Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
@sterlingracing7135 Earth’s rotation and gravity, have both been measured and observed, in several different ways. Just because you’re currently not aware of how, doesn’t mean they haven’t.
For rotation it was first proven by the Foucault pendulum experiment, and then later by the same physicist Léon Foucault, who devised a simpler (and lesser known) experiment, the Foucault gyroscope experiment. Both are repeatable, you can even use the Foucault Pendulum experiment to calculate your latitude, as the pendulums rate of precession is different depending on your latitude.
There’s also simple experiments of Coriolis you can check out, plenty on YouTube. Then there’s ring laser interferometers that directly measure Earth’s 15 degrees per hour drift. And are you aware that Earth’s rotation generates a small amount of centrifugal force at the Equator? This actually causes everything at the Equator to weigh slightly less, about 0.3% less. This can be tested with a simple scale and a set of weights.
So plenty of evidence today that verifies Earth’s rotation…and that didn’t even include all of the Astronomy data, and the gyrocompass, which is a device that actually uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function.
For gravity there’s plenty of various drop tests, and there’s the Cavendish experiment (all easily repeatable). Plenty of people reproducing the Cavendish experiment, you can find scores of people conducting the experiment on YouTube. Then there’s the Eddington experiment that verifies relativity physics, it’s recreated pretty much every time there’s an eclipse. And it’s applied science, we use our understanding of gravity in everything from calculating your weight (W=mg), to determining buoyancy force (Fb=Vpg), to determining an aircraft’s thrust to weight ratio (ratio=F/W=ma/mg=a/g), then there’s the whole field of orbital mechanics and astrophysics, which accurately predict the positions of celestial bodies with gravity as a variable, and put satellites into orbit with that knowledge.
So again, just because you’re not currently aware of the science, doesn’t mean there isn’t any.
If you’re curious to know how they determined the Earth’s inner composition, look into the science of Seismology, more specifically do some research on S and P waves. In a brief summary, every Earthquake releases shockwaves that travel along Earth’s surface and through the Earth. Any large Earthquake (8.0 or greater), will actually produce shockwaves that travel all the way through the Earth, to ping stations on the other side of Earth. These waves almost quite literally paint us a picture of what the inner composition of Earth is. There’s two types of inner waves, S waves and P waves. P waves (primary waves/pressure waves) travel much faster and they travel through anything, solid, liquid, air, doesn’t matter. But they travel at different rates depending on the material. S waves (secondary waves/shear wave) are slower, and can only travel through solid matter, so they stop once they hit liquid or air. This creates shadow zones in the data, telling us that the core is liquid in nature. This data combined with the p wave data, tells us a lot about Earth’s core.
And the conclusion fits with other models of science, for example, it helps make sense of our electromagnetic field. We’re pretty good at creating our own electromagnetic fields, and they require a few ingredients…such as a metal alloy, spun into a coil, with a lot of energy traveling through it. The outer core swirls around the inner core, and the heat and pressure generates a lot of energy. Iron and nickel are common metal alloys used in electromagnetic conductors, and they just so happen to be the most common metal alloys found on Earth, every volcanic eruption spews out tons of it.
So there’s more science here than you think. We don’t have to physically go directly into something, to learn more about it. We’re limited in what we can do physically, but mankind is pretty clever, we have plenty of other methods we can use, to probe deeper into places we can’t physically go.
Anyway, I hope this information is helpful, or at the very least interesting.
1
-
@squidly2112 But it is greater, with a consistent source of new energy…the reason temperature is in equilibrium in a goldilocks zone is because energy is being shed just as quickly as it’s coming in, it’s in balance. But if you increase the insulating layer, then the balance is disrupted for a moment, until equilibrium is reached again…that means a temperature increase from where it was before. You keep ignoring the source of energy for some reason…we’re not talking about a cup of coffee removed from a source of heat, that’s a false equivalence, we’re talking about a thermos held to a flame, and you increase the insulating layer.
