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