Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 So you have some time to calm down? Finally ready to examine the evidence a bit more? Just two quick vids I think you should watch. Here they are again.
https://youtu.be/gzjFOZ00Ka8 - sunset demonstration showing why it’s important to get clear images, with the exposure settings on the camera locked.
https://youtu.be/WtQiwbFD_Cc?t=660 - following the sun throughout the whole day, with an actual solar filter. Sun does not change size.
Now I’m more than willing to look at any counter evidence or explanations you have for these, but I need your head screwed back on, or we’re not going to get anywhere. These are crystal clear images of the Sun, during a clear day, removing any variables like over exposure, glare and cloud density, that would make the Sun appear to shrink in the video, when it’s actually not. It just makes sense, that if you’re going to gather evidence like this, you’d want to see the Sun perfectly clear, no glare and no clouds in the way. That’s what my videos above did, they just removed glare with solar filters, kept exposure locked and observed during a clear day. Doing this reveals the true physical size and shape of the Sun, removing all brightness and glare that would distort its size.
The Sun does not shrink in these videos, which makes it a problem for Flat Earth’s argument that a sunset is caused by perspective. All I’m asking for is someone from FE to be honest and objective enough, to take a look at the evidence. I’m not trying to be difficult, I’m just being objective. If you have counter evidence, if you have any explanations that could falsify this evidence, feel free to share with me, I will take a look at anything you share.
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 I get that, but why? You claimed to be objective…yet I share evidence and you won’t even look at it. That’s not objective at all, that’s intentional ignorance. Typically, people do that when they’d rather not learn how they could be wrong.
Otherwise, why such a melt down over me just providing a little counter information and evidence? Am I not allowed to question you or debunk your claims if I can? Where’s the sense or logic in that? If I have evidence or an explanation that I feel refutes your position…I’m going to share it, that’s how a debate works.
I’ll go away when we’ve concluded the point, when one or both of us reaches a point where we can no longer provide evidence in support of our arguments, then one of us can either concede or conclude we don’t have enough evidence to continue. I feel my counter evidence successfully falsifies your evidence and the argument of perspective presented by FE to explain sunsets, and you so far haven’t given me any reason to conclude otherwise.
So that’s where we are at…I would just like to come to a resolution. I don’t mind being wrong, but you so far haven’t proven me to be wrong, so nothing is resolved yet. Why bother having these chats with people at all, if you’re not really interested in doing what it takes to reach a conclusion? Would just be nice to conclude this point in a rational manner.
But up to you…if you’re not interested anymore, then that’s fine, I will leave you be. But if we don’t continue, then I will just conclude that you couldn’t continue because you didn’t want to be proven wrong. I will then just conclude you’re not really interested in finding the objective truth, just another Flat Earther looking to confirm a fantasy.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Just trying to reach a conclusion, I’m not trying to be a dick, just pointing out errors where I see them, sharing information. If you’re truly objective, then you’d be interested to know how you could be wrong. If I’m wrong, then I’m more than willing to explore how I am, but so far, I have no reason to conclude that. My apologies if I’ve treated you poorly…but I mean if that bar is set at “anyone who challenges your positions and doesn’t agree with you blindly”, then I’m not sorry at all. I’m free to do so, we have every reason to question Flat Earth, and FE proponents need to wake up and stop pretending like we don’t.
Up to you, I wouldn’t mind a resolution on the point.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 I’ve reached my conclusion, largely because nobody from Flat Earth is able to continue. I just find it odd is all…if you’re so certain of your conclusions, then why can’t you continue arguing them? At least to stalemate…I would eventually get to a point where I have no further evidence, Flat Earthers just give up long before I’ve ever gotten to that point. I can only learn so much on my own, to learn an opposing viewpoint, I have to discuss directly with the opposing viewpoint. Only one of us can be right, but we’re both certain it’s us…yet only one can be. I find that fascinating and I’m curious to find out which one it is for certain. For that, I require someone from the opposite perspective to go the distance with. But…nobody in FE does…so I can really only conclude it’s because they know they can’t. They won’t admit it to me, but that’s the only conclusion I can reach.
