Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
@zReNAgAdE504 Jesus fuck, take another bong rip bud. 🙄 The hypothesis for the Michelson Morley experiment, was that light propagates through a medium, much like sound waves propagate through air. This medium physics called the Aether, and that experiment was trying to verify the existence of that medium. The set up for the experiment used Earth rotation as part of its function, but no delay in light propagation was detected, no matter how the interferometer was arranged…so nothing was verified or falsified by that experiment, so it was inconclusive…meaning it didn’t conclude anything, it was basically a failure. Since Earth rotation was already verified by multiple experiments at this point (and many more after), it meant that the Aether was more than likely not a reality. But we don’t stop at single experiments in physics, so more experimentation was done….but none of it successfully found the Aether. Experiment after experiment, came up with absolutely nothing…and that’s still the case today. The Aether has never been successfully detected….that’s the reality.
I’m sorry bud, but you’ve spent too much time listening blindly to pseudo intellectuals feed you bullshit. Gravity is fact, it’s applied science today, in pretty much every field of science. You’re currently using technology that makes use of that knowledge, from the tiny gravitational gyroscopes that flip your phone screen for you, to the GPS that use on your phone….you have no idea how fucking lost you are in your understandings of basic physics.
1
-
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 It’s like talking to a wall. 🤦♂️No, it did not. Michelson Morley is inconclusive, full stop! Meaning it doesn’t verify or falsify any conclusion…that’s what inconclusive means. Michelson Gale verified Earth rotation…anyone can look this up, that’s the official conclusion. You can even repeat the experiment…and it’s currently science that’s used in ring laser gyros to detect physical rotations, from a body in a rotational motion. It can not detect rotation from something else revolving around it…that’s not how it works. 🤦♂️ Sagnac effect detects rotational motion from the object that is in a rotational motion…everything outside of that object, it can not detect…this isn’t difficult to understand. You’re trying very hard to ram a square peg into a round hole here…and you’re just looking like an idiot while doing it.
Gravity is one of the easiest forces to verify…drop something, did it fall at an accelerated rate towards surface? Yes, it did. Falling is a motion, all change in state of motion requires a force to cause it…it doesn’t just occur on its own. That’s physics 101. So a force is present putting that matter into motion.
The experiment that verified our current understanding further was the Cavendish experiment, and it’s very easy to repeat. So you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I’m sorry dude, but you learned a bunch of bullshit from huxters…who also have no idea what they’re talking about. You need to peel your face away from your phone, and go back to school…so you can actually learn something.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If a rocket hit a dome at that velocity…wouldn’t you expect it to be completely destroyed by the impact? 🧐 Ya…you would…that’s pretty common sense I would think.
I think you should look up the yo-yo despin mechanism sometime, it makes use of conservation of angular momentum to counter the rockets spin. They put the rocket into a controlled spin, because its the easiest way to stabilize a rockets trajectory, it turns it into a sort of gyro, which keeps it flying straight. Perfect for any unmanned rocket. But eventually, you’re gonna want to stop that rotation…especially if you have cameras on the outside of the rocket. So a despin mechanism is included, to stop the rotation…and there’s plenty of information out there on how these devices work, with demonstrations. Even in that video, you can see the despin cable firing out, at about the 1 minute 38 second mark.
So maybe don’t jump to conclusions without doing a bit more research first. If you’re not a rocket scientist, or not very well versed in physics, then maybe don’t assume so much. I’m starting to think Flat Earth was a litmus test for spotting the scientifically illiterate.
Your second point is pure speculation, and doesn’t really mean much. Should never reach conclusions from speculations alone, it’s just confirmation bias.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMic00 Oh boy, more gish gallop eh. You set em up, we’ll keep knocking em down.
Both Airy’s failure and Michelson Morley experiments, were an attempt to find the Aether…and that’s what they both failed at, which helped confirm that Aether does not exist. They were not testing Earth’s motion, they were both using Earth’s motion as a variable.
Airy’s base premise for its experiment relied on the knowledge that Earth is orbiting the Sun, it used the same stellar aberration principle as observed in annual observation of stars in 6 months periods. Stars shift every 6 months, as they would if we were orbiting the Sun, which confirms that we’re moving around the Sun. He was trying to detect the same aberration in different materials, on a shorter time scale, water and then air within a telescope, which would confirm a premise of the Aether. There was none, so he failed to detect the Aether that was believed to be the medium that light propagates through…that’s why it’s called Airy’s failure.
