Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "CNN"
channel.
-
@seektruth1215 You can’t have a magnetic that HOLDS a magnetic charge, in a hot liquid state, that’s true, but Earth is generating an ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD, that’s a bit different. We’re pretty good at generating electromagnetic fields, we know quite a lot about it, and Earth’s core meets the criteria perfectly. A massive amount of hot swirling iron and nickel, rotating around a solid inner iron core, generating a huge amount of friction from the pressure, to generate energy. It’s perfect conditions to create an electromagnet with.
Learn the difference between a magnet that merely HOLDS a charge, and an electromagnet that GENERATES a charge. They are quite different from each other.
So how exactly does flat Earth generate this field exactly? Got any clues? 🧐
9
-
Did every flat Earther fail physics class? It’s always the exact same terrible arguments, repeated over and over again, that they never realize is just revealing their own lack of knowledge and understanding, of how reality actually works. Since when did personal misunderstandings count as argument? 🤷♂️ Crazy times we live in.
Have any of you ever even heard of the law of conservation of momentum? Do you have any idea what it is and how it works? Any of you? This is physics 101…the laws of motion are one of the first things you learn in science classes, because it’s so simple to demonstrate, verify, and understand. Kids understand this stuff….but it seems to have gone right over every single flat Earthers head, cause they wouldn’t make these poor arguments if they understood the laws of motion.
A helicopter moves WITH the Earth, a plane moves WITH the Earth. They conserve that momentum at all times, so they don’t struggle to keep up and they don’t fall behind, they’re already moving with the Earth, at the same velocity, moving with rotation just adds velocity, moving against rotation subtracts velocity. It’s the same physics that allows you to walk around the cabin of a plane at 500 mph, and any direction, and it’ll be effortless, never will you go crashing to the back, because motion is conserved. Not convincing enough, try tossing a paper airplane (or anything really) gently from rear to front while on a flight, and watch as it glides effortlessly to the front. Can you throw anything at 500 mph? No…obviously not. So how did the object you threw out pace the jet? Because it’s already moving at the same velocity as the jet, and that momentum is conserved, so you’re just adding more velocity…it’s a law of physics. Try tossing it from front to back, and same thing, it will glide effortlessly to the back, it won’t go smashing into the back the moment you release. In this case you’re subtracting velocity, but it’s still moving with the jet at the same relative rate of motion, conserving that momentum. One of many simple experiments you can do…conservation of momentum is probably thee most tested law in all of physics, because of how easy it is to test.
The atmosphere, same thing, it moves WITH the Earth, it’s created at surface, so it’s moving with the surface, conserving its momentum indefinitely. So you’re never gonna get 1000 mph winds, because of conservation of momentum. Gravity helps here too, as does fluid dynamics.
Basic physics…easily tested, easily verified. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is not an argument, it’s just sad. Sad that the education system failed some people…but it’s not entirely their fault, learning is a two person activity, teacher and student. If you didn’t learn this back in school, it’s not just the teachers fault.
Onto your other points. Pilots have an easier job today, because the nav systems they use make the calculations for them…but every single one of them is required to learn how to plot navigation routes on paper charts, doing the calculations themselves, using geodesy. They wouldn’t have to include variables for a curvature, for geodesy…if there was no curvature. On top of that, every nav system today uses the same model, the WGS87, a globe with lines of longitude and latitude designed for 2 equal hemispheres. So your argument is extremely ignorant.
Are you an engineer? Do you actually know anything about designing any structure? I’ve talked with several civil engineers who have told me their jobs are made much harder, because they have to factor Earth curvature, or they will find their zones losing area over time, that will become a problem for builders down the road, if it’s not accounted for in advance. A builder working a few hundred square meters doesn’t have to worry so much about curvature, because it takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree on Earth…so how many degrees of curvature you think are in a few hundred square meters? Also, ever heard of a geodetic surveyor? Guess what they do.
And bridge designers absolutely have to calculate arc length of surface, or they will design the bridge segments too short, which will create problems when they go to connect them all. They will come up short, if they don’t include a little extra to each segment, to account for arc length. It’s a calculation they cannot skip…because the Earth is spherical. So yet another ignorant argument from you.
Not sure who told you this nonsense, but it’s both extremely untrue and very ignorant.
9
-
8
-
@xcvsumextra By scientific method, I assume you mean a tested and peer reviewed experiment that helps verify the theory. And there’s actually plenty, from the Cavendish experiment, to the lesser known Schiehallion Experiment, to the larger model of relativity tested first with the Eddington experiment of 1919, etc. It’s actually one of the most scientifically tested concepts in all of physics…the knowledge and data from each now used in thousands of practical applications, from simply calculating weight (W=mg), to determining buoyancy force (Fb=Vpg), to calculating a planes thrust to weight ratio (ratio=F/W=ma/mg=a/g), etc. We can put satellites into orbit with this knowledge, predict the orbital paths of any celestial objects, including comets, and we can detect the exact location of massive gravitational events in space (like black holes, supernova events, etc) before even switching on the telescopes to take a look. And currently, we’re using our understanding of gravity to recreate the same nuclear fusion reactions that fuels the Sun…which could someday solve our energy problems if we get it right.
So I’m sorry…but I’m certainly not about to listen to some numpty’s online make empty claims about something they don’t seem to know anything about.
Also, level is one of those tricky words in the English language that has multiple definitions, depending on the context. Level does not only mean flat…in geometry, you can actually use it for the surface of a sphere as well, because a spheres surface is all at the same LEVEL from centre…which is how the word is being applied in “sea level”.
Stay in school kids…otherwise you risk falling for online cons like flat Earth. 👋
8
-
8
-
@seektruth1215 You read somewhere that a magnet doesn’t hold a charge if it’s melted down…so why is the knowledge you acquired in a text book more relevant, than anyone else’s knowledge acquired through reading something, especially when anyone can test it? 🧐 You’re just mad cause you can’t use that argument anymore, so you’re just coming up with excuses now. 😄
You can build your own electromagnet with simple tools, and learn how they work, you can verify for yourself that they’re very different from a charged magnet. The main ingredients for any electromagnet are energy, spiralling through a highly conductive metal alloy, like iron or nickel…the two most abundant metals found on and inside Earth. Every volcanic eruption spews out tons of the stuff…hot liquid iron and nickel. So we already know it’s hot down there, so lots of energy being generated, and iron and nickel is pretty abundant, and we have seismic data going back hundreds of years now that has more than verified Earth’s inner composition, confirming a hot liquid metal outer core swirling around a solid iron inner core. And we definitely know we have an electromagnetic field surrounding us…so it’s not hard after all that to deduce how it’s being created. 😄
You don’t have to be an ignorant pleb forever you know…you can actually learn some things for a change if you actually learned some real science. Pull your dumb face away from your computer screen, and take a real science class…one where you won’t just read things, you’ll actually TEST them for yourself.
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
@xcvsumextra Not really, I’ve actually watched the interview you feel disagrees with me here, and he’s actually in agreement with everything I said. We know that gravity exists, we know how it works (to a point) and we’ve measured and quantified its effects, what’s not currently known is WHAT exactly creates it, what particle or non particle gives matter mass in the first place, to cause space to bend. That’s pretty typical in physics, there’s always going to be further questions, we solve one problem, it opens the door to 10 more. So we may never solve everything, that’s just the reality. Doesn’t mean we can’t be certain about many things though, and doesn’t mean we can’t make use of the knowledge we currently have.
We can predict the orbit of every motion in the cosmos down to a mathematical certainty today, using our current knowledge of gravity…do you really think we should toss all that knowledge out, simply because you say so? Or because we don’t quite know everything about gravity yet? Every equation we have with gravity in it, works when applied…so what reason do we have to just ignore knowledge that’s been very useful? Not very smart if you ask me.
If you paid attention, I basically just paraphrased that interview with Neil. So we actually agree on quite a bit here.
8 inches per mile squared is a parabola equation, it does not represent line of sight, or Earths curvature, or distance to horizon, or what’s obscured by horizon, etc. So it’s the wrong equation to use, for what Flat Earth uses it for. Use the wrong math, and then it’s pretty simple to see why your figures won’t match what you observe in reality. Flat Earth taught a lot of people the wrong math…that should be your first red flag that they’re not very good at this whole science and math thing. So maybe you shouldn’t be so quick to agree to the claims they’re making.
You can find the correct equations at either the Walter Bislin curvature blog (which also has many great observations and in depth experiments for curvature), or at Mick Wests metabunk forum under his curvature thread, he’s beat that topic to death and derived the math in multiple better ways.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@ottom.3094 Ya, no, read the actual treaty…it says absolutely nothing about people not being allowed to go there. It is a demilitarization pact, the treaty states that no military is allowed on the continent…but anyone can go there, and hundreds of thousands of people do every year. You can even work there, don’t even to beca scientist. They have job postings for cooks, maintenance and cleaning staff, construction jobs, general labourers…the list goes on.