You say you’re objective…but then you won’t look at what an opposing viewpoint has to show you? That’s not very objective at all…an objective researcher would at least look at evidence provided.
I’ve come to my conclusions for good reasons, I have the evidence, I’ve done the research…and so now I’m just looking to challenge that evidence and see how well it holds up. But nobody from FE seems up to the challenge, almost like they don’t want to find out if they’re wrong. Could care less if I’m wrong, I would just like to know for certain. Best way to do that, chat with my opposition, and see what I can learn and how well my evidence holds up.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Yes I did have my conclusion already, I’ve said many times, I’ve looked at it for 4 years now…I’ve long reached a conclusion, but so did you. We’re both bias, nobody is free from bias…that’s the reality. Some people really like to think they are….but nobody is, science realized this a very long time ago. The best way to combat your bias, is to chat with your opposition, openly, and actually listen and look at what they share. It doesn’t mean that once I look, I’ll immediately agree…if I can falsify what you share with me, then I will. It’s just to see what we might have overlooked due to our bias, that’s why we discuss with our peers of different opinions. That’s why science included peer review into the method of science, to combat bias. Because it’s very hard for an individual to spot their own biases, but your peers…have no such filter. Our peers can’t wait to show us the holes in our reasoning. So that’s why I have these long chats…it’s not easy, it’s gruelling and annoying and hard, but I do often learn a lot…despite the headaches.
I just prefer being honest, and if I’m not convinced, then I’ll let anyone know why I’m not. I’m not afraid to be wrong, but to prove me wrong is not an easy task…I don’t just roll over, I challenge, until I can’t. And with 4 years of knowledge on this subject, plus a lifetime of experience, I can go a long time before I’m out of evidence.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 You could convince me actually…if you had evidence I couldn’t refute. I would admit whenever I saw that evidence. But so far, Flat Earth has not provided that evidence, while the globe has. So that’s why the Globe position has convinced me. It holds up…and chats like this just prove it further. Only one of us can be right, if you can’t continue…then perhaps it’s time to consider the very real possibility, that the Flat Earth is wrong.
I am very concerned with that possibility…because if it is true that Flat Earth is wrong, then a lot of people are following a movement that isn’t true and it’s effecting their lives. They’re giving up on education, they’re not joining society and they’re not really contributing much, they’re instead finding reasons to hate society and tear it down instead. I chat with lots of Flat Earthers, and they’re generally very angry…and for good reason, they think they’ve been lied too their whole lives. I understand that, it would piss me off too to learn something like that. But if they’re wrong here, then they’re angry for no reason…then they should be angry at the bastards who made them think it was flat. I’m just worried for the mental health of society of late…I think Flat Earth is a symptom of a greater issue we need to address.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
19 billion dollars really doesn’t go very far, when you have a population of 340 million. If you were to disperse that evenly, it’s like 55 bucks a person…what are you gonna do with that? Buy a few groceries that’ll last maybe a few days? You’re not thinking very far ahead, very short sighted. We are natural explorers, that’s what mankind has always been. We’ve explored everything here, but we have a vast expanse of space to explore, so why wouldn’t we? We have to start somewhere and it’s not cheap, but if you think NASA gets a lot of money, just look up the US military spending sometime, you’ll shit yourself. If anything needs to be defunded, it’s the military, leave our science sector alone. Funding science advances us further, if we were smarter, we’d invest more, not less.
1
-
@pauldooris539 1) Technically yes, you’re correct, but there’s always nuance. Science doesn’t think in absolutes, it prefers reasoning in percentages of certainty, but we can reach a level of certainty to a point where it’s a little nonsensical to continue questioning it further. Globe Earth I feel is one of those examples. The trouble is today I feel a lot of people have spent too much time online and not enough time experiencing the actual world, and learning things about it first hand. This has muddied the waters with more argument from ignorance, than actual valid rebuttals and points.