Michelson and Morley were attempting the same thing, from a different means. Their experiment was found to be inconclusive. Meaning, it did not verify or falsify anything….so it can not be used to reach a conclusion for either the hypothesis or the null hypothesis, which was Earth motion. If you use an inconclusive experiment to reach a definite conclusion, then you are doing so out of bias. You can’t reach a definite conclusion from the experiment, but what you can do is use it to consider the possibility if the premise was wrong. It was supposed to be a simple experiment to find the Aether…it didn’t succeed, so physics had to consider the possibility that Aether did not actually exist. The reason they didn’t consider the same for Earth’s motion, is because there was already tons of evidence supporting Earth’s motion. Foucault Pendulums, Coriolis effect, stellar parallax, North aligning gyros that use Earth’s rotation and gyroscopic precession, just to name a few. Aether on the other hand had no tangible evidence supporting it…so you see why Aether had to go back to the drawing board?
And Sagnac effect was successful, but it wasn’t testing Aether drag, it was just testing if light put into a rotation could cause a delay. It does…and a measurable one at that. This confirms the speed of light and relativity. It’s currently used in ring laser gyros on planes, to detect rotational motions of pitch, yaw and roll…they’re also used in detecting Earths rotation.
So no, you’re just dumping more butchered science, repackaged to con idiots online.
1
-
@SuperMic00 No, I agree with that conclusion, because it’s a proven, verifiable fact of our reality, that I’ve verified for myself, through my own observations and experience. Let’s be honest, you listened blindly to con men on some Flat Earth channels feed you bullshit, and you just agreed to all of it without question…so you’re one to talk about blindly believing what you were told. You don’t have a working model, yet you believe it without question anyway…can you say hypocrite? How about gullible? How about sucker?
It’s no coincidence that NOBODY in Flat Earth has ever contributed to any applied science…it’s because they can’t, because they don’t know anything, they’re just making it all up as they go. You’re too far gone to help, but we can still point out your errors anyway, it’s a good exorcise and it keeps misinformation in check.
1
-
1
-
@SuperMic00 Neil has made a lot of erroneous comments, but he’s not lying. There’s a difference between flat out lying and just not knowing, or speaking in nuance. Truth is, you can begin to see curvature from a plane at just 30,000 feet, but it’s so very slight, it’s very difficult to spot with the naked eye. Bringing a tool to help you measure it however, and it becomes much easier. Like a theodolite, that can measure the horizon drop https://youtu.be/WVTgP-KpyRc. You can even start to see the curve from this view, it’s slight, but it’s there. I’ve made these observations from planes as well.
What Neil is trying to say, is that it’s not easy to see curvature at 30,000 or even 100,000 feet, because the Earth is huge…you’ve still barely left the surface. He’s not wrong, it is difficult, hence why so many claim to never see it, even at great heights. But you can see it, it is there, you just have to look closer. So he is wrong to say you can’t see curvature, but I don’t think that’s what he was implying. His argument is basically that with the naked eye, it’s difficult. He’s commenting on the common pop cultural misconception, that you can see curvature easily from a plane or weather balloon. You can see it…it’s just not as pronounced as most people believe.
Then there’s the weather balloon footage. Here’s someone analyzing the Flat Earthers favourite, the dog cam footage, this time just drawing a line shows it’s clearly curving https://youtu.be/edsUrLXrlLg?t=72. No fish eye lens here, this is footage that even flatties accept.
Then there’s making observations on the z axis. Here’s several.
https://youtu.be/ybkgOD_4CTg
https://youtu.be/MoK2BKj7QYk
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
Then there’s physically measuring the curvature. Here’s a couple methods.
https://youtu.be/EIOs-PzNIZU?t=3177
https://youtu.be/J9w4KtHxZ68?t=905
All of these observations are easy to recreate for one’s self. Curvature is observed and measured everywhere, you just need to start paying attention.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMic00 The natural physics of water is to conform to whatever force is acting upon it. Here’s an example of water put under a consistent centrifugal force https://youtu.be/cTCwhicKKwU. Damn…would you look how curved that surface is. Water is inert, it doesn’t “seek” anything, it conforms to forces…like gravity.
Level does not mean flat in every context, learn the English language please, single words have many different definitions depending on the context. You think level only means flat, but nope, it can also mean a surface with all points at equal distance from a centre, also known as an equipotential surface. Don’t believe me, then just check the definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level. Read under adjectives.
I feel like I’ve already explained this too you, so now we’re just going in circles. You fell for a con bud, time to accept that.