They chose that projection, probably for the same reason Flat Earthers chose it, because out of all the map projections of Earth, it’s the most pleasing to the eye, has the most symmetry. We’re creatures of habit, we’re all typically drawn to the same patterns and pleasing compositions. The AE projection also represents every nation of the world, without showing any favouritism, because the projection points starts in the North pole, which is an ocean. So it tics every box for a UN flag, it’s pleasing to the eye, has the most balanced symmetry, represents every nation, and starts from a neutral point.
Get a better bullshit filter…or at least learn what actually counts as evidence. You’re currently forming conclusions from pure speculation and misinformation.
6
-
6
-
1. Okay, well you do realize that statement applies to you as well then, right? 🧐
2. Lol…then you follow it up with something YOU think you know…maybe you should take your own advise. The comedy writes itself. 😄
3. Alright, let’s do that…but let’s a go a bit beyond the arguments from ignorance and red herrings you’re expecting us to agree too without question.
a) Space isn’t a vacuum in the sense that it sucks on our atmosphere, it’s a vacuum as in “a space entirely void of matter”, that’s all, it’s just an empty space. You’re trying really hard to make it sound as if it’s something that should be pulling on our atmosphere, but that’s pretty ignorant. And our oceans aren’t in a vacuum…the pressure at surface is 14.7 psi, soooo…not gonna boil….you’re acting like the vacuum of space is directly next to our oceans, but even you know that’s not true. So you’re making an extremely bad red herring argument…just cause our atmosphere is thin relative to the planet itself, doesn’t change the fact that there is a measurable pressure difference from surface to the Karman line…so that’s why our ocean doesn’t boil, it’s resides in a 14.7 psi environment, not vacuum. Thin atmosphere though it may be…it still has pressure.
If you think our atmosphere shouldn’t exist…well then you’re ignoring gravity and the effect it has on all matter with mass. Gases are not free from gravity. You know even Flat Earthers have verified the vacuum of space, have you ever seen the footage from the many high altitude weather balloons they’ve sent up themselves? If you watch this footage, you’ll notice the balloons always eventually pop…as they’re designed to do once reaching vacuum conditions. So even Flatties have detected the vacuum that exists above us, but you know what they’ve never found? A container.
b) 1000 mph is a linear velocity, which has basically nothing to do with centrifugal force. Centrifugal force is causes by the acceleration of a rotational velocity, so what matters here is the angular velocity change per second, which is best understood with the proper rotational units, like revolutions per minute (rpm’s). Earth rotates at the rate of 1 complete rotation every 24 hours, that’s roughly 0.000694 rpm’s, exactly 2 times slower than the hour hand of a clock. Would you expect the hour hand of your clock to have a lot of centrifugal force? 🧐 Probably not…so why would you assume our surface should? 🤷♂️
This argument stems from a deep misunderstanding of centripetal forces…I get that you think you know everything that everyone does, but these arguments you’re making here clearly demonstrate that you actually don’t, and that’s the problem. Maybe refer back to your very first point…the irony here is palpable. 😅
c) Distance has a profound effect on perceived motion…it’s called the parallax effect. It’s why a passenger jet appears to an observer on the ground as if it’s barely crawling across the sky, even though it’s moving at about 500mph…and that’s just 3-5 miles distance from an observer, what do you think trillions of miles away would do? 🧐 Now, of course that doesn’t prove those distances…but it does however falsify your argument against them.
Consider for a moment how celestial navigation actually works…have you ever bothered to learn? Celestial navigation is only possible because we know the Earth’s shape…without that knowledge, it becomes pretty useless to measure an angle to Polaris, to triangulate our position…you kind of need to have an accurate model of your surface geometry, before you can triangulate a position on any map that uses that geometry…pretty common sense. The lines of latitude used in the modern geographic coordinate system, are determined by the 1 degree drop of Polaris to horizon, every 60 nautical miles travelling directly South. That consistent drop is something we’d only expect measure…with a consistently curving surface. Your a math teacher (or so you claim)…I’m sure you understand how the angles of a triangle work. If Earth was flat, then celestial navigation would use a right angle triangle from North pole, and the interior angles would be your navigation angles (your latitudes). When does the interior angle of a triangle ever reach 0 degrees? Oh that’s right…never. Polaris is known to reach 0 degrees at the Equator…can’t happen if Earth’s surface is flat. And then a completely new set of stars rise up in the South…at the same 1 degree every 60 nautical miles…exactly what we’d expect to see on a globe.
Funny how flatties never go into the actual details of celestial navigation, they conveniently leave out the part about how surface geometry plays a huge role, in making navigation possible in the first place. :/
My fortune cookie once said I’d make a new friend, and then I did…so I guess fortune cookies are just as mystical and powerful at predicting the future as the Bible is? 🧐 Nope…they just keep the predictions vague and general, then the reader fills in the rest. It’s how religious texts do it too…they’re nit really predicting anything, they’re just playing off of humans tendency to find patterns and connect dots, patterns that often aren’t really there.
There’s a very good reason we scoff at the deeply religious…and your arguments above are an example of the reasons.
5
-
5
-
You’d think so, but the problem is that conmen are constantly trying to bait the scientific community into debates, because they know it would do more for them in the form of free marketing, than it would benefit the scientists to address nonsense. The reality of debates is that you can actually win them, even if you’re 100% wrong, just by being a better talker/bullshitter…which conmen typically are. Most people don’t really care about all the boring little details that led to a conclusion, they typically just care about the conclusion, so a quick witted conman can easily fool an audience, just by dazzling them claim after claim, in an entertaining presentation.
So…it’s actually better to just ignore the trap set by conmen, and instead just let them fizzle out on their own. Giving them a platform just gives them an audience, which just helps them spread their bullshit, and it sends the wrong impression that their positions have legitimacy to begin with. The scientific community typically ignores quacks and conmen for this reason, and they’re actual pretty wise to do so.
5
-
5
-
Distance is not the only determining factor of temperature fluctuation, the angle at which energy arrives upon a surface, can change how focused or scattered that energy is upon a surface, which can cause a fluctuation in temperature as well. At Noon, the surface receives the most direct solar energy, making it more focused upon the surface, while in early morning and late afternoon, the light from the Sun would arrive upon the surface at more of an angle (because of the curvature), scattering the energy rather than focusing it, making it cooler. So your argument there is a bit ignorant of some thermodynamics physics, distance is not the only variable to consider in temperature fluctuations.
There’s lots of evidence of curvature, what I’ve noticed is a lot of people either ignoring that evidence, or not really seeking it to begin with. So they assert it doesn’t exist, because of their own inability to find it, for whatever reason. Look up the Rainy Lake experiment, or the Turning Torso Tower observation, or the many Lake Pontchartrain observations, and geodetic surveys. There’s plenty of evidence for curvature, you just haven’t really been looking.
Have you compared the discrepancies regarding the South hemisphere? The Gleason map works moderately well for the North hemisphere, but completely falls apart when trying to fit it for the South hemisphere past the equator. So no, it’s not accurate for all purposes, you are either lying, or you’re not yet aware of just how flawed it is actually is. For example, Australia in reality is measured to be equal distance across from North to South as it is East to West, being almost square. On the Gleason map however, Australia is almost twice as wide East to West, than it is North to South. So it doesn’t fit reality. The globe however fits perfectly. Another example is the distance around Antarctica, it would be a good 80,000 miles around on the Gleason map, in reality it’s circumnavigated to be a lot less. There’s a boat race that occurs every 4 years, called the Vendée Globe race. It’s roughly 24,000 nautical miles, going down from France through the Atlantic, until about the 60th parallel South latitude, where it circumnavigates the entire continent, returning to the Atlantic, then goes back up the Atlantic to France. If the Gleason were true, this race would be a LOT longer. So don’t overlook the South hemisphere, when comparing discrepancies of each map…the Gleason is not accurate at all, when it comes to the South hemisphere, it’s greatly distorted. The globe however, still fits with all recorded distances.
The Gleason map patent even states that it’s just a projection map of the globe, so that’s why it’s distorted…because all flat projection maps are. That’s what happens when you try to interpret a 3D globes surface, in just 2 dimensions…you lose a dimension, which means you lose distance, which creates distortions. That’s why we have so many different 2D maps, because the Earth is spherical, and every map is trying it’s best to interpret those dimensions in just 2 dimensions. So each one focuses on a specific area or purpose, to remove distortions for that specific purpose…but they’re all distorted in some way, no matter how hard they try, hence the discrepancies. If Earth was flat, we’d have only one map, and it would be accurate, with no distortions or discrepancies. Geography and cartography are much more difficult fields of work…because the Earth is spherical.
But the entire field of navigation today, uses the globe model for navigation. That is a fact not an opinion. If you believe otherwise, then go right ahead and take a navigation class sometime, see if I’m lying to you. Then if you still think it’s fabricated, you just go right ahead and try navigating across the pacific, from the North hemisphere to somewhere in the South hemisphere, without using the globe model…see how well you do. Point is, the Gleason map is not as accurate as you currently believe it to be, the globe model is.
5
-
5
-
@WORDversesWORLD “the problem you have is that you have no proof because if you did you and I wouldn’t be having this conversation!”
