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