Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "CNN"
channel.
-
@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