Hard to share proof, with anyone not really interested in seeing it. You’re trying to win a position, and you’re invested in that conclusion, so it’s keeping you from really listening to any of us….happens a lot actually, people are generally pretty stubborn and very prone to following confirmation bias, and filtering out anything they don’t like. I think you have some deep distain for modern consensus, modern science and the experts who reach these concepts…probably because someone online showed you something that you couldn’t argue against, so it convinced you you’ve been lied too, and now you’re angry. Good luck sharing any counter information, with someone who now hates and doesn’t trust the source of that information….you won’t get very far, and we obviously aren’t.
So we’re having this conversation, because you’re not really trying to find proof, you’re really just trying to rub some dirt in our eyes. It’s an act of spite…not a conversation. The mind is closed shut now. But I hope some information is at the very least considered.
5
-
5
-
The Michelson and Morley experiment was a test to verify the Aether, it was not to test whether the Earth was in motion or not. It didn’t find the Aether, and its final conclusion is that it’s inconclusive, both in the hypothesis and the null hypothesis. Since when do we use an inconclusive result to reach a conclusion in science? We don’t…anyone who does, is doing so out of bias.
The experiment is only noteworthy, because at the time physicists were so certain of the Aether, they were shocked when such a simple experiment came up with nothing conclusive. Then every other experiment after, also could not detect this Aether. Inconclusive test, after inconclusive test…still no evidence for Aether. Michelson Morley was just the start of the failed attempts…that’s why it’s noteworthy.
So here’s what scientists had, mountains of evidence for Earth’s motion, from Foucault pendulum experiments, to the gyro compass, to Coriolis and Eotvos effect, not to mention a heliocentric model that fit perfectly with all astronomical data, and now today it can be detected and measured with large area laser interferometers…but every experiment to find the Aether came up with nothing.
So while the Aether had absolutely no evidence, Earth’s motion had so much it wasn’t even a debate anymore……I wonder which one science is going to reconsider as real. Hmmm…🧐
Flat Earth latches onto the null hypothesis and lies about it…simply because it confirms their bias, that’s all you’ve done…fallen for some bullshit, cause it confirmed a bias. Y’all need to get a better bullshit filter.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Dr. Bas Ackwards So let me get this straight…the Flat Earth model has absolutely NO EXPLANATION for how a lunar eclipse is possible and how it occurs, but the globe Earth which does have an extremely simple and logical explanation for lunar eclipse, is the model with a problem? 🤷♂️ Are you even listening to yourself? Flat Earth has no solid explanations for lunar eclipses…you don’t think that’s a problem? You’re just gonna ignore that BIG HOLE and nitpick about a few things YOU personally don’t think work on the globe model? How can you honestly think you have the superior argument here?
Refraction does account for the Selenelion eclipse, so like it or not, you can’t just hand wave that aside so you can keep to a bias. An objective researcher would consider it and then go deeper into the science. It should be noted that the selenlion eclipse is very rare, relying on index of refraction for that area, it only occurs on the terminator line of night and day, and the Sun and Moon are always observed on completely opposite points of the sky. So all the variables are there to fit the model just fine….while Flat Earth model hasn’t even left the starting gate yet, doesn’t have any clue how a lunar eclipse works.
Now as for the shadow and where it passes, the Moon orbits 5 degrees off the ecliptic, and this orbital path wobbles. This 5 degree tilt and wobbling orbit is what keeps the Moon from passing into Earth’s shadow every 28 days…that’s why we don’t see a lunar eclipse every month, because the Moon isn’t actually on the same ecliptic plane as the Earth is. So sometimes the Moons orbit is moving up as it passes through the shadow, essentially coming from under it…hence why you see the shadow approach from the top.
This isn’t tricky stuff, it’s basic geometry and astronomy…but you sure don’t seem to care, because you’re working so hard to ignore anything that might pull you out of the flat Earth delusion. Flat Earth has no answers for the Lunar eclipse…that shouldn’t just be so easily ignored by you people, you should be asking yourself why and you should question your model, with the same standard of analysis as you do the globe.
That’s why a lot of us don’t take Flat Earthers very seriously, you’re hypocrites…shouting “QUESTION EVERYTHING!! Except Flat Earth though…it’s perfect.” See the problem? That’s what you look like from our perspective. We wish we could just have a conversation, but you guys just get angry when we question your positions and point out the flaws, not willing to listen or consider anything that is counter to what you currently believe. We’ve done the research that Flat Earth keeps asking us to do, but we’ve reached the opposite conclusion.
In any case, the fact remains, the globe accounts for a lunar eclipse, while FE does not. I don’t think you should ignore that so easily. Are there peculiarities and oddities that occur with the lunar eclipse? Yes, absolutely, the geometry of the solar system is complex, with a lot of variables happening all at once. So we’d expect there to be a few occurrences that aren’t as simple to understand, without a bit more knowledge and understanding. You’re not poking holes in anything…you’re just doing sloppy research to confirm a bias. Over exaggerating a few anomalies and blowing them out of proportion…to turn people’s attention away from the GLARING problem you face with the Flat Earth model. It’s a nice misdirection trick, but sorry, didn’t work on us I’m afraid.
5
-
5
-
5
-
Boy…that’s some pretty terrible logic. 🤦♂️ Looks like YOU don’t understand that knowledge is acquired over time…we don’t just know everything right from the start, we acquire information and we learn over time, and as we learn we change our understandings, it’s a process. Do they teach heliocentrism in any Bible? No…it’s a purely scientific model, having nothing to do with religion, just because someone religious did some science once, doesn’t make that science a religious doctrine by default. Science is a process removed from religion.
Here’s a history lesson for you, the heliocentric model is a big part of why people started to question religious doctrines in the first place. Because things being taught by religion, weren’t adding up with what was being observed in actual reality, so it started getting people questioning the teachings of religion. On the flip side, many in flat Earth argue for that position, because they believe it’s written in the Bible, and the Bible should never be questioned according to them. Ask anyone who has actually spent a good deal of time chatting with flatties, the very large majority are deeply religious, and Flat Earth is part of how they confirm their religious beliefs.
So if you believe the Earth is flat, despite the ENTIRE scientific community agreeing it’s not, despite the staggering amount of evidence today pointing to the heliocentric conclusion, despite every field of applied science from navigation to engineering to infrastructure that uses the globe model to function, then I’d say it’s YOU who are more closely adhering to religious doctrine…not the other way around. Believing absolute bullshit, despite all the evidence to the contrary…that’s exactly how religion operates. So kettle, meet pot.
4
-
4
-
@pureblooded3877 The Antarctic treaty does not say we’re banned from going there…try actually reading it, instead of blindly agreeing to what somebody told you. It’s not a long read, so heed your own advice and actually look it up sometime, then actually read it. It only states that no single country is allowed to claim it, it is to be shared for scientific purposes, no military is allowed to have a base there and no company is allowed to mine its natural resources for commercial gain. That’s it, that’s basically the jist of it. Nowhere does it say you can’t go there, in fact hundreds of thousands of people do every single year. You can even work there year round, even without being a scientist or specialist, they’re always looking for cooking and cleaning staff, and construction crews.
4
-
@tbrown3356 Your argument here is pretty stupid T Brown…refraction occurs on your model as well, it’s reality, so the horizon line fluctuates for you guys as well, you’ve demonstrated that as much with your “Black Swan” nonsense, which just did more to verify the extreme effects of refraction, than anything. Yet sailors still use sextants, regardless of the refraction that occurs in reality…so I guess it’s no problem, wouldn’t you say? Here, just watch this quick video and let me know if there’s a horizon https://youtu.be/U8Vz9r2yWO8. Oh gee…how is there a perfectly horizontal horizon on the surface of this smaller globe? It’s almost like perspective and geometry will cause it to appear flat, the closer you are to the globes surface! Wooooooow…😮
You guys are really scraping the bottom of the barrel these days. 😅 Here’s a fun one, do you know how celestial navigation works? Did you know we’re able to find our latitude because stars like Polaris will drop to horizon a consistent 1 degree every 69 miles traveled directly South? Did you also know that on a flat Earth…that angle wouldn’t be a consistent 1 degree drop every 69 miles, it would drop less and less the further South you travelled if Earth was flat? Oopsie…😮
Run along now…back to your master Oakley.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@WORDversesWORLD Can you see 400 km at 6 foot viewing height? No, I’ve never seen anyone present evidence of anything 400 km away, at 6 foot viewing height. Why is that? If Earth were actually flat, shouldn’t we see plenty of examples? I have seen a photo of some mountain peaks, seen from 400 km away, from a viewer height of roughly 2600 feet. I’ve even done the curvature math for that observation, and from that viewer height, with those peaks, you would expect to see roughly 100-200 feet of those peaks….and that’s what you do see, just the peaks. So, I’m sorry, but what made you believe there was no evidence of curvature? Are you sure you were given the correct math? Did you check to see if it was accurate? Lot of con artists online exploiting gaps in our knowledge, advanced mathematics is a common gap for many. If you think you can’t be scammed, if you think nobody can lie to you, then that’s the perfect attitude they are looking for.