1
-
@SuperMic00 You do know there is a major difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory, right? In science, hypothesis takes the form of a theory in the regular layman use of the word. While a scientific theory is the pinnacle of all research, proven concepts that have graduated far past hypothesis, tested and reviewed rigorously, nothing graduates to the level of theory until it has mountains of evidence supporting it, and nothing goes beyond a theory in science.
Gravity is also a law of science as well, just look up Newton’s law of universal gravitation sometime. But it’s a common misconception that laws of science are higher status than theories. Laws are just simpler, a lot more rigid and basic in form, so they’re far less likely to be changed or refined once they’re worked out, but they only describe WHAT is happening, they make no attempt to explain or describe HOW or WHY something works the way it does. For that we have theory, scientific theories attempt to explain HOW a phenomenon of nature operates at the mechanical level.
Since knowing HOW something operates gives you far more power and control over that system, than simply just knowing WHAT it does, for that reason, theory is actually higher than laws within science.
So no, Gravity is not “just a theory”, all you’re doing is further displaying your own scientific illiteracy and misunderstandings…in any real scientific arena, you would be forfeited from the conversation the moment you said something was “just a theory”. It’s really no wonder why you think the Earth is flat…you don’t really know much about much. That’s how these conmen were able to fool you…by exploiting your lack of knowledge and understanding.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMic00 So you know how a scale works I hope. You press DOWN upon a scale to apply a FORCE, which creates pressure that is then calculated as a weight value. So ask yourself this, if there’s no downward force we call gravity, then how exactly is a mass resting on the scale, still pressing down upon the scale to create pressure? Even in vacuum this will happen. Falling is a motion…and nothing is put into motion without a force, that’s one of the most fundamental basics of physics.
Helium and hydrogen rise due to buoyancy, the same counter force that keeps the Seawise Giant a float. It actually uses gravity to work…buoyancy does not exist without gravity. The downward force of gravity, is what causes the displacement of matter by density, creating buoyancy effect. Without gravity, buoyancy does not exist. Proven time and again within simple drop tests like this https://youtu.be/YDXQ-VBjW7Q?t=188, and in density columns put in zero G environments like we see here https://youtu.be/rpP-7dhm9DI?t=167.
Here is the formula for buoyancy; Fb=Vpg. Translates as; buoyancy force is equal to fluid volume, times fluid density, times acceleration of gravity. Remove any one of those variables, and you will not be able to calculate an objects buoyancy…gravity is a variable, it helps create buoyancy. So buoyancy does not exist without it…basic physics of buoyancy, agreed upon by every engineer and scientist in the world.
That equation I shared above, is the equation that engineers do use, when designing the ballast tanks, for ships like the Seawise Giant. Applied science in action…they were only able to design ships like that, thanks to our understanding of gravity physics and its relationship to buoyancy. If science was wrong about gravity and its relationship with buoyancy, then we would not be able to design large ships or submarines.
Your version of things, is absolutely useless…go ahead and calculate for me an objects buoyancy rate, without gravity as a variable. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
While you’re at it, learn what weight is…it’s just another name for gravity. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-physics/forces-and-newtons-laws-of-motion/newtons-first-law-mass-and-inertia/a/what-is-weight Without gravity, then weight doesn’t exist either. Mass is what you always have, weight is a product of gravity times mass; W=mg.
1
-
@SuperMic00 No…Flat Earthers NEED gravity to go away, because it’s not very convenient for their arguments. So they’ve decided denial is how they make it go away. No science or counter explanations, no peer reviewed studies or replacements in mathematics, just denial and ignorance. Then you pat yourselves on the back and call it a day, pretending you’re superior, while at the same time achieving nothing.
Fraid that doesn’t cut it. The whole point of science is to produce mathematical models, that accurately describe physical reality, so that they are useful when applied. Applied science is the end goal of all scientific research…if we’re not honest and objective about our discoveries, then we are left with junk science that is absolutely useless.
Go ahead and derive me new equations, using your superior understanding of physics, that engineers can actually use. Go ahead…..but if you can’t, then it’s because your understandings are flawed somewhere.
That’s the nice thing about junk science…it reveals itself by how useless it is. You’re arguing against science that is beyond discussion anymore, it’s graduated to applied science…and when it’s applied, it works. That’s because it’s accurate. If it wasn’t, then none of it would work when applied.
It’s really that simple. You’re only fooling yourselves.
1
-
@SuperMic00 Denser matter will always occupy lowest potential energy first, so the basketball isn’t going to be able to go down, because the water is denser, it’s already occupying that space closer to centre of gravity…so gravity effectively causes water to push the ball up, by displacing it. Basic physics of buoyancy.
