE is increasing our knowledge, you’re actually making us all better at arguing with you…which is probably the opposite effect to what many in FE were hoping.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Well if you’d have read my prior comment way up above, that you didn’t read because you said it was too long, you’d understand why we know you can see infinitely far…because I already explained it. Because we understand how vision really works. Everything you see is due to light that arrives at your eye…your not really seeing out, you’re brain is interpreting light that’s coming in, coming to YOU…that’s how you see. Since there’s no known limit to how far light can travel, and this is well tested, we conclude you can see infinitely far. So long as light can reach your eye…you can see. Simple deduction from known variables. Understanding how your eye works, helped us understand this. I tried explaining it to you before…but you tuned out….like I’m sure you’ve likely done all your life. You’re not listening.
Stars aren’t just far away, they’re also THE largest and THE brightest objects in the entire universe, that we are aware of. This matters…because size matters to how far away you can see something. This is common knowledge. Little mosquito, can’t see it for more than a few feet in front of you….big mountain, you can see it fir hundreds of miles. How far you think you’d be able to see objects MILLIONS OF MILES in diameter, with a luminosity rating so intense, stars have their own category? I’ll tell you how far….Trillions, to Quadrillions of miles. The math even supports this.
A zoom lens isn’t actually physically zooming forward…it’s magnifying and focusing light that’s coming into the lens…that’s how all telescopic lenses work. They’re just focusing in on light that’s already arrived to the lens…magnify it’s intensity, making it visible. It’s basic light refraction through convex and concave glass, sharpening the light that’s already arrived at the lens, but unseen before that light was focused.
What I’m explaining to you now is basic lens engineering….we know how to build lenses for cameras, because we understand how your human eye works. A camera lens is basically an eye….works the exact same way, but with modifications to make them even better than your eye. So you know how science knows it’s RIGHT about how your eye works? If they didn’t….then cameras wouldn’t work. We reverse engineered the human eye, to learn how to construct cameras and lenses. So you’re arguing against APPLIED science. Do you know what that means? Engineering…you’re arguing against the foundations that went into the technology you use every day.
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 We are thinking for ourselves…what do you think I’ve been doing this whole time? You might have noticed…I haven’t just been bending over and taking what you’re selling. I’ve been questioning you…which is an act of thinking for myself, rather than agreeing blindly. You have been questioning me as well, so I’m more than willing to accept you are also thinking for yourself…I wouldn’t disrespect you there, you’re clearly choosing your own path and I do acknowledge and respect that….so at least have rhe decency to give me the same level of respect.
You think that just because I disagree with you…it means I don’t question the mainstream knowledge? Why would I research flat Earth for 4 years, if I wasn’t making an attempt to question the Globe and its science? I had to ask questions of the globe, to learn what I know…so save your empty “wisdom” rhetoric on the suckers it works on.
I’ve questioned both models along the way…you know what I’ve learned? That Flat Earth is comprised of mostly layman, who lack basic understandings of science…like how vision and light works, for example. Your side does not have a working model, it can not actually be used in any applied science. That’s a fact, not an opinion. Your proponents do not have any major contributions to engineering or discoveries that are actually useful for applied science….I’ve looked, I’ve found none so far. Meanwhile, the Globe proponents are scientists, engineers, pilots, sailors, surveyors, teachers, astronomers, astronauts, EXPERTS who have actually created new technologies, and made discoveries that are actually useful for human advancement. I can introduce you to many, they can all produce their credentials that verify their experience.
You have a Nazi sympathizing Yoga teacher…who thinks Dinosaur bones are all fake…and writes rap songs admiring Hitler….really good choice of idols. 👌
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Alright, experiments used to verify Earth rotation.
Foucault Pendulum - https://youtu.be/M8rrWUUlZ_U - In this version of the experiment, it’s conducted in a stairwell, without any motors, just a weight and a string. He even pays attention to the rate of rotation, which he can then use to calculate his latitude, making the experiment even more conclusive. Easily repeated, been conducted over and over for nearly 200 years.
Ring Laser Gyro measuring Earth rotation - https://youtu.be/qy_9J_c9Kss - not a simple experiment in the slightest, but not difficult to understand if you give it the time. These device’s basically detect rotational motion. They’re so good at doing this task, they’re used in planes today to detect pitch, yaw and roll. So they are deadly accurate for that task. So scientists have also used them to detect Earth’s rotation…with success. Even flat Earth has done this https://youtu.be/SrGgxAK9Z5A?t=51.
The Gyrocompass - https://youtu.be/CUbPynV68Bg - this device was developed in the early 1900’s and it works on two premises. Gyroscopic precession and Earth’s rotation. Basically, it’s a gyroscope, that’s designed to precess at the exact rate as Earth’s rotation, so that it always points to true North. Used in pretty much every large modern sea vessel today, far more accurate than any magnetic compass. If Earth wasn’t rotating…then they would not work as designed, it’s that simple.
Testing Coriolis Effect - https://youtu.be/mXaad0rsV38 - pretty simple experiment to recreate, also goes into good detail on the physics of Coriolis. One of many experiments you can do to test Coriolis effect. But if you really think it doesn’t exist, take it up with this sniper explaining what effect Coriolis has on bullet drop rates https://youtu.be/jX7dcl_ERNs.