Anyway, how exactly does thousands of feet go missing from the base of mountains? That’s pretty much what we’d expect to see on a globe. You can say it’s “just perspective”, but that doesn’t really answer for much, it’s just ad hoc, cause vanishing point doesn’t pick and choose what to make disappear first and when something is at eye level, it does not drop below it…yet thousands of feet are seen dropping below eye level anyway. So the perspective argument has holes, while the globe still fits what we see.
I’d say check your math, don’t just blindly agree to what’s been presented to you. Hope this information is helpful.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@kingyordens364 Much easier to fold up a map and stick it in your pocket, than carry a globe around, wouldn’t you say? Also a lot more flat paper around to write and draw on, how many blank spheres you got kickin around to do cartography work on? And for any local area you’re travelling around, a city or local county, the curvature would be so gradual (takes 69 miles to arc 1 degree on Earth), it would be basically flat from your perspective, so much easier to just map it flat in sections. But every map is based off the standard WGS84 globe model, the latest world survey data…that’s a fact, not an opinion. Our entire system of navigation is built from that knowledge and measurements as well, lines of latitude equal distance for two hemispheres, and lines of longitude running through two poles.
So is that really the argument you’ve put all your chips on? Maps are flat therefore Earth is flat? 🧐
Learn to navigate dude…anyone can learn at anytime, it’s not difficult, plenty of free classes online. If you think the system is false, go ahead and try navigating anywhere by plane or ship, without using the current system of navigation to help you do it. Go right ahead…see how far you get.
Flat Earth is a con…get a better bullshit filter.
4
-
@gysgtholpp Trouble is, you don’t really have evidence when it really boils down to it…just misunderstandings and broken physics. You have questions…but since when did questions equal evidence? 🧐 It’s like people have forgotten the difference.
Nothing you shared in your original comment was evidence, they were false conclusions you reached because you lack some information, not much more than that. It’s typical of confirmation bias…and your bias is pretty clear, you’re religious, that’s always been a powerful bias. The Religious have been ignoring details to confirm their bias for centuries…it’s nothing new, but it’s still just as frustrating as it’s ever been…forever slowing human progress and hampering objective investigation.
That’s how I see it…Flat Earth is just another movement of extreme confirmation bias, seeking only the information that supports the conclusion you’ve already reached, rather than allowing the actual evidence to form your conclusions. Flat Earth always conveniently leaves some small details out…so allow me to provide some further context by sharing the information they won’t.
Boyles law has to do with gases under containment, and is limited in application when talking about atmospheric pressure. That’s why they’re called IDEAL gas laws, they really only apply when the ideal conditions are met. In physics, gas pressure (gases under containment) and atmospheric pressure (gases held by gravity) are treated as separate. You can look this up anytime, the ideal gas laws are a model for gases under containment, where a known volume can be determined, that’s why volume is included in the equations for the ideal gas laws. In atmospheric pressure equations, volume can’t be determined, so the downward acceleration of gravity replaces volume (9.8m/s^2). There’s nuance here that needs to be made clear, I’m not saying the ideal gas laws don’t apply in atmosphere, they’re just limited in application. This is usually made pretty clear in any general physics classes discussing gas pressure, gas pressure and atmospheric pressure are two separate things, with their own models and equations. But Flat Earthers certainly won’t mention that…it’s always conveniently ignored, even though it’s pretty important to understand the difference in physics.
Our atmosphere doesn’t expand out into space, because of gravity. Gravity is also what creates the pressure gradient we measure. That’s the evidence…the fact that we do measure a pressure gradient in atmosphere, verifies a tenant of gravity causing atmospheric pressure…we’d then expect a pressure gradient, ordering in line with the gravity vector (down towards surface)…and we do, so that’s evidence. And as mentioned before, we’ve also measured the vacuum of space, and so have Flat Earthers, with every weather balloon they send up that pops in vacuum…they supply further evidence for the vacuum of space.
Yet no evidence for this dome you feel is up there…just a broken understanding of gas pressure physics. Don’t you think it’s a bit hypocritical to demand so much evidence from science…but then you don’t seem to think the same standards apply to your own conclusions? 🧐 Sorry, but you’re not the one exception to burden of proof, nobody is.
There’s also the broken understanding of thermodynamics physics…but do you realize our globe Earth allows for thermodynamics to occur? We shed gas and energy every single day actually, and our open system allows for that, and it’s really not a problem for us, because we get a constant source of new energy back into the system every day…from the Sun. This is actually more of a problem for the Flat Earth model I’d say…I’m sure I don’t need to explain what happens when a pressurized container is held to a constant flame. But then…the bigger problem for Flat Earth is the lack of actual evidence. You think there’s a dome above…so where’s the evidence? 🤷♂️ Surely you don’t just reach conclusions from words you read in a book…you do understand what constitutes as evidence, don’t you?
This is the problem with Flat Earth…they don’t really have evidence when it really comes down too it, most of the time it’s just your own personal misunderstandings. Sure, you got a lot of misunderstandings…but that’s a you problem, it doesn’t make the Earth flat. It’s just confirmation bias from what I’ve seen so far…empty claims and half truths, paraded as evidence…then we’re all just supposed to nod and agree, without question. despite the glaring holes? 🧐 Then you’ll call us the indoctrinated…it’s pretty ironic. You do realize religion is an indoctrination system, right? And I very much doubt you knew what Boyles law was…before you watched a few conspiracy videos on YouTube fill your head with further nonsense.
Also…what does 9/11 have to do with Flat Earth? 🤷♂️ That’s another problem…you think in such absolutes. Even if the 9/11 conspiracy could be proven beyond any doubt…it doesn’t then make the Earth flat by default. All you’re doing is revealing another bias you have…an extreme distrust in authority.
Sorry dude, but from what I’ve seen Flat Earth is just another bullshit conspiracy built on confirmation bias…and you’re certainly not doing much to change that conclusion, just providing further evidence for it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Actually, we do see a completely different set of stars during different periods of the year…I’m sure you’re aware of the zodiac constellations, these are known as seasonal stars, and they are seasonal for the very reason you pointed out above, because they lie along the ecliptic plain and so they’re periodically blocked by the Sun. The stars we see year round are the circumpolar stars, they are located at both poles, and are never blocked by the Sun…hence why we see them all year round. You’re not thinking about this in 3 dimensions my guy…and you could benefit from learning a little basic astronomy.
While you’re focusing on the stars though, here’s a great evidence for the globe you seemed to miss or ignored. Each Hemisphere does have its own circumpolar stars…for example you can’t see Polaris or the Big Dipper in the South, but you can see the Southern Cross, and they have their own pole star, known as Sigma Octantis. So why exactly does each Hemisphere have its own stars, if the Earth is flat with only one sky? 🧐 I’m sure you’d agree, it doesn’t add up. Does however make perfect sense, if Earth is spherical.
3
-
@marcosbetances7186 Sure you do, you’re just very used to the feeling, it’s your weight…you do feel heavy, don’t you? It requires energy to lift your arm, doesn’t it? Well, the reason is because you’re resisting gravity a bit in the act of raising your arm. We’re used to our weight, so we don’t think much of it…but that’s gravity, in fact in physics weight is just another word for gravity, it doesn’t exist without it. You always have mass, but weight is created by your mass being squeezed against a surface, by an attractive force.
Think of it this way, here’s a very simple proof of gravity. I’m sure you know how a scale works, you press down on the top surface to apply a force, which creates pressure, that it then interprets as a weight value. So what’s required to make the scale do that? A downward force. Okay, so when an an object is resting on the scale, if no force is present, then how exactly is it pressing down upon the scale to generate that pressure? It seems a great many people in FE aren’t quite familiar with what a force is, and how it’s defined in science. A force is something that causes a change in state of motion, nothing is put into motion without a force. Falling is a motion, wouldn’t you agree? More than that, it’s a physical mechanic of nature…it happens whether you like it or not. So it’s pretty simple deduction after that, a force is present that attracts you to surface…it’s the job of science to figure out HOW and WHY it occurs. Your conclusion with density does nothing to explain that motion…you’re just describing WHAT occurs. We’re very limited in what we can achieve with that information alone…you will always have more power and control over a system, if you understand HOW it works, rather than just WHAT it does or WHAT is occurring. Density is just a property of matter, a ratio of mass to volume…it can not cause a motion on its own, it is not a force. And what you’re describing is already a part of current gravity physics.
What you’re describing with the water is buoyancy force. But are you aware buoyancy requires gravity, or it does not occur? That’s why gravity is included as a variable in the formula for buoyancy force; Fb=Vpg. Real engineers use that formula to help them design and build the ballast tanks for ships, submarines, even blimps and certain aircraft. Which means it’s an applied science, and it works when applied…which means it’s accurate.
Buoyancy is not a force on its own, it’s what’s known as an apparent force. It’s the end result of a chain reaction. Let’s do a thought experiment. Put a bunch of various molecules into a system, of various densities, we’ll assume they’re stationary, with no forces acting upon them to put them in any direction. What happens? Nothing, it’s a chaotic mix of molecules, no layers, no order, just near total entropy. Okay, now introduce a force which can act upon every molecule and put it into a starting motion, downward towards surface. Now what happens? The densest material occupies lowest position first, all lighter molecules are pushed out of their way…so since the denser material occupies lowest position first, this means the lighter matter has no where else to go but up…we observe this as buoyancy. So you see, gravity is the cause of buoyancy…without that force to first put the matter into motion, it has absolutely no means to begin ordering itself by density in any particular direction. Gravity is the catalyst that begins it all…buoyancy is the end result of the chain reaction of events that follow.