For example; a person who’s never navigated for themselves across an ocean, is more likely to argue that navigation doesn’t require accurate information of Earth’s shape in order to do it successfully. In their mind that’s a valid argument, cause they haven’t confirmed it independently…but on the surface it’s really just an argument from ignorance and lack of real world experience. That’s the problem…people use that technicality of “we can’t prove things scientifically” to wedge misinformation and ignorance, into a discussion they could learn more about if they were willing to listen too experts, rather than pretend they know more than they do. In psychology it’s called the Dunning Krueger effect; non experts tend to think they know more than they actually do, often to a point of thinking they know more than experts. But can you navigate a ship across the pacific? Probably not…so where’s that common sense gone? Real sailors sure can, and they’re happy to share that knowledge. I’m going to trust their knowledge and experience, over an argument from ignorance, any day. So are we really witnessing a mass paranoia? Is the general mental health of society eroding? Where has the trust gone? The information age was supposed to educate…but I fear it’s actually done the opposite, misinformation spreads faster.
For me it’s simple; the difference between science and pseudoscience, is whether or not the information can actually be applied. Are we inventing any technology applied sciences with a flat stationary Earth model? Nope, but the globe sure is, everything from the gyrocompass that helps sailors find true North, to the geographic coordinate system designed for a globe to help them find latitude and longitude. The model works when applied…millions of times per day in fact. At that point, is there any room for argument against the model? There is of course, could be in a simulation for all we know, who knows…but the point is, ignorance is not an argument. Just cause someone doesn’t currently know something, doesn’t mean they can’t learn. Nobody is adding to the conversation by sitting at home, in front of a computer, listening blindly to every conspiracy video they come across. Huxters exist…so you still have to be very careful where you’re getting information from. For me, I determine the difference between science and pseudoscience, by which knowledge can actually be applied…and what can’t. For me, that’s proof enough.
2) Even a broken clock is still right twice a day, what should matter is the information itself. However, yes, we all do this; if something has lost credibility, then we lose trust. But still, I do feel the information is what matters…why do you think I chat with Flat Earthers, even though I strongly disagree with them?
3) There’s a lot of speculation that they were faked, but that’s all really. That’s why I don’t really focus on the Moon landing conspiracy, because I can really only speculate…and that pretty much goes for everyone. I can argue the engineering and the physics, that part I enjoy, and I can falsify certain claims made regarding those topics…but does that mean I’ve proved they happened? Nope…I can only speculate on that, and I don’t care to chase speculations and make arguments from ignorance. So I prefer sticking to conspiracies I can verify…that’s the nice thing about the Earth, I live here! I don’t have to speculate, I can test the Earth myself, by experiencing it. As an amateur astronomer most my life, with a lot of travelling under my belt, I’ve done that…I really wish more people would do the same.
4) Yes, and not all of it is verified science yet, still a lot to learn. But that’s the exciting part! There’s still so much to learn about our reality. I hope you’re not trying to make an argument from personal incredulity by mentioning those speeds though. If you understand basic Newtonian physics (and I assume you do), then you likely know the laws of motion, and relative motion…so you understand that we don’t actually feel motion itself, what we feel is sudden or rapid change in motion.
See Einstein didn’t abolish every tenant of Newtonian physics, just time and gravity really, the rest is still very unchanged. But even his understandings of gravity and time are still useful understandings, Einstein just found some nuance and expanded upon them. Anyway, I digress; Science thinks in percentages of certainty, not absolutes. Some things are less certain, where the Globe model would have probably a 99.999999% certainty, Big Bang would have more like a 70%. It’s the leading theory of cosmology because it currently has the most evidence. Until a better theory comes along, that has more evidence, it will remain the top theory. That’s how it goes.
What irks me is when people think in absolutes. Some seem to think if they can find just one problem with the model, or if they can destroy the credibility of a major source of info, it means we then have to toss the baby out with the bathwater and start over. But no…that’s not how it works, nor should it. If NASA were proven tomorrow to have faked the Moon landings…does it then change the laws of physics? Nope. Does it change the geographic coordinate system used by every pilot and sailor in the world? Nope. It just means they faked the space race…and that’s pretty much it.
It would mean certain things would have to be reevaluated, it would mean public trust would be lost to an extreme…but it doesn’t change the fact that I can toss a ball up within a moving vehicle, and it will conserve the momentum of the vehicle at all times, and land right back into my hand, demonstrating the first law of motion and conservation of momentum.