So the trouble is that Flatties are half right, you’ve essentially chopped up gravity physics and you’re half there…but you’re intentionally ignoring the downward force that starts it all. The basketball is pushed out of the way, because water is denser than the air inside, that denser matter will occupy a position closer to gravity, before less dense matter. A penny is more dense, so it pushes water up, displacing it, that displacement is equal to its volume density. Archimedes principle in a nutshell.
You’re just describing gravity physics, without gravity. Gravity causes buoyancy, that’s physics 101. Fb=Vpg, that’s how we calculate buoyancy, without gravity, it does not occur.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMic00 All things with mass create gravity, even you do…everything with mass does. Proven in the Cavendish experiment and many other similar experiments, repeatable science. Here’s the simplest demonstration and explanation https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68.
The amount of gravitational attraction, depends on the mass of the object…so Earth is massive, hence why its gravity is as well. The Sun is even more massive, hence why everything in our solar system is able to orbit around it. We’re not orbiting Earth, because we are not moving faster than Earth, we are moving with it. A cannon ball shot at surface could potentially break into an orbit…if it wasn’t immediately being slowed by AIR RESISTANCE. Drag force is something projectiles on Earth have to deal with, our Earth does not, because space is a vacuum…so there is nothing there to cause drag.
First law of motion states that all things in motion STAY in motion, unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. Drag creates that unbalanced force, so projectiles slow and then drop to Earth due to drag force first slowing it enough for gravity to do the rest. Which is why projectiles don’t break into orbits, they are moving at escape velocities, they just don’t maintain it, because they are affected by drag from the moment they leave the barrel.
A rocket on the other hand, has a way of maintaining velocity through atmospheric drag, by way of rocket propulsion, the engines and fuel that keep it maintaining velocity. Flatties wrongfully assume rockets can’t work in a vacuum, but it’s just more misunderstandings in basic physics. See you guys believe rockets push off of air, like a plane does, but nope, rockets propel themselves by way of the third law of motion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The gas essentially pushes off the container, and the container (the rocket) pushes off the gas. So they push off of each other, using each other’s inertia, action, reaction…like tossing a heavy medicine ball with a pair of skates on ice, would fling you backwards, very similar physics. Rockets actually work better in the vacuum of space actually, because there’s no drag.
Basic laws of motion make it all possible. Earth maintains velocity because of conservation of momentum, it’s moving faster forward than it is being pulled to the Sun, so it maintains orbit around it, essentially falling around it, like a coin in a funnel, except unlike the coin that is slowed by friction and drag, Earth doesn’t have that problem, so it orbits indefinitely, thanks to conservation of momentum. We use the exact same physics to put satellites and rockets into orbit around Earth. The same physics is why the Moon orbits us as well…basic orbital mechanics, a perfect balance between forward momentum and force of gravity, creates a stable orbit.
So gravity was a pivotal discovery, because it explains almost everything. When gravity was fully realized…the mysteries of the cosmos started falling like dominoes. It has made space travel and satellite technology possible. It makes sense of more than just why objects fall to Earth, it explains why everything we observe in space is spherical, it explains orbits, it explains how planets and stars are created, it even explains how the Sun burns, through nuclear fusion reactions sustained by its intense gravity fusing hydrogen molecules together. Which we’ve successfully recreated in fusion reactors by the way…with the help of our current knowledge of gravity.
Remind me again what Flat Earth science has achieved?
1
-
1
-
@SuperMic00 The globe can answer for the tides, down to a mathematical certainty….your model can’t even explain a lunar eclipse, or how the moon even stays in the sky, let alone tides. 😂 So don’t get too ahead of yourself. Flat Earth can’t answer anything. From gravity, to sunsets, to the orbits of planets, to the entire Southern Hemisphere, sun, moon, planets, tides…the Flat Earth model can’t explain any of it. While the globe answers for everything with relative ease and it can back it all up with evidence.
You can bury me in gish gallop all day, won’t change reality. Earth is a globe, always has been.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Eventually this planet is going to have a civilization ending event occur, it’s just inevitable. So it’s in our best interest to spread ourselves out across space, inhabiting multiple planets. It’s just smart for our long term survival. But space isn’t easy to travel in…so we have a lot more to learn about it, before we can ever hope to master it. Gotta start somewhere.
If you think it’s not beneficial for mankind to study and explore space, then you’re pretty short sighted. We’re natural explorers, it’s a big part of what’s got us this far…why would we ever stop something that’s such a big part of our success and is baked into our very nature? 🤷♂️
It’s also in the best interest for any nation to fund the sciences, if it wants any hope of staying at the top of industry. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. Fund scientific research into fish farming, and you feed an entire nation for a lifetime. So it should be a no brainer why funding science is beneficial.