That’s buoyancy physics in a nutshell. So by ignoring gravity and not even considering it…you’re removing a fundamental key variable that explains HOW it works. We know less dense matter rises…you’re not stating anything we don’t already know, but that’s only WHAt is occurring, it doesn’t explain WHY or HOW it occurs.
Can’t do much with a very surface level understanding of things. It’s great that people are finally taking an interest in science…but you’re about 500 years behind, and nothing you’re stating is new. And it’s no secrets why people put so much effort into denying gravity, you described it to me already….because you don’t trust the scientific institutions anymore, so you resist what they teach…even though it’s correct. Appealing to emotion and paranoia, rather than objective reasoning…it’s the boy who cried wolf scenario, even though it’s true information, it’s resisted because of a loss of trust in the source providing the information. It’s currently leading many people down a disastrous path…truly, most Flat Earthers I know, have very few friends and family left, because the idea consumes their entire identity, and turns them hostile to those they used to love and care about.
Anyway, I hope that information is helpful. I hope it doesn’t come off like I’m condescending or mocking you, quite the contrary, it’s great that people have the courage to question established science, that’s what science is all about! Asking questions is how we learn, never be ashamed of asking questions, I actually deeply admire that attitude. But…thinking in absolutes, appealing to emotions, reasoning from distrust and paranoia…it only leads one to confirmation bias. That’s not so admirable.
3
-
3
-
@marcosbetances7186 The force isn’t greater, it’s constant for every atom, it’s just affecting more molecules at once, in a more dense object. A big rock has more mass per cubic volume than say a feather, which means more mass being pulled down by gravity all at once. That’s why things are heavier, so you’re not entirely wrong, density is an important variable…but what you’re not considering is the motion and the vector, which is what squeezes the mass down into the scale in the first place. Weight requires two variables, a force and a mass…that’s why the formula for weight is mass times the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2). If no force was present tugging down on all that mass, then it would not squeeze down onto the scale, it wouldn’t move at all actually, so no weight would be generated. A force is required to put mass into motion…the only reason something is able to squeeze down upon a scale, is because a force is putting it downward into a motion. We just gave that motion a name…because names and labels help us stay on the same page when discussing something. We also named the upward motion (buoyancy force)…so why can we give the upward motion a name, but not the downward? 🤷♂️ You don’t think that’s being a little intentionally ignorant? Why would we ignore a very obvious physical mechanism of nature we all observe? 🤷♂️Gravity times mass is how you calculate weight, that’s the formula for weight; W=mg. Mass is basically just density. So your understanding is a half truth…that ignores the second variable, the force, which is what puts mass into motion, generating weight.
We know gravity effects all things the same, because in a vacuum, everything drops at the same rate, 9.8m/s^2. In a vacuum, a rock and a feather dropped at the same time, will hit the ground at the same time. This experiment has been repeated countless times.
Onto your other questions. The Sun is not a rock, it’s a super heated ball of compressed gases, it’s technically in a plasma state of matter, caused by a nuclear fusion reaction…that’s actually caused by its intense gravity. Basically, it’s so large, that the gravity is so strong, it forces smaller molecules together, creating a lot of energy in the process…because these molecules really don’t like being forced together. How do we know this? Well, we recreate it in fusion reactors today. These reactors only work because our knowledge of the Sun and gravity physics is accurate. The science of Spectroscopy gave us the other piece to the puzzle, it’s how we identify gases, and it works for stars and planets too. The Sun fuses hydrogen, which forms it into helium, those are the two most abundant molecules on the surface of the Sun. We obtained that information from spectroscopy. So the molecule we use in fusion reactors is hydrogen (a form of it anyway, most commonly tritium). The struggle we have, is that we can’t scale down gravity…so we had to find a different way to force the molecules to fuse. This was very difficult, but currently we do have working fusion reactors today, that are only possible because our current scientific understandings are accurate.
The heat from the Sun travels to us as solar radiation, rays of light, which as far as we know travel forever indefinitely (photons of light are basically just bundles of energy, energy is what produces all the heat in the universe). It’s hotter at surface because there’s more molecules of air, more pressure. This creates a convection heat transfer. The higher you go up in atmosphere, the less air there is, meaning less pressure, meaning less convection can occur. Did you know a potato actually can’t be boiled at the top of mountain ranges where the pressure is far less than at surface? Pressure is very important for convection heat, there’s more pressure at surface, so it’s hotter. Solar radiation is mostly deflected, it is very hot, but if there’s no air around to keep it around, then it’s just gonna bounce off and do very little…especially on a highly reflective surface such as ice and snow. That’s also the reason why satellites don’t melt in space from the Sun, they’re in a total empty vacuum, where pretty much zero convection or conduction can occur. So the solar radiation bounces right off.
3
-
3
-
@jaredzimmy Have you ever navigated across an ocean? Cause you’re acting like you’re an experienced expert on the topic. From what I’ve learned from paying attention to these comments here, Frankie is an actual mariner, with actual experience navigating out at sea…pretty sure he’d know what he’s talking about.
Not that he or anyone needs to be an experienced sailor, even having just a basic understanding of geometry, can debunk what you’re claiming. It’s not just a coincidence that the globe model works perfectly for navigation…you add a third axis of travel when you use a globe (the z axis, depth), this third dimension of travel adds distance, so if you use a globe to navigate a flat Earth with only 2 dimensions, you’re gonna get lost a lot, because the distances won’t be the same. And vice versa, if you use a flat Earth model to navigate a globe, it’s not gonna work very well, because the distances are gonna be different…sailors of old learned that the hard way, that’s why sailing was a pretty difficult profession up until Ptolemy started to design the first geodesic maps, designed fir a globe, some 2000 years ago.
All navigation today uses a system designed for a globe with two equal hemispheres…that is a fact, not an opinion. If you think otherwise, well, you’re just wrong…that’s really all there is too it. Learn to navigate, you learn pretty quickly which model is actually used and why it works.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@kingyordens364 Typical…can’t refute the argument, so deflect to a new point instead of even trying. 🙄 So how exactly does a photograph change what we measure and experience, every time we plot and travel successfully a long distance navigation route? Do we just toss out a working model that’s more than proven it’s accurate and effective…because some stranger only told you a picture of Earth was fake, and you believed him…for some reason?
But alright…look up the old photos from the various Apollo missions, shouldn’t be hard to find an archive if you actually try. They took hundreds of photos of Earth, long before CGI or photoshop was even a thing.
Prove that every single one of the photos is fake, include the method on how you verified they were all faked…I’ll wait.
Either way it’s a moot argument. You can’t prove they’re faked, anymore than I can prove they’re real…so why focus on something you can only speculate on? It’s pointless when you can just learn to navigate…where you’ll learn just how important it is to know the surface shape, in order for it to work.
I’m just saying, millions of navigation experts around the world, verifying the Earth is spherical every single day…but you’d rather watch a few YouTube videos from some numpty with zero credentials or experience…tell you the Earth is flat…and for some reason you believed them without question? 🧐 What’s wrong with people today? Seriously…screw your head back on.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Nehner Several things to point out. 1) Denial of gravity and a misunderstanding of how it works are not valid arguments, they’re just arguments from ignorance, so you’re wasting your time. Water is kept at equipotential distance from centre of gravity, within that field of force…do me a favour and look up the definition of equipotential, learn what that means. But again, whether you agree gravity is real or not, it’s irrelevant, because reality could care less about the things YOU choose to believe and ignore. 2) I’m not sure what formula in particular you’re referring too (searching for it in Wikipedia brings up several), but it’s pretty irrelevant as well, considering you don’t understand how gravity keeps the surface of water curving around its centre. But Flat Earthers tend to use the 8 inches per mile squared equation…which is a formula for a parabola, which means not a geodesic formula for a spherical curvature…it’s only accurate for maybe 100 miles give or take, then it drops off substantially and stops being accurate. So if that’s the formula you’re using…then dear god. 🤦♂️ 3) The Suez Canal is a sea level canal, meaning it does not require locks like the Panama canal, which is climbing over a mountain range and is not at sea level, it climbs up several thousand feet above sea level…hence the reason for the locks in the Panama Canal. 4) Level does not mean flat in every context…I’m sure you know how the English language works, single words can have multiple definitions depending on the context. In the context of ‘sea level’, it means a surface that’s at equipotential distance from a centre…at the same LEVEL from centre.
So your argument is pretty ignorant, it assumes gravity doesn’t exist and makes several false assumptions about how it works. So your first argument is a strawman, and so it can be discarded. Such a waste of time.