I feel people focus on the wrong things, and tend to think in absolutes far too often.
Now, do I personally think the Moon landings were faked? Nope, I do not, but I don’t pretend too know for absolute certain, nor do I really care, honestly. I hope it’s not true, because science has lost enough trust lately…but I very much doubt it is. The physics and engineering checks out.
1
-
@pauldooris539 Sadly, I feel most of the bigger names in Flat Earth (Globebusters, Mark Seargent, Dubay, etc) are grifters…not genuine. So no, I’m not very interested in hearing a conman talk…nor do I think they should be allowed access to such an audience. The well of information is tainted enough; the modern online world is a conman’s paradise…they don’t need more opportunities to spread misinformation. I don’t feel they should be outright censored either though (unless they’re spreading hate or in-sighting violence, two things freedom of speech laws actually do not protect, people tend to forget that), but that doesn’t mean we have to hand them an audience for free. If they want a debate amongst experts, then it should be earned through the proper channels.
That’s my stance on that. They’re free to make videos and chat in comment sections, but I don’t think many of them are genuine and those guys don’t really deserve to be on a platform as large as Rogans podcast…but that’s just me.
1
-
@pauldooris539 Yes, I’ve heard it all before…but understand that he did not present evidence, what he actually did was speculate endlessly and make a lot of empty claims. Evidence is tangible, does he present anything tangible? Not really…just goes off on a tangent dropping various points. Most are speculations, like his Clinton comment…did Clinton say the Moon landing was faked? No, he just said jokingly that he wouldn’t be surprised. Is that evidence? No…it’s just something you can bounce endless conjectures upon.
Then other comments are scientifically illiterate. For example; he goes off on the Van Allen Belts, basically claiming that it was impossible to go through the belts, that they’re deadly. Is that actually true? Yes and no, the belts are deadly only after prolonged exposure, as in several days…but you know how much time the astronauts spent in the belts in total? The first Moon mission spent roughly 45 minutes inside the belt in total, there and back. The radiation dose each astronaut received; no more deadly than a few Xrays. And, he fails to mention that they actually waited until Earth’s tilted axis would put them on a trajectory that largely went around the belt, not directly through it.
Joe Rogan is not a scientist…he’s actually pretty ignorant when it comes to science. He has gotten better though, he’s talked to hundreds of scientists and experts at this point, and he’s since changed his stance on the Moon landings after all those conversations.
That tends to happen when you actually learn the science and the little details of something…rather than chase endless speculations.
I feel people really need to relearn what constitutes as evidence…because empty claims and speculations are definitely not it.
1
-
@pauldooris539 What evidence would I require? Well actual evidence would be a good start…speculations, ignorance, empty claims, misunderstandings, these do not count as evidence…though many seem to think they do, for some reason.
But alright, I suppose a very clear example of the physics or engineering being verified as impossible, beyond any doubt. Trouble is, the more you learn in physics and engineering, the more you realize that the Moon landing isn’t only plausible, but it was very likely. It actually would have been harder to fake it…especially back then.
But feel free to share any evidence you’d like, especially if it’s science or engineering based, that’s what interests me when it comes to the Moon landings. I might be able to help you fill some gaps as well, so let me know.
1
-
@pauldooris539 Well, I just prefer solid evidence over empty speculations and (potential) misinformation. I don’t like following a mob mentality down rabbit holes of hysteria, I prefer to stop and think for myself before I jump on any bandwagons. The arguments of Flat Earth and the Moon landing conspiracy are just so paper thin, when you really get down too it…so why would I blindly agree to their claims, if I’m able to identify where they’re going wrong? 🤷♂️
It’s almost like you don’t really care if they’re wrong…it’s a vehicle you can drive at a system you don’t trust and desire to attack. I get it, governments have done some shady shit, and there’s certainly some justice to be deal’d out, but when you focus your attention on things they probably didn’t actually do, following a mob of fabricated hysteria…you just end up dulling your blade, cause you lose credibility yourself. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take a look at every possibility…just means maybe don’t buy into them so quickly, without thinking about them a little first.