NASA makes pennies compared to the military…seriously, you should compare their annual budgets sometime. If the US took even 1% of the military budget, they could easily build and fund better homeless shelters. Take 10% and they could solve so many more problems. So you should be pissed at the military budget, not NASA.
1
-
Well, what is that old saying about rocket science? It's not easy, but they have since solved these dilemmas. Today, they bring their own oxidizer along in the form of liquid oxygen (yes, oxygen can be liquefied)...this is the oxidizer and it is burned inside the fuel compartment, not outside and is added to the fuel as it burns to keep it burning. Once in space, they don't require as much fuel, because there is no wind resistance, and they're not fighting against gravity so much anymore, they're using it in the form of an orbit, so there is far less resistance, meaning less fuel required to move around. So they can switch engines to something that doesn't require oxygen or a constant burn, just something that requires a chemical reaction of some sort, so two chemicals that when combined cause a volatile chemical reaction that creates a burst of propellant...and they have lots of different options at this point. They only require liquid oxygen really for getting into space, once there, they can switch to something different or keep using it, there are options and many different types of rocket engines at this point.
Just to list some of the other options they're currently working on as well, they also have nuclear rockets...which generate far greater thrust then regular engines that require the burning of fuel, but they still have issues with radioactivity so they haven't been put into use yet, but they also have fusion engines which could potentially trump both options...and is completely safe for the crew. But the problem here is the same as all problems with fusion, that being maintaining fusion reaction for long periods of time...that's why we don't have fusion anything just yet...it's very hard to maintain fusion. There is also ion rockets, which are pretty interesting but do not generate much thrust (so can't get us off the ground), just a constant thrust that is almost limitless...which is perfect for once we're in space. Lots of cool advancements in rocket tech these days...but anyway, yes, to answer your original question, they bring their own oxidizer in the form of liquid oxygen to maintain any fuel burn required.
1
-
1
-
@JessiQT17 Well you clearly didn’t bother to read my full comment, where I explain how poorly set up the “Cold Moonlight experiment” truly is. You numpty’s didn’t think to include a control for your experiment, to isolate the main variable of your hypothesis. I don’t much care to repeat it all either, so you can just scroll up and reread it. Your claim also breaks thermodynamics physics. Light is basically energy, energy is never cold, it’s what produces all the thermal energy in the entire universe. You ever been near a hot plasma? It’s not producing a cold light. The Sun is a plasma…plasma only burns hot, it’s HEATED gas, that’s what a plasma is. You are an idiot, who was easily conned by huxters online, with smoke and mirrors, it’s all keep your eye on their empty claims, and ignore common sense. That’s the reality. It’s a con…and YOU fell for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JessiQT17 Do you even know what plasma is? It’s basically heated gas…you ever seen fire maintain a rigid structure? The Sun is basically a plasma, if you view it through a solar filter lens you’ll see its surface, and it’s constantly shifting and changing…cause that’s how plasma works.
Look through a telescope sometime, the surface of the Moon is clearly rigid, does not shift or change, and with shadows in its many craters…a plasma would not do that, it wouldn’t have craters at all actually.
Your conclusion is ignorant of basic physics and astronomy. You think you’re revealing some truth to us, but what you’re really doing is not listening or considering what we’re saying, instead continuing to ram a square peg into a round hole. I’m listening to your conclusion, but it’s in contradiction to how plasma actually works, so I’m sorry, but I do not agree with your conclusion for that reason.
I feel strongly that you were fed some bullshit, that’s the real truth. Use your head please…THINK about what I’m saying instead of ignoring it, you might realize then who the real huxters are.
1
-
@JessiQT17 If by “lunar waves” you mean the shimmering effect you see, that’s atmospheric refraction. You see the same thing on the horizon when you look through a telescopic lens…that’s because you’re looking through atmosphere, and atmosphere is gas, so it’s a fluid, and thus is constantly flowing and shifting, causing light to shimmer and wave, distorting what you see. If the Moon were a plasma, it would not have rigid forms that remain the same over time, like craters. Only solid matter can maintain a rigid structure, all other states of matter (liquid, gas, plasma) shift and change constantly over time. That’s a fact, not an opinion.
Anyway, no disrespect, it’s good to question things, even well established science, so I hope I haven’t patronized you. It’s actually quite admirable. I hope that information is helpful or at the very least interesting, and I hope it’s at least considered. Take care.
1
-
1