We all know what happens to a container held too close to a flame…it can’t shed energy quicker than it’s coming in, the heat and pressure inside increases, it explodes. Obviously we wouldn’t explode, but it would be similar in some ways, if we slightly increased the insulating layer of our atmosphere, temperature would increase slightly as well. And perhaps C02 has more transparency to short wave radiation, than long wave…that I’m uncertain of currently (worth researching though), but all I’m saying is, I feel there are variables you are ignoring…namely the constant source of new energy.
So by your argument, if Mars were to get a denser atmosphere by terraforming it (assuming we could jump start its magnetosphere or substitute it somehow), the surface wouldn’t warm up and melt its ice?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@squidly2112 You don’t understand how holding a sealed container to a flame eventually causes an exponential rise in temperature inside the container, until it explodes? 🧐 Odd…don’t need to be a scientist to understand that…figured it was pretty common knowledge. Are you sure you’re a scientist?
The point is that it’s the insulating layer that helps to cause the rise in temperature, if a system can’t shed new energy faster than it’s coming in, then overall temperature rises…pretty simple, in fact it’s common sense. My point is, the energy coming into Earth from the Sun is GREATER, it’s not equal to, or less than. You’re trying to argue that it’s equal…yet you even agree the surface of the Moon is hot in the day (by hundreds of degrees). Is our system hundreds of degrees? No…so obviously the energy coming in from the Sun is greater. 😳 Not equal too, or less than….greater. If you can contain more of that energy for longer, faster than Earth can normally shed it, then temperature will rise. This isn’t difficult to understand I feel.
But you claim gases can’t insulate…yet at the same time you said that our atmosphere keeps the surface from getting as hot as the day side of the Moon, and as cold as the night side. Sooo, it insulates it…what’s the atmosphere doing if not insulating Earth? You’ve just described an insulator…and admitted that our atmosphere insulates the Earth.
Sorry, but you are overthinking this to the point of twisting it in your favour, your claims are very contradictory. On one hand you say gases don’t insulate…on the other you agree that our atmosphere regulates our temperature. Meaning it insulates it. 😳
What predictions have come true? I already told you, my area has been experiencing more extreme fires over the last decade, we now expect a smoky season every year, at least a month of smoke and fires in the area. We’ve always had fires, but in the nearly 40 years I’ve lived here, the last decade has seen a substantial increase, to the point where we now have a smoky season, of low visibility and low air quality…every summer now, not just some of them. And it’s not just here; California, Greece, Australia, the Amazon, all have experienced more extreme wild fires one after the other in the past decade, than they have in a centuries time.
That’s an example of the warning signs we were expected to have, more extreme fires…and ya, that’s been happening, have you been paying attention to the news?here’s another; reports I’ve read show that the Arctic regions are melting exponentially (which adds to greenhouse gases, as water vapour is far worse than C02), that’s another warning sign that has been occurring. More extreme weather has been occurring in the last 10-15 years…right now roughly a quarter of America is experiencing blizzard conditions the likes of which most of them have never seen before. I’ve never heard of a blizzard of that magnitude before…covering nearly a quarter of a continent? And parts around Asia and middle east last summer (India especially) got so hot that roads were melting and it was dangerous to be outside in the heat, because heat exhaustion was pretty much guaranteed away from any air conditioning…they were shattering heat records, not just by a little bit, they were way beyond any previous records.
So I don’t know what you’re talking about…but the predictions are coming true as far as I’m concerned. I’ve noticed it personally in the form of extreme forest fires…we never used to be this bad here, it’s increased in the last decade and shows no signs of slowing down.
Here’s the crux of this whole thing…if everyone else is wrong about global warming, nothing really changes, we go about our lives. If YOU are wrong, and we do nothing…then we are fucked. So I don’t really care if I am wrong, it’s the safer option. It’s logical to address potential threats to our planet and way of life.