Flat Earth is just…wrong, and it’s really not hard to verify that, so it shouldn’t receive any extra attention I feel, it should just circle the drain. The Moon landing conspiracy is a bit better, but the arguments are just so bad…laced with so much scientific illiteracy, and endless speculations paraded as evidence. So while it has more plausibility…the people toting it, are not doing a very good job, they’re doing more to demonstrate their willingness to accept any flimsy ol’ evidence, as long as it confirms their bias. Not realizing that just makes them appear like irrational quacks…hard to get behind them when they shoot themselves in the foot again and again.
I’m more than willing to challenge established science…but Flat Earth and Moon landing sure aren’t making any dents.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pauldooris539 If you think it’s evidence, then that means you’ve reached a conclusion on its conclusive nature. But nothing you’ve shared is conclusive. For example; that guy in your video claimed the flag was wet…did he physically hold the flag in his hand to check its moisture content? No…he just eyeballed it, said it appears wet, then called it a day. That’s not conclusive…yet he’s reached a conclusion anyway. So by definition, it’s a speculation. That entire video is like that…he just makes a bunch empty claims and speculations, none of it conclusive, but pretends it’s evidence anyway.
This is a real problem with the conspiracy minded.
Now as for your Aldrin quote; the problem with it is that you’ve drawn your own conclusion from a literal interpretation of the words, removed from their context. Many different interpretations can be made, so your conclusion is not conclusive, it’s speculation. You also called it a testimony…but he was not on trial, there was no lawyer or representative of the law questioning him, it was just a casual Q&A. So it wasn’t a testimony.
Again, this is a real problem with the conspiracy minded…you see only what you WANT to see, unable to draw other very plausible conclusions. In any case, your conclusions are not conclusive, yet you’ve aligned with a conclusion anyway…that’s the problem.
1
-
@pauldooris539 Things can reach a level of certainty where they are considered conclusive. Twist things as much as you like, even you understand that. Science deals in percentages of certainty, the goal being to reach a percentage of certainty so high, it’s pretty much as close to proven as it can be.
If you have enough evidence, that stands up to scrutiny, then it can be deemed conclusive. Example, the flag argument again; his claim is that it’s wet, the only evidence he presents is that it appears wet because the colour is darker. I can counter that evidence by pointing out that the material used for the flag tends to do that…the shiny, velvety material reflects light in odd ways, causing those darker spots when viewed at certain angles. So I can easily refute his only “evidence”, so his conclusion is not conclusive. Meaning his conclusion is speculative.
We can both only speculate on the true interpretation of Aldrin’s words. My interpretation is that he is saying it wasn’t scary, but it could have been. So your conclusion isn’t conclusive, because my speculation is no more or less valid than yours, they’re both speculation.
That’s my point…we both can only speculate. So it’s a pointless argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daveware3936 Alright, well here’s someone who did take the time to place every world flight on that map you think is accurate https://youtu.be/MiUklHodcho. He does the same for the globe, you’ll notice the flights are curved and the ones in the South are extremely long when placed on the AE/Gleason map, they only really work when placed on a globe.
The UN represents every nation of the world, so what’s a good logo for something like that? A map of the Earth, that shows every nation. Can’t represent an entire 3D globe on a flat 2D flag, some nations would be left out, so a flattened projection map of the globe is used. From a designers standpoint, the AE projection map has a pretty pleasing composition, it’s very balanced. So they probably chose it for a similar reason the Flat Earthers chose it, it looks nice. We’re simple creatures, we’re naturally drawn to symmetry and pleasing composition.
In any case, the current system of navigation uses the WGS87 globe model. Every pilot and sailor today uses this system, with lines of latitude and longitude equal for two hemispheres. So they verify the globe every single day, with every successful voyage that uses that model…so millions of verifications a year.
If you think it’s wrong, by all means learn to navigate, then go ahead and try to navigate anywhere by ship or plane, across an ocean, without using the global system of navigation to help you do it. Go ahead, why speculate when you can test it directly? Learn to navigate…you’ll learn pretty quickly what shape the Earth is.