Onto your second argument. Elevation on a globe is technically measured from centre of mass, centre of Earth. Because the surface of the sea is all at roughly the same distance from centre, making it the perfect baseline for measuring land elevation. So since sea level is determined from centre, all land elevation uses sea level as the baseline, so all land elevation technically measures from centre. Higher elevation is away from centre, lower elevation is toward centre. It works like this; if you were to place randomly a bunch of 2 inch pins, exactly 1 inch deep, into a styrofoam ball, what’s the elevation of each pin from the surface of the ball? 1 inch…every pin is 1 inch elevation from surface….that’s how elevation is measured on a sphere, from the surface baseline, in our case the sea, which is all at the same LEVEL from centre…just like the surface of any sphere.
So your second argument is just stupid, because it completely misunderstands how elevation works on a sphere.
Your arguments assume too much, ignore variables for no other reason than denial, and grossly misunderstand the model you’re attempting to argue against. In what world do you live in, where you think YOUR own personal misunderstandings should count as an argument? 🤷♂️
2
-
2
-
@WORDversesWORLD You sure are ignorant. Longitude and latitude both verify a Globe…they’re equal for two hemispheres, they’re designed from Geodesy. Any actual pilot or sailor knows how important it is to know exactly the shape and dimensions of the surface you’re navigating…it’s pretty vital information to have, or they can’t do their jobs. It’s really that simple…if you think they just start every voyage today blindly, without help from any prior knowledge of that surface, then you’re delusional and extremely ignorant. :/
So every pilot and sailor who successfully navigates the planet, using that model to help them do it, proves and verifies the Earth’s shape every single time they do it. So you know….probably millions of voyages a year. Because the model would not work, if it was wrong.
Celestial navigation works by measuring the angle of stars to horizon, that is correct, but the part you’re not currently aware of is how those angles are used and what they help tell the navigator. The stars drop to horizon by equal measures, a consistent 1 degree drop, every 69 miles traveled directly South. Each 1 degree drop is a major latitude line. It’s that consistent drop, that’s the problem for flat Earth. It’s basic geometry, if Earth was flat, the stars would drop less and less each equal distance of 69 miles, it wouldn’t be a consistent 1 degree drop every latitude…so the latitudes wouldn’t work the way they do in reality.
This is easy to test…you can test both that geometry and the observation, you got a car? Get yourself a sextant, then I’m sure you can travel 69 miles, then 69 miles, then 69 miles again, to test the consistency. Every sailor in the world knows this…they also know the opposite happens for the opposite hemisphere, the stars rise up by equal measure…revealing a completely new sky past the Equator.
This is exactly what we’d expect on a globe…it doesn’t work however if Earth is flat, that geometry does not fit what we observe. You can say it’s a lie all you want, but you can confirm it on pretty much any clear night. Or you can travel to the South, see the second sky yourself…or you can learn to actually navigate. It’s nit difficult, plenty of lessons and tutorials online for navigation….it relies heavily on Earth’s shape, that is a fact, not an opinion.
So feel free to learn it. You don’t have to remain ignorant to how things work. I don’t know why anyone would be so stubborn to something they can easily verify with just a small bit of effort.
2
-
2
-
You’re misunderstanding the inverse square law a bit, it has more to do with the area around the object that’s being illuminated by it, not so much the source of light itself. Individual photons of light don’t get weaker by distance, as far as we know they travel indefinitely maintaining their intensity. So inverse square law has more to do with how focused a grouping of particles of light are, distance spreads them out over a wider area, decreasing the surrounding illumination…but the source of light is always going to be just as focused as it always was, not increasing or decreasing really, almost the same amount of light photons still arriving at you. For the most part, a curved surface will still fan those photons out and disperse them, so distance will still cause a difference of how many photons arrive to your eye, but inverse square law is more so used for the illumination around a light source, and well, there is nothing in space to illuminate…it’s empty.
Think of it this way, does a bonfire get brighter the closer you are too it? If you stand 20 feet away then stand 5 feet away, does the intensity of the source of light increase the closer you get, or does the area around it illuminate more? The area around the light source illuminates more the closer objects are too it, but the light source itself, doesn’t change much, right? That’s where the inverse square law applies, the surrounding illumination, not so much the light source itself. Does that help understand this a bit better?
So just a bit of a misunderstanding on your part I feel. What’s more perplexing is how the flat Earth model can explain these sunlight patterns on Earth, with the inverse square law https://youtu.be/fEYsgP4CuSA?t=31. The Equinox for example…how exactly does light stop at the pole forming a perfectly straight terminator line, when light is supposed to disperse evenly from a light source? 🤷♂️ Do you really think inverse square law can account for these light patterns? In all your thinking upon this problem, did you ever think to turn your attention to the model you’re currently seeking to support, to see how well it holds up to the same standard of analysis?
You’re asking some good thought provoking questions actually, these are great physics and astronomy questions in all honesty, which tells me you’re intelligent, but I think your bias is keeping you from asking these questions objectively. Or you’re just having a laugh. I get that arguing a nonsensical position can be a great mental exercise as well as entertaining…I just don’t think it’s very funny to spread misinformation, so it’s never been my cup of tea.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Do a little research on the physics of relative motion sometime, namely the law of conservation of momentum. It’s the same physics that allows you to toss a paper airplane back and forth while in a system of motion, inside any moving vehicle, and it will keep up with the forward motion of the vehicle, conserving its momentum at all times. Give it a try sometime, and here’s another even simpler test, next time you’re in a moving vehicle, moving forward at a consistent rate of travel, toss something straight up and allow it to drop back down into your hand. But now think about that a little more, if all you did was toss the item straight up, giving it no forward velocity…then how exactly did it keep up with the forward velocity of the vehicle, to land back down into your hand? Because of conservation of momentum, and the law of inertia…relative motion, the laws of motion.
Try that paper airplane experiment as well, the next time you’re in a fast moving vehicle, say a passenger jet moving at 500 mph. Can you toss anything at 500 mph? Of course not…but I guarantee you’ll have no trouble tossing a little paper airplane back and forth inside the vehicle, and it’ll glide through the cabin of the vehicle with ease, maintaining the velocity of the vehicle and keeping pace with it. It’s the same exact physics that allows that jet to fly within the relative inertial system of Earth and all its motions.
This is physics 101, it’s really not our problem if you didn’t pay attention in physics class. Your own personal lack of knowledge and understanding, does not mean much, as far as arguments in science go. The laws of motion are some of the first laws of physics you learn about…easy to understand and even easier to test and verify for yourself. I suggest you do some research on the laws of motion.
2
-
1
-
@anymonkey70 People are already allowed to go to Antarctica, they get roughly 100k new visitors every year…yet this conspiracy still persists. I think you should try actually reading the treaty, it’s not a long read, would take you maybe 10 mins…nowhere does it say people aren’t allowed to go there.
The treaty was a peace treaty, signed during a time of global tensions (the Cold War). The US was already scouting it for potential military bases (project High Jump) and the other nations weren’t very happy about it. So the UN stepped in to solve a growing conflict…and it worked. It became one less thing to worry about during a very scary time in history, it helped avoid another war…and nobody wanted WW3 so soon after WW2. The nations of the world were tired, so ya…they were happy to solve a conflict peacefully, in a way that benefitted all.
You can spin paranoid speculations around that all you like, but it won’t change the fact that people can still go there. Filming the midnight Sun in Antarctica is a regular tourist attraction every year, if you live in locations in the far South hemisphere, it’s big business for their tourism industry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CHRlST101 Many of us have watched the same videos you have Chris, and done the same research that was asked of us…and we were still able to recognize Flat Earth is a hoax, created by clever conmen, and perpetuated by the suckers they’ve successfully scammed.
“All observable and testable science shows a level and stationary surface.”
No it does not, you’re only researching one side of the argument if you think this statement is true.
“Curvature has never been measured,…”
False, geodetic surveyors do this for a living…that job title would not exist at all if Earth were flat. It’s applied science today…if you honestly think pilots and sailors can do their jobs with any accuracy, without accurate measured knowledge of the surface they’re navigating…then you might need a slap upside the head. :/
“…and motion has never been proven with repeatable experiments.”
False, both the Foucault pendulum and Gyroscope experiments have successfully detected Earth’s rotational motion, and both are repeatable…they’re repeated in science all the time. Then there’s observations and experiments you can conduct for Coriolis and the lesser known Eotvos effect. You can also measure Earth’s centrifugal force, with a simple weight and scale…that experiment is very easy to repeat, just requires a little travel. Then there’s the ring laser interferometer experiments which detect and measure Earth’s motion. Then there’s the gyrocompass, which is a device that actually uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function…meaning if Earth wasn’t rotating, then this device would not work as its designed.
And that’s just the experiments and applied science off the top of my head….YOU haven’t been doing very good research, if you truly believe Earth’s motion has not been proven in repeatable experiments.
“The only thing keeping the globe model together is unproven theories.”
Here we go again….another person who doesn’t know the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory. 🤦♂️ And yet you claim to have a higher education, and an understanding of physics and chemistry. If you don’t understand the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory, then you don’t even know the basics of science. I suggest you research what the difference is…because comments like that just reveal your true scientific illiteracy.