Measuring Earths Centrifugal Force - https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o - did you know you weigh slightly less at the Equator? Ever wonder why? Earth’s rotation generates a small amount of centrifugal force, that at Equator is the strongest, negating about 0.3% Earth’s gravity. This is a simple experiment anyone can do that tests this.
There, 5 simple experiments verifying Earth rotation, go nuts.
Whoops…4 simple, one extremely complex.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Alright, I watched what I believe is the part you’re referring too. They discuss the Sun from about the 5 minute mark to at least 10 minutes, and then they move onto the Moon. Never once do they mention a solar filter being used, and from what I can see none actually do. They’re all conveniently during cloudy days, showing a sun illuminating the surroundings clouds and then slowly being obscured by them.
Checking the description, there’s also NO external links to where to find each individual video, no sources at all really, just links to more gish gallop docs like it. But most of them I have seen before, they’re nothing new…same rehashed videos from other gish gallop docs on YouTube.
So they’re quite easy to falsify, they’re not using solar filters at all….if they were, they wouldn’t be grainy, blury, distorted, they would be crystal clear, like this video here. https://youtu.be/WtQiwbFD_Cc. Do these look blury or grainy or over exposed? No, the Sun is so clear, you can see its features…these are taken with a solar filter. He shows you the camera, the filter, the lenses, the mount, the location…everything, with complete transparency. The Sun never shrinks….one of many videos verifying the exact same thing.
Globe always shows crystal clear images and photos….while FE only ever uses out of focus, over exposed, blury, grainy pieces of shit video. Wonder why that is? Hmmm…🧐
Seriously, I know you don’t like me…but I think you need to see the videos I’m showing you here. The comparison is night and day. Globe proponents always film in crystal clear clarity, while Flat Earth always cherry picks from examples from clearly unclear days, where the video is over exposed and poorly shot. It’s also a clever trick using a digital cameras auto exposure setting. You wanna see what a cameras auto exposure setting can do? Here’s a clear demonstration of how Flat Earth tricks people https://youtu.be/gzjFOZ00Ka8.
I urge you to watch these and see the evidence for yourself. The people in your doc, are lying to you…and for some reason, you’re eating it up without question.
You have to at least agree, all the examples of a setting Sun shared by FE proponents are poorly done. You should be asking yourself why that is. The examples I’ve provided are crystal clear…and if you’d bother to actually watch them, you’d see you’ve been duped by theses conmen.
Mock, belittle, ridicule me all you want, you’re really just mad that I’m actually proving your claims wrong. You’re just mad, because you know I’m right.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 I don’t mind you challenging the modern consensus of science. That’s actually the one thing I do admire about FE, challenging science the rest of us have moved on from. Even despite the ridicule it brings, it’s quite commendable actually. What I DON’T admire, is the ignorance, the arrogance and the lying. I don’t admire people who clearly don’t care about what’s true, only care about what they WANT to be true. Your movement is so rampant with confirmation bias, it’s incredible you guys don’t see it as clearly as I do. You’re free to question things all you wish, but that goes BOTH ways. You’re not free from the same standards of review. And neither am I, nobody is. But you sure haven’t spent much time on rebuttals of evidence, you mostly have just…mocked and bragged. Not very productive.
All I’ve tried to do here is peer review your claims…and you’ve mocked, ridiculed, and spoken down to me every step of the way. It’s fine though, I have a very thick skin, your behaviour is expected when being corrected or criticized.
How many videos of mine did YOU watch? I’ve listened and followed your claims, addressed them accordingly to the best of my current knowledge, and I’ve watched the links you’ve shared. Have you done the same? I very much doubt it…so you yelling at me for not watching something, is pretty hypocritical.
I don’t claim to know everything, and as I said the other day, I don’t like assuming your positions. Providing me with time stamps, citations, sources, direct evidence, keeps me from assuming to much about your arguments…it focuses the argument, and helps me see YOUR conclusions clearer. I have seen the videos you were referring too, but until I watched them, I didn’t know that I had seen them…I was hoping you could maybe provide something new.
Point is, YOU made the claim….so it’s then YOUR burden of proof to provide the evidence. It’s common sense.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 No, not fake, they are real videos, just filmed poorly. I did look objectively, the videos are inconclusive, due to how sloppy they’re done…that’s being objective. Anyone actually being objective, would point out the same thing. If I brought blury video to you, YOU would immediately point it out as well. Take a look at my videos I’ve shared, you’ll see the difference. You also claimed they used solar filters, they did not, you can easily tell when a solar filter is used, you will only see the Sun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Just saying, if you had any arguments, you wouldn’t be yelling at me, you’d just be providing the evidence. If you were being objective, you would look at the evidence I have provided. That’s what I do…I don’t bitch, or moan, or whine. You make a claim, I refute it with evidence. You provide evidence for a claim, I take a look. If I spot any errors upon my peer review, I provide more evidence to counter your evidence…and that’s how the process of objective falsification goes. If I can’t falsify your evidence with evidence of my own, then the process stops and I would then either admit I was wrong, or conclude for the time being to gather more evidence….THAT’S SCIENCE.
You’re being a child.
1
-
1