1
-
NASA didn’t prove the Earth was spherical…that was well established knowledge for over 2000 years before they came around, and anyone can verify it for themselves with just a basic understanding of geometry and a few simple observations. And why would they apologize for a conspiracy a bunch of numpty’s fabricated from their ignorance of physics, and their paranoia? 🤷♂️ From what I’ve seen, those making claims against NASA don’t have actual evidence, they just make a lot of speculations, and reach a lot of erroneous conclusions from very poor understandings of basic physics.
To be fair though, there’s very little most of us can really do to confirm much about space travel for ourselves, so nobody can really do much else but speculate. So why would anyone waste their time? When it comes to the Earth however, you don’t have to speculate about anything, we all live here, we all have experience here, we can all make observations here. You wanna know the best way to verify Earth’s shape for yourself? Learn to navigate…then test it. You learn pretty quickly which shape the Earth is in navigation…spoilers, the entire system of navigation is built from the knowledge that Earth is spherical. If you think it’s bullshit…then you just go right ahead and try navigating across a large ocean sometime, without using the globe model to help you do it…see how well you do. :/
Seriously, it’s fine to ask questions…but when it comes to Earth’s shape, people really gotta snap out of this delusion of Flat Earth as even being remotely possible. If you don’t know how that conclusion was reached, that’s fine…but please learn, we have enough problems with misinformation today.
1
-
Stand under a light in your room, now while looking up at it, spin yourself a full 360 degrees around…did it ever once leave your field of vision? No…it didn’t. Now look at the walls, and spin again, they do pop out of your vision for a time during your rotation. You gotta think in 3 dimensions my dude, the stars work in much the same way. The Big Dipper is an example of a circumpolar constellation, meaning it’s close to the axis of rotation…much like the ceiling above you as you rotated. Then there are the seasonal stars, that lie along the ecliptic plane, think of them like your walls as you rotated…you know many of them as the zodiac constellations. These stars you only see during certain seasons.
Also, not everyone sees the Big Dipper. Anyone South of the Equator, won’t really be able to see it…they have a different set of stars and constellations though, and their own pole star, known as Sigma Octantis. People in New Zealand, Argentina, and South Africa, don’t see the Big Dipper, they instead see the Southern Cross constellation, which is their most prominent and easy to spot constellation. You’ve never seen this constellation, for the same reason they’ve never seen the Big Dipper…because the Earth surface curvature is physically blocking the view of each other’s hemisphere.
It’s one of the easiest proofs of the globe to verify. If you’ve never been to the South Hemisphere before, I’d suggest travelling there sometime…the sky is very different there.
Anyway, there’s some basic astronomy knowledge for you, hope it’s helpful or at the very least interesting.
1
-
@hopebear06 You didn’t really ask a question that warranted evidence, you just implied that you were asking for the explanation why planets remain in their orbits…so I gave you the explanation. What answer were you expecting? A full thesis paper on planetary orbits, including every bit of evidence? 🤷♂️ If you want some evidence for the conclusions, ask better questions how bout. Or just look it up yourself, lots of information and evidence on gravity and planetary motion, start with Newton’s law of universal gravitation, then Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, the Cavendish experiment, the history of how we discovered Neptune, etc. It’s not my problem you didn’t pay attention in physics class, and personal incredulity isn’t an argument, but it’s not hard to catch up in the information age…knowledge today is just a few keystrokes away. I don’t mind sharing evidence, but then ask for that if that’s what you’re confused about.
You’re also making a lot of assumptions, and expecting me to agree to them. Are you an astronomer who’s actually collected data on the positions of celestial objects every night? How do you know the planets have been in the exact positions for millennia? Who’d you get that information from, and why’d you believe them without question? 🧐 Just sayin, your argument isn’t as free from assumption, and theories you pass off as fact, as much as you seem to think it is. Why are you free to make empty claims, but everyone else has strict standards they must adhere too?