Flat Earth is a hoax…if you’re currently falling for it, then you’re not as smart as you think you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh boy…so yet another individual who doesn’t quite understand the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory. 🤦♂️ Just because they use the word theory for their conclusions, doesn’t mean those conclusions are not proven. Nothing graduates to the level of a theory in science, without first being rigorously tested and verified through experimentation. All scientific theories are compiled of facts and verified, repeatable science, so it’s not as simple as you’re pretending it to be. Electromagnetism is also a theory in science, but you’re more than likely currently using that knowledge, to send and receive your internet data over a wifi connection. Gravity is also a law in science, look up Newton’s law of universal gravitation sometime.
In science, hypothesis takes up the role of a theory in the regular usage of the word, while theories in science are the body’s of verified knowledge, that describes HOW a phenomenon of nature functions at the mechanical level. Not to be confused with a scientific law, which only describes WHAT is happening, but makes no attempt at describing HOW it works…that’s what theories are for.
So you’re getting confused by the terminology, and falsely assuming that because something is a theory of science, it implies that it’s not been proven. Nothing becomes a theory in science, without substantial evidence to verify it. Gravity has more evidence than you are currently aware of…your ignorance of gravity physics, is not an argument against it.
People really gotta stop lying about physics, and start delving into it to make ACTUAL valid falsification arguments. There is evidence for gravity, so don’t pretend there isn’t, otherwise we can only assume you’re either blind, extremely biased, ignorant, or all of the above. If you think the current conclusions are wrong, then go into the evidence, and point out what you believe to be wrong…otherwise, don’t waste your time, because nobody is going to bother with empty claims or anecdotal evidence…and you won’t achieve anything with that either.
1
-
1
-
@marcosbetances7186 Ya…the proportions are wrong on all flat maps…because that’s what happens when you try to interpret a 3 dimensional spherical surface, on just 2 dimensions. That’s why every flat map is distorted…because they are ALL projection maps of the globe. If Earth was flat, we’d have ONE flat map and it would be perfect. But we don’t, we instead have many maps, all distorted in some way or another…because it’s impossible to interpret 3 dimensions with only 2 dimensions…you lose a dimension, so you lose distances….that’s why flat maps are all wrong. That’s also why making a map of Earth was so difficult for geographers back in the day, because they assumed Earth was flat…until Ptolemy some 2000 years ago started working with the concept of a spherical geometry in his map making, suddenly maps started becoming more accurate…and sailors got lost a lot less.
The map you use on your phone, for GPS, uses a globe model….that’s why it’s accurate. It’s also the model used in navigation…that is a fact, not an opinion. There’s some great video presentations by a mathematician named Jos Leys, who demonstrates this in a few videos of his, you should check them out sometime.
1
-
@marcosbetances7186 Maps are obviously easier to store and carry around, can’t exactly fold a globe and put it in my pocket…and locally (as in a few hundred square miles), a flat map is still quite accurate and still very useful. So if you create hundreds of tinier maps, that adjust for each local area, they’re still quite useful…that’s how paper flight charts work (and local area atlas maps too actually), they use smaller areas. And every full projection map of Earth is accurate in some way, for example the Azimuthal Equidistant map (the Gleason projection) is accurate in that the lines of longitude are all accurate distance from the Southern pole region. But it becomes more and more distorted in lines of latitude, the further South you go, the lines expand, instead of retracting past the equator…as they do in reality. So some of it is useful…the rest of it is not, that’s the reality of every flat map.
So does that help? There’s pros and cons to everything…that’s why we still use flat maps today, they’re just easier to carry around. But I mean your smart phone has changed that, because now we can carry a globe with us everywhere we go, in the form of a digital app. That’s what your phone uses…and it is accurate.
There’s an entire industry of transportation, that traverses the entire world…that really does depend on accurate information of Earth’s surface, in order for that system to function at all. So there is no debate here, Earth is spherical…you’re kidding yourself if this is really the hill you want to die on. You want to learn for certain what shape the Earth is? Then learn to navigate…you learn pretty quickly which model is used and why it’s accurate. Earth is measured, don’t let a bunch of non experts online fool you into thinking it isn’t.
1
-
@marcosbetances7186 Even a broken clock is still right twice a day…the government is shady, but it can’t lie about everything. What you’re doing currently is thinking in absolutes, which is robbing you of your ability to reason and examine every bit of evidence objectively and with due diligence. It’s called a black and white fallacy…you’re ignoring very good evidence, simply because you don’t trust something or someone. It’s a good survival tactic in some cases mind you, trusting your instincts can be good sometimes, but it’s not logical in most scenarios…it tends to skip the process of rational conscience thought processes.
I’m sure you’re aware of the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” story? What happens at the end of the story? The villagers are attacked by the wolf, because they didn’t heed the warnings of an individual, who they were sure was lying to them. What most people take away from this story is that lying leads to distrust, so you shouldn’t lie. But what I take away from this story, is that people generally don’t seem to think or use their heads when making decisions, we tend to trust our instincts and appeal to our emotions far more often…most of us are not very logical or objective thinkers, we’re too emotional and paranoid. The boy told the truth in the end…the lesson I learn from this, is that it’s impossible for a person (or institution) to lie absolutely, so thinking in absolutes and following paranoia to every conclusion, will lead to disaster…just like the villagers who stopped listening and paying attention. What you’re basically telling me is that you form conclusions from trust and emotion…rather than analyzing the actual evidence and thinking critically.
What holes in the Globe model are you speaking of in particular? Perhaps I could help fill a few. General Physics, geometry, navigation, and astronomy are topics I feel I’m quite well versed in, so feel free to ask anything.
1
-
@Nehner Not entirely accurate, if you’re going from the Wiki, then I assume you’re referring to just one section of the Canal, Gatun lake and the Gatun lake locks. But there are several more sections with locks along the entire canal. There’s also the Miraflores locks, Pedro Miguel locks, Cocoli locks, and the Agua Clara locks. But I was wrong about the elevation. Pretty irrelevant to the point though, so main point still stands. Panama Canal is not a sea level canal, it goes over the land, that’s why it requires locks, while the Suez Canal does not.
1
-
1
-
@therealzilch Very difficult indeed…but odd that it’s still difficult even when you understand why. I’m not sure what’s harder at times, understanding higher levels of science…or communicating that knowledge to others in way they can also understand, or in a way that overrides their distrust. Cause many of these people are not stupid in the slightest…just scared, and I can understand that, but understanding doesn’t seem to be enough. It’s what I’m kind of striving for, refining what I know, distilling it all down to a brevity everyone can digest…even when their instincts are telling them to flee, or put up the walls. I find it more challenging than it was to initially acquire the knowledge…in that sense, I suppose I’ve answered my own question, but it’s still a real conundrum. Not to get emotional, but it’s only made harder when you care about the whole of humanity as much as I do. I’m sure you can relate. I do hope every word makes an impact though, even if they can’t admit it outright.
Cheers, from currently hot and sunny central Canada.
1
-
1
-
@mikeflatbird729 You made several empty claims, all of them tailored to a biased belief you have. You know it, and I know it. Just sayin, speculations do not equal evidence…yet you think we should blindly agree anyway. You may be happy with being conned by huxters feeding you endless made up bullshit, but the rest of us require actual evidence. Sorry.
You can make several observations in the South actually. Observing the 24 hour Sun is a good one, flat Earth has a tough time explaining that one, without conjuring up more bullshit. Plenty of video online of this observation too, it’s well documented. You can observe the second celestial rotation as well, and try your damdest to spot Polaris and the Big Dipper…the Southern Cross will be in clear sight though, I’ve seen it many times myself. You can also learn it’s pretty easy to go there…background checks, pffft, it’s as easy as getting a travel visa for any location you want to travel too…it’s also no different.
Just sayin, I don’t know how anyone can honestly think empty claims are good enough. Good ol’ YouTube university, conning usuckers to believe anything and everything since at least 2014. 😄 You need a better bullshit filter.
1
-
@ericc7119 Well we certainly don’t settle science with quick simplified descriptions, there’s a lot more to inverse square law than your cherry picked description can tell you. Keep reading the larger study of inverse square law, you’ll find that when discussing light and inverse square law, it’s in relation to illumination, meaning the intensity upon the surfaces that the light source is illuminating, not so much the point of light itself. The reason is because photons spread out from the source, and the further away you get, the same amount of photons are now spread over a wider area, causing less illumination. But the intensity of the light source itself doesn’t change because light photons don’t lose energy, they are constant. So closer to the moon you get, it’s not gonna get much brighter, because most of the photons you see arriving to you from Earth, are still pretty close to the same amount as when you’re really close to it. The individual photons of light are not increasing in power, that’s not what inverse square law is implying, it’s the amount of photons that become more focused in an area…there’s plenty of diagrams you can Google image that even say this pretty close to the same as I’m saying it to you now.
I’d urge you to actually learn more about inverse square law, cause you’re not quite understanding it. You know you could even simulate this to test this. Shine a good enough flood light on a white wall at night so that it’s brightly illuminated, stand a couple hundred feet away, then move yourself closer until you’re practically hugging it…is the wall now so bright that it blinds you? Not likely. Now understand that the Moons surface isn’t as white or reflective as that wall, it’s a lot more opaque.