But I think you are wrong here…I find some of your arguments very contradictory, and you’re quite literally the first person I’ve ever chatted with, who doesn’t think the gases of an atmosphere are what helps to warm the surface if a planet…but yet you agree it does, but it doesn’t at the sane time? I think you’re too hung up on the aspect that C02 is typically used as a coolant…and ya, so is water, but water can also insulate and heat…I’m sure you’ve noticed a wet muggy summer is far hotter than a dry one? Place an ice cube in a glass of water, it’s gonna melt a lot faster than if you just left it on the table. Point is, just because something makes for a great coolant in one application, doesn’t mean it can’t also have the opposite effect in a different situation. I’m sure you’d agree snow is very cold, but eskimos have been using them for igloos for centuries…because it’s also a great insulator, perfect for trapping heat in a system for longer.
1
-
@squidly2112 Here’s another point I’d like to make; I could care less if you are an engineer or scientist…if you are, then you’re not a very good one. I argue with Flat Earthers a lot (it’s a sad hobby of mine); in the flat Earth community there is a mechanical engineer named Brian Mullen. He’s a confirmed engineer, fully accredited, has worked in various industries as an engineer…he’s legit. And yet he believes the Earth is flat….you know how many people have tried to help him understand the law of conservation of momentum? Cause one of his big arguments is that Earth can’t be in motion, because planes wouldn’t be able to keep up with the surface if the Earth were in motion. This is an engineer saying this……someone who should be well versed in the laws of motion, law of inertia, conservation of momentum, and relative motion physics in general.
Now I’m sure you can agree Flat Earth is dumb as shit…yet an accredited engineer doesn’t understand the physics of the globe model, and thus is a Flat Earther because of it.
This is why I could give a shit if you are an engineer or a scientist…that does not make you infallible. If anything, it can tend to make a person over confident…happens a lot.
I feel you are wrong here, some of the things you’re saying are very contradictory. But at this point we’re now going in circles I feel, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
1
-
1
-
@squidly2112 No, seriously dude…you came here claiming our current understanding of greenhouse effect breaks the laws of thermodynamics…while demonstrating you don’t understand thermodynamics very much at all. I can explain to a child how when you put a container to a flame, temperature will increase within the container, and they will understand that it’s the containment/insulation that drives the increase, because a greater source of energy is providing greater energy in the system, and the system is unable to shed the energy quicker than it’s coming in, BECAUSE OF THE INSULATOR, which causes temperature to rise…this is basic stuff, but yet a person claiming to be a scientist can’t understand this? 🧐
It’s very simple…the Sun provides a greater source of energy, and atmosphere acts as an insulator. If the insulator increases, then the system can’t shed this energy quicker than it’s coming in, meaning overall temperature increases…it’s incredibly simple to understand.
If you are an engineer or scientist as you claim…then holy fuck.
I hate being a dick about it…but this outlines the problem with this whole debate. Flat Earth nonsense doesn’t do much…nobody ultimately loses in that discussion, so it’s fun to argue. But this discussion on global warming is not one we can afford to be wrong about. :/ So if you’re wrong…you need to realize it, and you need to change your stance…because if it is happening and we don’t act because of the resistance it receives…then we’re fucked. Should I change my stance if I’m wrong? Sure, absolutely…but it doesn’t have as much urgency, because me being wrong doesn’t mean the world is at stake.
That’s what irks me the most I suppose…..if you’re wrong, and you successfully convince people this isn’t something to worry about…then we are fucked.
1
-
@squidly2112 If people are “stompy feet” with you, it’s because they’re stunned by your position and then frustrated with your inability to understand some pretty simple concepts…especially when you say you’re a scientist…it’s a bit scary. I was interested at first, because you were providing a new argument I had not heard yet, and I did learn more about the the science of greenhouse effect (I don’t argue global warming very often, so I’m admittedly very new too it, so anything new I can learn is interesting). But gases do insulate…and the atmosphere does do that for our planet, as it does for every planet.
The Sun provides a greater source of energy, it’s not equal too or less than our system, it’s greater. So it’s understandable that if more of that greater energy is contained for longer, it will cause an increase.