From my understanding, the planets do drift, slow down, speed up, wobble, etc, it’s a very complex system. It is in balance, and they do remain in their orbits for the most part, but your thinly veiled argument here hinges on the assumption that they have never changed…and I feel that is very ignorant of the nuances of their orbits and the actual recorded positions over the centuries. Did you watch some ancient aliens on history channel…and all of a sudden you’re an astronomer or something? 🧐
So the way I see it, you started with a claim, that planets have remained exactly the same for millennia…burden of proof is yours to verify that. So what led you to that conclusion?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 Simulation has a very different implication in mathematics. It doesn’t always mean a 3D rendering in a program on a computer, most simulations are ran in numbers on a white board my dude. Fact is, mathematical models never require every variable of physical reality…because it takes too long to include everything, which slows down production, so simplifications are required…which is an entire field of work in mathematics, to simplify math, by identifying redundant variables, and removing them, to speed up production. When you do this in a mathematical model, you have to state very clearly what variables are not being included in the math to follow…It doesn’t mean the Earth is flat, they’re not making literal statements about reality, they’re just simplifying equations….they are models, not complete representations of reality. :/
Just be real man….are you a mathematician? Have you ever written a mathematical model before? Do you really know anything about this stuff? It’s really frustrating explaining this kind of thing, to people who clearly don’t really know much about mathematics…..I try not to be dick, but it’s a little irritating, when non experts misinterpret the actual context of something like this, and then don’t even consider the possibility they could be misinterpreting things.
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 Alright, I’ll give you an example. A large part of flight simulation is understanding the vehicles wind resistance capabilities…do I need to factor the Earth’s shape and motion, into equations to determine a vehicle’s air flow? No, you don’t…so those variables can be omitted in a simulation for that specific purpose…because they will have essentially zero effect on what I’m trying to determine. Of course the end goal of a simulation is to acquire information we can then apply in the real world…but a simulation itself does not require every variable of reality, to determine singular effects or parts of it. And often times, mathematicians will just run complete hypotheticals, just to see what could be possible under various conditions not necessarily possible in reality. A great example of that is the model for the warp drive engine, which was largely running hypothetical simulations…I’m sure if a layperson came across that model, they’d assume the government is building warp drive technology, but the paper in actuality is just a hypothetical simulation with assumed variables.
In this case, with that flight dynamics model, thanks to conservation of momentum physics and Earth’s massive scale, Earth’s motion and its shape won’t have much or any effect on most flight dynamics, so those variables can be ignored in these simulations. If it was a paper on Coriolis effect, or the Magnus effect, or the lesser known Eotvos effect…it would be different, but that’s not what that model is for.
If you read it closely, it also assumes a perfectly rigid vehicle of constant mass…it says those exact words right before it says “a flat non rotating Earth”. Both of those variables are impossible for a vehicle with moving parts (so not perfectly rigid) and fuel that depletes over time (so doesn’t maintain constant mass). They are assumed variables…simplifications, just like the rest of the variables are. They’re not making a literal statement about the Earth, it is a math simplification, for a simulation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 You have a real problem with understanding the little details or nuance of things it seems.
Einstein was referring to an optical experiment, using interferometers. At the time, he believed nobody could detect Earth rotation with that method of observation…he was of course proven wrong, just a few years later, with the Michelson Gale experiment, that used a Sagnac interferometer to not only detect Earth rotation, but measure it as well. The same physics is used today in ring laser gyros on most modern aircraft, to help them detect pitch, yaw and roll…they’re very accurate at detecting rotational motions. Einstein was not infallible, a genius can still be wrong. But he was not wrong about Earth’s rotation, it was already detected through other experiments, like the Foucault Pendulum and Gyroscope experiments…the latter is knowledge used in the gyrocompass today, which is a navigation device used on modern sea vessels, that actually uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function.
So if you think Earth rotation has never been detected…you’ve been watching a bit too much bullshit on YouTube my man.
Both Earth’s curvature and its rotation are scientifically proven facts today, they’ve both actually passed the scientific method, you’ve just been misled. Lotta false information circling around online, you’re currently falling victim to that bad information. If you’d like some examples of experiments done verifying curvature or rotation, I don’t mind sharing…but currently you’ve been misinformed.