Your argument is focusing a bit too much on the words and simplified descriptions, and not enough on the deeper context of the actual science. You could just test your Moon hypothesis, scale it down…or just read a bit more past the first description you find.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christobalgonzalez3529 The people involved in the production are known conmen, some I’ve even chatted with directly, like David Weiss for example. So not a lot of credibility to go around. Anyone can create a long video of just talk, endless speculation without evidence, and flash imagery without context…it’s called gish gallop, and it’s a tactic used in suggestive brainwashing, and propaganda, to overload your mental capacities to tackle each point one at a time. Basically repeat lies often enough and pile them all on at once, eventually some people just give in…never realizing nothing said was actually evidence, just empty claims and speculations.
It’s nothing new…Flat Earth and other science denying movements pushing misinformation online have been creating propaganda like this for years now. Sadly it works……don’t be another sucker please.
But if you want me to address some of the points made, I don’t mind. So feel free to point out a section you find most compelling and I’ll take a look.
1
-
@christobalgonzalez3529 The black sun…you mean an eclipse? They make a bunch of claims in the video, that eclipse isn’t caused by the Moon, but they sure don’t provide any evidence to suggest it’s not. Meanwhile, anyone can get the equipment required, and go to the path of shadow totality, to take a long exposure shot of the next total eclipse, and you will clearly see it is the Moon passing in front of the Sun. Plenty of images to be found online of this, do an image search for ‘Moon Earthshine total eclipse’, you’ll get a bunch of photos from various people who have done this…even links to articles explaining how you can photograph this for yourself.
They’re all straight up lying too you in that documentary…telling you the Moon has never been seen during eclipse, when it absolutely has and anyone can verify it for themselves with a little effort. These are conmen, selling a grift…this documentary was sold for $7 before it was eventually released…god knows how much they earned in donations leading up to release. They are scamming you people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thefallenslavesusall1857 It’s fine to keep an open mind, but what’s not fine is ignoring obvious bullshit under the guise of “free thinking”. Just cause something is fringe or goes against consensus, does not make it right by default…you’re just a hipster of knowledge at that point if you think it does. And nothing is ever 100%, you’re thinking in absolutes, which is a black and white fallacy. Sure, grants do add a level of capitalism to science, which does cause some fuckers to fudge data in favour of the dollar…but not all science is funded by government grants, not all scientists are just lying, immoral, plebs (I would say not even a majority are) and junk science simply does not work. It’s of no use to anyone to be wrong about the core sciences, the foundations like physics or chemistry, or the core tenants of mathematics like geometry. Pilots and sailors can’t successfully plot accurate long distance navigation routes, without knowing the true shape of the Earth…that’s a fact, not an opinion. Engineers simply can’t design the technology YOU use everyday, if the physics is wrong…that’s a fact, not an opinion.
Junk science simply doesn’t work…that’s how you spot bullshit science, it reveals itself by being absolutely useless. So if you honestly think the Earth is flat, okay, then try plotting a navigation route across a large ocean, without using the current system of navigation built on the globe model, to help you do it…go ahead fucker, see how far you get. :/
You people need to stop falling for this shit…Flat Earth is a hoax, that hides in your desire to spite the mainstream science and put some dirt in its eye. You think you’re so open minded…but then you sure shut those minds pretty quick the moment anyone questions or points out the obvious holes in your logic, or your science…if you even have any. Get a better bullshit filter, stop thinking in absolutes…it’s a great way to get conned.
1
-
@coryleblanc It rotates with the Earth, so why would you expect 1000 mph wind? 🤷♂️ That’s you misunderstanding the model, intentionally, argument from ignorance. You want proof? Step outside, there’s no 1000 mph wind…there’s your proof. What you really need is proof of rotation, which has plenty. Look up the Foucault pendulum experiment, or the ring laser interferometer detecting Earth rotation. Or look up the gyro compass, it’s a device used on modern sea vessels, that actually uses Earth’s rotation to function, so if Earth wasn’t rotating, then it would not work as designed. Lots of information available on this device, so look it up sometime. Just a few examples of experiments and devices that verify Earth’s rotation.
So it’s pretty simple deduction after that, we know Earth rotates because it’s been detected and measured and is now used in applied science (gyro compass), and we know there’s no 1000 mph winds, so we can deduce atmosphere moves with the rotation, pretty simple. This conclusion fits with all other known physics as well, such as conservation of momentum, gravity, fluid dynamics, etc. We’d expect it to rotate with the Earth, because that’s what all our knowledge of basic physics points too.
Is a basketball the Earth? Is a basketball thousands of miles in circumference? Obviously not…so what makes you think that’s an accurate comparison? Why would you assume they’re the same? 🤷♂️ That’s called a false equivalence fallacy, comparing apples to oranges and assuming they’re the same thing, simply cause they look similar, sharing a few traits. It’s not very smart, won’t get very far using flawed reasoning like that.
You’re sure asking for a lot, while making a lot of really poor assumptions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pedrocortez1683 There are a few channels dedicated to dispelling misinformation, who earn a little for doing it (Scimandan, Bob the Science Guy, etc), but sadly, the real money has always been in conning people to believe bullshit, and it’s much easier. Much easier to endlessly speculate and seed doubt and exploit paranoia, than it is to convince an angry mob they were conned. Much easier to destroy, than it is too repair the damage done. So the real money and the much easier path, is in pushing conspiracy, not disproving them. And most people who do it, aren’t in it for the money, they do it more as a public service, sharing their knowledge and experience for free (Wolfie6020, Sly Sparkane, Soundly, etc).
You only really see the big science and news channels on the top searches (channels who aren’t very dedicated on conspiracies and only scratch the surface), it’s just as hard to find the channels really dedicated to debunking things like Flat Earth, the REAL debunkers, they get just as buried as the Flat Earthers do. Lots of experiments I used to be able to find pretty easy with a search, are now buried and almost impossible to find…one in particular I find to be really useful for demonstrating refraction, I have to type every word of the title, and it’s still buried a ways down the search results. So the REAL debunking channels get just as ignored by the algorithm today. So the opportunity for debunkers to get their foot in the door and earn anything substantial here, has pretty much passed, the algorithm doesn’t care which side you’re on, but it does favour big general science and news channels.
1
-
1
-
@nizamersoftware So you watched ONE rocket stop at a point, then concluded it hit a dome? 🧐 Did you ever stop to consider it could have been something else stopping the rocket? You don’t think a rocket moving at that velocity hitting anything at a dead stop would completely obliterate the rocket? Come on man…use your head.
I know the rocket launch you’re referring too, I also know a bit more about the mechanics and engineering of said rocket. Smaller rockets like that are usually put into a controlled spin, to stabilize their trajectory, using conservation of angular momentum, essentially turning them into a gyroscope. But eventually you’ll want to stop that rotation, especially if you got cameras mounted to the outside…like that rocket did. To do this they use a mechanism called a Yo-yo despin mechanism, go ahead and look it up sometime. It’s a very common device used to slow and stop rotational motions in rockets and satellites, using the same physics of conservation of angular momentum, but in a counter rotation and with a wider rotational span. The device will instantly counter a rotation once fired. You even see the mechanism cable firing in a few frames of the second camera after its rotation stops, watch it again, you’ll see it.
You’re jumping to conclusions from a lack of knowledge on the subject, and your bias is leading you to further those erroneous conclusions. Do some deeper research on the subject…but at the very least, maybe don’t jump to conclusions from single observations. If rockets were hitting a dome, don’t you think there would be many more videos, not just the one? Point is, it’s very flimsy evidence to reach such a sweeping conclusion from, especially after you learn how it really works…then it’s dead in the water after that.
I know you desire to win an argument here, but don’t let that desire cloud your ability to reason objectively.
1
-
@nizamersoftware I believe I’ve provided sufficient enough evidence to falsify your claim, certainly far more information to reach a firmer conclusion from, than your empty assumptions that are clearly driven by confirmation bias.
1) The rocket isn’t destroyed on impact, that’s your first clue it didn’t actually hit anything.
2) The rocket has cameras…but is put into a spin? Why would you strap cameras to a spinning rocket, unless you had a means of stopping its rotation at some point?
3) You even see the yo-yo despin cable firing in the second camera.
Further research reveals that these rockets are equipped with a mechanism to stop its rotation mid flight. So based on all those variables, it’s pretty clear it didn’t actually hit anything, its rotation was just stopped by that mechanism. Here’s a video explaining and demonstrating the device used https://youtu.be/ZKAQtB5Pwq4?t=415.
Again, this is the real problem with Flat Earthers as I see it; reaching a great many erroneous conclusions, from a lack of actual knowledge on the topics they’re attempting to falsify. You don’t know enough, to know how wrong you are…and worse yet, you stop looking once your bias is confirmed. The internet was supposed to make us all smarter…but it didn’t account for mankind’s tendency to chase biases. That’s the real problem we’re facing currently…our pattern seeking brains are robbing us of our ability to slow down and ponder problems a bit more thoroughly and objectively.
Anyway, hope that information is at least interesting.
1