I don’t care about a person’s credentials, but there’s nuance, I will respect their opinion a little more…as I did for you for a time, until realizing your argument is…dumb. At that point the veneer of a persons credentials loses its sheen, but my ability to question someone is never rattled by credentials.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonyornelas9374 It’s not just curvature you need to factor, it’s observer height, distance to horizon, arc length, height of object being observed, its tilt relative to you, etc. And that’s just the geometric calculation to determine line of sight, but then there’s also atmospheric refraction, which requires you first understand what that is and how it works. It is a real phenomenon that effects what we see, so it helps to verify and understand that first, before rushing into scientific observations. I feel a lot of flat Earthers jump right into things, equipped with shotty math with missing variables (8 inches per mile squared being the worst offender), with zero prior knowledge or understanding in the physics of light, optics and light refraction…then they wonder why their math doesn’t match with observation.
Here’s the correct geometric calculation, using trig functions.
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
r= Radius of Earth
d= distance to observation
h= observer height
Observer height is the most important variable here, because as we all know, the higher you go, the further you see. The biggest problem with the math people have been convinced to use (8 inches per mile squared), is that it doesn’t have any variable for observer height. It gives you the exact same figure whether you’re at 6 feet elevation or 10,000 feet, it doesn’t adjust at all. So that’s the biggest issue there, among many other important variables it ignores. So it’s pretty simple to figure out why the math doesn’t match observation…it’s the wrong math. Use the wrong math, and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple.
And that’s just the geometric calculation, you then have to factor refraction.
So what’s the problem as I see it? People being easily conned by huxters, who exploit their lack of scientific and mathematical literacy. I don’t feel they are stupid, they’re just not trained in proper scientific practices, so confirmation bias reigns.
Anyway, I hope that information is helpful, or at the very least interesting.
1
-
@tonyornelas9374 A benchmark only factors elevation from mean sea level…and sea level (like all elevations) is measured from centre of Earth. So they technically both account for curvature, because the benchmarks do…because they’re measured from sea level, which is an equipotential surface from centre of Earth. It works like this, stick a bunch of two inch pins exactly 1 inch deep into the surface of a ball, scattered all around its surface. What is the height of each pin, from surface of the ball, to top of each pin? 1 inch…that’s how elevation works as well, that’s where benchmarks measure from, from sea (similar to the surface of that ball), to the benchmark elevation. The sea is all at the same distance from centre of Earth, every point of its surface is at the same LEVEL from centre, held there by the field of force we call gravity, that’s an equipotential surface…a spherical bubble is another example of a equipotential surface, a surface that’s all at the same LEVEL from centre of the bubble, forming a sphere, the most perfectly rigid geometric shape found in nature. So the sea is basically like the surface of that ball example with the pins, it’s all at roughly the same distance from centre, making it a sphere at equipotential, making it the perfect reference point for benchmarks and surveying. Benchmarks just make it much easier to continue measuring from, because it’s difficult to determine sea level…with no sea around.
Benchmarks use sea level as their reference point, which works just fine on a sphere. But most surveyors have to factor curvature…that’s why they use the quick reference math of 8 inches per mile squared, which helps them determine drop so they can factor it in topography calculations, and cancel out curvature. If Earth wasn’t curving, then they wouldn’t require that math. Surveyors in long road or bridge construction, also counter errors due to curvature, by taking backsight and foresight measurements, which cancel out errors due to both curvature and refraction. Are you aware of this method used in surveying? You should be, if you’re going to make claims about surveying, it’s a pretty crucial part of surveying for any construction done over several miles. A simple building construction surveyor though, doesn’t need to worry about curvature, cause there’s not enough degrees of change in a few hundred or thousand square feet, to affect anything. Earth takes 69 miles to arc 1 degree of difference, how much do you think is in a few hundred square feet? Not enough to matter, so building construction surveyors, probably aren’t really taught anything about factoring curvature…but geodetic surveyors certainly are, it’s right in the job title.
Also…why would we need geodetic surveyors at all, if the Earth was flat? 🧐 Pretty pointless to create a whole different practice of surveying work, that focuses on Earth curvature…if Earth wasn’t really curving, wouldn’t you say?
1