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 Oh boy…you’re all scrambled up aren’t you. Modern social media has a lot of poisoned minds to atone for. 😔
Gyros work just fine on our Earth…they also do detect Earth rotation, look up the Foucault Gyroscope experiment sometime, it’s a classic physics experiment repeated many times over the past 200 years.
8 inches per mile squared is a basic parabola equation…not very accurate for a sphere, and it does not represent line of sight. So it’s the wrong math…use the wrong math, and there’s really no wonder why your figures won’t match observations. It’s pretty key in mathematics and science, to double check your math, to make sure it’s accurate…but none of you in FE bothered to check, so you were easy victims for what basically amounts to a sleight of hand trick. The trick was simple, they provided you the wrong math…knowing full well the mathematical literacy of the average person is quite low, so they knew you wouldn’t check it…heck you wouldn’t even know where to start. So it was an easy con to run.
Here’s the correct math, using trigonometric functions.
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
r= radius of Earth
d= distance to object
h= height of the observer
Math is a language, built on the knowledge of axioms and dimensions and perimeters, that define physical reality…it’s basically the language of the universe. So there’s really no better way to prove something, than through mathematics…2+2 will always equal 4, there is no arguing with that. But if you use the wrong math, you will reach a false conclusion…it’s really that simple. That’s why it’s always the first thing scientists double check, when observations don’t match their pre calculated figures.
A scientific theory is very different from a regular theory in the layman usage of the word. In science, hypothesis takes the role of a theory in the regular usage, while theory is a collection of facts and verified science, that describes HOW a phenomena of nature works at its fundamental level. Nothing graduates to a theory until it’s been verified in experimentation, and nothing really goes beyond a theory in science, it is the pinnacle of all research that works to describe HOW something works. So gravity will always be a theory, magnetism will always be a theory, that’s just the word they use for their conclusions. Not to be confused with a scientific law, that only describes WHAT is occurring, but makes no attempt to explain HOW it works. In that way, scientific theories could actually be argued as higher than laws, because you will always have more power and control over a system when you understand HOW it works rather than just WHAT it does. Facts are just tiny bits of information that make up the foundations of both theories and laws of science, so they don’t go higher than either of them.
See…the problem here is you don’t even understand the basics of science…yet you’re gonna argue with me that your scientific understanding is somehow superior? 🤷♂️ Like damn dude…..it’s really no wonder you fell for the dumbest hoax on the internet today. 🤦♂️
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 You’re thinking of the Michelson Morley experiment, which was attempting to find the hypothesized Aether, that physicists of the time thought was the medium light propagated through, and no…that experiment didn’t prove anything, it was inconclusive, that’s always been its conclusion. Inconclusive means the experiment essentially failed to verify or falsify its hypothesis, it means more testing is required. You can’t form a conclusion from an inconclusive experiment…..if you do, then you are doing so out of ignorance of the experiment, and more than likely because of bias.
The Michelson Gale experiment came much later, and successfully detected the Earth’s rotation…they are two separate experiments. The first one failed to verify its hypothesis, the second was successful. Earth is rotating, that’s the conclusion it verified.
If you think either of these experiments were to verify the stars rotated around Earth…then you are just making that shit up, because that is not what either of them were even testing. At that point…if you’re just gonna make shit up and conclude whatever you want, then you are not a rational person, and so there’s no point continuing this conversation, because you are either very dumb, insane, or both.
1
-
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 Both Dark Matter and Dark Energy may be falsified someday, just like the Aether has been currently, both are at the current frontier of physics, just like the Aether once was roughly 100 years ago…acquiring knowledge is a process, it takes time. But while we may not fully understand how our galaxy remains in gravitational equilibrium (which is what dark matter is hypothesized to be the cause for), it doesn’t change the fact that pilots and sailors around the world are successfully navigating the Earth every single day…using the knowledge that Earth is spherical to help them do it. :/ That’s applied science today…meaning it’s more than proven, it’s now working knowledge. The limitations of current physics do not change that….nor does it change the fact that you fell for an online hoax, that twisted information, to feed you bullshit.
The Earth is not flat, I’m sorry, but you seriously need to start questioning the sources that made you believe it was.
1